HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0_Moriarty Residence Appeal PA2008-207CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
August 20, 2009 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
An appeal by the applicant, Richard Moriarty, of the Zoning Administrator approval of a
parcel map to consolidate existing portions of lots and parcels into 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.
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).
9-
L�
I
Moriarty Parcel Map Appeal
August 20, 2009
Page 2
Y:\Users\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2008\PA2008- 207 \PC Appeal Cont\08- 20- 09 \NP2008 -024 PC rpt 8- 20 -09.doc
VICINITY MAP
7'
msnz
zove_-
I
:1,1 ♦r,Eervenaewvt„
ial msazos
2E01
a Subject Property
li'A
N)
QMC0
E
w1fa
3E15 1113 P Eil
23]) 94•�' 311!
P,k, Lel
yOf, �. �
tltl
tiw
ji [101
f
� f� °c, Eti�w.
49�t
�%/ sa
acs lolzx-
zzsz Ni'
GENERAL PLAN
ZONING
•.. '"' j as - _ _. ..
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
Regional Park PC -44
Open Space
EAST
Single -Unit Residential
Residential Agricultural
Single - Family Residence
Detached (RS -D)
(R -A)
WEST
Single -Unit Residential
Residential Agricultural
OC Flood Control Channel,
Detached (RS-D)
(R -A
Ingress/Egress Easement
Y:\Users\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2008\PA2008- 207 \PC Appeal Cont\08- 20- 09 \NP2008 -024 PC rpt 8- 20 -09.doc
q
Moriarty Parcel Map Appeal
August 20, 2009
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 - family development. The subject property is located in
the R -A (Residential - Agricultural) 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 obtained 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 in this issue 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.
DISCUSSION
At the February 19, 2009, hearing, the Planning Commission was informed that the
applicant was in negotiations with the County to provide access from the subject
property to Mesa Drive through an easement across the abandoned Birch Street right -
of -way on the property at 2100 Mesa Drive (owned by Ms. Carla Brockman).
Since May 21, 2009, the stakeholders (the applicant, the City, the County, and Ms.
Brockman) have continued to meet to negotiate an agreement for the design and
establishment of the access easement to the subject property. All of the parties that
have attended these meetings report that the meetings have been productive and a
draft stakeholder agreement was reached June 19, 2009.
The stakeholders have agreed to establish a 20- foot -wide private ingress /egress access
drive to the subject property and a 10- foot -wide equestrian trail with the abandoned
Birch Street right -of -way on the Brockman property. In addition, Ms. Brockman has
agreed to grant to the City a 7- foot -wide trail easement along Mesa Drive and an
F: \USERS\PLN\Shared\PNs \PAs - 2008 \PA2008.207\PC Appeal Cont108- 20- 09WP2008.024 PC rpt 8- 20- 09.doc
5
Moriarty Parcel Map Appeal
August 20, 2009
Page 4
emergency access easement over Jackass Alley (the current emergency access
easement for the subject property).
Analysis
The draft stakeholder agreement addresses the main points of contention raised by the
applicant in the appeal. The ingress /egress easement will be provided as required by
Condition Nos. 16 and 17. The applicant has also agreed to obtain Coastal Commission
approval prior to recordation of the parcel map per Condition No. 22 in the same
document.
However, there are still some outstanding issues. On July 16, 2009, the County issued
several outstanding corrections to the applicant regarding the design of the access drive
improvements, including the width of the trail and access drive. The County design
standards for recreational trails require a 12 -foot width for the proposed equestrian trail
adjacent to the access drive. However, the City's Public Works Department's design
standards require a 20- foot -wide access drive in and out of the subject property. Since
the maximum width of the access easement is 30 feet, it cannot accommodate both the
County- required 12- foot -wide equestrian trail and the City- required 20- foot -wide access
drive.
The applicant is requesting another continuance, citing the complexity of these issues
and disagreement on the funding of the improvements (Attachment No. PC2).
Conclusion
While some of the primary points of contention for the parcel map appeal have been
met through the draft stakeholder agreement, the applicant remains unwilling to accept
the conditions of approval for the tentative parcel map until the applicant can obtain
permission to use redevelopment funds for the project and record the access easement.
The Planning Department's position is that the Zoning Administrator's conditions of
approval do not preclude a successful outcome in the stakeholder negotiations.
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 Planning Commission may approve the appeal as requested and remove or amend
Condition Nos. 16, 17, and 20. Staff will prepare an appropriate resolution incorporating
new findings and /or conditions if an alternative is chosen. In addition, the Planning
Commission may deny the application in its entirety if the findings cannot be met.
