The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutKINGS RD HEIGHT LIMIT_SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS*NEW FILE* KINGS RD HEIGHT LIMIT a 19' F-om Curk) - ----- 14From C-rb Natural Grade Height Limitation Proposal Compared To Existing Regulation Height Proposal for Kings Road Vincent Roman Pagel of 5 NOTES ON PROPOSAL FOR HEIGHT LMTATION ON BLUFF SIDE OF KINGS ROAD Purpose: This code is intended to promote the growth of the City of Newport Beach in an orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare, and to protect the character and social and economic vitality of all districts within the City, and to assure the orderly and beneficial development of such areas. City of Newport Beach Planning Code 20.00.01 S Proposal It is proposed that the Planning Regulations be amended/changed to reflect the following: • Limit the height of homes built on the bluff side of Kings Road to 16' above the curb. Consider a two limit rule similar to current 24/29 rule. • Allow the height of the structure to exceed the 24/29 foot rule without the need for variance. • It is further proposed that the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) be increased to 2.25 for homes built on the bluff side of Kings Road. Basis In order to protect the character and social and economic vitality of the Cliffhaven/Kings Road area and to assure the orderly and beneficial (re)development of the area, it is proposed that a height limitation be established for the bluff side of Kings Road. A height limitation on the bluff side of Kings Road would: • "Protect the character ... and economic viability" - Preservation of views from homes across the street would enhance the property values on the inland side of the street and would enhance values for homes on bluff side since it would encourage similar quality and character of homes built on the street. • "Promote and protect ... the peace" - A height limitation would prevent grievances and disputes between neighbors related to the loss of existing views. • "Assure the orderly and beneficial development" - Kings Road is undergoing considerable redevelopment at this time and the recent construction of homes on the bluff side have impacted the views of many homes in the area. A height limitation on the bluff side would encourage the development of homes of similar quality and character (orderly) on both sides of the street as both would share views which are associated with high quality homes, The Irvine Company has illustrated that property values are enhanced (beneficial development) when views from all properties are considered during the development process. Height Proposal for Kings Road Vincent Roman Page 2 of 5 Further Thoughts Though I have not been able to review the Memorandum Decision of Judge Todd, it appears, from my review of Assistant City Attorney Burnham's assessment of the decision dated April 19, 1982, that the City is empowered to restrict the height of homes on the bluff side of Kings Road. The point of contention is that the ordinance, as it was proposed earlier, negatively impacted bluff side property owners, The proposal as outlined above offers benefits to bluff side homeowners in exchange to restrictions on the height of structures. I feel that the way to resolve this long standing issue is to provide a "win -win - win" solution. I feel that this proposal would benefit all parties involved: Inland side property owners would benefit from protection of views. Bluff side owners would benefit from the increased property values allowed by the increased FAR, which would allow larger homes to be built on the properties, and would allow them to utilize the hillside property to its fullest potential by allowing exceedance of the current 24/29 height limit on the rear of the property. The City of Newport Beach would benefit by resolving a long standing planning dispute and could benefit from increased tax revenues from enhanced property values. Height Proposal for Kings Road Vincent Roman Page 3 of 5 20.00.015 Purpose This code is intended to promote the growth of the City of Newport Beach in an orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare, and to protect the character and social and economic vitality of all districts within the City, and to assure the orderly and beneficial development of such areas. 20.10.040 Special Development Regulations for Corona del Mar, West Newport, and the Balboa Peninsula A. Applicability. The residential development standards contained in this section shall apply to all dwellings located in the R-1 and R-2 Districts in Corona del Mar, and in the R-1 District in West Newport and the Balboa Peninsula as those areas are more particularly described below. Dwellings in those areas shall also be subject to all other provisions of this code. Where there is a conflict between this chapter and another provision of this code, the provisions of this chapter shall be controlling. 1. The areas of Corona del Mar in which the provisions of this chapter shall be controlling are more particularly described as follows: That area commonly referred to as old Corona del Mar generally bounded by Avocado Avenue, Pacific Coast Highway, Fifth Avenue, the easterly boundary of the Corona del Mar tract, the Pacific Ocean and the Harbor entrance; and more specifically described as that area included in Annexation #3 as described in Ordinance No. 252 of the City of Newport Beach, approved on February 27, 1924. The areas of West Newport and the Balboa Peninsula in which the provisions of this chapter shall be controlling are more particularly described as follows: That area commonly referred to as West Newport and the Balboa Peninsula generally bounded by the Semeniuk Slough, Pacific Coast Highway, the West Lido Channel, the Newport Channel, the Main Channel, the Harbor Entrance, the Pacific Ocean and the Santa Ana River, and more specifically described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the westerly boundary of the City of Newport Beach the Mean High Tide Line of the Pacific Ocean; thence proceeding northerly along said City Boundary to the intersection of said Boundary with the northerly right-of-way line of Pacific Coast Highway; thence due East a distance of 1" foot to an intersection the City Boundary on the easterly side of that certain 1 foot strip shown on Annex 21, Ordinance No. 630, 10/31/1950; thence proceeding easterly, northerly, easterly southerly along said City Boundary to an intersection with the northerly right-of-way line of Pacific Coast Highway; thence proceeding southerly along a perpendicular to said right-of-way line to the center -line of Pacific Coast Highway; thence easterly along centerline to an intersection with the centerline of Newport Boulevard; thence southerly along said centerline of Newport Boulevard to an intersection with the southerly Bulkhead of the Newport Island Channel, said point being westerly of U.S. Station # 126 on the U.S. Bulkhead Line; thence easterly to said U.S. Bulkhead Station #126; thence continuing along the U.S. Bulkhead Line to U.S. Bulkhead Station #114; thence northeasterly in a straight line to U.S. Bulkhead Height Proposal for Kings Road Vincent Roman Page 4 of 5 Station #162; thence southerly In a straight line to U. S. Bulkhead Station #113, and thence proceeding along the U.S. Bulkhead to U.S. Bulkhead Station #107; thence continuing southerly along the prolongation of the U.S. Bulkhead Line to an intersection with the Mean High Tide Line; thence westerly and northwesterly along said Mean High Tide Line to the point of Beginning. B. Floor Area Limit 1.In the R-1, R-2, and MFR Districts in the area designated as Old Corona del Mar, the total gross floor area (excluding those structures excepted under Section 20.10.030) shall not exceed 1.5 times buildable area of the site. 2. Calculation. The gross floor area shall consist of the total enclosed area of all floors of a building measured to the outside face of the structural members in exterior walls, and including halls, stairways, elevator shafts at each floor level, service and mechanical equipment rooms, and basement or attic areas having a height of more than 7 feet. Non -habitable rooms and spaces of a building, with the exception of bath or toilet rooms, connecting corridors, foyers, and stairwells, that measure more than 14 feet 6 inches from finished floor to the ceiling above finished floor shall be considered to occupy two floor levels and the floor area of each level shall therefore be calculated towards the maximum floor area limit. C. Open Space Option. In the R-1 and R-2 Districts as designated in this section, open space shall be provided in addition to the required front yard setback. This additional open space shall be a volume of space equal to the buildable width of the lot, times the basic height limit, times 6 feet and may be provided anywhere on the lot behind the required yard setback lines. This open space shall be open on at least 2 sides and shall have a minimum dimension in any direction of at least 6 feet, except as indicated in this section, and may be used for outdoor living area. Open space with a dimension of less than 6 feet in direction may be included in the required volume of open space, provided that said space is contiguous required open space that provides a minimum 6 foot dimension in any direction. Roofs, balconies, decks, patios, cornices, exterior stairways with open risers and open railings, and architectural features may project into this area. This additional open space may be provided on any level or combination of levels and may extend across the entire structure or any portion thereof. Height Proposal for Kings Road Vincent Roman Page 5 of 5 20.65.060 Existing Structures and Permits A. The use permit application fee shall be waived for any single family home in the R-1 District which is replacing a structure which was in existence on the effective date of this chapter (October 11, 1972). B. Structures on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar, which were in existence or under construction on the effective date of this chapter (October 11, 1972) may be changed provided such change does not result in a roof height above top of curb and provided further that the roof height does not exceed the height limit established by the 24/28 Height Limitation Zone. For purposes of this chapter, the top of curb height limitation shall be established by a horizontal plane created by the extension of the top of curb line across each site located on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard. Where a question arises as to the interpretation of this code, the Planning Director shall review and render a decision. New structures may be constructed on vacant sites subject to the same criteria. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY March 7, 1994 TO: Jim Hewicker Evelyn Hart FROM: Robert H. Burnham SUBJ: Howland et al. v. City Council This weekend I made an effort to start organizing my office by reviewing stacks and stacks of documents collected over time. One of the documents in the stack was the decision of Judge Robert C. Todd in the Howland case. I have attached a copy of the decision for your information and I will be reviewing it this week. I would be happy to respond to any questions you have concerning the ruling. IlAee obert H. Burnham City Attorney RHB:g7 Noulstf.mw t t ��t�TeriIIx C��ur# .af #1rz �#sir of C}�rli:farni� (�muTt�.af (axe 700 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST ��nt� �tM, C�MIif>xxrti�t �'�`7.az Col =4trs of ROSERT C.TODD wnbrgc u£ 51t;v is (r alrr± Wm. Nelson Gentry, Esq. 313 West 10-tssion Corona, CA 91766 c November 5, 198b Dennis D. O'Neil, Esq. C/o McDonough, Holland & Allen 4041 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 190 Newport Beach, CA 92663' Re: Howland, et al vs. City Council OCSC #30-83-69 Dear Counsel: (7I4) 834-3734 Nov - 6'19S0 LEE AARANti ,i, %,-- _;;LUty Trial of this matter"bommenced on October 28,.1980. Opening statements were made on the record. Exhibits -were offered into evi- dence as follows: . PLAINTIFFS: la - 1s: 19 photographs of residences, Kings Road and Kings Place. 2a: Districting map of the area 2b: Assistant City Attorney Coffin's letter of July 1, 1976. 2c:'..Department of Community.Development letter,of October '24, 1978. 2d: Excerpt of City Council's minutes of November 27, 1978. 2ei Department of Community Development memo of December 1, 1978. 3: Excerpt of Planning Commission minutes of December 7, 1978. Ssuprriar (q-xcrf of fhie �12)fnfa jaf C}uiifarniu C}mttttR of (Or=ge Re: Howland, et al vs..City Council OCSC 430-83-69 11/5/80 Page -2- 4: Department of Community Development memo of January 17, 1979. 5: 'Ordinance #1793. 6: O'Neills letter of February 22, 1979. 7: Cliff Haven Homeowners" Association , report covering 1978 activities. 8: Declaration - Richard L. Belveal 9: Declaration - Robert Cecka 10: Declaration ` Bob Cooper 11: Declaration - James Elm 12: Declaretion - Jerry Greer 13: 'Declaration - Czeslaw Gwozdziowski 14: Declaration - Janet Milford 15: Declaration - Mike Milford. 16: Declaration - Warren-E. Howland 17: Declaration - Les Miller 18: Declaration - Lorraine Miller 19: Declaration: Muriel A. Shutt 20: Declaration - Dr. John Smith 21: Declaration - Marion Smith 22: Declaration - Patricia Smith 23:, Declaration - Ray Smith 24: Declaration - Othi1 P. Uells AIZP& = Ta=t of filk 'SLIZU of C�M.lTf6rfC[Lt 4 of t©r=tgr Re: Howland, et al vs. City Council OCSC #30-83-69 11/5/80 Page -3- DEFENDANTS A: City Councils minutes of January 22, 1979, including March'12, 1979, amendment to January 22, 1979, minutes (Volume 33 - Page 13(a).)." 'B. Section 20.02.050, Newport Beach Municipal Code as amended January 22, 1979. C. Reporter's transcript of City Council hear- ing of January 22, 1979 (entitled Findings of the City Council). D. Cliff Haven Comm.-•Ass'n." letter of October 17, 1978.' E. Citizens Petition time stamped January 8 and January 22, 1979. F. Letter submitted to Mod. Comm. (and -withdrawn). G. Anderson letter of November 2, 1978. H. November 6, 1978, of Liz Wright and others to Defendant. I. November 20, 1978, Petition for Moratoriam. J. 'Elms letter of December 15, 1978. K. Howland letter submitted to defendant on January 8, 1979. L. Gentry letter, without'date,, stamped January. 15, 1979. M. Cliff Haven Comm. Ass'n, letter of January 15,'1979. 1. N. Gentry undated letter, time stamped July 2, 1980. 0. Excerpt from Section 20.02..030; NB Muni Code.' 5igTtrior C}=trt of tilt Statt of CIaliforn zz tlTamrtp of Q3rtttcgt Re: Howland, et al vs. City Council OCSC 430-83-69 11/5/80 Page -4- : Plaintif.fs initially petitioned, on March 2,'1979, for a writ of mandamus', seeking to have Ordinance #1793, which amended section 20.02.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, declared constitu- tionally invalid, and to order the•City Council to "reverse their (sic) decision". A hearing was held, on March 22, 1979, before Judge Edward J. Wallin, on the petition. The petition was denied, the court citing Agins vs. City of Tiburon, 24 C..3d 266 (1979), 65- L.Ed.2d 106, 100.s.Ct. 2138, as authority for the denial. Plain- tiffs were, however, allowed 30 days in which to amend by an appro-' private pleading. On April 20, 1979,.plaintif.fs filed a "First Amended Complaint" with three separately stated causes of action: The first cause of action alleges a "controversy" existing between plaintiffs and defendant City Council of the City of Newport Beach. Plaintiffs claim that the ordinance; #1793, violated the • plaintiffs equal protection rights Iunder the state and federal con- stitutions in that its restrictions would only apply,to property owners on one side (the "bluff" side) of Kings Road and Kings Place and not to the property owners on the other• side (the "inland'.' side) of those streets. Plaintiffs allege that the ordinance -benefits only private interests, not public interests,' that the ordinance constitutes "spot zoning", that the defendant denies. these charges, and that the plaintiffs are without an adequate remedy at law. The second cause of action alleges that the ordinance is vague and ambiguous, and that the plaintiffs are.without an adequate remedy at law. The third cause•of action alleges that any property owner on the "bluff" side who had obtained a building permit and had commenced construction on his property before the enactment of the ordinance, was being subjected to an interference of constitutionally vested rights. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and an order declaring the ordinance unconstitutional, that the court permanently enjoin the -defendant from enforcing the ordinance against "bluff" -side property owners, for costs of'suit and other appropriate relief. uiTry�ar Crn' rt of 140 -statr 'of (Wifarniu C?axp of fL�ruisgr . Re: Howland, et a1 vs. City Council OCSC #30-83-69' 11/5/80 Page -5- Defendant's answer denies the plaintiffs'. -allegations and raises six separate, affirmative defenses including (1) the failure to state a cause of action, (2)• that plaintiffs" claims of great and irreparable damage are conclusory, (3) that the allegations are uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible, (4) that plaintiffs have - no vested right to permanent zbriing, (5) that the court has no juris- diction because zoning is a legislative act and (6).that plaintiffs retain• a reasonable right to use their property and that the ordinance, therefore, is constitutional. Boiled down, the plaintiffs own property.on the "bluff" side of Kings Road and Kings Place. Most of those "bluff" -side properties. have spectacular'views of Newport Harbor, the Newport Marina, Santa Catalina island, and the Pacific Ocean. The owners; if permitted to rebuild, alter or repair on the lots, to the height limit of 24.28' above the curb line; -could expand those views and the proper- ties would, presumably, increase ifi value. However, the "bluff" side owners, by such building construction, might block, or block more completely, the views of the "inland" side property owners to their viewing detriment and possibly lessen property value increases. Such action would also prevent the "inland" owners from constructing higher than the "bluff"" owners, both being subject to the same height limit. Counsel for the parties do not agree on'what the Agins case holds, insofar as its interpretation'and application to tffe facts of this case. Further, counsel for defendant states that resolution of -the case of Arnel Development Co -.vs. City of Costa Mesa, 98 C.A.3d 567, presently on appeal to the California Supreme Court, could be determinative'of'the'pending issues. Each counsel agrees that, in deciding our case, this court should examine the facts in light of Sections 1085 and 1094.5,"Code of Civil Procedure, counsel being, in disagreement as to which section applies. Counsel for plaintiff also contends that defendant, in refusing to continue the public hearing of January 22, 1979, to February 12, 1979, as he had requested by letter as counsel for some of the property and that the evi- owners failed'to• hold'a full and complete hearing dence plaintiff's counsel wished to present to -the efendantshas never been examined by defendant. in that light, p , ;51xprxivr C4om: of fhr _Blalt of (quLiforniaz of Oramgr• Re: Howland, et al vs. City Council OCSC #30-83-69 11/5/80 Page -6- exhibits la —Is, 2a = 2d, 6 and 7, as well as exhibits 8 - 23 (decla- rations of interested parties, dated between April 17 and April 19, 1980, the declaration of Les Miller not being dated (Sdct'ion 2015.5; Code of'Civil Procedure; People vs. United Bonding, 240 C.A.2d 895, 896 (1966).), all of which were .filed with this court on April 20, 1980.). It is plaintiffs' contention that this evidence is persuasive, could have caused a different decision by defendant, and that the evidence would have been before them had the continuance been per- mitted. Plaintiffs also contend that, at the time'of the January 22, 1979, hearing (Exhibit C, page 36, lines 5-11), defendant purported to adopt the findings of the city's planning commission (the minutes of December 7, 1978, page'9; exhibit 3) but that the Planninq Com- mission never made any such.findings.7 -Further, say plaintiffs, the findings adapted by the defendant on March 12, 1979, were not made -at a'public hearing and on the record, and that any attempted -retro- active use of such findings is of no avail.. It is defendant's contention that the.defendant was not re- quired to grant a continuance of this matter on January.'22, 1979, that'the findings made on March 12, 1979, were effective in that they are the'product of the statements made by the members of the city council at the January 22, 1979; hearing (as -reflected in the transcript, Exhibit C)•, and that there is no requirement (a) for findings or that (b) the findings, if required, be made at the same time that an ordinance is approved. The record.of testimony and documents before the defendant, at the public hearing.of January 22 (we have no transcript of testi- mony given at the January 81 1979, hearing) is filled with hearsay and emotion. 'A "bluff" side owner, Robert Cecka, seems to have taken the blame, or credit, for instigating the neighborhood row that presently.exists. Cecka told his "inland." neighbors-, in 1978, that he had bought "bluff"' property and was going to build a two-story dwelling.' The."inland" neighbors objected. Somehow a•theory was presented t'nat, real estate brokers and agents had ,represented to the "inland" owners that the "bluff" owners could.not construct so_• as'to obstruct the view of the "inland" owners. The Irvine Company was injected into the matter on the basis that its early plans for development_ included two, story, structures for the "inland" owners uprrcor Lq=xf of 14e Skufa of gwifancm 4omTk Y. of Orarrot Re: Howland, et al vs.'City Council OCSC #30-83-69 11/5/80 Page -7- but only one story structures for the "bluff" owners. Irvine's records were destroyed by a fire. Irvine originally owned the properties, leasing them to the persons building in the tract. •The Coast Freeway, a project that then contemplated a freeway along the - bluffs, caused concern, residences then being built on the bluff side being limited to one story *construction' (in the. late fifties and early sixties) because of the contemplated condemnation actions. The Irvine Company sold the leased properties. It was also asserted that the "bluff" owners were permitted to build within ten feet of the street in exchange for the one story height limitation, the "inland" owners being required to adhere to a 20' setback. "Inland" owners began building two and three story structures to gain views. In.addition to the above information being presented, the staff of the Department of Community Development made a visual inspection of the area. That staff reported: "A visual inspection of the area by the staff revealed that there are no public views of the bay or ocean, available from Kings Road except from the view parks and the two vacant building sites....". That reported fact was before the defendant (Exhibit 2E, page two, Dept. of Comm. Dev. report dated December 1, 1978) as of the January 22, 1979, public hearing.- James D. Hewicker, Assistant Director- Planning, Dept. of Comm. Dev., warned the defendant (.Exhibit 4, page two, Dept. of Comm. Dev. report of'January 17, 1979) , , "If the'.city:council finds that the imposition of more restrictive.height regulations on the.bluff side.of Kings Road are for the purpose of giving one group of homeowners an advantage over another, the approval of.this amendment would not be a proper exercise of the police power and Amendment No. 523 should be denied." That department's staff had earlier reported (Exhibit 2E), "...Private'views'of the bay and ocean are available for most of the homesites on the bluff side of the road. Private views of the ocean are available -from those homesites on the inland side of.the "road which are'able to overlook the homes which have been constructed on the bluff side." ;-) ;-1 BltVzricr (.}m:' of 14-0 of C}nlifarxcizr. 4 of (Draxcgr Re:' Howland, et a1 vs. City Council 005C #30-83-69 11/5/80 Page -8= ' That department's staff had also reported (Exhibit.2E) that five homes on the bluff side had been surveyed by them. The roof, elevations were 14.62', 5.52', 14.511, 16.23", and 4.42.' "above curb". That staff report did not state how many other residences were on the bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Place. It did not. state how many residences were on the "inland" side of the two streets. It did not describe the types of the total structures, in numerical sequence, on both sides of the -street nor is there any evidence in this record that could be interpreted as describing -the - general character of the area and neighborhood. There was testimony given by one contractor that.there was little difference in cost to build on the side of a bluff ("expan- sion down" at a lower level) than expanding up or on the same level. (Exhibit C, page 27-28). This testimony was quickly rebutted by another contractor (Exhibit C, page 28) who testified that the.cost differential'in building down the side of the bluff could be twice as costly, $40-60 per foot as against $80-100 a foot.. Another wit- ness concluded that slope -side construction might not be safe: The first contractor said nothing further: rThere was testimony given, to support a public benefit theory, that there are view areas between the residences which allow motor- ists, pedestrians, cyclists and joggers to see the ocean view. No one took the time to explain how leaving the existing height limita- tion in force would affect the view areas between the residences_j It was even suggested that an increase in building height might cause a weight problem and'slippage. (No one presented the city council with'tes.timony from a geologist, soils engineer, archi- tect, building department planner, or any building/weight bearing plans or specs.) only one council member told the members of the public that were present, and the other city council members,' that he had speci- fically taken the time to examine the area to see what could be seen. Council member Donald McInnis reported his'observations,, including the observation that there are some "pretty tall buildings in' (the inlana)area and they are obviously blocking views from the people that are inland from them". (Exhibit C, pages 38-39.) (A similar aguPrrc°=' 04a=t of Hie Slate of (grdiforllim c�oantp of t&irtmgr Re: Howland, et al vs. City Council ocsc #30-83-69 11/5/80 Page -9- observation was made by others.) Councilman McInnis voted in opposi- tion to the proposed reduction in height limit.. At the time of the January 22nd hearing, the then City Attorney. Dennis D. O'Neil, suggested to the council members- that they approve the "findings" (Exhibit 3, page 5 but numbered page 9) made by the. Planning Commission (Exhibit C, pages 35-36). 'This. the City Council purported to do. (Exhibit C., pages 35-43.) -The petition for writ of mandamus was filed on March 2, 1919. It appears that Mr. O'Neil, properly, suggested to the City Council' that it make some express findings of its own. On March 12, 1979,. the City Council made express findings (these minutes are not before the court) to supplement the Planning Commission "findings". As mentioned, the retroactive use of these supporting findings.of March 12, 1979,, are under use by plaintiffs. Clearly, the seven•poirits referred to by the Planning -Commission were not "findings". The document - (Exhibit 3) states, "Discussion between members of the Planning Commission covered the following points...." The seven points then follow. Nowhere in the minutes is there a statement that the seven points are or should be made findings. ' In their present language form, not all of the points could even be ' stretched into "findings" -- though point number one could be used as a finding that the matter. involves only private views and•that•the- public views had.previously "been taken care of". The express findings of March 12,19791 are as follows: (1) The ordinance protects the public welfare and con- stitutes good planning and therefore is not spot zoning. (2) The ordinance will preserve and maintain the general character of the area and neighborhood; (3) The ordinance provides protection of public views and enhances the overall view.value in the area; �icprri¢r T,=ri of f42 _Ikutr -of C}ulifomi.x . Csosuria of /G�rttsy�a Re: Howland, at al vs. City Council OCSC 430-83-69 11/5/80 Page -10- (4) The ordinance will not prevent the property owners from developing down the bluff and therefore is reasonable. From the record, it appears that both sides agree that, prior.. to the passage of Ordinance 91793, both sides'of Kings Road and Kings Place streets were subject to the R-1 height limits prescribed by Section 20.02.030(a), Newport Beach Municipal Code (Exhibit O). With exceptions not here applicable, the height limit for any Struc- ture was 24 feet. Enactment of the ordinance did not change the area zoning but did create a different height limitation zone, 16.23 feet above curb, in an R-1 zone, applicable only to residences on the bluff side of the two streets. The City Council, then, -in effect enacted covenants, conditions and ies£rictions of the nature that the Irvine Company failed, years..earlier, to record. (Section 30.02.030(a) was'enacted around 1973 or 1974, it appears.) If the action taken by defendant was pursuant to its legislative capacity, those actions are reviewable under section 1085, Code of Civil Procedure. This means that judicial review is limited to an examination of the proceedings.to determine whether the action taken was. arbitrary, capricious, entirely lacking in legislative support, or. that the agency involved has failed to follow procedure and has failed to give notice required by law. (Strumsky vs. San Die o County Employees, et al, 11 C.3d 28, 34 (ftnt 2) 1974); Karlson vs. Cityot Cam -lo, 100 C.A.3d 789, 798 (1980), petition for -wring before the Supreme Court denied April 10, 1080.) If the admiistrative action is determined to be quasi-judicial, with legal notice of hearing required, Section 1094.5, Code of Civil Procedure, is applicable, the judicial scope of review being limited to whether the actions of the agency are supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whole record: (Karlson vs. City of Camarillo, supra., at.798 (1980); and.see: Ficcceisen vs. Civil Service Commi s on, 98 C.A.2d 419, 421 (1950):) However, in those instances where an administrative decision affects, substantially, a fundamental, vested right, the trial court must.exercise its independent judgment based upon the evidence dis- closed in a limited trial de novo as well as in consideration of the icprrmx 4curt Vf 14t state of C�zcl #nrxcuc Cr4murtZ of Ormtga Re: Howland, et al vs. City Council OCSC 430-83-69 11/5/80 Page -11- record before the trial court. (Bixby vs. Pierno, 4 C.3d 130;.143 (1971); Bakman vs. Department of Transportation, 99 C.A.3d 665; 689 (1979).). This includes the acceptance of evidence excluded by the administrative agency as well as acceptance of evidence not then - available to the agency. (Bixby, ftnt 10, page 143.) The granting or denial of a a fundamental, vested right of a of Supervisors, 58 C.2d 479, 484 the case pending do not relate, a of a traditional zoning variance, Sion that no fundamental, vested zoning variance does not affect property owner. (Siller vs. Board (1964).) And while the facts of s a direct analogy, in the sense analyses make clear the conclu- rights are here involved.. Was the city council's action an administrative action or a quasi-judicial action? The Supreme Court, in Smith vs. Strother,-68 C. 194, 196-197 (1885), told -us that'a legislative action "estab- lishes a rule regulating and governing the matters -or transactions occurring after its passage," while a judicial act "determines rights or obligations of any kind, whether in regard'to persons or property, concerning matters that already exist and have transpired ere'the judicial power is invoked to pass on them. A quasi-judicial act is a judicial act performed by one not a judge. "quasi-judicial" is a term applied to the action, discretion, etc., of public adminis- trative officers who are required to investigate facts, or ascertain the existence of facts, and draw conclusions from them, as the basis for their judicial action, and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature. (Black's Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Edition.) If the action taken by the city council was of a quasi- judicial nature,••the city counsel was there required by law to give notice of its .public B;eaxing (a fact not in issue here) and 'to make a determination based.only on the evidence presented to them. (English vs. City of tong- Beach, . 35 C.2d 155, 158 (1950); Boma_ - Enterprises v. Department of Alcoholic Bevrrage,Control, 2 C.3ct 85, 104 (1970). Further., if. the -action taken was quasi-judicial in nature, and thus governed by Section 1094.5, findings of fact by. the City Council were required. (Bakman, supra, at page 688.) If the action taken was a legislative function, no findings are necessary. (Karlson, supra, at page 807.) In Agins, supra, at 100 S. Ct. 2141, the United .States Supreme Pourt pointed out that the application of a general zoning law to a �Kiar C onri of i4t Rih tc of (4atlifornas Urn= of Granu3r Re:- Howland, et al vs. City Council oCSC ,u,30=83-69 11/5/80 Page -12= particular property effects a taking (inverse condemnation) if the ordinance does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or if it denies an'owner an economical, viable use of his.land. And' in Selby vs'. City -of San Buenaventura, 10 C.3d •110, 117 (1973), the California Supreme Court pointed out that,the adoption of a general plan is a legislative act; the rationale is that no 'action-h'as been taken with respect to the plaintiff except that which affected all citizens. (Karlson, supra, at page 799.) Is the selective destruction of an established and existing rs to construct one's family residence right of a few property owne to-the same height established, existing and available to other property owners in a given geographical community, a legislative function or a quasi-judicial function? I:. Horn vs. County of Ventura, 24 C.3d 605, 613-614 (1979), the Supreme Court stated that subdivision approvals, variances, and conditional use permits'involve the application of general 'standards to specific parcels of real property. Such governmental conduct, affecting the relatively few, is determined by facts peculiar to the individual case and is "adjudicatory" in nature. In view of Horn, it is clear that the actions of the City Council were quasi-judicial, subject to review pursuant to Section 1094.5, the scope of judicial review being limited to a determination as to whether that council's actions were supported by substantial evidence "in light of the whole record". Plaintiffs' contention that there was error on the part of defendant in failing to continue the January 22nd meeting because of the anticipated' absence• of plaintiffs' counsel, is not persuasive. Counsel's handwritten; undated, uninformative letter did nat ade-• quatelyset forth the need for further time to prepare nor did it hint at what other evidence counsel intended to present. (Bakman, supra, at page 685.) Further, the word "ordinance" is spelled ORDINANCE. Plaintiffs' contention that "findings•of fact" were required to be made concurrently with the decision made by the.City Council is without merit. - Once challenged, such findings then become neces- sary to expose the.agency's mode of analysis in order to enable a reviewing court to trace this analysis.- Given express findings, the court can then determine whether the findings are supported by sub- Sitprrj,= TP=rt of .fir 131fatr of 4nlifornin 4v=d,R of fOrmu3a Re: Howland, et al vs. City Council oCSC #30-83-69 11/5/80 Page.-13- stantial evidence. (11 County of.Los Angeles, Which takes us t forth supra. (They n would be prepared by a ties and the courts of taken. Bakman, supra, ported by substantial for a sc D the City Council's express findings, as eed not be formal findings of fact, such court,'.but need only apprise interested the bases for the administrative action at page 688. As mentioned, they must b e it is well settled that an administrative agency commits an abuse of discretion when it acts without first receiving competent evidence.' Hearsay evidence alone is insufficient. Assurance of a desirable, flexibility in administrative procedure does not go so far as to justify orders without a basis in evidence having -rational probative force. Mere uncottoborated.-hearsay or rumor does not constitute substantial evidence. There must be substantial evidence to support a ruling and hearsay, unless specially permitted by statute, is not competent evidence to that end. (Cf. Walker vs. City of San Gabriel, 20 C.2d 879, 881 (1942).,) Conflicts —in the - evidence, if sufficient evidence has been produced, must be resolved by the agency, not by the court. (Pacific Employers Insurance Company VS. I.A.C., 19 C.2d 622, 627 (1942).) However,• the court determines,, as a matter of law, whether substantial, sufficient, evidence, includ- ing inferences therefrom has been produced to justify the agency's action. (Miller & Lux vs. I.A.C.,. 179 C. 764, 766 (1919); Topanga, supra.) The defendant's first express finding is'that the ordinance protects the public welfare. Nothin .n the record before the city council substantiates that finding. \Conversely, the City's Department of Community Development found to.the contrary) There were no public views available, said that staff,. except for the view park and two undeveloped lots. Counpilman McInnis confirmed this. ('Cf. Saks & Co. .vs. City of Beverly Hills, 107 C.A.2d 2601'266 (195.1-) A statute, taking property without due process of -law, is invalid if it lacks a real or -substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare. (Sears, Roebuck & Co. vs. San Diego County Dis- 'trict Council of Carpenters, 25 C.3d 317, 332 1979 ; Mi1T er vs.._ rks, 195 C.477, 492-496 (1925) of Livermore, 18 C.3d 582, 604 Snpretar C�a=t of HIe State of (gulifornin "LautcL of (prate Re: Howland, et al vs. City Council oCSC 030-83-59 11/5/80 Page --14- The transcript of -the January 22nd proceedings make it clear that it was.not•the intent of defendant to act under political. pressure or in a manner which might be deemed arbitrary. Unfortu- nately, as a -matter of law, the defendants' action was arbitrary.. Safety, morals, public or general welfare, public convenience," general prosperity of. the community which might have been of con- cern but which are not covered in the record. The general welfare of -a community is•but the aggregate welfare of its,constituent members. That is not to be found in the record. The finding that the ordinance will preserve and maintain the general character of the area and neighborhood is"without•suppo.rt in the record. Of what is the area comprised? The neighborhood? Is it the City of Newport Beach --or Kings Road and Kings Place? What is the•"general character"? Ts""it just being "residential"? Do three story buildings on the "inland" side of the streets •affect•• the'"general character"? Does the roof line, in continuity from one end of the street to the other, on just one side of the -street, con- stitute the character or does it, just in part, bear•upon the character? Shouldn't the height of every house on both sides of the street have been considered? Why just five? And do the home owners north and south of Cliff Drive but north and.west of Kings Road and Kings Place help to determine,or comprise a part of, the area, the neighborhood, or the character of each? Do the bluff side owners have "view" rights enforceable against the property owners below? Is the area below the bluff side a part of the community, the area, or the neighborhood? Will -the "inland" owners be permitted to build to height limit in the future or will they be limited to their present structural height •,•-or some other height limit, for surely further construction upwards by the. "inland" owners will block the sun and air of their backyard neighbors. Exhibit'2A, of which the court takes judicial notice, would seem to indicate that of "bluff" side owners at the east and west ends of the streets are themselves sub- ject to having their views blocked "should further. construction by the "inland" owners occur. Has the Cliff Haven Homeowners• Association; by its make-up of members, determined what does constitute the area or neighborhood? "Does all contiguous R-1 zoned property constitute the area or neighborhood? What guidelines did the city council use to decide what constituted the neighborhood or area? Was its use of eithe- "term arbitrary? }Sttprriar (400rt of EZL ' tRute of Cgtaifarniu CRamtta of (Ortugjg Re: Howland, et al vs. City Council .oCSC ;30-83-69 11/5/80 Page,-15- It is obvious that, by a zoning ordinance, a city cannot un= fairly discriminate against a•particular parcel of land. To hold' - otherwise would be to needlessly injure plaintiffs, without a com- pensating benefit to the public. (Cf. Reynolds vs. Barrett, 12 C.2d'. Ex. 4,.251, 250• (1938).). Both parties' speak of "spot" zoning. Spot zoning, by itself, is not unlawful. (Harris vs. Piedmont, 5 C.A.2d 146 (1935).) This case, however, does not actually concern zoning but deals with newly enacted limitations purported to be imposed upon some, but not all, property within a zoned area. Under the law, this is arbitrary and a violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The third finding of fact, that --the ordinance provides protection of public views and enhances -the overall view value in the area is, of course, not supported by the record. It might have been well for defendant to know at the. January 22nd hearing that, in California,. a building or structure may not be complained of as being a nuisance merely because it interferes with the passage of air and light to adjoining premises (Venuto vs. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 22 C..A.3d 116, 127 (1971).), or merely because t e building or -structure ob structs the view from neighboring property (Venuto, supra, at.126-127.), and that one cannot gain a prescriptive easement over the property of another for view, light or air. (Cf. Taliaferro vs. Salyer, 162 C.A. 2d 685, 691 (1958).) Councilwoman Heather empathetically said "...I would•like everyone in this City (to) have'a view...." Exhibit C, page 40.) The defendants' approach, in light of the record before it, was not the lawful way to proceed to accmplish that goal. what per- centage of the city's population/property owner's benefitted? As to. the fourth finding,, the evidence was in conflict as to whether it was safe and/or more costly to build down the slope. .That portion of the finding, 'that the ordinance would not prohibit the property owners from building downslope, is not subject to judicial challenge. There was substantial evidence in support of the finding. But, a finding of that fact does not support the balance of that finding that, therefore, the ordinance is reasonabl'e•. This,is not to say that, with -a properly noticed hearing and .an' adequate record; the defendants' enactment could not be affirmed but,.,as of this time, the defendant, its -members, the City of Newport Beach•and.its agents,'servants and employees, each and all, are re- strained from enforcing,considering., or utilizing, in any way, .�xL}TfirLL`r ljmzri of #ire �:ulc of C�aclifarxeiu Lauxti{r of G�runge Re: Howland, et al vs. City Council OCSC #30-83-69 11/5/80 Page -16- Ordinance i1793 and Section 20.02.050, subsection E; of the Munici- pal Code of the City of Newport Beach, in connection with the appli- cation by any person or organization for building -plan approval and/or building permits by any.present owner of property located on the "bluff" side of Kings Road or Kings Place, and•all such applica- tions are to be considered in light of Section 20.02.030 of said code. The judgment and'order, to be prepared by plaintiffs.counsel, is declaratory of the rights of the bluff side owners to utilize the same zoning ordinances limitations, and restrictions, in the same manner as any other property owner to whom Section 20.02.030 and related ordinances were originally directed, but without prejudice to the defendant to reconsider the -issue. -- Very truly yours, ROBERT C. TODD ROBERT C. TODD Judge of the Superior Court RCT:cs L n NO MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY July 19, 1982 To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council From: Michael H. Miller - City Attorney Re: Correspondence to Council Regarding Kings Road The attached correspondence from Mr. Ron Luther refers to Judge Todd's decision in the case of Howland v. Newport Beach. In the Howland case Judge Todd ruled that Ordinance No. 1793 applying a 16.23 ft. above curb line height limit on the Bluff side of Kings Road and in Kings Place was illegal. Mr. Luther quotes excerpts from Judge Todd's decision out of context. The court did not deal with setbacks. The Planning Department can advise about setbacks. My only concern was to address his allegations in view of the Howland casein that regard, there is no direct connection. MHM/pr Attachments cc. Robert L. Wynn - City Manager Planning Department )�/MA Michael H. Miller r. . 0 0 LUTHER MEDICAL PRODUCTS -"Z-CATH" - 3020 ENTERPRISE ST. COSTA MESA. CA 02620 June 24, 1982 714 557.5063 Mayor of the City of Newport Beach, California Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach, City Attorney of Newport Beach, California Cliff Haven Community Association, Newport Beach, Newport Beach City Council Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Council Members: California California CITY OF NEN'Pi:r BEACH, " JUL 121982b- DRGE(ifED ERX As an interested citizen and damaged party, I hereby suggest that you are and have been performing potentially litiginous acts by approving 10 foot setbacks for a priviledged few new houses and reconstructions in Cliffhaven. By your failure to recognize the full implications and intent of Judge Todd's decision in the Howland vs. Newport Beach City Council decision, you are exacerbating the already opprobrious situation with regard to the rights of all Cliffhaven residents. The final paragraph of Judge Todd's decision says, "The judgment and order, to be prepared by plaintiffs counsel, is declaratory of the rights of the bluff side owners to utilize'the same zoning ordinances limitations, and restricti-ons, in the same manner as any other pro- perty owner to whom Section 20.02.030 and related ordinances were originally directed, but without prejudice to the defendant to recon- sider the issue". This is plainly not the existing situation in that the priviledged few bluff side owners are using a 10 foot setback from their property line that is denied the other residents of this area! Judge Todd further states in p.15, para.2 OCSC#30-83-69, "enacted limitations proported to be imposed upon some, but not all property within a zoned area. Under the law, this is arbitrary and a violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States". To understand the situation, we need to divide the history of the area into three periods that I will refer to as: Operating ate �y "Period I - — 'tion to Dec. 1978). -ONES SEPNTTO: under old Irvine guide lines (from incorpora- nA;jyor .Period II - Operating under new restrictions imposed by a well 7aager Manager n.intentioned City Council (Dec. 1978 to Nov. 1980). Manager 1 Attorney ';period III - (Present) Disregard of the balance of Cliffhaven for 1 Bldg. Dir. :the benefit of the few bluff side residents (5 Nov. 1980 to Gansery Dir. ; present) . 7PB68Dir. :i Planning Dir. 7 Police Chief P.W. Dir 3 Other i Newport Beach City.Council pp. 2 June 24, 1982 Period I is characterized by Ref. (A) letter from Wm. Mader to Allen Beek it permits "one story on bluff lots", 2 story okay on upper side, 10' setback bluff lots, 20' setback upper and non -bluff lots. In other words, a "quid pro quo" existed. Period II - Enter the well intentioned City Council protecting views of "public" and maintaining the character of the area by amending Sect. 20.02.050 with a 16.23 foot height limitation on bluffs side homes. The "quid pro quo" previously existing was corrupted allegedly at the expense of the bluff side owners. Period III - The Howland decision overturning the Council's height limit. Again, negating the original "quid pro quo" reestablishing a discriminatory transfer of property rights without due process to the bluff side owners. Mr. Hewicker states in a letter of 21 May 82 that "a special setback of ten feet has been established which supersedes the requirements of the zoning ordinance. As near as we can determine, the ten foot set- back on the bluff side of Kings Road was established when Cliffhaven was annexed into the City of Newport Beach in 1953". I cannot accept the situation where the property rights of the balance of Cliffhaven are absolutely abrogated by a nebulous, reference to history. I strongly suspect that this reference, if available, would also reveal the "quid pro quo" that originally existed with regard to "one story -- 10ft. setback". (Ref. A) But in any event, maintaining this obviously illegal remnant continues exacerbating a rapidly de- teriorating situation. (See Luther letter of 8 June) (Ref. B) A perfect illustration of the importance of setback is available at 521 Kings Road. Our plea for reasonableness and offer to pay modifi- cation costs would have been totally unnecessary had this builder been required to meet the same setback requirement as the majority of Cliff - haven residents. This would have provided much more than the paltry 29 inches we so desperately desired. (See Ref. B) It is obviously impossible (Ref. B) to negotiate this on a neighborly basis. The first two structures are in place (521 Kings Road and 525 Kings Road) that will result in a total change of character from our present park -like surrounding to a walled canyon whereby views to anyone, public or private, other than bluff side are denied. We recog- nize no one has inalienable rights to a view, and at the same time, we assert our equal rights under the law as plainly outlined hy Judge Todd. Presently, we are denied both our view and our rights. Newport Beach City Council pp. 3 June 24, 1982 The pictures attached (Ref. C) clearly demonstrate the deterioration of the area that you are countenancing. The epitome of egocentricity and monument to selfishness constructed at 521 Kings Road is the first step in the transformation of our tranquility to a Manhattan Beach look -alike. There is already a ground swell of resentment and isolated threats of a class action type law suit which we have to date declined to countenance, however justified. We continue to believe in the ulti- mate sense of fair play that is so often demonstrated by both the Planning Department and the City Council. Our plea is that before the area character is totally decimated that you will through proper planning and Council action save what is left of the aesthetic qualities our area has,.until recent weeks, enjoyed. My suggestion for compromise is that the height limits be decreased 10 feet and the property limit be concurrently increased 10 feet, 10 feet for 10 feet a true "quid pro quo". The logic is unassailable. I would further suggest that since the houses at 521 and 525 are clear- ly in violation of Judge Todd's decision, that some action by the City to correct this error is in order. I would further request to be notified if be issued anywhere in the Cliffhaven area line setback of less than 20 feet. Respect ly submitt Ron Luther Capt. USMC (Ret.) RL:sh Enc: Address: 530 Kings Road i any building permits are to that involve a property �o S' CITY OF l0 LUTHER MEDICAL PRODUCTS tj NEN'PCR BEACH, - "LOATH" - � �!•.i t�• 'Q 3020 ENTERPRISE ST. COSTA MESA, CA 92626 JUL 121982 e £ WEIVED June 24, 1982 714667-5963 i CITY PtER Mayor of the City of Newport Beach, California 2 �•�. Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach, California City Attorney of Newport Beach, California Cliff Haven Community Association, Np�� AG NnQ Newport Beach City Council `r6 p " �v � �� Newport Beach, CA 92663 JUL 2 6 1982 �Y Dear Council Members: By the CITY COUNCIL As an interested citizen and daRgIeWA Tl4�Rby suggest that you are and have been performing potentially litiginous acts by approving 10 foot setbacks for a priviledged few new houses and reconstructions in Cliffhaven. By your failure to recognize the full implications and intent of Judge Todd's decision in the Howland vs. Newport Beach City Council decision, you are exacerbating the already opprobrious situation with regard to the rights of all Cliffhaven residents. The final paragraph of Judge Todd's decision says, "The judgment and order, to be prepared by plaintiffs counsel, is declaratory of the rights ordinances., the bluff side owners to utilize'the same ;ing ordinancea 'limitations and restr bons_ *n the same manner as-any-o er-pro:--� `perty-owner"to whom-S•ectiori 20.02.030 and related ordinances were originally directed, but without prejudice to the defendant to recon- sider the issue". This is plainly not the existing situation in that the priviledged few bluff side owners are using a 10 foot setback from their property line that is denied the other residents of this area: Judge Todd further states in p.15, para.2 OCSC#30-83-69, "enacted limitations proported to be imposed upon some, but not all property within a zoned area. Under the law, this is arbitrary and a violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States". To understand the situation, we need to divide the history of the area into three periods that I will refer to as: 1„4 may` ;Period I - Operating under old Irvine guide lines (from incorpora- tion to Dec. 1978). COPIES SENTTO: , Rayor :;Period II - ❑ Councilmen intentioned LI Manager Operating under new restrictions imposed by a well City Council (Dec. 1978 to Nov. 1980). o Attorney ;period III - (Present) Disregard of the balance of Cliffhaven for ❑ Bldg. Dir. ;',the benefit of the few bluff side residents (5 Nov. 1980 to present). Cl GenSery Dir. ❑PB6RDu. [)•Planning Dir O Police Chief ❑ P.W. Dir ` o Other 5 • 0 Newport Beach City.Council pp. 2 June 24, 1982 Period I is characterized by Ref. (A) letter from Wm. Mader to Allen Beek tfat permits "one story on bluff lots", 2 story okay on upper side, 10' setback bluff lots, 20' setback upper and non -bluff lots. In other words, a "quid pro quo" existed. Period II - Enter the well intentioned City Council protecting views of "public" and maintaining the character of the area by amending Sect. 20.02.050 with a 16.23 foot height limitation on bluffs side homes. The "quid pro quo" previously existing was corrupted allegedly at the expense of the bluff side owners. Period III - The Howland decision overturning the Council's height limit. Again, negating the original "quid pro quo" reestablishing a discriminatory transfer of property rights without due process to the bluff side owners. Mr. Hewicker states in a letter of 21 May 82 that "a special setback of ten feet has been established which supersedes the requirements of the zoning ordinance. As near as we can determine, the ten foot set- back on the bluff side of Kings Road was established when Cliffhaven was annexed into the City of Newport Beach in 1953". I cannot accept the situation where the property rights of the balance of Cliffhaven are absolutely abrogated by a nebulous- reference to history. I strongly suspect that this reference, if available, would also reveal the "quid pro quo" that originally existed with regard to "one story -- 10ft. setback". (Ref. A) But in any event, maintaining this obviously illegal remnant continues exacerbating a rapidly de- teriorating situation. (See Luther letter of 8 June) (Ref. B) A perfect illustration of the importance of setback is available at 521 Kings Road. Our plea for reasonableness and offer to pay modifi- cation costs would have been totally unnecessary had this builder been required to meet the same setback requirement as the majority of Cliff - haven residents. This would have provided much more than the paltry 29 inches we so desperately desired. (See Ref. B) It is obviously impossible (Ref. B) to negotiate this on a neighborly basis. The first two structures are in place (521 Kings Road and 525 Kings Road) that will result in a total change of character from our present park -like surrounding to a walled canyon whereby views to anyone, public or private, other than bluff side are denied. We recog- nize no one has inalienable rights to a view, and at the same time, we assert our equal rights under the law as plainly outlined 12y Judge Todd. Presently, we are denied both our view and our rights. Newport Beach City Council. pp. 3 June 24, 1982 The pictures attached (Ref. C) clearly demonstrate the deterioration of the area that you are countenancing. The epitome of egocentricity and monument to selfishness constructed at 521 Kings Road is the first step in the transformation of our tranquility to a Manhattan Beach look -alike. There is already a ground swell of resentment and isolated threats of a class action type law suit which we have to date declined to countenance, however justified. We continue to believe in the ulti- mate sense of fair play that is so often demonstrated by both the Planning Department and the City Council. our plea is that before the area character is totally decimated that you will through proper planning and Council action save what is left of the aesthetic qualities our area has, until recent weeks, enjoyed. My suggestion for compromise is that the height limits be decreased 10 feet and the property limit be concurrently increased 10 feet, 10 feet for 10 feet a true "quid pro quo". The logic is unassailable. I would further suggest that since the houses at 521 and 525 are clear- ly in violation of Judge Todd's decision,- that some action by the City to correct this error is in order. I would further request to be notified if be issued anywhere in the Cliffhaven area line setback of less than 20 feet. Respect ly submitt Ron Luther Capt. USMC (Ret.) RL:sh Enc: Address: 530 Kings Road any building permits are to that involve a property November 29, 1978 Mr. Allan Beek Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport -Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard .'Newport Beach, CA 92663 REFERENCE A 550 Newport C Newport Beat (714)644.3011 California 92663 Subject: Architectural Restrictions Tracts 1219, 1221, Cliff Haven, Newport Reach Dear Mr. Beek: As Manager of Design Review for The Irvine Company for the past nine years, I was contacted by the Cliff Haven Community Association recently to research The Irvine Company files for any information that might shed light on past architectural guidelines utilized by the Company on the developments pertaining to the leasehold properties in Tracts 1219 and 1221. The enclosed information are the tract restric- tions placed on the above tracts by The Irvine Company back in the early 19501s. These restrictions were adhered to explicitly as can be seen by traveling thru the. area today. Additional Rules and Regulations governing dideyard and rearyard set- backs were established and enforced by the City of Newport Beach. The intent of The Irvine Company Design Guidelines was to preserve overviews from the higher placed properties from those located on the Lower Bluff properties throughout the two before mentioned tracts. If any additional information regarding this matter is requested, Mr. Richard Reese, Vice President of the Planning Department, mentioned to me that The Irvine Company will be most happy to cooperate. Sincerely, William E. Mader, Architect Manager, Design Review '1 CLIFF HAVEN woo p nn ne Oes/p'nA"kacl D Roye11i of TRACTS: 1221 - 1219 (Blocks E, F, G, H) Refer to lease for front -yard setback: One-story on bluff lots. 2- story okey on upper side. 10' on bluff lots, 20' on upper & non -bluff lots. No white roofs. REFERENCE B LUTHER MEDICAL PRODUCTS - "LCATII" - 3020 ENTERPRISE ST. COSTA MESA. CA 92626 714 557.5963 June 8, 1982 Ms. Antoinette Ayres 521 Kings Rd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Tony: Since you indicated Friday that you were replying to our request to lower your roofline by 29 inches by letter, I thought I would utilize the same form to restate our position and memorilize our final plea for your consideration. We have offered to pay any costs in connection with this reason- able reduction. Consider these facts: 1. There would be no reduction on any living area or any usable area in your house. 2. There would be no cost to you. 3. You would preserve more than 70% of our view of the harbor and turning basin area. 4. Our relations up to the date of setting your roof beam have been excellent. 5. We recognize that you have not exceeded the legal height re- strictions presently existing. Unfortunately, we were lulled into a spirt of cooperation by your assurance that the height was going to be at the level of your north neighbor's chimney. This has proven to be untrue by more than three feet. We have invited those who have in the past fought long and hard to preserve what they viewed as their rights to a two story living space to our house to view this disaster. During the recent presentations at the City Council, we applauded and endorsed the attitude of Mr. Bob Cecka who pointed out that individual neighbor negotiation was the key to continued harmony. We further endorsed this approach in recent meetings with con- cerned parties in the presence of the Cliffhaven Association. You have by your blatant deception smashed any hopes for this type of neighbor negotiations. Your house stands as a symbol of the community mendacity which will continue to permeate our neighborhood as a result of your 11 • REFERENCE B Antoinette Ayres June 8, 1982 pp. 2 intractibility. As you have stated that to lower the roof line would affect the "theme" of your house, we would hope that the concern for your neighbor's view might take precedence over the hope for an idle compliment of dubious sincerity on the relative beauty of the final 29 inches of your roofline. During the past weekend we have had numerous comments on your deception. Even Mr. Warren Howland appeared dismayed at your refusal to compromise and after personally viewing our disaster, agreed to call you with his personal plea for compromise. You have benefited from the very sincere (and costly) efforts of all of the bluffside neighbors and are by your example of non- cooperation committing them to further conflicts. It takes little imagination of anyone in our beautiful area to pro- ject its canyon -like future that will result as others follow your architectural example. The special consideration of a ten foot setback on your side is a •, concession of dubious history no one else in Cliffhaven off the x bluff may enjoy. We will be petitioning various agencies, both official and quasi offical, to determine the background of this special privilege. Since we are transplanted Missourians, we can only deduce your "theme"house to most closely resemble a hay barn,and can truthfully state that we have never seen a barn that would be aesthetically affected by reducing its height,by 29 inches --only its hay storage capacity would be reduced. In conclusion, we again renew our appeal to your reasonableness and sense of fairness and reiterate our offer to ,pay for the modification. Sincere Ron and Barbara Luther RBL:sh cc: Cliffhaven Association Warren Howland Bob Cecka Evelyn Hart Les Miller s ARENCE C ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION AT 521 AND 525 KINGS ROAD IN DEFIANCE OF HOWLAND VS. NEWPORT BEACH DECISION �� • REFERENCE PROJECTION OF FUTURE ROOF LINES ON KINGS ROAD IF CITY CONTINUES TO PERMIT VIOLATIONS OF CODE IN DEFIANCE OF JUDGE TODD'S RULING. 14 • Gi f f Haven (Pommunity .association City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 Dear Council Members: ANCIL AGENDA 10 - P. O. Box 1332, Newport Beach, California 92663 July 9, 1982 At the June meeting of the Cliff Haven Community Association Board of Directors, it was unanimously agreed that the "Save our Neighborhood" committee's proposal to change the future front set back restrictions to twenty feet on the bluff side property of Kings Road has merit. We urge the City Council to consider this proposal as one which would not be exclusive to Kings Road bluff side lots, but rather consistant with all community set back requirements. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the uniqueness of our community must be protected with consistant restrictions on density and height. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, Peter Ge dron Presi ent PJG:bh ES SENTTO: kj rrayUl ❑ Councilmen ❑ Manager y • Attorney • Bldg. Mr. 0 GenSery Dir. ❑ p R Dir. ;a tanning Dir. ''s 13 Police Of ❑ P.W. Dir ❑ Other ��1 Z 172, 0 City Council eti ng April 26., 1982 I� • • • Agenda Item No. I-1 CITY OF•NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department By Ae CITY COUNCIL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SUBJECT: Petition from "Save Our Neighborhood" requesting a moratorium on the construction of residences along the bluff side.of Kings Road and an amendment to the Municipal Code, Section 20.02.030A, regarding residential height limitations. Suggested Action If desired, a) Order report received and filed; OR b) Instruct the Planning Commission to undertake a review of the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program and initiate an amendment to Chapter 20.02 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as it pertains to height limits on coastal bluffs, including the bluff side of Kings Road, and report back to the City Council within four months; AND c) Adopt an interim moratorium ordinance.prohibit- ing the issuance of all building permits which would authorize the construction of buildings in excess of seventeen feet on the bluff side of Kings Road. Background This matter was considered by the City Council on April 12, 1982 at which time action was deferred to the meeting of April 26, 1982, pending input from the affected homeowners' association and a re- view of the proposal by the City Attorney's Office. Attached to this report is a memorandum from the City Attorney which provides a summary of the legal background applicable to height limits, and a legal analysis concerning the request to amend the Municipal Code and apply a moratorium. A TO: City Co it - 2. On April 15, 1982, a letter was directed to the Cliff Haven Com- munity Association outlining the action taken by the City Council •on April 12th and asking that they communicate with the Staff regarding the position, if any, they might have on this matter (see attached). The Staff was subsequently informed that the Association would be holding a special meeting on Tuesday evening, April 20, 1982, to discuss the matter and that they would communi- cate with us. The Cliff Haven Community Association, by letter dated April 21, 1982, has responded as follows: "The Cliff Haven Community Association is deeply concerned that an equitable solution be reached on the topic of height restriction on Kings Rd. As evidenced by the 'Save Our Neighborhood' petition, it appears that height is still an explosive issue with these property owners in our community. In this regard, the Association feels that the Cliff Haven community has a unique neighborhood quality, a part of which is created by the concept of height restriction. "Since a large number of the residents of the area in • question feel the issue is not resolved, the Association would encourage the City to address the residents' concerns and take whatever action it deems appropriate to move toward a permanent resolution of the conflict." If the City Council determines that a zoning amendment should be processed, the City Attorney's Office has suggested that in order to develop a sustainable ordinance, information be gathered and the following facts documented: 1. The number of private views that would be protected by the adoption of such an ordinance; 2. The impact of the adoption of such an ordinance on public views, including a discussion on the possibility that a height ordinance would encourage horizontal development and reduce the width of view corridors; 3. The height of the existing structures along the bluff side of Kings Road; • 4. The potential impact on the visual character/visual open space of the area if residences were constructed to the permitted height along the bluff side of Kings Road; The presence of local physical conditions that may warrant the imposition of different height restrictions, e.g., the hills, slopes and proximity of the location to both the ocean and commercial development along Pacific Coast High- way; A i TO: City Coil - 3. • 6. The need, if any, for a buffer between the commercial development along Pacific Coast Highway and residential development along the bluff side of Kings Road; • 7. The potential impact of the proposed ordinance, the value of properties on both sides of the street; • C 8. The ability or inability of property owners on the bluff side to construct residences of a size permitted by our zoning ordinance within the context of a height limit other than twenty-four feet; and 9. Any other aesthetic considerations of the adoption of, or failure to adopt, such a: height limit; 10. The potential safety impacts created by the construction of twenty-four foot structures, e.g., soil or slope failure, seismic concerns; and 11. The maximum height that could be -allowed on the bluff side of Kings Road consistent with the promotion of the public interests. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT Attachments for City Council Only: 1) Memorandum from City Attorney 2) Letter to Cliff Haven Community Association 3) Response from Cliff Haven Community Association 4) Petition and Request for Moratorium 4 . � IAGHM01 NU. 1 • MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY April 26, 1982 Agenda Item No. To: Hon. Mayor & Members of the City Council From: Michael H. Miller - City Attorney Re: Petition from Save Our Neighborhood re Height Limitations on Kings Road • The following is a summary of the legal background applicable to height limits, and a legal analysis concerning the request of certain parties to amend the Municipal Code'and apply a moratorium. BACKGROUND In 1979, the City adopted Ordinance No. 1793 which established a height limit applicable to structures on the bluff side of Kings Road, The Superior Court invalidated this Ordinance and restrained the City from enforcement. At that time, the City Council determined not to appeal the court's ruling. A major issue in the litigation was the relationship between the Ordinance and the police power of the City. In essence, the court held that there was no evidence to support the claim by the City that subject Ordinance was in furtherance of the general health, safety and welfare, however, the court did not indicate that the City was without power to enact a valid height restriction given a properly noticed hearing and an •adequate record. Apparently, in response to that possibility certain inland property owners have now petitioned the City Council for an Ordinance establishing a height limit for buildings to be constructed along the bluff side of Kings Road. Hon. Mayor & Membe• of the City Council • April 26, 1982 Page Two Re: Petition from Save Our Neighborhood re Height Limitations on Kings Road •Additionally, they have requested a moratorium pending the adoption of such an Ordinance. As the City's legislative body you are not legally required to initiate any such Ordinance, however, to assist your decision -making, the following legal guidelines are provided for your consideration as to the proposed Ordinance and moratorium. PROPOSED ORDINANCE A City does have the power to impose height limitations over zones within the City, or over the entire City. Brougher v. Board of Public Works 107 CA 15 (1930). Such an Ordinance must be in furtherance of the general health, safety and welfare. Pursuant to a recent court ruling, the standard in reviewing such an Ordinance would involve considerations as to whether the statute has "a real and substantial relation to the public welfare." Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mesa (December 4, 1981) 4 Civ 20505. If the proposed ordinance is to be upheld, public testimony and staff material must provide facts from which it •could be concluded that the Ordinance has a real and substantial relationship to the public welfare. Specific guidelines as to what should be considered can be provided by this office in conjunction with the Planning Department, if the City Council authorizes the study and review of the proposed Ordinance. Assuming that there is enough evidence to support a rationale relationship between the proposed height limit and the public welfare the ordinance can also be challenged on the ground that it is discriminatory. In this regard, although there are various approaches that could mitigate such an allegation, it is difficult to determine how a court would stand on this issue. Finally, the Ordinance, as proposed by Petitioners is retroactive. In this regard, you are advised as a matter of law that the'Ordinance could not apply to property owners who had secured building permits from the City prior to the effective date of the Ordinance, and thereafter made substantial expenditures in reliance thereon.* • The Petitioners ask for a moratorium on all construction in the granting of building and grading permits on all bluff side properties. This request is legally overbroad. A 0 Hon. Mayor & MembW of the City Council . April 26, 1982 Page Three Re: Petition from Save Our Neighborhood re Height Limitations on Kings Road • moratorium is appropriate only to the extent that it is designed to preclude construction that would be in violation of the proposed Ordinance. Pursuant to City Charter Section 200 and Government Code Section 65858, the legislative body of a City, without following customary procedures otherwise required preliminary to the adoption of a zoning Ordinance, can adopt an interim Moratorium Ordinance to protect the public safety, health or welfare. Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Sacramento County 40 CA 3d 1059 (1974). Such an urgency measure requires a four -fifths vote for adoption, is effective for four months, and may be extended for a total of two years subject to certain notice and hearing requirements. A Moratorium Ordinance is to maintain the status quo pending the adoption of a proposed zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, unless the Council desires to submit the proposed Ordinance to staff and Planning Commission for review and study, a Moratorium Ordinance would be inappropriate. On the other hand, if you do submit it for study and review, there is no legal requirement that you maintain the status quo. However, if a new Ordinance is eventually adopted, all those who have building • permits prior to its effective date and who expend money in reliance thereon would be free from application of the new Ordinance. A Moratorium Ordinance has been prepared with the appropriate findings, if Council desires to preclude this possibility. A Moratorium Ordinance like the main proposed ordinance is subject to court attack. Michael Miller * Citations on file at City Attorney's office MHM/pr cc. City Manager Planning Director Ass't City Attorney • M2N-Planning J • rt i i m,nvir i nv. c ec• Mayor Pro Tempore (tart City Manager City Attorney CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 640-2137 April 15, 1982 Ms. Edna Knickerbocker, President Cliff Haven Community Association 2100 Coral Place Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Ms. Knickerbocker: At the City Council meeting of April 12, 1982, the City Council considered a Petition and Request for Moratorium from "Save Our Neighborhood," an unincorporated associa- tion of homeowners. I believe you, also, may have been given a copy of the petition by Mayor Pro Tempore Hart. Essentially, the "Save Our Neighborhood" organization is seeking a moratorium on residential construction on the bluff side of Kings Road and the imposition of a seventeen foot height limitation so as to preserve the views of residents on the opposite side of Kings Road, The City Council has requested that I communicate with you and deter- mine if the community association has a position with respect to the imposition by the City of either a moratorium or a height restriction as requested by the "Save Our Neighbor- hood" group. The Planning Department will be working with the City Attorney's Office in preparing a report which will be placed on the agenda for the City Council meeting of April 26, 1982. Hopefully in this report we will be able to state the position of the community association and offer to the City Council some alternatives as to a direction they may wish to take. So that I may gather this information as early as possible, • I would like to have a response from you by no later than Monday, April 19, 1982. If you wish, I may be contacted by phone at 640-2137 between the hours of 8:00 and 5:00. Very truly yours, l 1�+�U Q _14�a Planning Director JDH/kk I • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663-3884 Mailing Address - P. 0. Box 1763 1], C L I F F 0 H A V E N C O M M U N I T Y 0 ATTACHMENT'NO. 3 A S S O C I A T I O N April 21, 1982 James D. Hewicker Planning Director City of Newport Beach Dear Mr. Hewicker, I am responding to your letter of April 15, 1982 which inquires if the Cliff Haven Community Association has a "position with respect to the imposition by the City of either a moratorium or a.height restriction as requested by the 'Save Our Neighborhood' group." The Cliff Haven Community Association is deeply concerned that an equitable solution be reached, on the topic of height restriction on Kings Rd. As evidenced by the "Save Our Neighborhood" petition, it appears that height is still an explosive issue with these property owners in our community. In this regard, the Association feels that the Cliff Haven Community has a unique neighborhood quality, a part of which is created by the concept of height restriction. Since a large number of the residents of the area in question feel the issue is not resolved, the Association would encourage the City to address the residents' concerns and take whatever action it deems appropriate to move toward a permanent resolution of the conflict. Sincerely (Original signed) Judy Heaton Weightman Treasurer Cliff Haven Community Association 2001 Cliff Drive 730-7506 8 am - 3 pm 645-3363 0 r 5 0 0ATTACHMENT NO. 4 TO: THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, C IFORNSA((��,, • CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CAL NOR,NY� PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPOR BE.1VOJ J"% : FROM: SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, An Unincorpora_e " oci'At Homeowners of SUBJECT: PETITION TO AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 20.02.030A RE: RESIDENTIAL HEIGHT LIMITATION' AND REQUEST FOR MORITORIUM ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENCES ALONG THE BLUFF SIDE OF KINGS ROAD, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA -E MMENDAT3ON: That Section 20.02.030 be amended as indicated herein and the request that a moratorium upon the issuance of building permits and further residential construction in the Kings Road community be granted until this proposal has been fully considered and voted upon �y the Planning Commission and City Council of Newport Beach. The Planning Commission and the City Council of Newport Beach is respectfully requested to adopt the following subsection to Section 20.02.030 of the Municipal Code of Newport Beach: .24sS2?