Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOLD CORONA DEL MAR HOTEL SITE_2500 SEAVIEW AVEJuly 10,1995 Dale Rasmussen, District Administrator Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control 26 Civic Center Plaza Room 369 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Dear Mr. Rasmussen: The Newport Beach Police Department would like to conditionally protest the issuance_o£the 'T_ype_47'(On-Sale General) license for the Village Inn, located at 12ZMari ne,-Balb oa.lslan There are approximately 12 to 15 residences within 150 feet of the location. The area is a mixture of commercial and residential structures. In reviewing the calls for service for the current operation, there have been a total of 48 calls from 2/5/93 until 6/3/95. Of those calls, 27 of them relate directly to either loud music, or patrons making too much noise. Four of the calls relate to fights, or assaults that have occurred at the location. During the same time frame, there have been 6 drunk in public arrests and 3 D.U.I. arrests, where the arrestees stated they had been drinking at the Village Inn. There have been 3 A.B.C. related investigations within the last 8 months. Two of these investigations are regarding the service of alcohol to minors and the other involves the lack of food on the premises. The Newport Beach Police Department believes that the below listed conditions are necessary to maintain the health, safety, and welfare of the community. These conditions will ensure that a restaurant operation is the primary business and that any noise generated will not be detrimental to the near -by residents of Balboa Island. PROPOSED CONDITIONS 1. Sales, service or consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted only between the hours of 11:00 AM and 1:00 A.M. each day of the week. 2. The premises shall be maintained as a bona fide restaurant and shall provide a menu containing an assortment of foods normally offered in such restaurants. 3. The premises shall be equipped and maintained as a restaurant and shall contain, in operative condition, such items for cooking foods as stove, List of Conditions Page 2 ovens, broilers, or other devices as well as pots, pans or containers which can be used for cooking or heating foods on the type heating devices employed. 4. The premises shall possess the necessary utensils, table service, and condiment dispensers with which to serve meals to the public. 5. The subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be exchanged for a public premises type license, nor operated as a public premises. The primary use of the premises shall be a restaurant for the sit-down service of meals and beverages to patrons. 6. At all times during normal meal hours, during which the licensee is exercising the privileges of the applied for license, said licensee shall offer meals consistent with what is customarily offered during said meal period. Normal meals are considered to be at least, but not limited to: Breakfast, 6 AM to 9 AM; Lunch,11 AM to 2 PM, Dinner, 6 PM to 9 PM. 7. At all times when the premises are open for business, the sale and service of alcoholic beverages shall be made only in conjunction with the sale and service of food. 8. The quarterly gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed the gross sales of food during the same time period. The licensee shall at all times maintain records which reflect separately the gross sales of food and the gross sales of alcoholic beverages of the licensed business. Said records shall be kept no less frequently than a quarterly basis and shall be made available to the Department upon demand. 9. From 10.00 P.M. until closing, or any time there is live entertainment or pre-recorded music being played, all doors and windows shall be closed, except in cases of emergency or actual entry or exit of patrons. Said doors and windows shall not consist solely of screen or security type doors and windows. 10. Licensees shall not offer, permit, or provide any type of entertainment except pursuant to a valid patron dance and/or live entertainment permit issued by the City of Newport Beach. Any Live Entertairmuntt provided shall not be amplified and there may be no more that 3 musicians playing at one time. 11. Any entertainment that is provided shall not be audible beyond the building under the control of the licensee. Said entertainment shall not List of Conditions Page 3 disturb any nearby residents. Amj Live Entertainment shall cease at 12:00 midnight. 12. The rear door(s) of the premises shall be equipped on the inside with an automatic locking device and shall be closed at all times, and shall not be used as a means of access by patrons to and from the licensed premises. Temporary use of these doors for delivery of supplies is permitted. 13. There shall be no pool tables or coin -operated games maintained upon the premises at any time. 14. No beer or distilled spirits shall be sold in glass containers greater than 12 ounces. 15. The petitioner(s) shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter the area adjacent to the premises over which he has control. 16. No alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on any property adjacent to the licensed premises under the control of the licensee. 17. There shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. 18. Petitioner(s) shall not require an admission charge or a cover charge, nor shall there be a requirement to purchase a minimum number of drinks. 19. Petitioner(s) shall make no changes in the premises interior without prior written approval from the Department. 20. There shall be no promotional drink specials or reduced drink prices. Sincerely, Bob Mc Donell Chief of Police James M. Jacobs, Captain Detective Division Commander •l CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT January 21, 1987 TO: City Manager FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Old Corona del Mar Hotel Site - 2500 Seaview Avenue The following is provided as an overview of the historical development and use of the property located at 2500 Seaview Avenue, Corona del Mar. Extended History According to historical information made available through the Sherman Founda- tion in Corona del Mar, the subject property was originally developed in 1905 as the Corona del Mar Hotel (see attachment identified as "The Oldest Building" with photographs). The Building Department records of the property indicate that in 1950 and in 1954 alterations and additions were permitted to the hotel, including a small garage structure on the site. The use of the property and buildings gradually evolved from the original hotel use into a 19 room apart- ment house in 1980. Y Recent History On September 4, 1980, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 1948 and Resubdivision No. 666 which would have permitted the construction of a six unit condominium development on the subject property. Inasmuch as said approvals were never exercised, Use Permit No. 1948 eventually expired in 1982, and Resubdivision No. 666 expired in 1984. The applications filed in 1980 for Use Permit No. 1948 and Resubdivision No. 666 indicate that the subject property was being used as a multi -family resi- dential use at that time. City business license records further indicate that the property has been licensed as an apartment building since 1980. It should be further noted that the firm which managed the property up to February 5, 1986 (Savage, Wilde and Company, Balboa), has indicated that the structure was being used as a 19 unit apartment building until the property was sold to the current owner. TO: City Manager - 2. The current owner of the subject property at one time expressed some interest in restoring the building to its original condition and reopening it as a bed and breakfast hotel. The subject property is currently located in the R-3 District which requires the approval of a use permit for such uses. Inasmuch as the previous hotel use has been abandoned for more than six months, Section 20.83.050 of the Municipal Code requires that any future use of the property as a hotel would require the approval of a use permit. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director W. WILLIAM WARD —� Senior Planner WWW/kk Staff 2 Attachments Histori Q THE OLDEST BUILDING Call it Corona del Mar Hotel, Balboa Palisades Tavern, Palisades Inn, Hotel del Mar, or what you will! These are all the same location - the corner of Carnation at Seaview, and it is the oldest structure in Corona del Mar! HISTORY In 1904, George E. Hart purchased 700 acres of this oceanfront location called Palisades Hills, behind Rocky Point, from the Irvine family. He built the Corona del Mar Hotel in 1905. The hotel was called by various names, but the surrounding property Mr. Hart developed was given the original name of the hotel - Corona del Mar. With only a few exceptions, the freehold townsite he started in 1904 is the "old" Corona del Mar today. FERRY The lumber for the hotel was brought to Balboa Peninsula on the Pacific Electric Railroad and then floated across the bay to a pier. The original bay ferry went back and forth from the peninsula to this same pier for the Corona del Mar Hotel. BATHHOUSE Later the hotel was called the Balboa Palisades Club, and of which the swimmer, Duke Kahanamoku was a member. The "Duke" and actress Dorothy Mackaill dedicated the $50,000 concrete, three- story "bathhouse". It is now known as the William G. Kerchoff Marine Laboratory. ROCKY POINT The hotel enjoyed quite a bit of notoriety. As the hotel was located 80 feet above the bay and the ocean it commanded one of the grandest and most inspiring views in Southern California. MOVIES Movie stars, celebrities, and film makers frequented the hotel and the surrounding locations. Rocky Point and the "still water beach" off Palisades were locations for Mack Sennett's The Sea Squawk and Sherlock Jr., starring Buster Keaton. far -away Africa for the Tarzan series and the intriguing Nile in William Fox's Cleo atra.with Theda Bara, were shot on these same Corona del Mar cliffs and waters. The film crews for Sea Wolf and Sons of Tarzan often stayed at the "tavern like bui ding" on the c i�f which became known as The Palisades Tavern. The companies filming Monte Cristo, Captain Salvation — `— - = --and-To•Have­and To Hold frequented•the•hote --1 LEGENDS There are many legends that follow the hotel. Some of the stories include a murder, a famous poker game, and drinking after prohibition had started. The _fact remains: the same_ hotel is still standing on the Corona del Mar corner' of Carna- tion and Seaview.--It is' now time to remember our heritage! _ .}$ l0.2-- ii Hotel Del filar Seated on the lowering cliffs 80 (cc/ above the tide overlooking both bay and occan, aAd commanding one of the grandest and most inspiring views in Southern California CORONA DEL MAR—NEWPORT BAY i QUALITY 0Rl%Gl NAL (S) PALISADES CLUB -RENOVATED Vintage jtA Hact b�,,ededf.b/IJBalbeft >e Youth honored toFAV q �escya�v}; -of hii I ry mrr DAILY PILOT - ,July 17, 1978 �MICS Edison High is beaten by Dana Hills, 3-2, in the CIF 4-A volleyball cham- pionship match. See Page C1. P1 SUNDAY, MAY 119 1986 50 ■ NATION Nine -month -old Alex Kevin Girard died Sat- urday during liver transplant sur- gery. See A4. FORECASTS ON A2 Housing suit drags on — and on case BySTEVE MARBLE Of Do Daily Pilot stay A court battle in which a handful of low-income residents are trying to overturn Newport Beach's image as an enclave forthe wealthy has cost the Clinic makes Moms' Day By G. JEANETTE AVENT Daft Pilot Correspondent For over 10 million women in the United States, Mother's Day is one of the saddest days of the year. There will be no flowers, no family picnics, no Happy Mother's Day cards painted and pasted by tiny hands. Fifteen percent of American women are unable to have children. Yet, for many of them, it doesn't have to be that way. According to Dr. Ari Babaknia, founder of the Cali- fornia Infertility Institute in Santa Ana, "today, we can successfully treat more than half the people who suffer from infertility." As living proof, Babaknia invited more than 400 of his patients and their babies to his annual Mother's Day reunion Friday in Cabrillo Park in Santa Ana. "We're here to tell them there's hope and not to give up," he said. To give up is exactly what 34-year- old Costa Mesa resident Sharon DuCross, now the mother of identical twin boys, wanted to do. During their 10 years of marriage, she and her husband Mike, a department store manager, had been unable to have children. It was never a top priority" during the first five years of their marriage, said DuCross. However, once they started planning for children and a year went by, they started thinking Past is key to home's future A drab Corona del Mar apartment house tucked away on a dead-end street hides a colorful past that included guests like Buster Keaton and Fatty Arbuckle, prohibition -era bathtub gin, a high -stakes poker game and murder. A Newport Beach developer hopes to turn the apartment house — which happens to be Corona del Mar's oldest landmark — into a "living museum" where guests can relive its storied past. The old Hotel Corona del Mar, located at the corner of Carnation and Seaview avenues, today houses ten- ants renting one of 19 rooms by the day, week or month, said Robert Blake of Holly Development Corp. Built in 1905 by George Hart, the hotel sits 80 feet above the bay where it once commanded views of the Pacific to the west and the mountains to the east. Blake bought the property last year with the intention of razing it and building condominiums. He said local history buffs brought the inn's history to his attention, and he decided to renovate it. Orange County historian Jim Sleeper, who is researching the hotel's history, said, "It is the oldest extant building in Corona del Mar." Sleeper has published a book about movie industry activities in the area, and confirmed that numerous mov- e 1 Rol beach city nearly $1 million The city has spent more money defending its housing policies than it did in all its years fighting expansion at John Wayne Airport, according to City Manager Robert Wynn. And the costsaren't likely to stop mounting soon. The housing trial opened in Sep- tember in Superior Court in Santa Ana and —almost eight months later — is still in its initial phase with the plaintiffs' attorneys presenting evidence and calling witnesses. The defense is hoping to start its presentation sometime in June. So far, Davis vs. Newport Beach is the longest -running court trial in Orange County. Judge Leonard GOld- stein twice has tried to prod attorneys along, setting dates for the plaintiffs to complete their case. The first date passed two weeks ago and the second is three weeks off. Less than a dozen witnesses have testified. But many have been kept on the stand for prolonged periods. The witness list reads like a who's who in City Hall. Robert Lenard, a city planner, was on the witness stand for 17 days. Wynn was on and off the witness stand from October to February. Planning Director Jim Hewicker, Councilwoman Jackie Heather and former Planning Commissioner Debra Allen also have been called to testify. Most will testify again when the defense opens. The lawsuit that (aid the groundwork for the trial was filed in Daly Pier photo by David iduronake Costa Messina Mike and Sharon DuCross hold twin sons Shawun (left) and Tristan, who are 15 months old. something was wrong. "Mother's Day was very sad for a long time," she said. No one else in her family had infertility problems and her mother had five children, said DuCross. Family and friends tried to be supportive, she said. "Relax, take a vacation," they'd say. "If I thought going to Hawaii and putting up my feet would help, I'd do it," she said with a laugh. She was referred by her family doctor to Babaknia, she said. After tests on her husband and herself, she found out that she wasn't ovulating because of a hormonal imbalance. Once the problem had been Groucho's son tells A PAUL: ` tales about father RCHIPLLT ies were made below the hotel on Rocky Point. Sleeper's book and newpaper ac- counts divulge that Rocky Point was used as a shooting location for Mack Sennett's "The Sea Hawk" and "Sherlock Jr." starring Buster Keaton. The early "Tar-zan" series and William Fox's "Cleopatra," starring Theda Bara, also were shot on the Corona del Mar cliffs and waters below the hotel. Film crews and stars frequently stayed at the hotel, which could be reached only by ferry from the Balboa peninsula. News accounts also tell of a murder case in which a later owner, a W.C. Simmons, allegedly killed an actor by the name of Ben King over a bad check King gave him. Prosecutors reportedly held up King's skull at the trial. Another news story claimed or- ginal builder Hart traded the hotel for property in Riverside, but the two parties couldn't agree on who owned $20,000 worth of crops that were growing on the Riverside land at the time of the trade. The two parties sat down to a poker game to settle the argument. Hart reportedly lost when his socialite wife said, "This has gone on long enough. I'm hungry." Corona del Mar resident Barbara Tappan, who has conducted a letter - writing campaign over the years to preserve the hotel, has spent hours researching its history. (Please see HOTEL/A2) By ROBERT HYNDMAN Of the Daily Pilot fired As the story goes, Groucho Marx once was dining at a restaurant when he was interrupted by a fan who asked him, as a favor, to display his irreverent humor by insulting the man's wife. "Sir, I'm surprised at you," Groucho said in mock indignation. Then, turning to the woman, he said, "With a wife like that, you should be able to think up your own insults." The line was pure Groucho Marx, the master of the ad-lib. For those familiar only with Groucho's humor on the movie or TV screen, rest assured that he was often as funny or funnier in real life. So says his son, Arthur Marx, who was in Newport Beach Thursday to discuss his famous father as an introduction to a special screening of the Marx Brothers' 1935 classic, "A Night at the Opera." The screening took place at the Port Theater in Corona del Mar. He could be very funny, devastat- ing," Marx said. "Of course, a lot of the things he said would never make it into the movies, though." Arthur recalled that as a child he accompanied his father to an ex- clusive country club. But Groucho, despite his fame, was not allowed to use the club swimming pool because he was Jewish. "Well, how about my son?" Groucho snapped back. "He's only half -Jewish. Can he go in up to his waist?" While growing up as the son of a famous father can afford special opportunities, it also can be a hard- ship. Marx, now 64, recalled doing well diagnosed, she began taking a fertility drug. It was five years before she saw the result, and there were times when she wanted to give up, she said. "We went through it together," said (Please see CLINIC/A2) Arthur Marx as a junior tennis player, but never being able to shed the "Groucho's son" tag. When he upset Jack Kramer at one tournament, Mary said the (Please see GROUCHO/A2) UCI faces trauma center review By LISA MAHONEY and PHI. SNEIDERMAN Of the Dairy Pilot Stan Orange County supervisors this week will be asked to approve a team to review trauma center operations at UC Irvine Medical Center in Orange. Trauma centers are hospitals with special equipment and staffing to handle victims of life -threatening injuries. Last July the UCI Medical Center received only a one-year extension of its trauma center designation. Two other hospitals — Mission Com- a munity in Mission Viejo and Western Medical Center in Santa Ana — received full two-year certification. The county's fourth trauma center — Fountain Valley Regional Hospi- tal — initially received a 120-day extension, then was granted two-year approval after a second review was conducted. Orange County supervisors will be asked Tuesday to appoint a survey team to check UCI's trauma program later this month. An appeals hearing panel for the medical center also must be named. The team will review trauma center operations for "timeliness, quality and appropriateness of medical ser- vices," according to a county report. UCI spokeswoman Kathy Jones said the concerns raised during last year's review focused on the hospi- tal's record -keeping, not its treatment of trauma patients. She said staff members were appointed to address the concerns raised by the last trauma review. "We felt the problems were minor to start with and believe that they have been corrected," Jones said. "We anticipate no difficulties with (Please see TRAUMA/A2) 1980. It accuses city fathers of adopting housing policies that de- liberately exclude all but the rich. By excluding those who are not well-heeled, the city has prevented blacks, Hispanics and other min- orities from settling in Newport Beach, according to the lawsuit. The nine plaintiffs suing the city all are low-income residents from inland Orange County or Long Beach who (Please see HOUSING/A2) 2 killed, 3 hurt in area crashes By PHIL SNEIDERMAN Of the Daily Pilot Stan Area traffic accidents left two people dead and three others hospi- talized on Saturday. At 12:45 a.m., Mark Alan Wil- liams, 23, of South Laguna, was killed when his motorcycle collided with a pickup truck driven by Andrew Martin Sanchez, 21, of Mission Viejo, police, said. Orange County Sheriffs Sgt. Ron Greer said the accident occurred at Del Obispo and Los Rios streets in San Juan Capistrano. Greer said the pickup driver was not injured and that no arrests were made. At 2:20 a.m., a head-on collision on Pacific Coast Highway at 9th Street in Huntington Beach sent two motorists to the trauma center at Fountain Valley Regional Hospital. Police said a Blazer driven by David Way, 31, of Newport Beach, crossed the raised center divider and struck a vehicle driven by Helen J. Hagen, 26, of Huntington Beach. At the trauma center, Hagen was re- ported in critical condition Saturday, while Way's condition was listed as serious. Police said Way was arrested on suspicion of felony drunken driving. The third accident occurred at 4:30 p.m. on Trabuco Creek Road north of Trabuco Canyon Road. According to the California High - (Please see CRASHES/A2) Dim view taken of racial slurs By ROBERT BARKER Of the Daly Pilot Stan B.K. Armelin was shocked when he noticed racial slurs and swastikas spray -painted on a Warner Avenue retaining wall in the western part of Huntington Beach. Armelin, who is black, and his wife and 16-year-old son have lived in Huntington Beach without ex- periencing any outbursts of racism. They live in a close-knit and integrated community where neigh- bors get together at Christmas and sing carols, he said. Armelin, an electronic technician, said he contacted city officials as soon as he saw the slogans. One read, "Kill the Jews plus other non -white (Please see RACIAL/A2) INDEX Bridge B2 Bulletin Board A3 Business C5-6 Classified D1-6 Crossword C6 Death Notices D6 Entertainment B4-5 Horoscope 82 In The Service A6 Ann Landers A6 Opinion B6 Paparazzi B2-3 Public Notices D6 Sports C1-4 Style B1-3 Weather A2 r A2 Orange Coast DAILY PILOT/ Sunday, May 11, 1986 CLINIC MAKES HOLIDAY POSSIBLE..0 FromAl husband Mike. Plus, "I have a lot they're my babies." problems become worse with age. more patience," he said, and en- Many couples do not know where Peak fertility is at age 24," said couraged her to continue with the to turn for help, said Babaknia. The Babaknia. progam. California Infertility Institute, which Low sperm count is also a common DuCross said she had no fears he founded in 1980, is the only cause of infertility in men, he said. aboutthe drug and the multiple births private infertility institute in the Babaknia said he feels blessed to be often associated with hormone treat- county. "I wish there were more," he ment. She said Babaknia monitored said. practicing medicine "at this time the effects of the drug through blood "One out of six couples have rather than 30 or 40 years ago." In tests, pelvic exams and sonograms to troubles with infertility. That's a big addition to in vitro lily drugs, there aresomenew and be sure she wasn't producing more number." fertreatments drugs, there than one egg at a time. Dosage was Babaknia said he does not think the adjusted accordingly, she said. number of infertility cases has in- For infertility associated with the Their insurance picked up most of creased overall, but there has been an fallopian tubes, "laser surgery ... is as the medical charges, but the drug cost increase in infertility caused by pelvic good as, and in some cases even an extra $100 to $150 a month, she inflammatory disease. PID is an better, than conventional surgery. said. infectious bacterial disease that You don't have to open the abdomen, After five years, she became preg- causes a build-up of scar tissue in the but a tiny incision i s nant. "It was worth it. I was even fallopian tubes if not treated with made .... Patients can go home and thrilled to have morning sickness," antibiotics. go back to work the next day." she said. Also, because of their careers, DuCross' advice to couples with "Even now that Tristan and Shawn many women are starting their famil- infertility problems is to find "a good are 15 months old, it's hard to believe ies later, he said. Existing fertility doctor." TRAUMA REVIEW TEAM TO BE NAMED... From Al this review." nurse coordinator at Long Beach was awarded a three-year certificate Survey team members proposed by Memorial Hospital. of accreditation from the Joint Com- the county Health Care Agency are: Suggested members of the appeals mission on Accreditation of Hospi- Stephen Michel, surgeon at Cedar healing panel are John Parker, phys- tals, a private non-profit organization Sinai Hospital; Charles Wolferth, ician at Placentia -Linda Community of health care professionals. surgeon at Hahnann University; Hospital; Richard Stewardson, sur- University officials said the medi- Martin Weiss, neurosurgeon at Los geon at St. Jude Hospital; and John cal center each year handles approx- Angeles County-USC Medical Kusske, neurosurgeon at Saddleback imately 16,000 in -patients, 125,000 Center, William Koenig, emergency Community Hospital. out -patients, 40,000 emergency visits physician at Harbor UCLA Medical Regarding overall hospital oper- and 2,000 emergency psychiatric Center; and Linda Pasquini, trauma ations, UCI Medical Center recently evaluations. HOTEL COULD BE `LIVING MUSUEM9... From Al She said the hotel at one time was called the Balboa Palisades Club, which included swimmer Duke Kahanamoku as a member. Kahanamoku and actress Dorothy Mackaill dedicated the $50,000 con- crete "bathhouse" below the hotel that today houses the William G. Kerchoff Marine Laboratory. Tappan enthusiastically embraces Blake's decision to restore the old building. "To me, it might not be a beautiful building, but it's what happened here that's important," Tappan said. "It's important because of its history, and it's the only thing we have on this side of the bay. "Now I think we've got someone who's receptive and interested in saving it. In this day and age that's unusual." protect public views from locations such as public streets or parks, but the city hasn't traditionally acted to preserve views from private property. Planners warned the Planning Commission it could set a precedent if it blocked the condo development on the basis of Blake's argument. The State Historic Preservation office also told city planners that preservation of views isn't a con- dition for acceptance on the Register of Historic Places. Other battles loom for Blake, too. Although the d structure was originally a hot that use isn't permitted under present zoning, and a business license is on file for operation of an apartment building. Blake would have to overcome the zoning issue, and perhaps pay for An eight -year resident of Newport relocation of the present tenants. Beach, Blake said, "I wanted to put something back into the community. It's been good to me over the years." Blake estimated renovation of the building would cost about $500,000, not including furnishings. Admitting the project wouldn't be profitable for him, he said, "In this case I'm a charitable guy. "It's our desire to rehabilitate the hotel, see it becomes and will con- tinue to be a historical landmark, then sell the building." Blake also plans to file for inclusion on state and federal historical regis- ters, he said. The hotel's panoramic views are still available from the third floor. But development around the hotel has since diminished views on the second floor and obliterated them at ground level where guests used to dine on the veranda. The issue of views has pitted Blake against City hall, where he is fighting a proposed condominium develop- ment across the street from his hotel that would further diminish the view. Blake argues that the viability of his restoration project will be harmed if the view is blocked. In April, the Newport Beach Plan- ning Commission granted a use permit for the condominium project over Blake's objections. Blake appealed the decision to the City Council, and a public hearing has been scheduled for Monday. City planners said view policies The old Hotel Corona del Mar (above) in its days as the Balboa Palisades Club, and (below) as it appears today. HOUSING SUIT DRAINS COFFERS. 0 0 FromAl have a common desire — to live in Newport Beach. But all claim they cannot afford the high rents of a city that has come to represent the good life, with its expansive oceanfront and bustling pleasure harbor. Olive Davis, one of the plaintiffs, lives in Santa Ana in a mobile home. Another, Sharion Garrison, lives in Cypress with her two children. Alfredo Ortiz lives in Santa Ana with his seven children. They and the others are being represented by the Legal Aid Society of Orange County. The city is being represented by two private attorneys of the firm of Rutan & Tucker, which has expertise in housing issues. Over the years, Newport Beach has drawn flak from state and county housing groups for its lack of af- fordable housing and its years of refusing to accept Housing and Com- ORANGE Daily Piloi COAST munity Development funds for low- cost housing. Housing projects frequently have been reduced in density, eliminating the potential for affordable housing, the suit contends. In one instance, a proposed hous- ing complex near Ford Aeronutronic was designed to contain 600 units, 50 of which would be affordable. By the time the council approved the pro- ject, however, the number of units had been reduced to 300 and the affordable units had been scrubbed completely, according to Crystal Sims, a legal aid attorney. The director of the Orange County Fair Housing Council once dubbed Newport Beach "the Rhodesia of Orange County." Eugene Scorio said blacks and Hispanics are only wel- come in the beach city if they are maids or gardeners. From the city's point of view, the MAIN OFFICE 330 West Bay St. Costa Mesa, CA. Mail address Box 1560. Costa Mesa, CA. 92626 Classifed ads, 642-5678;business & editorial, 642-4321 Copyright 1983 Orange Coast Publishing Company No news stories, illustrations, editorial matter or advemse- mems herein maybe reproduced without special per- mission of copyright owner. Second class postage paid at Costa Mesa. California (UPS 144-B00) Subscription by carrier $5 25 monthly by mail $7 00 monthly The Orange Coast Daly Pilot, with which Is combined the News -Press. is pubSshed by the Orange Coast Publishing Company. Three editions are published Monday through Friday A single regional edition is published Saturdays and Sundays. The principal publishing plants at 330 West Bay Street. P O Box 1560. Costa Mesa. California 92626 VOL. 79, NO. 131 cost of living in Newport Beach is dictated by the value of the land, not by the city's housing policies. Some housing experts said they view the lawsuit as a landmark case that will decide how far a city must go in providing affordable or low-cost housing. Others, including some of the plaintiffs, said they have come to view the ongoing case as a tiring exercise that is only draining tax dollars. The only indication to date on how the trial is going came in January when Goldstein ruled that Newport Beach appears to comply with state affordable housing guidelines. The larger picture — whether the city has violated basic constitutional principles or elements of the Fair Housing Act — is still unresolved. The trial — as it has for months — resumes Monday. — e Daily Pilot Delivery Is Guaranteed Monday -Friday If you do a/�� JUSt Call 642-6110//'�a not have your paper by 530 p.m casbefore 7p in. and your copy will De delivered What do you like, about the Daily Pilot? What Saturday and Sunday If don't yogi like? Call the number above and your you do not receive your copy by 7 a in , call before message will be recorded, transcribed and de- 10 a in and your copy will livered to the appropriate editor. be delivered. The same 24-hour answering service may be used to record letters to the editor on any topic. Circulation Contributors to our Letters column must include Telephones their name and telephone number for verification. Most Tells us what's on your mind. Orange County Areas $42-4333 Laguna Niguel 4964M0 Holiday will be mild, hazy Low clouds hovering over the beaches at dawn will part and give way to hazy sunshine and mild temperatures by mid -day this Mother's Day, forecasters said. The National Weather Service said high pressure will keep storm systems from moving into the region and that skies will remain mostly clear by afternoon and evening, with balmy temperatures. High temperatures were expected to range from 65 to 75. Overnight lows in the upper 40s to mid 50s were anticipated. Weather will be fair in the mountains, except for low clouds and fog along the lower coastal slopes early today. Local gusty southwest winds to 25 mph were also forecast with temperatures rising into the upper-50s to mid-60s following lows In the 40s. U.S. Temps High, low for 24 houre ending at 5 p.m. Fargo Grand Rapids Greet Falb Hartford Helena Honolulu Houston Indianapolis Jackson,Mls& Jacksonville Jolson Karen City Leib R LM Veersock Louisville FRONTS `AowP: •. Rain F4„uc+ t.o..w 0. :udcd Memphis 86 69 `— - -- - - - - - - Mleml Sewn 76 70 Milwaukee 63 47 MpleSt Paul 6890 5651 Calif. Temps Surf Nashville report New Orleans SS 65 New York City 71 44 High, low for 24 hours ending at 5 LOCATION am DOL Oklahoma City 76 59 p.m. Zuma Beach 34 SW Omehe 66 59 Bakersfield e3 S4 Santa Motion 2-3 Silly Orlando N 66 Barstow 82 65 Newport Beech 34 SW Philadelphia 74 44 Beaumont 84 43 San Dino County 2S SW Phoenix 84 61 Big Bear 64 33 Pittsburgh 72 42 Bishop 76 39 Podland,Ore. 31 Blythe 94 67 Smog Report Provid 52 52 42 CatEureka 57 57 lice, Providence 67 40 Eureka 57 47 Raleigh 70 38 Fresno 82 54 Pollutant standard Index for is 0-100 Rapti City 68 34 Lancaster 76 54 0unhealthful good; 100-200 uniteelNlui for sensitive Reno 65 40 Long Beach 74 56 people; 200-M unhealthful for all; Richmond 70 40 Los Angeles SO 60 300-500 haiertlpus. First figure is St Louis 75 64 Marysville 75 55 today', Pat forecast, second Is previous See Lake City 63 44 Monrovia 88 50 day'saNelnedii San Antonio 67 82 Montebello 84 56 Orange Coast ............................... 42-67 San Jus&P.R. 85 69 Monterey So 52 Inland Orange County .................. 5058 smile 56 43 Mt. Wilson 63 45 Metropolitan Los Angeles............ 