HomeMy WebLinkAbout15 - EPN2001-254 - 2720 & 2730 Bayside DriveSEW Pogr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: April 10, 2001
o� m PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: 15
i 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell
• ` +c,�a�'' NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3210
(949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 6443250 Appeal Period: None
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
PROJECT: Rex Brandt Trust (Eric Welton)
2720 & 2730 Bayside Drive
SUMMARY: A request to establish a 4 -foot front yard setback on the Districting Map
along Bayside Drive in conjunction with a project to demolish an existing
duplex, adjust the existing lot configuration creating two lots facing
Bayside Drive and the construction of two duplexes. Additionally, the
project includes consideration of an encroachment agreement (N2001-
254) for the construct and maintenance of a private driveway within
Bayside Drive to access the project.
ACTION: Hold a Public Hearing; Project approval requires the following
actions to be taken:
1. Adopt the findings and conditions of approval for Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000-
013, attached as Exhibit No. 8 of the March 27, 2001 staff report.
. 2. Introduce Ordinance No. 2001- approving Amendment No. 909 establishing
a 4 -foot front yard setback for the subject lots. (Exhibit No. 9 of the March 27,
2001 staff report).
3. Approve an Encroachment Agreement for non - standard improvements as shown
in Exhibit No. 6 to the March 27, 2001 staff report.
a. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement.
b. Authorize and direct the City Clerk to have the agreement recorded with the
Orange County Recorder.
4. Authorize the issuance of an Encroachment Permit by the Public Works
Department, subject approval of all improvements by the Fire, General Services
and Public Works Departments.
Discussion
This project was continued from March 27, 2001 at the request of the applicant.
This project was discussed indirectly during the discussion of a proposed encroachment agreement
for an alley extension to serve 405 Goldenrod. From this discussion, the City Council requested that
• staff clarify the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the need, if
any, for Coastal Development Permits for this project.
CEQA 0
The project consists of the demolition of one duplex, the construction of two duplexes and the
construction of a new access driveway within Bayside Drive. Staff believes that the project qualifies
for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15303(b) (Class 3, New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures) of the California Environmental Quality Act Implementing
Guidelines. This exemption permits the construction of up to six dwellings in urbanized areas and
the project consists of a total of four residential units. Utilities and street improvements of
reasonable length to serve the construction are considered exempt pursuant to this section as well.
This exemption is site dependent in that it would not apply if there are unusual circumstances
associated with the project site where implementing the project would impact an environmental
resource of hazardous or critical concern. The issue of slope stability has been raised as a concern
and the applicant's registered geologist testified to the Planning Commission that the development
of the site would not create any adverse impacts to the neighboring properties. Development of the
site is in no way different than similar projects in the city with similar terrain, and implementation
of standard Public Works and Building Department standards adequately address the issue. No
substantial evidence has been presented that indicates a hazard will be created, and therefore, staff
believes that the project qualifies for a Class 3 exemption from CEQA and that no further
environmental review is required. The City Attorney's office has examined the facts of this case and
concurs with staffs position. The City Attorney's analysis is attached as Exhibit No. 1.
Residents opposed to the project contend that the construction of two adjacent duplexes and the
Bayside Driveway are part of a larger project which should include the construction of the alley .
extension and duplex at 405 Goldenrod adjacent to the site. The duplex/alley extension project is
separate from the subject project, and approval of either project is independent of the approval or
denial of the other.
Coastal Development Permit (CDP)
The question was raised as to whether or not the either or both of the projects would require a CDP.
In 1977, the California Coastal Commission approved a categorical exclusion from the requirement
to obtain a CDP for all single family residences, duplexes and their appurtenant facilities subject to
lot coverage, parking, density and applicable zoning provisions. Staff believes that both the
driveway extension and the alley extension are appurtenant facilities that should be considered
exempt from Coastal Commission jurisdiction. The development of the project meets the
underlying density, lot coverage, parking and zoning requirements as discussed in the Planning
Commission staff reports for this item. No new lot is created with the lot line adjustment, and the
two duplexes will not be any larger than what could otherwise be constructed on a "flat" Corona
Del Mar lot. The exclusion of this project, including its appurtenant driveway, as well as the
development of 405 Goldenrod with its appurtenant alley extension, is further supported by the fact
that the projects do not impact any coastal resources or coastal access. If the Coastal Commission
determines that the either project is not covered by the categorical exclusion, the applicant will be
required to obtain Coastal Development Permits.
Amendment No. 909, LLA No. 2000 -13 & EPN 2000 -254
April 10, 2001 Page 2
0
2
• Encroachment Agreement
The City Attorney's office has had a further opportunity to review the draft encroachment
agreement. Several minor revisions to the language have been made, but the basic parameters of the
agreement are unchanged. The responsibility and liability for the proposed driveway remain with
the abutting owner and future owners of the property, and the agreement contains a standard
indemnification clause protecting the city. The agreement requires that the developer repair any
damage caused by the project to the existing driveway and a slurry seal.
Submitted By:
SHARRON Z. WOOD
Assistant City Manager
ie' J
Exhibits
Prepared By:
JAMES CAMPBELL
1. Memorandum from the City Attorney's office dated April 3, 2001.
2. Revised Encroachment Agreement.
• F: \Us m\PL \Shared\ICITYCNL\2001\04 IOA909 pereport 4- 10- 01.doc
Amendment No. 909, LLA No. 2000.13 & EPN 2000 -254
April 10, 2001 Page 3
Z,
CITY -OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Robin L. Clauson, Assistant City Attorney
RE: APPLICATION OF CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION O
TO DUPLEXES TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT
2720 AND 2730 BAYSIDE DRIVE AND
405 GOLDENROD AVENUE
X41
DATE. April 10, 2001
The City Council has before it a determination of whether to approve encroachments into
the public right of way under Council Policy L-6 to provide street access for two similar but
separate projects. The projects are to construct duplexes on separate lots at 2720 and
2730 Bayside Drive and at 405 Goldenrod Avenue. Each duplex is authorized under the
City's Zoning Code and General Plan, and requires access to a publicly improved street
or alley. The project at 2720 and 2730 Bayside includes applications for a lot line
adjustment and an amendment to the districting map to establish a 4-foot front yard set
back for the Property.
State guidelines adopted at Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations 15000 et. seq.
contain certain categories of projects that are deemed exempt from further environmental
evaluation. If a project falls within a categorical exemption there is no need to conduct an
initial study or other further environmental evaluation. Staff has reviewed the duplex
projects and found them to be exempt under Section 15303(b), "a duplex or similar multi-
family residential structure totaling no more than four dwelling units ". The duplexes at
2720 and 2730 Bayside while on separate lots may be considered one project that does
not entail more than four dwelling units. The duplex at 405 Goldenrod is a separate
project, not conditioned upon approval of the Bayside Drive project.
Projects that are categorically exempt require no further environmental review unless
there is substantial evidence that there is a reasonable possibility that an activity would
have a significant effect on the environment due to "unusual circumstances ". There are
no unusual circumstances surrounding either project that create a reasonable probability
of significant environmental impacts. The duplexes are similar to other single - family
homes or duplexes built on similar terrain throughout the City.
•
Exhibit No. 1
9
The neighboring property owners concerns of stability of the hillside or the effect of the
construction of the duplexes or the alley extension on their properties are not unusual, but
rather a common issue of proper construction techniques. These issues are addressed
through the City by standard requirements of the Public Works Department and the
Building Department. The projects will require detailed soils reports and engineered
plans certified by engineering geologists and geotechnical and soils engineers. In
addition, short term traffic impacts and other impacts resulting from construction of the
duplexes is a common impact for adjoining property owners. There has been no
evidence of significant environmental impact from either duplex project that would effect
the environment of persons generally as opposed to the short-term individualized impacts
on the neighboring properties. Projects that are categorically exempt are presumed to not
have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore it is our belief that the
duplexes and appurtenant alley extension or driveway extension to provide access qualify
under Categorical Exemption 15303(b) and no further environmental review is required.
i
ROBIN L. USON
Assistant City Attorney
RLC:mI
f.Wsem\ cat\ shamdk =nemo\catexemptduplexes.doc
E
60
RECORDING REQUESTED AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
Public Works Department
City of Newport Beach
Post Office Box 1768
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Space above this line for Recorder's use only.
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
2720 AND 2730 BAYSIDE DRIVE
(EPN2000 -254)
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of
2001, by and between Shelley Nora Walker, trustee to the Brandt Family Survivor's Trust;
(hereinafter "OWNER "), and the City of Newport Beach, California, a municipal corporation
organized and existing under and by virtue of its Charter and the Constitution and the laws of
the State of California, (hereinafter "CITY "), "OWNER" is the owner of property located at
2720 & 2730 Bayside Drive, Newport Beach, California and legally described as Lots 1 & 3,
Block 333 of Corona del Mar Tract as shown on a map recorded in Book 3, Pages 41 through
42 inclusively of Miscellaneous Maps and as modified by N.B.L.L.A. No. 81 -1 recorded June
12, 1981 in Book 14099, Page 148 of the Official Records in the office of the County Recorder
of Orange County, California (hereinafter "the PROPERTY ");
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, OWNER desires to construct and maintain certain improvements
(hereinafter "PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS ") within Bayside Drive right -of -way (hereinafter
"RIGHT -OF- WAY ") that is located adjacent to the PROPERTY; and
WHEREAS, CITY Fire Department has reviewed plans for the PERMITTED
IMPROVEMENTS and approved plans subject to OWNER'S agreement to the terms and
conditions of this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Owner has committed to be responsible for Owner's pro rata share, four -
ninths (4 /9ths), of maintenance and repair of existing common driveway improvements; and
Exhibit No. 2
04/04/01
1
RJ
WHEREAS, said PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS may interfere in the future with
CITY'S ability to construct, operate, maintain, and replace CITY and other public facilities and
improvements within RIGHT -OF -WAY; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to execute an agreement providing for fulfillment
of the conditions required by CITY to permit OWNER to construct and maintain said
PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS to provide driveway access to the PROPERTY from Bayside
Drive.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, the parties hereto agree
as follows:
1. It is mutually agreed that PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS shall be defined as an
extension of an asphalt concrete driveway access (3" A.C. on 4" base) with concrete curb,
landscaping, and appurtenances in the RIGHT -OF -WAY as shown on EXHIBIT "A ".
2. CITY will permit OWNER to repair, maintain, use, operate, repair and replace
said PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS and appurtenances incidental thereto, within a portion of
RIGHT -OF -WAY, all in substantial conformance with plans on file in the CITY. CITY will
further allow OWNER to take all reasonable measures necessary or convenient in
accomplishing the aforesaid activities
3. OWNER shall prepare and submit to the Public Works Department and General
Services Department for approval, a Landscape Plan, including specimen trees, to soften the
view of the proposed dwellings and the driveway extension in the area shown on Exhibit A.
The Landscape Plan shall consider the effect on the view of pedestrians on the footpath and
those on the footbridge as well as the view of motorists on Bayside Drive. All landscaping on
the approved plan shall be planted prior to occupancy of the improvements on the
PROPERTY.
4. OWNER shall install residential fire sprinkler systems in each dwelling unit to the
satisfaction of the Building and Fire Departments.
5. OWNER shall post signs prohibiting and prohibit the parking of motor vehicles
within the area of the PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS as designated by the Fire Department
and Public Works Department. 491
2 15
E
6. OWNER shall bring the common driveway improvements between the
PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS and Bayside Drive up to a state of repair by repairing any
damage caused by construction activity and by seal coating or slurry seal the common
driveway improvements prior to occupancy of the new dwelling units being constructed.
7. OWNER shall not unduly restrict access to the other properties taking access
from the common driveway during the construction of the PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS and
new dwelling units.
8. OWNER shall not store construction materials or equipment in areas westerly of
the prolongation of the OWNER's alley property line or in greenbelt areas that will not be
disturbed by the construction of the PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS.
9. OWNER shall fence the construction site and materials storage areas. Fencing
shall be covered with green cloth material.
10. Rights granted under this Agreement may be terminated by CITY at any time by
giving 60 days' notice, specifying in said notice the date of termination. CITY shall incur no
liability whatsoever in the event of the termination of this Agreement, or subsequent removal of
improvements by CITY.
11. OWNER and CITY further agree as follows:
a. OWNER shall construct PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS and
appurtenances incidental thereto, in substantial conformance with the detailed plans and
specifications therefor on file in the CITY's Public Works Department, and as shown on Exhibit
"A" hereto attached.
b. OWNER shall maintain the PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS in accordance
with general prevailing standards of maintenance, and pay all costs and expenses incurred in
doing so. However, nothing herein shall be construed to require OWNER to maintain, replace
or repair any private -owned or CITY -owned pipeline, conduit or cable located in or under said
PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS, except as otherwise provided herein.
3 04/04/01
R1
C. If private- owned, City, or other public facilities or improvements are
damaged by the installation or presence of PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS, OWNER shall be
responsible for the cost of repairs.
d. OWNER shall be responsible for his pro -rata share, four - ninths (4 /9ths), of
the cost of maintaining the existing common driveway between the curb on Bayside Drive and
the prolongation of the westerly property.
e. Should the CITY be required to enter onto said RIGHT -OF -WAY to
exercise its primary rights associated with said RIGHT -OF -WAY, including but not limited to,
the maintenance, removal, repair, renewal, replacement or enlargement of existing or future
public facilities or improvements, CITY may remove portions of the PERMITTED
IMPROVEMENTS, as required, and in such event:
(i) CITY shall notify OWNER of its intention to accomplish such work,
if any emergency situation does not exist.
(ii) OWNER shall be responsible for arranging for any renewal or
restoration of the PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS affected by such work by CITY;
(iii) CITY agrees to bear only the cost of any removal of the
PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS affected by such work by CITY;
(iv) OWNER agrees to pay all costs for renewal or restoration of the
PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS.
12. In the event either party breaches any material provision of this Agreement, the
other party at its option may, in addition to the other legal remedies available to it, terminate
this Agreement, and, in the event the breaching party is OWNER, CITY may enter upon the
RIGHT -OF -WAY and remove all or part of the improvements installed by OWNER with one
exception. That one exception shall be the CITY cannot deny vehicular access to the subject
property. Termination because of breach shall be upon a minimum of ten (10) days' notice,
with the notice specifying the date of termination. In the event of litigation commenced with
respect to any term of condition of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to
reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred. 0
4
13. OWNER shall defend, indemnify, waive, and hold harmless CITY, its City
Council, boards and commissions, officers and employees from and against any and all loss,
damage, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable
attomeys' fees (when outside attorneys are so utilized), regardless of the merit or outcome of
any such claim or suit arising from or in any manner connected with the design, construction,
maintenance, or continued existence of the PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS.
14. OWNER agrees that this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect from
execution thereof; shall run with the land; shall be binding upon the heirs, successors, and
assigns of OWNERS' interest in the land whether fee or otherwise.