FAUSERS\PMShared\PA's \PAS - 2008\PA2008- 207\PC Appeal Cont \08- 20- 09\NP2008 -024 PC rpt 8- 20- 09.doe
r
Moriarty Parcel Map Appeal
August 20, 2009
Page 5
The Planning Commission may also grant the applicant's request for another
continuance.
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
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
Notice of this 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:
Makana Nova, Assistant Planner
ATTACHMENTS
Submitted by:
PC1. Draft resolution
PC2. Applicant's continuance request
PC3. Planning Commission Minutes, May 21, 2009
PC4. Planning Commission Staff Report, May 21, 2009
PC5. Planning Commission Minutes, February 19, 2009
PC6. Planning Commission Staff Report, February 19, 2009
PC7. Project Plans
F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's \PAs - 2006\PA2008- 207\PC Appeal COM \08- 20-09 \NP2008 -024 PC rpt 8-20- 09.doc
4
0
Attachment No. PC 1
Draft resolution
11
it
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
(PA 2008 -207)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY 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, and August 20, 2009, in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of
time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport
Beach 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.
1. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 5 (Minor
Alterations in Land Use Limitations).
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 2 of 9
2. The project is a parcel map to combine existing portions of lots and parcels into a
single parcel of land on property with an average slope of less than 20 percent
and will not result in any changes in land use or density.
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:
Findin :
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 ".
B. That t he 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.
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 environmental impact report was prepared
for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21089 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 project consists of the division of property in urbanized
areas zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use into four or fewer parcels
p
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 3 of 9
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.
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.
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 rinds 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.
E -2. That adequate ingresslegress 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.
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 Califomia 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.
13
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paqe 4 of 9
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.
G. That, in the case of a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the Califomia
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.
K 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.
!. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and
Section 65584 of the Califomia 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.
0
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 5 of 9
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.
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.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Parcel Map
NP2008 -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 in accordance
with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
15
BY:
Robert Hawkins, Chairman
Charles Unsworth, Secretary
Planning Commission Resolution No.
6 of 9
16
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 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 comer, 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 Department and the
Public Works Department through an encroachment permit or agreement.
)l
Planning Commission Resolution No.
I
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. All vehicular access to the property shall be from the ingress /egress easement to
Mesa Drive, unless otherwise approved by the City Council. Reference to recorded
instruments covering rights for ingress, egress, and utility services to the property shall
be shown on the final parcel map. The easement shall be approved by the Planning
Department, City Attorney's Office, the Department of Fish and Game, the County of
Orange Parks and Recreation Commission, and the Orange County Flood Control
District prior to recordation of the 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,
at a minimum, 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 equipment and
flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be
conducted in accordance with state and local requirements.
11
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paae 9 of 9
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. Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the recordation 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.
)q
P
Attachment No. PC 2
Applicant's continuance request
Al
A),
Alford, Patrick
From: Paul F Rafferty [pfrafferty@jonesday.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 2:34 PM
To: Alford, Patrick
Cc: Harry. Huggins @rdmd.ocgov.com; doosgrove @rutan.com; Kiff, Dave
Subject: RE: Planning Commission hearing on August 20th.
Attachments: Moriarty Outline.pdf
Patrick;
Thanks for calling to discuss the upcoming Planning Commission hearing set on August 20th, 2009. We request another
continuance of this hearing because the resolution process that the County, City and interested landowners undertook in
late February, is still ongoing. As the Commission may recall, it is a very complicated problem. While most agree how the
problem can be solved, getting there is a laborious process.
For the Commission's benefit, here is a chronology of what has occurred since Moriarty and others met with the
Commission on February 19th, 2009.
February: After the hearing, the County, City and landowners met on -site to discuss a resolution that worked for all
parties.
March: Moriarty engaged his architect to update the plans for improvement of Birch. The plans were delivered to the
County in late March.
April: The County began working on the plans. It advised of a final working meeting on April 30th, after which it would
update the parties.
May: On May 5th, the County provided its needs for the project. Moriarty's architect again went to work on the plans.
June: On June 9th, the plans were resubmitted to the County and a master outline was updated (below). On June 25th,
the County preliminarily commented.
July: On July 16th, the County provided a detailed overview of its needs for the project. On July 24th, Moriarty updated
Makana/City with the County's detailed overview. On July 27th, Moriarty asked for another meeting with all parties to
touch base and to move the County's wishes along.
August: The County moved the focus to funding of the development. To address this important issue, on August 7th,
Moriarty asked to meet with the City's Mr. Kiff. A meeting is being scheduled as this email is written.
