Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCURB CUT_2901 OCEAN BLVDt � I.J_;°_L. CALIFORNIA COASTAL c,, /MMISSION y � 631 Howard Sir, San Francisco 84105 - (415) 543- 8555 • kPPEIL F"7(am PEP11I: DECIjION OF REGIONAL: ii•=5"iOJ: NOVA? 19, .NSWP0P'r Section I. 4 rA 1, dame, address and telephone number of appellant: Darwin Britvich 300 Kings Place Newport Beach, California 1.7- Zip lAr=a Code)\Telephpre I 2. Name, address and telet':one nu:.:•er of appellant's rA;resentative, if _ Sherman 1337 OCean Avenue Santa Monica, California (213) 394-1163 Section II. DeCl-z__ _f c-,icna'_ r.-P rds2ion Beirc ?'JDFalec 1• Name of hem ona'_ CoTsiscion:South Coast Regional Commission 2. Da-e of Reg -'DI"! Coariss:.r' decision: 11-5-79 Regional Cor:,.i.ssio n File I.',rnber: P-79-6043 4. Brief description of deve:oPment heir€ apP==ieda Construction of single famil residence tion of development �caticn (city cr cjurty, nea-•e : I Brief des -rip l' roads, etc.): 2901 OCean Boulevard Corona Del Mar c Describe decision of the Regional COMissicn. (e.S• apprcvat' deria_• approvai with conditiors, e c.): denial Section III. = --- fication and i4otificatior. of Other Interested P=-ties 1. Mate the names and addresses of the f• oilow:.ng par_i_e.:,. "'se addltd,r na: paper if necessar;: a. T::e rar..d-and address C` the per-- ' appl_c1::t: b. The governing body of eac cour'Y, city and c %. r local agencies having ur•sdi-ti = of the pre,ect ar,: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard rersed support or cYpcs_:_: c. Names and addresses of all pe rsens who exp- o�«_ t:.e to the development and provided their names and addr__sei . =mac o.,i Go:�iseiar. or ar of^err_se {now:. t.^.e an interest in tr-� ^ist cr appealed: See exhibit "A" TO BE CaLLETM; 3Y COhV"S3I0N: Appeal NC - 0 Date riled: ------------ -2- Section I9. Statement of Facts to Demonstrate Subetwitial Issue The appellant must demonstrate to the State Com dzsior. that a subctantial i_::e is raised by the appeal, an issue of such concern that it warrants a new hearing of the application by the Commission. The appellant's failure to set forth in sufficient detail the facts upon which the appeal is based, and the reasons the appellant believes the decision of the Regional Commission to be inconsistent sue-% the requirements of the Coastal Act, ray result in rejection of the appeal c.. grounas that the presence of a substantial issue has not beer, demorstrat=a. ;' .r tz the short deadlines pro-vided in the Coastal Act, review of your appeal will be possible unless a complete and fully -substantiated appeal is autmitted at t.. time. NOTE: The Commission may consider aspects of the Regional Commission decision such as statewide planning issues or procedural errors even where these are not of con- cern to the appellant. For example, where the appellant objects only to one of several conditions, the Commission may hear the appeal and ultimately change other conditions or deny the application altogether. Check applicable reason(s) why you believe the State Commission should hair the appeal. (In general, the Commission has not found tha: an anneal prevent; a substantial issue that warrants hearing unless one of the following factcrs present.) 1. The development presents a statewde planning issue on which g�ida:.c:• of the Sate Commission is required and the matter is of statewide 2. The decision of the Reg= nal Commission adverse-;: rffs:-s coasts: resources or the proper public use of resources, contrary to :specific of the Coastal Act of 1976. X j. The decision of ti,e Regional Commission is irconsistent with prev_aL:_ decisions of the State Cesaisrion or did rot adequately address issues coverer: cl• the interpretive guidelines adopted by the State Commission. X 4. The proceedings of the Regional Co^rassion were materially affect,, - by inaccurate factual information or procedural er-ror and therefore resulted it a decision contrary to the policies of the Coastal Act of 19,16. 5. The decision of the Reg :nal Commission should to changed beca::se af new factual information, relating to coastal issues,a_d this information c:uli mot reasonably have been presented to the Regional Co=tssicr.. 6.0 Other (Specify in detail) Attach a complete, concise statement of facts substantiating the alleged reaso-s warranting hearing of the appeal by the State Commission and reversal cr cation of the decision of the Regional Corrassion• Nair Due to time, stall-ing, am.: monstrai:rts, t:,o Conmieoivn hao rooanaly established a summary calendar proceeding for those appeals which the staff recom- mends do not present a substantial issue or any significant factual dispute. It is,, therefore, extremely important that you p omotly submit to the staff full substantia- tion of your appeal. If your appeal is scheduled for the summary calendar, you will receive advance written notice of the staff recommendation and procedures, _ � I Section V. Certification I declare that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my kndwl-c_ae and i understand that any misstatement or omissio f e informat en ragcest=c may be grounds for rejection of this appeal. Dr_� November 23, 1979 v / c .3igna,ure of appellant or represe -t-.- Sherman L. Stacey , Revised 8/15178 Persons appearing at public hearing: 0 James Parker 1201 Dove St. Newport Beach, California 92660 Mary Burton 2920 Ocean Boulevard Corona del Mar, California 92625 Lloyd Morrison 218 Heliotrope Corona del Mar, California 92625 Exhibit "A" rr • • STATEMENT OF FACTS I. The Regional Commission Staff Recommendation and Hearing Presentation Included Inaccurate Information Which Led to a Decision Contrary to the Pro- visions of the Coastal Act. The staff recommendation prepared for the Britvich application contained several inaccurate statements which were not corrected orally at the hearing. A copy of the hearing transcript will be sent to the State Commission shortly. These statements and the nature of their inaccuracy are set forth below. 1. "The only vehicle access to the site is by a 20 foot wide curved driveway approved by the City of Newport Beach which crosses a landscaped portion of this parkway. If it were not for this easement, the site, in fact would be landlocked." The driveway across the parkway is not an easement granted by the City of Newport Beach. .The site is not landlocked but fronts directly on the Ocean Boulevard right- of-way. The right of way is 100 feet in width but only a small portion is improved for streets. The remainder is landscaped. The City of Newport Beach approved a curb cut. The applicant has a legal right to access to the street. 2. "The physical constraints surrounding the proposed site indicates that the site may be unbuildable since approval of the project -in -any --form represents a gross nonconformity with Section 30251 of the Coastal Act." The staff recommendations has not even discussed the physical constraints surrounding the property. There is no evidence whatsoever that the site is unbuildable. Section 30251 of the Coastal Act does not relate to the physical safety of development. It requires alterations in siting and design. It mandates protection, minimal alteration and visual compati- bility. It sloes not determine that a site cannot be built on because the Coastal Commission does not like the idea of a building existing on the site because of its visual impacts. -1- 0 0 3. "Addionally, there are no other structures built on the face of the bluffs in the area; there are only two structures in the area and these are widely sep- arated and setback from the bluff top." The finding is totally contrary to the facts. It is incomprehensible that a person could visit the site and make such a recommended finding and it is further incompre- hensible that after a hearing such a finding could be made. At the time of the filing of this appeal we have not had the opportunity to map the many other residences built in locations along Ocean Boulevard which are identical to the applicants. Such a map is being prepared and will be sent as soon as poss- ible. However on the property immediately next door to the applicant to the east there is an existing single family residence. There are numerable homes both east and west along Ocean Boulevard which are built commencing at the edge of the bluff and extending down the slope. As reflected below, the State Commission found a similar development at 3611 Ocean Boulevard to be visually compatible with the community. It is a denial of a fair hearing for the staff recommendation to state that there are no other structures when there are. This misstatement was not corrected in the oral presentation but was repeated. 4. "Not only will the proposed project intrude into this view but will also diminish the area of the park by the easement approved for vehicle access to the site." This finding is filled with-severaT false assumptions. First, the house will not intrude into the view. The top of the garage, the only portion of structure on the top level, will be four feet below the level of the ground at the dividing line between the applicant's property and the City property. The garage will only be 25 feet in width. The next lower level will be 13 feet below the level of the City property. Second, the area is not a park but is a landscaped parkway within the portion of the Ocean Boulevard right of way is not improved for street purposes. Third, the City did not grant an easement to the applicant across the right of way. Rather, Britvich, like any other person owning property fronting on a public street, has a right to access to that street. Britvich in fact changed his plans from a driveway directly to the street across the grassy area of the street frontage to a curved driveway through an unimproved area of the frontage. This accomplished several things: (i)it per- mitted the house to be lower, (ii) it did not eliminate level grassy area, and (iii) it cost $20,000.00 to $25,000.00 more -2- to build. It is unquestionable that Britvich has made every effort to comply with Section 30251 by siting and designing the house to preserve, to the maximum extent possible, views to and along the coast. II. There wasProceduralError in.that The Staff Recommendation to the Re- gional Commission Failed to Comply with 14 Cal. Adm. Code §13075. The staff recommendation is required by Commission regulations to relate the proposed findings to prior decisions of the State Commission. Section 13075 of the Commission regulations states, in part: "The staff recommendation shall also relate the proposed findings to prior decisions of the commission in order to assure consistency of the recom- mendation with decisions of the commission that, pursuant to the provisions of Public Resources Code §30625(c), are precendents for the issues raised by the application." Public Resources Code Section 30625(c) states: "(c) Decisions of the commission, where applicable, shall guide the regional commissions, local governments and port governing bodies in the future actions under the provisions of this division." The Regional Commission staff recommendation failed to mention the decision of the State Commission in Appeal No. 308-76 decided February 2, 1977. Appeal No. 308-76 con- cerned an application for a single family residence at 3611 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar, by Donald and Marilyn Renner. The residence was on five levels and totalled 5,650 square feet on a 7,385 square foot lot. The home, as approved, did not block views of the Pacific Ocean but did block views of tidepools and surf. 'h-e State Commission approved the house subject only to the conditions that it contain only 3 levels (2 for living and 1 for garage) and limiting height to 22 feet over finished grade (17 feet below street level) to protect views. The State Commission found that "[t]he proposed development, as conditioned, is of a design and scale that it is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood area." -3- In every respect, the nature of construction proposed by the applicant is consistent with that approved by the State Commission in the Renner appeal. Failure by the Regional Commission staff to follow commission regulationg prevented the commissioners from,being- apprised of this precedent. III. The Decision of the Regional Commission > - --is Inconsistent with -the Decision of the State Commission is Appeal No. 308-76. The decision by the State Commission in Appeal No. 308-76 (Renner) is as clear a precedent for the Britvich application as could exist. The home approved for Renner was on the same street, built in a cascade plan over the edge of the bluff. The Renner house was adjacent to In- spriation Point making it more visible than the Britvich house. The size of the Renner house in relation to the size of the Renner property is even larger than the Britvich house. Since the decision in the Renner appeal we believe that the Regional Commission has approved other developments of the seaward' side of ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar. As soon as the permits can be identified, a list of them will be sent to the State Commission. IV. The Regional Commission Decision is Inconsistent with Adopted Interpretive Guidelines. Pursuant to Public Resources Code 930620(a)(3) the State Coastal Commission has adopted guidelines for the interpretation of the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. These interpretive guidelines include both general guidelines which apply statewide -and -site specific guidelines which apply to particular geographic areas. Certain of these interpretive guidelines apply to'the Britvich home. Under the statewide interpretive guidelines, the guidelines on Geographic Stability of Blufftop Development, View Protection and Public Access are ap- plicable to the Britvich home. The Regional Commission staff recommendation and findings mentioned some of these issues. However, the staff recommendation and findings included no analysis of the application of the guidelines to the facts. If the guidelines are applied to the Britvich application, it is clear that uncontroverted evidence establishing the facts necessary to comply with the guidelines was presented. -4- r] 1. Geologic Stability of Blufftop Development. The staff recommendation and findings gt the Re= gional Commission failed to even mention the Geotechnical Investigation report prepared by Westland Associates. This report was prepared and signed by an engineering geologist, Richard D. Merker, and a geotechnical engineer, Sampath V. Raghawan. The report, which is based upon onsite subsur- face exploration, reached the conclusion that the site is suitable for the proposed residence from a geologic, soil and foundation engineering standpoint. The Regional Commission staff recommendation and findings treated the guidelines on Geologic Stability as though the guideline itself stated rules by which a site could be judged without reference to technical data. This simply is not true. The whole point of the guideline is to require careful geologic investigation to demonstrate sta- bility. The conclusions reached in the report are identical to the conclusions geologist in the Renner Appeal referred geology report was prepared by Maurseth, Associates and the identical conclusion applicant's geology report can be found 2. View Protection. applicant's geologic reached by the to above. The Renner Howe, Lockwood & reached in this at page 3 of such report. The Britvich home was designed to meet the guideline on View Protection and Section 30251 of the Coastal Act. At great expense to the applicant, the house is set entirely below the street level of Ocean Boulevard. This fact was not stated in the staff recommnedation or the findings. Rather the staff recommendation and findings,made several false statements which have no eveidence whatsoever to support them. These statements are found in Section I of this Appeal. The interpretive guideline on View Protection required the siting of structures to protect public views as opposed to private views. The applicant designed his home to do both. Public views of the beach, and ocean are adequately protected by the siting of the structure below street level. The design with the garage being the only structural element on the top floor further protects view by placing most of tfiie structure even further below street level. -5- 3. Public Access. Below the applicants property lies the parking lot for Corona del Mar State Beach. All beaches in the area are public.• A public access stairway from Ocean Boulevard to the Beach is located immediately adjacent to the west of the applicant's property. Therefore, the applicant's home will not interfere in any way with existing access to the beach and adequate access exists at the present time. 4. Site Specific Guidelines. There is nothing contained in the site specific guidelines adopted for Orange County which would prohibit development of the applicant's property as proposed. r� MAILGRAM SERVICE NTER 2 b MIDDLETOWNP VA. 45 _ A 4-080595S323002 11/19/79 ICS IPMRNCZ CSP LSAB 1 2133941163 MGM TORN SANTA MONICA CA 11-19 1105P EST S L STACEY 1337 OCEAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90401 THIS MAILGRAM IS A CONFIRMATION COPY OF THE FOLLOWING MESSAGEi 2133941163 TORN SANTA MONICA CA 54 11-19 1105P EST PMS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION RPT DLY MGMr DLR MORNING# DLR 631 HOWARD ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 ON BEHALF OF DARWIN BRITVICH 300 KINGS PLACE NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA 92663 (714)-645-0221 I HEREBY APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE SOUTH COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION ON NOVEMBER STH 1979 IN CONNECTION WITH APPLICATION NUMBER P796043 DENYING A PERMIT TO HIM FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 2901 OCEAN BLVD CORONA DEL MAR. SHERMAN L STACEY# 1337 OCEAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90401 (213)-394-1163 1337 OCEAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90401 23:05 EST MGMCOMP MGM BY M:JLGRAM SEE REVERSE SIDE FOB VJSSTER': U'IION'S TOLL - FREE PHONE NUMBERS 4-080595S323002 11/19/79 ICS IPMRNCZ CSP LSAB 1 2133941163 MGM TORN SANTA MONICA CA 11-19 1105P EST S L STACEY 1337 OCEAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90401 THIS MAILGRAM IS A CONFIRMATION COPY OF THE FOLLOWING MESSAGEi 2133941163 TORN SANTA MONICA CA 54 11-19 1105P EST PMS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION RPT DLY MGMr DLR MORNING# DLR 631 HOWARD ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 ON BEHALF OF DARWIN BRITVICH 300 KINGS PLACE NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA 92663 (714)-645-0221 I HEREBY APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE SOUTH COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION ON NOVEMBER STH 1979 IN CONNECTION WITH APPLICATION NUMBER P796043 DENYING A PERMIT TO HIM FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 2901 OCEAN BLVD CORONA DEL MAR. SHERMAN L STACEY# 1337 OCEAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90401 (213)-394-1163 1337 OCEAN AVE SANTA MONICA CA 90401 23:05 EST MGMCOMP MGM BY M:JLGRAM SEE REVERSE SIDE FOB VJSSTER': U'IION'S TOLL - FREE PHONE NUMBERS MARINE DEPARTMENT TO: C.D..D. - JIM HEWICKER FROM: Marine Department - Glen Welden SUBJECT: ACCESS TO 2901 OCEAN. BOULEVARD On Thursday, July 26th, I met with two representatives from the California Depart- ment of Parks and Recreation on the subject site to discuss access easements across the Corona del Mar parking lot. This meeting was arranged at my request in a letter to the State on July 18th (attached). The State representatives were Mr. Tom Miller of the Huntington Beach office and Mr. Ed Wilson of the Region V office in Goleta. During the on site meeting, the property lines between State and private property and between State and City property were reviewed. Also discussed was the physical limits of the parking lot with regard to these property lines. Because of the apparent loss of parking spaces which would result in the granting of an easement across the parking lot, the State representatives expressed the opinion that the loss of public access to a State recreational facility precluded the granting of any easements. Additionally, both State representatives expressed considerable concern over the loss of public views, should the subject property be built on and about the impact a residence on the property would have on the State Park. A letter from the Region V office will July 18th. 4�� Glen E. Wel en Tidelands Administrator GEW:nn be forthcoming in response to my letter of co°sip ,De�d A �°At 'e4t i/rj6' gym. RT .� CAC/F �Cy ,[ rtI C Vt. 0 E i� \VESTtAND 11y ,4 ASSOCIA'!E^a LTD. 1 OF CALIFORNIA FOUNDATION ENGINEERING ^ ENGINEERING GEOLOGY LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 • 17141 766-4466 July 23, 1979 Mr. and Mrs. Darwin Britvich 300 King's Place Newport Beach, California 92663 PROJECT SAFETY CRITERIA LOTS 28 & 29 OCEAN BLVD. CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. and firs. Britvich, Project No. 0880 P= I Lil L Jul y,1�79 00PORIo EA�H, CALIF. This followup letter to our geotechnical report, dated June 27, 1979, is written to emphasize our geotechnical concern for the existing and/or generated rockfall potential on the subject property and it's immediate vicinity. Your attention is brought to the previously submitted geotechnical plans for the subject project, which show large angular block or disaggregated broken rock fragments perched on the bluff above the parking lot of the beach. A note was placed on the plans to remove the above rocks during grading. We feel that this may not be adequate, and so are placing before you the following viewpoint for your attention and further perusal. The localized rockfall type landslides Have been a continuing problem along this section of the ocean bluff for some time. Near human fatalities have occured from rock tumbling down the slope and property damage has occured. Within the subject property limits, much of the loose rock is in front of the proposed bluff top retaining wall. In light of the above viewpoint, we are recommending that all the loose and disaggregated rock fragments which have potential for localized rockfall landslides be removed during construction stages. Also an area as determined by this firm during grading, should be barricaded off within the parking lot to,restrict parking in order to provide stability during construction, Sincerely yours, Richard D. Merker C.E.G. 469 14ESTLAND ASSOCIATTS LTD. Ir Sampath V. Raghavan Geotechnical Engineer R.C.E. 296i9 cc: Mr. Richard Dodd City of Newport Beach, Attn: Jim Evans SVR:gmc Cog Y OF NEWPORT B CH COUNCILMEN t� cP ROLL CALL . ��'� s July 10. 1979 MINUT INDEX -he were no ordinances for second reading and adoption. F. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. Reports were presented from the Community Devel- Curb Cut opment Department and from the Parks, Beaches 2901 Ocean and Recreation Director regarding the request of (3180) Mr. and Mrs. Darwin Britvich to construct a twenty-five foot wide driveway and curb cut at 2901 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar. Marine Director David Harshbarger gave a brief staff report. The following people addressed the Council and urged approval of the request: Darwin Britvich, the applicant; John Van Cleve, attorney for Mr. Britvich; and Dick Dodd, architect for Mr. Britvich. Motion x Mr. Van Cleve was granted five additional minutes All Ayes for his presentation. Motion x Mr. Dodd was granted seven minutes for his Ayes x x x x x x presentation. Noes x James Parker, representing homeowners on the inland side of Ocean Boulevard, addressed the Council and opposed the request. Motion x Mr. Parker was granted two additional minutes for All Ayes his presentation. Motion x The matter was postponed to August 13. Ayes x x x x x x Nocs x 2. A report was presented from the Public Works Sundance Dr Department regarding the request for vacation of (2380) Sundance Drive in Tract No. 7989 (Newport Terrace). A letter from Robert F. Waldron, attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Rollo McClellan, was presented. Motion x The request for the vacation of 5undance Drive was Ayes x x x x x denied. Noes x x 3. A 1 er from Carmelo Manto asking that their Off -site Prkg Off —site arking agreement be considered on July 10 3520 E Coast instead of 23 was presented. Hwy i (3282) I i I I I i Volume 33 - ge 193 District 5 Headquarters 111 La Patera Lane Goleta, California 93017 (805) 967-3494 July 6, 1979 Ms. Mary Everett Burton 2920 Ocean Boulevard Corona Del Mar, California 92625 Dear Ma, Burton: Thank you for your very informative letter regarding the problem of access to Lots 28 and 29 on Ocean Boulevard. It gave us a very clear picture of your concerns and your desire to retain the scenic view and the "parkway" lawn which is now on the city street fronting the lots in question. We had reviewed the essential elements in the proposal contained in the peti- tion which your group presented to the ;Newport City Council on May 3. Our review was in response to a formal application for easemont submitted to use by Mr. Jonathan E. Van Cleave, attorney for the lot owner Mr. Darwin Britvich. We are enclosing a copy of our letter of denial to the applicant. This should also give you an explanation of why we cannot give favorable consideration to your proposal. It appears that you have larger concern than only the driveway, access. This is the total picture of the bluff as a scenic buffer and"View Park," which you presented in your July 3 letter. Perhaps your citizens' group could explore with your city council and city administration the possibility of purchasing these lots to round out existing city ownership on three sides of these lots. sincerely -yours, H.L. Heinze, Superintendent District s 1�1%wo, e'EnclosureIr HLH:EDW:ew vwv- cc. Orange Coast Area V bcc: Glen Walden June 28, 1979 Mr. Edward D. Wilson Assistant Superintendent, District 5 State of California Department of Parks and Recreation 111 La Patera Lane Goleta, California 93017 Re: 'Application of Mr. Darwin Britvich for a Right -of -Way over State Park Lands Dear Mr. Wilson: As per our conversation over the phone on June 24, 1979, this letter constitutes a formal request on behalf of Mr. Darwin Britvich for a right-of-way over State park lands. As we discussed, this letter application is in lieu of the more lengthy and compli- cated application form published by your office and designated as DPR-226A (Rev. 6/78). Due to the straightforward nature of the request, we concluded that this would be the most practical way to obtain a definitive decision from your department as to the application., , As to the criteria upon which your office matters; it is my uridsrstanding that the authority is controlling: . renders decisions in these following legislative !In accordance with Section 5003.5 of the Public Resources Code, permits for ingress and egress across State parks may be granted where reasonable access does not exist or cannot be economically constructed outside the boundaries of the park." I obtained this quote from a form put out by your department entitled, Instructions to Applicants in Filling Out Applications for a Right -of - Way Over State Park Lands,'DPR 226E (Rev. 1/73). Please advise if I am incorrect as to this understanding. Name and address of applicant: Darwin Britvich P.O. Box 521 Balboa, Ca. 92661 (714) 645-0221 Mr. Edward D. Wilson June 28, 1979 Page Two Purpose of application: The purpose of the application is to request a right-of-way across the Corona del Mar State Beach parking.lot located in the City of_ Newport Beach, California. To facilitate the processing of this application, enclosed herewith please find two (2) plot plans, and two (2) sketches for an encroachment permit, for reference. On the plot plan, the Britvich property is marked "Britvich Lots 28 and 29," and is filled in with' -dark ink. --It is situated on a strip of land bordered on the northeast•.side by Ocean Boulevard and•on the southwest side by a narrow strip,of Newport Beach'property,designated on the map as "City Property," a&d bordering'on that, to the southwest, is the parking lot,owned by the State Parks and Recreation Department.,,, r. The proposed right-of-way w9dld be for ingress and egress to the single family residence which Mr. Britvich plans'to,build on the property, which he owns in fee'simple. Basically; there are two possible plans_, for lower access,•each involving different problems. Plan one would necessitate allowing 24-hour-access to the parking lot, via the ramp leading down from Ocean Boulevard to the parking lot below. Xdditionally; such right-of-way would require that a "curb cut" or similar break be made at the edge of the parking lot below Lots 28 and 29, to allow,a driveway_to connect the parking lot with the garage and parking pad which would be located at or slightly above the parking lot level. Due to the configuration.of_the lot, the garage and parking pad would be placed below the residence under this plan. Therefore, the "curb cut" at the parking lot level would most',likely be made directly below the southeastern -most end of the . lot. This location could be found by ektending the southeastern most boundary of the lot directly to the south-southwest..'