15. OWNER agrees that this Agreement shall be recorded against the PROPERTY
in the Official Records of the County Recorder of Orange County, California, prior to or
subordinated to any recorded deed of trust or other financing interest or lawful encumbrance
on the PROPERTY made in good faith and for value.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
• executed on the day and year first -above written.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
a Municipal corporation
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
City Clerk
RLC:ml
f.\ users\cat\ shared\en =achmen0agbrendt2720bayside.doc
By:
City Manager
OWNER:
By:
Shelley Nora Walker, Trustee
To the Brandt Family Survivor's Trust
5 04/04/01
GOLDENROD AVE w4
EXHIBIT "A"
L0
N
O
O
O
N
Z
W
y�
h
A
W
A
Q
A
•
f-
•
lv
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
ss:
COUNTY OF ORANGE)
On 2001, before me,
personally appeared , personally
known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s)
whose name(s) is /are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that
he /she/they has executed the same in his /her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his /her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the
person acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary Public in and for said State
(This area for official notarial seal)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) ss:
• COUNTY OF ORANGE)
On 2001, before me,
personally appeared personally
known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s)
whose name(s) is /are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that
he /she /they has executed the same in his /her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his /her /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the
person acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary Public in and for said State
E
(This area for official notarial seal)
6 13
Shelley Nora Walker RECEIVED
Trustee, Brandt Family Survivors Trust
405 Goldenrod Ave. , Corona del Mar, Ca 92625 'Ol APR —3 A 8 :26
PO Box 611
Mammoth Lakes, California OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
760 934 -6668 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Date � �0 �
March 30, 2001
City Council Members
City of Newport Beach,
RE: 405 Goldenrod and 2720 Bayside
Dear City Council Members,
Copies Sent To:
Mayor
Council Member
Tanager
❑ A�tornelt-
0A 1
.j
n0
After attending the meeting last Tuesday evening, I feel it is appropriate to make the
following statements or questions.
1) Why is it fair for Susan Carol to use unauthorized encroachments in the public
alley for entry stairs to access 2710 Bayside when she opposes my requested use of
the same alleyway to gain rear access to 405 Goldenrod.?
The encroachments are used solely by her and not "shared with the Brandts ", as
she claimed in speaking before you.
2) Since she occupies her home in Belcourt and is not intending to live at 2710, why
is she so concerned about the proposed alley extension, which she seems to have
exaggerated the effects of
3) Harriett Harris, a real estate developer, owns 2706 but rents it out and like Susan ,
has had the property on the market for sale for many months.
Shortly after the death of my father, Rex Brandt, she wrote me a note indicating an
interest in buying the properties.
4) The opposing neighbors, and or their consultant, have made many remarks which
are not true. For example, not that it should matter, but the number of additional
bedrooms proposed to be added to the driveway in question is four not eight. There
have been other distorted claims like the number of trees being removed. Since when
can a property owner not remove trees on his own property?
E
continued 3/30 letter
It should be noted that for many decades my father paid property taxes on this property
and the inheritance taxes which have been paid were based on four usable lots at
current market value.
I therefore ask that you not be swayed by influences from others but apply logic and
reasoning to your decision regarding the unfeasiblity of alternative accesses -
as promoted by the neighbors who, to my mind, should be happy that their property
values will be increased by having newly constructed properties next to them.
Our family selected Mr. Welton to develop our property because we wanted to see a
high quality project that would occupy this site that is so important to us.
Mr. Welton, a native of the area and longtime Corona del Mar resident started his
family next door to us in 1971 and we have observed his considerable success in
doing various projects throughout the county.
. I hope you will extend the proper measure of fairness to him, as it appears that he has
taken pride in coming up with a nice design for our four lots.
Thank you for your courtesy.
Sincerely,
c.
Shelley Walker (Brandt)
•
�Ewoogr
U _
• C'ci.��a'��
n
U
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
(949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 6443250
Hearing Date:
Agenda Item:
Staff Person:
March 27, 2001
16
James Campbell
(949) 644 -3210
None
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
PROJECT: Rex Brandt Trust (Eric Welton)
2720 & 2730 Bayside Drive
DISCUSSION:
Staff has met with the applicant regarding the design of the driveway extension covered by the
proposed encroachment agreement in an effort to improve its design and preserve as much of the
greenbelt as possible. The applicant was concerned with the recommendation that angled parking
would be necessary for the easterly property due to the reduced driveway width, which would be
contrary to the architecture approved by the Planning Comrnission.
The architect prepared a drawing of the driveway extension recommended by the Public Works
Department showing perpendicular parking. The garage openings are proposed to be widened to
better facilitate access from a more narrow driveway. Due to this fact, staff believes that the
perpendicular garage access is acceptable. Therefore, the applicant will be able to use the approved
architectural drawings approved by the Planning Comrnission. A revised exhibit to the
encroachment agreement is attached and replaces the exhibit in the first staff report.
The narrowest point of the driveway will be 14 feet at the a proposed tree well for the mature
eucalyptus tree to be preserved. The proposed design also elimintates the previously proposed 5 -6-
foot retaining wall near the footpath. The plan will include a decorative keystone blocks no taller
than 30 inches in height. This element will soften the grade difference between the footpath and the
proposed driveway. The driveway will be no closer than 10 feet from the footpath. The proposed
driveway disturbs the smallest amount of open space in Bayside Drive and preserves the existing
mature eucalyptus tree while providing adequate access to the proposed project.
Staff received a letter indicating that access to public records was not provided. Staff has made
every effort to work with the interested indivduals and has made all public records available for
inspection.
Submitted By:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
Planning Director
Exhibits
Prepared By:
JAMES CAMPBELL
Senior Planner
A-1�1 nLdJ
• 1. Revised Exhibit A to Encroachment Agreement No. 2000 -254.
.i
U
W
Q
vi
W
H
Q
U
O
io V)
Q
R:
W N
U O
In 0
•
rEV/VORr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: March 27, 2001
PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: 16
i 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3210
(949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 Appeal Period: None
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
PROJECT: Rex Brandt Trust (Eric Welton)
2720 & 2730 Bayside Drive
SUMMARY: A request to establish a 4 -foot front yard setback on the Districting Map
along Bayside Drive in conjunction with a project to demolish an existing
duplex, adjust the existing lot configuration creating two lots facing
Bayside Drive and the construction of two duplexes. Additionally, the
project includes consideration of an encroachment agreement (N2001-
254) for the construct and maintenance of a private driveway within
Bayside Drive to access the project.
RECOMMENDED
ACTION: Hold a Public Hearing; Project approval requires the following
actions to be taken:
1. Adopt the findings and conditions of approval for Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000-
013, attached as Exhibit No. 8.
2. Introduce Ordinance No. 2001- approving Amendment No. 909 establishing
a 4 -foot front yard setback for the subject lots. (Exhibit No. 9).
3. Approve an Encroachment Agreement for non - standard improvements as shown
in Exhibit No. 6.
a. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement.
b. Authorize and direct the City Clerk to have the agreement recorded with the
Orange County Recorder.
4. Authorize the issuance of an Encroachment Permit by the Public Works
Department, subject approval of all improvements by the Fire, General Services
and Public Works Departments.
GENERAL PLAN/
ZONE: Two - Family Residential R -2 (Two - family Residential)
OWNER: Rexford E. Brandt, successor to the Brandt Family Survivor's Trust
0
Introduction
The Planning Commission considered the proposed project at a noticed public hearing held on
February 8, 2001 and February, 22, 2001. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning
Commission voted to recommend approval of the proposed project subject to conditions. The
minutes reflecting the discussion and action of the Commission and Planning Commission staff
reports are attached as Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4.
Project Description
The applicant seeks redevelop the property located at 2720 & 2730 Bayside Drive. The project
site is located on the northerly side of Bayside Drive and Bayside Park directly west of the
Goldenrod Avenue footbridge that spans Bayside Drive. The project will involve the demolition
of an existing duplex and the adjustment of the underlying two legal lots (Lot Line Adjustment No.
2000 -13) resulting in two lots that face Bayside Drive. The applicant would then construct two new
duplexes on the reconfigured lots in conformance with the R -2 district development standards. The
applicant also requests approval of an Amendment of the Districting Map to establish a 4 -foot front
yard setback for the reconfigured lots. The two reconfigured lots will have access provided from an
existing driveway constructed within the Bayside Drive right of way. The applicant proposes to
extend the driveway approximately 82 feet easterly from its present terminus toward the Goldenrod
footbridge.
Vicinity Map
'
Project Site
A.M SIa,rs OQ��
O�
` .
Foo[bnd e
S� H
W�E
9L S
Amendment No. 909
Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000 -13
AMENDMENT No. 909, L -A No. 2000 -13 & EPN 2000 -254
March 27, 2001 Page 2
11
0
Lot Line Adjustment 2000 -13
Lot Line Adjustments are subject to Chapter 19 (Subdivisions) and the procedural requirements
of Chapter 20 (Zoning). The proposed lot line adjustment meets the criteria for an exemption to
the subdivision standards of Chapter 19 pursuant to Section 19.08.050. Chapter 20.93 establishes
the procedural requirements and findings for approval of lot line adjustments. The Planning
Commission concluded that all procedural requirements have been met and made affirmative
findings recommending approval of the proposed lot line adjustment. In recommending approval
of the project, the Planning Commission felt strongly that the design of the project was a key
element to making findings for approval. Therefore, the Commission specifically recommended
that the design of the proposed duplexes be consistent with the attached architectural plans
(Exhibit No. 5), and that alteration of the open space within Bayside Drive for the access
driveway be minimal.
Amendment No. 909
The applicant requests that the city amend the District Map to establish a 4 -foot front yard
setback for the reconfigured lots. This setback is consistent with the setbacks of the three existing
residences that use the driveway from Bayside Drive. Using the suggested 4 -foot setback, will
not create larger buildings in terms of square feet than what a typical Corona Del Mar lot would
allow. Without the establishment of the setback on the District Map, the minimum 20 -foot
setback would apply which is used to derive the buildable area and resulting floor area limit of
the future duplexes. Using a 20 -foot setback would result in a limited floor area, which could
result in a variance request. A more complete analysis of the requested setback is provided in the
February 8, 2001 Planning Commission staff report attached as Exhibit No. 4.
Encroachment Agreement (EPN2000 -254)
The units are proposed to have garage access directly off of the extended driveway presently located
within Bayside Drive. The greenbelt along the north side of Bayside Drive, including the area in
front of the project site, is dedicated right -of -way for street and highway purposes. The area was not
dedicated for park purposes, although the area was improved to its present condition in 1975 and is
generally considered " Bayside Park."
The applicant's proposal has garages that are perpendicular to Bayside Drive and would utilize a
driveway extension that is twenty -two feet (22') wide and extends to within approximately twelve
feet (12') of the easterly property line. This configuration would require the construction of a five
to six foot high retaining wall that would be located within two feet of the existing footpath through
the greenbelt. The wall would allow minimal opportunity for landscaping between it and the
footpath and would eliminate the open area that exists along the northerly edge of the path. The
applicant has prepared a landscape plan (attached) which he believes will soften the impact of the
proposed driveway and retaining wall.
The proposed driveway, retaining wall and landscaping require approval of an encroachment
agreement pursuant to Council policy L -6. Council Policy L -6, "Private Encroachments in the
Public Right -of- Way ", requires the prior approval of City Council for private structural
improvements such as planters, stairs, etc. in public easements or rights -of -way. The draft
AMENDMENT No. 909, LLA No. 2000 -13 & EPN 2000 -254
March 27, 2001 Page 3
encroachment agreement will allow construction of the driveway, landscaping and other
appurtenances in the right -of -way as approved by the Public Works Department. Additionally, it
will require that the property owner maintain the proposed encroachments. Proposed landscaping
shall be approved by the General Services Department and maintained by the owner. The
Encroachment Agreement will include a hold harmless clause indemnifying the City of Newport
Beach against any liability of any manner connected with the proposed encroachments in the
Bayside Drive right -of -away.
Staff has worked with the applicant's proposed design with respect to minimizing the amount of
greenbelt that is to be paved attempting to save a mature eucalyptus tree and preserve as much open
space as possible. The goal of minimal encroachment or alteration of the greenbelt is also
recommended by the Planning Commission. Staff is suggesting that the easterly unit be redesigned
to allow angled access from a driveway narrower than what is proposed by the applicant. This
would reduce the height or eliminate the need for a retaining wall and allow a more open feeling for
those using the footpath and this concept is shown in Exhibit No. 6.
The applicant has prepared a letter and alternative sketch in response to the reduced driveway
concept (Exhibit No. 7). The sketch appears to be consistent with staffs recommendation and
reduces the total paved area, preserves the existing mature tree and reduces or eliminates the need
for a retaining wall. It also appears that adequate maneuvering area will exist to access the proposed
perpendicular parking stalls. Staff will study the proposal and provide an oral report at the meeting.
The Fire Department had originally requested the applicant to provide a twenty foot (20') clear
access across the property. This would have required further encroachment into the landscape area
or the removal of the mature eucalyptus tree. Further discussions have resulted in the Fire Marshall
agreeing to the layout proposed by the Public Works Department subject to two additional
conditions being imposed. The two conditions within the attached Encroachment Agreement
(Exhibit No. 10) are that the buildings be sprinklered and there be no parking on the driveway
which results in less than twenty feet (20') of clear width.
Should the City Council determine that the access originally proposed by the applicant is preferred
over the concept staff has proposed, staff recommends the following condition be substituted for
the condition requiring fire sprinkler systems:
The applicant shall relocate the existing footpath from the base of the stairs westerly to
provide a minimum of ten feet (10') clear between the path and the proposed retaining wall.
The area between the wall and the path shall be landscaped in a manner to minimize the
visual impact of the wall.
Summary
Staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed the project and alternatives to the project
including different access schemes and a lot merger. These alternatives were dropped in favor of the
proposed project, and staff recommends project approval in accordance with the conditions of
approval and the provisions of the attached draft encroachment agreement based on the staff design
shown in Exhibit No. 6.
AMENDMENT No. 909, LLA No. 2000 -13 & EPN 2000 -254
March 27, 2001 Page 4
. The project has not been well received by the existing residents who would share the driveway
access. They are concerned that the project will impact the peaceful, park -like atmosphere, increase
traffic and create safety and liability issues. Although there would be disruption with project
construction, it will be temporary and the project is not anticipated to create any significant safety
issues. The project's registered geologist testified to the Planning Commission that the
implementation of the project will not cause damage to the abutting properties. The proposed
landscape plan along with the preservation of the mature eucalyptus tree will soften the driveway
extension and help maintain the unique character of the area.
DON WEBB PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
Public Works Director Planning Director
r�c.7Jl�Gfc2.�S /11,
r�
Exhibits
1. Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes dated February 22, 2001.
2. Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes dated February 8, 2001.
. 3. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 22, 2001.
4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 8, 2001.
�J
5. Site plans (before and after), architectural plans and landscape plans.
6. Modified encroachment agreement driveway plan.
7. Letter from the applicant in response to the modified driveway plan.
8. Findings and conditions of approval for Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000 -013.
9. Draft ordinance approving Amendment No. 909
10. Draft Encroachment Agreement No. 2000 -254
11. Site photographs
F:\ Users\ PLN \Sh=d\ICITYCNL\2001\0327\A909 pueport 3 -27 -01 DOC
AMENDMENT No. 909, LLA No. 2000 -13 & EPN 2000 -254
March 27, 2001 Page 5
Exhibit No. 1
M
. City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22, 2001
really that is being something that is required. I understand that may be
desirable from the management company's point of view, but my conclusion is
that it is not necessary.
Substitute motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to overturn the decision
of the Modification Committee and deny the modification.