„Q�QA�1Z_Sgv_er��n (11� No��_Heioht_.,Limi�iatio,�Zo��. In the 17 foot height limitation zone the height limit for any bluffside single-family residence shall be 17 feet; provided, however, that a structure may exceed 17 feet up to a maximum of 21 feet after the adoption of a Specific Area Plan or after approval of a Use Permit. This height limitation zone shall apply to all bluffside single-family structures for which building permits have been issued after January 1, 1982. Contemporaneous with the consideration of the foregoing proposed Amendment, the City Council of Newport Beach and the Planning 0ommission of Newport Beach are requested to issue and impose a moritorium on all construction and the granting of building and grading permits on all bluffside properties sitivated along Kings -1- Road, Newport Beach, that may exceed the proposed Amendment to the Height Limitation Ordinance. DISCU�$�4 • The City Council of Newport Beach and the Planning Commission are initially requested to undertake a review of the Land Use Plan portion of the Local Coastal Program approved by the Newport Beach City Council on February 22, 1982. The Plan was prepared in accordance with the Coastal Act of 1976 and the City's Issue Identification and Work Program approved by the California Coastal Commission on July 19, 1978. Incorporated within the Land Use Plan is an enlightening review the historical significance and unique character of Newport Beach together with maintaining access to views. of the bay and ocean. The • introduction to the Local Coastal Program recounts, the history of the development of the City of Newport Beach. This review cites the growth of permanent residents in Newport Beach and the accompanying new problems, to wit: "By 1950, the City had a permanent population of 121120 and was beginning to emerge as a permanent residential community. By the mid-1960s, as major employment, commercial, and educational centers opened in Orange County, the population grew to 38,350. It was apparent that Newport Beach would be subjected to increasesd residential and comme.rcial development pressure and would continue to be a highly desireable vacation and visitor center. Therefore, the City initiated a major and comprehensive planning program to guide future development and to preserve the many enjoyable features of the community. The Newport Tomorrow Committee, composed of over 100 citizens, was initiated to look • into all aspects of the community and establish community goals. This program was completed in 1968 and served as the basis for major revisions to the City's General Plan. In 1971 the City adopted a policy plan, and by 1973 had completed and adopted a comprehensive new General Plan including a Land Use Element, Residential Growth Element, Recreation and Open Space Element, Conservation of Natural Resources Element, -2- Circulation Element, and Public Safety Element. Simultaneous with the extensive General Plan program, the City intiated a series of special studies. In 1970, the Lower Newport Bay Civic District study began to analyze development • around the lower bay. This study resulted in the adoption in 1972 of the Shoreline Height Limitation Ordinance which established new height and bulk restrictions around the bay. A key element of this ordinance was the reduction of height limits .along Pacific Coast Highway and other commercial areas from 85 to 26 feet." See Local Coastal Programs, pg. 2. As the above excerpt indicates, the increased permanent population of the City coincided with an increased concern for maintaining the unique qualities and character of the various neighborhoods comprising the City. Clearly, the intent of the City of Newport Beach in its adoption of the Local Coastal Program was to promulgate a comprehensive general plan, including building height •restrictions, thereby preserving the panoramic ocean views enjoyed by a maximum number of residents throughout Newport Beach that are an integral part of the nature of the City. The Newport Beach Coastal program provides in pertinent part: Costal Visual Resort ces and Special Communit ems. P011Cip-a Sections 30251 and 30252(5) require the protection of scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas and the preservation of special communities. Analysers. The scenic and visual resources of Newport Beach are spectacular. The City has historically been sensitive to the need to preserve formulation of the Shoreline Height Limitation Ordinance of 1971 and have been the subject of extensive community debate for years. The LCP contains a complete listing of primary view areas. • The special communities of Newport Beach include the residential and commercial neighborhoods which surround the lower bay. The Land Use Plan describes many of these in the area descriptions and contains policies designated to preserve the special character of these areas. Newport Beach Coastal Plan, pp. 6-7. -3- I The proposed amendement to the Height Limitation Ordinance is offered in accordance with the land use portion of the Local Coastal Program of the City of Newport Beach. It is designed to protect the • future development and value of coastal residential communities throughout Newport Beach. Inherent in the use and residential development of coastal property in Newport Beach by the Irvine Company, which dates back to the early 1950's, has been the application of strict architectural guidelines to preserve the public and private access to view, light and air. These restrictions have generally been adhered to by homeowners throughout the Kings Road/Cliff Drive neighborhood for nearly thirty (30) years. As the letter of November 29, 1978, from William E. Meader, architect, on behalf of the Irvine Company makes clear, the subject restrictions permitted only one (1) story, *single-family residential structures on bluffside lots and two (2) story, residential structures on inland or upperside lots throughout this neighborhood. Obviously, the intent of the Irvine Company, as well as the subsequent residents of the Kings Road/Cliff Drive area was, and is, to preserve as much of the view of the bay and ocean as possible for as many people as possible. Recognizing that limiting the height of bluffside homeowners single-family residences along the coast to one story above the curb was inequitable, the City of Newport Beach provided for a special "setback" requirement applicable to bluffside homeowners. That Orequirement provides that bluffside homeowners may build up to ten (10) feet from the curb while inland or upper side homeowners are restricted to building not closer than twenty (20) feet from the curb. There has been a significant "tradeoff" observed by homeowners -4- rI in the Kings Road/Cliff Drive neighborhood for the past thirty (30) years. During that time the neighborhood has become one of the most attractive and affluent neighborhoods in the City. All homeowners in • this neighborhood have benefitted from the original "tradeoff" of the "setback"/height limitation imposed during the time the property was controlled by the Irvine Company. The maintenance of these "setbacks" and height limitations providing for as much public and private access to view, light and air will preserve the entire character of this neighborhood and insure that unilateral, self-serving development along the bluffside of Kings Road does -not perpetually obliterate the essence of this coastal community. Many other restrictions established by the Irvine Company have been adopted by either municipal code or homeowners association These restrictions apply to the installation of television •by-laws. antennas, the maximum height of side fences and the height and type of trees and shrubbery within the neighborhood. All of these restrictions, including the "setbacks"/height limitations were drafted and implemented with the intent of preserving the atypical nature of the Kings Road/Cliff Drive neighborhood. The very substance of this community is now threatened. Equity demands that the rights of All residents of the Kings Road/Cliff Drive neighborhood be preserved and that the right to determine the height and "setback" of a residential home be tempered by the rights of all homeowners who wish to preserve the unique and Opecial character of the Kings Road/Cliff Drive neighborhood. The central legal question which must be considered by the City Council of Newport Beach and the Planning Commission is whether or not an amendment to the Municipal Code restricting the height of -5- /D 0 • residential homes along the bluffside of Kings Road would be an arbitrary and capricious exercise of legislative power. It is the view of the homeowners presenting this petition that the herein • proposed amendment to the Municipal Code can and would be applied fairly and consistently. On January 22, 1979, the City Council of Newport Beach adopted Ordinance No. 1793 establishing a maxiumum roof height for homes along the bluffside of Kings Road at 16.23 feet above the curb. That Ordinance was adopted, in the view of the petitioner, in absence of a thorough review of the historical motivation for maintaining height limitations on bluffside homes and without equal consideration of the rights and obligations of all homeowners in the Kings Road community. Ordinance No. 1793 was challenged by a bluffside homeowner. On •November 25, 1980, Judge Todd of the Orange County Superior Court struck down the Ordinance deciding that the City Council had acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner by applying a different height limitation standard to bluffside homeowners without sufficient justification than was applied to inland side homeowers. However, the Order of the Court provides that the City Council of Newport Beach may, at any time, reconsider the issue and amend the Height Limitation Ordinance as long as its deliberations and results are conducted in a thorough manner. We submit the following for review in support of our Request that the City Council of Newport Beach amend Section 20.02.030 by •modifying the height restriction pertaining to all bluffside single" family residences along Kings Road, Newport Beach. The crucial sections which must be considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council contained in the Municipal Code are 11 as follows: —U pose of Titl-e: The purpose of this Title is to promote • the growth of the City of Newport Beach in an orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, 'safety, peace, comfort and general welfare, and to protect the character, social and economic stability of all districts within the City, and to' assure the orderly and beneficial development of such areas. .1 AMMIMIDAI .Intent and PurpOSe: The intent and purpose of this Chapter is to estasblish regulations on the height of buildings throughout the City in order to ensure that the unique character and scale of Newport Beach is preserved during that time when the eneral plan is being developed. OLLOe0.51.0 80 Developetaf—C-p9s al Bluff Sites jn Pl,a_nD_Qd Communjty Djajxjygt: The City of Newport Beach finds that the natural bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource... Additionally, the January 6, 1981 decision of the California Supreme Court in Axrgj DevelQmme_trt Co vs. Cit_y_Qf__Sgata_M_esA (1981) 28 Cal.3d 511 is pertinent to the request herein. The Plaintiff, Arnel proposed to construct a 50 acre development consisting of single family residences and apartment units. Opposing •his development, a neighborhood association circulated an initiative proposing the Arnel Property and two (2) adjoining properties (a total of 68 acres) be rezoned to allow only single family residential use. The voters approved the initiative and Arnel sued the City of -7- i-2 Costa Mesa. The Superior Court upheld the initiative, the Court of Appeal reversed. The Supreme Court took the case on their own motion and reversed the Court of Appeal holding that zoning ordinances are • legislative acts. The Appellate Court reasoned that the rezoning initiative applied to a "relatively small" parcel of land and, therefore, was an adjudicative act. The Supreme Court held, however, that the size of the parcel has very little relationship to the distinction between the making of land -use policy, a legislative act, and the asserted adjudicatory act of applying established policy. The rezoning of a "relatively small" parcel of land may well signify a fundamental change in the city land -use policy. Continuing, the Court specified that when zoning is enacted by •the City Council, landowners are entitled, by statute, to notice and hearing and the zoning changes must reasonably relate to the welfare of the region affected and must conform to the City's general plan (as per Government Code 965860). The 57 homeowners who have affixed their signatures to the Petition attached hereto are seeking the mandate of the City Council and the Planning Commission regarding the adoption and enforcement of this amendment. All are residents of the Kings Road/Cliff Drive neighborhood. All wish to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood. Simultaneously, a moritorium on all construction and the issuance •of building and grading permits is necessary and proper during the time that the amendment to the Municipal Code is being considered. Any construction which would violate the proposed amendment would be extremely difficult to reverse if the amendment to the Municipal Code M /3 is adopted by the City Council. Conversely,'no prejudice should result by the suspension of such construction during the short period of time that the Planning Commission and City Council will need to • thoroughly review this matter. Sd2NS��4�: It is the primary purpose of the proposed amendment to the Height Limitation Ordinance to insure the unique character and scale of the Kings Road/Cliff Drive neighborhood of Newport Beach and to preserve and produce an environment that is stable, desirable and in harmony with surrounding neighborhoods meeting the standards of density, open space, light and air (Municipal Code, Sections 20.01.015, 20.02.010). To permit the construction or remodeling of a building in excess • of seventeen (17.0) feet would destroy the character and integrity of the Kirigs Road/Cliff Drive community of Newport Beach. The Land Use Plan portion of th-e Local Coastal Program is entirely consistent with the goals of the proposed amendment. The City Council approved the Land Use Plan on February 22, 1982. It is appropriate at this time that the City Council also consider and approve this amendment in order to preserve the distinctive nature of this neighborhood. The Supreme Court of the State of California has considered the issue of whether or not a zoning ordinance is a legislative or • adjudicative act. In addition to the determination that history overwhelmingly indicates zoning is properly a legislative act, the Supreme Court ruled that the size of a zoned parcel was not important 11 as long as it reasonably related to the welfare of the region affected and was not arbitrary and capricious in its result. For each of the foregoing reasons, we believe it is imperative • hat the Height Limitation Ordinance be amended as proposed to restrict single-family residential, bluffside construction along Kings Road to a height of 17 feet. During the time this matter is pending consideration, it is requested that a moratorium on the issuance of building and grading permits and construction exceeding the proposed height limitation be imposed along Kings Road bluffside properties to preserve the status quo. • DATED: DATED: 3 9,J 92 • RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BY : X&C ------ BARBARA LUTHER BY: s•'' ------------ WILLIAM R. HART GOOD, WILDMAN, HEGNESS & WALLEY Attorneys for SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD • T}-•IRVINE 00O:1 PAW 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 • November 29, 1978 ' Mr. Allan Beek Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Architectural Restrictions Tracts 1219, 1221, Cliff Haven, Newport Beach Dear Mr. Beek: As Manager of Design Review for The Irvine Company for the past nine years, I was contacted by the Cliff Haven Community Association recently to research The Irvine Company files for any information that might shed light on past architectural guidelines utilized by the Company on the developments pertaining to the leasehold properties in Tracts 1219 and 1221. The enclosed information are the tract restric- tions placed on the above tracts by The Irvine Company back in the early 1950's. •These restrictions were adhered to explicitly as can be seen by traveling thru the area today. Additional Rules and Regulations governing sideyard and rearyard set- backs were established and enforced by the City of Newport Beach. The intent of The Irvine Company Design Guidelines was to preserve overviews from the higher placed properties from those located on the Lower Bluff properties throughout the two before mentioned tracts. If any additional information regarding this matter is requested, Mr. Richard Reese, Vice President of the Planning Department, mentioned to me that The Irvine Company will be most happy to cooperate. Sincerely, William E. Mader, Architect Manager, Design Review wEM/shb As Enclosure / cc: Mrs. Barbara Roy v 1410 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 /n tvlmam E p a^n �g of ped 8� 17 wew� S50IV /IIVE (�14) 644- each, Caee li Oriva `�SY_'. j j/] 3264 or 644.30f j 2663 n CLIFF HAVEN TRACTS: 1221 - 1219 (Blocks E, F, G, H) • Refer to lease for front -yard setback: 10' on bluff lots, 20' on upper & non -bluff lots. One-story on bluff lots. 2- story okey on upper side,. No white roofs. • 17 bLOCK E Lot 1 2 120 116 Kings Road Kings d BLOCK F Lot 1 2 1 0 Kings Road Kings Road 3 112 " 3 1 20 " 4 108 4 1510 5 lo4 5 1500 " 6' loo 6 1420 " 7 303 7 14lo 8 311 8 1400 " 9 321 " 9 1310 " to 403 _10 1300 " • u 4].l " 12 421 " BLOCK G Lot 1 1210 Kings Road - 13 503 " 2 1200 " 14 511 " 3 1120 " 15 521 4 mo " 16 603 5 1100 " 17 607 6 1020 " 18 615 7 1010 " 19 .625 " 8 1000 " 20 701 " 9 920 " 21 709 " 10 910 " 22 717 " 11 900 23 801 12 810 " 24 81l " 13 800,E " 25 901 " 14 710 " 26 911 15 700 " 27 1001 " 28 1011 " BLOCK H Lot 1 620 " 29 1021 " 2 610 " 30 1101 3 6o2 " 31 1111 " 4 530 " 32 1201 'r n 33 1211 " 6 520 " 34, 1221 " 7 502 " 35 1301 8 420 " 36 1311 9 410 37 1401 " 10 4o2 " 38 1411 " 11 320 39 1421 rr 12 302 n 4o 1501 13 101 " 41 1511 " 14 115 " 42 1521 " 43 16ol " 44 1611 " 45 1621 " 0 Ell • 'LJl 1 2 3 6 t 8 9 •10 11 '12 13 14 15 16 17 18 • • GV" Icings xoam 2001 It kOO14J (�l) 1921 it 193A It 1901 It 1831 it 1821 1811 " 1801 " 1721 " 2�ffl - 1701 Kings Road 1620 Kings Road 1700 " 1710 " 1720 1800 " 1810 --a"^ci Kings Road 1910 - 2000 Kings Road 0 ri JL 00 PIP It .44 a 1 n r / ram. ll;; .•a .' � m C It �1i r �' •. � Yj ,'•y s� �1 � Ir.��4 � <,t• a `- � _—�••)•`�A - •'.�1:-• Yy\ �1•s: Y`\ � ,\`r� it 1 ' 11 .\•. r r1 •. L 1 i r \-�� / Y it I ' !^^ 'r �...+�.,,,,-: i. 1.. /•sly/G r� Js t;•�;r, r �r�` . _'\�:i �-'Tiu:1� `°t.�"�y1.':fr^,1 .r ti1��+ l OCEA. r , . `��• t 'PACIFIC CLIFF HAVEN �� 61� KINGS o 6;: Z8 �B 90 i9o� V i • 0 TRACT NO 12 21 T•••S IS NOT A SURVEY OF THE LAND BUT IS COMPILED FOR INFORMATION ONLY FROM DATA SHOWN BY OFFICIAL RECORDS. ' PJw• M-Wo 0V° /4p./9 .'LOCKS H, FGOTS 9ATOAf ©LOCK E "' IS NOT A SURVEY OF THE LAND BUT 15 COMPILED FOR INFORMATION ONLY FROM DATA SHO'NN BY OFFICIAL. RECORDS. � 0 0 Rol CL/FF 6o c 66B '/D¢0 Noe �/Q O i66 i6 6' /Go/ / •9 OL OG� ¢ S 5 7 \ 6O Q �y Dl�l 7o GOv 66 66 60 av !3,^.:0 fro"'' OL Q 65 6 6.5 • 6 7 3 QQ. y'0 4` 45 //a0 //io s/sQ, iaZ,O 11& B 9 /O C /2 /3 h � 6499 6S GS �G" GS /6 9ao %/o for die � Gb' 6S 6S 65 °a 9/0, inz+ 60 s• R o30 � / /t/NC.f' Al L�33 /!Il <O /na/ /oii p 6S 6S 70 70 70 ? .n a. ' • \9 r %// /rq/ I , o d °� 8'0/ Nj 6S 3/ ry, �✓ t� %.' b, 9 n ^ 'Soon M q i 67 q°/T ==^sy� pLQ ;•� 29 2B\ Z7� 26 2S� 2¢� 23� 22� Z/ Z�a3 I h1 s' y,0�" NAG � •' U . /O ' 6AS T R S. FO WFT !i I c� ��• � - `� ��°,va 9218 � 70311 683a1 GS3ol 7Q921 moo.: S47,7 O¢ 39 !* 3 .I FLOClfS B, !' � LOTS _?07"03� BLOCK E TH S IS hOT A SURVEY OF THE LAND BUT IS COMPILED FOR INFORMATION ONLY FROM DATA SHOWN BY OFFICIAL RECORDS. _ OR' o s•�p'90 E /o° 69.42 ar6y s 0 d}97 .. 3 b 4 s 5a �. • t• •� B D , it0 o AO GS iQ on 8 O /0 M .9 /. 9144 s � �o�• � � h�°'Q o 60 - 1�\ 7 T e "s, 6 o COF/st APIX 12/19 BLOC/tSQO,H LOTS/TO/9 BLOC/(E Tm;S IS hOT A SURVEY OF THE LAND BUT IS COMPILED FOR INFORNIATIOh ONLY FROM DATA SHOWN BY OFFICIAL RECORDS. �� E • DEFINIT,IO^ N�OFnGRAD (per telephone 8/29/78 to Alice) (TIze height of the structure should be the vertical distance between grade of any point and lowest point of grade below -- 24' maximum -- with average from ridge of roof to end of leaves allowed to go to 28' for highest point of rood -- but should be no higher than 24' at'mid-roof above natural grade.) (Natural grade is also accepted as land which has been scraped and/or filled and compacted by running a heavy (building -type) machine roller over same -- before building or applying for a permit, per Carole Cruse to Matt on 9/15/78) 0 .r • SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CITIZENS' PETITION Whereas, the City of Newport Beach finds that the natural bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource;. Whereas, the distinctive features of the City of Newport •Beach include the restriction of development so as to produce an environment of stable, desirable character in harmony with its surrounding neighborhood and which meets standards of density, open space, light, and air; • Whereas, it is the intent and purpose of Chapter 20.02.010- 20.02.030 of the city ordinances of Newport Beach to insure that the unique character and scale of Newport Beach is preserved; We, the undersigned, hereby express our concern that the above -mentioned height limitation ordinance currently allowing the height of construction to 24/28 feet above the street is inconsis- tent with the foregoing goals established by Chapter 20.02.010-20. 02.030, specifically with regards to the residential community situated on Kings Road,INewport Beach. We, therefore, support and urge the adoption of an amendment to said Section, equitably restric- ting the height of buildings on the bluff/ocean side of Kings Road to maintain the character of the neighborhood, to protect and pre- serve the value of all properties therein, and encourage high quality development in the future. NAME ADDRESS .�z eeee DATE r. .X_;_ M. P. , /19 = �z • SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD 0 CITIZENS' PETITION Whereas, the City of Newport Beach finds that the natural bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource;• Whereas, the distinctive features of the City of Newport isBeach include the restriction of development so as to produce an environment of stable, desirable character in harmony with its ' surrounding neighborhood and which meets standards of density, open space, light, and air; Whereas, it is the intent and purpose of Chapter 20.02.010- 20.02.030 of the city ordinances of Newport Beach to insure that the unique character and scale of Newport Beach is preserved; We, the undersigned, hereby express our concern that the above -mentioned height limitation ordinance currently allowing the height of construction to 24/28 feet above the street is inconsis- tent with the foregoing goals established by Chapter 20.02.010-20. 02.030, specifically with regards to the residential community situated on Kings Road, Newport Beach. We, therefore, support and urge the adoption of an amendment to said Section, equitably restric- ting the height of buildings on the bluff/ocean side of Kings Road to maintain the character of the neighborhood, to protect and pre- serve the value of all properties therein, and encourage high quality development in the future. • NAME ADDRESS DATE a7 0 SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CITIZENS' PETITION Whereas, the City of Newport Beach finds that the natural bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource;. Whereas, the distinctive features of the City of Newport •Beach include the restriction of development so as to produce an environment of stable, desirable character in harmony. with its surrounding neighborhood and which meets standards of density, open space, light, and air; Whereas, it is the intent and purpose of Chapter 20.02.010- 20.02.030 of the city ordinances of Newport Beach to insure that the unique character and scale of Newport Beach is preserved; We, the undersigned, hereby express our concern that the above -mentioned height limitation ordinance currently allowing the height of construction to 24/28 feet above the street is inconsis- tent with the foregoing goals established by Chapter 20.02.010-20. 02.030, specifically with regards to the residential community situated on Kings Road, Newport Beach. We, therefore, support and urge the adoption of an amendment to said Section, equitably restric- ting the height of buildings on the bluff/ocean side of Kings Road to maintain the character of the neighborhood, to protect and pre- serve the value of all properties therein, and encourage high quality development in the future. *NAME , .. .... ADDRESS DATE PS 0 SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD 0 CITIZENS' PETITION Whereas, the City of Newport Beach finds that the natural bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource;• Whereas, the distinctive features of the City of Newport •Beach include the restriction of development so as to produce an environment of stable, desirable character in harmony with its surrounding neighborhood and which meets standards of density, open space, light, and air; Whereas, it is the intent and purpose of Chapter 20.02.010- 20.02.030 of the city ordinances of Newport Beach to insure that the unique character and scale of Newport Beach is preserved; We, the undersigned, hereby express our concern that the above -mentioned height limitation ordinance currently allowing the height of construction to 24/28 feet above the street is inconsis- tent with the foregoing goals established by Chapter 20.02.010-20. 02.030, specifically with regards to the residential community situated on Kings Road, Newport Beach. We, therefore, support and urge the adoption of an amendment to said Section, equitably restric- ting the height of buildings on the bluff/ocean side of Kings Road to maintain the character of the neighborhood, to protect and pre- serve the value of all properties therein, and encourage high quality development in the future. • NAME ADDRESS C DATE M • SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CITIZENS' PETITION Whereas, the City of Newport Beach finds that the natural bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource;. Whereas, the distinctive features of the City of Newport Beach include the restriction of development so as to produce an environment of stable, desirable character in harmony with its surrounding neighborhood and which meets standards of density, open space, light, and air; Whereas, it is the intent and purpose of Chapter 20.02.010- 20.02.030 of the city ordinances of Newport Beach to insure that the unique character and scale of Newport Beach is preserved; We, the undersigned, hereby express our concern that the above -mentioned height limitation ordinance currently allowing the height of construction to 24/28 feet above the street is inconsis- tent with the foregoing goals established by Chapter 20.02.010-20. 02.030, specifically with regards to the residential community situated on Kings Road; Newport Beach. We, therefore, support and urge the adoption of an amendment to said Section, equitably restric- ting the height of buildings on the bluff/ocean side of Kings Road to maintain the character of the neighborhood, to protect and,pre- serve the value of all properties therein, and encourage high quality development in the future. Sr" Dear Neighbor: 0 • I called on you today but you were not at home. We are asking for your signature on a petition, a copy of which appears below. We share your concern for what is taking place on the bluff side of Kings Road. We have engaged the services of someone who is objective in helping us to bring a friendly and equitable conclusion to a subject which has brought less than friendly feelings to this street. Our aim is to make Kings Road the best street in Newport Beach,and subsequent harriony,by resolving an issue which has both sides best interest served. We are aware that many of you have been involved before in this arena , please join us again in what we have every hope of believing is the resolution of • the question. We need every signature by Uodey ev((ping Febmmry-28, 1982. �Thpetition will be at the home of Barbara and Ron Luther 530 Kings Road, 646-5183. Someone will be there from Thursday after five, Friday after five, both days before eight in the morning and all day Saturday and Sunday. Early risers on Saturday and Sunday may sign as early as 6:30 A.M. Don't miss this opportanity to participate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1' - 'SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD • , CITIZENS' PETITION Whereas, the City of Newport Beach finds that the natural bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource;. Whereas, the distinctive features of the City of Newport Beach include the restriction of development so as to produce an environment of stable, desirable character in harmony with its surrounding neighborhood and which meets standards of density, open space, light, and air; Whereas, it is the intent and purpose of Chapter 20.02.010- 20.02.030 of the city ordinances of Newport Beach to insure that the unique character and scale of Newport Beach is preserved; We, the undersigned, hereby express our concern that the above -mentioned height limitation ordinance currently allowing. the height of construction to 24/28 feet above the street is inconsis- tent with the foregoing goals established by Chapter 20.02.010-20. 02.030, specifically with regards to the residential community situated on Kings Road, Newport Beach. We, therefore, support and urge the adoption of an amendment to said Section, equitably restric- ting the height of buildings on the bluff/ocean side of Kings Road to maintain the character of the neighborhood,- to protect and pre- serve the value of all properties therein, and encourage high quality development in the future. ADDRESS / S'bv DATE • 3-1 3 - z -SZ-- Dear Neighbor: I called on you today but you were not at home. We are asking for your signature on a petition, a copy of which appears below. We share your concern for what is taking place on the bluff side of Kings Road. We have engaged the services of someone who is objective in helping us to bring a friendly and equitable conclusion to a subject which has brought less than friendly feelings to this street. Our aim is to make Kings Road the best street in Newport Beach,and subsequent harrony,by resolving an'issue which has both sides best interest served. We are aware that many of you have been involved before in this arena please join us again in what we have every hop of believing is the resolution of the question. i��e.`�i 2✓ We need every signature by landay a ning teary-28, 1982. The petition will be at the home of Barbara and Ron Luther 530 Kings Road, 646-5183. Someone will be there from Thursday after five, Friday after five, both days before eight in the morning and all day Saturday and Sunday. Early risers on Saturday and Sunday may sign as early as G:30 A.M. Don't miss this opportunity to participate11111111111111111; SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD •' CITIZENS' PETITION Whereas, the City of Newport Beach finds that the natural bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource;. Whereas, the distinctive features of the City of Newport Beach include the restriction of development so as to produce an environment of stable, desirable character in harmony with its surrounding neighborhood and which meets standards of density, open space, light, and air; Whereas, it is the intent and purpose of Chapter 20.02.010- 20.02.030 of the city ordinances of Newport Beach to insure that the unique character and scale of Newport Beach is preserved; We, the undersigned, hereby express our concern that the above -mentioned height limitation ordinance currently allowing• the height of construction to 24/28 feet above the street is inconsis- tent with the foregoing goals established by Chapter 20.02.010-20.' •02.030, specifically with regards to the residential community situated on Kings Road, Newport Beach. We, therefore, support and urge the adoption of an amendment to said Section, equitably restric- ting the height of buildings on the bluff/ocean side of Kings Road to maintain the character of the neighborhood,. to protect and pre- serve the value of all properties therein, and encourage high quality development in the future. 3� NAME 1<IiTNC l !U ltit. CLt1121<ADDRESS �-�fn Kin,&S 12ctaF� DATE 3•• _�� - - -- - (U �D\' PC) 2 •r 8 E- 11 C f-1 Dear Neighbor: I called on you today but you were not at home. We are asking for your signature on a petition, a copy of which appears below. We share your concern for what is taking place on the bluff side of Kings Road. We have engaged the services of someone who is objective in helping us to bring a friendly and equitable conclusion to a subject which has brought less than friendly feelings to this street. Our aim is to make Kings Road the best street in Newport Beach,and subsequent harmony,by resolving an issue which has both sides best interest served. We are aware that many of you have been involved before in this arena please join us again in what we have every hope of believing is the resolution of the question. We need every signature by SmidayZll 1982. The petition will be at the home of Barbara and Ron Luther 530 Kings Road, 646-5183. Someone will be there from Thursday after five, Friday after five, both days before eight in the morning and all day Saturday and Sunday. Early risers on Saturday and Sunday may sign as early as 6:30 A.M. �1 Don't miss this opportOnity to participate!H1111 !!1!!IH N, SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CITIZENS' PETITION Whereas, the City of Newport Beach finds that the natural bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource;. ' Whereas, the distinctive features of the City of Newport Beach include the restriction of development so as to produce an environment of stable, desirable character in harmony with its surrounding neighborhood and which meets standards of density, open space, light, and air; Whereas, it is the intent and purpose of Chapter 20.02.010- 20.02.030 of the city ordinances of Newport Beach to insure that the unique character and scale of Newport Beach is preserved; We, the undersigned, hereby express our concern that the d above-mentioneheight limitation ordinance currently allowing. the height of construction to 24/28 feet above the street is inconsis- tent with the foregoing goals established by Chapter 20.02.010-20. 02.030, specifically with regards to the residential community'• situated on Kings.Road, Newport Beach. We, therefore, support- Ad urge the adoption of an amendment to said Section, equitably restric- ting the height of buildings on the bluff/ocean side of Kings Road to maintain the character of the neighborhood,. to protect and pre= serve the value of all properties therein, and encourage high 3 3 quality developme t in the future. Dear Neighbor: I called on you today but you were not at home. We are asking for your signature on a petition, a copy of which appears below. We share your concern for what is taking place on the bluff side of Kings Road. We have engaged the services of someone who is objective in helping us to bring a friendly and equitable conclusion to a subject which has brought less than friendly feelings to this street. Our aim is to make Kings Road the best street in Newport Beach,and subsequent harmony,by resolving an issue which has both sides best interest served. We are aware that many of you have been involved before in this arena , please join us again in what we have every hope of believing is the � ution of the question. We need every signature by-SYrriday a ening €e�raery;8�-1982. The pet ion will be at'the home of Barbara and Ron`Luther 530 Kings Road, 646-5183. Someone will be there from Thursday after five, Friday after five, both days before eight in the morning and all day Saturday and Sunday. Early risers on Saturday and Sunday may sign as early as 6:30 A.M. Don't miss this opportOnity to participate111111111111111R, SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CITIZENS' PETITION' - Whereas, the City of Newport Beach finds that the natural bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource;. Whereas, the distinctive features of the City of Newport Beach include the restriction of development so as to produce an environment•of stable, desirable character in harmony with its surrounding neighborhood and which meets standards of density, open space, light, and air; Whereas, it is the intent and purpose of Chapter 20.02.010- 20.02.030 of the city ordinances of Newport Beach to insure that the unique character and scale of Newport Beach is preserved; We, the undersigned, hereby express our concern that the above -mentioned height limitation ordinance currently allowing, the height of construction to 24/28 feet above the street is inconsis- tent with the foregoing goals established by Chapter 20.02.010-20. 02.030, specifically with regards to the residential community situated on Kings Road, Newport Beach. We, therefore, support and urge the adoption of an amendment to said Section, equitably restric- ting the height of buildings on the bluff/ocean side of Kings Road to maintain the character of the neighborhood,. to protect and pre- serve the value of all properties therein, and encourage high qu ity levelopment in the future. 3 l •�Cev�,uut;1tar� Q'(o lC1NGs I�n4o, 3-2-R� ADDRESS DATE MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY April 26, 1982 *APIR26 1902 Agenda Item No. I-1 By -the CITY COUN011. CITY OF J-417 l ORT BEACH To: Hon. Mayor & Members of the City Council From: Michael H. Miller - City Attorney Re: Petition from Save Our Neighborhood re Height Limitations on Kings Road The following is a summary of the legal background applicable to height limits, and a legal analysis concerning the request of certain parties to amend the Municipal Code and apply a moratorium. BACKGROUND In 1979, the City adopted Ordinance No. 1793 which established a height limit applicable to structures on the bluff side of Kings Road. The Superior Court invalidated this Ordinance and restrained the City from enforcement. At that time, the City Council determined not to appeal the court's ruling. A major issue in the litigation was the relationship between the Ordinance and the police power of the City. In essence, the court held that there was no evidence to support the claim by the City that subject Ordinance was in furtherance of the general health, safety and welfare, however, the court did not indicate that the City was without power to enact a valid height restriction given a properly noticed hearing and an adequate record. Apparently, in response to that possibility certain inland property owners have now petitioned the City Council for an Ordinance establishing a height limit for buildings to be constructed along the bluff side of Kings Road. Hon. Mayor & MASS April 26, 1982 Page Two of the City Council • Re: Petition from Save Our Neighborhood re Height Limitations on Rings Road Additionally, they have requested a moratorium pending the adoption of such an Ordinance. As the City's legislative body you are not legally required to initiate any such Ordinance, however, to assist your decision -making, the following legal guidelines are provided for your consideration as to the proposed Ordinance and moratorium. PROPOSED ORDINANCE A City does have the power to impose height limitations over zones within the City, or over the entire City. Brougher v. Board of Public Works 107 CA 15 (1930),. Such an Ordinance must be in furtherance of the general health, safety and welfare. Pursuant to a recent court ruling, the standard in reviewing such an Ordinance would involve considerations as to whether the statute has "a real and substantial relation to the public welfare." Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mesa (December 4, 1981) 4 Civ 20505. If the proposed Ordinance is to be upheld, public testimony and staff material must provide facts from which it could be concluded that the Ordinance has a real and substantial relationship to the public welfare. Specific guidelines as to what should be considered can be provided by this office in conjunction with the Planning Department, if the City Council authorizes the study and review of the proposed Ordinance. Assuming that there is enough evidence to support a rationale relationship between the proposed height limit and the public welfare the ordinance can also be challenged on the ground that it is discriminatory. In this regard, although there are various approaches that could mitigate such an allegation, it is difficult to determine how a court would stand on this issue. Finally, the Ordinance, as proposed by Petitioners is retroactive. In this regard, you are advised as a matter of law that the Ordinance could not apply to property owners who had secured building permits from the City prior to the effective date of the Ordinance, and thereafter made substantial expenditures in reliance thereon.* The Petitioners ask for a moratorium on all construction in the granting of building and grading permits on all bluff side properties. This request is legally overbroad. A • Hon. Mayor & Memos of the City Council 0 April 26, 1982 Page Three Re: Petition from Save Our Neighborhood re Height Limitations on Kings Road moratorium is appropriate only to the extent that it is designed to preclude construction that would be in violation of the proposed Ordinance. Pursuant to City Charter Section 200 and Government Code Section 65858, the legislative body of a City, without following customary procedures otherwise required preliminary to the adoption of a zoning Ordinance, can adopt an interim Moratorium Ordinance to protect the public safety, health or welfare. Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Sacramento County 40 CA 3d 1059 (1974). Such an urgency measure requires a four -fifths vote for adoption, is effective for four months, and may be extended for a total of two years subject to certain notice and hearing requirements. A Moratorium Ordinance is to maintain the status quo pending the adoption of a proposed zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, unless the Council desires to submit the proposed Ordinance to staff and Planning Commission for review and study, a Moratorium Ordinance would be inappropriate. On the other hand, if you do submit it for study and review, there is no legal requirement that you maintain the status quo. However, if a new Ordinance is eventually adopted, all those who have building permits prior to its effective date and who expend money in reliance thereon would be free from application of the new Ordinance. A Moratorium Ordinance has been prepared with the appropriate findings, if Council desires to preclude this possibility. A Moratorium Ordinance like the main proposed ordinance is subject to court attack. \ xa� Michael R. Miller * Citations on file at City Attorney's office MHM/pr cc. City Manager Planning Director Ass't City Attorney M2N-Planning ` i "RECENED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED": LAW OFFICES OF GOOD, WILDMAN, HEGNESS 8C WALLEY JOSEPH E. DUBOIS 5000 CAMPUS DRIVE ROY MIGOOD WILLIAM R. HART NEWPORT EEACH.OAT.IFORNIA 92060 PAUL C.HEGNESS GARY R. KING (714)95S-1100 ROGER LILJESTROM GARY V. SPENCER THOMAS E. WALLEY PAUL W. WILDMAN April 26, 1982 Ms. Wanda Anderson City Clerk of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 OF COUNSEL LOUIS A.CAPPADONA CITY P v NEWPQ EgCN nf., APR 26198z,, CTYctENK RE: Petition to Amend Municipal Code Section 20.02.030A Re: Residential Height Limitation and Request for Moritorium on the Construction of Residences Along the Bluff Side of Kings Road, Newport Beach, California Dear Ms. Anderson: Mr. William R. Hart, attorney for Save Our Neighborhood Organization was called out of town on Saturday, April 24, 1982, Mr. Hart is the only attorney in this office that has any know- ledge about the Petition and Request for Moritorium submitted to the City Council pertaining to the Amendment of the Municipal Code Section dealing with height limitations. At approximately 1:00 this afternoon, this office became aware of the signatures submitted in opposition to the above - mentioned Petition and the withdrawal of support of the Cliff Haven Homeowners Association. Therefore, in the interest of equity to all parties in- volved in the subject matter, we respectfully request that con- sideration of this issue be continued from tonight's meeting to the City Council meeting of May 10, 1982. Very truly yours, GOOD,W%IILLDMAAN, HE�GpN�E"S�S�'&� WALLEY Ronald K. Brown, Jr. RKB/cls ar "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED": April 22, 1982 '9 NfIVPp� O� AP R26 ftCt198 t��jtrZ� \ 'Pt Newport Beach City Council �•�,� 'T Dear Members �J It has come to our attention that an effort has again been started by property owners on the inland side of Kings Road and Kings Place, to place special height restrictions on private property on the bluff side. You know that a similar effort several years ago produced a great deal of acrimonious debate and ill feeling, and that the ordinance passed under pressure of those who thought to benefit from it was declared to be illegal and unenforceable by the Superior Court. The Court found the claims to public benefit to be imaginary, amd the claims of special privilege by those on the inland side to be without foundation. We, on the Bluff, want to work with the Council for the good of our city. All we ask is that we be treated as equals and have the same rights and privileges as other citizens to the enjoyment of our homes. Surely the Council has no obligation to re -open a controversy that has been settled. The best in- terests of the city will be furthered by declaring the incid- ent closed, and we therefore request and Trust the Council to declare the matter settled, and not re -open it to public hear- ings that can only encourage further bitter controversy, and come to the same conclusion. Respectfully submitted: • April 22198" Newport Beach City Council Dear Members It h,tir come Lo our ..ttcntion that nn cPl'c•rP has again, been started by property owners on the inland side of Kings Road and Kings Place, to place special height restrictions on private property on the bluff side. You hnow that a similar effort several years ago produced a great deal of acrimonious debate and ill feeling, and that the ordinance passed under pressure of those who thought to benefit from it was declared to be illegal and unenforceable by the Superior Court. The Court found the claims to public benefit to be imaginary,, amd the claims of special privilege by those on the inland side to be without foundation. We, on the Bluff, want to work with the Council for the good of our city. All we ask is that we be treated as equals and have the same rights and privileges as other citizens to the enjoyment of our homes. Surely the Council has no obligation to re -open a controversy that has boon settled, The best in- terests of the city will be furthered by-declar--ing the incrd----- ent closed, and we therefore request and Trust the Council to declare the matter settled, and not re -open it to public hear- ings that can only encourage further bitter controversy, and come to the same conclusion. s• r I J r � f �ll�t z D� 4e u% Z/i 17 — Y Jeu c. 1 ♦ U Ll April P2, 1982 Newport Beach City Council Dear Members IL has e.ome In our altonLion Lhah an c Let 1"s urain boon ;started by property ownero on Lho inland .;id- of Ongo Road and Kings Plane, to place special hright restrictions or, private property on the blut'f side. You know that a sh ilar effort several ,years ago produced a. great deal of acrircniSus debate and ill feeling, and that the ordin noe pacoed .tnuer pressure of those: who thought to boncrit from it w"s declarod to be illegal and unenforceable by the Superior Court, Th.