_ Now,'this access is complicated by the fact that the parking Sot is presently closed to any access between the hours of 1000 p.m: to 6:00 a.m. for policing purposes. Whereas, the -road marked "ramp" is open•24 hours a day to permit private access to Breakers Drive, along which are located private residences,;the remainder of the .lot is closed off by a gate. The gate is locked from 10:00 P.M. to 6:00ra.m. and is policed the -remainder of the time to collect parking fees for the lot. This gate is located between the sidewalk which runs along the -north- west side of the park entrance below the ramp and the triangular shaped island which, is directly below the circular island on the map. It is the only gate through which entrance to the parking lot can be gained. Arrangements, would have to be made whereby free access through this gate could be secured by the Britvich family and any and all visitors, guests, repairmen, emergency vehicles, and others going to and from the Britvich residence through the parking lot. Mr. Edward D. Wilson June 28, 1979 Page Three Plan two Would involve a somewhat different,problem: This plan would necessitate a "curb cut" across the sidewalk directly across from Breakers Drive, and a•private roadway leading from thi"s '"curb cut" along the area between the parking lot dividers and a cliff marked on the large reference map as "City Property." Since the minimum width of the private roadway would have to be almost as wide'as the -width between the dividerssnd the "City Property," the three,.southeastern-- most dividers'would`have to be removed and replaced at'4',greaterl distance from-th6 "City Property." Additionally, •there.'would bean attendant loss of approximitely.;0-12 parking spaces because the• dividers would•have to'be placed far enough away from the edge of the new access area .to allow the'proper flow of -traffic around the dividers. Other reasonable access does exist as'to the Britvich property.= As required ly your departmentIn applications such as this one,•what' follows is a description bf that access and its evolt:U6, On February 26, 1971, Mr. and Mrs. Darwin Britvich were ,granted a curb cut permit by the City Council of the City of Newport. ;Beach at a'. - regular council meeting. The permit allowed a 25-foot driveway and -curb out at 2901 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del,Mar, California. The following wording is from the minutes of thAt council meeting as to the permit: "The application Was approved as height of the building to be the recommended,, with the same as the curb height..". The relationship between Ocean Boulevard, 'the;prbposed ctir4',cut, 'and driveway, and the residence can be readily ascertained• by:referenc®'to the enclosed document designated as "sketch for encroachment permit."' On May 14, 1979, the City Council of the City of Newport -'Beach,-' reconeidered:the approval of the curb cut because of•a petition circu- lated by various neighbors asking -that the curb cut be denied. Based on this petition, the City Council rescinded its curb out approval., While the petition listed a number,of 6bjections to the'euib cut$ the 4nain thrust of the•petition was that accesp could begained'from below the property, that is,across,the back of the parking lot at-Corona•del Mar State Beach,, .e:, plan one, above., Subsequently;•there has .been some discussion among City Council members and others as:to the possibility of access through the parking lot via the gate, i.e., plan two. - The applicant respectfully requests that your office consider both plans for access and render a decision as to whether either one -or•• both are approved or denied. To the extent possible, and assuming it is not inconsistent with your department policy, kindly indicate in. your decision letter the reasons upon which approval or denial'"is• based. - I - -- I e • .0 r Mr. Edward D. Wilson June 28, 1979 Page Four Thank you for your prompt consideration of the above application. Please send the decision letter to our offices at the above address. It you lack any necessary information, please give me.a call immediately, and I will provide you with such information. Very truly yours, HARTMAN and SAGINAW Jonathan E. Van Cleave JEVC/lp Enclosures 0 City Council Meeting Agenda Item No CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 2, 1979 July 10, 1979 F-1 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Request of Mr. and Mrs. Darwin Britvich to construct a twenty-five foot wide driveway and curb cut at 2901 Ocean Boulevard, on the southerly side of Ocean Boulevard at Heliotrope Avenue in Corona del Mar. Suggested Action If desired, (a) approve the request subject to the conditions as set forth in the staff report; or (b) deny the request and require that access to the site be provided from the Corona del Mar State Beach parking lot, either Alternate 1 or Alternate 2, subject to the con- ditions as set forth in the staff report. Background At the City Council meeting February 26, 1979, the City Council voted (6 Ayes, 1 No) to approve the requested curb cut subject to the follow- ing conditions: 1. Prior issuance of a building permit for the proposed residence; 2. The driveway width be a maximum of sixteen feet wide for the portion within the Ocean Boulevard right-of- way (except for tapers connecting to the garage apron); 3. Approval of the detailed driveway design by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation and Public Works Departments; 4. Height of building to be the same as height of curb. On May R4, 1979 a petition bearing thirty-seven signatures was pre- sented to the Council asking that the action of February 26th be reconsidered. At that meeting the City Council voted (5 Ayes, 2 Noes) to rescind the Council action and disapprove the curb cut. The staff was subsequently requested to contact Richard Dodd, architect for the applicant, and schedule the matter for a future City Council meeting. TO: City Council - 2. On June 18, 1979, representatives of the Community Development, Public Works and Marine Departments met with the City Attorney, Dick Dodd, Robbie Britvich, and her attorneys John Saginaw and John Van Cleave, in the City Attorney's conference room, At that time the actions taken by the City Council were reviewed and the concerns of the applicant, the State Department of Parks and Recrea- tion, and the various City Departments were discussed. It was the consensus of a majority of those present that access to the site should be taken from Ocean Boulevard. Alternative Courses of Action A. Access from the Corona del Mar State Beach Parking Lot. ALTERNATIVE 1 - Access via a new curb cut, driveway and fence system. Advantages 1) Would preserve existing parkway on Ocean Boulevard. 2) Could result in a substantially lower structure as viewed from Ocean Boulevard because garage would be built at or near the grade of the existing parking lot. Disadvantages 1) A curb cut at the foot of Iris would cut across the existing sidewalk and planted area at the base of the bluff. 2) Would require the construction of a new driveway and fence system to separate the parking lot from the driveway to prevent commingling of uses and to prevent blockage to the driveway. 3) A driveway would require a redesign of the existing parking lot layout, restriping and a loss of existing spaces and space which is currently available for overflow parking and busses. 4) A gate across the driveway, similar to the gate on Breakers Drive, may eventually be necessary to keep beach visitors from blocking the driveway. i 5) An easement across the parking lot would have to be granted by the State to the applicant. This may require an amendment to the existing agreement between the California Department of Parks and Recreation which states that the State owned property shall be for "playground, recreational and beach park use" and 0 TO: City Council - 3. that "said properties shall at all times be access - able and subject to use and enjoyment of all citizens of the State of California." Mr. Wilson, Assistant Superintendent, District V, Department of Parks and Recreation, was contacted by the Marine Department,and he indicated that he would recommend against the grant- ing of an easement based on the State's past experience with easements. 6) Unauthorized persons parking in Breakers Drive is a constant problem to the Police Department, an-d they have indicated that they cannot afford the manpower which would be required to afford the applicant the same consideration. 7) Vehicles using the driveway would create additional conflicts between vehicles entering and leaving the beach parking lot. ALTERNATIVE 2 - Access via the existing gate at the parking lot entrance. Advantages 1) Would preserve the existing parkway and could result in a lower structure as noted above. 2) Would not require a new curb cut or driveway as required above. 3) Would not require a redesign of the parking lot, restriping or result in a -loss of existing parking or overflow space. Disadvantages 1) Would still require an easement across the parking lot. 2) Would require that the applicant be provided with a key or the combination to the parking lot gate for access when the gate is not manned. 3) Could result in the unauthorized and unlawful use of the beach parking lot after normal hours if the gate .is left open. 4) Would create a problem for the applicant's guests and delivery and service personnel if they were required to pay a fee to pass through the gate. C w TO: City Council - 4. B. Access from Ocean Boulevard. Advantages 1) Would not create the problems for the City and inconveniences for the applicant as noted above. Disadvantages 1) Would result in a substantial alteration to the parkway on Ocean Boulevard and a potential view loss depending on the horizontal projection of the parking deck beyond the bluff face. Suggested Conditons of Approval If the City Council should select any of the alternatives noted above, the following conditions are suggested: A. Access from the Corona del Mar State Beach Parking Lot. ALTERNATIVE 1 - Access via a new curb cut, driveway and fence system. 1) Prior grant of an access easement from the California Department of Parks and Recreation and the City. 2) Approval of detailed curb cut, driveway and fence plans by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation and Public Works Departments. 3) Prior issuance of Encroachment Permits from the Calif- ornia Department of Parks and Recreation and the City. 4) Prior issuance of building permit for the proposed residence. ALTERNATIVE 2 - Access via the existing gate at the parking lot entrance. 1) Prior grant of an access easement from the California Department of Parks and Recreation and the City. 2) Agreement with the City for access through the existing gate and purchase of annual parking pass. 3) Prior issuance of building permit for the proposed residence. B. Access from Ocean Boulevard. 1) Prior issuance of a building permit for the proposed residence, including use permit or variance to exceed height above grade if required. TO: City Counci•1 - 5. 2) The driveway width be a maximum of sixteen feet wide for the portion within the Ocean Boulevard right-of-way (except for tapers connecting to the garage apron). 3) Approval of the detailed driveway design by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation, and Public Works Departments. 4) Height of building not to exceed height of curb. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director r- w by AMES D. HEWICKER, Assistant Director - Planning JDH/kk Attachments for City Council 0•nly: 1) Vicinity Map illustrating access alternatives 2) Memo from Tidelands Administrator dated 6/12/79 3) Memo from Traffic Division Commander dated 6/l/79 4) Report to City Council dated 2/26/79 171 7 », i�N. !•� �•''rY,' �. /7.i:_�,�.= L.*`~ :.rlA,. .• ,A � hDV 7 6 Ala `� /Jn a i' 'Q V {- • `Y I I I h .. h A • . � � • � ; � K � � ` • I i I I 6: '74 // tii J� •:,�.,�/•�.:.�._ :(!)" .,•;, -::, .� • Mt o> —••�- ':. Ga -ram.. ma's: ' '+ . • Soto: •'SO' ' 33.35' 3A31' 40• rAf /iAdl //d0' /It /IEtO• 9. •• a, in pv�C. 3q' 3 3b p �CEA/J b I%% z L JI UT Ole �,I •io• JS b I 'v i JI �o :e a8s TjTfTrT 00,0 51•l0 • Q O � '9 >' QRas• LO. Z4' i. SJ ' "< _ ; � =sue.• ¢p 1J � 4• °Q.2297-90/9.0/ M Y6. r,• r , w r ax• �, aflit ;s,�o asa i (6` '333{ •-_ _i r`,; : - t I v8 3%1 '•^ .sots": 5 • BR&AX r' •..� sot4• ,� A oo � rr'�• � e •3�i ,�;j'j •��• �- • : � � . � •�,� � Z8 s�b6� •(XN�� a? jo Z8 Z�S�.;a �'y'� l,''?,� !-, :. . •l- �— n' 26 �Ii ioT Na ,/ I try I t �� �t�zT• o pxb f Zp rg,/ �, 4n , .I a 15 72 •'tJ- '+ .: IZ•-�F°Rgtg(��,r''� 11 _•r� Q � � t • /� (� li .34 9i0t((rR Jai ''' • t� � - =� ...i �� I +! i�J '�i Fn � is y , I •ji•''• � t '' 33', 3a' t K 30' 33'• Ma ants. ° 6 7- 6. 5 4' 3� , z 3S9-S" �.>,'•''� 3?.23' 30G2' 3C•Ltl •`,s MARINE DEPARTMENT June 12, 1979 TO: CORONA DEL MAR PARKING LOT FILE FROM: Tidelands Administrator SUBJECT: ACCESS TO 2901 OCEAN BLVD. On June 7, 1979 I called Mr. Ed Wilson of California Department of Parks and Recreation, District V, and inquired as to the State's attitude regarding use of public areas such as Corona del Mar State Beach and Park for private access. Mr. Wilson indicated the State was opposed to this type of use based on past experiences where easements have been granted. Their experience has been that, once an easement is granted, the grantee begins to assume he owns the easement area and makes demands upon the State beyond what the easement calls for. In some cases, structures have been built on the easement in violation - of the easement terms. The State does have an application procedure for easements. Mr. Wilson indicated he would oppose any applications for an'easement across the Corona del Mar parking lot. Additionally, the City's contract with the State would have to be amended since the current contract does not provide for this situation. Glen E. Welden Tidelands Administrator Marine Department GEW:nn D< Clirv. NEWPUI�� o::A,CH �° CgUfi ' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT June 1, 1979 TO: Glen Welden, Marine Department FROM: Traffic Division Commander SUBJECT: ACCESS DRIVEWAY TO CORONA DEL MAR MAIN BEACH PARKING LOT FOR PROPOSED RESIDENCE AT 2901 OCEAN BLVD. it is the position of the Traffic Division that the proposal out- lined is not in the best interest of the City. It appears a good portion of the main beach west parking lot which is'heavily used would be usurped and therefore add to the already heavy parking problems in the adloining residential areas. The problem with unauthorized persons parking in Breakers Drive is not monumental, but is constant and requires more time than we can really afford. Their problem is unique, and to solve it, we altered our policy relative to private property enforcement. We do not intend to afford the proposed residents the same consideration as we cannot afford the manpower which ib sorely needed in other areas of Corona del Mar. It appears that the proposed entrance to the property would create additional conflict between vehicles entering and leaving the property and vehicles entering and exiting the parking lot. L. P. Heeres� Captain Commander, Traffic Division February 26, 1979 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F-3 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: APPLICATION OF MR. AND MRS. DARWIN BRITVICH TO CONSTRUCT A 25-FOOT- WIDE DRIVEWAY AND CURB CUT AT 2901 OCEAN BOULEVARD, CORONA DEL MAR RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve the application subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior issuance of a building permit for the proposed residence; 2. The driveway width be a maximum of 16 feet wide for the portion within the Ocean Boulevard right-of-way (except for tapers connecting to the garage apron); 3. Approval of the detailed driveway design by the'Parks, Beaches & Recreation, and Public Works Departments; 4. Height of building to be the same as height of curb. DISCUSSION: Attached is a sketch showing the location of a driveway and curb cut proposed to be constructed in the public right-of-way along the southerly side of Ocean Boulevard between Heliotrope and Iris Avenues. The location of the project is shown on the attached area map. A large exhibit wi•11 be on display in the Council Chambers. The prior approval of the City Council is required by Council Policy L-2, which provides that no permit shall be issued for driveways on the .ocean side of Ocean Boulevard without City Council approval. This application was previously before the Council at the meeting of February 12, 1979. The matter was continued in order to obtain more information regarding alternative access from below (the Corona del Mar beach parking lot), and regarding building heights and driveway configuration. The staff recommends against permitting access from below for the following reasons: 1. The public parking lot gate is closed from 10:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M. Access to 2901 Ocean Boulevard would require a private access roadway plus turn -around space on public property, resulting in the loss of approximately 15 regular parking spaces, the exact number depending upon the final design. 7/ l -n' �� • • ' I(?&) v -W February 26, 1979 Subject: Application of Mr. and Mrs. Darwin Britvich to construct a 25-foot- wide driveway and curb cut at 2901 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar Page 2 2. The State of California, owner of most of the land below, might not consent to the proposal. 3. A significant capital expenditure would be required to make the physical changes needed. 4. Recent experience with private access road (in Bayside Drive and in Ocean Boulevard at Marigold Avenue) indicates that administra- tive and operational problems can be expected. The staff recommends that if the property is developed, vehicular access to 2901 Ocean Boulevard be permitted from above. Attached is a report from the Marine Department regarding access from the parking lot below. An uncovered parking area on top of the building at street level would require a special use permit. Por any design the plan area of driveway in the Ocean Boulevard right-of-way will be the same. The maximum amount of cut into the parkway is limited by the maximum permissible gr&49 _(0,fle.t,0 16% grade= 7.5 feet). This suggests a garage floor low enough to permit the roof to be no highly than the top of the curb. The amount of excavation and slope grading in the right-of-way can be reduced however by permitting a higher elevation for the garage. The architect will be present to answer questions that may arise regarding the proposed building project. Benjamin B. Nolan Public Works Director KLP:do Att. • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT --4 SKETCH FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT No. EP A-r on Lot ;.8 s 21j Job Address Z LI O I - OLEA J Block A • 3; Owner Tract Gr.4ANA �e� elephone Eye;-ozzr —3 CAR GARAGE I TJRrJ-AROJNO' _ ,,.__, p120pejhep pr2 JYSWA� �— EMI=�TiNG �JRS o' o'' �5'•or 3�-0'' �ciJTTER r40RTr-i �j '� Date Applicant's signature Please make a sketch of your immediate vicinity showing all dimensions and location of trees, light standards. fire hydrants, parking meters or other obstructions existing on parkway, which might concern this application. Work shall be done according to city specifications and is subject to city inspection. Sketch to be drawn in duplicate. (r� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER May 15, 1979 TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: BRITVICH PROJECT yopt/�e U, fPPds r �5 GAG^ e e to �f,C r'1C :- Please contact Richard Dodd to review the Bri-tvich project and schedule the matter for a future City Council meeting. Staff is to take another look at permitting access to the garage from below. There are some obvious disadvantages to this, but it appears to have the support of some, if not a majority, of the City Council. Curb and fence systems will have to be constructed separating the parking lot from the drive. Several parking spots may be eliminated; nevertheless, we should take a hard look at this and recycle the project with the City Council when you are ready. ROBERT L. WYNN • s ' � D JAMES M. PARKER S' ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW GQn�I ri��nt MANUFACTURERS BANK BUILDING 1201 DOVE STREET - SUITE 410 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 \� _e,�.} .�"�, r� 59'11* 17141 975-0366 �A""{ � yr Uai"^ May 3, 1979 s The City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd.' Newport Beach, CA 92660 edt%' Attn: Richard Hogan, Director of Community Development 4 -x'•: SUBJ: 2901 Ocean Ave., Corona del Mar Dear Mr. Hogan, As you know the undersigned has been retained by Mr. and Mrs. Al Jobe, Mr. and Mrs. Hewett Smith, Mr. and Mrs. Gene Trimble and Mary Burton, owners of property located across the street from the subject address. The subject property is owned by Mr. Darwin Britvich who is proposing to construct a single family dwelling on the sight. My clients and I would very much appreciate it if you would keep me informed as to any and all developments relating to the subject property. Specifically, I would appreciate receiv- ing copies of any and All correspondence, applications, peti- tions, etc.,initiated by Mr.. Britvich, his architect, attorney or other agents and, would further appreciate notice of any hearings, actions or proposed actions by the city. Thank you very niuch,for your continued courtesy in this matter. Sincerely, JMP:bb cc: Mr. and Mrs. Al Jobe Robert Winn, City Manager ;er C TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Marine Department SUBJECT: VEHICLE ACCESS TO 2901 OCEAN BLVD. CORONA DEL MAR Background On February 26, 1979 the Council approved a request by Mr. and Mrs. Darwin BritVich to construct a curb cut and driveway at 2901 Ocean Blvd. Prior to that Council meeting, a memo regarding an alterative access was sent by the Marine Director to the Public Works Department. (Attached) vert��y/the Council's February 26, 1979 action was appealed by residents* of'the area (attached). At their May 14, 1979 meeting, the Council rescinded their previous approval and directed staff to review the possibility of providing access to the subject site through the Corona del Mar beach parking lot. Discussion The agreement between the City and the California Department of Parks and Recreation for the operation of the State Beach and Parks has been reviewed'by the Marine Department. This agreement stipulates that the State owned property shall be 'for "playground, recreational and beach park use" and that "said properties shall at all times be accessable and subject to use and enjoyment of all citizens of the State of California". Because of the apparent limited use allowed under the terms of the agreement, a telephone call was made to Mr. Ed Wilson of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, District V,in Goleta. The situation regarding possible use of the parking lot for private access was outlined to Mr. Wilson and c his opinion was solicited. Mr. Wilson stated that his department was opposed to the private use of the State lands since the beach and parking lot were intended for use by the general public. He stated that the State did have a procedure for Page two Vehicle Access to 2901 Ocean Blvd. applying for an easement across State Parks land. Mr. Wilson indicated that he would recommend against granting the easement based on the State's past experience with easements. Y The Marine Department has -reviewed its memo sent to Public Works and is of the opinion that the items listed in that memo are still valid. On May 18, 1979 a memo was sent to the Police Department, Traffic Division requesting their comments on an access through the parking lot. Attached is a copy of their reply which indicates their opposition and their reasons for the opposition. E *Y OF NEWPORT BACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES F� � ROLL CALL\ �S'� s May 14 1979 INDEX Councilman Williams discussed San Joaquin Hills Road at Jamboree and the free right hand turn project behind the Texaco station under the Intermediate Range Improvements. �It was agreed by Council to direct the staff to p epare a drawing for the Council's information shin channelization, turn lanes, merges, etc. Motion x The balance bf�e Traffic Solutions Program All Ayes reports were to be ontinued on May 29, 1979 and adjourned to a meeting -,on the 30th or 31st if necessary. G. CURRENT BUSINESS: I. A report was presented from Mayor Ryckoff regar Traffic ing traffic generating factors. Generating �'Pai Motion x This item was continued to May 29, 1979. t rs (3262�.. All Ayes \� 2. A petition bearing 37 signatures asking, that Council Curb Cut/ 2901 Ocean reconsider its action taken_ on_February 26,J979 approving a_25_f-i �widedri_v_ewayand-curb-cut—at Blvd CdM 2901 Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar was (3180) presented. a Dick Dodd, architect for Mr. and Mrs. Darwin Britvich, addressed the Council and stated that his clients did not want the item reconsidered. Motion x Councilman Hummel made a motion to rescind the Council action and disa__pprove the curb cut. He also, stated for the record: "My first choice is to enter this property and service it from the parking lot grade. It seems appropriate and I can see no real physical or financial handicap to doing that. I settled for the second choice of three options and in that regard got into the situation of not knowing what we have. I don't think anyone can tell me what kind of a building height we are looking at, and so I therefore feel this motion is in order to deny the curb cut. It wasn't a public hearing when we granted it and it doesn't need to be a public hearing now. I think we should get this thing back into a frame of reference and start all over again." The following people addressed the Council opposing the curb cut: Mary E. Burton, Hewitt Smith, Al Jobe and Bob Bole, who questioned whether access to the property only meant vehicle access. x x x x x A vote was taken on Councilman Hummel's motion -— Ayes x x _.._ which motion carried. Noes. I i Volume 33 - Page 126 AY OF NEWPORT BAH COUNCILMEN MINUTES F N ant t rai i ��T Mav 14. 