Commissioner Agajanian noted his support of the substitute motion. He stated
that driving by to check this signage out, his biggest problem was not so much
the landscaping that got in the way of seeing the sign, it was the cars ahead of
him. He simply could not see the sign until he was well past the exit area and
even then, the landscaping blocked it. I am not sure this is a sign letter size
issue, but I have no problem allowing the 24 -inch letters as I think the sign could
be better proportioned.
Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley
Noes: Tucker
Excused: Kiser
Exhibit .`No. 2
Findings for Denial
The establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed sign will, under
the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety,
peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood for the following reasons:
a) The proposed sign is inconsistent with the legislative intent of the Newport
Village Planned Community, which limits lettering to 24 inches in height.
b) No evidence has been identified to indicate that a sign comprised of 24-
inch high letters is less effective than the proposed 30 -inch letters. The
lettering style can be changed to a thicker letter, which would achieve
the applicant's objective of increasing the visibility of the sign.
C) The proposed 30 -inch high letters do not show restraint and are excessive
and aesthetically unappealing due to their size.
SUBJECT: Rex Brandt Trust (Cont'd from 02/08/2001)
2720 & 2730 Bayside Drive
• Amendment No. 909
• Lot Line Adjustment 2000 -13
Establish a 4 -foot front yard setback on the Districting Map along Bayside Drive in
conjunction with a project to demolish an existing duplex, adjust the existing lot
0 configuration creating two lots facing Bayside Drive and the construction of two
duplexes.
INDEX
Item 5
A 909
LLA 2000 -13
Recommended
approval
3
for
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22, 2001 INDEX
Mr. Campbell noted that he had sent a late tax to all of the Commissioners with
the revised drawings prepared by the architect showing the proposed buildings
on the lot. Continuing, he reported that there was a meeting between the
applicant and the residents.
Transportation /Development Services Manager stated that one of the topics not
directly connected with the application is that of access. There has been a
tremendous amount of activity since the last meeting between the property
owners and myself interacting with various departments over this issue. There are
clearly some conflicting ideas on the amount of access and how it might be
provided. Last summer, the Publics Works Director met with Mr. Welton at the site
and walked the site and gave him what he felt was the amount of passive open
space that could be infringed upon with access. The plans that have been
submitted go considerably beyond that and may have been drawn up in an
attempt to satisfy concerns of the Fire Department. Because the structure is more
than 150 feet from a public street, typically that department would want a
minimum of a 20 -toot access and a turn around. The Fire Department is
suggesting that in lieu of a turn around the buildings could sprinklered. The 20-
toot access could partially be provided for in the park and partially in private
property it the setback were greater. Additionally, the General Services
Department, who has maintained that open space area, had written to the
Public Works Director two memos recommending that this approach to access
be avoided and some other system identified, preferably accessing oft
Goldenrod from above. One of the outcomes of the meeting last week was an
agreement between the property owners and adjacent neighbors that would
call for a brand new driveway to be constructed to these two properties via
across the open space from Bayside Drive. This would have significant impacts
on the open space and would require building a driveway that would require a
grading of nearly 150 -toot section that would rise to 5 feet. It would create a
mound in the open space area that is currently flat and has a pedestrian
pathway that is in constant use. The Public Works Department has not resolved
the best approach to access and, therefor, the item that was going to be before
the City Council next week has been pulled from the agenda to allow staff more
time for review of the various options and have further discussions with the owner
and architect.
At Commissioner inquiry, Mr. Edmonston noted that there has been nothing
approved by the Public Works Department. The Public Works Director confirmed
that mature trees would be impacted and that the access should not extend
beyond the relatively beyond the flat section that is front of the property now.
We had seen site plan proposals on earlier submittals by the architect that
appeared to more closely correspond to those criteria, although it was unusual
and required the garages to be at an angle to the house so that they could be
entered from a narrower driveway. It was only at the last meeting that I began
to see these revised drawings that showed a much greater encroachment into
the open space area.
10 4
E
a
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22, 2001
Chairperson Selich noted that its basic to have the access issue worked out prior
to the lot line adjustment considerations.
Mr. Edmonston noted his concern with the conflicting requests from groups like
the Fire Department. Their desire to have 20 feet is met on private property so in
this case, that would interface with the request you have for the 4 -foot setback. I
realize it puts you in a tough position and we've spent some time discussing with
staff a better way to do this and what order these approvals ought to be
processed. It is potential the Planning Commission could approve this and the
City Council may or may not approve the access because that is their issue to
resolve. They will probably have different opinions from different departments
and we are trying to work to resolve them.
Commissioner Tucker asked if the applicant proposed anything different than
what was proposed several months ago on the access.
Mr. Edmonston answered that different people in Public Works had different
contacts with the applicant. I had seen other plans prior to the ones two weeks
ago that you had that were different. I did not realize the full extent of the
impact of those revised plans until subsequent to the meeting when I was able to
talk with representatives from other departments.
At Commission inquiry. Mr. Edmonston stated that the Public Works Director's issue
is the extent to which the encroachment permit would take out some
vegetation. He had met Mr. Welton on site, walked the area and out onto the
Goldenrod footbridge and looked down on the site. The concept of that
meeting was to discuss the feasibility of re- orienting the lots as it is now proposed.
At that time, the Public Works Director indicated to Mr. Welton that the two
criteria he had was not impact any more onto the park in terms of having to fill
any additional park land area nor to remove any mature trees. So, there was an
intermediate plan that saved one mature tree but that was then impinging on
the twenty -foot area that the Fire Department was looking for. There was
another plan that I first saw two weeks ago that showed that tree removed and
that would be something to be addressed and the value of that tree and /or any
replacement trees in the encroachment agreement.
Commissioner Tucker clarified that the applicant came forth with a proposal that
was consistent with what the Public Works Director had requested and then
when the plan got to the Fire Department they did not agree with what the
Public Works Director had suggested.
Mr. Edmonston answered that there may have been more steps than that
because the copy of a plan shows an island around the tree to protect it and did
show the full extent of encroachment that is on the plan you saw the last time.
Somewhere along the line between the original plan we saw with a narrower
driveway, that access area has grown. It may have grown to address the
applicant's issues and some of the changes may have been to address some of
the issues of the Fire Department.
11
INDEX
I
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22, 2001
Commissioner Tucker noted that we do not know whether the applicant was told
to make the area larger in order to get access into the garages or carports.
Mr. Edmonston answered that when subsequent plans were submitted, staff was
not informed that the submitted plan was contrary to what the Public Works
Director had indicated to the applicant very early on in the project. It may have
gone to other staff people who were not aware there was an issue.
Commissioner Agajanian asked if the possibility of reconfiguring those three
parcels was an option looked at?
Staff answered that it was an issue that was discussed, but it wasn't something
that the applicant is proposing.
Ms. Temple noted that there is another area along Bayside Drive where three lots
fronting towards Bayside with access from the hillside above was implemented a
very long time ago with a lot of cross easements, etc. That type of solution has
been done and could be investigated by the applicant and his architect. The
only implication that I would observe is that solution will tend to force more of the
structure down on the slope and towards Bayside Drive because the upper area
would be reserved for some type of a motor court yard.
Chairperson Selich noted that he had received a fax from the architect who
stated that they had studied those alternatives. He then asked about the
Encroachment Agreement and this item.
Mr. Edmonston noted that the applicant had requested with two encroachment
agreements, one for the extension of the alley that would serve the uphill lot of
the adjacent project, and this encroachment off the parkway area along
Bayside. Public Works is processing those two agreements with draft reports and
a Council Memo prepared for this upcoming Council meeting. Friday of last
week it came to my attention that there were these issues from other
departments.
Public comment was opened.
Chairperson Selich stated to the applicant that this meeting had been continued
so that he could meet with the neighbors, would you report on that and
comment on the access issue.
Mr. Eric Welton, applicant stated that a good portion of the meeting did involve
access alternatives. Among those mentioned previously, turning three of the lots
sideways and extending Goldenrod was one we looked at early on. However, as
you are aware there is a stairway adjacent to the footbridge. That would be
removed and would be a major disruption due to the hillside. My recollection of
the meeting with Don Webb when we walked the property, his admonition was
centered on not moving the footpath that is at the toe of the slope adjacent to
12
INDEX 10
. City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22, 2001
the parkland. I thought it was clear during that discussion that there would be an
extension of the driveway to whatever minimum extent would be required to
facilitate access into the garages down below. Creating three lots would cause
more traffic. This is a public access way and there is no exclusive control over it.
There are seven dwelling units to be served by this road and at the conclusion of
this project there will be nine. We are talking about a net increase of two units. I
met with the neighbors but there was no mutual agreement. They asked about
screening the retention wall at the end of the upper alley extension and I am
willing to talk to Mr. Webb. As to the access, the angled parking referred to by
Mr. Edmonston didn't work for a variety of reasons. In order to minimize the
grading of the site, we only took as much in back or in front of the project as was
necessary to meet the back up and Fire Department requirements. The
enlargements from some original versions were to accommodate those
requirements.
Chairperson Selich noted that it was stated that if the project was moved back,
you would not need the four foot encroachment and the encroachment would
be less into the Bayside Drive right of way. What constraints are you faced with
there?
Andrew Goetz, architect for the project answered if the recommendation was to
have a greater setback versus the three -foot side yard setback, which simply
would mean we would have to dig deeper into the hill. If we would have taken
the three lots and had tandem, which is typical in Corona del Mar, we would
have gone 40 feet into the hill resulting in 22 -25 foot high retaining walls.
Mr. Welton stated that access is a major concern. Retaining walls of those
proportions would also create aesthetic issues as well. I understand your dilemma
with the access question remaining open, I would suggest that if you were to act
on this tonight with an approval, it would then fall in the lap of City Council. We
would have to demonstrate to them that we have satisfied the access issues, but
I am not sure how they relate to the lot re- configuration.
Chairperson Selich asked how can we address a lot line adjustment when the
access is not resolved. That is a basic component to a lot line adjustment as
there is.
Chris Taylor noted a letter that he faxed to the Planning Commission and noted:
• Going from 7 to 9 units is a 29% increase for that access way.
• Direct access off Bayside is not ideal but is acceptable by people who
are most impacted.
• Lowering the pad grade so that it is closer to the park would have less an
impact.
• It is either park and no more of it should be given away to exclusive use,
which would be an indicator to do a lot merger, or that it is parkway and
direct access. Pick one or the other.
• Remain opposed to this application as it is.
13
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22, 2001
Chris Cushman, 2700 Bayside Drive noted:
• Direct access from Bayside Drive was agreed upon by the neighbors and
the applicant and should be one of the alternatives to be more strongly
considered.
• Footbridge on Goldenrod has many chips in the stairs and is uneven: the
retaining wood and poles are not safe and it is the stairway that was
asked to be fixed.
• Security and safety are being loss by the current residents.
I will lose 15% of the adjacent park view if this proposed driveway is
extending.
• Construction pad will degregate my pad with the heavy construction
equipment traversing across the way.
The Fernleaf project construction across the street directly impacted my
income as I work out of my house.
• 1 am losing value.
Susan Caro, 2710 Bayside Drive thanked the Planning Commission to meet with
the applicant to learn more about the project. At the meeting held by the
applicant she noted that this project is eight condominiums to be built at the
same time. She then presented her notes after making several comments similar
to previous testimony.
Lisa Cushman, 2700 Bayside Drive noted similar opposition as previously stated.
Public comment was closed.
Commissioner McDaniel asked what are we actually voting on tonight, are there
issues that need to be dealt with prior to a vote? I met with the applicant and I
have received faxes from some of the others. 1 understand what the project is,
but I am not sure what the vote is going to be on.
Chairperson Selich stated that the issue is that the property has legal access
because it fronts on the right of way of Bayside Drive. The difficulty is that it takes
an encroachment agreement to get all of the driveway and circulation aspects
taken care of. What the applicant is desirous of is that we take our action on this
and move the item on to Council and let the Council work out the final details
With the Public Works Department. I have mixed feelings on that myself because
I certainly would not be in favor of a new and separate access point off Bayside
Drive: it should take access from the existing drive. It is much better to have a
continuation of that access point than to create a separate access off Bayside
Drive. It sounds like the Public Works department is in concurrence with that
position. It is a matter of where else this whole access issue may go in front of the
Council and whether working out the final details of that access is something that
we should do at this level or allow it to go on to the Council for them to work out.
The thing that is disturbing to me about this application is that I know that it has
been going on for a long time. Mr. Welton has been following the procedures
and provisions of the Zoning Code and filed the proper applications. This
application has been in the works since October 11, 2000. 1 have a favorable
14
INDEX •
LJ
0
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
22, 2001
position on the lot line adjustment. I am in favor of a condition that the exhibits
submitted to us tonight be attached as part of the application approval and
would be in favor of an approval on that basis. I don't like the idea of sending
this on with the access issue not quite tied up, but in deference to the time the
applicant has spent processing this application, I would be in favor of moving this
on to Council and letting Council make the final resolution on the access issue.
Commissioner Tucker agreed with the previous comments adding that a lot
merger is not a fair resolution.
Commissioner Agajanion noted his agreement with previous statements adding
his concern of direct access off Bayside Drive. He commented that three lots of
90 by 40 solution would be the best possible approach from a planning
perspective and for the benefit of the City. That would allow access off the alley
and off Goldenrod for all three lots. I agree that we should move this forward to
Council. but I prefer a merger over this current proposal.
Commissioner Kranzley noted that the best idea is to initiate merger proceedings.
I am concerned with the lack of direction to the issue of access. The Planning
Commission first saw this two weeks ago and we have questions again that have
been brought up tonight and need to be answered before we vote on this item.
Chairperson Selich stated that other than what the extent of the encroachment
is going to be in Bayside Drive he is satisfied with the project if we attach some
additional conditions to it. If we approve this with the recommendation to
Council that the encroachment into Bayside Drive be minimized as much as
possible taking into consideration the concerns of the Public Works and Fire
Departments. I don't see what we gain by continuing this item. It would be unfair
to the applicant to continue it. In the end Public Works and Fire Department
criteria will probably overrule any of our aesthetic concerns.
Chairperson Selich noted that the Assistant City Attorney has advised us that we
can condition this project so far as it conforms to building and zoning regulations
and to the degree that the Commissioners feel that adding the plans to the
conditions satisfy those regulations then it can be so conditioned.
Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to deny this project and
recommend that City Council direct staff to initiate merger proceedings.
Substitute Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to approve Amendment 909
and Lot Line Adjustment 2000 -13 with the findings and conditions as
recommended by staff with the inclusion of the site plan and elevations
submitted this evening and titled L1, PW -1, A -2. A -2a, and A -3 be adhered to as a
condition of approval. The recommendation to the City Council will also
incorporate a recommendation that in approving the encroachment
agreement that any encroachment into the landscaped parkway area on
Bayside Drive be minimal.
INDEX
15 n,
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22, 2001 INDEX
Ms. Temple asked to be added to the motion that since we have not done a full
zoning plan review of these new plans, that also to the extent that they are in
compliance with Title 20.
Chairperson Selich agreed to add that to the substitute motion.
