Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/09/1993COAUMSSIONERS •'Pi�'0o�o�t ���°�O"'t'o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: September 9. 1993 MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Present * * * * *- * Commissioner Edwards was excused. - - Absent s s s EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney William R. Laycock, Current Planning Manager Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager John Douglas, Principal Planner Don Webb, City Engineer Dee Edwards, Secretary 10 Minutes of August 19, 1993 Minutes of Motion * Motion was made and voted on to approve the August 19, 1993, 8/19/93 Ayes * * * Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. Abstain Absent s s s Public Comments: Public Comment, No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on non - agenda items. Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Agenda Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, September 3, 1993, in front of City Hall. s . : COMMISSIONERS 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NEW September 9 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Use Permit No. 1758 Am nded) (Public Hearinai Item No Request to amend a previously approved use permit which allowed UP1758A the establishment of a private club with on -sale alcoholic Approve beverages, live entertainment, dancing and off -site parking with a full-time valet parking service. The proposed amendment includes a request to expand the hours of operation of the club so as to allow a 6:30 p.m. opening whereas the existing hours of operation are limited from 8:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. daily. The proposal also includes a request to allow the use of 10 parking spaces located adjacent to the Lido Marina Village Parking Structure, and 41 parking spaces located at the private parking lot located at the outheasterly comer of 32nd Street and Villa Way. CATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 60 -43 (Resubdivision No. 433) (Nightclub Site), located at 3388 Via Lido, on the northeasterly side of Via Lido, between Via Oporto and Via Malaga; Lot 1 and a portion of Lot 2, Tract No. 1117, (Off -Site Parking Site 1) located at 3421 -3505 Via Oporto, on the southwesterly side of Via Oporto, between Via Lido and Central Avenue; and Lots 22 -30, Block 530, Lancaster's Addition (Off -site Parking Site No. 2), located at 500 -516 32nd Street, on the southeasterly corner of Villa Way and 32nd Street in Central Newport. ONE: RSC -H APPLICANT: Club H2O, Inc., Newport Beach WNER: Lido Marina Village, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and . James Raven, 412 -1/2 38th Street, appeared before the anning Commission on behalf of the applicant. In response to concern expressed by Mr. Raven that the proposed establishment -2- ..I L COMMISSIONERS isi CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES September 9 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX is intended to be a public club and not a private club as indicated in the request, James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that standards and issues of a private club and a public facility are the same. The subject use permit was originally established as a private club. In response to a question posed by Chairman Merrill, Mr. Raven concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Raven and Mr. Hewicker replied that the subject property is owned by Lido Marina Village. Commissioner Ridgeway addressed the ownership of the previous Imperial Savings facility located adjacent to the subject property and an application to permit a billiard establishment and incidental dining that was submitted and denied by the Planning Commission on June 10, 1993. He indicated that the foregoing application and the subject application have each requested off -site parking at 32nd Street and Villa Way. William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, explained that a portion of the off -site parking area is owned by the property owners of the Imperial Savings building, Swiss Group Property Inc., and the remaining portion is owned by Lido Marina Village. Mr. Raven stated that the Imperial Savings structure and the subject building were located on the property and were owned by the same property owner. When the foregoing parcel was subdivided into two separate building sites, the off -site parking lot was also subdivided, and 41 parking spaces were allocated to and are owned by Lido Marina Village, and 30 parking spaces are owned by Swiss Group Property Inc.. Mr. Raven addressed the number of parcels in the parking area at 32nd Street and Villa Way that are owned by Lido Marina Village and the number of parcels owned by Swiss Group Property Inc. as a result of the resubdivision, and he stated that the parking staff has verified a total of 71 parking spaces in the parking lot. Mr. John Hanran, 3471 Via Lido, Director of Asset Management for Fritz Duda Company, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of Via Lido Plaza to express their concern that if the application is approved that the proposed establishment -3- L `f y�o 11 Mz\� 0 \ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1 ►iii` 11-50 September 9 1993 ROLL CALL MEX would not impact their parking lot. Discussion ensued with respect to Condition No. 3, Exhibit "A", requesting that the hours of operation of the subject facility be limited between 6:30 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. nightly. Mr. Hannan stated that a 6:30 p.m. nightclub opening could have an adverse impact on the Pavilion's parking lot. In reference to Condition No. 8, Exhibit "A", Chairman Merrill explained that if there would be a parking problem that Via Lido Plaza could request a review by the Planning Commission for further modification. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Hannan explained that the only time security guards are located in the parking lot of Via Lido Plaza is when major events are occurring in the area. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Hanran replied that he would like to reserve the right to be able to come back to the Planning Commission if there would be a parking problem. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made to approve Use Permit No. 1758 (Amended) subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Commissioner Ridgeway and Don Webb, City Engineer, discussed the pedestrian crosswalk that crosses Via Lido at Via Oporto adjacent to the parking lot of Via Lido Plaza. In response to a question posed by Chairman Merrill, Mr. Hewicker concurred that existing operational characteristics that were previously approved in accordance with Use Permit No. 1758 remain in effect, including valet parking, with the exception that the opening hour of operation will be modified to open at 6:30 p.m. and that 10 parking spaces would be added adjacent to the Lido Marina Village Parking Structure. -4- MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 9 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Ayes Motion was voted on to approve Use Permit No. 1758 (Amended), Absent * MOTION CARRIED. Findi 1. That the proposed project is consistent witb the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The project will not have a significant environmental impact. 3. The proposed parking areas are located so as to be useful to the nightclub. 4. The use of the proposed parking areas will not create undue traffic hazards in the surrounding area. 5. That the applicant has entered into an appropriate lease for the proposed parking spaces, which are of sufficient duration for the proposed project. 