1979 INDEX Councilman McInnis' second recommendation re- garding Pacific Coast Highway traffic from Mac- Arthur Boulevard to Bayside Drive was in connection with the VAU widening project. He stated that differences might occur, and the City should hold itself in a position to solve those problems as quickly as they arise. No motion was needed for this recommendation. Councilman McInnis' third recommendation regard- ing the use of the City -owned lot in Mariner's Mile as an off-street parking area was that it will be necessary to gain access to the lot, to pave it and get it ready for parking. Motion x Councilman McInnis made a motion to authorize the staff to move out Immediately and to determine what is required to get access to the lot, how much that would cost, how much the improvements would cost, and bring back to Council for consideration. ayor Pro Tern Williams asked that the motion be a ended to include the source of funds and subject acq isition which was accepted by the maker of the moti n. All Ayes A vote was taken on Councilman McInnis' amended motion, hich motion carried. Councilma McInnis' fourth recommendation con- cerned the ogram beginning in Huntington Beach for the wide Ing of Coast Highway in the westerly part of the Ci y. The highway bridge over the Santa Ana River will be the key element, which will take a consensus and an' greement between many agencies; such as, The Cit�, of Newport Beach, the City of Huntington Beach, a Orange County Flood Control District, the Corps o� Engineers, etc. Motion x Councilman McInnis de a motion to direct the All Ayes staff to begin the codination of the agencies involved with the intent f arriving at a configura- tion regarding a height aN location of the bridge within the next few months, Ahich motion carried. Councilman McInnis' last record(nendation concerned Motion x University Drive, and he madLxa motion that an appropriation of $15,000 be included in the 1979—$0 Budget for a focused traffic report Rn the University Drive -Corona del Mar Freeway-BrisStreet-Irvine Avenue -Jamboree Road complex. Motion x Mayor Ryckoff made a substitute motion to approve Ayes x x x x x a lower amount of $101000.00 for a traffi report for Noes x x the Corona del Mar Freeway -Bristol Stredt corridor to meet trans -bay circulation needs, int rsection operations and congestion, impacts on \nearby arterial streets) and effects if the Corona del Mar iFreeway Is not Implemented, which motion carp ed. i Volume 33 - Page 12 5 ` May 3, 1979 • To: City Council From: Property owners and residents Subject: Proposed Residence on lots 28 and 29, block Corona Del Mar, with a 25-foot wide driveway, on Ocean Blvd. -; original application submit�e Mr. & Mrs. Darwin Britvich �-,Wwm, Of CURK, t�+�Y' t3197J' iCAW! � C4i'r6!f• i We, the undersigned owners and residents of Corona Del Mar have only recently been made aware that the City Council on February 26, 1979 approved an application to construct a wide driveway and curb cut that was designated on the application as"29Q1 Ocean Blvd., Corona Del Mar. When this matter originally came before your Honorable Body none of us were notified that this matter was pending nor were we aware that you were considering the matter. We request an opportunity to present facts in support of our • request that you reconsider this matter and deny this curb cut, Our objection to the curb cut is based in part upon the fact that in allowing this curb cut and driveway, the City and'the Public- would loose a very substantial portion of public property which is presently grassed and planted and used as a natural view park and recreational area, enjoyed by large numbers of people for sightseeing, picnics and ball playing with small children. As example, many hundreds of people gather here to watch the start of the Ensenada Race, as well as other races and nautical events. The size of this cleared grassed area is such that to cut a driveway through it would leave so little clearing on each side, that the park could not be used and enjoyed as it is presently. We urge that it not be cutup and thereby taken from tlie'pub"lit. Our objection to the curb cut is also based i?non the fact that the proposed access driveway would require massive earth'digging and cutting into the bluff on city property. In view of the apparent composition of e,;• <-• j' 71j the bluff at this site, a mixture of loose dirt, sand stone rock and boulder (.i :; ai:T T type rocks, this presents a questionable geological situation. We do 0er not want a minor Malibu slide condition. In recent years pieces of the rq.4 cliff on lots 28 and 29 have dropped away indicating the formation is very "'rl Y unstable. K Pw JI;r,[or We suggest that the proposed land cuts desired by the owners of [� ocnar, r•I lots 28 and 29, for both the proposed driveway and residence, could deny 1 Cou11c111ner4 the '!right of support!" of the adjacent City Property, the grassed and planted, portion of the dedicated street (Ocean Blvd) which is presently a natural view park. What is at stake here is the preservation of one of the most outstandingly beautiful public areas in Corona Del Mar. It should not be damaged. E Page 2 We have read the report that was presented to the City Council from the Public Works Department, dated February 26, 1979, • regarding the application of Mr. & Mrs, Darwin Britvich to construct a 25-foot-wide driveway and curb cut, that was designated on the application as 2901 Ocean Boulevard, Corona Del Mar, We also have read the attached report from the Marine Department to Ken Ferry dated February 13, 1979 regarding access from the parking lot below. We respectfully disagree with their recommendations for approving the application, and the reasons the staff recommends against permitting access from below and also their reasons for recommending that if the property,is developed vehicular access be permitted from above. We would like to call your attention to what we believe was inadequate and misleading information given to the City Council in these reports, 1. The time of closure of the parking lot gate for the State Park is immaterial as the gate is sea -ward of the point where access to lots 28 and 29 would come off the present ramp, • A private driveway access would be required at the base of the bluff across the sidewalk and small planted area. This would be very easy to do. It would only require a small amount of pementt cutting and very little additional black top. The access road need only be marked "Private road or Service road" and would use up very little space. It is already paved and not marked for regular parking spaces in most of length, resulting in the loss of very few parking spaces, the exact number depending upon the. final design. ! A fence system separating the parking lot from the driveway could be installed at' relatively small expense in, oxder to prewe 44 cemmingling of use and/or blockage to the driveway. This may not be necessary because the Corona Del Mar State Beach parking lot is managed and operated by the City. The parking lot attendants do not allow more cars to enter than there are parking spaces for, preventing blockages. They do an excellant job in this regard. 2. If necessary a gate system across the driveway at the bottom of the hill could be installed similar to Breakers Drive at the expense of is the applicant. There are no administrative or operational problems with this gate system that we are aware of, 1 9 • Page 3 3. The capital expenditure that would be required to make • these physical changes would be insignificant indeed compared to the cost and irreparable public loss of cutting into the above parkway on Ocean Blvd. 4. The State of California might make no objection at all, especially as most details of Park Planning are left to City determination, and the State as well as the City should surely appreciate the great public advantages in preserving the View Park on Ocean Blvd. We have also read the report from the Department of Community Development to the City Manager dated February 22, 1979,r, regarding the application of Mr, and Mrs. Darwin Britvich to construct a twenty-five foot wide driveway and curb cut designated as 2901 Ocean Blvd., Corona Del Mar. The report states that following the City Council meeting of February 12, 1979, the Department of Community Development was requested to contact the architect for the project, "Dick Dodd", and obtain elevations of the proposed structure. They did so and also discussed with him three sections through the site that he presented to the City Council on February 26, 1979. In each three sections A, B & C the architect listed his view of its advantages anti disadvantages in terms of view and the amount of grading and cut which would be required to accommodate the required driveway. We believe the architect mislead the City Council and Department of Community Development by omitting information which concerns this application. This was done by providing sketchy and inadequate elevations of the proposed structure and driveway. He failed to show on his elevations the amount of vertical drop with particular referance to the point at which his proposed driveway cut would enter the private propeto.�],ot,� 28�&. He also omitted some of the main disadvanVagea'in ciMing'the proposed twenty-five foot wide driveway through the Parkway, in terms of full impact on the parkway, other obstructions which would impair the view, and the trtal amount of grading and cut which would be required to accommodate this proposed driveway. Some of the missing details on the sketch of the driveway elevation were the exact location of the trees, actual size of remaining parkway, extent of embankments for driveway with the needed • railing to protect the public, all of which concern this application. We do not want to deny the owners of lots 28 and 29 the use of their land and for that reason we recommend that they have good access to their property from below (the edge of the Corona Del Mar beach parking lot). In conclusion we respectfully request that you reconsider the matter of the application for the curb cut on Ocean Blvd. , and after such reconsideration that you deny the curb cut,-; as herein set forth. • • �. Page 4 1 # 5-3-7 Signed, Names Add7pdsses , KA� � �," �11 �L �jL,y'�•WK OS%, ,�%.a �".�f4/�•'(" ..+• ; • w � d/' ��%(;�'�,� � :{'i /,yj + -t �.RV`. "..MT.'fFY �i N��"'•R: G� .•t!I:iCci/9rTrIN'• ,,�•, ¢u,/".""O� �ft 16A2 )yV,v'-j Ove }��s!V,V � o" GJ �..�/) 42�Q��i �YK,�S 1`.. / .� J � �y..•.,.. I, �+r +, :: / 1�1 r�.., .... • R"7i '1 `war..• :�t;'n71.`!(� •' �'✓ r',! rw <2 . �,200� �l-�C!//� FYrr"el, C'.i�r!'/'Z' + 1, eset 1 ' -bw�{r;. • - - . '�" .n...r•''c.'•1+.. .-aw:.,.,�„•^71 _4 Page 5 '+ Signed, • Names I :''c U Gam, 2 gPRI !: Tl moo �� , • GDf� .' " . 1 .w.""iFcN`c,*.,f."'ir�ii.`. i•�'r �n}�iil�i—'YL i�s R, `%�^ •�i-.Yr N.w «r,}SY 9 � 0 April 273 1979 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Attention: Mr. Dennis O'Neil, City Attorney Regarding- Approval in Concept for fir." 9 Mrs. Darwin Britvioh 2901 Ocean Boulerd, N vewport, Beach Dear Dennis: Ve have applied for an "Approval in Concept" on the above resi- dence. On April 18-th I met with Dick Hogan and Jim Lawieker, at which time I was told the garage as submitted was above the height limit,,and that I would have to do one of two"things: a. have PlannInZ Commission set the grade to accommodate the roof,. (This is allowed by Section 20.87,200 of Zoning Code.) b. Obtain a,'variance to allow height as submitted. It is my'contention, and my client's, that neither of thew alternatives is. necessary', as it is clear to us that the City Council set the roof height as well as the floor height at thair meeting of February 26, 1979. , . Our reasons are as -follows. 1. 141n4tes• cif Meeting; .(enclosed) state: "T ,e heik ht of the hbsildlu be the same as the curb height". 2.' ' Agenda for Couzioix Meeting (enclosed), Item F-a states-,. W.,"Height of, building to be saLte as of Curb. 3. We presented larte scale drawings to Council and Staff showing,("') Sections A, .d, and e. (See attached letter to City Manager dated February 22% 1979.) The letter clearly describes (8) possibilities, Section C being the lowest and setting a 15% drive slope. 1'(P 0 City of Newport Beach Attn: tor. Dennis O'Neil$ City Attorney April 270 1979 Pa?e 2 4. Letter of February 26th to City Council (attached) from Public Works Director clearly states: (4) 01Aei ht of buildin 'to be the same as hei ht of curb". 1 his % ternfurther o ar ies reason or roof height in next to last paragraph. A 15° grade would allow a, garage floor low enough to permit the roof to be no higher than the top of curbr It should be pointed out that the garage roofcould be a maxi- mum height of 24 feet above grade adjacent to ocean Boulevard as allowed by My ordinance. It is clear that the City Qouneil approved the lowest possible roof height-. The owner is further disturbed by the fact that the 'drawings submitted for Approval in Concept were posted on the bulletin board in the Council Chambers during a study session April 23�. 1079. It is questionable ii' the City has the right to make this public information and one must question the intent of this action when no notification was given to the owner. In view of the above reasons I must request that we receive the, Approval in Concept, or that the City return the drawings sub- mitted. Sincerely* Richard H. Dodd Architect, RhD/ja )Enclosures' c6: Mr. Dick Hogan Director of Community Development Mr. S Urs. Darwin Britvich 3- V d O y 19 io R R. I s /c --- T ' 2 11 ` U I 7 n 1 RESU13 -/B5` .3 vl _ — -- //e.0' a R jV /7 /J f 9 � . l� oa e� a' ZO /ih^ J V F R, •� 1 ' ti 4 V N /B 24 N 17 /3 q ZI Z3 i t0 AYEMLIE FIZZY t Ilea m V Z4 1 2 --- z /7 ;; 16. 9 R m , ,r 7 �Lrv0c) I �p =^, CI* OF NEWPORT BE*H COUNCILMEN Np 0ik, MINUTES INDEX 1LL 76, 1, Ayes x x x x A vote was taken on Councilman Hummel's motion, Noes x x x which motion carried. 3. A report was presented from the Public Works Curb Cut/ Department regarding the application of Mr. and Mrs. Ocean Blvd (3180) Darwin Britvich to. construct a 25-foot-wide drive- way and curb cut at 2901 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar. Dick Dodd, architect for the applicant, addressed the Council. Motion The application wds approved as recomme_ nd_ed, with x x x <the`heI9hf_ oitlie building to be the same as the cure Ayes x x height.- Noes x 4. City Arts Commission:' City Arts• Comsn The Council agreed that the method of voting for the (120F) nominees whose names had been presented would be to assign the green lights to one candidate and the. red lights to the other. Accordingly, the red lights Were assigned to Janet L. Ennis and the green lights to Carol Lynn Smith, and Janet L. Ennis was Red x x x x x appointed to fill the unexpired term of Mitch Green x x Teemley ending June 30, 1980. 5. (District 1) Councilman Strauss' appointment of Carol Litter McDonald to replace Nancy Moore as a member of Control the Litter Control Citizens Advisory Committee for a CAC term ending December 31, 1979, and the postponement (2046) Motion x of a replacement for Betty Hogan to March 26, were' Ab Ayes.' confirmed. 6. (District 2) Councilman McInnis' appointment of CEQAC (1058) Anita Ferguson as a member of the Environmental Quality Citizens Advisory Committee to fill the Motion. I x unexpired term of Ocee Ritch ending December 31, All Ayes I 1979 was confirmed. G. CURRENT BUSINESS: 1. A report was presented from the Public Works Curb Cut/ Balboa Blvd Department regarding the application of Mrs. Goldie Joseph to construct two curb cuts for one lot at 925- (3198) 27 East Balboa Boulevard. Motion x The application for the curb cuts was approved. All Ayes 2. A report was presented from the Traffic Affairs Parking Prohibitions Committee regarding proposed parking prohibitions (440F) on certain street portions in Newport Shores. The recommendations of the Traffic Affairs Commit- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Pledge of Allegiance. A. ROLL CALL. B. Minutes of the meeting of Action: If desired, approve as February 26, 1979 7:30 P.M. February 12, 1979. waive the reading of the Minutes, written and order filed. C. Reading of the ordinances and resolutions. Action: If desired, waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions under consideration and direct the City Clerk to read by title only. D. HEARINGS: (The purpose of public hearings is to present testimony to the City Council - Remarks should be pertinent and concise and within the 5-minute time limit. 1. Public hearing regarding proposed Ordinance No. 1797, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING A PORTION OF DISTRICTING MAP NO. 30 TO RECLASSIFY FROM THE R-3-B-2 DISTRICT TO THE A-P DISTRICT CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2222 UNIVERSITY DRIVE AND ACCEPTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT (Planning Commission Amendment No. 530), a request of James F. Deane, Newport Beach, to amend a portion of Districting Map No. 30 from the R-3-B-2 District to the A-P District, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document on property located at 2222 University Drive on the northerly side of University Drive, easterly of Irvine Avenue, adjacent to the Orange Coast YMCA. A Traffic Study for a 69,720 sq. ft. office building complex located at 2222 University:Drive, on the northerly side of University Drive, easterly of Irvine Avenue, adjacent to the Orange Coast YMCA, is attached for City Council information. (A report from the Community Development Department) Action: Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, (a) accept the Environmental Document and (b,) adopt Ordinance No. 1797. F. (Cont.) A report from the Public Works Department regarding the application of Mr. and Mrs. Darwin Britvich to construct a 25-foot-wide driveway and curb cut at 2901 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar. (Attached) Action: If desired, approve the application, subject to the following conditions: (a) Prior issuance of a building permit for the proposed residence; (b) The driveway width to be a maximum of 16 feet wide for the portion within the Ocean Boulevard right-of-way except for tapers connecting to the garage apron; (c) Approval of the detailed driveway design by the Parks, Beaches & Recreation and Public Works Departments;__ and ,(d-)---Hei'gh-t of building to be same as height lof_.c.ur_b. 9. Appointment to the City Arts Commission: Action: If desired, (a) using the red and green light system, designate colors for voting for candidates; (b) consideration of Janet L. Ennis and Carol Lynn Smith to fill the unexpired term of Mitch Teemley ending June 30, 1980. Appointment of 5. Litter Control Citizens Advisory Committee: Action: If desired, confirm the following appointment: (District 1) Councilman Strauss' appointment of and to replace Nancy Moore.and Betty Hogan. 6. Environmental Oualitv Citizens Advisory Committee: Action: If desired, confirm the following appointment: (District 2) Councilman McInnis' appointment :)f _ "�EWpORr 0 • O A t r Department of Community Development CSC/FO PNr DATL-: February 22, 1979 TO: City Manager FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJLCT: Application of Mr. and Mrs. Darwin Britvich to construct a twenty-five foot wide driveway and curb cut at 2901 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar Following the City Council meeting of February 12, 1979, the Depart- ment of Community Development was requested to contact the architect for the project and obtain elevations -of the proposed structure, and contact the,Marine Department to determine if access can be taken to the site from the Big Corona Parking Lot. We have met with Dick Dodd, architect for the project, and discussed with him three sections through the site which he will present to the City Council on Monday evening, February 26, 1979. Each section has its own advantages and disadvantages in terms of view and the amount of grading and cut which would be required to accom- modate the required driveway. SECTION A This alternative would place the "gaF ge`ffve feet above the top of the curb and result in the greate•st__l-o-s-s--o•F-view. However, --the driveway would be at a 10% grade and more nearly follow the exist- ing contour of the land and result in a cut of approximately one foot. SECTION B This alternative would place the garage-th-ree-fe-et--a-bove-the--top -o-f-. the curb. A portion Of the driveway (near�st_the_ga a.ge-would be at ` a 15% grade, which is the maximum permitted. This driveway would - require a maximum cut of approximately two feet. The remaing portion of the driveway (26 ft.* nearest the curb) would follow existing grades and could be improved -with turf block to minimize visual impact on the existing parkway. `SECTION-C____ � • 'This- aTternatibe-woulcf place tie top of the garage at th'e-sa-mme el-a-va-, L-ti_o.n__a.s.__th.e__to,.p._o_f._th.e,-cuxrb. Howe•ve.r- it wou-1d.h-ave.a_]5% driveway TO: City Manager - 2. and require a cut of approximately five feet. This proposal would result in maximum view preservation but have the greatest impact on the parkway. As to the advisability of taking access. to the site from the Big Corona Parking Lot, we have contacted the Marine Department and their report to the Public Works Department is attached. DEPARTMENT OF.COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director by 41nO Q. AM S D. HEWICCER s.sstant Director - Planning JDH/kk Attachment: Report from Marine Department COl1NCIEN COY OF NEWPORT BOCK � LMMINUTES y O�y i R()I.t. CALL.�u'o,.ti_�,...., �c 1979 INDEX Ayes Motion Ayes Noes x x x x x x x x N x x x x x x hich motion carried. ::A votewas taken on Coun el's motion,Noes 3. A report was presented from the Public Works Department regarding the application of Mr. and Mrs. Darwin Britvich to construct a 25-foot-wide drive- way and curb cut at 2901 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar. Dick Dodd, architect for the applicant, addressed the Council. The application was approved as recommended, with the height of the building to be the same as the curb height. Curb Cut/ Ocean Blvd (3180) City Arts City Arts Commission: Comsn The Council agreed that the method of voting for the (120F) nominees whose names had been presented would be assign the green lights to one candidate and the. r lights to the other. Accordingly, the red lights we assigned to Janet L. Ennis and the green lights to rol Lynn Smith, and Janet L. Ennis was Red x x x x x x x appoi ed to fill the unexpired term of Mitch Green Teemle ending June 30,1980. 5. (District 1 ouncilman Strauss' appointment of Carol Litter McDonald t replace Nancy Moore as a member of, Control the Litter Co rol Citizens Advisory Committee for a CAC term ending De ember 31, 1979, and the postponement (2046) Motion x of a replacemen for Betty Hogan to March 26, were All Ayes confirmed. 6. (District 2) Counci an McInnis' appointment of CEQAC Anita Ferguson as a ember of the Environmental (1058) Quality Citizens Advi ry Committee to fill the Motion x unexpired term of Ocee itch ending December 31, All Ayes 1979 was confirmed. G. CURRENT BUSINESS: 1. A report was presented from the Public Works Curb Cut/ Department regarding the applica 'on of Mrs. Goldie Balboa Blvd Joseph to construct two curb cuts f one lot at 925- (3198) 27 East Balboa Boulevard. Motion x The application for the curb cuts was ap ved. All Ayes 2. A report was presented from the Traffic ffairs Parking Committee regarding proposed parking prohi 'tions Prohibitions i on certain street portions in Newport Shores. (440F) The recommendations of the Traffic Affairs Commi Motion x tee were approved to prohibit parking on one side of All Ayes the following street portions located between Coast Highway and Newport Shores Drive: Colton Street, Lugonia Street, Walnut Street and Cedar Street. Volume 33 - Page 48 February 26, 1979 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F-3 TO: •CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: APPLICATION OF MR. AND MRS. DARWIN BRITVICH TO CONSTRUCT A 25-FOOT- WIDE DRIVEWAY AND CURB CUT AT 2901 OCEAN BOULEVARD, CORONA DEL MAR RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve the application subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior issuance of a building permit for the proposed residence; 2. The driveway width be a maximum of 16 feet wide for the portion within the Ocean Boulevard right-of-way (except for tapers connecting to the garage apron); 3. Approval of the detailed driveway design by the Parks, Beaches & Recreation, and Public Works Departments; j 4. Height of building to be the same as height of curb. DISCUSSION: Attached is a sketch showing the location of a driveway and curb cut proposed to be constructed in the public right-of-way along the southerly side of Ocean Boulevard between Heliotrope and Iris Avenues. The location of the project is shown on the attached area map. A large exhibit will be on display in the Council Chambers. The prior approval of the City Council is required by Council Policy L-2, which provides that no permit shall be issued for driveways on the ocean side of Ocean Boulevard without City Council approval. This application was previously before the Council at the meeting of February 12, 1979. The matter was continued in order to obtain more information regarding alternative access from below (the Corona del Mar beach parking lot), and regarding building heights and driveway configuration. The staff recommends against permitting access from below for the following reasons: 1. The public parking lot gate is closed from 10:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M.. Access to 2901 Ocean Boulevard would require a private access roadway plus turn -around space on public property, resulting in the loss of approximately 15 regular parking spaces, the exact number depending upon the final design. � r� ,C�1T-9 ul C `t COUNCIL S i 0 February 26, 1979 Subject: Application of Mr. and Mrs. Darwin Britvich to construct a 25-foot- Page 2 wide driveway and curb cut at 2901 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar 2. The State of California, owner of most of the land below, might not consent to the proposal. 3. A significant capital expenditure would be required to make the physical changes needed. 4. Recent experience with private access road (in Bayside Drive and in Ocean Boulevard at Marigold Avenue) indicates that administra- tive and operational problems can be expected. The staff recommends that if the property is developed, vehicular access to 2901 Ocean Boulevard be permitted from above. Attached is a report from the Marine Department regarding access from the parking lot below. An uncovered parking area on top of the building at street level would require a special use permit. For any design the plan area of driveway in the Ocean Boulevard right-of-way will be the same. The maximum amount of cut into the parkway is limited by the maximum permissible grade (50 feet @ 15% grade= 7.5 feet). This suggests a garage floor low enough to permit the roof to be no higher than the top of the curb. The amount of excavation and slope grading in the right-of-way can be reduced however by permitting a higher elevation for the garage. The architect will be present to answer questions that may arise regarding the proposed building project. - - j"M Benjamin B. Nolan Public Works Director KLP:do Att. i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SKETCH FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT No. EP Lot .o='2`f Job Address 2`101- Oe-chvi D C• �. Block Owner RQIVTVIc:-•i I� Tract e-vcNoi. fit, Felephone t45-02z1 —3 GAR ' GARAGE TJRr:I•AR00nI9 ARC r18'. o'! _ 1P { p1?OpoheP pr1R IsSYVA� �-- E�I�TIN� aJRS 01 3•0' 311-0' Date Applicant's Signature Please make a sketch of your immediate vicinity showing all dimensions and location of trees, light standards, fire hydrants, parking meters or other obstructions existing on parkway, which might concern this application. Work shall be done according to city specifications and is subject to city inspection. Sketch to be drawn in duplicate. h, b S s /8 -- B 4 M1,511/ DC/YE °ly ZQ Ile. a' 1/8 /Z ✓ R:� y /D /ien• 7 I� /3 = =� aaa' 9 ` . t� /4 .90 s5' nI \ ai•2a2a•i 7; d/ 6 4 I 141 @ 3� 8 15, X 35 o I log e0' 32�t PROP I 23 �' .4'I2/• � j . i ay6`Qi4 O I / ,4YEM-YEzmaj Q V N_V ! . 24 /8 /7 ; r :e o<; /(o RESUE' 14 /Z _�t 7,:r=f�P=�s . vt _- '<-7,7 7 M f, J • • ' ZS MARINE DEPARTMENT CFebruary 13, 1979 TO: KEN PERRY FROM: Marine Director SUBJECT: ACCESS DRIVEWAY TO CORONA DEL MAR MAIN BEACH PARKING LOT REF: PROPOSED RESIDENCE AT 2901 OCEAN BOULEVARD, CDM Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 11.08.030 paragraph B states, "that no person shall be allowed or permitted on the Corona del Mar State and City Park Beach..... between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. of.the following day". Because of this ordinance the parking lot is gated at the bottom of the hill and there is currently no access point to the west end of the parking lot. An access driveway along the base of the bluff to the far west end of the C parking lot +m--.rSto for the purposes of a garage at 2901 Ocean Boulevard would require the following Capital Improvements to the Corona del Mar State Beach Parking Lot: 1. A curb and fence system separating the parking lot from the driveway would have to be installed in order to prevent commingling of use and/or blockage to the driveway. 