Next Steps: The plans for development now require further studies in the areas of hydrology and design. The testing
could be very expensive. The parties must determine how to pay for all of the work that is necessary to obtain a
successful permit from the County for development. The County has indicated it will not contribute financially, but has
otherwise been very responsive to move the process along. Once that occurs, testing and further plan work must be
undertaken. Thereafter, the County must approve the plans. We assume the City must approve the plans. And then, it is
possible the Coastal Commission must also approve the plans. Thereafter, Birch can be developed with the concurrence
of Ms. Brockman.
And so, it is clear that the cooperative process the Planning Commission encouraged is ongoing. But, it is also a long
process, that will not likely be complete for many more months. As for the appeal before the Planning Commission,
because Moriarty cannot control the development of Birch, the approvals needed, or the funding, (he doesn't even own
Birch), it is impossible for him to stipulate to any conditions on the map consolidation that require him to obtain recorded
access to his property.
As I also mentioned, Moriarty does not object to setting the matter again for hearing. He found the Planning
Commission's comments and suggestions very helpful the last time we appeared before it. However, given the above,
there is not much more that can be said at this time.
SA Please consider the environment before printing this email.
This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney - client
25
or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notify
sender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected.
1. 1 Plans Update ( "Birch Street Improvement Plan"):
(a) Allow 10 feet for equestrian/trail use and the balance for roadway (Connecting
trail — Mesa Drive connecting to Irvine Coast RHT). (6" aggregate base underlay
and 4: compacted decomposed granite — layer installed; 5 % -10% Portland cement
mixture on steep hillside portion or premixed "Stabilized DG ")
(b) Roadway surface to be paver tiles and upon completion, shall be maintained per
City specification by most frequent user, Richard D. Moriarty. OCP and OCFCD
to be responsible for any damage to roadway caused by use of the roadway for
access to their respective (trail or channel) facilities.
(c) Drain system at bottom, possibly tie into underground/existing sewer /drain pipe,
or to Delhi Channel.
(d) Grade must be satisfactory to County; Brockman 2100 Mesa property not to be
further encroached to accommodate grade change; Brockman to approve grade
change and design of any barriers impeding view from 2100 Mesa.
(e) Poles/utilities to be moved underground as part of redevelopment effort?
(f) Trail surface to be as recommended by County to hinder degradation of surface,
and accommodate drainage. City to maintain trail system along Birch, across
Birch, and related fencing.
(g) Road itself to be marked with signage indicating it is a private road to deter use by
the public.
2. Next Step Following Plans Update:
(a) All parties to review /revise
(b) Flood Control to be consulted in this meeting to finalize plan scope.
(c) Finalization of Plans — approval by Moriarty, Brockman; formal concurrence by
County Flood
(d) Concerted contact by parties with County for redevelopment funds to assist with
weight bearing/hydrology /drainage issues and utilities
(e) In conjunction with (d), Moriarty to work within PAC to develop public support
for use of R funds
(f) Concerted submission of plans to Coastal Commission
(g) Prove up to County of permitted sewer hookup (Moriarty and Tennyson)
(submittal of "As Built "Plans included)
159/020390 -0001
995264.02 a08 /11/09
LAI- 3008397v4
A5
3. Escrow on Property Interest Transfers:
(a) County (OCP) will acquire fee ownership over the 30' wide area from Birch
Street to OC Park's fee owned property at approximately the Moriarty driveway
crossing, subject to:
(1) Reservation for existing sewer for 2148 and 2100 Mesa (already in
ground)
(2) Covenant from the City that 2100 Mesa will still be considered as
conforming regarding lot size, notwithstanding dedication to City;
golf course to be considered front of lot; comer lot status for 2100
Mesa.
(3) Covenant or other instrument from City memorializing approval of
existing driveway cut on Mesa at middle of 2100 Mesa.
(4) Limited reservation of access over Birch Street Extension for 2100
Mesa for emergency purposes as said term is defined in 3(c)
below, and reservation of ability to access 2100 Mesa's existing 30
foot easement over northerly portions of 2128, 2140, and 2148
Mesa. However, use of Birch by owners/occupants of 2140 Mesa
will require a sharing of maintenance of Birch.
(5) All existing easements of record (DFG, County Flood, etc.)