Ayes: McDaniel, Selich, Gifford. Tucker
Noes: Agajanian. Kranzley
Excused: Kiser
Findings and Conditions of Approval
Amendment No. 909 & Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000 -013
Findings:
1. The site is designated for two- family residential uses by both the General Plan
and Local Coastal Program. This designation permit the construction of a
single family or a duplex on each legal lot. The project will result in the
construction of two duplexes on the project site in conformance with density
requirements.
2. The project site is comprised of two legal lots within the Corona Del Mar
Tract. In 1981, the boundary between the two lots was adjusted through the
recordation of N.B.L.L.A. No. 81 -1. The resulting lots are legal lots and are
presently built upon, and therefore buildable.
3. The land taken from each lot will be added to the adjacent parcel and no
additional parcels will result from the lot line adjustment.
4. The parcels proposed to be created by the lot line adjustment comply with
all applicable zoning regulations, and that there will be no change in the
land use, density, or intensity on the property. The lots are exempt from the
minimum area requirements of Title 20 pursuant to Section 19.08.050 of the
Municipal Code as a nonconforming lot may be adjusted provided that
the lots are no smaller than the original lots of a final map that created the
nonconforming lots. The two original lots of the CDM Tract are both 30 feet
wide by 118 feet deep which is 3,540 square feet. Each of the two
proposed lots will be 59 feet wide by 60 feet deep and 3,540 square feet.
Several conditions of approval have been required which will ensure
minimum vehicular access require pursuant to the Zoning Code is be
provided
5. The lot line adjustment results in the need for additional improvements for
vehicular access. Conditions of approval have been included that will
ensure that the driveway is provided in accordance with applicable
standards.
16 1D
LJ
r 1
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22, 2001
6. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is
categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303 (Class 3, New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures) of the California Environmental Quality Act
Implementing Guidelines. This exemption permits the construction of up to
three single - family dwellings or up to 10,000 square feet of commercial
structures. The project consists of two residential units.
7. Amendment No. 909 establishes a 4 -foot front yard setback for the
reconfigured lots associated with Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000 -013. The
suggested setback is very similar to the setbacks of 2700, 2706 & 2710 Bayside
Drive which use the same access driveway. The suggested setback will not
create a larger building than what a typical CDM lot would allow. Using the
20 -foot default setback standard would limit the development of the subject
lots unreasonably and create units are not typical of the area. These facts
suggest that the 4 -foot front yard setback reasonable.
Conditions:
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved Lot
Line Adjustment and site plan dated February 8, 2001.
2. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the
Public works Department standards.
3. The Lot Line Adjustment shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any
grading or building permits.
4. Arrangements shall be made with the Public works Department in order to
guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is
desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to
completion of the driveway access.
5. Each dwelling unit shall be served with an individual water service and
sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems.
6. The final design of the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian
circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the Planning
Department and Traffic Engineer.
7. The proposed driveway shall be designed so that existing trees shall not be
disturbed except as required by the Fire Department and that the slope
adjacent to the City Park is not disturbed.
INDEX
8. The developer shall execute an encroachment agreement with the City of
Newport Beach to guarantee maintenance of the proposed driveway
extension in the city park. The agreement will require the owner to maintain
. the nonstandard improvements and protect the City from liability for injuries
17 �l
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 22. 2001 INDEX
caused because of the existence of the proposed improvements. The
encroachment agreement shall be reviewed in accordance with all
applicable procedures and requirements and shall be recorded prior to the
recordation of Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000 -013.
9. A drainage and utility plan shall be prepared by the applicant and
approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of any grading
or building permits. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm
drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the drainage and
utility plan or as deemed necessary by the Public Works Department shall
be the responsibility of the developer.
10. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and or 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. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials
within the City park except where the driveway extension proposed.
1 1 . The site plan and elevations submitted this evening and titled I.I. PW -1. A -2. A-
2a and A -3 are adhered to as a condition of approval to the extent that they
are in compliance with Title 20. The recommendation will also incorporate
that in approving the encroachment agreement that any encroachment into
the landscaped parkway area on Bayside Drive be minimized to the
maximum extent.
SUBJECT: Proposed Development Plan Review Procedures
Item 6
Initiation of an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to
Continued to
establish procedures' ..for development plan review. Information on
03/22/2001
development review procedures in other California cities.
Following a five- minute break the Planning Commission meeting was resumed.
Senior Planner Patrick Alford gave a brief summary of the staff report. He stated
that there was additional information provided 'tonight based on Commissioner
Kranzley's request to see similar development review procedures in other coastal
cities in California.
Chairperson Selich suggested that the discussion be of the concerns with the
major concepts and then actually get into the wording of the proposed
ordinance as appropriate and necessary.
18
l�
0
Exhibit No. 2
•
0
13
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 2001 INDEX
otherwise approved by the Building Department.
29. All''mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent
properties and adjacent public streets within the limits authorized by this
permit, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of
the Newport'-Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control.
30. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be undergrounded to the nearest
appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal
Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is
physically infeasible.
31. The residential units shall be constructed with heightened sound attenuation
techniques beyond normal construction standards and said techniques shall
be subject to the review and appr6val by the Building and Planning
Department. The residential units shall be provided air conditioning units.
32. The applicant or property owner shall include a''disclosure statement within
any commercial or residential lease that identiffes'nbuffing land uses and
the potential negative issues associated with them. The'disclosure statement
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director before use.
32. The applicant shall donate 2 additional street frees in addition to the minimum
number required pursuant to the Municipal Code. Said frees shall be, planted
in the general area in accordance with General Services requirements. '
SUBJECT: Rex Brandt Trust (Eric Welton)
Item 4
2720 & 2730 Bayside Drive
A 909
• Amendment No. 909
LLA 2000 -13
• Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000 -13
A request to establish a 4 -foot front yard setback on the Districting Map along
Continued to
Bayside Drive in conjunction with a project to demolish an existing duplex, adjust
02/22/2001
the existing lot configuration creating two lots facing Bayside Drive and the
construction of two duplexes.
Commissioner Kiser stepped down from the dais because of a possible conflict of
interest as he represents an owner of property near the subject property.
Mr. Campbell then made a slide presentation of the site, noting:
• Block faces Bayside Drive where it has been developed as a park.
• Site is accessed from a public driveway from Bayside Drive to serve four
properties.
• Guest parking areas for four properties.
• Landscaping in general area.
• Landscaping to be removed.
19 15,
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 2001
• Goldenrod footbridge.
• Buildings to be removed.
Placement of a future retaining wall necessary to support the driveway.
• Hill slope up above with existing alley.
• Views from Goldenrod.
Commissioner Tucker asked if the alley between Fernleof and Goldenrod goes all
the way down to the public driveway, is that all public?
He was answered that the alley extends all the way to Bayside Drive where the
small guest parking area is and that whole area is public. The entire Bayside park
as well as that driveway is in the public right of way.
Chairperson Selich clarified that although the right of way is landscaped and is
called Bayside park, it is not dedicated parkland, it is actually street right of way.
It is a wide parkway area that is being used for landscape and park purposes but
is not dedicated for that purpose.
Assistant City Attorney Robin Clauson answered that is correct
Commissioner Agajanian asked about the accessibility of the parcel from the
point of the public driveway to the units and how it was done. Are there no other
access points to this property or are they just given easements?
Mr. Campbell answered that there is no agreement or easement over this area, it
is public right of way.
Transportation /Development Services Manager Rich Edmonston added that this
proposal would extend essentially the three lots there shown on the map, which
were created in similar fashion many decades ago. This is similar to other areas
along Bayside Drive that have driveways parallel that go back in to service
typically one or two property units. The parking area may have been
constructed in the late 50's before the time when the City had the level of
regulations and an active Encroachment Permit Agreement process like we
have today. It is street right of way and not unlike the typical single family
residences where you have a driveway and probably the first ten feet of it back
from the curb is in the public right of way. It is a different configuration but a
similar concept. The City does not maintain those areas; they are treated like the
portion of the individual property owner's driveway in a similar situation or in a
more conventional neighborhood where that first ten feet is in the right of way
and theirs to maintain.
Commissioner Agajanian, referring to page 4 of the staff report, noted that
declaring the lot non - buildable and prohibiting its development may constitute a
taking requiring just compensation. He asked how this affects our decision
tonight.
Ms. Clauson answered that if it is a lot created pursuant to the Subdivision Map
IKE
0
INDEX
1(�
0
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 2001 INDEX
Act at a time when it existed and the City takes a regulatory action and prevents
it from being built then the property owner may have an argument that it was a
taking. I don't know if I conclude that it was, but the property owner would have
a good argument to that effect. If the lot line adjustment was riot approved, I
don't know what the result would be on the buildabilify of the second lot. The
upper lot does not have full development; it only has an encroachment from the
adjoining lot to it. The second lot does not have any individual separate structure
on it that has access from any viewpoint. The question that would rise in my mind
as to the second lot would be the accessibility to it. It would be a legal lot with
no access to it, but there is access to it on paper through the subdivision map
from Goldenrod.
Commissioner Kranzley clarified that if we don't do the lot line adjustment, it could
be deemed a taking. If we do a merger, would it be a taking?
Ms. Clauson answered that if the Commission does not approve the lot line
adjustment, then the property owner would have to try to figure out how to
access that second lot. If there wasn't a way to access that second lot, then
they may be able to have an argument that there is a taking there, because
there is no access from any of the streets. I am not concluding that there would
be a taking, but there is a subdivision that provides that Goldenrod comes down
• and Bayview goes across; they are both streets. It is designed to have an
improved street in front of it and to have access. There have been
circumstances in other cities that property owners have made the allegation that
property owners have abutters rights to have access to a street. If they were to
make an argument that the action the City is taking has prevented them from
having access to the street, they may have an argument.
Chairperson Selich rioted that there are many lots in Corona del Mar that only
have pedestrian access to the streets, most of the vehicular access is off an alley.
Ms. Clauson stated that the alley access qualifies as public access.
Discussion continued on the design of the project map and the issue of access to
the property.
Chairperson Selich noted he had asked the Assistant City Attorney for an opinion
as to whether the Planning Commission could put a condition on this application
and through the Encroachment Permit stating that the Planning Commission
would have architectural and site plan review of the two lots that would be
created under the lot line adjustment as well as the lot at 405 Goldenrod. She
informed me that in her opinion this could not be done. He asked her to explain.
Ms. Clauson answered that the lot line adjustment has restrictions under the
Subdivision Map Act. The Map Act specifically exempts lot line adjustments and
has a provision that says the local advisory agencies shall not impose conditions
. or exactions on the lot line adjustment approval except to conform to local
zoning and building ordinances. Based upon that and case law that has
21
F
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 2001
interpreted this section, I don't believe that since the City does not already have
local zoning and building ordinances that require site plan review for this project
that we would be able to impose it as a condition of the lot line adjustment. The
other issue that I looked at was the amendment to the Districting Map for the
setbacks for a site plan review. The problem is that is a legislative act and you
can't condition a legislative act on the approval because if they don't comply
with it you can't take back the legislative act.
Public comment was opened.
Eric Welton, 2855 East Coast Highway applicant noted that he is open to any
questions. He noted he has a geologist to explain issues as needed.
Andrew Goetz, architect for the project noted:
• Looked at alternative accesses for the second parcel, could have
applied to extend the alleyway in back of Goldenrod with a very large
excavation and make a right hand turn into the second lot. This did not
seem to be an aesthetically good choice, or a practical choice.
• The planned project will eventually become condominiums and perhaps
there may be some contingencies that could be tied into the subdivision
of the condos and hence enforcing specific plan relative to that issue.
• Have a set of plans for this project.
Lisa Salisbury Cushman, 2700 Bayside Drive spoke in opposition to this project
noting the following while distributing some photos:
• Geotechnical soils stability issues. Bedrock that we are built on is the
some as Fernleof Avenue.
• Inspector at my home less than 60 days ago reported major slippage and
subsidence from the bedrock on which her home is built. Drilling caissons
into the bedrock will compromise it.
• Impact of what is being done in the neighborhood has not been
addressed by the project manager or the City.
• Architectural integrity - Rex Brandt designed and built these homes.
Perhaps there is some architectural integrity that they can not be
demolished.
• Removal of ten mature trees - would this lead to soils and stability issues
that could contaminate the problem?
• Current bedrock issues with the removal of mature tree roots might cause
lateral damage to my property.
• Demonstrate the accuracy of the staff report. There are two areas in
which this lot line adjustment does not meet procedural requirements in
Chapter 19. 1 can show you that to enforce the lot line adjustment as a
City we have to look at Chapter 20; there are two areas that have not
been met.
• This will invite litigation and problems when the Code is not complied with
to the letter.
At Commissioner inquiry she noted that her lot is the first lot that fronts Bayside
INDEX
22 I r/
•
1]
•
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 2001
Drive next to Fernleaf Avenue.
Commissioner Tucker asked if she had an existing slippage problem. She
answered yes. Continuing he noted that problem continues whether this project
goes forward or not. The property designed by Rex Brandt is not recognized on
our historical register and we, as a body can not decide to become a Historical
Society.
Susan Carol, 2710 Bayside Drive owner for the past fifteen years spoke in
opposition to this application. She distributed photos and noted:
• Tranquil setting overlooking Bayside park.
• Soils issues prior to her purchasing her home have required her to maintain
the various slopes by planting trees, specific vegetation choices using
moisture control and other geotechnical means for stabilization.
• The proposed project does not address these soil issues.
• The proposed project also does not address parking, maintenance,
landscape, trees and the offer of insurance to be provided to each of the
homeowners on the street.
• Plans have been withheld to the last moment because the applicant
does not want to make any commitments.
• No master plan has been made available.
. Now, there are plans to put a driveway and parapet over my bedroom
window.
1 ask that you continue this matter so that we can all see the complete
picture as to impacts on safety, soil erosion, slope stability, removal of
trees, parking and access.
Chris Taylor, land use and community development consultant with Harris Taylor
Management at 315 West 3,d St., Santa Ana spoke representing Bill and Harriet
Harris who own 2706 Bayside Drive. He stated that there is an inability to get the
complete picture on this application. He then distributed a copy of a letter
regarding access to the information on file. There is an argument that the lot line
adjustment could be ministerial and understanding that the zoning code
amendment for the district map could have some precedent for establishing set
backs there. We do not have an adverse reason to keep some quality
development in that area but we do have a major encroachment agreement
here that does need significant public review. The historic kind of resistance we
have seen to provide the information or documentation is taken as adversarial
and I am not sure that is necessary if given more time. There are some conflicts
within the staff report that need to be pointed out; we have 11 guest spaces
currently but we have an increase of bedroom count pursuant to this application
that is over 50% for this area of guest parking. This particular condition is unique to
the area of Bayside Drive. Most of these access points only service two units, in
this case we serve more than two and talking about greatly expanding it down a
very narrow access way. In the staff report, this is identified as occurring at the
base of a steep slope and has previously been lot line adjusted for topography
• and building and that you need to make a determination that this lot line
adjustment can be made without the need for public involvement. I don't think
23
INDEX
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 2001
you can make that finding. You have the resulting legal lots presently built upon
and you have some illegal lots with houses crossing lot lines in the current
condition. You have identified that there is not access and a steep slope
condition that could create the value of that slope condition to be very slight.
Commissioner Tucker asked Mr. Taylor:
• Parking spaces referred to are in the public right of way? - Answered,
correct.
• Those spaces are for lot owners in that particular area? - Answered,
correct.