2. A curb cut across the existing sidewalk and planted area at the base of the bluff would have to be accomplished in order to allow access to the driveway. 3. A driveway access would required a re -design of the parking space layout and stripping in order to accomodate a driveway. 4. A gate system across the driveway at the bottom of the hill similar to Breakers Drive would also be necessary in order to keep beach parkers from parking and blocking the driveway during heavy crowd conditions. Should a driveway be considered a viable alternative, the re -design of parking configuration should be addressed in order to determine the number of parking spaces and corresponding revenue which would be lost by permitting an access driveway at the west end of the lot. David Harshbarger, Director Marine Department DH:11 E ( DATE: Department of Community February 22, 1979 Development r0: City Manager FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Application of Mr. and Mrs. Darwin Britvich to construct a twenty-five foot wide driveway and curb cut at 2901 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar Following the City Council meeting of February 12, 1979, the Depart- ment of Community Development was requested to contact the architect for the project and obtain elevations -of the proposed structure, and contact the Marine Department to determine if access can be taken to the site from the Big Corona Parking Lot. We have met with Dick Dodd, architect for the project, and discussed with him three sections through the -site which he will present to the City Council on Monday evening, February 26, 1979. Each section has its own advantages and disadvantages in terms of•view and the amount of grading and cut which would be required to accom- modate the required driveway. SECTION A' This alternative would place the garage the curb and result in the greatest loss driveway would be at a 10% grade and mor ing contour of the land and result in a foot. SECTION B five feet above the top of of view. However, the e nearly follow the exist-. cut of approximately one • Thit alternative would place the garage three feet above the top of the curb. A portion of the driveway nearest the garage would be at a 15% grade, which is the maximum permitted. This driveway would require a maximum cut of approximately two feet. The remaing portion of the driveway (26 ft.± nearest the curb) would follow existing grades and could be improved with turf block to minimize visual impact on the existing parkway. SECTION C This alternative would place the top of the garage at the same eleva- tion as the top of the curb. However it would have a 15% driveway n r TO: City Manager - 2. and require a cut of approximately five feet. This proposal would result in maximum view preservation but have the greatest impact on the parkway. As to the advisability of taking access.to the site from the Big Corona Parking Lot, we have contacted the Marine Department and their report to the Public Works Department is attached. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director by Q. 4.0 S D. HEWIC ER ss'stant Director - Planning JDH/kk C Attachment: Report from Marine Department MARINE DEPARTMENT February 13, .1979 TO: KEN PERRY FROM: Marine Director SUBJECT: ACCESS DRIVEWAY TO CORONA DEL MAR MAIN BEACH PARKING LOT REF: PROPOSED RESIDENCE AT 2901 OCEAN BOULEVARD, CDM Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 11.08.030 paragraph B states, "that no person shall be allowed or permitted on the Corona del Mar State and City Park Beach..... between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. ofi:the following day" Because of this ordinance the parking lot is gated at the bottom of the hill and there is currently no access point to the west end of the parking lot. - An access driveway•alond the base of the bluff to the far west end of the parking lot for the purposes of a garage at 2901 Ocean Boulevard would require the following.Capital Improvements to the Corona del Mar State Beach Parking Lot: 1. A curb and fence system separating the parking lot from the driveway would have to be installed in order to prevent commingling of use and/or blockage to the driveway. 2. A curb cut across the existing sidewalk and planted area at the base of the bluff would have to be accomplished in order to allow access to '.the driveway. 3. A driveway access would required a re -design of the parking space layout and stripping in order to accomodate a driveway. 4. A gate system across the driveway at the bottom of the hill similar to Breakers Drive would also be necessary in order to keep beach parkers from parking and blocking the driveway during heavy crowd conditions. Should a driveway be considered a viahle alternative, the re -design of parking configuration should be addressed in order to determine the number of parking spaces and corresponding revenue which would be lost by permitting an;access driveway at the west end of the lot. David Harshbarger, Director Marine Department DH:11 i 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Office of CITY ATTORNEY To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Acting City Attorney Subject: Erection of electric gate at entrance to Breakers Drive July 26, 1971 F-2 The City was recently approached by representatives of the property owners residing on Breakers Drive, with the request that the City consent to the erection of an electric gate at the entrance to Breakers Drive. The Breakers Drive Community Associa- tion pointed out that because of the proximity of Breakers Drive to the beach area, motorists seeking free parking have been inter- fering with the rights of residents to use Breakers Drive. Although parking control measures were attempted in the past, by means of sign posting, the problem continues to exist. The Association feels that the only satisfactory solution is the additional control which would be provided by the proposed gate, which would alleviate the problem without infringing on the City's property rights. The City holds legal title to the street, subject to an easement for roadway and public utility purposes in favor of the record"' owners of the abutting lots. Since its conveyance to the City, Breakers Drive has continuously been used as a private street by the abutting property owners, with the City retaining its claim to the underlying fee as a protection against any unforeseeable changes in the area, which might require opening Breakers Drive as a public street. The Chief of Police and the Fire Chief, as well as other affected department heads, have reviewed with representatives of the Breakers Drive Community Association the question of accessibility to Breakers Drive in connection with police and fire protection, refuse collection and related City services, and it has been determined that erection of the gate would not interfere undu with any of these functions. Adoption of the attached res would express the consent of the City Council to the ere offp the electric gate at the entrance to Breakers Drive, wi he\-%-\. following reservations: 1. The City does not relinquish any rights it has to underlying fee; ���' 0 o� 0�7. �pp��"��F E Re: Breakers Drive -2- July 26, 1971 2. The City reserves the right to remove the gate if it is determined to be in the public interest to do so; 3. The Breakers Drive Community Association will cooperate fully with all departments of the City in the matter of access to Breakers Drive. DENNIS O'NEIL Acting City Attorney DO'N:mh Att. cc: City Clerk City Manager Police Department Eire Department Public Works Department PC`ommunity Development Department General Services Department A . 6 41 i 0 SITE. WCA'T'10l�1 P6c4*s Attachment i N to .. •: I _ ' . /,• . v h _ ; ^.. /!J �' • ,r p //,�e:: � _ � ; • b , .', r tr :., � : ::.,... , S p v � •7 ry/a IS ` . h /� •t • � f5 N = � .. .,t.. ..1 j ., ,C V t� J I I m•. �.� �< vc'h m e i � 11 io I 1 - 1 �Ip 3�1 , 1 6y4• Z6jqb; Tffrf� nT7 ` t{ O , L. 9 � . J9. 5' 40.24' i Y (J e•; jiv j:' r.: �' •.. .. • 3p. dn. 02• Z297- 70(go) M ! 2 3q' ::::'..:: - ':,'r` mr 3 aR• e•.' k3.. : .3� &Ry pR)• 48.d0 a�. /' A ( 7g 3y 3p2a.. • BR p.Op' i .- -.j j- 2✓ 1 •3�8 �,�/N ay Q7.p0. 5 lip ;�. � ', `���trl /,��. .i �. I n' .l� ���•� Q�g4Z. 47.00- Q �O`5 4` • � � , t� i 1 / � .•27•�;- •,.'• •�V'I' ¢::: J a5 .. - j 3� • 5d I k 1 .1, i + �2oP �� Z0 a. .a�(. 25 1 ��/ p.T 6�5/ •, ' � � �, Z�. �>, . i , ':.. � • t; �-� . ,� 4 � .. • r9'ral a� � �-�N� � 7 ' (� � � I I � 1 A Q. 33', 30• .., 30' ,95' I •• V Al a � a •29Y8• B 7 !: 5 Tq '�9pe �. •t408.90d0.3y. .cJ�•.,;..:.''. 0 0 MARINE DEPARTMENT June 12, 1979 TO: CORONA DEL MAR PARKING LOT FILE FROM: Tidelands Administrator SUBJECT: ACCESS TO 2901 OCEAN BLVD. On June 7, 1979 I called Mr. Ed Wilson of California Department of Parks and Recreation, District V, and inquired as to the State's attitude regarding use of public areas such as Corona del Mar State Beach and Park fo.r private access. Mr. Wilson indicated the State was opposed to this type of use based on past experiences where easements have been granted. Their experience has been that, once an easement is granted, the grantee begins to assume he owns the easement area and makes demands upon the State beyond what 'the easement calls for. In some cases, structures have been built on the easement in violation of the easement terms. The State does have an application procedure for easements. Mr. Wilson indicated he would oppose any applications for an'easement across the Corona del Mar parking lot. Additionally, the City's contract with the State would have to be amended since the current contract does not provide for this situation.. Glen E. Welden Tidelands Administrator Marine Department GEW:nn A RE(Z c, De. MEWPORT 4LAGM CALIF, ' �7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT June 1, 1979 TO: Glen Welden, Marine Department FROM: Traffic Division Commander SUBJECT: ACCESS DRIVEWAY TO CORONA DEL MAR MAIN BEACH PARKING LOT FOR PROPOSED RESIDENCE AT 2901 OCEAN BLVD. It is the position of the Traffic Division that the proposal out- lined is not in the best interest of the City. It appears a good portion of the main beach west parking lot which is heavily used would be usurped and therefore add to the already heavy parking problems in the adjoining residential areas. The problem with unauthorized persons parking in Breakers Drive is not monumental, but is constant and requires more time than we can really afford. Their problem is unique, and to solve it, we altered our policy relative to private property enforcement. We do nor- intend to afford the proposed residents the same consideration as we cannot afford the manpower which is sorely needed in other areas of Corona del Mar. It appears that the proposed entrance to the property would create additional conflict between vehicles entering and leaving the property and vehicles entering and exiting the parking lot. e. ��T'P. Heeres, Captain Commander, Traffic Division c February 26, 1979 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F-3 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: APPLICATION OF MR. AND MRS. DARWIN BRITVICH TO CONSTRUCT A 25-FOOT- WIDE DRIVEWAY AND CURB CUT AT 2901 OCEAN BOULEVARD, CORONA DEL MAR RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve the application subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior issuance of a building permit for the proposed residence; 2. The driveway width be a maximum of 16 feet wide for the portion within the Ocean Boulevard right-of-way (except for tapers connecting to the garage apron); 3. Approval of the detailed driveway design by the Parks, Beaches & Recreation, and Public Works Departments; 4� Height of building' to'6e the `same as height- of curb. DISCUSSION: Attached is a sketch showing the location of a driveway and curb cut proposed to be constructed in the public right-of-way along the southerly side of Ocean Boulevard between Heliotrope and Iris Avenues. The location of the project is shown on the attached area map. A large exhibit will be on display in the Council Chambers. The prior approval of the City Council is required by Council Policy L-2, which provides that no permit shall be issued for driveways on the ocean side of Ocean Boulevard without City Council approval. This application was previously before the Council at the meeting of February 12, 1979. The matter was continued in order to obtain more information regarding alternative access from below (the Corona del Mar beach parking lot), and regarding building heights and driveway configuration. The staff recommends against permitting access from below for the following reasons: 1. The public parking lot gate is closed from 10:00 P.M. to 6:00 A.M. Access to 2901 Ocean Boulevard would require a private access roadway plus turn -around space on public property, resulting in the loss of approximately 15 regular parking spaces, the exact number depending upon the final design. 7/1 hy� Z6 _ February 26, 1979 Subject: Application of Mr. and Mrs. Darwin Britvich to construct a 25-foot- wide driveway and curb cut at 2901 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar Page 2 2. The State of California,. owner of most of the land below, might not consent to the proposal. 3. A significant capital expenditure would be required to make the physical changes needed. 4. Recent experience with private access road (in Bayside Drive and in Ocean Boulevard at Marigold Avenue) indicates that administra- tive and operational problems can be expected. The staff recommends that if the property is developed, vehicular access to 2901 Ocean Boulevard be permitted from above. Attached is a report from the Marine Department regarding access from the parking lot below. An uncovered parking area on top of the building at street level would require a special use permit. For any design the plan area of driveway in the Ocean Boulevard right-of-way will be the same. }The -maximum -amount -of -cut i-nto- the-- parkway --i•s limi-ted-by-the-maximum-permissible grade (50 feet @ 15% grade= 7.5 feet). This suggests a garage floor, tow enough._to permit the_roof to be no higher than the top of_the-curb,e The amount of excavation and slope grading in the`right=of=way can be reduced however by permitting a higher elevation for the garage. The architect will be present to answer questions that may arise regarding the proposed building project. Benjamin B. Nolan Public Works Director KLP:do Att. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SKETCH FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT No. EP Lot ;-E7Y 2`( �!AI! JobAddress 2 `�C� I - OG�►,a a�� n L.D. Block q• 3 , .� Owner i)A2 : RaZrTVIU� Tract GC4ANA 9cL elephone 643-otz� GARAGE '(�Rn1•ARo�Np r2 S! o'! Date Applicant's ignature Please make a sketch of your immediate vicinity showing all dimensions and location of trees, light standards, fire hydrants. parking meters or other obstructions existing on parkway, which might concern this application. Work shall be done according to city specifications and is subject to city inspection. Sketch to be drawn in duplicate. e eTAYP OF CALIFORNIN EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Go•ernor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SOUTH COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION 666 E. OCEAN BOULEVARD, SUITE 3707 P.O. BOX 1450 LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90801 (213) SM5071 (714) W 0646 dp?6 C October 24, 1979 To: Commissioners From: Executive Director Subject: Summary and Recommendation `'.� ' .�� �•_ �, Application No.: . P-79-6043 � Attachments: 1. Site Location Map OC%9197 2. /Ve-w" a3. F 4. °"ii 13eq 5. D 6. 7. 8. 1. Administrative Action: 13 Notified The application has been reviewed and is complete. The 42-day hearing period exppires . Public Hearing is scheduled for 11-5-79 ontinuations, (if any) were granted as follows: 1. 2. _ 3. 2. Applicant: Darwin Britvich 714/645-0221 Applicant's u name Te ephone number 300 Kings Place Address Newport Beach, CA 92663 Richard H. Dodd, Architect 714/673-0990 Or Representative s name Telephone pum er 201 Shipyard Way, Berth A, Cabin F Address Newport Beach, CA 92663 3. Project Location: a) City or District Newport Beach b) County Orange c) Street Address 2901 Ocean Blvd. d) Area is Zoned R-1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: • Construction of a four -level, split-level, cascade construction 4029 sq. f single-family dwelling with four -bedrooms, family room and attached three - car garage on an irregularly shaped, 6781 sq. ft., extremely sloping vacant coastal bluff R-1 lot. The project is between the nearest public road and the sea. There is a pedestrian vertical access stairway immediately adjacent to the west of the property for access to Corona State Park. LOCATION DESCRIPTION & STREET ADDRESS: On the coastal bluffs adjacent to Corona Del Mar State Park at 2901 Ocean Blvd. in Corona Del Mar. DISTANCE FROM MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE: Adjacent to beach. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY: Vacant SITE SIZE• Irregular = 6,781 sq. ft. DENSITY: Gross: N/A Net: N/A UNIT MIX: N/A ON -SITE PARKING: Primary = 3 Size = 9x20 Tandem = 1 Size - 9x20 Total = 4 PROJECT HEIGHT: Above AFG = 30 ft. Above CFR = Ocean Blvd. minus 2 ft. l Corona State Park 50 £t., split level cascade structure. 240 000 ninisreriai it a separate grac: PROJECT COST,: $ EIR: permit is, not required. AGENCY APPROVAL: Approval in Concept - City 9-25-79. RECOMMENDATION: The Executive Director recommenfol that the Commission adopt the following resolution: I. Denial The Commission hereby denies a permit for the proposed development on the grounds that the development will not be in conformity with the provisions of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1.976, and will prejudice the ability of the local government having jurisdiction over the area to pre- pare a Local Coastal Program conforming to the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, and will have significant adverse impacts on the environ- ment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act. II. Findings and Declarations The Commission finds and declares as follows: Consistency With the California Coastal Act of 1976: A. Alteration of Landforms Section 30251 of the: Coastal. Act states: 3M51. The scenic and viral qualities or couW sirens shsil 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, to minimize the alteration or natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character or surrounding areas, and. where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in virally degraded area. New development in highly scenic areas rich as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting Further, the Adopted Statewide Guidelines for the stability of bluff top developments states: To meet the requirmeaEa of the aoti bluff and elf deve'_orme=cs past be sited and designed to assu-•e stab`.1.i1-7 and ssraetural i-te9_-- for their expected economic Life== s wh:n- ^+^ 's''-r alteration ofnatural•landforms. ffi.uff and cli:: develo;nents atom runoff, foot traf!ic, site preparation; construction irrigation, waste rater disposal and other activities and facilities accomparying such development) must not be allowed to Crease or cca- tribute aigniSicantly to prcblem of erosion or geologic itstab;':7 on the site or on surroUMMng geologically haza-Zd= areas. Alteration of cliffs and blufrrtops, facest or bases by eacavat-_ a or other means should be minimized. Cliff retain4n wa= should be allowed only to stabilize elopes, or sea wa=s or sea walls at the toe sOf actsaallq-damagintb check g alternative�indd when quirred:eri there is no lees eav'_oa- The Commission should note that of the 6781 square feet comprising the pro- posed site, only 40 square feet lies landward of the top of the bluff. Therefore, no possibility exists for bluff top setback; the structure will be built entirely on the face of the bluff. Further, the property is bounded to the north along Ocean Avenue by a 60 foot wide public right of way presently being used as a landscaped public -3- view park. The only vehicle access to,the site #by a 20 foot wide curvin driveway approved by the City of Newport Beach which crosses a landscaped portion of this parkway. If it were not for this easement, the site, in fact would be landlocked. The physical constraints surrounding the proposed site indicates that the i algrossmay nonconformitylwithsince Section 30251fofthe therCoastalect nActany form represents 2. Visual and Scenic Impact: Section 30251 of the Act states: 0=1. The scenic and visual quUties of ooutal areas shall be considered and protected n a resource of public impor`.ar". Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and &long the ocean and scenic coastal area, to minimize the alteration of natural land Ames, to be visually compatible with the chaacter of surrounding areas, and, whereasible, to restore And New development ar�hance visual quality in visuaUy degraded ire in highly scenic area such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government dull be subordinate to the chars;ter of its setting. The proposed is immediately landward of Corona Del Mar State Park which provides seaside recreationa'. facilities, fire nits, parking area, and comfort stations for the visiting public and is the most extensively used beach recreation facility in the area. The proposed project will be clearly in view from the park, the harbor entrance and the westerly end of the Balboa Peninsula. Additionally, there are no other structuresthe built on areaface of and theseeareuffs in the area; widely separated andre are setbacknly fromwthetbluffres top, the Further, the 60 foot wide public view park between the proposed site and Ocean Avenue affords a splendid view of the State Park and its adjoining seascape. Not only will the proposed project intrude into this view but will also diminish the area of the park by the easement approved for vehicle access to the site. Clearly the proposed project will deteriorate the visual quality of the coastal bluffs when viewed from the sea and beach in the State Park area but will also intrude into the public view corridor provided by the parkway along Ocean Blvd. Approval of the project will not be in conformity with Section 30251 of the Act. M. J. Carpenter Executive Director Information Contact D. H. Pickens mh -4- City Council Ating August 13, 1979 Agenda Item No. F-2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 9, 1979 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Access to 2901 Ocean Boulevard, for property located on the southerly side of Ocean Boulevard adjacent to and east of Heliotrope Avenue in Corona del Mar Suggested Action If desired, (a) appeal the decision concerning access from the Corona del Mar parking lot; (b) approve access from Heliotrope Avenue; or (c) take no further action at this time. Background This matter was considered at the City Council meeting of July 10, 1979 at which time the Council directed the staff to 1) further pur- sue the question of access from the Corona del Mar State Beach parking lot with the State, 2) establish the relationship between the toe of the slope and the property owned by the State, and•3) determine ap- proximate value. Access from Corona del Mar State Beach Parking Lot On July 18, 1979, a letter was directed to Mr. Ed Wilson, Assistant Superintendent, District 5, State Department of Parks and Recreation, by Glen Welden, Tidelands Administrator. The letter expressed the City Council's opposition to access from Ocean Boulevard and asked that 1) representatives from the State visit the site with City staff and 2) having visited the site, define the Department's position in writing. A copy of the City's letter is attached. On Thursday, July 26, 1979, Glen Welden met with Mr. Tom Miller of the State's Huntington Beach office and Mr. Ed Wilson of the District 5 office in Goleta. During the on -site meeting, the property lines between State and private property and between State and City prop- erty were reviewed. Also discussed was the physical limits of the parking lot with regard to these property lines. Because of the apparent loss of parking spaces which would result in the granting of an easement across the parking lot, the State representatives expressed the opinion that the loss of public access to a State recreational facility precluded the granting of any easements. 0 0 TO: City Council - 2. Additionally, both State representatives expressed considerable con- cern over the loss of public views, should the subject property be built on,and about the impact a residence on the property would have on the State Park. Subsequent to the July 26 meeting with the representatives from the State, a letter dated August 3, 1979, was received from H. L. Heinze, Superintendent, District 5. The letter expresses the State's op- position to access from either an easement adjacent to the toe of the slope or via the existing gate at the parking lot entrance. As an alternative solution, City acquisition of Lots 28 and 29 is suggested. A copy of the State's letter is attached. If the City Council should desire to appeal the District 5 decision to the State, the procedure would be to file the appeal with Mr. Russell Cahill, Director of Parks and Recreation in Sacramento. If Mr. Cahill should decide to overrule the District 5 decision, the required easement documents would then be prepared and executed by the Department of Recreation and the 8ritvitches amd forwarded to the State Department of General Services, which would have ultimate approval or denial authority. The appeal to the Director of Parks and Recreation, review by the Department of General Services, and an ultimate decision on the matter,would take approximately six months. Relationship Between Toe of Slope and State Property Since the last City. Council meeting, the Department of Public Works has established by survey the location of the toe of cliff and toe of slope. The locationsof these features are illustrated on the attached map. The distance between the toe of slope and the common property line between the State property and the Wallace property, measured on the westerly right-of-way line for Iris Avenue, is ap- proximately three feet. The distance between the toe of slope and the State property, measured on the common property line between the City and Wallace -owned properties, is approximately eight feet. The staff has not investigated the question of prescriptive rights across the Wallace property because of the alterations to the toe of slope, toe of cliff, and retaining wall construction which would be required to provide a driveway from Iris Avenue, which does not encroach onto State property. Approximate Value The staff contacted Dick Dodd, Architect for Mr. Britvich. Mr. Brit- vich has indicated that the site was acquired partially by cash and partially in trade for two properties. Approximate value of the transaction was $350,000.00. In addition the staff also contacted the County Assessor's Office. The full market value as established by the Assessor for 1978-79 was $59,800.00. This value will in- crease by 2% for 1979-80 to $60,996.00. 0 0 TO: city Council - 3. Access from Heliotrope Avenue As an alternative to the curb cut which was denied by the City Council on May 14, 1919, the Council may wish to allow access from Heliotrope Avenue. Such an alternative would not have the impact on the turfed area of the view park that the proposal which was denied had. However it may require the removal and replacement of some landscape improvements and the construction of some retaining structures. If this alternative is approved, the following con- ditions of approval are suggested: 1) Conformance with all zoning regulations, including any use permit or variance, if required, to exceed building height above existing grade or grade as may be determined by the Planning Commission, and any required environmental assessment. 2) Conformance with all grading and building requirements. 3) Approval of the detailed driveway design, including grade, widths and tapers by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation and Public Works Departments. 4) Approval for removal and replacement of any public improvements by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation and Public Works Departments. 