Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19 - Coast Bluff Development MoratoriumlEWPOgr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: Septmber 26, 2000 c` PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item No.: 19 = 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell ` +a NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3210 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 REPORT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: Initiation of a zoning ordinance amendment and consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendation to establish a moratorium to regulate coastal bluff development. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. Review and Discuss the Planning Commission's recommendation and provide direction to staff. 2. Adopt resolution of intent to initiate Amendment No. 908 which will amend Title 20, Zoning Code and the Districting Maps regulating coastal bluff development. Summary The Planning Commission has recently considered two projects in Corona Del Mar that have proposed considerable alteration of the coastal bluff, which is identified as a significant environmental resource by the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. During the review of these projects in relation to the Land Use Element and the Local Coastal Program policies regarding coastal bluff preservation, it became evident that there is a lack of adequate policy guidance and review processes to implement these policies. Development proposals that fully comply with zoning can be issued ministerially even if they might cause significant and negative impacts on public views and coastal bluffs, contrary to the General Plan and LCP. On September, 7, 2000, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend that an urgency ordinance be prepared and adopted by the City Council providing for discretionary review of development projects located on coastal bluffs while a long term approach is considered. After considering the Commission's recommendation and consulting with the City Attorney, staff recommended to the Commission a different tactic due to limitations on what an urgency ordinance can accomplish. An urgency ordinance can only establish a moratorium on uses and not require a discretionary review process. Therefore, in order implement the Commission's direction, staff recommended the consideration of a moratorium on the issuance of building or grading permits that would affect all properties with coastal bluffs, as defined by the General Plan, unless the projects were approved by the city through a discretionary review process such as a Variance or Modification. Additionally, staff recommended that building permits for interior alterations and projects that do not increase the existing building footprint or require any grading would be exempt from the proposed moratorium. The Planning Commission will consider this recommendation on September 21, 2000 and their action will be forwarded on Friday, September 22, 2000. This issue has been forwarded to the City Council in advance of the Planning Commission's final action due to the Planning Commission's unanimous decision on September, 7, 2000 to initiate immediate discussion and action. Submitted by: SHARON Z. WOOD Assis nt City Manager Exhibits Prepared by: JAMES CAMPBELL S nior Planner Resolution of Intent to Amend the Zoning Code and Districting Maps to implement Coastal Bluff Development Regulations. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated September 21, 2000. California Government Code Section 65858, Interim Ordinances. F: \Uwm\PLN \Shared \ICITYCNL\2000\0926\bluffs LDOC 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INITIATING AN AMENDMENT OF TITLE 20, ZONING CODE AND DISTRICTING MAPS TO IMPLEMENT COASTAL BLUFF DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. AMENDMENT NO. 908 WHEREAS, Land Use Element Development Policy D states that the siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs; and WHEREAS, the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program states that natural bluffs constitute a significant scenic resource and environmental resource and in an effort to preserve these unique landforms, development shall be designed to minimize the alteration of natural landforms along bluff and cliffs; and WHEREAS, recent development proposals in the Corona del Mar area have requested significant alteration of coastal bluff resources, and present development trends suggest that additional projects will follow that may request significant alteration of coastal bluffs. There is reason to believe that this trend will continue given the good economic climate and general prosperity of the community. The cumulative effect of new development could significantly alter the coastal bluffs contrary to preservation policies and should be evaluated by the City through a discretionary process to ensure consistent application of the coastal bluff preservation policies. The cumulative effect of grading the bluffs creating building footings and large retaining walls is not well known and development of a coastal lot can have negative impacts to abutting structures due to grading and construction activities. These impacts can cause a material detriment to these adjacent properties and the City desires a fuller understanding of these potential problems prior to further construction activities. WHEREAS, existing development regulations and review processes contained in the Zoning Ordinance do not directly support or implement coastal bluff preservation policies adequately. Due to pending and anticipated projects along coastal bluffs, the loss of significant environmental resources may result which will negatively impact the community's welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council desires to initiate an amendment to Title 20, Zoning Ordinance and the Zoning Districting Maps to implement coastal bluff development regulations and procedures with the intent to implement the policies of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. This resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on , 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS ATTEST: CITY CLERK MAYOR c� �fw?ogr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: September 21, 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item No.: 6 '= 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3210 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 6443250 Appeal Period: N/A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Coastal Bluff Development Review PURPOSE: Establishment of development review processing for coastal bluff properties ACTION: Recommend that the City Council adopt an Urgency Ordinance establishing a moratorium for development on properties with coastal bluffs, except if the development is authorized through a discretionary review process, and exempting building permits for interior alterations and projects that do not increase the existing building footprint or require any grading. PROPERTY AFFECTED: Properties with coastal bluffs as defined by the General Plan. INTRODUCTION At the conclusion of the last meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a recommendation to the City Council regarding possible regulatory changes related to coastal bluff development. The concern of potential over development of coastal bluff properties arose while considering the Evensen Residence (Variance No. 1230) and the Cowan Duplex (Variance No. 1236) in which significant bluff alteration was requested. The Commission was focussed on Corona Del Mar and Ocean Boulevard, but the issue applies to all coastal bluff properties in the city, and widening the area of focus should be considered. Concerns The Planning Commission was concerned about the size of recent coastal bluff projects and what impact those projects would have on the welfare of the community. The potential cumulative impact to public views and the alteration of coastal bluffs was questioned. Both the