Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMoriarty Parcel Map Appeal - PA2008-207CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT February 4, 2010 Meeting Agenda Item 2 SUBJECT: Moriarty Parcel Map Appeal 2128 Mesa Drive - PA2008 -207 Tentative Parcel Map NP2008 -024 APPLICANT/ Richard Moriarty APPELLANT: PLANNER: Makana Nova, Assistant Planner (949) 644 -3249, mnova @newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY The application consists of a parcel map to consolidate existing portions of lots and parcels into a single parcel of land for single -unit development. The application was approved with conditions by the Zoning Administrator. The applicant, Richard Moriarty, has appealed the decision of the Zoning Administrator to the Planning Commission and requests relief from conditions of approval relating to Coastal Commission approval and the ingress /egress access easement. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a de novo hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. denying the appeal and upholding and affirming the decision of the Zoning Administrator and approving Parcel Map No. NP2008 -024, subject to the findings and conditions of approval included within the attached draft resolution (Attachment No. PC1). Moriarty Parcel Map Appeal February 4, 2010 Page 2 VICINITY MAP F 1Users\PLN\SharedTA's1PAs - 2008tPA2008- 2071PC Appeal Cont\02- 04- 101NP2008 -024 PC rpt 02- 04- 10.doc iao GENERAL PLAN ZONING LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON -SITE Single -Unit Residential Residential Agricultural Single- family residence /winery Detached (RS-D) (R -A NORTH Single -Unit Residential SP -7 Santa Ana Heights, Residential equestrian Detached (RS -D) Residential Equestrian SOUTH Open Space (OS) Upper Newport Bay R29ional Park PC-44 Open space EAST Single -Unit Residential Residential Agricultural Single -unit dwellings Detached(RS -D) (R -A) WEST Single -Unit Residential Residential Agricultural OC Flood Control channel, Detached (RS-D) (R -A) in ressle ress easement F 1Users\PLN\SharedTA's1PAs - 2008tPA2008- 2071PC Appeal Cont\02- 04- 101NP2008 -024 PC rpt 02- 04- 10.doc Moriarty Parcel Map Appeal February 4, 2010 Page 3 INTRODUCTION Project Setting and Description The application is for a parcel map to combine existing portions of lots and parcels into a single parcel of land for single -unit development. The subject property is located within the Coastal Zone and is located within the R -A (Residential - Agricultural) Zoning District along Mesa Drive in Santa Ana Heights. The property is landlocked as there is no recorded access easement for the subject property. Access is currently taken through a driveway to Mesa Drive. Background On December 8, 2008, the Zoning Administrator approved Parcel Map No. NP2008- 024. On December 22, 2008, the applicant filed the appeal, requesting that the Planning Commission remove the conditions relating to the ingress /egress access easement and Coastal Commission approval. On February 19, 2009, the Planning Commission continued the appeal hearing to May 21, 2009, to allow time for the stakeholders, Richard Moriarty, Carla Brockman, the Orange County Parks (OC.Parks), Orange County Flood Control Department (OCFCD), and the City of Newport Beach, to reach an agreement regarding conditions requiring that the applicant establish an ingress /egress access easement to the subject property. On May 21, 2009, the Planning Commission, at the request of the applicant, continued the appeal hearing to August 20, 2009. On August 20, 2009, the Planning Commission, at the request of the applicant, continued the appeal hearing to November 5, 2009. On November 5, 2009, the Planning Commission, at the request of the applicant, continued the appeal hearing to February 5, 2010. The applicant has not requested any further continuances from the February 5, 2010, Planning Commission hearing date. DISCUSSION Analysis The stakeholders are currently involved in negotiations to modify the property transfer process so that the easement rights are transferred directly to the City, therefore limiting the County of Orange's involvement in the review process and allowing the applicant to work with only one agency. Once transferred, the City will oversee Mr. Moriarty's F: \Users \PLN \Shared \PA's \PAs - 2008 \PA2008 - 207 \PC Appeal Cont \02- 04- 10 \NP2008 -024 PC rpt 02- 04- 10.doc Moriarty Parcel Map Appeal February 4, 2010 Page 4 improvements of the access drive and the City will provide continued maintenance with reserved access easement rights for Richard Moriarty, OC Parks, and Orange County Flood Control Department (OCFCD). At this time, OC Parks has requested the approval of the adjacent property owner and owner of the easement, Carla Brockman, and is awaiting a formal response to simplify the review process and transfer the easement rights directly to the City. County of Orange staff created several drafts of the agreement to process the transfer of easement rights and improvement of the Birch street access. OC Parks will thereafter proceed with writing the specifications of the permit. The applicant has opted to proceed with the appeal of the conditions but has not requested a continuance of this item and would like to commend the City's proactive actions while working to resolve this matter with each of the stakeholders. Conclusion The status of the appeal regarding Condition Nos. 16, 17, and 22 remains the same. Condition Nos. 16 and 17 requiring the establishment of direct access to the subject property are requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. The applicant has agreed to obtain Coastal Commission approval prior to recordation of the parcel map per Condition No. 22 in the same document. The Zoning Administrator's conditions of approval are necessary for compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Subdivision Ordinance. The Conditions of approval have no bearing on the negotiation between the applicant and the other parties as to the rights of the ingress /egress easement. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator and approve the parcel map with the findings and conditions in the attached resolution (Attachment No. PC1). Alternatives The parcel map conditions of approval imposed by the Zoning Administrator are necessary for compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and Title 19 of the Municipal Code (Subdivision Code). In addition to the Planning Department's recommendation to deny the subject appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval of the parcel map with conditions, the Planning Commission may deny the application in its entirety if the findings cannot be met. Environmental Review This project qualifies for an exemption from environmental review pursuant to Section 15315 (Class 15) of the Implementing Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project consists of the division of property in urbanized areas zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use into four or fewer parcels when the division is FAUsers \PLN \Shared \PA's \PAS - 2008 \PA2008 - 207 \PC Appeal Cont \02- 04- 10 \NP2008 -024 PC rpt 02- 04- 10.doc Moriarty Parcel