5) Height of building not to exceed height of curb on Ocean Boulevard. 6) Prior issuance of a Coastal Permit. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF'COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director by 0 JA ES D. HEWICKER As istant Director - Planning JDH/kk Attachments for City -Council Only: 1) Vicinity Map 2) Letter to State Department of Parks & Recreation dated 7/18 3) Letter from State Department of Parks & Recreation dated 8/3 4) Letter from State Department of Parks & Recreation dated 7/3 5) Public Works Department Survey Map dated 7/25/79 W y C 1 a:r'u ac Boll c AQD 1a 'l 11� jl fij-►T(T 111!,Cji i I�.{..7► // 15 ' 0 �• tin �,1� Ic�t ! _ ¢ �Y f �= R Q (��, �LL� jl., 3 \ 4R47 . Ste. 1 �J 4�14 Z2°I7-q,7(oj • a 3 0 . na5' p 01z ARBKFR`' o ,•a�4B' ar. r �g rA. 30 4 " l 5 i o Yiat t� v a ZQ h 34q' I QQQT� '135 i10 7 ` 1 i'N�a ; : � $5; MI6 .: ' ''• ,, /. • ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF E V V PORT BEACI July 18, 1979 Mr. Ed Wilson Assistant Superintendant, District 5 Department of Parks and Recreation 111 La Patera Lane Goleta, CA 93017 Re: Access to 2901 Ocean Blvd. Dear Mr. Wilson; The Newport Beach City Council has directed me to cotrwmunicate with you regarding the possibility of an access easement being granted for the property at 2901 Ocean Blvd. This easement would cross a portion of the Corona del Mar State Beach and Parks parking lot. It is my understanding, based on a copy of a letter from you to Mr. Jonathan Van Cleave, that you have denied an easement to his client, Mr. Britvich, who owns the referenced property. The City Council has expressed its opposition to any access being constructed to this property from Ocean Blvd. This opposition is based on the Council's desire to retain undisturbed, an existing park- way on Ocean Blvd. If the retention of ocean views from the existing parkways are to be maximized, it will require that the garage at the top of the bluff be depressed. This depression in time will necessitate extensive grading through the parkway to enable construction of a drive- way. Concern has been expressed regarding the integrity of the bluff on which this parkway exists, should the grading necessary for the access be permitted. Additionally, this grading would disrupt the continuity of the parkway lawn currently being utilized as a view park. Because of the City's concern for the bluff, I have been in- structed to request two actions by you. One is that you visit the site with City staff. This would enable us to review the situation and discuss all of the alternative accesses and City and State regulations as they pertain to this particular situation. The second action is that after the onsite meeting, a letter be written from you to myself defining your Department's position. Attached for your use is a copy of a drawing showing a portion of the parking lot, the Britvich property and the toe of the bluff slope. Also attached is a copy of a drawing showing three alternative access routes City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 Ed Wilson -2- July 18, 1979 i to the property. Alternative Al would provide access via a driveway and fence system across the parking lot adjacent to the toe of the bluff. Alternative A2 would provide access across the parking lot via the ex- isting .gate at the parking lot entrance by providing a key to the gate lock. Alternative B would provide access via a curb cut and driveway from Ocean Blvd. The access for the Britvich property is scheduled to be con- sidered by the Newport Beach City Council on August 13, 1979. If at all possible, scheduling of the onsite meeting in the immediate future would be appreciated. Sincerely, G1/' ehWelden Tidelands Administrator Marine Department GEW:mw Attachments ATTACHMENT 3 STATE OF'CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGEA, • EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION District 5 Headquarters 111 La Patera Lane Goleta, California 93017 (805) 967-3494 August '3, 1979 Mr. Glen E. Welden Tidelands Administrator City of Newport Beach Marine Department 330D Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 t Dear Mr, Welden: Corona del Mar City -State Park As requested by your City Council, we have again reviewed the Britvich application for driveway access across State Park property. The field visit by our staff and your survey markings of the lot corners were helpful in presenting a full picture. We previously furnished you a copy of our July 3 letter to the applicant denying his request. The reasons contained in our letter continue to be valid and the facts on which our judgement was based remain the same. Both your view and CoimLcilman Rummellis view that "Plan Two' would eliminate parking only on portions of the parking lot owned by the City and a private party, and not on state ownership has been considered, Plan Two would involve a small corner of the State ownership. We are not so concerned about the proportionate amounts of ownership involved as we are the net effect on general public access to Corona del Mar State Beach. The on -site estimate was that space which is used on 90 peak use days to- park approximately 20 cars would be eliminated by, Plan Two. With an average of more than three passengers per car, this calcu-. lates as an annual reduction of more than 6,000 visitor days. The deny- ing of access to this number of visitors to Corona del Mar State Beach to accommodate one family is not an acceptable trade-off. On our field visit we were able to visualize where and how the driveway proposed by Plan Two would intersect with the existing roadway. The cliff creates an abrupt blind spot which would either require extreme and undesirable excavation of the natural cliff or realignment of the intersection further into the State ownership. The State would not want to be a party to an unsafe road easement which might create a tort liability. Mr. Glen E. Welden• • Page 2 August 3, 1979 Plan One involves granting to an individual rights which are not avail- able to the, general public. Gate keys issued to individuals for uncon- trolled use by family, friends, and tradesmen create enforcement problems and neighborhood complaints, and is difficult to rationally justify to the general public. At best it would through future years be impossible to control the encroachment of the private parties onto the public -park- ing facility particularly during normal operating hours. We are unalter- ably opposed to this alternative. The larger concern of the City about the general public use, view values, and interference with public use of property which will no doubt occur with residential development of the lot seems to be a more important issue. We too are concerned with the intrusion into the view of the Park visitors t of one more structure. However, these are zoning matters over which our Department has no control. Perhaps an alternative solution would be City acquisition of lots 28 and 29, since they are bounded on three sides by City ownership. Such pur- chase would round out the City control over the lawn at the top of the stairway to the west and the City -owned parcel containing the garbage area. Sincerely, f � H.I., einze, Supe r'endent District 5 • • � ATTACHMENT 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION District 5 Headquarters 111 La Patera Lane Goleta, California 93017 (805) 967-3494 July 3, 1979 Mr. Jonathan E. Van Cleave Hartman and Saginaw Attorneys and Counselors at Law 200 Newport Center Drive, Suite 301 Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. Van Cleave: Corona Del Mar State Beach (Newport Beach City) Application for Right -of -Way Mr. Darwin Britvich We have reviewed the request for easement for your client to have the right to cross State Park property for access to his property. Under Public Resources Code Section 5003.5 such permits can be granted only where reason- able access does not exist or cannot be economically constructed outside the boundaries of the park. We have 1) Determined that reasonable access to your client's property exists from the city street (Ocean Boulevard); and 2) Estimated that the initial.. cost of constructing a driveway would be less directly to the city street than if constructed on the State Park. Further, the annual cost to your client of maintaining an easement on State Park property might be prohibitive. One of your alternative routings (Plan One) would require additional security measures by the city which operates the Corona Del Mar State Beach parking lot. The nature of this security and the cost were not determined. Our experience indicates that gate keys dis- tributed to private parties for whatever reason tend to become administrative problems and therefore cost items. Plan Two is out of the question in that it would require elimination of sev- eral parking spaces which were acquired and developed at public expense for public use. Such diversion to private use would not be in the best interest of the public. Mr. Jonathan E. Van Cleave Page 2 July 3, 1979 I hope that the above adequately explains the reasons cvhy the California State Department of Parks and Recreation must deny your client's application for an easement. Sincerely yours, H.L. Heinze, Superintendent District 5 cc: Orange Coast Area John H. Knight Robert S. Simpson � i Y ROCK OUTCROPPING IN SOME AREAS TOE OF CLIFF TOE OF SLOPE A. C. PAVEMENT TYPICAL SECTION NO SCALE 113 .-y�-ta�`, �aK. �4Y yid' ..r.+sJ •�• S '. �'• i X ON CURB 0 ROCK OUTCROPPING /N SOME AREAS 10 TOE OF CLIFF i —TOE OF SCOPE - A. C PAVEMENT TrP/CAL SECTION NO SCALE 134 ¢ cuae FINE \\ �cC4N I." <9 � BLVD. 9 �! I/_. !)`\flf Y✓. �. y/\V� TOE OF CLIFF PROP. OWNER ` WALLACE 0` 27 ly 50 /! // ^alb' ♦o; 5yb I � 50.- ' y_i62�' ! !� �'4`yb • �' S/5 ib A A_,' ;O S 50 St l ll LZa� p,�y+ vir� A u 4 —70E OF CLIFF V: 11 /r R , r/ jl l 0CEAA/ d ila L/'•4r5 Oleo. G7/ t , h 'V't: Vol :Ks 44 7 u�_'— f77T jr Q •S:' $` ^ '`J 369 - ,O •>,.• . AnD. ��T' • t Tu ' 4 a�1G1 L0.Z7o S. 5, 43v I,c Bp F':��0 0as15' ag ,Y ^ �� W 'a ._1�i,.�,'p„'•- .,y_;•'_,..�" 7 ,.•.hC1'.+r q.5, r. .� o j� t� f a\ l S �b WV� 1. - y '� •', ry. b' $ � •iti- .: ���. ::! ,: .''�:�. ..,_ / ��� '•N . •� N: -�`�o1F? � r✓ 3)06. • •3I I!c- .312Q. ��� -' ''•I •55d - 3 -f- �J - ) jo0' -ARa7 L• Si0 . CS ��I 20� 39par ,'. :Z908 3Q $ r -� / j no.7dr xR"2297-9a(4•o� H a�95• -Vz3' 30.0ti 3D.80 y„/' 4'r_':•: "t" { �,. �;•,3 o" is •c. /" X'' ;303 QII-� �`' `. � - � � 28�� Z • . ,, • � . - ;••?� •°.,• � �' i — ti p 3g. M aQ� 4' o� � ao' � �j'f{ERy 0 ' 48.4 4i. /' ,: • , , �3 -ir - : ,, - �;, ��..• f '; :.' 'sa;� � � . N 376. 11 � t .3 -A " B � 50. 0 -� • �% s IVIto ;_ . �1��•Y•�1�7-�;,_ "�;� : .,,, _ ,�' ! :g/n r �,i.9 q,aZ';_ Q. -3'p' � .5 i i r; . R : h 3g s • )� 25 �`zs' y� cIr5 ! 1 49 610. " '.. % •� .t"I2�' . p , ) -ry/ � P$-�' . Z-3 • �� Z". _ :. '-i .:bq • � � p, t¢ 01 • - A-�LJ / -�-(•,417F r". ''f' 't.,f�. Y'. .•O 3 ,�" ' L" O.�T n `\'\� -dZq' '-'Z� j.•: jl �$': -.,` l5 �I �/12 A. 7 �i �- �jo f ,j7 .�i" .:hQ ✓G_ I� :A 3 1 I/%�` Q.p. °' KEV 2 tak iji "• I S ,y"'• �•� • `J)� .Ai � �%I /• •�:Y w ' 1 rM )�`' <r 'ty) � _ fi'"I. '• Y i I ).. r'' •.� ,. - j I ... ,:t;., 'r, ,=Y..,�,;,�Yu,''�. / '2Jr'.o' .ti •�•1 k�J-/•._ "i`,Y ,�r'lr ��. l.,��`•,: i•' ��G .. �,4, �.r: 1:� -,". �' - •I �f,' _�'.fi�l}2�): :..i,��i�''�:.Y b1a� - •. "'S,�rLn,r ,��i:-.x.,a,�e^.' wYpL �• � •,tl,. � ,•1..�'�� i• c5.^"-.4 �i.>u l:!; s�.�...v. 4i �4'���'i'}P:: Ae.r .!'•C /''•r' ' r •{:.� c.'i�*.: ,i �t:;�. ., -.."'� 'i,if`.'r.%r^d .::�,rr •p:.,• ,���i �' :e... + i'• "�.,e t, .•,: — '_ _ -. � s, •3i�[i -y •.;� °: "�,�;,!`: s.}°•'' a. vfs"' iS �.t1�'.,..�Sj '•l.�1' "i, /.;{H•'• 'e�. "N ATTACHMENT 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENV EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Goyer r DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION District 5 Headquarters 111 La Patera Lane Goleta, California 93017 (805) 967-3494 .E August 3, 1979 " Mr. Glen E. Welden Tidelands Administrator City of Newport Beach Marine Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport.Beach, California 92663 Dear Mr. Welden: Corona del Mar City -State Park As requested by your City Council, we have again reviewed the Britvich application for driveway access across State Park property. The field visit by our staff and your survey markings of the lot corners were helpful in presenting a full picture. We previously furnished you a copy of our July 3 letter to the applicant denying his request. The reasons contained in our letter continue to be valid and the facts on which our judgement was based remain the same. Both your view and Councilman Rummell's view that "Plan Two" would eliminate parking only on portions of the parking lot owned by the City and a private party, and not on State ownership has been considered. Plan Two would involve a small corner of the State ownership. We are not so concerned about the proportionate amounts of ownership involved as we are the net effect on general public access to Corona del Mar State Beach. The on -site estimate was that space which is used on 90 peak use days to park approximately 20 cars would be eliminated by Plan Two. With an average of more than three passengers per car, this calcu-. lates as an annual reduction of more than 6,000 visitor days. The deny- ing of access to this number of visitors to Corona del Mar State Beach to accommodate one family is not an acceptable trade-off. On our field visit we were able to visualize where and how the driveway proposed by Plan Two would intersect with the existing roadway. The cliff creates an abrupt blind spot which would either require extreme and undesirable excavation of the natural cliff or realignment of the intersection further into the State ownership. The State would not want to be a party to an unsafe road easement which might create a tort liability. n "r Mr. Glen E. Walden Page 2 August 3, 1979 Plan One involves granting to an individual rights which are not avail- able to the,general public. Gate keys issued to individuals for uncon- trolled use by family, friends, and tradesmen create enforcement problems and neighborhood complaints, and is difficult to rationally justify to the general public. At best it would through future years be impossible to control the encroachment of the private parties onto the public"park- ing facility particularly during normal operating hours. We are unalter- ably opposed to this alternative. The larger concern of the City about the general public use, view values, and interference with public use of property which will no doubt occur. with residential development of the lot seems to be a more important issue. We tooare concerned with the intrusion into the view of the Park visitors 7 of one more structure. However, these are zoning matters over which our Department -has no control. Perhaps an alternative solution would be City acquisition of lots 28 and 29, since they are bounded on three sides by City ownership. Such pur- chase would round out the City control over the lawn at the top of the stairway to the west and the City -owned parcel containing the garbage area. Sincerely, HWi2e. Supe endent District 5 Al. r F ATTACHMENT 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION District 5 Headquarters 111 La Patera Lane Goleta, California 93017 (805) 967-3494 July 3, 1979 Mr. Jonathan E. Van Cleave Hartman and Saginaw Attorneys and Counselors at Law 200 Newport Center Drive, Suite 301 Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. Van Cleave: Corona Del Mar State Beach (Newport Beach City) Application for Right -of -Way Mr. Darwin Britvich We have reviewed the request for easement for your client to have the right to cross State Park property for access to his property. Under Public Resources Code Section 5003.5 such permits can be granted only where reason- able access does not exist or cannot be economically constructed outside the boundaries of the park. We have 1) Determined that reasonable access to your client's property exists from the city street (Ocean Boulevard); and 2) Estimated that the initial cost of constructing a driveway would be less directly to the city street than if constructed on the State Park. Further, the annual cost to your client of maintaining an easement on State Park property might be prohibitive. One of your alternative routings (Plan One) would require additional security measures by the city which operates the Corona Del Mar State Beach parking lot. The nature of this security and the cost were not determined. Our experience indicates that gate keys dis- tributed to private parties for whatever reason tend to become administrative problems and therefore cost items. Plan Two is out of the question in that it would require elimination of sev- eral parking spaces which were acquired and developed at public expense for public use. Such diversion to private use would not be in the best interest of the public. J qb Mr. Jonathan E. Van Cleave Page 2 July 3, 1979 I hope that the above adequately explains the reasons why the California State Department of Parks and Recreation must deny your clients application for an easement. Sincerely yours, Dii cc'. 1, { July 1, 1976 TO: COMMUMITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Attention: James Hewicker FROM: Public Vorks Department SUBJECT: SPECIAL BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS ON THE OCEAN SIDE OF OCEAN BOULEVARD DISCUSSION: A review of records •in the office indicates thrt on at least eight occasions since 1950 the City Council and/or the 'the Plannino-Commission have Ocean i330ulevard regulated the height of buildings along ocean -side of by attaching conditions to•pther applications. Date Address. Application hoard Height Limit Play 15, 1950 2525 Variance 601 P.C. Zero above top of•curb Oct. 1.0, 1960 2741 Walkway Access C.C. i' above average curb level April 20, 1961 3631 Variance'645 P.C. 3', above curb Play 15, 1961 3631 Curb cut C.C. 3' above curb Jan. 13, 1964 3625 Curb cut C.C. 3' above mean curb haight April 26, 1965 3301 Curb cut C.C. 1" belarf •cop of curb Oct. 12, 1970 2.505 Resub. 274 C.C. 3' above top of curb* - *This condition waived by City Council pn January 11, 1971. 'June 14, 1971 2735 Curb cut C.C. 3' aboja highest point on curb June 12, 1972 3129 Curb cut C.C. 3' above top of curb T Kenneth L. Per^,y Assistant City Engineer i<LP:hh cc: ,Ity At•.torney t -_ y 0 r City Council Meeting August 13, 1979 Agenda Item No. F-2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 9, 1979 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Access to 2901 Ocean Boulevard, for property located on the southerly side of Ocean Boulevard adjacent to and east of Heliotrope Avenue in Corona del Mar Suggested Action If desired, (a) appeal the decision concerning access from the Corona. del Mar parking lot; (b) approve access from Heliotrope Avenue; or (c) take no further action at this time. Background This matter was considered at the City Council meeting of July 10, 1979 at which time the Council directed the staff to 1) further pur- sue the question of access from the Corona del Mar State Beach parking lot with the State, 2) establish the relationship between the toe of the slope and the property owned by the State, and-3) determine ap- proximate value. Access from Corona del Mar State Beach Parking Lot On July 18, 1979, a letter was directed to Mr. Ed Wilson, Assistant Superintendent, District 5, State Department of Parks and Recreation, by Glen Welden, Tidelands Administrator. The letter expressed the City Council's opposition to access from Ocean Boulevard and asked that 1) representatives from the State visit the site with City staff, and 2) having visited the site, define the Department's position in writing. A copy of the City's letter is attached. On Thursday, July 26, 1979, Glen Welden met with Mr. Tom Miller of the State's Huntington Beach office and Mr. Ed Wilson of the District 5 office in Goleta. During the on -site meeting, the property lines between State and private property and between State and City prop- erty were reviewed. Also discussed was the physical limits of the parking lot with regard to these property lines. Because of the apparent loss of parking spaces which would result in the granting of an easement across the parking lot, the State representatives expressed the opinion that the loss of public access to a State recreational facility precluded the granting of any easements. i 0 0,-� TO: City Council - 2. Additionally, both State representatives expressed considerable con- cern over the loss of public views, should the subject property be built on,and about the impact a residence on the property would have on the State Park. Subsequent to the July 26 meeting with the representatives from the State, a letter dated August 30 1979, was received from H. L. Heinze, Superintendent, District 5. The letter expresses the State's op- position to access from either an easement adjacent to the toe of the slope or via the existing gate at the parking lot entrance. As an alternative solution, City acquisition of Lots 28 and 29 is suggested. A copy of the State's letter is attached. If the City Council should desire to appeal the District 5 decision to the State, the procedure would be to file the appeal with Mr. Russell Cahill, Director of Parks and Recreation in Sacramento. If Mr. Cahill should decide to overrule the District 5 decision, the required easement documents would then be prepared and executed by the Department of Recreati-on and the Britvitches and forwarded to the State Department of General Services, which would have ultimate approval or denial authority. The appeal to the Director of Parks and Recreation, review by the Departmentof General Services, and an ultimate decision on the matter,would take approximately six months. Relationship Between Toe of Slope and State Property Since the last City. Council meeting, the Department of Public Works has established by survey the location of the toe of cliff and toe of slope. The locationsof these features are illustrated on the attached map. The distance between the toe of slope and the common property line between the State property and the Wallace property, measured on the westerly right-of-way line for Iris Avenue, is ap- proximately three feet. The distance between the toe of slope and the State property, measured on the common property line between the City and Wallace -owned properties, is approximately eight feet. The staff has not investigated the question of prescriptive rights across the Wallace property because of the alterations to the toe of slope, toe of cliff, and retaining wall construction which would be required to provide a driveway from Iris Avenue, which does not encroach onto State property. Approximate Value The staff contacted Dick Dodd, Architect for Mr. Britvich. Mr. Brit- vich has indicated that the site was acquired partially by cash and partially in trade for two properties. Approximate value of the transaction was $350,000.00. In addition the staff also contacted the County Assessor's Office. The full market value as established by the Assessor for 1978-79 was $59,800.00. This value will in- crease by 2% for 1979-80 to $60,996.00. TO: City Council - 3. Access from Heliotrope Avenue As an alternative to the curb cut which was denied by the City Council on May 14, 1979, the Council may wish to allow access from Heliotrope Avenue. Such an alternative would not have the impact on the turfed area of the view park that the proposal which was denied had. However it may require the removal and replacement of some landscape improvements and the construction of some retaining structures. If this alternative is approved, the following con- ditions of approval are suggested: 1) Conformance with all zoning regulations, including any use permit or variance, if required, to exceed building height above existing grade or grade as may be determined by the Planning Commission, and any required environmental assessment. 2) Conformance with all grading and building requirements. 3) Approval of the detailed driveway design, including grade, widths and tapers by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation and Public Works Departments. 4) Approval for removal and replacement of any public improvements by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation and Public Works Departments. 5) Height of building not to exceed height of curb on Ocean Boulevard. 6) Prior issuance of a Coastal Permit. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director by '��� JA ES D. HEWICKER As istant Director - Planning JDH/kk Attachments for City -Council Only: 1) Vicinity Map 2) Letter to State Department of Parks & Recreation dated 7/18 3) Letter from State Department of Parks & Recreation dated 8/3 4) Letter from State Department of Parks & Recreation dated 7/3 5) Public Works Department Survey Map dated 7/25/79 A y r, If hq.5 G1SGr� ° Y Qa 3 tJ � .,i yin°•. 1 dAd� dG9-_ sly � I y .�„3' °0� R.) Qtl ZZ•17-90j?off o ,'•m3 D (- „,T pg. a 4• �, gyp' S 4� !. M ' k� 111 '� E/i(�� • eN4°' N� � � � •sots4 .3nz�' d A5 9R ,y2p°' 5°•p° �\ 27 � �3 In or a lxco' Q 30 • 29 ' iv 15 ` �ypz' 47 Zp a ? 1 0. a Iq o ZQ F lq � ( 1� 13 ,� i l/ 10 s i 7t 20 10 CA AO J�� s ve PaZ 0 C' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Office of CITY ATTORNEY To: Assistant Director of Community Development, Planning From: Acting City Attorney August 21, 1979 Subject: Access to 2901 Ocean Boulevard - Britvich Property The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you with some back- up information in regard to the matter to be heard by the City Council on August 27, 1979, with regard to access to a property located at 2901 Ocean Boulevard - the Britvich property. As you are aware, the City Council considered this matter on February 26, 1979, and approved the curb cut sought by the appli- cant at that time at the location designated by the applicant in his application. Thereafter, on May 14, 1979, the City Council reconsidered the matter and rescinded the earlier approval of the curb cut at the location sought by the applicant. On July 10, 1979, the matter again was brought to City Council for further consideration and thereafter continued to August 13, 1979, to obtain additional information on access from State-owned property. On August 10, 1979, a hearing was held before The Honorable Robert Todd, Judge of the Orange County Superior Court, on a Writ of Mandate brought by Darwin Britvich, an owner of the property, challenging the decision of the City Council to rescind the earlier approved curb cut. The Court ruled that the Council had erred on May 14, 1979, when it rescinded its earlier approval without notice to the owner of the property. The effect of this decision was to reinstate the earlier approved curb cut at the property at the loca- tion sought by the applicant. On August 13, 1979, the City Council set the matter of access to the property located at 2901 Ocean Boulevard for public hearing to be held on August 27, 1979. It was the intent of the Council that a decision be made on August 27, 1979, if possible. E i 7 August 21, 1979 Re: Access to 2901 Ocean Boulevard - Britvich Property Page Two The location of the curb cut and encroachment permit to provide access to, the property at 2901 Ocean Boulevard from Ocean Boule- vard or Heliotrope is within the discretion of the City Council. The City Council, in exercising its discretion, may balance the benefits and burdens to the public and to the property owner in regard to the precise location of access and conditions on the access. A denial of access to the property from a public road would arguably damage the property or take all value from it and leave the City as a defendant in an inverse condemnation lawsuit. Should the City lose such a lawsuit, the attorneys' fees and expert witness fees of the property owner would be paid by the City, as well as the value of the property diminished by denial of access. Certain reasonable conditions with regard to the property can be imposed as a condition to the curb cut. However, since there are specific ordinances controlling the height of structures, it has been the position of this office for a considerable number of years that a condition placed on the curb cut establishing a height for the building is probably not enforceable. This is not to say, however, that the applicant cannot agree to the maximum height restriction on the building, only that if access is granted to the property, it is not clear that the City can enforce a condition on the maximum height of the building based upon the curb cut alone. The provisions of the Newport Beach Municipal Code regarding curb cuts and encroachment permits, as well as the Council Policy, could be revised to allow such a condition to be imposed, but presently the ordinances do not so provide. Of course, the existing regula- tions on heights of buildings would control as a minimum regulation for the development of the property. I believe the foregoing sets forth some of the past procedural history of the matter and current status. Should you have additional questions on this matter, please don't hesitate to contact me. K • City Council•eeting Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH July 2, 1979 Julv 10. 