Land Use Element and the Local Coastal Program (LCP) contain policies stating that the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources and minimization of the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs is city policy. The issue of how these policies are implemented in the absence of discretionary review was raised, and the City Attorney's office expressed the opinion that in the absence of a discretionary review process, the policies are difficult to apply without specific guidelines or other regulations. Several Commissioners expressed serious r. concern regarding the possibility that a building or grading permit can be issued which could significantly alter a coastal bluff inconsistent with General Plan and LCP policies. The significance of this issue and the implementation of this policy has become increasingly important with the recent trend to maximize development, which can lead to greater impacts to public views and coastal bluffs. There is concern that the trend could begin to replace public views of coastal bluffs with structures. The cumulative effect of grading the bluffs and creating building footings and large retaining walls is not well known, and development of a coastal lot can have negative impacts to abutting structures due to grading and construction activities. These impacts can cause a material detriment to these adjacent properties. The Planning Commission expressed a desire for the city to have additional review authority at least until there is a fuller understanding of these potential problems. Existing Policies and Regulations Land Use Element Development Policy D is attached as Exhibit No. 1, and LCP policies that address view and bluff preservation are attached as Exhibit No. 2. The discussion section of Policy D clearly states the City's policy to preserve valuable natural resources or environmentally sensitive habitats. The implementation section begins by defining what a coastal bluff is and states that preservation is the goal and that all development is subject to "regulations" contained within Policy D. The potion of the policy regarding public view preservation is implemented through height limits contained within the Zoning Code. Height limits are most applicable when the public view is from above, but the term public view also includes the view from below from public beaches, roads, Newport Bay and Pacific Ocean. The size, height, mass, location and level of alteration of a site are all factors in how a project may impact the public view from below. Implementation of this policy from this perspective has not been addressed by the city in the past. The policy regarding the preservation of unique natural resources and minimization of bluff alteration is implemented through the Site Plan Review Overlay district, which is not applied to many areas of the city, and the California Environmental Quality Act. The Site Plan Review process establishes discretionary review by the Planning Commission of any new structure, or existing buildings to be reconstructed or remodeled to increase the gross floor area by 50% or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less, or increase the roofline or height. The SPR overlay district is used only on one coastal bluff site in the City (3014 Breakers Drive) and in areas designated for a specific plan which has yet to be adopted. Attached as Exhibit Nos. 3 & 4 are Chapter 20.55 Site Plan Review (SPR) Overlay District and Chapter 20.92 Site Plan Review. The city does have the General Plan, the LCP and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as tools, but modifying or denying a project that complies with the Zoning Code and other applicable laws based solely upon the General Plan or LCP policy is unsupported by procedure or guidelines for interpreting what the policy means. What is alteration? What is a unique or natural landform? What constitutes minimal alteration and what is unacceptable alteration warranting a finding that the proposed project is inconsistent with the policy? These policy issues need to be Coastal Bluff Development Review September 21, 2000 Page 2 �1 clarified. Additionally, these types of deteaninations will change depending upon the specific circumstances of the project and physical characteristics of the site. The use of CEQA as a process to implement the policy raises these interpretation questions again. As a project is evaluated from an environmental perspective, the threshold of acceptable alteration is critically important. Alteration of the coastal bluff is a geologic/hazard issue and an aesthetic issue which can be subjective. If the project were to exceed the environmental threshold, a mitigation measure would be required to reduce the alteration of the bluff to a level below the threshold or a significant impact would be created. Project approval without the mitigation measure would require either the threshold to allow greater alteration or an E1R to be prepared. The establishment of a threshold of what is acceptable bluff alteration is critical in implementing the land use policies and CEQA. Options The City has several options that can be taken at this point. First, the City can take no action, and with the present regulatory situation, coastal bluff resources and public views will continue to be jeopardized by development. The other option is option is to study the issue further, develop or use existing procedures for review of coastal bluff development and develop guidelines for the implementation of the policy. This second option can be accomplished in several ways and is dependent upon timing. The city can direct further study through the standard amendment procedure, but this will take several months before new policy guidelines and regulations are effective and the resources and public views they intend to protect will be jeopardy in the interim. Using the SPR overlay as a permanent solution is a logical option to explore as it is a tool for design review and it's purpose is to accommodate the issue at hand. The Commission had suggested a use permit review for coastal bluff development, but staff believes it is better suited to regulating the use of property rather than design issues. Staff is studying a long range strategy which revolves around combining the existing zoning of coastal bluff properties with the SPR overlay district. This or any other long range solution will require future public hearings and analysis. Staff is concerned that the existing threshold for with this procedure review (50% increase in gross floor area or 2,500 square feet) may be too high and projects will be designed to avoid the process and still significantly alter the bluff. The Planning Commission has expressed a high sense of urgency and staff shares this sense of urgency as staff has received additional contacts from local architects and owners regarding additional projects being contemplated in Corona del Mar. It was evident from the recent applications and these conversations that policy direction is needed and that time is of the essence. Larger projects have been and are being contemplated that significantly alter the coastal bluffs and there is every reason to believe that this trend will continue given the good economic climate and general prosperity of the community. The sense of urgency is reinforced with the likelihood that these projects may be submitted quickly in an attempt to get approval prior to any policy direction or changes. In order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, these issues should be resolved prior to permitting any additional development projects on coastal bluffs through immediate action. Coastal Bluff Development Review September 21, 2000 Page 3 The Commission's original focus for expanding review authority was on Ocean Avenue, but this issue effects all coastal bluff properties in the city. Solving these issues will impact how the Land Use Element and LCP are implemented citywide and limiting the area of focus can be viewed as valuing some