- Court found the claims to public benefit to be imaginary, amd the claims of special privilege by those on the inland side to be without roundation. We, on the Bluff, want to work with the Council for the good of our city. All we ask in that we be treated as equal: and have the same rights and privileges as other citizens to the enjoyment of our homes. .purely the Council has no obligation to re -open a controversy that has been settled. The beat in- terests of the city will be furthered by declaring the incid- ent closed, and we therefore request and Trust the Council to declare the matter settled, and not re -open it to public hear- ings that can only enuourag;e further bitter controversy, and come to the same conclusion. Respectfully submitted: f� k 7-,-b� . N, (3 April '2, 1982 Newport Beach City Council Dear Members It ha:; come to our attention Lhat an cl'Vort. has again b- en started by property owners on the inland side of Kings Road and King- Place, to place special hwight restrictions on private property on the blut't' side. You ]:now that a similar effort several years ago produced a great deal of acrimonious debate and ill feeling, and that the ordinance passed under pressure of those who thought to benefit from it w1c declared to be illegal and unenforceable by thi>. Superior Court. The Court found the claims to public benefit to be imaginaryt amd the claims of special privilege by those on the inland side to be without foundation. We, on the Bluff, want to work with the Council for the good of our city. All vie ask is that we be treated as equals and have the same rights and privileges as other citizen- to the enjoyment of our homes. Surely the Council has no obligation to re -open a controversy that has been settled. The best in- terests of the city will be furthered by declaring the incid- ent closed, and we therefore request and Trust the Council to declare the matter settled, and not re -open it to public hear- ingp that can only encourage further bitter controversy, and come to the same conclusion Respectfully submitted: a 67164 Aunt it v of V ,r PZ 7,{ i i "Gc , r'/o April 22, 1981" Newport Beach City Council Dear Membero It has come to our tLttontion that au c1'Nrt has agait, be,, n started by property owners on the inlan,l ::idc of' Kings Rosl and hangs Place, to place special hr•ICht rortrictions on private propr_rt,y on the bluff side. You knor that a similar effort several years ago produced a great deal of acrimonicos debate and ill feeling, and that the ordinance pawed under pressure of those who thought to benefit 1'rcm it was declarod to be illegal and unenforceable b,y t.hc k.uperior Court. Tho Court found the claims to public benefit 'to be imaginary, amd the claims of special privilege by those on the inland side to be without foundation. We, on the Bluff, want to work with the Council for the good of our city. All we ask is that vie be treated as equal_ and have the same rights and privileges as rather citizens to the enjoyment of our homes. wurely the Cow;cil has no obligation to re -open a controversy that has been settled. The be-t in- terests of the city will be furthered by declaring the incid- ent closed, and we therefore request and Trust the Council to declare the matter -settled, and not re -open it to public ht.ar- ings that can only encourage further bitter ,controversy, and come to the same conclusion. Respectfully submitted: Y 0 / w 2611pw� 0 -7a kAi . nI J 4 April '2, 190 P:r•y;pt,rl. 'coach t:ily rourwil it;,ar ic�!� r�lbor:: [i II•II.-%-, qw' t,,, II,t I . .,.I, Lc-n Li lnrl LhaI :UI I'' ul'I. 1�rL,! 'L,'n ill. 1,_p1L star4ed by propgrQ "onern on t o inlaid .:P— ni. r1n;C ROM and Killj_`n Ptaco, to plawo r.1ovill 1101M insirictioni an priintr proper;y "n thn blue win,. Yom Lhow that a oi'.,ilnr e' :girt wn^ : rni y,ni „ ago produood n ar at An 11 o debate and ill Toplino and that th- or.lill:cn:e p_,o sed under precoure of those who thought to benoVIlt !row it was doolarcd to be illegal and uncriforcoublc by the 'z,uPericY Court- Zhu it.urt 'ound thr alaitin to public. bunhfit i o to itn nar;: t amd the claims of Upocial privilege by chars on the inON sine to be without i'oundation. We, on the Bluff, want to work with the Council fur the goo'" of our city. All wf ask is that we be treated a: equaly and have the same rights and pri.viloron as other citizens to the enjoyment of our holm•::. .r_!rnly the Council haz no cbl.ijation to re -open a controversy that has been settled. The belt is- tereots of the city will be t'urthored by dnol arinr the incid- ent closed, and wP therefore request. roA Trust the Council to declare the matter ce•ttlod, and not ro-oprn it t,: public by ir- ingp that can only Pricourago further bitter e ntrovcrwy, and come to the same opnclusion. Respectfully submitted: If rz /L 0 April, 22, 1982 Newport Beach City Council Dear Members It has come to our attention that an eft'ort his again been started by property owners on the inland tide of Kings Road and Kings Place, to place special height restrictions on private property on the bluff side. You know that a similar effort several years ago produced a great deal of acrimonious debate and ill feeling, and that the ordinance passed under pressure of those who thought to benefit from it was declared to be illegal and unenforceable by the Superior Court. The Court found the claims to public benefit to be imaginary, amd the claims of special privilege by thoqe on the inland side to be without foundation. Vie, on the Bluff, want to work with the Council for the good of our city. All we ask is that we be treated as equals and have the same rights and privileges as other citizens to the enjoyment of our homes. Surely the Council has no obligation to re -open a controversy that has been settled. The best in- terests of the city will be furthered by declaring the incid- ent closed, and we therefore request and Trust the Council to declare the matter settled, and not re -open it to public hear- ingp that can only encourage further bitter controversy, and come to the same conclusion. Respectfully submitted: c a JOSEPH E. DUBOIS ROY M.GOOD WILLIAM R. HART PAUL C.HEGNESS GARY R. KING ROGER LILJESTROM GARY V. SPENCER THOMAS E.WALLEY` PAUL W. WILDMAN LAW OFFICES OF GOOD, WILDMAN, HEGNESS 8C WALLEY S000 CAMPUS DRIVE , NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 09000 14� 955-I100 APR 2 9982 April 1, 1982 By tho CITY COUNCIL CITY 0 NOWFORT AFAICH City Clerk's Desk City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92660 (GUMUL AGENDA wo OF COUNSEL .S A.CAPPADONA RE: Petition & Request for Moratorium Pertaining to Amendment of the Height Limitation Ordinance; Filed on March 26, 1982 Dear City Clerk: It has come to the attention of the Petitioners in the above -referenced matter that the local addresses and phone numbers of Petitioners were inadvertantly deleted from the Petitions sub- mitted on March 26, 1982. We respectfully request that the following addresses be delivered to the City Manager, City Attorney, Planning Department and City Council as a supplement to the submitted Petition. Barbara Luther 530 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 William R. Hart, Esq, GOOD, WILDMAN, HEGNESS & WALLEY 5000 Campus Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 We regret any inconvenience this error may have caused, Thank you for your assistance and cooperation in this matter. Date=� COBS SENTTO: mwayor. ❑ c ncilmen 4anager ❑ At9t ey WRH/cls M4% Dir, CI Gensery Dir. ❑ p R Dir. tanning Dir. ❑ police chief ❑ p.W. Dir ❑ Other Very truly yours, GOOD, WILDMAN, HEGNESS & WALLEY �vz William R. Hart TO: FROM: COj�Ql A DA NO PETITION AND REOUEST FOR MORITORIUM THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFO CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALI PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD; An Unincorporated Association of Homeowners SUBJECT: PETITION TO AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 20.02.030A RE: RESIDENTIAL HEIGHT LIMITATION AND REQUEST FOR MORITORIUM ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENCES ALONG THE BLUFF SIDE OF KINGS ROAD, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDATION: That Section 20.02.030 be amended as indicated herein and the request that a moratorium upon the issuance of building permits and further residential construction in the Kings Road community be granted until this proposal has been fully considered and voted upon by the Planning Commission and City Council of Newport Beach. The Planning Commission and the City Council of Newport Beach is respectfully requested to adopt the following subsection to Section 20.02.030 of the Municipal Code of Newport Beach: 20.02.030A(1) Seventeen (17) Foot Height Limitiation zone. In the 17 foot height limitation zone the height limit for any bluffside single-family residence shall be 17 feet; provided, however, that a structure may exceed 17 feet up to a maximum of 21 feet after the adoption of a Specific Area Plan or after approval of a Use Permit. This height limitation zone shall apply to all bluffside single-family structures for which building permits have been issued after January 1, 1982. Contemporaneous with the consideration of the foregoing proposed Amendment, the City Council of Newport Beach and the Planning Commission of Newport Beach are requested to issue and impose a moritorium on all construction and the granting of building and grading permits on all bluffside properties sitivated along Kings -1- . ' 9 • Road, Newport Beach, that may exceed the proposed Amendment to the Height Limitation Ordinance. DISCUSSION• The City Council of Newport Beach and the Planning Commission are initially requested to undertake a review of the Land Use Plan portion of the Local Coastal Program approved by the Newport Beach City Council on February 22, 1982. The Plan was prepared in accordance with the Coastal Act of 1976 and the City's Issue Identification and Work Program approved by the California Coastal Commission on July 19, 1978. Incorporated Within the Land Use Plan is an enlightening review the historical significance and unique character of Newport Beach together with maintaining access to views of the bay and ocean. The introduction to the Local Coastal Program recounts, the history of the development of the City of Newport Beach. This review cites the growth of permanent residents in Newport Beach and the accompanying new problems, to wit: "By 1950, the City had a permanent population of 12,120 and was beginning to emerge as a permanent residential community. By the mid-1960s, as major employment, commercial, and educational centers opened in Orange County, the population grew to 38,350. It was apparent that Newport Beach would be subjected to increasesd residential and commercial development pressure and would continue to be a highly desireable vacation and visitor center. Therefore, the City initiated a major and comprehensive planning program to guide future development and to preserve the many enjoyable features of the community. The Newport Tomorrow Committee, composed of over 100•citizens, was initiated to look into all aspects of the community and establish community goals. This program was completed in 1968 and served as the basis for major revisions to the City's General Plan. In 1971 the City adopted a policy plan, and by 1973 had completed and adopted a comprehensive new General Plan including a Land Use Element, Residential Growth Element, Recreation and Open Space Element, Conservation of Natural Resources Element, -2- Circulation Element, and Public Safety Element. Simultaneous with the extensive General Plan program, the City intiated a series of special studies. In 1970, the Lower Newport Bay Civic District study began to analyze development around the lower bay. This study resulted in the adoption in 1972 of the Shoreline Height Limitation ordinance which established new height and bulk restrictions around the bay. A key element of this ordinance was the reduction of height limits along Pacific Coast Highway and other commercial areas from 85 to 26 feet." See Local Coastal Programs, pg. 2. As the above excerpt indicates, the increased permanent population of the City coincided with an increased concern for maintaining the unique qualities and character of the various neighborhoods comprising the City. Clearly, the intent of the City of Newport Beach in its adoption of the Local Coastal Program was to promulgate a comprehensive general plan, including building height restrictions, thereby preserving the panoramic ocean views enjoyed by a maximum number of residents throughout Newport Beach that are an integral part of the nature of the City. The Newport Beach Coastal program provides in pertinent part: Coastal Visual Resources andST)ecial Communities. Policies. Sections 30251 and 30252(5) require the protection of scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas and the preservation of special communities. Analysis. The scenic and visual resources of Newport Beach are spectacular. The City has historically been sensitive to the need to preserve formulation of the Shoreline Height Limitation Ordinance of 1971 and have been the subject of extensive community debate for years. The LCP contains a complete listing of primary view areas. The special comm-unities of Newport Beach include the residential and commercial neighborhoods which surround the lower bay. The Land Use Plan describes many of these in the area descriptions and contains policies designated to preserve the special character of these areas. Newport Beach Coastal Plan, pp. 6-7. -3- E The proposed amendement to •the Height Limitation Ordinance is offered in accordance with the land use portion of the Local Coastal Program of the City of Newport Beach. It is designed to protect the future development and value of coastal residential communities throughout Newport Beach. Inherent in the use and residential development of coastal property in Newport Beach by the Irvine Company, which dates back to the early 1950's,, has been the application of strict architectural guidelines to preserve the public and private access to view, light and air. These restrictions have generally been adhered to by homeowners throughout the Rings Road/Cliff Drive neighborhood for f nearly thirty (30) years. As the letter of November 29, 1978, from William E. Meader, architect, on behalf of the Irvine Company makes_ clear, the subject restrictions permitted only one (1) story, single-family residential structures on bluffside lots and two (2) story, residential structures on inland or upperside lots throughout this neighborhood. Obviously, the intent of the Irvine Company, as well as the subsequent residents of the Kings Road/Cliff Drive area was, and is, to preserve as much of the view of the bay and ocean as possible for as many people as possible. Recognizing that limiting the height of bluffside homeowners single-family residences along the coast to one story above the curb was inequitable, the City of Newport Beach provided for a special "setback" requirement applicable to bluffside homeowners. That requirement provides that bluffside homeowners may build up to ten (10) feet from the curb while inland or upper side homeowners are restricted to building not closer than twenty (20) feet from the curb. There has been a significant'"tradeoff" observed by homeowners in the Kings Road/Cliff Drive neighborhood for the past thirty (30) years. During that time the neighborhood has become one of the most attractive and affluent neighborhoods in the City. All homeowners in this neighborhood have benefitted from the original "tradeoff" of the "setback"/height limitation imposed during the time the property was controlled by the Irvine Company. The maintenance o,f these "setbacks" and height limitations providing for as much public and private acce,s-s to view, light and air will preserve the entire character of this neighborhood and insure that unilateral, self-serving development along the bluffside of Kings Road does not perpetually obliterate the essence of this coastal community. Many other restrictions established by the Irvine Company have been adopted by either municipal code or homeowners association by-laws. These restrictions apply to the installation of television antennas, the maximum height of side fences and the height and type of trees and shrubbery within the neighborhood. 'All of these restrictions, including the "setbacks"/height limitations were drafted and implemented with the intent of preserving the atypical nature of the Kings Road/Cliff Drive neighborhood. The very substance of this community is now threatened. Equity demands that the rights of all residents of the Kings Road/Cliff Drive neighborhood be preserved and that the right to determine the height and "setback" of a residential home be tempered by the rights of all homeowners who wish to preserve the unique and special character of the Kings Road/Cliff Drive neighborhood. The central legal question which must be considered by the City Council of Newport Beach and the Planning Commission is whether or not an amendment to the Municipal Code restricting the height of -5- 0 • residential homes along the bluffside of Kings Road would be an arbitrary and capricious exercise of legislative power. It is the view of the homeowners presenting this petition that the herein proposed amendment to the Municipal Code can and would be applied fairly and consistently. On January 22, 1979, the City Council of Newport Beach adopted Ordinance No. 1793 establishing a maxiumum roof height for homes along the bluffside of Kings Road at 16.23 feet above the curb. That Ordinance was adopted, in the view of the petitioner, in absence of a thorough review of the historical motivation for maintaining height limitations on bluffside homes and without equal consideration of the rights and obligations of all homeowners in the Kings Road community. Ordinance No. 1793 was challenged by a bluffside homeowner. On November 25, 1980, Judge Todd of the Orange County Superior Court struck down the Ordinance deciding that the City Council had acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner by applying a different height limitation standard to bluffside homeowners without sufficient justification than was applied to inland side homeowers. However, the Order of the Court provides that the City Council of Newport Beach may, at any time, reconsider the issue and amend the Height Limitation Ordinance as long as its deliberations and results are conducted in a thorough manner. We submit the following for review in support of our Request that the City Council of Newport Beach amend Section 20.02.030 by modifying the height restriction pertaining to all bluffside single- family residences along Kings Road, Newport Beach. The crucial sections which must be considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council contained in the Municipal Code are as follows: Purpose of Title: The purpose of' this Title is to promote the growth of the City of Newport Beach 'in an orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare, and to protect the character, social and economic stability of all districts within the City, and to assure the orderly and beneficial development of such areas. �*AIMIMIIAII Intent and Purpose: The 'intent and purpose of this Chapter is to estasblish regulations on the height of buildings throughout the City in order to ensure that the unique character and scale of Newport Beach is preserved during that time when the general plan is being developed. ,Section 20,51.080 Developement of Coastal Bluff Sites in Planned Community D,jaIXI.gt: The City of Newport Beach finds that the natural bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource... Additionally, the January 6, 1981 decision of the California Supreme Court in Arnel Development Co vs. City of Costa Mesa (1981) 28 Cal.3d 511 is pertinent to the request herein. The Plaintiff, Arnel proposed to construct a 50 acre development consisting of single family residences and apartment units. Opposing this development, a neighborhood association circulated an initiative proposing the Arnel Property and two (2) adjoining properties (a total of 68 acres) be rezoned to allow only single family residential use. The voters approved the initiative and Arnel sued the City of -7- L Costa Mesa. The Superior Court upheld the initiative, the Court of Appeal reversed. The Supreme Court took the case on their own motion and reversed the Court of Appeal holding that zoning ordinances are legislative acts. The Appellate Court reasoned that the rezoning initiative applied to a "relatively small" parcel of land and, therefore, was an adjudicative act. The Supreme Court held, however, that the size of the parcel has very little relationship to the distinction between the making of land -use policy, a legislative act, and the asserted adjudicatory act of applying established policy. The rezoning of a "relatively small" parcel of land may well signify a fundamental change in the city land -use policy. Continuing, the Court specified that when zoning is enacted by the City Council, landowners are entitled, by statute, to notice and hearing and the zoning changes must reasonably relate to the welfare of the region affected and must conform to the City's general plan (as per Government Code 965860). The 57 homeowners who have affixed their signatures to the Petition attached hereto are seeking the mandate of the City Council and the Planning Commission regarding the adoption and enforcement of this amendment. All are residents of the Kings Road/Cliff Drive neighborhood. All wish to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood. Simultaneously, a moritorium on all construction and the issuance of building and grading permits is necessary and proper during the time that the amendment to the Municipal Code is being considered. Any construction which would violate the proposed amendment would be extremely difficult to reverse if the amendment to the Municipal Code one is adopted by the City Council. Conversely, no prejudice should result by the suspension of such construction during the short period of time that the Planning Commission and City Council will need to thoroughly review this matter. CONCLUSION: It is the primary purpose of the proposed amendment to the Height Limitation Ordinance to insure the unique character and scale of the Kings Road/Cliff Drive neighborhood of Newport Beach and to preserve and produce an environment that is stable, desirable and in harmony with surrounding neighborhoods meeting the standards of density, open space, light and air (Municipal Code, Sections 20.01.015, 20.02.010). To permit the construction or remodeling of a building in excess of seventeen (17.0) feet would destroy the character and integrity of the Kings Road/Cliff Drive community of Newport Beach. The Land Use Plan portion of the Local Coastal Program is entirely consistent with the goals of the proposed amendment. The City Council approved the Land Use Plan on February 22, 1982. It is appropriate at this time that the City Council also -consider and approve this amendment in order to preserve the distinctive nature of this neighborhood. The Supreme Court of the State of California has considered the issue of whether or not a zoning ordinance is a legislative or adjudicative act. In addition to the determination that history overwhelmingly indicates zoning is properly a legislative act, the Supreme Court ruled that the size of a zoned parcel was not important mom 11 as long as it reasonably related to the welfare of the region affected and was not arbitrary and capricious in its result. For each of the foregoing reasons, we believe it is imperative that the Height Limitation Ordinance be amended as proposed to restrict single-family_ residential, bluffside construction along Kings Road to a height of 17 feet. a During the time this matter is pending consideration, it is requested that a moratorium on the issuance of building and grading permits and construction exceeding the proposed height limitation be imposed along Kings Road bluffside properties to preserve the status quo. DATED: `J Y�7 r/_^' DATED: 3 27 O Z RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BY:/O _ `3� BARBARA LUTHER BY: WILLIAM R. HART GOOD, WILDMAN, HEGNESS & WALLEY Attorneys for SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD --- -10= i THE IRVINE 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 November 29, 1978 k•a- Mr. Allan Beek Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Architectural Restrictions Tracts 1219, 1221, Cliff Haven, Newport Beach } Dear Mr. Beek: As Manager of Design Review for The Irvine Company for the past nine years, I was contacted by the Cliff Haven Community Association recently to research The Irvine Company files for any information that might shed light on past architectural guidelines utilized by the Company on the developments pertaining to the leasehold properties in Tracts 1219 and 1221. The enclosed information are the tract restric- tions placed on the above tracts by The Irvine Company back in the early 1950's. These restrictions were adhered to explicitly as can be seen by traveling thru the area today. Additional Rules and Regulations governing sideyard and rearyard set- backs were established and enforced by the City of Newport Beach. The intent of The Irvine Company Design Guidelines was to preserve overviews from the higher placed properties from those located on the Lower Bluff properties throughout the two before mentioned tracts. If any additional information regarding this matter is requested, Mr. Richard Reese, Vice President of the Planning Department, mentioned to me that The Irvine Company will be most happy to cooperate. Sincerely, / William E. Mader, Architect Manager, Design Review STEM/shb Enclosure CC. Mrs. Barbara Royc. 1410 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 pa �rnArchif g of Dos4n eNeW� - %�i 550Newport iNE �� /�r, CS (714) 644 3 ac eCa (lornia g L"- jj/7 er644-30112663 ;V CLIFF HAVEN TRACTS: 1221 - 1219 (Blocks E, F, G, H) Refer to lease for front -yard setback: 10' on bluff lots, 20' on upper. & non' -bluff • lots:. . f�� ,~One-story on.bluff•__1ots: '_..ti 1ors. 2- story okey on -upper side. No white roofs. I t BLACK E Lot 1 120 Kings Road 2 116 Kings d 112 11 4 lo8 of 1 5 104 it /• 11 • 7 100 303 i 8 311 F 9 321 _ 10 403 11 43.1 ° 12 421 13 503 14 511 " - - �5 521 1 16 603 17 607 " 18 615 " 19 625 " 20 701 " 21 709 " 22 717 23 8o1 " 24 811 f1 25 901 n 26 911 n 27 1001 " 28 1011 29 1021 " 30 1101 " 31 1111 " 32 1201 A.i 33 1211 " E 34• 1221 11 35 1301 36 1311 11 37 1401 " 38 1411 " 39 1421 40 1501: " 41 1511 " 42 1521 " 43 16ol " 44 1611 45 1621 " BLACK F Lot 1 1610 Kings Road 2 2600 Kings Road 4 1510 it 5 �500 11 —6 1420 " 7 " 141o.8 i400 It 9 1310 11 .10 1 00 " BLOCK G Lot 1_ 1210 Kings Road-= -- - - 2 1200 11 - 3 112o it .- . . 4 1110 5 lioo " 6 1020 " 7 1010 " 8 loon " 9 920 10 910 11 goo " ]2 810 " 13 80011 11 14 710 It' �5 700 11 BLOCK H Lot 1 620 " 2 610 " 3 602 4 � 530 5 520 6 510 " " 8 It 420 9 410 " to 4o2 11 320 12 302 11 13 101 " 14 115 11 VLOT,1 2011 Kings Road (Sold ,z 2 2001 3 1921 41 4 lcm. 5 1901 6 1831 7 1821 8 1811 " '-- ;i 9 18o1 10 1721 11 35pa - 1701 Kings Road- _ - - 12 1620 Kings Road - 13 1700 1 1710- 1 1720 " ' 16 1800 " 17 1810 -49DO Kings Road ° 18 1910 - 2000 Kings Road- 3 0 r� t of I I ' 1 I 0 `ll �`��a T`i115F�yio.9-fPJ�C,'�•P • V •\O 1YIti� Co p.l) • I Q 0o q' < \\°�\��G 3A ^Yry �� S.}� 6 OON �•IO 9eY 20' 0 •>� /� / O/ >•28 � P b C • 5 ry15 a14013° h N 163R° �G Q�/>��°'00/��°fVpi9ao />ic /9.ro• 12 y r• i (^ Ys V Ru30 1 a�B/ �6•RO a KINGS o 6s /, mow`\1.0 (�1$•?]0 0•�� A• 190 Yni O . qU� ss cY' ^!i•k/f./0� bcs as3 B MB 1\k7202 A aeo �D �� 6y�0>Jp• /p0 N � 11 � �� Jo LN I TRACT N 212 21 40 ""S 15 NOT A SURVEY OF THE LAND OUT IS COMPILED FOR INFORMATION ONLY FROM DATA SHOWN BY OFFICIAL RECORDS. I 4,p 63' •P pair 994Z ;� .9 .9 n9 Zip co�� 4 N •'' Syy GO W b'LOCIfSH,F�LOTS34T04ff3LOCKE IS NOT A SURVEY OF THE LAND DUT IS COMRILED FOR INFORMATION ONLY FROM DATA SHOWN'BY OFFICIAL RECORDS. 4 l� I 5 6'.l.00KS 6, G � LOTS 20T03� BLOClf E TH;S IS hOT A SURVEY OF THE LAND BUT IS COMPILED FOR INFORMATION ONLY FROM DATA SHOWN BY OFFICIAL RECORDS. 0 RIO /'/Nss 65� 3 5� ISoO� ¢ Pq�y4p s 55 f99 50 5 G �� +pl +II n + e3 /d7�/4.7°ge v 5�3 /4 /3 • /2. // ; /0 9 B 87$6 , 6 D L £ f, F° K :rn iao3s ti 0 a co�sr HIVY. BLOC!(S C,O, H y�LOTS/ TO /9 BLOC/(E THIS IS hOT A SURVEY OF THE LAND BUT IS COMPILED FOR INFORIIATION ONLY FROM DATA SHOWN BY OFFICIAL RECORDS. DEFINITION'OF.GRAD 1 1 0 u (per telephone 8/29/78 to Alice) (The height of the structure should be the vertical distance between grade of.any point and lowest point of grade below -- v- 24' maximum -- with average from ridge of roof'to end of leaves - allowed to go to 28' for highest point of rood -- but should be no higher than 24' at mid -roof above natural grade.) (Natural grade is also accepted as land which has been scraped and/or filled and compacted by running a heavy (building -type) machine roller over same -- before building or applying for a permit. per Carole Cruse to Matt on 9/15/78) • SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CITIZENS' PETITION Whereas, the City of Newport Beach finds that the natural bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource;. Whereas, the distinctive features of the City of Newport Beach include the restriction of development so as to produce an _ environment of stable, desirable character in harmony with its surrounding neighborhood and which meets standards -of density, open space, light, and air; Whereas,'it is the intent and purpose of Chapter 20.02.010- ' 20.02.030 of the city. -ordinances of Newport Beach?to .insure that the unique character and scale of Newport Beach is preserved; We, the undersigned, hereby express our concern that the above -mentioned height limitation ordinance currently allowing the height, of construction to_24/28_feet above the street is -inconsis- tent with the foregoing goals established by Chapter 26.02.010-20-4 - 02.030, specifically with regards to the residential community situated on Kings Road, Newport Beach. We, therefore, support and urge the adoption of an amendment to said Section, equitably restric-- ting the height of buildings on the bluff/ocean side of Kings Road to maintain the character of the neighborhood, to protect and pre- serve the value of all properties therein, and encourage high quality development in the future. NAME - • ADDRESS DATE 9 �41 FL 0 SAVE OUR 0 CITIZENS' PETITION Whereas, the City of Newport Beach finds that the natural bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource;. Whereas, the distinctive features of the City of Newport Beach include the restriction of development so as to produce an environment of stable; desirable character iri harmony with its - surrounding neighborhood and which meets standards of density, open. space, light, and air; Whereas, it is the intent and purpose of Chapter 20.02.010- 20.02.030 of -the city ordinances of Newport Beach to insure that the - unique character and scale of Newport Beach is preserved; We, the undersigned, hereby express our concern that the above -mentioned height limitation ordinance currently allowing the height of construction -to 24/28 feet above the street is inconsis-, tent with the foregoing goals established by Chapter 20.02.010-20:, 02.030, specifically with regards to the residential community situated on Kings Road, Newport Beach. We, therefore, support and urge the adoption of an amendment to said 'Section, equitably restric-- ting the height of buildings on the bluff/ocean side of Kings Road to maintain the character of the neighborhood, to protect and pre- serve the value of all properties therein, and encourage high ;quality development in the future. L Y NAME . . .... ADDRESS DATE t,c� o ` �� • SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CITIZENS' PETITION - Whereas, the City of Newport Beach finds that the natural bluffs represent -a significant scenic and environmental resource;. Whereas, the distinctive features of the City of Newport _ Beach include the restriction of development so as to produce an environment of stable, desirable character in harmony with its surrounding neighborhood and which meets standards of density, open --- space, light, and air; Whereas, it is the intent and purpose of Chapter 20.02.010-- 20.02.030 of the city.ordinances of Newport Beach to- insure_that the unique character and scale of Newport Beach is preserved; We, the undersigned, hereby express our concern that the above -mentioned height limitation ordinance currently allowing the heigh,t of construction to 24/28 feet above the street is inconsis- tent with the. foregoing goals established by Chapter 20.02.010-20.4.-1 02.030, specifically with regards to the residential community situated on Kings Road, Newport Beach. We, therefore, support and urge the adoption of an amendment to said Section, equitably restric-- ting the height of buildings on the bluff/ocean side of Kings Road to maintain the character of the neighborhood, to protect and pre- serve the value of all -properties therein,•and encourage high quality development in the future. NAME ........... .. . • ADDRESS DATE •s * SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD 9 CITIZENS' PETITION Whereas, the City of Newport Beach finds that the natural bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource;• Whereas, the distinctive features of the City of Newport Beach include the restriction of development so as to produce an environment of stable, desirable character in harmony with its surrounding neighborhood and which meets standards of density, open - space, light, and air; Whereas, it is the intent and purpose of Chapter 20.02.010- 20.02.030 of the city ordinances of. Newport Beach to insure that the unique character and scale of Newport Beach is preserved; We,'the undersigned, hereby express our concern that the above -mentioned height limitation ordinance currently allowing the height of construction to 24/28 feet above the street is inconsis-, tent with the foregoing goals established by -Chapter 20.02.010-20:,- 02.030, specifically with regards to the residential community situated on Kings Road, Newport Beach. We, therefore, support and urge the adoption of an amendment to said Section, equitably restric- ting the height of buildings on the bluff/ocean side of Kings Road to maintain the character of the neighborhood, to protect and pre- serve the value of all properties therein, and encourage high quality development in the future. /f NAME, ADDRESS DATE r• I • SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CITIZENS' PETITION Whereas, the City of Newport Beach finds that the natural bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource;. Whereas, the distinctive features of the City of Newport Beach include the restriction of development so as to produce an environment of -stable, desirable character in harmony with its surrounding neighborhood' and which meets_ standards of density, open space, light, and air; Whereas, it is the intent and purpose of Chapter 20.02.010- 20.02.030 of -the -city ordinances of Newport Beach to insure that the unique character and scale of Newport Beach is preserved; We, the undersigned, hereby express our concern that the above -mentioned height limitation ordinance currently allowing the height of construction to 24/28 feet above the street is inconsis- tent with the foregoing goals.establi'shed by Chapter 20.02.010-20.' 02.030, specifically with regards to the residential community situated on Kings Road, Newport Beach. We, therefore, support and urge the adoption of an amendment to said Section, equitably restric- ting the height of buildings on the bluff/ocean side of Kings Road to maintain the character of the neighborhood, to protect and pre- serve the value of all properties therein, and encourage high - quality development in the future. 1--lll2-- Dear Neighbor: I called on you today but you were not at home. We are asking for your signature on a petition, a copy of which appears below. We share your concern for what is taking place on the bluff side of Kings'Road. We have engaged the services of someone who is objective in helping us to bring a friendly and equitable conclusion to a subject which has brought .;a ;.• less than friendly feelings to this street. Our aim is to make Kings Road the best street in Newport Beach,and subsequent harvony,by resolving an issue which has both sides best interest served. We are aware that many of you have been involved before in this arena please join us again in what we have every hope of -believing is Elie resolution of the question. We need every signature -by ev ning Febtuary=28, 1982. Th petition will be at the home of Barbara and Ron Luther- 530 Kings _Road, 646-5183. Someone will be there from Thursday after five, Friday after five, both days before eight in the morning and all day Saturday and Sunday.. Early risers on Saturday and Sunday may sign as early as 6:30 A.M. ' U Don't miss this opportgnity to participate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!\ is SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD:_ -.•_ CITIZE S +PETITION Whereas, the City of Newport Beach finds that the natural bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource;. Whereas, the distinctive features of the City of Newport Beach include the restriction of development so as to produce an environment o£ stable,, desirable character in harmony with its surrounding neighborhood and which meets standards .of density, open space, light, and air; ---- whereas, it is the intent and purpose of Chapter 20.02.010- 20.02.030 of the city ordinances of Newport Beach to insure that the unique character and scale of Newport Beach is preserved;. We, the undersigned, hereby express our concern that the above -mentioned height limitation ordinance currently allowing. the height of construction to 24/28 feet above the street is inconsis- tent with the foregoing goals established by Chapter 20.02.010-20. 02.030, specifically with regards to the residential community situated on Kings Road, Newport Beach. We, therefore, support and urge the adoption of an amendment to said Section, equitably restric- ting the height of buildings on the bluff/ocean side of Kings Road to maintain the character of the neighborhood,. -to protect and pre- serve the value of all properties therein, and encourage high quality development in the future. ADDRESS DATE Dear Neighbor: J*J I called on you today but you were not at home. We are asking for your signature - on a petition, a copy of which appears below. _ We share your concern for what is taking place on the bluff side of Kings Road:: N •._» :.