(b) Moriarty to submit Quitclaim on behalf of himself, and all parties claiming by or
through him (including the public), disclaiming and abandoning any easement or
other right over Jackass Alley for access or utility uses to or from 2128 Mesa,
except such Quitclaim shall not apply to utilities already present within Jackass
Alley favoring 2128 Mesa, and shall also not prevent use of Jackass Alley to and
from 2128 Mesa in the event of emergency. As used herein, "emergency" means
when Birch is impassible. Examples might include ifOCFCD blocks access
during its activities or a horse trail accident alongside Birch causes temporary
closure for emergency /aid vehicles.
(c) After all improvements are completed in this same area, County (OCP) will
convey access easements to OC Flood Control District, Moriarty, Tennyson, and
reserve an access easement unto itself prior to conveying fee owned 30' property
to the City of Newport Beach.
(d) Brockman to concur in Public Safety Easement granted by Tennyson over Jackass
Alley for City.
(e) County to submit deed for easement to Moriarty over the "County Triangle" at
northwest corner of 2128 Mesa for road and utility. purposes.
I$9/02039(1.0001
993284.02 408/11/09
LAI- 3008397x4
_2_
91
(1) City of Newport Beach will assume local trail responsibilities, once the trail is
implemented.
(g) Escrow to close upon:
(1) Approval by all applicable City, County and State entities,
including County Flood and Coastal Commission, of the Birch
Street Improvement Plan.
(2) Deposit of all deeds referenced above, executed and in a form
suitable for recording.
(3) Completion of the Birch Street Improvement Plan, and final
approval of same by all applicable agencies, including, but not
limited to the Coastal Commission and County Flood.
(h) Events Following Close of Escrow:
159102039DA001
995284.02 a08A 1109
LAI- 3008397x4
(1) City to approve Moriarty Parcel Map
(2) City to Issue Certificate of Occupancy for 2128 Mesa
-3-
gl
Attachment No. PC 3
PC Minutes, May 21, 2009
a4
C
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
08/2012009
into a single parcel of land for single - family development. The applicant
requests relief from conditions of approval relating to Coastal Commission
31
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 90"' 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
s�z
SUBJECT: AERIE Condominiums (PA2005 -196)
ITEM NO. 3
201 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place in Corona de
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 locate
bayward of the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. The
existing General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning Designations of
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 of
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 of
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. Th
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, Soil
and Geology, and Biological Resources.
Page 2 of 14
3a
Attachment No. PC 4
PC Staff Report, May 21, 2009
`33
�i
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
May 21, 2009 Meeting
Agenda Item No. 2
SUBJECT: Moriarty Parcel Map
2128 Mesa Drive - PA2008 -207
■ Tentative Parcel Map NP2008-024
APPLICANT! Richard Moriarty
APPELLANT:
PLANNER: Makana Nova, Assistant Planner
(949) 644 -3249, mnova @ctty.newport - beach.ca.us
PROJECT SUMMARY
The applicant requests approval of a parcel map that combines portions of existing 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 ingress /egress
access easement to the property and requiring Coastal Commission approval prior to
the recordation of the Parcel Map.
The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission continue this item for an
additional 90 days. Staff recommends continuing this item to August 13, 2009.
Prepared by:
Maldna N , Assistant Planner
EXHIBITS
Submitted by:
David Lepo, Pla ,06g Director
1. Continuance request letter from Richard Moriarty.
35
Attachment No. PC 5
PC Minutes, February 19, 2009
3b
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
on the island. With the addition of 655 feet, they will still have the sn
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 ofl
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.
Noes: None
Excused: McDaniel
xai
SUBJECT: Richard Moriarty (PA2008 -207)
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 ingress /egress 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, H
incorporated revisions provided by the City Attorney that clarified
conditions reaardina the easement and Coastal aooroval. The follo
02/19/2009
ITEM NO. 4
PA2008 -027
Continued
90 days
Page 4 of 10
31
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 02/19/2009
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 -foc
wide driveway with a trench drain at the end of the driveway.
3. Condition 22 — the requirement for Coastal Commission approval w,
revised to permit the applicant to receive a waiver for the requirement f
the permit from Coastal Commission.
Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney, expanded on Condition 22 stating it
the opinion of the City Attorney that under the Coastal Act this project wou
constitute a development. The applicant does not believe this is
development under the Coastal Act and the condition should not appl
therefore, a provision was included so the applicant can get a waiver from tt
Coastal Commission stating a development permit is not needed or that the
do not need Coastal Commission approval.
Commissioner Hawkins asked if the applicant decided to get the permit ar
not seek a waiver from the Coastal Commission, would that satisfy Conditic
22.
Mr. Harp answered yes
Commissioner Unsworth asked how long it would take for the waiver c
permit from the Coastal Commission, and would the applicant be in jeopard
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 forth
Coastal Commission's decision and he would not lose any time.