coastal bluffs more highly than others. This is the reason that staff suggests the Planning Commission's recommendation should affect all coastal bluffs citywide. Recommendation After consultation with the City Attorney's office, it seems that the best course of action is to establish a moratorium on the issuance of all building and grading permits except those that are approved through discretionary review by the Planning Commission. The moratorium would only apply to all properties with coastal bluffs as they are defined by the General Plan and should not restrict interior alterations or projects involving increased floor area that does not increase the building footprint or require and new grading. These exemptions seem reasonable and would permit some level of activity and discretion and these types of projects will not impact public views or the bluff. The moratorium will provide protection from indiscriminant bluff alteration and provide the city time for adequate review of the issue including the preparation of longer term regulations. The attached resolution (Exhibit No. 5) outlines this recommendation to the City Council. The establishment of an acceptable threshold of bluff alteration will take additional research, field study and public input. The balance between the interests of private property owners and the preservation of the natural environment is a delicate issue and warrants careful consideration. Pursuant to the Planning Commissions direction at the last meeting, staff has placed on the September 26, 2000 City Council agenda an item considering the urgency moratorium ordinance. An urgency ordinance requires a four - fifths vote of the City Council for adoption and they are only effective for 45 days. Extensions may be adopted by the City Council if warranted up to 10 months and 15 days, again requiring a four- fifths vote for extension. A written report must be issued by the City Council on actions taken during the effective period of the interim ordinance a minimum of ten days prior to expiration of the interim ordinance. If it is adopted, the Council will need to consider the written report of actions taken at its October 24, 2000 meeting but no later than October 31, 2000 if they intend to extend the interim ordinance by November 10, 2000. Staff expects that the urgency ordinance will require extending as it is expected that long term resolution may take 3 -6 months or possible longer. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director P �U Ua �C - / F Prepared by: JAMES W. CAMPBELL Coastal Bluff Development Review September 21, 2000 Page 4 Exhibits 1. Land Use Element Policy D 2. Local Coastal Program policies related to bluff development 3. Chapter 20.55 Site Plan Review (SPR) Overlay District 4. Chapter 20.95 Site Plan Review process 5. Draft resolution F: \Users\PLMShared \l PLANCOM\2000\09 -21 pc\Bluffs.doc Coastal Bluff Development Review September 21, 2000 Page 5 9 aboard vessels assigned to moorings installed over City tidelands. The City shall also consider the adoption of ordinances regulating or restricting the number of commercial activities conducted on the waters of Newport Bay if and when problems associated with such activity, such as parking, marine sanitation and noise adversely affect the quality of the marine environment. Policy D. The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. DISCUSSION Newport Beach has developed around and along extremely unique and valuable land forms and resource areas. The City's charm and character, as well as the value of residential and commercial property, are all tied to preserving, protecting, and enhancing Upper and Lower Newport Bay, the oceanfront beaches, and other valuable resources within the City. The City's commitment to preservation and enhancement of these areas is demonstrated by its role in the Upper Newport Bay restoration project. The City was the lead agency in both the development and administration of this project. The natural resources within the City should be enjoyed by residents and visitors alike. Given the value of ocean or bayfront property, there is constant pressure to develop property in and around the bay and beaches. While the City remains committed to protect private property rights, it is also committed to regulate the placement of buildings and structures in areas adjacent to valuable natural resources or environmentally sensitive habitats. IMPLEMENTATION Location of Structures 1. Development of Coastal Bluff Sites. Natural coastal bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource. As used in this Section, "coastal bluff' is any natural landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50 %) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater. Where there is some question as to the applicability of this section to a specific landform, a determination as to whether or not the specific landform constitutes a coastal bluff shall be made by the Planning Commission, consistent with the purposes of this regulation. 2. In order to preserve these unique landforms; developments proposed for coastal bluff areas shall be subject to the following regulations: Land Use Element - page 8 I D l a. The following regulations apply to all building sites on existing subdivided f lots, and residential subdivisions containing less than four units: 1) Grading. Permitted development shall be designed to minimize the alteration of natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. In areas of geologic hazard, the City shall not issue a building or grading permit until the applicant has signed a waiver of all claim against the public for future liability or damage resulting from permission to build. All such waivers shall be recorded with the County Recorders Office. 2) Geologic Report. To promote public safety, a geologic study shall be performed for each site to determine areas of potential instability. The bluff areas of potential hazard or instability shall be indicated on maps as a part of any development plan. s d 3) Shoreline Protective Devices. In the event of an impending or :r existing natural disaster or other emergency, a property owner, e upon the approval of a building and /or grading permit by the City s Grading Engineer and Building Official, may install temporary h shoreline protective devices, material, or other suitable construction to protect a coastal bluff. Prior to the approval of a building and or grading permit for the construction or installation of the emergency protective device or material, the City Attorney shall approve as to p form and content a document signed by the property owner ;t stipulating that said material or devices will be removed im- d mediately upon the termination of the threat to the property. In le addition, said agreement will also provide for the waiver of all claims and indemnify the City against liability for any damage resulting from approval to install said emergency protective material or devices. The property owner may elect to apply for the appropriate local and state permits to retain the protective material or devices after the threat to the property no longer exists, in which case the agreement shall be modified to state that upon exhaustion nt of all local and state administrative procedures to retain said Y material or devices, said material or devices will be removed in the a event that the appropriate applications are denied. to >r b. In addition to the regulations set forth above, the following regulations ;g apply to all new tracts and subdivisions. If the development is residential in nature, these regulations will apply to all new subdivisions containing four or more units. 