1979 F-1 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Request of Mr. and Mrs. Darwin Britvich to construct a twenty-five foot wide driveway and curb cut at 2901 Ocean Boulevard, on the southerly side of Ocean Boulevard at Heliotrope Avenue in Corona del Mar. Suggested Action If desired, (a) approve the re uest subject to the conditions as set forth in the staff report; or ?b) deny the request and require that access to the site be provided from the Corona del Mar State Beach parking lot, either Alternate 1 or Alternate 2, subject to the con- ditions as set forth in the staff report. Background At the City Council meeting February 26, 1979, the City Council voted (6 Ayes, 1 No) to approve the requested curb cut subject to the follow- ing conditions: 1. Prior issuance of a building permit for the proposed residence; _ 2. The driveway width be a maximum of sixteen feet wide for the portion within the Ocean Boulevard right-of- way (except for tapers connecting to the garage apron); 3. Approval of the detailed driveway design by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation and Public Works Departments; 4. Height of building to be the same as height of curb. On May 24, 1979 a petition bearing thirty-seven signatures was pre- sented to the Council asking that the action of February 26th be reconsidered. At that meeting the City Council voted (5 Ayes, 2 Noes) to rescind the Council action and disapprove the curb cut. The staff was subsequently requested to contact Richard Dodd, architect for the applicant, and schedule the matter for a future City Council meeting. TO: City Council - 2. On June 18, 1979, representatives of the Community Development, Public Works and Marine Departments met with fhe City Attorney, Dick Dodd, Robbie Britvich, and her attorneys'John Saginaw and John Van Cleave, in the City Attorney's conference room. At that time the actions taken by the City Council were reviewed and the concerns of the applicant, the State Department of Parks and Recrea- tion, and the various City Departments were discussed. It was the consensus of a majority -of those present that access to the site should be taken from Ocean Boulevard. Alternative Courses of Action A. Access from the Corona del Mar State Beach Parking Lot. ALTERNATIVE 1 - Access via a new curb cut, driveway and fence system. Advantages 1) Would preserve existing parkway on Ocean Boulevard. 2) Could result in a substantially lower structure as viewed from Ocean Boulevard because garage would be built at or near.'the grade of the existing parking ldt. Disadvantages 1) A curb cut at the foot of Iris would cut across the existing sidewalk and planted area at the base of the bluff. 2) Would require the construction of a new driveway and fence system to separate the parking lot from the , driveway to prevent commingling of uses.and to prevent blockage to the driveway. 3) A driveway would require a redesign of the existing parking lot layout, restriping and a loss of existing spaces and space which is currently available for overflow parking and busses. 4) A gate across the driveway, similar to the gate on Breakers Drive, may eventually be necessary to keep beach visitors from blocking the driveway. 5) An easement across the parking lot would have to be granted by the State to the applicant. This may require an amendment to the existing agreement between the California Department of Parks and Recreation which states that the State owned property shall be for "playground, recreational and beach park use" and TO: City Council - 3. that "said properties shall at all times be access - able and subject to use and enjoyment of all citizens of the State of California." Mr. Wilson, Assistant Superintendent, District V, Department o,f Parks and Recreation, was contacted by the Marine Department,and he indicated that he would recommend against the grant- ing of an easement based on the State's past experience with easements. 6) Unauthorized persons parking in Breakers Drive is a constant problem to the Police•Department, an'd they have indicated that they cannot afford the manpower which would be required to afford the applicant the same consideration. 7) Vehicles using the driveway would create additional conflicts between vehicles entering and leaving the beach parking lot. ALTERNATIVE 2 - Access via the existing gate at the parking lot entrance. Advantages 1) Would preserve the existing parkway and could result in a lower structure as noted above. 2) Would not require a new curb cut or driveway as required above. 3) Would not require a redesign of the parking lot, restriping or result in a -loss of existing parking or overflow space. Disadvantages 1) Would still require an easement across the parking lot. 2) Would require that the applicant be provided with a key or the combination to the parking lot gate for access when the gate is not manned. 3) Could result in the unauthorized and unlawful use of the beach parking lot after normal hours if the gate is left open. 4) Would create a problem for the applicant's guests - and delivery and service personnel if they were required to pay a fee to pass through the gate. VTO: City Cof it - 4. • B. Access from Ocean Boulevard. Advantages 1) Would not create the problems for the City and inconveniences for the applicant as noted above. Disadvantages 1) Would result in a substantial alteration to the parkway on Ocean Boulevard and a potential view loss depending on the horizontal projection of the parking deck beyond the bluff face. Suggested Conditons of'Ap'proval If the City Council should select any of the alternatives noted above, the following conditions are suggested: A. Access from the Corona del Mar State Beach Parking Lot. ALTERNATIVE 1 - Access via a new curb cut, driveway and fence system.. 1) Prior grant of an access easement from the California Department of Parks and Recreation and the City. 2) Approval of detailed curb cut, driveway and fence plans by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation and Public Works Departments. 3) Prior issuance of Encroachment Permits from the Calif- ornia Department of Parks and Recreation and the City. 4) Prior issuance of building permit for the proposed residence. ALTERNATIVE 2 - Access via the existing gate at the parking lot entrance. 1) Prior grant of an access easement from the California Department of Parks and Recreation and the_City. 2) Agreement with the City for access through the existing gate and purchase of annual parking pass. 3) Prior issuance of building permit for the proposed residence. B. Access from Ocean Boulevard. 1) Prior issuance of a building permit for the proposed residence, including use permit or variance to exceed height above grade if required. TO: City Counco - 5. E 2) The driveway width be a maximum of sixteen feet wide for the portion within the Ocean Boulevard right-of-way (except for tapers connecting to the garage apron). 3) Approval of the detailed driveway design by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation, and Public Works Departments. 4) Height of building not to exceed height of curb. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, Director y AMES D. HEWICKER 7`2, Assistant Director - Planning JDH/kk Attachments for City Council Only: 1) Vicinity Map illustrating access alternatives 2) Memo from Tidelands Administrator dated 6/12/79 3) Memo from Traffic Division Commander dated 6/l/79 4) Report to City Council dated 2/26/79 IGni I MR COY OF NEWPORT BEOCH COUNCILMEN MINUTES G?i�\�`/ram 9j, 9G 22 VA 107Q INDEX A report from the Community Development Department was presented with a copy of the appeal application. Christine Fason, representing some of her neighbors as • well as herself, addressed the Council in opposition to Resubdivision No. 622. \ Motion x The hearing was closed after it was determined that All Ayes no one else desired to be heard. Motion x\3.Ma lman McInnis made a motion to reopen the Ayes x x x x xg and continue to September 10, which motion Noes x . Ryckoff opened the publichearing regarding District ce No. 1815, being, Map 21 0-1815 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF (1768) NEW RT BEACH AMENDING A PORTION OF D TRICTING MAP NO. 21 TO RECLASS Y FROM THE R-3 DISTRICT TO THE R-2 D TRICT CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED A 300 THROUGH 424 ST. ANDREWS ROA AND ACCEPTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL OCUMENT (AMEND- MENT No. 534), a request initiated by the City of ewport Beach. A report was presented from th Community Development Department. The following people addressed the Cou it in' opposition to the ordinance: Harry Bueter, 'ke Steiner and Frank Jensen. Motion x The hearing was closed after it was determined that All Ayes no one else desired to be heard. Motion x The environmental document was accepted and All Ayes Ordinance No. 1815 was adopted. E. ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION: None. F. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. A report was presented from the Community CurbCut Development Department regarding access to 2901 2901 Ocean Ocean Boulevard, on the southerly side of Ocean (3180) Boulevard at Heliotrope Avenue in Corona del Mar. Acting City Attorney Hugh Coffin reported to the Council Judge Todd's decision in the Superior Court case of Britvich v the City of Newport Beach . The Judge determined that the Council action on May 14 was improper since the property owners and Mr. Britvich did not receive notice that the Council was going to consider the application once again and possibly rescind it. Mr. Coffin stated that the Volume 33 - Page 215 COY OF NEWPORT BACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING � Place: Council Chambers 9� T� d'u, Time: 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL u' Date: August 13, 1979 INDEX Present x x x x x x A. ROLL CALL. Abs t x Motion x B. The reading of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting All Ayes of July 23, 1979 was waived, and the Minutes were approved as written and ordered filed. Motion x C. The reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions All Ayes under consideration was waived, and the City Clerk was directed to read by titles only. D. BEARINGS: 1. Mayor Ryckoff opened the continued public hearing Resub 624 regarding Resubdivision No. 624, a request of (1243) Virginia Dey to create one parcel of land to permit version of an existing triplex into a three- idential condominium complex, located at Lido Nord, on Lido Isle; referred to the City by the Planning Commission with no endations. rt was presented from the Community ment Department. \noone Motion x ing was closed after it was determined that Ayes e 'red to be heard. Noes Motion x Mayor Ryckof made a motion to deny Resubdivislon No. 624 without rejudice. Motion x Councilman McInn made a substitute motion to reopen the hearin and continue the item to September 10. Motion x Councilman Strauss ma a substitute motion to Ayes X x x continue to October 1, whi motion failed. Noes x x x A vote was taken on Councilm McInnis substitute Ayes x x x x x motion, and the hearing was reop ed and continued Noes x to September 10, 2. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public he ing regarding Rodrigues the appeal of Clodomiro J. Rodrigu and Betty Appeal/ Rodrigues from the decision of th Planning Resub 622 Commission on July 3, 1979 denying Res bdivlsion (3318) No. 622, a request to create one parcel o land to permit the conversion of two existing dwellin units on the site into a two -unit residential condominium complex; on property located at 318�51854 Poinsettia Avenue, on the southeasterly side Poinsettia Avenue between Second Avenue and Third r Avenue in Corona del Mar; zoned R-2. iVolume i f 33 - Page 214 C1f'Y OF NEWPORT BACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES o ti LL CALL\ \ \� �� `� AIIOIICt- 13. 1979 INDEX effect of the Court's order is to reinstate the original approval of the Council back in February, 1979 wherein a curb cut on the easterly property line had been approved. Since the matter of access to the property needs to be considered, the Acting City Attorney suggested the City Council set a public hearing, notifying the owner and all property owners in the vicinity. The following people addressed the Council regarding the curb cut and driveway: John Van y Cleve, representing Mr. Britvich, asked for an additional condition to be added to the motion stating that a final decision would be made in two weeks; Mary Burton and James Parker, representing the residents on the inland side of Ocean Boulevard, requested that access be made from Heliotrope Avenue; and Dick Dodd, architect on the project, asked the Council to set the grade. Motion x Councilman Hart made a motion to set August 27, 1979 for a public hearing on access to the ,property located at 2901 Ocean Boulevard and express the intent to make a decision following the hearing. Councilman Strauss asked that the motion be amended to include the words "if possible" regarding the decision, which amendment was accepted by the maker of the motion. All Ayes A vote was taken on Councilman Hart's amended !notion, and the hearing was set for August 27, 1979 regarding access to the property located at 2901 Ocean Boulevard and expressing the intent, if. possible, to make a decision following the hearing. 2. Appointment to the City Arts Commission: City Art Green x x x The Mayor assigned the green light to Betty Com ( F) Red x x x Tessman and the red light to Maudette Ball for voting purposes, and the voting resulted in a tie vote. Green x x x x A second vote was taken and Betty Tess was Red x x appointed to complete the unexpired t ending June 30, 1982. Motion x 3. Councilman McInnis' appoint t of a member to Trans Plan All Ayes the Transportation Pla Citizens Advisory CAC Committee to fill th unexpired term of R. H. (960) Clucas ending Dece. ber 31, 1979 was postponed to August 27. Motion x 4. Councilman Hummel's appointment of a member to Trans Plan All Ayes the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory CAC Co • mittee to fill the unexpired term of G. Edmund (960) I Slebel, Jr. was postponed to August 27. / iVolume i I 33 -Page 216 CIO( OF NEWPORT BEWH COUNCILMEN MINUTES G q��/�t�p94t N9 O� 1_I_ CALL August Il- 1979 INDEX G. CURRENT BUSINESS: i 1. Letters dated July 30 and August 3, 1979 from Yellow Cab Orange Coast Yellow Cab, Inc. were presented (666) regarding a request for a 5% surcharge to offset increased fuel costs incurred by driving personnel. Motion x A public hearing for a rate Increase for Orange All Ayes Coast Yellow Cab, Inc. was set for August 27) 1979. 2. A report was presented from the City Librarian to Library the City Manager regarding recommendations for (474) appointment of an Alternate Member to the Santiago Library System Lay Advisory Board to replace Richard McFarland. Green x x x The Mayor assigned the green light to Reg Jones Red x x x and the red light to Holly Wilkinson for voting purposes, and the voting resulted in a tie vote. Green x x x x second vote was taken and Reg Jones was Red x x pointed as the Alternate Member to the Santiago LI racy System Lay Advisory Board to replace Ric and McFarland. 3. A let m Harold Thomas resigning from the Local Coastal Locall Planning Advisory Committee was Planning Adv preseh Cmte \oa (709) Motion x Mr. Tresignation was accepted with regret; All Ayes the Cik was directed to prepare a Certificate of Appreciati n; and the appointment of a member by Mayor Pro�Tern Williams to fill the unexpired term ending De ember 31, 1979 was postponed to August 27. 4. Bicycle Trails Citlz Advisory Committee: Bicycle Trails CAC Motion x Dr. Sholkoff's resignatiopn was accepted with regret; (205F) All Ayes the City Clerk was directed to prepare a Certificate of Appreciation; and\ Councilman Hummel's appointment of a member o fill the unexpired term ending December 31, 1979 was postponed to August 27. o%fallfornia 5. A letter from the League Cities was League presented requesting that the City designate a Calif voting representative and an alter ate to be present Cities at the Business Session at the Ann 1 Conference in (2526) San Francisco on Tuesday morning, ptember 25 at 10:00 a.m. in the Hilton Hotel. Motion x Mayor Pro TernWilliams was design fed as the All Ayes voting representative and Councilman Hummel as the alternate to be present at the Business Session at the Annual Conference in San Franc Ison j Tuesday morning, September 25, at 10:00 a.m. In he i Hilton Hotel. j Volume 33 - Page 217 1 C10Y OF NEWPORT B10kCH COUNCILMEN Oy � F � ROLL CALL mod' �August 27 1979 MINUTES INDEX 3. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing regarding Curb Cui access to 2901 Ocean Boulevard, for property 2901 located on the southerly side of Ocean Boulevard Ocean B1 adjacent to and east of Heliotrope Avenue m Corona W80) del Mar. A report was presented from the Community Development Department. Dick Dodd, architect for applicant, addressed the Council regarding their revised plans. Motion x -The hearing was closed after it was determined that All Ayes no one else desired to be heard. Motion x The Council decision of 'February 26, 1979 was Ayes x x x x x x rescinded, and access from the westerly side of the Noes x property was apQrove , subject to the following conditions: 1) Conformance with all zoning regulations, including any required environmental assessment. 2) Conformance with all grading requirements, including a soils' engineering report on the proposed project and an engineering geology report on the subject property. 3) Conformance with all building regulations. 4) Approval of the detailed driveway design, including grade, widths and tapers by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation and Public Works Departments. 5) Approval for removal and replacement of any public improvements by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation and Public Works Departments. 6) Height of building not to exceed height of curb on Ocean Boulevard. 7) Prior issuance of a Coastal Permit. Councilman Hart was excused from the meeting due to illness. 4. Mayor Ryekoff opened the public hearing regarding identia Ordinance No. 1i, Condomini Projects AN OROF THE TY OF 0-1817 NEWPORADD HAPTER 20.73 (3311) BEACH MUNICIPAL TO TL-INIUM CODELED "RESIDENTIAL CO PR00ECT5;' i Volume 33 - Page 239 vd um CIOY OF NEWPORT BACH I ROLL COUNCILMEN CALL` Auvust 77. 1979 MINUTES IfunFY Planning Commission Amendment No. 529, a request initiated by the City of Newport Beach and proposing to add Chapter 20.75 to the Newport Beach Municipal Code pertaining to Condominium Projects and Condominium Conversion Projects and the consideration of an Environmental Document. A report was presented from the Community Development Department. A letter to Mayor Ryckoff from the Orange County Senior Citizens Council was presented. A copy of Council Policy T-1 entitled "Condominium Conversions" was presented. Acting City Attorney Hugh Coffin stated his opinion include stock cooperatives in Its that the City ma\extendedfor ominium ordinance. r Planner Michael Ocorr gave a brief staff rt. ond Watson and Goldie Joseph addressed the cil regarding the Intent of the ordinance; and yn Housman presented two articles from the ngeles Times regarding conversions, stated a Intervenors In a law suit going before the me Court, and asked the City to defer action the ourt has made Its decision. Motion x hearing as closed after it was determined that Ayes x x x x x xe else de red to be heard. Absent x Motion x cil Policy T—i "Condominium Conversions" was Ayes x x x xded for sixty d s. Noes x x Absent• x The Council agreed tota\ae raw vote on changes to be made In proposenance No. 1817, as follows: Motion x In Section 20.73.005) th'adequate" is to be Ayes x x x x x' deleted from line 7, and d 'adequately" from Noes x line 9. Absent x Motion x Mayor Ryckoff made a mor the acancy rate Ayes x x x in line 7 of Section 20.73) to be 5 Instead ofNoes x x x 15%, which motion failedAbsent x Motion x Councilman Strauss madtion to mainta theAyes x x x vacancy rate survey ed to in Se IonNoes x x x 20.73.010 (E)for two semil surveys rather t nAbsent x being established twiceyear, which motto ifailed. I i Volume 33 - Page 240 i 1 9 City Council Meeting AUQUSt 27. 1979 Agenda Item No CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • August 22, 1979 D-3 TO: City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Access to 2901 Ocean Boulevard, for property located on the southerly side of Ocean Boulevard adjacent to and east of Heliotrope Avenue in Corona del Mar Suggested Action If desired, (a) rescind the decision of February 26, 1979 and approve access from the westerly side of the property, subject to the con- ditions as set forth in the staff report; OR (b) resci•nd the decision •of February 26, 1979 and appeal the decision of District 5, Department to Parks and Recreation, concerning access to subject lot from the Corona del Mar parking lot; OR (c) reaffirm action taken on Febru- ary 26, 1979, approving the requested curb cut. Background At the City Council meeting of February 26, 1979, the City Council voted (6 Ayes, 1 No) to approve a curb cut on the easterly side of the property subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior issuance of a building permit for the proposed residence. 2. The driveway width be a maximum of sixteen feet wide for the portion within the Ocean Boulevard right-of- way (except for tapers connecting to the garage apron). 3. Approval of the detailed driveway design by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation a•nd Public Works Departments. 4. Height of building to be the same as height of curb. • On May 14, 1979 a petition bearing thirty-seven signatures was pre- sented to the Council asking that the action of February 26th be reconsidered. At that meeting the City Council voted (5 Ayes, 2 Noes) to rescind the Council action and disapprove the curb cut. On July 10, 1979, the matter again was brought to City Council for further consideration and thereafter continued to August 13, 1979, to obtain additional information on access from State-owned property. TO: City Council - 2. • On August 10, 1979, a hearing was held before The Honorable Robert Todd, Judge of the Orange County Superior Court, on a Writ of Mandate brought by Darwin Britvich, an owner of the property, challenging the decision of the City Council to rescind the earlier approved curb •cut. The Court ruled that the Council had erred on May 14, 1979, when it rescinded its earlier approval without notice to the owner of the property. The effect of this decision was to reinstate the earlier approved curb cut at the property at the location sought by the ap- plicant. On August 13, 1979, the City Council set the matter of access to the property located at 2901 Ocean Boulevard for public hearing to be held on August 27, 1979. It was the intent of the Council that a decision be made on August 27, 1979, if possible. Access from Corona del Mar State Beach Parking Lot On July 18, 1979, a letter was directed to Mr. Ed -Wilson, Assistant Superintendent, District 5, State Department of Parks and Recreation, by Glen Welden, Tidelands Administrator. The letter expressed the City Council's opposition to access from Ocean Boulevard and asked that 1) representatives from the State visit the site with City staff, and 2) having visited the site, define the Department's position in writing. •On Thursday, July 26, 1979, Glen Welden met with Mr. Tom Miller of the State's Huntington Beach office and Mr. Ed Wilson of the District 5 office in Goleta. During the on -site meeting, the property lines between State and private property and between State and City prop- erty were reviewed. Also discussed was the physical"lim,its of the parking lot with regard to these property lines. Because of the apparent loss of parking spaces which would result in the granting of an easement across the parking lot, the State representatives expressed the opinion that the loss of public access to a State recreational facility precluded the granting of any easements. Additionally, both State representatives expressed considerable con- cern over the loss of public views, should the subject property be built on, and about the impact a •residence on the property would have on the State Park. Subsequent to the July 26th meeting with the representatives from the State, a letter dated August 3, 1979, was received from H. L. Heinze, Superintendent, District 5. The letter expresses the State's op- position to access from either an easement adjacent to the .toe of the .slope or via the existing gate at the parking lot entrance. As an alternative solution, City acquisition of Lots 28 and 29 is suggested. A copy of the State's letter was forwarded to the City Council for the meeting of August 13th. If the City Council should desire to appeal the District 5 decision to the State, the procedure would be to file the appeal with Mr. Russell Cahill,. Director of Parks and Recreation in Sacramento. If Mr. Cahill should decide to overrule the District 5 decision, the required easement documents would then be prepared and executed • TO: City Council - 3. 11 by the Department of Recreation and the- Britvitches and forwarded to the State Department of General Services, which would have ultimate approval or denial authority. The appeal to the Director of Parks and Recreation, review by the Department of General Services, and •an ultimate decision on the matter, would take approximately six months. Relationship Between Toe of Slope and State Property The Department of Public Works has established by survey the location of the toe of cliff and toe of slope. The locations of these features are illustrated on the map which was forwarded to the City Council for the meeting of August 13th. The distance between the toe of slope and the common property line between the State property and the Wallace property, measured on the westerly right-of-way line for Iris Avenue, is approximately three feet. The distance between the toe of slope and the State property, measured on the' common property line between the City and Wallace -owned properties, is approximately eight feet. The staff has not investigated the question of prescriptive rights across the Wallace property because of the alterations to the toe of slope, toe of cliff, and retaining wall construction which would be required to provide a driveway from Iris Avenue, which does not encroach onto State property. •Approximate Value The staff contacted Dick Dodd, Architect for Mr. Britvich. Mr. Brit- vich has indicated that the site was acquired partially by cash and partially in trade for two properties. Approximate value of the transaction was $350,000.00. In addition the staff also contacted the County Assessor's Office. The full market value as established by the Assessor for 1978-79 was $59,800.00. This va1•ue will in- crease by 2% for 1979-80 to $60,996.00 Access from the Westerly Side of the Property As an alternative to the curb cut on the easterly side of the property the Council may wish to allow access from the westerly side of the site adjacent to Heliotrope Avenue. Such an alternative would not have the impact on the turfed area of the view park that the proposal which was denied had. However, it may require the removal and re- placement of.some landscape improvements and the construction of some retaining structures. If this alternative is approved, the following conditions of approval are suggested: • 1) Conformance with all zoning regulations, including any required environmental assessment. 