Mr. Harp pointed out that Condition 23 gave the applicant 3 years from th
date of approval to record the parcel map.
Ms. Nova noted that the building permit is still open and will not have a
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 perm
for the house, to satisfy the requirement of the Subdivision Code an
comply with the State Law.
2. Coastal Commission approved the Coastal Development Permit in 200
for the new single - family residence.
3. Coastal Commission permit is required, prior to the recordation of th
parcel map. until our Local Coastal Proaram is certified. Citv Counc
Page 5 of 10
3�
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 02/19/2009
does not have approval authority.
4. Condition 16 and 17 was revised to allow applicant ingress /egress acce
to his property as long as he proves he has access rights, and makes t
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 Ricl
Moriarty, made a presentation on the applicant's position for the appeal
the history on the property.
Chairperson Peotter asked Mr. Rafferty if it was his opinion that they t
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 sta
that Mr. Moriarty has no rights on any of the roads.
Chairperson Peotter asked where the negotiations between Mr. Moriarty
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 c
not want the liability of the equestrian traffic and he thinks the County
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 an
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
�01
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Mr. Rafferty responded that Mr. Moriarty feels he is close to finalizin
negotiations with the County, with the assistance of the City and M
Brockman, and it is a lot less expensive to settle directly than going to court.
David Cosgrove, attorney representing Carla Brockman owner of 2100 Mew
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
between Ms. Brockman and Mr. Moriarty
Mr. Cosgrove said there was a signed letter agreement in May 2003, and
they go to court the letter will be tested if it is a full agreement.
Commissioner Toerge questioned if Jackass Alley was limited to
access.
Mr. Cosgrove said he feels there is a question about the emergency acc
that has been given and there is a question about the Tennison's prop
access over Jackass Alley. Ms. Brockman did not grant Mr. Moriarty acc(
Mr. Moriarty went to the neighbor property and got them to grant the City
emergency access. Additionally, the County condemned an acc
easement over the abandoned Birch Street, in 1997, and paid Ms. Brockr
for it. Mr. Moriarty did not pay for access.
Harry Huggins, representing the County of Orange, asked that tt
Commission and staff refer to the letter he sent dated February 10, 200
Part of his role with the County is being responsible for asset manageme
and watching for the rights and public's rights for all their public parks. H
involvement in this issue is making sure of the public's access rights throuc
the questioned area. The Orange County Flood Control District does have
condemned easement through the property. The permit that Ms. Brockme
entered into with the County parks is for pedestrian, regional riding, ar
hiking trail purposes through this area. He became involved in working wi
the attorneys and Mr. Moriarty and thought they had come to a conclusion
2008. After receiving and reviewing the "Notice of Appeal" from the Zonir
Administrator on December 22, 2008, it was evident the Mr. Moriarty had n
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
public can use. The Orange County Parks secured, through their real es
division, a permit that gives the public rights to access the property
02/19/2009
Page 7 of 10
�b
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
only. The indemnification was not for any particular individual to use for
other access purpose.
Richard Moriarty, owner, noted his issues with Ms. Brockman and
settlement agreement. He has been working with the City trying to get
permits finalized and would just like to get this finished and not drag it out
further. His house is finished, he is living in it, and thinks he has a tempo
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
out.
Commissioner Toerge thought this was just a common sense issue since
property has had access and people have been using the access. Can
eliminate any of the requirements without breaking any State law? Is it c
that recorded access is mandated and required?
Mr. Harp stated requiring access to the parcel is an appropriate cc
The reason for the rule is if Ms. Brockman changes her mind and
access to the parcel, making it land locked.
General discussion continued on supporting a continuance for 60 c
possibly longer if needed, for all parties to try to work out the issues
come up with a workable negotiation.
Commissioner Toerge asked for direction from staff on the possibility of a
line adjustment to consolidate the property into a single parcel.
Mr. Harp noted that the Subdivision Code requires a decision be made wi
10 days of hearing the matter, with the applicant agreeing with
continuance, other wise it is deemed the decision of the Zoning Administr
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
voluntary mergers specifically requires access issues and may not
specific for some parties or prohibited for others. Access is key in this m<
and Conditions 16 and 17 are not unreasonable.
Public comments opened.
Mr. Moriarty said this issue has been going on for 11 years without
settlement, just wants it resolved.