31 1) Setback Requirement. A bluff setback adequate to provide safe public access, taking into account bluff retreat and erosion, shall be Land Use Element Page 9 4 1 provided in all new development. As a general guideline, property lines shall be set back from the edge of the bluff no closer to the edge of the bluff than the point at which the top of the bluff is intersected by a line drawn from the solid toe of the bluff at an angle of 26.6 degrees to the horizontal. A greater setback distance shall be required where warranted by geological or groundwater conditions, but in no case shall a property line be closer than 40 feet to the edge of the bluff. In addition, there shall be a building setback of 20 feet from the bluffside property line. This required building setback may be increased or decreased by the Planning Commission in the review of a proposed site plan consistent with the purposes of this section. 2) Environmentally Sensitive Habitats and Riparian Areas. There are many areas within the City of Newport Beach that are environmentally sensitive in nature. For the most part, these are water - associated habitats such as marine intertidal, riparian, or marsh areas. a. The following environmentally sensitive areas shall be preserved and protected, and no structures or landform alteration shall be permitted within these areas, except as provided in Section d. below: I) Areas supporting species which are rare, endangered, of limited distribution, or otherwise sensitive 2) Natural riparian areas 3) Freshwater marshes 4) Saltwater marshes 5) Intertidal areas 6) Other wetlands 7) Unique or unusually diverse vegetative communities b. Where there is some question as to the applicability of this section to a specific area, a determination as to whether or not the specific area constitutes an environmentally sensitive area shall be made by the Planning Commission, consistent with the purposes of this regulation. C. These policies are not intended to prevent public agencies and private Land Use Element Page 10 4 j property owners from maintaining drainage courses and facilities, sedimentation basins, public infrastructure, and other related facilities in a safe and effective condition with minimal impact on the environment. :e d. When the environmental process demonstrates that adverse impacts can be ;r mitigated to an acceptable level, or that the benefits outweigh the adverse p impacts, the Planning Commission may approve a development plan in an environmentally sensitive habitat or riparian area. 3. Geologic Hazard Areas. There are areas within the City of Newport Beach that the ,e natural geological processes can pose a threat to the public health, safety, and w welfare. These areas contain earthquake faults, existing or potential landslides, areas with expansive or collapsible soil, excessive settlement and subsidence, and areas subject to potential erosion and siltation. The following policies shall apply -e to all areas of potential geologic hazard: -e -e a. No structures shall be permitted in areas of potential geologic hazard, )r except as provided in Section b. below. b. When the environmental process demonstrates that adverse impacts can be id mitigated to an acceptable level, or that the benefits outweigh the adverse -d impacts, the Planning Commission may approve a development plan in an area of potential.geologic hazard. ;d 4. Residential Areas Impacted by Noise Levels Greater than 65 CNEL. Due to noise sources such as roadways and aircraft overflights, certain residential areas are impacted by exterior noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL. The following policies shall apply to residential subdivisions of four or more units where the existing or future exterior noise levels are greater than 65 CNEL: ,a le to a. No new residential development shall be permitted within any area where the noise levels are greater than 65 CNEL, unless the environmental process identifies specific mitigation measures that result in exterior areas of any residence, such as patios and other public and private recreation areas, being mitigated to less than 65 CNEL. b. In addition to mitigating exterior noise levels to less than 65 CNEL, all interior portions of a residence shall not exceed 45 CNEL. Land Use Element Page I I A, in and when problems associated with such activity, such as parking, marine sanitation and noise adversely affect the quality of the marine environment. 3. The City shall continue to oppose the lease of offshore tracts to oil producers and prohibit the construction of new onshore oil facilities except as may be necessary in conjunction with the operation of the West Newport oil field. The City shall: a. Continue to monitor the federal government's offshore oil leasing programs to insure the City and its citizens are fully aware of all proposed offshore activities which could adversely affect the coastal environment, including participation in the Local Government Coordination Program or other similar programs. b. Oppose and lobby against proposed lease sales off the coast of Orange County and elsewhere in the Southern California region which could adversely affect the environment or the economy of the City of Newport Beach and assist jurisdictions in other areas of the state which are opposed to offshore lease sale programs in their vicinity. Development of Coastal Bluff Sites The City of Newport Beach finds that the natural bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource. In order to preserve these unique landforms, develop- ments proposed for bluff areas shall be subject to the following regulations: 1. The following regulations apply to all building sites: a. Definition of Bluff. As used in this section, "bluff' is any landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50 %) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater. Where there is some question as to the applicability of this section to a speck landform, a determination as to whether or not the specific landform constitutes a bluff shall be made by the Planning — a Commission, consistent with the purposes of this regulation. b. Grading. Permitted development shall be designed to minimize the -� alteration of natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. In areas of geologic _ hazard, the City shall not issue a building or grading permit until an applicant has signed a waiver of all claim against the public for future liability or damage resulting from permission to build. All such waivers shall be recorded with the county Recorder's Office. -" C. Geologic Report. To promote public safety, a geologic study shall be performed for each site to determine areas of potential instability. The bluff areas of potential hazard or instability shall be indicated on maps as part of any Planned Community development plan. -25- -lb'�y d. Height of Structures. The height of structures shall be as described in the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. The following regulations apply to all tracts and subdivisions. If development is residential in nature, this policy will apply to development of 4 or more units. This policy shall also apply to commercial development. a. Setback Requirement. A bluff setback adequate to provide safe public access, taking into account bluff retreat and erosion, shall be provided in all new development. As a general guideline, the property line setback from the edge of a bluff should be no closer to the edge of the bluff than the point at which the top of the bluff is intersected by a line drawn from the solid toe of the bluff at an angle of 26.6 degrees to the horizontal. A greater setback distance shall be required where warranted by geological or groundwater conditions, but in no case shall a property line be closer than 40 feet to the edge of a bluff. In addition, no part of a proposed development shall be closer than 20 feet to the bluffside property line. This required building setback may be increased or decreased by the Planning Commission in the review of a proposed site plan consistent with the purposes of this section. Public Views. The location and design of a proposed project shall take into account public view potential. C. Public Access and Dedication Requirements. The location and design of a proposed project shall maximize public access to the coastal bluff areas as follows: 1) Public access to coastal bluff areas shall be assured through design of the local street system and through the location of public trails and walkways adjacent to the bluffs. The City may require the dedication of right -of -way, or the granting of easements. These may be improved or not improved at the option of the City Council. 