6S-75 Shreveport 77 68 Needles 92 60 Sioux Fells 67 55 Oakland 66 51 Spokane 53 36 Ontario 87 55 all-- 72 37 Palm Springs 94 61 Tides Tempo -se Pirsbg 83 67 Pasadena 81 63 Topeka 71 63 Peen Robles 75 42 TODAY Tucson Tulsa 91 6a 51 60 Riverside 78 49 50 Rust low 5:48 a.m. -0.3 We."ngton,D.C. 72 46 Red Stuff Redwood City 74 67 50 First high 12:24 p.m. 3.1 Second low 4:t5 p.m. 2.4 Wichita 79 61 Reno 65 40 Second hlgh 10.45 p.m. 5.3 Sacramento 75 49 Salinas 63 51 MONDAY San Bernardino 84 50 First low 6:30 a.m. -0.1 Extended San Gabriel 82 52 Flret high Ism P-m. 2.9 Santa Barbara 67 49 SecanE low 4:34 p.m. 2.7 Santa Cruz 70 48 Second high 11:17p.m. 5.1 Night and morning lowdouds, 9 g mein- Santa Marti 68 43 Sun will today st 7." p.m., new y near the coast. Otherwise fair. Saute Morita 71 61 Monday st 5:54 &an. ante sets sees, ad Seache highs In the upper, 60s to Stockton 74 53 7:45 p.m. mid-70s. Lowe In the mid-50a to near Tahoe Valley 55 41 Moon does today at 7:30 auni 8eb st 60. Valley hleha In the upper 70s to Torrance 77 53 10A4 p.m. and delta again Monday at mltl50s. L. n the low to mid-M& Yosemite Vy 66 35 8:11 a.m. GROUCHO RECALLED BY HIS SON... From Al Beats Jack Kramer." Growing up in Groucho's shadow could be tough, but Arthur developed a quick wit along the way. "Once I rememberasking Groucho fora BB gun," Marx said. "But he told me, `As long as I'm head ofthis house, you won't have a gun.' So I said, `If I had a gun, you wouldn't be head of this house.' " After a brief, unimpressive stint in an elementary-school play, critics — namely, Groucho and his uncle Chico — persuaded him to drop acting as a career choice. So Arthur Marx became a writer, a profession his father had wanted to pursue. "Secretly, he always wanted to be a writer, not a Marx Brother," said Arthur who, in 1954, wrote "Life With Groucho." It was filled with anecdotes about the public and private Groucho Marx, who died in 1977. The private parts, Arthur soon found, didn't go over well with his father. Groucho sued his son in an attempt to keep certain portions of the book from being published. The Saturday Evening Post ran "Life With Groucho" as an eight -part serial. Soon afterward, Marx was busy writing biographies of several Holly- wood stars. His latest is about his childhood friend, titled "The Nine Lives of Mickey Rooney." The book, published last March, was featured at book -signing sessions Thursday at the Port Theater and at the B. Dalton bookstore at Newport Beach's Fashion Island. Marx, who lives in Bel Air, has also written several screenplays and the one-man play "Groucho" featuring Gabe Kaplan. That play has been revised and expanded and will open off-Broadway in September with Frank Ferrante in the title role. While Marx is understandably excited about his own work, his audiences — like the one at the Port — are usually more interested in stories about the famous Marx Brothers. During a half-hour question -and - answer period, Arthur was asked everything from how Groucho held IT cigar ("I think he used his to to his feelings about movie directors ("He didn't have any favorites; he hated'em all"). "A Night at the Opera," made 51 years ago, is perhaps the Marx Brothers' best film and Arthur's flivo"rite. The gags worked especially well, Marx said, because all of the stunts were worked out live in front of audiences to see how they played. The Marx Brothers, who got their start in vaudeville, ould then rec- reate theactioninfro tofthecamera. Marx recalled that a script, which was otherwise fairly complete, would have pages with such vague instruc- tions as "The Marx Brothers will do some funny things in a small state- room." Those simple instructions — when broughtto lifeby Groucho, Chico and Harper — turned into unforgettable comic madness. According to Arthur, the Marx Brothers coulld be as outrageous off - screen as on. Once, when forced to wait more than two hours outside a studio executive's office, Groucho, Chico, Harper and Zeppo set fire to some office furniture and sent out for potatoes. And when asked what the Marx Brothers did besides vaudeville and movies, Arthur Marx said, "They chased girls." RACIAL EPITHETS ON ORANGE COAST. a a From Al queers" and the other read, "Castrate the Niggers," he said. Armehn said he wanted to get the offensive signs removed before some- one possibly took the messages seriously. But work crews apparently weren't available when he called April 22 and they weren't able to get out to the location and paint over the slogans until the evening of the following day. Armelin appeared before the City Council, urging that officials put their resources to work to take speedier action than that. To that end, Huntington Beach City Councilwoman Ruth Bailey has suggested that neighborhood watch committees keep their eyes peeled for such transgressions and report them promptly to the Police Department, which would refer complaints to the Public Works Department for speedy removal. Mayor Robert Mandic said he'd like to get such signs removed the same day complaints are received, "but that we can't jump every time something like this comes up because of costs and staff time. "This is the first episode like this in five years," he said. "There's never been much racial trouble in Hunt- ington Beach. It is the kind of unpleasantness I don't like to see." Joyce Owens -Smith, president of the Orange County Urban League, confirmed Thursday that there have been few, if any, racial complaints received that involve Huntington Beach. CRASHES... From Al way Patrol, a Toyota pickup driven by Charlie Chapman, 32, of Anaheim, went out ofcontrol, left the road and overturned several times, ejecting the two people inside. The driver was pronounced dead at the scene. His passenger, Terry Chap- man, 23, of Buena Park, was taken to Saddleback Community Hospital for treatment of moderate injuries. Spectators by... COL Our penny loafer in tan English calf with natural �., linen vamp. Our shawl tassel spectator in a n navy/white or tan/white. v =>c #119 Fashion Island -Newport Beache759-1622eBullocks Wilshire Wing 3 4 a 6 4 .ti . BUILDING DEPT. - NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. �1�SN>'VEITL"T,A AIM_. vPERM. 9N/0 1.r50 a.JNr.R_ /.CL RE9aOLT2 z.5/5184379 -' Fc[c--• -- rV r� L 'y� L r1I Ij}..Y_ Z•]L—" nCCT. •-- — TRT�.Tf vw. C j (.� _MOCK 10Nf. R-t (IRE U,BT___J GRau :P,12H TT• APE Y— OV�wo,n ri I Iv.n. I n.K. owic aun.eowTnr.CTen• I Pcn N,Ts Owi NO TVLrr^n_Si[cL _ F eu p[•3 Tru —� r Lrfu e� I I..rM i.rr, n cwr. r.n�"' .'/•'f• I-r— >-{q ..PT. or oceuP. I BUILDING -NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. �DEPT. q� F[[] aLee S .'fJNEOB 2500 :LM74 DRIP',01 PERM. NC.17Z9J I. :�u cR �L.iit G`i li°SL.T'Y vnl.. a900•�_ Te..c m6 0 'rrl_T•--.°IIQ_n�oeK 2i1 oceT. Twr. `Did vw.. - .arm [CNE i• 3_ rIRE W T n.OUP$— TrPE j( — �� J, n.m+n I leery. I O. K. Cwi[ I auo.Cournw.Tewe I C-T[P[n N,re No. i r: Vncicnouu I � I 1 rn c-_ IT---�I— Aug. 28thr 1978 To; The City of Ne.rport Beach..... ,.s per conversation with l!r. Horvath (original lister of the proporty located at 2500 Seaview, C.D,X ......!Is assures me that he had several positive conversations vith W. Fouler and Hr. Ilevichert of the city... z,, vhieh time, they stated that the above property is in good condition en,: parking spat are adequate.... 1 believe the ld tates, that vhen I sell the prol.erty> I agree to allm, an lrsp.-ction by the City Of Newport ilcu..ch..... ,'oe iYpperty is not in uscrov a: this time (thaz;.s to the postal cfnaission) b;d , hen I do a,-ree to sell t.,o prorurty, 1 vilt be happy to call T1.e Yt;• of llev,ort ic-.ch...... and honor the City Ordinance......... . - t1.i:� time, ti:e ro;.x:rty is being rented just as it has been for the last 72 ;;cur:..... Signets ........ B - ara 11um ctTMtD� i. SALES - Exchanges - Rentals - Property Management Newport Hmbor a Y.'�• ^ ..a.;..::ain... .. Fm•nLair: it � '•'!,. W� • . Cbina.Cove, Just +^. was one of sev 4e ,rang up after the hers opened their $ ,adinlgil. rs, Sharp's Hotel i art Hotel, were ,avlilon. Iliam Hendricks I Foundation sold truck by tragedy opened. man who was r i* as in the hahit of T' n every morning. he didn't come .Jy, „•�„_,;.;,d„'1' e hotel which "a h several changes day, In the '20s. it c tennis and bench one paint It was it ,phreys, who can- i .enchant for rester- Iings, says she will a., tlnx 10 sport - the previously rd floor has been • • AND NOW WITH HOTEL ROOMS IN U otel use along with the second floor. wallpapering. Mrs. Humphreys In Taking on 7cct like the ,brays Is moving ,r plans to rent the • faces more of the some restoring the lower Doom and nideruble roe Ugh her Balboa estate office. kitchen. Iwoof The latter, located behlndthe m gal qr may face some op- the city. main building, will be doubled In and made available to ejwdEi She noted, the, new deco DePartment any size maals.wbewant tofix their own •pat��une mat if the hotel permit to operate. Mrs. Humphreys says she got it up. 1 We ate, ly not In the same Marriott or the the Idea from local artist Roc Worked that's how walipapN'_a0 Asper we OW thehotelounctold what wagon are small and only Complain•rcatoralion 'of the we could jet' ate baths. The rest hotel. m Its farmer gory le:fm• She aamod to two common It's sort of o Euro• ,posalble, and b}m. Ifumphreye Balks' wistfully of the.teonle proyIous ors title aeardh sl " says Mrs. Hum- courts a.I'..alows,that once Iota. as'par aurriuudgdthe main im"' g. The., room like their common The original hotel even had a 7r(th antique Door meat biillding, located wTiers the n for tentils courts used to be. tcotOhe "They took the dining room 'e'd • and•scUt on We a. The second ' that bgiidlng was once ke a D. •D floor of the hotel's dining room.'! tlm• tom• lemtand it,was quite aloPPY' an71, she aaya, .. ... th(rd (otf Y WITH TRADITION e and 1 • • KKK Demonstration n cleanin Myers at ers looms. close [��. as • m•AYer aY 1 'March tltiad,.N1 ode un t [eaeare i n, lecoaale ; stop's Ku Klux Klan, atop a I's KU KluxKl e Dal ,dornevi in its awricape and do a that an , enchan Isfree y of the Klunsmon paraded onds pulled back. A half. •' men, wrsring Confederate )r$Ottee Icd dobermun pinschers. out at ;rings of applause graded *At] tar Bat thla ' ,QuOta,i li%OMISED counter• - onstration never .;:. allzed and •there werb.no, m� 1 , Iq{q��sx,• 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 mm 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT MICHAEL B. WILMAR PAUL D. CASS 650 TOWN CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 1250 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 (714) 545-3270 Attorneys for Petitioners and Plaintiffs z G� e., 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE POINT PROPERTIES I, INC., a California corporation; BLAKE PROPERTIES II, INC., a Michigan corporation; and ; ROBERT BLAKE, an individual, ; Petitioners and Plaintiffs, ; , VS. ; , THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ; NEWPORT BEACH, ; Respondent and Defendant. ; SOMERS AND ASSOCIATES; ) IAN F. SOMERS, an individual; ) R. CURTIS CROOKE, an individual; ) and JEAN E. CROOKE, an individual, ) Real Parties in Interest. ) No. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE (Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5) AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE PURSUANT TO CODE CIV. PROC. § 1094.5 AND FOR ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS) Petitioners and Plaintiffs Point Properties I, Inc., Blake Properties II, Inc., and Robert Blake petition this Court l 1 for a writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2 1094.5 directed to Respondent and Defendant City Council of the 3 City of Newport Beach and for further relief, and by this verified 4 petition and complaint allege: 5 1. Petitioner and Plaintiff Point Properties I, Inc. is 6 a corporation in good standing organized and operating under the 7 laws of the State of California and having its principal place of 8 business in the City of Newport Beach, State of California. 9 2. Petitioner and Plaintiff Robert Blake is the 10 President of Blake Properties II, Inc. Petitioner and Plaintiff 11 Blake Properties II, Inc. is a corporation in good standing 12 organized and operating under the laws of the State of Michigan, 13 and does business in the City of Newport Beach, State of 14 California. Said Blake Properties II, Inc. is a fifty percent 15 tenant in common with Petitioner Point Properties I, Inc. of 16 certain real property located at 2500 Seaview Avenue, Corona del 17 Mar, State of California, which property has variously been known 18 as the "Corona del Mar Hotel," the "Del Mar Hotel," the "Seaview 19 Hotel" or the "Palisades Inn." 20 3. Respondent and Defendant City Council of the City of 21 Newport Beach is a municipal entity, consisting of seven elected 22 members, in which are vested by the City Charter all powers of the P9 City of Newport Beach, State of California, including the power to 24 hold public hearings to review and approve, modify or reject 25 decisions and findings of the Planning Commission of the City of 26 Newport Beach. 27 4. Petitioners and plaintiffs are informed and believe, P8 and on the basis of such information and belief allege, that Real -2- .4 1 Party In Interest Somers and Associates is a sole proprietorship 2 owned and operated by Real Party In Interest Ian F. Somers, 3 located and doing business in Corona del Mar, State of 4 California. Somers and Associates applied to the City of Newport 5 Beach for Use Permit No. 3194, Resubdivision No. 824 and 6 Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 4 in order to construct 7 a four -unit residential condominium project on property owned by 8 Real Parties In Interest R. Curtis Crooke and Jean E. Crooke. 9 5. Real Parties In Interest R. Curtis Crooke and Jean 10 E. Crooke are the owners of the real property situated on a bluff 11 at 307 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, State of California, 12 directly facing the property owned by petitioners and plaintiffs, 13 upon which Somers and Associates has been granted permission to 14 build the structure that petitioners and plaintiffs oppose. 15 6. Section 20.80.060(A) of the Newport Beach Municipal 16 Code provides that in order to grant any use permit, the City 17 Planning Commission (or the City Council acting on appeals or 18 reviewing any decision of the Planning Commission) 19 "shall find that the establishment, maintenance 20 or operation of the use or building applied for 21 will not, under the circumstances of the 22 particular case, be detrimental to the health, P3 safety, peace, morals, comfort and general 24 welfare of persons residing or working in the P5 neighborhood of such proposed use or be 26 detrimental or injurious to property and 27 improvements in the neighborhood or the general 28 welfare of the City." (Emphasis added.) -3- I In case of a review by the City Council from an action of the 2 Planning Commission, the Newport Beach City Clerk is required to 3 set a date for a public hearing and to provide public notice, 4 pursuant to Section 20.80.075(B) of the Newport Beach Municipal 5 Code. Pursuant to the same section, the Community Development 6 Director is required to submit to the City Council a written 7 report of the Planning Commission proceedings, "together with all 8 maps, letters, exhibits, and other documentary evidence considered 9 by the Planning Commission in reaching a decision." Finally, 10 Section 20.80.070(C) of that Code requires that the City Council 11 "shall render its decision within 30 days after the close of such 12 hearing." True and correct copies of the above -mentioned 13 Municipal Code sections are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and 14 incorporated herein by this reference. 15 7. On April 10, 1986, the Planning Commission -held a 16 hearing to consider three requests by Real Party In Interest 17 Somers and Associates pertaining to its application for permission 18 to construct a four -unit residential condominium project and 19 related garages on R-3 zoned property owned by Real Parties In 20 Interest R. Curtis Crooke and Jean E. Crooke. These three P1 requests were: 22 (a) A request to approve the application for Use Permit P3 No. 3194, which would include a modification to the 24 Newport Beach Zoning Code to allow two feet of 25 encroachment into the required ten -foot yard 26 setback, and the acceptance of an "environmental 27 document"; 28 (b) A request for a Resubdivision No. 824; and -4- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15' 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (c) A request to consider Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 11 to establish project compliance for said four -unit condominium development pursuant to the Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of the state law concerning low- and moderate -income housing within the Coastal Zone. 8. This application was opposed by, among others, Petitioner and Plaintiff Blake, whose building, located at 2500 Seaview Avenue, Corona del Mar, is directly opposite the site of the proposed construction. Said building is one of the oldest buildings in Corona del Mar and is a building of local, state and national historical significance. Petitioner and Plaintiff Blake attended said hearing and presented his opposition to said application. The Planning Commission approved all three requests, pursuant to written findings and subject to specified conditions set forth in the Staff Report prepared by the Planning Department. The Commission's findings and conditions are set forth in the City Planning Department's Staff Report attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference. 9. On April 28, 1986, upon the request of Newport Beach City Councilwoman Heather, the City Council voted to review the Planning Commission approval of the above application by Somers and Associates and set the matter for hearing on May 12, 1986. 10. On May 12, 1986, the matter was heard before the �lCity Council. 11. Petitioner and Plaintiff Blake and others speaking in his behalf attended the hearing and opposed the application -5- I orally and proffered written evidence. Notwithstanding such 2 opposition, the decision of the Planning Commission was sustained 3 and the application was approved on May 12, 1986, subject to the 4 Findings and Conditions set forth in the report of the Planning 5 Commission. The approved Notice of Determination and the Negative 6 Declaration for the application in issue were filed with the 7 County Clerk of Orange County and posted on June 2, 1986. True 8 and correct copies of those filed documents are attached to this 9 petition as Exhibit "C" and are incorporated herein by this 10 reference. A true and correct copy of the minutes of that hearing 11 is attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by this 12 reference. 13 12. Said decision by the City Council constitutes a 14 final decision as contemplated in Code of Civil Procedure section 15 1094.5. Petitioners and plaintiffs have exhausted all available 16 administrative remedies. There is no provision in the Newport 17 Beach Zoning Code for any further administrative remedial action 18 from a decision by the City Council pursuant to a noticed hearing 19 after review of a Planning Commission decision. 20 13. The City Council's decision constitutes a 21 prejudicial abuse of discretion and is therefore invalid, because 22 the City Council failed to proceed in the manner required by law, 23 in that: 24 (a) The City Council's findings were not supported 25 by substantial evidence; 26 (b) The City Council failed to make findings as to 27 certain important matters; 28 (c) The City Council has failed to bring its Zoning -6- • -4 1 Code into conformity with its General Plan and its Local Coastal 2 Program, Land Use Plan, concerning the criteria for blufftop 3 setback, buildable acreage and residential density, as required by 4 law, and therefore decisions and permits made in reliance on and 5 conformity to those portions of the Zoning Code are ultra vires; 6 (d) The bluff in question is part of a "coastal 7 bluff system" and is part of a "natural slope formation" the 8 blufftop setback, buildable acreage and density provisions of the g General Plan and the Land Use Plan do apply to the subject 10 property; and the City Council made no specific finding to the 11 contrary; 12 (e) The approval by the City Council is based on 13 standards inconsistent with the provisions of the General Plan and 14 the Land Use Plan and is therefore ultra wires; 15 (f) The City Council's approval of Resubdivision 16 No. 824 was ultra vires because the Parcel Map is inconsistent 17 with the General Plan; and 18 (g) The City Council failed to require an 19 environmental impact report for the proposed construction as 20 required by the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and 21 by the Public Safety Element of the General Plan, despite evidence 22 that the land upon which construction was proposed poses potential 23 geologic hazards, and despite questions raised concerning 24 significant "cumulative effects," esthetic impacts and use of 25 coastal bluffs that necessitated preparation of an environmental 26 impact report. 27 14. Petitioners and plaintiffs do not have a plain, 28 1 speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. -7- 1 " 4 1 15. If the decision of Respondent and Defendant City 2 Council is allowed to go into effect, petitioners and plaintiffs 3 will be irreparably injured. As property owners in Corona del Mar 4 with a vested interest in the geological and esthetic integrity of 5 the coast and its land formations,'petitioners would be 6 irreparably injured by the improper allowance of such construction 7 on a coastal bluff: In addition,%they will be irreparably injured 8 by the existence of a structure that blocks the view from and to 9 their historically significant property, which structure will t, 10 substantially diminish the historical, esthetic and other value of 11 their property. Such injury could not be alleviated other than by 12 demolition of the approved construction. 13 16. Staying the effect of respondents' decision would 14 not be against the public interest. It is clearly in the public 15 interest that the Zoning Code be made to conform to the General 16 Plan and that no planning decision, made where the disparity 17 between the two codes is a factor, be allowed to be implemented 18 until either such conformity is achieved or planning decisions are 19 made to conform to the�General Plan. It is also in the public 20 interest that the City comply with the setback requirements for 21 blufftop construction that are set forth in the Land Use Plan and 22 the General Plan. Similarly, it is clearly in the public interest 23 that the City Council and the Planning Commission comply properly 24 with the requirements of the General Plan and of CEQA, which were 25 enacted for the welfare and benefit of the public. 26 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 27 (COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF) 28 17. Petitioners and plaintiffs hereby reallege and -8- r -4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 incorporate by this reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 16 above. 18. Petitioners and plaintiffs request this Court to issue an order enjoining and restraining respondent and defendant, and the real parties in interest, -and all other persons and entities acting by, through, on behalf of, or in concert with them, from proceeding wi.th,any action in furtherance of or in reliance upon the application approved by the City Council. 19. If respondent and defendant and all other parties in interest are not enjoined by this Court through'the granting of the relief prayed for herein from proceeding with any action in furtherance of or in reliance upon said application, petitioners and plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury for which they have no adequate remedy at law. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF) 20. Petitioners and plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by this reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 16 above. 21. An actual controversy now exists between petitioners and plaintiffs and respondent and defendant concerning their respective rights and duties. Petitioners and plaintiffs contend that the City Council's affirmation,of the application is invalid in that: (a) The City failed to apply to the project the proper regulations and policies governing the location of structures on bluffs; (b) The evidence presented by the City in support zz I of construction on the bluff in issue is inadequate as a matter of 2 law to support the City Councils, decision; 3 (c) The City Council was required to, but did not, 4 make the "buildable area" and residential density portions of its 5 Zoning Code consistent with the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal 6 Program and the Land Use Element of the General Plan and therefore 7 decisions based on the plevant Zonind'Code provisions are ultra 8 viees and invalid; 9 (d) The City failed to conform to the policies of 10 the Land Use Plan and:the General Plan; 11 (e) The Planning Commission was required to, but 12 did not, comply with the requirement to prepare an environmental 13 impact report, rather than a negative declaration, pursuant to the 14 Public Safety Element of the General Plan and to CEQA; 15 (f) Based upon evidence available to the Planning 16 Commission, it is clear that the Commission's Initial Study 17 incorrectly assessed the impact of the proposed project; and 18 (g) The City did not properly consider the issue of 19 public views to historical sites or otherwise comply with its 20 duties regarding the protection of properties with historical 21 significance. 22 22. Petitioners and plaintiffs are informed and believe, 23 and on the basis of such information and belief allege, that 24 respondent and defendant disputes the contentions of petitioners 25 and plaintiffs and contends to the contrary that all findings and 26 decisions of the City were proper and were supported by 27 substantial evidence. 28 23. Petitioners and plaintiffs desire a judicial -10- 1 determination and declaration of the rights and duties of the 2 parties with respect to the validity of the City Council's g decision and of the City's decisionmaking process in this case. 4 WHEREFORE, petitioners and plaintiffs pray: 5 On the First Cause of Action 6 1. That an alternative writ of mandate be issued 7 commanding respondent and defendant either to accede to the relief g prayed for in petitioners' and plaintiffs' peremptory writ or, in 9 the alternative, to appear at a time and place to be set by this 10 Court to show cause why a peremptory writ should not issue; 11 2. That an ex parte order be issued staying 12 implementation of the decision of Respondent and Defendant City 13 Council and all attempts by real parties in interest and other 14 parties to have said decision implemented, and ordering 15 respondents and defendants to show cause why an order should not 16 be granted further staying that decision; 17 3. That a peremptory writ of mandate be issued ordering 18 respondent and defendant to set aside the City Council's decision 19 and to deny the application of real parties in interest unless and 20 until the relevant aspects of said application can be conformed to 21 the requirements of the General Plan and full and proper 22 compliance with the General Plan and with CEQA has been achieved, 23 and until a hearing is held, adequate findings are made and until 24 proper substantial evidence to support such findings and decision 25 is provided; and 26 4. That petitioners and plaintiffs recover reasonable 27 attorneys' fees not exceeding $1,500.00. P8 1 5. Petitioners and plaintiffs, as required by Public -11- y 1 Resources Code section 21167.4, hereby request a hearing on their 2 claims of noncompliance with CEQA. 3 On the Second Cause of Action 4 1. That this Court issue a temporary restraining order, 5 a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction enjoining and 6 restraining respondent and defendant, real parties in interest, 7 and their agents, representatives, and all other persons and 8 entities acting by, through, or on behalf of or in concert with 9 any of them, from doing, allowing to be done or suffering to be 10 done any acts in furtherance of or in reliance upon the decision 11 of the City Council to uphold the application, unless and until 12 the City Council can rectify the substantive and procedural 13 deficiencies identified by petitioners and plaintiffs in the 14 City's treatment of this matter; 15 2. For petitioners' and plaintiffs'.reasonable 16 attorneys' fees. 17 On the Third Cause of Action 18 1. That this Court declare the determination of the 19 Planning Commission and the City Council invalid and unenforceable 20 and determine the respective rights and duties of petitioners and P1 plaintiffs and respondent and defendant with regard to said 22 application; and 23 2. For petitioners' and plaintiffs' reasonable 24 attorneys' fees. 25 On All Causes of Action 26 1. For petitioners' and plaintiffs' costs of suit 27 herein; and 28 1 / / / 1 2' 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: June 30, 1986 NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT MICHAEL B. WILMAR PAUL D. CASS D� By: Paul D. Cass Attorneys for Petitioners and Plaintiffs 0050W -13- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VERIFICATION State of California, County of Orange: I, the undersigned, am the President of Blake Properties II, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan, which is one of the petitioners and plaintiffs in this action, and I have been authorized to make this verification on its behalf. I also make this verification on behalf of myself, who am also a petitioner and plaintiff in this action. I have read the foregoing Petition for Writ of Mandate (Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5) and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief and know the contents thereof. The matters stated therein are true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and was executed by me this 30th day of June, 1986 at Costa Mesa, California. BLAKE PROPERTIES II, INC. By --'R' ert �.•a4ce,:,; sident';"an =�--o �Pia1 f. .. i ms'e 1-f----� 20.80.060-20.80.070 PLANNING, AND ZONING Commission or the City Council may continue the hearing to another dale without giving further notice thereof if the date of the continued hearing is ;,.• , announced in open meeting. (Ord. 1705 § 1, 1977: Ord. 1695 § I ; 1976: Ord. 1657 (part), 1976). 20.80.060 Action by Commission or City Council. A. FINDINGS. In order to grant any Use Permit, the Planning Commission or the City Council in acting on appeals or reviewing any decision of the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment, mamtenancc or operation of dw use n• building applied for will not, under the circumstances n'i the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety. peace. morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. B. IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS. The Planning Commission or the City Council in acting on appeals or it) reviewing any decision of the Planning Commission may impose such conditions in connection with the granting of a Use Permit as they deem necessary to secure the purposes of this Title and may require guarantees and evidence that such conditions are being or will be complied with. Such conditions may include requirements for off-street parking facilities as determined in each case. In the event of an appeal to the City Council from a decision of the Planning Commission granting or denying a Use Permit, the Planning Commission shall file with the City Council prior to the hearing of the appeal written findings setting forth the reasons for the -decision. C. RENDERING OF DECISION, After the conclusion of the hearing on any application for a Use Permit, the Planning Commission shall render a decision within 35 days. Use Permits shall not become effective for 21 days after being granted, and in the event an appeal is filed or if the City Council shall exercise its right to review any such decision, the permit shall not become effective unless and until a decision granting the Use Permit is made by the City Council. The granting of any Use Permit pursuant to the provisions of this Title is hereby declared to be an administration function, the authority and responsibility for performing which is imposed upon the Planning Commission, and the action thereon by the Planning Commission shall be final and conclusive, except in the event of an appeal or an exercise of its right of review by the City Council, (Ord. 1657 (part), 1976). 20.80.070 Use Permit Appeal. A. INITIATION OF APPEAL. In case the applicant or any other person is not satisfied with the action of the Planning Commission, he may appeal in writing to the City Council by filing a notice of appeal with the City Clerk within twenty-one (21) days following said action. Said notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee as established by Resolution of the City Council. (Newport Beach 8.81) A" 11 PERMITS 20.80.075-20.80.080 B. DATE — NOTICE. The City Clerk shall set a date for public hearing and give notice in the manner prescribed in Section 20.80.050. The City Clerk shall notify the appealing party of the date set for the appeal and shall also notify the Planning Commission if the appeal is from a decision of the Planning Commission. Upon receiving notice of appeal to the City Council, the Community Development Director shall submit a written report of the Planning Commission proceedings to the City Council, together with all maps, letters, exhibits, and other documentary evidence considered by the Planning Commission in reaching a decision. C. DECISION. The City Council shall render its decision within 30 days after the close of such hearing. (Ord. 1686 § 5, 1976; Ord. 1657 (part), 1976). 20.80.075 Right of Review by City Council. The'City Council, on its own motion, adopted by four affirmative votes, may elect to review any decision of the. Planning Commission granting a Use Permit. The City Council's right of review may be exercised at any time prior to the expiration of 21 days from the date on which the Planning Commission renders its decision, In any Use Permit proceeding in which the City Council exercises its right of review, the City Clerk shall set a date for public hearing and give notice in the manner specified in Section 20.80.050. The city clerk shall also give notice of the time and date set for the hearing to the applicant and the Planning Commission. Upon receiving notice of the City Council review proceeding, the Community Development Director shall submit a written report of the Planning Commission proceedings together with all maps, letters, exhibits, and other documentary evidence considered by the Planning Commission in reaching a decision. (Ord. 1657 (part), 1976). 20.80.077 Notice to County Assessor and Owner. Within thirty (30) days following the effective date of the Use Permit, the Department of Community Development shall notify the County Assessor and the owner of record, in the event the Use Permit was initiated by someone other than the owner of record, of the action taken by the City, as prescribed by the Government Code. (Ord. 1705 § 2, 1977). 20.80.080 Use Permit Requisite to Other Permits. No building or zoning permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued in any case where a Use Permit is required by the terms of this Title unless and until such Use Permit has been granted by the Planning Commission or by the affirmative vote of the City Council on appeal or review and then only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Use Permit granted. (Ord. 1657 (part), 1976). ,ry��'C;tXy?tY.n]C.::3 �`•'r..�.a..i ^.V�.�i.c'rti. 46847 (Newport Beach 8.81) TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Mav 12, 1986 Agenda Item No. D-2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Planning Department Use Permit No. 3194 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a four unit residential condominium project and related garages on property located in the R-3 District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow two proposed second floor rot shelves and a wing wall to encroach two feet into the required ten foot front yard setback, and the acceptance of an environ- mental document. AND Resubd'_vision No. 624 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single parcel of land for residential condominium purposes on property located in the R-3 District. —Wi,' Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 11 Request to consider a Residential Coastal Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a four unit residential condominium development pursuant to the Administra- tive Guidelines for the implementation of the State Law relative to low- and moderate -income housing within the Coastal Zone. LOCATION: A portion of Block D, Corona del Mar Tract, located at 307 Carnation Avenue, on the northwesterly side of Carnation Avenue between Seaview Avenue and Bayside Drive, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R-3 APPLICANT: Somers and Associates, Corona del Mar OWNERS: R. Curtis and Jean E. Crooke, Corona del Mar ENGINEER: Lanco Civil Engineers, Newport Beach T0: City Council - 2. Application These applications_involve requests for the approval of: 1) A uie permit to allow the construction of a four unit condominium and related garages on property located in the R-3 District; 2) The resubdivision of an existing lot into a single parcel of land for residential condominium purposes; 3) A modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow two second floor not shelves and a wing wall to encroach two feet into the required ten foot front yard setback; and 4) A Coastal Residential Development Permit, 'In accordance with Section 20.73.015 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, condominium projects may be permitted in any residential district, subject to the approval of a use permit in each case. Use permit procedures are set forth in Chapter.20.80 of the Municipal Code, Section 19.10.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that a parcel map (resubdivision) shall be required for all subdivisions creating four or fewer residential condominium units. Resubdivision procedures are outlined in Section 19.12.040 of the Municipal Code, Modification procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.81 of the Municipal Code, and Coastal Residential Development Council Policy P-1, Permit procedures are outlined in City Suggested Action Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, sustain, modify or overrule the action of the Planning Commission. Background On April 28, 1986, upon the request of Councilwoman Heather, the City Council voted to review the Planning Commission approval of the subject application and set this application for hearing on May 12, 1986. Project characteristics and issues of concern are discussed in the following sections. Planning Commission Action On April 10, 1986, the Planning Commission approved this application (4 Aves, 2 Abstentions, 1 Absent) subject to the following Findings and Conditions: USE PERMIT NO. 3194 FINDINGS: 1, That each of the proposed units has been designed•as a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. ,2 O TO: City Council - 3. 2. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. 3. That an adequate number of on -site parking spaces will be provided for the residential condominium development. 4. The project will comply with all applicable standards, plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of approval except for minor encroachments into the required 10 foot front yard setback for two pot shelves and a wing wall. 5. That the proposed modification to permit two cot shelves and a wing wall to encroach 2 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is con- sistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 6. That a Negative Declaration has been prepared and that the proposed project, as conditioned, will not have any significant environmental impact. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 3194 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved Plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. That all construction shall meet the requirements of Chapter 20.02 of the Municipal Code, which regulates height. 3. That the driveway entrance shall be designed to provide a slope acceptable to the Newport Beach Traffic Engineer. 4. Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Department. S. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 6. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be sub- mitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. a® .21 .Y 'TO: City Council - 4. 7. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. .8. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer anii an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of i comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 9. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after trading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 10. On -site drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Building and/or Public Works Departments. 11. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 824 shall be fulfil- led. 12. That two garage spaces (including one tandem space) shall be provided for each dwelling unit at all times. 13. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. RESUBDIVISION NO. 824 FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map shall be recorded. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 7.2 TO: City Council - 5. 4. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That curb, gutter, pavement and a 5 foot sidewalk be constructed. along the abandoned Carnation Avenue frontage, and that*the curb grades be approved by the Public Works Department. Roadway width shall be 15 feet from center line to top of curb. 6. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11 FINDINGS: 1. That a feasibility analysis has been performed which has indicated that it is not feasible to provide affordable housing on or off -site in conjunction with the proposed development. 2. That the proposed development has met the requirements of City Council Policy P-1. CONDITION: 1. That all conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3194 and Resubdivision No. 824 be met. Zoning Analysis The applicant proposes to remove the single-family dwelling, which currently exists on the project site, and develop a four gnit residential condominium project on the property. Lot Size: 12,803 sq.ft. including abandoned Carnation Avenue right-of-way 11,553 sq.ft. excluding abandoned Carnation Avenue right-of-way Number of Units: Permitted by Zoning: 10 Units (12,803 sq.ft. + 1,200 sq.ft./ Unit in the R-3 District) Proposed: 4 Units .;Z3 TO: City Council - G. Setbacks Required Front 10 ft. (from Carnation - - = Avenue right-- of-way) Rear 10 ft. Sides 4 ft. Buildable Area: 8,855 ft. Proposed 8 ft. 83t ft. 4 ft. Gross Structural Area Permitted: 13,283 sq.ft. excluding garages (1.5 x buildable area) Proposed: 7,603 sq.ft. excluding garages (.86 x buildable area) 9,199 sq.ft. including garages (1.04 x buildable area) Open Space Required: 7,056 cu.ft. Proposed: 143,000± cu.ft. Building Height Front Half of Lot Permitted: 24 ft. average, 29 ft. maximum (1) Proposed: 24ft. average, 29 ft. maximum Rear Half of Lot Permitted: 28 ft. average, 33 ft. maximum Proposed: 5.5 ft. average, 5.5 ft. maximum (measured from grade to roof overhang) Parking Required: 6 spaces (1.5 per unit), including 4 covered Proposed: 8 spaces (2 per unit), all -within garages (1) As shown on the attached plans, the slope of the lot changes at the rear 3.75 ft. of the Droposed structure, resulting in the creation of another plane for purposes of calculating height. if the roof con- tinued flat, as shown on the attached plans, that portion of the roof would exceed the City's height limit. However, the applicant has indicated that the height of that portion of the roof will be reduced in order to meet City standards. In addition, the metal •chimney caps illustrated in the attached elevations exceed the permitted height limit. Although chimneys are permitted to exceed the City's height limits in order to meet requirements of the Uniform Building Code, the chimney caps are architectural features which are not a function- al part of the chimney. Therefore, the chimney caps will not be included on final plans. The proposed development meets all applicable development standards for the R-3 District except for the proposed encroachment into the front yard setback which is discussed below. City Council - 7. Front Yard Setback The applicant has requested a modification to the Zoning Code in order to permit two second floor pot shelves and a wing wall to encroach two feet into the recuired'ten foot front yard setback adjacent to Carnation Avenue-. these -encroachments-are minor architectural features, and' it is staffs opinion that they would not have detrimental effects on the surrounding neighborhood. Conformance with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, designate the site for "Multiple -Family Residential" uses. The proposed development falls within the uses permitted. The "Multiple -Family Residential" designation provides for ten to fifteen dwelling units per "buildable acre." The General Plan excludes areas with a slope greater than two to one from "buildable acreage" calculations. In the approval of major Planned Community Development Plans and subdivisions in the newer areas of the City, these "buildable acreage" criteria have been used to determine the permitted number of residential units. This density classification system does not lend itself well to applications in the older areas of the City. The City's traditional R-3 zoning classification allows 27 to 36 dwelling units per buildable acre. Thus the Zoning Code density does not correspond to the General Plan density classification system. In addition, the definition of "buildable area" contained in Section 20.87.050 of the Municipal Code does not exclude slope areas. The "buildable acreage" criterion deleting slope areas greater than 2:1 has not been applied by the City in cases where property is already' subdivided and zoned using the R-1 )through R-4 system. Specific examples include approvals of Use Permits No. •2059, 2089, and 3033 for residential condominium development of 311 Carnation i4venue which is immediately north of the project site. Since the property in question is zoned R-3 and *is an existing subdivided parcel which would. allow ten 'units, staff does not suggest the application of the buildable acreage criteria. Location of Structures on Bluffs Regulations and policies governing the location of structures on bluffs are found in Section 20.15-081 of the Municipal Code, in the "Location of Struc- tures" Policy contained in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and in the Local Coastal Program Development Policies. Under the above policies, a bluff is defined to be a landform having a slope greater than two to one (2:1) and a height greater than twenty-five feet. In conjunction with their considerations of a proposed development at 311 Car- nation Avenue, it was the opinion of the Planning Commission and the City Council that the northerly facing slope facing Bayside Drive was not a part of any particular coastal bluff system. The southwesterly facing slope could be considered part of a coastal bluff system. However, staff does not consider this site in its present state to be a natural slope formation. Although a portion of this site contains areas which exceed a 2:1 slope and appear to be in a natural state, the parcel has been subject to substantial man-made alter- ations, including the construction of Bayside Drive and Bayside Place, the installation of drainage and sewer improvements, the extension of Carnation a.r TO: City Council - S. Avenue, and the construction of the existing single-family dwelling and garage on the site. In any case, no development is proposed on that portion of the site where slopes exceed two to one. Carnation. Avenue The abandoned Carnation Avenue right-of-way provides access to the subject property and to other lots northerly of the site. It is recommended that Carnation Avenue be maintained at private street standards and that curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and paveout be constructed at the easterly edge of the site. Coastal Residential Development Permit Inasmuch as the proposed development is located within the Coastal Zone and contains more than two dwelling units, the applicant must comply with Council Policy P-1 which requires the inclusion of low- or moderate -income housing in. the Coastal Zone, .where feasible. As indicated in the feasibility analysis performed by Tarantello and Comoany, it would not be feasible to develop a low - or moderate -income housing unit either on -site or off -site in conjunction with the development of the proposed project. Staff therefore recommends that no affordable units be required. Views Mr. Robert Blake of Blake II Properties has stated his opposition to the subject application both by letter and at the Planning Commission public hear- ing of April 10, 1986. Since February 4, 1986, Blake II Properties has held a fifty percent interest in the property at 2500 Seaview Avenue as a tenant in common with Point Properties I, Inc., a California Corporation. This property, sometimes referred to as the Seaview Hotel or Corona del Mar Hotel, is located easterly of the project site, across abandoned Carnation Avenue. Mr. Blake has stated his concern that the proposed condominium may block the view from his property. Existing City view policies are directed toward maintenance of public views from locations such as public streets or parks. The City has not traditionally acted to preserve. views from private property, including views from commercial facilities open to the public, where a proposed project meets City standards for such items as building height and bulk. It should be noted that, with no discretionary approvals whatsoever, a single- family dwelling or a duplex unit could be constructed to the same height and with a larger gross structural area than the proposed condominium development. Action by the City solely to preserve private views could set a precedent for future actions of the City. Historic Values Mr. Blake has protested that the view from his must be property preserved because it is a historic structure. As indicated in materials submitted, by Mr. Blake, the hotel was built in 1905 and originally was called the Corona del Mar Hotel. Additional historical information is included in the attachments to the April 10, 1986, staff report to the Planning Commission. The hotel is not currently registered as a historical place at either the State or Federal level, although Mr. Blake has indicated that it is his intention to make appli- cation to the State for landmark status. Personnel at the State Historic a6 TO: City Council - 9. Preservation Office (SHPO) have indicated that there is a substantial backlog of applications and that there is, therefore, a moratorium on the acceptance of new applications until October 1, 1986. Typically, processing of applications has taken a year or more. Thus, assuming typical processing time, the hotel could potentially be entered in the Register of Historic Places by late 1,987 at the -earliest. In any case, personnel at the State Historic Preservation Office have indicated that there are no regulations requiring preservation of views to or from locations which are on the Register of Historic Places. Surrounding property owners are not normally constrained by registration of an adjacent site as a Historic Place. In fact,'unless the owner of a Historic Place uses Federal monies or takes advantage of tax benefits for historic places, there are no constraints on the use of the actual historic site; historic structures may even be demolished, although demolition expenses could not be included as an expense for Federal tax purposes. In fact, the only real effects of historic designation are certain financial benefits which may accrue to the property owner, and the waiver of certain provisions of current building codes. The subject property is not registered by the City as a place of architectural or historical significance as provided under City Council Policy A-15, Places of Historical and Architectural Significance. To date there have been two sites which have been placed on a historical register file maintained by the City Clerk: The Jolly Roger Restaurant on Balboa Island or. October 15, 1985, and the Balboa Inn on December 20, 1985. City Council Policy A-15 does not address views. Although the City might wish to make special provision for preservation of public views toward visual land- marks in the City, the existing hotel is not a prominent visual landmark of the nature of, say, the Balboa Pavilion ,or Newport Harbor High School, which are highly visible and could be readily identified by most local residents. Local designation of a site as a landmark would be considered by the State in its review of any application for historic registration although this is only one of several criteria to be considered, in accordance with Section 5031 of the Public Resources Code. Any one of the other criteria, including first property of its type, association with important historical figures, and outstanding example of an architectural style, could be adequate to justify registration as a Historic Place. Local registration alone, however, is not sufficient criteria for registration. Historical Context Concerns have been raised that construction of the proposed condominium will alter the surrounding area, thus reducing the possibility that the structure at 2500 Seaview Avenue might be registered as a historic place. SHPO personnel have indicated that site integrity is an important consideration. The existing setting is to reflect that of the historically significant period. Of major concern is the extent to which a structure, or group of structures, has been altered. Generally speaking, seventy-five percent of the original exterior of the structure in question should be extant. Another factor to be considered is whether the property has been subdivided and the presence and state of any of the original outbuildings. When property has been subdivided efforts should be made to include the entire complex in the historic place. A property cannot be listed without the consent of the owner, however. IW'CU=iyTi': .27 TO: City Council - :0. Conditions on surrounding property would be of secondary concern. While views may be included in the eva_.uation of site integrity, State and Federal officials contacted indicated -that loss of view should not affect a place's eligibility for Register status. No instances where loss of -view had killed an application could he recalled. Mr. Blake has indicated in his letter -of March 31, 1986, which is attached to the April 10, 1986 staff report, that the structure at 2500 Seaview Avenue "is without question the first building in Corona Del Mar [sic]." Thus, all of the surrounding structures would have been built at a later date, altering the surrounding area substantially. Among these later structures is the existing residence on the subject property at 307 Carnation Avenue for which a building permit was issued in 1954. The proposed condominium would not alter the developed, residential nature of the reichbor- hood. Previous Approvals for 3500 Seaview Property Building Department records indicate that in 1950 and in 1954 alterations and additions were permitted to the hotel, including a small garage structure on the site. An apartment building gradually evolved from the original hotel, and City records indicated that the hotel was functioning as a 19 unit apartment building in 1980. On September 4, 1980, the Planning Commission approved (6 Aves, 1 No), Use Permit No. 1948 and Resubdivision No. 666 which would have permitted the construction of a six unit condominium on the hotel site. On September 22, 1980, a motion was made for City Council review of this approval, which[mction failed (3 Ayes, 4 Noes), and the use permit was permitted to stand. Staff was, however, directed to prepare information regarding the abandoned Carnation Avenue right-of-way for further discussion. On Aoril 13, 1991, the California Coastal Commission approved, on the Consent Calendar, Permit No. P-81-7668, which provided for � e demolition of a "20 unit apartment structure and related garage," and cgstruction of a six unit condominium. The approval was subject to the condition that one housing unit be rented for no more than that amount permitted for rent subsidy under Section 8 of the Federal Housing Act of 1937, or sold for no more than two and one-half times the median income for the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area which includes Newport Beach. The unit could be provided on site or elsewhere in the City's Coastal Zone. In addition, the developer was required to deposit into a housing fund an amount equal to six percent of the market price of all the units in the development. On March 4, 1982, the Planning Ccmmission approved a two year extension of the resubdivision approval. However, the Zoning Code makes no provision for the extension of use permits, and because no construction was commenced within two years of the original approval, Use Permit No. 1984 expired on September 26, 1982. Existing Use of 2500 Seaview Avenue Applications filed for Use Permit No. 1948 and P.esubdivision No. 666 in 1980', indicate that the Seaview Hotel was operating as a multi -family residential use at that time. As discussed previously, approvals have lapsed on these applications which would have permitted the construction of a six unit condominium on the Seaview site. A current business license exists for operation of an apartment building at 2500 Seaview Avenue. This license will 05 TO: City Council - 11. expire at the end of August, 1986, and was issued in the name of a previous owner. The firm managing the property, Savage, Wilde and Company, indicated that the structure was functioning as a 19 unit apartment building until February 5, 1986, when they were advised that the property had been sold and management thereof transferred to Blake Properties:' Under Section 5.04.210 of the Newport Beach -Municipal Code, -business licenses- are nontransferrable. No application has been made for a business license in the name of the new owner. Neither was a request made for a Report of Residential Building Records when the property was sold, as required under Chapter 15.35 of the Municipal Code. Hotel Use A hotel is not a permitted use in the R-3 District. In accordance with Section 20.16.020 of the Municipal Code, a motel could be permitted if a use permit were approved. Under Section 20.30.035 of the Municipal Code, a motel would require one parking space per room. Were the number of units to remain the same, 19 parking spaces would be required (1 space per room x 19 rooms = 19 spaces). Under Chapter 20.83 of the Municipal Code, an existing use may continue without obtaining a use permit if such use was originally in lawful existence even though codes have since been changed. Under Section 20.83.050 of the Municipal Code, if a nonconforming use ceases for six months or more, it will be considered abandoned, and current codes will henceforth apply. Although the structure was originally built as a hotel, a hotel use on the site could not be considered lecal nonconforming inasmuch as the site has been used as an apartment building for a number of years. This is evidenced in the information presented above as well as the fact that the City has no record that any Uniform Transient Occupancy Tax has been remitted by the owners of the site. In accordance with Chapter 3.16 of the Municipal Code, the tax must be collected for any person paying to occupy the premises for less than thirty days. Signs in front of the structure state that parking is for the use of "residents" only. No reference is made to hotel guests. In addition, local telephone books list several individuals occupying various units at 2500 Seaview Avenue, and at least one resident has listed the site as a residence address in applying for a busihess license. City Council Policy P-1 In order to remove or alter the existing apartment use at 2500 Seaview Avenue, a Coastal Residential Demolition or Conversion Permit must be obtained. Under City Council Policy, P-1 this would be required for any change in use resulting in a reduction of more than two units from the number of units currently on a site. If the existing apartments were replaced with a new residential or non -coastal dependent use, replacement units would be required for any dwelling units currently occupied by low- or moderate -income tenants. Under Council Policy P-1, there are no exceptions to this rule when three or more units in one structure or more than ten units in more than one structure are removed. Thus, a potential redeveloper of the site could be required to provide up to 19 replacement units, depending on the characteristics of the existing tenants. 121� TO: Citv Council - 12. In accordance with Section 65590 of the California State Government Code, if a visitor serving facility is developed, then replacement housing is required only if feasible. Overnight visitor accommodations, such as hotels and motels, are visitor serving uses. Thus, it would be possible to eliminate the acart- ment use for a motel use without providing replacement units. Environmental Significance After an Initial Study, it has been determined that this project, as condition- ed, will not have any significant environmental impact. It is staff's opinion, " based on an evaluation of the existing area and consultation with SHPO person- nel, that the proposed condominium will not have any significant effect on the historical resource represented by the property at 3500 Seaview Avenue. A Negative Declaration has been prepared and is contained in the attachments to the April 10, 1986 Planning Commission staff report. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT ., JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director by SANDRA L. GENIS R L Associate Planner SLG/kk CC16 Attachments for City Council Only: Excerpt of the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of 4/10/86 Planning Commission Staff Report dated 4/10/86 Planning Commission Staff Report Addendum dated 4/10/86 Plot Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations 3 o. I Y CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 xx County Clerk Public Services Division P.O. Box 838 FROM: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. PROJECT TITLE: Use Permit No. 3194 PROJECT LOCATION: 307 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of a Four Unit Condominium with related parking. CONTACT PERSON: Sandra L. Genis TELEPHONE NO. 714/644-3200 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project has been xx approved, disapproved by the City of Newport Beach. 2. The project will, xx will not have a significant effect on the environment. 3. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project 'pursuant to the Provisions of CEQA. A copy of the Negative Declaration is attached. 4. Mitigation measures xx were, _were not made a condition of approval of this project. 5. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was, xx was not adopted for this project. 6. The Final Environmental Document and the record of the project approval may be examined at the Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915,(714)644/3225. DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: I FILED JUN •21986 r,11.. GR;a Cbrk ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR DATE: May 27, 1986 � A =0 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach . «_ 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 . NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: Office of Planning and Research Q 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 DCounty Clerk of the County of Orange P.O. Box 838 Santa Ana, CA 92702 FROM:' Planning Department City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 NAME OF PROJECT: Use Permit No. 3194 PROJECT LOCATION: 307 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, Ca 92625 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of a four unit condominium with related aarage space. ' FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to Procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: See attached initial study INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: The City of Newport Beach INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: Environmental Coordinator DATE: April 1, 1986 JUN 2 06 JUN 21986 M RY L. Ac ram tea Ir3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport BeachDf APPENDIX I FMVIRDMMENTAL CBECFLIST FORM Environmental Checklist Form (To Be Completed B.* Lead Agency) I. Background n /y 1. Name of proponent I4�z�1 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 3. Date of Checklist Submission/ // 1!T/�,C��nn •�L70U� 4. Agency Requiring Checklist A %L ( 9.. Name of Proposal, if applicable II. Environmental Impacts. (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) I. YES MAYBE 190 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in / changes in geologic substructures? V b. Disruptions, displacements, cam— paction or overcovering of the soil? e. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? _. d. The destruction, covering or modi— fication of any unique geologic or / physical features? V e. Any increase in wind or water erosion / of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of'the ocean or any bay, inlet or ✓� lake? _ .1 73 I •. • YES MAYBE NO X- Exposure of people or property to geological hazards such as earth— quakes,' landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? / 2. Air. i Will the proposal result in: i a. Substantial air emissions or deteri- oration of ambient air quality? v� b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? �/ 9. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of 'water movements, in either ' marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of / surface runoff? ✓ e. Alterations to: ,the cjurlse of flow of flood waters? v d. Change in the amount of surface sister in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters or in any, alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? '_ •f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cut, or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards.such as / flooding or tidal waves? 74 3S 1' " .. 36 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: i. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees. shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbera� of any speci s++of animals* (birds, land animalsliAcluding reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organians, or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique. rare or endangered species of animals? e. Introduction of new species of ani— mals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels.? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? R. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 75 YES MAYBE NO i YF.S MAYRF !IQ 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: Increase in the rate of use of any % •.• natural resources? I/ �- b. Substantial depletion of any non— renewable natural resource? 10. _Risk of Dpset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or / upset conditions? 11- YnpulatiOn. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of as area? J • 12. PouainR, 'Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand / for additional housing? ✓ :13. on/Circulstiod .l'Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, / or demand for new parking?y c.• Substantial impact upon existing / transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people f and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or _ air traffic? / f. Increase in traffic hazardous to notor vehicles, bicyclists or / pedestrians? X/ 14. public Services. Rill the proposal have an eff_ct upon, or result in a need for new or altered Rovernmental services in any of the / folievi.ng areas: 76 37 .. PPE-2A:24 YES MAYBE NO i a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c: Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including ro'sda? f. Other governmental servicesT ri 15. Energy, Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or / energy? _L b. Substantial increase in demand upon ' existing sources of energy, or -require / the development of new sources of energy? V/ 16. Utilities. Will the propoillzesule in a need for new systems., or substantial alterations to the'following utilities: / a. Power or natural gas? ✓ • b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sever or septic tanks? V s. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? v 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: ' a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding ' .a) mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Ia. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? =. • 3 8 77 . 0 4a YES YAYHE tX1 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity / of -existing recreational opportunities? ✓ +— 20. Archeolol. Will thn proposalrcu/Historicalteration of a significant archeological or historical ' site, structure, object or building? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. ' a. Does the •project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal•community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate'important examples of the major periods of / California history or prehistory? V b. Does the project have 01h potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage Of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project'tave impacts which are -individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the' impact on each resource is relatively a6all, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.,).' d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. Discussion of Znvironmental Evaluation It. Petermination (So be completed by the Lead Agency) is ill APPENDIX H Date Filed Environmental Information Form (To be completed by applicant) GENERAL MWORMATION 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: SOMERS AND ASSOCIATES, 1111 Bavaide Drive, Suite 280, Corona de • 2. Address of project: 307 Carnation Avenue, Corona del 1 Mar. CA 92625 Assessor's Block and Lot Num3er AP#052-019-29 3. Num, address, and telephone number of person to bt contacted concerning this project: Ian F. Somera 1111 taveide Drive. Suite 2R0. nnr•nn. 9.1 7"r r.A 99A95 (_71A) 77n-1617 4.'Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pektains, use 6ekmit annlication #1194 Resubdivis Last a eacr a any o er related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by .city, regional, state and federal agencies: 6. Existing zoning district: _R-i Four (4 Proposed reaidentialuse of tcondominium nd related Raraees.ject for.whietk � is filed): PROJECT DESCRIPTION 8. Site size. 9. Square footage. 10. wumber of floors of construction. 11. mount of off-street parking provided. 12. Attach plan. 23. Proposed scheduling. 111. Associated projects. Ig. Anticipated incremental development. r. c/o I 25 0 ( -AS•Y i 16. If residential, include the number -of units, schedule of ..::: unit sizes,. range of sale prices or.renta, and type of household size (expected. 17.' It' commercial, indicate the.type, whether neighborhood, city or rekionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. 18. If industrial-, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, .and loading facilities. 19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. 20. If the'project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. Are the following items applicable to the project or 1ta effecta? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). ; YES NO I I' _.X. 21...Change in existing features of any bays,, tidelands, beaches, lakes or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. X 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. X_ 23. Change in pattern; scale or character of general area of -project. X 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. x 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. X 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of'existing drainage patterns. X 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibi•aLion levels in the vicinity. X 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. X 29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. a YF i NO w' X; 30. Substantial change.in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). X1 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption -- _ (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). _ Y 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 33. Describe the project site as it: exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures•on the site, and the use of thc'atructures. Attach phctographs•of the site. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. 34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, eta.), intensity of land use (oneaf"ily, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set -back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity.. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. ' ' CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished > k a ov-6 a ana n the attached exhibits prese:at the data and infor-. oration required for this initial.evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented ,•, are,true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief'. Date March 20, 1986 w7/bVt�iia-- • Ian F. 6tu e For SOMERS AND ASSOCIATES •_ v-•.raw I • Implementation of the proposal may result in unstable earth conditions !'•,; and changes in the topography and ground surface relief features due to the grading required for completion of the project. The effects shall be insignificant upon compliance with the mitigation measures incorporated into the project. The proposed project will add to the erosion presently occurring on the site. The slope at the rear of the site shows signs of erosion resulting from on -site drainage. As there are no drainage facilities provided, the proposed project may increase erosion, change the absorption rates, drainage patterns, and rate and amount of surface runoff due to the grading necessary for the proposal. Upon applica- tion of mitigation measures, the effects shall be insignificant. Implementation of the project may result in an increase in existing noise levels during the course of construction. Such increase in the noise level due to machinery shall be short-term effects that will be alleviated upon completion of construction, and are, therefore, insignificant. The proposed project results in a demand for new parking due to the increase in dwelling units on site.1 4he project will include on -site parking facilities and the effects are, therefore, insignificant. PLT3 a: 1g Ya.;.� y3 . On the bisis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the• environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could.}ave a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant•effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheat•have .been added to the projectp A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find the proposed project MAY have a significant -effect' on the environment. and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Dati Signature For I! (?fete: This is only a suggested fora* public agencies are free to devise ff their owa format for initial studies.) 1 a— d� i C MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Department. 2. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. S. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as partof the project design. 6. That grading shill'be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engi- neering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Depart- ment. 8. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 9• On -site drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Building and/or Public Works Departments. PLT3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 8. Site size. 12,803 sq. ft. 9. Square footage. Approximately 7,200 sq. ft. of floor area. 10. Number of floors of construction: About 55% of the building will be 2 floors, and about 45% of the building will be 3 floors. 11. Amount of off-street parking provided. None. 12. Attach plans. Plans have been submitted to City of Newport Beach Planning Department. 13. Proposed scheduling. 14. Associated projects. None. 15. Anticipated incremental development. 16. 1 total units 2 units - 1,76q sq. ft. *jiected Sales Price 2 units - 1,825 sq. ft. Projected Sales Price Type of household size: 2 singles or young family of 3-4. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 33. The project site consists of an existing single family residence on a 12,803 sq. ft. R-3 lot. From the site, there is an ocean view to the west and a view of Newport Bay to the northwest. Please see the topographic survey provided for a description of the topography of the site, and for the relative location of the existing structure on the site. 34. The area surrounding the site is exclusively residential and consists of a combination of multi -family and single family residences. There are a number of two, three, hnd four-plex buildings as well as a small apartment building in the immediate area. This area has been zoned R-2 and R-3 by the City of Newport Beach and typical development along Carnation Avenue is one and two story ' wood frame construction. I y7 FWAI LE&I COUNCIL MEMBERS ROLL CAL yy CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES May 12, 1986 INDEX woa noted by the City Attorney that Balboa Bay the a emotion could not be allawed Club Lease unless a m er of the City Council wished to make tion to reconsider the vote just taken, which there wits no response. Due to the foregoing, Council Member Hore wit! die het IME-1. 2. Mayor Maurer opened the public hearing and City Council review of requests of SOMINIS AND ASSOCIATES, Corona del Mar, approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting of April 10, 1986, for: USIi 1'ERPiIT N0. 3194 - To permit the U/P 3194 coistruct ion of a four unit residential (88) condominium project and related garages on property located at 307 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar; zoned R-3. Proposal nlso includes a modification to the Zoning Code to allow second floor CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS May 12, 1986 MINUTES City requires six parking spaces, four of which are to be covered, and they are providing eight parking spaces. The project has been well -planned and designed, and therefore, Mr. Somers feels it should receive Council approval. Barbara Tappan, 1007 Dolphin Terrace, addressed the Council in opposition to the proposed condominium development. Site stated that the proposed project would be directly across the street from the old Corona del Mar Inn, which was just recently purchased by Robert Blake for restoration and historical preservation purposes. site stated she felt the development would impede the view of the Inn from other locations. Site displayed an old picture of the Inn located on tite coastal bluff and discussed location of structures on the bluffs as referenced in the staff report. Site stated that Mr. Blake is very receptive to restoring the historical site and she hoped the Council would overrule the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the proposed project. Discussion ensued, wherein the City Attorney stated Ire has reviewed the record that was presented to the Planning Commission and from that information does not find any substantial evidence that there would be any significant environmental impact caused by the construction of the four -unit condominium project. Keith French, Planner and Consultant for Mr. Blake, addressed the Council in opposition to tite condominium project. Ile stated he felt the project would obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public. Ile also felt there were inconsistencies between the City's General Plan and Zoning Code, and therefore, suggested this item be continued until such inconsistencies are resolved. In response to Council inquiry, tite Planning Director noted that the Zoning Code would allow a motel on Mr. Blake's property, subject to a use permit. A hotel is not permitted on the R-3 classification. The particular use at the present time has been upgraded as a /P 3194 esub 824 CDP#11 Volume 40 - Page 164 R� s/ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES �O{ N 9G�'„G'C` INDEX ROLL CAL _, ...... multi -family apartment building and has U/1' 3191, been operating as such for a number of Resub 824 IiCUI'//ll years. Discussion ensued, wherein Mr. French reiterated his concerns regarding the view and coastal bluff issue. Dick Nichols, 519 Iris Avenue, addressed the Council in opposition to the condominium project. Ile stated the subject property Is a coastal bluff lot in ;in R-3 area that should have been down -zoned when other properties in old Corona del Mar were down -zoned from R-2 to 1.5. Mark Weinberger, Attorney representing Mr. Blake, addressed the Council and stated he has evaluated the Land Use Plan and General Plan, together with the zoning.ordinance, and in reviewing the staff report, it appears that the R-3 zone is inconsistent with the Land Use Clement of the General Plan as adopted throuFli the Local Coastal Plan, inasmuch as the subject property is designated for multiple -Family Residential and the R-3 zoning allows a greater intensity of use than permitted under the land use designation. Ile stated that the staff also does not show in its report the calculation for development of the property using the adopted General Plan standards for buildable area, and does not discuss the location of the bluff and give the City Council information as to the amount of distance from the bluff side to the proposed property. Ile emphasized the importance of the preservation of an historic structure and the adverse effect the proposed development would have upon the viability of said historic building. Robert Blake, Blake Properties, 1550 Bayside Drive, addressed the Council and distributed copies of a booklet containing historical information regarding the old Corona del Mar Inn. lie stated he was currently attempting to work with the adjoining property owners, and would be pleased to work with Robert Crooke, owner of the subject property. lie does not want to see a building on the Crooke property that is higher than the present structure, and would be willing to fund the razing of the existing building to create more parking in the area. Ile is also interested in Volume 40 - Page 165 5�� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES s�9GNN�G��A9G9��9��ti�9�y�p �\ May 12, 1986 INDEX MOLL GAL purchasing additional land surrounding U/P 3194 tl,e Inn in an attempt to make an overall Resub 824 general plan for the community. RCDPIIll Mr. Blake reviewed the background of his property and the intent of the original owners. Ile stated he was making a $1 Million charitable contribution to the City by restoring the Lin, but needs encouragement to proceed. Ile is not trying to cause problems for Mr. Crooke and would be willing to pay him for the value of his property, as well as pay Mr. Somers the amount he has already vested in the project. Sandy Genie, Associate Planner, addressed the Council and stated that she had just attended a conference for the City in Monterey regarding Historical Preservation in California. She stated that she discussed the basic perimeters of the subject project with State and Federal representatives and it was their opinion that a view impact has never prevented any structure from making the Iistorical Register. The most important factor is integrity of the structure, and they require that 75% of the exterior structure generally be in tl,e form it was during the period it was most historically significant. It was also emphasized that sandblasting is not to be done on historic structures as it ruins the textures underneath and there are no tax credits given when sandblasting is involved for rehabilitation. It was also indicated that there in a lil year backlog for designating historical structures slid the State is not accepting any new applications until October 1, and then each application takes approximately one year to complete. In response to the question raised by the City Attorney regarding the visibility of Mr. Blake's property from Bayside Drive, Me. Genie stated that it is partially visible from different vantage points, but not a structure which is "that" noticeable from Bayside Drive. Curtis Crooke, present owner of 307 Carnation Avenue, addressed the Council and stated that there has been a lot of discussions during thin hearing about coastal bluffs, which was "put to bed a good many years ago in this area, and Volume 40 — Page 166 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS n ,P .0 Y _V ROLL CAL Motion Ayes Noes .s3 MINUTES INDFX therefore, Bayside Drive is no longer a coastal bluff of any sort." lie also discussed the view issue, which he indicated should not be taken into consideration with respect to Mr. Blake's property. Joe Collins, 301 Carnation Avenue, addressed the Council and expressed his concerns regarding sufficient parking if Mr. Blake's property is developed as an historical structure. Dearing no others wishing to address the Council, the public hearing was closed. x Motion was made to sustain the decision x of the Planning Commission, based on the x x x x x x Findings and Conditions net forth in Exhibit "A" of the staff report. CDBG regarding the PROPOSED "STATEMENT OF Program COMMUNITY DEVELOP1ENT OBJECTIVES AND (87) PROPOSED USE OF FUNDSR FOR TIIE L986/87 FISCAL YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLO GRANT PROGRAM. Report from the Planning Departmen , was presented. The City Clerk advised that of at the agenda was printed, a letter as received from Mesa Developm t Company regarding the proposed use f funds. It was noted that the fo lowing funding allocations of $357,000 are recommended for the 1986/87 CDBG ads: 1) Land acquis tion for affordable housing $300,900 2) Social S vices - Meals n Wheels 2,000 3) Aiding the homeless 2,100 4) Fair ousing 10,000 5) Adm istration 40,000 6) Co ingency 2,000 TOTAL $357,000 Counci Member Bart advised that she serve on a portion of the local YMCA Boar , and would like to explore the pos ibiI ty of allocating some of these f da to their homeless and building Volume 40 - Page 167 M r � 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT MICHAEL B. WILMAR PAUL D. CASS 650 TOWN CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 1250 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA '92626 (714) 545-3270 Attorneys for Petitioners and Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE POINT PROPERTIES I, INC., ) No. a California corporation; ) BLAKE PROPERTIES II, INC., a ) ORDER TO SHOW Michigan corporation; and ) CAUSE AND ROBERT BLAKE, an individual, ) TEMPORARY STAY ORDER OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TEMPORARY Petitioners and Plaintiffs, ) RESTRAINING ORDER VS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ) NEWPORT BEACH, ) Respondent and Defendant. ) SOMERS AND ASSOCIATES; ) IAN F. SOMERS, an individual ) R. CURTIS CROOKE, an individual; ) and JEAN E. CROOKE, an individual, ) Real Parties in Interest. ) To Respondent and Defendant City Council of the City of Newport Beach: Good cause appearing from the verified Petition for a Writ of Mandate (Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5) and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief on file in this action, 6-y 1 2 3 4 5 6' 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 '15 16, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS ORDERED that respondent and defendant show cause before this Court on , 1986, at _ _.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, in Department No. of this Court, 700 Civic Center Drive, Santa Ana, California, why an order should not be granted staying and restraining the operation of your decision to uphold the application of Real Party In Interest Somers and Associates regarding Use Permit No. 3194, Resubdivision No. 824 and Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 11, pending the entry of the judgment of the Court in this action. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that you stay the implementation,, operation and effect of that decision pending the hearing of this order to show cause. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be served on respondent and defendant at least _ days prior to the hearing of the above order to show cause. Dated: 0055W Commissioner of the Superior Court 53s 2. 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT MICHAEL B. WILMAR PAUL D. CASS 650 TOWN CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 1250 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 (714) 545-3270 Attorneys for Petitioners and Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE POINT PROPERTIES I, INC., a California corporation; BLAKE PROPERTIES II, INC., a Michigan corporation; and ROBERT BLAKE, an individual, Petitioners and Plaintiffs, VS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, Respondent and Defendant. SOMERS AND ASSOCIATES; ) IAN F. SOMERS, an individual ) R. CURTIS CROOKE, an individual; ) and JEAN E. CROOKE, an individual, ) Real Parties in Interest. ) No. (PROPOSED] ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDATE Good cause appearing from the verified petition for a writ of mandate on file in this action, YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED: (a) immediately after receipt of this writ, to*set aside your decision upholding approval of the application of Real S6 1 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Party In Interest Somers and Associates for Conditional Use Permit No. 3194, Resubdivision No. 824, and Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 11; (b) not to seek, directly or indirectly, by any means, to implement, to enforce, or to have or suffer to be implemented or enforced said decision upholding approval of said application; and (c) if you wish to approve such an application, first to take all steps necessary to ensure that said application and said approval complies with the requirements of the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program and the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, to require an environmental impact report to ensure that the proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of the,California Environmental Quality Act and of the Newport Beach Genial Plan, and then to determine at a noticed hearing that the -application satisfies all such criteria. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, you are commanded to show cause before this Court on 1986, at _.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, in Department _ of this Court, 700 Civic Center Drive, Santa Ana, California, why you have not done so. Dated: 0054W Mr.r. Clerk of the Superior Court By Deputy Clerk 7 11 2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 91 NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT a MICHAEL B. WILMAR F y PAUL D. CASS 650 TOWN CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 1250 i/ CQr COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 G� 9�G++ (714) 545-3270 Attorneys for Petitioners and Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE POINT PROPERTIES I, INC., ) No. a California corporation; ) ) ORDER DIRECTING BLAKE PROPERTIES II, INC., a ISSUANCE OF Michigan corporation; and individual, ALTERNATIVE WRIT ROBERT BLAKE, an ) OF MANDATE Petitioners and Plaintiffs, ) (Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5) • vs. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, ) Respondent and Defendant. ; SOMERS AND ASSOCIATES; ) IAN F. SOMERS, an individual ) R: CURTIS CROOKE, an individual; and JEAN E. CROOKE, an individual, ) ) Real Parties in Interest. ) Good cause appearing from the verified petition for writ of mandate on file in this action, IT IS ORDERED that an alternative writ of mandate issue under seal of this Court commanding the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, respondent and defendant in this action, M . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 immediately after receipt of the alternative writ of mandate to set aside its decision upholding approval of the application of Real Party In Interest Somers and Associates for Conditional Use Permit No. 3194, Resubdivision No. 824, and Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 11; not to seek, directly or indirectly, by any means, to implement, to enforce, or to have or to suffer to be implemented or enforced said decision upholding approval of said application; and, if it wishes to approve such an application, first to take all steps necessary to ensure that said application and said approval complies with the requirements of the Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program and the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, to require an Environmental Impact Report to ensure' that the proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and of the City's General Plan, and then to determine at a noticed hearing that the application satisfies all such criteria, or in the alternative to show cause before this Court at a specified time and place why you have not done so. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the alternative writ of mandate and a copy of the petition for writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5) and complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief be served on respondent and defendant at least days prior to the hearing of the above order to show cause. Dated: Commissioner of the Superior Court 0053W 2. 5,;� Y 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2E 2E 2 Z JOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT 4ICHAEL B. WILMAR PAUL D. CASS 650 TOWN CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 1250 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 (714) 545-3270 Attorneys for Petitioners and Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE POINT PROPERTIES I, INC., No. a California corporation; BLAKE ) MEMORANDUM OF PROPERTIES II, INC-., a Michigan POINTS AND AUTHORITIES corporation; and ROBERT BLAKE, ) IN SUPPORT OF PETITION an individual, ) FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Petitioners and Plaintiffs, (Code Civ. Proc. ) § 1094.5) VS. ) AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DECLARATORY RELIEFi NEWPORT BEACH, ) Respondent and Defendant. SOMERS AND ASSOCIATES; IAN F. SOMERS, an individual; ) R. CURTIS CROOKE, an individual; ) and JEAN E. CROOKE, an individual, ) Real Parties in Interest. ) a i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2q 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 'FABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLEOF AUTHORITIES........................................iii I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...................................... 1 A. Introduction .......................................... 1 B. Summary of Argument ................................... 4 II. THE COUNCIL ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO PROCEED IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY LAW AND THERE IS NO RECORD TO 5 EVIDENCE SUPPORT THE IN LIGHT OF THE WHOLE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDEN L'S DECISION ............................. A. The Approvals Are Ultra Vires Because The Construction Authorized Violates The Bluff Setback, Buildable Acreage And Density Limitations Of The GP And The LUP, And These Limitations Take Precedence Over Inconsistent Provisions Of The City's Zoning Code .................. 6 1. Zoning Provisions, Including Use Permits, Must Be Consistent With The General Plan. When They Are Not Consistent, The General Plan Must Control And Permits Issued Based On The Inconsistent Zoning Provisions Are Ultra Vires...................................... 6 2. The Bluff Setback, Buildable Acreage, And Density Provisions Of The GP And The LUP Apply To The Property In Question And The 8 City Made No Finding to the Contrary ............. a. The Bluff On The Property Is A Coastal Bluff....................................... S b. Because The Bluff Is A Coastal Bluff, It Is Subject To The Setback, Buildable Acreage And Residential Density Requirements Of The GP And The LUP For Blufftop Construction, And Therefore Any Finding To The Contrary Is Clearly Erroneous ................................... 9 3. The Bluff Setback, Buildable Acreage And Density Criteria Contained In The Approvals Are Totally Inconsistent With The Provisions 11 OfThe GP And The LUP........................... a. The Bluff Setback Requirements .............. 11 i. �� 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e-2- Page b. The Buildable Acreage And Residential Density Limitations ......................... 12 C. The Council's Approval Of Resubdivision No. 824 Was Ultra Vires Because The Parcel Map Is Inconsistent With The GP .............................. 15 D. The Council Improperly Determined That The Approvals Would Not Have A Significant Effect On The Environment And Therefore Failed To Prepare An EIR As Required By CEQA And By The GP .............. 15 III. CONCLUSION ............................................ 20 31 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES C ristward Ministry v Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 99..................................... (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 421............................ (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176........................... ToPanga Ass n for a Scenic Community v County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506........................ Youngblood v Board of Supervisors of San Diego _ County (1978) 22 Cal.3d 644 .............................. STATUTES AND ORDINANCES California Administrative Code, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq............................................ Section 15065, subdivision (c)...................... Section 15063....................................... California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq..................... Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 ................. Section 1094.5(b)................................... Section 1094.5(c)................................... Section 1094.5(g)................................... Government Code Section 65300 et seq.................... Section 65803....................................... Section 65860....................................... Section 66473.5..................................... Newport Beach Municipal Code, Planning and Zoning Chapter Section 20.51.080(d)................................ RMUM] 5, 16 5 7, 12 9 15 17 16 17 2, 4, 15-18 1, 5 4, 5 4, 5 5 6, 7 6 6 15 12 63 ; a 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11, 12 13 14 15� 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2E 641 Pa e s Section 20.87.050 ............................... 13 OTHER AUTHORITIES Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element.................................3, 7-19 Passim Public Safety Element ............................ 18, 19 Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, .3, 8-19 Passim Land Use Plan........ ................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. Introduction On May 12, 1986, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach upheld the determination by the City's Planning Commission to approve the applications of Real Party In Interest Somers and Associates for Use Permit No. 3194, Resubdivision No. 824 and Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 11 (the "Approvals") for a four -unit residential condominium development proposed on a bluff opposite property owned by petitioners and plaintiffs ("petitioners") in this action. Petitioners seek a writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 (or, in the alternative, injunctive and declaratory relief) compelling the City to rescind the Approvals. Petitioners also seek a stay order pending judgment in this action. Petitioners' property in Corona del Mar is the site of a structure formerly known at different times as the "Corona del Mar Hotel," the "Del Mar Hotel," the "Seaview Hotel" and the "Palisades Inn." The building has a long and colorful history which tracks the history of the community and of Orange County. As the Orange County Historian has noted, this building was the "beginning and capstone of George Hart's Corona del Mar development, and remains the oldest structure extant in that community." (Letter of Jim Sleeper to Robert Blake, Ex. A.) In its heyday, the hotel was a gathering place for many prominent The Council and the Planning Commission will collectively be referred to as the "City" unless otherwise noted. I citizens of Orange County and often played host to visiting 2 dignitaries. In the "golden age" of cinema it was also frequented 3 by early leaders of the motion picture industry and was featured 4 in their movies. Petitioners desire to restore the property to 5 some of its former glory and to have it formally recognized as an 6 historical landmark, rather than to tear it down and destroy 7 another of Orange County's ever -decreasing links with its past. 8 The property for which the Approvals were granted is 9 directly opposite petitioners' property. A substantial portion of 10 the former property consists of a bluff. The existing structure 11 on the bluff property is a single-family dwelling owned by Real 12 Parties In Interest Curtis R. and Jean E. Crooke, which antedates 13; the advent of the various codes that now control construction in 14 Newport Beach. The remaining two lots on the bluff next to the 15 Crookes' dwelling are and have long been vacant. 16, Although the Staff Report prepared by the Planning 17 Department acknowledged that the bluff is situated in an area 18 identified by the Public Safety Element of the City's General Plan 19 as an area of "geologic hazards," the Planning Department 20 concluded that a negative declaration rather than an environmental 21 impact report ("EIR") was required under the California 22 Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et 23, seq. ("CEQA"), because it felt concerns about such hazards had 24 been "mitigated." The staff apparently did not consider whether 25 this development would have a "cumulative effect" on the 26 environment by stimulating other development on the bluff, and did 27 not fully consider its esthetic impact or how it would affect 28 historically significant structures. 66 -2- 1 Petitioners, and others interested in preservation of 2 historical sites and of the bluffs of Corona del Mar, opposed the 3 planned project from the outset. On April 10, 1986, after a 4 hearing, the Planning Commission approved the project, subject to 5 certain findings and conditions, largely on the basis of the Staff 6 Report (a copy of pertinent portions of which is attached in 7 Exhibit B). 8 Because of the concern of some members of the Planning 9 .Commission that the factual record was not complete enough to 10 afford a basis for a proper decision, City Councilwoman Heather 11 proposed, and the Council agreed, that the decision of the 12 ,Planning Commission be reviewed by the Council in a public 13 hearing. A hearing was duly noticed and held on May 12, 1986. 14 In the course of that hearing, members of the public, 15 including Petitioner Robert Blake, raised several issues. These 16 issues included but were not limited to: 17 1. The existence of significant inconsistencies among 18 relevant provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General 19 Plan (the "GP"; Ex. C), the Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal 20 Program (the "LUP"; Ex. D) and the Planning and Zoning Chapter of 21 the City's Municipal Code (the "Zoning Code"; Ex. E) regarding 22 setbacks on bluffs and calculations of buildable acreage and 23 residential density, which inconsistencies should preclude present 24 approval of the project; 25 2. The fact that construction such as that proposed 26 should not be allowed on a coastal bluff; 27 3. The fact that, based even on the evidence available 28 in the Staff Report, an EIR rather than a negative declaration 67 I1 -3- 0 1 should have been required; and 2 4. The fact that the proposed construction could 3 trigger adverse cumulative effects, would present esthetic 4 questions and would obstruct public views of a building of 5 considerable historical significance. 6 The city Council nevertheless voted to affirm the 7 decision of the Planning Commission. This decision became final 8 with the filing and posting of the approved Notice of 9 Determination and the Negative Declaration for the project at the 10 office of the County Clerk of Orange County on June 2, 1986. 11 Because petitioners had no further administrative remedies, and 12 because under CEQA the statute of limitations for filing an action 13 challenging the City's decision to proceed with the Negative 14 Declaration would run 30 days from the filing of the Notice of 15 Determination, petitioners had no recourse but to file this 16 petition and complaint. 1T B. Summary of Argument 18 Petitioners contend that the City abused its discretion 19 and therefore its Approvals must be set aside under the applicable 20 standard of review. The City failed to proceed in the manner 21; required by law and there is no substantial evidence in light of 22 the whole record to support the City's decision (Code Civ. PrOC. 23 §§ 1094.5(b), (c)) because: 24 1. The Approvals are ultra vires because the 25 construction authorized violates the bluff setback, buildable 26 acreage, and possibly the density limitations of the GP and the 27 LUP, and these limitations take precedence over inconsistent 28 provisions of the Zoning Code. -4- 1 2. The bluff in question clearly is part of a "coastal 2 bluff system" and of a "natural slope formation," and therefore 3 relevant blufftop setback, buildable acreage and density 4 provisions of the GP and LUP apply to the Approvals. The City 5 made no explicit finding to the contrary. 6 3. The Council's approval of Resubdivision No. 824 was 7 ultra wires because the parcel map is inconsistent with the GP. 8 4. The Council improperly determined that the approvals 9 would not have a significant effect on the environment and 10 therefore failed to prepare an EIR as required by the GP and CEQA. 11 For the foregoing reasons, petitioners believe that a 12 writ of administrative mandate should issue compelling the City to 13 vacate and rescind the Approvals forthwith, and that this Court 14 should stay the effect of the Approvals pending judgment in this 15 action, as allowed by section 1094.5(g) of the Code of Civil 16 Procedure. 17 II. THE COUNCIL ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FAILING TO PROCEED IN THE 18 MANNER REQUIRED BY LAW AND THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN 19 LIGHT OF THE WHOLE RECORD TO SUPPORT THE COUNCIL'S DECISION PO In administrative mandamus proceedings authorized by Code 21 of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, the applicable standard of 22 judicial review is: "whether there is any substantial evidence in 23 light of the whole record to support the decision and whether the 24 agency abused its discretion by failing to proceed in the manner 25 required by law." (Christward Ministry v Superior Court (1986) 26, 180 Cal.App.3d 99, 106. Accord citizens to Preserve the Oiai v. 27' County of Ventura (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 421, 428; Code Civ. Proc. 28 §§ 1094.5(b), (c).) For the reasons summarized above, petitioners 69 -5- 1 contend that the City abused its discretion by failing to proceed 2 in the manner required by law and that there is no substantial 3 evidence in light of the whole record to support its decision. 4 A. The Approvals Are Ultra Vires Because The Construction 5 Au horized Violates The Bluff Setback Buildable Acreage And 6 Density Limitations Of The GP And The LUP And These Limitations 7 Take Precedence Ov r Inconsistent Provisions Of The City's_Zoning 8 Code. 9 The Approvals are not consistent with the bluff setback, 10 buildable acreage and density limitations of the GP and the LUP 11 which apply to the property in question. They may be consistent 12 with the applicable criteria in the Zoning Code, but the criteria 13 in the Zoning Code are neither consistent nor compatible with the 14 provisions of the GP and the LUP. In such cases, the provisions 15 of the GP and the LUP must control. The Council's failure to 16 apply such provisions constitutes an abuse of discretion. 17 1. Zoning Provisions Including Use Permits, Must Be 18 Consistent With The General Plan When They Are Not Consistent 19 The General Plan Must Control And Permits Issued Based On The PO Inconsistent Zoning Provisions Are Ultra Vires._ 21 The State Planning and Zoning Law (Gov't Code § 65300 et 22 seq.) requires a city's zoning ordinances to be consistent with 23 its general plan. (Gov't Code § 65860.) Although section 65860 24 does not apply to chartered cities such as Newport Beach, except 25 to the extent adopted by charter or ordinance (Gov't Code 26 § 65803), the City, in adopting its GP, quoted section 65860 and 27 stated that "It shall be the policy of the City of Newport Beach 28 to seek the highest degree of consistency between the Zoning 70 -6- 1 2 3 4 5 6 71 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21! 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ordinance and the General Plan, while recognizing that absolute conformity at any one point in time may not be feasible or desirable." (Land Use Element of GP, adopted February 11, 1985, Ex. C at 2; emphasis added.) For all practical purposes, the City has adopted for itself the same standard for general plan consistency as state law mandates for general law cities. Under the State Planning and Zoning Law, it is not the general plan that must conform to the zoning, but rather the zoning that must conform to the general plan. The general plan has been analogized to "a constitution for all future developments," and is therefore'redarded as "atop the hierarchy of local goverment law regulating land use." (Neighborhood Action Group v. Calaveras County (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1183.) As the Neighborhood Action court put it: "a use permit is struck from the mold of the zoning law [Gov't Code § 659011; the zoning law must comply with the adopted general plan [Gov't Code § 658601; the adopted general plan must conform with state law [Gov't Code §§ 65300, 653023. The validity of the permit process derives from compliance with this hierarchy of planning laws." (Id. at 1184.) Where a use permit is inconsistent with a general plan, the fact that the use permit may be consistent with a zoning code does not validate the use permit if the zoning code itself is inconsistent with the -general plan in the same respect. (Id. at 1185 ("A permit action taken without compliance with the hierarchy of land use laws is ultra vires as to any defect implicated by the uses 0 1 sought by the permit.").) 2 It thus follows that a zoning scheme that is not 3 consistent with a general plan cannot insulate a permit issued 4 pursuant to that scheme from attack. In such a case, the permit 5 itself is ultra vires and must be rescinded. If a permit based on 6 a zoning code that is inconsistent with a general plan were valid, 7 then the zoning code, not the general plan, would control, and the 8 general plan would be stripped of any force or meaning. g 2. The Bluff Setback, Buildable Acreage And Density 10 Provisions Of The GP And The LUP Apply To The Property In Question 11 And The Citv Made No Finding to the Contrary. 12 a. The Bluff On The Property Is A Coastal Bluff. 13 The GP and the LUP limit the City's authority to approve 14 residential projects with respect to the location of structures on 15 coastal bluff and slope areas. Neither the GP nor the LUP defines 16 coastal bluff; however, the LUP defines "bluff" as "any landform 17 having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50%) or greater, with a 18 vertical rise of 25 feet or greater." (LUP at 24; emphasis 19 added.) The City has admitted that the project site is situated 20 on a bluff. (See Minutes of Planning Commission Hearing, Ex. E at 21 18 ("because of the location on a bluff, the City required the 22 environmental determination").) Furthermore, in approving the 23 project, the City admitted that the southwesterly facing slope of 24 the bluff "could be considered part of a coastal bluff system" 25 (Staff Report, Ex. E at 7) and determined that a portion of the 26 site "contains areas [which] exceed a 2:1 slope and which appear 27 to be in a natural state." (Id.) Under the objective criteria 281 contained in the GP and the LUP, therefore, the bluff on the %2, -8- 1 property must be considered a coastal bluff. 2 b. Because The Bluff Is A Coastal Bluff It Is 3 Subject To The Setback Buildable Acreage And Residential Density 4 Requirements Of The GP And The LUP For Bluffton Construction, And 5 Therefore Any Finding To The Contrary Is Clearly Erroneous 6 Findings have a purpose. They are not a mere legal 7 formality. A major purpose for requiring findings is to enable a 8 party reviewing them to determine "whether some combination of 9 credible evidentiary items which supported some line of factual 10 and logical conclusions supported the ultimate order or decision 11 of the agency." (Topanca Ass'n for a Scenic Community v County 12 of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 516.) The findings made by 13 the City in this case do not allow for such a determination, and 14 therefore cannot validate the City's conclusion. 15 In approving the project, the City found that the project 16 was "consistent with the adopted goals and policies" of the GP and 17 the LUP. (Use Permit No. 3194, Finding 2, Ex. E at 28.) The City 18 failed to make formal findings, supported by the evidence, 19 specifically concerning the propriety of construction on a bluff 20 such as this. However, it is apparent from the Staff Report that 21 the City reached an unsupported conclusion that the provisions of 22 the GP and the LUP pertaining to bluffs were not applicable 23 because the site was not part of a "coastal bluff system" and was 24 not a natural slope formation as a result of "substantial man-made 25 alterations." (See, e.g., Ex. E at 7.) 