The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR BLUFF OR BLUFFTONSDEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR BLUFFS OR BLUFFTONS March 5, 1979 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City Council Meet#ng Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Department of Community Development March 12, 1979 D-1 Public hearing regarding proposed Ordinance No. , being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADDING SECTION 20.51.080 ENTITLED "DEVELOPMENT OF BLUFF SITES" TO THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE (RELATING TO PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICTS), Planning•Commission Amendment No. 515, a request initiated by the City of Newport Beach to consider an amendment to Title 20 adopting regulations for blufftop developments in the Planned Community Districts, and acceptance of an environmental document. Suggested Action Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, accept the environmental docu- ment and adopt Ordinance No. Background At the meeting of February 26, 1979, the City Council considered a draft ordinance pertaining to P-C bluff sites which contained a number of possible alternative definitions and policies. The City Council selected that wording desired to be included in the ordinance, and the ordinance was introduced and set for hearing. A copy of the ordinance is attached. Also attached is a Bluff Areas Map indicating those areas subject to regulation. Description of Ordinance The proposed ordinance, including those alternatives selected by the City Council, contains the following provisions: 1. Scope The ordinance limits the scope of regulation to those P-C bluff sites adjacent to the ocean or Upper Bay. This is reflected in the Bluff Areas Map which would be adopted by reference. Upper Bay sites in the P-C District at present include the Castaways, Westbay, and Newporter North sites. T0: City Co uric 1 - 2. The bluffs in the downcoast area within the City's Sphere of Influence are also indicated on the map. The downcoast bluffs would become subject to the provisions of the ordin- ance at the time of annexation. 2. Definition of Bluff The ordinance defines "bluff" as a land - form having a slope of 26.6 degrees or greater with a vertical rise of 25 ft. or greater. (Subsection a.) 3. Setback Rent The basic property -line setback is estab fished— by TM degree line drawn from the solid toe of the bluff, with an additional 20 ft. setback for buildings. (Subsection d.) 4. Building Height The first row of structures next to the bluff Ts limited to twelve feet average height of roof and sixteen feet maximum. (Subsection f.) Park Location The ordinance contains a provision that land dedicated foF parks intended for active recreation can be located in the interior portions of the site, while parkland intended to remain in a natural state should be located adjacent to the bluffs. (Subsection g.) 6. Plant Selection The landscaping plans for areas adjacent to the bluffs are required to include drought -resistant native vegetation for the purpose of controlling groundwater and erosion. Environmental Significance A Negative Declaration has been prepared and is attached for the City Council's consideration. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. H06AN, Director by—6Aiii�b6' m_ �b Slrr -� Advance Planning Administrator DD/kk Attachments: 1) Bluff Areas Map 2 Negative Declaration 3 Ordinance 6 0 NEGATIVE OECLARATI0-N iufretaiy for Resources -ROM: Community Development Dept. 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 City of Newport Beach Sacramento, California 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors P. 0. Box 687 Santa Ana, California 92702 NAME OF PROJECT: Amendment No. 515 PROJECT LOCATION: Planned Community Districts adjacent to the Upper Bay in the City of Newport Beach PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An amendment to the planned Community District regulations establishing policies and design standards for blufftop developments - FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to QEnvironmental ualityrActon the uEnviroenmentallins to mAffaaiirs tcommittee he California has evaluated the proposed esgnoject and effect that themPr posed project will not havei MITIGATION MEASURES: (a) ndesamendment dorfor htback stid ards aothrmeasuresdesignedtpreservetebluffntheir natural state. (b) No changeitpr oposed or amounteof development allowed is olved (c) A separate environmental assessment would be required for PlanneduCommunitytDistrict in bluff areas in the INIIIAl SfUOY PREPARED BY: Advance Planning Division INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: NewportBeach,porteach, California 92663 UAiI RECEIVED FOR FILING: AErayn nvi:taioo Coordinator Date: September 11, 1978 1 • January 17, 1979 City Council Meng January 22, 1979 Agenda Item No. _ F-1 Study Session Agenda Item No. 5(c)l CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM. Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Comparison of Coastal Commission regulations and City regulations dealing with blufftop development; consideration of proposed ordinance adding Section 20.51.080 to the Newport Beach Municipal Code, entitled "Development of Bluff Sites" pertaining to the Planned Community Districts (Planning Commission Amendment No. 515). INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Suggested Action If desired, introduce Ordinance No. and pass to second reading on February 12, 1979. Background The matter of bluff development regulations was considered by the Planning Commission beginning in April 1978. At its meeting of September 21, 1978, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that development regulations and design standards for bluff - top developments in the Planned Community Districts be adopted as part of Amendment No. 515. The City Council previously considered these proposed blufftop regu- lations at the meetings of October 10 and 24, 1978, and November 13 and 27, 1978. Based on discussion at these meetings and based on direction from the City Council, the proposed ordinance has been revised. A copy of the proposed ordinance is attached - Comparison of Coastal Commission Regulations and City Regulations At the previous meeting on this matter, the City Council requested a comparison of Coastal Commission regulations affecting blufftop developments and City regulations, including the Grading Code. Y TO: City(louncil - 2. With respect to Coastal Commission regulations, blufftop development is affected by the "Statewide Interpretive Guidelines" adopted by the State Commission and by the "Orange County Interpretive Guide- lines" adopted by the South Coast Regional Commission (copies attached). Major undeveloped P-C sites in the Coastal Zone governed by these regulations include the Westbay, Castaways and Newporter North sites, located adjacent to the Upper Bay. The applicable State and City regulations are summarized in Table I. TABLE I: Comparison of Coastal Commission and City Regulations Orange County State Interpretive Interpretive Newport Beach Newport Beach Guidelines Guidelines Zoning Code Grading Code Definition A bluff is a scarp State defini- of Bluffs or steep face of tion applies rock, sediment or soil, resulting from erosion, faulting, folding or excavation, having a vertical relief of ten feet or more. Purpose of Minimize risk to State regula- Regulation life and property. tions apply. Assure stability and structural integrity. Minimize altera- tion of natural landforms. Siting of Bluff development State regula- Development must be sited tions apply. and designed to assure stability and structural integrity while minimizing alter- ation of natural landforms. None at present None No specific Minimize risk bluff provi- to life and sions at property. present. Assure stability and structural integrity. Mitigate hazards. None. Normal See setback yard require- diagram ments apply. attached. Cityquncil - 3. Setback Requirement TABLE I: Comparison of Coastal Commission and City Regulations (Cont.) Orange County State Interpretive Interpretive Newport Beach Newport Beach Guidelines Guidelines Zoning Code Grading Code None specified. Grading Alteration of blufftops, faces or bases by excavation or other means should be mini- mized. Geologic Required Report 25' setback None, normal 10' setback. from edge of yard require- See setback coastal bluff, ments apply. diagram general. attached. Upper Newport Bay, minimum 40' setback from edge of bluff. Grading, cutting No prohibition No prohibition. or filling that at present. will alter natural land - forms should be minimized. Required Not required Required at present Relationship Between Blufftop Ordinance and Grading Code In previous discussions, there have been questions raised as to the relationship between the proposed blufftop ordinance and the already - adopted Grading Code. It might be useful here to review the intended purposes of these two types of regulation. The purposes for adopting bluff development regulations as part of the Zoning Code include the following: 1) To protect the .scenic value of natural bluff areas. 2) To minimize the visual impact of blufftop development. 3) To ensure public access to the bluffs as a significant coastal resource. 4) To establish standards for the location and design of new development. 5) To assure the -stability and structural integrity of blufftop development. ` TO: r City Cou cil - 4. 6) To control urban runoff and erosion, and regulate potential groundwater problems. 7) To ensure the public safety and welfare. The intent of the Grading Code is to accomplish the following purposes: 1) To assure stability of graded slopes. 2) To assure the stability of structures placed on or near slopes. 3) To prevent damage to structures placed on any graded area. 4) To establish procedures for mitigating erosion and geologic hazards. The proposed blufftop ordinance, as a zoning tool, is intended to deal primarily with the aesthetic and design -related aspects of blufftop development. It is a means of assuring that General Plan policies pertaining to bluff preservation will be addressed in the preparation of P-C development plans for the major bluff sites. The Grading Code, on the other hand, is concerned primarily with stability, structural safety, and mitigation of erosion and geologic hazards. The proposed blufftop ordinance would, in effect, supplement the Grading Code which applies Citywide. Regulations which are desired to be applied to the special problems associated with development of bluff sites would be most appropriately included in zoning provisions designed specifically for bluff areas, rather than included in the general Grading Code. A separate report dealing with proposed amendments to the Grading Code appears also on the Study Session Agenda. These amendments deal with restrictions on grading of slopes greater than 20%, on -site retention of runoff, and a requirement for scheduling of grading operations. If adopted, these regulations would apply to all projects involving grading, including projects to be located on bluff sites. The proposed blufftop ordinance, if adopted, would impose design require- ments in addition to those specified in the Grading Code. Grading Code Influence on Bluff and Slope Development The City's Grading Engineer has provided comments on grading aspects of blufftop development as summarized below. The restrictions on bluff and slope development by the Grading Code are restricted to safety, drainage and erosion control considerations. Safety of development is provided by the requirements for professional reports on the geological and engineering properties of the materials in the slope, and by the required structural setbacks as outlined in the Code. The accompanying illustration shows the modification which was added to the Code when it was adopted last year to encourage actual set- backs from the top of the slope. These setback requirements encourage physical, as contrasted with structural, setbacks by increasing the TO: City CO * l - 5. • cost of placing the structure on or at the top of the slope. Safety of blufftop grading is also provided by the restrictions of slope gradients to 2:1 where graded slopes are used. These slope angles tend to be more stable from a surficial stability standpoint and provide greater insurance that an undetected weakness in the earth materials will not involve the structure. It should be emphasized that setbacks and slope angle restrictions do not take the place of careful geological studies, and that these setbacks and slope angles may be added to if geologic weakness is encountered. Drainage control is extremely important near bluff tops and on slopes. Ponded surface drainage can result in slope failures which would not otherwise occur, and erosion generated by increased volumes and velocities of moderate storms can result in unstable sidewalls of gullies as well as undue siltation. Erosion control measures have always been a part of the grading ordinance but they have been treated only as incidental to completion of the grading. The current edition has added a specific section on erosion control during construction which details these re- quirements and quantifies the size of structures required to contain and control erosion. Proposed Blufftop Ordinance The proposed blufftop ordinance (attached) has been revised to reflect suggestions made at the November 27, 1978 public hearing. These revis- ions are as follows: 1) The definition of "bluffs" now incorporates the wording of the Coastal Commission's Interpretive Guidelines. The previous reference to bluffs as a landform having a slope of twenty degree.s or greater has been deleted. 2) Wording has been added to indicate that where a right- of-way or easement for public access has been required by the City in the approval of blufftop development, the City Council would retain the option as to whether street improvements would or would not be made within that right-of-way. Thus, areas adjacent to the bluffs required to be dedicated for right-of-way, could be developed with public streets, trails and paths, or be left in a natural state, at the option of the City. Discussion The revised definition of "bluffs" contained in the draft ordinance would apply, without exception, to the major P-C sites adjacent to the Upper Bay (Castaways, Westbay, Newporter North). The Bayview Landing site, northwest of the intersection of Jamboree and Coast Highway, which is currently in the Unclassified District, would become subject to this ordinance through rezoning at such time as development is proposed. With respect to P-C sites not oriented toward the Upper Bay, the Aero- nutronic-Ford site is one which contains landforms which might be con- sidered bluffs in terms of the Coastal Commission definition. A deter- mination would need to be made at the time of review of proposed develop- ment as to whether such landforms would be subject to the requirements • TO: City Council - 6. of the proposed ordinance, unless such inland P-C sites were specifi- cally exempted. The property owner protested the inclusion of the Aeronutronic-Ford site in the proposed ordinance at the last public hearing. Regarding the improvement of dedicated right-of-way or easements along the bluff edge, the revised wording gives the City the option of permit- ting or not permitting development. This option applies also to park- land which would be required to be dedicated adjacent to the bluffs. It is important to note further that the draft ordinance requires a minimum forty -foot setback between the bluff edge and the nearest part of the proposed development. This required setback area, if not required for dedication as streets or park, could be maintained as privately -owned open space in its natural state. Financial Impact of Park Development Information was requested regarding the annual cost to the City for main- tenance of improved parkland versus parkland left in its natural state. The Director of Parks, Beaches and Recreation indicates that it now costs the City $3,500 per acre annually for park maintenance. However, he points out that areas which have been minimally developed -- such as Harbor View Nature Park and the Jamboree traffic medium -- have proven to be nearly as expensive to maintain as improved parks in terms of weed control, litter control and similar maintenance. With regard to P-C residential sites which would be affected by the proposed ordinance, the following maintenance costs for improved parks would be incurred: Park Acres Maintenance/Year Castaways Property 5.2 $18,200 Westbay 5.6 19,600 Newporter North 7.0 24,500 $62,300 If experience with other "non -improved" City -owned properties can be applied to these sites, there may be no substantial savings in mainten- ance cost by leaving dedicated parkland in its natural state. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director by &M-.4e DAVID J. DMOHOWSKI Advance Planning Administrator Attachments: 1) Setback Diagram 2 P-C District Map 3) Coastal Commission Regulations 4) Draft Ordinance DJD/kk �C UNDEVELOPED P-C DISTRICTS AFFECTED BY BLUFF ORDINANCE I. Westbay 2. Castaways 3. North Newporter 4. Aeronutronic-Ford 5. Bayview Landing (Subject to rezoning) F Y v� 0 C 6 A N CM of NMFBNT BB ar. �,wamva— rvr-o u , •• t , JUN -n�; •r•i917�.. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION INTERPRETIVE GUIDELINES I These Statewide Interpretive Guidelines were adopted by the California Coastal Commission pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 30620(b) and are "designed to assist local governments, the rag aura commi.ssionst the commissionf and persons subject to the provisions of this chapter in. determining how the policies'of•this division shall be applied in the coastal zone prior to'certification of local coastal programs." The guidelines should assist in applying various Coastal Act policies to permit decisions; they in no case supersede the provisions of the Coastal.Adt nor enlarge or diminish the powers or authority of the Commissions or other public agencies. These are the only guidelines that have been adopted; other proposed guidelines? including regional guidelines, are under consideration but have not yet been adopted in final form. For the subjects covered in the attached guidelines, this document supersedes the drafts of February ill April 141, May 21 and May 12. i ADOPTED MAY 3,1977 (0 I. GEOLCGM STABIL-'CiY• OF BLDFFTCP DEPEGOFMENT' Section 30253 of the. 197b-Coastal. Act provides that "New development shall: (1). Minimize risks: to life. and property in areas- of high geologic;.flocd and- fire hazard; (Z) Assure stability and structural. integrity, and neither create nor- Contribute significantly to erosion, geologic. instability} or destruction of the site or -surrounding area or in ary way require the construction of protective devices that 1'would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs". Section 30251.provides that-_ '*Permitted' development shall be sited and desigdted.`.,ta minimize the alteration of natural landforms..." A.blu= or cLt£f is'a scarp or steep face of rack, decomposed rocks sediment or sail resulting froiu erosion, faulting, folding.or exca— vation of •the.• l and mass.,:- The cliff :or bluft may be simple planar or cmr7ed•surface oeit may, be steplike in section. For the purposes of this guideline,. "cliff'* or "bluff'* is limited to those -features having vertical relief.* of ten feet or more, and "seacliff" is a cliff whose toe is or may be subject', to marine erosion. "Bluff edge" or "cliff edge" is. the upper termination of a bluff, cliff or seacli.M. .When the 'top edge of the clitr is rounded away from the face. of the t cUff as a result of 'erosional probesses related to -the presence of fthe steep•cl3ff facer the edge shall: be defined as that point nearest. ( the cliff beyond which the downward: gradient -of the land: surface increases more or- leas. contiauously until it reaches the general gradient of'the cliff. In a case where there is a stepl3ke feature at.the•tcp of the cliff 'cliff landward. edge of the topmost riser shall be taken to be the cliff edge. - To meet the requirements of the acts bluff and cliff developments must'be sited and designed to assure stability and structural integrity - for their expected economic lifespans while minind,,rine alteration of natural laudforms: Buff and cliff developments (including related :I storm runoff, fact traffic, site preparation, construction activity, irrigation,. waste water disposal and other activities and facilities acc=Taxying such development) must not be allowed to create or con— tribute significantlytor problems of erosion or geologic instability on the site or on surrounding geologically hazardous areas. Alteration of cliffs and bluff tops•, faces, or bases by excavation or other means should be minimized. Cliff retaining wall should be allowed only to stabilize slopes, or sea wa=s-or•sea walls at. the toe of seaall:ffs .or tb check.. marine erosion where• there is no less env -iron — mentally —damaging alteinative•'and when required: 1) to maintain public recreational areas or necessary public services 'i such as protection of coastal highways or energy facility) or to i i• protect poit areas; 1-1 (2) to protect principle. structuxes in- existing developments that are in. danger- fron erosion; or (3) in.Loa Angeles, Oranges and San Diego Counties, to infill small sections of wall is subdivisions where a predominant portion of a walL is already in, places provided that such ivfilling would. have na sub4antial.adverse environmental effects. A. geologim investigation: and. report will be required when a develop— ment is propose& to be sited within. the area of demonstration as defined. below. As a general ruleo, the area of demonstration of stability (Illustration i),.includes the bases face and top of all bluffs and cliffs. The extent of the.bluff top considered should include the area between the face of the bluff and a line described on the bluff top by the intersection of a plane inclined at a 200 angle from horizontal passing through the toe -Of. the bluff or cliffs or 50 feet :inland.•from the edge.'of the:. cliff or blriffr whichever. is greater. Howevers•the Commission may,desigaate a lesser area of demonstration i in apedific areas of -known geologic statility (as determined by , adequate geologic•evaluation and historic evidence) or where adequate protective works already exist. The Commission may designate a greater area of'demonstration or exclude development entirely in areas of known high instability. The report should indicate the location of the cliff or bluff edge the toe of. the cliff or - bluff and other significant geologic' ' features by distance from readily identified. fixed monuments such ' as the centerline of the road nearest the bluff'or cliff. ,1 Ar— Area of. LSe rnoft r3{ ton • 5o t�ee� �% ' Minimum Ti `Io .£2-00 i •1 '1-2 / The. applicaat.for- a permit for blufftop development. should. be required to demonstrate that the area of demonstration is stable for development. and that the development- will not create- a geologic. hazard: or diminish the stability of'the area.. The applicant should file a report evaluating the geologia conditions of the site and the effect of 'the development. prepared by a registered geologist or professional ciill.engineer with expertise in soils or foundation engineering, or by a certified engineering geologist. The report should be based on an on -site investigation* in addition to a review of the general character of the area. Where there is a dispute over the•.adegmacy•of the report, the Commission may request that the 'repost•be reviewed by a state geologist from the Division of Mines and Geology, the costs •of that review and ar:r necessary site inspections to be borne by the applicant. The report should consider, describe and analyze the following. - geometry and site topographyr-extending the surveying work beyc tkie site as needed to depict unusual geomorphic conditions that might, affect the site; (2) historic;current and forseeabl'e cliff erosionr including investi- gation.of-recorded land. surveys and taxi assessment records in addition to the use of historic maps•and photographs where available and possible changes in shore configuration and.sand.transport; .(3)• geologic conditions, including soil, sediment mid -rock types and characteristics in. addition to structural featuresr.such as beddingr joints, and faults; (4) evidence of past or potential landslide conditions, the impli- cations•of such conditions for the proposed development, and the potenti al effects of -the development oii landslide activity; (5} ifupact of construction- activity on the stability of the site and" adjacent area; (b) ground and surface water conditions and variations, including hydrologic changes caused by the development (i.e. introduction of sewage effluent and irrigation water to the ground water system; alterations in surface dlraImage); (7) potential erodibility of site and mitigating measures to be used to ensure minimized erosion problems during and after construction (i.e. landscaping and. drainage design); (8) effects - of marine erosion on seacliffs; (9) potential effects of seismic forces resulting from a maximum credible earthquake; (10) arq other factors that might affect slope stability. 1-3 4 The report should evaluate the off —site impacts of development (e.g. development contributing to geological instability on access roads) and the additional impacts that might occur due to the proposed development (e.g. increased erosion along a footpath). The report should also detail mitigation measures for any potential impacts and should outline alternative solutions. The report should express a professional opinion as to whether the project can be designed so that it will neither be subject to nor contribute to significant geologic instability throughout the lifespan of the project. The report should.use a currently acceptable engineering stability analysis method and should also describe the degree of uncertainty of analytical results due to assumptions and unknowns. The degree of analysis required should.be appropriate to the degree of potential risk presented by the site and the proposed project. Tn areas of geologic hazards the Commission may meat permit not be issued until an.applicant ha claim against the public for future liability o permission to build. All such waivers should. be Recorderts Office Adopted May 37 1977 s r require that a develop — signed a waiver of.al.1 damage resulting from recorded with the County- 1-4 SOUTH COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION GUIDELINES ALTERATION OF LANDFORMS Grading, cutting or filling that will alter natural landforms (bluffs, cliffs, ravines, etc.) should be minimized. In permitted C development, landform alteration should be minimized by concentrat- ing the development on level areas (except on ridge lines and hilltops) and designing hillside roads to be as narrow as possible and follow natural contours. (30251, 30253) In all cases grading should be minimized. New residential de- velopment should be sited and designed so that as a general rule, no ponds, creeks, or drainages are filled or cleared: clearance and scraping are limited to the minimum necessary area for a house pad and the legally required brush clearance area for fire -safety. Road cuffs and new subdivisions should not create lots requiring massive grading or extensive geological marks or cuts. (30251, 30253, 30240) Cascading project design.should be utilized in new development along scenic routes or if visually obtrusive as methods to blend the pro- posal with the surrounding topography. (30251. 30253) BLUFF TOP DEVELOPMENT Proposed development should be set back at least 25 feet from the edge of any coastal bluff... (30251, 30253) Proposed development upon a canyon bluff top should be set back at least ten feet from the bluff top edge, or set back in accordance with a string line (see Strgi4 �inae in this Appendix) connecting adjacent development, or set a�from the primary vegetation line depending upon site characteristics as determined by a staff in- spection of the site. (30251, 30253) l0*4k In cases where minor modification to a proposed structure might result in an additional -dwelling unit or units, a legally recorded deed restriction which sets forth and limits the use of the struc- ture to the specific number of dwelling units recorded on the permit shall be required. (30252) A-1 1k. DENSITY CALCULATIONS Net (No. of units) X (43,560 sq. ft./ac.) _ _ du/ac net. Density Size o lot in square eet Gross (No. of units) X (43,560 sq. ft./ac.) _ _ du/ac gross. Density for (Size of lot in square feet) X (1.25) Mid -Block Lots Gross (No. of units) X (43,560 sq. ft./ac.) _ du/ac gross. Density for (Size of lot in square feet) X (1.5) Corner Lots HAZARDOUS AND SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT Where development is permitted in areas of geologic or fire risk, a deed restriction for recording shall be drafted so as to notify all occupants and successor purchasers of the development property of the hazards found by the Commission and the public liability waived by the applicant. Said deed restriction shall note all (geologic or fire) hazard information applicable to the subject property in language that is understandable to a lay person. A summary of all relevant (geologic or fire) hazard conclusions shall be included as part of the chain of title.to the property. (30252, 30250) In development proposed on formations with a history of geologic instability, the burden of proof will be on the applicant that the development is such that long-term stability may be expected and that the development will cause no hazard to nearby structures. Each geology and/or soils report submitted to the Coastal Commission .. for review, if required as a part of a permit application, must include specific statements expressing the professional opinion of a consulting geologist, soils engineer, and/or properly qualified civil engineer, based on an on -site evaluation of, (a) the potential damage incurred to this development during all foreseeable normal and unusual conditions, including ground saturation and maximum 100-year probable seismic forces (using best available information), throughout the lifespan of the project, and showing that, (b) the .development will neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or sur- rounding area or in any way require the construction of protection devices that would substantially alter natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs, and the degree of potential risk presented by the site and the proposed project to human life. The report should use a currently acceptable engineering stability analysis method and should also describe the limitations in this professional judgement due to assumptions and unknowns in the analysis. A-2 The report should also include, where applicable: 1. Historic cliff erosion; 2. Cliff geometry; • 3.• Geologic conditions, including soil and rock characteristics; 4. Landslides; S. Wave and tidal action; 6. Ground and surface water conditions and variations; i. Potential effect of earthquakes, both ground shaking and surface rupture; 8. The erosion potential of the proposed development including landscaping and drainage measures; 9. Other factors that may affect slope stability; 10•. 100-year flooding; and 11. Up-to-date, detailed topographic maps, including both plan and section views. (30253, 30250) LATERAL ACCESS All shoreline parcels whose seaward boundary is the m high tide line should provide a recorded dedication or easemen granting to the public the right to pass and repass over dedic ors real prop- erty generally parallel to, and up to 25 feet in d from the mean high tide line, but in no case allowing the pub c the right to pass nearer than five feet to any living unit the property. (30210, 30211, 30212) STRING ` G LINE In a developed area where new and is otherwise consistent wi of a proposed new structure, i ion is generally infilling .1 Act policies, no part decks, should be built farther onto a beach /arest t a line drawn between the nearest adjacent corners of tnt•structures. Enclosed living space in the new unit shoulend farther seaward than a second line drawn between thadjacent corners of the enclosed living space of the atructure. (30210, 30251, 30211, 30212) 0 The 1.5 stri3etural area criteria is applicable lots (4,000 sq. ft. or less) and to conforming most lots are nonconforming, except the Venice 1.1 criteria applies. For particulars refer to 1_5 on page A-6. (30252, 30213) A-3 to -all nonconforming lots in areas where Canal area where the Criteria 1.1 and it B. COMMERCIAL 1. New commercial structures, or.intensification of existing (or most recent) use, should provide parking in accordance with the Commission Parking Guidelines. See Parking Guidelines in the attached Appendix. z30210, 30252(4)) 2. The maximum height of new development should be thi ty-five (35) feet above the grade elevation specified in attached Appendix. See Measurement of Hei ht in the a ached Appendix for grade reference po nts an method f calculation, (30251,'30252) F. HAZARDOUS OR SPCCIAL AREA The portion Newport Beach'at the Santa Ana River mouth contains ny.valuable coastal resources which should be prote ed. The bluffs,aside from being major natural 1rdform eatures,have also been designated as archaeological sit of national significance. The Santa Ana River pl at the base of the bluffs, both functioning and resto ble wetlands, provides habitat for many species of fl a and fauna including habitat, suitable for _Bgldings Sa a Sparrow (a rare and endangered speties)'and o er 'endangered species. Subareas: Pavillion/Mid-Peninsula Area: 1. All of the above general g delines for Newport, Beach should apply, except the ma mum density. The maximum density in this subarea sho ld be thirty (30) dwelling units per acre net, except the case of development of a duplex on lots of 2,, or greater. See Density Calculations Appendix. (30252) Corona del Mar: square feet the attached 1. All of the above general guidelines for Newport Beach should apply, except the maximum density. In this subarea the maximum density should be twenty-five (25) dwelling units per acre net. See.Density Calculations in the attached Appendix. (30252) Upper Newport Bay: 2. Drainage and storm water management plans may be required as a part of new development in this area. (30251, 30253, 30240) - 12 - Y REQRENCE ONLY 1/22/79 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADDING SECTION 20.51.080 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED "DEVELOPMENT OF BLUFF SITES" (RELATING TO PLANNED COMMUNITIES The City Council of the City of Newport Beach DOES ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Section 20.51.080 is added to the Newport Beach Municipal Code to read as follows: "20.51.080 Development of Bluff Sites in Planned Community Districts. The City of Newport Beach finds that the natural bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource. In order to preserve these unique landforms, developments in Planned Community Districts proposed to be located in bluff areas shall be subject to the following policies: n. Aa-need-}n-tkia-aeet�en7-e-b}nf£-eka}}-be defined-na-n-nntnrn}-a}fff-er-head}end-w4tk-n-brend preeipitens-face-keying-nn-nvernge-n}ape-ef-2Aa-er granter-rith-a-vertiee}-rice-of-}5-feet-er-greeter. a. As used in this section, a 'bluff' is a scarp or steep face of rock, decomposed rock, sediment or soil resulting from erosion, faulting or folding of the land mass. The bluff may be a simple planar or curved surface or it may be steplike in section. For the purposes of this section, a bluff is limited to those features having vertical relief of ten (10) feet or more. The 'bluff edge' is the upper termination of a bluff. When the top edge of the bluff is rounded away from the face of the bluff as a result of erosional processes related to the presence of a steep bluff face, the edge shall be defined as that point nearest the bluff beyond which the downward gradient of the land surface increases more or less continuously until it reaches the general gradient of the bluff. In a case where there is a steplike feature at the top of the bluff face, the landward edge of the topmost riser shall be taken to be the cliff edge. Where there is some question as to the applicability of this section to a specific landform, a determination as to whether or not the specific landform constitutes a bluff shall be made by the Community Development Director, consistent with the purposes of this regulation. b. Grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas. c. To promote a public safety, a geologic study shall be performed for each site to determine areas of potential instability. The bluffs' areas of potential hazard or instability shall be indicated on maps as part of any P-C development plan. d. As a general guideline, the minimum setback from the edge of a bluff should be 40 feet, consistent with the Coastal Commission guidelines. Setback standards may be increased in the review of proposed development on the basis of results of the geologic study. e. The location and design of a proposed project shall take into account public view potential. f. To minimize the impact of development on skyline views, the highest point of any structure should lie below a line drawn from the topmost edge of the bluff, perpendicular to the face of the bluff, at an agle of 200 to the horizontal. g. The location and design of a proposed project shall maximize public access to the bluff areas as -2- follows: (1) Public access to bluff areas shall be assured through the design of the local street system, and through the location of public trails and walkways adjacent to the bluffs. The City may require the dediction of richt-of-way or the granting of easements over such accesswa s. Dedi- cate richts-o -way or easements may be mi moved or not improved at the option of the City Council. (2) Areas adjacent to the bluffs having significant view potential shall be designated for use as view parks or vista points consistent with parkland dedication requirements. (3) Land required to be dedicated for neighborhood parks shall be located adjacent to the bluffs." 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 , 1979, and was adopted on the day of 1979, by the following vote, to wit:' ATTEST: City Clerk AYES, COUNCILMEN NOES, COUNCILMEN ABSENT COUNCILMEN Mayor DDO/kb 1/17/79 -3- *Y OF NEWPORT BAOH iw MINUTES Regular Council Meeting Place: Council Chambers pTime: 7:30 P.M. K()LL Date: November 27, 1978 INDEX Present x x x x x x x A. Roll Call. Motion x B. Mayor Pro Tem Williams made a motion to waive the reading of the Minutes of November 13, 1978, approve the Minutes as amended and order filed. Michael Lewis of Prudential Insurance Company addressed the Council objecting to portions of the findings that were incorporated into the Minutes as part of the motion in connection with Pacific Plaza (Prudential Insurance Company). Councilman McInnis stated for the record that he was disapproving the Minutes as amended based on something he felt was not discussed in the Council meeting, had not been covered, and was, therefore, inappropriate. Ayes x x x x x A vote was taken on Mayor Pro Tem Williams' Noes x x motion, which motion carried. Motion x C. The reading in full of all ordinances and All Ayes resolutions under consideration was waived, and the City Clerk was directed to read by titles only. D. HEARINGS: 1. Mayor Ryckoff opened the continued public hearing General Plan regarding Planning Commission Amendment No. 514, (673) a proposed amendment to the Planned Community Districts initiated by the City of Newport Beach, to require the preparation of a phasing plan consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan for the following P-C District areas: 1) Corporate Plaza 2) North Ford 3) Emkay Development 4) Koll Center Newport 5) Aeronutronic-Ford A report was presented from the Community Development Department. Ed Siebel and Daniel Emory addressed the Council in support of the proposed phasing plan for the specified planned communities as proposed. The following people addressed the Council and opposed the proposed phasing plan for the specific plannned communities as proposed: Robert Shelton of The Irvine Company; Bob Alleborn of Emkay Development; Bob Hill, President of Bear Brand Ranch Company; Tim Strader, General Partner in Koll Center Newport; Larry Tucker; George Anderson, Vice President and General Manager of California Canadian Bank; David Colgan, representing Campeau Corporation California, who Volume 32 - Page 296 *Y OF NEWPORT BLOCH COUNCILMEN \�3A lF v TyF s i� ROLL CALL\ November 27, 1978 MINUTES INDEX _ read a letter objecting to Amendment No, $14, Glenn Martin, representing the Board of Realtors; and Tom Morrissey, representing Ford Aerospace. Motion x Mr. Strader was granted three additional minutes All Ayes for his presentation. Motion x The hearing was closed after it was determined All Ayes that no one else desired to be heard. Motion x Mayor Pro Tem Williams made a motion to approve the Negative Declaration and adopt Resolution No. 9472 amending Planned Community Development Standards of the Corporate Plaza, North Ford, Emkay Development, Koll Center Newport and Aeronutronic-Ford P-C Districts to require preparation of phasing plans consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Motion x Councilman Hummel made a substitute motion that Ayes x x any further development subsequent to December 1, Noes x x x x x 1978 not be approved unless the development meets the requirements of Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code, the Traffic Phasing Regulations, which motion failed. Ayes x x x x A vote was taken on Mayor Pro Tem Williamst Noes x x x motion, which motion carried. Motion x The Planning Commission was directed to provide All Ayes definitions of "test of reasonableness" and other such information as they wish to provide that would indicate how a demonstration can be made of a phasing plan, as they suggest in their amendment, to come back to Council on January 8. E. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION: 1. Ordinance No. 1784, being, Private Streets/ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Broadmoor ADDING SECTION 12.66.060 TO THE NEWPORT Seaview Dev BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FOR APPLICA- 0-1784 TION OF VEHICLE CODE TO PRIVATE STREETS IN (3114) BROADMOOR SEAVIEW DEVELOPMENT, was presented for second reading. Motion ( x Ordinance No. 1784 was adopted. All Ayes 2. Ordinance No. 1785, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Private ADDING SECTION 12,66.070 TO THE NEWPORT Streets/ BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FOR APPLICA- Harbor Vw TION OF VEHICLE CODE TO PRIVATE STREETS IN Knoll Dev HARBOR VIEW KNOLL DEVELOPMENT, 0-1785 (3115) was presented for second reading. Motion x Ordinance No. 1785 was adopted. All Ayes Volume 32 - Page 297 _ AY OF NEWPORT ACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES F s HOLE_ CALL\ �s'� y November 27, 1978 INDEX F. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. (District 5) Mayor Ryckoff's appointment of a Com Dev member to the Community Development Citizens CAC Advisory Committee to fill the unexpired term of (2127) Motion x William H. Morris ending December 31, 1978 was All Ayes postponed to December 20, 1978. 2. A report was presented from the Community General Plan Development Department regarding Planning Commis- (673) sion review of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Motion x Mayor Pro Tem Williams made a motion to direct the Planning Commission to take the following actions with respect to traffic considerations: a) Determine acceptability of present Circulation Plan and propose necessary amendments, b) Examine a series of design alternatives that can be used to implement the accepted Circulation Element, c) Select those alternatives which appear most feasible for development, d) Determine the carrying capacity of the accepted system and alternatives, e) Alternative land uses should be examined to determine if traffic generation will be within the carrying capacity of the acceptable system; and to further direct the Planning Commission to provide the Council with a series of five density alternatives for the remaining undeveloped parcels, including P-C's excepted from the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, as follows: 1. No reductions 2. To be determined by Planning Commission 3. To be determined by Planning Commission 4. To be determined by Planning Commission 5. Low density residential and to provide alternative supporting data, both positive and negative, with each alternative; to solicit written data from Commissioners, staff, developers, environmental groups, Chamber of Commerce, and other individuals or groups as may be appropriate; to provide specific data along with the sources of that data; and to include number values where possible; with specific criteria to include, but not be limited to, Volume 32 - Page 298 CVY OF NEWPORT B9;CH ' . COUNCILMEN MINUTES �c\^��Cq�rT:S yN22. F � HULL CAL<\ \1P��y November 27. 1978 INDEX traffic considerations, openness of vista or view, City image, cost/ benefit ratio to City, private property rights, public rights, sewer capacity, energy requirements, implications for airport, and social acceptance; and to make its recommendations of an alternative to Council by March 1, i979. Mayor Pro Tem Williams stated for the record that the intent of the motion was to cover those undeveloped parcels which the Council still had opportunity to work with in regard to allowable densities. All Ayes A vote was taken on Mayor Pro Tem Williams' motion, which motion carried. 3. A report was presented from the Public Works Energy Department regarding proposed re -institution of Conservation street lighting energy conservation program in (1817) conjunction with conversion of existing systems. Motion x The staff was directed to re -institute the All Ayes street lighting energy conservation program. 4. A report dated November 13, 1978 was presented Traffic from the Public Works Department regarding speed Regulations bumps. (132F) Rudy Baron addressed the Council and asked that re -affirmation of the City's present position on speed bumps be withheld. James Orstad addressed the Council and asked that the alley between Holmwood and Catalina be excepted from the City's position regarding speed bumps. Motion x Mr. Orstad was granted two additional minutes All Ayes for his presentation. Motion x The problem was referred to the Traffic Affairs All Ayes Committee for report back with more details. 5. A proposed ordinance, being, Bluff Development AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Regulations ADDING SECTION 20.516080 TO THE NEWPORT (3061) BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED "DEVELOPMENT OF BLUFF SITES" (RELATING TO PLANNED COMMONITIES)0 Planning Commission Amendment No. 515, initiated by the City of Newport Beach, was presented with a report from the Community Development Depart- ment. Motion x Mayor Pro Tem Williams made a motion to postpone the ordinance to January 22, 1979, I Volume 32 - Page 299 *Y OF NEWPORT BACH COUNCILMEN 9 C n A y�G22 v� F LOP) ROLL CALL \� November 27, 1978 MINUTES TOW454 Dr. Gene Atherton addressed the Council regarding park costs and presented a copy of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission Minutes of February 1, 1977. Tom Morrissey of Ford Aerospace addressed the Council and opposed the ordinance as proposed. All Ayes A vote was taken on Mayor Pro Tem Williams' motion, which motion carried. 