--•� We have engaged the services of someone who is objective in helping us to bring a friendly and equitable conclusion to a subject which has brought less than friendly feelings to this street. ,:;,•' Our aim is to make -Kings Road the best -street in Newport Beach,and subsequent harnony,by resolving an issue which has both sides best interest served. We are aware that many of you have been, involved before in this arena , please join us again in what we have every hop of believing is the resolution of the question. We need every signature by Sunday a Xing Eebxuary-�8; 1982. The petition will be at the home of Barbara and Ron Luther 530 Kings Road, 646-5183. Someone will be there from Thursday after five, Friday after five, both days before eight in the morning and all day Saturday and Sunday. --'Early risers on Saturday and Sunday may sign as early as 6:30 A.M. �1 Don't miss this opportgnity to participate!!!!!!!!!H HII !1' = ? SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD `-=- CITIZENS' PETITION Whereas, the City of Newport Beach finds that the natural bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource;• Whereas, the distinctive features of the City of Newport Beach include the restriction of development so as to produce an environment'o£ stable, desirable character in harmony with its surrounding neighborhood and which meets standards of density, open space, light, and air; - Whereas, it is the intent and purpose of Chapter 20.02.010- 20.02.030 of the city ordinances of Newport Beach.to insure that the unique character and scale of Newport Beach is preserved; _ We, the undersigned, hereby express our concern that the d above-mentioneheight limitation ordinance currently allowing, the height of construction to 24/28 feet above the street is inconsis- tent with the foregoing goals established by Chapter 20.02.010-20. 02.030, specifically with regards to the residential community 4� situated on Kings Road, Newport Beach. We, therefore, support and urge the adoption of an amendment to said Section, equitably restric- ting the height of buildings on the bluff/ocean side of Kings Road to maintain the character of the neighborhood,. -to protect and pre- serve the value of all properties therein, and encourage high quality development in the future. NAME )<I�THC l L IU !kt CLtlp,<ADDRESS ,.�1n Ktn)L S J2C441� DATE r- Dear Neighbor: • I called on you today but you were not at home. We are asking for your signature on a petition, a copy of which appears below. We share your concern for what is taking place on the bluff side of Kings Road. ---- - F=: We have engaged the services of someone who is objective in helping us to bring a friendly and equitable conclusion to a subject which has brought less than friendly feelings to this street. ^J t' Our aim is to make Kings Road the best street in Newport Beach,and subsequent, harmony,by resolving an issue which has both sides best interest served. We are aware that many of you have been.involved before in this arena please join us again in what we have every hope of believing is the -,resolution of the question. G� ?� We need every signature b�ening �982. The petition will be at the home of Barbara and Ron Luther 530 Kings Road, 646-5183. Someone will be there from Thursday after five, Friday after five, both days before eight in the morning and all day Saturday and Sunday. Early risers on Saturday and Sunday may sign as early as 6:30 A.M. Don't miss this opportpnity to participateH H11 111H H A, %iv SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD - CITIZENS' PETITION Whereas, the City of Newport Beach finds that the natural bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource;. Whereas, the distinctive features of the City of Newport Beach include the restriction of development so as to produce an environment *of stable, desirable character in harmony with its surrounding neighborhood and which meets standards of density, open space, light, -and air; Whereas, it is the intent and purpose of Chapter 20.02.010- 20.02.030 of the city ordinances of Newport Beach to insure that the unique character and scale of Newport Beach is preserved; We, the undersigned, hereby express our concern that the above -mentioned height limitation ordinance currently allowing, the height of construction to 24/28 feet above the street is inconsis- tent with the foregoing goals established by Chapter 20.02..010-20. 02.030, specifically with regards to the residential community.:•tr situated on Kings Road, Newport Beach. We, therefore, support -'and urge the adoption of an amendment to said Section, equitably restric- ting the height of buildings on the bluff/ocean side of Kings Road to maintain the character of the neighborhood, •-to protect and pre-= serve the value of all properties therein, and encourage high quality developmme t in the future. z--8v e•' Dear Neighbor: 0 EM I called on you today but you were not at home. We are asking for your signature on a petition, a copy of which appears below._ We share your concern for what is taking place on thebluffside of Kings Road. - _ . We have engaged the services of someone who is objective in helping us to bring a friendly and equitable conclusion to a subject which has brought less than friendly feelings to this street. Our aim is to make Kings Road the best street in Newport Beach,and subsequent harraony,by resolving an issue which has both sides best interest served. We are aware that many of you have been involved before in this arena , please join us again in what we have every hope of believing'is the t"Qjution of the question., y We need every signature by-Stm e,ening Fe_rKdry B; 1982• Theon will be aV the home of Barbara and Ron�l..uther 530 Kings Road, 646-5183. Someone will be there from Thursday after five, Friday after five, both days before eight in the morning and all day Saturday and Sunday. Early risers on'Saturday.and Sunday may sign as early as 6:30 A.M. U Don't miss this oppoAonity to participate!!!!!!!!!!!!! M, T.' d SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD-- ".- CITIZENS' PETITION 4^` s yJ Whereas, the City of Newport Beach finds that the natural bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource;. : Whereas, the distinctive features of the City of Newport Beach include the restriction of development so as to produce an environment'o£ stable, desirable character in harmony with its surrounding neighborhood and which meets standards of density, open; space, light, and air; a, — whereas, it is the intent and purpose of,Chapter 20.02.010- 20.02.030 of the city ordinances of Newport Beach to insure that the unique character and scale of Newpoxt Beach is preserved; We, the undersigned, hereby express our concern that the above -mentioned height limitation ordinance currently allowing. the height of construction to 24/28 feet above the street is inconsis- tent with the foregoing -goals established by Chapter 20.02.010-20. 02.030, specifically with regards to the residential community situated on Kings Road, Newport Beach. We, therefore, support and urge the adoption of an amendment to said Section, equitably restric- ting the height of buildings on the bluff/ocean side of Kings Road to maintain the character of the neighborhood,. -to protect and pre- serve the value of all properties therein, and encourage high qu�.at y evelopment in the future. Y/.k OA" 7ta,,10 Q• l(o K I nV c s I o 4 o, 3 -Z -9a•- DATE AJ, I - i MARTIN M.DONOUGH ALFRED E. HOLLAND BRUCE R ALLEN V. BARLOW GOFF JOSEPH E.COOMES. JR. WILLIAM G. NO LLIMAN, JR, DAVIDJ SPOTTISWOOD ELMER R. MALAKOFF RICHARD W. NICHOLS DONALD C. POOLE RICHARD W.OSEN RICHARD E. BRANDT GARY F. LOVERIDGE G. RICHARD BROWN DENNI5 0.07NEIL DAVID W. POST SUSAN R. EDLING BRUCE M.DONOUGH ALICE A. WOODYARD MICNAEL T. FOGARTY D. WILLIAM OENTINO ANN H. MORRIS DAVID F. BEATTY HARRY E. HULL, JR. RICHARD L. DLCOSEY, JR. JEFFRY R. JONES WILLIAM L.OWEN MCDONouGH. HOLLAND & ALLEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS 555 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 950 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 9SS14 (916) 444-3900 July 8, 1980 youer��,�� Robert L. Wynn, City Manager y If City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard S;+' 3 CiTY COUNCIL Newport Beach, California 9256,3 ''L` t�i:'"'r'# £S:Av3i Dear Bob: FELIX S. WAHRHAFTIG (1900-1969) NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE 4041 MACARTHUR BOULEVARO, SUITE 190 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 (714) 833.2304 IN REPLY REFER TO: L JU & 1980 C,tY City M O7 NewaoaBar `1 Beach Enclosed herein are a number of the pages from the a� transcript of the City Council meeting of January 22, 1979, at which time Ordinance No. 1793 was adopted. There may in fact be other references to the Irvine Company's alleged deed restrictions on the bluff side of King's Road. I do, however, believe I have included most of the statements relating to the CC&R's. It should be understood that there is some lack of continuity when these pages are lifted out of the full body of the transcript. I still maintain.that even though .the matter was discussed, I don't believe it was decisive in the City Council's adoption of the height ordinance. (Note Councilman Hummel's statement at the top of page 8 wherein he indicated that the architectural controls would not have a conclusive bearing on the outcome of whether or not they would adopt the ordinance.) I believe the overriding concern was for preserving the general character of the neighborhood. Please let me know if you require any further informa- tion concerning this matter. Ve t�urs, r Dennis D. O'Neil DDO:mh cc: Hugh R. Coffin, City Attorney (w/enclosures) I dyt Macauleq & Manning Court & Deposition Reporters 1630 E. Palm St. • Santa Ana, Calif. (714) 558.9400 - (213) 437-1327 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 home. He is planning to be a resident. Most of the homes for some reason belong'to solid citizens. Of course, there are a lot of exceptions, like on the inland side which originally was of course on the cheaper property. But since then, we have become the solid citizens. We have at least three attorneys and three doctors. We have all lived there for 25 years. Of course, the thing that serves the whole thing is whether the City bought a lot of the homes because of the so-called freeway. Speculators came in, and so.the view side has become the speculator side and the former gentleman who was talking about it, if you ,ciitlemen need some additional money, T can ,assure you we will chip in and help you if you need an attorney to fight him. Thank you. MR. HUMMBL: I have a question for Dr. Anderson. Are you familiar with the fact that when this tract originally subdivided, I heard this to be true - maybe you know it better than I do. That there was likely to be a C.C.• & R. that would regulate some of these heights but due to the fact that this property did go through the freeway, potential of acquistion in some turmoil, that that never. happened. Now, do you have any background? Are you familiar at all with that sequence of events which would have precluded this matter as 1 understand it? Because it would have set these heights differential. DR. ANDHRSON: No, I am really not sure to make a (213) 437 1327 MACAULEY & MANNING, SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400 y • • 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 statement. I was hoping the architect that lives on our side that was with the Irvine Company that spoke before would be here. MR. HUMMEL: Maybe someone is. And not that that has a conclusive bearing, but you know, to han1l e this.• DR. ANDERSON: It may be. It was kind of shocking but at least under the original terms that Dr. Nelson told me, the original terms stated that only Caucasians could live on Kings Road. It was sort of a shock. I thought I would bring it up. MS. ROY: Hy name is Barbara Roy. I live at 1410 Kings Road. I am here.to speak for the proposed ordinance. Our street has maintained this original concept and you were talking about the original concept. In the research we have found, we discovered that the records of flings Road were burned in the Irvine Company fire and that therefore, we do not have any records as such. Mr. Mador of the Irvine Company only had a transfer, had a notebook with some of it handwritten. Some of the records had been saved. So, this is the reason why we don't have anything written gown abort Kings Road.• All we know is there was an architectural committee and that people did adhere to that. It was very strict, even to putting screen doors"in front of your house, you haW to ask the Irvine Company for that, apparently. But, since our records have been burned -- I'm just amazed (TIA 57 M7 MACAULEY & MANNING. 5ANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400 • • 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 that the street has maintained this concept in spite of the State acquisition freeways, actions, absentee landlords, speculators. But the original concept was a good one. We were one of the first planned communities in the area. We have no C.C. f R.'s in existence, no architectural committee in existence. We need some control to maintain the established roofline. Now, you will hear many people speak tonight, people with personal interest, monetary interest, speculative interest, asethetic interest, but when the smoke clears, the fact remains Kings Road was good planning. The Planning Commission concurred that it was good City planning, so I urge you to adopt the Ordinance 1793 and preserve,the character of the street left by its residents and by men who come to job, walk, and hike along our streets. MR. RYCKOFF: Thank you. MS. PETTY: My name is Joan Petty. I live at 1720 Kings Road, and I speak in favor of the proposed amendment. A couple concerns that I want to mention. One is which I heard there would be spot zoning if this were approved'. I believe that's really to the contrary. ll'e are one of the few, if not the only, large bluff area, without C.C. � R.'s that let hright on the bluff side of the street. This works to our disadvantage at the present time. As a previous speaker said, the Irvine Company when it (213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. 5ANTA ANC. CALIF. (714) 558.9400 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 PO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 developed the tract and when it owned our lot, had very strict skylines as to development standards. No high fences on the bluff side of the street; two-story homes were allowed to the bluff side of the street, but they have to go down the bluff with only one story above curb level. Unfortunately these never incorporated in the C.C. & R. I don't know the history. I don't know why they weren't. Therefore, this proposed amendment would get the monies of protecting us equal to homeowners in other areas of the City that do have C.C. & R.'s. And the second point I wish to make is, the staff report to the Planning Commission and a letter you have received stating that there aren't any public views of the ocean except from this view park and the two vacant building sites. On the contrary. There are frequently windows between many of the houses and some of these are ten feet wide or wider because of what was originally a five-foot Yard set -back. A lot of the houses have low fences in between them. So, there are many spots a pedestrian, a bicycle, a jogger, a person driving by, does have an unobstructed view both of the ocean and the bay. This is especially true of the end of the street when you pass the three-story section of the Bay Club. There is also at least one house you can actually see the house over, over the house and that's the home at 1601. It'_ a very popular area for going jogging, walling and bicycling (53) A 1387 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF (714) 558.9400 ! • 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 It was not until the 60's that the proposdd Pacific Coast Freeway that the Irvine Company relinquished for sale the leasehold lots on this street. The original architectural guidelines of the Irvine Company for the development of Kings Road were much more restrictive as you heard than the blanket building ultimately developed and adapted by the City of Newport Beach some five years ago. Originally, there were color restrictions on the bluff side roof, now there are none. Originally there were planting controls, now there are none. Originally there were three-foot height limits to front yard fences, now it's five feet. Originally there was a ten -foot set -back on the left side but a 20-foot set -hack on the inland side of the street. For some reason, this alone has been retained by the City. Originally there was a 14-foot above curb building height limitation on the bluff side of Kings Road; now there is a City-wide 24-foot height for all residences. A petition was originally submitted to request that the existing, that is the one story, 14-foot above curb be retained on the bluff side of this delightful Newport Beach street. we would reiterate this request. Thank you. MR. RYCKOFF: Thank you. MR. MADOR: My name is Bill Mador. I reside at 1601 Kings Road. I may be wearing two hats here; I am not OU) 57 "" MACAULEY & MANNING. 5ANTA ANA, CALIF. (7141 558.9400 I 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 really sure, i have a letter here addressed to the City Council; that is, a reduced letter that 1 have written to the Dlanning Commission in the month of December. So, I will read this letter again. "Dear Mayor, members of City Council, as Manager of the design review for the Irvine Company for the past nine years; I was contacted by the Cliff Haven Committee.Association to research the Irvine Company's files for any information that may shed light on the past architectural guidelines utilized by the company and the development pertaining to the leasehold property in tracts 1219 and 1221. The enclosed information are the tract restrictions placed upon the above tract by the Irvine Company back in the early 1950's. These restrictions were adhered to as can be seen by traveling through the area today. "Additional rules and regulations covering side attire, radar set -back were established and enforced by the City of Newport Beach. The intent of the Irvine Company guidelines was to preserve over the years in a higher place property from those located in the lower bluff property throughout the two aforementioned tracts. As you will notice, the guidelines are so simple; today our guidelines will represent probably 50 pages of rhetoric and this to me is incredible. But these were the guidelines that were set forth. This was pulled right from the log book that we have in our office that were established back (213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558.9400 q 0 0 22 1 is with this in mind that I relate my story to you and I 2 urge you to listen carefully to what they have to say tonight 3 and have you consider the expense, the legal expenses 4 involved, legal implications involved, that you will vote 5 to maintain the equitable height Code that has been existing 6 for many years. 7 MR. RYCKOFF: Thank you. 8 Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? 9 MR. SHUTT: My name is Ralph Shutt. I live at 10 212 Kings Place and I'm speaking both for my wife and I and 11 for other members of Rluff owners' Association. 12 First of all, I'd like to clarify for the 13 doctor that just because some of the people haven't lived 14 on the street for 25 years, we are definitely not spec 15 buyers. We have been there a little over two years and we 16 definitely plan to stay and all the neighbors near GIs are 17 definitely not spec buyers. It has been alleged that there 18 weren't any C.C. F1 R.'s on our street and we heard at 19 earlier meetings that the Irvine Company was a little inept. 20 They didn't know what they were doing, so they just 21 generally drew up a rule of some restriction: One story on 22 one side and two story on the other. T would propose to you, 23 that, first of all, it is clearly ridiculous. They have 24 been a big outfit for many, many years with a multi -million 25 dollar corporation and a staff of competent lay managers as 26 we all know. We also have heard over the months that the (210) 434"N MACAU LEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558-9400 10 23 1 Irvine Company was some kind of champion of views and height 2 restrictions and of course various City Councils over the 3 years have fought the Irvine Company tooth and nail over 4 Newport Center buildings and other developments in the City' 5 that interrupted with other people's views or already 6 established neighborhoods. The biggest thing on this 7 proposed ordinance is that everybody forgets the Kings'Road 8 and Kings Place loops under and down around and to the right. 9 You are giving some people in the 15, 1400 block of Kings 10 Road to build up three stories as many of them have, especially 11 the doctor who proposes the wonderful low roofline, forgetti 12 that there are people on the same sidc'of the street who 13 actually wind up behind them, as the road curves around and 14 they are blocking their neighbors' A ew. Many of the 15 people will find this very same thing. 16 They have also not thought twice about 17 blocking the view of the people on Cliff Road who are even 18 more blocked from their view of the ocean and any blocking 19 they would have by us by going to the 24-foot height. 20 1 think you all know the battle that went on in this city 21 when the 24-foot height leas established and it was the city- 22 wide conference of neighborhood associations that finally 23 got to it and drew that up as the recommended height city- 24 wide. 25 so, we would ask that all of you on the 26 Council keep that in mind. We don't feel that this issue (713) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF. (714) 558.9400 • • 27 1 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 48 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 equal rights and equal treatment with the other residents in the tract and particularly with the other residents on King. It should be pointed out that the bluff side lots have not been treated equally with the other tract lots since the original Irvine developments. The Irvine Company called for a 20-foot set -back in all lots in the tract, With the exception of the bluff side lots. In consideration for permitting a bluff side lot, only w ten -foot set -back, the Irvine Company stipulated that the structures be one story in height and not have wide roofs and possibly other considerations. Nou, we have a fully developed bluff side street, mostly with ten -foot front set -backs. It seems unfair to write off the consideration or the contingency. Stated in a different way, if the bluff side lot had been required to have a normal 20-foot setback, similar to the remainder of the tract, the fall of the land would have lowered the buildings to such an extent that I doubt if we would now have this problem, or if for that matter, if we would have this meeting here tonight. Pourth, I would like to point nut that the bluff side residences are peculiar and different from most lots in the tract and in the City. All improved property - is pulled from this: They had the option of expanding up or on the same level. The bluff side residents have a third option. That is, the expansion dawn at a lower level. (213) 437.1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF.. (714) 558.9400 i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 .essentially, what I read of the City Attorney's ruling, is this a public benefit or private benefit. If it is private, you are probably exceeding your bounds by imposing restrictions, or you have to decide whether this is necessary in order to maintain the character of the neighborhood. If you decide that, in my opinion you should impose the restriction and lower the height limit. I am here to speak in favor of lowering the height limit. I think it's necessary to preserve the character of the neighborhood, i have lived in this town since 1942 and I remember climbing on those slopes over there in 133, 134, and seeing the water. It's a natural attraction to people to go to the high bluff areas, to go to the sea. People are still doing it on Kings Road. There are loggers, car riders, you name it, going by there to watch all kinds of activities, all times during the day. Bluff properties are unique and they should be treated uniquely throughout this City. Historically, the bluffs in our -area had been restricted. You heard about the Irvine Company, at least -- certainly the realtors represented over the years one story on the bluffs. Post parts of this town are restricted by C.C. F1 R.'s. All that we arc asking of Kings Road is that it he brought in parity with other parts of the town. We are asking you to maintain the status quo, the fully developed area. People in many cases have gone down. People are now pushing out. All we are asking is for you to prevent (213) 437-1327 MACAULEY & MANNING. SANTA ANA. CALIF (714) 558.9400 ' r N CITY CLERK m %1/rcr��IUr ,ve a c� C c1 'it � / ��%r� C 11 i +, p` NCWt'po OE3fi p€ACM, CALIF. G " a t;A l'i LIPJCIL rta a J pv�rr� G ✓-P f7dh�// P ULvn.�r r d h� P ,d laLl 7'7` -P\mle JJ U�- �a.r,rva .�- c, .2 �� %� 7 a/ �Gt. � /YE��p�i' %✓�eac� c.Ty COC9.�c� �asirr� �rr/iiGr.,�P� �°v /79� h A r Cl\ maA Apo/ of /o -r,� s�g o. �.�� /,e o, A,, /3 /era e,4 o rwr a/.L c o9 / a o.`Ga t Oro �Y,( aWWC'%-� sec fr o�-% C6' 1 -M e- /! Q r ` y � � // h'li 1 �r Sri 0720'rt h e f�trr �V r vP eyl �u� f r�� Cr�s /2aum/ e ems..,. UW i �lan� s�P le'/ c� y� Zt1la�C AEar%.��o� U�v //+r3 1�477a1�'Ci- WFt r� � rhr L' �enJ r G[ r�� ✓'or� Gi C!i�v �n.csc,�,-c � Air trot 1. �/ P A- ewf Corse,,,& r•e Yyey ate h /lr (' j• Lt oCr r i/n-� 4 ti� .--+- -7%i. ei r tJ ✓ ✓f/''^' `e-tI - Cv -,�kere &-;q Jo v h gee � � /c 79 /,Zr/ W,/y o "7, �rjeu➢� 7%1 P /�^ �` e u s o r Ca•� �r rr, lR �•, c • e u art' le•�v /`too/) yr reC,ei&.1er e e o auDat - 47 v ,e .� v��/' O r COPIES S N1 307 74— fGf, h i /Gn. , l r G' / 'now E� Mayor GL C Manager [� Attorney /Hj f U L/ l/( c� ! /YC rj S / Gt C 'P• �r'LOt� 11 Other GrS G<rPfh (�/eCPlv,r.�y �%.� i.��r.r+c+✓^vy� v pPC', I i'JQEPmhJPrr �7;(.p �urrs c� ,(COrr,AiPrr � o'/U f/ G� •'�/�f V . pti y Gz r 4'P •n, �i x✓ rP ink �y ih-"��vr^c7'� n��' �.cn. vr' �Jc, r � � �j .p✓. i^ I•' e crpTOrv, �-� � r • �r (/ � / � /�i•✓ 't'o+ v a v0� %'.ce S� r � G r'��•d.,,.t c P � � '7�/' 3. ,o[s a14-�./I eeT hp, se 7' j✓,e� �r �C � Co n^v / e f/' �' e �P O�a✓ 1 42, /93 7/ 7vp ( q q CG Gt •P G /`-� �v� � G ��s er r S `� cl G f �'` c P pl leclue �iu^'Y / Qrr�r Co l,��r �r/�rr�lnnf `� � P �// � ✓ /�'/o v P� CG m �Gcn. • %�7� iv rS�C%eV%o�-+� /'L 6,GL � T� tiy/ �J cr ! G lc� i•`l/ U �'<t /f�� j /' �r/7n.-P/% G�7 kf off/ 7' ��r / LjG� C� %YIfG✓!mac) B'd� %GfYI.L[o < !C// 1 R y g / LA �'� C Gi GL %-e r � yera/' �C err 1/o'�•P (/' �� P tc�/f•/ 1 !L f T S K Q Od /�er,- �c rC_ FLU /! ee h l! c O !4/"'/� r✓ f ^P syr do 1 or- P !)'��i A /G '!` �` j' i o�C � G�� G/% K,/.✓v� .3• %�G�t d'� o'"a.�+� //�/Cr 7� Coin c . � u-G' s � °��•-�e A f /� '� r� e_c/�i °r'�� %/Ci Ni ,�e 6�rlav �d7 , ✓/1 S �P CG�i"o�T -J-KA d� zQ�<9 wl- i e i/fl'rC �T�J or /1.NSeY <ci io K,e �G yS G q ✓ Gr r �1 V /'Or< d n � �/ / -7 arf- /r%n,ucry �J2l%�I �`('ithlc ��or�-• /Lp� /! o-v� � P S TD� i � • / /L iP/'E are � f- C�� c�A,e&. /'Gr f /e eay. so`c�pa Dr6a/�o-mace l}y 3 CGu� c r LvaS �� r�CAt 'tPG/r rT �i '!rwC"e �S' �Z O`eiu �,eaLr r �o s.<7��un a -t c r ( h. � 7X 1 e V ec prl- itG 4e Cr � QLTo ten. �� a� �'�' fYl�aoG✓Z'r" ; sl'/Pn-�.v% /7/e&/go f 7�/1 e!2 tvi 6� A -of ,7 /L oW w Co r ce.�//e�ere e"-L a<</ YU Le D,o— All OOF IIA r� na, ,?13 fGsraw�-a) �'�t Cry) C f 1, , .- � • �, - j - ['IDl E 1 WM.-NELSON GENTRY Attorney At Law AP.R 2.o1979 . ' 2 P.O.Box 8 87-�.;..: . 3131W. Mission LEfiA.GRAiVGH,CoiintyClerk v 3 Pomona, Ca. 91766 _ Telephone (714) �623-1657 BY eP�Y 4 N �. 5 Attorney For' Plaintiffs RECOVER CITY CLERK 6 ��` JU{ 2 f980® 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFb fI�EWPO T BEACH, CA IF. 6' 8 _ r. FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE 9 ' 10 WARREN E. HOWLAND, LES MILLER, ) CASE NO.' s30-83-69 LORAINE J. MILLER, ROBERT CECKA, ) 11 fERi�Y GREERy and 'DR, JOHN SMITH, ') DECLARATION OF 12 - Plaintiffs, - j-DR-.,.`JOHN SMITH 13 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT ) BEACH,-GALIFORNIA, ) 14 b 15 Defendants, ) n ) a 16 17 '�.I,•DR. JOHN SMITH, declare as follows:.-. , 18 r 1. That I am one of the Plaintiffs in the above -captioned -rYj%S 19 action and that my_wife and I Reside in our home at i24 Kings 20 Place; Newport Beach, California, and have owned said property 21 sifide.T1958.'- '1 1 `._ ».' -,•.. 22 2; 'That i am adamantly oppoter.to this o ,' ardiance placing- _kV,z?3 a mire restrictive height limitation on therbluff side f.!:Yings 24' Roaa.and Kings Place where I reside with njy"'wife than that 25 directly across the street. This said•ordiance passed by the ' 26• City Council of Newport Beach.deprives-me of my eAual rights- is 2T discriminatory and shows fagoritisid. - _ 28 3.. That the said ordnance-1-s-invalid, unconstitutioiral,J' } :. •.� w� -;ate- - - - =� ='' • �KY„� Yam. �.w+.+. .s..:'.-�`tt.-..s.-a %'Y..`..:r'�. �1-..._Yy`c".- :,ai'..:_ �':?:T•%r,._.�X[?•-..^L�v�^�;;#•.^•.1ic-.,,.�.-,.F.. a7_ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ' 21 22 23 24 25 26 - 27 28 obsolete, and illegal because there is simply no PUBLIC BENEFIT that will be gained or protected to base a valid exercise of - thee city's police power,inbl-4 'ng that of-the�breservation of of a public view. It should be noted that I personally walk'„= Kings Road and Kings Place daily, and there is not now a public view existing fromthepublic street of Kings Road and Kings -Place, except through two vacant lots.;e7,,Thet<City:lias-falready assured a public view in our area by constructing•a view park ori=r ings Road- and a. second bluff view park on Cliff Drive, one an& one half`Slocks away.' Therefore, in summary there is no public view that this said ordiance will preserve, and the City has already set aside Public View Parks in the area. =+� 4., With respect to the contention or suggestion that such' arr-ordiance is necessary to preserve the roof'liries on the bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Place and if accomplished'would be desirable because it would preserve an achitectural-=ontinuity- an& the character of the area, I would like to state that in- 1958 there was not a two story home on the inland side of Kings Road and since then there are several two and three story homes that are additions to the original one story home which are j located on the inland side of Kings Road and.Kings Place. That as a result, they hover over and dwarf -the low profile homes'on the$bliiff side. The said architectural continuity and original character of-.the^area has been permanently destroyed by the very people who -now wish to=place a•_more restrictive height limitatio _ J .on our side of- the street (bluff side) - than on- their .side of+ the street and thus denying us our constutional right -of equal pro- ..- tection under the law to develope our properties as those across E -2- I the, street. 2 -x 5. Home owners across the street or on the 'inland side•of r 3 the street of Rings Road and Kings Place stated in the"City , 4 Council hearings with regard to this said ordiance that it was 5 th& intent'of the Irvine Company to restrict the bluff side• 6 homes of Kings Road and Kings Place to street level one story 7 buildings which is simply NOT TRUE. Attached is a copy of my $ letter dated May 12, 1959, addressed to the President of Irvine 9 Company, protesting the height construction of two homes on the 10 blis f•;side of:Jdngs Place,` immediately adjacent to my property. 11 Also* attached -is the original - letter dated Nays 18, 1959, from 12 the:President of the Irvine Company stating in response that- 13 tiaA they are not aware of any restrictions or zoning regulation 14 that owners of the two residenoes(referring to the owners who 15 were building two story home adjacent to him) under construction 16 have violated. 17 6.- Therefore, as a result of the above, the argument Advan 18 1 tU4 the said ordiance imposing a more restrivtive height limita, 19 tion on the bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Place than direct: 20 across th'streetIs GOOD PLANNING, is absolutely ridiculous 21 An3?meaningless;.- GOOD PLANNING; is -accomplished -at -,the inceptio 22 ofl4evelopment not thirty years later, after 54'homes ar'exon- • _ 23 stracted and only two vacant lots remain. This is not GOOD + 24 P AWNING but simply MANIFEST DISCRIMINATION. 25 •M1 7. That'the arguments advanced 'for.this said ordiance are 26- merely a 'subterfuge and smoke: screen to mask- the real reason for 27:= the passage of said ordiance,.which,is to -obtain and preserve- 28.- in' -'perpetuity a PRIVATE'VIEW; for -the private residential homes I on=the inland sid a of Kings Road and Kings. Place at the aesthet c 2 ail pnetary expense of the home owners on the' bluff_.'sids. of. 3 Kings Road .and Kings. Place. " places a 4 - :8.- The -said ordiance whichlaore restrictive tiei6t limsta- 5 'tI9TI on the bluff side only of Kings Road and Kings Place-O is 6 thus supported by ilivalid arguments, is discriminatory,' is ilkeg 1, 7 i0 unconstitutional, and invalid because it -arbitrarily changes 8 and deprives a geographically located segment of a neighborhood 9 from their equal rights. 10 =I declare" urider penalty of per"jury' that the fore�oing is 11 true and' correct: ��• //�� • ` 12 I% "z. Executed•=at Newport Beach, California April , 1979. 13 14 ri L 15ih c. _ JCHN SMITH 16 17 18 19 20 - ' 21 _ -- 22 23 24 25- 26. *} - 27 Sa17_JuaAY -Ranc0 13042 MYFORD ROAD TUSTIN, ORANGE COUNTY kTHE IRVINE • COMPANY' �POST_'OFFI-CE BOX 3Z.TUSTI,N,CALIFORN,IA :: SANTA ANA-KI ml erly 2.4455-TELEGRAMS -EXPRESS-SANTA ANA May 18,•1959 Dr. John H. Smith, Cdr.(D.C.) U.S.N..- 124 Kings:Place- - Newport Beach, California Dear Dr. Smith: _ We -can -appreciate the fact; that your property -is ,not as _ desirable as-it'was before houses -,were -constructed on"• neighboring properties.- However, we:lmow of no restrictions or zonifig`regulatioris that the owners -of -the two residences, under construction have violated'. - Pe'rhaps=more could be accomplished by,�contacting -them,._. directly. Will Foster -is the owner of the, house next to -- yours' and Milo-Brandmeyer the owner of tYie'other,one.•,-- Their address is 700,=Carriation, Corona del `Mar: -- - - Very truly Your_si- -- -. THE IRVINE._COMPANY,_ - - = A: J'.MeFadden AJMc/mr a. +^- .- �...-... _ .+.-w _ - rw. ' ♦ - : '.Jww.:.r•4.....0 Whr•i.++-•.ar.+re.•..r- w.r..-n. rs.. 'rt ...- - .� �. .-.•-I - ..-.. �an•�. - `....< a..- '...-...-�.Y<.•.Jw+w.+s-�.-./.�-Y -a _4V v..Mew �'.J._-_ J4=4 nw_YV�•-.lM-a- aiIMNMwiY-H.rL� - i.W-+. tea- ar u +c cJ�N. �+-.• 1 - -•. � -_�. .. .a+i<= :.+. re_._.. ._'_.�.s,= aw-�K rY;..�=:e-s><-,-,�_.3s � •'.va+'-_l=ivt+.:s's.r-r""' -i.C..�./.•s,.fr�t8 '�_ May "12;' 1959 Mr. H. A. 11cFadden President, Irvine Company---, Box 37 Tustin;• Calif. I Dear Sir: - •-�• P., t We, the Joh4 H. Smith family, residing at 124 Kings Place, Newport-, Deaeh, object to type of structure being erected on the adjacent -the properties of 120 'and 116 icings Place for the following reasons. Ile bought our home "at 124 Kings Place in December, 1958, at which. time the adjacent lots were vacant... We investigated and questioned various pe_oples-`real estate :agents, the seller,'and,friends, etc, and found that`it was Irving Company leasehold property, and in the those ' near future houses would be built on the property. From we . contacted we were'assured that two story buildings from the street level would not -be allowed, (we immediately made the wrong assumption In that that left only'one story buildings as a possibility), and we also assumed the Irvine Company checked and approved building plans and were a fair and considerate organization with,the good development add -appearance of'the whole community in mind. Our' lot was 4 ft. higher than the adjacent lot, so with these consider- ations in mind we invested In* our property. Three houses were immed- lately built',on Irvine leasehold property on proximal lots. These houses are-, of- low sil•houette-and inhibit the views •of -the already ' existing homes to •a -At--this `point; wedhappily anticipated___'1 -minimum: the new houses heighbors next -door..: We "soon 'became alarmed at _and .,the apparent'excessive height and'consequent unnecessary obstruction created by a series of peaks on the house at.116 Kings Place. It was Immediately appareat'that he -design of•this.house-so blocked off the view of the ocean and'bay,? r-the lot at-120-Kings P]ihc�e,that in order _ for- a house placed' on'thfirelot to, obtain -the ocean and. bay, view It. (•_, would ba necessary to`extend a house high above the street -level and _ - excessively with far the slope, nd consequertly.Interfering _out'on the -views of,homes_ ha_ tile, vicinity:-, :h"am-sure. thase lots,eould have '_ . been built:osti_satisfactorlly if the houses had been designed properly. The people most hurt by these structures'are people,who.'ha"ve bought their homes as their permanent_ residence.-- I personally: fee k.that'Ita, these new structures are speculatlon houses and .thetbuilders"wlll'boon be long gone, so to speak,and-tbat the Irvine,Zompany-will fall heir, through the, coming-years;`to ail- the criticism and -,animosity that.- these structures create.. -, a.* �r— The structure at- 120 Kings Place: is now in• a: stage- where- we can foresee the -end- result:1 It Is.going* so, high,.. in -spite, of, the differ-,-_- ' ence in--lot-levels, and -so far•out, that It obstructs an unreasonable amount` of the vie+v: When -we, bought our property we knew we would .. -.._ ..-. .. �_ _ -. _.'+__ v. AXr��-.. _+- - .... '- i � �.- _— ice..-.�__ ._ _ *• a Mr. H. A. McFadden Page 2: Raja 120 1959 share that area, but no' idea we Id -los'e it: Also; because'of the' structurets height and extension, its northern exposure will ,look down and directly Into our living room, kitchen, one bedrodms sun . deck and backyard. In order for us to preserve our privacy we will be forced to put up a privacy fence on our property line. For this fence to be of any value It will have to extend from the top of`our lower patio wall up approximately 20 or more feet to the height of our eaves. Due to its size and exposed_location it will certainly not add to the attractiveness ,of tYxe community and it will be an expense to us. By the building of this type of structure on the adjacent lot, people in the real estate business, and we, estimate that the value of our property has depreciated vne-fourth to one-third. We* are not rich but. wor$ on a ,#'£xed salary, so for us to lose a fourth to a'_ third of our investment is a serious situation; not to mention the loss of faith and the disappointment in the consideration given us -- by your Company and the builders. Sincerely, - Dr. John H. Smith, Cdr.('D.C.)U.S.N. cc.1 Mr. Plants Manager Residential Leasehold Property- ` Planning Comm£ssiori,.Newport Beash• -. _.- ter. —• .»-.,. �._•.Jn+an+e+wne�'.�.r/ar+»w.lN-.._.u..a4�i.....'».,Y+'�.-•V•�•,+.-n�,n•.,�•.a...-��.+•.ar _•tiJ ..v..+�e-n_»sn. +I.._.w,+�� .._ i .� ...-�._._-�.. u _ •• -. _ _ -.� � -.._ - .✓... r4- _ _w y.«._•• � ^�. �...-.�.Y.� r`.v.. «.... �..�..» _ .n--ti „�_.r. u -yr.w w r • _ r.n•... _l . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2'6 -27= • 28= n WM. NELSON GENTRY '. Attorney At Law P._O«` Box 881 313: W. Mission ' Pomona, California 91766 Telephone: (714) 623-1657 Attorney 'For Plaintiffs APR 2 01979 LEE A. 6h,iau. i, Gaugty EPevk By • Deputy SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE WARREN-E. HONLAND, LES MILLER, ) CASE NO. 30783-69 LORAINE-J. MILLER, ROBERT CECKA, ) `JERRY GREER, and DR. JOHN SMITH, ) DECLARATION OF Plaintiffs, ) BOB COOPER CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT -) BEACH-,.CALIFORNIA, ) ,7 Defendants, ) — l � I, BOB COOPER, declare as follows: 1. That.I am the President of" -the Cliff Haven Community Association.. - 2. That the Board Of Directors of the Cliff Haven Community Association initially supported a petition requesting a low roofline for homes on the bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Tlace. 3. That At -the regular ineeting of the Board 'of 7i)irectors of7ihe 61iff.Haven Community Association on J4nuary 10, 1979, a -decision was bsBe:to-not, support the said .;request.,for_,aAower roof_, -,#e-'C%!t114!,blu€f sid?i:,of•;g4ngs Road and Kings Place becausc a) - private views were the is ne not -public views, :.1 J I th 2 ne 3 0 4 5 i 6 R 7 8 i 9 10 11 .t 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 o erefore� no' public purpose would . be served by, establistia tig a .and more restrictive height limitation.for, the bluff side my of Yings Road and Kings Place. b) Property values would note be -harmed by maintain - the current city height limits for -both sides of Kings' ad and Kings Place which is 24.28 feet. 1 �, 4. That the said reverse iri the Boardts decision concern- ng the more restrictive height limitation was reflected in the minutes of said Associationta copy of which is attached hereto. I declare under a penalty of perjury that the foregoing is rue and correct. Dcecuted•at Newport Beach, California, April IE39 1979. BOB COOPER _2_ i 1978 ASSOCIATI'ONAACTIVITIES/ACCOMPLISHMENTS• A. TRAFFIC.- _ Ov.er-a` year ago, ;som'e of the citizens ,of Cliff Y.aven and Newport• Heights net"to discuss'traffic problems.,. l It was, decided';,, that_ a'map _of 'the area �coul'd ba; marked'�,with pbss9 b1'e answers 'to the 'fn, ` received £rom:other residentsyotraffic-'problemsJit Cliff �Haven 'and Newport�Heights. - Your suggestions` -were —requested_ through -newsletters -and `at"sede'ra1 meetings.. _The -map •and 'p`roposals" will be tiresented -again-at'tlie < Annual Meeting of the Cliff,Haven Community Association_on 47ednesday; r•.: February 28,'at Ensign Middle _School, 2000 Cliff Drive, Newport Beac}i. B. CLIFF HAVEN ENTRY. The corner of Cliff Drive and Dover was land reaped and planted by Les, Miller and John' Smith. The en wasmain- tained' y-property owners on Kings, Place and 1,5th- Street, and through'. the'annual dues of Cliff _Haven -property owners which paid for repair"'- of -the sprinkler_system (again!), watering, trash clean-up,,and land-;- scape maintenance. C.' MEETINGS. Cliff Haven property owners were kept -informed regarding - 'meetings of :'iteres;t to them,' including the City Council and Planning - r• Commission. Most_of the newsletters were distributed by "volunteers", Tinclydin'gti"seryeral who have been performing this service for 2-3 y ears. '.D...`KINGS ROAD/KII)GS PLACE HEIGHT LIMIT. The City Council approved anew height ,limit at their January 22nd meeting for the bluff side only -of KingslRoad and_Kings,Place.