2) Conformance with all grading requirements, including a soils' engineering report on the proposed project and an engineering geology report on the subject property. 3) Conformance with all building regulations. TO: City Coucil - 4. • 4) Approval of the detailed driveway design, including grade, widths and tapers by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation and Public Works Departments. • 5) Approval for removal and replacement of any public improvements by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation and Public Works Departments. 6) Height of building not to exceed height of curb on Ocean Boulevard. 7) Prior issuance of a Coastal Permit. Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN,DDire4-1m- fJ"ESctor by 'd(• D.. HACKE A3s stant Director - Planning • Attachments: 1 Vicinity Map 2 Memo from City Attorney JDH/kk 0 A 34 0 EQ Iq � "ill g7 5/0 0 30 M Qg� 302 ��0 R AXERS u 4840• 1 ZB✓0 -at tg KN py�HJ Ay 8 E°7.00 5°� i q 5 a�9°Z, d,.00' O 3O ° Zq ` 1 5 i d r 3 ' • ' ry 1 ZpIb try °.�r d155 Q 9 IS 1 1� 13 % 3 5y0 �Z IZ 8.01�VR9tir� 1yJ 8 I' I V .� Q Gi1y g2a7 aV L • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Office of CITY ATTORNEY August 21, 1979 To: Assistant Director of Community Development, Planning From: Acting City Attorney Subject: Access to 2901 Ocean Boulevard - Britvich Property The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you with some back- up information in regard to the matter to be heard by the City Council on August 27, 1979, with regard to access to a property located at 2901 Ocean Boulevard - the Britvich property. As you are aware, the City Council considered this matter on February 26, 1979, and approved the curb cut sought by the appli- cant at that time at the location designated by the applicant in his application. Thereafter, on May 14, 1979, the City Council reconsidered the matter and rescinded the earlier approval of the curb cut at the location sought by the applicant. On July 10, 1979, the matter again was brought to City Council for further consideration and thereafter continued to August 13, 1979, to obtain additional information on access from State-owned property. On August 10, 1979, a hearing was held before The Honorable Robert Todd, Judge of the Orange County Superior Court, on a Writ of Mandate brought by Darwin Britvich, an owner of the property, challenging the decision of the City Council to rescind the earlier approved curb cut. The Court ruled that the Council had erred on May 14, 1979, when it rescinded its earlier approval without notice to the owner of the property. The effect of this decision was to reinstate the earlier approved curb out at the property at the loca- tion sought by the applicant. On August 13, 1979, the City Council set the matter of access to the property located at 2901 Ocean Boulevard for public hearing to be held on August 27, 1979. It was the intent of the Council that a decision be made on August 27, 1979, if possible. August 21, 1979 Re: Access to 2901 Ocean Boulevard - Britvich Property • Page Two The location of the curb out and encroachment permit to provide access to the property at 2901 Ocean Boulevard from Ocean Boule- vard or Heliotrope is within the discretion of the City Council. The City Council, in exercising its discretion, may balance the benefits and burdens to the public and to the property owner in regard to the precise location of access and conditions on the access. A denial of access to the property from a public road would arguably damage the property or take all value from it and leave the City as a defendant in an inverse condemnation lawsuit. Should the City lose such a lawsuit, the attorneys' fees and expert witness fees of the property owner would be paid by the City, as well as the value of the property diminished by denial of access. Certain reasonable conditions with regard to the property can be . imposed as a condition to the curb cut. However, since there are specific ordinances controlling the height of structures, it has been the position of this office for a considerable number of years that a condition placed on the curb cut establishing a height for the building is probably not enforceable. This is not to say, however, that the applicant cannot agree to the maximum height restriction on the building, only that if access is granted to the property, it is not clear that the City can enforce a condition on the maximum height of the building based upon the curb cut alone. The provisions of the Newport Beach Municipal Code regarding curb cuts and encroachment permits, as well.as the Council Policy, could be revised to allow such a condition to be imposed, but presently the ordinances do not so provide. Of course, the existing regula- tions on heights of buildings would control as a minimum regulation for the development of the property. I believe the foregoing sets forth some of the past procedural history of the matter and current status. Should you have additional questions on this matter, please don't hesitate to contact me. • Hug R. q o fin CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES 9�0,�y�GN ROLL CALL! �0 s July 10. 1979 INDEX E. There were no or inarices-for—second reading__^_ and adoption. F. CONTINUED BUSINESS: 1. Reports were presented from the Community Devel- Curb Cut opment Department and from the Parks, 'Beaches 2901 Ocean and Recreation Director regarding the request of (3180) Mr. and Mrs. Darwin_Br)tvich._10 collstxuct�a twenty_ -five foot wide driveway and curb 2901 _cut _a_t Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar. Marine Director David Harshbarger gave a brief staff report. The following people addressed the Council and urged approval of the request: Darwin Britvich, the applicant; John Van Cleve, attorney for Mr. Britvich; and Dick Dodd, architect for Mr. Britvich. Motion x Mr. Van Cleve was granted five additional minutes All Ayes for his presentation. Motion x Mr. Dodd was granted seven minutes for his Ayes x x x x x x presentation. Noes x James Parker, representing homeowners on the inland side of Ocean Boulevard, addressed the Council and opposed the request. Motion x Mr. Parker was granted two additional minutes for All Ayes his presentation. Motion x The matter was postponed to August 13. Ayes x x x x x x Noes x 2. A report was presented from the Public Works Sundance Department regarding the request for vacation of (2380 Sundance Drive in Tract No. 7989 (Newport Terrace). A letter from Robert F. Waldron, attt r ey McCle 12, was representing Mr. and Mrs. R7undance presented. Motion Ayes x The request for the vacation f Drive was denied. x x x x x Noes x x 3. A letter fr9rrf Carmelo Manto asking that their Off -site Viking be on July 10 Off -site Prkg 3520 E Coast agreement considered inst of July 23 was presented. Hwy (3282) i I Volume 33 - Page 193 CI1Y OF NEWPORT BE CH COUNW MINUTES ?i3�ROLL CALL\,.A.. In INDEX Motion x Councilman Heather made a motion to accept the Ayes x x project as revised and presented with 450 units, plus Noes x x x x x 30,000 sq. ft. less on the industrial, which motion failed. Mayor Ryckoff asked staff if the Council was to consider the item withdrawn. The City Manager stated that, for the record, a statement could be made, such as, "At the request of the applicant, the Council recognized withdrawal of the subject matter." Mayor Ryckoff stated that that would be entered unless Mr. Morrissey objected, Mr. Morrissey stated that that would be fine. yor Ryckoff made a motion to have the Planning Co mission examine the P-C density of the Ford Aer utronIc site as it presently Is and consider that and i Impact and consider downzoning It. Tom Mor Issey addressed the Council and registered his objecticdip to this approach. The Council dis ussed the motion. Mayor Ryckoff wi hdrew the motion, and made another motion to rertrect the Planning Commission to address the matter #s promptly as possible of the zoning of undeveloped ding Ford Aero- nutronic. This motion was discuss \DIrec Community DevelopmeRichard Hogan informed Council that titem was on the Planning Commission agenda for coN ideration at its next meeting, and that he would %ohvey to the Commission the Council's Interest in moving forward. Mayor Ryckoff withdrew the motion. i Volume 33 - Page 192 4. 'DAILY PILOT - January 8, 1981 --_ --- __ _ ---• — - 7 [Project derailed - ti by staff reports Darwin Britvich's dream was to build a�house on his Corona del Mar property. But that dream turned into a nightmare when he came before the South Coast Regional ,,,'Coastal Commission last year. The fireman and his wife got their first setback when the commission denied his application to construct a three-, level home on -the bluffs above Corona del Mar State Park. In denying his application, commissioners said it would have adverse impacts on the environment and wasn't in , keeping with the Coastal Act. Britvich, who hopes to raise his family in his proposed house, appealed the decision to the state Coastal'Com. � mission.Itrefusedto act onthe appeal. ti Now, nearly a year later, Britvich is entitled to give it another try. His plan comes before the regionalcommission � againnext Monday in Huntington Beach. One of the larger obstacles this project has faced has ` been with statements presented in commission staff re- ports. For instance, staff planners continue to maintain that this house would be the only such structure built on the bluff "t faceinthisarea. That's simply not true. The house immediately to the �- outh hangs out over the bluff. In fact, Corona del Mar is . hick with such structures, any of which have received ap- provalfrom coast commissioners. The problem is that commissioners appear to build r= ••their opinions on information presented in staff reports. The reports are taken as fact.. In this case, prospective homeowner Britvich claims the reports are'laced with inac- r,,•curacies. Maybe the commissioners owe Britvich a little More than they appear willing to give. If this man'can stake his Iife savings on this piece of property, the commission should Y at least attempt to get thefacts straight. 1P 4 DAILY PILOT - January 14, 1981 Bluf'J" house OK'd But CdM neighbors haven't given up Darwin BrAvich has won ap- proval from the South Coast Regional Coastal Commission to build his three -level dreamhouse below the bluffs overlooking Corona del Mar State Beach. It ryas his second time around with •the commission. He came up a loser last year and had no luck appealing his case to the state coastal commission. HIS VICTORY Monday after- noon in Huntington Beach, though, could be short-lived. A group of Corona del Mar res- idents, who live on the inland side of Ocean Boulevard, have hinted they will appeal to the state commission to overturn the regional approval. The residents, represented by Newport attorney James Parker, maintain Britvich's pro- posed bluff -face home, near Heliotrope Avenue would disrupt views and his driveway would cut an unsightly path through a grassy strip that's become 4 favorite picnic and sunset - watching spot. BRITVICH TOLD Com- missioners he had modified his driveway plans to take out as lit- tle of the grassy strip as possi- ble. He told commissioners the grass strip,is actually a public right-of-way and never has been designated as a city or state park. Commissioners approved his house plan on a 5.3-1 vote. Com- missioners Jackie Heather (mayor of Newport) and Har- riett Wieder (Orange County supervisor.) sided- with Britvich on the vote, IN A RELATED skirmish in Newport Beach Monday even- ing, Britvich again came away a winner. The Corona del Mar objectors asked Newport city councilmen to block construction of the Brit- vich home and preserve the land as open space. The.residents, one of whom has lived in the same Ocean Avenue house for 70 years, mounted their drive during the council's conti- nuigg discussion on the city's Local Coastal Plan. ATTORNEY PARKER, fresh from the commission session, said he had nothing against Brit- vich or his plans, but simply' wanted to insure that the bluff - face is preserved in its natural state. He pointed out there are pro- visions in the city's proposed coastal plan for acquiring privately held property as open space with state money. Council 4nembers, taking in- formal votes on portions of the coastal plan, rejected the open - space proposal on a 5.2 vote. Councilmen Paul Hummel and Don Strauss favored open space. THE COUNCIL, though, did not completely wash its hands of the issue. It agreed to delay vot- ing on whether to change the zoning on three privately owned lots below Inspiration Point in Corona del Mar. The three lots, located below Ocean Boulevard and south of the Britvich property, currently are zoned for residential use. Construction of a house has begun on one of the lots. City planners have recom- mended that state funds be used to acquire the property and pre- serve it as open space. Council members will take;tip that question during a special session next Monday at 3 p.m. 2 a Coastal Monday, January 12, 1981 DAILY PILOT " - Panel frustrates couple Permit denials block Mrearn house' plans BySTEVE MARBLE Of llia Daily P lat Darwin Britvich remembers how the excitement would well up inside when he strolled along the bluffs of Corona del Mar. He says he'd pack up a picnic lunch, get his wife and spend the afternoon staring down at the surf and sand and the bluff face property where his dream house would one day stand. "The day we bought the pro- perty was like a dream," says Britvich, a 20-year Newport resi- dent and a veteran Los Angeles fireman. "Just thinking about the house was so exciting," adds his wife Robbie,'who owns a house clean- ing service in West Newport. "We saved and saved and saved for it and it felt good." But that was before the couple started tangling with the Coastal Commission. Britvich says his three.level dream house on the bluff face below Ocean Boulevard exists on paper only. The property near Heliotrope Avenue remains choked with brush, littered with beer bottles and hamburger wrappers and is patrolled by wild cats. "It started out as a labor of love," says Britvich, "but now its ,only labor." Britvich and his wife, who combined families and finances, three years ago when they were married, came up with .nearly $335,000 for the two -lot parcel. He said tfiey traded their in- dividual homes, took out their savings and even borrowed money from his mother to swing the deal. The house, as he tells it was designed for a pair of 'sunset freaks,' at least three of their five kids and his mother. Things started to turn sour for the Newport couple last year when the South Coast Regional Coastal Commission denied their application to build, citing adverse environmental impacts. He appealed to the state Coastal Commission but was turned away. Now, more than a year later, Britvich is preparing to give it another shot. He is scheduled to come before the regional commission again to- day. The major source of objection to the proposed three -bedroom house comes from the landward side of Ocean Boulevard. A group of residents claim the house will impair views from both the bluffs and from the beach below. Further, claim the residents, the driveway off Ocean to the house will cut a slice through a blufftop green belt that they say has become a favorite strolling and picnicking spot Several of the residents claim the thin, grassy strip is a park. City officials say it's a public right-of-way that happens to be covered with grass and dotted with benches. The land once was set aside for future widening of Ocean Boulevard. "It's really a phenomenal lit- tle park," says James Parker, the Newport attorney represent- ing the group the Corona del Mar residents. "People get married out there, sometimes they have art classes — I even go down there myself for lunch when I get the time," Parker says. He contends that whether the viewpoint stretch is called a park or public right-of-way is semantic gameplaying. "If it looks like a 'duck and Walks like a duck," he explains, "well, then I guess it's a duck." He says his clients., including one woman who has lived in her Ocean Boulevard house for 70 years, believe the driveway will destroy the green belt. Parkers claims his clients hope to persuade Newport coun- cilmen to designate the grassy area as an official park, a move that likely would block Britvich from building his driveway. Although several city officials speculate Parker is doing his best to find new ways of frustrating the prospective homebuilder, the attorney says his only interest is to preserve the grass strip. Britvich says this is one headache he thought he'd taken care of. He says he sat down with the Corona del Mar resi- dents last year and voluntarily altered, his driveway plan. "Hey, I like this grassy area too," he says. "We spent a lot of time and money, and took a great deal of care in picking our architect, because we were con- cerned about the environment. "At no point did we ever figure on building some castle," he says with an emotional pitch to his voice that he blames on "too many crushed dreams." He asserts much of his pro- blem in obtaining needed permits has been caused by "in- accurate" staff reports from* coastal commission planners. A recent"staff report states< there are no structures currently_j built on the face of the bluffs iik7 this area. Britvich, who has armed" himself with photographs, maps and stacks of documents, says; he's willing to drive anyone down to the Corona del Mar i state beach parking lot,and point, out the bluff face home located: immediately south of his pro perty. He says Corona del Mar i$*; loaded with such cliff-hangerft and that, by his count, the eom�'',, mission has approved nine of; them. "I've tried to point out the ers rors,•I really have," exclaims* Britvich, "but they just wont', listen to you." To answer concerns, that big' house would block views from the top of the bluff, Britvich and his architect sent up helium - filled' balloons to mark the peak of his structure. He says photographs of the balloons clearly show his house will not interrupt views of the sand or water. The most recent coastal com- mission staff report. ' offers the thought that, due to the physical, constraints of the property, it might best be used for a small- scale visitor -serving facility. "I don't know — maybe they,:; want me to build a hot dog stand, or something," says Britvich. "Here I am, just a little guy' who's struggled for years to get this pace and now I'm supposes to just give it all up to something': or someone more worthy?" Delays, Britvich says, have put.' the financial ¢inch on him "like'-" you can't believe." He estimates' the cost to build his $180,000 home - is now somewhere between $250,000 and $300,000. He says he pays more than $1,300 a year in property taxes on his land as well as several mortgages. Further, he says ; when he traded his home for the property, he was given the chance to rent,back that house - for a year. At the time, he says, he figured that was enough breathing room for his new home to be built He was wrong and now ]fives in a rented condo. "I try my best not to get too down about it," he says with a shrug, "but that's pretty hard to do. A lot of the joy in this thing has simply been torn away from me." ? ftj� THE NEWPORT ENSIGN - 8/29/79 durbPermit Granted By Council The first approval was later M ft CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT January 7, 1985 TO: Benjamin B. Nolan, Public Works Director Raimar Schuller, Building Director Ronald A. Whitley, Parks, Beaches & Recreation Director FROM: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director SUBJECT: Driveway and Guardrail Construction at 2901 Ocean Boulevard Attached is a copy of a letter which I have sent to Mrs. Trimble, who resides at 2900 Ocean Boulevard (Phone 673-3569).: Also attached is a copy of a petition signed by additional residents who share her concern. In reviewing the seven conditions imposed upon the curb cut permit approved by the City Council in 1979, �t appears to me that two conditions have not been met in that building permits were issued prior to (1) approval of the detailed driveway design by Public Works and PB&R; and (2) approval for removal and replacement of public improvements within the right-of-way by Public Works and PB&R. As to the fact that the guardrail will extend above the top of the curb, while perhaps not consistent with view preservation, it is required to protect the public safety, and should not come under the same restriction as Condition No. 6 which limits the height of the building, or Conditions No. 1 which refers to zoning regulations governing private property. In the interim, I don't believe the City should wait any longer for the architect to submit additional information. Rather, the Public Works Department, the Building Department, the PB&R Department, and if desired, the Planning Department, should meet and decide on a position and take action. JAMS D. HEWICKER Plan ing Director Attachments: Letter to Mrs. Trimble Petition Excerpt from City Council Minutes Letter from Al Jobe dated 1/7/85 .� `.i (4' �'•.`'di:v �.i- "ilniYt't. •n'pJ J., ,. �:G'�i^::�1. _ 'ti. F y'i " - - .•S-� = - .j.1 ;t l'f ti. 'fit.~ �-ti;,.' --`r�'�-.c,�iP. F.,- r `• - - - _ - _, .: _-_- _ _ "'''":ram; y'-. - _ _- -�F - --�_- _. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3222 January 7, 1985 Mrs. Eugene B. Trimble 2900 Ocean Boulevard Corona del Mar, California 92625 Re: Driveway and Guardrail Construction at 2901 Ocean Boulevard (Britvitch Residence) Dear Mrs. Trimble: In response to your telephone call on Thursday evening, January 3, 1985, I have reviewed the plans and viewed the construction activity in the field. As near as I can determine, the construction which has occurred above, curb level lies within the public right-of-way of Ocean Boulevard,and beyond the jurisdiction of the Planning Department. I have, therefore,'contacted both the Public Works Department and the Building Department who are reviewing the situation and should have an answer shortly. In addition, Mr. Nigel Bailey has subsequently submitted a letter containing the signatures of an additional forty-seven residents of Corona del Mar who share your concern. If you need additional assistance in recommend that you call Mr. Ken Perry, Public Works Department, at 644-3111, or Director, at 644-3282. Very truly yours, 1J S D. HEWICKER P1 ning Director CC: Nigel Bailey Ben Nolan Ray Schuller Ken Perry Faysal Jurdi Hiep Tran Tracy Williams Jay Garcia regard to this matter, I would who is the Office Engineer in the Mr. Raimar Schuller, the Building •JDH/kk JDHIV 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach' .Y' January 4, 1985 Mr. James D. Hewicker, Director PlanningDepartment City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, Ca. Dear Mr. Hewicker: At the very outset when Mr. Britvich approached the City of Newport Beach for permission to construct a residence on,his lot on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard at Heliotrope we, the neighbors in close proximity to that site have been deeply con- cerned. We have feared that during the course of construction on the site, sooner or later some element of that construction would interfere with our views. We have been given numerous assurances over the years that the sanctity of those views would be secure from obstruction, the most recent of which is dated December 6, 1984 from your depart- ment signed by Mr. Javier Garcia on your behalf. This letter was in response to an inquiry made by Realtor Nigel Bailey on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Eugene Trimble at 2900 Ocean Boulevard. This letter and all the previous assurances are clear cut ---"no structure of any kind may be built on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard that exceeds the curb level, except with a variance requiring a public hearing." Now our worst fears appear to be realized in that a concrete wall has loomed into sight with reinforcing steel projecting that promises more concrete and more obstruction. Since we have never been notified of a request for a variance dealing with this is- sue, with the subsequent public hearing, we can only assume that the wall and the steel bar preparation are a city oversight. It is our position that the wall must be removed or reduced to the appropriate level immediately. ::y^•.�}:. °i�• iota Yft•*, '4-��',�'y •'!',(. ., y ' _ :yl: .i':j;�•�'••,r Mr. James D. Hewicker -2- Will the City attend to this matter on our behalf or will it be necessary for us to seek representation by legal counsel on an issue so clearly in violation? Yours truly, I I 7 ? � �' G' C'•• t E �c r'{ ZOO e a.17o t Oct t� •tu�`�, `• i N �•.. y. _ . _ _ �:r ` .,. .rt.E`r a. w i January 5, 1985 Mr. James D. Hewicker, Director Planning Department City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, Ca. Re: Construction at 2901 Ocean Boulevard, CDM Dear Mr. Hewicker: In addition to the residents living in the immediate area of the above curb level construction in question, the following residents also object on a conceptual basis to any construction on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevardlwhich would obstruct the view. .k ftnt-t.� � • •�� '7-3'7 'I:riS Aue c p N4 1.1.k�" A to Zi� S�- CDM 1 07,13 -LeW Very truly yours, r J C� fir' 13- 7 1,7, V Ug A. -`/1 C r A%t_��, 0 January 5, 1985 Mr. James D. Hewicker, Director Planning Department City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, Ca. Re: Construction at 2901 Ocean Boulevard, CDM Dear Mr. Hewicker: in addition to the residents living in the immediate area of the above'.curb level construction in question, the following residents also object on a conceptual basis to any construction on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevardlwhich would obstruct the view. I'Vj 1w 7 ,p� Very truly yours, /• �J y�, jq;�. zz � f .�'. 41 ,� •- . [ � r:y, �`{_ `:. � '1 ^�'i': 'a; .'�, � `° ''f��,'tl-f: v ,. 'r ',: ���+f mot, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3200 December 6, 1984 Nigel Bailey & Associates 2732 E. Coast Highway Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Dear Mr. Bailey: In accordance with Section 20.02.050(£) of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code restricts height of structures (including fences), to top of curb on Ocean Boulevard. Any construction to exceed the permitted height limit would require a Variance. This, of course, requires a public hearing. The Modifications Committee can only act upon a fence in the front yard setback which will exceed three feet in height, but not exceed the permitted height limit to top of curb. If you have any questions, please call me at the number above. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By �2� 14a.n. Jammer S. Garcia Assistant Planner JG:tn ,a. •' - •'4 •. ' .li t„f,�'�„r «i tT''X-e:.`�.,,o'� .it •n � � ,u ,; rt Boulevard, Newport B 3300 Newpoeach ,c!-s..;o;,'• .. , . . .. �. V t"C„ �N.o „+,,. , r..:.t '.0 •� _ "�W.3aa�++.,ya:,� MC CiiY i�i�1'Ji'0F2"i r i�L.HV..•w MINUTES L' ., ".s n 1979 Mayor Ryckoff opened the public_ hearing regarding access to 2901 Ocean Boulevard, for property located on the southerly side of Ocean Boulevard adjacent to and cast of Heliotrope Avenue in Corona del Mar. A report was presented from the Community Development Department. Dick Dodd, architect for applicant, addressed the Council regarding their revised plans. The hearing was closed after it was determined that no one else desired to be heard. The Council decision of February 262 '1979 was rescinded, acid access from .the westerly side of the property was approveds , ubJect_.to_the • following conditions: 1) Conformance with all zoning regulations, including any required environmental assessment. 2) Conformance with all grading requirements, including a soils' engineering report on the proposed project and an engineering geology report on the subject property. 3) Conformance with all building regulations. 4) Approval of the detailed driveway - design, including grade, widths and tapers by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation and Public Works Departments. 5) Approval for removal and replacement of any public improvements by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation and Public Works Departments. 