6. A letter and a sign from Kent S. Moore were Animal presented suggesting stiffer penalties for dog Control owners who do not clean up after their pets. (862) Kent Moore addressed the Council and urged that some action be taken to alleviate the problem. Motion x The staff was directed to come back by January 22 Ayes x x x x x x with proposals appropriate to the problem. Abstain x 7. A letter from Ralph D. Anderson, M.D. and a Height & petition bearing six signatures were presented Density requesting a moratorium on building permits for Regs remodeling houses on Kings Road that would (1279) change the height of the existing structure. A letter from Timothy Wilkes, architect, was presented opposing any new blufftop regulations pertaining to the two single-family lots for which they are currently finishing design plans. A petition bearing nine signatures which had been received after the agenda was printed was presented requesting an ordinance requiring uniform height of roof lines on lots on the bluff side of Kings Road/Kings Place, and requesting a temporary moratorium on all building permits for construction on bluff areas until a decision has been made regarding the ordinance. The following people addressed the Council in favor of limiting building heights in this area: Barbara Roy, who presented a copy of The Irvine Company guidelines for Cliff Haven, and Alice Pobog. The following people addressed the Council and opposed the limitation of building heights or any moratorium in this area: Orville Wells, Les Miller and John Smith. Motion x The correspondence was referred to the Planning All Ayes Commission for inclusion in on -going study. 8. A letter from the Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Elections Commerce was presented requesting that a public (12F) hearing be set to change the local election to coincide with the Statewide elections. Volume 32 - Page 300 *Y OF NEWPORT BACH COUNCILMEN ROLL CALL November 27, 1978 MINUTES INDEX Rudy Baron, President of the Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Council regarding their request. Daniel Emory and Ed Siebel addressed the Council and opposed a consolidation of election dates. Motion x Mayor Ryckoff made a motion to refer the letter to staff for reply. Motion x Councilman McInnis made a substitute motion to Ayes x x set a public hearing on the matter for January 22, Noes x x x x x 1979, which motion failed to carry. Ayes x x x x x A vote was taken on Mayor Ryckoff's motion, Noes x x which motion carried. 9. A letter from Herman Kimmel & Associates, Inc. Traffic stating that they are making every effort to Model meet the December, 1978 schedule for the Traffic (673) Motion x Model was referred to the City Clerk for filing All Ayes and inclusion in the records. 10. Reports were presented from the Community Develop- General ment Department regarding General Plan Amendments Plan Nos. 78-2 and 78-30 as follows: Amendments (673) (a) General Plan Amendment No. 78-2, a request to consider the following proposed amendments to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements to include: 1. Proposed change of use or reduction in allowable intensity of development on the major commercial/industrial undeveloped sites, including, but not limited to, the following., a) Newport Center b) Castaways Commercial Site c) Bayview Landing Site d) San Diego Creek Sites e) MacArthur/Jamboree Site 2. Proposed reduction in the number of dwelling units allowable on the major residential undeveloped sites, including but not limited, the following: a) Westbay Site b) Newporter North c) Freeway Reservation East d) Fifth Avenue Parcels e) CALTRANS West f) Beeco Property g) Roger's Gardens and vacant residen- tial Parcel to the South h) Castaways Residential Site i) Eastbluff Remnant J) Big Canyon k) Newport Center Condos 1) Baywood Expansion Volume 32 - Page 301 CRY OF NEWPORT BACH COUNCILMEN ROLL CALL• November 27, 1978 MINUTES INDEX (b) General Plan Amendment 78-3, a proposed amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan consisting of three parts as follows: Part 1 78-3-A: An amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements to change the designation of a 4.5 acre parcel on University Drive east of Irvine Avenue (Deane Property) from "Multiple - Family Residential" to "Administra- tive, Professional and Financial Commercial." Part 2 78-3-B: An amendment to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements to change the designation of approximately 35 acres west of MacArthur Boulevard between Ford Road and San Joaquin Hills Road from "Recreational and Environ- mental Open Space" (Freeway Reservation) to "Medium -Density Residential." Part 3 78-3-C: An amendment to the Land Use Element to allow Retail/Service Commercial and Residential as alternate uses to the existing "Administrative, Professional, and Financial Commercial" designa- tion within the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Area Plan District. Motion x Mayor Pro Tem Williams made a motion to set for hearing on December 11, 1978 the recommendations of the Planning Commission in connection with General Plan Amendment 78-2, with the modifica- tion that in Newport Center the residential dwelling units remain at 538 dwelling units as now on the Plan, rather than the proposed 800 dwelling units. Motion x Councilman Hummel made a substitute motion that the City Council consider as an alternate to the recommendations of the Planning Commission for General Plan Amendment No. 78-2, low density residential for Newport Village site in Newport Center, Castaways Commercial Site, Bayview Landing Site, San Diego Creek sites and MacArthur/ Jamboree Site, and refer alternate uses to Planning Commission for comment with said comment to return to the City Council by December 11; that the City Council consider as an alternate to the recommendations of the Planning Commission for General Plan Amendment 78-2 low density residential for Westbay Site, Newporter North, Freeway Reservation East site, Fifth Avenue Parcels, CALTRANS West, Beeco Property, Roger's Gardens and vacant residential parcel to the Volume 32 - Page 302 *Y OF NEWPORT BACH COUNCILMEN GAF �'f q�OyTti G��i �'A f �9'y F � ROLL CALL \ �`I'\ 'P d' November 27, 1978 MINUTES INDEX South, Castaways Residential Site, Eastbluff Remnant, Big Canyon, Newport Center Condominiums and Baywood Expansion; and that the General Plan Amendments 78-2 and 78-3, including proposed alternate land use and density designations be set for public hearing on December 11, 1978, Robert Shelton of The Irvine Company addressed the Council objecting to last-minute changes in Agenda items to be set for hearing. Councilman McInnis stated for the record that he had no record of the change. Mayor Ryckoff asked the maker of the motion to amend the motion to refer both portions back to the Planning Commission. Councilman Strauss asked the maker of the motion to change the wording to indicate that Council will consider the Planning Commission recommendations "as well as" the alternates. Both amendments were accepted by the maker of the motion. Ayes x x x A vote was taken on Councilman Hummel's Noes x x x x motion, which motion failed. Ayes x x x x x x A vote was taken on Mayor Pro Tem Williams' Noes x motion, which motion carried and General Plan Amendment 78-2 was set for public hearing on December 110 1978 as amended. Motion x General Plan Amendment 78-3 was set for A-11 Ayes public hearing on December 11, 1978. 11. A report dated November 13, 1978 was presented Harbor from that Marine Department regarding Harbor Permits Permit Application #112-600 by Fun zone Develop- (304F) ment Company to construct a new marina at 600 E. Edgewater Avenue. Tidelands Coordinator Glen Weldon gave a brief staff report. Allan Beek addressed the Council and opposed the pier permit. Debbie Gray, one of the owners of the Fun Zone, addressed the Council and answered questions. Motion x Harbor Permit Application #112-600 was approved, Ayes x x x x x subject to the conditions of approval listed in Noes x x the staff report. G. CURRENT BUSINESS: 1. A report was presented from the Public Works Christmas Department regarding Christmas lights and Decorations decorations on City streets. (391F) i 1 Volume 32 - Page 303 OY OF NEWPORT BACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES s 9?i T Fy N � ROLL CALL\ d' November 27, 1978 INDEX Motion The Public Works Department was directed to All Ayes x approve the display of Christmas lights and decorations on City streets subject to the following conditions: a) A written request from the participating community and/or business association outlining the scope of the decorations. b) Approval of the Traffic Engineer. c) Approval of the Utilities Director. 2. A report was presented from the City Attorney OrCo regarding Hughes Airwest proposal to fly 727-200 Airport jet aircraft out of Orange County on a trial (195) basis. Motion The Position Statement prepared by the City All Ayes x Attorney was approved; and Councilman Heather was authorized to appear before the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, November 28 to present the City's position regarding the Airwest 727 proposal. 3. A report was presented from the City Manager Council Motion x regarding amendments to Council Policies A-4, A-7, A-10, B-1, C-2, F-5, F-16, H-3, I-1, I-6, I-14, J-1, L-4, M-5, 0-1, 0-2 and S-1. The proposed amendments were approved for all Policy (430F) All Ayes Council Policies except J-1. Charles Gross, speaking as Chief of Police and as a resident, and Doug Thomas, Police Officer and President of the Police Employees Association, Motion x addressed the Council and opposed the proposed change to Policy J-1. The present wording relating to City employees' Ayes x x x x x salaries in J-1 was retained. Noes x x 4. A letter from the Orange County Vector Control District was presented regarding the appointment of a member to its Board of Trustees. OrCo Vector Control Motion x Mayor Ryckoff's appointment of Mayor Pro Tem Ray Williams to the Board of Trustees of the Orange County Vector Control District for a term ending (1032F) All Ayes December 31, 1980 was confirmed. 5. A letter from Dr. Gene Atherton asking to address the Council regarding the establishment of a Fair Campaign Practices Commission was presented. Election/ 1978 Blufftop Dedication Motion x Dr. Gene Atherton addressed the Council in connection with his request. The letter was referred to staff for report back (12F) All Ayes on the feasibility of such a commission in the City. Volume 32 - Page 304 -.r COY OF NEWPORT BEWH + !LL<C\ UNIMENi MINUTES iP\'A RnLL �p November 27, 1978 INDEX H. CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion x The following actions were approved by one motion All Ayes affirming the actions on the Consent Calendar: 1. The following ordinance was introduced and set for public hearing on December ll, 1978: (a) Proposed Ordinance No. 1786, being, AN Condominium ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Conversions ADDING CHAPTER 19.10 TO TITLE 19 OF THE 0-1786 NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, ENTITLED (1920) "CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS" (AMENDMENT NO, 521). (A report from the Community Develop- ment Department) 2. The following resolutions were adopted: (a) Resolution No. 9473 approving the Memorandum Personnel of Understanding negotiated by representa- Classificatn tives of the Newport Beach Employees League R-9473 and the City representative. (A report (764) from the City Manager) (b) Resolution No. 9474 authorizing the Mayor Resub 587 and City Clerk to execute a subdivision R-9474 agreement between the City of Newport Beach (3119) and W. D. Schock in connection with the completion of public improvements required with Resubdivision No. 587; located on the northerly side of 29th Street between Villa Way and Lafayette Avenue in Cannery Village. (A report from the Public Works Department) (a) Resolution No. 9475 awarding a contract to Lido Isle Spinello Construction in connection with Water Mains the Cement -Mortar Lining of Cast Iron Water R-9475 Pipe, Lido Isle, Phase 1I, Contract No. (3120) 2044. (A report from the Public Works Department) 3. The following communications were referred as indicated: (a) To staff for reply, a letter from Secured Big Canyon Equities regarding the sale of the Storage Reservoir Facility at Big Canyon Reservoir. (Attached) (3070) (b) To staff for report back, a letter from the W Cat Hwy Balboa Power Squadron requesting permission City -Owned to use the. property at 6000 West Coast Property Highway for their headquarters on any basis (1459) the Council feels suits the City of Newport Beach best. (Attached) (c) To staff for reply, a letter from Sue Baker University regarding the proposal to build a split- Drive Ext level extension to University Drive along (1895) the west bank of the Back Bay and the possible damage to several endangered species of birds. (Attached) Volume 32 - Page 305 w. Y OF NEWPORT BACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES ,AyyN2�l'i F N ani i cai i C �0.1% s November 27. 1978 INDEX (d) To staff for inclusion in on -going study a Animal letter from Herbert F. Whitley regarding Control the animal control laws being enforced in (862) the City of Los Angeles and requesting more help for West Newport. (Attached) (e) To staff for inclusion in on -going study, a Air Quality letter from State Senator H. L. "Bill" Management Richardson regarding the goals and policies Plan adopted by SCAG, ABAG, etc. in connection (3071) with the "Air Quality Management Plan." (Attached) (f) Removed from the Consent Calendar. (g) To staff for reply, a letter from George J. Claim Jeffries, attorney for Roy Kunkle and Smith Kunkle/Bacon Bacon, in connection with the erosion/slide (2968) at 322 Heliotrope, Corona del Mar, stating that a geotechnical report has been made, that they have a grading contractor who will do the necessary site repair work to stabilize the adjacent City property in order to save his client's duplex for $24,240 plus, and offering the City oppor_tuni- ty to obtain other bids or to undertake the work itself at a lower cost. (Attached) (h) To staff for report back, a letter from the Trees Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce regarding (877) trees on East Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. (Attached) 4. The following communications were referred to the City Clerk for filing and inclusion in the records: (a) A News Release from the Orange County Environmental Management Agency and the Newport -Irvine Waste -Management Planning Agency (NIWA) regarding two workshops on the draft 208 plan to be held November 29 (355) and 30. (Attached) (b) A letter from the Prudential Insurance Company in connection with the parking requirements, and stating they wish to appeal the action of the Planning Commission in denying the reallocation of 140,000 square feet of parking from Block 500 to Block 600 as being unreasonable and arbitrary. (3118) (Attached) (c) A resolution of the City of Irvine opposing the lack of the State of California's concern for the impact of State mandated costs. (1429) (d) Notice of Opinion of the Public Utilities Commission in connection with the application of the Western Union Telegraph Company for an order authorizing it to revise certain intra- state rates and charges applicable to TWX (20) service in California. Volume 32 - Page 306 C*Y OF NEWPORT BAH � a�7 COUNCILMEN \`ti��y �L \��9\i�� ql 9G22 ROLL CALL d' November 27, 1978 MINUTES INDEX (a) Agenda of the Board of Supervisors meetings of November 14, 15, 21, 22, 28 and 29, (20) 1978. 5. The following claims were denied and the City Claims Clerk's referral to the insurance carrier was confirmed: (a) Claim of Louise S. Higgins and Robert L. Higgins Higgins for property damage on October 27, (3121) 1978 when her automobile was rent -ended by a City Police vehicle at 4455 West Coast Highway. (b) Claim of John M. Lucas for property damage Lucas on November 5, 1978 when he drove over a (3122) broken manhole cover on Jamboree Boulevard and the exhaust system was torn off of his car, and he is alleging that the City is responsible for the manhole cover being in the roadway. (c) Claim of Craig Mallory and Valerie Preston Mallory/ for property damage to their residence on Preston October 24, 1978, when the Police were (3123) answering an emergency call and knocked down the door at 424-1/2 Marigold in Corona del Mar, (d) Claim of Donovan E. Schowalter for property Schowalter damage on October 1, 1978 when a tree (3124) branch fell on his parked truck at 701 Poppy Avenue and he is alleging that the tree is City property. (a) Claim of Gayle W. Flynn for damage to his Flynn car on November 18, 1978 while he was (3125) driving over the Balboa Island Bridge and a section of the roadway sank creating a large hole resulting in damage to the bottom, one side and exhaust system of the car, 6. The City Clerk's referral of the following Summons and Complaint to the insurance carrier was confirmed: (a) Summona and Complaint of Brien Carter, Jr. Carter for damages (Assault and Battery, Negligent (2927) Hiring and Negligent Supervision), Case No. 29-53-09 in the Orange County Superior Court. The original claim was for property damage and bodily injury when Carter was arrested on January 27, 1978. 7. There were no personnel vacancies for approval. 8, There ware no staff reports. Volume 32 - Page 307 Y OF NEWPORT BLACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES yyG2�i 9 � 0, ani i roi 1 ?i0) yss November 27, 1978 INDEX c 9. The following public hearings were scheduled: Set for public hearing on December 11, 1978: (a) Tentative Map of Tract No. 10587, a request Tract 10587 of Daon Corporation to subdivide 6.8 acres into one lot to permit the conversion of the existing Versailles -on -the -Bluffs multiple -family residential units into a residential condominium complex on property located at 901 Cagney Lane, on the south- easterly corner of Hospital Road and Superior Avenue in the Planned Community of Versailles -on -the -Bluffs; zoned P-C. (A report from the Community Development Department) (b) Tentative Map of Tract No. 9676, a request Tract 9676 of McLain Enterprises to subdivide 25.1 acres for residential condominium develop- ment, and ingress and egress and private vehicular circulation within the Sea Island project, and the acceptance of an environmental document on property located at 1100 Jamboree Road, on the easterly side of Jamboree Road, across Jamboree Road from the Newporter Inn; zoned P-C. (A report from the Community Development Department) Set for public hearing on December 20, 1978: (c) Underground Utilities District No. 6 (Pacific Coast Highway Bridge over Upper Newport Bay), to determine if the boundaries of existing Underground Utilities District No. 6 should be amended to include Dover Drive from Coast Highway to a point northerly of Cliff Drive, and two small parcels along the Coast Highway west of Dover Drive. (A report from the Public Works Department) 10. The public improvements constructed in conjunction with Resubdivision No. 539, located on the northwesterly corner of East Balboa Boulevard and Adams Street in Central Balboa were accepted; the City Clerk was authorized to release the Faithful Performance Bond (Bond No. 75M 169 710 issued,by American Motorists Insurance Company and to release the Labor and Materials Bond (Bond No. 75M 169 710 issued•by American Motorists Insurance Company) in six months, provided no claims have been filed. (A report from the Public Works Department) 11. Removed from the Consent Calendar. 12. The following maintenance dredging harbor permits were approved subject to the conditions of approval listed in the general permit issued to the City by the Corps of Engineers for the following: (A report from the Marine Department) #116-1116 of William Edy, 1116 W. Bay Avenue #116-1124 of Dr. John Reynolds, 1124 W. Bay Volume 32 - Page 308 Undergrd Utilities Dist 6 (2500) Resub 539 (2665) Harbor Permits (304F) #Y OF NEWPORT BRCH COUNCILMEN A�%�t:`9A.pyG22 ROLL CALL top November 27, 1978 MINUTES INDEX 13. The following budget amendment was approved: BA-022, $16000.00 increase in Budget Appropria- tions for design and construction of an emergency access ramp on the Newport Pier to replace the existing ramp damaged in the Winter 1978 storms with funds provided by the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration, from Unappropriated Surplus and Reserve for Flood Disaster to Marine, Newport Pier Ramp, General Fund. I. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. A report was presented from the City Attorney Orco requesting authorisation to use $50000 from the Airport Airport Growth Control Fund to retain experts to Growth analyze HAW B-727-200 proposal. Control Fund Motion x The City Attorney was authorized to use up to (2853) Ayes x x x x x x $100000 from the Airport Growth Control Fund. Noes x 2. A letter from Judge Jesse W. Curtis was presented Claim / regarding his claim against the City for damage Curtis to his home, allegedly as a result of the (2840) negligent maintenance of the City's water main easement adjacent to his property. Judge Curtis addressed the Council regarding his claim. Motion x The letter was referred to staff for reply. All Ayes J. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: 1. The Mayor was authorized to send a letter to Traffic Herman Kimmel and Associates regarding the Model Motion x traffic model and submission of the model to the (673) All Ayes City by December 31, 1978. 2. Page 279 of the Minutes of the November 13, 1978 Council Council Meeting were further amended as follow*: Rt of Rev Motion x In paragraph one of the finding* under Block 600 Prudential Ayes x x x x x Traffic Study, the reference to the intersection Ins Co Noes x x of MacArthur and Jamboree in the last sentence (3095) was changed to Jamboree and Campus. Mayor Ryckoff adjourned the meeting at 12:30 a.m., i November 28, 1978. Volume 32 - Page 3 09 City Council Meeting November 13, 1978 Study Session Agenda Item No. Evening -Agenda Item No. H-l(a) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 8, 1978 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Request to Introduce and set for Public Hearing Proposed Ordinance No. , being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADDING SECTION 20.51.080 ENTITLED "DEVELOP- MENT OF BLUFF SITES" TO THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PLANNED COMMUNI- TIES (Planning Commission Amendment No. 515) INITIATED BY: City of Newport Beach Suggested Action If desired, introduce and set for public hearing on November 27, 1978, Ordinance No. , adopting Amendment No. 515, including any revision to the draft ordinance which the City Council desires. This item was recycled from the October 10 and October 24, 1978 City Council meetings. Planning Commission Recommendation At its meeting of September 21, 1978, the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council that Amendment No. 515 be adopted. This -amendment to the Zoning Code would establish development regu- lations and design standards for blufftop developments in the Planned Community Districts, and in addition, it is intended to supplement the Grading Code which also applies to developments in the Planned Community Districts. Specific undeveloped sites affected by this regulation include the Castaways, Westbay, and North Newporter sites. A copy of the proposed amendment is attached. Background The Planning Commission began consideration of the matter of ,bluff development regulations in April, 1978. That particular study was concerned with bluff regulations which would apply Citywide. After some examination it was suggested that two separate approaches were needed for dealing with the large vacant bluff sites in the P-C u TO: City Council - 2. Districts versus small -lot bluff developments in the already - subdivided sections of the City. Consequently Amendment No. 515 was proposed to establish bluff policies applying to the major P-C sites; and a separate Bluff Development Review Ordinance was proposed for the already -subdivided parts of the City (Amendment No. 516). These proposed bluff regulations are intended to deal with aesthetic and design considerations as well as public safety factors. They are intended to supplement, rather than supersede, the existing Grading Code provisions which apply to new development in any case. Revised Wording Based on discussion by the City Council at previous meetings, a number of revisions have been made to the draft ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission as follows: (Revisions in italics) 1) Wording has been changed so that the ordinance applies to natural bluffs in P-C Districts, Citywide, whereas the orb nal ordinance pertained to sites adjacent to the Upper Bay only. 2) Section b. has been changed to indicate that grading of natural bluffs shall be prohibited rather than "minimized" as originally stat ed. 3) Wording has been added to indicate that land required " for park dedication shall be Located adjacent to the bluffs. 4) A section has been added dealing with the impact of bluff development or skyline views. 5) A definition of bluffs has been added. 6) Reference has been made to the granting of easements or dedication for public access to the bluffs. 7) Section h. of the draft ordinance approved by -the Planning Commission, which deals with erosion controls, has been deleted. This matter has been referred back to the Planning Commission for consideration as part of the.Grading Code amendments directed by the City Council, dealing with on -site retention of silt. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. H,• OOGGAN, Director by DAVID J. DMOIJDWSKI Advance Planning Administrator c � • • 3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADDING SECTION 20.51.080 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED "DEVELOPMENT OF BLUFF SITES" (RELATING TO PLANNED COMMUNITIES) The City Council of the City of Newport Beach DOES ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Section 20.51.080 is added to the Newport Beach Municipal Code to read as follows: "20.51.080 Development of Bluff Sites in Planned Community Districts Ad7aeent-te-the-tipper-Bey. The City of Newport Beach finds that the natural bluffs adjeeent to -the -Upper -Bey represent a significant scenic and environmental resource. In order to preserve these unique landforms, developments in Planned Community Districts proposed to be located in bluff areas shall be subject to the following policies: a. As used in this section, a bluff shall be defined as a natural cliff or headland with a broad precipitous face having an average slope of 20? or greater with a vertical rise of 15 feet or greater. Where there is some question as to the applicability of this section to a specific landform, a determination as to whether or not the specific landform constitutes a bluff -shall be made by the Community Development Director, consistent with the purposes of this regulation; a. b Grading, cutting, and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall -be minsmized prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas; .b. c. To promote a public safety, a geologic study shall be performed for each site to determine areas of potential instability. The bluffs' areas -of potential hazard or instability shall be indicated on maps as part of any p-C development plan; e. d. As a generai guideline, the minimum setback from the edge of a bluff should'be 40 feet, consistent with the Coastal Commission guidelines. Setback standards. maybe medif=ed increased in the review of proposed development on the basis of results of the geologic study, d. e. The location and design of a proposed project shall take into account public view potential; f. To minimize the impact of development on skyline views the highest point of any structure should lie below a line drawn from the topmost edge of the bluff, perpendicular to the face of the bluff, at an angle of 200 to the horizontal; e. %. The location and design of a proposed project shall maximize public access to the bluff areas as follows: (1) Public access to bluff areas shall be assured through the design of the local street system, and through the location of public trails and walkways adjacent to the bluffs. The .City may require the dedication or granting of easements over such accessways. (2) Areas adjacent to the bluffs having significant view potentital shall be designated for use as view parks or vista points consistent with parkland dedication -requirements. (3) Land reguired-to be dedicated for neighborhood parKS shall be located adjacent to the blu £s. f. Prepesed-development-shall-take-IRtO aeeaxnt-getentsa�-granndwater-grebeems-and-aneerpera8e measxres-te-mgn#m�$e-end-eenhre�-the-e€€sate-a€-ereeiea and-drawn-nr�nef€." -2- 9• r 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 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 , 1978, andwas adopted on the day of , 1978, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCILMEN NOES, COUNCILMEN ABSENT COUNCILMEN ATTEST: City Cle: �, • City CouncoMeeting November 13,• 1978 Agenda Item No. D-5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH November 7, 1978 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Public hea Proposal to add Chapter 20.04 to the Newport Beach Municipal Code, entitled "Bluff Development Regulations," to establish regulations for the development of bluff areas in the R-A, R-1, R-1.5, R-2, R-3, R-4 and B- Combining Districts. Suggested Action Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, approve Negative Declaration, introduce Ordinance No. and set for second reading on Novem- ber 27, 1978. Planning Commission Recommendation At its meeting of September 21, 1978, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and voted to recommend to the City Council that Amend- ment No. 516 not be adopted. This proposed amendment would apply to residential b ufftop developments in the already -subdivided sections of the City for any new construction or additions to existing struc- tures. The proposed amendment would establish development standards and require review of development plans by the Planning Commission. Approximately thirteen vacant lots and approximately 450 already - developed lots would be affected by this regulation. In recommending that the proposed amendment not be adopted, the Planning Commission cited the small number of vacant blufftop parcels remaining to be developed. A copy of the minutes of the Planning Commission public hearing is attached. A copy of the proposed amendment is also attached for the City Council's consideration. Also attached is correspondence from property owners potentially affected by this regulation. This proposed amendment is intended to apply to all residential zones except the Planned Community Districts. Bluff development regulations for the P-C Districts are dealt with in Amendment No. 515. Current Regulations Development on already -subdivided residential lots located in bluff areas is currently governed by Building Code provisions and the 0 0 TO: City Council - 2. Zoning Code. Construction in bluff areas currently is subject to the newly -revised grading provisions of the Building Code. Proposed Amendment The proposed amendment, in summary, contains the following provisions: 1. Defines bluff areas as landforms orieeted toward the ocean or bay having a slope greater than 20 , with specific bluff areas subject to regulations indicated on a map (attached). 2. Applies to all residential zones except the Planned Community District. 3. Requires review of development plans by Planning Com- mission prior to issuance of a building or grading permit for new construction or additions to existing structures. 4. Establishes policies and standards for review of projects, including setback standards. 5. Allows Planning Commission to impose conditions on approval of projects to assure compliance with policies and standards. This amendment is intended to deal primarily with the aesthetic or visual impacts of development adjacent to bluffs. Soil stability, geologic conditions and structural safety considerations are handled in any case through normal Grading and Building Code review procedures. It is estimated that approximately the same processin costs would be encountered as in Site Plan Review, which requires a 1210 application fee. Revised Bluff Areas Map The attached Bluff Areas Map considered by the Planning Commission has been revised to designate Bayside Drive east of Carnation, Buck Gully and Morning Canyon south of Coast Highway as bluff areas. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director by I tl%_ 0 VID J. DMUKU 1t Advance Planning Administrator Attachments for City Council Only: 1) Draft Ordinance and Map 2) Planning Commission Minutes 3) Correspondence 4) Negative Declaration DJD/kk Amendment Na 516 Areas subject to Bluff Develop- �, = = -� `r� f �/� i•. ment Review ordinance for new ✓ — ?% ✓� \ construction or additions to existing structures. CM W HEW� Bum uwse.— k)J • • y COMMISSIONERS ♦� ? vp p 1 °c ROLL CA Motioi Ayes Noes Abseni City of Newport Beach September 21, 1978 MINUTES _.. I U. I QQlhx Item M9 Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 developmentsadopting tionsnforoblufftopMunicipal all residential i zone districts, except the Planned Community Districts, for new construction and additions AMENDMENT - � RECOMMENDEI 1'61C�dENTA1^ to existing structures. Initiated by: City of Newport Beach Public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Tim Wilkes appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Don Haskell, property owner on Cliff Drive, and questioned whether adoption of this ordinance would preclude development of the thirteen vacant lots involved. Les Miller, 128 Kings Place, appeared before the Planning Commission and voiced his opinion that this ordinance is not needed inasmuch as the City already has standards with respect to setbacks and height limitations. Gene Atherton appeared before the Planning Commission and made reference to a 10-foot setback contained in other development regulations. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. X X X X X % Motion was made that Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that Amendment No. 516 not be adopted. Proposed amendment to Section 20.01.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code {Zoning) to all new construction and a17 additions sting structures, except single-fam wellings and duplexes, subject to Sit n Review in areas designated for the aration of a Specific Area Plan wh ch plan has not been adopted. ENDMENT N.518—" NO ACTION I ed b City of Newport Beach Public hearing was opened in connection with +hie 4+am %nA +He»n I.n4»n DoNALD IIABRELL e077 WUNT CM97 n1011WAY NUWM MT UWACIA, C�MU92000 (7141 042•IOYO August 3, 1978 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, California Gentlemen: On April 20, 1978 I submitted a letter to the Planning Commission expressing my concern over the proposed new regulations regarding development on or adjacent to bluffs in Newport Beach. A copy of this letter is attached for your files. I am the owner of two lots located on the southerly side of Cliff Drive between Fullerton and Aliso Avenues. This property lies in an older, established neighborhood and I have held it for many years for the purpose of single family residence development. Architectural plans are at this time being drawn and will be submitted within the next few months for a building permit. The imposition of a new set -back from the edge of the bluff on these two lots would not change the bluff appearance in this already developed neighborhood, yet it could very likely prevent my building on the property. To the best of my knowledge the 110 feet of frontage under discussion represents the only privately -owned undeveloped lots along this entire stretch of Cliff Drive. Therefore, I respectfully request that these lots be deleted from any contemplated new development regulations. Sincerely, DH:bd Tao.lnl.n i1nNltxut. V OY7 W MST O.ANT 111e,1WAV Nr.WW,NT 11r.AcN. CAMMINIA naNnu 171 I( 041 1026 April20, 1978 To: Planning C;ommiasloners City of Newport Beach Re: Amendment No. 507 .- Proposed New Regulations for Developments on or Adjacent to Bluffs in Newport Beach C,enllemen: 1 am the owner of property located on the southerly side of Cliff Drive between Fullerton and Aliso avenues. This property has been held for many years for the purpose of building a home for my own use on one of the lots anti to develop the other in a similarly attractive manner. 1 am now in a pnsition to build on these two lots within the next year, ;Inri the imposition of additional setbacks (over and above those pre- sently in effect) would, in essence, prevent the development and use of my property. It should be noted that the lots immediately adjacent it, „1y part cl arc ocl.upied by single family residences. To the best of my knowledge, aline are the only privately -owned undeveloped lots on Cliff Drive. Accordingly. I respectfully request that these two parcels located on Cliff Drive be deleted from any contemplated new development regu- lations. An Assessor's Parcel Map is attached outlining my Property, Sincerely, Illl:hd / enCl Ito APf; 2" 17 13%Etx nit ' �ti �.,111r•..4ctr, �' 0 1 0� W PAR. 6 57 I 58 I 59 I 60 I 61 P. IN. 56 - 49 05 W x :if DRIVE m I�� I @ I' 47 48 To Planning Commission LAM OF, rcrn Or August 3. 1978 bk+ I'Ari.,HASTINGS.JANOVSKY & WALKER r p1+, /•,4.. r • wuenrnr ICLLPNONL 1/MI bJJ -2 JSI '„r:� .ruler. x YY':; r n•Y .; •�rnb r Y16g1 .0 nnrw• w L+ux GAbLL Ap CNI O!!. FAULHAST ,r;';;,, N \•,N Y'4 M; 'I•r11 N .N11'r .r ^N ,r Is lYl. x •r MI'1 ' wr(n4nY�cn Yt�• TWY b,O•'12b YObb Yr ♦:x.. �:ri.. +m+4.,w •uu In .•NAY r r4.ba+•wbin ntRns AtlW[n wlulr+ NULM' 1 4AN% �IIY40,r nr 11Yrrnln4 IxnY1x n r1Y•n Y,ExAII l r{r40 M'CNLL\ 4 1 Nb[t• YI•nr••I l 411 n+I x1 rN (Yrl N 141f s.,.Y • x,tw.Y..l,rn Au ust 3 1978 : n.Nre M.LXr. g , YM r ; YIxw.1N r,4rl YIM41n 1 C l•NLXIrxM unMNr r• Y+•LYL nl NAM L NNIM Y ( rnIN4W\M M1M IL n M4 •MMIw• rn lr N\+nr .M L 4<• I1AN N•(NAII MNIRn\ «11•x IN 1M\ My (LM A41 Mrr:LIN91n .I441 •u N nur4x w[1. gYq,Y Planning Commission City of Newport Beach c/o Mr. R. V. Hogan, Director Department of Community Development City Hall Newport Beach, California Centlemen: I I...I It[ 1,11FIt r«Inu ftrON01Wb0 • . 4tA ptlttw • O0 MINA t 1'r (AI V FYNIA 00011 1CLCYNONt „M Y60•4OOO 12153 OUR ?ILL NO — - — Re: Proposed Bluff Development Regulations Ordinance R e'I. o C.. 1.4n�T We are counsel to Mrs. Margaret E. Oser, the owner of an undeveloped parcel of land located at 2505 Cliff Drive in Newport Heights. As such counsel, we have been following closely the proposed Bluff Development Regulations Ordinance and we are writing this letter to set forth, on behalf of our client, comments concerning that ordinance prior to its con- sideration by the Planning Commission at the public hearing to be held on Thursday evening, August 3, 1978. Initially, we note that we agree with what we understand to be the Planning Commission's position that separate approaches to any bluff regulations are needed for small lot developments in the older residential areas of the City as opposed to the large vacant parcels such as the Castaways site and the Newport North site. Our client's parcel is, of course, in an older residential area of the City. We understand, based on the 5taff's Report, that the draftegulations relatesnance to be only to thoseconsidered olde 19 Planning Commission August 3, 1978 Page Two residential areas in which there are thirteen (13) vacant lots which would be affected by the provisions of the proposed ordinance with respect to new development. The undeveloped lots are basically in Newport Heights, where our client's lot is located, and in Corona del Mar. We are familiar with some, but not all, of the undeveloped lots in question and it would appear that these lots are vastly different in topography, developability, size, etc. so that an ordinance, such as that proposed, could only be applied subjectively to any development plan. Indeed it would appear that the ordinance, if adopted, would either prevent or severely limit reasonable development of these lots or have to be emasculated to allow such development. It is also our understanding, from discussions with the Staff, that the Staff recognizes the vastly different characteristics of these various lots. Indeed, the proposed ordinance really only has one objective criterion and that is the proposed ten (10) foot setback. Yet the setback, as set foth in the itris inappropriate, anddlinn thisprespect, fthe avariance Staff reported, in its Item No. 3 for the June 15, 1978 Planning commission meeting, that: "The Coastal Commission uses a 25 foot setback guideline in the review of applications for Bluff Development. In actual practice, a lesser standard is commonly applied to smaller lots on a case by case basis. Staff has suggest- ed a 10 foot setback here -for discussion purposes. Therefore, the proposed ordinance appears as a series of subjective "standards' containing an objective standard which is acknowledged to be inappropriate for the development in question and for which a variance must be sought. We understand from discussions with the Staff, that the present proposal arose in the context of a case in which a property owner requested a variance in order to develop the entire face of a bluff area in Corona del Mar. This, of course, was within the existing variance regulations, and, therefore, the issue before the Planning Commission. The • Planuiny Ccmmkli:;:;inn Auynat 'i, 1978 1h,y,,• 'duce proposed ordinance affects only thirteen (13) lots (which respect to new development) of vastly different characteristics, it in- creases the time and expense of development in an area already regulated by the Coastal Commission and the City'a Building Department, and, to the extent that a variance is needed with respect to existing zoning, by the Planning Commission. it may very well be a complicated, unnecessary and expensive solution looking for a problem. We recognize that the proposed ordinance also relates to additions in areas of existing development. However, most of the developed lots which would be encompassed by the proposed ordinance do not admit of substantial alteration or addition that would not already be controlled by the existing regulatory structure. At all events, the areas of existing development along bluff areas in the older parts of the City are even more varied in their characteristics than are the few remaining un^ developed lots, and therefore, it would seem d at sheordinance would be even more difficult to apply to theareas if application were $ought. Therefore, we suggest that the establishment of a subjective ordinance with an inappropriate objective criterion which subjects a property owner to an arbitrary road blockhat must be overcome before beginning the usual development process is unnecessary and we hope that the Planning Commission will agree. very truly yours, PAUL, HA5TINGE(, JANOPlY A WALKER yn By c�^ G �-'lam //i'r i. • Charles A. Mat inna, Jr. CAM:ns cc: Mrs. Margaret E. Oser n NEGATIVE DECLARATIi)N TO: (v 1 Secretary for Resources FROM: Community Development Dept. l" 1 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 City of Newport Beach Sacramento, California 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 1 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors l�J P. 0. Box 687 Santa Ana, California 92702 NAME OF PROJECT: Amendment No. 516 PROJECT LOCATION: Residential zone districts, except the Planned Community District, located adjacent to bluff areas. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An amendment to the Zoning Code to establish bluff development regulations and the requirment of Planning Commission review of development plans for projects located in residential zones adjacent to bluff areas. FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: (a) This proposed amendment does not change the amount or type of development allowed in residential zone districts. (b) The proposed amendment would provide for setback standards and other measures designed to preserve the bluffs in their natural state. INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: Advance Planning Division INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: 3300 Newport Boulevard' Newport Beach, California 92663 Bever y. D ood, Environppntal Coordinator Date: September 11, 1978 tD CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH s RECEIVED OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER b Comawnity Dev::up.nent -y October 25, 1978 Dept, £� OCT26 1978s e CITY OF o NEWKPT 6:.ACH, /o o: CALIF TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT 516 Planning Commission Amendment 516 will be on for public hearing and first reading November 13th. Please prepare the neces- sary staff reports. C� 1/i/ ROBERT L. WYNN City Council Wing October 24, 1978 Study Session Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH October 18, 1978 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Proposed Bluff Development Regulations in the R-A, R-1, R-1.5, R-2, R-3, R-4 and B- Combining Districts (Planning Commission Amendment No. 516) Suggested Action If desired, a) Add to the evening agenda to introduce and set for public hearing on November 13, 1978. b) Receive and order filed, consistent with Planning Commission recommendation that Amendment No. 516 not be adopted. Planning Commission Recommendation At its meeting of September 21, 1978, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and voted to recommend to the City Council that Amend- ment No. 516 not be adopted. This proposed amendment would apply to residential blufftop developments in the already -subdivided sections of the City for any new construction or additions to existing struc- tures. The proposed amendment would establish development standards and require review of development plans by the Planning Commission. Approximately thirteen vacant lots and approximately six hundred' already -developed lots would be affected by this regulation. In recommending that the proposed amendment not be adopted, the Planning Commission cited the small number of vacant blufftop parcels remaining to be developed. A copy of the minutes of the Planning Commission public hearing is attached. A copy of the proposed amendment is also attached for the City Council's consideration. Also attached is correspondence from property owners potentially affected by this regulation. This proposed amendment is intended to apply to all residential zones except the Planned Community Districts. Bluff development regulations for the P-C Districts are dealt with in Amendment No. 515 (also on this agenda). , 0 TO: City Council - 2. Current Regulations Development on already -subdivided residential lots located in bluff areas is currently governed by Building Code provisions and the Zoning Code. Construction in bluff areas currently is subject to the newly -revised grading provisions of the Building Code. A copy of these regulations is attached for the City Council's information. With respect to zoning provisions, there are currently no regulations which deal specifically with bluff areas. The design of projects proposed to be located in bluff areas is affected by height limits, syard etbackgfrommthesedgedofloor bluffsea limit. required byotheeZoningre is no specific Code. Proposed Amendment The proposed amendment, in summary, contains the following provisions: 1. Defines bluff areas as landforms oriegted toward the ocean or bay having a slope greater than 20 , with specific bluff areas subject to regulations indicated on a map (attached). 