• Wouldn't the owner of the lot (Rex Brandt Trust) have the some claim to
the parking spaces as the other owners? Is the complaint that some of
the other owners will have less public parking spaces? - Answered, we will
have about 64% of today's parking ratio when this unit count is built out.
• Building across lot lines, wouldn't this resubdivision and demolition solve
that problem? - Answered, you need to make findings that existing lots
comply and are legally built and the future ones are too. There is nothing
built on one lot unless you consider an illegal structure crossing the lot line
on it. You can't make the finding that is necessary that the project as
described in the proposal consists of legal building sites. They are built in
an illegal configuration currently. That makes this staff report in error, and
you are basing your decision making on that.
Continuing, Commissioner Tucker noted that the plan that we have looks like
there can be some parallel spaces put in that parking area, but I don't know
what the count will end up being. The staff report indicates that they don't need
any permits for the 405 Goldenrod address. A developer will come in and do it all
at the some time. When you tear down the existing structure it is no longer built
illegally, it is gone.
Chris Cushman, 2700 Bayside noted his opposition to this application. He stated
that he purchased his home with the parklands as a key component of that
purchase. This application before you tonight, roughly 2,000 square feet of what I
consider park land to be replaced or destroyed is more than 10% of the
immediate view in front of my house. I consider that a significant impact. The
request that we are asking for this evening is for continued discussions on
alternatives. A relocation of the driveway access to the top of Goldenrod near
the walkway, I think you might find less destruction for the overall neighborhood.
The visibility might be impacted by fewer than by those who drive up and down
Bayside park and those who enjoy that parkland. Those are considerations that
we have not heard from the developer or his architect and I think we should
consider alternatives at this point.
At Commissioner inquiry, Mr. Cushman noted that he heard and understood that
this is dedicated street right of way and not dedicated parkland.
Eric Welton noted the following in rebuttal:
24
0
INDEX
�D
0
•
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 2001 INDEX
• Letter of support contradicts the assertion that there has been no effort
on my part to communicate.
• Trees to be removed - the Fire Department has requested that one be
removed to facilitate their vehicular access.
• Landscape plan would be one of the conditions that are to be
approved. If the neighbors would like to give input on it. I would be
happy to consider any suggestions they might have.
• Extending Goldenrod as an alternative method of access I don't think
would be feasible. We did examine extending the current alleyway from
down below to the interior lot, however, in my first meeting with Ms. Carol
she indicated her desire to retain the encroachments that abut her
property that she uses for entry stairs as well as landscaping to enhance
her property. To accommodate her, we tried to work around other
alternatives. If we were to go in and extend that alley it would be an
unsightly tall retaining wall up to 27 feet.
• Parking issues - on my count we are removing two legal guest spots and
replacing with three with a net gain of one.
• If you examine all of the off street parking available to any of the flower
streets, we come up with the some number of guest parking spots under
the proposed arrangement as would be available for developing a 30
foot lot on a normal street elsewhere in Corona del Mar.
• I feel that there has been adequate communication. All my documents
have been available for public review during the last few months in the
course of their development.
At Commissioner inquiry, Mr. Welton answered that he is not in accord with a
continuance on this matter as proposed by the opposing speakers. Their
assertion that they have not had access to the exhibits posted on the wall or the
soils report that was prepared and ready January 22nd is not correct.
Chairperson Selich noted that we have no way of knowing what type of
communication has taken place before an item actually gets to us. In many
instances we have a continuance to give the project proponent and the
neighbors a chance to meet and discuss the project. How would you be or
would you be harmed if there were a continuance?
Mr. Welton answered that he would be substantially harmed by virtue of some
forfeitable deposit money and a very substantial sum that has already been
released to the seller who has given me an extension of time that would elapse
prior to any subsequent meeting from tonight. There is a great amount of money
that would be at risk.
Commissioner Gifford noted that even if we were to vote in favor of this project
tonight, there would still be an appeal to the City Council possible. How does
that fit with your timeline of expiration of your extension?
Mr. Welton answered that had been taken into account and in fact is another
forum in which the opponents can voice their objections. Between now and
25
p
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 2001
INDEX
then I would hope to be able to satisfy their concerns. I don't take kindly to the
notion of having them participate in the refining of design elements.
Commissioner Gifford clarified that when you say this is a crucial deadline for you,
you're actually saying based on the time for appeal or when it could come
before the City Council that is really the expiration of your deadline. Is this
correct? She was answered, yes.
Ms. Wood clarified that this application would automatically be forwarded to
City Council because of the amendment to the Districting Map.
Commissioner Tucker asked if the applicant went forward with the existing lot
configuration and came up with an alternative alley access route into the
property, that wouldn't require him to come to us for a District Map change or a
lot line adjustment would it? Yet most of the concerns that the people who
oppose the project have voiced would still befall them anyway, would they not?
Mr. Campbell answered that if alternative access was provided and there was
no need for the amendment or the lot line adjustment, the project would not be
here. At Commissioner inquiry, he agreed that the project would still happen
and all the things that the people have complained about would still occur.
Presently there is a 15 -foot setback off Goldenrod that would apply. If the
applicant designed a project that complied with all the zoning requirements, he
would not be here.
Mr. Welton added that he could design a project that would only necessitate the
removal of Ms. Carol's alley encroachments and scoop out those stairs and
plantings that form her front yard. I am not sure it would be economically
feasible, but it is an alternative. We were trying to be accommodating and
skipping that as an alternative. At Commission inquiry, he had his architect note
on the Exhibit where the added parking spaces would be.
Commissioner Tucker asked about the soils stability issues raised. The staff report
indicates a soils report had been prepared and then reviewed by staff. It states
that the site is not prone to liquefaction and site grading can be performed with
current conventional techniques. Does that mean the soils problem on the
adjoining properties really pertain to problems with the original grading of those
properties? It seems to indicate that this property can be properly graded using
regular techniques.
Mr. Campbell answered that the report is for the project site and does not make
any inferences of any soil conditions on adjacent properties.
Mr. Welton added that his geologist is here tonight and can answer any
questions. The adjacent properties were built without a retaining wall in between
them and therein lies the source of the slippage.
Chairperson Selich noted that the geology is an engineering problem and we
26
22
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 2001
have qualified geologists: this does not get into discretionary aspects.
Commissioner McDaniel noted his concern about cutting away the area: I would
like to know what would happen.
Chairperson Selich asked the geologist to come forward to give a dissertation on
the effect grading of the proposed project would have on the adjacent
properties to the west.
Todd Alsio, Stato Tech, geologist stated the following:
• Performed an investigation on the subject property two months ago.
• Site can be developed using standard construction techniques.
• If the alley extension is done, they may have to drill some caissons to get
into the bedrock.
• The geologic conditions sometimes change from one site to the next.
• The problems that the other properties are experiencing are probably
from some poor grading or construction techniques that were done when
they were constructed.
• work on this project will be carefully observed and documented.
• The trees to be removed are down on the flat portion of the site where
the parking lot is going to be extended.
• Anything that is going to be done will not affect any of these properties.
Mr. Edmonston commented that in the last fifteen years, when various projects
have created access areas through the Bayside right of way open space, they
have not included any parking in those areas. we have tried to maximize those
areas and maintain them as open space. This site is still a little different as those
other properties front an approved and improved public street where there was
parking. In this case, there is not an adjacent approved public street so it would
be up to the Commission to weigh in on that topic, if you choose. At
Commissioner inquiry he answered that the parkway between the curb edge of
Bayside Drive and the front of this property is public property. Referencing page
2 of the staff report, on the vicinity map he pointed out the area that lies within
the Bayside Drive right of way that is developed as an open space with turf, trees
and asphalt pathway. The whole area is dedicated for street and highway
purposes and the City has not to date had a need to actually improve its full
width. In order to add open space and improve the area for the community, it
has been developed over the years as what would appear to be more of a
linear park. However, it all lies within the public street public right of way and is
an extension of a public street.
Commissioner Agajanian clarified that the way the lots are currently configured.
the access off Bayside provides direct access to the lower parcel. If we approve
the re- alignment of those parcels, then the parcel to the right would not have
access to Bayside. we are extending that parking area to provide access to that
newly created lot, is that correct?
Mr. Edmonston answered yes: we would consider it a driveway that is being
27
INDEX
1,3
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 2001
extended through that newly created parcel.
Ms. Clauson added that the street right of way is there, so we are requiring the
property owner to provide that access. The street right of way is there; it is just not
improved. The condition of the lot line is to have the property owner provide it.
We would need to allow for a provision of access to the street.
Public comment was closed.
Commissioner Tucker noted that we have two lots that exist today that are in a
configuration that don't really fit. The applicant's proposal is two lots that do fit. I
have heard all issues of the opponents, but when all is said and done, it is not
going to change the character of the project; it's two lots that are going to be re-
oriented in different directions. The parking issues seem to be taken care of and
quite frankly I would like to see more 59 by 60 -foot lots instead of 30 by 118 lots. It
will end up with different architecture or different architectural character than a
long skinny lot. The proposal seems to make sense. I don't know what really is the
situation with the neighbors' geology, but it is clear from the testimony from the
geologist that this particular project is not going to create a problem. I think it is
also nice that Mrs. Carol's encroachment into a public alley way can continue to
be there as it is a nice softening effect in that area. All things considered, I think
this is a sensible project and proposal and I am going to support it.
Commissioner Kranzley noted that when we have had issues where the neighbors
are in such conflict as we have tonight, we have provided at least a period of
time where we have asked them to get together for some resolution. I am not
convinced that a continuance for a couple of weeks wouldn't be a good idea.
Let the neighbors get together and figure out if there is some meeting ground. If
there is none, than it can be brought back for a resolution.
Commissioner Gifford asked if the lots remained the way they are now, does the
City have an obligation to extend the alley to provide access to the interior lot?
Ms. Clauson answered she did not know what the City would have to do. I know
the property owner would look at how he was going to access the interior lot.
We would have to look at his proposals and somehow some sort of
accommodation would have to be made so that he could get access to it. I
don't know if it would be to extend Goldenrod as suggested on the interior next
to Ms. Carol's property or maybe from the top, extending a portion. I don't know
if it is possible or not. We can't have a legal parcel with no access.
Chairperson Selich asked if the City's ultimate protection in that situation is if the
applicant or property owner insists on that access, the City could merge that lot
with 405 Goldenrod, which has access.
Ms. Clauson answered that the City can go through the merger process as long
as the property is owned by the same owner(s), which it is.
INDEX 0
28
L(
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 2001
Commissioner Gifford noted her agreement of the idea that these two lots facing
Bayside become more interesting lots. Also, this particular configuration provides
an easy solution to the issue of access to the property. I appreciate it involves the
removal of some trees that are there simply because there has been no
development up to this point. They are not there by right. Because we can't
control this through a site plan review nor the architecture, any agreement that is
arrived at between the developer and the neighbors based on further discussion
is something that we will not be able to guarantee the implementation of. I am
inclined to approve this project based on it being the best solution among ones
that are not very pleasing to the people who live there but ones that involve
recognition that we have two legal parcels there, and we are going to wind up
with two legal parcels there if we were to approve this.
Commissioner Agajanian clarified that our choice tonight is approval,
continuance or a denial based on the fact that the proposed lot line adjustment
does not conform to the City's zoning or building ordinances.
Ms. Clauson answered I don't know if anything has been established in the staff
report but you could direct looking further into making sure the project conforms
if you have some doubt as to whether the staff report addresses all the City
zoning and building regulations.
a Commissioner McDaniel supported a continuance as he Is having difficulty really
understanding what the project is going to be when it is done. I was hoping for a
better understanding, but I am having a difficulty recommending something that
I don't understand. I think the applicant would be better off spending time to
provide that.
Chairperson Selich stated that 59 by 60 -foot loots are terribly awkward size lots
and invariably end up with variances and deviations from standards. I agree
with the premise that it is better to get more interest on Bayside Drive. My
inclination is to support the project if we could have architectural and site plan
review not only on these two lots but on the lot next door to make sure they fit
together property. This is a beautiful area of Corona del Mar. I know from looking
at the drawings presented, there has been sensitivity taken in the project design.
My major concern is, without being able to tie the architecture and site plan to it,
we are just giving an open checkbook to whomever owns the property to do
whatever they want. There is no guarantee that will happen, an offer could
come in tomorrow to sell the property for an increased price and they could
decide to take it. We could then be faced with two property owners on two 59
by 60 -foot lots coming in most likely asking for a variance of some type. I am not
saying the applicant would do that, but looking at it legally that is where we
would be if we approved it without any controls on it. There are other
alternatives: all four lots are owned by the same property owner who has the
option to do a lot line adjustment on three of the lots instead of two and create
three rectangular lots similar to the ones that exist between the alley and Fernleaf
now. I understand there are some topographic restraints on Goldenrod that
make that a more difficult site to build upon but it is feasible. It is also feasible to
29
INDEX
�S
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
February 8, 2001 INDEX
cut the alley into the slope and provide access as it is presently configured. This
really is not our only alternative. The solution that the applicant has come up with
is the best solution but without being able to tie the architecture and site
planning to the lot I really have a problem with it.
Ms. Clauson added that there is an option of a merger.
Commissioner Agajanian noted that he supports a continuance to find another
solution for the lots involved.
Mr. Welton noted that he had examined all the options available to him for this
project. He stated that he would bear the brunt of the additional expense and
risk retaining control. The downside is that I may not be able to retain control of
the property and you may have someone else to deal with and an entirely
different set of criteria for developing the property. That may or may not be a
good thing. I will assume the burden of a two week continuance during which
time 1 will work with the neighbors.
Motion was made by Commissioner Agajanian to continue this item to the next
Planning Commission meeting on February 22nd
Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker
Noes: None
Recused: Kiser
i t i
\SUBJECT:
Cafe II Farro (Domenico Maurici, applicant)
Item 5
111 21s' Place
UP 3690
a Use Permit No. 3690
A request to upgrade an existing alcohol license to permit the sale of general
Approved
alcoholic beverages for on -site consumption (Type 47 License) in conjunction
with an existing restaurant. No physical changes to the establishment are
proposed and no change in hours of operation is requested.
Public comment was opened.
Domenico Maurici, applicant at 111 21s' Street stated that he is requesting an
upgrade to his liquor license at the request of his ,patrons. At Commission inquiry,
he stated he would like to retain the late hour of 1:ka.m. as his closing time. He
added that the majority of his business is food related (80 %),- there is no bar in his
restaurant and he only wants to serve cocktails at the tables.
Mr. Campbell noted that there are no regulations on the restaurant as,.,it is legal
and non - conforming and it has no use permit. The hours on the outdook,�atio
during the summer hours are regulated to 1:30 a.m. closing.
30
A
Exhibit No. 3
•
0
aq
,ew POy, CITY OF NEW YORT BEACH Hearing Date: February 22, 2001
PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item No.:
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell
• ``' NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92658 (949) 644 -3210
(949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 Council Review: Automatic
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
0
PROJECT:
Rex Brandt Trust (Eric Welton)
2720 & 2730 Bayside Drive
SUINIMARY: A request to establish a 4 -foot front yard setback on the Districting
Map along Bayside Drive in conjunction with a project to demolish
an existing duplex, adjust the existing lot configuration creating two
lots facing Bayside Drive and the construction of two duplexes.