2) Areas adjacent to coastal bluffs having significant view potential shall be designated for use as view parks or vista points consistent with parkland dedication requirements. 3) Land required to be dedicated for neighborhood parks, but which is intended to remain in an unimproved, natural state, should be located adjacent to the bluffs; any portion of that land required to be dedicated for neighborhood parks which is intended to provide -26- -� J EM active recreational facilities may be located in the interior portions IN of the proposed development. 4) Bluff face areas need not be accepted by the City.for any type of dedication. d. Subdivision Design. In preparing a development plan, natural bluff areas shall not be included in development areas as designated on the site plan. The design of any subdivision shall not include any bluff face or bluff edge as part of any residential lot or building site. e. Landscape Plans and Plant Material. For the purpose of regulating groundwater conditions, landscape plans for those areas immediately adjacent to the bluffs shall incorporate native vegetation or other drought- __ resistant plant material. f. Grading. Grading, cutting, and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency repairs, or for the installation of erosion - preventive devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs. Hazard Areas. There are areas within the City of Newport Beach where the natural processes can pose a threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. These areas contain _. earthquake faults, existing orpotential landslides, areas with expansive or collapsible soil, excessive settlement and subsidence, flood hazard areas, and areas subject to potential erosion and siltation. The following policies shall apply to all areas of potential natural hazard: 1. No structures shall be permitted in areas of potential geologic hazard, except as provided in Policy 2 below. 2. When the environmental process demonstrates that adverse impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable level, or that the benefits outweigh the adverse ' impacts, the Planning Commission may approve a development plan in an area of potential geologic hazard. 3. Hydrologic analysis shall be required for all projects located within flood hazard areas. 4. The Emergency Disaster Plan shall be periodically reviewed to insure adequate ability to respond to flooding and other natural disasters. -27- � J6 Archaeological, Paleontological, and Historical Resources Archaeological, paleontological, and historical resources within the Coastal Zone shall be investigated in accordance with acceptable scientific procedures, and ap- propriate mitigation measures (including testing, salvage, or preservation) shall be adopted on a case -by -case basis in accordance with regular City policy. Prior to any development, archaeological, paleontological, and historic resources shall be mapped and evaluated by a qualified professional. A City Council approved list of such personnel shall be established, following adequately noticed public hearings. Coastal Views Where coastal views from existing roadways exist, any development on private property within the sight lines from the roadway shall be sited and designed to maximize protection of the coastal view. This policy is not intended to prohibit development on any site. Coastal View Areas: a. Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar b. Eastbluff remnant C. Coast Highway near Jamboree d. Pacific Coast Highway Bridge e. Castaways from the bluff setback f. Constellation near Santiago g. Irvine between Santiago and University Drive h. Galaxy Park i. Ensign View Park j. Promontory Point East k. N Street 1. 10th Street beach m. 19th Street beach n. Promontory Bay at Harbor Island Drive o. Promontory Bay at Bayside Drive p. Cliff Drive Park q. Eastbluff Park r. Pacific Coast Highway Bridge S. Arches/Newport Boulevard Bridge t. Lido Island Bridge U. Entrance to Balboa Island V. Larson's Shipyard W. Inspiration Point Park X. Beach and bay street ends y. Marinapark 107 -28- 74 i� Z. King's Road View Park aa. Westcliff Park 2. The City shall preserve beaches, surf action, and coastal shoreline in a manner that will maintain their aesthetic and natural value. -29- 1S Page 20.55 -1 SPR Overlay District CHAPTER 20.55 SPR SITE PLAN REVIEW OVERLAY DISTRICT Sections: 20.55.010 Purpose 20.55.020 Districting Map Designator 20.55.030 Applicability 20.55.040 Site Plan Review Required 20.55.010 Purpose The City Council finds that developments in certain sensitive areas may have potentially adverse effects on the surrounding area or on sensitive resources, or may interfere with the implementation of specific objectives of the General Plan or specific plan districts. The effect of this section is to establish a "Site Plan Review" (SPR) Overlay District and to require site plan review by the Planning Commission for any proposed development, except as provided in this chapter, within an SPR Overlay District to insure that the project conforms to the objectives of the General Plan. 20.55.020 Districting Map Designator The SPR Overlay District may be combined with any base district. Each SPR Overlay District shall be shown on the Districting Map with an " -SPR" designator. 20.55.030 Applicability No site shall be placed in the SPR Overlay District unless one of the following criteria is met: A. The site contains areas having a slope in excess of 26.6 degrees (50 percent slope). B. The site contains or is immediately adjacent to coastal bluffs. C. Development of the site has the potential to affect public views. D. Development of the site has the potential to affect environmentally sensitive areas including: Areas supporting species which are rare, endangered, of limited distribution, or otherwise sensitive. 11 Page 20.55 -2 SPR Overlay District 2. Riparian areas. 3. Freshwater marshes. 4. Saltwater marshes. 5. Intertidal areas. 6. Other wetlands. 7. Unique or unusually diverse vegetative communities. E. The site is located in a geologic hazard area, as described in the General Plan. F. The site is in a residential district subject to noise levels greater than the 60 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). G. The site contains significant historical or archaeological resources or is in an area of unique historical or archaeological interest. H. The site is immediately adjacent to a thoroughfare designated as a Scenic Highway or Scenic Drive in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan. I. The site is immediately adjacent to the ocean or bay. J. The site directly abuts a residential district, but is located in a district designated for nonresidential use. K. A density bonus is proposed, or has been granted, for the site. 20.55.040 Site Plan Review Required Projects shall require site plan review under the provisions of Section 20.92.020. ,`{� ZV CHAPTER 20.92 SITE PLAN REVIEW Sections: Page 20.92 -1 Site Plan Review 20.92.010 Purpose 20.92.020 Projects Subject to Site Plan Review 20.92.030 Standards 20.92.040 Application for Site Plan Review 20.92.050 Notice and Public Hearing 20.92.060 Duties of the Planning Commission 20.92.070 Expiration, Time Extension, Violation, Discontinuance, and Revocation 20.92.080 Amendments and New Applications 20.92.090 Rights of Appeal and Review 20.92.010 Purpose The City Council finds, determines and declares that the establishment of site plan review procedures contained in this section promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the community by ensuring that: A. Development of properties will not preclude implementation of specific General Plan or specific plan district objectives and policies. B. The