2. Applies to all residential zones except the Planned Community District. 3. Requires review of development plans by Planning Com- mission prior to issuance of a building or grading permit for new construction or additions to existing structures. 4. Establishes policies and standards for review of projects, including setback standards. 5. Allows Planning Commission to impose conditions on approval of projects to assure compliance with policies and standards. This amendment is intended to deal primarily with the aesthetic or visual impacts of development adjacent to bluffs. Soil stability, geologic conditions and structural safety considerations are handled in any case through normal Grading and Building Code review procedures. It is estimated that approximately encountered as in Site Plan Review, of $210.00 is suggested. the same processing costs would be and therefore, an application fee A map has been prepared and is attached indicating the residentially - zoned areas which would be subject to Bluff Development Review. Also indicated is the location of the Coastal Zone boundary in the City. Coastal Commission Guidelines call for a forty foot setback from the edge of coastal bluffs. However, this standard is not r � • TO* City Council - 3. typically enforced in the review of permits by the Coastal Com- mission where such a setback standard would preclude development due to the size, shape or orientation of the lot. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNIT' R. V. HOGAN, Director. by IYAVIU J. MOH WSK Advance Planning DJD/kk Attachments for Counci 1) Location Map 2) Draft Amendment 3) Minutes of P1ann 4) Correspondence f 5) Grading Ordinanc Amendment NoL 516 - r Areas subject to Bluff Develop- ment Review ordinance for new e construction or additions to rtJ existing structures rz^ •+Y I�rr m%�' t 4 —r , �,:'a !��' i T —�x�• ,. Coastal Zone Boundary\ INA ,// \\ a .,` t\-�?!lr ,.'•�' +... !l iz ate=: . •leS V •� !�t`v. � 1.7 mow. _ ;-+.i .� '--ter. I. • �_ r W \ i : °•'j t I ... � •� d ,` YY — ' .. -. _ - 1- _ • _ _ _ I Y „mot y i ,.� �:r t is�' ';•-,.�"w,^•__^:-' - _ _ - .. � .� •ram' ��•a s. '°''' • � ' =__�',;,.�.:�'�� _ - � �` - _` _ _._ "_ _ ecrr oY xerroxr xeaof ---- — i �-�.•� fin' — h Sections: 20.04.010 20.04.020 20.04.030 20.04.040 20,04.050 20.04.060 20,04.070 20.04.080 20.04.090 Chapter 20.04 BLUFF DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Intent Definition of Bluff Application Planning Commission Areas Review Required Attachment 1 (Amendment No. 516) Requirements and Development Standards for Bluff Areas Alteration or waiver of Setback Standards Action by the Planning Commission Appeal to the City Council Fee 20.04,010 INTENT. The City of Newport Beach finds that coastal bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource. 'In order to preserve these unique geologic features, and the scenic value which' these landforms provide, and in order -to promote the public health and safety, it is the intent of this chapter that new development and alterations or additions to existing developments be regulated through the application of bluff development standards.as set for herein. 20.04.020 DEFINITION OF BLUFF AREAS. As used in this chapter, bluff areas shall be defined as landforms oriented toward the ocean or Upper Bay having a slope of 20 degrees or greater. Such areas having a slope of 20 degrees or greater are indicated on the map entitled "Bluff Areas" adopted and made a part of this ordinance by reference. 20.04.030 APPLICATION. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to new developments and alterations or additions to existing developments in the R-8, R-1, R-1.5, R-2, R-3, R-4, and "B-" Combining District. In cases of emergency, where property is imperiled, a permit for emergency repairs or construction may be issued at the discretion of the Director of Community Development, consistent with the public safety and welfare. 20.04.040 PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW REQUIRED. Any development or alteration of land occurring on property identified as a bluff area as defined in Section 20.04.020 shall be subject to Bluff Development Review by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of any building permit or grading permit, to determine the consistency of such development with the standards set forth herein. Exception: The review of bluff development plans shall not be required where a proposed addition to an existing structure does not diminish the distance between the structure and the edge of the bluff. 20.04.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR BLUFF AREAS. In order to carry out the purposes of this chapter, the following requirements and standards shall apply in the review of proposed development subject to this chapter: - 1 - 0 ,U (a) bradiny, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff t.dgps in rnnnertion with development shall be minimized in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas. Grading, or uthpr alteration of natural landforms may be permitted where the Planning Commission in its review of a proposed development determines that the grading plan is consistent with the intent and purposes of this chapter. (b) Any structure subject to this chapter shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of a bluff. Such setback standard may be altered or waived in accordance with Section 20.04,060 below. (c) In areas subject to potential slope instability, a soils or geologic report shall be prepared. (d) Where feasible, the location and design of a proposed project shall minimize the interruption of public views on or over bluff areas. (e) The design of development shall incorporate measures to minimize and control the effects of erosion and urban runoff. (f) The design of development shall take into account potential groundwater problems. (q) The design of development shall incorporate the best available measures to assure public safety and structural integrity, and to address potential problems associated with slope instability. 00.04.060 ALTERATION OR WAIVER Or SETBACK STANDARD. The setback standard established by Section 20.04.060 (b) may be increased, or decreased, or waived by the Planning Commission i-n the review of a proposed project on the basis of the results of a geologic study, or where the Planning Commission finds that such a setback standard imposes unreasonable hardship due to the size, shape, or orientation of the subject lot. ?0.04.010 ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. if ail applicable standards established by this ordinance are met, the Plannning commission shall approve the proposed development. Conditions may be applied as appropriate when the proposed development does not comply with applicable standards and shall be such as to bring said development into conformity. If the development is disapproved, the Planning Commission shall specify the standard or standards that are not met. A Bluff Development Review decision of the Planning Commission shall be subject to review by the City Council either by appeal, or upon its own motion, or upon the request of the Commission. The action of the Commission on any Bluff Development Review shall be final and effective (wpnty-une (?]) days following the Commission action therpnn unless. within the twenty-one (Z1) day appeal period in writing has been tiled by t.hp applicant, the Commission has requested a review of its de,if.ion, or unless the City Council, not more than twenty-one (21) .I,,y-, after the Commission action, on ots own motion, elects to review anil,itt on the action of the Commission, unless the applicant consents to in extonsinn of time. The City Council Play affirm, reverse or m,ndily the derision. Such action by the City Council shall be final. 2 - I 20.04.080 A. APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. Any Bluff Development Review decision of the Commission may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant at any time within twenty-one ,to the ,lay,, after the date of the Commission decision. An appeal city Council shall be taken by filing a letter of appeal in duplicate, with the Department of Community Development. Such letter shall set forth the grounds upon which the appeal is based. B. ACTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL. An appeal shall be heard and acted das on by the City Council within thiCommission action, unless the app��cant0consentsftoranhextension of time. The City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Commission. Such action by the city Council shall be final. 20.04.090 FEE. The applicant shall pay a fee as established by Resolution of the city Council to the City with each application. - 3 - COMMISSIONERS Y`� 7� •,�� np� T9� Y ;o ROL Mo 41 Noi Ab 0 0 City of Newport Beach Septomber 21, 1978 MINUTES l CALL INDEX Item 09 Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 AMENDMENT NT.-31€— (Zoning) of the Municipal Code adopting regula- tions for blufftop developments in all residential zone districts, except the Planned Community RECOMMENDEI Districts, for new construction and additions6R�6ERIAC to existing structures. Initiated bv: City of Newport Beach Public hearing was opened in connection with this item and Tim Wilkes appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Don Haskell, property owner on Cliff Drive, and questioned whether adoption of this ordinance would preclude development of the thirteen vacant lots involved. Les Miller, 128 Kings Place, appeared before the Planning Commission and voiced his opinion that this ordinance is not needed inasmuch as the City already has standards with respect to setbacks and height limitations. Gene Atherton appeared before the Planning Commission and made reference to a 10-foot setback contained in other development regulations. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Lion X Motion was made that Planning Commission recommend Is X X X X X to the City Council that Amendment No. 516 not Is be adopted. lent X item #19000 Proposed amendment to Section 20.01,070 of the MENDMENT Newport Beach Municipal Code (Zoning) to all 'Fib.-'gT , new construction and all additions sting structures, except single-fam wbllings and NO ACTION duplexes, subject to Si n Review in areas designated for the aration of a Specific Area Plan wh ch plan has not been adopted. I ed b City of Newport Beach Public hearing was opened in connection with thic it-amsnA +ha" nin� an n.... .1--t..d .... a- DONALD HASKELL 2077 WUHT COAB 110IIWAY NIWv MT HtiACu, C 02000 17141 04C-10Y0 August 3, 1978 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, California Gentlemen: on April 20, 1978 I submitted a letter to the Planning Commission expressing my concern over the proposed new regulations regarding development on or adjacent to bluffs in Newport Beach. A copy of this letter is attached for your files. I am the owner of two lots located on the southerly side of Cliff Drive between Fullerton and Aliso Avenues. This property lies in an older, established neighborhood and I have held it for many years for the purpose'of single family residence development. Architectural plans are at this time being drawn and will be submitted within the next few months for a building permit. The imposition of a new set -back from the edge of the bluff on these two lots would not change the bluff appearance in this already developed neighborhood, yet it could very likely prevent my building on the property. To the best of my knowledge the 110 feet of frontage under disdussion represents the only privately -owned undeveloped lots along this entire stretch of Cliff Drive. Therefore, I respectfully request that these lots be deleted from any contemplated new development regulations. Sincerely, DH:bd ' to 11bNAl.n lCANIfY,Li. td017 N'1'NT O'ANT 11 W IIMAY NCWW,eT nNACII. CAAmkwfA Mono (71 $1 01W /ene April ZO, 1978 To: Panning Commissioners City of Newport Beach Re: Amendment No. 507 -- Proposed New Regulations for Developments on or Adjaceht to Bluffs in Newport_ Beach Gentlemen: 1 am the owner of property located on the southerly side of Cliff ,)rive between Fullerton and Aliso avenues. This property has born held for many years for the purpose of building a home for my own use on one of the lots and to develop the other in a similarly attractive manner. I am now in a pnsition to build on these two lots within the next year, and the imposition of additional setbacks (over and above those pre- sently in effect) would, in essence, prevent the development and use of my property. It should be noted that the lots immediately adjacent to my parcel are occupied by single family residences, To the best of my knowlodgc, urine are the only privately -owned undeveloped lots on Cliff Drive. Accordingly, I respectfully request that these two parcels located on Cliff Drive be deleted from any contemplated new development regu- lations. An Assessor's parcel Map is attached outlining my property. Sincerely, Qrp,yrr+rty +.,. APP n r,t , 7,t� P(WIt till" 5/ JJ 05 DRIVE To Planning Commission LAW orJlcLs or August 3, 1978 :I Al I., HASTINGS. JAXOPSKY & 1 ALK1'sli /AIII. ++.. 1 .AI•.N W It ""Al", , , .. . ...e1 ... u...1.1 YCY ♦. •. ,YgMUJ b., pYl, �ry +�YYm •l �«uinw. ILL[PNeSNL 1/IAI p7]-t Jb, �F�x. nw��N. rn . �I�Y In•1 nNYNa.aun.P .n,,F� r x.. n. + Lnw CANLL APtlpl99: MULNAlT INKY Y uNlYlu IY w MNldY If Ylenul LOYNt\, NVI .IYIM\«FN •F w M1mxIL •N NIfxY.Y f YLN1 TWA 010 ]L1-1C0M LW1 ,gYtYµ+N wLl!«ALL \.I M.tY III N .WYt IMY1N11 N4YLN Ily��n p (V�NN VNNttL M CN1lt 4� u00 nDY.Y N Y+ Y+CNFi\ n t�NYL{I Y(IMNIf 1 1rtYNf NL IY (FI< X LOLL l Ynl Ynf ntN 111YN,1'.IIn,.IFINN N 1 LIFNF MIMCFA MYYYt. N,Ff., ,YLN1,L �NYN LI{NAFI w4V1 August 3, 1978 IINFIn IIN VI+IA\. t1N.Dl VWI'YY tlIf111L Y;NwN I \NAUIN I.+MF•nY M .IN ItNN Y YI{IMWIf NfY INNN1 M YNI.Y 1 lX r .VN •4 f . I 4l IIMXxI N11FY 11 4N0 .F«tY � YNUYIY • of bIINNI Y.XIiN .t 11ANNt\ wLlbtt MNIItM UfY,I MOIF VIM LIINMIAL UFWI\ MIICL � NNI •++N lN��Yx YI bwMN M'IF10.1 Y� (INNL1r. Planning Commission City of Newport Beach c/o Mr. R. V. Hogan, Director Department o£ Community Development City Hall Newport Beach, California Gentlemen: �A 4rwYNa wr nla LL[JMD /YOOY xrY watt• It✓� w N.1111 1 AVIIp NIA 0001. ltt[IMONt I'll, Aa Y.boo OUR PlLt No121$3 Re: Proposed Bluff Development Regulations Ordinance We are counsel to Mrs. Margaret E. Oser, the owner of an undeveloped parcel of land located at 2505 Cliff Drive in Newport Heights. As such counsel, we have been following closely the proposed Bluff Development Regulations Ordinance and we are writing this letter to set forth, on behalf of our client, comments concerning that ordinance prior to its con- sideration by the Planning Commission at the public hearing to be held on Thursday evening, August 3, 1978. Initially, we note that we agree with what we understand to be the Planning Commission's position that separate approaches to any bluff regulations are needed for small lot developments in the older residential areas of the City as opposed to the large vacant parcels such as the Castaways site and the Newport North site. our client's parcel is, of course, in an older residential area of the City. We understand, based on the Staff's Report, that the draft Bluff Development Regulations Ordinance to be considered at this evening's public hearing relates only to those older • • �3 Planning Commission August 3, 1978 PaKe ,I'WO residential areas in which there are thirteen (13) vacant lots which provisions would be respectdtoye newdevelopment of the proposed The undeveloped lots are basically in Newport Heights, where our client's lot is located, and in Corona del Mar. We are familiar with some, but not all, of the undeveloped lots in question and it would appear that these lots are vastly different in topography, developability, size, etc. so that an ordinance, such as that proposed, could only be applied subjectively to any development plan. Indeed it would appear that the ordinance, if adopted, would either prevent or severely limit reasonable development of these lots or have to be emasculated to allow such development. It is also our -understanding, from discussions with the Staff, that the Staff recognizes the vastly different characteristics of these various lots. Indeed, the proposed ordinance really only has one objective criterion and that is the proposed ten (10) foot setback. provides for -a variance etbck,as set where forth in the proposed ordinance, iit is n its Item 3tforand in the June 15,is r1978cP1anningthe taff Commiseioned, meeting, that: "The Coastal commission uses a 25 foot setback guideline in the review of applications for Bluff Development. In actual practice, a lesser standard is commonly applied to smaller lots on a case by case basis. Staff has suggest- ed a 10 foot setback here for discussion purposes. Even a 10 foot setback if strictly a lied, wou rec u e eve o meat on most o the vacant lots surveyed emp as s a e Therefore, the proposed ordinance appears as a series of subjective "standards' containing an objective standard which isd to varianceriate must be the sought. development sought We understand from discussions with the Staff, that the present proposal arose in the context of a case in which,a property owner requested a variance in order to develop the entire face of a bluff area in Corona del Mar. This, of course, was within the existing variance regulations, and, therefore, the issue before the Planning Commission. The • H.uniim•, Cuumii ,:;inn Angp:K: 3. 1978 Niv,r 'Place proposed ordinance affects only thirteen (13) lots (which respect to new development) of vastly different characteristics. It in- creases the time and expense of development in an area already regulated by the Coastal Commission and the City's Building Department, and, to the extent that a variance is needed with respect to existing zoning, by the Planning Commission. It may very well be a complicated, unnecessary and expensive solution looking for a problem. We recognize that the proposed ordinance also relates to additions in areas of existing development. However, most of the developed lots which would be encompassed by the proposec ordinance do not admit of substantial alteration or addition that would not already stru ture. At alleve ts,ctherareas of existing existing development along bluff areas in the older parts of the City are even more varied in their characteristics than are the few remainingg un- developed lots, and therefore, it would see thatthrdhareaance would be even more difficult to apply developed if application were sought. Therefore, we suggest that the establishment of a subjective ordinance with an inappropriate objective criterion which subjects a property owner to an arbitrary road block that sbe overcomeerbeginning process iunnecessayndwehpethathePlanningommision will agree, Very truly yours, PAUL, HA5TINGd, JANOF KY & WALKER By .00 l areas A. McKenna, Jr. CAM:ns cc: Mrs. Margaret E. Oser 'CHAPTER 70 EXCAVATION AND GRADING Sec. 7001. The purpose of this chapter is to safeguard life, limb, property and the public welfare by regulating grading, drainage and hillside construction on private property and for similar improvements proposed by private interests on City right of way where regulation is not otherwise exercised. Sec. 7002. This chapter sets forth rules and regulations to control excavation, grading, drainage conditions, erosion con- trol earthwork construction including fills and embankments, and the use of earth materials as a structural component: established the administrative procedure for issuance of permits; and provides for the approval of plans and inspection of grading construction ' and drainage control. ' Sec. 7003.1. No person shall do any grading without first having,obtained a grading permit from the Building Official' except for the following: , 1. An excavation below finish grade for basements and footings of a building, retaining wall or other structure authorized by a valid building permit. This shall not exempt any fill made with the material from such excavation nor exempt any excavation which is unsupported or unstable after the completion of such structure, nor shall it exempt any condition resulting from the construction of such structure which requires grading or construc- tion of drainage im rovements to Erovide a safe and stable structure which does not create adverse conditions on other properties, either public or private. 2. Cemetery graves. • -1B- 0 10 3. Refuse disposal sites covered by other regulation$. 4. Excavations for wells or tunnels or utilities under the jurisdiction of other agencies. This shall not exempt any fill made from such excavations on private. property unless pre- emptive regulations have been established by law. 3. Mining and quarrying together with necessary stock- piling, processing and other activities where established and provided such operations do not significantly affect the lateral or vertical support or significantly increase the stresses in or pressure upon any adjacent or contiguous property. 6. Exploratory excavations under the direction of soils engineers or engineering geologists. 7. An excavation which (a) is lees than two (2) feet in depth, or (b) which does not create a out slope greater than five (5) fast in height and steeper than two horizontal to one vertical and which (a) is lose than fifty cubic yards on one site and does hot create an. adverse erosion, drainage, ground- water, or slope condition requiring remedial work covered by these regulations. 6. Unless preempted by other regulation, fill which does not exceed fifty cubic yards on any one site which is not part of a regular maintenance procedure and which (a) is placed on natural undisturbed terrain with a slope flatter than five (5) horizontal to one (1) vertical or (b) lose than three (3) foot in depth not intended to support structures provided= (a) No fill which may create an adverse slope, erosion, drainage, groundwater or structural condition shall be placed without a grading permit, (b) no person shall construct, reconstruct, alter, repair, or install any structure in any natural drainage channel water course without a grading permit, (e) road or parking lot.paying. work shall be performed under permit unless waived by the Build- ing Official or as maintenance work. Excoptioha listed above shall not be interpreted as exempting future construction on site from code compliance due to an exempted non -conforming condition nor shall any exception be construed as exempting an • ! /7 adverse condition from being corrected in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance and the hazards abatement procedures, nor shall it be construed as exempting any requirement for grading as a flood plain management requirement. Sec. 7003.2 a) Whenever the Building official determines' that (a) construction of any device or structure has resulted or may result in adverse drainage groundwater, or slope conditions or (b) existing drainage conditions have resulted or may result in adverse erosion conditions he may require a drainage permit to be obtained and corrective work accomplished. Sec. 7004. Whenever the Building official determines by inspection or by information made available to him that any existing drainage condition, excavation, fill, natural slope, or subsurface condition has become a hazard to life and limb, or endangers property or adversely affects the safety, use or stability of a public way or any drainage channel, he shall make a determination of the level of hazard, and the owner of the property upon which the drainage conditions, excavation, fill, natural slope or subsurface condition is located, or other person or agent in control of said property, upon receipt of notice in writing from the Building official shall within the period specified correct such condition in accord with the requirements and conditions set forth in such notice so as to eliminate the hazard and be in conformance with the requirements of this code, and procedures of the hazards abatement section of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, as adopted by the City of Newport Beach. Sec. 7005. Definitions. For the purposes of this Chapter, the definitions listed hereunder shall be construed as specified in this Section. APPROVAL shall mean a written engineering or geological opinion concerning the satisfactory progress and completion of the work. MIDI: AS -GRADED is the topographic surface at completion of grading, BrDRocX is in -place of solid rock. BLNCH in a relatively 1evs1 step excavated into earth material on which fill is to be placed. BORROW is earth material acquired from off -site location for use in grading on a site. CIVIL ENGINEER shall mean a professional engineer in the branch of civil engineering holding A valid certification of registration issued by the State of California. CIVIL ENGINEERING shall mean the application of the knowledge of the forces of nature, principles of mechanics and the properties of materials to the evaulation, design and construction of civil works for the beneficial uses of mankind. CLEARING, BRUSHING AND GRUBBING shall Mari the removal of vegetation (grass, brush, trees, and similar plant types or root systems) by mechanical means. COMPACTION is the densificAtion of a fill by mechanical means. EARTH MATERIAL is any rook, natural $oil or fill and/or any combination thereof ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST shall Man a profes- sional geologist registered in the State as a geologist and certified by the State to practice engineering geology in the field of civil works. EROSION is the wearing away of the ground surface as a result of the movement of wind, water and/or ice. LXCAVATION is the mechanical removal of earth material. by artificial means - FILL is a deposit of earth material placed GRADE shall Man the vertical location of the ground surface. ROUGH GRADE is the final grade of the site which conforms to the Approved plan. -21- FINISH GRADE is the final grade of the site which conforms to the approved plan. GRADING CONTRACTOR is a contractor licensed and regulated by the State of California who specializes in grading work or is otherwise licensed to do grading work. KEY is designed and compacted fill placed in a trench excavated in earth material beneath the toe of a proposed fill slope. ' LANDSLIDE shall mean the downward and outward movement of soil, rock or fill or a combination thereof, or the resultant materials from such movement. J MASSIVE LANDSLIDE shall mean a landslide , too large to be stabilized by retaining methods or normal control methods. PERMIT shall mean any permit issued pursuant to this Code, together with the application for the same, the conditions upon which it was issued, together with any plans, specifications, reports and approved modifications pertaining thereto. PERMITTEE shall mean the owner or his authorized agent to whom a grading permit is issued. SEDIMENT - The material derived by erosion carried by an agent of erosion. SITE is any lot or parcel of land or con- tiguous combination thereof, under the same ownership, .where grading is performed or permitted.. SLOPE is an inclined ground surface,, the inclination of which is expressed as a ratio of horizontal distance to vertical distrance. SOIL is naturally occurring surficial deposits overlying bedrock. SOIL ENGINEER is a civil engineer with Lraining and experience in soil mechanics who specializes in the practice of soils and foundation engineering. -22- SOIL ENGINEERING shall mean the application of the prihoiples of soil mechanics in the investigation, testing, evaluation and design of civil works involving the use of earth materials and the evaluation, inspection and testing of the construction thereof. TERRACE is A relatively level step constructed in the face of a graded slope surface for drainage and maintenance purposes. TRACT is a subdivision of land containing five (5) or more lots. See. 7006. Grading Permit Requirements (a) Petmita Required. Except as exempted in Section 7003 of this Code, no person shall do any grading without first obtain- ing a grading permit from the Building Official. A separate permit shall be required for each sits, and may cover excavation, fills, and paving. (b) Application. The provisions of Section 361(b) Ara applicable to grading and in addition the application shall state the estimated quantities of work involved. The work shall also conform to the rwuirement■ of the flood plain man* ement_ordinance. (a) Planr and specifications. When required by the Building Official, each application for A grading permit or building permit shall be Accompanied by two sets of plans and specifications, and supporting data consisting of soil engineering and engineering geology report or other report. The plans and specifications shall be prepared and signed by a civil engineer when required by the Building Official. Within the Newport Bay drainage catchment area a grading plan including erosion control is required unless waived in writing by the Building Official. (d) Information on plant and in Scinetions. Plans oe shall be drawn to scale upon Substantial paper or cloth and shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that they will oonform to the pruv,siuns of this Code and all relevant laws, ordinances, rules -23- 0 and regulations. The first sheet of each set of plans shall give the location of the work and the name and address of the owner, the person by whom they were prepared, and where required, the name(s) and address(s) of professional person(s) or firm(s) + pertaining to th& project. The plans shall include the following information: (1) General vicinity of the proposed site. (2) Property limits, permit area limits, and accurate contours of existing ground and details of terrain and area drainage. (3) Limiting dimensions, elevations or finish contours J to be achieved by the grading, and proposed drainage channels and related construction. In a flood plain zone information concerning habitable floof elevations and flood protection designs shall be included. (4) Detailed plans of all surface and subsurface drainage devices, walls, cribbing, dams and other protective devices to be constructed with, or as a part of the proposed work together with a map showing the drainage area and the estimated runoff'of the area served by any drains. (5) Detailed plans for temporary (during construction) and/or permanent sediment control facilities. (6) Location of any buildings or structures on the property where the work is to be performed and the location of any buildings or structures or slopes on land of adjacent owners which are within 15 feet of the property or which may be affected by the proposed grading operations. (7) Any additional plans drawings calculations, environmental impact information or other reports required by the Building Official I£ the grading project includes the movement of earth material to or from the site, the Building official may require a description of the haul route to be submitted for approval. -24- • 0 a0- ' (e) Soil Engineering Report. The soil engineering report required by Subsection (c) shall include data regarding the nature, distribution, strength and consolidation characteristics of existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures and design criteria for corrective measures when necessary, and opinions and recommendations covering adequacy of sites to be developed by the proposed grading. These listings shall not be interpreted to prevent the Building Official from requiring other information required to produce a safe and stable condition. Recommendations included in the report and approved by the Building official shall be incorporated in the grading plans or specifications. (f) Engineering Geology Report. The engineering geology report required by Subsection (c) shall include an adequate description of the geology of the site, including necessary maps and illustrations showing geographic distribution of the features described related to the proposed development, conclu- sions and recommendations regarding the effect of geologic conditions on the proposed development, and opinions and recom- mendations covering the adequacy of sites to be developed by the proposed grading. Recommendations included in the report and approved by the Building Official shall be incorporated in the grading plans or specifications. (g) issuance. The provisions of Section 302 are applicable to grading permits. The Building Official may require that grading operations and project designs be modified to provide for erosion controls if project completion, including erosion protection devices will extend into the rainy season (October 15 through May 15) or if delays occur which incur weather generated problems. The plans shall list specific date$ for completion of erosion control measures, and further subiect to the provisions Or section 7017. In addition to the time limitations as specified -25- [_J 0. A3 in Section 302(d) every permit issued shall be valid for a ' period of one year from the date thereof. (h) Transport of earth from or to the project site. All earth materials which are moved on public roadways from or to the site of an earth grading operation the following requirements shall apply: (1) Either water or dust palliative, or both, must be applied for the alleviation or prevention of excessive dust resulting from the loading or transportation of earth from or to the project site on public roadways. The permittee shall be responsible for maintaining public rights -of -way used for handling purpbses in a condition free of dust, -earth or debris attributed to the grading operation. (2) Loading and transportation of earth from or to the site are subject to the requirements of Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. (3) Access roads to the premises shall be only at points designated on the approved grading plan. _ (4) The last fifty (50) feet of the access road, as it approaches the intersection with the public roadway, shall have a grade not to exceed three (3) percent. There must be a three hundred (300) foot clear, . unobstructed eight distance to the intersection from both the public roadway and access road. If the three hundred (300) foot sight distance cannot be obtained, the permittee shall post flagmen as required for traffic safety. (5) A stop sign conforming to the requirements of Section 21400 of the California Vehicle Code shall be posted at the entrance of the access road to the public roadway. -26- (6) An advance warning sign must be posted on the public roadway four hundred (400) feet on either side of aooes■ intersection carrying the words "truck crooning.* The sign shall be a diamond in shape, each side being thirty (30) inches in length, shall have a yellow background and the letters thereon _shall be placed six (6) feet from tha edge of the pavement and the base of the sign shall be five (5) feet above the pavement level The advance warning sign shall be covered or removed when the access 1htersection is not in use. Bee. 7006.1 (a) Drainage Permits where the Building official determiner that existing or proposed construction may alter or hag altered drainage conditions so a■ to create an adverse or danggrour condition or where existing drainage conditions result_in an adverse or dangerous condition he may require a drainage permit to . be obtained for the purpose of perventing or eliminating the adverse or dangarous condition and require corrective work to be accomplished. (b) Aoplicationi The appllcetion shall un the ■rms form as the grading permit and shall state that the purpose is for drainage. alterations. (c) Plans and specifications Plans may be required accurataly showing the existing conditions and proposed alterations in sufficient detail to make a determination concerning the conformance to this Code of the proposed alterations Inspection only may be required by the Building Official where the alterations are of a minor nature. �27- • • �5 (d) Conditions In gram Permit under this Chapter the Building Official may attach such conditions thereto as may be reasonable and necessary to revent dan er to publicor private property or to prevent the operation from being conducted in a manner hazardous to life or ro art or in a manner likel to create any unnecessary nuisance. Sec. 7007. Plan-Checkin4 Fee - (a) (i) For excavation and .fill on the same site, the fee shall be based on the volume of the excavation Or fill; whichever is greater and shall be'sixt -five percent (65%) of the grading Permit fee• Before accepting a set of plane and specifications for checking, the Building Official shall collect a plan checking fee. separate permits and fees shall apply to retaining walls over three feet in height and additional fees shall be collected for pavement and drains a collection, stabilization, and erosion protection devices not exam tad in accordance with this Code. There shall be no separate charge for atandard terrace drains standard subdrains, tam orary erosion or sediment control J devices or similar facilities. The plan checking fee for a grading permit authoriz- ing additional work to that under a valid active permit shall be the difference between such fee paid for the original permit and the fee shown for the or entire project- The plan checking fee £or maa alteration to an ap roved gradin lan under an active permit shall be based upon the percentage of 'the an changed applied to the original Plal check fee. No additional fee shall be paid for checking corrections required on the plans. (ii) Drains a Permit Plan Checking -Fee. The Building Official may charge a 21an checking fee if, in his _28_ opinion, the proposed drainage alterations are sufficient in extent to require more than field inspection to insure code conforming improvament. Fees shall be assessed in a similar manner to a grading permit plan checking fee. (b) Grading Permit Fee. A fee for each grading permit shall ^be paid to the Building Official. The fee for a grading permit shall be based on the volume of excavation or fill whichever is greater and -based on Table 70-8 plus fees based on the estimated valuation of retaining walls for which no separate permit is required combined with the estimated valuation of any coesercial or industrial paving, drainage collection, stabilisation and erosion control devices not exempted by this Code in accordance with Table 70-C. (c) Drainage Permit Fee. A fee for each drainage permit shall be paid to the Building Official. The fee shall be calculated in the same manner as calculating a grading permit fee. TABLE 70-B. GRADING PBBMIMFEEB 100 cubic yards or less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 27.50 101 to 100 cubic yards. . . . . . . 27.50 the first 100 cubic yards plus $10.00 for each additional 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof 1001 to 10,000 cubic yards. . . . 117.50 the first 1,000 cubic yards plus $10.00 ofr each additional 1,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards . . . 207.50 the first 10,000 cubic yards plus $41.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof 1000/001 cubic yards or more. . . . . . . . . 576.50 the first 100*000 cubic yards plus $22.00 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof -29- • , a1 TABLE 70-C For structures or improvements in connection with grading and plan checking with respect thereto: Estimated Cost of Structure Fee Less than $20.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No Fee $20.00, to and including $100.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2.50 More than $100.00, to and including $400.00. . . . . . . . 3.50 More than $400.00, to and including $700.00. . . . . . . . 5.50 More than $700.00, to and including $1,000.00. . . . . . . 6.50 Each additional $1,000.00 or fraction, to and ' including $25, 000.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.30 Each additional $1,000.00 or fraction, to and including $50,000.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.75 Each additional $1,000.00 of fraction, to and including $100,000.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.75 Each additional $1,000.00 or fraction, more than $100, 000.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.10 When plans are required for the proposed structure, an additional fee for plan checking shall be paid at -the time of submitting the application. Said plan checking fee shall be equal to one-half (1/2) of the fee heretofore established in Table 70-C. No additional fee shall be paid for checking corrections I required on the plans. Sec. 7008. Bonds. The Building official may require bonds in such form and amounts as may be deemed necessary to assure that the work, if not completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications will be corrected to eliminate hazardous conditions. In lieu of a surety bond, the applicant may file.a cash bond or instrument of credit with the Building official in an amount equal to that which would be required in the surety bond. Sec. 7009. Cuts. (a) General. Unless otherwise approved by the Building official and recommended in the approved soil engineering and/or -30- r a4 engineering geology report, cuts shall conform to the provisions of this Section. (b) Slope. The slope of cut surfaces shall be no steeper than is safe for the intended use. Cut elopes shall he no steeper than two horizontal to one vertical (2s1). (c) Drainage and Terracing. Drainage and terracing shall be provided as required by section 7012. Sec. 1010. Pills. (a) General. Unless otherwise approved by the Building Official and recommended in the approved moil engineering report, theme provisions may be waived for minor fills not intended to support structures, provided such fills are protected against soil erosion in the Newport Bay drainage catchment area. Bxc6PTIONSt (1) Pills excepted in Section 7003 and where the Building Official determines that compaction is.not a_necaemd safety measure to aid in preventing saturation, settlement, slipping, or erosion of the fill. (2) Where lower density and expansive types of soil exist: than permission for lesser SMaetionmay be granted by the Buildingofficial# upon showing of good cause under the conditions provided herein. (b) Pill Location. Pill slope* shall not be constructed on natural slopes *tasp*r than two horimohtal to ohs vertical (2:1). (c) preparation of ground. The ground surface shall be prepared to receive fill by removing vegetation, noncomply- ing fill, topsoil, and other unsuitable materials, scarify- ing to provide a bond with the new fill, and, whore slopes are steeper than five (5) horizontal to one (1) vertical, and the height is greater than five (5) feet, by benching into sound bedrock or other competent material as,determihed by the soils engineer. The bench under the toe of a fill on a slope steeper than five (5) horizontal to one (1) vertical shall be at least ton (10) feet wide, The area -31- ;L9 beyond the toe of fill shall be sloped for sheet overflow or a paved drain shall be provided. Where fill is to be placed over a cut, the bench under the toe of fill shall be at least ten (10) feet wide but the cut must be mode before placing fill and approved by the soils engineer and engineering geologist as a suitable foundation for fill. Unsuitable soil is soil which, in the opinion of the Building Official or the Civil Engineer or the Soils Engineer or the geologist, is not competent to support other soil or fill, to support structures or to satisfactorily perform the other functions'foi which the soil is intended. The final report and approval by the Soils Engineer shall describe the limits and extent of removal of unsuitable materials including a description of the criteria used for determination of the suitable material. (d) Fill Material. Earth materials which have no more than minor amounts of organic substances and have no rock or similar irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 8 inches shall be used. EXCEPTIONS: The Building official may permit placement of a larger rock when the soils engineer properly devises a method of placement, continuously inspects its placement, and approves the fill stability. The following conditions shall also apply: (1) Prior to issuance of the grading permit, potential rock disposal area(s) shall be delineated on the grading plan. (2) Rock sizes greater than eight (8) inches in maximum dimension shall be ten (10) feet or more below grade, measured vertically. (3) Rocks greater than eight (8) inches shall be placed so as to be completely surrounded by fine grained soils; no nesting of rocks will be permitted. -32- (e) Compaction. All fills shall be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density as determined by U.A.C. Standard No. 70-1 or a more restrictive standard if recommended in the approved soils engineering report. Field denisty shall be determined in accordance with U.B.C. standard No. 70-2 or equivalent as approved by the Building official. The Building official may require tests of the compressibility and anticipated fill settlement character- istics where more than 10 feet of fill is to be placed. The final report and approval by the soils engineer shall contain the type of field testing performed. Each test shall be identified, located, and the method of obtaining the inplace density, either U.B.C. Standard $o. 70-2 or the approved equal, shall be so noted. Sufficient maximum density determinations by test method, U.L.C. Standard No. 70-1, or the approved method, shall be performed during the grading operations to verify the accuracy of the maximum density curves used by the soils engineer. (f) Slopee. The slope of fill surfaces shall be no stoopsr than is safe for the intended use. Fill slopes shall be no steeper than two horizontal to one vertical. I:XCEPT2ON: The Building Official may authorize a fill to be con- structed with an exposed surface steeper than two horizontal to one vertical (21l) when he finds: the applicant has submitted a soil Engineer's Report recommending such steeper slope which report includes sufficient soil test data and other information to substantiate slope stability and safety when saturated, and including an evaluation of the creep characteristics of the soil and surficial stability. (g) Drainage and Terracing. Drainage and terracing shall be provided and the area above fill slopes and the surfaces of terraces shall be graded and paved as required by unction 7012. -33- (h) utility line backfill. All backfill in utility line trenches both inside and outside of the building shall be compacted and tested in compliance with subsection (e) of this section and the soils engineer shall observe, test, and render an opinion to the Building official as to whether this backfilling has been satisfactorily accomplished. Alternate methods of filling and reduced compaction requirements may be applied on certain projects when specified by the soils engineer and approved by the Building official. EXCEPTION: ' on single lot projects where no soils engineer was required during grading of the site, the Building official may waive tested compaction and allow the use of approved material which is relatively self -compacting. This material and the method of placement must be approved prior to backfilling, and trenches utilizing this material must cross foundations at right angles or be located out- side a one horizontal to one vertical plane extending from the nearest point of the foundation to the bottom of the trench. Setbacks Sec. 7011. (a) General. The setbacks and other restrictions specified by this Section are minimum and may be increased by the Building official or by the recommendation of a civil engineer, soils engineer or engineering geologist, if necessary for safety and stability or to prevent damage of adjacent properties from deposition or erosion or to provide access for slope maintenance and drainage. Retaining walls may be used to reduce the required setbacks when approved by the Building official. Where natural slopes are involved, setbacks shall be interpreted to include a 2:1 setback plane unless specifically contradicted in the -34- -�r approved reports. (b) Setbacks from Property Linn. The tops of cuts and toes of fill slopes shall be set back from the outer boundaries of the permit area, including slope right areas and easements, in accordance with Figure No.,l and Table No. 70-D. TABLE 70-0 TOM Co Setbacks H (ff) a b 5 Y 5a- 30 H/2 H/2 Over 30 15 10 d' I f H • M RMMr A09A A W. OK ANION AKW 'Pernit Area Boundary 1. if drainage is carried on this side in an unimproved earth wale, the setback from the top of slope (or berm) to the face of the building or projection thereof is 7'-0". This may be reduced to the tabular value if an improved drainage device is used. 2. if the slope is flatter than five (5) horirontsl to one (1) vertical, the setback required is 2'-0'. 