RECOMMENDED
ACTION: Approve, modify or deny Amendment No. 909 and Lot Line
Adjustment No. 2000 -13
Discussion
This item was continued from February 8, 2001 for the purpose of providing additional time for
the applicant to meet with residents. A meeting between the applicant and residents was
conducted on February 15'h, and the parties may be able to provide an oral report during the
meeting
In response to concerns expressed by the Planning Commission, staff explored if there were any
available tools in the Zoning and Subdivision Codes which could provide the opportunity for
additional site and/or architectural review, but no effective processes were identified.
The Public Works Department is presently preparing an agenda item for the February 27, 2001
City Council meeting concerning the encroachment agreement for the proposed driveway. The
alley extension proposed by the applicant for the adjacent project will also be considered at that
time as a separate agreement.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a recommendation that the City Council
approve the project making the necessary findings for the approval of the lot line adjustment and
amendment to the District map establishing a 4 -foot front yard setback for the lots.
Submitted by:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
Planning Director
Exhibits
Prepared by:
JAMES W. CAMPBELL
Senior Planner
95 661:d Lm� -�Jd-
Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 8, 2001. �t
0
Exhibit No. 4
0
31
� �Ew aoRr
a� o
s
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
(949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 6443250
Hearing Date:
Agenda Item No.:
Staff Person:
Period:
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT: Rex Brandt Trust (Eric Welton)
2720 & 2730 Bayside Drive
February 8, 2001
4
James Campbell
(949) 644 -3210
14 days
SUMMARY: A request to establish a 4 -foot front yard setback on the Districting
Map along Bayside Drive in conjunction with a project to demolish
an existing duplex, adjust the existing lot configuration creating two
lots facing Bayside Drive and the construction of two duplexes.
RECOMMENDED
ACTION: Approve, modify or deny Amendment No. 909 and Lot Line
Adjustment No. 2000 -13
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots I & 3 of Block 333 of the Corona Del Mar tract as modified by
NBLLA No. 81 -1.
GENERAL PLAN: Two - Family Residential
ZONE: R -2 (Two - family Residential)
OWNER: Rexford E. Brandt, successor to the Brandt Family Survivor's Trust
POINTS AND AUTHORITY:
1. Conformance with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program
The site is designated for two - family residential uses by both the General Plan and Local
Coastal Program. This designation permit the construction of a single family or a duplex on
each legal lot. The project will result in the construction of two duplexes on the project site
in conformance with density requirements.
2. Conformance with the Zoning Ordinance
a. Amendment procedures pursuant to Chapter 20.94 of the Municipal Code
b. Lot Line Adjustment set forth in Chapter 20.92 of the Municipal Code.
3. Lot Line Adjustment standards contained in Chapter 19 (Subdivisions) of the Municipal
Code.
0 23
4. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt
pursuant to Section 15303 (Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures) of the California Environmental Quality Act Implementing Guidelines. This
exemption permits the construction of up to three single family dwellings or up to 10,000
square feet of commercial structures. The project consists of two residential units.
Vicinity Map
Duplex
To the north:
Single family residence
To the east:
Goldenrod footbridge, duplexes and single family dwellings east of the footbridge
To the south:
Ba side Park, Ba side Drive, duplexes and single family dwellings south of Ba side Drive
To the west:
Duplexes and single family dwellings
Y ..
mss:
Project Site
(-
n¢ess Stairs OQ
Fombnd e
std N
qL� w E
TG 5
Amendment No. 909
Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000 -13
Subiect Property and Surrounding Land Uses
Current Development:
Duplex
To the north:
Single family residence
To the east:
Goldenrod footbridge, duplexes and single family dwellings east of the footbridge
To the south:
Ba side Park, Ba side Drive, duplexes and single family dwellings south of Ba side Drive
To the west:
Duplexes and single family dwellings
�y
Amendment No. 909, LLA No. 2000 -13
February 8, 2001 Page 2
0
Introduction
The applicant seeks redevelop the property located at 2720 & 2730 Bayside Drive. The project
site is located on the northerly side of Bayside Drive and Bayside Park directly west of the
Goldenrod Avenue footbridge that spans Bayside Drive. The project will involve the demolition
the existing duplex and the adjustment of the underlying two legal lots (Lot Line Adjustment No.
2000 -13) resulting in two lots that face Bayside Drive. The applicant would then construct two new
duplexes on the reconfigured lots in conformance with the R -2 zone standards. The applicant also
requests approval of an Amendment of the Districting Map to establish a 4 -foot front yard setback
for the reconfigured lots.
Background
The subject property was developed along with three abutting properties in the mid 1960's using
a driveway from Bayside Drive. The driveway access to the property is within the right -of -way of
Bayside Drive and is public property. Presently, the driveway has 11 guest parking spaces. No
known encroachment agreement was approved for the access driveway, therefore, the city retains
responsibility and liability for it. In 1975, the city improved the northerly portion of the Bayside
right -of -way creating Bayside Park.
The project site is currently developed with a duplex that is located at the base of a steep slope
that leads up to the westerly side of the 400 block of Goldenrod Avenue. The subject property
owner also owns the abutting property to the north which is 405 Goldenrod Ave. A portion of
the residence constructed at 405 Goldenrod Ave. was constructed across the upper part of the
subject property. In 1981, the city approved Lot Line Adjustment No. 81 -1 which reconfigured
the original two Corona Del Mar Tract lots roughly based upon the topography and the building
locations.
Analvsis
Lot Line Adjustment 2000 -13
Lot Line Adjustments are subject to Chapter 19 (Subdivisions) and the procedural requirements
of Chapter 20 (Zoning). Section 19.08.050 establishes standards for exemptions to the
subdivision standards of Chapter 19. Subsection D states:
"Lot Line Adjustments. The provisions of this title do not apply to a lot line adjustment
between two or more adjacent parcels, where the following conditions exist:
1. The lot line adjustment is minor and routine in nature, and a determination can be
made without the need for extensive review and public involvement,
2. The land taken from one parcel is added to the adjacent parcel;
3. A greater number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created;
4. The lot line adjustment is approved under procedures set out in Title 20.
When the aforementioned conditions have been met, a parcel map, tentative or final map
shall not be required. "
�S
Amendment No. 909, LLA No. 2000 -13
February 8, 2001 Page 3
The requested adjustment meets all these criteria. A finding of "minor and routine in nature" is
debatable, but the finding states that a "determination can be made without the need for extensive
review and public involvement' than a parcel map would otherwise require. In this case, the lot
line adjustment is being considered in conjunction with an amendment to the Districting Map,
and requires increased public involvement beyond a parcel map because the entire project will
require City Council consideration. Although this project has undergone extensive review,
requiring a parcel map will not enhance the review process presently undertaken. The two lots
are contiguous and no greater number of parcels will result with project approval. Finally,
procedural requirements of Title 20 are being followed through the present review and hearing
process. These factors led staff to conclude that a parcel map was not required.
Chapter 20.93 establishes the procedural requirements and findings for approval of lot line
adjustments. Lot line adjustments are reviewed and approved by the Modifications Committee
and are subject to the findings contained in Section 20.93.040. When an application that would
be normally subject to the Modifications Committee is associated with an application under the
jurisdiction of the Planning Commission or City Council, all associated applications become
subject to the higher decision making authority. The findings that the Modification Committee
must make for approval of a lot line adjustment apply to the Planning Commission and City
Council and are discussed below.
111. The project site described in the proposal consists of legal building sites;
The two lots that comprise the project site were originally created with the filing of the
Corona Del Mar Tract. In 1981, the boundary between the two lots was adjusted through
the recordation of N.B.L.L.A. No. 81 -1. The resulting lots are legal lots and are presently
built upon and therefore buildable. There is no definition of what constitutes a buildable
lot. The site has steep topography and limited access, but the lot is not underwater and is
zoned for two family residential use. Declaring the lot non- buildable and prohibiting its
development may constitute a takings requiring just compensation.
2. Any land taken from one parcel will be added to an adjacent parcel and no
additional parcels will result from the lot line adjustment;
A drawing of the proposed lot line adjustment is attached as Exhibit No. 1. The land
taken from each of the two lots is added to the adjacent parcel and two lots will result.
3. The parcels proposed to be created by the lot line adjustment comply with all
applicable zoning regulations, and that there will be no change in the land use,
density, or intensity on the property;
The existing lots are nonconforming with respect to lot size and lot width. Title 20
requires that a R -2 lot be a minimum 5,000 square feet and 50 feet wide. A corner lot in
the R -2 zone would be 6,000 square feet and 60 feet wide. The adjustment of a
nonconforming lot is permissible as Section 19.08.050 creates an exception for the
creation of substandard lots provided that the lots are no smaller than the original lots of a
final map that created the nonconforming lots. The two original lots of the CDM Tract are
3�
Amendment No. 909, LLA No. 2000 -13
February 8, 2001 Page 4
both 30 feet wide by 118 feet deep which is 3,540 square feet. Each of the two proposed
is resulting will be 59 feet wide by 60 feet deep and 3,540 square feet. Although one of the
resulting lots is technically a comer lot due to the intersection of Goldenrod Avenue and
Bayside Drive, staff and the City Attorney's office believe that the exception permitted by
Section 19.08.050 can be used to exempt the comer lot from being 60 feet wide.
Additionally, the intersection of Goldenrod and Bayside exists only on paper the city has
no intention of ever improving it for vehicular traffic and eliminating a portion of Bayside
Park. With the designation of Bayside Park, staff also believes that the lot is not defined
as a comer lot.
The resulting lots comply with other applicable zoning provisions provided that vehicular
access is provided pursuant to Section 20.66.040. Several conditions of approval have
been prepared that will require vehicular access to the lots be provided from the existing
driveway from Bayside Drive. The lots will remain R -2 and the use will not change. The
density of ultimate development will not change as the subject site presently permits the
development of two duplexes and the number of allowed dwelling units will not change.
4. The lot line adjustment, in and of itself, will not result in the need for additional
improvements and /or facilities. "
The lot line adjustment will require vehicular access be extended to the easterly lot.
Conditions of approval have been included that will ensure that the driveway is provided
in accordance with applicable standards. The attached site plan shows the proposed
driveway extension. This the existing driveway and its extension are within the right of
way of Bayside Drive and the Public Works Department is requiring an encroachment
agreement and permit. This agreement will specify that the owner of the subject property
be required to construct the driveway in accordance with Public Works standards and not
at the expense of the city. Additionally, full responsibility for maintenance and liability
would rest with the property owner. This agreement will be considered by the City
Council with the project, and if approved, be recorded. The agreement will run with the
land and bind all successors in interest. This agreement must be recorded prior to the
recordation of the lot line adjustment to ensure that compliance with access requirements
are met.
The land where the driveway extension will be located is presently landscaped area and
part of Bayside Park. The eastern portion of the driveway will necessitate the
construction of a 5 -foot high retaining wall for support due to its proximity to an existing,
paved path within the park. The area of the driveway extension is 1,961 square feet in
area. Any loss of open space, however small is of great concern to the residents of the
area especially those who face the existing driveway.
The proposed driveway is as small as can be while providing minimum vehicular access
and satisfying Fire Department access needs. The Fire Department has agreed to a slightly
reduced driveway width in order to preserve as much of the park as possible in exchange
. for residential fire sprinkler systems. Lot Line adjustments may only be conditioned for
Building and Zoning compliance and neither Codes would require fire sprinklers.
Therefore, the city cannot condition the project to provide fire sprinklers. However, the
3�
Amendment No. 909, LLA No. 2000 -13
February 8, 2001 Page 5
city can require the sprinkler systems in conjunction with the encroachment agreement for
the construction with the driveway. This type of requirement is unusual with an •
encroachment agreement, but there is a strong nexus between the design of the
improvements covered by the agreement and the Fire Department request. The agreement
method would not have the same weight as an ordinance, but the requirement would be
enforceable in perpetuity.
The driveway extension will be designed to drain to a nearby storm drain within park.
The inlet is within the guest parking spaces located on the south side of the existing
access driveway. The Public Works Department is not requiring any new drainage
facilities for the project as it is their opinion that they are not needed due to the small
area.
The driveway extension will remove three existing guest parking spaces located at the
terminus of the existing driveway. The residents of the three properties who use the
driveway are very concerned about the loss of the three spaces and. the new units
generating additional demand for guest parking. The Zoning Code does not have any
guest parking requirements for this type of development. Eight spaces will remain to
serve a total of 5 lots with 7 total units (4 new and 3 existing). The Planning Commission
can recommend that the City Council have the applicant provide additional spaces off the
driveway with the encroachment agreement and encroachment permit. Unfortunately,
limited space exists off the driveway and indiscriminately adding more parking could lead
to the loss of several trees and open space. If additional parking is sought, planning staff
suggests that they use alternative paving techniques such as "grasscrete" rather than
asphalt or concrete. The use of "grasscrete" would help to preserve the ambiance of
Bayside Park which is very precious to the residents that use the existing driveway.
In summary, staff believes that the findings for approval of the lot line adjustment can be made.
The reconfigured lots are a better fit to the topography of the site and allow better use of the
property. The northerly of the two lots that is presently encroached upon by the residence above
(405 Goldenrod) presently has no vehicular access. Approval of the lot line adjustment with the
recommended conditions of approval will eliminate this circumstance.
Amendment No. 909
The applicant requests that the city amend the District Map to establish a 4 -foot front yard
setback for the reconfigured lots. This setback is consistent with the setbacks of the three existing
residences that use the driveway from Bayside Drive. Without the establishment of the setback
on the District Map, the minimum 20 -foot setback would apply. Using this setback would leave a
limited buildable area which is used to derive the floor area limit of the future duplex.
The buildable area using a standard 20 -foot front setback with standard rear (10 feet) and side (4
feet) setbacks presents a similar circumstance used to justify the approval of variances in the
Corona Del Mar area. The following table compares the lot area, buildable area and floor area
limit of the applicant's request and alternatives. 0
3$
Amendment No. 909, LLA No. 2000 -13
February S, 2001 Page 6
9
The comparison indicates that the applicant's request will not create a larger building than what a
typical CDM lot would allow. Staff believes that this fact along with similar setbacks of the three
other dwellings on the access driveway makes the applicant's requested 4 -foot front yard setback
reasonable. A larger setback will reduce the size of the resulting buildings and reduce their value,
but more importantly, they will be smaller and accommodate smaller households. Using the 20-
foot setback standard would roughly create 950 square foot duplex units or one 1,900 square foot
single family residence on each lot. The applicant's proposal would roughly create 1,560 square
foot duplex units or one 3,120 square foot unit on each lot. Staff believes that the 950 square foot
duplex units are not typical of the area and are not highly desirable.
Soil Stability
Residents have expressed concerns about the stability of the soil under the project and potential
impacts grading of the site might create. As a result of this issue, staff requested and received a
preliminary soil investigation for the project. The report was prepared by Strata -Tech, Inc. under the
supervision of a registered geologist. The report concluded that the site is not prone to liquefaction
and the site grading can be performed with conventional techniques. The report does not suggest
that there is any extra ordinary hazards associated with the grading of the site. Additional
geotechnical investigations will be prepared for building permits and all grading will be conducted
under the supervision and control of an engineering geologist and Building Department.
Associated Project
The applicant is presently planning to redevelop the two abutting residential lots to the north of
the project site (405 & 407 Goldenrod Avenue) by constructing two duplexes in the near future.