6. That the properties containing the nightclub at 3388 Via Lido and the proposed parking areas located at the southeasterly comer of 32nd Street and Villa Way and adjacent to the Lido Marina Village Parking Structure are in the same ownership. 7. That the hours of operation of the nightclub and the other commercial uses using the proposed areas are such as to allow joint use of the parking areas. Adequate off - street parking and related vehicular circulation are being provided in conjunction with the proposed project. That public improvements may be required of the applicant per Section 20.80.060 of the Municipal Code. -5- 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 9 1993 ROLL CALL WDEX 0. That the design of the development 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 development. 1. The approval of Use Permit No. 1758 (Amended) 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. 6onditi ons: 1. That the proposed project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved parking lot plans and floor plan, except as noted below. That all previously applicable conditions of approval of Use Permit No. 1758 and 1758 (Amended) as approved by the City Council on August 13, 1990 shall be fulfilled unless otherwise provided in this approval. i. That the hours of operation of the nightclub shall be limited between 6:30 p.m. and 2:00 am. nightly. That the applicant shall provide a minimum of 23 on -site parking spaces, 10 parking spaces adjacent to the Lido Marina Village Parking Structure and 41 parking spaces at the parking lot at the southeasterly corner of Villa Way and 32nd Street, from 6:30 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. nightly. That the proposed parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. -6- db f� COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES September 9 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX 7. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the opening of the nightclub at 6:30 p.m. 3. That the Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. That this Use Permit shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Permit Jse (Public He rin Item No. equest to permit a commercial parking area containing six UP3504 vered and two partially covered parking spaces which will be Not stablished in conjunction with the construction of a duplex (and Approved our residential parking spaces) on property located in the R -2 District. CATION: Lot 9, Block 438, Corona del Mar, located at 415 and 415V2 Marguerite Avenue, on the northwesterly side of Marguerite Avenue, between East Coast Highway and Second Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ONE: R -2 APPLICANT: Michael D. Franklin, Newport Beach WNER: Same as applicant • ' -7- PF L COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES September 9 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Glover requested a clarification of the term'mixed- use' as referred to in the staff report. James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that the 'mixed -use' would refer to residential property and a commercial parking use on the same property. Under the General Plan of'Two-Family Residential ", a two-family residential use is a permitted use, and under the Zoning Ordinance a commercial parking lot would be allowed on the property subject to a use permit. 'Mixed -use', as it is addressed in the staff report, would not be similar to 'mixed -use' in other parts of the City where buildings exist with a dwelling unit on the second floor and an enclosed commercial or retail use on the fist floor. The subject 'mixed-use' consists of commercial parking as opposed to commercial use on the first floor. The applicant would not be allowed to tear down existing improvements on the property and develop an office or retail building; however, an open commercial parking lot or a'mixed -use' would be allowed on the property subject to securing a use permit. In response to a question posed by Chairman Merrill, Mr. Hewicker explained that the applicant would not be allowed to demolish the proposed duplex in the future, and retain the commercial parking. An amendment to the use permit would be required to allow only a commercial parking lot on the property. The public hearing was opened at this time, and Mr. Mike Franklin, 510 Bolsa Avenue, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Franklin stated that the request is similar to several properties that have been developed in Corona del Mar. The intent is to use the commercial parking lot for employee parking, i.e. tenants of Franklin Realty, La Cantina liquor, the laundromat, and The Quiet Woman Restaurant. The employees of The Quiet Woman would enter the parking lot after the restaurant closed at 2:00 a.m. The building has been designed as a noise buffer between the commercial and residential districts. Mr. Franklin and Chairman Merrill discussed what impact the noise would have on the adjacent residents from the parking lot. Mr. Franklin requested that Condition No. 4, Exhibit "A", be . modified to state That the operation of the commercial parking lot -8- COMMISSIONERS •��y��o�l�P 40�0�0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 'Raw aeptemoer 9, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX shall be permitted between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 2:30 a.m., daily., and the provision that use of the commercial parking spaces after 6:00 p.m. be eliminated. Commissioner Pomeroy suggested that the condition be modified to add that the parking lot would be restricted to employee parking. In response to a question posed by Mr. Franklin regarding Condition No. 14, Exhibit "A", stating that Parking Spaces No. 11 and 12 shall be deleted or reconfigured to satisfy the City Traffic Engineer and the Public Works Department, Don Webb, City Engineer, expressed a concern of how the foregoing parking spaces could be reconfigured. Mr. James Dunlap, 419 Marguerite Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission to oppose the subject application. An encroachment of a commercial use would be detrimental to the residential neighborhood. He expressed concerns regarding the impact that the noise would have on the residential property; the impact that the parking and traffic would have in the alley that currently separates the commercial uses from the residential neighborhood; and he stated that the applicant has outstanding Code violations regarding commercial storage on other residential property owned by the applicant. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Dunlap stated that he would be opposed to any commercial parking use on the subject property. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Gifford regarding aforementioned Condition No. 4, Exhibit "A", Mr. Dunlap concurred with the condition as recommended by staff if the use permit were approved; however, he expressed a concern regarding the enforcement of closing the parking lot at 6:00 p.m. as suggested. Dr. Robert Borland, 112 Topaz Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission as the property owner of property located at . 