26 Neither the GP nor the LUP provides a definition or P7 designation that would permit a determination that any bluffs 28 within the coastal zone are other than "coastal bluffs." Nor is 73 -9- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 there any requirement in the GP or the LUP that a coastal bluff must be part of a "coastal bluff system" in order for the bluff provisions of the GP and the LUP to apply. Consequently the statement of the Planning Department that the bluff on the property may not be part of a coastal bluff system is an attempt without basis in law or in fact to create exceptions to the GP and the LUP that those documents neither contemplate nor countenance. Reliance on a similarly unsupported contention that the slope on the property is not "natural" because of "substantial man-made alterations" is equally misplaced. Once again there is no definition in either the GP or the LUP of what constitutes a "natural" slope; consequently the assumption that "man-made alterations" are what make a slope "non -natural" is another erroneous distinction created by the Planning Department that has no support in the language of either the GP or the LUP. Nor does such an interpretation advance the stated objectives of the GP and LUP to protect public access and to protect the public from geologic hazards. (See, e.g., LUP at 24, 37.) If anything, man-made alterations to coastal bluffs would be likely to render them more hazardous to the public, not less. The City's finding of compliance with the GP and the LUP thus has no support in law or in fact. The only way the City could reach such a Binding was to ignore its own evidence and to conclude, without any basis, that the provisions of the GP and the LUP with regard to blufftop construction do not apply. 7y 11 -lo- n 1 3. The Bluff Setback Buildable Acreage And Density 2 Criteria Contained In Th Approvals Are Fatally Inconsistent With 3 The Provisigng Of The GP And LTJP, 4 a. The Bluff Setba k Requirements 5 Both the LUP and the GP provide that "(I]n the 6 discretionary review of projects, no structures shall be built" in 7 "sensitive areas," which include "Coastal Bluffs," "Blufftop 8 setback areas," and "Natural slope areas greater than 2:1 and 9 greater than 25 feet high." (LUP at 37; GP at 3.) A stated 10 Purpose of the LUP in requiring bluff setbacks is to provide safe 11 Public access for all new development. (See LUP at 37.) As a 12 general rule, 13 "the property line setback from the edge of a bluff 14 should be no closer to the edge of the bluff than 15 the point at which the top of the bluff is 16 intersected by a line drawn from the solid toe of 17 the bluff at an angle of 26.6 degrees to the 18 horizontal. A greater setback distance shall be 19 required where warranted by geological or 20 groundwater conditions, but in no case shall a 21 property line be closer than 40 feet to the edge of 22' a bluff. 23; In addition, no part of a proposed development shall 24 be closer than 20 feet to the bluffside property 25 line . . . ." (LUP at 25.) 26 Identically worded setback requirements are found in the 27 Zoning Code; however, they apply only to Planned Community 28 Developments (Muni-. Code § 20.51.080(d).) This project is not in 7S II -11- 1 a Planned Community District, and the relevant provisions of the 2 Zoning Code thus do not require a bluff setback. It is therefore 3 obvious that the provisions of the Zoning Code applicable to this 4 property are inconsistent with the applicable provisions of the GP 5 and the LUP, which do require a bluff setback. 6 Also, the project could not comply with the bluff setback 7 requirements of the GP and LUP even if the City had applied them. 8 Since the City apparently concluded that the setback requirement 9 did not apply, it made no finding specifically directed to that 10 point, but what evidence there is in the record shows that it 11 would be impossible'for the entire project to be.both more than 40 12 feet from the "edge" of the bluff and more than 20 feet from the 13 bluffside property line. 14 Both the Approvals and the relevant provisions of the 15 Zoning Code are therefore inconsistent with the applicable bluff 16 setback requirements of the GP and the LUP. As discussed earlier, 17 in such situations the GP and the LUP must control, and the 18 Approvals are therefore ultra vires.. (Neighborhood Action Group, 19 supra, 156 Cal.App.3d at 1184.) 20 b. The Buildable Acreage And Residential Density 21 Limitations 22 The provisions of the Zoning Code that the City applied 23 to the Approvals are also fatally inconsistent with the GP and LUP 24 regarding buildable acreage and residential density limitations. 25 Both the GP and the LUP define "buildable acreage," in pertinent 26 part, as "the entire site, less areas with a slope greater than 27 2:1, and less any area required to be dedicated to the City for 28 park purposes and any perimeter open space." (GP at 6; LUP at 76 -12- 0 1 36.) The Zoning Code definition, on the other hand, defines 2 "buildable areas" as "the area of a building site, excluding any 3 basic minimum side, front and rear and spaces, required for 4 'buidings' [sic] three stories or less in height." (Muni. Code 5 § 20.87.050.) Thus, while the GP and the LUP specifically exclude 6 slope areas from "buildable acreage," the Zoning Code does not. 7 The incompatibility between these definitions is particularly g important here, because the proposed construction would be on a 9 bluff. 10 There is no evidence of any kind that the Approvals would 11 comply with the relevant dP and LUP criteria had those criteria 12 been applied. The Staff Report indicates that the project's lot 13 size is 12,803 sq.ft. (or ll,'553 sq.ft. excluding the abandoned 14 Carnation Avenue right-of-way), and that the "buildable area" is 15 8,855 ft. (Ex. E at 5-6.) This calculation is based on the provi- 16 sions of the Zoning Code, not those of the GP and LUP. There is 17 no evidence in the record to indicate what the "buildable acreage" 18 would be if calculated using the definition in the GP and LUP. 19 The staff simply avoided the criteria of the GP and the PO LUP since it is obvious that the project as approved would not be 21 consistent with the buildable acreage criterion of the GP and the 22 LUP. According to the Staff Report, "the 'buildable acreage' 23 criterion deleting slope areas greater than 2:1 has not been 24 applied by the City in cases where property is already subdivided 25 and zoned using the R-1 through R-4 system . . . . [and therefore] 26 staff does not suggest the application of the buildable acreage 27 criteria." (Ex. E at 7.) This statement strongly suggests that 28 if those criteria were applied in this case, the project could not 77 -13- S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9J 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 be approved. There is a similar clear inconsistency between the GP and LUP and the Zoning Code concerning density allowances for areas designated'"Multiple Family Residential." According to the Staff Report, under the existing zoning ordinances, the R-3 zoning classification allows 27 to 36 dwelling units per buildable acre. (Ex. E at 7.) In contrast, the GP and the LUP allow 10 to 15 dwelling units per buildable acre. (Id.) While it is possible that the Approvals could be consistent with the more restrictive density requirements of the GP and LUP, there is no substantial evidence in the record that this is the case. The City failed to calculate the "buildable acreage" of the site properly, and there is thus no way to determine from the record whether an appropriate number of units has been permitted. Moreover, the evidence in the record again indicates that the project probably could not meet the GP and LUP requirements. The Planning Department appears to admit there is an insurmountable discrepancy (.), and attempts to explain it away by observing in conclusory fashion that the density classification system in the GP and the LUP "does not lend itself well to applications in the older areas of the City." (Id.) It is therefore clear that the Zoning Code is inconsistent with the applicable buildable acreage provisions of the GP and LUP, and there is no finding or evidence that the Approvals are consistent with the buildable acreage provisions of either of the latter. The City's failure to make any findings in this regard renders the one finding of "consistency" with the GP and LUP that it did make inadequate. As discussed earlier, in 70 11 -14- , 1 such situations, the GP and the LUP must control, and the 2 Approvals are therefore ultra vires. 3 C. The Council's Approval of Resubdivision No. 824 Was Ultra 4 Vires Because The Parcel Map Is Inconsistent With The GP 5 A local agency may not approve a parcel map if the 6 proposed development is inconsistent with the general plan. 7 (Gov't Code § 66473.5; Youngblood v Board of Supervisors of San 8 Diego County (1978) 22 Cal.3d 644, 652.) In the present case, as g noted, the parcel map that the City approved allows construction 11 of a four -unit condominium development on an area that falls 11 within the restrictions on bluff development under the GP and the 12 LUP without applying those restrictions to the project. 13 Similarly, the City also approved the parcel map based upon a 14calculation of "buildable area" and density requirements under the 15 Zoning Code which, as noted, is inconsistent with the buildable 16 acreage and density provisions of the GP and the LUP. Because the 17 parcel map does not comply with the provisions and policies of the 18 GP and the LUP, its approval by the City violated section 66473.5 19 of the Government Code, the finding that the map "meets the 20 requirements of . . . all applicable general or specific plans" 21 (Resubdivision No. 824, Finding 1, Ex. E at 4) is wrong, and the 22 approval is void. 23 D. The Council Improperly Determined That The Approvals 24 Would Not Have A Significant Effect On The Environment And 25 Therefore Failed To Prepare An EIR As Reguired By CEOA And By _The 26 GP. 27 Under CEQA, the test for whether an EIR rather than a 28 negative declaration should be prepared is whether "there was 79' -15- A A 1 substantial evidence to support the agency's conclusion it could 2 not be '"fairly argued"' the project would have a significant 3 environmental impact." (Christward Ministry v. Superior Court, 4 supra, 180 Cal.App.3d at 102.) If there is no "substantial 5 evidence" to support such a "fair argument," then "the agency's 6 action in adopting a negative declaration amounts to an abuse of 7 discretion by the agency and a failure to proceed in a manner 8 required by law." (Id.) 9 In addition, the guidelines for implementation of CEQA 10 set forth in detail the requirements for "mandatory findings of 11 significance" by a lead agency. In particular, those guidelines 12 specify that 13 "A lead agency shall find that a project may have a 14 significant effect on the environment and therefore 15 require an EIR to be prepared for the project where any 16 of the following conditions occur: 17 . . . . 18 (c) The project has possible environmental effects 19 which are individually limited but cumulatively 20 considerable. As used in the subsection, 'cumulatively 21 considerable' means that the incremental effects of an 22 individual project are considerable when viewed in 23 connection with the effects of past projects . . . other 24 current projects . . . and probable future projects." 25 (Cal. Admin. Code, Tit. 14, § 15065, subd.(c).) 26 The City prepared a negative declaration; however, the 27 conclusion that the project would not have a significant effect on 28 the environment is not supported by substantial evidence. In this 93 -16- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 case, the effects are not merely "possible," but incontrovertible. First of all, the City incorrectly assessed the impacts of the project. Section 15063 of the Guidelines for Implementing CEQA (Cal. Admin. Code, Tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) requires the City as lead agency to conduct an initial study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study relied upon the Environmental Information Form completed by Somers and Associates (Ex. E at 47-51) to the effect that there would be no "change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads." (Ex. E at 48) There is substantial evidence in the record to demonstrate that the project, if constructed, would critically obstruct views both from and to the old Corona del Mar Hotel, a landmark of local, state, and national importance. Moreover, it is clear that this project will set a precedent for the development of adjacent vacant lots, further diminishing the quality of the human environment and seriously affecting landforms that the LUP recognizes as "a significant scenic and environmental resource." (LUP at 24.) Indeed, the LUP recognizes that even grading of these bluffs should be prohibited, "in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas." (LUP at 26.) For those reasons alone, it is fairly arguable that the project, particularly when considered together with the cumulative impacts of development on the adjacent lots, will have a significant effect on the environment. In addition, the Initial Study also incorrectly accepted the representation of Somers and Associates that the project would knot be located on a "[s]i,te on filled land or on slope of 10 0/ -17- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13, 14 15 16 17. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 percent or more." (Ex. E at 48.) Based simply upon the facts in the Staff Report, it is clear that the project site includes areas where the slope is greater than 2:1. Furthermore, the Initial Study incorrectly determined without an EIR that the project will not result in "[d]isruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil," or in the "[elxposure of people or property to geological hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards." (Ex. E at 52,53) These conclusions are at variance with the Public Safety Element of the GP. The Public Safety Element contains a "Risk Reduction Program" to mitigate as much as reasonably possible the risks of geological and other natural physical hazards to life and property within the City. One essential element of the Risk Reduction Program is that "The City shall require Environmental Impact Reports [EIRs] for any development within areas of natural physical hazard, as defined in this Element; said EIRs to include detailed assessment of the hazards and a comprehensive mitigation program." (Public Safety Element at 44 (Ex. F); emphasis added.) The Public Safety Element contains several maps identifying areas of geologic hazard in the City. The project site is located within areas of geologic hazards on these maps as follows: a. The project site is identified as an "area of potential ground breakage" bordering a Category 5 "ground failure area" ("slope stability questionable"). (Fig. 1 of Public Safety Element); b. The project site is identified as being in an area ago 7 M 1 with a "ground slope of 25% or greater." (Fig. 2 of Public Safety 2 Element); and 3 C. The project site is in a Category 2 area where 4 "moderate to highly expansive soils" are possible (Fig. 3 of 5 Public Safety Element), and where the "erosion potential is 6 moderate" ("potential risk more significant") (Fig. 4 of Public 7 Safety Element.) 8 The LUP also contemplates preparation of an EIR where 9 there is a possibility that a structure may be in a "sensitive 10 area." The LUP specifically provides that "The Planning 11 Commission and/or City Council will determine whether the site in 12 question falls within [a sensitive area], using information 13 documented in the EIR." (LUP at 37; emphasis added.) "Sensitive 14 areas" include blufftop setback areas and "geologic hazard 15 areas." (Id.) 16 Given the requirements in the GP and LUP for preparation 17 of an EIR where development is proposed within sensitive areas 18 (LUP at 37) or areas of natural physical hazard (Public Safety 19 Element, Ex. F at 44), the use of a mitigated negative declaration 20 in this case is inappropriate. These classifications of geologic 21 hazards and sensitive areas in the GP and the LUP, particularly 22 when considered together with the cumulative impacts of additional 23 development in these areas, make it more than "fairly arguable" 24 that the City should have prepared an EIR on the project in 25, accordance with the policies, programs and objectives of the 26 Public Safety Element of the GP. 27 28 -19- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, petitioners are entitled to have a writ of mandate and a stay order issue, to remain in effect until the deficiencies noted are resolved. There was an abuse of discretion both because of the lack of substantial evidence in the record to support the City Council's conclusions and because many alleged facts in the record upon which the City Council relied were in fact invalid or support petitioners' contentions. Dated: June 30, 1986 0058W . Respectfully submitted, NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT MICHAEL B,. WILMAR PAUL D. CASS / By fagi , Paul D. Cass Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Petitioners -20- rM il�1' SLEEPER AUTHOR - HISTORIAN °peC''a1zlag 1n ornzss count" and Southern Ca1L'am:a Fistory 14771 LEON PLACE, TUSTIN, CALIFORNLA 92880 - (714) 838.2239 May 4, 1986 Mr. Robert Blake Holly Development Ccr_noraticn 1550 Bayside Drive Corona Del N ar, CA 92625 Dear mr. Blake: in addition to the 23-page historic profile on the old Corona del Mar Hotel, I am sending several pictorial items th=t vcu might find cf interest in your proposeC historical restoration i.roject, The TOP photo -copy is the first rublic announcement ever to a -•pear For Corona Del Mar, and the first time that name (which replaced "Rocky oint") appears in print. The ad ran in the San to =na Daily Blade (July 13, 1904),_just twelve days after the townsi was named. The C-c1ZTER photo is a rare and interesting one showing James Irvine (first row, extreme left) with•a party of I•asadena socialites, c:ho stayed at the hotel on July 4, 1915. The two young men in golf hats, incidentally, were Irvine's sons ---James ("lase") Irvine who died in 1935, and Myford (extreme right, bacl: row), who succeeded his rather as president of The Irvine Co, in 1947. If the elder Irvine looks glum, he's probably contem_rlating that 1904 sale of Corona del Mar to George Hart for $150 an"acrel The LOVER ad marks the hotel and tract's name chance in 1915 when it became "Balboa Palisades" (for 11 years). 'This grand opening of the renamed hotel followed its initial opening (July 10, 1907) by eight years. The ad itself appeared in the Santa ,na Daily Recister May 29, 1915. , Needless to say, your building was the beginning and ca_rstcne of George Hart's Corona del Mar development, and remains tale oldest structure extant in that community. As such ---apart from its early movie associations ---Diann Marsh assures me that there will be no difficulty in placing it on the NaticnalRegister, Rare, indeed, is the southern California town that still has its founder's first buildings Sincerely yours, j�yris im SleEper ounty Histor' BE W34 t uz'i 1 Li 1 p "IM e-,t 9 ' `es;•:stV �hnil .. ''Flr+w�'.•.,s�s,:-3�ai::: , yM�I' ' 1,14 fj � Qe�I�Y�It+MyY�29t+�1�1�1J ..l�'r, • C�` y�lSC. iF P ."". �,•`' •�;T .� '' ;<I�') i`k131 Y�f� S . `� s i - ,� - A I �. I1 �t .�� •t}nn Fi;i�l f •7 rt7g•}j, }y 1'i� s�li^ (�:," I_ �. jt'�•.r 'i1�4}X(�'i'I; 1` F�I� �' ai'', �f.:r 5•niM: 114 r. ••r�70p copyright 1938. Paramount Pictures Inc. Porminicn gronfod for N..fpopor and Moguino ioproducfion. (Moo. in U.S.A. WMM= oA zztL r3v-"-� I • i �• •�h:�il�� � \. _ ram. . • • oaf �`�-•• y �� ���� '•'� :.i � hit :� �. ••� :;.,..:yam._ ., � � •\� t ]]]fff11�1�r'!!`•""77��++__ -� u OAVIV ' GUEST -- bucN.y, English sheep clog, explores Lb-- location site oC Par;, - mount's "Spawn of the North," whilo hi:r master, Director Henry IIathaway, coaches him (rir,li L) along. •0.-illy nt M1;, •b r1c-'We Arts m:• SCi:•nrr,� Illrr,+,• . .r r. ClIFT F![ w Ei:1 !'I ft7. �•�: r. • 7 •. • .r.. Mt•. r.rl ..rreru:v� ulrrory. TIE CAIVERd CRER -- filming a scene of Paramount's "Spawn of. the North" on location at Balboa, 60 miles south of Hollywood. Picture stars George Raft, Henry Fonda and Dorothy Lamour. .q I Copyirghl I%t. PuemnunI Piclurrr, Inc. Permiuion grenled Iar flerrpn per end Megedne repred.clion. (Merle in U.S.A.( i � .l . •. r • •- r - r 1 PL: SKA, CALIF4-1 Fara1aount created a rmake-believe .laslcan flohing villago on the shores of Balboa, GU miles south of (loll -mood; for "SI;,a:rrr of tlxc Itorth,u salsa of the salmon industry, starring George Raft, henry Ponds and Dorothy Lamour. Th-t's Raft an the bridge of the :loino boat. "TARZAN U-F THE A1 ES- A unique awl Aw Imttine pMnuiday frmn the hank bF Edgar Rlee IDumuitIM fmturing Enld )Inrkey..upprntnl Im 77unnn. .lydrr. son, and with Elmo Llm�oln as Tsv m and prwWeed bt the \atbnal Film Corp. of America—µ7Rialu pnrtona. I'Mident 95' t ,.� •J 'i.0 �CCnCSS •1� :C3:C7 CpFicS ACCAUS __iA=4. do AC.i CA i295G .c -. 755idca May 9, 1986 ,, V) '�Y slit •I�w•IJ.y+Yd2r. � fi' 7,�� .M j �1Y:i J..'.s �� •• rib' .i-'j >,.,.+ .)•av ...:r--r w ..i l 1 • . I. f _:' y:12 5 Ms. Barbara B. Tappan 1007 Dolphin Terrace Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Dear Ms. Tapoan: Thank you for your letter and accompanying material regarding the old Corona del :oar Inn. I asked my staff assistant, Pete Calagna, to research this matter further, and he spoke with Mr. Blake.- I'm sure you will be happy to find that the holly Development Corporation has indeed re -considered its earlier plans and - instead decided on a historical renovation of the inn and its surroundings. . Please continue to apprise me of your concerns on district and state matters of interest to you. Sincerely, ..-GIL. FERGUSON GF:pl I.ay 101 19$� Dear Hr. 3lake: 3arbpara Tappan contacsed me about The Corona del T n, wricn is a landmark of historical value. It would be a shame to tarn this in to Condominivas and I wish to express my opinion about that matter. I would like to see if preserved ad yuu intend to do. The rancock Parr::findsor Square Historical oociety was co-founded by me and I am of the fire opinion that we should do ever',• --..".ink possible to maintain these historical landmarks. Keep up the good work and much success on the pro;;ect. Sincerely, Patricia L. Aug 1220 Park Newport Newport Beach, California 92660 97 SUPERVISOR. FIFTH DISTRICT THOMAS F. RILEY ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ORANGE COUNTY HALL OF ADMINISTRATION 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, P. O. BOX 687, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702-0687 PHONE: 63h3550 (AREA CODE 714) April 7, 1986 Mr. Robert Blake, President Holly Development Corporation 1550 Bayside Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Dear Mr. Blake: Mrs. Barbara Tappan has advised me that you recently acquired the old Corona del Mar Inn and adjoining parcels. Congratulations to you on your significant purchase of this important and longstanding feature of the Corona del Mar community. For many years now, the communities of my district and the County of Orange have endeavored to preserve and rehabilitate important historic buildings in the community. In fact, several years ago, I provided the leadership that resulted in the County hosting the 8th annual California Historic Preserva- tion Conference, which directed statewide attention to the many significant facilities still visible in this fast urbanizing county. Together with political leadership, the federal tax incentives offered to those restoring historic structures have made our community a diverse archi- tectural area including the old and the new. While we are moving into the future with great speed, we still cherish our past. Mrs. Tappan advises that you might be willing to consider preservation and rehabilitation of your historic structure. I wanted to add my encouragement to you to do this. I believe you would be making a very considerable contri- bution to the community, as well as a successful business decision. Please know that I will do whatever I can to be of help to you in this pro- cess. You may contact me or my staff anytime in this matter. Sincerely, Thomas F. / Ri � , ley Supervisor, Fifth District TFR:ph cc: Mrs. Barbara Tappan Mr. Robert R. Selway, III 1550 Bayside Drive Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 (714) 759-5400 (313)423-5092 March 31, 1986 Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Planning Department Attn: Ms. Sandy Gents, Associate Planner 3300 Newport Boulevard - Newport Beach, California 92663 Dear Commissioners: By the time you receive this letter I will have already spoken to many of you. The subject of my concern relates to a use permit pending before the Planning Commission at a public hearing scheduled for April 10, 1986. The applicant for this permit is Somers Associates. The property in question is located on the bluff at 301 Carnation. A staff report is currently being prepared by Sandy of the Newport Beach Planning Department. Located on the property currently is a single family home that is in very good condition. The home is, in my opinion, quite marketable in its current state. Therefore, I was quite surprised to find that any application for a change of use was being made or considered. The applicant, Somers Associates, does not currently own the property in question. I did, attempt to contact the current owners before writing this letter, however, I am informed they are in Europe until May. I therefore can only surmise that this current application is a highly speculative attempt to profit from the property's R-3 zoning designation by a small company. There is a very strong reason why I find this particular application so distressing. The property is located directly across the street from the old Corona Del Mar Hotel. The hotel is a property which is owned by the entity, Blake Properties II, of which I am the sole shareholder. When I bought this building located at 2500 Seaview I will admit that I also considered the possibility. of demolition and eventual condominium use. However, soon after my--purchase:.I_was-:_contacted • by_-interested-citizens=and=dommunity�:groups __­.::- �--' - informing me of the importance of this property at the corner of Carnation and Seaview. As a matter of corporate responsibility I conducted a study of the history of the site and its significance. Our findings were no less than astonishing. This same building is without question the first building in Corona Del Mar. In -its heyday it"was the location for some of the great ` -.classic films. The property over the years was frequented by the great stars -" and directors that built the movie industry and eventually southern California. A new addition to our list of film credits is !'Spawn of the North" starring Henry Fonda, John Barrymore, Dorothy Lamour, and George Raft. g9 Page 2 March 31, 1986 Quoting from the book "Great Movies Shot in Orange County" written by Jim Sleeper, page 58: "We were filming an episode of "The Son of Tarzan" (1920) and needed a primitive shoreline - palisade area where Tarzan could come ashore. There was no coast highway then, so after a long drive around the head of the bay, we finally arrived at Corona Del Mar. As I remember, there was only one frame building on the headland overlooking the harbor entrance -- a sort of tavern (the Corona Del Mar Hotel) where our little crew put up. One shot called for a primitive expanse of shoreline. Just south of here you could shoot along the ebore as far as the lens could see, with no sign of habitation, transmission lines, piers, boats, etc, to mat the scene. The cliffs obscured any sign of development above . . ." Our city has changed a great deal since those days. Yet if you allow the use permit and construction of condominiums at 307 Carnation you will block the last view of this hotel. Not only will the hotel's guests lose their view of the bay but other longtime Newport residents will lose their view of this great old building. I have agreed with community groups not to tear down this historic structure. In addition I have agreed to spend a million dollars of my money to renovate this building and bring back its old glory. We have no intention to change one single part of the building's current facade or interior. Our plan only entails a massive upgrade. I am following this course despite the fact that my Systems Analyst informs me that our company could lose over a million dollars in revenue by doing the project in this manner. Yet, instead of receiving commendation for a fine civic act, I am insulted by the possibility of my neighbor attempting to destroy the integrity of the area I am working so hard to preserve. In the past month I hired the recognized county historian and author, Jim Sleeper, to write first a synopsis and then a book about the hotel. I have additionally hired the historical consultant, Diane Marsh, to process our application on the state and federal level for formal historical designation. I will also be working closely with Dr. William 0. Hendricks, director of the Sherman Foundation and Sherman Gardens. Dr. Hendricks and a local resident, Barbara Tappan, are responsible for initially informing me of the great significance of this historical structure. I have also been in contact with the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences which has offered their full support-and?.'eictensive-film'-librrary'to'helydetail=the=story of-a=building"=than"•'• I hope will become almost a museum of our local heritage. I have always had great respect for the Newport Beach Planning Commission. I believe you -serve in"your positions because you care about our community. I have been --a resident of Newport Beach -a long time and I -also care about our -- -"" future and Past. We -don't have -a lot left of our history. I urge you t6 help preserve what we do have. 37 /OD J C Page 3 March 31, 1986 In summary, I ask each of you to reject the application for a use permit for 307 Carnation out of hand. This application is after all totally discretionary. If you feel you cannot on April 10, 1986 deny this application then I urge you to table this matter for a more formal hearing in May. This will give my office, consulting and legal staff a chance to prepare a strong civic and legal case against this ill-advised request. Thank you for all of your time and concern. Sincerely, Robert Bla e President jmh P.S. Attached to this letter is a short synopsis and photos of the history of this building and area. THE OLDEST BUILDING Call it Corona del Mar Hotel, Balboa Palisades Tavern, Palisades Inn, Hotel del Mar, or what you will! These are all the same location - the corner of Carnation at Seaview, and it is the oldest structure in Corona del Mar! HISTORY In 1904, George E. Hart purchased 700 acres of this oceanfront location called Palisades Hills, behind Rocky Point, from the Irvine family. He built the Corona del Mar Hotel in 1905. The hotel was called by various names, but the surrounding property Mr., Hart developed was given the original name of the hotel -Corona del Mar. With only a few exceptions, the freehold townsite he started in 1904 is the "old" Corona del Mar today. FERRY The lumber for the' hotel was brought to Balboa Peninsula on the Pacific Electric Railroad and then floated across the bay to a pier. The original bay ferry went back and forth from the peninsula to this same pier for the Corona del Mar Hotel. BATHHOUSE Later the hotel was called the Balboa Palisades Club, and of which the swimmer, Duke Kahanamoku was a member. The "Duke" and actress Dorothy Mackaill dedicated the $50,000 concrete, three- story "bathhouse". It is now known as the William G. Kerchoff Marine Laboratory. ROCKY POINT The hotel enjoyed quite a bit of notoriety. As the hotel was located 80 feet above the bay and the ocean it commanded one of the grandest and most inspiring views in Southern California. MOVIES Movie stars, celebrities, and film makers frequented the hotel and the surrounding locations. Rocky Point and the "still water beach" off Palisades were locations for Mack Sennett's The Sea S uawk and Sherlock Jr., starring Buster Keaton. Far -away A rica for the Tarzan series and the intriguing Nile in William Fox's Cleo atra.with Theda Bara, were shot on these same Corona del Mar c i fs and waters. The film crews for Sea Wolf and Sons of Tarzan often stayed at the "tavern like bui ding' on the c i which became known as The Palisades F:.:.. Tavern. The companies filming Monte Cristo, Captain Salvation - _•--=-- _- �—and-To-Have-and To Hold -frequented the-hote :_,r .__--- �.• zr,-m_ LEGENDS There are many legends that follow the hotel. Some of the stories include a murder, a famous poker game, and drinking after prohibition had started. The - fact remains: the same . hotel is still standing on the Corona del Mar corner of Carna- tion and Seaview: It is"now time to remember ouF­heritagel 9-9 /o 2� i CORONA DEL MAR—NEWPORT BAY J Hotel Del mar Stated on the lowering cliffs 80 feel above the tide overlooking both bay and ocean, and commanding one of the grandest and most inspiring views in Southern California I + City Council Meeting May 11, 1980 ' Agenda Item No. D-2 CITY OF NEWPORT -BEACH - ••- - TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Use Permit No. 3194 (Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a four unit residential condominium 'project and related garages on property located in the R-3 District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow two proposed second floor not shelves and a wing wall to encroach two feet into the -required ten foot front yard setback, and the acceptance of an environ- mental document. AND • Resubdivision No. 824 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single parcel of land for residential condominium purposes on property located in the R-3 District. AND Residential Coastal Development Permit No 11 Request to consider a Residential Coastal Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a four unit residential condominium development pursuant to the Administra- tive Guidelines for the implementation of the State Law relative to low- and moderate -income housing within the Coastal Zone. LOCATION: A portion of Block D, Corona del Mar Tract, located at 307 Carnation Avenue, on the northwesterly side of Carnation Avenue between Seaview Avenue and Bayside Drive, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R-3 APPLICANT: Somers and Associates, Corona del Mar OWNERS: R. Curtis and Jean E. Crooke, Corona del Mar ' ENGINEER: Lanco Civil Engineers, Newport Beach 105s TO - Application City Council - 2. These applications.involve requests for the approval of: 1) A use permit to allow the construction of a four unit condominium and related garages on property located in the R-3 District; 2) The resubdivision of an existing lot into a single parcel of land for residential condominium purposes; 3) A modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow two second floor pot shelves and a wing wall to encroach two feet into the reouired ter. foot front yard setback; and 4) A Coastal Residential Development Permit. In accordance with Section 20.73.015 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, condominium projects may be permitted in any residential district, subject to the approval of a use permit in each case. Use permit procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.80 of the Municipal Code. Section 19.10.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that a parcel map (resubdivision) shall be required for all subdivisions creating four or fewer residential condominium units. Resubdivision procedures are outlined in Section 19.12.040 of the Municipal Code. Modification procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.81 of the Municipal code, and Coastal' Residential Development Permit procedures are outlined in City Council Policy P-1. Suggested Action Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, sustain, modify or overrule the action of the Planning Commission. Background On April 28, 1986, upon the request of Councilwoman Heather, the City Council voted to review the Planning Commission approval of the subject application and set this application for hearing on May 12, 1986. Project characteristics and issues of concern are discussed in the following sections. Planning Commission Action On April 10, 1986, the Planning Commission approved this application (4 Ayes, 2 Abstentions, 1 Absent) subject to the following Findings and Conditions: USE PERMIT No. 3194 FINDINGS: 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate and individual utility connections. 106 TO: City Council - 3. 2. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. _3. That an adequate number of on -site parking spaces will be provided for the _. residential condominium development. 4. The project will comply with all applicable standards, plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of approval except for minor encroachments into the required 10 foot front yard setback for two pot shelves and a wing wall. 5. That the proposed modification to permit two pot shelves and a wing wall to encroach 2 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City -and further that the proposed modification is con- sistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 6. That a Negative Declaration has been prepared and that the proposed project, as conditioned, will not have any significant environmental impact. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 3194 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. That all construction shall meet the requirements of Chapter 20.02 of the Municipal Code, which regulates height. 