value of property is protected by preventing development characterized by inadequate and poorly planned landscaping, excessive building bulk, inappropriate placement of structures and failure to preserve where feasible natural landscape features, open spaces, and the like, resulting in the impairment of the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties in such area. C. The benefits derived from expenditures of public funds for improvement, acquisition and beautification of streets, parks, and other public facilities are maximized by the exercise of reasonable controls over the layout and site location characteristics of private buildings, structures and open spaces. D. Unique site characteristics are protected in order to ensure that the community may benefit from the natural terrain, harbor and ocean, to preserve and stabilize the natural terrain, and to protect the environmental resources of the City. 09/23/98 Page 20.92 -2 Site Plan Review 20.92.020 Projects Subject to Site Plan Review A. Site plan review approval shall be required prior to the issuance of a grading permit or a building permit for any new structure, including fences, to be constructed, or existing building to be reconstructed or remodeled to increase the gross floor area by 50 percent or 2,500 square feet whichever is less, or increase the roofline or height for the following: Specific Plans. Projects within the areas designated on the land use plan of the General Plan for the development of a specific plan, for which a specific plan has not been adopted. Exception: Site plan review shall not be required for construction or alteration of single- family dwellings or duplexes in any residential zone where such development is consistent with the land use designation of the General Plan. 2. SPR Overlay District. Projects within a SPR overlay district. Establishment of Grade. The establishment of grade by the Planning Commission or the City Council in accordance with Section 20.65.030 (B -3). 4. Other Projects. Projects which have been designated for site plan review as a condition of approval for a resubdivision or tract map by the Planning Commission or City Council. However, no site shall be subject to site plan review unless one of the criteria established in Section 20.55.030. 20.92.030 Standards In addition to the general purposes set forth in Section 20.92.010, in order to carry out the purposes of this chapter as established by said section, the site plan review procedures established by this section shall be applied according to and in compliance with the following standards, when applicable: A. Sites subject to site plan review under the provisions of this chapter shall be graded and developed with due regard for the aesthetic qualities of the natural terrain, harbor, and landscape, giving special consideration to waterfront resources and unique landforms such as coastal bluffs or other sloped areas; trees and shrubs shall not be indiscriminately destroyed; B. Development shall be compatible with the character of the neighborhood and surrounding sites and shall not be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the surroundings and of the City; 09123198 0 zz Page 20.92 -3 Site Plan Review C. Development shall be sited and designed to maximize protection of public views, with special consideration given to views from public parks and from roadways designated as Scenic Highways and Scenic Drives in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan; D. Environmentally sensitive areas shall be preserved and protected. No structures or landform alteration shall be permitted in environmentally sensitive areas unless specific mitigation measures are adopted which will reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable level 'or the Planning Commission finds that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts; E. No structures shall be permitted in areas of potential geologic hazard unless specific mitigation measures are adopted which will reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable level or the Planning Commission finds that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts; F. Residential development shall be permitted in areas subject to noise levels greater than 60 CNEL only where specific mitigation measures will reduce noise levels in exterior areas to less than 60 CNEL and reduce noise levels in the interior of residences to 45 CNEL or less; G. Site plan and layout of buildings, parking areas, pedestrian and vehicular access ways, and other site features shall give proper consideration to functional aspects of site development; H. Development shall be consistent with specific General Plan and applicable specific plan district policies and objectives, and shall not preclude the implementation of those policies and objectives; Development shall be physically compatible with the development site, taking into consideration site characteristics including, but not limited to, slopes, submerged areas, and sensitive resources; J. When feasible, electrical and similar mechanical equipment and trash and storage areas shall be concealed; K. Archaeological and historical resources shall be protected to the extent feasible; L. Commercial development shall not have significant adverse effects on residences in an abutting residential district. 09/23/98 Page 20.92 -4 Site Plan Review 20.92.040 Application for Site Plan Review A. Procedure. An application for site plan review shall be filed in a manner consistent with the requirements contained in Chapter 20.90: Application Filing and Fees. B. Required Plans and Materials. The following plans and diagrams shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval: A plot plan, drawn to scale, showing the arrangement of buildings, driveways, pedestrian ways, off - street parking and off - street loading areas, landscaped areas, signs, fences and walks. The plot plan shall show the location of entrances and exits, and the direction of traffic flow into and out of off - street parking and loading areas, the location of each parking space and loading space, and areas for turning and maneuvering vehicles. The plot plan shall indicate how utility and drainage are to be provided. 2. A landscape plan, drawn to scale, showing the locations of existing trees proposed to be removed and proposed to be retained; and indicating the amount, type, and location of landscaped areas, planting beds and plant materials with adequate provisions for irrigation. 3. Grading plans when necessary to ensure development properly related to the site and to surrounding properties and structures. 4. Scale drawings of exterior lighting showing size, location, materials, intensity and relationship to adjacent streets and properties. 5. Architectural drawings, renderings or sketches, drawn to scale, showing all elevations of the proposed buildings and structures as they will appear upon completion. 6. Any other plans, diagrams, drawings or additional information necessary to adequately consider the proposed development and to determine compliance with the purposes of this chapter. 20.92.050 Notice and Public Hearing A. Public Hearings. A public hearing shall be held on all site plan review applications. 09/23/98 A'; z Y Page 20.92 -5 Site Plan Review B. Required Notice. Notice of such hearing shall be given as follows: Mailed or Delivered Notice. a. Residential Districts. At least 10 days prior to the hearing, notice shall be mailed to the applicant and all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll or, alternatively, from such other records as contain more recent addresses. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and provide to the City a list and postage paid envelopes with the names and addresses of owners as required by this section. b. Nonresidential Districts. At least 10 days prior to the hearing, notice shall be mailed to the applicant and all owners of property within 300 feet, excluding intervening rights -of -way and waterways, of the boundaries of the site, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll or, alternatively, from such other records as contain more recent addresses. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and provide to the City the names and addresses of owners as required by this section. 2. Posted Notice. Notice shall be posted in not less than 2 conspicuous places on or close to the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing. Published Notice. Notice shall be published in at least one newspaper of general circulation within the City, at least 10 days prior to the hearing. C. Contents of Notice. The notice of public hearing shall contain: A description of the location of the project site and the purpose of the application; 2. A statement of the time, place, and purpose of the public hearing; A reference to application materials on file for detailed information; 4. A statement that any interested person or authorized agent may appear and be heard. D. Continuance. Upon the date set for a public hearing before the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission may continue the hearing to another date without giving further notice thereof if the date of the continued hearing is announced in open meeting. 09/23/98 Z � Page 20.92 -6 Site Plan Review 20.92.060 Duties of the Planning Commission A. If all applicable standards established by this section are met, the Planning Commission shall approve the development. Conditions may be applied when the proposed development does not comply with applicable standards and shall be such as to bring said development into conformity. Exception. The City Council shall have final decision - making authority on the applications for site plan review filed concurrently with amendments to the general plan, zoning code, or a planned community development plan or with a development agreement. B. If the development is disapproved, the Commission shall specify the standard or standards that are not met. 20.92.070 Expiration, Time Extension, Violation, Discontinuance, and Revocation A. Expiration. Any site plan review granted in accordance with the terms of this code shall expire within 24 months from the effective date of approval or at an alternative time specified as a condition of approval unless: A grading permit has been issued and grading has been substantially completed; or 2. A building permit has been issued and construction has commenced; or 3. A certificate of occupancy has been issued; or 4. The use is established; or 5. A time extension has been granted. In cases where a coastal permit is required, the time period shall not begin until the effective date of approval of the coastal permit. B. Time Extension. The Planning Director may grant a time extension for a site plan review for a period or periods not to exceed 3 years. An application for a time extension shall be made in writing to the Planning Director no less than 30 days or more than 90 days prior to the expiration date. C. Violation of Terms. Any site plan review granted in accordance with the terms of this code may be revoked if any of the conditions or terms of such site plan review are violated or if any law or ordinance is violated in connection therewith. 09/-)3/98 Page 20.92 -7 Site Plan Review D. Discontinuance. Any site plan review shall lapse if the exercise of rights granted by it is discontinued for 180 consecutive days. E. Revocation. Procedures for revocation shall be as prescribed by Chapter 20.96: Enforcement. 20.92.080 Amendments and New Applications A. Amendments. A request for changes in conditions of approval of a site plan review, or a change to plans that would affect a condition of approval, shall be treated as a new application. The Planning Director may waive the requirement for a new application if the changes are minor, do not involve substantial alterations or addition to the plan or the conditions of approval, and are consistent with the intent of the original approval. B. New Applications. If an application for a site plan review is disapproved, no new application for the same, or substantially the same, the site plan review shall be filed within one year of the date of denial of the initial application unless the denial is made without prejudice. 20.92.080 Rights of Appeal and Review A. Appeals and Review. Decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed by any interested party to the City Council. B. Calls for Review. The City Council may review any decision of the Planning Commission. C. Procedures. Procedures for appeals and calls for review shall be as prescribed by Chapter 20.95: Appeals and Calls for Review. 0923/99 3� RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OF COASTAL BLUFF PROPERTIES AS DEFINED BY THE GENERAL PLAN UNLESS APPROVED BY A SITE PLAN REVIEW OR OTHER DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF WHEREAS, Land Use Element Development Policy D states that the siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs; and WHEREAS, the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program states that natural bluffs constitute a significant scenic resource and environmental resource and in an effort to preserve these unique landforms, development shall be designed to minimize the alteration of natural landforms along bluff and cliffs. WHEREAS, recent development proposals in the Corona del Mar area have requested significant alteration of coastal bluff resources, and present development trends suggest that additional projects will follow that may request significant alteration of coastal bluffs. There is every reason to believe that this trend will continue given the good economic climate and general prosperity of the community. The cumulative effect of new development could significantly alter the coastal bluffs contrary to preservation policies and should be evaluated by the city through a discretionary process to ensure consistent application of the coastal bluff preservation policies. The cumulative effect of grading the bluffs creating building footings and large retaining walls is not well known and development of a coastal lot can have negative impacts to abutting structures due grading and construction activities. These impacts can cause a material detriment to these adjacent properties and the Planning Commission desires a fuller understanding of these potential problems prior to further construction activities. WHEREAS, existing development regulations and review processes contained in the Zoning Ordinance do not directly support or implement coastal bluff preservation policies adequately. Due to pending and anticipated projects along coastal bluffs, eminent loss of significant environmental resources may result which will negatively impact the community's welfare. Due to the potential impacts of construction activities to abutting properties, an eminent public safety threat may be evident and these potential safety issues need to be studies and better understood before additional projects are approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council take the following actions: 1) Adopt an urgency ordinance establishing a moratorium on the issuance of building and grading permits for any property with coastal bluffs, as defined by the General Plan. Building permits for interior alterations and projects that do not increase the an existing building footprint or require any grading should be exempt. �q? 2) Initiate an amendment to Title 20 of the Municipal Code that provides discretionary review of development projects involving coastal bluffs. ADOPTED this 21" day of September 2000, by the following vote, to wit: Edward Selich, Chairman Steven Kiser, Secretary AYES: NOES: ABSENT X5'0 9 Page 1 Citation Found Document Rank 1 of 1 Database CA GOVT s 65858 CA -ST -ANN West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 65858 TEXT WEST'S ANNOTATED CALIFORNIA CODES GOVERNMENT CODE TITLE 7. PLANNING AND LAND USE DIVISION 1. PLANNING AND ZONING CHAPTER 4. ZONING REGULATIONS ARTICLE 2. ADOPTION OF REGULATIONS