The applicant has requested that the alley to the rear of the 400 block of Goldenrod Avenue be
extended approximately 16 feet in order to provide minimum vehicular access to 405 Goldenrod.
The redevelopment of these lots and the request for the alley extension is outside the scope of
the subject applications and is not analyzed in this report. The construction of duplexes at 405
and 407 Goldenrod Ave. are not discretionary projects pursuant to the Municipal Code and are
not subject to further review, except for building permits, unless the applicant sought a Variance
or Modification. The proposed alley extension will require an encroachment agreement and
encroachment permit that will require the approval of the City Council. This discussion was
included to provide additional information to the Commission and public who are concerned
about the subsequent project.
Amendment No. 909, LLA No. 2000.13
February 8. 2001 Page 7
35
Proposed lot
Proposed lot
Typical CDM lot
20 -foot front yard
4 -foot front yard
with 15 -foot front
setback
setback
yard setback
Lot dimensions
59'x 60'
59'x 60'
30'x 118'
Lot area (sq. ft.)
3,540
3,540
3,540
Buildable area (sq. ft.)
1,530
2,346
2,352
Floor area limit (sq. ft.)
2,295
3,519
3,528
(1.5 X buildable area)
The comparison indicates that the applicant's request will not create a larger building than what a
typical CDM lot would allow. Staff believes that this fact along with similar setbacks of the three
other dwellings on the access driveway makes the applicant's requested 4 -foot front yard setback
reasonable. A larger setback will reduce the size of the resulting buildings and reduce their value,
but more importantly, they will be smaller and accommodate smaller households. Using the 20-
foot setback standard would roughly create 950 square foot duplex units or one 1,900 square foot
single family residence on each lot. The applicant's proposal would roughly create 1,560 square
foot duplex units or one 3,120 square foot unit on each lot. Staff believes that the 950 square foot
duplex units are not typical of the area and are not highly desirable.
Soil Stability
Residents have expressed concerns about the stability of the soil under the project and potential
impacts grading of the site might create. As a result of this issue, staff requested and received a
preliminary soil investigation for the project. The report was prepared by Strata -Tech, Inc. under the
supervision of a registered geologist. The report concluded that the site is not prone to liquefaction
and the site grading can be performed with conventional techniques. The report does not suggest
that there is any extra ordinary hazards associated with the grading of the site. Additional
geotechnical investigations will be prepared for building permits and all grading will be conducted
under the supervision and control of an engineering geologist and Building Department.
Associated Project
The applicant is presently planning to redevelop the two abutting residential lots to the north of
the project site (405 & 407 Goldenrod Avenue) by constructing two duplexes in the near future.
The applicant has requested that the alley to the rear of the 400 block of Goldenrod Avenue be
extended approximately 16 feet in order to provide minimum vehicular access to 405 Goldenrod.
The redevelopment of these lots and the request for the alley extension is outside the scope of
the subject applications and is not analyzed in this report. The construction of duplexes at 405
and 407 Goldenrod Ave. are not discretionary projects pursuant to the Municipal Code and are
not subject to further review, except for building permits, unless the applicant sought a Variance
or Modification. The proposed alley extension will require an encroachment agreement and
encroachment permit that will require the approval of the City Council. This discussion was
included to provide additional information to the Commission and public who are concerned
about the subsequent project.
Amendment No. 909, LLA No. 2000.13
February 8. 2001 Page 7
35
Construction Staging
Staff and residents were concerned about how the applicant would stage the construction effort.
The driveway and guest parking below would be a logical staging area, but it could unreasonably
restrict access creating hazards and disrupting residents. The applicant, through his architect, has
indicated in writing that the two abutting parcels to the north that are controlled by the applicant
(405 & 407 Goldenrod) will be used as the staging area for the project. Staff prefers this situation
above using the driveway or the park for construction staging. If this project is approved, staff
will meet with the applicant and contractors to in order to minimize construction conflicts.
Lot Merger
The Subdivision Map Act and Title 19 (Subdivisions) of the Municipal Code provides the city
the ability to cause the merger of nonconforming lots under certain circumstances. This can be
accomplished above the objections of the property owner provided that the city provides due
process and notification in accordance with the Map Act prior to recording a notice of merger.
The lots must be contiguous, nonconforming as to size and must be held under single ownership.
Additionally, one of the parcels must either be either be vacant or developed only with an
accessory structure or developed with a single structure, other than an accessory structure, which
is partially sited on a contiguous lot. Lastly, one of the following seven circumstances must affect
any of the lots:
(1) Comprises less than 5,000 square feet in area at the time of the determination of merger.
(2) Was not created in compliance with applicable laws and ordinances in effect at the time of its
creation.
(3) Does not meet current standards for sewage disposal and domestic water supply.
(4) Does not meet slope stability standards.
(5) Has no legal access which is adequate for vehicular and safety equipment access and
maneuverability.
(6) Its development would create health or safety hazards.
(7) Is inconsistent with the applicable general plan and any applicable specific plan, other than
minimum lot size or density standards.
Staff believes that the subject properties would qualify for this procedure if it was determined to
be necessary. If the Planning Commission believed that the proposed project was inconsistent
with the character of the area, staff recommends that the Commission consider a
recommendation for project denial and a recommendation that the City Council direct staff to
initiate merger proceedings. Merger proceedings would likely be challenged by the applicant and
property owner.
Amendment No. 909, LLA No. 2000 -13
February 8, 2001 Page 8
q0
r_J
0
0
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a recommendation that the City Council
approve the project making the necessary findings for the approval of the lot line adjustment and
amendment to the District map establishing a 4 -foot front yard setback for the lots.
Submitted by:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
Planning Director
Exhibits
Prepared by:
JAMES W. CAMPBELL
Senior Planner
r° vvzz
-4 Findingsand-eonditions-ofappraval-
2. Map of Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000 -13
- 3--Bayside Park Plan -
- ��ite°P#nr
k1MIS_ 1lSYSiUSERS\PLMSHAREDIIPLANCOMt '001102- OgpcVBmdt%A909 pmport 2- 08- 01.DOC
Amendment No. 909, L LA No. 2000 -13
February 8, 2001 Page 9
0(
Exhibit No. 2
SITE PLAN
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT N.B.L.L.A. - zCOO -1'5
OWNER
EXISTING PARCELS
PROPOSED PARCELS
AP NUMBERS
REFERENCE NUMBER
REXFORD E. BRANDT,
AS
SUCCESSOR TRUSTE=
OF THE
A.P. 459 -116 -11 (LOT 1)
PARCEL 1
BRANDT FAMILY SURVIVOR'S TRUST
REXFORD E. BRANDT,
AS
j
SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE
OF THE
A.P. 459- it6 -12 (LOT 3)
PARCEL 2
SRANDT FAMILY SURVVOR'S TRUST,--
EX. BLDG. - I�
-
C23132 'I
-< =1
_.
- X ?. 12131/01
LOT 51NOT A PART)
\ f�9�
Ln
r 6.5' � clvll. _ hi
OF C
C
i
I
}
PARCEL 1 �
ZS ' . FN
u
— LOT 3 =
PARCEL 5
ARCEL 2
—, —
EX. STAIRS
_ 5
�� 33'
EX. BLDG. OT 1
L
EX. FENCE c
z
CD c4
c ^
c
_
S
500 E —� BAYSIDE DRIVE _
9(F
NOTE:
EASEMENTS SHOWN HEREON ARE FROM THE
= REUMINARY TITLE REPORT PROVIDED BY THE
gyp,
CLIENT. THERE ARE NO EASEMENTS LISTED
IN THE TITLE REPORT PROVIDED.
Exhibit No. 2
I
EXHIBIT B
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NRLL . - Z OOU -l3
(MAP)
OWNER
I EXISTING PARCELS
PROPOSED PARCELS
j
AP NUMBERS
( REFERENCE NUMBER
i REXFORC E. BRANDY, AS
SUCCESSOR TRUS EE OF
THE
A.P. 459- 116 -11 (LOT 1)
PARCEL I
9RANDT FAMILY SURVIVOR'S
TRUST
i REXFORD E. BRANDT, AS
I
j SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF
THE
A.P. 459 - 116 -12 (LOT 3)
PARCEL 2
SRANDT FAMILY SURVVOR'S TRUST!
C23132
EXP. 1 Z,31/0, %
i
i
Ltl7 9 INnT A PAR7D °
SCALE:
T'I
118' i o
59' 1 59'
I n
LIIi 3 Ln ! Z
25
PARCEL 2 N
w ��
co
PARCEL 1 L ` 3450 SO--FT-o
-j !`
— —
34:.0 SO. �. - - &0' — —vim c.
Lc
• INDICATES i" LP•
I
N �
59 59' I�
AGGED R.C.E,
118'
23132 TO BE
°
SGT.
m ^
-
S 50° E -C BAYSIDE DRIVE
PREPARED BY:
j
MICHAEL A. MURPHY & ASSOC.
LEGEND TO SYMBOLS:
- - - - - EXISTING LOT LINE TO BE ADJUSTED
EXISTING LOT LINE TO REMAIN
R.C.E. 23132
L
DATE INDICATES NEW LOT LINE
I
E
�.J
171
Exhibit No. S
s
9
M
0
•
•
1 I 1
I I I 1
I I I 1
l I 1 1
I I I I
l I 4 1
I I I 1
1 1 I l
I I I I
1 I I l
I I I 1
I I ! 1
— ._._.i._._._ i ........ L._._._._._.J a`
aoaN3(1-1o0
Sd3
3b31Na33
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I-'—'— - -------
I
I I I I
I I 1 1
I I I
I I I 1
._._.—. _.L._._.J.— ._._.l._._._.— ._._.J
30GINalo03
io 16
I I
I a j sl
II j I
I I
I I
I 1
tl
I
I
j I
j I
j I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
1 1
I
W
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I 1
I I
}
m
i i I IJJ
A3Tly 30N1 )1 ON3
. _�A31_".
_. _. _. ---
---- I1
I I I
i I yl o
f
I
. 1._._. _.L._._.J._._._._._._._._._._..
3b31Na33
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I-'—'— - -------
I
I I I I
I I 1 1
I I I
I I I 1
._._.—. _.L._._.J.— ._._.l._._._.— ._._.J
30GINalo03
ZN
G_b
�6
4�N0 N cN
U�IL
I I
I I
W
H W
w
c5
�z
5
v a
U
LN �
L�
I I
I I
1 I
O
JW
0
A3TV 3aa sl
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
1 1
I
W
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I 1
I I
}
m
ZN
G_b
�6
4�N0 N cN
U�IL
I I
I I
W
H W
w
c5
�z
5
v a
U
LN �
L�
I I
I I
1 I
O
A3TV 3aa sl
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
1 1
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I 1
I I
'p
1�ti
Z
Q
J
Cl-
(
Z
n.
ac
a.
a�
.n 4
�o
WO
4
N
w
2°0
�N
�m
cg
US
0m
am
0
zo
a
o�
N 2
I
I I I I
1 I I 1
I I I I
I I I 1
1 1 I 1
I 1 I 1
I I I I
i I i i
I I I 1
L._._._._._.J a
QOaNMIOO
Sd315
a. :.�.a.e..�. . _. _. _. _. _. _.,
I� to I
I I I 6 Ig� *ia
AV3-INOA
._._._. _.r._._.�._._._.r._.._._._._._-
I 1 I 1
I I I I I
I I I I
i a i — ----- --- 4
I :w I I
I I J I I
I I I 1
._._._._.L._. _. J._._._.L._.— ._._._._.J
3001801003
O
Fx
w
I I
I aN I;
A3rn 30un s�
(r
1 I
I I
I I
1 I
I 1
I I
1
D
1
I I
I I
1 j
j I
I I
I I
W
0
Q
A V 30M pl ?:
—
1 1 1
I I
Z I
Zb e� �
I I �F I
tSo ir� I
Lo
_J
1 I
I
I I
I
I I 1
�aS�i
.. 1._._, _.L._._.J._._._._._.—
._._.
—._.J
AV3-INOA
._._._. _.r._._.�._._._.r._.._._._._._-
I 1 I 1
I I I I I
I I I I
i a i — ----- --- 4
I :w I I
I I J I I
I I I 1
._._._._.L._. _. J._._._.L._.— ._._._._.J
3001801003
Z" ay
-
UW6 N a�
CD 0 —
z0 m
a U ¢ o-
I I
I I
I I
i I
I I
I 1
W
��I
r� w
2
o
w
g
a
a
z
Uyl
U
W <
v
I I
O
Fx
w
A3rn 30un s�
(r
1 I
I I
I I
1 I
I 1
I I
1
D
1
I I
I I
1 j
j I
I I
I I
W
0
Q
Z" ay
-
UW6 N a�
CD 0 —
z0 m
a U ¢ o-
I I
I I
I I
i I
I I
I 1
W
��I
r� w
2
o
w
g
a
a
z
Uyl
U
W <
v
I I
O
I
It
A3rn 30un s�
1 I
I I
I I
1 I
I 1
I I
1
1
I I
I I
1 j
j I
I I
I I
Z
Q
J
uy: �
Ll
o_
p N
0! N
O m
o_
Z
oz
N2
•
•
I III
10
in I
� cl
0113M OW3 D/D'SnUl
im i
. URI:
.41
.. ...... . ..
I III
10
in I
� cl
z
oil
N.
5 0
ri
Q�
Nolum D183 0/0 Isndi io,fta'xim
S1
lj.
z
oil
N.
5 0
ri
Q�
0
0
_ "„_.__`_ - _ — �"'., "_. „onvn olm o aWisntii �ioii•rtr�'zie
LL I q G¢y� n C s y r
,,/ � iC,Xppa $•bl 'i�g _ gt5 s! � -��$d� :� e��t � +' � ���' 6 3 "c
�pia ,� s
E5^d o
s
,
0
I �
� I
I
i o o
I,
-
I
��II��' 1 111 7 111111,17 � I I
I
� I
IIIppI��'`` 11 I i I I I
11 \:-
1, I JI I � I � 11IIIIIIIIII LIIIIIIIII�
nn� -,
i tit I =! 1 9hlj u1iu1111uurpal!d
I / Kul Vti 1 -
ICJ -1Jill iIIIIIIIIIIIIII1
Ifni :,. j'171, I1 ��Ilallllllllll
d , I
.11
1 f 1 11 1
P I 1 r1.1'1
I ,I
I
➢1 I
-- - - - - - - - - I tL
11I
!r I
z
0
u
N
t-
a
z
Z
Z
z
Z
..
'._,e
!�\!>«
,
!
,
®® _°
. 9
......; .<
m m�v= »
«v
_
!e re
\
z
Z
Z
z
Z
hm
Z
Z
)
-
\
�
: -
2!
e,
Z
Z
J&
0
E
�
�)
!�\!>«
,
!
`
Z
Z
!e re
\
hm
Z
Z
)
-
\
�
: -
2!
e,
Z
Z
J&
0
E
�
0
0
E
N0113m 3183 0/3
J
!3
' 1 x0n3.x alx3 oh isnw
S�.LVI005Stl �8 Z1309
r r{SII S I sy rF i tty7 flit s t! tr °
�. t 1 !i. (rlpiipi. I {F i 1 {rE @ 1' y(Iilllti�i 'ti
� 1 11.1 1 1 1 r 1 Etle.. 51 j {!� {ri aril�Irr�rtlriP!lirE
jj
z�
3
\i II
111111
11H
`gF!