3. That the driveway entrance shall be designed to provide a slope acceptable to the Newport Beach Traffic Engineer. 4. Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Department. S. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 6. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be sub- mitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. �© % T0: City Council - 4. 7. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 8. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the coinpletion-of a comprehensive soil -and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading g plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 9. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 10. On -site drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Building and/or Public Works Departments. 11. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 824 shall be fulfil- led. 12. That two garage spaces (including one tandem space) shall be provided for each dwelling unit at all times. 13. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. RESUBDIVISION NO. 824 FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific ,plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint, 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map shall be recorded. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That arrangements be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building, permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 14V 9? I•y TO: City Council - 5. 4. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 5. That curb, gutter, pavement and a 5 foot sidewalk be constructed.alona the abandoned 'Caination Avenue frontage, and that the curb grades be approved by the Public Works Department. Roadway width shall be 15 feet from center line to top of curb. 6. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 11 FINDINGS: 1. That a feasibility analysis has been performed which has indicated that it is not feasible to provide affordable housing on or off -site in conjunction with the proposed development. 2. That the proposed development has met the requirements of City Council Policy P-1. CONDITION: 1, That all conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3194 and Resubdivision No. 824 be met. Zoning Analysis The applicant proposes to remove the single-family dwelling, which currently exists on the project site, and develop a, four unit residential condominium project on the property. Lot Size: 12,803 sq.ft. including abandoned Carnation Avenue right-of-way 11,553 sq.ft. excluding abandoned Carnation Avenue right-of-way Number of Units: Permitted by Zoning: 10 Units (12,803 sq.ft. •e• 1,200 sq.ft./ Proposed: 4 Units Unit in the R-3 District) /D 9 W TO: City Council - 6. Setbacks Front (from Carnation - = Avenue right- of-way) Rear Sides Required 10 ft. 10 ft. 4 ft. Buildable Area: 8,855 ft. Gross Structural Area Permitted: 13,283 sq.ft. excluding garages Proposed: 7,603 sq.ft. excluding garages 9,199 sq.ft. including garages Open Snace Required: 7,056 cu.ft. Proposed: 143,000± cu.ft. Building Height Pr000sed 8 ft. 83± ft. 4 ft. (1.5 x buildable area) (.86 x buildable area) (1.04 x buildable area) Front Half of Lot Permitted: 24 ft. average, 29 ft. maximum Proposed: 24 ft. average, 29 ft. maximum (1) Rear Half of Lot Permitted: 28 ft. average, 33 ft. maximum Proposed: 5,5 ft. average, 5.5 ft. maximum (measured from grade to roof overhang) Parking Required: 6 spaces (1.5 per unit), including 4 covered Proposed: 8 spaces (2 per unit), all -within garages (1) As shown on the attached plans, the slope of the lot changes at the rear 3.75 ft. of the proposed structure, resulting in the creation of another plane for purposes of calculating height. If the roof con- tinued flat, as shown on the attached plans, that portion of the roof would exceed the City's height limit. However, the applicant has indicated that the height of that portion of the roof will be reduced in order to meet City standards. In addition, the metal 'chimney caps illustrated in the attached elevations exceed the permitted height limit. Although chimneys are permitted to exceed the City's height limits in order to meet requirements of the Uniform Building Code, the chimney caps are architectural features which are not a function- al part of the chimney. Therefore, the chimney caps will not be included on final plans. The proposed development meets all applicable development standards for the R-3 District except for the proposed encroachment into the front yard setback which is discussed below. //o City Council - 7. Front Yard Setback The applicant has requested a modification to the Zoning Code in order to permit two second floor pot shelves and a wing wall to encroach two feet into the required -ten foot front yard setback adjacdnt to Carnation Avenue. These -encroachments--are minor architectural features, and' it is staffs opinion that they would not have detrimental effects on the surrounding neighborhood. Conformance with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, designate the site for "Multiple -Family Residential" uses. The proposed development falls within the uses permitted. The "Multiple -Family Residential" designation provides for ten to fifteen dwelling units per "buildable acre." The General Plan excludes areas with a slope greater than two to one from "buildable acreage" calculations. In the approval of major Planned Community Development Plans and subdivisions in the newer areas of the City, these "buildable acreage" criteria have been used to determine the permitted number of residential units. This density classification system does not lend itself well to applications in the older areas of the City. The City's traditional R-3 zoning classification allows 27 to 36 dwelling units per buildable acre. Thus the Zoning Code density does not correspond to the General Plan density classification system. In addition, the definition of "buildable area" contained in Section 20.87.050 of the Municipal Code does not exclude slope areas. The "buildable acreage" criterion deleting slope areas greater than 2:1 has not been applied by the City in- cases where property is already subdivided and zoned using the R-1 )through R-4 system. Specific examples include approvals of Use Permits \o. 2059, 2089, and 3033 for residential condominium development of 311 Carnation FAvenue which is immediately north of the project site. Since the property in question is zoned R-3 and 'is an existing subdivided parcel which would allow ten units, staff does not suggest the application of the buildable acreage criteria. Location of Structures on Bluffs " Regulations and policies governing the location of structures on bluffs are found in Section 20.15.081 of the Municipal Code, in the "Location of Struc- tures" Policy contained in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and in the Local Coastal Program Development Policies. Under the above policies, a bluff is defined to be a landform having a slope greater than two to one (2:1) and a height greater than twenty-five feet. In conjunction with their considerations of a proposed development at 311 Car- nation Avenue, it was the opinion of the Planning Commission and the City Council that the northerly facing slope facing Bayside Drive was not a part of any particular coastal bluff system. The southwesterly facing slope could be considered part of a coastal bluff system. However, staff does not consider this site in its present state to be a natural slope formation. Although a portion of this site contains areas which exceed a 2:1 slope and appear to be in a natural state, the parcel has been subject to substantial man-made alter- ations, including the construction of Bayside Drive and Bayside Place, the installation of drainage and sewer improvements, the extension of Carnation TO: City Council - S. Avenue, and the construction of the existing single-family dwelling and garage on the site. In any case, no development is proposed on that portion of the site where slopes exceed two to one. Carnation. Avenue The abandoned Carnation Avenue right-of-way provides access to the subject property and to other lots no of the site. It is recommended that Carnation Avenue be maintained at private street standards and that curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and paveout be constructed at the easterly edge of the site. Coastal Residential Development Permit contains more than two dwelling units, Inasmuch as the proposed development is located within the Coastal Zone and the applicant must comply with Council Policy P-1 which requires the inclusion of low- or moderate -income housing in the Coastal Zone, where feasible. As indicated in the feasibility analysis performed by Tarantello and Company, it would not be feasible to develop a low - or moderate -income housing unit either on -site or off -site in conjunction with the development of the proposed project. Staff therefore recommends that no affordable units be required. views Mr. Robert Blake of Blake II Properties has stated his opposition to the subject application both by letter and at the Planning Commission public hear- ing of April 10, 1986. Since February 4, 1986, Blake II Properties has held a fifty percent interest in the property at 2500 Seaview Avenue as a tenant in common with Point Properties I, Inc., a California Corporation. This property, sometimes referred to as the Seaview Hotel or Corona del Mar Hotel, is located easterly of the project site, across abandoned Carnation Avenue. Mr. Blake has stated his concern that the proposed condominium may block the view from his property. Existing City view policies are directed toward maintenance of public views from locations such as public streets or parks. The City has not traditionally acted -to preserve_ views from private property, including views from commercial facilities open to the public, where a proposed project meets City standards for such items as building height and bulk. It should be noted that, with no discretionary approvals whatsoever, a single- family dwelling or a duplex unit could be constructed to the same height and with a larger gross structural area than the proposed condominium development. Action by the City solely to preserve private views could set a precedent for future actions of the City. Historic Values Mr. Blake has protested that the view from his property, must be preserved because it is a historic structure. As indicated in materials submitted by Mr. Blake, the hotel was built in 1905 and originally was called the Corona del Mar Hotel. Additional historical information is included in the attachments to the April 10, 1986, staff report to ,the Planning Commission. The hotel is not currently registered as a historical place at either the State or Federal level, although Mr. Blake has indicated that it is his intention to make appli- cation to the State for landmark status. Personnel at the state Historic 112- TO: City Council - 9. Preservation Office (SHPO) have indicated that there is a substantial backlog of applications and that there is, therefore, a moratorium on the acceptance of new applications until October 1, 1986. Typically, processing of applications has taken a year or more. Thus, assuming typical processing time, the hotel could potentially be entered in the Register of Historic Places by late 1987 at the earliest. In any case, personnel at the State Historic Preservation Office have indicated that there are no regulations requiring preservation of views to or from locations which are on the Register of Historic Places. Surroundina property owners are not normally constrained by registration of an adjacent site as a Historic Place. In fact, unless the owner of a Historic Place uses Federal monies or takes advantage'of tax benefits for historic places, there are no constraints on the use of the actual historic site; historic structures may even be demolished, although demolition expenses could not be included as an expense for Federal tax purposes. In fact, the only real effects of historic designation are certain financial benefits which may accrue to the property owner, and the waiver of certain provisions of current building codes. The subject property is not registered by the City as a place of architectural or historical significance as provided under City Council Policy A-15, Places Of Historical and Architectural Significance. To date there have been two sites which have been placed on a historical register file maintained by the City Clerk: The Jolly Roger Restaurant on Balboa Island or. October 15, 1985, and the Balboa Inn on December 20, 1985. City Council Policy A-15 does not address views. Although the City might wish to make special provision for preservation of public views toward visual land- marks in the City, the existing hotel is not a prominent visual landmark of the nature of, say, the Balboa Pavilion or Newport Harbor High School, which are highly visible and could be readily identified by most local residents. Local designation of a site as a landmark would be considered by the State in its review of any application for historic registration although this is only one of several criteria to be considered, in accordance with , the Public Resources Code. Section 5031 of Any one of the other criteria, including first property of its type, association with important historical figures, and outstanding example of an architectural style, could be adequate to justify registration as a Historic Place. Local registration alone, however, is not sufficient criteria for registration. Historical Context Concerns have been raised that construction of the proposed condominium will alter the surrounding area, thus reducing the possibility that the structure at 2500 Seaview Avenue might be registered as a historic place. SHPO personnel have indicated that site integrity is an important consideration. The existing setting is to reflect that of the historically significant period. Of major concern is the extent to which a structure, or group of structures, has been altered. Generally speaking, seventy-five percent of the original exterior of the structure in question should be extant. Another factor to be considered is whether the property has been subdivided and the presence and state of any of the original outbuildings. When property has been subdivided efforts should be made to include the entire complex in the historic place. A property cannot be listed without the consent of the owner, however. //3 TO: City Council - :0. Conditions on surrounding prOPQrty would be of secondary concern. While views may be included in the evaluation of site integrity, State and Federal officials contacted indicated that loss of view should not affect a place's eligibility for Register status. No instances where loss of.view had killed an application could be recalled. Mr. Blake has indicated in his letter -of March _ 31, 1986, which is attached to the April 10, 1986 staff report, that the structure at 2500 Seaview Avenue "is without question the first building in Corona Del Mar [sic]." Thus, all of the surrounding structures would have been built at a later date, altering the surrounding area substantially, Among these later structures is the existing residence on the subject property at 307 Carnation Avenue for which a building permit was issued in 1954. The proposed condominium would not alter the developed, residential nature of the neighbor- hood. Previous Approvals for 3500 Seaview Property Building Department records indicate that in 1950 and in 1954 alterations and additions were permitted to the hotel, including a small garage structure on the site. An apartment building gradually evolved from the original hotel, and City records indicated that the hotel was functioning as a 19 unit apartment building in 1980. On September 4, 1980, the Planning Commission approved (6 Ayes, 1 No), Use Permit No. 1948 and Resubdivision No, 666 which would have permitted the construction of a six unit condominium on the hotel site. On September 22, 1980, a motion was made for City Council review of this approval, which motion failed (3 Ayes, 4 Noes), and the use permit was permitted to stand. Staff was, however, directed to prepare information regarding the abandoned Carnation Avenue right-of-way for further discussion. On April 13, 1991, the California Coastal Commission approved, on the Consent Calendar, Permit No. P-81-7668, which provided for the demolition of a "20 unit apartment structure and related garage," and construction of a six unit condominium. The approval was subject to the condition that one housing unit be rented for no more than that amount permitted for rent subsidy under Section 8 of the Federal Housing Act of 1937, or sold for no more than two and one-half times the median income for the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area which includes Newport Beach. The unit could be provided on site or elsewhere in the City's Coastal Zone. In addition, the developer was required to deposit into a housing fund an amount equal to six percent of the market price of all the units in the development. On March 4, 1982, the Planning Commission approved a two year extension of the resubdivision approval. However, the Zoning Code makes no provision for the extension of use permits,'and because no construction was commenced within two years of the original approval, Use Permit No. 1984 expired on September 26, s h' 1982, Existing Use of 2500 Seaview Avenue Applications filed for Use Permit No. 1948 and Pesubdivision No. 666 in 1980, indicate that the Seaview Hotel was operating as a multi -family residential use at that time. As discussed previously, approvals have lapsed on these applications which would have permitted the construction of a six unit condominium on the Seaview site. A current business license exists for operation of an apartment building at 2500 Seaview Avenue. This license will //V TO- City Council - 11. expire at the end of August, 1986, and was issued in the name of a previous owner. The firm managing the property, Savage, Wilde and Company, indicated that the structure was functioning as a 19 unit apartment building until February 5, 1986, when they were advised that the property had been sold and management thereof transferred to Blake Properties: '-Under Section 5.04.210 of the Newport Beach- Municipal- Code -business licenses -are nontransferrable. No application has been made for a business license in the name of the new owner. Neither was a request made for a Report of Residential Building Records when the property was sold, as required under Chapter 15.35 of the Municipal Code. Hotel Use A hotel is not a permitted use in the R-3 District. In accordance with Section 20.16.020 of the Municipal Code, a motel could be permitted if a use permit were approved. Under Section 20.30.035 of the Municipal Code, a motel would require one parking space per room. Were the number of units to remain the same, 19 parking spaces would be required (1 space per room x 19 rooms = 19 spaces). Under Chapter 20.83 of the Municipal Code, an existing use may continue without obtaining a use permit if such use was originally in lawful existence even though codes have since been changed. Under Section 20.83.050 of the Municipal Code, if a nonconforming use ceases for six months or more, it will be considered abandoned, and current codes will henceforth apply. Although the structure was originally built as a hotel, a hotel use on the site could not be considered legal nonconforming inasmuch as the site has been used as an apartment building for a number of years. This is evidenced in the information presented above as well as the fact that the City has no record that any Uniform Transient Occupancy Tax has been remitted by the owners of the site. In accordance with Chapter 3.16 of the Municipal Code, the tax must be collected for any person paying to occupy the premises for less than thirty days. Signs in front of the structure state that parking is for the use of "residents" only. No reference is made to hotel guests. In addition, local telephone books list several individuals occupying various units at 2500 Seaview Avenue, and at least one resident has listed the site as a residence address in applying for a business license. City Council Policy P-1 In order to remove or alter the existing apartment use at 2500 Seaview Avenue, a Coastal Residential Demolition or Conversion Permit must be obtained. Under City Council Policy P-1 this would be required for any charge in use resulting in a reduction of more than two units from the number of units currently on a site. :•'• If the existing apartments were replaced with a new residential or non -coastal dependent use, replacement units would be required for any dwelling units currently occupied by low- or moderate -income tenants. Under Council Policy P-1, there are no exceptions to this rule when three or more units in one structure or more than ten units in more than one structure are removed. Thus, a potential redeveloper of the site could be required to provide up to 19 replacement units, depending on the characteristics of the existing tenants. TO: City Council - 12. in accordance with Section 65590 of the California State Government Code, if a visitor serving facility is developed, then replacement housing is required only if feasible. Overnight visitor accommodations, such as hotels and motels, are visitor serving uses. Thus, it would be possible to eliminate the apart- ment use for a motel use without providing replacement units. Environmental Significance After an Initial Study, it has been determined that this project, as condition- ed, will not have any significant environmental impact. It is staff's opinion, based on an evaluation of the existing area and consultation with SHPO person- nel, that the proposed condominium will not have any significant effect on the historical resource represented by the property at 3500 Seaview Avenue. A Negative Declaration has been prepared and is contained in the attachments to the April 10, 1986 Planning Commission staff report. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICXER, Director by ", /. h.Prr« SANDRA L. GENIS W R L Associate Planner SLG/kk CC16 Attachments for City Council Only: Excerpt of the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of 4/10/86 Planning Commission Staff Report dated 4/10/86 Planning Commission Staff Report Addendum dated 4/10/86 Plot Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations 116 Planning Commission :reetinc April 10, 1986 ' Agenda Item No. 6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T0: Planning Commission ' FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Use Permit No. 3194 (public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a four unit residential condominium project and related garages on property located in the R-3 district. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow two proposed, second floor pot shelves and a wing wall to encroach 2 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback, and the acceptance of an environ- mental document. AND B. Resubdivision No. 824 (public Hearing) Request to resubdivide an existing lot into a single ' parcel of land for residential condominium purposes on property located in the R-3 District. AND C. Residential Coastal Development Permit No 11 •' (Discussion) Request to consider a Residential Coastal Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compli- ance for a four unit residential condominium develop- •' ment pursuant to the Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of the State Law relative to low and moderate income housing within the Coastal Zone. LOCATION: A portion of Block D, Corona del Mar Tract, located at 307 Carnation Avenue, on the northwesterly side of Carnation Avenue between Seaview .Avenue and Bayside Drive, in Corona del Mar. n •..,;r,'' ZONE: R-3 APPLICANT: Somers and Associates, Corona del Mar OWNERS: R. Curtis and Jean E. Crooke, Corona del Mar ENGINEER: Lanco Civil'Engineers, Newport Beach TO: Planning Commission -2. Application These applications involve requests for the approval of: ,_-- 1. A use permit --to allow -the construction of a four unit condominium and related garages on property located in the R-3 District; 2. The resubdivision of an existing lot into a single parcel of land for residential condominium purposes; 3. A modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow two second floor pot shelves and a wing wall to encroach 2 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback; and 4. A Coastal Residential Development Permit. In accordance with Section 20.73.015 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, condominium projects may be permitted in any residential dis- trict, subject to the approval of a use permit in each case. Use permit procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.80 of the Municipal Code. Section 19.10.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that a parcel map (resubdivision) shall be required for all subdivisions creating four or fewer residential condominium units. Resubdivision procedures are outlined in Section 19.12.040 of the Municipal Code. Modification procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.81 of the Munici- pal Code, and Coastal Residential Development Permit procedures are outlined in City Council Policy P-1. Environmental Significance After an Initial Study, it has been determined that this project will not have any significant environmental impact,- A Negative Declaration has been prepared, and is attached for Commission review. Conformance with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the adopted Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan designate the site for "Multiple Family -Resi- dential" uses. The proposed development falls within the uses permit- ted. ,•'`' subject Property and Surroundin Land Use The subject property is occupied by a single family residence. Property to the north is currently vacant; to the east, across aban- doned Carnation Avenue is the old Seaview Hotel; to the south, is a single family residence; and to the west, across Bayside Place, (a private street), are additional residences. ��P Planning Commission -3. Analvsis The applicant proposes to remove the existing single family dwelling and develop a four unit residential condominium project on the subject property. Major project characteristics are summarized as follows: Lot Size: 12,803 sq.ft. including abandoned Carnation Avenue right of way 11,553 sq.ft. excluding abandoned Carnation Avenue right of way Number of Units: Permitted by zoning: 10 Units (12,603 sq.ft. r 1,200 sq.ft./Unit in Proposed: 4 Units the R-3 District) Setbacks REQUIRED PROPOSED Front 10 ft. 8 ft. (from Carnation Avenue right of way) Rear 10 ft. 83± ft. Sides 4 ft. 4 ft. Buildable Area: 8,855 sq.ft. Gross Structural Area Permitted: 13,283 sq.ft. excluding garages (1.5 x buildable area) Proposed: 7,603 sq.ft. excluding garages ( .86 x buildable area) 9,199 sq.ft. including garages (1.04 x buildable area) Open Space Required: 7,056 cu.ft. Proposed: 143,OOOi cu.ft. Building Height Front Half of Lot Permitted: 24 foot average, 29 foot maximum Proposed: 24 foot average, 29 foot maximum (1) Rear Half of Lo't Permitted: 28 foot average, 33 foot maximum Proposed: 5.5 foot average, 5.5 foot maximum (measured from Parking grade to roof overhang) Required: 6 spaces (1.5 per unit), including 4 covered Proposed: 8 spaces (2 per unit), all within garages (1) As shown on the attached plans, the slope of the lot changes at the rear 3.75 feet of the proposed structure, resulting in the creation of another plane for purposes of calculating height. If the roof continued flat, as shown on the attached plans, that portion of the roof would exceed the City's height limit. However, the applicant has indicated that the height of that portion of the roof will be reduced in order to meet City standards. In addition, the metal //9 35' 1' 'A To: Planning Commission -4. chimney caps illustrated in the attached elevations exceed the permitted height limit. Although chimneys are permitted to exceed the City's height limits in order to meet requirements of the Uniform Building Code, the chimney caps are architectural features which are not_ a functional part of the chimney.- •Therefore, the chimney caps will not be included on final plans. The proposed development meets all applicable development standards for the R-3 District except for the proposed encroachment into the front yard setback which is discussed below. Front Yard Setback The applicant has requested a modification to the Zoning Code in order to permit two second floor pot shelves and a wing wall to encroach 2 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback adjacent to Carnation Avenue. These encroachments are minor architectural fea- tures, and it staff's opinion that they would not have detrimental effects of the surrounding neighborhood. Buildable Acreage The Newport Beach General Plan excludes areas with a slope greater than two to one from the calculation of "buildable acreage." Density ranges are then established as follows: low density ---------- 0 to 4 dwelling units per buildable acre two family ---------- no density range medium density ---------- 4 to 10 dwelling units per buildable acre multi -family ---------- 10 to 15 dwelling units per buildable acre In the approval of major P-C Development Plans and subdivisions in the newer areas of the City, these density classifications have been used to determine,the permitted number of residential units. This density classification system does not lend itself well to applications in the older areas of .the'City. The City's traditional Zoning classification allows the following approximate densities: R-1-------- 9 dwelling units per buildable acre R-1.5-------- 18 to 44 dwelling units per buildable acre R-2 -------- 18 to 44 dwelling units per buildable acre R-3-------- 27 to 36 dwelling units per buildable acre R-4-------- 36 to 54 dwelling units per buildable acre As can be seen above, these Zoning Code densities do not correspond to the General Plan density classification system. In addition, the definition of "buildable area" contained in Section 20.87.050 of the Municipal Code does not exclude slope areas. The "buildable acreage" criterion deleting slope areas greater than 2:1 has not been applied by the City in cases where property is already subdivided and zoned using the R-1 through R-4 system. Specific examples include approvals of Use Permits No. 2059, 2089, and 3033 for residential condominium development of 311 Carnation Avenue which is immediately north of the project site. TO: Planning Commission -5. Since the property in questions is zoned R-3 and subdivided parcel which would allow 10 units, staff the application of the buildable acreage criteria. Location of'8tructures on Bluffs is an existing does not suggest Regulations and policies governing the location of structures on bluffs are found in a number of locations: MUNICIPAL CODE: Section 20.15.080 was added to the Municipal Code by Ordinance No. 1798, adopted by the City Council on March 26, 1979. This was one of the City's earliest attempts at bluff -top development and applies only to the three Planned Community areas designated as Westbay, Castaways and Newporter North, and the Downcoast Sphere of Influence. The term "bluff" as used in this section is any landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50% or greater) with a rise of twenty-five feet or greater. GENERAL PLAN: During the General Plan hearings conducted in 1979 and 1980, policies were added to the Land Use Element regarding "Location of Structures." The Policy reads: In the discretionary review of projects, no structures shall be built in the following sensitive areas, as de- termined by the Planning Commission or City Council: 1. Environmentally -sensitive habitat areas 2. Coastal bluffs 3. Bluff -top setback areas 4. Riparian areas 5: Geologic hazard areas 6. Residential development areas impacted by noise levels of 65 CNEL or greater 7. Flood plain areas S. Natural slope areas greater than two to one (2:1) and greater than twenty-five feet high." LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM: The Development Policies and Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program similarly addresses development in the eight sensitive areas listed ,above. However, it makes a distinction between a limited number of regulations (la. through ld., Pages 24 and 25) which apply to all building sites and 2a. through 2f., Pages 25 through 27, which apply to new tracts and subdivisions (see attached pages from the LCP). In conjunction with their consideration of the proposed development at 311 Carnation Avenue, it was the opinion of the Planning Commission and the City Council that the northerly facing slope facing Sayside Drive was not 'a part of any particular coastal bluff system. The southwesterly facing slope could be considered part of a coastal bluff system. However, staff does not consider this site in its present state to be a natural slope formation. Although a portion of this site contains areas which exceed a 2:1 slope and appear to be in a natural state, the parcel has been subject to substantial man-made 31 TO: Planning Commission -6. alterations, including the construction of Sayside Drive and Sayside Place, the installation of drainage and sewer improvements, the extension of Carnation Avenue, and the construction of the existing single-family' dwelling and garage on the -site. In any case, no _ development 'is proposed on that portion of the site where. slopes exceed two to one. Carnation Avenue The abandoned Carnation Avenue right of way provides access to the subject property and to other lots northerly of the site. It is recommended that Carnation Avenue be maintained at private street standards and that curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and paveout be constructed at the easterly edge of the site. Coastal Residential Development Permit Inasmuch as the proposed development is located within the Coastal Zone and contains more than two dwelling units, the applicant must comply with Council Policy P-1 which requires the inclusion of low or moderate income housing in the Coastal Zone, where feasible. As indicated in the attached feasibility analysis performed by Tarantello and Company, it would not be feasible to develop a low or moderate income housing unit either on -site or off -site in conjunction with the development of the proposed project. Staff therefore recommends that no affordable units be required. Driveway Grade The City Traffic Engineer has expressed a concern that the driveway grade be designed to provide an adequate upslope to prevent street drainage from entering the garage while allowing for a transition area and shallow enough slope to prevent cars from scraping bottom as they go down into the garage. The project architect has met with the Traffic Engineer, and has indicated that final plans will be designed to meet his concern. Views A letter has been submitted by Robert Blake, the owner of the Seaview Hotel, expressing his concern as to how the proposed condominium may affect the view from his property. The City's Local Coastal Program does contain policies regarding preservation of coastal views. However, these policies are directed toward the preservation of public views from locations such as public streets. The hotel owner has indicated that he is particularly concerned due to the historic character of the hotel, located at 2500 Seaview Drive. As indicated in the materials submitted by Mr. Blake, the hotel was built in 1905 and was originally called the Corona del Mar Hotel. Additional historical information is included in the attached letter. The hotel is not currently registered as an historical place, although Mr. Blake has indicated that it is his intention to make application to the State for landmark status. The State Historical Preservation Office has indicated that inclusion of a structure in the Register of 31 z TO: Planning Commission -7, Historic Places confers no obligation on surrounding property owners to maintain views from or of an historic place. while the City might wish to make special provision for preservation of public views toward - v1sual landmarks in the City, the existing hotel is not a -prominent visual landmark of the nature of, say, the Balboa Pavilion or Newport - Harbor High School, which are highly visible and could be readily identified by most local residents. In any case, City Council Policy A-15, Places of Historical and Architectural Significance, does not address views. Building Department records indicate that in 1950 and in 1954 al- terations and additions were permitted to the hotel, including a small garage structure on the site. An apartment building gradually evolved from the original hotel, and City records indicated that the hotel was functioning as a 19 unit apartment building in 1980. On September 4, 1980, the Planning Commission approved (6 Ayes, 1 No), Use Permit No. 1948 and Resubdivision No. 666 which would have permit- ted the construction of a 6 unit condominium on the hotel site. On September 22, 1980, a motion was made for City Council review of this approval, which motion failed (3 Ayes, 4 Noes), and the use permit was permitted to stand. Staff was, however, directed to prepare informa- tion regarding the abandoned Carnation Avenue right of way for further discussion. On April 13, 1981, the California Coastal Commission approved, on the Consent Calendar,'Permit No. P-81-7668, which provided for the demoli- tion of a "20 unit apartment structure and related garage," and construction of a 6 unit condominium. The approval was subject to the condition that one housing unit be rented for no more than that amount permitted for rent subsidy under Section 8 of the Federal Housing Act of 1937 or sold for no more than 25 times the median income for the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area which includes Newport Beach. The unit could be provided on -site or elsewhere in the City's Coastal Zone. In addition, the developer was required to deposit into a housing fund an amount equal to 6 percent of -the market price of all the units in the development. On March 4, 1982, the Planning Commission approved a 2 year extension of the resubdivision approval. However, the Zoning Code makes no provision for the extension of use permits, and because no con-, struction was commenced within 2 years of the original approval, Use Permit No. 1984 expired on September 26, 1982. Should a new application for condominiums at 2500 Seaview Drive be made, compliance with existing City policy, including City Council Policy P-1, would be required. Council Policy P-1 regulates residen- tial demolition and construction; it includes guidelines for the provision and preservation of low and moderate income housing, The hotel owner has, however, indicated that he wishes to preserve the existing structure at 2500 Seaview Drive for hotel use.' 37 AX3 TO: Planning Commission -8. Specific Findings and Recommendations Section 20.80.