Copr. © West Group 2000. All rights reserved. Current through 1999 portion of 1999 -2000 Reg. Sess. and 1st Ex. Sess. § 65858. Interim ordinance; adoption or extension; expiration; subsequent ordinances (a) Without following the procedures otherwise required prior to the adoption of a zoning ordinance, the legislative body, to protect the public safety, health, and welfare, may adopt as an urgency measure an interim ordinance prohibiting any uses which may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal which the legislative body, planning commission or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time. That urgency measure shall require a four - fifths vote of the legislative body for adoption. The interim ordinance shall be of no further force and effect 45 days from its date of adoption. After notice pursuant to Section 65090 and public hearing, the legislative body may extend the interim ordinance for 10 months and 15 days and subsequently extend the interim ordinance for one year. Any extension shall also require a four - fifths vote for adoption. Not more than two extensions may be adopted. (b) Alternatively, an interim ordinance may be adopted by a four - fifths vote following notice pursuant to Section 65090 and public hearing, in which case it shall be of no further force and effect 45 days from its date of adoption. After notice pursuant to Section 65090 and public hearing, the legislative body may by a four - fifths vote extend the interim ordinance for 22 months and 15 days. (c) The legislative body shall not adopt or extend any interim ordinance pursuant to this section unless the ordinance contains legislative findings that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement for use which is required in order to comply with a zoning ordinance would result in that threat to public health, safety, or welfare. (d) Ten days prior to the expiration of an interim ordinance or any extension, the legislative body shall issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the ordinance. (e) When an interim ordinance has been adopted, every subsequent ordinance adopted pursuant to this section, covering the whole or a part of the same property, shall automatically terminate and be of no further force or effect upon the termination of the first interim ordinance or any extension of the Copr. 0 West 2000 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works Page 2 CA GOVT s 65858 TEXT ordinance as provided in this section. (f) Notwithstanding subdivision (e), upon termination of a prior interim ordinance, the legislative body may adopt another interim ordinance pursuant to this section provided that the new interim ordinance is adopted to protect the public safety, health, and welfare from an event, occurrence, or set of circumstances different from the event, occurrence, or set of circumstances that led to the adoption of the prior interim ordinance. CREDIT CREDITS) 1997 Main Volume (Added by Stats.1965, c. 1880, p. 4348, 1505, § 1; Stats.1971, c. 187, p. 256, Stats.1984, c. 1009, § 24; Stats.1988, (A.B.1262), § 1.) § 6. Amended by Stats.1967, c. 366, p. § 1; Stats.1982, c. 1108, § 1; c. 1408, § 3; Stats.1992, c. 231 2000 Electronic Update (Amended by Stats.1997, c. 129 (S.B.927), § 1.) <General Materials (GM) - References, Annotations, or Tables> 2� I 9/20/00 er.p 25 i:6 :59 From: Lawrence Tabak 3431 Ocean Blvd p;; ` ;Av Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 " To: Newport Beach City Council 49EMMAM ,GM Dennis O'Neil, Councilman PRIWWW19 (1-10-00 City Clerks Office P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Re: Moratorium on Building Permits And Proposed Detrimental Changes to Building Code. I Need Your Urgent Help Please! Dear Mr. O'Neil: My family and I live at the above address. Our home was constructed 40 -50 years ago and was intended as a second residence for someone. The home is perched on top of the sloping bluff, overlooking Big Corona Beach. I am in the process of planning a new residence to suite my family's needs on that land. I intend to build a tastefully designed home, with terracing levels, including terracing levels of landscape on the slope. I intend to use exterior paint colors, landscaping and design techniques that enable the home to blend with the slope in a pleasing and elegant manner. z The design I intend to build in no way violates the height restrictions, the curb height restrictions, the setbacks or any other elements of the existing code. I do not intend to seek any variances whatsoever. In addition, my home is the very last home at the end and therefore, my newly designed home will not in any way obstruct anyone's view. Not people walking on the curb. Not my neighbors. Not people walking down the winding trail. Not people on the beach. No one. when I purchased my home, I specifically met with officials from the City Planning department to make sure I could build this type of a home in the future. More importantly, at that meeting department, prior to my purchase, about the height limits, the curb setbacks and so on and I was told the home to be constructed met wi would have no problem. in the planning I was instructed height limit, the that as long as th the code, I Based on this information received from the city, namely the specific answers to my questions about my plans, I made a decision to invest a substantial amount of money in that land and to prepare for my family's future. The reason I am writing to you today is because I have been attending the Planning Commission's meetings and have observed that they intend to issue a moratorium on building permits in various coastal areas and are also contemplating making changes to the building code that are detrimental and would completely prevent me from building a suitable home. 3 In essence, I have been told that if the planning commission has iCs way, I would be allowed to rebuild my home, but only if I rebuilt it in the existing footprint. This means I would not be able to build on land that I bought and paid for. Instead, I would be forced to keep it to essentially the same square footage and would not be able to take advantage of higher ceilings. I would not be able to maximize my views, nor would I be able to enjoy a more functional and attractive overall home design. Apparently, the planning commission would like to now prevent property owners from grading the bluff land which they own and paid for. I would also like to also mention that there are two houses on Ocean Boulevard under construction right now, on the bluff, designed by Mr. Brion Jeanette, that were given permits and which involve substantial grading of the bluff. In one case virtual removal of the entire bluff between two humongous, retaining walls. The home I intend to build can be built over the bluff slope, on caissons, with minimal removal of soil. The planning department's view is that even though I am not digging into the bluff, I am still - altering it- by building a home over-it, thereby covering it. This contemplated confiscation of my rights, without remuneration I might add, is unacceptable and untenable for my family and I. We purchased this land with a very old, dated home on it, with the plan of building a suitable home when we scraped up the money. I did my homework by meeting with the city prior to the purchase. Other 4 homeowners have been and are allowed right now today, to build homes that suite their needs on the bluff. I am urgently asking for your help, and specifically the City Council's help, who oversees and can override the Planning Commission, to protect the value of my property, which will surely suffer. I ask you to protect my rights as a property owner in Corona del Mar, and to prevent this from changing my family's plan of living together by the beach for a long, long time. Thanking you in advance for your attention to this urgent matter. Res�pect`fplly, Lawrence Tabak- ProDert.-wner. Cc Newport Beach Planning Commission Cc Barry Resnick, attorney Cc Fleetwood Joiner, architect