420 and 422 Larkspur Avenue. He expressed his opposition to the -9- COMMISSIONERS V ARM,\, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES September 9, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX application on the basis that the residential area would be impacted by a commercial parking lot; there would be additional congestion in the alley; the residents would be disturbed by the noise from the parking lot; and two garages in a residential area are currently being used as storage areas for The Quiet Woman Restaurant. He expressed a concern that the proposed enclosed garages would also be used for commercial storage. In response to a question posed by Chairman Merrill, Dr. Borland stated that he has received numerous complaints from his tenants regarding noise from The Quiet Woman Restaurant. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Dr. Borland replied that providing six to eight additional commercial parking spaces would not remove congestion on Larkspur Avenue. Mr. Howard Ashton, 308 Orchid Avenue, property owner of property located at 418 Larkspur Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission to express big objection regarding the proposed parking lot. Mr. Ashton distributed photographs of commercial trucks that park in the alley adjacent to the residential area, and he determined that the commercial vehicles create traffic and parking congestion. Discussion ensued between Mr. Ashton and the Commission regarding Mr. Ashton's concerns regarding commercial vehicle parking in the alley. Discussion also included the feasibility of redesigning the proposed parking area to provide a commercial loading zone in a few of the proposed parking spaces so as to remove the traffic and parking congestion in the alley. Commissioner Ridgeway questioned if Mr. Ashton's concerns regarding commercial vehicle parking in the alley could be addressed unless there would be enforcement by the City. Mr. Ashton expressed concerns that the commercial vehicles could obstruct the entrance to the proposed carports, and the safety of the residents who would be entering the alley from the stairway of the proposed duplex. Dr. Darryl Chin, 1255 Summerset Lane, property owner of . property located at 417 Marguerite Avenue, appeared before the -10- COMMSSiONERs CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES September 9 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Planning Commission to state his opposition to the proposal. He expressed his concerns regarding the existing noise from The Quiet Woman Restaurant; the development would have an adverse impact on the residential neighborhood; and the commercial parking area would depreciate his property. Dr. Chin stated that a precedent could be set if the extension of the commercial footprint into the residential neighborhood would be approved. In response to comments expressed by Commissioner Gifford regarding a commercial loading zone in the proposed parking area as previously suggested by Commissioner Ridgeway, Dr. Chin stated that any commercial use on a residential property is a contradiction of terms. He indicated that be would anticipate that commercial loading and unloading of goods would occur on the private property of a commercial entity. In response to a question posed by Chairman Merrill, Mr. . Hewicker explained that a 10 foot rear yard setback is required in commercial zones to provide for a commercial loading space on commercial property. Mr. Hewicker stated that there is a big difference between a loading dock in a commercial zone as opposed to a residential property being used for parking of automobiles, and he pointed out that the commercial vehicles that were shown in the foregoing photographs blocking the alley would be too large to enter a carport and unload. Chairman Merrill suggested that six parking spaces adjacent to the liquor store could be marked for 'no parking' and all of the commercial loading would have to be accomplished on the commercial property during the day. The six customer parking spaces could be transferred to the proposed parking area. Commissioner Glover stated that a correct balance exists between residential and businesses in Corona del Mar, and she expressed a concern that the proposed development could set a precedent to disturb that balance. Commissioner Pomeroy and Commissioner DiSano addressed the restaurant establishments that were approved years ago without . the requirement of use permits, and that the pre - existing -11- o t �o�Po 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES beptemoer y, lyys ROLL CALL INDEX nonconforming uses were not required to provide a commercial loading zone. Mr. Franklin reappeared before the Planning Commission to express his support of the subject proposal. He stated that there are a number of residential lots that provide commercial parking in Corona del Mar. Chairman Merrill addressed the number of citations on Mr. Franklin's property for illegal use of the garages for storage. Mr. Franklin and Chairman Merrill discussed the number of parking spaces that are currently provided for his residential property at 415 and 415 1/2 Marguerite. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Franklin replied that there is not a commercial loading parking space behind The Quiet Woman Restaurant. Mr. Franklin stated that he would not agree to a condition to require a loading zoning for daytime use on the commercial property. Mr. Franklin and Commissioner Ridgeway discussed the feasibility of providing a loading zone by removing commercial parking spaces behind The Quiet Woman Restaurant. Mr. Franklin stated that inasmuch as his father owns The Quiet Woman Restaurant property, it would be necessary to obtain permission for a condition to be added to the use permit. Commissioner Ridgeway suggested that the subject use permit could be continued to allow staff additional time to review the recommendation. There being no others desiring to appear and be beard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion Motion was made to deny Use Permit No. 3504 subject to the findings in Exhibit "B ". Substitute Substitute motion was made to continue Use Permit No. 3504 to Motion allow staff additional time to review the application for the purpose of addressing the concerns that were expressed regarding the congestion in the alley. 10 -12- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Se tember 9 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Pomeroy supported the substitute motion. He explained that the restrictions concerning employee parking would have an impact on the issues of noise and congestion, and six commercial parking spaces would be gained. He suggested that an employee could be required to back into a narrow parking space as opposed to driving forward into the parking space, and it would eliminate the backing out problem into the alley. He said that to buffer the sound with the walls and the design of the building would accommodate the proposed 'mixed -use' project. Commissioner Gifford supported the motion. In response to comments by Commissioner Gifford regarding the substitute motion, Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the City would not be able to condition another property owner without that property owner's permission. Commissioner Glover expressed her desire to maintain the successful balance of the commercial and residential uses in Corona del Mar. Ayes * Substitute motion was voted on, MOTION WAS NOT Noes * * *' APPROVED. Absent Motion was voted on, MOTION WAS NOT APPROVED. Ayes * * * Noes Absent The Planning Commission recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:05 p.m. Chairman Merrill requested that Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, and James Hewicker, Planning Director, make a presentation concerning variances prior to opening the public hearings regarding