3. The tabular values may be enforced for natural slope conditions as determined by the Building Official. -35- J 11/1 W NZW NOT 99=0 lo►L MAxiwm N/t Wr N69P NOf @Ji MP IS II. MAXIMUM Sec. 7012. Drainage and Terracing. (a) General. Unless otherwise indicated on the approved grading plan, drainage facilities and terracing shall conform to the provision of this Section. (b) Terrace. Terraces at least 6 feet in width shall be established at not more than 30-foot vertical intervals to control surface drainage and debris. Suitable access shall be provided to permit proper cleaning and maintenance. Swale* or ditches on terraces shall have a minimum gradient of six (6) percent and must be paved with reinforced concrete not less than three (3) inches in thickness or an approved equal paving. They shall have a minimum depth at the deepest point of eighteen (10) inches and a minimum paved width of five (5) feet. A single run of Swale or ditch shall not collect runoff from a tributary area exceeding 13,500 square feet (projected) without discharging into a down drain. (c) Subsurface Drainage. Cut and fill slopes shall be provided with subsurface drainage as necessary for stability. Unless waived by the Building Official, all canyons shall be provided with subsurface drainage. (d) Disposal. All drainage facilities shall be designed to carry waters to the nearest practicable drainage way _ approved by the Building Official and/or other appropriate jurisdiction as a safe place to deposit such waters. All buried pipe shall.be constructed of corrosion -resistant pipe. if drainage facilities discharge onto natural ground, riprap or conversion to sheet flow may be required. -36- LI 0 1�4 Building pads shall have a drainage gradient of 2 percent toward approved drainage facilities, unless waived by the Building Official. EXCEPTION'. The gradient from the building pad may be one percent if all of the following conditions exist throughout the permit crass A. No proposed fill$ are Vaster than 10 last in maximum depth. D. No proposed finish cut or fill slope faces have a vertical height in exoesa of 10 fast- C. No existing slope facer, Whioh have a slope face steeper than 10 horisontally to l vertically, have a vertical height in excess of 10 fast. (a) Commercial and industrial drainage standards. Drainage standards for industrial/comreroial developments in non hilly areas shall conform to the following sihimum standarda: A. Rough Grades Minimum Gradient 1. Earth at rough grade stage 0.5f B. Finishod Grades 1. Ca, cth 1.0% 2. Asphalt pavement (shest flow) Lot 3. Concrete drain in earth area 0.5♦ 4, Concrete gutter in asphalt paved xrea 0.24 C. When asphalt. concrete pavement is recommendad for parking lot surfacing or other similar use by the Civil Engineer of Architect, this paving will conform to the following minimum standards unless otherwise approved by the Building Official. For the purpose of this saction use of asphalt concrete (A C) aggregate bass (A.B.) ptims coat, tack coat, meal coat shall most the current standards of the -37- City of Newport Beach and/or the approval of the Building Official and shall be designed in accordance with any generally accepted pavement design criteria. In the event that the design method is unfamiliar to the Building Official, background material and references an to its use may be required prior to approval. D. In parking lot design access shall be provided to entrances and exits for pedestrian traffic not affected by concentrated flow. E. Penetration of landscape irrigation water under pavement shall be mitigated through the design process. Sec. •7013. Erosion Control. (a) Slopes. The faces of cut and fill slopes shall be prepared and maintained to control against erosion. This control may consist of effective planting. The protection for the slopes shall be installed as soon as practicable. The Building Official may require planting and irrigation systems to be installed prior to rough grade approval, and such systems shall be installed prior to final approval. Slope irrigation for tracts may. be required to be •� controlled by automatic systems equipped with an override keyed to continous soil moisture measurement devices; other projects may be required to have such systems if adverse ground water conditions exist which may be worsened by landscape irrigation where cut slopes are not subject to erosion due to the erosion -resistant character of the materials such protection may be omitted if specifically waived by the Building Official. Planting materials and maintenance schedules shall be approved by the Building Official. To assure that cut and fill slopes will be effectively planted the preparation and planting should be designed by an experienced landscape planner, each bank —38- should be planted upon its completion and all planting must be maintained in growing condition for at least two years or until accepted by the Building Official. (b) other Devices. Where necessary, check dams, cribbing, riprap or other devices or methods shall be employed to control erosion and provide safety. Absence of specific measures on the plans shall be accompanied by a etetsment on the plans by the _Building official that none are needed. (c) Permnnent dasilting facilities may be required by the Building official where undue riltrtion of Newport Bay meY result. (d) minimum site of temporary basins shall be established by the uniform soil lost equation tf all weather cleanout capability in the basin is not provided, greater capacity will be required. (a) so th sheet flow and concentrated flow areas shall be considered in design of erosion control systems, in rddition sediment control shall include provisions for both low flow volume as well as intense rainfall conditions, (f) Erosion control shall be coordinated with rites contiguous to the permit area to achieve effective control. Sec. 7014 Grading inspection. (a) General. All grading operations for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection by the Building official. When required by the Building Official, special inspection of grading operations and spacial testing shall be performed in aoeordance with the provisions of Section 305 of Subsection 7014(e). Erosion control devices shall be installed inspected and approved by the Building Official prior to the rainy season (October 15 through Nay 15). -39- • . 1 • • - ?J, (b) Grading Designation Commercial industrial, tracts, or grading in potentially hazardous areas and all grading in excess of 5000 cubic yards shall be performed in accordance with the approved grading plan prepared by a civil engineer, and shall be designated as "engineered grading." Grading involving less than 5000 cubic yards shall be designated "regular grading" unless the permittee, with the approval of the Building Official, chooses to have the grading performed as "engineered grading." The Building official may require a survey at the completion of regular grading to insure compliance with drainage requirements. (c) Engineered grading requirements. For engineered grading, it shall be the responsibility of the Civil Engineer who prepares the approved grading plan to incorporate all recommendations from the soil angitieering and engineering geology reports into the grading plan. He shall also be responsible for the professional inspection and approval of the grading within his area of technical specialty. This responsibility shall include, but need not be limited to, inspection and approval as to the establish- ment of line, grade and drainage of the development area., The Civil Engineer shall act as the coordinating agent in the event the need arises for laison between the other professionals, the contractor, and the Building Official. The Civil Engineer shall also be responsible for the preparation of revised plans and the submission of as - graded grading plans upon completion of 'the cork. The grading contractor shall submit a form prescribed by the Building official a statement of compliance to said as - graded plan. Soil engineering and engineering geology reports shall be required as specified in Section 7006. During grading all necessary reports, compaction data and soil engineering and engineering geology recommendations shall be submitted -40- • 0 0 to the civil engineer and the Building Official by the soil engineer and the engineering geologist. The Soil Engineer's area of responsibility shall include, but need not be limited to, the professional inspection and approval concerning the preparation of ground to receive fills, testing for required compaction, stability of all finish slopes and the design of buttress fills, where required, incorporating data supplied by the engineering geologist. The Engineering Geologist's area of responsibility shall include, but need not be limited to, professional inspection and written approval fo the adequacy of natural ground for receiving fills and the stability of cut slopes with respect to geological matters, and the need for sub. drains or other ground water drainage devices. Be shall report his findings to the Boils Engineer and the Civil Engineer for engineering analysis. The building Official shall inspect the project at the various stages of the work requiring certification and at any more frequent intervals necessary to determine that adequate control is being exercised by the professional consultants. (d) Bagular Grading Requirements. The Building Official may require inspection and tasting by a qualified soil engineer. The Soil Bnginesr'a responsibility shall include, but need not be limited to, approval concerning the inspection of cleared areas and benches to receive fill, and the compaction of fills. When the Building Official has cause to believe that geologic factors may be involved, the grading operations will be required to conform to "anginearing grading" requirements. -41- u • • s9 J (e) Notification of Noncompliance. If, in the course of fulfilling their responsibility -under this Chapter, the Civil Engineer, the soil Engineer, the Engineering Geologist or the test agency finds that the work is not being done in conformance with this Chapter or the approved grading plans, the discrepancies shall be reported immediately in writing to the person in charge of the grading work and to the Building Official. Recommendations for corrective measures, if necessary, shall be submitted. (f) Transfer of responsibility for approval. If the Civil Engineer, the Soils Engineer, the Engineering Geologist or the contractor are changed during grading, then work shall be stopped until:, (1) The owner submits,a letter of notification verifying the change of the responsible professional, with a copy so noted, to be sent to the prior responsible professional; and (2) The new responsible professional submits in writing that he assumes all responsibility within his purview as of a specified date. Also, he must state he has reviewed all prior reports and/or plans (specified by date and title) and work performed by the prior responsible professional; concurs with findings, conclusions, and recommendations, and is satisfied with the work performed,or excepts certain portions and provides recommendations for the required remedial work necessary for his acceptance. All exceptions must be justified. (g) Site Inspection by the Building official. (1) Site inspection and pre -inspection: prior to the approval of any building or grading plans and specifications, the Building Official may inspect the site to determine that the plans and specifications are current and•reflect existing conditions. -42- • • 40 (2) Inspection of excavation and fills: the permittee or his agent shall notify the Building Official when the grading operation is ready for each of the following inspections: (A) pre -grading inspection, when the permittee is ready to begin work, but not less than two (2) days before any grading or brushing is started. (a) Toe Inspection. After the natural ground or bedrock is exposed and prepared to receive fill, but before fill is placed, (C) Excavation Inspection. After the excavation is started, but before fill is placed. (0) Fill Inspection. After the fill placement is started, but before the vertical height of the fill exceeds ten (10) feet. (E) Drainage device inspection. After forming of terrace drains, downdrains, or after placement of pipe in subdrains, but before any concrete or filter material is placed. (F) hough Grading. when all rough grading has been completed. This inspection may be called for at the completion of rough grading without the necessity of the Building official having previously reviewed and approved the reports. ((',) Final, when all work, including installation of all drainage structures and other protective devices has been completed and the as -graded plan, professional written approval, and the required reports have been submitted. (3) Revised Grading Plan: If the Building Official finds the soil or other conditions not as stated in the applica- tion for a Grading Permit, he may refuse to approve further work until approval is obtained for a revised grading plan which will conform to the existing conditions. -4 3- • • 4, I (4) Other Inspections: The provisions of Section 304(e) shall apply to all grading work and whenever the Building official determines that the work does not comply with the terms of the permit, or this code, or that the soils or other conditions are not as stated on this permit, he may order the immediate cessation of all work thereunder, and such work shall cease until such corrections shall be complied with. (5) Prior to the issuance of building permits for a graded site, the rough grading shall be completed to the satisfaction of the responsible engineers, engineering -� geologist, and the Building official. (6) Whenever any work on which inspections are required is covered or concealed by additional work without first having been inspected, the Building Official shall require, by written notice, that such work be exposed for examination. The work of exposing and recovering shall not entail or be subject to expense to the City of Newport Beach, and shall be the sole expense of the Permittee. (7) Authority to Stop Work: Whenever any building work or grading is being done contrary to the provisions of this code, the Building Official may order the work stopped by notice in writing served on any persons engaged in the doing or causing of such work to be done, and any such persons shall forthwith stop such work until authorized by the Building Official to proceed with the work. The provisions of Sections 201, 202, 203 and 205, as amended, shall be construed to apply to grading construction work. Sec. 7015. Completion of Work. (a) Final Reports. Upon completion of the rough grading work and at the final completion of the work the Building official may require the following reports and drawings and supplements thereto: -44- • 0 1 (1) An as -graded grading plan prepared by the Civil Engineer, including original ground surface elevations, lot drainage patterns end locations, and elevations of all surface and sub -surface drainage facilities. He shall provide written approval that the work was done in accordance with the final approved grading plan. (2) A soil grading report prepared by the #oils Engineer, including locations and elevations of field density tests, sumeAries of field and laboratory tests and other substantiating data, and comments on any changes made during grading and their effect on the recommendations reads in the soils engineering investigation report. He shall provide written approval as to the adequacy of the site for the intended use. (3) A geologic grading report prepared by the angineering geologist, including a final description of the geology of the site, including any new infor- mation disclosed during the grading, and the effect of mama on recommendations incorporated in the Approved grading plan. go shall provide written approval as to the adequacy of the site for the intended use as affected by geologic factors. (g) Notification of completion. The permittee or his agant shall notify the Building official when the grading operation is ready for final inspection. final approval shall not be given until all work including installation of all drainage facilities and their protective devices and all erosion control measures have been completed in accordance with the final approved grading plan and the required reports have been submitted. The permitter or his nyent shall also furnish evidence to the Building official that all slopes, debris basins or other erosion -45- 01 • 43 control devices will be maintained. Temporary devices shall be removed prior to completion. Sec. 7016. Alternate Methods. The provisions of this chapter are not intended to prevent the use of any material or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this chapter, provided any such alternate has been approved pursuant to this section. The Building Official may approve any such alternate provided he finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the provisions of this chapter and that the material, method or work offered is for the purpose intended at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this chapter in quality, strength, effectiveness and safety. The Building•official shall require that sufficient evidence or proof be submitted to substantiate any claims that may be made regarding its use. Whenever there is insufficient evidence of compliance with the provisions of this chapter or evidence that any material or any construction does not conform to the requirements of this Code, or in order to substantiate claims for alternate material or methods of construction, the Building official may require tests as proof of compliance to be made at the expense of the owner or his agent by an approved agency. Test methods shall be specified by this chapter for the material in question. If there are not appropriate test methods specified in this chapter, the Building Official shall approve the test procedure. Copies of the results of all such tests shall be retained for a period of not less than two (2) years after the acceptance of the grading. -46- Sec. 7017. Denial of Permit. (a) Hazardous grading. The Building official shall not issue a permit in any case where he finds that the work as proposed by the applicant is liable to constitute a hazard to the public welfare, endanger life or any private property, result in the deposition of debris on Any public way, or interfere with any existing drainage course, cause any excess siltation in any natural river, stream, drainage course, or Newport Bay. (b) Geological or flood hazard. if, in the opinion of the Building Official, the land area for which grading is proposed is subject to geological or flood hazards to the extent that no reasonable amount of corrective .work can eliminate or sufficiently reduce the hazard to human life or property, the grading permit and the building permits for habitable structures shall be denied. (c) Environmental effect, modification. The Building official may require plans and specifications to be modified in order to mitigate anticipated adverse environmental effects of proposed grading projects and he may, under circumstances where the significant adverse effects of a proposed grading project cannot be mitigated, deny the issuance of a grading permit. Sec. 701e. Placing Excavated Material. (a) Unauthorized bumping Prohibited. So person shall dump, move, or place any earth, send, gravel, rock, stone, or other excavated material so as to cause the same to be deposited upon or to roll, flow or wash upon or over the promises of another without the express consent of the owner of each such premises so affected, or upon or over any public place or way. Such consent shall be in writing and in a form acceptable to the Building Official, -47- J (b) Removal of Misplaced Material. When, due to a violation of this section, any earth, sand, gravel, rock, stone or other excavated material is caused to be deposited upon or to'roll, flow, or wash upon any public place or therefor shall cause the same way, the person responsible to be removed from the public place, or way, within thirty-six (36) hours. In the event it is not so removed, the Director shall cause such removal and the cost.of such removal by'the Director shall be paid to the City by the person who failed to so remove the material. Sec. 7019. Denuding Natural Ground Cover. No person, J except pursuant .to written order of the Fire Marshall, shall denude and destroy the natural cover of any water- shed except for the immediate use and occupation of the property so denuded in accordance with and'subject to all applicable provisions of the zoning and building regulations of the City. See Title 20. SECTION 2. This ordinance.shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall be effective 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 24th day of July , 1978, and was adopted on the day of , 1978, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCILMEN: NOES, COUNCILMEN: ABSENT COUNCILMEN: ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk DDO/cr 7/17/78 -48- s' R co �Y �eveloP4eOt ::, ocS 0- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER October 11, 1978 TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: BLUFF TOP ORDINANCE H-l(c) on the October 1Oth Council meeting was recycled for both the study session and the evening agenda of October 24th. Please contact Mayor Ryckoff and Council- man Hart and obtain their suggestions for modifications of the ordinance. Your new staff report should contain alternate language, therefore, to the subject ordinance. The same staff report can suffice for both the study session and the evening agenda. Ra'w*� ROBERT L. WYNN Planning Commission Meeting September 21, 1978 Agenda Item No. 8 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 12, 1978 TO: Planning Commission FI L 130 NOT RVre-OVE FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Amendment No. 515 (Public Hearing) Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 (zoni•ng) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code adopting regulations for bl.ufftop developments in the Planned Community Districts. Background The Planning Commission considered the matter of bluff development• regulations at a number of earlier public hearings beginning in April, 1978. At that time it was suggested that separate.approaches were needed for dealing with the large vacant bluff sites in the P-C District versus small -lot bluff developments in the already -sub- divided sections of the City. Consequently, the adoption of General Plan Policies was suggested to deal with the major P-C sites; and a separate Bluff Development Review ordinance was proposed for the older parts of the City. This proposed amendment (No. 515) deals with the major vacant bluff sites in the P-C District. The proposed ordinance dealing with al- ready -subdivided bluff lots is included in this agenda under Amendment No. 516. On August 3, 1978, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that a set of bluff development policies dealing with the major bluff sites be incorporated into. the General Plan as follows: "Development of Bluff Sites in Planned Community Districts_ Adjacent to the Upper Bay. The City of Newport Beach finds that the bluffs adjacent to the Upper Bay represent a significant scenic and environ- mental resource. In order to preserve these unique landforms, developments in Planned Community districts proposed to be located in bluff areas shall be subject to the following policies: a.) Grading, cutting, and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be minimized' in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas. b.) To promote public safety, a geologic study shall be per- formed for each site to determine areas of potential instability. The bluffs' areas of potential hazard or instability shall be indicated o'n maps as part of any P-C development'plan. - 1 - TO: Banning Commission - 2. 0 c.) As a general guideline, the minimum setback from the edge of a bluff should be forty feet, consistent with Coastal Commission guidelines. Setback standards may be modified in the review of proposed development on the basis of results of the geologic study. d.) The location and design of a proposed project shalt take into account public view potential. e.) The location and design of a proposed project shall maximize public access to the bluff areas as follows- (1) Public access to bluff areas shall be assured through the design of the local street system, and through the location of public trails and walkways adjacent to the bluffs. (2) Areas adjacent to the bluffs having significant view potential shall be designated for use as view parks or vista points consistent with park- land dedication requirements. f.) Proposed development shall take into account potential groundwater problems and incorporate measures to minimize and control the effects of erosion and urban runoff." These policies were viewed as an alternative approach to the method of bluff regulation contemplated by the proposed Atherton Bluff Ini- tiative. The City Council reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations on August 14, 1978, and directed that these policies be put in the form of an amendment to the zoning code (rather than a General Plan. amendment), and referred the matter back to the Planning Commission for initiation of public hearings. This would allow for possible adoption by the City prior to the public vote on the proposed Bluff Initiative in November. Proposed Zoning Code Amendment The bluff policies listed above have been re -drafted in the form of an ordinance amending Chapter 20.51 (Planned Community District) of the zoning code (attached). If adopted, this amendment would require P-C developments located in bluff areas to be consistent with the proposed policies and design standards. Environmental Significance It has been determined that no Environmental Impact Report is required for this amendment. A Negative Declaration has been prepared and is attached for the Planning Commission's consideration. Suggested Action If desired, approve Negative Declaration, and recommend to the City TO: Planning Commission - Council that Amendment No. 515 be adopted. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. NOGAN, DIRECTOR By David Dmohowski• Advance Planning Administrator DD/dt Attachments: 1) Draft Ordinance 2) Negative Declaration Ll 0 y, 0 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OR THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADDING SECTION 20.51.080 ENTITLED "DEVELOP- MENT OF BLUFF SITES" TO THE NEWPORT REACH MUNICIPAL CODE The City Council of the City of Newport Beach DOES ORDAIN as follows; SECTION 1. Section 20.51.080 is added to the Newport Beach Municipal Code to read as follows: 1120.51.090 Development of Bluff Sites in Planned Community Districts Adjacent to the Upper Bay. The City of Newport Beach finds that the bluffs adjacent to the Upper Bay represent a significant scenic and environmental resource. In order to preserve these unique landforms, developments in Planned Community districts proposed to be located in bluff areas shall be subject to the following policies: A. Grading, cutting, and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be minimized in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas. b. To promote public safety, a geologic study shall be performed for each site to determine areas of potential instability. The bluffs' areas of potential hazard or instability shall be indicated on maps as part of any P-C development plan. R. An a general guideline, the minimum setback from the edge of a bluff should be forty feet, consistent with Coastal commission guidelines. Setback standards may be modified in the review of proposed development on the basis of results of the geologic study. d. The location and design of a proposed project shall take into account public view potential. 5 e_. The location and design of a proposed project shall•maximize public access to the bluff areas as follows: (1) Public access to bluff areas shall be assured through the design of the -local street system, and through the location of public trails and walkways adjacent to the bluffs. (2) Areas adjacent to the bluffs having significant view potential shall be designated for use as view parks or vista points consistent with parkland dedication requirements. f. Proposed development shall take into account potential groundwater problems and incorporate measures to minimize and control the effects of erosion and urban.runoff." SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City.' • This ordinance was "introduced at a regular meeting of the City council of the"City of'Newport Beach held on the day of 1978, and was adopted on the, day of• , 1978, by the following vote,,• to wit: AYES, COUNCILMEN NOES, COUNCILMEN ATTES' City ( K-4% NEGATIVE DECLARATI )N l4, TO: Secretary for Resources FROM: Community Development Dept. 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 City of Newport Beach Sacramento, California 95814 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Calif. 92663 F1Clerk of the Board of Supervisors P. 0. Box 687 Santa Ana, California 92702 NAME OF PROJECT: Amendment No. 515 PROJECT LOCATION: Planned Community Districts adjacent to the Upper Bay in the City of Newport Beach PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An amendment to the Planned Community District regulations establishing policies and design standards for blufftop developments. FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: (a) The proposed amendment would provide for setback standards and other measures designed to preserve the bluffs in their natural state. (b) No change in the type or amount of development allowed is involved in the proposed amendment. (c) A separate environmental assessment would be required for individual projects located in bluff areas in the Planned Community District. IN.IIIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: Advance Planning Division INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 UATL RECEIVED FOR FILING: Bever y oo , Environ tat Coordinator Date: September 11, 1978 ROBERT P. HASTINGS LEONARD S.JANOFSRY CHARLES M WALKER OLIVER F. OREEN.JR. .AVID O. HARRIMAN OENNIS H. VAUGHN ALVIN F. 5LAI0 HT.JR JAMES W. HAMILTON ROBCRT D IANE FRANK BENNIS OOREN ROBERTA OCWITT JOEL F Me1N12 E WILLIAM B. CAMPBCLL MICHAEL J CONNELL PAUL GROSSMAN CARL W. ROBERTSON ROBERT F. WALKER W. RICHARD KCLLCR EDWARD O SPUROCON T ,BM R. LAMIA OCOROE E. STEPHENS.JR. CARL MITCHELL CHARLES V. THORNTON RONALD A BARAK DOUGLAS C. CONROY THOMAS P. BRENNAN DONALD A. BAUCH ER OANIEL H. WIL LIAMB IIl JOHN LTRINNAMAN HOWARD C. HAY ANDREW C. PETERSON OCOFFRCY L.THOMAS W. TOLIVCR OESSOM KENNETH M KAPLAN LAW OFFICES OF PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER RONALD M. OSTER DAVID W. STCUDER ROBERT W. HILLMAN GNARLED A. MCHENNA.JR. TERI J. FOURNIER RICHARD H. ROEDER MARK W. ATKINSON DIANA M. WHEATLEY KAORUHIKO SUSUKI DONALD L MORROW RICHARD J. ALBRECHT ROBCRT S. SPAN CARL W SHAPIRO JAMES A. HINDS, JR. RICHARD E. OILDERT JOSEPH AL LATHAM, JR. CHARLES W. ADAMS ROB CRT E. DARBY MICHAELA HOOD MICHAEL K. LINDSCY ERIC H JOSS PATRICK A. RAMSEY NANCY L. ]REGALE WILLIAM STCWART WALDO DAVID M. RODCRTS JAMIE GROBEN Al. K. STCINDRCCHCR MART E. MILLER DIANE A. WARE MARTIN A FLANNES MICHAEL SANOCPS STEVEN C. KLNNINO CP SANDRA L PRICL Or NBC' WILLIAM J. CHADWICK JOSEPH J. O'MALLEY HAND DELIVERED POST OFFICE SOX 7040 189S2 Mr.CARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 400 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 TELEPHONE (7141 833-23S1 CABLE ADDRESS: PAULHAST TWX: 910-321-406S September 20, 1978 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach c/o Mr. R. V. Hogan, Director Department of Community Development City Hall Newport Beach, California 92663 Gentlemen: LEE O. PAUL OF CO UNOEL LOS ANGELES OFFICE TWENTY—SECOND FLOOR SSS SOUTH FLOWER STREET LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071 TELEPHONE 1213) 409-4000 12153 OUR FILE NO. 9 CE,IVED am' ra dt v`.'-A SEP 20 1978v- CRY gaWPORR'�e�B��EAC� E6A� Re: Proposed Bluff Development Regulations We are counsel to Mrs. Margaret E. Oser, the owner of an undeveloped parcel of land located at 2505 Cliff Drive in Newport Heights. As such counsel, we have been following closely the proposed Bluff Development Regulations which would constitute an amendment to the Newport Beach Zoning Code. On August 3, 1978 we wrote to the Planning Commission, on behalf of our client, objecting to that proposed amendment (copy attached). We are aware that the proposed amendment, which would establish development regulations for the construction of new residential buildings or additions to existing residential structures on lots located adjacent to bluff areas, was tabled indefinitely by the Planning Commission at its meeting on August 3, 1978. We have been informed by staff of the Planning Commission that the City Council, on August 14, 1978, directed the Planning Commission to reinitiate the public hearing on this matter and • i it col Planning Commission City of Newport Beach c/o Mr. R. V. Hogan, Director September 20, 1978 Page Two that the public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission at its meeting on Thursday, September 21, 1978. We herein reiterate our client's objections to the proposed amendment which are set forth in our letter of August 3, 1978 in which we suggested that the proposed amendment was unnecessary and would impose severe developmental restrictions upon a few vastly different undeveloped lots. Indeed the staff in its notice of these hearings stated that "A l'cation of standards could, in some cases, preclude deve of pment or sub- stantially restrict allowable development on affected properties" We suggest that the existing zoning control, variance and building permit procedures are more than sufficient to reg- ulate bluff development in the older parts of the city. On behalf of our client, and in the interest of fairness and orderly but reasonable use and development of the affected properties, we strongly urge the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council that the proposed amendment not be adopted. Very truly yours, PAUL, YZ? JANOFSKY & W R By r Charles A. McKenna, J . CAM:ns Encl: CC: Mrs. Margaret E. Oser p0![RT R MwlTIM03 CHARLES 1. JANOf3MY 'LIVER ' N w....0 'LIVER R ARRIMAN . 'AVID !. NARRIMAH NI! M V "IIO.T. JANE W. HAMILTON 'INERT O.LANE ,IA.. OA. MI! ll "EIF A. O.WITT WILL, MCICAMP WILLIAM I. CONNE LL MICMACL J. CONNCLL FALL W..0INAN GRL W. ROICRTDON LAW OFFICES OF PAUL, HA5TI 7GS. JANOFSKY S WALKER RONALO N OSTCR ONVIO W. 5ICD81R ...CRt W. nILLMAN CNARLCS A. MOKCNNA.JR TCRI J. IONRMIER RICMwRO A. ROCOCR NARA W. ATAINSON OIAN. M. W N CATLCY IMORNNN. SNSUAI OONALO L. nORNOW RICMARD J. ALSRCCMY ROSCRT s. SnwN CARL W. SHARI RO JAMCS A. MINDS.JR. RICMARD C.ORSCRT JOSEPH AL LATHAM, JR. .NAILER W. A..MS ...EAT C. 0AR31 MICMACL A. M000 MICMACL A. LIND3CY CRIC M.JOSS PATRICA A. RAMSCY NAMCY L. IRCOALC WILLIAM STEWART WA400 DAVIS M. ROICRTS JAMIE SROOCR ALAN A. STCINSRCCMCR MAR, C. MILLER OIANC A. WARD MARTIN A fLANNCS MICMACL SwNOCR! STCVCM C Ale, [R M A SMORA L. ICE "COONS. WILLIAM J. CM.OWICA JOSCRM J. WHALLEY POST OFFICE BOX 7040 ISSS2 M.CARTHUR BOULEVARD. SUITE 400 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 TELEPHONE (714) 833-2351 CABLE ADDRESS: PAULHA5T TWX: 910-321-406S August 3, 1978 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach C/o Mr. R. V. Hogan, Director Department Of_Community Development City Hall Newport Beach, California Gentlemen: LEE O —UL OI C..... I LOS ANGELES OFFICE TWENTY+SCCONO FLOOR 333 lOUtN ILOWCR 3TRCET LOS ANOELE3. CALIFORNIA 90071 TELEPHONE I213) 483-AGOG 12153 OUR FILE RECEIVED' COMMUnity Deve)oprp:M Dept. SEP 2 0.19784ibM NEWPITY OF OR7 EACH, CALIF. Re: Proposed Bluff Development Regulations Ordinance We are counsel to Mrs. Margaret E. Oster, the owner of an undeveloped parcel of land located at 2505 Cliff Drive in Newport Heights. As such counsel, we have been following closely the proposed Bluff Development Regulations Ordinance and we are writing this letter to set forth, on behalf of our client, comments concerning that ordinance prior to its con- sideration by the Planning Commission at the public hearing to be held on Thursday evening, August 3, 1978. Initially, we note that we agree with what we understand to be the Planning Commission's position that separate approaches to any bluff regulations are needed for small lot developments in the older residential areas of the City as opposed to the large vacant parcels such as the Castaways site and the Newport North site. Our client's parcel is, of course, in an older residential area of the City. We understand, based on the Staff's Report, that the draft Bluff Development Regulations Ordinance to be considered. at this evening's public hearing relates only to those older Planning Commission August 3, 1978 Page Two residential areas in which which would be affected b ordinance with respect to y there are thirteen the provisions of new development. (1'3) vacant lots the proposed The undeveloped lots are basically in Newport Heights, where our client's lot is located, and in Corona del Mar. We are familiar with some, but not all, of the undeveloped lots in question and it would appear that these lots are vastly different in topography, developability, size, etc. so that an ordinance, such as that proposed, could only be applied subjectively to any development plan. Indeed it would appear that the ordinance, if adopted, would either prevent or severely limit reasonable development of these lots or have to be emasculated to allow such development. It is also our understanding, from discussions with the Staff, that the Staff recognizes the vastly different characteristics of these various lots. Indeed, the proposed ordinance really only has one objective criterion and that is the proposed ten (10) foot setback. Yet the setback, as set forth in the proposed ordinance, provides for :a variance where it is inappropriate, and, in this respect, the Staff reported, in its Item No. 3 for the June 15, 1978 Planning Commission meeting, that: "The Coastal Commission uses a 25 foot setback guideline in the review of applications for Bluff Development. In actual practice, a lesser standard is commonly applied to smaller lots on a case by case basis. Staff has suggest- ed a 10 foot setback here for discussion purposes. a iu root setDacK LL suL-Ls; a nrerin P development on most- of the vacant Therefore, the proposed ordinance appears as a series of subjective "standards" containing an objective standard which is acknowledged to be inappropriate for the development in question &nd for which a variance must be sought. We understand from discussions with the Staff, that the present proposal arose in the context of a case in which a property owner requested a variance in order to develop the entire face of a bluff area in Corona del Mar. This, of course, was within the existing variance regulations, and, therefore, the issue before the Planning Commission., The r Planning Commission August 3, 1978 Page Three proposed ordinance affects only thirteen (13) lots (which respect to new development) of vastly different characteristics. It in- creases the time and expense of development in an area already regulated by the Coastal Commission and the City's Building Department, and, to the extent that a variance is needed With respect to existing zoning, by the Planning Commission. It may very well be a complicated, unnecessary and expensive solution looking for a problem. We recognize that the proposed ordinance also relates to additions in areas of existing development. However, most of the developed lots which -would be encompassed by the proposed ordinance do not admit of substantial alteration or addition that would not already be controlled by the existing regulatory structure. At all events, the areas of existing development along bluff areas in the older parts of the City are even more varied in their characteristics than are the few remaining un- developed lots, and therefore; it would seem that the ordinance would be even -more difficult to apply to the developed areas if application were sought. Therefore, we suggest that the establishment of a subjective ordinance with an inappropriate objective criterion which subjects a property owner to an arbitrary road block that must be overcome before beginning the usual development process is unnecessary and we hope that the Planning Commission will agree. Very truly yours, PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER Charles A. McKenna, Jr. Gam• CAM:ns cc: Mrs. Margaret E. Oser G� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER August 15, 1978 TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: BLUFF ORDINANCE eo l yRcC�IV ., pQ�aloP n1° t � pOR o,5SjCH, NEW �p1.1F• The City Council, on August 14, adopted the following motion: - "Direct the Planning Commission to remove from the table and reconsider an ordinance controlling development or redevelop- ment of subdivided bluff top lots in the City of Newport Beach." It would be appreciated if you would take this matter to the Planning Commission. RJ"_ ROBERT L.IWYNN COUNCILMEN G�'li�.� �9 p�9y9Gr22 ROLL CALL CITY OF NEWPORT B*CH /,39 MINUTES August 14, 1978 INDEX Allan Beek addressed the Council and urged that the funds for push buttons for street crossing purposes be retained. ' Ayes x x A vote was taken on Mayor Ryckoff's motion, Noes x x x which motion failed. Absent x x Motion x Re olution No. 9416, approving the application Ayes x x x x for b1 cle and/or pedestrian funds authorized Noes x under 821, and approving the adoption of Absent x x its Bicyclk/or Pedestrian Plan, was adopted with the understanding that the matter would be reviewed by the`' nsportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee. Motion x The matter was referred to the ransportation Ayes x x x x x Plan Citizens Advisory Committee. Absent x x ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Motion x 1. Councilman Heather was appointed to represent Ayes x x K x x Newport Beach as alternate to the League of Absent x x Cities Airport Work Program. Motion x 2. The Planning Commission was directed to remove Ayes x x K x K from the table and reconsider Oidin nce- Absent x x controlling development o r development of subdivided b_lufftop lotsyin the City of Newport Beach. Motion r 3. The staff was directed to analyze the require - Ayes x x K x K ments for annexation regarding the County Absent K x Triangle area and report back to the City Council. Mayor Ryckoff declared the meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. 3� Volume 32 - Page 211 CIj$Y OF NEWPORT 86WCH COUNCILMEN tp _L CALLS �S'� August 14, 1978 MINUTES INDEX 4. A letter and petition signed by thirteen resi- dents from the 'friends of Inspiration Point was presented regarding the new buildings in Corona del Mar, and requesting stricter development standards to remedy the over -building on small lots. Dan Cohan addressed the Council in support of keeping new development in line with present development and suggested that development t standards in the City be reviewed. Motion x The Planning Commission was directed to review Ayes x x x x development standards in Old Corona del Mar with Noes x the idea in mind of presenting alternatives to Absent x x the height and mass of buildings that are now being developed and within the legal, present standards. 5. letter from the Breakers Drive Association, Inc. s presented regarding a transfer dump for ga bage from the beach which is located too close to he homes in the area and which the residents woul like to have moved to a parking lot which is si ated a distance from homes. Motion x The pro em was referred to staff for review of Ayes x x x x x the loca transfer dump site and for Absent x x £ormulatiternatives to be brought back to Councissible changes. 6. A letter R. Blakemore was presented regardingy tax relief for present and Xthhe former leThe Irvine Company. Motion x The staffo rized to send a letter to Ayes x x x x Assemblymo ova in support of his Noes x activity spec to this matter. Absent x x 7. A report was presented om the Public Works Department regarding 19779 S.B. 821 funding program making funds avai ble for facilities provided for the exclusive se of bicycles and pedestrians. Motion x Mayor Ryckof£ made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 9416 approving the applicat on for bicycle I and/or pedestrian funds authoriz under S.B. 8210 and approving the adoption of its icycle and/or Pedestrian Plan with the stipulati that appli- cation for funds for installation o bicycle push buttons not be made, and that those funds be retained for other bicycle trail purposes. I Volume 32 - Page 210 COUNCILMEN ��`P� t'C, _V IROL CITY OF NEWPORT BEWH /J1� MINUTES August 14. 1978 INDEX Motion Ayes Noes Absent Motion Ayes Absent Motion Ayes Absent x 'x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x .x x x x Consideration and adoption of the 'Administrative Procedures and Methodology for Implementing the Traffic Phasing Ordinance" was postponed to August 28, 1978. 2. The -e oort of the Council Appointments Committee in connec',00n� with nominees to fill the unexpired term of Jacque-i'1-se,]�bourne ending June 30, 1978 was postponed to August 8, 1978. 3. (District 6) Councilman Hummel pointment of William Sterling Pope as a member o he,,Bicycle Trails Citizens Advisory Committee to fillth unexpired term of Thomas L. Schulman ending December 31, 1978 was confirmed. 4. The Blufftog Street Dedication Initiative to be presented to the voters at a consolidate a ec- tion on November 7, : Gene Atherton, proponent of the initiative, ad- dressed the Council. Keith Greer, representing The Irvine Company, addressed the Council and opposed the ordinance as proposed. Motion x Resolution No. 9412, ordering, calling, providing Ayes x x x x x o"f r and giving notice of a special municipal elec- Absent x x tion to be held in said City on November 7, 1978, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified voters of said City an ordinance relating to required dedication of streets in subdivisions on bluffs adjoining Newport Bay or the Pacific Ocean and consolidating said election with the statewide election to be held on said date, was adopted. • Motion x Resolution No. 9413,, requesting the Board of Super Ayes x x x x x visors of the County of Orange to consolidate a Absent x x special municipal election of the City of Newport Beach with the statewide general election pursuant to Section 23302 of the Elections Code, was adopted. Motion x Resolution No.