• The property owners -on the•bluff side may now build 'only _16.23_feet above the curb lihe,,while those property .- T_' , owners -on the' inland side' may build 2 2,- feet structures, many'of.:_ " these_ori'lots which- are_` already'raised"above -the curb level.- This.'was'a "no-win''situation for the -Board.- of_Diretors_ in'which;we__ probably;managed'-toal ienate.propprty_ownes, on both sides of__Kings Road'and_Kings Place. The Board'_initi_a11y suprorted a petition're- �.: try ,_ .Y -�- - .a. . .. questing a low roofline for'homes on the,bluff_side of the stiee's: This; decision was "rever_se_ d 4in January -when, it_ became 'apza rent a2iat;: '- x_ .r•_._-. �..�"F:-'--.'• 1"T. _: i`S-'L .C.P~ L. :v �_ .. _ � _'-. --.r _p•=-�^,;*t . 1: ; There-would'not--be'a decrease in'property values on -,the inlanda,',,, tw: side of Kings ,Road.and,Kings- Place if the -existing city height mi£s'"wL re'ob served. �:;'-'r- _� _ Pv_ate'vie isuere the issue. not publicviews -;- - Ys' s.•? _.r - ..r.. .h..,.-i - y. _ ..,f...N• 5 *hY, - r`1 :, Z•>d .. Y.'. ;1:: ^^'` :x4' �9'`..._ ;; :-'�A L-.��. , _1, y;, hope that'all Cliff Haven'property`oxners will forgive"us--for„taking9iiT'--; y- ''st'ands with= -which -they. disagree,--andwill_continue_;to` support- the tivitiea;oi the Association through_ their annual dues.-�k,'tl E.'-LOT SPhITS:`, ThenCity Co"vncil;approve8 a` `recoi: e_ndation of ping Commission that."lots-inCliff Have`n';should remain-as"originallyy i y 'subdivided:, This, was -=done -to_ maintain'"one- of -the-_aspects _of the char=:;,`.;{.. _ r acter of our unique "community ---large lots.`=-- F:' ANNIIAL DIIES:'• The: annual ;dues of 'the `Association have been 85 per lot-. , _ -, since the Association -was- formed in 1969;-Two of our major=expenses `are ater_for'_tiie ClifS_Haveri Entry_(thcr`e,:w_as no_entry'sprinkler'_in:'T-r ' fo ._ - a - __ 19.69) and-posse and-.re,nding _more newsletters and postage,rates -: _. .' hada probably double . d 'since 1_9'69-). _P Proposition-13 has also iffec'te,d_ cur'budget=--thp, site'gsfor our`neetin_(Eris3gn:Niddle- School)-"i.as adail=;�,Y�`, ►ble xi,thout"`an'y charge in -the pas£,;_ it -nnori costs-app"rokimatel-y UCG,'4_ I:a_a:io_au_3t"'-the Vcaid-of-Directorarhave raised the anrnua1 dues:'Y6-�'; 'S� __.--_ j.i �. �'t _ _ }°�-� I_•_•i _ NY:. .. � _..w Ff A -I ^YSY- ( 1 17-50 xetlotT "r_ r=? — - - - y _ _- o- _ u . • = J . ,`• ..u'."II�ZT-M�'•:,`^f: '`-,1=M '�TsiC� " _ _ = _ .'t7, ^ c N - .�^'' r/S�"�'.-�..' tl - c. � _ ^11: 6S. _ •_. -_ .+ ...__v-' `_- "'- -'-ice. `-.,�-. - � ._ _ r _ � .._ ,r.. •r-- _ — - -_ : _ ,.._�..t._ � _ �.^....� •_.. .. w r'- `tn®tit.. =.. +`-_s.�.:—sLa^u,1,.-... �._=." .x�--.ice �v+.uy,.Y.,�. ._�S/y.w\+_•^_111yC+a'S. - r .. �_+ti�a".: :i .._ ti-.. � • .. �; fr ORDINANCE NO. 1793 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �� C1iYE�1.�itt( AMENDING SECTION 20.02.050 OF THE NEWPORT 41, 1'01-2 1980p' BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SUBSECTION CIZ(OF (E) THERETO RELATING TO THE HEIGHT OF ` NEINPORT BEACH, STRUCTURES ON THE BLUFF SIDE OF KINGS ROAD CALIF. AND KINGS PLACE a 0? The City Council of the City of Newport Beach DOES Yf ?ZgDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Section 20.02.050 of the Newport Beach -Xunicipal Code is amended by adding subsection (E) thereto o read as follows: #, "E. Structures on the bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Place which were inexistence or under construction on the effective date of this ordinance may be changed Y g provided such change does not result in a roof height above curb which is higher than 16.23 f�. feet and provided further that the roof height does 'y� a not exceed the height limit established by the 24/28 Height Limitation Zone. New structures may be constructed on vacant building sites subject to the same criteria." SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be published once in ,the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall be ieffective thirty'(30) days after the date'of its adoption. ' This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of 111e City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the 8th ay of January 1979, and was adopted on the 22nd Hay of January 1979 by the following vote, to wit: " AYES, COUNCILMEN Hart, Heather, Hummel, :. Ryckoff, Strauss and Williams NOES, COUNCILMEN McInnis ABSENT COUNCILMEN None `ATTEST: _��;�" •" � -- y. sr c T;? , ( e7:Ni L AHD CEi,7i?`:- iJ i`u':(i A IQN nj /LL� IkEty ClJAR' 2 6 1978 DDO/kb s erk DA i E ............_....._....._• 12/13/ 7 8 i CITY CLERK OF lHE CIII' OF Nt1V'PO BEACH , 0 COMMISSIONERS • City of Newport Beach 7\? kn� December 7, 1978 ROLL CALL I CU MINUTES INDEX 4. That the proposed development will not have ny significant environmental impact. 5. Th Police Department has indicated that they do n t contemplate any problems. 6. The app oval of Use Permit No. 1888 will not, under th circumstances of this case be detri- mental to he health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, an general welfare of persons resid- ing and wor ,'ng in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in he neighborhood or the genera welfare of the C and approve Use Permit N 1888 subject to the following conditions: 1. That development shall b in substantial con- formance with the approve plot plan and ele- vations, except as noted in Condition of Approval No. 2 below. 2. That the parking layout, including the depth of the proposed compact spaces o the site, shall be approved by the City Tra is Engineer 3. That storage for nine vehicles, incl ing the three vehicles being served, shall be rovided in the reservoir lanes at all times. 4. That all signs shall conform to the provis ns of the Newport Place Planned Community Deve opment Standards. Item #4 Request to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code fo'r the purpose of reducing height limits and preserving existing roof lines on the bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Place between Irvine Avenue and Dover Drive in Cliff Haven. AMEND - RENT N0. 523 RECOM- MENDED Initiated by: "The City of Newport Beach APPROUAI Zone: R-1 and R-2 - 5 - COMMISSIONERS •� •-j �0F°o�� City of Newport Beach o� e� (y nprpmher 7. 1978 MINUTES CJ' ROLL CALL Staff suggested that if the Planning Commission desires to amend this ordinance to establish some other height limit on the bluff side of Kings Road that it be adapted in a way that it would create a average between two adjacent houses for a new stru ture or for an addition to the structure between those two houses. Another proposal would be to establish some exact height above the curb that would be relative to the development existing in t neightborhood as it is today. A survey of the ele vations in this area showed heights above the curb of from 4 feet to a little above 16 feet. In answ to a question from one of the Commissioners, staff stated that this amendment could be written in suc a way that it would apply to only one side of the street. A further proposal was suggested by a member of th Planning Commission. A drawing on the blackboard illustrated the feasibility of setting a height limit of 12 feet above the curb line for the aver- age of each roof element and 15 feet above the cur line for a maximdm. Public hearing was opened in connection with this item. Les Miller, 128 Kings Place, Newport Beach, appeared before the Planning Commission in opposi tion to reducing height limits on the bluff side o Kings Road. It was his opinion that this action would take away the rights of the residents on the bluff side of the street to the advantage of the people on the other side. He felt that the public view was already preserved by the City owned Cliff Haven Park, and the City should not legislate to protect views from private residences. Barbara Roy, 1410 Kings Road, Newport Beach, appeared to oppose the construction of a two-story house on the bluff side. Since the area has no CC&Rs or architectural standards committee, she fe' that some control was necessary to preserve the established uniform roof line so that the characte of the street and the view would not be changed. Bill Mader, 1601 Kings Road, Newport Beach, an employee of The Irvine Company, stated that he had been requested to research any architectural - 6 - INDEX W . • ' I COMMISSIONERS m y�iN�, ROLL CALL 9p O�P�yp °2 9�0 �y � � MINUTES - City of Newport Beach December 7, 1978 INDEX restrictions placed on leasehold land on Kings Road and Kings Place. He stated that it was the intent of The Irvine Company's design guidelines to preserve views from the higher placed properties .from those located on the lower properties. Alice Pobog, 1400 Kings Road, Newport Beach, appeared and reviewed the historical background of the Kings Road -Kings Place property. She felt that the Newport Beach building restrictions are not adequate for the unique bluffs area, and would like to return to the original plan of one-story height above curb on the bluff side and two-story height allowable on the upper side. Holly Henderson, 1110 Kings Road, Newport Beach, appeared and disagreed with the staff report regard- ing the number of locations from which the public could enjoy the view. She felt it was within the province -and duty of good planning to preserve the character of the neighborhood. She urged adoption of an amendment setting height limits on the bluff side to the maximum of 15 feet above the curb line. ' Joan Petty, 1720 Kings Road, Newport Beach, appear- ed in favor of reducing the height limit and pre- serving the existing roof lines on the bluff side. She submitted to the Planning Commission petitions containing the signatures of 61 more residents, in addition to the 85 already submitted, who wish to have the present uniform roof line on the bluff side of Kings Road maintained. These petitions were presented on behalf of Mrs. Edwina Nelson who had coordinated the efforts of signature gathering. In answer to the concern that this would be spot zoning, it was her view that, in the absence of CC&Rs, this would give them the protection other bluff areas enjoy. Raymond Smith, 204 Kings Place, Newport Beach, • appeared before the Planning Commission and questioned whether the proposed amendment was with- in the police power of the City government. He referred to various correspondence from the staff and City Attorney's office stating that action that is taken must protect the public interest generally, and that action must be uniform. - 7 - COMMISSIONERS - • MINUTES City of Newport Beach December 7. 1978 ROIL CALL Mr. Mader appeared again before the Planning Com- mission to quote The Irvine Company guidelines undi their leasehold agreements. They were, "refer to lease for frontyard setback, 10 feet on bluff lots 20 feet on upper and non -bluff lots; one-story on bluff lots, two-story O.K. on upper side; no white foofs". Tom Lally, 108 Kings Road, Newport Beach, appeared and stated that there was no view over the homes of the bluff side except in one or two cases. Bob Cooper, 418 Signal Road, Newport Beach, repre- senting the Cliff Haven Community Association, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that he has no personal involvement in the contro- versy over roof heights. His interest was in the well-spoken residents who had appeared. He intend( to ask them to serve on association committees in the future. Additional residents appeared before the Planning Commission and expressed views similar to those presented earlier in the public hearing. Those in favor of an ordinance setting a height limit on the bluff side were: Charles Palmer, 1701 Kings Road; Tom Henderson, 1110 Kings Road; Roland Bertonneau, 121.0 Kings Road; Phil Petty, 1720 Kings Road; Dr. Ralph Anderson, 1500 Kings Road; Ruby Bertonneau, 1210 Kings Road; Peggy Shedd, 1520 Kings Road, speaking on behalf of Mrs. Elizabeth H. Cox, 1110 Kings Road; Ansell Hill, 1511 Kings Road; and Richard 'Handy, 810 Kings Road. Those speaking in opposition to a height limitation were: Ralph Shutt, 212 Kings Place; Robert Cecka, 1401 Kings Road; and Jerry Greer, 208 Kings Place, Who submitted letters from Elizabeth H. Cox, 1100 Kings Road; Lynne -De Le Loze, 220 Kings Place; and Eloise and Stan Henline, 230 Kings Place, who were opposed. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard on this item, the public hearing was closed. _ 8 _ INDEX ROL 2 COMMISSIONERS MINUTES City of Newport Beach m v�si9° o�� tic9c 002 !y 7 1070 CALL The audience was informed that the Planning Com- mission will be considering height and bulk of building standards in Corona del Mar at its next meeting, and perhaps some would wish to attend. Discussion between members of the Planning Commis- sion covered the following points: 1) Reluctance to deviate from the City's general height ordinance. This appears to be a matter that involves private views only, since public views are already taken care of. 2) Sympathy with the inland residents who understood that the view was regulated, concern fo the bluff side residents who have a right to devel op their property, and recognition of the fact tha the Planning Commission has the right to regulate in the public interest. 3) Need to limit the average height of the roof, rather than setting a maximum only, to dis- courage flat topped roofs and encourage good archi tecture. 4) This problem seen as a dispute between residents of the neighborhood and not a matter of preserving the public view or public right. 5) Probability that limited existing views would have been lost if construction had taken pla under a height limitation ordinance such as that being considered, with a suggestion that no limits be established. 6) Advisability of continuing the original Irvine Company concept of grading on two different levels. 7) Height limitation of 16.23 feet above the curb line on the bluff side would permit a two- story structure and the alternate proposal of 15 feet maximum would not. - 9 - INDEX COMMISSIONERS City of Newport Beach 71 vs gP�oRou December 7. 1978 ROLL CALL Motion Ayes Noes W MINUTES INDEX X was made that structures on the bluff side X X X gs Road and Kings Place which were in exist- Fabove X X Xr under construction may be changed, provided aid change does.not result in a roof height curb which is higher than 16.23 feet and provided further that the roof height does not exceed the height limit established by the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation Zone. New structures may be constructed on vacant building sites subject to the same criteria. Staff stated that this will be an amendment to the ordinance as it exists. There will be another public hearing before the City Council before it becomes final. The Chairman answered a question from the audience, that the motion is relevant only to this particular area. Item #5. rt Pro ed Amendments to Title 15 of the Newioon PROPOSED Beach unici al Code pertaining to excavatand AMEND- radin MENTS TO GRADING Initiated City of Newport Beach CODE RECOM- Staff stated th t any amendments to the grading MENDED code are going t have effects which may not be FILING apparent in the am ndment itself, and he hoped that the informatio to be presented by Jim Evans, Grading Engineer, and other staff members would make it clear what the esults would be before a final recommendation on y amendments was sent to the City Council. He also pointed out that the new grading code has only been effect since Septem- ber 14, 1978, and has not yet been tested on any major projects. He stated tha in the staff's opinion, this is a carefully dra code which is very restrictive in its requiremen s. Staff answered the following question from the Commissioners: - 10 - i y �J These 6 pages of Petition carry 61 additional signatures of residents of Cliff Haven and are in addition to the 85 signatures already turned in to the City Clerk and express the desire to maintain the present uniform roof line of the bluffside of Kings Road. These 61 additional signatures are presented on behalf of Edwina Nelson of 115 Kings Place, who coordinated the efforts of signature gathering. Dr. and Mrs. Nelson are unable to be present at this meeting as they are out of town, but wish to state that they strongly support this proposal. May I present both the originals of the pages carrying these 61 additional signatures, and a copy of the 85 signatures previously submitted. Thank you MAR 12 1979 By the CITY COUNCIL CITY, op HOWPORT BEACH CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH To: From: Subject: office of CITY ATTORNEY March 12, 1979 The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council City Attorney Ordinance No. 1793 - Amendment -of Minutes F —,-�5-- On January 22, 1979, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1793, limiting the height of structures on the bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Place. In addition to the findings of the Planning Commission, the Council made the following expressed findings which we are proposing be included in the Minutes: 1. The ordinance protects the public welfare and constitutes good planing and therefore is not spot zoning; 2. The ordinance will preserve and maintain the general character of the area and neighborhood; 3. The ordinance provides protection of public views and enhances the overall view value in the area; 4. The ordinance will not prevent the property owners from developing down the bluff and therefore is reasonable. The action would be to amend the January 22, 1979, City Council Minutes to include the expressed findings of the Council as set out above. jowi' Dennis D. O Neil h V f JAN 22 1974 By the CITY COUNCIL CITY OP ppWPORT 6gACh1 January 17, 1979 /�.-7 City Council Meek January 22, 1979 Agenda Item No. D-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Amendment No. 523 (Public Hearing) Request to amend Title 20-of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for the purpose of reducing height limits and preserving existing roof lines on the bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Place between Irvine Avenue and Dover Drive in Cliff Haven. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach ZONE: R-1 and R-2 Application This application is a proposal to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for the purpose of reducing height limits and preserv- ing existing roof lines on the bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Place between Irvine Avenue and Dover Drive in Cliff Haven. Amendment procedures are set forth under Chapter 20.84 of the Municipal Code. Suggested Action Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, adopt Ordinance No. Planning Commission Recommendation At its meeting of December 7, 1978, the Planning Commission voted (4 Ayes - 3 Noes) to recommend the approval of Amendment No. 523 to the City Council. Attached for the information and review of the City Council is a copy of the Planning Commission Staff Report dated Decem- ber 1, 1978 and an excerpt from the Planning Commission minutes of December 7, 1978. Background On October 10, 1978, the City Council received a petition from a number of residents living on both sides of Kings Road urging the City Council to adopt a change in the Municipal Code which would preserve a uniform roof line along the bluff side of Kings Road. A staff report was pre- pared for the City Council meeting of October 24, 1978 at which time the Council directed the Planning Commission to initiate hearings on the feasibility of reducing height limits: A resolution was adopted T0: City Council - 2. by the Planning Commission on November 9, 1978 setting a public hearing for December 7, 1978. For, the meeting of December 7, 1978, the staff surveyed and mathematically calculated existing roof elevations of five dwellings on the bluff side of Kings Road. These elevations were calcu- lated using actual field measurements and scaled distances from aerial photographs. The calculations, while approximate, indicate that exist- ing roof elevations from top of curb to top of ridge vary from 4.42 ft. to 16.23 ft. The height limit selected by the Planning Commission is the highest among those surveyed. If the City Council finds that a reduction in height limits along the bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Place would be good planning and is necessary to preserve the character of the neighborhood, then the City Council should sustain the action of the Planning Commission and amend Section 20.02.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code by adding sub- paragraph E. as follows: E. Structures on the bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Place which were in existence or under construction may be changed provided said change does not result in a roof height above curb which is higher than 16.23 feet, and provided further that the roof height does not exceed the height limit estab- lished by the 24/28 Height Limitation Zone. New structures may be constructed on vacant building sites subject to the same criteria. If the City Council finds that the imposition of more restrictive height regulations on the bluff side of Kings Road are for the purpose of giv- ing one group of homeowners an advantage over another, the approval of this amendment would not be a proper exercise of the police power, and Amendment No. 523 should be denied. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director by 'Q' _ D. W K. s istant Director - Planning JDH/kk Attachments for City Council Only: 1) Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 1, 1978 with attachments. 2) Excerpt of minutes from Planning Commission meeting of December 7, 1978. 3) Additional signatures and correspondence received by the Planning Commission subsequent to distribution of staff report. _ ,s d • Planning Commission Meet* December 7, 1978 December 1, 1978 TO: i�IYVF SUBJECT: INITIATED BY ZONE: Application Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Department of Community Development Amendment No. 523 (Public Hearin Request to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for the purpose of reducing height limits and preserving existing roof lines on. the bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Place between Irvine Avenue and Dover Drive in Cliff Haven. The City of Newport Beach R-1 and R-2 This application is a proposal to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for the purpose of reducing height limits and preserving existing roof lines on the bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Place between Irvine Avenue and Dover Drive in Cliff Haven. Amendment procedures are set forth under Chapter 20.84 of the Municipal Code. Environmental Significance This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it will not have any significant environmental impact. Background On October 10, 1978, the City Council received a petition signed by sixty-nine residents on Kings Road urging the City Council to adopt a change in the Municipal Code which would preserve a uniform roof line along the bluff side of Kings Road. Specific mention was made to a proposal for the first two-story structure to be erected on the bluff side of Kings Road and concern that this structure would alter the existing general roof line of the street. In addition, corres- pondence has been received by the Director of Community Developments the City Attorney, Mayor Ryckoff, Councilwoman Hart, the City Manager, and the President of the Cliff Haven Community Association from Mr. & Mrs. Pobog at 1400 Kings Road, regarding a proposed remodel at 1401 Kings Road. A staff report was prepared for the City Council meeting of October 24, 1978, at which time the City Council directed the Planning Commission to initiate hearings on the feasibility of reducing height limits on the bluff side of Kings Road and preserving existing roof lines. A copy of the report sent to the City Council is attached. - 1 - 16 T0: Aning Commission - 2. r. At the Study Session of November 9, 1978, the Planning Commission was informed of the City Council's directive and a resolution was adopted setting a public hearing for December 7, 1978. Analysis The area under consideration is a row of 66 subdivided lots generally overlooking the lower bay and the ocean beyond. All of the sites are developed for residential purposes with the exception of two lots located between 1821 and 1721 Kings Road whi-ch is the Cliff Haven View park, a lot located between 911 and 811 Kings Road which is vacant, and a lot located between 615 and 603 Kings Road which has been landscaped in conjunction with the residence at 615 Kings Road. There are no sidewalks on Kings Road or Kings Place with the exception of the sidewalks adjacent to the view park. A visual inspection of t no public views of the b from the view park and t of the bay and ocean are bluff side of the road. from those homesites on overlook the homes which he area by the staff revealed that there are ay or ocean available from Kings Road except he two vacant building sites. Private views available for most of the homesites on the Private views of the ocean are available the inland side of the road which are able to have been constructed on the bluff side. Both one and two story homes have been constructed on either side of Kings Road with development on the bluff side having a one story elevation on the street and a two story elevation on the lower side. The City surveyed five sites on the bluff side of Kings Road to de- termine existing roof elevations and has found that they vary from approximately 4.42 feet to 16.23 feet above curb, The homes surveyed and existing roof elevations above curb are as follows: 2001 Kings Road 14.62 feet 1721 Kings Road 5.52 feet 1621 Kings Road 14.51 feet 1501 Kings Road 16.23 feet 811 Kings Road 4.42 feet Alternative Courses of Action As indicated in the staff report to the City Council and in the opinion of the City Attorney, attached thereto, the subject of building heights and view preservation is not new. Height restrictions to protect views and to preserve light and air are traditionally held to be a legitimate purpose for the exercise of the City's zoning powers. However, to be a proper exercise of the police power it must be demonstrated that the imposition of more restrictive regulations on one side of the street as opposed to the other is required for some public purpose. TO: Planning Commission - 3. If the Planning Commissio,n finds that a -reduction in height limits along the bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Place would be good planning and is necessary to preserve the character of the neighborhood, then a count might find that the City in imposing more restrictive regulations has properly exercised its police power. If the Commission can make the finding noted above, the staff would suggest that subsection E be added under Section 20.02.050 as follows: 20.02.050 EXISTING STRUCTURES AND PERMITS. A. Structures which were in existence or under construction on the effective date of this ordinance, and which do not conform to these regulations may be continued.or altered; provided, that the changes do not result in a greater nonconformity than was existing. B. Structures for which building permits have been issued or for which use permits have been issued, on the effective date of this ordinance, and which do not conform to these regulations, may be constructed according to the approved plans. C. Proposed structures within a Planned Community District adopted prior to the effective date of this ordinance may be constructed in accordance with the height limits contained within the Planned Community Text; provided, however, that a Use Permit shall be required for any structure which exceeds the height limits established by this Chapter. D. The use permit application fee shall be waived for any single family home in the R-1 District which is replacing a structure which was in existence on the effective date of this Chapter. E. Structures on the bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Place which were in existence or under construction may be changed provided said change does not result in a roof height above curb which is higher th n cne average of the roof heights of the structures on the adjoining lots on either side of the property and provided further that the roof height does not exceed the height limit established by the 24, Height Limitation Zone. New structures may be constructed on vacant building sites subJect to the same criteria. If the Planning'Commission finds that the imposition of'more restrictive height regulations on the bluff side of Kings Road are for the purpose of giving one group of homeowners an advantage over another, the approval of this amendment would not be a proper exercise of the police power and Amendment No. 523 should be denied. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By 1._ N 2X/LCLD , ames D. Hewicker Assistant Director -Planning JDH/dt TO: *Planning Commission - 4. t Attachments: Staff Report to City Council dated 10/19/78 with attachments Excerpt of letter submitted to City Council on Modification No. 2320 Letter from Eleanor V. McKinnon Letter from Paul & Harriet Hanna Letter from Warren E. Howland • JAN 9,% 1070 ORDINANCE NO. By the Qf—e COUNCIL CITY 0 PAt'4rFs AT BAN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING SECTION 20.02.050 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SUBSECTION // (E) THERETO RELATING TO THE•HEIGHT OF �{ STRUCTURES ON THE BLUFF SIDE OF KINGS ROAD AND KINGS PLACE D — JAN 8 1979 The City Council of the City of Newport Beach DOES By, the CITY COUNCIL CITY. F* "-%'RW1$i 0Wollows: SECTION 1. Section 20.02.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code is amended by adding subsection (E) thereto to read as follows: "E. Structures on the bluff side of Kings Road and Kings place which were in existence or under construction on the effective date of this ordinance may be changed provided such change does not result in a roof height above curb which is higher than 16.23 feet and.provided further that the roof height does not exceed the height limit established by the 24/28 Height Limitation Zone. New structures may be constructed on vacant building sites subject to the same criteria." SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall be effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the day of JAN $ , 1978, and was adopted on the o2 day of 197 `j , by the following vote, to wit: Q ATTEST: AYES, COUNCILMEN NOES, COUNCILMEN ABSENT COUNCILMEN Mayor City Clerk DDO/kb 12/13/78 C ft AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING On Z /y 1'7c,� , I posted on the property involved a , Notice of Public Hearing regarding: Proposed Ordinance No. 1793, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING SECTION 20.02.050 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTION (e) THERETO RELATING TO HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES ON THE BLUFF SIDE OF KINGS ROAD AND KINGS PLACE, Planning Commission Amendment No. 523, a request initiated by the City of Newport Beach to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for the purpose of reducing height limits and preserving existing roof lines on the bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Place between Irvine Avenue and Dover Drive in Cliff Haven. Date of Hearing: January 22 1979 i=4�:6 , k .J._�- I 0 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 9 ' lo, � NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing regarding proposed Ordinance No. 1793 being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING SECTION 20.02.050 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTION (e) THERETO RELATING TO HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES ON THE BLUFF SIDE OF KINGS ROAD AND KINGS PLACE, Planning Commission Amendment No. 523, a request initiated by the City of Newport Beach to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for the purpose of reducing height limits and preserving existing roof lines on the.bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Place between Irvine Avenue and Dover Drive in Cliff Haven. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the said public hearing will be held on the. 22nd day of January , 1979 , at the hour of 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall of the City ro of Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. A4,,-,,, L - , �— DorGeorge City Cleric City of Newport Beach Lyman Farwell Mar -Gard, Inc. Avenue • . Robert Palmer ri Drive 2888 Bayshore D 1500 Adams ; 530 Kings Road Newport Beach, 92663 ; Suite 309 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Leslie Swanson Leon Nelson Paul Hanna 621 Cliff Drive 33 Haig Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 : 602 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Giltner Knudsen Harold Dickerson Dollie Rains fill Cliff Drive 125 Rochester Street 505 Tustin Avenue Suite 228 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Alice ff John D. Lee 302 kings Road Grady Thompson 660 Kings Road Drive 601 Cliff Dr Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 William Schraegle Shelia Zoldan 320 Kings Road Fred Howser 245 Kings Road 521 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 : Newport Beach, CA 92663 Walter Burroughs i Robert Stevens Kings Road Edgar Scheck 9 511 Cliff .Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 N402 ew Newport Beach, CA 92663 501 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Arthur Courteau Mason Siler 410 Kings Road Stanley Henline 230 Kings Road 237 Kings Place Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Tony Hogg Marvin Walker Lloyds Bank 231 Kings Place 10442 Allen Drive 242 E. 22nd Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Garden Grove, CA 92640 Costa. Mesa, CA 92627 Ruth D. Miller Thomas Carney Ralph Shutt 225 Kings Place 502 Kings Road 212 Kings Place Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Alice Martin Robert Eschbach Jerry Greer 1832 N. Garfield Place 510 Kings Road 208 Kings Place Los Angeles, CA 90028 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Charles Shannep Anne Cortner i Donald Smith 201 Kings Place 309 Hastings 204 Kings Place Newport Beach, CA 92663 Redland, CA 92373 Newport Beach, CA 92663 c 1 Sherman•Smith Carl Metten i 1020 Kings Road Luther Swink •; 1001 Kings Road 1508 Eton Place Newport Beach, CA 92660 ; Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 r .....,r ..1 1 ..r.,.r..,rr. John Hughes Ir Elizabeth Cox David Ruffell 911 Kings Road P. 0. Box 85 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 1100 Kings Road ; Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 T. R. McVicar Thomas Henerson C. F. Anderson 1310 Kings Road 700 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 1110 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 John Kasparoff George McCauley Rolf Schwalbe 811 Kings Road 710 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 1120 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 : Newport Beach, CA 92663 Helen Trotter Donald Wells - Allen Foster ; 801 Kings Road 800 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 1200 Kings Road ; Newport .Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Richard Handy i Roland Bertonneau Earl Walker Kings Road 810 Kings Road 7740 E. Lakeview Trail Newport Beach, CA New 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 ; Orange, CA 92669 Leon W. Rudd American Trust Barret Weekes 709 Kings Road 900 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 902 N. Main Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Frank Herman Jones Walling Richard Belveal 701 Kings Road 910 Kings Road N t Beh CA 92663 1113 Kings Road N r D. B. Bertone 1201 Kings 'Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 William Pells 1121 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 Craig Weightman 2001 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 George Lackey Darwin Britvich • Stanley Nash 612 St. James Place 300 Kings Place 2200 Cliff Drive Newport Beach., CA R2663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 : Newport Beach, CA 92663 Harold Christler Lloyds Bank t Kenneth Barker 313 Irvine Avenue P. 0. Box 128 Balboa Island, CA 92662 1910 Sunset Blvd., #465 Los Angeles, CA 90#46 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Everett Temme 604 St. James Place hiRealty Franchise Robert Flynn 312 Fullerton Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 0. Box 66207 P. Chicago, Illinois 60666 Newport Beach, CA 92663 David Fraser Leonard Horwin 121 S. Beverly Drive Ardell Investment Co. 600 St. James Place Beverly Hills, CA 90212 2077 W. Coast Highway Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Alexander Goglanian Leonard Horwin 2528 W. Greenleaf Eustace Rojas 401"15th Street " Newport Beach, 92663 : Anaheim, CA 92801 2219 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 lu � .. I.... .<, ... Richard Brewer 411 15th Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Hilda Newton 508 Kings Place Newport Beach, CA 92663 Henry Bennik 500 Kings Place Newport Beach, CA 92663 9 Newton Cox 408 Kings Place Newport Beach, CA 92663 William Stine 133 Monterey Blvd. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Nicholas Pier 1343 E1 Monte Drive Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 j Waters & Tarnutzer. Gene Bolln 1815 Westcliff Drive 2223 Cliff Drive i Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Torrence Dodds Box 1821 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Clarke Musser 2216 Cliff'Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Lee Sawin 2212 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 : Priscilla Smith 2918 Cliff Drive" 1% Newport Beach, CA 92663 Francis Zoelle 525 Citrus Avenue Vt. Covina, CA 91791 _Agnes Hyden 2227 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Lawrence Fields 2209 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Robert Brown 840 Hinckley Road Burlingame, CA 90410 No Richardson 891 Maple Avenue Lindsay, CA 93247 David Grant 2205 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Robert Gregg Robert Lambert Newport Beach School District 1921 Kings Road 1301 Kings Road P. 0. Box 1368 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 • ' Newport Beach, CA 92663 ........ James Nelson Wallace Halverson James Adams 1911 Kings Road 1221 Kings Road ; 401 Kings Place Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport.Beach, CA 92663 Thomas Deemer 1901 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 1 ......... . .. , .... I William Mader 1601 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA Dick Stevens E. T. Auger Balboa Bay Club 315 Kings Place 1221 W. Coast Highway Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Tract 1210 LTD Parley 'Peterson 1221 W. Coast Highway 309 Kings Place 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Patrick Sweeney : James Helfrich Paul Murray 170 E. 17th St., Suite 250 1831 Kings Road 305 Kings Place Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 1,... .I„ ... , Ansell Hill 1511 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA Ralph Anderson 1501 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA Management, Inc. 10334 Garvey Avenue E1 Monte, CA 91733 .. ' L. L. Leachman i Donald Perkal 1821 Kings Road 500 Cliff Drive 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 92663 Good Earth, Inc. 1478 Galaxy Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Stephen Kantor Helen Porter 708 St. James Place :_600 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Charles Palmer Owen Gahagan 1701 Kings Road 1305 Woodberry Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 San Mateo, CA 94403 George Minney Rudolf Zurcher 2537 W. Coast Highway 312 Signal Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Rains Development Corp. Roy Watkins 1000 Santiago Drive 1611 Kings Road Madelyn Gonzalez Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92663 New Signal Road Newport Beach CA 92663 Catherine Whipple 1311 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 Herbert Brownell Frank Springsteen 1950 Id. Coast Highway 324 Signal Road. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Ray Johnson Thomas Carney .j Alan E. Smith 2441 Marino Drive : 2541 Crestview Drive ; -2601 Crestview Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 ! Newport Beach, CA 92663 I.......... .. Clement Dowd J. Zachary 4Ji11iam Lester 2491 Crestview Drive 5 Aspen Tree Lane 2611 Crestview Drive ewoort Beach, CA 92663 Irvine, CA 92715' Newport Beach, CA 92663 Olga Dalrymple 1485 Cheldea Drive San Marino, CA 91108 Edwin Finster 2581 Vista Drive Newport Beach, CA . ri a ..r.i. r. .. .... . .. ......... ..... .... Linda Gregory 2621 Crestview Drive 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Helen Betts Gretchen Abbate Marjorie Edwards 2501 Crestview Drive 2555 Crestview Drive 2631 Crestview Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 George Swarberg 2505 Crestview Drive Ross Heflin 2561 Crestview Drive V. J. Gisela 39 Mhitewater Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 ; Newport Beach, CA- 92663 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 ............. Robert Lake The Irvine Company Drive : William Givens 2651 Crestview Drive 2511 Crestview Newport Beach, Drive CA 92663 550 Newport Center Newport Beach, CA 92663 : Newport Beach, CA 92663 Doug Rugg George Hauser .- Wesley R. Lochausen 2515 Crestview Drive 2575 Crestview Beach, Drive CA 92663 2661 Crestview Drive Newnort Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Wallace Limburg San Vaccaro 2581 Crestview Drive Rosemary Heck 2671 Crestview Drive 2521 Crestview Newport Beach, Drive CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach,, CA 92663 Leyden Swenninq 2525 Crestview Drive 'r Phil Brien Bernard Rigolet Newport Beach, CA 92663 2585 Crestview Drive 2681 Crestview Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 y Newport Beach, CA 92663 Camilla Burden 2531 Crestview Drive Dolores Vivonia Newport Beach, CA 92663 2591 Crestview Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 ; r Stephen Pricer 2691 Crestview Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 George Converse 2535 Crestview Drive Jack Brumagin Newport Beach, CA 92663 2595 Crestview Drive Newoort Beach, CA 92663 Bayshores Community Assoc. Mr. Ray Infantina, Pres. 2500 Marino Drive Lorin Carver Leland Winton Road James Boe .' 