Map Appeal February 4, 2010 Page 5 in conformance with the General Plan and zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous two years and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent. Public Notice This item was continued to a date certain at the Planning Commission meeting as reflected in the minutes from November 5, 2009. The November 5, 2009 Planning Commission meeting was also continued to a date certain at the Planning Commission meeting as reflected in the minutes on August 20, 2009. Notice for the August 20, 2009 hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property, and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: Ma na Oova, Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS Submitted by: David Lepo, PkAning Director PC1. Draft resolution PC2. Planning Commission Minutes, November 5, 2009 PC3. Planning Commission Minutes, August 20, 2009 PC4. Planning Commission Minutes, May 21, 2009 PC5. Planning Commission Minutes, February 19, 2009 FAUsers \PLN \Shared \PA's \PAs - 2008 \PA2008 - 207 \PC Appeal Cont \02- 04- 10 \NP2008 -024 PC rpt 02- 04- 10.doe Attachment No. PC 1 Draft resolution RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING AN APPEAL BY THE APPLICANT AND UPHOLDING AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 2008 -024 WITH CONDITIONS (PA2008 -207) THE PLANNING COMMISION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HERBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by the applicant, Richard Moriarty, with respect to property located at 2128 Mesa Drive, and legally described as a Portion of Lot 152, Block 51 Irvine's Subdivision, Portions of Lots 104 -115 inclusive and portions of Lots 120 and 121, Tract 706. 2. The applicant proposes to combine existing portions of lots and parcels into a single parcel of land for single - family residential development. 3. The subject property is located within the Residential Agricultural (R -A) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D). 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is Single Unit Residential Detached (RSD -A). 5. A public hearing was held on December 8, 2008, in the City Council Conference Room, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, considered by, and approved with conditions by the Zoning Administrator at this meeting. 6. An appeal was filed on December 22, 2008, by the applicant, Richard Moriarty. 7. Public hearings were held on February 19, May 21, August 20, and November 5, 2009, and February 4, 2010 in the City Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 of 9 1. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 15 (Minor Land Divisions). 2. The project consists of the division of property in urbanized areas zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use into four or fewer parcels when the division is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous two years and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. The Planning Commission determined in this case that the proposed parcel map is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and is approved based on the following findings per Section 19.12.070 of Title 19: Finding: A. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code. Facts in Support of Finding: A -1. The proposed parcel map is to combine portions of 14 lots to create one parcel of land for single family residential purposes. The residential density on the site will remain the same. The proposed subdivision and improvements are consistent with the density of the R -A (Residential - Agricultural) Zoning District and the current General Plan Land Use Designation "Single -Unit Residential Detached ". Finding: B. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. Facts in Support of Finding: B -1. The lot is regular in shape, has a slope of less than 20 percent, and is suitable for development. Finding: C. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision - making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an Planning Commission Resolution No. Paqe 3 of 9 environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. Facts in Support of Finding: C -1. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 15 (Minor Land Divisions). The design of the lot merger and roadwork improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Finding. D. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. Facts in Support of Finding: D -1. The construction of the proposed single family residence will comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes. Public improvements will be required of the developer per Section 19.28.010 of the Municipal Code and Section 66411 of the Subdivision Map Act. All ordinances of the City and all conditions of approval will be complied with. D -2. That public improvements will be required of the applicant per the Municipal Code and the Subdivision Map Act. Finding: E. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision- making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to easements previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision. Facts in Support of Finding: E -1. That the design of the development will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 4 of 9 E -2. That adequate ingress /egress will be provided via a recorded access easement prior to final recordation of the parcel map. E -3. That the easement will be improved to the satisfaction of the Public Works department prior to recordation of the Parcel Map. Findin : F. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land. Facts in Support of Finding: F -1. The property is not subject to the Williamson Act since the subject property is not considered an agricultural preserve and is less than 100 acres. Findin : G. That, in the case of a "land project' as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code: (a) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project; and (b) the decision - making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area. Facts in Support of Finding: G -1. The property is not a "land project' as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code. Finding: H. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act. Facts in Support of Finding: H -1. The proposed parcel map and improvements are subject to Title 24 of the California Building Code that requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Department enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and inspection process. Planning Commission Resolution No. Pape 5 of 9 Finding: That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. Facts in Support of Finding 1 -1. The proposed parcel map is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing need. The residential density on the site will remain the same, which allows one unit for the R -A Zoning District. No affordable housing units are being eliminated based upon the fact that the previously existing units were not occupied by low or moderate income households and the proposed number of units remains the same. Finding: J. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Facts in Support of Finding: J -1. Wastewater discharge into the existing sewer system will remain the same and does not violate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. Finding: K. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. Facts in Support of Finding: K -1. The proposed parcel map is located in the Coastal Zone and conforms to the certified Local Coastal Program. The Coastal Land Use Plan designates this site as Estate Residential (RE), which is intended to provide for very low- density single - family detached residential development on large lots, and the current development is consistent with this designation. K -2. That Coastal Commission approval will be obtained for the Parcel Map prior to recordation. Planning Commission Resolution No. Pape 6 of 9 SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Parcel Map No. 2008 -024, subject to the Conditions set forth in Exhibit "A ". 2. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within, such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this is called for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 4T" DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010. AYES: (� ABSTAIN: ABSENT: M MO. Robert Hawkins, Chairman Charles Unsworth, Secretary Planning Commission Resolution No. Pape 7 of 9 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PARCEL MAP NO. 2008 -024 1. A parcel map shall be recorded with the Orange County Clerk- Recorder Department. The Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD83). Prior to recordation of the Map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the. Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital - graphic file of said map in a manner described in Section 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. The map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City's CADD Standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. 2. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set on each lot corner, unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 3. All improvements shall be constructed as required by City Ordinance and the Public Works Department. In addition, improvements for domestic water and sanitary sewer service connections shall be constructed as required by the Irvine Ranch Water District and the Costa Mesa Sanitary District respectively. 4. No permanent structures can be built within the limits of any easement within the property. 5. All work conducted within the public right -of -way shall be approved under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 6. All applicable Public Works Department plan check fees, improvement bonds and inspection fees shall be paid prior to processing of the map by the Public Works Department. 7. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.28.090 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 8. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 (or any other applicable chapters) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, additional street trees may be required and existing street trees shall be protected in place during construction of the subject project, unless otherwise approved by the General Services Planning Commission Resolution No. Paqe 8 of 9 Department and the Public Works Department through an encroachment permit or agreement. 9. All existing drainage facilities in the public right -of -way shall be retrofitted to comply with the City's on -site non -storm runoff retention requirements. The Public Works Inspector shall field verify compliance with this requirement prior to recordation of the parcel map. 10. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement. See City Standard 110 -L. 11. All on -site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements. 12. Additional Public Works improvements, including street and alley reconstruction work may be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 13. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right - of -way could be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 14. All existing private, non - standard improvements within the public right -of -way and /or extensions of private, non - standard improvements into the public right -of- way fronting the development site shall be removed unless an Encroachment Agreement is applied for and approved by the Public Works Department. 15. Two -car parking, including one enclosed garage space, shall be provided on site for each dwelling unit per requirements of the Zoning Code. 16. Prior to recordation of the final Parcel Map the applicant shall prove that the applicant has the right to access the property (i.e. ingress /egress to and from the property) from Mesa Drive. The applicant shall establish proof that the applicant has the right to access the property from Mesa Drive in a form and manner acceptable to the Office of the City Attorney, in its sole discretion. Reference to recorded instruments covering rights for ingress, egress, and utility services to the property shall be shown on the final Parcel Map. 17. The applicant shall complete roadwork improvements on the ingress /egress and utilities easement to the subject property to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department prior to recordation of the Parcel Map. The required improvements shall include the construction of a 20 -foot wide, paved driveway with drainage improvements including a bottomless trench drain at the end of the driveway. 18. Utilities shall be connected to the satisfaction of the Irvine Ranch Water District and the Costa Mesa Sanitary District prior to recordation of the Parcel Map. 19. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 9 of 9 equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 20. In compliance with the requirements of Chapter 9.04, Section 901.4.4, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, approved street numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a location that is plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the subject property. Said numbers shall be of non - combustible materials, shall contrast with the background and shall be either internally or externally illuminated to be visible at night. Numbers shall be no less than four inches in height with a one -inch wide stroke. The Planning Department Plan Check designee shall verify the installation of the approved street number or addresses during the plan check process for the new or remodeled structure. 21. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits, if required by the Public Works Department or the Building Department. 22. Prior to the recordation of the parcel map, the applicant shall obtain a determination, in writing, from the Coastal Commission that the merger of parcels as proposed by the parcel map is not development under the California Coastal Act or obtain Coastal Commission approval of the parcel map. 23. This parcel map 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 Director in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.16 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 24. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of Parcel Map No. NP2008 -024; and /or the City's related California Environmental Quality Act determinations. Attachment No. PC 2 Planning Commission Minutes, November 5, 2009 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/05/2009 parking studies in order for staff to make a reasonable recommendation. Chairperson Hawkins requested confirmation that applicant will provide materials as necessary by the next hearing date. Mr. Lepo confirmed that applicant is required to provide additional information. Motion was made by Commissioner Unsworth and seconded by Commissioner Peotter to continue this item to December 3, 2009. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge, and Hillgren Noes: None Absent: None x r + SUBJECT: Moriarty Residence (PA2008 -207) ITEM NO. 3 2128 Mesa Drive PA2008 -207 An appeal by the applicant, Richard Moriarty, of the Zoning Administrator Continued to approval of a parcel map to consolidate existing portions of lots and parcels into a 02/04/2010 single parcel of land for single - family development. The applicant requests relief from conditions of approval relating to Coastal Commission approval and the ingress /egress access easement. Mr. Lepo noted that the applicant submitted a request for continuation. Ms. Nova gave a brief overview of the staff report, noting the following: • Parcel Map was approved by Zoning Administrator on December 8, 2009, and appealed by the applicant regarding the conditions of approval. • Applicant is requesting relief from requirements of Coastal Commission approval for parcel map and relief from the requirement to establish an access easement to the subject property. • Steve Badum, Public Works Director, has been working with the County to establish a procedure to provide said access easement and to assist the applicant with improving and recording the access easement. Mr. Brine noted that the Public Works Director confirmed that he has been working on this item to process and complete as soon as he can. Chairperson Hawkins asked Mr. Brine if he experienced any difficulties with any parties involved, including the County. Mr. Brine answered to date he did not and noted the following: • Public Works is waiting for a set of plans from the applicant for review and approval. • Public Works will be the reviewing party and they will also be approving the plans. • Once approved a County permit would be issued. • The time frame to issue a permit by the County is unknown. • Public Works is committed to moving this process as soon as possible. Page 2 of 6 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11105/2009 Commissioner McDaniel noted that he is willing to continue this item one more time to a date certain and the item will be ready to be discussed or will be removed from calendar. Paul Rafferty, lawyer representing the appellant, recognized the commissioners frustration with the continuances and noted the following: • Assured the Planning Commission that Mr. Moriarty has worked very hard to evolve and move this project and does not want to prolong the project. • Per the request of the Planning Commission, plans were revised by Mr. Moriarty and submitted to the County. • County comments were received July 19, 2009. • Issues Mr. Moriarty has to solve include: ingress /egress solutions, adjacent neighbors, ownership of Birch Street extension. • The project would ultimately vest within the City. • Mr. Rafferty met with Dave Kiff and Aaron Harp where Mr. Kiff proposed to make this a city project since the City would ultimately take ownership. • A cost estimate of $50,000 to $75,000 was provided to the applicant, by early September, as referenced in the agenda packet. Mr. Rafferty added that some time was lost when Aaron Harp left the City. • Mr. Badum met with the County on October 13, 2009, to inform the County that the project will be a driveway improvement project, will not require engineering, and will effectuate all the property transfers. • Mr. Badum confirmed this idea in writing on October 21, 2009. • The County issued a letter based on their meeting with Mr. Badum. County correspondence, dated October 27, 2009, was distributed by Ms. Nova to staff and Commissioners and Mr. Rafferty noted the following: • The County letter references old plans that were submitted by Mr. Moriarty. These plans are inconsistent with the plans that the City is proposing and plans are being revised and should be done by beginning of next week. • The County requests that an OC Parks Permit be pulled. • The City's approved plans, which will be submitted to the City by next week, will be submitted to the County for a parks permit. • The County demands that it infuse itself with the project. • Mr. Rafferty questioned why the County was not in attendance to answer their questions. • Revised plans submitted to the County in May or June came back with a list of new and changed items and they are uncertain what the County will do with the permit once the approved plans have been submitted by the City. Mr. Brine noted that per the conversation and by direction from the Director of Public Works, the City will be the party approving the plans. Once plans have been approved by the City, they will be submitted to the County for the permit process. A City Encroachment Permit and a County Parks Permit will be part of the process. The Countv will not have the opportunity to review the plans Page 3 of 6 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/0512009 beyond that point. Chairperson Hawkins asked Mr. Brine what type of permit is a parks permit Mr. Brine noted that the permit is termed an Orange County Parks Permit and was not exactly sure what that permit would be and thought it to be consistent with a City Encroachment Permit. Mr. Rafferty noted that this was his understanding and that they will be pulling a Public Works Encroachment Permit with the City. Mr. Lepo noted there was no reason to continue this item for the following reasons: • The Subdivision Map Act and local subdivision ordinance require that approved access be provided for that parcel map. • The recommendation of the Planning staff will not change. • There is no basis for the Planning Commission to decide if this has to be done. • The applicant does not want to provide a letter from the Coastal Commission indicating that the Parcel Map is exempt from a Coastal Development Permit where the City believes a Coastal Development Permit is required. Commissioner Unsworth asked Mr. Rafferty what problems his client is experiencing with Conditions 16 and 22 and how do they affect their ongoing negotiations. Chairperson Hawkins further noted that the following two issues need to be addressed with this settlement: • How is Mr. Moriarty going to gain access? • Should Mr. Moriarty be required to obtain Coastal Commission approval for the Parcel Map? Mr. Rafferty responded with the following: • Coastal Commission approval will be required and he does not think it will be difficult to do and if this was the only issue they would not have filed an appeal. • The Parcel Map consolidation is denying this homeowner occupancy. The end result is that he gets recorded access. • Mr. Rafferty agreed that a final hard date be set and they have a mutual agreement of sorts to set that date for a final outcome. Chairperson Hawkins noted that there