`9414,,_authorizing Mayor Pro Tem Ayes x x x x x Williams and Councilman Heather as Council members Absent x x to file a written argument against a City initia- tive measure, was adopted.., Motion Ayes x x x x x x 5. A report from the Marine Department regarding an appeal by Jay Becker of the cancellation of his Absent x x permit for Mooring B-52 was received and otderede` filed. CURRENT BUSINESS: 1. A report was presentedfrrom the City Manager concerning the LocalaCoastal Planning Advisory Committee. Motion x Council an 11ummP1 made a motion to adopt a resclu- Ayes x x x 6'n establishing a Local Coastal Planning Noes x x Advisory Committee together with certain procedur- Absent x 11 al rules and amended to specify that the three citizen committees which are to provide names for this Committee shall each provide two names " instead of one, which motion failed. Volume 32 - Page 206 C"Y OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN 1i 9 p'ayFGd'ZP ROLL CALL August 14, 1978 MINUTES INDEX Motion x A proposed resolution establishing a Local Ayes x x x x Coastal Planning Advisory Committee, an amend - Noes x ment to Council Policy A-9 exempting the Local Absent x x Coastal Planning Advisory Committee from the minimum membership restrictions of that policy and appointments to the Committee were postponed to August 28, 1978, Motion x 2. A report was presented from the Community Develop - Ayes x x ment Department regarding the Final Map of Tract Noes x x No. 10156, a request of Ed Hume to subdivide 0.96 Absent x x acres into five lots for single-family residential development on property located at 2420, 2426, 2426h - 15th Street, on the northeasterly side of 15th Street between Gary Place and Powell Place in Newport Heights; zoned R-1. Motion x The Final Map of Tract No. 10156 was postponed to Ayes x x x x x August 28, 1978. Absent x x N Hume, developer, addressed the Council and pr eated postponment. 3. A le er to Mayor Ryckoff from the Santa Ana River food Protection Agency was presented asking he Council to reconsider its decision to drop ut of the Agency. Motion x The matte was referred to the Budget Committee. Ayes x x x x x Absent x 4. A report was esented from the Parks, Beaches and Recreation ommission regarding proposals from SCOOP to a ow dogs on beaches in the summer months du ng certain hours, and new signs pertaining the animal litter law taken by the Commission. A report was present from the City Manager. Letters opposing doge the beaches in the summer were presented fApm J. Perrin, Vern Phillips, Joan and David nderson, Steve Zoccoli, Russell Griffith, Janet Z , Sally Griffith, Mr, and Mrs. Wiley C. McNa Joe Carols. and Pat McMurray. A letter from Hildegard Breid stein, lit, State Humane Officer, was presented sting that she enforces city and county laws a�well as state laws. a4 Volume 32 - Page 207 I August 8, 1978 TO:- FROM: SUBJECT: Background City Council Meeting August 14, 1978 Study Session Agenda Item No. 5(c)3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council • Department of Community Development At its meeting of July 11, 1978, the City Council received a report from staff evaluating the potential impact of the Atherton Bluff Initiative (copy attached). A number of technical difficulties with the initiative were pointed out, including the following: 1. The definitions contained in the initiative are not clear, which could result in problems of interpreta- tion and administration. 2. There are potential liability problems for the City associated with accepting dedications'of unstable bluff areas. 3. The initiative would require a public street to be dedicated in every case adjacent to the bluffs, regardless -of geologic conditions or other design considerations. 4. The initiative does not take into account considerations d t a d erosion or in such as controlling groun wa er n , providing for combined public/private maintenance of bluff areas. It was suggested that the goals of the proposed initiative -- that is, h bl ffs and rovide public access -- could be accom- to preserve t e u p plished through the adoption of General Plan policies.or zoning amendments instead. Planning Commission Recommendation on Bluff Policies The Planning Commission has been reviewing the question of bluff development regulations since March, 1978. In connection with this review, the Planning Commission on August 3, 1978, recommended that an amendment to the General Plan be initiated dealing.with bluff development policies as follows: Si "The City of Newport Beach finds that the bluffs adjacent to the Upper Bay represent a significant scenic and,environ- mental resource. In order to preserve these unique landforms, developments in Planned Community Districts proposed to be located in bluff areas shall be subject to the following policies: "1. Grading, cutting, and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be minimized in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas. TO: City Council - 2. "2. To promote public safety, a geologic study shall be performed for each site to determine areas of potential instability. The bluffs' areas of potential hazard or instability shall be indicated on maps as part of any P-C development plan. 113. As a general guideline, the minimum setback from the edge of a bluff should be forty feet, consistent with Coastal Commission guidelines. Setback standards may be modified in the review of proposed development on the basis of results of the geologic study. 4. The location and design of a proposed project shall take into account public view potential. "5. The location and design of a proposed project shall maximize public access to the bluff areas as follows: "a) Public access to bluff areas shall be assured through the design of the local street system, and through the location of public trails and walkways adjacent to the bluffs. "b) Areas adjacent to the bluffs having significant view potential should be designated for use as view parks or vista points consistent with park- land dedication requirements. 1'6. Proposed development shall take into account potential groundwater problems and incorporate measures to minimize and control the effects of erosion and urban runoff." It is intended that the policies listed above apply to the major unde- veloped sites adjacent to the Upper Bay, including the Castaways, Newporter North, and Westbay sites. These are the same sites covered by the proposed initiative. Also, it is felt that the application of these policies during the review of Planned Community development plans, submitted to the City for approval, would accomplish the same goals as the initiative in terms of bluff preservation and providing public access. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director by DAVID OMOHOWSKI Advance Planning Administrator DD/kk Attachments: 1) Memo from Community Development Department 2) Memo from Public Works Department 3 �l. Department of Community Development C�proP��' DAH July 5, 1978 Bob Wynn, City Manager TROM: R. V. Hogan, Community Development Director SUIU LCT: Bluff Initiative Ordinance The Community Development Department staff has reviewed the proposed Bluff Initiative Ordinance, and offers the foll.owing.comments: 1. Mechanics of Ordinance The proposed ordinance applies only to residential projects where the site has not been subdivided previously. It requires a setback from the edge of a bluff, and the dedication of a public street to be located between the development and the edge of the bluff. The dedicated street cannot be located closer than 25 feet to the bluff edge. Given a minimum street width standard of 36 feet, the area required for dedication would be at least 61 feet in width measured from the top edge of the bluff. The dedicated street is required to be connected to the nearest arterial street via the interior street system of the proposed development. No private street in the development could connect to the dedicated bluff -edge street. The major residential -designated sites which would be subject to this ordinance include the following: a)) Castaways Site b) Newporter North c)) Westbay Site d) Land Trade Remnant e Caltrans Parcels. According to the provisions of the ordinance the following sites could be excepted by a two-thirds vote of the City Council: a) Land Trade Remnant b) Caltrans Parcels. 2. Definitions The definition of "bluff" contained in the ordinance is somewhat cumbersome in that it depends on an evaluation of the soil or sediment comprising the bluff to determine "natural angle of repose." The definition of "undiminished bluff" is not clear in its use in the wording of the ordinance. Also, • 0 y ` ;,_o. TO: BOB WYNN, CITY MANAGER Page Two July 66 1978 the "edge" of the bluff is not defined which could cause some problems of interpretation. 3. Relation to Park Dedication Where a park is to be dedicated on a bluff site, that dedication must be applied to the area adjoining the bluff. The area to be dedicated for street purposes along the bluff edge is over and above the required park dedication. In some cases, the area required to be dedicated between the street and bluff edge will exceed the park dedication requirement. Presumably the "surplus" area within this bluff setback could be used for private open space or recreational facilities. 4. Dedication of Bluff faces In staffs' interpretation of the proposed ordinance, the City would not be required to accept dedication for the bluff face or that area below the top :d?e of the bluff. There is, however, some question as to theCty's liability in relation to roadway or park improvements hich might affect the stability of the bluff face. S. Cost/Revenue Impact The adoption of the proposed ordinance could result in substantial costs to the City in terms of maintenance and Cpossible improvements ethose-areas a itywouldassumeliabilityforareas havindedicated. having potential slope stability problems. 6. Environmental Effects Requiring dedication of areas adjoining the bluffs would enable the City to exercise stricter control over groundwater and bluff erosion problems. Also dedication would ensure public access to some of the City's most significant scenic resources. 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Ordinance The initiative ordinance, as proposed, does not take into account several important considerations related to preserving the bluffs and providing public access, such as controlling groundwater and erosion, and providing for combined public/ private maintenance of bluff areas. As an alternative to the TO: BOB WYNN, CITY MANAGER Page Three July 5, 1978 mechanism proposed in the initiative ordinance, the adoption of a City Council policy and - revisions to the General Plan and Zoning Code could accomplish the goals of the initiative ordinance and at the same time address the important technical concerns mentioned above. This approach would provide more flexibility than the initiative ordinance in terms of minimizing cost impacts on the City, and in terms of providing design options in new development. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Y � r 0 July lb 1978 TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: Public Works Director SUBJECT: INITIATIVE REQUIRING DEDICATION OF BLUFF TOP ROADS DISCUSSION: The following Public Works comments relate to the proposed initiative: 1 locations to provide on local meaningfulicontinuityiforcalt inBlufsome T p street alignment without extensive grading and expensive bridge and/or culvert construction. 2. Locating a road near the edge of a bluff can cause serious technical problems relating to drainage, sight distance and soil stability. It is probable that in many locations the road would have to be located further away from the bluff than the minimum 25-foot dimension specified in the ordinance. 3. In Section 2 (2nd paragraph), the ordinance states that "said street..... shall be situated not less than 25 feet from the waterside edge of undiminished bluff." This wording should be improved so that it is clear as to whether the ordinance is referring to the top or toe of the bluff. 4. It appears that the ordinance would support the master planned alignment of University Drive. The majority of the master wardn eed thetbenchUalongsthe northerlylendtof Uppers sea - Newport Bay. oseph T. Devlin ublic ks Director TD:jd .J;, AN ORDANCRE & PACIFIC F STREETS IN SUBDIVISION(S) ON BLUFF(S) INEW The People of the: City of Newport Beach do ordain as follows: Section 1. The people of the City of Newport Beach hereby find and declare that access to that portion of any subdivision on a bluff adjoining Newport Bay &/or the Pacific Ocean shall be between the dwelling units and the edge of the bluff adjoining Newport Bay and/or the Pacific Ocean in order to provide adequate access to Newport Bay &/or -the Pacific Ocean, to preserve the integrity of the coastline and its land forms, and to minimize hazards from erosion of the bluffs' edge. Section 2. Chapter 20.90 is hereby added to Title 20 of the Municipal Code of the City of Newport Beach to read as follows: Whenever any subdivision (as defined in the State Subdivision Map Act) of previously unsubdivided land is situated on a'bluff that adjoins Newport Bay &/or the Pacific Ocean with or without a road.at the foot of the bluff, and is bounded on any side or in any way by that portion of the bluff which ad- joins Newport Bay &/or the Pacific Ocean, there shall be dedicated upon and by such map or plat a street along that portion of the bluff which adjoins Newport Bay &/or the Pacific Ocean between all the dwelling units and the edge of the bluff adjoining Newport Bay &/or the Pacific'Ocean, and all streets of the subdivision leading to said street from the nearest dedicated main arterial street. Said street between the dwelling units and the edge of uated notthe lessluff thanadoinin25 feet9frompthe waterside edgeaof•undishallhe Pcific Ocean minishedbluff. Local park dedication for the subdivision shall be applied to the land between said street and the waterside bluff edge. Exceptions to this ordinance may be granted by a 2/3 majority of the City Council for any subdivision or portion thereof which is situated on: (1) Any bluff area adjoining Newport Bay &/or the Pacific Ocean whose edge is within 560 feet of Dover Drive, Irvine Avenue, Jamboree Road, &/or the Pacific Coast Highway. (2) Any bluff whose edge adjoining Newport Bay is within 460 feet of a bluff edge adjoining Dover Drive. (3) Any bluff area between East B1uff'Park.and immediately neighboring subdivision and Newport Bay. (4) Any bluff area adjoining Newport Bay, which is situated between Newport Bay and Mesa Drive. DEFINITIONS: (1) Bluffs are those land forms with nearly horizontal areas above and below a gradient greater than the natural angle of repose of the least consolidated soil or sediment comprising any part of the bluff or a 45 degree angle from the horizontal, whichever is less, with a total vertical rise of at least 30 feet from the horizontal plane at the base of the bluff. (2) Undiminished bluff is one whose vertical rise above the base of the bluff has not been reduced. 0 • • *Planning Commission 10 LAW OFFICES OF August 3, 1978 K, 12,, PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER ROBERT P. HASTINOS RONALD M. OSTER POST OFFICE BOX 7040 LEONARD S. JANOFSITY DAVID W. STEVDCR CNARLES M. WALKER ROOERT W. HILLMAN OLIVER F. OREEN,JR. CNARLES A. McKENNA.JR 169SE MAcARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 400 DAVID B HARRIMAN TERI J. FOUR I ER OLN NIS H. VALID.. ALVIN F. SLAIOMT, JR RICHARD K. R.... R MARK W. ATKINSON NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92663 JAMLS W HAMILTON DIANA M. WHEATLEY ROBERT D. LANE FRANK DENNIS BORE. IMORB.IKO.... A1 DONALD L. MORROW TELEPHONE (ll4) 833-23S1 ROBERT A. OAWITT RICHARD J. ALBRECHT Jon F McNITIR. RODCRT S SPAN CABLE ADDRESS: PAULHAST WILLIAM B. CAMPBELL CARL W SHAPIRO MICHAEL J. CONNELL JAMES A HINDS.JR. PAVL OR035 MAN RICHARD E.OILSCNT T`NX: 910-321-406S CARL W. ROBERTSON JOS EPH AL LATHAM, JR. ROBERT R WALKER CHARLES W. ADAMS W. RICHARD KELLER ROBERT E DARCY EDWARD D. SPUROEON MICHAEL A. HOOD THOMAS R. LAMIA M I.NACL N. LINDSEY ... R.0 E. STCPH ENS,JR ERIC H.JOSS CARL MITCHELL PATRICK A. RAMSEY CHARLES V. THORNTON RONALD S. SARAN NANCY L. IRCOALE WILLIAM STEWART WALDO �T 1 p 1- 3 t 19 7 August DOVO LAS C. CONROY DAVID M ROBERTS EL Ys T THOMAS P. BRENNAN JAMIC BROOER DONALD A. DAUCHCR ALAN K STEINBRECHER DANICL N. WILLIAMS IIi MARY E MILLER JOHN C.TRINNAMAN DIANE A WARD HOWARD C. HAY MARTIN A. FLANNES ANDREW C. PETERSON MICHAEL SANDERS OCOFFRCY L.THOMAS STCVEN C. KLN NINOLR W. TOLIVCR OCSSON SANDRA L PRICE KENNETH M. KAPLAN DF COUNSEL WILLIAM J. CHADWICK JOSCPH J. O'MALLCY Planning Commission City of Newport Beach c/o Mr. R. V. Hogan, Director Department of Community Development City Hall Newport Beach, California Gentlemen: LEC O PAVL OF CO VMSCL LOS ANGELES OFFICE TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR 5S5 SOUTH FLOWER STREET LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9007I TELEPHONE 1213) 459-4000 12153 OUR FILE NO. Re: Proposed Bluff Development Regulations Ordinance R OMOVn eD pevepept. 19�a9r �v6o t B�PaN, NENPGPisF• We are counsel to Mrs. Margaret E. Oser, the owner of an undeveloped parcel of land located at 2505 Cliff Drive in Newport Heights. As such counsel, we have been following closely the proposed Bluff Development Regulations Ordinance and we are writing this letter to set forth, on behalf of our client, comments concerning that ordinance prior to its con- sideration by the Planning Commission at the public hearing to be held on Thursday evening, August 3, 1978. Initially, we note that we agree with what we understand to be the Planning Commission's position that separate approaches to any bluff regulations are needed for small lot developments in the older residential areas of the City as opposed to the large vacant parcels such as the Castaways site and the Newport North site. Our client's parcel is, of course, in an older residential area of the City. We understand, based on the Staff's Report, that the draft Bluff Development Regulations Ordinance to be considered at this evening's public hearing relates only to those older CI Planning Commission August 3, 1978 Page Two residential areas in which which would be affected by ordinance with respect to there are thirteen the provisions of new development. (13) vacant lots the proposed The undeveloped lots are basically in Newport Heights, where our client's lot is located, and in Corona del Mar. We are familiar with some, but not all, of the undeveloped lots in question and it would appear that these lots are vastly different in topography, developability, size, etc. so that an ordinance, such as that proposed, could only be applied subjectively to any development plan. Indeed it would appear that the ordinance, if adopted, would either prevent or severely limit reasonable development of these lots or have to be emasculated to allow such development. It is also our understanding, from discussions with the Staff, that the Staff recognizes the vastly different characteristics of these various lots. Indeed, the proposed ordinance really only has one objective criterion and that is the proposed ten (10) foot setback. Yet the setback, as set forth in the proposed ordinance, provides for,;a variance where it is inappropriate, and, in this respect, the Staff reported, in its Item No. 3 for the June 15, 1978 Planning Commission meeting, that: "The Coastal Commission uses a 25 foot setback guideline in the review of applications for Bluff Development, In actual practice, a lesser standard is commonly applied to smaller lots on a case by case basis. Staff has suggest- ed a 10 foot setback here for discussion purposes. Even a 10 foot setback if strictly a lied, t.,,,,,f nra7 r� _onmant on most �o the vacant Therefore, the proposed ordinance appears as a series of subjective"'standards" containing an objective standard which is acknowledged to be inappropriate for the development in question and for which a variance must be sought. We understand from discussions with the Staff, that the present proposal arose in the context of a case in which a property owner requested a variance in order to develop the entire face of a bluff area in Corona del Mar. This, of course, was within the existing variance regulations, and, therefore, the issue before the Planning Commission, The IZ Planning Commission August 3, 1978 Page Three proposed ordinance affects only thirteen (13) lots (which respect to new development) of vastly different characteristics. It in- creases the time and expense of development in an area already regulated by the Coastal Commission and the City's Building Department, and, to the extent that a variance is needed with respect to existing zoning, by the Planning Commission. It may very well be a complicated, unnecessary and expensive solution looking for a problem. We recognize that the proposed ordinance also relates to additions in areas of existing development. However, most of the developed lots which would be encompassed by the proposed ordinance do not admit of substantial alteration or addition that would not already be controlled by the existing regulatory structure. At all events, the areas of existing development along bluff areas in the older parts of the City are even more varied in their characteristics than are the few remaining un- developed lots, and therefore, it would seem that the ordinance would be even more difficult to apply to the developed areas if application were sought. Therefore, we suggest that the establishment of a subjective ordinance with'an inappropriate objective criterion which subjects a property owner to an arbitrary road block that must be overcome before beginning the usual development process is unnecessary and we hope that the Planning Commission will agree. Very truly yours, , PAUL, TINGE, JANOFSKY & WALI�R By harles A. Mc enna, Jr, CAM:ns cc: Mrs. Margaret E. Oser ,Z. Planning Commission Meeting August 3, 1978 July 28, 1978 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: INITIATED BY: Background Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Department of Community Development Amendment No. 507 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code establish- ing regulations for developments located on or adjacent to bluffs, to include building setbacks from the edge of bluffs, and other development standards. City of Newport Beach This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of June 15, 1978 to allow for the filling of vacancies on the Planning Commission. The previous staff memo, including the draft ordinance, is attached for the Planning Commission's consideration. This report is intended to supplement the June 15, 1978 staff memo. Bluff Initiative Since the Planning Commission's last consideration of bluff develop- ment regulations, the Atherton Bluff Initiative petition was certified as qualifying for the November 1978 ballot. This proposed initiative would require the dedication of a public street along the blufftops on the major residential sites adjacent to the Upper Bay (Castaways, Westbay, Newporter North). In the case of initiative petitions, the City has the option of adopting the proposal as an ordinance or submitting it to the electorate. At its meeting of July 11, 1978, the City Council reviewed a report from staff evaluating the potential impact of the initiative (copy attached). The report suggested that certain technical problems with the initiative could be avoided through the adoption of General Plan policies and/or zoning amendments instead. The City Council directed staff to develop an alternative approach to bluff regula- tion for its meeting of August 14, 1978. A decision on whether or not to adopt the initiative ordinance would be made at that time. Possible Planning Commission Recommendation on Bluff Initiative The staff memo of June 15, 1978 on gested a set of bluff development sites which could be incorporated Amendment No. 507 (attached) sug- policies dealing with the major bluff into the General Plan as follows: "Development of Bluff Sites Adjacent to the Upper Bay The City of Newport Beach finds that the bluffs adjacent to the Upper Bay represent a significant scenic and environ- mental resource. In order to preserve these unique land - forms, developments proposed to be located in bluff areas shall be subject to the following policies: "1) Grading, cutting, and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be minimized in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas. Item No. 0 TO: Planning Commission - 2. 112) To promote public safety, a geologic study shall be performed for each site to determine areas of potential instability. The bluffs areas of potential hazard or instability shall be indicated on maps as part of any P-C development plan. "3) As a general guideline, the minimum setback from the edge of a bluff should be forty feet, consistent with Coastal Commission guidelines. Setback standards may be modified in the review of proposed development on the basis of results of the geologic study. 114) The location and design of a proposal project shall take into account public view potential. "5) Proposed development shall take into account potential groundwater problems and incorporate measures to minimize and control the effects of erosion and urban runoff." These policies would be implemented through the City's review of EIR's, P-C development plans, and tract maps. Staff suggests that, if desired, the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the above revision to the General Plan be initi- ated at the October 1978 General plan Amendment Session, as a substi- tute for the approach contained in the proposed Bluff Initiative. Draft Bluff Development Regulations Ordinance The draft bluff development ordinance (attached) is designed to apply to smaller lot projects in the already -developed areas of the City. This ordinance is not intended to apply to the major undeveloped sites around the Upper Bay, where the above listed General Plan policies would apply. Staff has made no revision to this draft ordinance since the June 15, 1978 Planning Commission meeting. Suggested Action If desired, recommend to the City Council a) that Amendment No. 507, adding Chapter 20.04 to the Zoning Ordinance, be adopted, and b) that an amendment to the General Plan be initiated establishing development policies for the major bluff sites adjacent to the Upper Bay. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director By Advance Planning Administrator DO/kk Attachments: 1) Staff memo and draft ordinance of June 15, 1978 2) Report on Bluff Initiative Item No. _ 4 _ _ WPlanning Commission M ing June 15, 1978 Item No. June 9, 1978 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: INITIATED BY: Background CITY OF NEWPO,RT BEACH Planning Commission Department of Community Development Amendment No. 507 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code establishing regulations for developments located on or adjacent to bluffs, to include building setbacks from the edge of bluffs and other development standards. City of Newport Beach The Planning Commission discussed the question of bluff development regulations at a number of study session meetings, and conducted a public hearing on a proposed bluff ordinance at the meeting of April 20, 1978. This matter was continued -to allow staff to gather additional information and to make suggested revisions to the draft ordinance. The approach to bluff development regulation contemplated here i•s based on four general goals: 1) To assure that development located near bluffs is designed in a manner which is sensitive to the aesthetic and scenic qualities of bluff areas. 2) To ensure public safety and structural integrity with respect to bluff development. 3) To ensure stability of slopes through application of mitigation measures. 4) To preserve public views where feasible. Additional Information - Requested by Planning Commission The Planning Commission at the April 20, '1978 public hearing requested the following: 1) That separate approaches be developed for dealing with the smaller already -subdivided lots versus the large undeveloped parcels around the Upper Bay. 2) That'an estimate of the number of lots potentially affected by such regulations be made. - 3) That the ordinance include a specific definition of the term "bluff." 4) That specific setback requirements or angle of repose criteria be incorporated into the design standards, with a "variance" procedure established, to eliminate uncertainty regarding standards to be applied. Item No. 3 ! 9 TO: Planning Commission - 2. l � 5) That public safety considerations be made more explicit in the ordinance. The information requested is presented and discussed below. Alternative Approaches to Bluff Regulations At the previous public hearing it was suggested that separate approaches to bluff regulation were needed for small lot developments in the older residential areas versus the large vacant P-C parcels, such as the Castaways site and Newporter North site. For new developments and additions to existing developments on already - subdivided lots, it is suggested that the general approach set forth in the draft ordinance would be appropriate. According to this approach, a review of site plans for bluff development would be required prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, with specific design standards established. The Planning Commission in reviewing the development application would have the authority to impose conditions or mitigation measures to achieve the purpose of the bluff ordinance. For development on the major vacant parcels adjacent to the Upper Bay, substantially more planning or design options are available than for the small -lot developments. These parcels are included in the Planned Community District, which means that the P-C development plans submitted for City approval can be precisely designed to account for the geologic conditions, locational factors, and public view potential peculiar to each site. Because of the degree of discretionary authority the City has in these cases (through the review of EIR's, P-C plans, and tract maps) it is suggested that the draft ordinance not apply to the P-C District. As an alternative to regulations by might consider amending the General or guidelines to be applied to the ordinance the Planning Commission Plan to establish a set of policies major bluff sites as follows: "Development of Bluff Sites Adjacent to the Upper Bay The City of Newport Beach finds that the bluffs adjacent to the Upper Bay represent a significant scenic and environmental resource. In order to preserve these unique landforms,developments proposed to be located in bluffs areas shall be subject to the following policies: 1) Grading, cutting, and filling of natural bluff f ces or bluff edges shall be minimized in order to prese�ve the scenic value of bluff areas. ' 2) To promote public safety, a geologic study shall be performed for each site to determine areas of potential instability. The bluffs areas of potential hazard or instability shall be indicated on maps as part of any P-C development plan. 3) As a general guideline, the minimum setback from the edge of a bluff should be 40 feet, consistant with Coastal Commissi'on guidelines. Setback standards may be modified in the review of proposed development on the basis of results or the geologic study. 4) The location and design of a proposal project shall`take'tnto account public view potential. 5) Proposed development shall take into account potential groundwater problems and incorporate measures to minimize and control the effects of erosion and urban runoff." If desired, the Planning Commission could consider such an amendment as part of the General Plan Review. A separate public notice would be required before formal consideration, Item No. 3 0 .0 J TO: Planning Commission - 3. Affected Properties The draft ordinance, if applied to new development and additions to existing development on already -subdivided lots, could affect 13 vacant single family lots and roughly 630 developed lots. A list of vacant lots affected is attached. The major vacant site,s near the Upper Bay Bluffs include the following: 1) Castaways 2) Westbay 3) Newport North 4) Bayview Landing The Cal Trans West parcel is an additional major bluff site which could be subject to regulations through P-C development plan review at such time as any development is proposed. Councilman Hummel, in discussions wtth staff, has suggested that the slopes adjacent to Bayside Drive east of Carnation Avenue be subject to regulation. Staff has included this area on the Bluff Area Map for the Planning Commission's consideration. Definition of "Bluff" In the previous staff memo (attached), it was proposed to identify those bluff areas subejct to regulation by adopting a bluff area map as part of the ordinance. It was suggested that a precise definition of the term "bluff" should be included in the ordinance also, in order to avoid any confusion as to which areas would be subjett to regulation. The previous bluff area map was based on slopes oriented toward the ocean or Upper Bay having a slope of 20 degrees or greater. The text of the draft ordinance could be revised as follows: "DEFINITION OF BLUFF AREAS. As used in this Chapter, bluff areas shall be defined as landforms oriented toward the ocean or Upper Bay having a slope of 20 degrees or greater as indicated generally on the map entitled "Bluff Areas" adopted and made a part of this ordinance by reference." The 20 degree criterion used in the above definition represents roughly a 3 to 1 slope. This definition would include q11 of those slope areas which are normally thought of as "bluffs." Specific Setback Requirements The bluff ordinance as previously drafted enabled the Planning Commission in reviewing a development application, to. establish a setback from the edge of the bluff, but did not establish a specific setback distance. To establish a specific setback requirement applicable to already -subdivided lots, the following wording is suggested: "Any structure subject to this chapter shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of a bluff. Such setback standard may be modified or waived in the review of a proposed project on the basis of a geologic study or where the P-C finds that such a setback standard imposes unreasonable hard- ship due to the size, shape or orientation of the subject lot." The Coastal Commission uses a 25 foot setback guideline in the review of applications for Bluff development. In actual practice, a lesser standard is commonly applied to smaller lots on a case by case basis. Staff has suggested a 10 foot setback here for discussion purposes. Even a 10 foot setback, if strictly applied, would preclude development on most of the vacant lots surveyed. Item No. 3 f (o TO: Planning Commission - 4. As an alternative, the setback distance could be established on the basis of an imaginary line drawn at a 33 degree angle from the toe of the bluff. A diagram attached illustrates this approach. Public Safety Considerations The draft ordinance (copy attached) has been revised to refer to pubcli safety considerations in the sections dealing with intent of the ordinance and in the design standards section. Suggested Action If desired, (a) refer back to staff for further study or revisions, or (b) adopt Resolution No. recommending to the City Council that Amendment No. 507 be adopted, including revisions desired. If the Planning Commission wishes to amend the General Plan with respect to bluffs as suggested above, a separate public notice will be prepared. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR BY. evi—d—dhows Ii�� Advance Planning -Administrator DD/dt Attachments: 1 Revised Ordinance 2 List of properties affected 3 Slope setback diagram 4 Previous staff memo Item No. 3 (Revised June 8, 1978) Chapter 20.04 BLUFF DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Sections: 20.04.010 Intent 20.04.020 Definition of Bluff Areas 20.04.030 Application 20.04.040 Planning Commission Review Required 20.04.050 Development Standards for Bluff Areas 20.04.060 Action by the Planning Commission 20.04.070 Appeal to the City Council 20.04.080 Action by the City Council 20.04.090 Fee 20.04.010 INTENT. The City of Newport Beach finds that coastal bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource. In order to preserve these unique geological features, and the scenic value which these landforms provide, and in order to promote the nd ublic health asafet , it is the intent of this chapter that new development and alterations or additions to existing developments be regulated through the application of bluff development standards as set forth herein. 20.04.020 DEFINITION OF BLUFF AREAS. As used in this chapter, bluff areas shall be defined as landforms oriented toward the ocean or Upper Bay having a slope of 20 degrees or greater. Such areas having a slope of 20 degrees or greater are indicated generally on the map entitled "Bluff Areas" adopted and made a part of this ordinance by reference. 20.04.030 APPLICATION. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to new developments and alterations or additions to existing., developments in the R-A, R-1, R-1.5, R-2, R-3, R-4, and "B4" Combining Districts. In cases of emergency, where property is imperiled, a permit for emergency repairs or construction may be issued at the discretion of the Director of Community Development, consistent with the public safety and welfare. 20.04.040 PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW REQUIRED. Any development or alteration of land occurring on property identified as a bluff area as defined in Section 20.04.020 shall be subject to Bluff Development Review by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of any building permit or grading permit, to determine the consistency of such development with the standards set forth herein. 20.04.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR BLUFF AREAS. In order to carry out the purposes of this chapter, the following standards shall apply in the review of proposed development subject to this chapter: (a) Grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges in connection with development shall be minimized 0 in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas. Grading, or other alteration of natural landforms may be permitted where the Planning Commission in its review of a proposed development determines that the grading plan is consistent with the intent and purposes of this chapter. (c) In areas subject to potential slope instability, the Planning Commission may require the preparation of a soils or geologic report to Assist in evaluating the location and design of a proposed project, (d) Where feasible, the location and design of a proposed project shall minimize the interruption of public views on or over bluff areas. (e) The design of development shall incorporate measures to minimize and control the effects of erosion and urban runoff (f) The design of development shall take into account potential groundwater problems. 20.04.060 ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. If all applicable standards established by this ordinance are met, the Planning Commission shall approve the proposed development. Conditions may be applied as appropriate when the proposed development does not comply with applicable standards and shall be such as to bring said development into conformity. If the development is disapproved, the Panning , Commission shall specify the standard or standards that art not met. A Bluff Development Review decision of the Planning Commission shall be subject to review by the City Council either by appeal, or upon its own motion, or upon the request of the Commission. The action of the Commission on any Bluff Development Review shall be final and effective twenty-one (21) days following the Commission action thereon unless, within the twenty-one (21) day appeal period an appeal in writing has been filed by the applicant, the Commission has requested a review of its decision, or unless the City Council, not more than twenty-one (21) days after the Commission action, on its own motion, elects to review and act on the action of the Commission, unless the applicant consents to an extension of time. The City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision. Such action by the City Council shall be final. 20.04.070 APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. Any Site Plan Review decision of the Commission may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant at any time within twenty-one (21) days after the date of the Commission decision. An appeal to the City Council shall be taken by filing a letter of appeal in duplicate, with the Department of 0 Community Development. Such letter shall set forth the grounds upon which the appeal is based. 20.04.080 ACTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL. An ap eal shall be heard and acted on by the City Council within thirty (30� days after the Commission action, unless the applicant consents to an extension of time. The City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Commission. Such action by the City Council shall be final. 20.04.090 FEE. The applicant shall pay a fee as established by Resolution of the City Council to the City with each application. 0 t f E-' I. BU1F ` tAdopted s*' -y ttt: r C F � C h 1 Vacant Lots Affected Bluff Ordinance 1. 206 La Jolla Drive 2. 2919 Cliff Drive 3. 215 Riverside Drive 4. 2317 Cliff Drive 5. 2505 Cliff Drive 6. 2205 Pacific Drive 7. 2333 Pacific Drive 8. 3425 Ocean Blvd. 9. 3523 Ocean Blvd. 10. 3530 Ocean Blvd. 11. 3-036 Breakers Drive (3 lots) Newport Heights Newport Heights Newport Heights Newport Heights Newport Heights Corona del Mar Corona del Mar Corona del Mar Corona del Mar Corona del Mar Corona del Mar 0 0 score AN&f, TOf, of Muff ! 9 G I Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1978 Agenda Item No. 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 14, 1978 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Amendment No 507 (Public Hearing) Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code establishing regulations for developments located on or adjacent to bluffs, to include building setbacks from the edge of bluffs, and other development standards. Background At previous study session meetings, the Planning Commission received reports from staff regarding development 'regulations for bluffs or blufftops. Existing City standards, Coastal Commission regulations, and possible alternative approaches to bluff preservation were examined. At the Planning Commission meeting of March 16, 1978, staff distributed a very preliminary draft ordinance dealing with bluff development regulations which could be adopted as an amendment to the zoning code. The Planning Commission set this matter for public hearing. A revised draft ordinance has been prepared and is attached for the Planning Commission's consideration. Also attached are previous staff• memos on this subject. Bluff Ordinance Consistent with adopted General Plan policies as stated in the Recreation and Open Space Element, the draft ordinance incorporates the finding that coastal bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental urpose of the amendment is to preserve resource. And therefore, the p the scenic value of the bluffs through the establishment of regulations for new development -and alterations to existing development. 1.. The draft ordinance would require formal Planning Commissitn review of any development proposed to occur on or adjacent to a bluff area. Such revi-ew would be similar in nature to Site Plan Review which is required for developments in areas designated fora Specific Area Plan. Those bluff areas subject to this regulation would be indicated on a "Bluff Areas Map" to be adopted by reference as part of the ordinance. This approach, it seems, would be the easiest to administer, in that cumbersome technical or mathematical definitions, such as used by the Coastal Commission, would be avoided. Generally, those areas indicated on the attached Bluff Areas Map are oriented toward the coast or Upper Bay and have a slope greater than 20 degrees. The proposed standards to be used in the review of development subject to this ordinance are as follows: (a) Grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges in connection with development shall be minimized in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas. Grading, or other alteration of natural landforms may be permitted where the Planning Commission in its review of a proposed development determines that the grading plan is consistent with the intent and purposes of this chapter. TO: Planning Commission - 2 (b) Structures or visible accessory improvements shall be located and designed sv as to preserve the integrity of bluff faces or bluff edges. The Planning Commission may establish a building setback from the bluff face or bluff edge where such setback is determined to be necessary to carry out the intent of this chapter. (c) In areas subject to potential slope instability, the planning Commission may require the preparation of a soils or geologic report to assist in evaluating the location and design of a proposed project. (d) Where feasible, the location and design of a proposed project shall minimize the interruption of public views on or over bluff areas. (e) The design of development shall incorporate measures to minimize and control the effects of erosion and urban runoff. (f) The design of development shall take into account potential groundwater problems. The draft ordinance gives the Planning Commission the option of applying conditions to its approval to assure compliance with the intent of the ordinance. As presently drafted, any action by the Planning Commission would be subject to normal appeal procedures. Effect of Ordinance The approach implied in the draft ordinance is intended to be applicable to small -lot developments in the residentially -zoned areas of the City which are developed nearly to capacity at present, and also to the major undeveloped parcels which will require approval of P-C development plans. In connection with the General Plan Review, the Planning ,Commission may wish to include more -specific language relating to bluff preservation (based on the proposed bluff development standards) in the text of the Land Use Element of Recreation and Open Space Element. Suggested Action If desired, hold hearing; approve draft ordinance or dired+t staff to make revisions; adopt Resolution Norecommending to' the City Council that Amendment No. 507 dealing` with Bluff Development Regulations be adopted. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. Hogan, Director By David Dmo�hows-ki� Advance Planning Administrator DD:jmb Attachments: 1) Draft Ordinance 2) Previous Staff Memo Chapter 20.04 DRAF-r BLUFF DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Sections: 20.04.010 Intent 20.04.020 Definition of Bluff Areas 20.04.030 Application 20.04.040 Planning Commission Review Required 20.04.050 Development Standards for Bluff Areas 20.04.060 Existing Structures and Uses 20.04.070 Action by the Planning Commission 20.04.080 Appeal to the City Council 20.04.090 Action by the City Council 20.04.100 Fee 20.04.010 INTENT. The City of Newport Beach finds that coastal bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource. In order to preserve these unique geological features, and the scenic value which these landforms provide, it is the intent of this chapter that new development and alterations or additions to existing developments be regulated through the application of bluff development standards as set forth herein. 