200 Kings Place 521 Kings 1201 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 ....... ...... ..._., ,,, ...,. ,.... .,,,..., N. L. Jones Czeslaw Gwozoziowski Bruno Naczowski 104 Kings Road i 309 Evening Star Lane 1111 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 : Newport Beach, CA 92663 Gene Vernon Robert Crawford Nadine Day 100 Kings Road P. 0. Box 218 1101 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Carey Cowan William Collins Robert Pickell 303 Kings Road 615 Kings Road '808 E. Ocean Front Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Balboa, CA 92661 Warren Howland : Leslie Miller William Gilmore 311 Kings Road 128 Kings Road loll Cliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 L. G. Reynard Betty Scaccia Thomas Utman 321 Kings Road 120 Kings Road : 1001 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA "92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Omar 0. Orr : John Smith Lois Eliassen 403 Kings Road 124 Kings Place -921 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 s Henry Geerlings Donald Ward Mary Chamberlain 411 Kings Road 116 Kings Road 1158 Locust Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Long Beach, CA 90813 Roy Collins Patricia Elms James Butler 421 Kings Road,' " 112 Kings Road 901 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Allen Meyer Thomas Lally Willis Guptill 503 Kings Road i 11048 E. Washington Blvd. 17982 Butler Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 j Whittier, CA 90606 Irvine, CA 92663 Michael Hilford Rex Allbright William Waters 511 Kings Road 1211 Cliff Drive 801•Cliff Drive Newport Beach, p CA 92663 CA 92663 Newport Beach,Newport Beach, CA 92663 Joyce Starner George Roudanez Allen McDonald 1911 Cliff Drive 1401 Cliff Drive 1600 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 • Newport Beach, CA 92663 A; Newport Beach, CA 92663 , Robert McGiffin 1891 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 9266 ... r... ... ... James Shortridge 429 S. Mannington Place W. Covina, CA 91791 Kenneth Dudour Jay Young S 440 De Sola Terrace 1610 Kings Road 3 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Eleanor McKinnon Norman Gamble 215 St, Andrews Road 1620 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Paul Reed 1805 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Harry Peters 1717 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 9266 Bruce Fleury 1315 N. Wilton Place Hollywood, CA 90028 Gloria Rowe 1611 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 9266 Frank Eisendrath Frank Connor 1300 Kings Road - 1700 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Clarence Anderson 1310 Kings Road 3 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Alice Pobog 1400 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 John Roy 1410 Kings Road 3 Newport Beach, CA 92663 James Dugan Roger Gass 1601 Cliff Drive 1420 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Anna Roberts Ralph Anderson 1514 Cliff Drive 1500 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Betty Gleason 1734 Virginia Place Placentia, CA 92670 Mary Konfal 539 Winston Avenue Pasadena, CA 91107 Hartley Turpin 1710 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phillip Petty 1720 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 William Adams 1800 Kings Road -Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dal Grettenberg 1810 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 Ray Keplinger 2000 Kings :Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 Marion Kindell Gilbert Foerster i 1510 Kings Road 2011 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Milton Shedd j 1520 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 Pacifica Development Co. 833 Dover Drive Suite 2 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Richard Dwyer 6336 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 900.48 „ ...,, Cliff Haven Comm. Assoc. Mr. Bob Cooper, Pres. 418 Signal Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 9 . ................. j t ................... „ ,,,,. ,,, ... •,. ......... ......,,.., ,..... .,...,,.. ............................. •,,,,,..,i .......................................... ..........,.,..... L NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on Amendment No. 523 initiated by, the City of Newport Bea=:h 9 to consider an amendment to. Title 20.of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for the purpose of.reducing height limits and'preserving existing roof lines on the bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Place between Irvine Avenue and Dover Drive, in Cliff Haven. Notice is hereby further given that said public hearing will be- held on the 7th day of December 19 78, at the hour of 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall,'at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. George Cokas, Secretary Planning Commission City of Newport Beach PUBLICATION DATE: Received for Pub. By_jon Z04,3 Y i . I This is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp THE NEWPORT ENSIGNto PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SS. County of Orange, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above -entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the Newport Harbor Ensign newspaper of general circulation, printed and pub- lished weekly in the city of Newport Beach, County of Or- ange, and which newspaper has been adjudged a news- paper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California, under the date of May 14, 1951, CASE NUMBER A-20178 that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil). has been published in each regular and en- tire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates to -wit: Februa Y.....J...1.9..7.9.............. I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true, and correct, Dated at Newport Beach, California,thislSt dayofFeb 1979 .......... ...... da.') Signature THE NEWI'OIZT ENSIGN 2721 E. Coast Hwy., Corona del Mar, California 92825. A Proof of Publication of PUBLIC NOTICE ORDINANCE NO. 1793 rctC. -u CITY CLERK E s 6 1979 ► CITY OF IEINPORT Ear i aiyn tPUBLIC NOTICEi OINANCE OF T E C AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY Or , NEWPORT BEACH Ak1ENDING SEC- T BON 2002050 Or THE NEWPORT aC SOMIC@AL CODE BY ADD- i DIGS New. Newport Beach A/usMp.l- coda 1. amended by adding subsection (E) thereto to sad a. follows. I "E. SbuctumsonthebluflsidsolEtng. ; Road aad %Inge Place which were In existence or under cemimcllce on the aHKIM data of this ordinance may be changed provided such change does not result In a toot helghl shove curb which Is higher than 16.231n1 and provided further that the roof height does not ex - used the height limit established by the 24/28 Haight limitation Zone New structures may be cos.nactdan vacant building sit., subt.el to the same cd- I imis." I ' SECTION 2. This srdinenc. shall be published once In the official newspaper of the City, and IM rmus shall be eaec live thirty (30) day. of en the dab of its adoption This ordinance was lntrdmd d ° bgular meeting of the City Council of ti the city..[ Newport Beach held " the eth day of January, 1979 and wsaadepb d no the 22ad day of January, I979 by the following Vol% to wit 1 AYES. Councilman Had, Heaths" Hummel, Ryckoff,Strauss and Williams NOES, - cilmenMdnnb PubWk Esb, 1, 1979 1. The N E.19. -- PROOF OF PUBLICATION /�2 7f This & is for the County Clerk's riling Stamp THE NE,WPORT ENSIGN PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SS. County of Orange, I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above -entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the Newport Harbor Ensign newspaper of general circulation, printed and pub- lished weekly in the city of Newport Beach, County of Or- ange, and which newspaper has been adjudged a news- paper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California, under the date of May 14, 1951, CASE NUMBER A-20178 that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and en- tire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates to -wit: January..11 r....1979.......... I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true, and correct. Dated at Newport Beach, California, this 11 day of Jan 19 79 ... .... .Uavlu . $+J.!.G.................. Signature THE NEWPORT ENSIGN 2721 E. Coast Hwy., Corona del Mar, California 92625. A Proof of Publication of PUBLIC NOTICE Proposed Ordinance No, 1799 NOTIC.L OF PUBLIC H aABu*- , 140TICE IS HERM, QNEN thn, the City C000Hl of the Qity, of Newport Beech wolf hold a public hennn7 r.getd hot pf.poe,d O,dlneace No 1793 Ming AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF 7N (e) THERETO RELATING ' OF STRUCTURES ON THE E OF KINGS ROAD AND ICE, Ptmmtna CommWlon No 923, a requmt k0tlated of Newport Beach to emend Code for the purpore of mducmg, hrmhl Rmlleand preuervmg rxbting mot hoer on the Wolf Nde of Kmga ✓ od and Kin7e Ploy. hmw,�. Irvin. A %'end DOVm Dr tvr in Chit Hevm yyJ,,.��[j^� NOTICE 1S HEREBY FUB1 EN that the add public heaAma held on the 22,d day of Ian 1979 qt the hour of 730 pm, In 1l!gqyy'oupe9 ChemMn of the City Nell oldp. City al Newport Beach, Cdlibm,a, .1 which. ❑me and place any and ellpmeme inN} u':ed may appear and be heard thmeco Doris George, city Clerk, City of Nme pert Boush. I piInn 11, 1974 InThe Newport I ' Emig.. 9n. NRI 1 REVdVED CITY Cf EFIST AN 1 D 1979;�. Nty OF Out. PROOF OF PUBLICATION • /a75/ CITIMP S PETITIOId JAN 22 1979,yr By the CifY COUNCIL 6 JAN u 1979 Dw - CITY W. lNgWr--Q9T IMCN / To: City Council pJL.gy17nr'I r 4f I. .• e.Ct�, City of Newport Beacht California Wei the undersigned are opposed to the addition of sub- se0 /.oY,E�,�~ =' of Title 20.02.050 of the Municipal Code of Newport Beach which proposes to limit to 16.23 feet above top of curb for all homes on bluff side only of Kings Road and Kings Place between Irvine Street and Dover Drive or any other amendment that relates to the changing of�� present height limit of structures in the R-1 Zone. Wei further agree that the City of Newport Beach has no justified' power to legislate the private affairs, that do not involve the health, safety and general welfarey of its citizens or property owners. We agree that there is no Public Purpose in this matter of reducing the height limit of structures only on the bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Place. %J n • .0 CITIZEN'S PETITION To: City Council City of Newport Beach, California Wei the undersigned are opposed to the addition of sub —section E of Title 20.02.050 of the Municipal Code of Newport Beach which proposes to limit to 16.23 feet above top of curb for all homes on bluff side only of Kings Road and Kings Place between Irvine Street and Dover Drive or any other amendment that relates to the ohanging of present height -limit of structures in the R-1 Zone. Wet further agree that the City of Newport Beach has no justified power to legislate the private a£fairst that do not involve the health, safety and general welfareq of its citizens or property owners. We agree that there is no Public Purpose in this matter of reducing the height limit of structures only on the bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Place. CITIMP S PETITION To: City Council City of Newport Beacht California Wep the undersigned are opposed to the addition of sub —section E of Title 20.02.050 of the Municipal Code of Newport Beach which proposes to limit to 16.23 feet above top of curb for all homes on bluff side only of Kings Road and Kings Place between Irvine Street and Dover Drive or any other amendment that relates to the changing of present height limit of structures in the R-1 Zone. lie, further agree that the City of Newport Beach has no justified power to legislate the private affairst that do not involve the health, safety and general welfare, of its citizens or property owners. We agree that there is no Public Purpose in this matter of reducing the height limit of structures only on the bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Place. � s .y11 1 ��.gill; 1�4.11 CITIZEN'S PETITION To: City Council City of Newport Beach$ California Weq the undersigned are opposed to the addition of sub —section E of Title 20.02.050 of the hiunioipal Code of Newport Beach which proposed to limit, to 16.23 feet above top of curb for all homes on bluff side only of I{ings Road and Kings Place between Irvine Street and Dover Drive or any other amendment that relates to the changing of present height limit of structures in the R-1 Zone. TTamo Address Date J• r -Yy - r/ `� z 4,1 T !^ ez92'i r s aeoi GelA) s R b A). R 2 /17 AV CITIZEN'S PETITION• To: City Council City of Newport Beaohq California Nei the undersigned are opposed to the addition of sub —section E of Title 20.02.050 of the Municipal Code of Newport Beach which proposed to limit,to 16.23 feet above top of curb for all homes on s bluff side only of Kings Road and Kings Place between Irvine Street and Dover Drive or any other amendment that relates to the changing of present height limit of structures in the R-1 Zone. �m'� J CITIZL'NIS PETITION To: City Council City of Newport Beach, California We, the undersigned are opposed to the addition of sub —section E of Title 20.02.050 of the Municipal Code of Newport Beach which proposes to limit to 16.23 feet above top of curb for all homes on bluff side only of Kings Road and Kings Place between Irvine Street and Dover Drive or any other amendment that relates to the changing of present height limit of structures in the R-1 Zone. We, further agree that the City of Newport Beach has no justified power to legislate the private affairs, that do not involve the health, safety and general welfare, of its citizens or property owners. We agree that there is no Public Purpose in this matter of reducing the height limit of structures only on the bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Place. 0 r9 CITIZEN'S PETITION To: City Council City of Newport Beachf California RECEIVED CITY CLERK J AN 161979 C1TY BEACH, / NEWPOALIF. Weq the undersigned are opposed to the addition of "I, sudsy of Title 20.02.050 of the Municipal Code of Newport Beach which proposes to limit to 16.23 feet above top of curb for all homes on bluff side only of Kings Road and Kings Place between Irvine Street and Dover Drive or any other amendment that relates to the changing of present height limit of structures in the R-1 Zone. We, further agree that the City of Newport Beach has no justified power to legislate the private affairsp that do not involve the health, safety and general welfareq of its citizens or property owners. We agree that there is no Public Purpose in this matter of reducing the height limit of structures only on the bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Place. e"O' G'el2 ✓(0 41 CCK 3. / 5 Planning Commission Meag December 7, 1978 Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH December 1, 1978 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Amendment No. 523 -(Public Heari_ng) Request to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for the purpose of reducing height limits and preserving existing roof lines on the bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Place between Irvine Avenue and,Dover Drive in Cliff Haven. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach ZONE: R-1 and R-2 Application This application is a proposal to amend Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for the purpose of reducing height limits and preserving existing roof lines on the'bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Place between Irvine Avenue and Dover Drive in Cliff Haven. Amendment procedures are set forth under Chapter ,20.84 of the Municipal Code. Environmental Significance This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it will not have any significant environmental impact. Background On October 10, 1978, the City Council received a petition signed by sixty-nine residents on Kings Road urging the City Council to adopt a change in the Municipal Code which would preserve a uniform roof line along the bluff side of Kings Road. Specific mention was made to a proposal for the first two-story structure to be erected on the bluff side of Kings Road and concern that this structure would alter the existing general roof line of the street. In addition, corres- pondence has been received by the Director of Community Development; the City Attorney, Mayor Ryckoff, Councilwoman Hart, the City Manager, and the President of the Cliff Haven Community Association from Mr. & Mrs. Pobog at 1400 Kings Road, regarding a proposed remodel at 1401 Kings Road. A staff report was prepared for the City Council meeting of October 24, 1978, at which time the City Council directed the Planning Commission to initiate hearings on the feasibility of reducing height limits on the bluff side of Kings Road and preserving existing roof lines. A copy of the report sent to the City Council is attached. TO: Olanning Commission - 2. At the Study Session of November 9, 1978, the Planning Commission was informed of the City Council's directive and a resolution was adopted setting a public hearing for December 7, 1978. Analysis The area under consideration is a row of 66 subdivided lots generally overlooking the lower bay and the ocean beyond. All of the sites are developed for residential purposes with the exception of two lots located between 1821 and 1721 Kings Road which is the Cliff Haven View Park, a lot located between 911 and 811 Kings Road which is vacant, and a lot Yocated between 615 and 603 Kings Road which has been landscaped in conjunction with the residence at 615 Kings Road. There are no sidewalks on Kings Road or Kings Place with the exception of the sidewalks adjacent to the view park. A visual inspection of the area by the staff revealed that there are no public views of the bay or ocean available from Kings Road except from the view park'and the two vacant building sites. Private views of the bay and ocean are available for most of the homesites on the bluff side of the road. Private views of the ocean are available from those homesites on the inland side of the road which are able to overlook the homes which have been constructed on the bluff side. Both one and two story homes have been constructed on either side of Kings Road with development on the bluff side having a one story elevation on the street and a two story elevation on the lower side. The City surveyed five sites on the bluff side of Kings Road to de- termine existing roof elevations and has found that they vary from approximately 4.42 feet to 16.23 feet above curb. The homes surveyed and existing roof elevations above curb are as follows: 2001 Kings Road 14.62 feet 1721 Kings Road 5.52 feet 1621 Kings Road 14.51 feet 1501 Kings Road 16.23 feet 811 Kings Road 4.42 feet Alternative Courses of Action As indicated in the staff report to the City Council and in the opinion of the City Attorney, attached thereto, the subject of building heights and view preservation is not new. Height restrictions to protect views and to preserve light and air are traditionally held to be a legiitimate purpose for the exercise of the City's zoning powers. However, to be a proper exercise of the police power it must be demonstrated that the imposition of more restrictive regulations on one side of the street as opposed to the other is required for some public purpose. ~ • Planning Commission - 3. TO: 9 If the Planning Commission finds that a reduction in height limits along the bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Place would be good planning and is necessary to preserve the character of the neighborhood, then a count might find that the City in imposing more restrictive regulations has properly exercised its police power. If the Commission can make the finding noted above, the staff would suugest that subsection E be added under Section 20.02.050 as follows: 20.02.050 EXISTING STRUCTURES AND PERMITS. A. Structures which were in existence or under construction on the effective date of this ordinance, and which do not conform to these regulations may be continued or altered; provided, that the changes do not result in a greater nonconformity than was existing. B. Structures for which building permits have been issued or for which use permits have been issued, on the effective date of this ordinance, and which do not conform to these regulations, may be constructed according to the approved plans. C. Proposed structures within a Planned Community District adopted pr for to the effective date of this ordinance may be constructed in accordance with the height limits contained within the Planned Community Text; provided, however, that a Use Permit shall be required for any structure which exceeds the height limits established by this Chapter. D. The use permit application fee shall be waived for any single family home in the R-1 District which is replacing a structure which was in existence on the effective date of this Chapter. E. Structures on the bluff side of Kings Road and Kings Place which were in existence or under construction may be changed rovided said chan does not result in a roof height above curb which is higher than the average of the roof heights of the structures on the adjoining lots on either side of the property and provided further that the roof height does not exceed the height limit established by the 24/28 Height Limitation Zone New structures may be constructed on vacant building sites subject to the same criteria. If the Planning Commission finds that the imposition of'more restrictive height regulations on the bluff side of Kings Road are for the purpose of giving one group of homeowners an advantage over another, the approval of this amendment would not be a proper exercise of the police power and Amendment No. 523 should be denied. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. Vim./ HOGAN, DIRECTOR By ug" ames D. Hewicker Assistant Director -Planning JDH/dt 1 F TO: t'ROM: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY The Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Assistant City Attorney ;f)ri,TrCT: view Preservation Through Zoning July 1, 1976 n frequent question is raised regarding the legal ability of Llu: City to impose height restrictions against certain specified parcels to protect the view of other property owners .across the affected parcels. The resolution of this question can be accomplished only through a review of the.zoning powers of a City. It can be said with complete certainty that control and regula- tions of the height of buildings is one of the basic tools to be used in zoning.., Brougher v Board of Public Works (1930) 107 Cal App 15, Section 65850(c) of the Government Code. Thus, it appears from first reading that height restrictions are permissible to protect views. And, in fact, height restrictions to protect views and to preserve light and air are traditionally held to be legitimate purposes for the exercise of the munici- pality's zoning powers. However, more detailed review of the application of police power to zoning would indicate the ability of the City to protect the individual views of adjoining properties is substantially more limited than the application of height rrqulations generally. The fundamental purpose of zoning is to protect the public health, safety and welfare. As the Supreme Court of the United States stated in Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26: "Public safety, public health, morality, peace and quiet law and order - these are some of the most conspicuous examples of the traditional application of the police power to municipal affairs. Yet, they merely illustrate the scope of the power and do not limit it." 'Pi,o chairman and Members of III(. Pianni.nq Commission ,Iuly I, L976 - Page Two ,rllo City, exercising its police power to establish zoning regulations and zoning districts must act to protect the public interest generally. The application of the zoning regulations must be reasonable and uniform. Section 65852 of the Government Code codifies this principle. To apply a specific restriction against one piece of property for the benefit of an adjacent property, and where the restricted property is treated'differently from other property within the same• zone within the City would be an unequal application of police power and also could likely constitute invalid spot zoning. Hamer v. Town of Ross (1963) 59 Cal 2d 776, Scrutton v. County of Sacramento (1969) 79 Cal Rptr 872. 'rho specific area of concern deals with the imposition of restrictive height regulations over lots on Hazel Drive for the benefit of property owners on Poppy Drive. It would seem that the imposition of the more restrictive height regulations solely for the benefit of property owners along Poppy Drive would constitute impermissible spot zoning and unequal application of height regulations since the height regulations would apply only to a limited number of lots on Hazel Drive. It is doubtful that an argument could be raised as to what police power purposes are being served by the imposition of this restrictive regulation. As stated before, the imposition of zoning regulations through the exercise of the police power is for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare, and not to gain an individual advantage of one lot owner over another. However, should substantial public welfare and police power tvasons be found to establish that the imposition of a more restrictive height limitation along one side of Hazel Drive w„illd be "good planning", and in the furtherance of the public w•11are, then consideration could be given to establishing more restrictive height limitations. For example, significant public views from an adjoining street or from a view park could be preserved through the imposition of specific height restriction so long as the restrictions left the resulting property in a condition that could be reasonably developed. But, lackinq a strong and valid argument that such specific I' i,• c'Iinirmnn and Members of Ilu• Pl.:nninq Commission .Inly I, 1976 - Page Three li-ight restrictions would be a proper exercise of the police power and in the furtherance of the public health, safety and welfare, the imposition of more restrictive height limitations would fail as unequal application of zoning regulations and impermissible spot zoning designed for the bonefit of private interests and not in the furtherance of the public interest., Hamer v. Town of Ross, supra. Views can be maintained and guaranteed through private arrange- ments, such as contractual rights and the enforcement of CC&R's. Likewise, certain views can be maintained in the interest of the general public welfare, such as the site plane zoning that exists in the Corporate Plaza area. However, specified restrictive zoning would likely fail when it deals with the preservation of only private rights and not the public welfare. t i� H} HUG ssV FFIN' Assstant City�At`t6rney IIRC:yz r-- • 0 The Mayor, and .the City Council• City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA192663 November 30, 1978 Gentlemen: Enclosed please find a copy.of a,letter from the Irvine Company to which I had referred during the November 27, 1978 meeting of the City Council. This letter pertains to the architeotural guidelines and the position of the Irvine Company on this matter. 1 1410 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663' Sincerely yours, Barbara Roy DateLz' - y� - i/ ( .i -s SENT TO: P h.;ayor jX : I a^.a ;er iY X; �rney .: eP (J i:o,.,�cllmcrS y- V '-Q.- z • ERVINE COMMA dY 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92663 (714) 644-3011 November 29, 1978 Mr. Allan Beek Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Architectural Restrictions Tracts 1219, 1221, Cliff Haven, Newport Beach Dear Mr. Beek: As Manager of Design Review for The Irvine Company for the past nine years, I was contacted by the Cliff Haven Community Association recently to research The Irvine Company files for any information that might shed light on past architectural guidelines utilized by the Company on the developments pertaining to the leasehold properties in Tracts 1219 and 1221. The enclosed information are the tract restric- tions placed on the above tracts by The Irvine Company back in the early 1950's. These restrictions were adhered to explicitly as can be seen by traveling thru the area today. Additional Rules and Regulations governing sideyard and rearyard set- backs were established and enforced by the City of Newport Beach. The intent of The Irvine Company Design Guidelines was to preserve overviews from the higher placed properties from those located on the Lower Bluff properties throughout the two before mentioned tracts. I£ any additional information regarding this matter is requested, Mr. Richard Reese, Vice President of the Planning Department, mentioned to me that The Irvine Company will be most happy to cooperate. Sincerely, 11% /��William E. Mader, Architect Manager, Design Review ITEM/shb Enclosure cc: Mrs. Barbara Roy v / 1410 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 71) IC IC� I� CLIFF HAVEN TRACTS: 1221 - 1219 (Blocks E, F, G, H) Refer to lease for front -yard setback: 10' on bluff lots, 20' on upper & non -bluff lots. one-story on bluff lots. 2- story okey on upper side. No white roofs. 74 j"K E Lot 1 120 Kir Gs •cd 2 116 KinGs i,oad 3 112 4 lo8 " 5 lo4 " 6 loo " 7 303 8 311 9 321 to 403 " 11 411 12 421 13 503 „ 14 511 15 521 „ 16 603 " 17 6o7 " 18 615 " 19 625 " 20 701 " 21 709 " 22 717 " 23 8o1 " 24 811 " 25 901 26 911 " 27 1001 " 28 1011 29 1021 " 30 1101 " 31 1111 " 32 1201 " 33 1211 " 34. 1221 35 1301 " 36 1311 " 37 i4ol " 38 1411 " 39 1421 " 4o 1501 " 41 1511 " 42 1521 " 43 16ol " 44 1611 " 45 1621 if F Lot 1 2 4 •—• 6 '8 9 .10 BLOCK G Lot 1 2 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 BLOCK H Lot 1 2 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 0:1 KinGs Road 1L,00 Kings Road 1520 If 1510 " 1500 1420 " 1410 " 1400 " 1310 " �300 1210 Kings Road 1200 " 1120 " 1110 " 1100 " 1020 IT 1010 " 1000 " 920 " 910 „ goo " 810 " 8C0" „ 710 " 700 „ 620 " 610 " 602 " 530 „ 520 " 510 502 420 " 410 402 " 320 " 302 101 115 „ 4 5 LOT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2011 Kings Road (SO.L ) 2001 " (sold) 1921 1911 „ 1901 „ 1831 " 1821 1811 If 1801 " 1721 Is - 1701 Kings Road 1620 Kings Road �700 it 1710 If 1720 " 1800 " 1810 Kings Road 1910 -.2000 Kings Road • Q ;;. Iir p: � K ` _P.- � I r� ��-,• '��3�y Ii-� •..- i ®ICJ '�`\ /l\ "moo ell , •• ( •Y �((1, .—ate _ / �i� / ,mil a' \? a Ilk y_-�.1.. ,`.II1.••.:i�i_1 ;ie� 1 -f' �. ti.,` j / 1 �• l-'.��iiw.-I' OCEA t.. Ti. tT' _a+: 4.44/,.. /• �,. �''C�,� :a'.:'. .-•.....j rt �:3^ �-y.�: s irV •�� /�� CLIFF HAVEN c. b �•�It 0 2 B♦ um 5. ate° Pro 4 N f, LT a � H r ck• V 9� KINGS o L: A�AD Bes Mtf'4B0 L ? II r y >o I 1 0 TRACT N 212 21 7�'S IS NOT A SURVEY OF THE LAND BUT IS COMPILED FOR INFORMATION ONLY FROM DATA SHOWN BY OFFICIAL RECORDS. IM M-1107 82 /9i9 e.1ao1rS q,FeLOTS-?4,r0 X9l0C1fE A n 171 rnI ,A • .tS IS NOT A SURVEY OF THE LAND BUT IS COMPILED FOR INFORMATION ONLY FROM DATA SHOWN BY OFFICIAL RECORDS. / CL/FF 6p c G68 '/OFO N 6 ^ OFi? O 0 66 98.2 Ld � (�:` �ll�r� ill\p�7,7goOGr OG31 0� 66 '06 if 3' ' 6 7 60 GG 66 66 66 60 o04B 2 � 3 ¢ �Z�o l3^•So i•Soo'� ®G �� 65 � 6, 65 6 7.�3,G� � Q R` 6 6•A.99 //6S �/65 i�G�`U rG5 r 6 �f90 `l / o yct� 1 d'3 65 6.5' 6S 9ongr 60 �•q3 h till o p /na/ 66 6S 70 l70 �. 3r m r • ! %// /rS/ al 30/ �'' w 7v �c70 \'• `.; .3/ 0 +I hi Q 'Soto y Ol 16720 1� iyi/r "%o SDI 1OG oG,/t ? 19 28 27 26 ?S 2¢ //870 r^' SIB 92.18 7D32 6 3�BB 39 7032 7032 G5 7D32 70.32 h I Ulf �� EiI.00ffS 6,G�GOTS207'03::BLOCKE THIS IS NOT A SURVEY OF THE LAND BUT 15 COMPILED FOR INFORMATION ONLY FROM DATA SHOWN BY OFFICIAL RECORDS. I P jOk 2 RO. /`'APYR a 7 A112. 1�f9 6LOCf(SC,O, S'LOIS/%O/9BLOC/(E THIS IS NOT A SURVEY OF THE LAND BUT IS COMPILED FOR INFORMATION ONLY FROM DATA SHOWN BY OFFICIAL RECORDS. ►9 The following letter was submitted to the Modifications Committee on October 31, 1978 in conjunction with Modification No. 2320 of Robert J. Cecka at 1401 Kings Road. The Modifications Committee took action to refer Mr. Cecka's request to the Planning Commission. However, Mr. Cecka withdrew his request on November 20, 1978 and is now pursuing a plan which would not require any discretionary action on the part of the City. 20 I am I live at I must also object to this proposed Modification as I believe its passage would set an unfortunate precedent and is unacceptable to the majority of the residents of the street, To attempt to look into the future of the street we must take a look back into the past. Let me read to you excerpts of a letter which has been submitted to the City Council, and which encapsulates the history of the street. Kings Road is a unique street in Newport Beach. It starts, as a jog off the end of Irvine Avenue, at Cliff Drive, and meanders along the bluff for about three short blocks, then disappears into Kings place, which, in turn, swings back to Cliff Drive. Kings Road is a road that leads nowhere. But Kings Road is unique in that it is also a diversified mecca for all sorts of travellers. It has become a favorite route for joggers, for walkers, for couples pushing baby strollers, for bicyclers, for skateboard riders, for dog -walkers, and for local and out-of-state visitors who come to catch a glimpse of the peninsula below and of the ocean beyond with its sailboats, its big ships, Catalina Island in the distant, and to perhaps watch the sun disappear beneath the ocean's horizon. At Christmas time Newport Beach's well-known lighted,.boat parade draws visitors to our street. Kings Road has a unique history. Thirty years ago, right after the end of World War II, when this area was still outside the Newport Beach City limits and was still a part of the Irvine Ranch, Cliff Haven was developed as a mix of leasehold and fee simple lots, and the Irvine Company reserved for itself the entire bluff and developed it as Kings Road with leasehold lots on both sides of the street. The Irvine Company retained control of the structures developed on Kings Road and dictated the 5-foot sideline building setbacks, and 3-foot height of side fences; the 10-foot front building line setbacks, together with the height and type of plantings therein; the height of the rooflines, their composition and color, the placement of TV antennas; the slightly elevated building pads on the inland side of the street -- all this with the purpose of developing and maintaining an aesthetically attractive street with the maximum view exposure for all residences along the street. Perhaps the concept was innovative before its time. There are no CC&Rs on record. There is no historical written company policy that we can locate; the Irvine Company, as you know, has changed hands. We can only relay to you the reminiscence of those who were early residents of Kings Road, or who played a part in its development. The uniqueness of Kings Road history took an unexpected turn in the mid -sixties when the State started to buy up property for the proposed Pacific Coast Highway. As residents moved away the vacated properties were rented out by the State as the new landlords during this prolonged struggle of pro and con Freeway. Kings Road was unquestionably in a slump, gut that is all forgotten today. The Freeway is seldom mentioned. The State auctioned off its holdings, and the building boom is on. More is better; wider is better; higher is better. -- or is it????? Let's not overbuild ourselves out of existence. Let's not overburden the bluffs with huge structures. Let's not undermine the terrain with the deep supports necessary to support high buildings. Let's not create a Wall Street canyon where a sunny, scenic street should remain. T,at's adhere to the original intent, and have a street which offers a vista to all -- all the joggers, all the strollers, all the bikers, all the residents and all the visitors. Z4 c3 Please hear our plea and either deny this requested Modification or refer it on to the Planning Committee. LJ 2G Paul A. Hanna ATTORNEY AT LAW 881 DOVER DRIVE, SUITE 32 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 TELEPHONES I7141 642-8747 AND 642.2260 November 28, 1978 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California Re: Amendment No. 523 Hearing December 7, 1978 Ladies and Gentlemen: We live on the inland side of Kings Road at 602 Kings Road. We will be out of the State on December 7th. We favor the reduction of height limits and the preser- vation of existing roof lines on the bluff side of Kings Road. Any increase in height limits detracts from our property values and the beauty of our City. Very truly yours, P�TL & HA RIIET HA ti NOV;,o 197a�. y ` Ivew cli yIt CALIF eiCH 1, i 25 Ole `y" RECEtvcr'- \ b CAr .i•� + t. �: NEWPOAPUI .5FCH, / 27 December 1, 1978 xK 0eorge Colons, Seoretarii, Planning Commission, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 Dear Friends With reference to the public hearing to consider ammndment #M to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, scheduled by the Plzrsming Csasdssion for December 7th, it mmy not be possible for ws to be present so I me writing to voice b objections to this proposed aaendbrsnt, It does not @site the public interest, and is supported by the residents of one aide of a public street for their awn selfish advantage, to the detrlient of residents of the other side of the same street. W wife and Z obtained one of the original ground Lases from the Irvine Company, at 311 Kings Road* about t?•irty yeare agoi built upon it that $awe years and two years ]Ater wade it our permanent hose. When the ground Lase swAred we bought the land from Irvine ConparW. Neither the lease nor the'deed contain any restrictions requiring us to limit our building to preserve a vi}w for tlmo$e sorom the street, nor wets any restrictions plaoed upon the other Lase holders and owners to preserve our view. I believe we are, in length of sastinnoas resi- dence, the oldest property owners on the bluffs When we built we had a magnificent view stse6ohing in an mambrokmn are Draw Sadd]ebaok on the east to Point Fermin on the west, When our neighbor to the east build and restricted our view, we did not protest, When our neighbor to the woot cut off our westward view, we did not protest, When the Anchorage Apartments were built they out off our view of the Back Bay channel, and as EW Shores pmoporty filled up with two story houses and trees, we still did not prAot, We mom the first to bu9.14, but neither the original lease sAr the subsequa t deed gam ns the right to restriei any other resident of Newport DoMb in the proper ate dswlorwent and enjoymant of their peoperW. When the State planned to build a freeway along the face of our bluff, we, as citizens did protest, 1-4 felt it would do our city great harm to transform the bluff into a mass of concrete and steel, with the traffic of a busy freeway roaring along it. Joining the freeway righters, I circulated patitions in the area, and discovered to av dlmmmgy the people on the north side of Kings Road were practically 100% for tee freeway. '"hey cared nothing for what it wotar! do to the city as a whole. they saw only that it would wipe away all tl:o bluff side houses, and hope. fully rive them an imbstructed view. Some years ago the owner of the property across the street asked me to cut dam a tree our Undscups aroF3tect had planted. Ile aid he was eelltuir hie property and could got an additimal three tt,nusand dollars if the *,wee were removed. I court see no vali.O reason to reduce the 1ralue of my own property to give him an additionel profit 26 and It I verve to do so the new cwwr. if he knew bohad paid three thousand dollars tnu:b t scales the tree %ta re ;wed, waild likely aamia he had acquired a peroprisUAT right over or property. So 7 declitred bit request. Haerover, the new oaters quickly began to plead f * the ruse,*,vat of ti a treee and as an act of goad neighbor. lines 2 coneentfed. Shortly t1areatter the lady of the house was pleading for the removalof another of tW tress$ sayitu; it obstructed her view "ran her 1»dm m Winder, and she just louse' to look cut in t'e Morning upon t1m bay. It began to what was originconcession al.ta requertedas a favor would quiohU other s �ly demanded aa right. and t.so X deelired. Over the years the sharp advance in vier property values has added another In- centive. Cupidityo avaricei and gread are fueling the denande for restrictions on the rluff aide and the sophistry of false and assertive theories is tryin- to justify these restrictions on the ground at public interest. It will to claimed that rag' o otiv*Uon is the share, but t Maw are teo twportant differences, Pirate x bought and built upon W property to provide my family Ath the harts in which we have been living for nsavU thirty years. and in which M wish to continue to live for the rest of our days. Sesendly# we are not esking for special raring treatment for our selfish benefit end the detrirmant at our treighdwrwo but only for a cotntttaranoe of the egael rights and privileges *sat we have ehsred with all rseidents or Met Road since the Lund Was first leased from the Irvino Company* No now op,eal to the Planning Colwdewd.on aid the City Council to remagnise the validity and legality of these rightse and not aoeedo to social ecd political 1*• .urea that would take them from use Sincerely. Warren hi. Rowlsnd6 all Kings Hoed. Newport Preach. Calif. 