02/19/2009
Page 8 of 10
11
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 02/19/2009
Mr. Cosgrove said his client, Ms. Brockman, was okay with the 60 -k
continuance. Wanted to note that an impasse was reached on
negotiations in 2005 and he has tried to restart them five or six times sir
then. He thinks they are close, and the City and/or County needs to step
and a take the lead with public improvements and some funding. I
Brockman has indicated to Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager, she wo
waive the $65,000 that Mr. Moriarty was to pay her for access over
property so he could invest into the improvements.
Chairperson Peotter asked if Ms. Brockman was requiring the County to
the property and it be a public right -a -way or be a private access over
County's easement area.
Mr. Cosgrove said with the appropriate indemnifications all parties think t
the better proposal is to have it be a public right -a -way. It would eliminate
potential liability issues that Ms. Brockman originally had when she closed
the area.
Mr. Rafferty was concerned that 60 days would not be long enough.
believes that they are very close to an agreement and thinks that all pa
including the City, should get together a come up with a solid plan to pn
to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Harp said he spoke with Mr. Huggins who believes there is progress a
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 closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by
Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, Toerge and Hillgren
Noes: None
Excused: McDaniel
..x
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 fora
and it was aooroved. We have entered into an agreement with LSA Assoca
Page 9 of 10
qX
Attachment No. PC 6
PC Staff Report, February 19, 2009
0
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
February 19, 2008 Meeting
Agenda Item 4
SUBJECT: Moriarty Parcel Map Appeal (PA2008.207)
2128 Mesa Drive
Parcel Map No. NP2008 -024
APPLICANT/
APPELLANT: Richard Moriarty
PLANNER: Planning Department
Makana Nova, Assistant Planner
(949) 644 -3249, mnova @city.newport- beach.ca.us
PROJECT SUMMARY
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 ingress/egress access
easement to the property and Coastal Commission approval prior to the recordation of
the Parcel Map.
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a de novo hearing; and
2. Deny the appeal and uphold and affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator
and approve Parcel Map No. NP2008 -024, subject to the findings and conditions of
approval included within the attached draft resolution (Exhibitl ).
q5
GENERAL PLAN
ZONING
Moriarty Parcel Map Appeal
February 19, 2009
Page 2
Subject Property
tui
ON -SITE
hed SRS -D 61110+
R A c ua y� a
Single - Family ResidencenMnery
NORTH
Single -Unit Residential
SP -7 Santa Ana Heights,
Residential Equestrian
Detached (RS -D)
Residential Equestrian
SOUTH
Open Space (OS)
Upper Newport Say
Regional Park (PC 4)
Open Space
EAST
Single -Unit Residential
Residential Agricultural
Single - Family Residence
Detached (RS -D)
(R -A)
WEST
Single -Unit Residential
Residential Agricultural
Orange County Flood Control
Channel, ingr esslEgress
hed
Detac (RS D)
(R-A)
c,ea e ,
u
IttI
Moriarty Parcel Map Appeal
February 19, 2009
Page 3
Introduction
Proiect Settina and Description
The subject property is located in the R -A (Residential - Agricultural) District in Santa Ana
Heights along Mesa Drive. The properly is land- locked as there is no recorded access
easement for the subject property. Access is currently obtained through a driveway to
Mesa Drive. The property is 135,036 square feet in area and is roughly rectangular in
shape.
The property has several accessory structures associated with grape growing and wine
production. Demolition and construction of a new single family residence was approved
in 2003 under Plan Check No. 0930 -2003. A hold was placed on the building permit
final pending approval and recordation of the Parcel Map.
The applicant requests to combine 14 existing portions of lots and parcels into a single
parcel of land for single-family development with accessory structures. The proposed
parcel merger was previously approved with similar conditions of approval through
Parcel Map No. NP2003 -020 (PA2003 -151) (Exhibit 2). However, the Parcel Map
expired before it was recorded.
Zoning Administrator Action
The Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on Parcel Map No. NP2008 -024 on
December 8, 2008. The applicant agreed to comply with all conditions of approval. The
Zoning Administrator approved the application subject to the findings and conditions in
the attached Zoning Administrator Hearing Action Report and Approval Letter (Exhibit
3).
Discussion
The Appeal
On December 22, 2008, an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision was filed by
the applicant. The applicants appeal letter states that the conditions of approval are
.unreasonable, impossible, unconscionable, and unnecessary" and requests that the
Planning Commission remove the conditions relating to the ingress/egress access
easement (Condition Nos. 16 & 17) and Coastal Commission approval (Condition No.
22). The full appeal letter submitted by the applicant is attached (Exhibit 4).
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 20.95.060.C, a public hearing on an appeal is
conducted "de novo," meaning that it is a new hearing and the decision being appealed
has no force or effect as of the date the appeal was filed. The appellate body is not
bound by the decision being appealed or limited to the issues raised on appeal.