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any use permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use ci building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. In addition, Section 20.73.025 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code also provides that the Planning Commission shall make specific find- ings in order to approve a use permit for a condominium projects and Section 19.12.020 (D) provides that the Commission shall make specific findings in order to approve a resubdivision. Staff recommends the approval of this request and suggests that the Planning Commission take such action, tsubject to the findings and conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICCER, Director r By nig - Sandra L. Genis Associate Planner SLG:la UP35 Attachments: Exhibit "A" Vicinity Map Negative Declaration Excerpt of the Local Coastal Program Development Policies Affordable Housing Feasibility Analysis Letter from Robert Blake, dated March 31, 1986 Plot Plan, Floor Plans, and Elevations Tentative Parcel Map do /'Xy TO: Planning Commission -9. EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR USE PERMIT NO. 3194, RESUBDIVISION N0. 824• AND COASTAL RESIDENTIAL; DEVELOPMENT PERMITNo. 11 Use Permit No. 3194 FINDINGSt 1. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condominium with separate and individual Utility connections. 2. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. 3. That an adequate number of on -site parking spaces will be provided for the residential condominium development. 4. The project will comply with all applicable standards, plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the Proposed project is located at the time of ap- proval except for minor encroachments into the required 10 foot front yard setback for two pot shelves and a wing wall. 5. That the proposed modification to permit two pot shelves and a wing wall to encroach 2 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improve- ments in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modifica- tion is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 6. That a Negative Declaration has been prepared and that the proposed project, as conditioned, will not have any significant environmental impact. { 1.25 TO: Planning Commission -10. 5. The approval of Use Permit No. 3194 will not, under the circumstances of this case be detri- mental to the health, -safety,- peace,' morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing '—and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS: I. That development shall be in substantial confor- mance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. That all construction shall meet the requirements of Chapter 20.02 of the Municipal Code, which regulates height. 3. That the driveway entrance shall be designed to provide a slope acceptable to the Newport Beach Traffic Engineer. 4. Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Department. 5. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 6. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building- Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 7. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the Project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. S. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engi- neering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Depart- ment. 1,-2 6 TO: Planning Commission -11. 9. That erosion control measures shall.be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 10. On -site drainage facilities shall 'be installed as required by the Building and/or Public works Departments. il. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivitidh No. 824 shall be fulfilled. 12. That two garage spaces (including space) shall be one tandem all times, provided for each dwelling unit at 13. That this use permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as Specified in Section 20.80.090 A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Resubdivision No. 824 FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific Plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no Problems from a planning standpoint. 3• That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will n'ot conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivi- sion. CONDITIONS: 1. That a parcel map shall be recorded. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public works Department. 3• That arrangements be made with the public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public desired to record a parcel improvements, if it is map or obtain a build- ing permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 1..27 TO: Planning Commission -12. 4. That each dwelling unit be served with an indi- vidual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless - - otherwise approved by the Public Works Department._ 5• That curb, gutter, pavement and a 5 foot sidewalk be constructed along the abandoned Carnation Avenue frontage, and that the curb grades be approved by the Public Works Department. Roadway width shall be 15 feet from center line to top of curb. 6. That this resubdivision shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Commission. Coastal Residential Develo ment Permit No. 11 FINDINGS. 1• That a feasibility analysis has been performed which has indicated that it is not feasible to Provide affordable housing on or off -site in conjunction with the proposed development. 2. That the proposed development has met the require- ments of City Council Policy P_l. CONDITION: 1• That all conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 3194 and Resubdivision No Y $24 be met. le-29 4y V ION 1 TI�-j MA P Y ✓crry N? i ? 114 Y w.a xn midi . tll DISTRI'CTI-NG MAP AMNCYW WPORT BEACH — CALIFORNIA [µ M[I°LNTIA� LMGIE RAYILT L[[1Y[NiIAI C-I MUI'TIRLL IFlI°[NTIAI YYRttI MlpppAE C- UOIIT CONN[I°4t E!lrp, NUITIRL( IAMIT Ifllp[N1YE Y-1 MEN[[Al C°YY[YEJAI IEWYYN[ NITINGT! I--r ANUFA°TUpMp � O�OFh In FuM1 Shown TM � y��„ VNfAAf[IRIEO a� NY YEc, y. USE PERMIT No.30y RE506. No.Bay C.R.b.P. is 15� C1EW PO�,� . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH u \-_ P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658.8915 C�CICO,'i N\ 1���'Ijj� . VE ��iE DE.CL RATI.ON _ r TO: Office of Planning and Research Q 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 D County Clerk of the County of Orange P.O. Box 838 Santa Ana, CA 92702 FROM: Planning Denartment City of Newport Beach P.O, Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 NAME OF PROJECT: Use Permit No. 3194 1 PROJECT LOCATION: 307 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, Ca 92625 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of a four unit condominium with related aaraae space. FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: See attached initial study INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: The City of Newport Beach INITIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: DATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA Environmental Coordinator DATE: -April 1, 1986 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach / d 41 APPENDIX H Late Filed Environmental Information Form TTo be ecmpleted by,applicant) GENERAL EMORMATION 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: SOMERS AND ASSOCIATES, 1111 Bayside Drive Suite 280 Corona del %tar. 21 o2625 2. Address of project: 307 Carnation Avenue. Corona del Ma C? 01625 Assessor's Block and Lot oer �+kjs2_0::_,8 3. ?tame, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning Chia project: Ian F. Somers 1111 Bays ide Drive. Suite 280 rnr - a t N rA o���a f�i�l 4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to ( which this form pertains: Lice eernit seal±cation rb97o4 7. "st ana describe an c—Cep related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: 6. Existing zoning district: _R_a 7. Proposed use of site (Project for.which• this. form is filed): Four (4) unit residential condominium and related gara,es. PROJECT DESCRIPTION _ 8. Slte size. 9. Sgaare footage. 10- Number of floors of construction. 11. Amount of off-street parking provided. 12. Attach plane. 13. Proposed scheduling. 14. Associated projecta. 15. Anticipated incremental development. 13/ q; FIR 16. If residential, include the num'ber•of units,,achedule of yunit� sizes, range -of sale prices'or rents, and type of household size exp ected. 17• If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. 18. If industrial', indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. 19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and ccasunity benefits to be derived from the project. 20. If the;project involves a variance, conditional uae or rezoning application state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all Storms checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES No 21. In x' .beachess,,2aekes orih lls,ofeatures substantial alteration of ground contours. X 22• Change in scenic viers or vistas from existing residential areas or public lauds or roads. _ x 23. Change in pattern; scale or character of general area of -project. X 24. Significant astounts Of aolld waste or litter. _ x 25. Change 1n dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. X 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of 'existing drainage patterns. _ X 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibVation levels in the vicinity. X 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. suchx 29. Use of i an toxicsubstances, flsosal Of ammables oraexplosives,ials, 19, L9 YF; NO - x 30. Substantial change.in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). X 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, -natural gas, etc.). Y 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 33. Describe the project site as if exists before the project, Including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures. on the site, and the use of the'structurea. Attach photographs -of the site. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. 34. Describe the .surrounding properties, Including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, ets.), intensity of land use (one -family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set -back, rear yard, etc..). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photaa will be accepted, CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and iF-the attached exhibits presc:,t the data and infor- .•K•ct:ymation required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are,true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date March 20, 1986 �rl/11/i7vv�l{/f�— Ian F. merrus e For SOMERS AND ASSOCIATES 0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 8. Site size. 12,803 sq. ft. .9. Square footage. Approximately 7,200 sq. ft.-of floor area. 10. Number of floors of construction: About 55% of the building will be 2 floors, and about 45% of the building will be 3 floors. 11. Amount of off-street parking provided. None. 12. Attach plans. Plans have been submitted to City of Newport Beach Planning Department. 13. Proposed scheduling. None. 14. Associated projects. None. 15. Anticipated incremental development. None. 16. 4 total units 2 units - 1,768 sq. ft. Projected Sales Price $400,000 2 units - 1,825 sq. ft. Projected Sales Price $400,000 Type of household size: 2 singles or young family of 3-4. 20. None. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 33. The project site consists of an existing single family residence on a 12,803 sq. ft. R-3 lot. From the site, there is an ocean view to the west and a view of Newport Bay to the northwest. Please see the topographic survey provided for a description of the topography of the site, and for the relative location of the existing structure on the site. 13y 4° 1 34. The area surrounding the site is exclusively residential and consists of a combination of multi -family and single family residences. There are a number of two, three, and four-plex buildings as well as a small apartment building in the immediate area. This area has been zoned R-2 and R-3 by the 'City 'of Newport Beach -and 'typical development along Carnation Avenue is one and two story wood frame construction. 113S APPENDIX I FNVIRONMENTAL =CrLTST FORM Environmental Checklist Fora (To Be Coiplated By Lead Agency) "_ . I. Background n �y i. Name of Proponent 4iLrn,LAuc9J 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 3. Date of Checklist Submission 4. Agency Requiring Checklist S.. Seams of Proposal, if applicable . Uop '-t'h/n, oL�5 / 9,4/ II. Environmental Impacts• (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached S.husta.) . I I YES MAY3Z NO 1. Earth. Will the, proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, com- paction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? 73 YES MAYBE Fq g• Expu::ure of people or property to .geological hazards such as earth- quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal -result in; - - a. Substantial air emissions or aeteri- oration of ambient air quality? ; % b. The creation of objectionable odors? V c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? LI ]. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of 'water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? v� b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of / surface 'runoff-? ✓ c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood voters? d. Change in the amount of surface water ; in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters or in any, alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, d-issolved oxygen or turbidity? - I. Alteration of the direction or -rate of flow of ground waters? V i g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of'an aquifer by cuts or excavations? � h. Substantial reduction in the amount of -water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?74 / 53 /37 0 • YES 4. —PI-Ant Hill theproposal result in: - a._ Change jn.the diversity of species or number of any'species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species Of plants? c• Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or is a barrier to the normal replenish.... of existing species? d• Reduction in acreage of say agricultural crop? S. Animal Will the ro P posal result in: a• Change in the diversityof specie., or numbers of any species of aninala (birds, land animals including reptile,, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, or insects')? b. Reduction of We numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c• Introduction of new species of ani- mals into an area, or ,result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fishorwildlife habitat? 6. Noine, will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels, b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ?' L�pht- a— n— d_ Clare. Still the proposal produce new light or Slare? B. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a subatantial alteration of the present or Planned land use of an aces;' RAYnE M 139 �5 '5T 0 /39 YFS 9. Natural Resources. will MAYRF !C' resole in: the proposal s• Increase- in- the rate of use of any natural resources? b• Substantial depletion of any non_ renewable natural resource? 10. Risk of U. setDoes -----� the -- _ proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the hazardrelease of ous substances (including, limitbut not ed to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset eoaditions? / 11. Poou�on� Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of as area? / 1=' you—n$• Will the i— proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? / 13. Transportation/Circulation, Will ✓ the proposal result ln; a. Ceneration of substantial additional vehicular movement? / b• Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for _s✓ new parking? c• Substantial impact upon existing transportation systeos? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail air traffic? or f. Increase in traffic hazardous to Motor vehicles, bicyclists Pedestrians? or 14. Public Services Gill the ' ro •.ffoe� t���� F posal have an p result in altered s need for new or Rovernmental services in any folio -din; areas; of the 76 s. PPE-2A:24. a i YES MAYBE NO a. Fire protection? b. •Police protection? i c: Schools? / —•L d. Parks or other recreational facilities? a• Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other Zowarnmental services?' 13. Energy • Will the proposal result in: JL a• Use of substantial emoumts of fuel or energy? / be Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of saergy, or zequire the developoeat of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the'proposal result in a need for hsw systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? ✓• c. Water? j d. Swar or septic tanks? ✓✓ 4 ao storm wear drainage? •• f. Solid waste and disposal? LZ 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hasard or Potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? be Exposure of people to potential health hazards? / ' v la. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in -the obstruction —` of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically Offensive site open. to public view? v' 77 % YES MAYBE 2;) 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity Of existing recreational opportunities? _- 20. Are- eological/Historical.- -Will thf,- proposal result in as alteration of a significant archeological Cr historical site, Structure, object or building? Y 21. Mandatory Findinga of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of ,the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, Cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, thresteri to eliminate a plant or nity, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal er eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project'hays the potential to " achieve short-term, to the disadvantage Of long-term, environmental goals? (A ' short-term impact on the environ'nent is one which occurs in a relatively brief definitive period of time while long- term impacts will -endure wall into the future.) C. Does the project.hsve impacts which are individually limited, but cumu- latively considerable? (A,projeet may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively siall, but where the effect of ehe total of those impacts on the environment is % significant.) ✓ d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, / either directly or indirectly? III. Discussion of Znvironeental Evaluation IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 78 On the basis of this initial evaluation: Q I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect / on the environment, and a NECATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.-- Q I find that although the proposed project could .}Ave Ja significant effect 'on the environment, there will not be a significant- effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have beam added to the project. A 'NECATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant -effect on the environment. and an IRVU MMAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Data signature for r 1� (Note: This is only a suggested form. Public agencies are free to devise their own format for initial studies.) ho- 79 qj 5 Implementation the the and heanges ie tProposal say result in unstable earth conditions _ topography and -ground "surface relief features due to the grading required for completion of the project. The effects shall be insignificant upon compliance with the mitigation measures incorporated into the project. The proposed project will add to the erosion presently occurring on the site. The slope at the rear of the site shows signs of erosion resulting from on -site drainage. As there are no drainage facilities provided, the proposed project may increase erosion, change the absorption rates, drainage patterns, and rate and amount of sur=ac runoff due to the grading necessary for the proposale . Upon applica tion of mitigation measures, the effects shall be insignificant. Implementation of the project may result in an increase in existing noise levels during the noise level due to machicourse of construction. Such increase in the course shall be short-term effects that will be alleviated upon completion of construction, and are, therefore, insignificant. The proposed project results ,in a demand for new parking due to the increase in dwelling units on=site. The project will include on -site parking facilities and the effects are, therefore, insignificant. PLT3 5Y 1i MITIGATION MEASURES I. Development of site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Department. 2. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 5. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 6. Thkt grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a Civil Engineer and based on recommendations of a soil engineer and an engi- neering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Depart- ment. 8. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the dradinq Engineer. 9• On -site drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Building and/or Public Works Departments. PLT3 flushing. Since restoration projects necessarily involve many uncertainties, restoration should precede the diking or filling project. At a minimum, the permit will be conditioned to assure that restoration will occur simil.tanecusly_.With project construction. _ Restoration and gerrent plans shall be submitted with the permit application. _ 7. In a54tion, any project which includes diking, filling or dredging of a wetlan r estuary mast maintain the functional capacity of the wetland or estuary, ctional capacity means the ability of the wetland or estuary to be self- ininq and to main+a;•, natural species diversity. In order to establish t the functicoa] capacity is being maintained, t"e applicant msst trate all of tha following: a. That the proj does not alter presently occurring plant and animal PCV`2 i in the ecosystem in a manner that would impair the long-term ility of the ecosystem, i.e., natural species diversity, and ��osition are essentially unchanged as a result of project. b. That the project does cot r destroy a species or habitat that is rare or endangered. c. That the project does not harm a ies or habitat that is essential to the natural biological oning of the wetland or estuary, f f d. That the project does ' not significantly r consurptive (e.g., fishing, aquaculture and hunting) or consultive -(e.g., water quality and research opportunity) valu of the wetland or estuarine ecosystem. 8. If new or expanded boating facilities are to be provided in Newpo =ch, they shall be developed in natural harbors, protected water areas, w in areas dredged from dry land. Entrance channels for new or expanded boating facilities may be \ Petted an wetlands, subject -to all other requirements for development in wetlands discussed in B1, B3, B4, B5, and B6 above. C. Develcrsment of Coastal Bluff sites The City of Newport Beach finds that the natural bluffs represent a significant scenic and envir=rental resource. In order to preserve these unique landforms, developments 'proposed for bluff areas shall be subject to the following regulations; 1. The following regulations apply to all building sites: a. Definition of Bluff. As used in this section, "bluf-I's-a-R-Y-MMorm having an average slope of 26.6 degrees•(50%) or greater, with a vertical rise -of 25 feet or greater. 24 /Ys Where there is some question as to the applicability of this section to a specific landform, a determination as to whether or not the --- - specific landforn constitutes a bluff shall be made by the Planning COMnission, consistent with the purposes of this regualtion. b. Gradip�. Permitted develcpmnt shall be designed to muumize the alteration of natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. In areas of geologic hazard, the City Tay require that a development permit not be issued until an applicant has signed a waiver of all claim against the public for future liability or damage resulting from permission to build. All such waivers should be recorded with the county Recorder's Office. c. Geologic R`rt. To promote public safety, a geologic study shall be performed for each site to determine areas of potential instability. The bluff areas of potential hazard or instability shall be indicated on maps as Part of any Planned Community development plan. d. Hei t ofi structures. The (height of structures shall as described in the Ncaport Beach Municipal Code. 2. The following regulations apply to all new tracts and subdivisions. If development is residential in nature, this Policy will apply to new development of 4 or more units. I. a. Setback Requirement. A bluff setback adequate to provide safe public access, taking into account ( bluff retreat and erosion, shall be provided in t all -new development. As a'general guideline, the Property lane setback from the edge of a bluff should be no closer to the edge of the bluff than the Point at which the top of the bluff is intersected by a line drawn from the solid toe of the bluff at an angle of 26.6 degrees to the horizontal. A greater setback distance shall be required where warranted by geological or groundwater conditions, but in no' case shall a Property line be closer than 40 feet to the edge r ''• '� of a bluff. in addition, no part of a proposed development shall be closer than 20 feet to the bluffside Property line. This required building setback may be increased or decreased by the Planning CMTn'ss" in the review of a proposed site plan consistent with the purposes of this section. -��% 25 ��1 b. Public_ vices. The location and design of a Proposed project shall take into account public view potential. -- C. Public Access and Dedication Requirements. -The - location am design of a proposed project shall maximize public access to the coastal bluff, areas as follows: I. Public access to coastal bluff areas shall be assured through design of the local street sYstem and through the location of public trails and walkways adjacent to the bluffs. The City may require the dedication of These hm$ ' or the granting of easements. Y improved or not improved at the option of the City Council. 2. Areas adjacent to coastal bluffs having significant view potential shall be designated for use as view parks or vista points consistent with parkland dedication requir meets. 3. Land required to be dedicated for neighborhood parks, but which is intended to remain in an unimproved, natural state, should be located adjacent to the bluffs: any portion of that land required to be dedicated for neighborhood Parks which is intended to provide active recreational, facilities,may be located in the interior portions of the proposed developmnt. 4. Bluff face areas need not be accepted by ti-e City for any type of dedication. d. Subdivision Design. In preparing a development Plan, natural bluff areas shall not be included in development areas as designated on the site plan. The design of any subdivision shall not include any bluff face or bluff edge as part of any residential lot or•building site. e• ljnd- rare Plans and Plan Material. For the purpose of regulating gro=Iwater conditions, landscape plans for those areas immediately adjacent to the bluffs shall incorporate native vegetation or other drought -resistant plant material. f.si9. Grading, cutting, and filling of natural bluf aces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to Preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency /5`7 26 re�;rs, or for the installation of erosion -preventive devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs. Any- plan involving grading of the bluff -face -or- bluff area shall be approved by the Planning Commission, including such measures designed to control urban runoff, erosion, and groundwater conditions. D. Archaeological, Paleontological, and Historical Resources Archaeological, paleontological,• and historical resources within the Coastal Zone shall be investigated in accordance with acceptable scientific procedures, and appropriate mitigation measures (including testing, salvage, or preservation) shall be adopted on a case -by -case basis in accordance with regular City policy. • r to any develeptezto archaeological, paleontological, and hi is resources shall be mapped and evaluated by a qualified profes 'onal. A City Council approved list of such personnel ( shall established, following • adequately noticed public ( hearings. E. Coastal Views ` Where coastal pi from existing roadways exist, any development on privy =party within the sight lines from the roadway shall be sited designed to maximize protection of the coastal view. This licy is not intended to prohibit development an any site. [_ coastal view areas: a. Crean Boulevard, Corona del b. Eastbluff remnant c. Coast Highway near Jamboree d. Pacific Coast Highway Bridge g ramp e. castaways from the bluff setback f. Constellation near Santiago g. Irvine between Santiago and University Dn e i h. Galaxy Park i. Ensign View Park' j; Psonntcry Point East k. N Street S 1. loth Street beach ` m. 19th Street beach 27 Ij� /5Q • I . 1 • � I ' I � .. li i r r I t r'Ir� � 1 r r I 1 r , 1 • r 1 E•XHIBI C . LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN ADOPTED AND RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 10, 1985 ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 11, 1985 TEXT INCORPORATES AMENDMENTS THROUGH OCTOBER 24, 1983 and GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 85-1(A) (Adopted February 11, 1985) S/ "(ii) The various land uses authorized by the ordinance are compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified.in such a plan. "(b) Any resident or property owner within a city or a county, as the case may be, may bring an action in the superior court to enforce compliance with the provisions of subdivision (a). Any such action or proceedings shall be governed by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1084) of Title 1 of Part 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure. Any action or proceedings taken pursuant to the provisions of this subsection must be taken within 90 days of the enactment of any new zoning ordinance or the amendment of any existing zoning ordinance as to said amendment or amendments. "(c) In the event that a zoning ordinance becomes inconsistent with a general plan by reason of amendment to such a plan, or to any element of such a plan, such zoning ordinance shall be amended within a reasonable time so that it is consistent with the general plan as amended." As indicated in Subsection (a) of the passage above, zoning and General Plan consistency is defined in terms of the compatibility of zoning with the objectives and uses specified in the General Plan. This concept of "com- patibility" allows for greater flexibility for interpretation than the term "consistency" in its strictest sense. Consequently, in certain cases zoning may be determined to be consistent with the General Plan on the basis of compatibility with its long-range objectives. It shall be the policy of the City of Newport Beach to seek the highest degree of consistency between the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan, while recognizing that absolute confor- mity at any one point in time may not be feasible or desirable. MAJOR LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATIONS The Land Use Plan illustrates the proposed use and development of all lands in four major categories: 1) Residential 2) Commercial 3) Industrial 4) Public, Semi -Public, and Institutional These major categories are then broken down into sub-categories,asdescribed below. The uses included should be considered as predominant, proposed It is recognized that in many cases there are existing uses that do not fit the designation. The Land Use Element does not propose that these nonconform- ing uses be phased out, except where specifically discussed. In some cases a mixture of two or more types of land use may be desirable. This is indicated by alternating stripes of the appropriate coding colors. For example, the Cannery Village area is designated for a mixture of General Industry with Recreational and Marine Commercial; other areas are designated for a mixture of Retail and Service Commercial with Administrative, Profes- sional, and Financial Commercial. 2 Certain areas have been designated for further, more -detailed study, leading to the development of Specific Area Plans for physical improvement. These Specific Area Plans may include local street pattern revisions, parking areas, public improvements yh the street. rights -of -way (such as landscaping, light- ing, street furniture, signs) and architectural design standards and criteria for private development. An example of what can be accomplished with archi- tectural design standards and criteria is the Marine Avenue commercial dis- trict on Balboa Island; although this was accomplished by cooperation of the property owners in the area, City participation will be required to effect similar improvements in other areas. Within areas designated for a Specific Area Plan, existing zoning should not be considered inconsistent with the General Plan objectives since the Specific Area Plan will replace the existing zoning, and since the Site Plan Review requirement will, in the interim, help to assure the accomplishment of General Plan objectives. Certain areas have been designated for open space with alternative uses in case the preservation of the area as open space proves infeasible. These areas are bounded by a "dot and dash" line, with the alternate use shown by colored dots. "Location of Structures" - In the discretionary review of projects, no struc- tures shall be sensitive areas, as determined by the Planning Commission or City Council: 1. Environmentally sensitive habitat areas 2. Coastal Bluffs 3. Blufftop setback areas 4. Riparian areas 5. Geologic hazard areas 6. Residential development areas impacted by noise levels of 65 CNEL or greater. 7. Floodplain areas 8. Natural slope areas greater than two to one (2:1) and greater than 25 feet in height. RESIDENTIAL Areas designated residential are to be predominantly used for dwelling units, however, there are certain community service uses (such as schools, churches, civic organization buildings, clubhouses, and recreational facilities) which, with proper location and design, are appropriate uses within areas with a residential designation. Although the Land Use Element does address itself to residential housing types and the harmonious grouping of land uses, it does not specifically discuss development standards at the scale of the individual lot. Clearly definable problems remain unsolved in the older residential sections of the City. These detailed problems will be resolved when new development standards for parking and outdoor living areas, setbacks, etc. are developed in conjunction with the review and revision of the Zoning Ordinance. These new development standards will be based on the adopted General Plan objectives and policies. 