6) Height of building not to exceed height of curb on Ocean Boulevard. 7) Prior issuance of a Coastal Permit. Councilman Hart was excused from the meeting due to illness. 4. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing regarding Ordinance No. 1817, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADDING CHAPTER 20.73 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, " ENTITLED,• "RESIDENT.IAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT.S�" Volume 33 - Pagc 239 DEX Curb Cut/ 2901 Ocean Blvd (3180) '.IM...}1 Residential Condominium Projects O-1817 (3311) •fl�>i K�.j ,. ,,,'wdi�ttH-. Y�iT.•"fQe..t-,3LA.(`,' :�-0(�.ISt. ^,'�1 •''a�tvT y.,, i_iiwr.S:YY'.v'/�;r HANDCARRIED Mr. James D. Hewicker, Director Planning Department City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, California, 92658 Dear Mr. Hewicker: January 7, 1985 41 ~ This letter is written concerning how Mr. Britvich is going about constructing hi.s new residence at 2901 Ocean Blvd., Corona Del Mar and what the City of Newport Beach is going to do about it. It is becoming very evident that this new construction is being built with the the absolute dependancy of a variance. The new driveway and guardrail which is partly completed is already designed and built in such a way that is is above curb level, violating. the newport beach zoning code. This deprives the public at large and the many residents of this city of the unobstructed views afforded along Ocean Blvd., which they are entitled to. The real main concern I have "along with many others" is that the city may approve this building violation even though there is a public hearing on the matter where in all probability the majority of the immediate neighbors are opposed to it. If this should happen myself and other concerned parties will have no other recourse except to take legal action. A lot of us immediate home owners have been concerned about this project since its original proposals. We have attended many hearings on this, both at the city and Coastal Commission levels. Mr. Britvich at these meetings has stated publicly and for the record that he could build his proposed structure in conformance with the Newport Beach zoning code and it would not be dependant on any variance. i,.•r.' , -.,T �'h,•}.- ;: t i.," -. j, ta'{, .': ' o` (C - _ '-. ' f L': •i!f...''.'I•' y�ii.�i�:�ri .. — .Y�'l.0 �, 1,:� n•/•i, : 'aaYy.Y f� - ....... ^ }^, ( �, :Z e_.rtil •,M.R. Y' ) Iv M1•J :(r .. .:'' -• _"t tio,n .y ,tiN `: •...:iy!3'x:�4.d.� '' ,.ram ..:�'i :� .�-.'�::•. :4 �'r. „r''. ,.,- �. fi �-,•. acor l . ),� ,.!' �1: !':• .�,f-{.•'t. tf•'trrw".:rR-iw.• id+:,."`..•iC>>.*.�•ti`••r%Y'•• -2- Because Mr. Britvich at these meetings stated that he could construct his project without the need of a variance we the neighbors stopped opposing his project. I would like to request that the Planning Department issue a stop order on this project, have Mr. Britvich correct these construction errors, and also to keep on top of this project very closely. I would also appreciate you advising me of any hearing or other administrative action which the City has taken or intends to.take regarding this matter. Very truly yours CSC tkf Al Jobe 2908 Ocean Blvd., - Corona Dell Mar, Calif. 92625 (714) 826-1211 r,. • �_. ;rA t <ii eri'-'. -_ 4ti!S".�i:e:"'"..".'µ...^..E'6�i:i �.:�!i+..a�.���:ti.E:.. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT January 7, 1985 TO: Benjamin B. Nolan, Public Works Director Raimar Schuller, Building Director Ronald A. Whitley, Parks, Beaches & Recreation Director FROM: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director SUBJECT: Driveway and Guardrail Construction at 2901 Ocean Boulevard Attached is a copy of a letter which I have sent to Mrs. Trimble, who resides at 2900 Ocean Boulevard (Phone 673-3569). Also attached is a copy of a petition signed by additional residents who share her concern. In reviewing the seven conditions imposed upon the curb cut permit approved by the City Council in 1979, it appears to me that two conditions have not been met in that building permits were issued prior to (1) approval of the detailed driveway design by Public Works and PB&R; and (2) approval for removal and replacement of public improvements within the right-of-way by Public Works and PB&R. As to the fact that the guardrail will extend above the top of the curb, while perhaps not consistent with view preservation, it is required to protect the public safety, and should not come under the same restriction as Condition No. 6 which limits the height of the building, or Conditions No. 1 which refers to zoning regulations governing private property. In the interim, I don't believe the City should wait any longer for the architect to submit additional information. Rather, the Public Works Department, the Building Department, the PB&R Department, and if desired, the Planning Department, should meet and decide on a position and take action. J D. HEWICKER Plan ing Director Attachments: Letter to Mrs. Trimble Petition Excerpt from City Council Minutes Letter from Al Jobe dated 1/7/85 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3222 January 7, 1985 Mrs. Eugene B. Trimble 2900 Ocean Boulevard Corona del Mar, California 92625 Re: Driveway and Guardrail Construction at 2901 Ocean Boulevard (Britvitch Residence) Dear Mrs. Trimble: In response to your telephone call on Thursday evening, January 3, 1985, I have reviewed the plans and viewed the construction activity in the field. As near as I can determine, the construction which has occurred above curb level lies within the public right-of-way of Ocean Boulevard and beyond the jurisdiction of the Planning Department. I have, therefore, contacted both the Public Works Department and the Building Department who are reviewing the situation and should have an answer shortly. In addition, Mr. Nigel Bailey has subsequently submitted a letter containing the signatures of an additional forty-seven residents of Corona del Mar who share your concern. if you need additional assistance in regard to this matter, I would recommend that you call Mr. Ken Perry, who is the Office Engineer in the Public Works Department, at 644-3111, or Mr. Raimar Schuller, the Building Director, at 644-3282. Very truly yours, J S D. HEWICKER JDH/kk P1 ning Director JDHIV cc: Nigel Bailey Ben Nolan Ray Schuller Ken Perry Faysal Jurdi Hiep Tran Tracy Williams Jay Garcia 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach January 4, 1985 Mr. James D. Hewicker, Director PlanningDepartment City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, Ca. Dear Mr. Hewicker: At the very outset when Mr. Britvich approached the City of Newport Beach for permission to construct a residence on his lot on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard at Heliotrope we, the neighbors in close proximity to that site have been deeply con- cerned. We have feared that during the course of construction on the site, sooner or later some element of that construction would interfere with our views. We have been given numerous assurances over the years that the sanctity of those views would be secure from obstruction, the most recent of which is dated December 6, 1984 from your depart- ment signed by Mr. Javier Garcia on your behalf, This letter was in response to an inquiry made by Realtor Nigel Bailey on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Eugene Trimble at 2900 Ocean Boulevard. This letter and all the previous assurances are clear cut ---"no structure of any kind may be built on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard that exceeds the curb level, except with a variance requiring a public hearing." Now our worst fears appear to be realized in that a concrete wall has loomed into sight with reinforcing steel projecting that promises more concrete and more obstruction. since we have never been notified of a request for a variance dealing with this is- sue, with the subsequent public hearing, we can only assume that the wall and the steel bar preparation are a city oversight. It is our position that the wall must be removed or reduced to the appropriate level immediately. E Mr. James D. Hewicker -2- Will the City attend to this matter on necessary for us to seek representation issue so clearly in violation? Yours truly, our behalf or will it be by legal counsel on an 1 Very truly January 5, 1985 Mr. James D. Hewicker, Director Planning Department City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, Ca. Re: Construction at 2901 Ocean Boulevard', CDM Dear Mr. Hewicker: In addition to the residents living in the immediate area of the above.,curb level construction in question, the following residents also object on a conceptual basis to any construction on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevardlwhich would obstruct the view. Z36 l-� l,to�oY� gw n411 , 7 XriS D� January 5, 1985 Mr. James D. Hewicker, Director Planning Department City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, Ca. Re: Construction at 2901 Ocean Boulevard, CDM Dear Mr. Hewicker: In addition to the residents living in the immediate area of the above'.curb level construction in question, the following residents also object on a conceptual basis to any construction on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevardlwhich would obstruct the view. FMan' Very ,-`truly yours, 1 l 3116 ©eecLm 3h'd, A4,f #4 dAA,1P �33;Z0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3200 December 6, 1984 Nigel Bailey & Associates 2732 E. Coast Highway Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Dear Mr. Bailey: In accordance with Section 20.02.050(f) of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code restricts height of structures (including fences), to top of curb on Ocean Boulevard. Any construction to exceed the permitted height limit would require a Variance. This, of course, requires a public hearing. The Modifications Committee can only act upon a fence in the front yard setback which will exceed three feet in height, but not exceed the permitted height limit to top of curb. If you have any questions, please call me at the number above. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By Q wn� % d.e. Javier S.S. Garcia Assistant Planner JG:tn 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach C d J CITY -z N VJPOR I ;S HCr , MINUTES L n xlx 1979 Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing regarding _access to 2901 Ocean Boulevard, for, property located on the southerly side of Ocean Boulevard adjacent to and east of Heliotrope Avenue in Corona del Mar. A report was presented from the Community Development Department. Dick Dodd, architect for applicant, addressed the Council regarding their revised plans. The hearing was closed after it was determined that no one else desired to be heard. The Council -decision of February 26, 1979 was rescinded, and access from_the .westerly side of the property was approved, subjcact to the _ following conditions: 1) Conformance with all zoning regulations, including any required environmental assessment. 2) Conformance with all grading requirements, including a soils' engineering report on the proposed project and an engineering geology report on the subject property. 3) Conformance with all building regulations. 4) Approval of the detailed driveway - design, including grade, widths and tapers by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation and Public Works Departments. 5) Approval for removal and replacement of any public improvements by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation and Public Works Departments. 6) Height of building not to exceed height of curb on Ocean Boulevard. 7) Prior issuance of a Coastal Permit. Hart was excused from the meeting due to 4. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing regarding Ordinance No. 1817, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADDING CHAPTER 20.73 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, ENTITLED' "RESIDENT.IAL CONDOMINIUM PRO3ECT.S;' Volume 33 - Page: 239 INDEX Curb Cut/ 2901 Ocean Blvd (31,8.0.) W +f.^,r_tii54f" 4. Residential Condominium Projects 0-1817 (3311) HANDCARRIED January 7, 1985 Mr. James D. Hewicker, Director Planning Department City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, California, 92658 Dear Mr.. Hewicker: This letter is written concerning how Mr. Britvich is going about constructing hiss new residence at 2901 Ocean Blvd., Corona Del Mar and what the City of Newport Beach is going to do about it. It is becoming very evident that this new construction is being built with the the absolute dependancy of a variance. The new driveway and guardrail which is partly completed is already designed and built in such a way that is is above curb level, violating the newport beach zoning code. This deprives the public at large and the many residents of this city of the unobstructed views afforded along Ocean Blvd., which they are entitled to. The real main concern I have "along with many others" is that the city may approve this building violation even though there is a public hearing on the matter where in all probability the majority of the immediate neighbors are opposed to it. If this should happen myself and other concerned parties will have no other recourse except to take legal action. A lot of us immediate home owners have been ooncerned about this project since its original proposals. We have attended many hearings on this, both at the city and Coastal Commission levels. Mr. Britvich at these meetings has stated publicly and for the record that he could build his proposed structure in conformance with the Newport Beach zoning code and it would not be dependant on any variance. -2- Because Mr. Britvich at these meetings stated that he could construct his project without the need of a variance we the neighbors stopped opposing his project. I would like to request that the Planning Department issue a stop order on this project, have Mr. Britvich correct these construction errors, and also to keep on top of this project very closely. I would also appreciate you advising me of any hearing or other administrative action which the City has taken or intends to take regarding this matter. Very truly pours WON Al Jobe 2908 Ocean Blvd. Corona Del Mar, Calif. 92625 (714) 826-1211 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT January 7, 1985 TO: Benjamin B. Nolan, Public Works Director Raimar Schuller, Building Director Ronald A. Whitley, Parks, Beaches & Recreation Director FROM: James D. Hewicker, Planning Director SUBJECT: Driveway and Guardrail Construction at 2901 Ocean Boulevard Attached is a copy of a letter which I have sent to Mrs. Trimble, who resides at 2900 Ocean Boulevard (Phone 673-3569). Also attached is a copy of a petition signed by additional residents who share her concern. In reviewing the seven conditions imposed upon the curb cut permit approved by the City Council in 1979, it appears to me that two conditions have not been met in that building permits were issued prior to (1) approval of the detailed driveway design by Public Works and PB&R; and (2) approval for removal and replacement of public improvements within the right-of-way by Public Works and PB&R. As to the fact that the guardrail will extend above the top of the curb, while perhaps not consistent with view preservation, it is required to protect the public safety, and should not come under the same restriction as Condition No. 6 which limits the height of the building, or Conditions No. 1 which refers to zoning regulations governing private property. In the interim, I don't believe the City should wait any longer for the architect to submit additional information. Rather, the Public Works Department, the Building Department, the PB&R Department, and if desired„ the Planning Department, should meet and decide on a position and take action. J D. HEWICKER Plan ing Director Attachments: Letter to Mrs. Trimble Petition Excerpt from City Council Minutes Letter from Al Jobe dated 1/7/85 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3222 January 7, 1985 Mrs. Eugene B. Trimble 2900 Ocean Boulevard Corona del Afar, California 92625 Re: Driveway and Guardrail Construction at 2901 Ocean Boulevard (Britvitch Residence) Dear Mrs. Trimble: In response to your telephone call on Thursday evening, January 3, 1985, I have reviewed the plans and viewed the construction activity in the field. As near as I can determine, the construction which has occurred above curb level lies within the public right-of-way of Ocean Boulevard and beyond the jurisdiction of the Planning Department. I have, therefore, contacted both the Public Works Department and the Building Department who are reviewing the situation and should have an answer shortly. in addition, Mr. Nigel Bailey has subsequently submitted a letter containing the signatures of an additional forty-seven residents of Corona del Mar who share your concern. If you need additional assistance in regard to this matter, I would recommend that you call Mr. Ken Perry, who is the Office Engineer in the Public Works Department, at 644-3111, or Mr. Raimar Schuller, the Building Director, at 644-3282. Very truly yours, C-- J S D. HEWICKER JDH/kk P1 ning Director JDHIV CC: Nigel Bailey Ben Nolan Ray Schuller Ken Perry Faysal Jurdi Hiep Tran Tracy Williams Jay Garcia 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach - 1•r� January 4, 1985 Mr. James•D. Hewicker, Director PlanningDepartment City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, Ca. - Dear Mr. Hewicker: At the very outset when Mr. Britvich approached the City of Newport Beach for permission to construct a residence on his lot on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard at Heliotrope we, the neighbors in close proximity to that site have been deeply con- cerned. We have feared that during the course of construction on the site, sooner or later some element of that construction would interfere with our views. We have been given numerous assurances over the years that the sanctity of those views would be secure from obstruction, the most recent of which is dated December 6, 1984 from your depart- ment signed by Mr. Javier Garcia on your behalf. This letter was in response to an inquiry made by Realtor Nigel Bailey on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Eugene Trimble at 2900 Ocean Boulevard. This letter and all the previous assurances are clear cut ---"no structure of any kind may be built on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard that exceeds the curb level, except with a variance requiring a public hearing." Now our worst fears appear to be realized in that a concrete wall has loomed into sight with reinforcing steel projecting that promises more concrete and more obstruction. Since we have never been notified of a request for a variance dealing with this is- sue, with the subsequent public hearing, we can only assume that the wall and the steel bar preparation are a city oversight. It is our position that the wall must be removed or reduced to the appropriate level immediately. �• t_ Mr Mr. James D. Hewicker -2- Will the City attend to this matter on necessary for us to seek representation issue so clearly in violation? Yours truly, %122.j 71. v our behalf or will it be by legal counsel on an ,ti�0� 0c0, (ILIA �i Sv �A •v.. i 'ji5 •.ixn'r •' P:. ... .. .. .<--. .. .. . .. s+. n .q.v u..., u.ql ..... .. .reM1t?.r •x'r%Ft"a]+�r fn'�if. u�... r. a . �•.V .. .r^.aVi'.+ rn':Ki `I ram! January 5, 1985 Mr. James D. Hewicker, Director Planning Department City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, Ca. Re: Construction at 2901 Ocean Boulevard, CDM Dear Mr. Hewicker: In addition to the residents living in the immediate area of the above .curb level construction in question, the following residents also object on a conceptual basis to any construction on the bluff side of ocean Boulevardlwhich would obstruct the view. �f cowl �"• E'k�.ul,-C�, '�37 Sri S Ar I-4'a .,.. '-2�(0'`� 5F. C,DM aW312�s Very truly yours, �1 31 ;7 s Nfi� �z, R4 Ft 1;7 January 5, 1985 Mr. James D. Hewicker, Director Planning Department City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, Ca. Re: Construction at 2901 Ocean Boulevard, CDM Dear Mr. Hewicker: In addition to the residents living in the immediate area of the above -.curb level construction in question, the following residents also object on a conceptual basis to any construction on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevardlwhich would obstruct the view. Very trul. yours, 217Lra,-LJfii�e ) �104� f��fltJ��vA Y� aid 7 'L ( CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (714) 644-3200 December 6, 1984 Nigel Bailey & Associates 2732 E. Coast Highway Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Dear Mr. Bailey: In accordance with Section 20.02.050(f) of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code restricts height of structures (including fences), to top of curb on Ocean Boulevard. Any construction to exceed the permitted height limit would require a Variance. This, of course, requires a public hearing. i The Modifications Committee can only act upon a fence in the front yard setback which will exceed three feet in height, but not exceed the permitted height limit to top of curb. If you have any questions, please call me at the number above. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By <`Lanx-. J >6 "'..r. Javier S. Garcia Assistant Planner JG:tn 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach LMEN MINUTES 11 ".•s n x x x x x x x x 27 Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing regarding access to 2901 Ocean Boulevard, for property located on the southerly side of Ocean Boulevard adjacent to and east of Heliotrope Avenue in Corona del Mar. A report was presented from the Community Development Department. Dick Dodd, architect for applicant, addressed the Council regarding their revised plans. The hearing was closed after it was determined that no one else desired to be heard. The Council •_decision of February 26, '1979 was rescinded, and access from.the westerly side of the property was approved, Agb.i ect_.tu_the _ following conditions: 1) Conformance with all zoning regulations, including any required environmental assessment. 2) Conformance with all grading requirements, including a soils' engineering report on the proposed project and an engineering geology report on the subject property. 3) Conformance with all building regulations. 4) Approval of the detailed driveway - design, including grade, widths and tapers by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation and Public Works Departments. 5) Approval for removal and replacement of any public improvements. by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation and Public Works Departments. 6) Height of building not to exceed height of curb on Ocean Boulevard. 7) Prior issuance of a Coastal Permit. Hart was excused from the meeting due to 4. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing regarding Ordinance No. 1817, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADDING CHAPTER 20.73 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, ENTITLED ' "RESIDENT.IAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS;' Volume 33 - Pagc 239 Curb Cut/ 2901 Ocean Blvd (3f80) ` LYI+f.4i� Residential Condominium Projects 0-IS17 (3311) t� ' t HANDCARRIED Mr. James D. Hewicker, Director Planning Department City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, California, 92658 Dear Mr. Hewicker: January 7, 1985 8 p ata�gzsv �� JA 01 Gk 4 OERC� This letter is written concerning how Mr. Britvich is going about constructing Us, new residence at 2901 Ocean Blvd.,. Corona Del Mar and what the City of Newport Beach is going to do about it. It is becoming very evident that this new construction is being built with the the absolute dependancy of a variance. The new driveway and guardrail which is partly completed is already designed and built in such a way that is is above curb level, violating the newport beach zoning code. This deprives the public at large and the many residents of this city of the unobstructed views afforded along Ocean Blvd., which they are entitled to. The real main concern I have "along with many others" is that the city may approve this building violation everi though there is a public hearing on the matter where in all probability the majority of the immediate neighbors are opposed to it. If this should happen myself and other concerned parties will have no other recourse except to take legal action. A lot of us immediate home owners have been concerned about this project since its original proposals. We have attended many hearings on this, both at the city and Coastal Commission levels. Mr. Britvich at these meetings has stated publicly and for the record that he could build his proposed structure in conformance with the Newport Beach zoning code and it would not be dependant on any variance. -2- Because Mr. Britvich at these meetings stated that he could construct his project without the need of a variance we the neighbors stopped opposing his project. I would like to request that the Planning Department issue a stop order on this project, have Mr. Britvich correct these construction errors, and also to keep on top of this project very closely. I would also appreciate you advising me of any hearing or other administrative action which the City has taken or intends to take regarding this matter. Very truly yours C&I t, Al Jobe 2908 Ocean Blvd. i Corona Del Mar, Calif. 92625 (714) 826-1211 mraBb iai11WT NIGEb BAILEY & sA558CIATES REAL ESTATE* REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS g,32 E, COAST HIGHWAY, CORONA DAL MAR, CA #2E25 60.1211• RES.6764870 Zzz s�lT G-ti•— -T ` Y � t "r., u,�::�:sr mlssr_•;rx2ccwarraril'wi.�nisze.+a�.`_�is�vrvns:w���•`�+•„%'^•••••••,'�"'�+:+•••'�•.,:: :•^...�m��••'�«••+.,••-xuu�mm•>•r.,i•+' 'l'��`�: '( .t'�i' ,'i`•" ra�Frx�S 't5 �'� .F', `y?(x ��•• ;iR� •p,,i t', n,i,'`•�� r/I'�::?'i;;''�SN a{j.. .' "• taa-0�''+'�1 t��� to.%•�.,4 : �p<; � >'1:���,� 1' � t;5 �"• 9 � sty �j � ..r •' rc 1: ` t+ lk .. ( .•` :^ mr,. . _ ,R L�A61.i�L' LIIJE �c m i l J ' • � • �i.ADA/�fF � i ryH � 1 '/.lam �W ©71K0 M e: \ If ......yam. I 4 1 '�.._, ._fit i ■i ��..,�..� ::. r, . . ,•.�� ,.d.d:�..�.T._- ,.'•:��.. :u _tHli+514M1x.Li .t.N{I'S`i,'Y.ti ,[1tY'....i,-Y,t'..�.�tlfyCaipp4Rhm��..ww.wv,.wlr'..�...�'(/��y I.(.I.�. . , "9 MiGr�. f �•�l�l��. 1 POOR. QUALITY ORI%GI:NAL (S) I I- elITY 6ro, 13Y A1,;,,AAF.D ITII;UrDATE 4— W I +1 44 i IT I-j ra . L i "etv"'j; I ApOWMM CITY 6M, CTO px� I S=ClruE!^L I . . Irk a . r cf 1 kv �1 y PLANNING DEPARTMEa - cu RRE-N�i PLANS ROUTE SLIP DATE: z 0 a � o K W "" O Lf r � � -j J INITIALS u Z O W r-. H BILL LAYCOCK BILL WARD CHRIS GUSTIN FRED TALARICO SHERI VANDER DUSSEN TRACY WILLIAMS PAM WOODS TINA NEWBY COMMENTS: FROM i m LIETZ 1324 12-68 a \ \ OS70-/Olo-L Uill00 /EO 9 r ai4'v 7Y.Y90/L �TO BE 3 S//OfY.(/ /(/ OET6/L Tf//9 55S�E6T �TYO/CGL <JLL PLt"7L-a� �'O� PLQCEO BYOTf/E24j /2 _ �4� SG UBBy $EdL h �4 ir- Exisr..o.c. ,ovirlT. 41 -----------------TYP/CALl FL 727 BE 05?eI67Ae,-/CTEO 8Y OT/ E26�� ELK'. l�OUL T-��� 2.3 "GY/C'T3 ESE B. M. LEGO If PC ,(/WIG /,(/ FLG=E, C•O./l>. 5747E BL'�fC"�• ELEV /P. 93 " 1-/• 6- L . , r-dCE a= caea O,QC G?STG - G= 2==Ile .00 7�" ', Chi. • �� i J-- 2 oQLMS E.C/O OF 7<,//SL2�Ul.B4CT SCA L. E: /"= 20' \ /,(/ �OOWdY. C/OerS� $/OE i / / / DATE I BY F.aCE Q� CU2B e= JXF5 aoo'1 2= ro2. 9B ' T= /B • a4 C1i=3.f• 75 " TYGlF a CU2B O T YPE y SCALE: FGCE OF C!/QB 42C L?r1T4 ' F"4CEoF' ,OBC GWT,4 Qr 90'00' T= /2.6W L = /• 57' p , TOP.a^O/L /2 MOO/F/EL7 Ty.oE ".7% "' �UQB DE_ N T S. dr ,I RICE � CU2B 42C DATAALI d c 90�00' /� O PL72lC/UG v�T/2/oE /fr L .C4CE . AGI::l aasA / -�� l ` a = B oa ��, a =/07 �s L�all J'•=lo•67' �- l0•87" 2Gt.ro3' .034' T= L=9.Q2' Q � � PLAN TER SCH MAT/CS 1p DESCRIPTION REVISIONS APPROVED Z,_� _ 455T. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR R.E. NO.1280G DATE_ 2- i 1-O 4 APP'D, DESIGNEp DRAWN .o.a. , s. a. iY B. CHECKED DATE w. B o. a/5/'74 CORONA DEL MAR BEACH PARKING LOT (WEST SIDE) GENERA L PL A N AND E DETA/L S CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P-5037—S PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SHEET 2 OF 3 _1 C-/S/0 U 0 .�� o / ma's