Variance No. 1194, Variance No. 1195, and Variance 1192, on the basis that the variance requests have a similarity. -13- 4 L MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH qW September 9 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Ms. Flory stated that legal requirements for variances are different than for use permits - they are not just for general health, safety and welfare. The concept of a variance is when a property owner requests to construct a structure that is not otherwise permitted by the Zoning Code. The following applications are not to construct but to obtain approval for projects that have already been constructed that exceed the allowable FAR. The general idea of a variance is that it is for minor variations that are supposed to place the property owners on a parody with other property owners: i.e. the topography, the setback requirements, something specific about the property that would not allow the property owners to have the same amount of square footage as other property owners in the neighborhood. The idea of a variance should not result in a special privilege to a property owner where they will get an advantage over and above other property owners on the block or in the area. The variance is required prior to building the structure or undertake the activity, and in the event that the variance is denied because the findings are not there to support the variance, the property owner does not engage in the requested variance. In cases where the structure has been built and the property owner is asking for a variance after the fact, a denial of the variance would result in a requirement that the property be reduced by the additional amount of square footage that is over and above the allowed FAR: i.e. a dismantling of the illegal portion of the structure. Mr. Hewicker explained that during the 1970's the City undertook a major comprehensive undertaking of amending the City's Master Plan and adopting a new Master Plan, a series of General Plan Elements that went into the City's General Plan. Following the adoption of that plan there was a series of Ordinances that were adopted by the City pertaining to some of the older residentials of the City. In the 1970's the height limits for one and two family residential districts was limited to 35 feet in height, building was limited to 2 habitable floors, one family units in single family zones, two family units in two family areas, and then with the undertaking of the General Plan there was a series of concerns that were addressed and those issues have continued to be brought -14- COMMISSIONERS o�y°l��P Poo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Se tember 9 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX p into the 1990's regarding the physical appearance of the community, the height and bulk of buildings, FAR's, and tying development both residential and commercial to the capacity of e circulation system to carry the traffic that would be generated. In the series of Ordinances that were adopted, the height limits were lowered to 28 feet and ultimately to 24 feet as the basic eight limit, the buildable areas in the R -1 District and several of e R -2 Districts were restricted to 2 times buildable, the residential development standards that were adopted required pen space option areas in order to provide a variety of setbacks d open spaces on the properties to vary the streetscape or the pearances of structures as they were visible from alleys. Balboa sland was completely rezoned to a R -1.5 Zoning District and in ther areas, while the properties may have remained in the R -2 istrict, they were ultimately given a FAR of 1.5. The R -1.5 ning or the 1.5 FAR was basically to allow for a residence on ' e front half of the lot and to allow a garage or an income unit on the rear of a lot. The way that it has worked out in the residential districts is that there has not been a limitation placed on clerestory type of areas, i.e. a lot of building designers, architects, and residents are desirous of having ceiling heights, etc. at exceed the norm. In reference to clerestory over garages is rather unusual one; however, there has been no prohibition of at type of construction. The problems in the past are where persons have attempted to construct storage areas in the residences in the form of attics, etc. and the physical access to those areas has been by pull -down ladders or the City has required that the physical height of the space be limited so that it would not be classified as a habitable room, i.e. four feet high. The idea of e R -1.5 Zoning District was to limit the amount of space that ould be constructed so as to reduce the number of persons that ould be living in the given area by restricting the size of the I its. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. ewicker stated that the maximum height for an attic or a storage area would be four feet. • -15- L e %, IQ 'k \V11P105*%\_h0 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 9, 1993 D.3 ROLL CALL INDEX x s x Variance No. 1194 (Public Hearing) stem N, Request to permit as -built alterations and additions to an existing v1194 single - family dwelling which results in the structure exceeding: the Denied allowable gross floor area of 2.0 times the buildable area of the site and the allowable building height in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow an alteration and extension of an existing exterior stairway, which encroaches 3 feet into the required 3 foot northeasterly side yard setback. LOCATION: Lot 155, Subdivision of Block A, East Newport, located at 326 Buena Vista Boulevard, on the southeasterly side of Buena Vista Boulevard, between Edgewater Avenue and West Bay Avenue, on the Balboa Peninsula ZONE: R -1 APPLICANT: Thomas E. Steinfeld, Costa Mesa OWNERS: Neil and Kerry Barth, Newport Beach The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Tom Steinfield, architect and applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the property owner and he concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Mr. Steinfield indicated that his responses as stated in the staff report establish exceptional circumstances that would support the granting of the variance. As the house was originally constructed and eventually remodeled, it has put some limitations on the design that could be created that would comply with the current zoning requirements. The three -story building consisted of two stories plus virtually a third floor deck over the entire structure. No more square footage has been added than what existed in the three -16- D.3 4 COMMISSIONERS AO� clOr� d �s • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Se tember 9 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX stories, and the area that is habitable on the third floor was increased at the expense of the deck area on the third floor. There are three existing residences that are visible from the exterior of the subject structure that appear to have three story accessibility; therefore, there is precedent in the block. Based on the existing circumstances and the nature of the design, the bulk of the structure has not been significantly increased. An opaque railing existed around the third floor deck where the enclosure has occurred. In no case did any of the added area exceed what the existing height of the original structure was when it was first built in 1947; therefore, the envelope was never expanded more than was originally established when the structure was built or when it was remodeled in subsequent years. There is a transparent railing in the front of the structure that is the same elevation that existed; however, it is 12 feet forward and is only visible on the sides and the structure does not block any views. In response to a comment by Chairman Merrill, Mr. Steinfield replied that there is not a significant increase in mass. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Steinfield explained that he was the architect involved in the expansion; however, he did not submit the plans to the City. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Steinfield stated that he was aware that the enclosure of the third floor was illegal when he designed it and that he informed the property owner that the construction was illegal. In response to questions posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Steinfield stated that he has listed the height limit of the building 27 feet 2 inches ±. William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, explained that the flat roof could not exceed 24 feet, and anything over 24 feet would exceed the height limit. A portion of he flat roof on the third floor existed when the house was constructed in 1947. There was a roofed stairway and elevator on he third floor that was used as access to the roof deck. Mr. teinfield stated that subsequent remodels expanded and enclosed . portions of the roof deck into habitable space prior to regulations -17- 4 COMMISSIONERS �yfo� �P'Po'Pdso CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Se tember 9 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX at would prevent the expansion. The previous owner remodeled e structure in 1989, and established the opaque railings to the eight of the framing that existed at that tune. He indicated that much of the remodeling in 1989 was accomplished without the enefit of a Building Permit. He explained that he did not provide nstruction administration for the property owners; that he did of inspect the premises during the construction phase; and he did of visit the property during construction. Neil Barth, property owner, appeared before the Planning ommission. In response to a question posed by Commissioner dgeway, Dr. Barth explained that he did not apply for a variance rior to construction out of ignorance. When he purchased the roperty in 1991 the third floor had previously been remodeled to a habitable space and he was led to believe that the third oor could be considered enclosed space. In response to a ' uestion posed by Commissioner Glover, Dr. Barth explained that ere was a period of time between when the plans were drawn up d construction was initiated. Mr. Steinfield provided the roperty owners with the information that was requested of him om an architectural standpoint and not what was legal or cceptable to the City. mmissioner Ridgeway stated that a petition of support was igned by 10 neighbors who live adjacent to the subject property, d was submitted to the Planning Commission. Ed Lamar, 324 Buena Vista Boulevard, adjacent to the subject roperty, appeared before the Planning Commission to express his pposition to the subject variance. Speaking as a long time esident, Mr. Lamar stated that when the subject structure was uilt it was constructed with two stories and an elevator shaft, and here were no rooms on the third floor. He explained that the ulk of the structure has dwarfed his home. Mr. Jim Warmington, 328 Buena Vista Boulevard, appeared fore the Planning Commission to express his support of the variance. He explained that the remodel has enhanced the -18- L COMMISSIONERS o t 'P'Po 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES 4W 1 Septembu 1921 ROLL CALL INDEX structure and is aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood. The structure's stairway in the required side yard setback that is adjacent to his property, and the third floor have not adversely . affected his property. Larry Warner, 334 Buena Vista Boulevard, appeared before e Planning Commission to express his support of the variance. e stated that the structure previously had a room on the third floor. The improvement has enhanced the neighborhood, and it as maintained the traditional architecture of the area. Mr. Warner and Chairman Merrill discussed the architecture of the area's three story homes. mmissioner Glover stated that the issue is that the property owner did not follow the proper procedures to develop the property, and that property owners should not be allowed to construct buildings without following the City's regulations. Sue Warner, 334 Buena Vista Boulevard, appeared before he Planning Commission to express her approval of the variance. The structure is aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood, including viewed from the harbor, and she described the mixture of homes and lots that exist in the area. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public caring was closed at this time. n response to comments by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. ewicker explained that variances have not been granted in the ea for the same reasons that variances have been granted in alboa Island, i.e. lot sizes and configurations. When development tandards or zoning are changed, there will be structures that are egal nonconforming because the zoning permitted the taller uildings; however, structures that are constructed following zoning hanges are required to observe the new regulations. ommissioner Ridgeway explained that he needs to determine a mparison of the other houses on Buena Vista Boulevard with e subject project to determine if the property owner is in -19- COMMSSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CPntemhe.r 9 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX substantial conformance with the FAR with the other houses. Mr. Laycock responded that the subject structure is 2.56 times buildable area and if the adjacent neighbors constructed their homes to comply with the current regulations, the homes could not exceed 2 times buildable area. Ms. Flory stated that whether the design of the project allows for the FAR, if the structure is nonconforming, or if the development was illegally applied for are not facts that can legally support a variance. It is necessary to have facts that show that the subject property, (and not whether the structure itself looks aesthetically pleasing), is unique as to topography or if it is impossible to allow development at two times the buildable area. Therefore with respect to any increase over the permitted buildable area, it is necessary to look at the property to determine if the owner is at a disadvantage over other lots in the area. The issues of design, . etc. are issues that deal with health, safety, and welfare which is a finding in a modification or a use permit, but variances have specific findings that have to be made. Commissioner Ridgeway asked Ms. Flory if legally the Commission can approve the variance. Ms. Flory responded that in essence, the facts that have been presented do not support the findings that are necessary to approve the variance. Commissioner Ridgeway stated that the structure was built in 1947 in excess of two times buildable area, and how does that mitigate? Ms. Flory responded that the fact that it was legal nonconforming is not a factor to support the variance. In the subject case, if it were already nonconforming, the addition and the enclosure of the third floor deck would make it more nonconforming which would not be sufficient to support the findings for the variance. Commissioner Pomeroy asked if the variance is legally not supportable, then why is the Commission considering the application? Mr. Hewicker explained that the City does not refuse the opportunity of an applicant to file an application and make a presentation before the Commission. Commissioner DiSano stated that he did not feel that there are required findings for a variance for approval. It has nothing to do -20- L COMMISSIONERS "o�,��� c�pc� O,dpl��gfps�� X11 'i O `03,0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES September 9, 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Motion with the quality of construction, or the architecture. Motion was made to deny Variance No. 1194 subject to the findings in Exhibit Ayes * * * * * ". The motion was not done to admonish the applicant, it is Noes one because there are no findings to approve the variance. Absent * otion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Findings for 1. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building, and use proposed in this application, which circumstances and conditions do not generally apply to land, building, and /or uses on the other lots within the surrounding neighborhood, inasmuch as the square footage limitations which apply to the subject property, apply to all properties located in the R -1 and R -2 Districts on the Balboa Peninsula. Z. That the granting of a variance to allow the structure to further exceed the permitted gross structural area, is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant inasmuch as the existing structure currently exceeds the maximum allowable floor area permitted by Code and that the amount of living area within the dwelling is greater than the typical dwelling unit on Buena Vista Boulevard. 1. That the granting of a variance to allow the structure to further reduce the existing open space, is not necessary for the preservation and. enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant inasmuch as the existing structure without the additional square footage will provide open space to satisfy the minimum required by Section 20.11.040 of the Municipal Code, consistent with other typical properties on Buena Vista Boulevard. t. That the proposed modification to permit the proposed stairway to encroach into the 3 foot side yard setback will, under the circumstances of this particular case, be -21- COMMISSIONERS 4 urI \UM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 1 ROLL CALL INDEX materially detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood of the subject property and will under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood and further that the proposed modification is not consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 5. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use, property, and building will, 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 and will be injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood and to the general welfare of the City, inasmuch as the proposed gross floor area of the structure in relation to the size of the subject property is greater than other properties in the neighborhood and the approval of this application under the circumstances, will set an undesirable precedence for similar applications in the future. -22- 4 rjff CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 9 1 993 ROLL CALL INDEX ance No 119 (Public Hear' HeariW Item No. equest to permit an as -built alteration to an existing single - family v1i95 dwelling which has resulted in the existing structure exceeding the allowable gross floor area of 1.5 times the buildable area of the Approved site, on property located in the R -1S District. LOCATION: Lot 27, Block 11, Section Two, Balboa Island, located at 221 Ruby Avenue, on the westerly side of Ruby Avenue, between Balboa Avenue and Park Avenue, on Balboa Island. ONE: R -1.5 APPLICANTS: Anders and Beverly Folkedal, Balboa Island ' OWNERS: Same as applicants James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the applicant purchased the property after the floor area was added over the garage, and he had no knowledge that there was a problem with the structure. Mr. Hewicker explained the City's Report of Residential Building Records, and he explained that the property owners are required to provide to the buyers of the property a list of the various types of permits that have been issued on the property. It is not always the ability of the Code Enforcement Officer to catch all of the illegal construction that may have occurred when the inspections are made because the plans are not ways available. The City provides a disclaimer on the Report of Residential Building Records form. In response to questions posed by Chairman Merrill, Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, explained that if the application would be denied, the property owner would be required to dismantle the roperty to the required square footage. Ms. Flory addressed the responsibility of disclosure. -23- COMMISSIONERS. 4 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH September 1 ROLL CALL INDEX In response to questions posed by Chairman Merrill regarding Exhibit "B ", William Laycock, Current Planning Manager, and Ms. Flory explained that the 280± square feet of floor area that was added over the garage would be required to be removed; however, the 92± square feet that was approved by the Building Department at the time of construction would be allowed. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Anders Folkedal, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Folkedal explained that when they purchased the property they took title with no recourse inasmuch as they purchased the property from a bank who repossessed the building from the builder. Subsequently, they hired an architect to design a balcony and spiral stair, took out a permit, made the modification to get better use out of the roof deck, and had the modification completed and signed off. After they moved into the house it was discovered that they were not in compliance, and when they were notified of that situation an appointment was made with the City Building Inspector. The architect was instructed to do what was required by the City. The room that exists over the garage was completely finished during the original construction. Mr. Folkedal concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A "; however, Exhibit 'B" would not allow them to use the house as they purchased it. In response to a question posed by Commissioner DiSano, Mr. Folkedal explained that he and his wife had been looking at homes on Balboa Island for over two years before they purchased the subject dwelling. The room over the garage is being used as his wife's hobby room. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, and the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights for the fundamental reason there is no change in -24- COMMISSIONERS MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Se tember 9 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX the building bulk or the building structure. He stated that he would support the elimination of a high clerestory area above Motion garages so this type of condition could not reoccur. Motion was Ayes made to approve Variance No. 1195, subject to the findings and No * conditions in Exhibit 'W. Absent * Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. Findings: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land and building referred to in this application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and /or uses in the same District inasmuch as the expanded floor area will not result in any change to the outward appearance of the existing dwelling and that the as-built alterations to the structure involve interior portions of the building only. 2. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as the proposed project is generally comparable to the size, bulk and height to other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood. 3. That the granting of the variance will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood. -25- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES �.5 :d ROLL CALL INDEX Conditions: 1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance . with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations. 2. That the gross structural area of the subject project shall not exceed 2,892± square feet. 3. That the applicant shall obtain as-built building permits for all construction not included in the original construction of the dwelling. 4. That the applicant shall obtain Coastal Commission approval of this application prior to the issuance of as-built building permits. 5. That this variance shall expire unless all conditions have been fulfilled and the variance exercised within 24 months of the date of approval as specified in Section 20.82.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Variance No. 1192 (Public Hearinel Item N, Request to permit an as-built alteration to an existing single- family V1192 dwelling which has resulted in the structure exceeding the allowable gross floor area of 1.5 times the buildable area of the Not site, on property located in the R -1.5 District. Approv, LOCATION: Lot 22, Block 15, Section Three, Balboa Island, located at 327 Coral Avenue, on the westerly side of Coral Avenue, between North Bay Front and Balboa Avenue, on Balboa Island. ZONE: R -1.5 • -26- �.5 :d .00h ctOr'� d�Gdrs • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Sep r - 1991 POLL CALL INDEX APPLICANTS: Terry and Diane Peets, Balboa Island OWNERS: Same as applicant The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Terry Peets, applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission. In response to a question posed by Chairman Merrill, Mr. Peets concurred with the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". He explained that the variance would allow 1.61 times buildable area on the property. The construction was initiated with the knowledge that there was not a permit; however, several homes in the area had similar improvements. The home was constructed with the space above the garage with a pull -down ladder, including telephones, a proper floor joist around the pull- down ladder to support a floor, television antennas, three windows, and a security system. In response to questions posed by Chairman Merrill, Mr. Peets explained that the construction was completed when the City Building Inspector made the final approval; however, he did not inspect the final conversion. He said that the construction did not impact the height, bulk, or mass of the building. The building exterior has not been impacted. The floor of the garage was completed, and a door was built into that room. He said that they were trying to maximize the living area without intruding on the neighbors. He addressed the numerous letters that were mailed by the adjacent neighbors to the Commission in support of the application. Commissioner Ridgeway and Mr. Laycock discussed the location of the aforementioned windows in the area above the garage. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Peets explained that approximately two- thirds of the floor above the garage had been completed when the Building Inspector inspected the site, and the remaining one -third contained the pull- down ladder and a small space adjacent to the ladder. In response to a question posed by Commissioner DiSano, Mr. Peets replied that someone contacted the City that the property . owners had violated the Zoning Code. i -27- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES e to ROLL CALL INDEX In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Peets explained that the additional square footage was calculated to be 185± square feet; however, the City calculated the square footage to be 271 square feet. Mr. Laycock explained that staff scaled off the plans that were submitted to the City. Ms. Barbara Dasso, 331 Coral Avenue, adjacent to the subject property, appeared before the Planning Conunission in support of the variance. She explained that the structure enhanced the neighborhood, and the exterior has not been modified. There being no others desiring to appear and be beard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the difference between Variance No. 1195 (Item No. 4) and the subject variance, is that the applicant knowingly violated the Zoning Code. There is something wrong with the permitted Floor Area Ratio if it does not allow the property owners to get the size of dwelling unit that they want to have. He said that there is no change in the exterior size of the building and it is compatible with the neighborhood. Motion Motion was made to approve Variance No. 1192 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". Commissioner DiSano stated that the findings are not evident to support the variance. He concurred with Commissioner Pomeroy's comments regarding the Floor Area Ratio. He stated that it is unfair that there are individuals that have been able to get by with their improvements to exceed the permitted buildable area and others that have not been caught. Commissioner Gifford stated that there is a rather marginal amount of space involved and the areas over the garages seems designed for this to happen. There is a proposal that staff has suggested that might eliminate this by allowing clerestory space only in the living area and not over the garage area. She said that she is not sure that by allowing clerestory space that the City is 10 to solve the issue. To be consistent and to provide -28- -28- dh 14 COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES September 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX consistency to the community, she stated that she could not support the variance. She recommended that the issue be reviewed so as to resolve the problem. Substitute Substitute motion was made to deny Variance No. 1192 subject to Motion * the findings in Exhibit "B ". In response to questions posed by Commissioner Glover, Ms. Flory explained the procedure that the applicant would follow if the variance would be denied. Mr. Hewicker and Commissioner Glover discussed the building violations that occur on Balboa Island, and the neighbors policing the area to report the encroachments. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the City should bear some responsibility for what has occurred in this situation. He addressed Mr. Hewicker's comments that clerestory areas should not be allowed above garages, and he referred to the design of the alteration. Chairman Merrill explained that in the case of Variance No. 1195 (Item No. 4) that the builder was responsible for the illegal construction and the property was foreclosed by the bank. The applicant purchased the property and the structure passed the City inspection. However, in this particular case, the applicant knowingly made the alterations in spite of the Zoning Code. Commissioner Gifford stated that there is a problem that the Commission would like to see resolved, and she referred to the issue that staff is reviewing the Floor Area Ratio on Balboa Island. She asked if there is any way that the applicant could make a commitment to perhaps not to use the space for habitation for some interval. Ms. Flory explained that it is feasible that the area could not be used for habitation; however, the area exists as habitable space, and she questioned how long it would take to draft the regulations and how long the property owners would be willing to dismantle the alteration. Mr. Hewicker asked if it were Commissioner Gifford's understanding that the City might amend -29- I' COMMISSIONERS o� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES mber 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX and she suggested that it has to be developers coming to the City informing the City what they want to do. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the coastal bluff is not the type of bluff that the Commission deals with normally because it is inland. He indicated that it may be an appropriate option that the subject bluff be removed from that consideration. Motion * Motion was made to recommend to the Planning staff that a wall Ayes * * be allowed to connect between McDonald's Restaurant and the No wall on the opposite side that will not be any higher or any further Absent * back into the slope than the existing walls that it connects. Motion was voted on, MOTION CARRIED. : s Y ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Addll Busines Motion Motion was made to excuse Commissioner DiSano from the Ayes Planning Commission meetings of September 23, 1993, and DiSano Excused Absent October 7, 1993. Motion voted on, MOTION CARRIED. sss ADJOURNMENT: 11:15 p.m. Adjourn Y Y Y ANNE K. GIFFORD, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION -33- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES MW I I I I I SeDtember 9 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner DiSano suggested that the retaining wall be developed straight across and with consistency, and he also determined that the wall would give the bluff some added stability. Following comments by Commissioner Gifford, Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager, stated that the City has a policy that addresses minimizing the alteration of natural coastal bluffs. She asked if the type of wall proposed is considered to be consistent with the interpretation of minimizing alteration to the natural land form. In response to a question posed by Chairman Merrill, Mr. Jacques explained that there are certain hillside conditions that would allow construction of a retaining wall to a certain depth to contain the hillside and the erosion. Mr. Horwin would give private agreements to property owners on Kings Road for gravity drains . to his properties at their expense, and a retaining wall would provide a developable area on Lots 14, 15, 16, and 17. Commissioner Ridgeway commented that in return the City would be given gravity flow and stabilization of a slope, and the commercial buildings would block the bluff. He stated to limit the line to Lot 18, McDonald's Restaurant, would set a standard. Mr. Jacques, John Douglas, Principal Planner, and the Commission discussed acceptable heights and depths of the retaining wall. In response to comments by Commissioner Gifford, Mr. Douglas explained that until a decision was made on the retaining wall the remodeling of the dwelling on Kings Road could not proceed. Mr. Jacques explained that the initial concern was regarding gravity drains for all of the property owners from Lot 17, adjacent to McDonald's Restaurant, to Dover Drive. Commissioner Glover stated that the Rocky Point retaining wall has set a precedent, and one long wall may not be to the advantage of the area. Mariner's Mile has to be market - driven, -32- I Ay �Ot�'P'�d0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH U \Mt M Semember 9. 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX Restaurant, and he has been discussing with other property owners on West Coast Highway the ability to do something with the shallow lots that exist between Rocky Point and Dover Drive. The staff does not feel comfortable in issuing a permit to allow the construction of a retaining wall in this particular location without some direction from the Commission. If the decision is made to proceed with a retaining wall as requested by the applicant, is that going to be the location where retaining walls will be permitted in the future if it is decided to allow modification of the coastal bluff and the construction of retaining walls on the foregoing stretch of West Coast Highway. Chairman Merrill and Mr. Hewicker discussed the affect that the widening of West Coast Highway would have on the properties adjacent to the highway. • In response to questions posed by Chairman Merrill, Don Webb, City Engineer, explained that when people have been allowed to build in the bluff that they have had to record a covenant indicating that they would not hold the City liable for anything related to construction that they had done. Commissioner Gifford stated that her concern .would be if the construction of retaining walls would be done on a piecemeal basis. She suggested that if there is a high visible wall from West Coast Highway that the wall have a uniform appearance. Mr. Gregory Jacques, designer and builder of property located at 603 Kings Road, appeared before the Planning Commission. He addressed the property owned by Leonard Horwin, Lots 1 through 17, on West Coast Highway. He requested a determination from the City regarding Lots 14, 15, 16, and 17 inasmuch as the lots have a shallow depth of the building pad. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that the retaining wall would be constructed behind commercial establishments, and it would have no significant impact on the property owners residing on Kings . Road. -31- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES eptemher 1993 ROLL CALL INDEX the 1.5 times buildable area requirement on Balboa Island? Commissioner Gifford replied that it was her understanding that it is a subject that is up for discussion, and in particular with staffs recommendation that the Commission look for some kind of solution to this specific problem. Commissioner Pomeroy opined that there is a 50-50 chance that the FAR might be changed, and he is concerned about not just what might happen on small lots but on large lots. Ayes * Substitute motion was voted on to deny Variance No. 1192 subject Noes * * * to the findings in Exhibit "B ". MOTION NOT APPROVED. Absent * * * Motion was voted on to approve Variance No. 1192 subject to the Ayes Noes * findings and conditions in Exhibit "A ". MOTION NOT �ent * APPROVED. • r r Discussion Item: Discuss Item Coastal Bluffs Policy Interretation No. 1 Request for Planning Commission interpretations of Land Use Element Policy D as it applies to a proposed retaining wall along Coastal the base of the bluff at 600 West Coast Highway. Policy Policy James Hewicker, Planning Director, explained that the issue has come up as a result of a construction project which is occurring in the residential area above West Coast Highway. It involves a situation where the property owner of the residential property would be required to either install a pump to drain water up to Kings Road or obtain an easement across the property below him and drain to West Coast Highway. There are policies in the General Plan which addresses modifications to the coastal bluffs. The property owner on West Coast Highway, Leonard Horwin, is . an owner of several parcels from Dover Drive to McDonald's -30-