appears to have been some negotiations and an agreement between the private parties in connection with the proposal and asked if there was a written settlement contract memorializing this. Mr. Rafferty noted thev have a tentative Page 4 of 6 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/05/2009 Chairperson Hawkins noted that an unsigned agreement is not an agreement and continued to ask Mr. Rafferty if he believes this item would be ready for a Planning Commission ruling in thirty to sixty days. Mr. Rafferty did not think this item would be ready in thirty or sixty days and noted he would take ni nety days. Commissioner Hillgren noted that access easement is required and does not understand why any further delay would encourage the parties to get things done or how the extra time relates to Planning Commission action. Mr. Rafferty noted that absent a written binding agreement, the only thing that has motivated the parties to date is the Planning Commission's delay in making a ruling. Commissioner Hillgren was still not clear with Mr. Rafferty's response. Commissioner Peotter noted in response to Commissioner Hillgren that he does not agree that a Parcel Map is required in order to provide a legal parcel and was in agreement to continue this item to a date certain. Also, the item may be continued again due to the unknown outcome of the County and may have to come back in regular increments for progress updates. Mr. Lepo noted that a lot consolidation or lot line adjustment cannot be used for a property that does not have approved access. Chairperson Hawkins noted that this was going to be a City application to the County and the City should be able to expedite the pr ocess with the County. Mr. Moriarty noted that these issues are not under his control and he is willing to accept the budget, as an estimate from the City, of $75,000 for the road and will do whatever he can to facilitate this matter. Commissioner Toerge noted that absent of any new information he is inclined to deny the appeal and agreed that i tem should be continued. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Hillgren to continue this item for ninety days to February 4, 2010. Commissioner McDaniel noted that he wanted to vote on this item at the next hearing and supported the motion to continue. Chairperson Hawkins reopened the public hearing to ask the applicant if an extension is given and access is granted by permit by the City and the County, could the appeal be withdraw n and would they be able to m ove forward. Mr. Rafferty and Mr. Moriarty agreed that if recorded access is received, they would withdraw the appeal. Commissioner Unsworth asked if thev are oreoared to waive anv riahts thev Page 5 of 6 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/05/2009 may have under the permit streamlining act. Mr. Rafferty agreed to waive his rights. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge, and Hillgren Noes: None Excused: None NEW BUSINESS: City Council Follow -up — Mr. Lepo gave an overview of the Hearing Officers determination for Reasonable Accommodation requests from Newport Coast Recovery and Pacific Shores Property. Commissioner Eaton noted that at the last Planning Commission meeting it was stipulated that a follow up report on the Megonigal residence be provided by the Planning Director. Mr. Campbell gave an overview and answered questions by the Planning Commission regarding the Megonigal residence. Commissioner Eaton requested response document be received prior to receiving the packet. Planning Commission reports — Commissioner Toerge noted that on November 10, 2009, the Task Force on Green Development will discuss the white paper to be presented to the City Council in the study session outlining public outreach, resources, guidelines and incentives for going green. Commissioner Eaton noted that the General Plan Update Committee has not met for a few weeks but is scheduled to meet on November 17. Chairperson Hawkins reported that the EDC received a presentation from two groups (employers and employees), conjoined with Coast Community College in connection with employment issues. The presentation discussed how these groups could assist EDC members with hiring and training. Announcements on matters that Commission members would like placed on a future agenda for discussion, action, or report — None Requests for excused absences —none. ADJOURNMENT: 7:20 p.m. CHARLES UNSWORTH, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 of 6 Attachment No. PC 3 Planning Commission Minutes, August 20, 2009 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes August 20, 2009 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge, and Hiligren— all were present. STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Patrick Alford, Planning Manager Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Makana Nova, Assistant Planner Chris Savan, Planning Technician Ginger Varin Administrative Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on August 14, 2009. HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of August 8, 2009. ITEM NO. 1 Approved Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commissioner Hiligren to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge and Hiligren Noes: I None OBJECT: Moriarty Residence ITEM NO.2 2128 Mesa Dr. PA2008 -207 An appeal by the applicant, Richard Moriarty, of the Zoning Administrator Continued to approval of a parcel map to consolidate existing portions of lots and parcels into 11/09/2009 a single parcel of land for single - family development. The applicant requests relief from conditions of approval relating to Coastal Commission approval and the ingress/egress access easement. Mr. Lepo noted the applicant has requested a continuance of this item. He noted that staff recommends action be taken tonight. NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 08/20/2009 Chairperson Hawkins noted that staff's recommendation is not to continue, deny the appeal, and affirm the Zoning Administrator's determination. Commissioner McDaniel noted that the applicant has not been ready each time he has come to a hearing, and is not willing to continue this again unless there is a specific time that this will be heard. Perhaps we should pull this item and hear it when the applicant is prepared. He noted he does not support continuing this item. Commissioner Hillgren noted the applicant was requested to work out complex issues and so we set the hearing for this date. If the applicant needs more time we need to give them more time to work through these issues. Chairman Hawkins noted a letter authored by Ms. Brockman's attorney agreeing to a continuance. Mr. Moriarty, the property owner and applicant, noted he is dealing with both the County and the City and it has been difficult to get consensus. There is a meeting tomorrow and hopes this will be resolved. The continuance would be the best choice. Commissioner McDaniel asked the applicant when he would be ready for another meeting as you owe it to us to be ready to go, or perhaps you should pull this item and come back when you are ready. Mr. Moriarty noted it is up to the different agencies involved as there are multiple