20.04.020• DEFINITION OF -BLUFF AREAS. As used in this chapter, bluff areas subject to this ordinance shall be defined as those areas indicated on the Map entitled "Bluff Areas" adopted and made a part of this ordinance by reference. 20.04.030 APPLICATION. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to new developments and alterations or additions to existing developments in the R-A, R-1, R-1.5, R-2, R-3, R-4, and "B-" Combining Districts. For projects in any Planned Community District subject to this chapter, the Development Standards for Bluff Areas set forth p in Section 20.04.050 shall be applied in connection with the review of the Planned Community Development Plan, or amendments thereto, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.51. In cases of emergency, where property is imperiled, permit permit for emergency repairs or construction may be issued at the discretion of the Director of Community Development, consistent with the public safety and welfare. 20.04.040 PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW REQUIRED. Any development or alteration of land occurring on property identified on the Map . entitled "Bluff Areas" shall be subject to Bluff Development Review by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of any bui77ding permit or grading permit, to determine the consistency of such development with the standards set forth herein. 20.04.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR BLUFF AREAS. In order to carry out the purposes of this chapter, the following standards shall apply in the review of proposed development subject to this chapter: (a) Gradiedgesng, cutting in connectiondwithling of developmentral shalluff facs or be minibluff mized R in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas. Grading, or other alteration of natural landforms may be permitted where the Planning Commission in i•ts review of a proposed development determines that the grading plan is consistent with the intent and purposes of this Chapter. (b) Structures or visible accessory improvements shall be located and designed so as to preserve the integrity of bluff faces or bluff edges. The Planning Commission may establish a building setback from the bluff face or bluff edge where such setback is determined to be necessary to carry out the intent of this chapter. (c) In areas subject to potential slope instability, the Planning Commission may require the preparation of a soils or geologic report to assist in evaluating the location and design of a proposed project. (d) Where feasible, the location and design of a proposed project shall minimize the interruption of publi-c views on or over bluff areas. (e) The design of development shalt incorporate measures to minimize and control the, effects of erosion and urban runoff. (f) The design of development shall take into account potential groundwater problems. 20.04.060 EXISTING STRUCTURES AND USES. Alterations or improvements to existing structures requiring a building or grading permit and located in designated bluff areas shall be subject, where feasible, to the standards specified in Section 20.04.060 above. 20.04.070 ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. If all applicable standards established by this ordinance are met, the Planning Commission shall approve the proposed development. Conditions may be applied as appropriate when the proposed development does not comply with applicable standards tIsuch asaid development itoconformy.f the developmentisdisapprovedt the Planning Commission shall specify the standard or standards that are not met. A Bluff Development Review decision of the Planning Commission shall be subject to review by the City Council either by appeal, or upon its own motion, or upon the request of the Commission. The action of the Commission on any Bluff Development Review shall be final and effective twenty-one (21) days following the Commission action thereon unless, within the twenty-one (21) day appeal period an Sppeal in writing has been filed by the applicant, the Commission has requested a review of its decision, or unless the City Council, not more than twenty-one (21) days after the Commission action, on its own motion, elects to review and act on the action of the Commission, unless the applicant consents to an extension of time. The City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision. Such action by the City Council shall be final. 20.04.080 APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. Any Site Plan Review decision of the Commission may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant at any time within twenty-one (21) days after the date of the Commission decision. An appeal to the City Council shall be taken by filing a letter -of appeal in duplicate, with the Department of Community Development. Such letter shall set forth the grounds upon which the appeal is based. 20.04.090 ACTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL. An appeal shall be heard and acted on by the City Council within thirty (30) days after the Commission action, unless the applicant consents to an extension of time. The City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Commission. Such action by the City Council shall be final. 20.04.100 FEE. The applicant shall pay a fee as established by Resolution of the City Council to the City with each application. BWF t!4 EAdopted r Planning Commission Study Session March 2, 1978 Study Session Item No CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 24, 1978 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Development Regulations for Bluffs or Blufftops Background. At the study session meeting of February 16, 1978, the Planning Commis- sion requested staff to investigate possible alternative approaches to regulating development on or near bluffs. There are extensive bluff areas in the City which represent a significant scenic resource, and at the same time pose considerable development problems in terms of slope stability and erosion control. A map illustrating the locations of bluffs and other significant natural landforms is attached. This report will describe existing City regulations pertaining to bluffs, and the relationship of Coastal Commission regulations dealing with natural landforms. Also, discussed here are possible approaches to bluff preservation involving revisions to City codes and development standards. ExistinR_City_Ree ulations Existing City codes and the General Plan do not prohibit development on or near a blufftop or bluff face. However, there are specific struc- tural requirements and mitigation measures which are applied through the normal development review process. Chapter 70 of the Building Code - Excavation and Grading - establishes minimum setback standards from the top or toe of a bluff Ihich vary according to the height of the slope. Retaining walls or -footings may be designed to reduce or even eliminate the setback requirement for a structure, when approved by the Building Official, thus allowing con- struction on the face of the bluff or on the immediate top of the bluff The Zoning Ordinance does not presently specify setback requirements or other design standards for bluff development - with the exception of Section 20.10.030 which indicates that where a residential building is situated to overlook a bluff the property line adjacent to the street. may be considered the rear property line for setback purposes. the Public Safety Element of the General Plan contains specific refer- ences to bluff development in terms of seismic and geologic hazards. In relation to the City's adopted risk reduction program, the Public Safety Element (page 44) requires mitigation of potential hazards during development review as follows: "The City shall require Environmental Impact Reports for any de- velopment within areas of natural physical hazard, as defined in this Element; said E.I.R.'s to include detailed assessment of the hazards and a comprehensive mitigation program." In terms of geologic hazards, the Public Safety Element states the following policies: TO: Planning Commission - 2 "(a) The City shall adopt a new gradi-ng ordinance, includ- ing more -stringent erosion and siltation control and geologic hazard mitigation requirements. "(b) The City shall require geologic and seismic studies as an integral portion of all Environmental Impact Reports with detailed mitigation measures for any development in areas of high potential hazards." Areas of the City subject to such geologic hazards are indicated on the maps attached. The Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan (Page 33) deals with natural bluff areas as follows: "NATURAL BLUFF AREAS As the major topographical feature in the City, the natural bluffs provide a sense of continuity (in that they continue, with only a few interruptions, from West Newport to Corona del Mar) and also a sense of 'place' or 'identity' (since this feature is rather unique among cities). These bluffs also contain many unique geological features, such as the rock outcroppings at Corona del Mar and the cliffs at Dover Shores. In terms of scenic values, these bluffs are the most notable features in the City, other than the beach and water areas. In most cases the bluffs will be left in their natural state; however, in some cases the appearance of the bluffs should be enhanced, and erosion reduced, through natural -appearing plantings, using native plant materials as much as possible. Any development which would destroy the scenic qualities of these bluffs should be prohibited." In summary, the existing City regulations dealing with bluff develop- ment are directed more toward public safety and structural considera- tions than toward aesthetic concerns or protection of scenic resources. The Recreation and Open Space Element does state that development which would diminish the scenic value of bluffs should be prohibited, but no specific regulatory mechanism is established. Coastal Commission Regulations Development standards for coastal bluffs promulgated by thle State and Regional Coastal Commissions are described in the planning Commission memo attached (February 91 1978). In general, the State Commission's standards require that alteration of natural landforms be minimized. The more -stringent Regional Commission Guidelines establish a twenty- five foot minimum setback from the bluff edge, effectively prohibiting development on the bluff face. Possi.ble.Aoproaches to City Regulation of Bluffs In developing an approach to regulating construction on or near bluff areas, it might be useful to distinguish between two general classes of projects, as follows: 1) Development on major vacant sites adjacent to bluffs, requiring further discretionary approvals, such as General Plan Amendment, P-C development plan; or use permit. 2) Development on smaller lots adjacent to bluffs in already -developed areas of the City, normally requiring only approval of building permit and possibly grading permit. 9 lu: Planning Commission - 3 141Uf1!. Adjacent to_Malgr Sites_ 11,e rusJnr vacant sites adjacent to coastal bluffs include the follow- ing: a) Beeco Property West Newport b) CALTRANS Property West Newport c) Castaways Site d) Westbay Site e) Land Trade Remnant (Bluffs) f) Newporter North Site g Bayview Landing (Holiday Harbor) Site As part of the processing of tract maps and P-C development plans for these major sites, provisions for setbacks from the bluff edge, dedi- cation of scenic drives and viewpoints could be made as conditions of approval. In this regard, it might be desirable to establish specific criteria through amendments to the General Plan, as part of the'P-C development standards, or through amendments to the City Council Policy Manual. The Atherton Initiative Petition related to blufftop dedication would require major developers to dedicate a public roadway adjacent to coastal bluffs, with such roadways set back a minimum of twenty-five feet from the bluff edge. The advantage of an approach of this sort is that problems of drainage, erosion and groundwater associated with bluff development could be controlled through the design of the road- way and through controls on the use of open areas near the bluff edge. Also development on the face of the bluffs would be precluded. A major disadvantage of the initiative approach, as proposed, is that the City would assume substantial liabilities in connection with the main- tenance of landforms with serious instability problems. Also it is unclear at this point as to whether blufftop dedication can be applied for credit against the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance. This could result in a double dedication requirement. As a minimum, amendments to existing codes and policies would need to clarify design standards and requirements for geologic analysis per- taining to the acceptance of bluff dedication by the City. Bluffs in Developed Areas Staff is in the process of preparing an inventory of vacant parcels adjacent to bluffs in the predominantly developed areas of the City. Sites falling into this category include the following: a) Residential lots adjacent to Cliff Drive. b Residential lots adjacent to Bayside Drive. c) Residential lots adjacent to Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar. Bluff protection in these areas might be approached through the estab- lishment of blufftop setback standards as an amendment to the zoning ordinance. It should be recognized, however, that in many of these rases, the edge of the bluff is located in close proximity to the public street - meaning that even minimal setback standards might preclude development of such parcels. The establishment of bluff setback requirements in some cases would necessitate public acquisition of properties as open space. An additional concern relates to the creation of nonconforming uses as a result of bluff development standards. A satisfactory method of dealing with replacement, enlargement or modi- ficdtion of existing structures located in bluff areas needs to be incorporated into any amendment dealing with bluff protection. If bluff development standards are to be established, it is suggested that the areas subject to such control be specifically identified on Districting Maps to avoid problems of defining complex topographical conditions such as bluff edges and natural grade. TO: Planning Commission - 4 Suggested Action If desired, direct staff to prepare appropriate amendments to the toning Ordinance, General Plan, or Policy Manual to be considered at a future Planning Commission public hearing. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director D V1D J. UM@HUWSKI Advance Planning Administrator DJO/kk Attachments: ij Bluff areas and natural 2 Seismic hazard areas 3 Geologic hazard areas 4) Planning Commission memo landform map on Coastal regulations t %� - SLUFF AMA-5 ANt o NATURAL LAND FORMS lit '1 r' V , 9 - _ •.-;_ ,.y. "iMr- MIA _ �I lllllliaiiuiifulu. ''R v"- m ."�_��-�ci-. ___ __ `•�' ._ r _ • I • IL P(MM4 SESMC HAZARD AM y�.w+_w".._} 1 a.waa wow � ; .�1 i� �; • �' ��{ it L—iCATll 2 Gi101� �i�• _ 'Y `��_ a�+� t��'4 Ali 1 \t •i;. s 'sa+ AN RI i i1JCur V �c � .�_, � r- ice-. ,� _• • 0 If NEWPORT BMCCHSLOPE SDMNW �• _ _` v Ile �• i y 6-1 �•4/•r � • � .. y -�. -p-1 i-p..Y,�S.r=�-: d• .,isles -�. ;.�f-.. fe��.r � -y � S �.s' .�.� 2 ' i �y`x t (� ��. �7m-�:. -^ a-.4.!•:��y ,/ C_ � n�1SJ) ". ..w�� 'i � 3`��- � �T j•�Ri C:iL--/pia 'y ` `r -i}�t, e.eet-_ - ' -- __ .a. F• `i ../!' [ .� "ii" m 2{i ii—L• 1... �� _\.••� . �--' `'1JJ.2. ,r ""C _ We 2 • 0 ATTACHMENT 4 Planning•Commission Meeting Study Session Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 3, 1978 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Development Standards for Coastal Bluffs February 9, 1976 In connection with Variance No. 1066, an application to exceed the height limit for a residential project located at 2333 Pacific Urive, Corona del Mar, (Griswold property), the Planning Commission inquired as to Coastal Commission regulations governing development on btufftops and the face of coastal bluffs. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. Coastal_ Commission Regulations The State Coastal Commission, on May 3, 19771 adopted statewide "interpretive guidelines" regarding the geologic stability of bluff - top development,, The Coastal Act itself requires that new development shall: (a) minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic hazards (b) prevent the destruction of a site or surrounding area by requiring protective devices which alter natural landforms along development bluffs and opmentshalCliffs, lbesitSection that edanddesigned tprovides further r ominimizethealteratitted ion Of natural landforms. The adopted interpretive guidelines regulate development on or near coastal bluffs as follows: (a) To meet the requirements of the act, bluff and cliff developments must be sited and designed to assure stability and structural integrity for their expected economic lifespans while minimizing alteration of natural landforms." (b) "Alteration of cliffs and btufftops, faces, or bases by excavation or other means should be minimized." Given these general guidelines, the Regional Coastal Commission ha's developed draft site -specific guidelines for Newport Beach and Orange County which are scheduled for adoption during the month of February, 1978. These draft guidelines apply to development on coastal bluffs as follows: Bluff Top Development: "Proposed development should be set back at least 25 feet from the edge of any coastal bluff. (30251, 30253) Proposed development upon a canyon bluff top should be set back at least ten feet from the bluff top edge, or set back in accordance with a string line connecting adjacent development, or set back from the primary vegetation line depending upon site characteristics as determined by a staff inspection of the site. (30261, 30253)" Further, the draft guidelines would regulate alteration of landforms as follows: Alteration of Landforms: Grading, cutting or filling that will alter natural landforms (bluffs, cliffs, ravines, etc.) should be prohibited. In Permitted development, landform alteration should be minimized rirn dgelinesandhe iiltops) lanelevelnt on (except ddesigninghillsideroadstonbe as narrow as possible and follow natural contours. (30251, 30253) TO: Planning Commission - 2 "In all cases grading should be minimized. New residential development should be sited and designed so that as a general rule, no ponds, creeks, or drainages are filled or cleared: clearance and scrapi.ng are limited to the minimum necessary area for a house pad and the legally required brush clearance area for fire safety. Road cuts•and new subdivisions should not create lots requiring massive grading or extensive geological marks or cuts. (30251, 30253, 30240) Cascading project design should be utilized in new development along scenic routes or if visually obtrusive a's methods to blend the proposal with the surrounding topography. (30251, 30253)" Evaluation of State and Regional Guidelines The State Coastal Commission's guidelines would not necessarily preclude development on the bluff face as contemplated in Variance No. 1066. However, grading and installation of protective structures on the subject site may result in alteration of natural landforms. The Regional Commissio'n's proposed interpretive guidelines regarding blufftop development, if strictly applied, would result in denial• of the project as proposed. Categorical Exclusion Regulations Categorical Exclusion Order E-77-5 adopted by the Coastal Commission on June 14, 1977, allows construction of new single-family and two- family dwellings in Newport Beach without the requirement of a coastal permit except for.the first row of lots adjacent to the beach or bay, and subject to conditions related to lot coverage, parking, and density. Allowable development is governed by all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code. As a general condition, the Exclusion Order specifies that there be no significant change in density, height, or ature of uses in general condition,etheas sproposedubject oprojectthis xmaysAs a result of not be consistent this with the intent of the Exclusion Order, even though a single-family residence at this location would otherwise be excluded from the coastal permit requirement. Bluff protection is not a specific condition of the Exclusion. View Protection The State Coastal Commission guidelines make reference also to view protection, wfiisar e related to blufftop development in certain cases. These View Protection Section 30251 of the 1976 Coastal Act states that the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas...' The primary concern under this section of the Act is the protection of ocean and coastal views from public areas such as highways, roads, beaches, parks, coastal trails and access -ways, vista points, coastal streams -and waters used for recreational purposes, and other public preserves rather than coastal views from private residences where no public vistas are involved." DEPARTMENT Of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. Hogan, Director By-' tl'ee( (L i . OC-W v�l/ /mac. avid mohowski --�' Advance Planning Administrator DO:RL:jmb _ �a4W�ar z c�4rriK" �r VA U - 10: FROM: SWULCT: 0 0 Department of Community Development July 5, 1976 Bob Wynn, City Manager R. V. Hogan, Community Development Director Bluff Initiative Ordinance The Community Development Department staff has reviewed the proposed Bluff Initiative Ordinance, and offers the following comments: 1. Mechanics of Ordinance The proposed ordinance applies only -to residential projects where the site has not been subded previously. It requires a setback from the edge of a bluff, and the dedication of a public street to be located between the development and the edge of the bluff. The dedicated street cannot be located closer than 25 feet to the bluff edge. Given a minimum street width standard of 36 feet, the area required for dedication would be at least 61 feet in width measured from the top edge of the bluff. The dedicated street is required to be connected to the nearest arterial street via the interior street system of the proposed development. No private street in the development could connect to the dedicated bluff -edge street. The major residential -designated sites which would be subject to this ordinance include the following: a Castaways Site b Newporter North c Westbay Site d Land Trade Remnant e Caltrans Parcels. According to the provisions of the ordinance the following sites could be excepted by a two-thirds vote of the City Council: a Land Trade Remnant b Caltrans Parcels. 2. Definitions The definition of "bluff" contained in the ordinance is somewhat cumbersome in that it depends on an evaluation of the soil or sediment comprising the bluff to determine "natural angle of repose." The definition of "undiminished bluff" is not clear in its use in the wording of the ordinance. Also, TO: BOB WYNN, CITY MANAGER Page Two July 5, 1978 the "edge" of the bluff is not defined which could cause some problems of interpretation. 3. Relation to Park Dedication Where a park is to be dedicated on a bluff site, that dedication must be applied to.the area adjoining the bluff. The area to be dedicated for street purposes along the bluff edge is over and above the required park dedication. In some cases, the area required to be dedicated between the street and bluff edge will exceed the park dedication requirement. Presumably the "surplus" area within this bluff setback could be used for private open space or recreational facilities. Dedication of Bluff Faces In staffs' interpretation of the proposed ordinance, the City would not be required to accept dedication for the bluff face or that area below the top edge of the bluff. There is, however, some question as to the City's liability in relation to roadway or park improvements which might affect the stability of the bluff face. ' 5. Cost/Revenue Impact The adoption of the proposed ordinance could result in substantial costs to the City in terms of maintenance and possible improvements to those -areas dedicated. Also, the City would assume liability for areas having potential slope stability problems. 6. Environmental Effects Requiring dedication of areas adjoining the bluffs would enable the City to exercise stricter control over groundwater and bluff erosion problems. Also dedication would ensure public access to some of the City's most significant scenic resources. Alternatives to the Proposed Ordinance The initiative ordinance, as proposed, does not take into account several important considerations related to preserving the bluffs and providing public access, such as controlling groundwater and erosion, and providing for combined public/ private maintenance of bluff areas. As an alternative to the" TO: BOB WYNN, CITY MANAGER Page Three July 5, 1978 mechanism proposed in the initiative ordinance, the adoption of a City Council policy and revisions to the General Plan and Zoning Code could accomplish the goals of the initiative ordinance and at the same time address the important technical concerns mentioned aboveThis approach would provide more flexibility than the initiative ordinance in terms of minimizing cost impacts on the City, and in terms of providing design options in new development. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. • STUDY SESSION NO. 10 July 11, 1978 TO: CITY MANAGER. FROM: Public Works Director SUBJECT: INITIATIVE REQUIRING DEDICATION OF BLUFF TOP ROADS DISCUSSION: The following Public Works comments relate to the proposed initiative: 1. Depending on local topography, it may be difficult in some locations to provide meaningful continuity for a Bluff Top street alignment without extensive grading and expensive bridge and/or culvert construction. 2. Locating a road near the edge of a bluff can'cause serious technical problems relating to drainage, sight distance and soil stability. It is probable that in many locations the road would have to be located further away from the bluff than the minimum 25-foot dimension specified in the ordinance. 3. In Section.2 (2nd paragraph), the ordinance states that "said street..... shall be situated not less than 25 feet from the waterside edge of undiminished bluff." This wording should be improved so that it is clear as to whether the ordinance is referring to the top or toe of the bluff. 4. It appears that the ordinance would support the master planned alignment of University Drive. The majority of the master planned alignment for University Drive is located on the sea- ward edge of the bench along the northerly end of Upper Newport Bay. oseph T. Devlin ublic ks Director TD:jd AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING DEDICATION OF STREETS IN SUBDIVISION(S) ON BLUFF(S) ADJOINING NEWPORT BAY b/OR PACIFIC OCEAN, The People of the -City of Newport Beach do ordain as follows: Section 1. The people of the City of Newport Beach hereby find and declare that access to that portion of any subdivision on a bluff adjoining Newport Bay 6/or the Pacific Ocean shall be between the dwelling units and the edge of the bluff adjoining Newport Bay and/or the Pacific Ocean in order to provide adequate access to Newport Bay b/or the Pacific Ocean, to preserve the integrity of the coastline and its land forms, and to minimize hazards from erosion of the bluffs' edge. Section 2, Chapter 20.90 is hereby added to Title 20 of the Municipal Code of the City of Newport Beach to read as follows: Whenever any subdivision (as defined in the State Subdivision Map Act) of previously unsubdivided land is situated on a bluff that adjoins Newport Bay 6/or the Pacific Ocean with or without a road at the foot of the bluff, and is bounded on any side or in any way by that portion of the bluff which ad- byisuch maaprorBplat/arstreetaalong h t portioneofhthe bluff whichadjoinsnd Newport Bay 6/or the Pacific Ocean between all the dwelling units and the edge of the bluff adjoining Newport Bay 5/or the Pacific Ocean, and all streets of the subdivision leading to said street from the nearest dedicated main arterial street. Said street between the dwelling units and the edge of the bluff adjoining Newport Bay a/or the Pacific Ocean shall be situated not less than 25 feet from the waterside edge of undiminished bluff. Local park dedication for the subdivision shalt be applied to the land between said street and the waterside bluff edge. Exceptions to this ordinance may be granted by a 2/3 majority of the City Council for any subdivision or portion thereof which is situated on: (1) Any bluff area adjoining Newport gay 6/or the Pacific Ocean whose edge is within 660 feet of Dover Drive, Irvine Avenue, Jamboree Road, 3/or the Pacific Coast Highway. (2) Any nff whose edge adjoinin g Newport Bay is within 460 feet of bluff (3) Any bluff area between East Bluff Park.and immediately neighboring subdivision and Newport Bay. (4) Any bluff area adjoining Newport Bay, which is situated between Newport Bay and Mesa Drive. DEFINITIONS: (1) Bluffs are those land forms with nearly horizontal areas above and below a gradient greater than the natural angle of repose of the least consolidated soil or sediment comprising any part of the bluff or a 45 degree angle from the horizontal, whichever is less, with a total vertical rise of at least 30 feet from the horizontal plane at the base of the bluff. (2) Undiminished bluff is one whose vertical rise above the base of the bluff has not been reduced. I� NEWPORT BEACH NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING "Bluff Development Regulations" The Newport Beach Planning Commission will conduct a continued public hearing to consider the adoption of zoning regulations and development standards for new residential construction or additions to existing residential structures located adjacent to bluff areas. If adopted by the City, these regulations could require a special review of development plans and the establishment of a minimum setback distance measured from the edge of the bluff. This public hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers on Thursday evening,. August 3, 1978 beginning at 7:00 p.m. For additional-_r_.___.___ _ _,.__� I1..—A n..,..b...--1,; AA.—.,..,, Planning Admin- City Hall • 33 CIA OF NEWPORT BEAM COUNCILMEN MINUTES �C, IC ILPY T..1„ 11 107R i)o R43T 4'=" `r INDEX 7. The Council Appointments Committee's nominations City Arts of candidates for consideration to fill the Comsn unexpired term of Jacqueline Kilbourne ending (120F) Motion x June 30, 1979 on the City Arts Commission was Ayes x x x x x x postponed to August 14. 8. (District 6) Councilman'Hummel's appointment of a Bicycle member to the Bicycle Trails Citizens Advisory Trails Committee to fill the unexpired term of Thomas L. CAC Motion x Schulman ending December 31, 1978 was postponed to (205F) Ayes x x x x x x x July 24. Motion x 9. Consideration of Council Policy J-1 "City Ayes x x x x x x x ployees Salaries," was tabled. CURRENT SINESS: 1. A repor was presented from the Community Develop- Tract 10274 ment Depa ment regarding the Final Map of Tract No. 10274, request of the Bank of Newport to approve the F al Map of Tract No. 10274 sub- dividing 5.507 res into one lot for multiple family residentiaacondominium development and one lot for commerc 1 development; located at 2101 and 2121 East Co t Highway and 777 Avocado Avenue, Kewanee Drive Drive, adjacent to Irvine Terrace; zoned -3. Dennis Harwood, attornenting the Bankof Newport, addressed and statedthat \mae the developer was willy 00% of the City'share of the traffic sBarry Allen addressed cil and o osed the development. Motion x The Final Map of Tract74 was approve Ayes x x x x x x x incorporating by reference the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, and Resolution No. 9399, authorizing the Mayor and R-9399 City Clerk to execute a subdivision agreement between the City of Newport Beach and the Bank of Newport in connection with Tract No. 10274, was adopted, with the condition that funding of the City's one-third of the cost of the traffic signal would be borne by the develo er. 2. The City Clerk's Certificate of Sufficiency Bluff regarding the initiative ordinance requiring Preservation dedication of streets in subdivisions on bluffs Initiative adjoining Newport Bay and/or Pacific Ocean was (2831) presented with a copy o_fa proposed ordinance,._ being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADDING CHAPTER 20.90 ENTITLED, "STREET DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS ON BLUFFS ADJOINING NEWPORT BAY AND/OR PACIFIC OCEAN," TO TITLE 20 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE. Volume 32 - Page 175 C%Y OF NEWPORT BACH COUNCILMEN L� SGti �i�t l�tP'P ,y96 sin s Rnll CALL S' July 11, 1978 MINUTES INDEX Ayes x x x A vote was taken on Councilman Heather's motion, Noes x x x x which motion failed. A vote was taken to determine whether Allan Beek Ping or William Morris would be appointed as a member Coman Green x x x x of the Planning Commission to fill the unexpired White x x x term of Jacqueline Heather ending June 30, 1979, and Allan Beek was appointed. David Shores and Helen McLaughlin were considered Ping to fill the unexpired term of Paul L. Hummel Coman ending June 30, 1980. Green x The City Clerk assigned the green light to David White x x x x x Shores and the white light to Helen McLaughlin, and Helen McLaughlin was appointed. David Henley and Lou Dunning were considered to Bd of fill the expired term of Thomas P. Morgan on the Library Board of Library Trustees. Trustees Green x x x x x x e green light was assigned to David Henley and White x th white light to Lou Dunning, and David Henley was ppointed. Patri a Gibbs and Gloria Shoemaker were considered City Arts to fit the expired term of Bill Tappan on the Coman City Ar Commission. Green x x The green ight was assigned to Patricia Gibbs and White x x x x x the white 1 ht to Gloria Shoemaker, and Gloria Shoemaker we appointed. Madeline Rose d Carol Lynn Smith were considered City Arta to fill the exp ed term of Thomas Garver on the Coman City Arts Commie on. Green x x x x x x x The green light was assigned to Madeline Rose and White the white light to rol Lynn Smith, and Madeline Rose was appointed. Michael Mitchell and Al ander Bowie were con- Civil sidered to fill the expi d term of Julian Ertx on Service the Civil Service Board. Board Green x x x x x The green light was assigne to Michael Mitchell White x x and the white light to Alexan er Bowie, and Michael Mitchell was appointed Stanford Green and Walter Ziglar ere considered PB&R to fill the expired term of James ood on the Coman Parka, Beaches and Recreation Comm sion. Green x x x x The green light was assigned to Stan rd Green and White x x x the white light to Walter Ziglar, and tanford Green was appointed. Brenda Ross and Richard Handy were consid ed to PB&R fill the expired term of Brenda Roes on th Parks, Coman Beaches and Recreation Commission. Green x x x x x x x The green light was assigned to Brenda Ross an White the white light to Richard Handy, and Brenda Ro a was reappointed. Volume 32 - Page 174 ' 4 , CIPY OF NEWPORT BESH COUNCILMEN MINUTES ROLL CALL (PRp July 11, 1978 INDEX Dr. Gene Atherton, originator of the initiative petition, addressed the Council and urged adoption of the ordinance. Keith Greer, representing The Irvine Company, and Bill Ficker addressed the Council and opposed adoption of the ordinance. Motion x Mayor Pro Tem Williams made a motion to accept the City Clerk-'s Certi cate of Su iciency and _ to postpone' any action regarding an elect on�to August 14, 1919'. - --� Mayor Pro Tem. Williams made the following state- ment for the record: "I am very concerned that an individual has gone out and collected sufficient signatures for an initiative without having been involved with the give-and-take of discussions with officials and staff of the City that is to be affected by it. I believe the ongoing efforts of this City and The Irvine Company to avoid bluff problems of the past and provide public access to and use of bluff tops are more than adequate and provide more flexible planning opportunities than the initiative." Mayor Ryckoff asked that the motion be amended to also direct the staff to prepare a policy, and ordinance if needed, and General Plan change as required, to implement the basic principles of Dr. Atherton's ordinance, which amendment was accepted by the maker of the motion. Councilman Heather stated for the record her concern that an initiative adopted by the people would be exempted from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, which would be inappropriate since it would require a roadway at the bluff's edge. Ayes x x x x x x x A vote was taken on Mayor Pro Tem. Williams' motion, wfiich mot on carr e . 3. A report was presented from the Public Works Counc Department regarding an amendment to Council P cy Policy F-3 pertaining to the establishment of a (430F) City sewer use fee. Motion x The amendment to Council Policy F-3 Sewer System x x'x x x x Funding" was approved. Noes Noea x 4. A report was presen d rom the Public Works Water & Department regard ng Water and Sewer Main Replace- Sewer Main ment across -Grand Canal, Balboa Island, Contract Replcmnt No. 9.59' Grand Canal BI Motion x The work on the water main crossing was accepted; (2881) Ayes x x x x x the staff was authorized to make payment of the / 6?5,.e ten percent retention in 35 days; and deferral of the sewer main crossing construction until after ✓ / Labor Day was approved. Volume 32 - Page 176 .. Y . CRY OF NEWPORT BACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES ROLL CALL ;d'� July 11, 1978 INDEX 5. A letter from Roger Vandegrift, 112 Amethyst, re- BI Circu- questing reconsideration of the Balboa Island lation traffic plan was presented. Plan (2955) Motion x Mayor Ryckoff made a motion to postpone to September 25, 1978. The following people addressed the Council and opposed the traffic plan: Lewis Akerman, Jack Reeder, Charles Lehman and Bob Yardley. Motion x Councilman McInnis made a substitute motion to Ayes x x x x x x er receive the letter and order it filed, which Noes x motion carried. CONS iT CALBNDAR: Motion x The fol owing actions were approved by one motion Ayes x x x x x x x affairmi the actions on the Consent Calendar: 1. There ere no ordinances for introduction. 2. The full ing resolutions were adopted: (a) Resol tion No. 9400.authorizing the Mayor Insurance and Ci Clerk to execute an Amendment to R-9400 Agreeme between the City of Newport Beach (390F) and R. L. Kautz 6 Co. in connection with self•insu nee administration services. (A report fr the City Attorney) (b) Removed from a Consent Calendar. (c) Removed from th Consent Calendar. (d) Resolution No. 94 authorizing the Mayor Traffic and City Clerk to acute a Cooperative Signals Financing Agreement etween the City of Irvine Av Newport Beach and the County of Orange in R-9401 connection with the mo fication of the (2997) traffic signals on Irvi'hp Avenue at the intersections of Mesa Dr a and University Drive -Del Mar Avenue (C-2 0). (A report from the Public Works Depa went) c 3. The following communications were_�,eferred as indicated: (a) To Mayor for preparation of procmation, a Proclamatior letter from Newport -Balboa Rotary lub (20) asking that the City be made a "Fodk Way Test City." (Copies mailed to Council) (b) To staff for reply, a letter from Ralph, Admin Bonds regarding City administration pro4, Procedures cedures. (Copies mailed to Council) (20) (c) To staff for reply, a letter from Mrs. Roy Animal Woolsey suggesting a possible means for Control enforcement of the dog litter ordinance. (862) (Copies mailed to Council) Volume 32 - Page 177 C CERTIFICATE OF RESULT OFF EXAMINATION OF PETITION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) ss COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, DORIS GEORGE, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, HEREBY CERTIFY that an Initiative Petition requesting the adoption of an ordinance, being, "AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING DEDICATION OF STREETS IN SUBDIVISIONS) ON BLUFF(S) ADJOINING NEWPORT BAY AND/OR PACIFIC OCEAN" was filed in my office. The Petition, consisting of 543 sections, containing 8, 555 total signatures and requesting a special election, was filed in my office on May 22, 1978. There were 41, 878 registered voters in the City of Newport Beach as certified to the Secretary of State by the County Clerk of Orange County on May 16, 1978, and 15% of said number of registered voters is 6,282, the percentage required'by Section 4010 of the California Elections Code for a valid Initiative P-tition to qualify foi a special election if the petition has sufficient signatures and requests a special election. I I FURTHER CERTIFY that I examined the signatures of said Petition against the signatures on the original Affidavits of Registration on file with the County of Orange, and ascertained that at least 1576 of the Petition signatures are genuine signatures of registered, qualified voters of the City as of the date of filing the Petition as required in Section 4009 of the Elections Code. THEREFORE, I FURTHER CERTIFY that said Petition is sufficient, as to the number of signatures required for an Initiative' Petition as provided for in Chapter 3, Article I, Section 4010 of the California Elections Code. Witness my hand and seal this 6th day of July, 1978. City Clerk City.of Newport Beach C ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADDING CHAPTER 20.90 ENTITLED "STREET DEDICA- TION REQUIREMENTS ON BLUFFS ADJOINING NEWPORT BAY AND/OR THE PACIFIC OCEAN" Tb TITLE 20 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE The City Council of the City of Newport Beach DOES ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 20.90 is added to the Newport Beach Municipal Code to read: "CHAPTER 20.90 STREET DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS ON BLUFFS ADJOINING NEWPORT BAY AND/OR THE PACIFIC OCEAN Sections: 20.90.010 Finding. 20.90.020 Requirement. 20.90.030 Exceptions. 20.90.040 Definitions. 20.90.010 Finding. The people of the City of Newport Beach hereby find and declare that access to that portion of any subdivision on a bluff adjoining Newport Bay and/or the Pacific Ocean shall be between the dwelling units and the edge of the bluff adjoining Newport Bay and/or the Pacific Ocean in order to provide adequate access to Newport Bay and/or the Pacific Ocean, to preserve the integrity of the coastline and its land forms, and to minimize hazards from erosion of the bluffs' edge. 20.90.020 Requirement. Whenever any subdivision (as defined in the State Subdivision Map Act) of previously unsub- divided land is situated on a. bluff that adjoins Newport Bay and/or the Pacific Ocean with or without a road at the foot of the bluff, and is bounded on any side or in any way by that ;Y portion of the bluff which adjoins Newport Bay and/or the Pacific Ocean, there shall be dedicated upon and by such map or plat a street along that portion of the bluff which adjoins Newport Bay and/or the Pacific Ocean between all the dwelling units and the edge of the bluff adjoining Newport -Bay and/or the Pacific ocean, and all streets of the subdivision leading to said street from the nearest dedicated main arterial street. Said street between the dwelling units.and the edge of the bluff adjoining Newport Bay and/or the Pacific Ocean shall be situated not less than 25 feet from the waterside edge of undiminished bluff. Local park dedication for the subdivision shall be applied to the land between said street and the waterside bluff edge. 20.90.030 Exceptions. Exceptions to this Chapter may be granted by a 2/3 majority of the City Council for any sub- division or portion thereof which is situated on: (1) Any bluff area adjoining Newport Bay and/or the Pacific ocean whose edge is within 560 feet of Dover Drive, Irvine Avenue, Jamboree Road and/or the Pacific Coast Highway. (2) Any bluff whose edge adjoining Newport Bay is within 460 feet of a bluff edge adjoining Dover Drive. _ (3) Any bluff area between East Bluff Park and immediately neighboring subdivision and Newport Bay. (4) Any bluff area adjoining Newport Bay, which is situated between Newport Bay and Mesa Drive. 20.90.040 Definitions. (1) Bluffs are those land forms with nearly hori- zontal areas above and below a gradient greater than the natural angle of repose of the least consolidated soil or sediment comprising any part of the bluff or a 45 degree angle from the horizontal, whichever is less, with a total vertical rise of at least 30 feet from the horizontal plane at the base of the bluff. C (2) Undiminished bluff is one whose vertical rise above the base of the bluff has not been reduced. r SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be published once in =\. the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall be effective -2- • 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 llth day of July , 1978, and was adopted on the day of , 1978, by the,following vote, to wit: ATTEST: City Clerk . AYES NOES ABSENT Mayor DDO/cr 7/5/78 -3- , Planning Commission Sting June 15, 1978 Item No. 3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH June 9, 1978 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Amendment No. 507 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code establishing regulations for developments located on or adjacent to bluffs, to include building setbacks from the edge of bluffs and other development standards. INITIATED BY: City of Newpor♦; Beach Background The Planning Commission discussed the question of bluff development regulations at a number of study session meetings, and conducted a public hearing on a proposed bluff ordinance at the meeting of April 20, 1978. This matter was continued to allow staff to gather additional information and to make suggested revisions to the draft ordinance. The approach to bluff development regulation contemplated here is based on four general goals: 1) To assure that development located near bluffs is designed in a manner which is sensitive to the aesthetic and scenic qualities of bluff areas. 2) To ensure public safety and structural integrity with respect to bluff development. 3) To ensure stability of slopes through application of mitigation measures. 4) To preserve public views where feasible. Additional Information - Requested by Planning Commission The Planning Commission at the April 20, 1978 public hearing requested the following: 1) That separate approaches be developed for dealing with the smaller already -subdivided lots versus the large undeveloped parcels around the Upper Bay. 2) That an estimate of the number of lots potentially affected by such regulations be made. 3) That the ordinance include a specific definition of the term "bluff." 4) That specific setback requirements or angle of repose criteria be incorporated into the design standards, with a "variance" procedure established, to eliminate uncertainty regarding standards to be applied. Item No. 3 FILE COPY DO NOT RE1470VE 0 T0: Planning Commission - 2. 