I
Moriarty Parcel Map Appeal
February 19, 2009
Page 4
Analysis
A memorandum to the Zoning Administrator containing an analysis of the project is
attached (Exhibit 5). This analysis summarizes the applicant's request for revisions to
the conditions approved by the Zoning Administrator and provides staffs responses for
the Planning Commission's consideration.
Conditions Relating to the Ingress/Egress Access Easement
Condition No. 16 states:
"All vehicular access to the property shall be from the ingress/egress easement to Mesa
Drive, unless otherwise approved by the City Council. Reference to recorded
instruments covering rights for ingress, egress, and utility services to the property shall
be shown on the final parcel map. The easement shall be approved by the Planning
Department, City Attorney's Office, the Department of Fish and Game, the County of
Orange Parks and Recreation Commission, and the Orange County Flood Control
District prior to recordation of the Parcel Map."
Condition No. 17 states:
°The applicant shad 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, at
a minimum, include the construction of a 20 -foot wide, paved driveway with drainage
improvements including a bottomless trench drain at the end of the driveway."
Condition Nos. 16 and 17 require the establishment and improvement of a recorded
ingresslegress access easement to the subject property. The applicant requests that
the Planning Commission remove Condition Nos. 16 and 17 on grounds that recorded
access is not necessary to satisfy the City's request to consolidate the portions of lots
and parcels into a single parcel and that the request is unreasonable because the
easement is impossible to record and improve due to failed negotiations to establish the
easement in the past. The applicant also contends that the property already holds
recorded access.
Response:
The Need to Provide Access. Section 19.24.050 of the Subdivision Code requires
access to lots, "Subdivisions shall be designed so that all lots or parcels have access to
a public or private street improved to the standards required by this title." As stated
above, recorded access is necessary to satisfy the request to consolidate the portions
of lots and parcels into a single parcel of land for single - family development. Condition
Nos. 16 and 17 require that the parcel map reference the recorded access easement
I
Moriarty Parcel Map Appeal
February 19, 2009
Page 5
and improve the easement in compliance with the subdivision design requirements and
standards in the Subdivision Code.
Improvement of the Easement. Section 19.28.030 of the Subdivision Code, Limitations
on Parcel Map Improvements, (66411.1) states,
"A. Limitation. In accordance with Section 66411.1 of the Subdivision Map
Act, improvement requirements for parcel maps creating 4 or fewer lots
shall be limited to the dedication of rights - of-way and easements, and
the construction of offsite and onsite improvements for the parcels
being created. Requirements for the construction of such offsite and
onsite improvements shall be noticed by a statement on the parcel
map, on the instrument evidencing the waiver of the parcel map, or by
a separate instrument. Such improvement requirements shall be
recorded on, concurrently with, or prior to the map or instrument of
waiver of a parcel map being filed for record.
B. Timing of Improvements. Fulfillment of parcel map construction
requirements shall not be required until the time a permit or other grant
of approval for development of the parcel is issued by the City or until
the time the construction of the improvements is required pursuant to
an agreement between the subdivider and the City, except that in the
absence of such an agreement, the City may require fulfillment of the
construction requirements within a reasonable time following approval
of the tentative parcel map and prior to the issuance of a permit or
other grant of approval for the development of a parcel upon a finding
by the City that fulfillment of the construction requirements is
necessary for either of the following reasons: (1) The public health and
safety; or (2) The required construction is a necessary prerequisite to
the orderly development of the surrounding area."
Condition Nos. 16 and 17 ensure that Mr. Moriarty will secure the dedication of a right -
of -way easement and improve the right -of -way for the public health, safety, and the
orderly development of the surrounding area.
Revision to Condition No. 17. Condition No. 17 was revised from the condition approved
by the Zoning Administrator to specify the type of improvements that will be required by
the Public Works Department consistent with the design requirements specified in
Chapter 19.24 Subdivision Design and Improvements of the Subdivision Code. The
revised language is included within the attached draft resolution and indicates that at a
minimum, a 20 -foot, paved driveway with a trench drain at the end of the driveway is
required prior to recordation of the parcel map. .
Moriarty Parcel Map Appeal
February 19, 2009
Page 6
Proof of Access. The title report submitted by the applicant notes, "Lack of a right of
access to and from the land," and does not show that the applicant has access rights to
use the abandoned Birch Street easement for ingress and egress (Exhibit 6). The
legality of access rights to the subject parcel have been a point of contention since the
applicant obtained the property in 1998. The property owners and easement owners
have thus far been unsuccessful in negotiations to establish a recorded easement from
the subject property to Mesa Drive. Refer to the attached diagram, list, and summary of
entitlement documents .of the properties and easements (Exhibit 7).