easements on the road in question. Ms. Brockman, who owns this road, has an agreement with me, but it is the County and the City who are holding us up. Assistant City Attorney Harp confirmed that there have been many conflicts with schedules and that meeting could not happen until tomorrow. Mr. Lepo stated that a revised set of conditions have been prepared to allow the Commission to amend the conditions that were approved by the Zoning Administrator to address some of Mr. Moriarty's concerns, specifically for the requirements of Fish and Game approval, which we are willing to delete. Also, relating to the California Coastal Commission not saying he has to have a specific permit, but simply that Mr. Moriarty needs to get a letter from them saying he does not need a permit from the Coastal Commission, or, verification of whatever permit he needs, he will get from them. That takes care of the City's responsibility because the other conditions that require an improved dedicated roadway can't be deleted as that is per the Subdivision Ordinance that there is improved access to publidprivate road. As far as the negotiation, and what the configuration of that roadway on the County land looks like, is of no concern to Planning staff or the Planning Commission, as long as Mr. Moriarty provides that access consistent with the Subdivision Code. You can act if you chose on the proposed revised conditions. Copies of the revised conditions were distributed to Commission. look at the Page 2 of 14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 09/2012009 revised conditions. He was answered, no. Commissioner McDaniel noted he has not gotten an answer to his question and until he does, he is not in support of a continuance. Mr. Lepo stated there is no need for the Planning Commission to continue this matter as the negotiations are independent from the decision of the Commission. As long as Mr. Moriarty is able to provide improved access to that parcel map lot, this is good to go. Chairman Hawkins asked the applicant if he could answer Commissioner McDaniel's question. When do you believe you will have a finalized agreement? Mr. Moriarty noted he is not in control of that due to the different agencies involved and can't promise something that he has no control over. Mr. Harp reiterated the focus here is on whether they have complied with the condition or not, and whether the condition is appropriate. I agree with Mr. Lepo's opinion that requiring access to the parcel is required. We are here tonight to determine whether the condition is or is not appropriate, not whether or not he can satisfy the condition, which is really what the agreement relates to. Commissioner Hillgren noted we could go ahead and act tonight, but it seems the applicant is here with the expectation of a continuance. To give the applicant an opportunity to work through this, he made the following motion: Motion was made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Peotter to continue this item for thirty days. The applicant will be prepared to act with the understanding that staff is ready for us to move forward. Commissioner McDaniel noted thirty days is not long enough, maybe ninety days. He does not oppose a continuance, but there is nothing offered that thirty days is enough. Commissioner Peotter proposed an amendment to the motion to ninety days. The maker of the motion accepted the amendment.. Mr. Lepo asked for this to be set to a date certain. Chairman Hawkins asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak to the continuance on this item. There was no response. Commissioner Hillgren noted the continuance date would be to November 5, 2009. Ayes: Eaton, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: Unsworth •xR Page 3 of 14 Attachment No. PC 4 Planning Commission Minutes, May 21, 2009 f" . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes May 21, 2009 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge, and Hillgren— Commissioner Hillgren was excused, all others were present. STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer Patrick Alford, Planning Manager James Campbell, Principal Planner Sean McGhie, Planning Intern Ginger Varin, Administrative Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on March 13, 2009. HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of March 19, 2009. ITEM NO. 1 Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Approved Commissioner Eaton to approve the minutes as corrected. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel and Toerge Noes: None Excused: Hillgren SUBJECT: Moriarty Residence (PA2008 -207) ITEM NO. 2 2128 Mesa Drive PA2008 -207 An appeal by the applicant, Richard Moriarty, of the Zoning Administrator Continued to approval of a parcel map to consolidate existing portions of lots and parcels 08/20/2009 into a single parcel of land for single - family development. The applicant requests relief from conditions of approval relating to Coastal Commission NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 05/21/2009 approval and the ingress /egress access easement. Mr. Lepo, Planning Director, noted the applicant has asked for a 90 day continuance and that staff is in agreement. Commissioner Hawkins asked how many times this item had been continued and was answered this is the 90th day of the first continuance. He then noted his concern that the applicant needs to know this item will be heard on August 13, 2009 as recommended by staff for this matter if nothing else, no other continuance. Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Commissioner Eaton to continue this item to August 13, 2009. Note: Actual hearing date is August 20, 2009. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Peotter, McDaniel and Toerge Noes: None Absent: Hawkins Excused: Hill ren SUBJECT: AERIE Condominiums (PA2005 -196) ITEM NO. 3 201 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place in Corona del PA2005 -196 Mar at the corner of the intersection of Ocean Blvd. & Carnation Ave. The demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building and a single - family Continue to home and the construction of a 6- level, 8 -unit multiple - family residential 06/0412009 condominium complex with subterranean parking on a 1.4 acre site located bayward of the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. The existing General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning Designations of a small portion of the site (584 square feet) would be changed to be consistent with the larger portion of the site (from two- family residential to multi - family residential). The application includes a tentative tract map for the creation o eight (8) condominium units for individual sale. The Modification Permit application requests the encroachment of subterranean portions of the building within the front and side yard setbacks and above grade encroachments o portions of the proposed building, including protective guardrails into the front and side yard setbacks. Lastly, the Coastal Residential Development Permit application relates to replacement of demolished apartments occupied by low or moderate income households. No units meeting these criteria are known to exist, and therefore, no replacement of affordable housing units is required. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) (SCH #2007021054) has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application. The DEIR concludes that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment on Air Quality, Land Use, Noise, Traffic /Circulation, Aesthetics, Drainage and Hydrology, Public Health and Safety, Cultural Resources, Soils and Geology, and Biological Resources. Page 2 of 14 Attachment No. PC 5 Planning Commission Minutes, February 19, 2009 10 • u NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES surrounding development, and the character of the island was maintained. George Seitz, architect for the project, asked if there were any questions him. There were no questions, Burr McKeehan, owner, noted they have the smallest and the shortest he on the island. With the addition of 655 feet, they will still have the smal home and be lower than the adjacent homes. Public comment opened Mary Ann Miller, owner of property on north west corner of Island Edgewater, which is adjacent of Bay Island, did not have any spe concerns on this project. She wanted to note her concerns about construction on the island and the problems of all the trucks, w sometimes block her driveway, the traffic, parking, storage of an off construction project, and killing trees. Public comment closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Hawkins to adopt the resolution approving Planning Activity No. PA2008 -193 subject to the conditions attached to the resolution. Commissioner Hawkins asked staff if the application could be conditioned for management of traffic, construction, etc. Mr. Lepo answered yes, Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, Toerge, and Hillgren Noes: None Excused: McDaniel SUBJECT: Richard Moriarty 2128 Mesa Drive The applicant requests a parcel map to combine existing portions of lots and parcels into a single parcel of land for single - family development. The applicant has appealed the decision of the Zoning Administrator to the Planning Commission in order to remove conditions requiring the establishment and improvement of an ingresslegress access easement to the property and Coastal Commission approval prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map Makana Nova, Assistant Planner, gave an overview of the staff report. Nova provided copies of the revised resolution and conditions, M incorporated revisions provided by the City Attorney that clarified 01/08/2009 PA2008 -027 Continued 80 days Page 4 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 01/08/2009 Page 5 of 10 conditions were revised: 1. Condition 16 - revised language for clarification. 2. Condition 17 - revised language for clarification; details of the acce easement that would be required by Public Works that includes a 20 -fc wide driveway with a trench drain at the end of the driveway. 3. Condition 22 — the requirement for Coastal Commission approval H revised to permit the applicant to receive a waiver for the requirement the permit from Coastal Commission. Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney, expanded on. Condition 22 stating i the opinion of the City Attorney that under the Coastal Act this project wo constitute a development. The applicant does not believe this is development under the Coastal Act and the condition should not apl therefore, a provision was included so the applicant can get a waiver from Coastal Commission stating a development permit is not needed or that tt do not need Coastal Commission approval. Commissioner Hawkins asked if the applicant decided to get the permit a not seek a waiver from the Coastal Commission, would that satisfy Condit 22. • Mr. Harp answered yes. Commissioner Unsworth asked how long it would take for the waiver permit from the Coastal Commission, and would the applicant be in jeopa of losing time to file the parcel map or the building permit expiring. David Lepo, Planning Director, said it would take two to three- months for Coastal Commission's decision and he would not lose any time. Mr. Harp pointed out that Condition 23 gave the applicant 3 years from date of approval to record the parcel map. Ms. Nova noted that the building permit is still open and will not have expiration date until it is finalized. General discussion continued noting the following: 1. Parcel map was required as a condition of approval for the building per for the house, to satisfy the requirement of the Subdivision Code e comply with the State Law, 2. Coastal Commission approved the Coastal Development Permit in 2( for the new single - family residence. 3. Coastal Commission permit is required, prior to the recordation of parcel map, until our Local Coastal Program is certified. City Coui Page 5 of 10 i i i NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES does not have approval authority. 4. Condition 16 and 17 was revised to allow applicant ingresslegress acre to his property as long as he proves he has access rights, and makes I required easement improvements, whether it is through Jackass Alley the abandoned Birch Street. 5. The property owners and easement owners have been unsuccessful negotiations to establish a recorded easement from the subject prope to Mesa Drive. Public comment opened. Paul Rafferty and Patrick D'Arcy, attorneys representing owner Richi Moriarty, made a presentation on the applicant's position for the appeal a the history on the property. Chairperson Peotter asked Mr. Rafferty'if it was his opinion that they he legitimate legal access via Birch, but cannot prove it. Mr. Rafferty said yes it was his opinion, but contends that the record proves that access. No title company will certify this parcel with the past suits among the adjacent property owners, and the County of Orange sts that Mr. Moriarty has no rights on any of the roads. Chairperson Peotter asked where the negotiations between Mr. Moriarty anc Ms. Brockman stand. Mr. Rafferty said the negotiations were close and noted the following: 1. The County claimed easement rights on Birch and wants Birch improved. 2, He believes Ms. Brockman would like the County to take Birch. She doe: not want the liability of the equestrian traffic and he thinks the County ha: indemnified her of the liability. 3. Mr. Moriarty had been working on a plan with the County, but was that the City would be driving the development of Birch because it redevelopment funds and would take over the horse trails and the are so he stopped the plan with the County. The City has since scrapped redevelopment plans and told Mr. Moriarty he may try to redevelopment funds from the County. 