153 3 Multiple Family Residential: This sub -category includes residences where three or more dwelling units are cons4tucted on one, lot. Also included are "row houses" where the density exceeds ten dwelling units per buildable acre. Note: "Buildable Acreage" is defined as follows: Buildable acreage includes the entire site, less areas with a slope greater than two to one, and less any acre required to be dedicated to the City for park purposes and any perimeter open space; further, buildable acreage shall not include any area to be used for street purposes. Additionally, at the time the Planning Commission and/or City Council review a Planned Community development plan, tentative map, and/or environmental documentation for a particular project, consideration shall be given to deleting certain sensitive areas from the calculation of the total number of residential units or square footage of commercial development'to be allowed on a•site as follows: Floodplain areas. COMMERCTAL Areas designated commercial are to be predominantly used for the conduct of private business ventures; however, there are certain non -business uses, such as post offices and public parking, which are appropriate in commercially -designated areas. The intensity of commercial development in all areas will be controlled through use of a "floor area ratio' ordinance, which will be developed after more detailed study of each commercial area. Retail and service Commercial: It is intended that business uses in this category be limited to retail sales, personal and professional services, hotels and motels, and commercial recreation, with offices permitted only if they are ancillary to, and on the same lot as, another primary use which provides goods or services directly to the public. In those areas designated as Retail and Service Commercial only, separate corporate office buildings would be prohibited in order to (1) assure continu- ity of shopping and contiguity of mutually -supportive businesses, and (2) limit the potential traffic volumes in those areas (large office buildings are heavy traffic generators; this office traffic may interfere with shopping traffic, adversely affecting the econom- ic viability of commercial areas). In other areas, where appropri- ate, a mixture of Retail and Service Commercial and Administrative, Professional and Financial/Commercial is indicated on the Land Use Plan. /✓ Y 6 DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND LAM USE PLAN CERTIFIID BY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION May 19, 1982 I= COASTAL PROGRAM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 11 NEWPORT BOULEVARD P.O. BOX 1768 NEWPORT BEAM, flushing. Since restoration projects necessarily involve many uncertainties, restoration should precede the diking or filling project. At a minbm, the permit will be conditioned to assure that restoration will occur simultaneously with project construction. Restoration and management plans shall be submitted with the permit application. 7. In addition, any project which includes diking, filling or dredging of a wetland or estuary must maintain the functional capacity of the wetland or estuary. Functional capacity means the ability of the wetland or estuary to be self-sustaining and to maintain natural species diversity. In order to establish that the functional capacity is being maintained, the applicant must demonstrate all of the following: a. That the project does not alter presently occurring plant and animal populations in the ecosystem in a manner that would impair the long-term stability of the ecosystem; i.e., natural species diversity, abundance and composition are essentially unchanged as a result of the project. b. That the project does not harm or destroy a species or habitat that is rare or endangered. c. That the project does not harm a species or habitat that is essential to the natural biological functioning of the wetland or estuary. d. That the project does not significantly reduce consumptive (e.g., fishing, aquaculture and hunting) or nonconsumptive (e.g., water quality and research opportunity) values of the wetland or estuarine ecosystem. 8. If new or expanded boating facilities are to be provided in Newport Beach, they shall be developed in natural harbors, protected water areas, and in areas dredged from dry land. Entrance channels for new or expanded boating facilities may be permitted in wetlands, subject to all other requirements for develop rent in wetlands discussed in B1, B3, B4, B5, and B6 above. C. Development of Coastal Bluff Sites The City of Newport Beach finds that the natural bluffs represent a significant scenic and environrental resource. In order to preserve these unique landforms, developments proposed for bluff areas shall be subject to the following regulations: 1. The following regulations apply to all building sites: a. Definition of Bluff. As used in this section, "bluff" is any landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50%) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater. 157 24 I Where there is some question as to the applicability of this section to a specific landform, a determination as to whether or not the specific landform constitutes a bluff shall be made by the Planning Commission, consistent with the purposes of this regualtion. b. 2La�din.. Permitted development shall be designed to minimize the alteration of natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. In areas of geologic hazard, the City may require that a development permit not be issued until an applicant has signed a waiver of all claim against the public for future liability or damage resulting from permission to build. All such waivers should be recorded with the county Recorder's Office. c. Geologic Report. To promote public safety, a geologic study shall be performed for each site to } determine areas of potential instability. The i1 bluff areas of potential hazard or instability shall be indicated on maps as part of any Planned Community development plan. d. Height of Structures. The height of structures shall be as described in the Newport Beach j Municipal Code. 2. The following regulations apply to all new tracts and subdivisions. If development is residential in nature, this policy will apply to new development of 4 or more units. a. Setback Requirement. A bluff setback adequate to provide safe public access, taking into account bluff retreat and erosion, shall be provided in all new development. As a general guideline, the Property line setback from the edge of a bluff should be no closer to the edge of the bluff than the point at which the top of the bluff is intersected by a line drawn from the solid toe of the bluff at an angle of 26.6 degrees to the horizontal. A greater setback distance shall be required where warranted by geological or groundwater conditions, but in no case shall a 1 property line be closer than 40 feet to the edge of a bluff. In addition, no part of a proposed development shall be closer than 20 feet to the bluffside property line. This required building setback may be increased or decreased by the Planning Commission in the review of a proposed site plan consistent with the purposes of this section. /58 25 b. Public Views. The location and design of a proposed project shall take into account public view potential. C. Public Access and Dedication Requirements. The location and design of a proposed project shall maximize public access to the coastal bluff areas as follows: 1. Public access to coastal bluff areas shall be assured through design of the local street system and through the location of public trails and walkways adjacent to the bluffs. The City may require the dedication of right-of-way, or the granting of easements. These may be inproved or not improved at the option of the City Council. 2. Areas adjacent to coastal bluffs having significant view potential shall be designated - for use as view parks or vista points consistent with parkland dedication requi.renrnts. I. Land required to be dedicated for neighborhood parks, but which is intended to remain in an unimproved, natural state, should be located adjacent to the bluffs; any portion of that land required to be dedicated for neighborhood parks which is intended to provide active recreational facilities may be located in the interior portions of the proposed develoPment. 4. Bluff face areas need not be accepted by the City for any type of dedication. d, Subdivision Design. in preparing a development plan, natural bluff areas shall not be included in development areas as designated on the site plan. The design of any subdivision shall not include any bluff face or bluff edge as part any residential lot or building site. e. Landscape Plans and Plan Material. For the Purpose of regulating groundwater conditions, landscape plans for those areas immediately adjacent to the bluffs shall incorporate native vegetation or other drought -resistant plant material. f, Grading. Grading, cutting, and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff'edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value o of bluff rming faargeas except for the purpose 26 /6� repairs, or for the installation of erosion -preventive devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs. Any plan involving grading of the bluff face or bluff area shall be approved by the Planning CamAssion, including such measures designed to control urban runoff, erosion, and groundwater conditions. D. Archaeological, Paleontological, and Historical Resources Archaeological, paleontological, and historical resources within the Coastal Zone shall be investigated in accordance with acceptable scientific procedures, and appropriate mitigation measures (including testing, salvage, or preservation) shall be adopted on a case -by -case basis in accordance with regular City policy. Prior to any development, archaeological, paleontological, and historic resources shall be mapped and evaluated by a qualified professional. A City Council approved list of such personnel shall be established, following adequately noticed public hearings. E. Coastal Views Where coastal views from existing roadways exist, any development on private property within the sight lines from the roadway shall be sited and designed to maximize protection of the coastal vier. This policy is not intended to prohibit development on any site. Coastal view areas: a. ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar b. Eastbluff remnant c. Coast Highway near Jamboree d. Pacific Coast Highway Bridge launching ramp e. Castaways from the bluff setback f. Constellation near Santiago g. Irvine between Santiago and University Drive h. Galaxy Park i. Ensign View Park j. Prcwntory Point East k. N Street 1. 10th Street beach m. 19th Street beach 160 27 I,pSID USE DESIGNATIWS e ILP end Use Plan illustrates the proposed use and development of all e portion of the City. Land uses are divided properties in the Coastal Zon into three major categories: 1) residential, 2) ca�miercial, 3) public, o public, and institutional, and 4) industrial. These major categories are then broken darn into subcategories as described belaa. The uses included should be considered as principal perntitted uses. It is recognized that in many cases there are existing uses that do not fit the designation. ussbe Phased end �a Use Plan does. not propose that these "non-confornunno rig uses may except where specifically discussed. Otherwise, BeacYi Municipal Code. be continued subject to Chapter 20.83 of the Ne:vpo Y.SIDMrIAL for residences in Areas designated residential are to be used mainly permanently constructed residential buildings; however, there are certain isco�ni.ty service uses such as schools, churches, civic organization buildings, location and design, are appropriate clubhouses, and recreational facilities such as tennis courts, Pools, and cabanas which, with proper uses within areas with a residential designation. Irma -Density Residential. Included in this subcategory are separate residences, as well as att shed s?,mm density o constructed �odWellingindividunitsoper with varying densities up to a buildable acre. Mediun-Density Residential. This subcategory includes residential iperr is (attached or detached) of tmre than four dwelling buildable developmen densi of ten dwelling units per buildable acre, with a maxirmun' acre. two Two -Family Residential. This either attached or separate. subcategory includes residences where dwelling units are constructed is one lot, Multi -Family Residential. This subcategory includes residences where three are This on one lot. Also included are "raw or more dwelling um houses" where the density exceeds 10 dwelling units per buildable acre. fig; "Buildable Acreage" is defined as follows r th ld2:1, acreage less includes the entire site, less areas with a slope f9 or park pulses' and any to be dedicated to the City any area required r buildable acreage shall not include any area to perimeter open space; f Wt s1 Additicoa7lY, at the time the Planning be used for street purPo developtrent P�j Commission and/or City Council review a PL3ruled' cular project, tentative map, and/or environmental documentation for a parti sensitive areas consideration shall be given to deleting certain att the calculation of the total number of residential units or square f000tage b£ camTercial develogrent to be allowed on a site as follows: 161 36 Floodplain areas "Location of Structures" - In the discretionary review of projects, no structures shall be built in the following sensitive areas. The Planning Canai.ssion and/or City Council will determine whether the site in question falls within any of these areas, using information doc=mented in the EIR. The mapping by the Departnnt of Fish and Game will be used as a basis in the environmental studies. S 1. Environmentally sensitive habitat areas j 2. Coastal Bluffs 3. Blufftop setback areas 4. Riparian areas 5. Geologic hazard areas 6. Residential development areas impacted by noise levels of 65 CNEL or greater. 7. Floodplain areas 8. Natural slope areas greater than 2:1 and greater than 25 feet high j COMMEiiCIAL Areas designated canrercial are to be used predaninantly for conducting private business ventures. Recreational and Marine Commercial. . It is the intent of this designation to delineate a priority system to guide development approvals on building sites on or near the bay. It is further the intent of this designation to encourage a continuation of marine -oriented uses, maintain the marine theme and character, encourage mutually supportive businesses, and encourage physical and visual access to the bay on waterfront cammercial and industrial building sites on or near the bay. Uses permitted are as follows: I. Permitted uses: highest priority uses, not requiring a use permit. A. Incentive uses: uses that, when they occupy at least 40% of a site, may be ccabined with uses under II.C. 1. Boat haul -out facilities 2. Cam-excial fishing facilities 3. Sport fishing establishments and fishing docks 4. Marinas 5. Marine construction 6. Boat rentals and charters 7. Retail marine sales 8. Marine service businesses 9. Dry boat storage B. other permitted uses: 1. Marine -related offices where services are offered to the general public. 37 162 PLANNING AND ZONING Title 20 „.. PLANNING AND ZONING' Chapters: PART I. GENERAL PROVISIONS 20.01 Purpose of Title -Districts Designated 20.02 Height Limits 20.06 Sign Ordinance PART II. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 20.10 General Controls -Residential Districts 20.11 Residential Development Standards 20.12 R-A District 20.13 R-1 District 20.14 R-1.5 District 20.15 R-2 District 20.16 R-3 District 20.17 R-4 District 20.18 "-B" District 20.20 Mobile Home Parks PART III. COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS 20.30 General Controls -Commercial Districts 20.31 A-P District 20.32 C-N District 20.33 Commercial -Residential District 20.34 C-0 District 20.35 C-1 District 20.36 C-2 District PART IV. INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS 20.40 General Controls -Industrial Districts 20.41 M-1 District 20.42 M-1-A District PART V. SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICTS 20.50 Planned Residential Development 20.51 Planned Community District 20.52 Open Space District 1. Additional sign regulations - See Chapter 15.16 of this code. Subdivision regulations - See Title 19 of this code. Prior history: 1949 Code H 9101.0 - 9101.2, 9102.0 - 9102.3, 9103 - 9103.98, 9104.1 - - 9104.31, 9105-9105.1, 9105.3 - 9105.9, 9106.1 - 9106.54, 9107.1 - 9107.45, 9108.1 - 9108.15, -,,,;• ;�;„',:�;:,;,,� , 9109.1 - 9109.4, 9110.1, 9112.1, 9124 - 9128, and 9209.5; and Ords. 635, 715, 804, 845, 901, 909, 913, 924, 925, 932, 935, 937, 952, 955, 974, 984, 1001, 1011, 1016, 3025, 1031, 1034, 1037, 1052, . - •• 3057, 1059, 3076, 1114, 1115, 1127, 1130, 1134,1-152, 1158, 1170, 1172, 1175, 1176,1193, 1202, " 1240, 1248, 1266, 1268, 1272, 1292, 1378, 1379, 1380,1396, 1398, 1404, 1408, 1411, 1414, 1415, `.` 1441, 1446, 1451, 1454, 1464, 1465, 1480, 1481, 1485, 1486, 1493, 1494, 1497, 1500, 1502, 1505, • 1509, 1516, 1523, 1529, 1540, 1547, 1548, 1551, 1554,1556, 1566, 1579, 1$91, 1611, 1623, 1624, 1629, 1640 and 1656. • 401 (Newport Beach 10.85) /�ur PLANNING AND ZONING 20.53 U District PART VI. SPECIFIC AREA PLANS 20.60 Specific Plan District 20.61 Specific Plan (Newport Shores) 20.62 Specific Plan District (Mariners' Mile) PART VII. SPECIAL USE REGULATIONS 20.70 Automobile Service Stations 20.71 Oil wells 20.72 Restaurants 20.73 Residential Condominium Projects 20.74 Adult Entertainment Businesses 20.76 Time -Share Developments PART VIII. ADMINISTRATION 20.80 Permits 20.81 Modifications Committee 20.82 Variances 20.83 Nonconforming Structures and Uses 20.84 Amendments 20.85 Appeals 20.86 Enforcement 20.87 Definitions (Newport Beach 10.85) 402 1 i 20.51.010-20,51.020 PLANNING AND ZONING Chapter 20.51 PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT Sections: 20.51.010 Effect of Chapter. 20.51.015 Intent and Purpose. 20.51.020 General Requirements. 20.51.025 Uses Permitted. 20.51.027 Uses Requiring Use Permit. 20.51.030 Temporary Structures and Uses. 20.51.032 Underground Storage of Flammable Liquids. 20.51.035 Application Procedure. 20.51.040 Development Plan. 20.51.045 Amendments to Development Plan. ; 20.51.050 Commencement of Construction. 20.51.055 Application for Use Permit Development. 20.51.060 Conformance Requisite to Building Permit Issuance. 20.51.080 Development of Coastal Bluff Sites in Planned Community Districts. %;•; '=• •;: 20.51.010 Effect of Chapter. The following specific regulations shall apply in all P-C Districts, subject to the provisions and exceptions of Chapters 20.10, 20.30, and 20.40. Where conflict in provisions occurs the t, • ' :., • .. regulations specified in this Chapter or in the Development Plan or plans ap- proved pursuant to this Chapter shall apply. (Ord. 1657 (part), 1976). 20.51.015 Intent and Purpose. The purpose of these regulations is to provide for the classification and development of parcels of land as co- ordinated, comprehensive projects so as to take advantage of the superior environment which can result from large-scale community planning. The regulations of this district are intended to allow diversification of '•=. ': land uses as they relate to each other in a physical and environmental arrangement while insuring substantial compliance with the spirit, intent and i'.`: c,.:•,;; provisions of this Code. This district is designed to include various types of land uses, such as single-family residential developments, multiple housing developments, professional and administrative areas, commercial centers, industrial parks or any public or quasi -public use or combination of uses, through the adop- tion of a Development Plan and text materials which set forth land use relationships and development standards. (Ord. 1657 (part), 1976). 20.51.020 General Requirements. The following provisions shall apply to all P-C Districts: (a) The entire parcel for which an application for classification of land to P-C is filed must be within one ownership, or the application must be made by or with the written authorization for such action on behalf of all (Newport Beach 1.21-80) 468-16 16 F PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT 20.51.060-20.51.080 architectural theme or type of development. (k) Irrevocable offers to dedicate those areas shown on the Plan as public property. (1) Method by which the property could be divided for the sale or lease of individual parcels. (m) Method by which open space areas are to be perpetually maintained. (n) Other plans or information the Community Development Director determines to be nece"ssary to insure substantial compliance with the intent of this Chapter. (Ord. 1657 (part), 1976). 20.51.060 Conformance Requisite to Building Permit Issuance. The Community Development Department shall insure that a P-C District development is undertaken and completed in conformance with the approved building plans and the terms and conditions of the Development Plan or use permit for such development. No building permit shall be issued for any construction or development which does not conform to such plans, terms and conditions. (Ord. 1657 (part), 1976). 20.51,080 Development of Coastal Bluff Sites in Planned Community Districts. The City of Newport Beach finds that the natural bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource. In order to preserve these unique landforms, developments in Planned Community Districts proposed to be located in bluff areas adjacent to the ocean or Upper Newport Bay, and bluffs within the presently defined Coastal Zone in the City's sphere of influence downcoast, as indicated on the Bluff Areas Map on file in the Office of the City Clerk and made a part of this Section by reference, shall be subject to the following regulations: (a) DEFINITION OF BLUFF. As used in this Section, "bluff' is any Iandform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50%) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater. Where there is some question as to the applicability of this Section to a specific landform, a determination as to whether or not the specific Iandform constitutes a bluff shall be made by the Planning Commission, consistent with the purposes of this regulation. (b) GRADING. Grading, cutting and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency fepairs, or for the installation of erosion -preventive devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs. Any grading plan involving grading of the bluff face or bluff edge shall be approved by the Planning Commission, including such measures designed .r:-J to control urban runoff, erosion and groundwater conditions. (c) GEOLOGIC REPORT. To promote public safety, a geologic study shall be performed for each site to determine areas of potential instability. The bluff areas of potential hazard or instability shall be indicated on maps as part of any P-C development plan. 468.22a (Newport Beueh 3.85) 20.51.080 PLANNING AND ZONING (d) SETBACK REQUIREMENT. As a general guideline, the property / line setback from the edge of a bluff should be located nc closer to the edge (s,,,• of the bluff than the point at which the top of the bluff is intersected by a \ 4 line drawn from the solid toe of the bluff at an angle of 26.6 degrees to the I 1 ^ horizontal. A greater setback distance shall be required where warranted by geological or groundwater conditions, but in no case shall a property line be located closer than 40 feet to the edge of a bluff. In addition, no part of a proposed development shall be located closer than 20 feet to the bluffside property line. This required building setback may be increased or decreased by the Planning Commission in the review of a proposed site plan consistent with the purposes of this Section. (e) PUBLIC VIEWS.. The location and design of a proposed project shall take into account public view potential. (f) HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES. Height of structures shall be as described in the Planned Community Development Plan. (g) PUBLIC ACCESS AND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS. The location and design of a proposed project shall maximize public access to the coastal bluff areas as follows: (1) Public access to coastal bluff areas shall be assured through the design of the local street system and through the location of public trails and walkways adjacent to the bluffs. Tile City may require the dedication of right-of-way or the granting of easements may be improved or not improved at the option of the City Council. Area required for right-of-way dedication or for the granting of access casements is in addition to the area required for ! park dedication. (2) Areas adjacent to coastal bluffs having significant view potential shall be designated for use as view parks or vista points consistent with " parkland dedication requirements. (3) Land required to be dedicated for neighborhood parks but which is intended to remain in an unimproved, natural state should be located adjacent to the bluffs; any portion of that land required to be dedicated for neighborhood parks which is intended to provide active recreational facilities may be located in the interior portions of the proposed development. (4) Bluff face areas need not be accepted by the City for any type of i dedication. (h) SUBDIVISION DESIGN. In the preparation of a development plan, ! natural bluff areas shall not be included in development areas as designated ! on the site plan. The design of any subdivision shall not include any bluff face or bluff edge as part of any residential lot or building site. (i) LANDSCAPE PLANS AND PLANT MATERIAL. For the purpose of regulating groundwater conditions, landscape plans for those areas immediately adjacent to the bluffs shall incorporate native vegetation or other drought-resistent plant material. (Ord. 1798 § 1, 1979). 1 (Newport Beach 3.85) 468-22b /6'�q , PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT 20.51.080 468-23 (Newport Beach 12.82) 169 20.87.040-20.87:090 PLANNING AND ZONING 20.87.040 Boardinghouse. The term "boardinghouse" shall mean a dwelling other than a hotel where lodging or lodging and meals for three or more persons is provided for compensation. (Ord. 1657 (part), 1976), 20.87.050 Buildable Area. The term "buildable area" shall mean the area of a building site, excluding any basic minimum side, front and rear yard spaces, required for buidings three stories or less in height. (Ord. 1657 (part), 1976). 20.87.060 Building. The term "building" shall mean any structure having a roof supported by columns or by walls and designed for the shelter or housing of any person, animal or chattel. (Ord. 1657 (part), 1976). 20.87.070 Building, Accessory. The term "accessory building" shall mean a subordinate building, the use of which is incidental to that of the main building on the same lot and/or building site. (Ord. 1657 (part), 1976). 20.87.080 Building, Main. The term "main building" shall mean a building in which is conducted the principal use of the lot and/or building site on which it is situated. (Ord. 1657 (part), 1976). 20.87.085 Building, Reoocatable. The term "relocatable building" shall mean a structure designed for human occupancy for industrial, commercial or professional purposes in such a manner as to be readily transportable from site to site. (Ord. 1774 § 1, 1978). 20.87.090 Building Site. The term "building site" shall mean a subdivided lot, parcel of land or contiguous combinations thereof which is occupied or intended to be occupied by a main building or buildings and their accessory buildings, together with such yards and open space as are required by the terms of this Title and the Uniform Building Code, and which fronts directly upon or has permanent access to a street as defined under Section 20.87.290 of this Title and required by the Uniform Building Code. A. Combining of Lots and Parcels Required. Where said building site contains a lot, a parcel or combination of lots and/or parcels which, because of their individual size, configuration or location, are insufficient to meet the requirements of this title as a separate building site; or where a building crosses or is planned to cross an existing property line, no new construction or alteration to a single-family dwelling or duplex in excess of $5,000.00 in any one-year period shall be permitted until such time as the owner or owners of said lots or parcels has caused to be executed and recorded a covenant and agreement to hold said lots or parcels as a single building site. Said covenant and agreement shall have been approved by the City Attorney as to form and the Community Development Director as to content. In the case of all other forms of development, no new construction or alterations to existing structures in excess of $5,000.00 in any one-year period shall be (Newport Beach 5.83) 468-64 0 �1 x PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN (Including Safety and Seismic Safety Elements as required by State Law.) j ADOPTED AND RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY THE .! PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1975 ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 10, 1975 r 7 SECTION 1 - GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ' The City of Newport Beach is located along the southwesterly edge of the Los Angeles basin adjacent to the Pacific Ocean. The City will'be affected by both regional,and local geologic hazards resulting from events that will occur as a result of geologic processes. The purpose of this section is to identify those hazards that will effect the City of Newport Beach. Appendices A through D relate to geologic hazards identified within this section and a -re attached. Seismicity The potential for severe damage and loss of life resulting from earthquake activity exists within the City of Newport Beach as it does throughout Southern California. The City could be faced with several major seismic hazards, such as 1) Ground Shaking, 2) Ground Failure, 3) Ground Displacement 4) Tsunamis and 5) Seiches. The potential hazard from tsunamis and seiches are discussed as a part of Section-2 of'this Element. The following discussion of seismic hazards from the "Planners Guide to the Seismic Safety Element", prepared by the Association of Engineering Geologists describes the remaining aforementioned potential hazards: "Experience ha-s shown that in most areas of the world, including California, fault movements during historic t_i-me have nearly always occurred on already existing faults with evidence of geologically recent movement. Since earthquakes are the result of movement along faults, in attempting to predict future earthquakes and fault movement within - or near - a particular site, consideration should be given not only to the seismic record during historic time, but also to the presence of any faults with evidence of geologically recent movement. The most widespread effect of an earthquake is ground shaking. This is also usually (but not always) the greatest cause.of damaqe. Structures of all 173 -5- types, including engineered structures and public utility facilities, if inadequately constructed or designed to withstand the shaking force, may suffer severe damage or collapse. The vast majority of deaths during earthquakes are the result of structural failure due to ground shaking. Most such deaths are preventable, even with present knowledge. New construction can and should be designed and built to withstand probable shaking without collapse. The greatest existing hazard within the state is the continued use of tens of thousands of older structures incapable of withstanding earthquake forces. Knowledge of earthquake -resistant design and construction has increased greatly in recent years, thouqh much remains to be learned. A second effect of earthquakes is ground failure in the form of landslides, rock falls, subsidence, and other surface and near surface ground movements. This often results in complete loss of strength of water - saturated sub surface foundation soil ("liquefaction") such as occurred near the Juvenile Hall in the 1971 San Fernando earthquake and in the massive Turnagain Arm landslide in Anchorage during the 1964 Alaska earthquake. Most such,h,a.zardous sites can be either avoided or stabilized if .adequate geologic and sail investigations are 'utilized. Another damaging effect of earthquakes is ground displacement (surface rupture) along faults. Such displacements of the earth's crust may be vertical, horizontal, or both and may offset the ground by as much as 30 feet (as in 1857 in Southern California). It is not economically feasible to design and build - foundations of structures (dams, buildings, bridges) to remain intact across such zones. Fault zones subject to displacement are best avoided in construction. In addition to reqional investigations necessary to the basic understanding of faults and their histories, detailed site investigations are needed prior to the approval of construction in any suspected active fault zones. Utilities, roads, canals, and other linear features are particularly vulnerable to damage as a result of ground displacement." A seismic hazard map indicating the general locations and extent of areas subject to seismic hazards in Newport Beach is attached (Figure 1). A more detailed preliminary analysis is provided - in the "Geologic -Seismic Study" prepared for the City by Woodward - McNeill and Associates•. 17y M r I Slope Stability The stability of slopes is an important planning consideration for existing and future development within the City. Slope failures either gross or superficial can result in a potential hazard to life and limb, or endanger public and private property. The types of slope failures that may occur within the community will probably be, 1) landslides, 2) mud flows, 3) creep and in some cases 4) rock fall. (See definitions in Appendix 0). In any planning consideration, tKe more important factors are generally, the inherent strength of the earth material of which the geologic formations are comprised, the moisure content of these materials, and the attitude of the bedding within the I materials. Within the Newport Beach planning area and land adjacent to it, the areas of low slope stability include areas in the San Joaquin hills and the bluff areas throughout the City. As shown on Figure 2, these areas of low slope staiblity occur primarily in areas of moderate to steeply -sloping terrain. 76 -12- PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMEf�' NEWPORT BEACH SLOPE STABILITY w.3%YY Tm ® YfTaYt YpOO1C COYtlrpY WTM COIYipMf flWlrf pauau, rr000waw • frc •aua usorynal .��\\•_1' ,. ) fly:'\/�`• 1 �/, Al:✓•f.\Y�,� I ( %� \r r'Ii�'*`I' •ssr�.l_".,{- • P �" � �I k ppN1 S�il 1 11 ry �" ,:r .a F�-.. l` � .I, k�y'll,.t,`i•:. \ t' \'' _a •�i �6tk, �!/ v N \'' �� a % J'j;llGh (f psr+ot+E7G �`` '•a' �— - - --'- � ' i .� — c� e' �• {1^r.• f I/ 1 f ^/GN.12lICI• '�!+� �+- _.-� �, • rf'�LL. Via: ii Y £ 1!:! 4 �� w ® __— _ _ .•ram s f l `.' �,� +yL �. yti ::��`, Y ry�.f_l• \''�C'.7U nd 0. �v.uL'.v'� ♦l\ ���` h� r' f�rr l� � ,� - �` ♦ )r5 �� wY F, e'',WULIpipilEliS_ .�� ,��.��ii !11_-- 1 y .�r p, ,,, ,llivf i, •\ lam_-_� fl�Il ifl'� :: �••.n�.,�.,.0�.:�?q':Y\•lkR'kMY 1 " n�E.; �t:..» • ,y.- , I� �. a�'i� /Y iii(1ii,i+l:::okiu;•'•i n'`.. ,; YTit`w•:�"� �"_• j }pt"; �•,;f F:k,:ik: a ';f1—J :1 �i. ��� > r A •f!l.la�4♦,R%p'� 'yf<k. ti.• ..0 '^�•�:k'�—'�;...--- _l _.Y\ figure 2 r 7 Expansive and Collapsible Soil Expansive soils are generally defined as those soils that exhibit a change in volume when the moisture content of the soil is varied. The degree of expansion is most generally related to the magnitude of this change and expressed as ranging from very low to very high. A collapsible soil is usually considered as a loosely packed or open structured soil that exhibits a sudden loss of volume upon the addition of a significant quantity of water. Expansive and collapsible soils usually have an adverse effect on building foundations often resulting in negative impacts on the entire structure. Movements may vary unde-r diffe.rent parts of a building with the result that the foundations crack, with vertical displacement, causing various structural portions of the building to be destroyed. In the extreme case windows and doors are warped so that they do not function properly, rendering the building useless for its intended occupancy. These problems can be identified and,controlled by proper engineering and construction practices. figure 3 divides the City into categories of expansive soil probabilities. Collapsible soils are 'not prevalent within the City; however, they do occur locally, and should be addressed on a project -by - .project level by all geote-chnical studies conducted within the City. 8 PUBLIC SAFETY 'ELEME9 NEWPORT BEACH:/ EXPANSIVE & COLIAPSIBLE SOIL HAZARD ARFAS = - -ti -® CATEGORY '1 rmu.n ro [CATEGORY 2 r`:"' ffG Rjj� CATEGORY 3 ="u"n wu w r.0 i r.= _ iF-• a�all 5 i'y _i � � / I= = ;-1'f-==J J * ' -_ • �'�- y` —•-='�'iYi:ui : .:.'-y�l�/Ili i t���::��, .�.....r•� .�!'�t_0{i3r��j -- 1 1 l Illiiiiiiiiiii ii iiii;} ' ' �'• `:=, °, � � r1 � g*.i a"ihy�4r",(���' "'�— - � �� �Y A •//:tt7 � � /, ..;� �• Y ?� v s���„��:.': :�7"i::!%H p � :_ �� _- o t figure 3 i' J 1 1 IM up IN Erosion and Siltation Soil erosion occurs as a result of the action of wind and water and is a geologic process commonly referred to as mass wasting. While wind erosion may have some localized significance, it is not a major natural hazard. Erosion as a result of running water is an acute potential risk within the City, especially during periods of heavy rainfall and runoff. The erosion of soils can undermine structures or damage slopes and could result in property damage and/or the loss of life and limb. ation resulting from the deposition of eroded earth materials also presents an acute potential risk. Due to the City's geographic locations, regional as well as local siltation should be con-sidered as a part of this hazard. Inundation of structures both public l and private can reduce the capacities of drainage structures and, thereby reduce capacities for flow and storage of flood waters. Erosion and subsequent siltation are magnified during new construction where the removal of natural ground cover occurs. Periodic dredging of Newport Bay has been required to remove depositions of silt resulting from erosion occurring principally outside of the City. The majority of this silt enters the bay through San Diego Creek and comes from erosion within that creek's watershed. ' Figure 4 indicates the general locations of potential erosion and siltation -related problems. 1490 -16- aImama 0 m PUBLIC SAFETY ELffvUf -� NEWPORT BEACHt�- EROSION POTE91AL a ® SLIGHT: YmY"T a x"x °r t MODERATE: '°""r"` Y°xY Y16YIr14Yi I f r �� SEVERE : ' '"""� ronxrur x"x"Yo ro rxYm IYWYeY. xr000r"xY.rl°YYui"rJYOP"r"Y) r �—•Lv,4� a N C ocE figure 4 mmmmmmmw� 1