5) That public safety considerations be made more explicit in the ordinance. The information requested is presented and discussed below. Alternative Approaches to Bluff Regulations At the previous public hearing it was suggested that separate approaches to bluff regulation were needed for small lot developments in the older residential areas versus the large vacant P-C parcels, such as the Castaways site and Newporter North site. For new developments and additions to existing developments on already - subdivided lots, it is suggested that the general approach set forth in the draft ordinance would be appropriate. According to this approach, a review of site plans for bluff development would be required prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, with specific design standards established. The Planning Commission in reviewing the development application would have the authority to impose conditions or mitigation measures to achieve the purpose of the bluff ordinance. For development on the major vacant parcels adjacent to the Upper Bay, substantially more planning or design options are available than for the small -lot developments. These parcels are included in the Planned Community District, which means that the P-C development plans submitted for City approval can be precisely designed to account for the geologic conditions, locational factors, and public view potential peculiar to each site. Because of the degree of discretionary authority the City has in these cases (through the review of EIR's, P-C plans, and tract maps) it is suggested that the draft ordinance not apply to the P-C District. As an alternative to regulations by ordinance the Planning Commission might consider amending the General Plan to establish a set of policies or guidelines to be applied to the major bluff sites as follows: "Development of Bluff Sites Adjacent to the Upper Bay The City of Newport Beach finds that the bluffs adjacent to the Upper Bay represent a significant scenic and environmental resource. In order to preserve these unique landforms,developments proposed to be located in bluffs areas shall be subject to the following policies: 1) Grading, cutting, and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be minimized in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas. ' 2) To promote public safety, a geologic study shall be performed for each site to determine areas of potential instability. The bluffs areas of potential hazard or instability shall be indicated on maps as part of any P-C development plan. 3) As a general guideline, the minimum setback from the edge of a bluff should be 40 feet, consistant with Coastal Commission guidelines. Setback standards may be modified in the review of proposed development on the basis of results of the geologic study. 4) The location and design of a proposal project shall take into account public view potential. 5) Proposed development shall take into account potential groundwater problems and incorporate measures to minimize and control the effects of erosion and urban runoff." If desired, the Planning Commission could consider such an amendment as part of the General Plan Review. A separate public notice would be required before formal consideration. Item No TO: Planning Comm fission - 3. Affected Properties The draft ordinance, if applied to new development and additions to existing development on already -subdivided lots, could affect 13 vacant single family lots and roughly 630 developed lots. A list of vacant lots affected is attached. The major vacant sites near the Upper Bay Bluffs include the following: Castaways Westbay Newport North Bayview Landing The Cal Trans West parcel is an additional major bluff site which could be subject to regulations through P-C development plan review at such time as any development is proposed. Councilman Hummel, in discussions wtth staff, has suggested that the slopes adjacent to Bayside Drive east of Carnation Avenue be subject to regulation. Staff has included this area on t'he Bluff Area Map for the Planning Commission's consideration. Definition of "Bluff" In the previous staff memo (attached), it was proposed to identify those bluff areas subejct to regulation by adopting a bluff area map as part of the ordinance. It was suggested that a precise definition of the term "bluff" should be included in the ordinance also, in order to avoid any confusion as to which areas would be subject to regulation. The previous bl.uff area map was based on slopes oriented toward the ocean or Upper Bay having a slope of 20 degrees or greater. The text of the draft ordinance could be revised as follows: "DEFINITION OF BLUFF AREAS. As used in this Chapter, bluff areas shall be defined as landforms on-ented toward the ocean or Upper Bay having a slope of 20 degrees or greater as indicated generally on the map entitled "Bluff Areas" adopted and made a part of this ordinance by reference." The- 20 degree criterion used in the above definition represents roughly a 3 to 1 slope. This definition would include all of those slope areas which are normally thought of as "bluffs." Specific Setback Requirements The bluff ordinance as previously drafted enabled the Planning Commission in reviewing a development application, to establish a setback from the edge of the bluff, but did not establish a specific setback distance. To establish a specific setback requirement applicable to already -subdivided lots, the following wording is suggested: "Any structure subject to this chapter shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of a bluff. Such setback standard may be modified or waived in the review of a proposed project on the basis of a geologic study or where the P-C finds that such a setback standard imposes unreasonable hard- ship due to the size, shape or orientation of the subject lot. The Coastal Commission uses a 25 foot setback guideline in the review of applications for Bluff development. In actual practice, a lesser standard is commonly applied to smaller lots on a case by case basis. Staff has suggested a 10 foot setback here for discussion purposes. Even a 10 foot setback, if strictly applied, would preclude development on most of the vacant lots surveyed. Item No. 3 0 0 TO: Planning Commission - 4. As an alternative, the setback distance could be established on the basis of an imaginary line drawn at a 33 degree angle from the toe of the bluff. A diagram attached illustrates this approach, Public Safety Considerations The draft ordinance (copy attached) has been revised to refer to pubcli safety considerations in the sections dealing with intent of the ordinance and in the design standards section. Suggested Action If desired, (a) refer back to staff for further study or revisions, or (b) adopt Resolution No. recommending to the City Council that Amendment No. 501 be adopted, including revisions desired. If the Planning Commission wishes to amend the General Plan with respect to bluffs as suggested above, a separate public notice will be prepared. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR Da-�'dlmomohowski Advance Planning --Administrator DO/dt Attachments: 1 Revised Ordinance 2 List of properties affected 3 Slope setback diagram 4 Previous staff memo Item No. r� (Revised June 8, 1978) Chapter 20.04 BLUFF DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Sections: 20.04.010 Intent 20.04.020 Definition of Bluff Areas 20.04.030 Application 20.04.040 Planning Commission Review Required 20.04.050 Development Standards for Bluff Areas 20.04.060 Action by the Planning Commission 20.04.070 Appeal to the City Council 20.04.080 Action by the City Council 20'.04.090 Fee 20.04.010 INTENT. The City of Newport Beach finds that coastal bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource. In order to preserve these unique geological features, and the scenic value, which these landforms provide, and in order to promote the pp__ubl��ic health and safety, it is the intent of this chapter that new envelopment an alterations or additions to existing developments be regulated through the application of bluff development standards as set forth herein. 20.04.020 DEFINITION OF BLUFF AREAS. As used in this chapter, bluff areas shall be defined as landforms oriented toward the ocean or Upper Bay having a slope of 20 degrees or greater. Such areas having a slope of 20 degrees or greater are indicated generally on the map entitled "Bluff Areas" adopted and made a part of this ordinance by reference. 20.04.030 APPLICATION. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to new developments and alterations or additions to existing developments in the R-A, R-1, R-1.5, R-2, R-3, R-4, and "B-" Combining Districts. In cases of emergency, where property is imperiled, a permit for emergency repairs or construction may be issued at the discretion of the Director of Community Development, consistent with the public safety and welfare. 20.04.040 PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW REQUIRED. Any development or alteration of land occurring on property identified as a bluff area as defined in Section 20.04.020 shall be subject to Bluff Development Review by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of any building permit or grading permit, to determine the consistency of such development with the standards set forth herein. 20.04.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR BLUFF AREAS. In order to carry out the purposes of this chapter, the following standards shall apply in the review of proposed development subject to this chapter: (a) Grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges in connection with development shall be minimized 4 in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas. Grading, or other alteration of natural landforms may be permitted where the Planning Commission in its review of a proposed development determines that the grading plan is consistent with the intent and purposes of this chapter. (c) In areas subject to potential slope instability, the Planning Commission may require the preparation of a soils or geologic report to assist in evaluating the location and design of a proposed project. (d) Where feasible, the location and design of a proposed project shall minimize the interruption of public views on or over bluff areas. (e) The design of development shall incorporate measures to minimize and control the effects of erosion and urban runoff. (f) The design of development shall take into account potential groundwater problems. 20.04.060 ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. If all applicable standards established by this ordinance are met, the Planning Commission shall approve the proposed development. Conditions may be applied as appropriate when the proposed development does not comply with applicable standards and shall be such as to bring said development into conformity. If the development is disapproved, the Planning Commission shall specify the standard or standards that are not met. A Bluff Development Review decision of the Planning Commission shall be subject to review by the City Council either by appeal, or upon its own motion, or upon the request of the Commission. The action of the Commission on any Bluff Development Review shall be final and effective twenty-one (21) days following the Commission action thereon unless, within the twenty-one (21) day appeal period an appeal in writing has been filed by the applicant, the Commission has requested a review of its decision, or unless the City Council, not more than twenty-one (21) days after the Commission action, on its own motion, elects to review and act on the action of the Commission, unless the applicant consents to an extension of time. The City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision. Such action by the City Council shall be final. 20.04,070 APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. Any Site Plan Review decision of the Commission may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant at any time within twenty-one (21) days after the date of the Commission decision. An appeal to the City Council shall be taken by filing a letter of appeal in duplicate, with the Department of I E Community Development. Such letter shall set forth the grounds upon which the appeal is based. 20.04.080 ACTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL. An appeal shall be heard and acted on by the City Council within thirty (30) days after the Commission action, unless the applicant consents to an extension of time. The City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Commission. Such action by the City Council shall be final. 20.04.090 FEE. The applicant shall pay a fee as established by Resolution of the City Council to the City with each application. BLUFF AREAS IAdopt*d by Ord. No.-1 1,.�� .A�. •�` �� \.�_ ��, .,.�.� ,'� f(�r''�`- �' ' Jam_ -,,z_ . ILI Tip IVA 52, MW .� '=: ��lS r�"�` .ie. �ay„� f�-=�a-(•,' !.r \a� ` y '`��,.�.,wT.r' /\ ea � % L f��. ,{`t �. �i><<•►�sd ""'V.•.�R��.: �T �lrt f t�•^o,s R.`�� A �•st / _.!'� !; � �. \��c A� 1`. r• r•�;_F e _ �i• }t ��=ems. __ ?�"�'Ri 7s . - -- - _ _j ..` .� . i ' i•�yf ,.. �: •I. - �LIu �' .see - r 4i, ttltili�iiiiia3 �-�a'.•^ 2: (j��_ may . a �t" .�. �� - -. - . CA - u E Vacant Lots Affected Bluff Ordinance 1. 206 La Jolla Drive 2. 2919 Cliff Drive 3. 215 Riverside Drive 4. 2317 Cliff Drive 5. 2505 Cliff Drive 6. 2205 Pacific Drive 7. 2333 Pacific Drive 8. 3425 Ocean Blvd. 9. 3523 Ocean Blvd. 10. 3530 Ocean Blvd. 11. 3036 Breakers Drive (3 lots) Newport Heights Newport Heights Newport Heights Newport Heights Newport Heights Corona del Mar Corona del Mar Corona del Mar Corona del Mar Corona del Mar Corona del Mar 5LOM ANd.L TOE OF 9"fF 6 1] 0 139 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 14, 1978 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Amendment No. 507 (Public Hearing) Background April 20, 1978 Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code establishing regulations for developments located on or adjacent to bluffs, to include building setbacks from the edge of bluffs, and other development standards. At previous study session meetings, the Planning Commission received reports from staff regarding development regulations for bluffs or blufftops. Existing City standards, Coastal Commission regulations, and possible alternative approaches to bluff preservation were examined. At the Planning Commission meeting of March 16, 1978, staff distributed a very preliminary draft ordinance dealing with bluff development regulations which could be adopted as an amendment to the zoning code. The Planning Commission set this matter for public hearing. A revised draft ordinance has been prepared and is attached for the Planning Commission's consideration. Also attached are previous staff memos on this subject. Bluff Ordinance Consistent with adopted General Plan policies as stated in the Recreation and Open Space Element, the draft ordinance incorporates the finding that coastal bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource. And therefore, the purpose of the•amendment Is to preserve the scenic value of the bluffs through the establishment of regulations for new development and alterations to existing development. The draft ordinance would require formal Planning Commission review of any development proposed to occur on or adjacent to a bluff area. Such review would be similar in nature to Site Plan Review which is required for developments in areas designated for a Specific Area Plan. Those bluff areas subject to this regulation would be indicated on a "Bluff Areas Map" to be adopted by reference as part of the ordinance. This approach, it seems, would be the easiest to administer, in that cumbersome technical or mathematical definitions, such as used by the Coastal Commission, would be avoided. Generally, those areas indicated on the attached Bluff Areas Map are oriented toward the coast or Upper Bay and have a slope greater than 20 degrees. The proposed standards to be used in the review of development subject to this ordinance are as follows: (a) Grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges in connection with development shall be minimized in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas. Grading, or other alteration of natural landforms may be permitted where the Planning Commission in its review of a proposed development determines that the grading plan is consistent with the intent and purposes of this chapter. 0 koL TO: Planning Commission - 2 (b) Structures or visible accessory improvements shall be located and designed so as to preserve the integrity of bluff faces or bluff edges. The Planning Commission may establish a building setback from the bluff face or bluff edge where such setback is determined to be necessary to carry out the intent of this chapter. (c) In areas subject to potential slope instability, the Planning Commission may require the preparation of a soils or geologic report to assist in evaluating the location and design of a proposed project. (d) Where feasible, the location and design of a proposed project shall minimize the interruption of public views on or over bluff areas. (e) The design of development shall incorporate measures to minimize and control the effects of erosion and urban runoff. (f) The design of development shall take into account potential groundwater problems. The draft ordinance gives the Planning Commission the option of applying conditions to its approval to assure compliance with the intent of the ordinance. As presently drafted, any action by the Planning Commission would be subject to normal appeal procedures. Effect of Ordinance The approach implied in the draft ordinance is intended to be applicable to small -lot developments in the residentially -zoned areas of the City which are developed nearly to capacity at present, and also to the major undeveloped parcels which will require approval of P-C development plans. In connection with the General Plan Review, the Planning Commission may wish to include more -specific language relating to bluff preservation (based on the proposed bluff development standards) in the text of the Land Use Element of Recreation and Open Space Element. Suggested Action If desired, hold hearing; approve draft ordinance or direct staff to make revisions; adopt Resolution No. recommending to the City Council that Amendment No. 507 dealing�th Bluff Development Regulations be adopted. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R, V, Hogan, Director BY Davki Advance Planning Administrator DD:jmb Attachments: 1) Draft Ordinance 2) Previous Staff Memo Chapter 20.04 BLUFF DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Sections: 20.04.010 Intent 20.04.020 Definition of Bluff Areas 20.04.030 Application 20.04.040 Planning Commission Review Required 20.04.050 Development Standards for Bluff Areas 20.04.060 Existing Structures and Uses 20.64.070 Action by the Planning Commission 20.04.080 Appeal to the City Council 20.04.090 Action by the City Council 20.04.100 Fee DRAFT 20.04.010 INTENT. The City of Newport Beach finds that coastal bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource. In order to preserve these unique geological features, and the scenic value which these landforms provide, it is the intent of this chapter. that new development and alterations or additions to existing developments be regulated through the application of bluff development standards as set forth herein. 20.04.020 DEFINITION OF BLUFF AREAS. As used in this chapter, bluff areas subject to this ordinance shall be defined as those areas indicated on the Map entitled "Bluff Areas" adopted and made a part of this ordinance by reference. 20.04.030 APPLICATION. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to new developments and alterations or additions to existing developments in the R-A, R-1, R-1.5, R-2, R-3, R-4, and "B-" Combining Districts. For projects in any Planned Community District subject to this chapter, the Development Standards for Bluff Areas set forth in Section 20.04.050 shall be applied in connection with the review of the Planned Community Development Plan, or amendments thereto, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.51. In cases of emergency, where property is imperiled, a permit for emergency repairs or construction may be issued at the discretion of the Director of Community Development, consistent with the public safety and welfare. 20.04.040 PLANNING COMMISSLON REVIEW REQUIRED. Any development or alteration of land occurring on property identified on the Map entitled "Bluff Areas" shall be subject to Bluff Development Review by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of any building permit or grading permit, to determine the consistency of such development with the standards set forth herein. 20.04.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR BLUFF AREAS. In order to carry out the purposes of this chapter, the following standards shall apply in the review of proposed development subject to this chapter: (a) Grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges in connection with development shall be minimized 0 \N . in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas. Grading, or other alteration of natural landforms may be permitted where the Planning Commission in its review of a proposed development determines that the grading plan is consistent with the intent and purposes of this chapter, (b) Structures or visible accessory improvements shall be located and designed so as to preserve the integrity of bluff faces or bluff edges. The Planning Commission may establish a building setback from the bluff face or, bluff edge where such setback is determined to be necessary to carry out the intent of this chapter. (c) In areas subject to potential slope instability, the Planning Commission may require the preparation of a soils or geologic report to assist in evaluating the location and design of a proposed project. (d) Where feasible, the location and design of a proposed project shall minimize the interruption of public views on or over bluff areas. (e) The design of development shall incorporate measures to minimize and control the effects of erosion and urban runoff. (f) The design of development shall take into account potential groundwater problems. 20.04.060 EXISTING STRUCTURES AND USES. Alterations or improvements to existing structures requiring a building or grading permit and located in designated bluff areas shall be subject, where feasible, to the standards specified in Section 20.04.050 above. 20.04.070 ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. If all applicable standards established by this ordinance are met, the Planning Commission shall approve the proposed development. Conditions may be applied as appropriate when the proposed development does not comply with applicable standards and shall be such as to bring said development into conformity. If the development is disapproved, the Planning Commission shall specify the standard or standards that are not met. A Bluff Development Review decision of the Planning Commission shall be subject to review by the City Council either by appeal, or upon its own motion, or upon the request of the Commission. The action of the Commission on any Bluff Development Review shall be final and effective twenty-one (21) days following the Commission action thereon unless, within the twenty-one (21) day appeal period an appeal in writing has been filed by the applicant, the Commission has requested a review of its decision, or unless the City Council, not more than twenty-one (21) days after the Commission action, on its own motion, elects to review and act on the action of the Commission, unless the applicant consents to an extension of time. The City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision. Such action by the City Council shall be final. 20,04.080 APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. Any Site Plan Review decision of the Commission may be appealed to the City Council by the 16 applicant at any time within twenty-one (21) days after the date of the Commission decision. An appeal to the City Council shall be taken by filing a letter of appeal in duplicate, with the Department of Community Development. Such letter shall set forth the grounds upon which the appeal is based. 20.04.090 ACTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL. An appeal shall be heard and acted on by the City Council within thirty (30) days after the Commission action, unless the applicant consents to an extension of time. The City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Commission. Such action by the City Council shall be final. 20.04.100 FEE. The applicant shalt pay a fee as established by Resolution of the City Council to the City with each application. . l • \ Ali a \`a � _� - __ _. BLUFF AREAS ' z= ;." ♦ -� _ - A (Adopted by Ord. No._I Nt � `� '✓ Y • �♦��.`1 i i., ; ,,,fir � :. - I � S- �- �' It • �. �• .L .r Carat '�� n,-.. f' �-., v i ` tiS.. K4r- -!.. �' /� 'U 1 ��''±1� .�': .i s - �i' ��.-`._ _ - ri tit �• :it s � — � -- t � s'f• �+, y y4-a yy, - spa`:`--.�J•c-.. �. "\r \ .' •�_ �'�..`. - iif�'�� /ji�ir•� i.=� �sf; � _ a3'.R.i '� t\fit+ �iiFF _ - ` _ S;".. `� � E• . �.r e'^ �Svr A . rr>. ^! C I .O " C V,, Planning Commission Study Session March 2, 1978 Study Session Item No. 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 24, 1978 ' TU: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Development Regulations for Bluffs or Blufftops Background At the study session meeting of February 16, 1978, the Planning Commis- sion requested staff to investigate possible alternative approaches to regulating development on or near bluffs. There are extensive bluff areas in the City which represent a significant scenic resource, and at the same time pose considerable development problems in terms of slope stability and erosion control. A map illustrating the locations of bluffs and other significant natural landforms is attached. This report will describe existing City regulations pertaining to bluffs, and the relationship of Coastal Commission regulations dealing with natural landforms. Also, discussed here are possible approaches to bluff preservation involving revisions to City codes and development standards. Existing City_ReguIations Lxisting City codes and the General Plan do not prohibit development on or near a blufftop or bluff face. However, there are specific struc- tural requirements and mitigation measures which are applied through the normal development review process. Chapter 70 of the Building Code - Excavation and Grading - establishes minimum setback standards from the top or toe of a bluff which vary according to the height of the slope. Retaining walls or footings may be designed to reduce or even eliminate the setback requirement for a structure, when approved by the Building Official, thus allowing con- struction on the face of the bluff or on the immediate top of the bluff The Zoning Ordinance does not presently specify setback requirements or other design standards for bluff development - with the exception of Section 20.10.030 which indicates that where a residential building is situated to overlook a bluff the property line adjacent to the street may be considered the rear property line for setback purposes. The Public Safety Element of the General Plan contains specific refer- ences to bluff development in terms of seismic and geologic hazards. In relation to the City's adopted risk reduction program, the Public Safety Element (page 44) requires mitigation of potential hazards during development review as follows: "The City shall require Environmental Impact Reports for any de- velopment within areas of natural physical hazard, as defined in this Element; said E.I.R.'s to include detailed assessment of the hazards and a comprehensive mitigation program." In terms of geologic hazards, the Public Safety Element states the following policies: N:. TO: Planning Commission - 2 "(a) The City shall adopt a new grading ordinance, includ- ing more -stringent erosion and siltation control and geologic hazard mitigation requirements. "(b) The City shall require geologic and seismic studies as an integral portion of all Environmental Impact Reports with detailed mitigation measures for any development in areas of high potential hazards." Areas of the City subject to such geologic hazards are indicated on the maps attached. The Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan (Page 33) deals with natural bluff areas as follows: "NATURAL BLUFF AREAS As the major topographical feature in the City, the natural bluffs provide a sense of continuity (in that they continue, with only a few interruptions, from Nest Newport to Corona del Mar) and also a sense of 'place' or 'identity' (since this feature is rather unique among cities). These bluffs also contain many unique geological features# such as the rock outcroppings at Corona del Mar and the cliffs at Dover Shores. In terms of scenic value$, these bluffs are the most notable features in the City, other than the beach and water areas. In most cases the bluffs will be left in their natural state; however, in some cases the appearance of the bluffs should be enhanced, and erosion reduced, through natural -appearing plantings, using native plant materials as much as possible. Any development which would destroy the scenic qualities of these bluffs should be prohibited." In summary, the existing City regulations dealing with bluff develop- ment are directed more toward public safety and structural considera- tions than toward aesthetic concerns or protection of scenic resources. The Recreation and Open Space Element does state that development which would diminish the scenic value of bluffs should be prohibited, but no specific regulatory mechanism is established. Coastal Commission Regulations Development standards for coastal bluffs promulgated by the State and Regional Coastal Commissions are described in the Planning Commission memo attached (February 9, 1978). In general, the State Commission's standards require that alteration Of natural landforms be minimized. The more -stringent Regional Commission Guidelines establish a twenty- five foot minimum setback from the bluff edge, effectively prohibiting development on the bluff face. Possible._Akproaches to City Regulation of Bluffs In developing an approach to regulating construction on or near bluff areas, it might be useful to distinguish between two general classes of projects, as follows: 1) Development on major vacant sites adjacent to bluffs, requiring further discretionary approvals, such as General Plan Amendment, P-C development plan; or use 'permit. 2) Development on smaller lots adjacent to bluffs in already -developed areas of the City, normally requiring only approval of building permit and possibly grading permit. \9. ltt; Planning Commission - 3 Itltit ls Adjacent to Ma-L Sites the major vacant sites adjacent to coastal bluffs include the follow- ing: Beeco Property West Newport CALTRANS Property West Newport Castaways Site Westbay Site Land Trade Remnant (Bluffs) Newporter North Site Bayview Landing (Holiday Harbor) Site As part of the processing of tract maps and P-C development plans for these major sites, provisions for setbacks from the bluff edge, dedi- cation of scenic drives and viewpoints could be made as conditions of approval. In this regard, it might be desirable to establish specific criteria through amendments to the General Plan., as part of the'P-C development standards, or through amendments to the City Council Policy Manual. The Atherton Initiative Petition related to blufftop dedication would require major developers to dedicate a public roadway adjacent to coastal bluffs, with such roadways set back a minimum of twenty-five feet from the bluff edge. The advantage of an approach of this sort is that problems of drainage, erosion and groundwater associated with bluff development could be controlled through the design of the road- way and through controls on the use of open areas near the bluff edge. Also development on the face of the bluffs would be precluded. A major disadvantage of the initiative approach, as proposed, is that the City would assume substantial liabilities in connection with the main- tenance of landforms with serious instability problems. Also it is unclear at this point as to whether blufftop dedication can be applied for credit against the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance. This could result in a double dedication requirement. As a minimum, amendments clarify design standards taining to the acceptance Bluffs in Developed Areas to existing codes and policies would need to and requirements for geologic analysis per - of bluff dedication by the City. Staff is in the process of preparing an inventory of vacant parcels adjacent to bluffs in the predominantly developed areas of.the City. Sites falling into this category include the following: a) Residential lots adjacent to Cliff Drive. b Residential lots adjacent to Bayside Drive. c) Residential lots adjacent to Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar. Bluff protection in these areas might be approached through the estab- lishment of blufftop setback standards as an amendment to the zoning ordinance. It should be recognized, however, that in many of these cases, the edge of the bluff is located in close proximity to the public. street - meaning that even minimal setback standards might preclude development of such parcels. The establishment of bluff setback requirements in some cases would necessitate public acquisition of properties as open space. An additional concern relates to the creation of nonconforming uses as a result of bluff development standards. A satisfactory method of dealing with replacement, enlargement or modi- fication of existing structures located in bluff areas needs to be incorporated into any amendment dealing with bluff •protection. if bluff development standards are to be established, it is suggested that the areas subject to such control be specifically identified on Districting Maps to avoid problems of defining complex topographical conditions such as bluff edges and natural grade. i 0 TO: Planning Commission - 4 Sugyested Action If desired, direct staff to prepare appropriate amendments to the atnanfu0turenPlanningGeneral Commission publicor ihearing�l to be considered DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director DAVID J. DMGH K Advance Planning Administrator DJD/kk Attachments: 1 Bluff areas and natural 2 Seismic hazard areas 3 Geologic hazard areas 4 Planning Commission memo landform map on Coastal regulations tib 'AO- PLU F AKeAS AHD NATURAL LAND fowMy r ©l • �;• •��1'��`lll� }�itt;:� � �.itq Ff .�. ' laaa+ac �` :.`,,'_ .�'::•.r W NEWPORT Bfi4a-1'�' F _/ -- SLOPE STABI-tTY •'t _ _ _ _'^ - � : • r----' We 2 `� - �� l ' '�• .6 is � i ,17°' _ `,•R„y.! � � yet; '. , .(max- .�� S _�_ �-` ��\ �• i � ~ . 1I f7 " !_•' �: �%�r:j', f��`e � _� �?� �t -i • • �{ 'i gip: �.. - � ; � '-.Z �•��:l� ` m .. '� `.a t�vj� �.T Lam.. —_-S�` ,�' •�.-� t'.,�2' _ � -'i 1.3 _- - 't 1� +, if `T��-��' ��i-�!��\�y tee. . C1S�)`^- j��n- • - - _ _ � .ram 'n q1..� .....:° /�'•�-:,a: � • __l l:/�`":.:., _- �— � Z` '- c `.. � .- ..' �.• ..=._.-=:.r"t �a ::•. - - -�. ;-�-ram"_'`' t -- -- 14. ATTACHMENT 4 Planning Commission Meeting Study Session Agenda Item No CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 3, 1978 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Development Standards for Coastal Bluffs February 9, 1978 ______ . i In connection with Variance No. 1066, an application to exceed the height limit for a residential project located at 2333 Pacific Drive, Corona del Mar, (Griswold property), the Planning Commission inquired as to Coastal Commission regulations governing development on blufftops and the face of coastal bluffs. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. Coastal Commission Regulations The State Coastal Commission, on May 3, 1977, adopted statewide "interpretive guidelines" regarding the geologic stability of biuff- top development.. The Coastal Act itself requires that new development shall: (a) minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic hazards (b) prevent the destruction of a site or surrounding area by requiring protective devices which alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. Section 302$1 provides further that permitted development shall be sited and designed to minimize the alteration of natural landforms. The adopted interpretive guidelines regulate development on or near coastal bluffs as follows: (a) "To meet the requirements of the act, bluff and cliff developments must be sited and designed to assure stability and structural integrity for their expected economic lifespans while minimizing alteration of natural landforms." (b) "Alteration of cliffs and blufftops, faces, or bases by excavation or other means should be minimized." Given these general guidelines, the Regional Coastal Commission has developed draft site -specific guidelines for Newport Beach and Orange County which are scheduled for adoption during the month of February, 1978. These draft guidelines apply to development on coastal bluffs as follows: 81uff-Top Development: "Proposed development should be set back at least 25 feet from the edge of any coastal bluff. (30251, 30253) Proposed development upon a canyon bluff top should be set back at least ten feet from the bluff top edge, or set back in accordance with a string line connecting adjacent development, or set back from the primary vegetation line depending upon site characteristics as determined by a staff inspection of the site. (30261, 30253)" Further, the draft guidelines would regulate alteration of landforms as follows: Alteration of Landforms: "Grading, cutting or filling that will alter natural landforms (bluffs, cliffs, ravines, etc.) should be prohibited. In Permitted development, landform alteration should be minimized by concentrating the development on level areas (except on ridgelines and hill tops) and designing hillside roads to be as narrow as possible and follow natural contours. (30251, 30253) 75 TO Planning Commission - 2 "in all cases grading should be minimized. New residential development should be sited and designed so that as a general rule, no ponds, creeks, or drainages are filled or cleared: clearance and scraping are limited to the minimum necessary area for a house pad and the legally required brush clearance area for fire safety. Road cuts and new subdivisions should not -create lots requiring massive grading or extensive geological marks or cuts. (30251, 30253, 30240) "Cascading project design should be utilized in new development along scenic routes or if visually obtrusive a's methods to blend the proposal with the surrounding topography. (30251, 30253)" Evaluation of State and Regional Guidelines The'State Coastal Commission's guidelines would not necessarily preclude development on the bluff face as contemplated in Variance No. 1066. However, grading and installation of protective structures on the subject site may result in alteration of natural landforms. The Regional Commission's proposed interpretive guidelines regarding blufftop development, if strictly applied, would result in denial. of the project as proposed. Categorical Exclusion Regulations Categorical Exclusion Order E-77-5 adopted by the Coastal Commission on June 14, 1977, allows construction of new single-family and two- family dwellings in Newport Beach without the requirement of a coastal permit except for the first row of lots adjacent to the beach or bay, and subject to conditions related to lot coverage, parking, and density. Allowable development is governed by all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code. As a general condition, the Exclusion Order specifies that there be no significant change in density, height, or nature of uses in areas subject to this exclusion. As a result of this general condition, the proposed project may not be consistent with the intent of the Exclusion Order, even though a single-family residence at this location would otherwise be excluded from the coastal permit requirement. Bluff protection is not a specific condition of the Exclusion. View Protection The State Coastal Commission guidelines make reference also to view protection, e a which ts related to blufftop development in certain cases. as View Protection Section 30251 of the 1976 Coastal Act states that the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas...' The primary concern udder this section of the Act is the protection of ocean and coastal views from public areas such as highways, roads, beaches, parks, coastal trails and access -ways, vista points, coastal streams 'and waters used for recreational purposes, and other public preserves rather than coastal views from private residences where no public vistas are involved." DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. Hogan, Director ) 11) David Dmohowski Advance Planning Administrator DO:RL:jmb O� �gW PpRr u ' Department C7[ICO PN�f DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJL'CT: June 2, 1978 of Community Robert L. Wynn, City Manager Development David Dmohowski, Advance Planning Administrator Bluff Top Regulations Your note of May 23, 1978 requested a status report on the Planning Commission's consideration of bluff development regulations, as referenced in Councilman Hummel's memo of May 22, 1978 (attached). As a result of discussion of problems associated'with bluff development at -the Planning Commission study sessions of February 9 and March 2, 1978, staff prepared a draft amendment to the Zoning Code dealing with proposed bluff regulations. This amendment was the subject of a public hearing held April 20, 1978, and has been continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 15, 1978. Basically, the proposed regulations would establish setbacks and other design standards for development located on or near a bluff. (A draft ordinance is included -in the previous staff memo attached.) This matter came to the attention of the Planning Commission,as a result of recent occurrences, including: (a) erosion and slope failures caused by winter storms, (b) several recent development applications on or near bluff areas, (c) adoption by the Coastal Commission of bluff regulations. I would be happy to furnish additional information on this subject, if needed. At'- DD:jmb �I FILE C®PT DO NOT REMOVE 1131 me I)0.7ALD HA88ELL 2077 WEST COAST IIXOMVAY I` nWPORT DMACn, CALZPO1iNIA 02663 n / (714) 642-1626 April20, 1978 To: Planning Commissioners City of Newport Beach Re: Amendment No. 507 -- Proposed New Regulations for Developments on or Adjacent to Bluffs in Newport Beach Gentlemen: I am the owner of property located on the southerly side of Cliff Drive between Fullerton and Aliso avenues. This property has been held for many years for the purpose of building a home for my own use on one of the lots and to develop the other in a similarly attractive manner. I am now in a position to build on these two lots within the next year, and the imposition of additional setbacks (over and above those pre- sently in effect) would, in essence, prevent the development and use of my property., It should be noted that the lots immediately adjacent to my parcel are occupied by single family residences. To the best of my knowledge, mine are the only privately -owned undeveloped lots on. Cliff Drive. Accordingly, I respectfully request that these two parcels located on Cliff Drive be deleted from any contemplated new development regu- lations. An Assessor's Parcel Map is attached outlining my property. Sincerely, DH:bd ;` �pmEtvEo c Encl. !� D6D P"' t APB Ent of 2 1978a. .' NEWppiRTOF \ 'h OALtgEAON, 1] DoNALD HASKELL 2077 WnST COAST RIGH AY XS FOXtT BBACII. CALI7ORWT& 02663 (7141 642-1626 August 3, 1978 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, California Gentlemen: On April 20, 1978 I submitted a letter to the Planning Commission expressing my concern over the proposed new regulations regarding development on or adjacent to bluffs in Newport Beach. A copy of this letter is attached for your files. I am the owner of two lots located on the southerly side of Cliff Drive between Fullerton and Aliso Avenues. This property lies in an older, established neighborhood and I have held it for many years for the purpose of single family residence development. Architectural plans are at this time being drawn and will be submitted within the next few months for a building permit. The imposition of a new set -back from the edge of the bluff on these two lots would not change the bluff appearance in this already developed neighborhood, yet it could very likely prevent my building on the property. To the best of my knowledge the 110 feet of frontage under discussion represents the only privately -owned undeveloped lots along this entire stretch of Cliff Drive. Therefore, I respectfully request that these lots be deleted from any contemplated new development regulations. Sincerely, DH:bd April 20, 1978 To: Planning Commissioners City of Newport Beach Re: Amendment No. $07 -- Proposed New Regulations for Developments on or Adjacent to Bluffs in Newport Beach_ Gentlemen: I am the owner of property located on the southerly side of Cliff Drive between Fullerton and Aliso avenues. This property has been held for many years for the purpose of building a home for my own use on one of the lots and to develop the other in a similarly attractive manner. I am now in a position to build on these two lots within the next year, and the imposition of additional setbacks (over and above those pre- sently in effect) would, in essence, prevent the development and use of my. property. It should be noted that the lots immediately adjacent to my parcel are occupied by single family residences. To the best of my knowledge, mine are the only privately -owned undeveloped lots on Cliff Drive. Accordingly, I respectfully request that these two parcels located on Cliff Drive be deleted from any contemplated new development regu- lations. An Assessor's Parcel Map is attached outlining my property. Sincerely, DH.bd Encl. 11 • • 139 Planning Commission Meeting April 20, 1978 Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 14, 1978 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Amendment No. 507 (Public Hearing) Request to consider an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code establishing regulations for developments located on or adjacent to .bluffs, to include building setbacks from the edge of bluffs, and other development standards. Background At previous study session meetings, the Planning Commission received reports from staff regarding development regulations for bluffs or blufftops. Existing City standards, Coastal Commission regulations, and possible alternative approaches to bluff preservation were examined. At the Planning Commission meeting of March 16, 1978, staff distributed a very preliminary draft ordinance dealing with bluff development regulations which could be adopted as an amendment to the zoning code. The Planning Commission set this matter for public hearing. A revised draft ordinance has been prepared and is attached for the Planning Commission's consideration. Also attached are previous staff memos on this subject. Bluff Ordinance Consistent with adopted General Plan policies as stated in the Recreation and Open Space Element, the draft ordinance incorporates the finding that coastal bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource. And therefore, the purpose of the amendment is to preserve the scenic value of the bluffs through the establishment of regulations for new development and alterations to existing development. The draft ordinance would require formal Planning Commission review of any development proposed to occur on or adjacent to a bluff area. Such review would be similar in nature to Site Plan Review which is required for developments in areas designated for a Specific Area Plan. Those 'bluff areas subject to this regulation would be indicated on a "Bluff Areas Map" to be adopted by reference as part of the ordinance. This approach, it seems, would be the easiest to administer, in that cumbersome technical or mathematical definitions, such as used by the Coastal Commission, would be avoided. Generally, those areas indicated on the attached Bluff Areas Map are oriented toward the coast or Upper Bay and have a slope greater than 20 degrees. The proposed standards to be used in the review of development subject to this ordinance are as follows: (a) Grading, cutting and filling of natural' bluff faces or bluff edges in connection with development shall be minimized in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas. Grading, or other alteration of natural landforms may be permitted where the Planning Commission in its review of a proposed development determines that the grading plan is consistent with the intent and purposes of this chapter. FILE C®pY DO NOT REMOVE TO: Planning Commission - 2 (b) structures or visible accessory improvements shall he located and designed so as to preserve the integrity of bluff faces or bluff edges. The Planning Commission may establish a building setback from the bluff face or bluff edge where such setback is determined to be necessary to carry out the intent of this chapter. (c) in areas subject to potential slope instability, the Planning Commission may require the preparation of a soils or geologic report to assist in evaluating the location and design of a proposed project. (d) Where feasible, the location and design of a proposed project shall minimize the interruption of public views on or over bluff areas. (e) The design of development shall incorporate measures to minimize and control the effects of erosion and urban runoff. (f) The design of development shall take into account potential groundwater problems. The draft ordinance gives the Planning Commission the option of applying conditions to its approval to assure compliance with the intent of the ordinance. As presently drafted, any action by the Planning Commission would be subject to normal appeal procedures. Effect of Ordinance The approach implied in the draft ordinance is intended to be applicable to small -lot developments in the residentially -zoned areas of the City which are developed nearly to capacity at present, and also to the major undeveloped parcels which will require approval of P-C development plans. In connection with the General Plan Review, the Planning Commission may wish to include more -specific language relating to bluff preservation (based on the proposed bluff development standards) in the text of the Land Use Element of Recreation and Open Space Element. Suggested Action If desired, hold hearing; approve draft ordinance or direct staff to make revisions; adopt Resolution No. recommending to the City Council that Amendment No. 507 dealing with Bluff Development Regulations be adopted. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. Hogan, Director By &J�6e4. David Omohows i Advance Planning Administrator DD:jmb Attachments: 1) Draft Ordinance 2) Previous Staff Memo Chapter 20.04 DRAF1 BLUFF DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Sections: 20.04.010 Intent 20.04.020 Definition of Bluff Areas 20.04.030 Application 20.04.040 Planning Commission Review Required 20.04.050 Development Standards for Bluff Areas 20.04.060 Existing Structures and Uses 20.04.070 Action by the Planning Commission 20.04.080 Appeal to the City Council 20.04.090 Action by the City Council 20.04.100 Fee 20.04.010 INTENT. The City of Newport Beach finds that coastal bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource. In order to preserve these unique geological features, and the scenic value which these landforms provide, it is the intent of this chapter that new development and alterations or additions to existing developments be regulated through the application of bluff development standards as set forth herein. 20.04.020 DEFINITION OF BLUFF AREAS. As used in this chapter, bluff areas subject to this ordinance shall be defined as those areas indicated on the Map entitled "Bluff Areas" adopted and made a part of this ordinance by reference. 20.04.030 APPLICATION. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to new developments and alterations or additions to existing developments in the R-A, R-1, R-1.5, R-2, R-3, R-4, and "B-" Combining Districts. For projects in any Planned Community District subject to this chapter, the Development Standards for Bluff Areas set forth in Section 20.04.050 shall be applied in connection with the review of the Planned Community Development Plan, or amendments thereto, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.51. In cases of emergency, where property is imperiled, a permit for emergency repairs or construction may be issued at the discretion of the Director of Community Development, consistent with the public safety and welfare. 20.04.040 PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW REQUIRED. Any development or alteration of land occurring on property identified on the Map entitled "Bluff Areas" shall be subject to Bluff Development Review by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of any building permit or grading permit, to determine the consistency of such development with the standards set forth herein. 20.04.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR BLUFF AREAS. In order to carry out the purposes of this chapter, the following standards shall apply in the review of proposed development subject to this chapter: (a) Grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges in connection with development shall be minimized V. in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas. Grading, or other alteration of natural landforms may be permitted where the Planning Commission in its review of a proposed development determines that the grading plan is consistent with the intent and purposes of this chapter. (b) Structures or visible accessory improvements shall be located and designed so as to preserve the integrity of bluff faces or bluff edges. The Planning Commission may establish a building setback from the bluff face or bluff edge where such setback is determined to be necessary to carry out the intent of this chapter. (c) In areas subject to potential slope instability, the Planning Commission may require the preparation of a soils or geologic report to assist in evaluating the location and design of a proposed project. (d) Where feasible, the location and design of a proposed project shall minimize the interruption of public views on or over bluff areas. (e) The design of development shall incorporate measures to minimize and control the effects of erosion and urban runoff. (f) The design of development shall take into account potential groundwater problems. 20.04.060 EXISTING STRUCTURES AND USES. Alterations or improvements to existing structures requiring a building or grading permit and located in designated bluff areas shall be subject, where feasible, to the standards specified in Section 20.04.050 above. 20.04.070 ACTION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. If all applicable standards established by this ordinance are met, the Planning Commission shall approve the proposed development. Conditions may be applied as appropriate when the proposed development does not comply with applicable standards and shall be such as to bring said development into conformity. If the development is disapproved, the Planning Commission shall specify the standard or standards that are not met. A Bluff Development Review decision of the Planning Commission shall be subject to review by the City Council either by appeal, or upon its own motion, or upon the request of the Commission. The action of the Commission on any Bluff Development Review shalt be final and effective twenty-one (21) days following the Commission action thereon unless, within the twenty-one (21) day appeal period an appeal in writing has been filed by the applicant, the Commission has requested a review of its decision, or unless the City Council, not more than twenty-one (21) days after the Commission action, on its own motion, elects to review and act on the action of the Commission, unless the applicant consents to an extension of time. The City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision. Such action by the City Council shall be final. 20.04.080 APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. Any Site Plan Review decision of the Commission may be appealed to the City Council by the 16 • • applicant at any time within twenty-one (21) days after the date of the Commission decision. An appeal to the City Council shall be taken by filing a letter of appeal in duplicate, with the Department of Community Development. Such letter shall set forth the grounds upon which the appeal is based. 20.04.090 ACTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL. An appeal shall be heard and acted on by the City Council within thirty (30) days after the Commission action, unless the applicant consents to an extension of time. The City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Commission. Such action by the City Council shall be final. 20.04.100 FEE. The applicant shall pay a fee as established by Resolution of the City Council to the City with each application. BLUFF AREAS !Adopted by Ord. No.—] rl Ste �c�,kl -. :�a *' l..e_+�`• rTL ��`° fS ._+ Zr- os olk '' �': � t� i�.Irw' - i•+r i r t _ - '` �"` ; +�r�''�+�. r oe 'r'` s{Z \�^3, •/ v- {! yf�:.�•F iF G� t s, .�- = -� its+,;;...-.',- T- ''--�-T__ �� __.�__ + • _ ��+:.. {"i`• �i Ir it •,••.;+ ..r. _ ++ •S f1. +r s + �- Planning Commission Study Session March 2, 1978 Study Session Item No. 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 24, 1978 ' TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Development Regulations for Bluffs or Blufftop,s Background At the study session meeting of February 16, 1978, the Planning Commis- sion requested staff to investigate possible alternative approaches to regulating development on or near bluffs. There are extensive bluff areas in the City which represent a significant scenic resource, and at the same time pose considerable development problems in terms of slope stability and erosion control. A map illustrating the locations of bluffs and other significant natural landforms is attached. This report will describe existing City regulations pertaining to bluffs and the relationship of Coastal Commission regulations dealing with natural landforms. Also, discussed here are possible approaches to bluff preservation involving revisions to City codes and development standards. Existing_City Regulations Existing City codes and the General Plan do not prohibit development on or near a blufftop or bluff face. However, there are specific struc- tural requirements and mitigation measures which are applied through the normal development review process. Chapter 70 of the Building Code - Excavation and Grading - establishes minimum setback standards from the top or toe of a bluff which vary according to the height of the slope. Retaining walls or footings may be designed to reduce or even eliminate the setback requirement for a structure, when approved by the Building Official, thus allowing con- struction on the face of the bluff or on the immediate top of the bluff The Zoning Ordinance does not presently specify setback requirements or other design standards for bluff development - with the exception of Section 20.10.030 which indicates that where a residential building is situated to overlook a bluff the property line adjacent to the street may be considered the rear property line for setback purposes. The Public Safety Element of the General Plan contains specific refer- ences to bluff development in terms of seismic and geologic hazards. In relation to the City's adopted risk reduction program, the Public Safety Element (page 44) requires mitigation of potential hazards during development review as follows: "The City shall require Environmental Impact Reports for any de- velopment within areas of natural physical hazard, as defined in this Element; said E.I.R.'s to include detailed assessment of the hazards and a comprehensive mitigation program." In terms of geologic hazards, the Public Safety Element states the following policies: 0 To: Planning Commission - 2 "(a) The City shall adopt a new grading ordinance, includ- ing more -stringent erosion and siltation control and geologic hazard mitigation requirements. "(b) The City shall require geologic and seismic studies as an integral portion of all Environmental Impact Reports with detailed mitigation measures for any development in areas of high potential hazards." Areas of the City subject to such geologic hazards are indicated on the maps attached. The Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan (Page 33) deals with natural bluff areas as follows: "NATURAL BLUFF AREAS As the major topographical feature in the City, the natural bluffs provide a sense of continuity (in that they continue: with only a few interruptions, from West Newport to Corona del Mar) and also a sense of 'place' or 'identity' (since this feature is rather unique among cities). These bluffs also contain many unique geological features, such as the rock outcroppings at Corona del Mar and the cliffs at Dover Shores. In terms of scenic values, these bluffs are the most notable features in the City, other than the beach and water areas. In most cases the bluffs will be left in their natural state; however, in some cases the appearance of the bluffs should be enhanced, and erosion reduced, through natural -appearing plantings, using native plant materials as much as possible. Any development which would destroy the scenic qualities of these bluffs should be prohibited." In summary, the existing City regulations dealing with bluff develop- ment are directed more toward public safety and structural considera- tions than toward aesthetic concerns or protection of scenic resources. The Recreation and Open Space Element does state that development which would diminish the scenic value of bluffs should be prohibited, but no specific regulatory mechanism is established. Coastal Commission Regulations Development standards for coastal bluffs promulgated by the State and Regional Coastal Commissions are described in the planning Commission memo attached (February 9, 1978). In general, the State Commission's standards require that alteration of natural landforms be minimized. The more -stringent Regional Commission Guidelines establish a twenty- five foot minimum setback from the bluff edge, effectively prohibiting development on the bluff face. Possible Approaches to City Regulation of Bluffs In developing an approach to regulating construction on or near bluff areas, it might be useful to distinguish between two general classes of projects, as follows: 1) Development on major vacant sites adjacent to bluffs, requiring further discretionary approvals, such as General Plan Amendment, P-C development plan, or use 'permit. 2) Development on smaller lots adjacent to bluffs in already -developed areas of the City, normally requiring only approval of building permit and possibly grading permit. XI. \9. TO; Planning Commission - 3 Islutfs 11d3acent to Major Sites the major vacant sites adjacent to coastal bluffs include the follow- ing: a) Beeco Property West Newport b) CALTRANS Property West Newport c) Castaways Site d) Westbay Site e) Land Trade Remnant (Bluffs) f) Newporter North Site g Bayview Landing (Holiday Harbor) Site As part of the processing of tract maps and P-C development plans for these major sites, provisions for setbacks from the bluff edge, dedi- cation of scenic drives and viewpoints could be made as conditions of approval. In this regard, it might be desirable to establish specific criteria through amendments to the General Plan, as part of the'P-C development standards, or through amendments to the City Council Policy Manual. The Atherton Initiative Petition related to blufftop dedication would require major developers to dedicate a public roadway adjacent to coastal bluffs, with such roadways set back a minimum of twenty-five feet from the bluff edge. The advantage of an approach of this sort is that problems of drainage, erosion and groundwater associated with bluff development could be controlled through the design of the road- way and through controls o4i the use of open areas near the bluff edge. Also development on the face of the bluffs would be precluded. A major disadvantage of the initiative approach, as proposed, is that the City would assume substantial liabilities in connection with the main- tenance of landforms with serious instability problems. Also it is unclear at this point as to whether blufftop dedication can be applied for credit against the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance. This could result in a double dedication requirement. As a minimum, amendments to existing codes and policies would need to clarify design standards and requirements for geologic analysis per- taining to the acceptance of bluff dedication by the City. Bluffs in Developed Areas Staff is in the process of preparing an inventory of vacant parcels adjacent to bluffs in the predominantly developed areas of the City. Sites falling into this category include the following: Residential lots -adjacent to Cliff Drive. Residential lots adjacent to Bayside Drive. Residential lots adjacent to Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar. Bluff protection in these areas might be approached through the estab- lishment of blufftop setback standards as an amendment to the zoning ordinance. It should be recognized, however, that in many of these cases, the edge of the bluff is located in close proximity to the public street - meaning that even minimal setback standards might preclude development of such parcels. The establishment of bluff setback requirements in some cases would necessitate public acquisition of properties as open space. An additional concern relates to the creation of nonconforming uses as a result of bluff development standards. A satisfactory method of dealing with replacement, enlargement or modi- fication of existing structures located in bluff areas needs to be incorporated into any amendment dealing with bluff protection. If bluff development standards are to be established, it is suggested that the areas subject to such control be specifically identified on Districting Maps to avoid problems of defining complex topographical conditions such as bluff edges and natural grade. 19 TO: Planning Commission - 4 Su9oe5ted Action If desired, direct staff to prepare appropriate amendments to the Loning Ordinance, General Plan, or Policy Manual to be considered at a future Planning Commission public hearing. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director By A DAVI'D J. DM HOWSKI Advance Planning Administrator DJO/kk Attachments: 1) Bluff areas and natural 2 Seismic hazard areas 3 Geologic hazard areas 4) Planning Commission memo landform map on Coastal regulations BLUFF AKtAS ANQ WUR,kL LAND fowMy Y 9 • I • M. �mA At Is Jm i i `•� �e�.. •ems ' � '-�• "Ii t ! 1 si W r ale%,.%e'Yr nrAe%tl tJ z _-':-7 A-- :J � �G� - _•i �� '��~ l\ i to .. Or r�.`4w� •ii'i rtii �i"'vim 1.,. .�. •.""ss; `.1��, �, y;: '-�__ co •c s We 2 c 0 0 1 V. ATTACNMENT_4 Planning Commission Meeting Study Session Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 3, 1978 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Development Standards for Coastal Bluffs February 9, 1978 In connection with Variance No. 1066, an application to exceed the height limit for a residential project located at 2333 Pacific Drive, Corona del Mar, (Griswold property), the Planning Commission inquired as to Coastal Commission regulations governing development on blufftops and the face of coastal bluffs. The subject property is located within the coastal zone, Coastal Commission Regulations The State Coastal Commission, on May 31 1977, adopted statewide "interpretive guidelines" regarding the geologic stability of bluff - top development., The Coastal Act itself requires that new development shall: (a) minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic hazards (b) prevent the destruction of a site or surrounding area by requiring protective devices which alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. Section 30251 provides further that permitted development shall be sited and designed to minimize the alteration of natural landforms. The adopted interpretive guidelines regulate development on or near coastal bluffs as follows: (a) "TO meet the requirements of the act, bluff and cliff developments must be sited and designed to assure stability and structural integrity for their expected economic lifespans while minimizing alteration of natural landforms." (b) "Alteration of cliffs and blufftops, faces, or bases by excavation or other means should be minimized." Given these general guidelines, the Regional Coastal Commission has developed draft site -specific guidelines for Newport Beach and Orange County which are scheduled for adoption during the month of February, 1978. These draft guidelines apply to development on coastal bluffs as follows: Bluff Top Development: "Proposed development should be set back at least 25 feet from the edge of any coastal bluff. (30251, 30253) Proposed development upon a canyon bluff top should be set back at least ten feet from the bluff top edge, or set back in accordance with a string line connecting adjacent development, or set back from the primary vegetation line depending upon site characteristics as determined by a staff inspection of the site. (30251, 30253)" Further, the draft guidelines would regulate alteration of landforms as follows: Alteration of Landforms: "Grading, cutting or filling that will alter natural landforms (bluffs, cliffs, ravines, etc.) should be prohibited. In permitted development, landform alteration should be minimized by concentrating the development on level areas (except on ridgelines and hill tops) and designing hillside roads to be as narrow as possible and follow natural contours. (30251, 30253) 75 TO: Planning Commission - 2 "In all cases grading should be minimized. New residential development should be sited and designed so that as a general rule, no ponds, creeks, or drainages are filled or cleared: clearance and scraping are limited to the minimum necessary area for a house pad and the legally required brush clearance area for fire safety. Road cuts and new subdivisions should not create lots requiring massive grading or extensive geological marks or cuts. (30251, 30253, 30240) "Cascading project design should be utilized in new development along scenic routes or if visually obtrusive a's methods to blend the proposal with the surrounding topography. (30251, 30253)" Evaluation of State and Regional Guidelines The'State Coastal Commission's guidelines would not necessarily preclude development on the bluff face as contemplated in Variance No. 1066. However, grading and installation of protective structures on the subject site may result in alteration of natural landforms. The Regional Commission's proposed interpretive guidelines regarding blufftop development, if strictly applied, would result in denial. of the project as proposed. Categorical Exclusion Regulations Categorical Exclusion Order E-77-5 adopted by the Coastal Commission on June 14, 1977, allows construction of new single-family and two- family dwellings in Newport Beach without the requirement of a coastal permit except for the first row of lots adjacent to the beach or bay, and subject to conditions related to lot coverage, parking, and density. Allowable development is governed by all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code. As a general condition, the Exclusion Order specifies that there be no significant change in density, height, or nature of uses in areas subject to this exclusion. As a result of this general condition, the proposed project may not be consistent with the intent of the Exclusion Order, even though a single-family residence at this location would otherwise be excluded from the coastal permit requirement. Bluff protection is not a specific condition of the Exclusion. View Protection The State Coastal Commission guidelines make reference also to view protection, which is related to blufftop development in certain cases. These guidelines are as follows: 2. View Protection "Section 30251 of the 1976 Coastal Act'states that the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas...' The primary concern under this section of the Act is the protection of ocean and coastal views from public areas such as highways, roads, beaches, parks, coastal trails and access -ways, vista points, coastal streams -and waters used for recreational purposes, and other public preserves rather than coastal views from private residences where no public vistas are involved." DEPARTMENT Of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. Hogan, Director avid OmohoWSki Advance Planning Administrator DD:RL:jmb I A� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY.DEVELOPMENT (714) 640-2261 April 17, 1978 Ms. Anne Bloemeke 7310 Equitation Way Orange, CA 92669 Dear Ms. Bloemeke: RE: Bluff Development Regulations. Your recent letters to the Offices of the City Manager and City Attorney regarding setback requirements for slopes and bluffs have been referred to me for reply. Your letter expresses the view that the building code presently contains few regulations pertaining to development on slopes. I might point out that the City's current zoning regulations contain no provisions for regulating the aesthetic impacts of development on bluffs or slopes; however, the building codes now applied to new.construction require setbacks or other engineering treatment which deals adequately with slope stability considerations. As a result of unusually heavy rainfall, greater emphasis is being placed on strengthening the City's development regulations. But many of the properties most severely impacted by the recent rains were constructed under older code provisions no longer in use. At the Planning Commission meeting of April 20, 1978, a public hearing will be conducted on an amendment to the Zoning Code to establish bluff development regulations. This amendment will deal primarily -with the visual impacts of bluff development. The City is also in the process of amending the building regulations to provide for stricter grading standards to control erosion and urban runoff and to assure safety and stability in new construction. You are invited to participate in the public deliberations on these matters. If I can provide additional information, DO NOT REMOVE City •Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 Ms. Anne Bloemeke Page Two April 17, 1978 please contact me at 640-2261. Yours very truly, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. Hogan, Director By ?�� /V David Dmohowski Advance Planning Administrator DD:jmb / Planning Commission Study Session March 2, 1978 Study Session Item No. 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 24, 1978 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Development Regulations for Bluffs or Blufftops Background At the study session meeting of February 16, 1978, the Planning Commis- sion requested staff to investigate possible alternative approaches to regulating development on or near bluffs. There are extensive bluff areas in the City which represent a significant scenic resource, and, at the same time pose considerable development problems in terms of slope stability and erosion control. A map illustrating the locations of bluffs and other significant natural landforms is attached. This report will describe existing City regulations pertaining to bluffs, and the relationship of Coastal Commission regulations dealing with natural landforms. Also, discussed here are possible.approaches to bluff preservation involving revisions to City codes and development standards. Existing City Regulations Existing City codes and the General Plan do not prohibit development on or near a blufftop or bluff face. However, there are specific struc- tural requirements and mitigation measures which are applied through the normal development review process. Chapter 70 of the Building Code - Excavation and Grading - establishes minimum setback standards from the top or toe of a bluff which vary according to the height of the slope. Retaining walls or footings may be designed to reduce or even eliminate the setback requirement for a structure, when approved by the Building Official, thus allowing con- struction on the face of the bluff or on the immediate top of the bluff The Zoning Ordinance does not presently specify setback requirements or other design standards for bluff development - with the exception of Section 20.10.030 which indicates that where a residential building is situated to overlook a bluff the property line adjacent to the street may be considered the rear property line for setback purposes. The Public Safety Element of the General Plan contains specific refer- ences to bluff development in terms of seismic and geologic hazards. In relation to the City's adopted risk reduction program, the Public Safety Element (page 44) requires mitigation of potential hazards during development review as follows: "The City shall require Environmental Impact Reports for any de- velopment within areas of natural physical hazard, as defined in this Element; said E.I.R.'s to include detailed assessment of the hazards and a comprehensive mitigation program." In terms of geologic hazards, the Public Safety Element states the following policies: FI LE CO Y DO NOT REMOVE ! 0 `"Z TO: Planning Commission - 2 "(a) The City shall adopt a new grading ordinance, includ- ing more -stringent erosion and siltation control and geologic hazard mitigation requirements. "(b) The City shall require geologic and seismic studies as an integral portion of all Environmental Impact Reports with detailed mitigation measures for any development in areas of high potential hazards." Areas of the City subject to such geologic hazards are indicated on the maps attached. The Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan (Page 33) deals with natural bluff areas as follows: "NATURAL BLUFF AREAS As the major topographical feature in the City, the natural bluffs provide a sense of continuity (in that they continue, with only a few interruptions, from West Newport to Corona del Mar) and also a sense of 'place' or 'identity' (since this feature is rather unique among cities). These bluffs also contain many unique geological features, such as the rock outcroppings at Corona del Mar and the cliffs at Dover Shores. In terms of scenic values, these bluffs are the most notable features in the City, other than the beach and water areas. In most cases the bluffs will be left in their natural state; however, in some cases the appearance of the bluffs should be enhanced, and erosion reduced, through natural -appearing plantings, using native plant materials as much as possible. Any development which would destroy the scenic qualities of these bluffs should be prohibited." In summary, the existing City regulations dealing with bluff develop- ment are directed more toward public safety and structural considera- tions than toward aesthetic concerns or protection of scenic resources. The Recreation and Open Space Element does state that development which would diminish the scenic value of bluffs should be prohibited, but no specific regulatory mechanism is established. Coastal Commission Regulations Development standards for coastal bluffs promulgated by the State and Regional Coastal Commissions are described in the Planning Commission memo attached (February 9, 1978). In general, the State Commission's standards require that alteration of natural landforms be minimized. The more -stringent Regional Commission Guidelines establish a twenty- five foot minimum setback from the bluff edge, effectively prohibiting development on the bluff face. Possible Approaches to City Regulation of Bluffs In developing an approach to regulating construction on or near bluff areas, it might be useful to distinguish between two general classes of projects, as follows: 1) Development on major vacant sites adjacent to bluffs, requiring further, discretionary approvals, such as General Plan Amendment, P-C development plan, or use 'permit. 2) Development on smaller lots adjacent to bluffs in already -developed areas of the City, normally requiring only approval of building permit and possibly grading permit. TO: Planning Commission - 3 Bluffs Adjacent to Major Sites The major vacant sites adjacent to coastal bluffs include the follow- ing: a) Beeco Property West Newport b) CALTRANS Property West Newport c Castaways Site d)' Westbay Site e) Land Trade Remnant (Bluffs) f) Newporter North Site g Bayview Landing (Holiday Harbor) Site As part of the processing of tract maps and P-C development plans for these major sites, provisions for setbacks from the bluff edge, dedi- cation of scenic drives and viewpoints could be made as conditions of approval. In this regard, it might be desirable to establish specific criteria through amendments to the General Plan, as part of the P-C development standards, or through amendments to the City Council Policy Manual. The Atherton Initiative Petition related to blufftop dedication would require major developers to dedicate a public roadway adjacent to coastal'bluffs, with such roadways set back a minimum of twenty-five feet from the bluff edge. The advantage of an approach of this sort is that problems of drainage, erosion and groundwater associated with bluff development could be controlled through the design of the road- way and through controls on the use of open areas near the bluff edge. Also development on the face of the bluffs would be precluded. A major disadvantage of the initiative approach, as proposed, is that the City would assume substantial liabilities in connection with the main- tenance of landforms with serious instability problems. Also it is unclear at this point as .to whether blufftop dedication can be applied for credit against the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance. This could result i•n a double dedication requirement. As a minimum, amendments to existing codes and policies would need to clarify design standards and requirements for geologic analysis per- taining to the acceptance of bluff dedication by the City. Bluffs in Developed Areas Staff is in the process of preparing an.inventory of vacant parcels adjacent to bluffs in the predominantly developed areas of the City. Sites falling into this category include the following: a) Residential lots adjacent to Cliff Drive. b Residential lots adjacent to Bayside Drive. c) Residential lots adjacent to Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar. Bluff protection in these areas might be approached through the estab- lishment of blufftop setback standards as an amendment to the zoning ordinance. It should be recognized, however, that in many of these cases, the edge of the bluff is located in close proximity to the public street - meaning that even minimal setback standards might preclude development of such parcels. The establishment of bluff setback requirements ih some cases would necessitate public acquisition of properties as open space. An additional concern relates to the creation of nonconforming uses as a result of bluff development standards. A satisfactory method of dealing with replacement, enlargement or modi- fication of existing structures located in bluff areas needs to be incorporated into any amendment dealing with bluff,protection. If bluff development standards are to be established, it is suggested that the areas subject to such control be specifically identified on Districting Maps to avoid problems of defining complex topographical conditions such as bluff edges and natural grade. TO: Planning Commission • 4 Suggested Action If desired, direct staff to prepare appropriate amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, General Plan, or Policy Manual to be considered at a future Planning Commission public hearing. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director By AAK DAVID J. DM H0� WSKI Advance Planning Administrator DJD/kk Attachments: 1 Bluff areas and natural 2 Seismic hazard areas 3 Geologic hazard areas 4 Planning Commission memo landform map on Coastal regulations PLu FF AIM&s aNt� - NhTURAL LAND FORM4i C can w xe•r Su e= arR mni. cuna.a DCArlU 1 OTE `SAL SESAC HAZARD ARM r=777lCjffEGaK I r----TCMrKGORY 2 nfwa^ arm T�.�.Yl OCMIGgK 3 GfMX= FALLME: Oc.Q[GORY a .,.a ,.�,....r,...a �MtiVMTa 3 Ma�t+��1t11�Y.TYtY T�Yt1/IIL+�11 N CMQORY 4 = ... ,f..... T � GROUND neeAKAGE: Utn.a: wrr�•�T�u.t rraw�t jj F7��-, v'f�i�Taau�sa �aS' >iaaa MN •ve::a , � b. � .� ��I �. t`T•�E.~••��F AVM i' w j�%+� ,. T _ i .� �T�C�:=E„ac`jr•ts��E+T�,4'iMa MY i -. .,t ill^ � ,<.-' .iv S�y� •si- '"`� -� '�'�a. �i% • ¢ 3 i. J A A i;h C 1 C r �- 3`BJ;.GCw:�_`'37�3 � •�� ✓. .ec ,, F "O C 6 A ` figure G 0 ATTACHMENT 4 Planning Commission Meeting February_9, 1978 Study Session Agenda Item No. 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 3, 1978 TO; Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Development Standards for Coastal Bluffs In connection with variance No. 1066, an application to exceed the height limit for a residential project located at 2333 Pacific Drive, Corona del Mar, (Griswold property), the Planning Commission inquired as to Coastal Commission regulations governing development on blufftops and the face of coastal bluffs. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. Coastal Commission Regulations The State Coastal Commission, on May 3, 1977, adopted statewide "interpretive guidelines" regarding the geologic stability of bluff - top develo ment. The Coastal Act itself requires that new development shall: minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic hazards (b) prevent the destruction of a site or surrounding area by requiring protective devices which alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. Section 30251 provides further that permitted development shall be sited and designed to minimize the alteration of natural landforms. The adopted interpretive guidelines regulate development on or near coastal bluffs as follows: (a) "To meet the requirements of the act, bluff and cliff developments must be sited and designed to assure stability and structural integrity for their expected economic lifespans while minimizing alteration of natural landforms." (b) "Alteration of cliffs and blufftops, faces, or bases by excavation or other means should be minimized." Given these general guidelines, the Regional Coastal Commission has developed draft site -specific guidelines for Newport Beach and Orange County which are scheduled for adoption during the month of February, 1978, These draft guidelines apply to development on coastal bluffs as follows: Bluff Top Development: "Proposed development should be set back at least 25 feet from the edge of any coastal bluff. (30251, 30253) "Proposed development upon a canyon bluff top should be set back at least ten feet from the bluff top edge, or set back in accordance with a string line connecting adjacent development, or set back from the primary vegetation line depending upon site characteristics as determined by a staff inspection of the site. (30251, 30253)" Further, the draft guidelines would regulate alteration of landforms as follows: Alteration of tandforms: "Grading, cutting or filling that will alter natural landforms (bluffs, cliffs, ravines, etc.) should be prohibited. In permitted development, landform alteration should be minimized by concentrating the development on level areas (except on ridgelines and hill tops) and designing hillside roads to be as narrow as possible and follow natural contours. (30251, 30263) TO: Planning Commission - 2 "In all cases grading should be minimized. New residential development should be sited and designed so that as a general rule, no ponds, creeks, or drainages are filled or cleared: clearance and scraping are limited to the minimum necessary area for a house pad and the legally required brush clearance area for fire safety. Road cuts and new subdivisions should not create lots requiring massive grading or extensive geological marks or cuts. (30251, 30253, 30240) "Cascading project design should be utilized in new development along scenic routes or if visually obtrusive as methods to blend the proposal with the surrounding topography. (30251, 30253)" Evaluation of State amd Regional Guidelines The State Coastal Commission's guidelines would not necessarily preclude development on the bluff face as contemplated in Variance No. 1066. However; grading and installation of protective structures on the subject site may result in alteration of natural landforms._ The Regional Commission's proposed interpretive guidelines -regarding blufftop development, if strictly applied, would result in denial of the project as proposed. Categorical Exclusion Regulations Categorical Exclusion Order E-77-5 adopted by the Coastal Commission on June 14, 1977, allows construction of new single-family and two- family dwellings in Newport Beach without the requirement of a coastal permit except for th•e first row of lots adjacent to the beach or bay, and subject to condi,tions,related to lot coverage, parking, and density. Allowable development is governed by all -other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code. As a general condition, the Exclusion Order specifies that there be no significant change in density, height, or nature of uses, in areas subject to this exclusion. As a result of this general condition, the proposed project may not be consistent, with the intent of the Exclusion Order, even though a single-family residence at this location would otherwise be excluded from the coastal permit requirement. Bluff protection is not a specific condition of ' the Exclusion. View Protection The State Coastal Commission guidelines make reference also to view protection, which is related to blufftop development in certain cases. These guidelines are as follows: 2. View Protection "Section 30251 of the 1976 Coastal Act states that 'the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited,and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas...' The primary concern under this section of the Act is the protection of ocean and coastal views from public areas such as highways, roads, beaches, parks, coastal trails and access -ways, vista points, coastal streams and waters used for recreational purposes, and other public preserves rather than coastal views from private residences where no public vistas are i•nvolved." DEPARTMENT Of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. Hogan, Director /') /' avid Omohowski Advance Planning Administrator DD:RL:jmb Flave B. Gibfs : Jay T. Ward 2128 Miramar Drive : 8218 Sunset Blvd. Balboa, CA 92661 Hollywood, CA 90046 .<.<.....(.!!..<L((<!t(<((f((<((rIIIIII(l<<1<tLt<<L... I I I I I . . .(<<(<,<.♦ Newport Heights Improvemen4, Barbara Gartler : Association Mr. Roland Landrigan, Pres.r P. 0. Box 2196 Newport Beach, CA 92663 535 El Modena Newport. Beach, CA 92663 ...<...<<r(.rlL.Lr.IrC(.(..Lc<<!LL(!.<l[.fri<II Cr.r((fIII I C( I C I I t I L t I C( I I(l(r rR r...(.(e Riverside West, Ltd. Cliff Haven Community r P.. 0. Box 233* j Association ' Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mr. Bob Cooper, Pres. ' 418 Signal Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 "CC..... I......( i r.<I I,:: Margaret Oser ; Dover Shores Comm. Assoc. 1 16451 Malden Circle : Mrs. Dorothy Doan, Pres. Huntington Beach, CA c/o Devine Prop., Inc. 92647 2865 E. Coast Highway i P.O. Box 687, C.D.M. 92625?. 1(l<(t.(r(<(4CL((C<[<(<ffftlfC[!<[Iffttrtlfltlf(((!t(((I L(tll(f Lf Ct(((((If(,I.... C"C.[` North Bluff Bayview 5 .Charles McKenna : Community Association P. 0. Box 7040 Mr. Robert Jacobs, Pres. Newport Beach, CA 92663 201 Nata Newport Beach, CA 92660 Donald Haskel Bluffs Homeowners' Assoc. P. 0. Box 1715 : Mr. Richard Millar, Pres. . Newport Beach, CA 92663 2414 Vista del Oro Newport Beach, CA 92660 (I(tll.<<IILtt(<.<I<III t f( L I(!.[.. t t. t.<(<. l( t t! t<!< t.< «(I<<!. I I..( I CC I I. I<.<<. I( C I I It• / Althea Pease Corona del Mar Civic 3708 Blue Key : Community Association1. Corona del Mar, CA 92625; Mr. John Cole, Pres. 624 Poppy Avenue s Corona del Mar, CA 92625 .lI(((n <<c(c(((c.!(ILL(L((•<.(Ll tic ttl rl t.t:tl!(<(tLlLu <ctl!(((t<.cl c(I tttl ul(r((I(u Donald Griswold : Irvine Terrace Community P. 0. Box 1325• : Association Newport Beach, CA 92663 Mr. C. M. Gepfert, Pres. 711 Santana Corona del Mar, CA 92625 .' Cameo Community Association:. "wn-�I'lh'mm�V�o^g Mr. John Anderson, Pres. 720 Cameo Highlands Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 #�d,....,.<[S�.l� ..((,....,,(.,.s.....(.........(,..<,,.f,.,<,..r((,.(..((..`. Linda Woodward Shorecliffs Community Assoc.,, 3709 Ocean Blvd. Mr. Ray Kimmey, Pres. Corona del Mar, CA 92625; 314 Evening Canyon Road Corona del Mar, CA 92625 i ti Clifford Cooper P. 0. Box 695 San Juan Capistrano, CA Vacant Lots Affected by Bluff Ordinance LOT 1. 206 La Jolla Drive (Newport Heights) 2. 2919 Cliff Drive (Newport Heights) 3. 215 Riverside Drive (Newport Heights) 4. 2317 Cliff Drive (Newport Heights) 5. 2505 Cliff Drive (Newport Heights) 6. 2205 Pacific Drive (Corona del Mar) 7. 2333 Pacific Drive (Corona del Mar) 8. 3425 Ocean Blvd. (Corona del Mar) 9. 3523 Ocean Blvd. (Corona del Mar) 10. 3530 Ocean Blvd. (Corona del Mar) 11. 3036 Breakers Drive (Corona del Mar) OWNER Flave B. Gibbs 2128 Miramar Drive Balboa, CA 92661 Barbara Gartler P. 0. Box 2196 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Riverside West, Ltd. P. 0. Box 2339 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Donald Haskel P. 0. Box 1715 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Margaret Oser 16451 Malden Circle Huntington Beach, C62647 Althea Pease 3708 Blue Key Corona de-1 Mar, CA 92625 Donald Griswold P. 0. Box 1325 Newport Beach, CA 92663 William Vogel 1512 Santanella Terrace Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Linda Woodward 3709 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Clifford Cooper P. 0. Box 695 San Juan Capistrano, CA Jay T. Ward 8218 Sunset Blvd. Hollywood, CA 90046 1.3q LOT 1. 206 La Jolla Drive (Newport Heights) 2. 2919 Cliff Drive (Newport Heights) 3. 215 Riverside Drive (Newport Heights) 4. 2317 Cliff Drive (Newport Heights) 5. 2505 Cliff'Drive (Newport Heights) 6. 2205 Pacific Drive (Corona del Mar) 7. 2333 Pacific Drive (Corona del Mar) 8. 3425 Ocean Blvd. (Corona del Mar) 9. 3523 Ocean Blvd. (Corona del Mar) 10. 3530 Ocean Blvd. (Corona del Mar) 11. 3036 Breakers Drive (Corona del Mar) Vacant Lots Affected by Bluff Ordinance OWNER Flave B. Gibbs 2128 Miramar Drive Balboa, CA 92661 Barbara Gartler P. 0. Box 2196 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Ah , Riverside West, Ltd. P. 0. 'Box 2339 Newport.Beach, CA 92.663 A. ��to�r11Pv Donald Haskel P. 0. Box 1715 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Margaret Oser 16451 Malden Circle � rit 14 h w.� Huntington Beach, C62647 NSA. Althea Pease 3708 Blue Key Corona del Mar, CA 92625 6q6-5-430 Donald Griswold P. 0. Box 1325 J Newport Beach, CA 92663 William Vogel 1512 Santanella Terrace Corona del Mar, CA 92625 NA , Linda Woodward 3709 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 A. Clifford Cooper P. 0. Box 695 San Juan Capistrano, CA N A. Jay T. Ward 8218 Sunset Blvd. Hollywood, CA 90046