4. There is also the fear of what the Coastal Commission would do with plan of improvement on Birch because of the water runoff problem the flood basin. Commissioner Hillgren asked why they did not go to court to finalize settlement. Page 6 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 01/08/2009 . Mr. Rafferty responded that Mr. Moriarty feels he is close to finalizing negotiations with the County, with the assistance of the City and Ms. Brockman, and it is a lot less expensive to settle directly than going to court. David Cosgrove, attorney representing Carla Brockman .owner of 2100 Mesa Drive, supports staff's recommendation to deny the appeal. Mr. Cosgrove continued with Ms. Brockman's issues, concerns, and differences with Mr. Moriarty. Ms. Brockman is willing to give the property over to the County, subject to conditions discussed with Mr. Moriarty, the City, and the County, so it can be publically owned and improved for public use. Commissioner Toerge asked for clarification if there is a formal agreemeni between Ms. Brockman and Mr. Moriarty Mr. Cosgrove said there was a signed letter agreement in May 2003, and it they go to court the letter will be tested if it is a full agreement. Commissioner Toerge questioned if Jackass Alley was limited to emergency access. Mr. Cosgrove said he feels there is a question about the emergency access that has been given and there is a question about the Tennison's property access over Jackass Alley. Ms. Brockman did not grant Mr. Moriarty access Mr. Moriarty went to the neighbor property and got them to grant the City the emergency access. Additionally, the County condemned an access • easement over the abandoned Birch Street, in 1997, and paid Ms. Brockmar for it. Mr. Moriarty did not pay for access. Harry Huggins, representing the County of Orange, asked that the Commission and staff refer to the letter he sent dated February 10, 2009 Part of his role with the County is being responsible for asset management and watching for the rights and public's rights for all their public parks. Hia involvement in this issue is making sure of the public's access rights through the questioned area. The Orange County Flood Control District does have a condemned easement through the property. The permit that Ms. Brockmar entered into with the County parks is for pedestrian, regional riding, anc hiking trail purposes through this area. He became involved in working with the attorneys and Mr. Moriarty and thought they had come to a conclusion it 2008. After receiving and reviewing the "Notice of Appeal" from the Zoning Administrator on December 22, 2008, it was evident the Mr. Moriarty had not presented any new evidence to establish legal access to his parcel. Commissioner Hawkins asked Mr. Huggins if the public had the right to use the County's easement. If the public had access rights, why didn't Mr. Moriarty have those rights? Mr. Huggins said the flood control easement is not the same as what the public can use. The Orange County Parks secured, through their real estate division, a permit that gives the public rights to access the property foi recreational purposes only and indemnified Ms. Brockman for that purpose Page 7 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 01/08/2009 • only. The indemnification was not for any particular individual to use for ai other access purpose. Richard Moriarty, owner, noted his issues with Ms. Brockman and tl settlement agreement. He has been working with the City trying to get t permits finalized and would just like to get this finished and not drag it out ai further. His house is finished, he is living in it, and thinks he has a tempos permit. Public comment closed. Commissioner Unsworth asked if there was a copy of the 1924 deed. Mr. Rafferty said there was a copy of the 1924 deed in the packet hands out. Commissioner Toerge thought this was just a common sense issue since tl property has had, access and people have been using the access. Can v eliminate any of the requirements without breaking any State law? Is it cle that recorded access is mandated and required? Mr. Harp stated requiring access to the parcel is an appropriate conditic The reason for the rule is if Ms. Brockman changes her mind and denii access to the parcel, making it land locked. • General discussion continued on supporting a continuance for 60 day possibly longer if needed, for all parties to try to work out 'the issues al come up with a workable negotiation. Commissioner Toerge asked for direction from staff on the possibility of a I line adjustment to consolidate the property into a single parcel. Mr. Harp noted that the Subdivision Code requires a decision be made with 10 days of hearing the matter, with the applicant agreeing with tl continuance, other wise it is deemed the decision of the Zoning Administral would be affirmed. In addition, a lot line adjustment is for four or less lots. Chairperson Peotter noted the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66451.1 states you are allowed to merge parcels without a map. Commissioner Hawkins noted Subdivision Code Section 19.68.060 1 voluntary mergers specifically requires access issues and may not I specific for some parties or prohibited for others. Access is key in this matt and Conditions 16 and 17 are not unreasonable. Public comments opened. Mr. Moriarty said this issue has been going on for 11 years without ai settlement, just wants it resolved. U Page 8 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 01/08/2009 • Mr. Cosgrove said his client, Ms. Brockman, was okay with the 60-ds continuance. Wanted to note that an impasse was reached on tt negotiations in 2005 and he has tried to restart them five or six times sins then. He thinks they are close, and the City andfor County needs to step L and a take the lead with public improvements and some funding. M Brockman has indicated to Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager, she wou waive the $65,000 that Mr. Moriarty was to pay her for access over tt property so he could invest into the improvements. Chairperson Peotter asked if Ms. Brockman was requiring the County to ov the property and it be a public right -a -way or be a private access over tt County's easement area. Mr. Cosgrove said with the appropriate indemnifications all parties think th the better proposal is to have it be a public right -a -way. It would eliminate tt potential liability issues that Ms. Brockman originally had when she closed c the area. Mr. Rafferty was concerned that 60 days would not be long enough. Ir believes that they are very close to an agreement and thinks that all parlie including the City, should get together a come up with a solid plan to press to the Planning Commission. Mr. Harp said he spoke with Mr. Huggins who believes there is progress ar • that 60 days may be too short of a period. The City would be willing facilitate a meeting and volunteered Mr. Kiff to host the meeting. Mr. Huggins said the County would be pleased to host a meeting to he resolve all the issues. 60 days may not be long enough for a finalize agreement, but at least they could have the framework and formula for wh would achieve an agreement. 90 days would probably be the better choice. Public comment dosed. Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner Hiilgren to continue this item for 90 days. Ayes: I Eaton, Ur Noes: ! None Excused: j McDaniel R I(f ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: City Council Follow -up — Mr. Lepo noted City Council initiated an amendment to the General Plan for Newport Beach Country Club and the Newport Beach Tennis Club to al proposed development plans for clubhouses and tennis courts to go form • Page 9 of 10