While access rights to the subject property have been a point of contention for some
time, securing adequate access rights and improvement of the easement are necessary
and required by the Subdivision Code and the Subdivision Map Act; therefore, staff
does not support the applicants request to remove the conditions requiring the
establishment and improvement of the ingress/egress access easement.
Condition Relating to Coastal Commission Approval
Condition No. 22 states:
"Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the recordation of the parcel
map"
The applicant requests the removal of Condition No. 22. The applicant asserts that this
condition is "unconscionable and unnecessary" because all necessary Coastal
Commission approvals were obtained at the time of construction of the single - family
residence.
Response:
While Coastal Commission approval was obtained for the construction of the single -
family residence on the property, Coastal Commission approval is also required prior to
recordation of the Parcel Map. Section 19.24.060 of the Subdivision Code (Coastal
Zone) requires compliance with the Local Coastal Program: "Any proposed subdivision
lying wholly or partially within the Coastal Zone shall be designed to comply with and
implement goals, policies, and various components of the Land Use Plan of the
applicable certified Local Coastal Program" Since the subject property is located in the
Coastal Zone, the Parcel Map requires a separate Coastal Commission approval.
Pursuant to this requirement, Condition No. 22 ensures compliance prior to recordation
of the Parcel Map.
General Plan
The General Plan land use category for this site is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS-
D) which provides for a range of detached single - family residential dwelling units on a
Moriarty Parcel Map Appeal
February 19, 2009
Page 7
single legal lot and does not include condominiums or cooperative housing. The single -
family residence on the subject property is consistent with this land use category.
Local Coastal Plan
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.
Zoning Code
The site is located in the Residential Agricultural (R-A) District. The R -A Zoning District
provides areas for single-family residential and light farming land uses. Single-family
residential uses are permitted in this district. tine production and agricultural uses are
also consistent with land uses permitted by the R -A Zoning District. However, onsite
retail sales, service, or consumption of alcoholic beverages are not permitted.
Summary
The applicant must acquire an easement allowing him access to his properly with the
agreement of all parties per the requirements of Title 19 of the Municipal Code and the
Subdivision Map Act. The Parcel Map approval requires the applicant to establish
recorded access to the property through an ingress/egress easement and improve it in
compliance with these requirements.
Title 19 of the Municipal Code requires that the applicant obtain Coastal Commission
approval for the Parcel Map since the subject property is located in the Coastal Zone.
Alternatives
The Planning Commission may continue this item to a future hearing date with the
consent of the applicant if the Planning Commission believes additional time is needed
by Mr. Moriarty to argue the required easement. After considering all of the evidence
presented at the hearing and within 10 days following the conclusion of the hearing, the
Planning Commission shall render its decision on the appeal. Staff will prepare an
appropriate resolution incorporating new findings and /or conditions if an alternative is
chosen.
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
5�
Moriarty Parcel Map Appeal
February 19, 2009
Page 8
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 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
Notice of this 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:
Makalia No , Assistant Planner
EXHIBITS:
Submitted by:
—C2�6
David Lepo, Planne Director
1. Draft resolution
2. NP2003 -020 (PA2003 -151) Findings and Conditions
3. Zoning Administrator Hearing Action Report and Approval Letter
4. Appeal Letter
5. Zoning Administrator Memo
6. Title Report
7. Diagram, list, and summary of entitlement documents.
8. Photos of subject property
9. Letters submitted for Planning Commission consideration
10. Project plans
Iknb -kA t& IL& ersUI. AW hamdWA 's1PAs- 20081PA2000- 207WP2M-0& pe Mt.doc
53
Attachment No. PC 7
Project Plans
H5
" •a ,4 � � 3 Y a! �4 °� a �Q 'B9 p�6 gY° 6
9! a C p p A $aa 3.e a4a a
Is �y ag N v�:•` as P P €la ae :g 959 ?°g Ifl. s PIN a
°�r A s$e a • ,
4 4 a e Qa aQQa ^ egg
YpY tae 719N�3EpraYa p9pG ° °4£tl °�d$9 9! Otl see° e e o a r Yp @9 p20 rasa ?
S
m
$ � !
� � a 5
21111$$1114 'lQ$ So'
I o ra ,j
� C � � � � r/ was. X694° "•�' i
uh b
QiOFr
v
5 a N f
/ ^y 1
tQB w
Rip!�\
all
a��gy�Cd •' �,