90663 t.ON We Bvelyn Them, City Councilwaman, 3300 NewpoM't Blvd.. Newport Reach, Ca. 92663 • November 20, To the Mayor and the City Council Members: RECEIVED CITY CLEM Nov 2xi19�I� � ' i dv, Or �00A�iBEM! We, the undersigned, do hereby request that the City Council adopt an ordinance requiring uniform height of roof lines on lots on the bluff side of Kings Road/Kings Place, in conformity with the Citizen's Petition previously submitted to the City Council. We further request .a temporary moratorium on all building permits for construction on bluff areas until a decision is made by the City Council on the ordinance suggested above. ame ) Name / e -- me Name Name Address Addres''s Address -- L Address Add 0-4 hr Ue Address Address ' lkvw�s U N Address RALPH D. ANDERSON, M.D. Business Office 2172 Dupont Dr. Suite 17 ia 92715 '.'�IL Telephone a(714)n833-3260 COUiICIL 1'+= ? P.T EEACVI Ciit November 2, 1978 F- 7 Mayor, City of Newport Beach Members of the City Council City Hall Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council After a meeting of some of the signers of the petition that involved 1401 Kings Road, we came to the conclusion, after attending the modifications committee meeting, that immediate action was needed to keep the status quo on Kings Road. We respectfully request that the City Council consider a moratorium on building permits for remodeling houses on Kings Road that would change the height of existing structures until the height limitation study is completed by the Planning Commission, because any such building would cause irreparable damage to the character of Kings Road. RDA/vmf Data r: sF„ r TO, 1-, ' •c1'cr IX rig„:�aer } j CI Orutor, iS ":.rUu Director, � �diiler 1i Cduriclimed Sincerely.yours, � V "�4�� Ralph D. Anderson, M.D. Nov 31978> CITY OF NEWPORi BEACH, , CALIF. i• f cy "-1 4.-OUNCIL CITi C,.' 1•4'-..,V:t,RI 61-6iber 60. 1978 t Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach, California Re: Height Limitation on 'Kings Road Gentlemen: The below signed respectfully ask that the City Council consider our request for a moratorium on all structural building permits changing heights of any existing building on Kings Road and Kings Place iahtil;such.time as the City of Newport Beach has completed its study and resolved the building height limitation on the subject streets. We believe this is a reasonhble request, as it would serve little purpose to change the zoning/ building requirements after granting permits that could not qualify under the changed zoning and thereby possibly cause irreparable damage to the character of this community. Sincerely, _y13 1A % [ F-7 • City Council Meting October 24, 1978 2, Study Session Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 19, 1978 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Methodology for control of building heights on the bluff side of Kings Road and possible alternatives Background On October 10, 1978, the City Council received a petition signed by sixty-nine residents on Kings Road urging the City Council to adopt a change in the Municipal Code which would preserve a uniform roof line along the bluff side of Kings Road. Specific mention was made to a proposal for the first two-story structure to be erected on the bluff side of Kings Road and concern that this structure would alter the existing general roof line of the street. In addition, correspondence has been received by the Director of Community Develop- ment, the City Attorney, Mayor Ryckoff, Councilwoman Hart, the City Manager, and the President of the Cliff Haven Community Association from Mr. and Mrs. Pobog at 1400 Kings Road, regarding a proposed remodel at 1401 Kings Road. Historically the heights of structures within the City have been regulated by'one or more controls. The control most often used1 s the City's zoning regulations which establish Height Limitation Districts and the maximum height that a structure may be built above existing grade. Another method of controlling height is exercised by the City Council through the issuance of curb cut permits. This procedure has been used several times to restrict buildings to a specified height above the curb line on Ocean Boulevard to preserve public views from the public street. A third method has been the establishment of a sight plane such as was used in Corporate Plaza for the preservation of public views from the public streets in Harbor View Hills. A fourth method of controlling height is the exercise of private deed restrictions by various homeowner groups. If it is the desire of the City Council to amend the height regula- tions on the bluff side of. Kings Road, the staff would recommend that the Zoning Code be the vehicle used to accomplish this purpose. The control and regulation of the height of buildings is one of the basic tools used in zoning. However it must be exercised with caution and can only be used to protect views and to preserve light 3, TO: City Cncil - 2. and air for public purposes. It cannot be used for the purpose of imposing a restrictive height limitation on the bluff side of Kings Road for the sole benefit of property owners on the opposite side (see memo from City Attorney dated July 1, 1976). Chapter 20.02 of the Municipal Code establishes a maximum height of 24/28 feet for residences in the R-1 District. This is the most restrictive height limitation in the Code and would permit the con- struction of a two-story residence. Possible alternatives that the City Council may wish to consider are: 1. Placing a more restrictive height limitation on structures in the R-1 District. Such a proposal is already under consideration for residences in Corona del Mar. 2. Establishing maximur height for structures above the curb line on Kings Road. In order to establish an average figure, several of the sixty-six lots on the bluff side of the street should be surveyed to deter- mine existing minimums and maximums. 3. Freezing all structures at existing heights and allow- ing alterations only so long as existing height limits are not exceeded. Such a provision already applies to existing legal nonconforming structures which exceed the current 24/28 foot height limit. All of the alternatives noted above would require an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. The City Council may direct the Planning Commission to initiate such an amendment. Public hearings would initially be held by the Planning Commission and ultimately by the City Council. From the time an amendment is initiated to the time it becomes effective, is normally three to five months, depending on the amount of staff time required and the citizen interest generated. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director Ass'stant Director - Planning JDH/kk Attachments: Vicinity Map Memo from City Attorney Petition Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Pobog sill t 4 J i R-/ C-F-d 54 R-, i H :DAF1 a .ur s e • / ,, F f T •ry •eu ��w •av /d'y JT4EET If aeowwe nt nferum a rYr 4rw/w•iiR�1Mf •A M.JVt Pq6 >/> h/-SwJXnQihO.Aw+L+YI'S-O/M`/ •�� - )D imYr IOfr Yr nrcimr u' FbrtMf/ I 4 O. RE .+umx mrrtrra\x n M eunri - L-sM DISTRICTING MAP NEWPORT BEACH - CALIFORNIA R-A AIUUCULTURAL RE510EM L R'A MULTIPLE REPDERML U-I S GLE FANNY RF90EMIAL C-i LIMIT Comm 1 " R-2 DUPLEX RFSIDEM L C-X GENfl CORMERCIAL fESTil MWIPLE fAMILT Ftewof uu.f �M-1 WNUFAOMING DID R0 7a2 O \QM DOMBUHKM 01STRIDTS `J UMM-MIFIED QI INTERMEDIATE FED E. 19E1 MAP NO. 21 0 5, CITY OF NEWPORT REACH OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY TO: The Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission July 1, 1976 VROM: Assistant City Attorney tIBJECT: View Preservation Through Zoning A frequent question is raised regarding the legal ability of the City to impose height restrictions against certain specified parcels to protect the view of other property owners across the affected parcels. The resolution of this question can be accomplished only through a review of the zoning powers of a City. it can be said with complete certainty that control and regula- tions of the height of buildings is one of the basic tools to be used in zoning. Hrou her v. Hoard of Public Works (1930) 107 Cal App 15, Section 65850(c) o t e Government Co e. Thus, it appears from first reading that height restrictions are permissible to protect views. And, in fact, height restrictions to protect views and to preserve light and air are traditionally held to be legitimate purposes for the exercise of the munici- pality's zoning powers. However, more detailed review of the application of police power to zoning would indicate the ability of the City to protect the individual views of adjoining properties is substantially more limited than the application of height regulations generally. The fundamental purpose of zoning is to protect the public health, safety and welfare. As the Supreme Court of the United States stated in Herman V. Parker, 348 U.S. 26: "Public safety, public health, morality, peace and quiet law and order - these are some of the most conspicuous examples of the traditional application of the police power to municipal affairs. Yet, they merely illustrate the scope of the power and do not limit it." u The Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission July 1, 1976 - Page Two The City, exercising its police power to establish zoning regulations and zoning districts must act to protect the public interest generally. The application of the zoning regulations must be reasonable and uniform. Section 65852 of the Government Code codifies this principle. To apply a, specific restriction against one piece of property for the benefit of an adjacent property, and where the restricted property is treated'differen'tly from other property within the same zone within the City would be an unequal application of police power and also could likely constitute invalid spot zoning. Hamer v. Town of Ross (1963) 59 Cal 2d 776, Scrutton v. County of Sacramento (1969) 79 Cal Rptr 872, The specific area of concern deals with the imposition of restrictive height regulations over lots on Hazel Drive for the benefit of property owners on Poppy Drive. It would seem that the imposition of the more restrictive'height regulations solely for the benefit of property owners along Poppy Drive would constitute impermissible spot zoning and unequal application of height regulations since the height regulations would apply only to a limited number of lots on Hazel Drive. it is doubtful that an argument could be raised as to what police power purposes are being served by the imposition of this restrictive regulation. As stated before, the imposition of zoning regulations through the exercise of the police power is for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare, and not, to gain an individual advantage of one lot owner over another. however, should substantial public welfare and police power reasons be found to establish that the imposition of a more restrictive height limitation along one side of Hazel Drive would be "good planning", and in the furtherance of the public welfare, then consideration could be given to establishing more restrictive height limitations. For example, significant public views from an adjoining street or from a view park could be preserved through the imposition of specific height restriction so long as the restrictions left the resulting property in a condition that could be reasonably developed. But, lacking a strong and valid argument that such specific 4, ?k 11 Tho Chairman and Members of I lit• Plonning Commission .lily 1, 1976 - Page Three height restrictions would be a proper exercise of the police power and in the furtherance of the public health, safety and welfare, the imposition of more restrictive height limitations would fail as unequal application of zoning regulations and impermissible spot zoning designed for the benefit of private interests and not in the furtherance of the public interest. Hamer V. Town of Ross, supra. Views can be maintained and guaranteed through private arrange- ments, such as contractual rights and the enforcement of CC&R's. Likewise, certain views can be maintained in the interest of the general public welfare, such as the site plane zoning that exists in the Corporate Plaza area. However, specified restrictive zoning would likely fail when it deals with the preservation of only private rights and not the public welfare. IIRC : yz f /) HUGH�FFINI Assistant Cit4Mtbdrney CITIZEN'S PETITION We ,''the undersigned, hereby express our concern that the present trend in building will change the low -density character of our neighborhood. Specifically, the proposed first 2-story building J3�<< structure to be erected on the side of Kings Road will alter the existing general roof line of the street. We, therefore, urge the City Council to adopt a change in the Building Code, requiring that the uniform roof line and not the base line be considered as the limiting factor in determining the height of the buildings, on lots located adjacent to the bluff areas. ame Address Date G �� ( �/ �3�D/NG S �!%- �. yr_%C ' U/ f 1 CITIZEN'S PETITION We, the undersigned, hereby express our concern that the present *� trend in building will change the loW-density character of our •� »eic_hborhood. Specifically, the proposed first 2-story building { structure to be erected on the cliff side of Xing$ Road Will alter the existing general roof line of the street. s' lie, therefore, urge the city Council to adopt a change in the �j Building Code, requiring that the uniform roof line and not the base line be considered as the limiting factor in determining the height of the buildings, on lots located adjacent to the bluff ar*88. Name Address Date ILLI Al / c L7 w r �(.C� �(f 5 0 O •ter n i L.7 �_� �eG '� �"«� /'�i t' !.u'•'l �l r'r %. ��.. 7� &C C M...L4• . / l L ;,t�l? r,,�,;. , ..; •_ r. r ,-. - ..� `ter • ' .. I e, v' �0. CITIZEN'S PETITION We 'the undersigned, hereby express our concern that the present trend in building will change the low -density character of our neighborhood. Specifically, the,prooposed first 2-story building structure to be erected on the e-liQtside of Kings Road will alter the existing general roof line of the street. We, therefore, urge•the City Council to adopt a change in the Building Code, requiring that the uniform roof line and not the base line be considered as the limiting factor in determining the height of the buildings, on lots located adjacent to the bluff areas. Name Address Date ,✓ _ . 9 -7z F%�,-� L��,r�'a , I � 1 ( �%�v�-ram . C•c'-zc.., , �— � S'- `7 � lone, fK4 j_ / L -a .L ' 47 9 cyka `�0 CITIZEN'S PETITION We; `the undersigned, hereby express our concern that the present trend in building will change the low -density character of our neighborhood. Specifically, the proposed first 2-story building structure to be erected on the cliff side of Kings Road will alter the existing general roof line of the street. We, therefore, urge the City Council to adopt a change in the Building Code, requiring that the uniform roof line and not the bass line be considered as the limiting factor in determining the height of the buildings, on lots located adjacent to the bluff areas. Name Address Date Y . ^77 J 000 / 17 Lk eis A� G _, : ��ts �.n�� a. 9/3bj7r Gt ` AA-f 44 l,z 5 �9 ' 9/ 3a%7�' pG��/ilL /1�0 �O'y �iCL �114N/��'7 r 2 12, 0 CITIZEN'S PETITION We,"the undersigned, hereby express our concern that the presegt trend in building will change the low -density character of our neighborhood. Specifically, the proposed first 2-story building structure to be erected on the c3i-ff side of Kings Road will alter the existing general roof line of the street. We, therefore, urge the City Council to adopt a change in the Building Code, requiring that the uniform roof line and not the bese line be considered as the limiting factor in determining the height of the buildings, on lots located adjacent to the bluff areas. Name Address Date /�-t;4�•u�. `-' .��YLt�'tiil• /oz:/ M.�u'2 %�.::w •)% 7rJ /.Gr.'z.0 ''��..;� � � �� / ' . y-�;"• ram•-�..� •'�/�'� • '•�' `U 22 - ZR All �n 11 /7 -ell �r .-^!' .�1, t r •; ,e .r 3 J47 i (tt C /� JO ram: �/.�i,s�'-e• ,;jc r � i_' � . � % �r` :-(> .—J 0 9 ig CITIZEN'S PETITION We, the undersigned, hereby express our concern that the present trend in building will change the low -density character of our neighborhood. Specifically, the proposed first 2-story building structure to be erected on the cliff side of Kings Load will alter the existing general roof line of the street. We, therefore, urge the City Council to adopt a change in the Building Code, requiring that the uniform roof line and not the base line be considered as the limiting factor in determining the height of the buildings, on lots located adjacent to the bluff areas. Name Address Date o-o & �(, - - 9 - 7 7f OZ&411. � � fr1 r • 0 CITIZEN'S PETITION We; the undersigned, hereby express our concern that the present trend in building will change the low -density character of our neighborhood. Specifically, the proposed first 2-story building structure to be erected on the Cliff side of Kings Road will alter the existing general roof, line of the street. We, therefore; urge the City Council to adopt a change in the Building Code, requiring that the uniform roof line and not the base line be considered as the limiting factor in determining the height of the buildings, on lots located adjacent to the bluff areas. 0 LA t% Mr. Richard Hogan, Director Community Development Dept. of Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 September 25, 1978 In re: MODIFICATION #2207 - 1401 Kings Road Dear Mr. Hogan: We, the undersigned homeowners, wish to go on record as insisting that the building remodeling which is to be done on the subject property (1401 Kings Road) be built in strict accordance with the plans and specifications that were originally approved by the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission per Modification #2207 and the building permit issued therefor. In the event there is any proposed change in plans or specifications to those already issued, we wish to have the matter rescheduled for a new Variance and/or Modification hearing with proper written notice sent to all effected property owners. We specifically refer to a second story being added to a remodeling permit approved for a single story only. Please refer to architect's drawings already submitted for single story remodeling, whereby a side boundary setback was permitted to exceed the required four -foot setback and which plans reduce the setback to approximately two -and -one-half feet. cc: Dennis O'Neil, City Attorney Evelyn Hart, Councilwoman, Paul Ryckoff, Mayor J Bob Wynn, City Manager Bob Cooper, Pres., Cliff Yours very truly, /4Mat ob q Alice J.LRobog 1400 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 t'o 3rd Dist. Haven Comm. Assn. City Council Meeting October 24, 1978 Study Session Agenda Item No. x G CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 19, 1978 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Methodology for control of building heights on the bluff side of Kings Road and possible alternatives Background On October 10, 1978, the City Council received a petition'signed by sixty-nine residents on Kings Road urging the City Council to adopt a change in the Municipal Code which would preserve a uniform roof line along the bluff side of Kings Road. Specific mention was made to a proposal for the first two. -story structure to be erected on the bluff side of Kings Road and concern that this structure would alter the existing general roof line of the street. In addition, correspondence has been received by the Director of Community Develop- ment, the City Attorney, Mayor Ryckoff, Councilwoman Hart, the City Manager, and the President of the Cliff Haven Community Association from Mr. and Mrs. Pobog at 1400 Kings Road, regarding a proposed remodel at 1401 Kings Road. Historically the heights of structures within the City have been regulated by'one or more controls. The control most often used is the City's zoning regulations which establish Height Limitation Districts and the maximum height that a structure may be built above existing grade. Another method of controlling height is exercised by the City Council through the issuance of curb cut permits. This procedure has been used several times to restrict buildings to a specified height above the curb line on Ocean Boulevard to preserve public views from the public street. A third method has been the establishment of a sight plane such as was used in Corporate Plaza for the preservation of public views from the public streets in Harbor View Hills. A fourth method of controlling height is the exercise of private deed restrictions by various homeowner groups. If it is the desire of the City Council to amend the height regula- tions on the bluff side of Kings Road, the staff would recommend that the Zoning Code be the vehicle used to accomplish this purpose. The control and regulation of the height of buildings is one of the basic tools used in zoning. However it must be exercised with caution and can only be used to protect views and to preserve light TO: City Council - 2. � 4 v and air for public purposes. It cannot be used for the purpose of imposing a restrictive height limitation on the bluff side of Kings Road for the sole benefit of property owners on the opposite side (see memo from City Attorney dated July 1, 1976). Chapter 20.02 of the Municipal Code establishes a maximum height of 24/28 feet for residences in the R-1 District. This is the most restrictive height limitation in the Code and would permit the con- struction of a two-story residence. Possible alternatives that the City Council may wish to consider are: Placing a more restrictive height limitation on structures in the R-1 District. Such a proposal is already under consideration for residences in Corona del Mar. Establishing a maximum height for structures above the curb line on Kings Road. In order to establish an average figure, several of the sixty-six lots on the bluff side of the street should be surveyed to deter- mine existing minimums and maximums. Freezing all structures at existing heights and allow- ing alterations only so long as existing height limits are not exceeded. Such a provision already applies to existing legal nonconforming structures which exceed the current 24/28 foot height limit. All of the alternatives noted above would require an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. The City Council may direct the Planning Commission to initiate such an amendment. Public hearings would initially be held by the planning Commission and ultimately by the City Council. From the time an amendment is initiated to the time it becomes effective, is normally three to five months, depending on the amount of staff time required and the citizen interest generated, Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director By Q-A - J 14ES D. H I K Assistant Director - Pl-anning Attachments: Vicinity Map Memo from City Attorney Petition Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Pobog JDH/kk Lajzr YEf� SGLE OE RET DISTRICTING MA WPORT BEACH — CALIFO LEEE'YLTURN. pELOEMlIAL �'� MULTIPLE NEW E-1 Yp1T GOIWM I FED M.M4 NAP NO. al • 1 • 8x CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY Tn: The Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission July 1, 1976 1 uc�rt: Assistdnt City Attorney SUBJECT: View Preservation Through Zoning A frequent question is raised regarding the legal ability of Lhv City to impose height restrictions against certain specified parcels to protect the view of other property owners across the affected parcels. The resolution of this question can be accomplished only through a review of the zoning powers of• a City. It can be said with complete certainty that control and regula- tions of the height of buildings is one of the basic tools to be used in zoning. Brougher v. Hoard of public Works (1930) 107 Cal App 15, Section 65 5 c of t e overnment code. Thus, it appears From first reading that height restrictions are permissible to protect views. And, in fact, height restrictions to protect views and to preserve light and air are traditionally held to be legitimate purposes for the exercise of the munici- pality's zoninq powers. kluwevur, more detailed review of the application of police power to zoning would indicate the ability of the City to protect the individual views of adjoining properties is substantially more limited than the application of height roqulations generally. The fundamental purpose of zoning is to protect the public health, safety and welfare. As the Supreme Court of the United States stated in Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26: "-Public safety, public health, morality, peace and quiet law and order - these are some of the most conspicuous examples of the traditional application of the police power to municipal affairs. Yet, they merely illustrate the scope of the power and do not limit it." 'rho chairman and Members of Ihc! Planning Commission ,iuly I, 1976 - Page Two Thi, city, exercising its police power to establish zoning regulations and zoning districts must act to protect the public interest generally. The application of the zoning regulations must be reasonable and uniform. Section 65852 of the Government Code codifies this principle. To apply a specific restriction against one piece of property for the benefit of an adjacent property, and where the restricted property is treated'differently from other property within the same zone within the City would be an unequal ipplicati.on of police power and also could likely constitute invalid spot zoning. Hamer v. Town of Ross (1963) 59 Cal 2d 776, Scrutton v. County of Sacramento (1969) 79 Cal Rptr 872. The specific area of concern deals with the imposition of restrictive height regulations over lots on Hazel'Drive for the benefit of property owners on Poppy Drive. it would seem that the imposition of the more restrictive height regulations solely for the benefit of property owners along Poppy Drive would constitute impermissible spot zoning and unequal application of height regulations since the height regulations would apply only to a limited number of lots on Hazel Drive. it is doubtful that an argument could be raised as to what police power purposes are being served by the imposition of this restrictive regulation. As stated before, the imposition of zoning regulations through the exercise of the police power is for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare, and not to gain an individual advantage of one lot owner over another. However, should substantial public welfare and police power r•c-asons be found to establish that the imposition of a more restrictive height limitation along one side of Hazel Drive wc,iild be "good planning", and in the furtherance of the public welfare, then consideration could be given to establishing more restrictive height limitations. For example, significant public views from an adjoining street or from a view park could be preserved through the imposition of specific height restriction so long as the restrictions left the resulting property in a condition that could be reasonably developed. But, lacking a strong and valid argument that such specific i �y F 'r`i., chnirmnn and Members of iiw Planninq Commission I, 11171, - Page Three h,`ight restrictions would be a proper exercise of the police power and in the furtherance of the public health, safety and welfare, the imposition of more restrictive height limitations would fail as unequal application of zoning regulations and impermissible spot zoning designed for the benefit of private interests and not in the furtherance of the public interest. Hamer V. Town of Ross, supra. views can be maintained and guaranteed through private arrange- ments, such as contractual rights and the enforcement of CC&R's. Likewise, certain views can be maintained in the interest of the general public welfare, such as the site plane zoning that exists in the Corporate Plaza area. However, specified restrictive zoning would likely fail when it deals with the preservation of only private rights and not the public welfare. HUGH�'F'Z1A• Assist ,,,��jjjnnnnnn City Atrney 11RC:yz oCffo�4'1' V7,"', The Mayor and City Council Date: 10/17/78 By fiha Cat'( COU : iof Newport Beach f's' r'" From'."" Matthew and Alice Pobog 1400 Kings Road, Newport Beach Subject: PETITION REGARDING KINGS ROAD BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATION ON BLUFF SIDE OF STREET We respectfully request that the City Council accepts the spirit of the submitted Petition and to achieve this end, may we suggest the adoption of an addendum to the Building Code to restrict the building height on the bluff side of Kings Road to not exceed 24 feet above base line or 12 feet maximum above street curb line, whichever Kings Road is a unique street in Newport Beach. It starts, as a jog off the end of Irvine Avenue, at Cliff Drive, and meanders along the bluff for about three short blocks, then disappears into Kings Place which, in turn, swings back to Cliff Drive. Kings Road is a road that leads nowhere. But Kings Road is unique in that it is also a diversified mecca for all sorts of travellers. It has become a favorite route for joggers, for walkers, for couples pushing baby strollers, for bicyclers, for skateboard riders, for dog -walkers, and for local and out-of-state visitors who come to catch a glimpse of the peninsula below and of the ocean with its sailboats, its big ships, and Catalina Island in the distance, and to perhaps watch the sun disappear beneath the ocean's horizon. At Christmastime Newport Beach's well-known lighted boat parade draws visitors to our street. Kings Road has a unique history. Thirty years ago, right after the end of World War II, when this area was still outside the Newport Beach city limits and still a part of the Irvine Ranch, Cliff Haven was developed as a mix of leasehold and fee simple lots, and the Irvine Company reserved for itself the entire bluff and developed it as Kings Road with leasehold lots on both sides of the street. The Irvine Company retained control of the structures developed on Kings Road and dictated the setbacks of 5-foot sideline for buildings, and 3-foot height of side fences on the bluff side, and 10-foot front building line setbacks, and the height and type of plantings of the areas therein, the height of the rooflines, the placement of TV antennas, the color and composition of the roofs, the slightly ele- vated building pads on the inland (north) side of the street -- all this with the purpose of developing and maintaining an aestheti- cally attractive street with the maximum view exposure for all the residences along the street. Perhaps the concept was innovative before its time. There are no CC&Rs on record. There is no historical written company policy that we can locate; the Irvine Company, as you know has changed hands. We can only relay to you the reminis- cence of those who were early residents of Kings Road, or who played a part in its early development. The uniqueness of Kings Road history took an unexpected turn in the mid -sixties when the State started to buy up property for the proposed Pacific Coast Highway. As residents moved away the vacated properties were rented out by the State as landlords during this prolonged struggle of pro and con Freeway. Kings Road was unquestionably in a slump. But that is all forgotten today. The Freeway is seldom mentioned. The State auctioned off its holdings, and the building boom is on. More is better; wider is better; higher is better. Or is it? ? ? ? Let's not overbuild ourselves out of existence. Let's not overburden the bluffs with huge structures. Let's not under- mine the terrain with the deep supports necessary to support high buildings. Let's not create a Wall Street canyon where a sunny, scenic street should remain. Let's adhere to the original intent, and have a street which offers a vista to all -- all the joggers, all the strollers, all the bikers, all the residents and all the visitors. Please hear our petition and give it your serious consideration. , S, coo-8-a- Alice J. ' bog OAT 13 1978 n. Iy�p /RT of CALIF 69Cy +e", ieffi�a� t in, it ss0ciati n . Q)rc, 101e� 427, 1978 /947 `'' 4--� A - Op. B 1332, Newport Beach, California 92663 8y }hfOCiT7 CCOEayor and City Council ly ar- NC. fh C�TT FROM: Board of Directors, Cliff Haven Community Association SUBJECT: REQUEST THAT THE GENERAL ROOF LINE BE CONSIDERED AS THE LIMITING FACTOR IN DETERMINING THE HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS ON LOTS LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE BLUFF ON KINGS ROAD/ L� KINGS PLACE SOUTH OF CLIFF DRIVE 9- Enclosed is a petition containing names of 75 residents of Kings Road, representing 50 of the approximately 80 dwellings on both sides of this short 3-block street above Pacific Coast Highway in Cliff Haven. The petition has been reviewed and is supported by the Board of Directors of the Cliff Haven Community Association. The petition requests that the City Council adopt a change in the present Building Code in regard to the allowable building height on lots located on the bluff. This petition was initiated by concern of the residents on Kings Road/Kings Place about the proposed first structure to rise two stories above the curb line on the bluff side of Kings Road. Cliff Haven is located on a mesa above Pacific Coast Highway and is in an area bounded on the west by Irvine Avenue, on the north by 15th Street and Newport Harbor High School, on the east by Dover Drive, and on the south along the bluff above Pacific Coast Highway. In 1947 and 1948 the first tracts were laid out by the Irvine Company. At that time the land was outside the Newport Beach city limits and was under the auspices of the County. This area was developed and sold, partly in fee simple and partly in leasehold, with the Irvine Company reserving for itself, as leasehold, all of the bluff area which is now Kings Road/Kings Place. All of the Irvine Company's leasehold lots were developed under the control and review of the Irvine Company's Architectural Committee. In 1954 the entire area known as Cliff Haven was annexed into the City of Newport Beach. By this time most of the community had been developed under a general plan of the Irvine Company to preserve the value of the entire community. Architectural control was exercised to maintain views on both sides of Kings Road/Kings Place. In most of the other Irvine Company developments, architectural control was turned over to community associations, which the Irvine Company set up, in order to preserve some sort of a planned community. However, the Cliff Haven area, being one of the Irvine Company's earliest devel- opments, did not receive architectural control from the Irvine Company, since the development of Cliff Haven was virtually completed by 1969 when the Cliff Haven Community Association was formed. By 1968 the State had bought out land for the proposed freeway along Pacific Coast Highway, and the Irvine Company subsequently offered to dispose of the remaining leaseholds upon the option of the leaseholders. As a result, the only restrictions on development on Kings Road/ Kings Place are contained in the City's Building Code. Although most of the homes have already been developed, a renewed interest is evidenced by real estate speculators due to the substantial in- crease in value of properties in this area. This means that, con- trary to the original plan for Kings Road/Kings Placer that the view on the north side of the street might be quite different than what was originally intended. It is important to note here that a bluff area presents an unusual and unique condition of topography. While the north side of the street is generally flat and level, the bluff side is, by nature, varying greatly in angles and level in respect to the street curb line. Applying the city, code of "2'4-feet-plus building height above base" may actually result in two adjacent buildings on the bluff side whose roof lines might vary by as'much as the full 24 feet. One neighbor can tower above the other. This can very possibly result in a saw -tooth look of the entire st3•eet,,as�there are at present approximately 15 one-story buiidings'on the bluff side along this short street, with all the others being 2-story built on lower than street level bases. To the people on the north side of the street this non -uniform height is as undesirable as it is to the people on the bluff side facing the prospect of a 2-story structure rising next door above them. 9 The Board of Directors of the,Cliff Haven Community Association, therefore, urges the City Council to adopt a change in the Building Code, requiring that the uniform roof line and .not the base line be considered as the limiting factor in determining the height of the buildings on Kings Road/Kings Place bluff lots. Sincerely, Bob Cooper, 'P esident CLIFF HAVEN COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OCT 13 197Ei W. OF two r 08 N 'lla m CITIZEN'S PETITION Cie, the undersigned, hereby express our concern that the present trend in building will change the low -density character of our neighborhood. Specifically, the proposed "first 2-story building blu structure to be erected on the c3-z f side of Kings Road will alter the existing general roof line of the street. CFA, therefore, urge the City Council to adopt a change in the Buildiac - - -- base lir height c areas. CITIZEN'S PETITION We, I - undersigned, hereby express our concern that the present trend in building will change the low -density character of our neighborhood. Specifically, the proposed first 2-story building structure to be erected on the gg!! side of Kings Road will alter the existing general roof line of the street. We, therefore, urge the City Council to adopt a change in the Building Code, requiring that the uniform roof line and not the base line be considered as the limiting factor in determining the height of the buildings, on lots located adjacent to the bluff areas. _ =50 /1 / r 0 OAF W WO 7� _,: M. raJJi' u 5 L CITIZEN'S PETITION We,'the undersigned, hereby express our concern that the present trend in building will change the low -density character of our neighborhood. Specifically, the proposed first 2-story building structure to be erected on the side of Kings Road will alter the existing general roof line of the street. We, therefore, urge the City Council to adopt a change in the Building Code, requiring that the uniform roof line and not the base line be considered as the limiting factor in determining the height of the buildings, on lots located adjacent to the bluff areas. - i Address Date /l�s4l G�YFA 10 ,� % / /. •!{, fCJI��r/ii/�/I ilk: �� i i Z CITIZEN'S PETITION We;'the undersigned, hereby express our concern that the present trend in building will change the low -density character of our neighborhood. Specifically, the proposed first 2-story building structure to be erected on the cliff side of Kings Road will alter the existing general roof line of the street. We, therefore, urge the City Council to adopt a change in the Building Code, requiring that the uniform roof line and not the base line be considered as the limiting factor in determining the height of the buildings, on lots located adjacent to the bluff areas. Address Date ��✓��III [11Li/�1�� •� / , / l i 7 CITIZEN'S PETITION we, the undersigned, hereby express our concern that the present trend in building will change the low -density character of our neighborhood. Specifically, the proposed first 2-story building Jo structure to be erected on the e� side of Kings Road will alter the existing general roof line of the street. We, therefore, urge the City Council to adopt a change in the Building Code, requiring that the uniform roof line and not the base line be considered as the limiting factor in determining the height of the buildings, on lots located adjacent to the bluff areas. ' IuLz'/ L �li'/.i'�i '14'� wi "WIN MR I./.. 'VA1IMF U i i CITIZEN'S PETITION We,'- the undersigned, hereby express our concern that the present trend in building will change the low -density character of our neighborhood. Specifically, the proposed first 2-story building structure to be erected on the cliff side of Kings Road will alter the existing general roof line of the street. We, therefore, urge the City Council to adopt a change in the Building Code, requiring that the uniform roof line and not the base line be considered as the limiting factor in determining the height of the buildings, on lots located adjacent to the bluff areas. Name Address Date / n �7 Q 0 Za:4 Ceffavrt=s7wmtLy 1-7f0 ix lDt It i� M CITIZEN'S PETITION e We, the undersigned, hereby express our cpncern that the present PKaF[(E) trend in building will change the low -density character of our neighborhood. Specifically, the proposed first 2-story building structure to be erected on the cliff side of Kings Road will alter the existing general roof line of the street. We, therefore, urge the City Council -to adopt a change in the Building Code, regbiring that the uniform roof line and not the base line be considered as the limiting factor in determining the height of the buildings, on lots located adjacent to the bluff areas. u Name Address Date 9- 9 -7/ 1--30-7F J9!I CITIZEN'S PETITION We,'the undersigned, hereby express our concern that the present trend in building will change the low -density character of our neighborhood. Specifically, the proposed first 2-story building structure to be erected on the cliff side of Kings Road will alter the existing general roof line of the street. We, therefore, urge the City Council to adopt a change in the Building Code, requiring that the uniform roof line and not the base line be considered as the limiting factor in determining the height of the buildings, on lots located adjacent to the bluff areas. a Address Date SON M, PON t "W. ` ._`CEO /n' � O.� .� O' 4] r.� _ •-•�• i aw =� s 'E��$�— , � 0 �® O O o O pp � � 16 • rp yy '�'~m -i I.Flfa4jlW !t I v� fEFHM ;6EEi� 20 !4t_� aC.l a )KNa IeL�YNYpp1• ��i4 � !✓ rp ay iam Y a N£WPOWT BAY Q-,) • • 1.53 Y 8 m 00 @D 0 too Oil, ROAD CV Gt 6 IN GIs 0 KINGS 9 0 3 T10 qz SOAV MAP sqo� Arf " li Ro 55c,,, r 0RANGE p00 o 0 9L 00 Ott Ok coo sX, ,v*F A n� - SU tfi No rs 0 r 00\q 49 Al, 21 14 15 00, I SA 61 wo.1%19