�x
.C9FI��
o.
F1
L---j
d
d
a �
y I
°z
a
Exhibit No. 6
P
55
a ,
h
1 1 �
♦i ♦i
yi,�, ems..,. ,y; ,�1����1� •
" ' .111111 A ' e.,� •.-
New-
o a..
-z
L e i
W •l
1 . 0
� V✓
0
0
Exhibit No. 7
•
M
5�
'Mar,19 01 12 :22p GOET2 & ASSOC. f9491G44 -9317
GOETZ & ASSOCIATES
t
Architects 0 Engineers* Consultants
r,. Via Facsimile
(949) 644 -3318
March 19, 2001
LICENSES
Alaska
Dear Rich:
Arizona
I reviewed the fax sent to me by Jim Campbell with respect to the Public Works
Califomia
Colorado
Richard Edmonsion, P.E.
Nevada
City Newport Beach
Oregon
of
Utah
Public Works Department
Industry
3300 Newport Boulevard
National
Newport Beach, California 92660
Council of
Architectural
2. Based on my interpretation of your fax, I have reduced the proposed
Registration
RE: Lots 1, 3,5 & 7, Block 33, Corona del Mar Tract
Boards
NCAR8
Encroachment Application No. N12000 -254
This drastically reduces the paving area proposed and allows for substantial
additional landscaping to be planted.
Please note the fax I am sending has been drawn to a scale of 1 foot = 16 feet.
11
250 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 102 • NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 • (949) 644 -9319 • FAX (949) 6449317
p_2
Dear Rich:
SOCIETIES
I reviewed the fax sent to me by Jim Campbell with respect to the Public Works
American
revised recommendation to our encroachment application. With some minimal
Inslimle
or
revisions, I feel that this alternative is a more practical solution. Please note the
mhitacls
aA
following.
Building
1 1 have maintained the location of guest parking at the original end of the A/C
Industry
Assmcialinn
paving.
61A
2. Based on my interpretation of your fax, I have reduced the proposed
American
S.cu.ynf
extension to 21 feet in width in front of the proposed units. This, in
Interior
Designers
combination with the 4 -foot front yard setback, gives a 25 -foot net backup
ASID
space which is consistent with normal backup requirements.
Construction
Specification
3. 1 have included the location of the existing tree and have allowed for space
Institute
CS,
around it
National
Trust for
4. 1 have graphically indicated a reduction at the curved portion of the driveway
Presee" i.1%
extension. The closest point to which the footpath exists would be
approximately 9 feet 2 inches. If you review my plan, it would seem practical
American
to allow for some backup area from the location of the last carport to allow
National
Standards
the ability to make a three -point turn. This would benefit any potential
hstitute
parking layout on this subject property.
This drastically reduces the paving area proposed and allows for substantial
additional landscaping to be planted.
Please note the fax I am sending has been drawn to a scale of 1 foot = 16 feet.
11
250 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 102 • NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 • (949) 644 -9319 • FAX (949) 6449317
p_2
Mar 19 01 12:23p GOETZ & ASSOC. (949)644 -9317 p,3, .,
Richard Edmonston, P.E.
March 19, 2001
Page Two
If you agree with my comments, I will prepare an exhibit on 8 -1/2 x 11 by tomorrow morning
that can be attached to the Planning Department and Public Works Department staff
report
Please call as soon as possible.
Respectfully submitted,
C4
Andrew Goetz, Architect
/deb
Enclosure
W/
10
0
0
'T7ar-19 01 12:23p GOETZ & ASSOC. (9491644 -9317 p.4
• I!!Ilil!�I�! \
I T
I I 4�7.tk d
pp
i
I ! I
D
ooDei I l l l i ,aoDC: � 1 I
I. �� \.�
I
- -- \ y
,I
i
(
I i i 7
,ODUL J , ,l1 F j ,I1D'UE �
Exhibit No. 8
�6-
Findings and Conditions of Approval
• Amendment No. 909 & Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000 -013
Findings:
I. The site is designated for two - family residential uses by both the General Plan and Local
Coastal Program. This designation permit the construction of a single family or a duplex on
each legal lot. The project will result in the construction of two duplexes on the project site in
conformance with density requirements.
2. The project site is comprised of two legal lots within the Corona Del Mar Tract. In 1981, the
boundary between the two lots was adjusted through the recordation of N.B.L.L.A. No. 81 -1.
The resulting lots are legal lots and are presently built upon, and therefore buildable.
3. The land taken from each lot will be added to the adjacent parcel and no additional parcels
will result from the lot line adjustment.
4. The parcels proposed to be created by the lot line adjustment comply with all applicable
zoning regulations, and that there will be no change in the land use, density, or intensity on
the property. The lots are exempt from the minimum area requirements of Title 20 pursuant
to Section 19.08.050 of the Municipal Code as a nonconforming lot may be adjusted
provided that the lots are no smaller than the original lots of a final map that created the
nonconforming lots. The two original lots of the CDM Tract are both 30 feet wide by 118
feet deep which is 3,540 square feet. Each of the two proposed lots will be 59 feet wide by 60
• feet deep and 3,540 square feet. Several conditions of approval have been required which
will ensure minimum vehicular access require pursuant to the Zoning Code is be provided
5. The lot line adjustment results in the need for additional improvements for vehicular access.
Conditions of approval have been included that will ensure that the driveway is provided in
accordance with applicable standards.
6. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt
pursuant to Section 15303 (Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of
the California Environmental Quality Act Implementing Guidelines. This exemption permits
the construction of up to six single- family dwellings in urbanized areas and the project
consists of four residential units.
7. Amendment No. 909 establishes a 4 -foot front yard setback for the reconfigured lots associated
with Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000 -013. The suggested setback is very similar to the setbacks
of 2700, 2706 & 2710 Bayside Drive which use the same access driveway. The suggested
setback will not create a larger building than what a typical CDM lot would allow. Using the
20 -foot default setback standard would limit the development of the subject lots unreasonably
and create units are not typical of the area. These facts suggest that the 4 -foot front yard setback
reasonable.
n
LJ
t -7
Conditions:
The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved Lot Line Adjustment
and site plan dated February 8, 2001.
2. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works
Department standards.
3. The Lot Line Adjustment shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any grading or building
permits.
4. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee
satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or
obtain a building permit prior to completion of the driveway access.
5. Each dwelling unit shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral
connection to the public water and sewer systems.
6. The final design of the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation
systems shall be subject to further review by the Planning Department and Traffic Engineer.
7. The proposed driveway shall be designed so that existing trees shall not be removed and that
the slope adjacent to the City Park is not disturbed.
8. The developer shall execute an encroachment agreement with the City of Newport Beach to .
guarantee maintenance of the proposed driveway extension in the city park. The agreement
will require the owner to maintain the nonstandard improvements and protect the City from
liability for injuries caused because of the existence of the proposed improvements. The
encroachment agreement shall be reviewed in accordance with all applicable procedures and
requirements and shall be recorded prior to the recordation of Lot Line Adjustment No.
2000 -013.
9. A drainage and utility plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public
Works Department prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Any modifications
or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by
the drainage and utility plan or as deemed necessary by the Public Works Department shall
be the responsibility of the developer.
10. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and or 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. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials
within the City park except where the driveway extension proposed.
11. The site plan and elevations submitted this evening (February 22, 2001) and titled LI. PW -I,
A -2, A -2a, and A -3 are adhered to as a condition of approval to the extent that they are in
compliance with Title 20. The recommendation will also incorporate that in approving the
encroachment agreement that any encroachment into the landscaped parkway area on
Bayside Drive be minimized to the maximum extent.
I— IR
Ll
Exhibit No. 9
6j
. ORDINANCE NO. 2001-
A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 909 TO AMEND THE
ZONING DISTRICT MAP TO ESTABLISH A 4 -FOOT, FRONT YARD
SETBACK FOR THE BAYSIDE DRIVE FRONTAGE THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2720 & 2730 BAYSIDE DRIVE.
WHEREAS, Section 20.94 of the Municipal Code of the City of Newport Beach
provides that Title 20 (Zoning Code) may be amended by changing the zoning designation of
Districts and other provisions whenever the public necessity and convenience and the public
welfare require such an amendment; and
WHEREAS, Section 20.94.020 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that
amendments to amend Title 20 must be approved by a Resolution of the Planning Commission
setting forth full particulars of the amendment; and,
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the consideration of the subject amendment to the Zoning
Code , the proposed project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt under the Class 3
(New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the State CEQA Guidelines; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20.94, the Planning Commission has held a duly
noticed public hearing on February 8, 2001 and on February 22, 2001 to consider Amendment
No. 909 to establish a 4 -foot, front yard setback for the Bayside Drive frontage the property
located at 2720 & 2730 Bayside Drive, legal description being Lots 1 & 3 of Block 333 of the
Corona Del Mar Tract as modified by NBLLA No. 81 -1; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20.94, the City Council has held a duly noticed public
hearing on March 27, 2001 to consider the adoption of Amendment No. 909.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The Zone Districting Map of the City of Newport Beach shall be amended to
establish a 4 -foot, front yard setback for the Bayside Drive frontage the property located at 2720
& 2730 Bayside Drive, legal description being Lots 1 & 3 of Block 333 of the Corona Del Mar
Tract as modified by NBLLA No. 81 -1.
Section 2: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this
Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the
same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption.
•
Ordinance No. 2001 -_
Page 2 of 2
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport
Beach held on March 27, 2001, and was adopted on the 10`h day of April, 2001 by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS
18 /:\Yo):7
/:TIYIT"v
CITY CLERK
0
�2
0
Exhibit No. 10
0
IJ
RECORDING REQUESTED AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
Public Works Department
City of Newport Beach
Post Office Box 1768
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
above this line for Recorders use only.
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
(EPN2000 -254)
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of
2001, by and between Rexford E. Brandt, successor to the Brandt Family Survivor's Trust;
hereinafter "OWNER ", and the City of Newport Beach, California, a municipal corporation
organized and existing under and by virtue of its Charter and the Constitution and the laws of
the State of California, (hereinafter "CITY "), "OWNER" is the owner of property located at
2720 & 2730 Bayside Drive, Newport Beach, California and legally described as Lots 1 & 3,
Block 333 of Corona del Mar Tract as shown on a map recorded in Book 3, Pages 41 through
42 inclusively of Miscellaneous Maps and as modified by N.B.L.L.A. No. 81 -1 recorded June
12, 1981 in Book 14099, Page 148 of the Official Records in the office of the County Recorder
of Orange County, California;
W ITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, OWNER desires to construct and maintain certain non - standard
improvements (hereinafter "PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS ") within Bayside Drive right -of-
way (hereinafter "RIGHT -OF- WAY ") that is located adjacent to 2720 & 2730 Bayside Drive,
Newport Beach, California and legally described as Lots 1 & 3, Block 333 of Corona del Mar
Tract as shown on a map recorded in Book 3, Pages 41 through 42 inclusively of
Miscellaneous Maps and as modified by N.B.L.L.A. No. 81 -1 recorded June 12, 1981 in Book
14099, Page 148 of the Official Records in the office of the County Recorder of Orange
County, California;
WHEREAS, said PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS may interfere in the future with
CITY'S ability to construct, operate, maintain, and replace CITY and other public facilities and
improvements within RIGHT -OF -WAY; and
1 7�
WHEREAS; the parties hereto desire to execute an agreement providing for fulfillment
of the conditions required by CITY to permit OWNER to reconstruct and maintain said
PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS;,
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, the parties hereto agree
as follows:
1. It is mutually agreed that PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS shall be defined as an
asphalt concrete driveway access (3" A.C. on 4" base) with concrete curb, landscaping, and
appurtenances in Bayside Drive right -of -way as shown on EXHIBIT "A" attached hereto and as
approved by the City Engineer.
2. CITY will permit OWNER to repair, maintain, use, operate, repair and replace said
PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS and appurtenances incidental thereto, within a portion of
RIGHT -OF -WAY, all in substantial conformance with plans and specifications on file in the
CITY. CITY will further allow OWNER to take all reasonable measures necessary or
convenient in accomplishing the aforesaid activities
3. Specimen trees acceptable to the General Services Department shall be planted to
soften the view of the proposed dwellings and parking area. The view of both pedestrians on
the footpath and those on the footbridge shall be considered as well as the view of motorists
on Bayside Drive.
4. OWNER shall install residential fire sprinkler systems in each dwelling unit to the
satisfaction of the Building and Fire Departments.
4. Owner shall post signs prohibiting the parking of motor vehicles in the right -of -way
except in designated areas approved by the Public Works Department.
5. OWNER shall bring the common driveway between the PERMITTED
IMPROVEMENTS and Bayside Drive up to a good state of repair prior to occupancy of the
new dwelling units being constructed.
6. OWNER shall not unduly restrict access to the other properties taking access
from the common driveway during the construction of the PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS and
new dwelling units.
f.._J
2 %C
7. OWNER shall not store construction materials or equipment in areas westerly of the
prolongation of the OWNER's alley property line or in greenbelt areas that will not be disturbed
• by the construction of the PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS.
8. OWNER shall fence the construction site and materials storage areas. Fencing
shall be covered with green cloth material.
9. Rights granted under this Agreement may be terminated by CITY at any time by
giving 60 days' notice, specifying in said notice the date of termination. CITY shall incur no
liability whatsoever in the event of the termination of this Agreement, or subsequent removal of
improvements by CITY.
10. OWNER and CITY further agree as follows:
a. OWNER shall construct PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS and appurtenances
incidental thereto, in substantial conformance with the plans and specifications therefor on file
in the CITY's Public Works Department, and as described on Exhibit "A" hereto attached.
b. OWNER shall maintain the PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS in accordance
. with general prevailing standards of maintenance, and pay all costs and expenses incurred in
doing so. However, nothing herein shall be construed to require OWNER to maintain, replace
or repair any private -owned or CITY -owned pipeline, conduit or cable located in or under said
PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS, except as otherwise provided herein.
c. If private- owned, City, or other public facilities or improvements are damaged
by the installation or presence of PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS, OWNER shall be
responsible for the cost of repairs.
d. Owner shall be responsible for his pro -rata share of the cost of maintaining
the existing driveway between the curb on Bayside Drive and the property line.
e. That should the CITY be required to enter onto said RIGHT -OF -WAY to
exercise its primary rights associated with said RIGHT -OF -WAY, including but not limited to,
the maintenance, removal, repair, renewal, replacement or enlargement of existing or future
public facilities or improvements, CITY may remove portions of the PERMITTED
IMPROVEMENTS, as required, and in such event:
(i) CITY shall notify OWNER of its intention to accomplish such work,
if any emergency situation does not exist.
3 -77
(ii) OWNER shall be responsible for arranging for any renewal or
restoration of the PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS affected by such work by CITY; •
(iii) CITY agrees to bear only the cost of any removal of the
PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS affected by such work by CITY;
(iv) OWNER agrees to pay all costs for renewal or restoration of the
PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS.
11. In the event either party breaches any material provision of this Agreement, the
other party at its option may, in addition to the other legal remedies available to it, terminate
this Agreement, and, in the event the breaching party is OWNER, CITY may enter upon the
RIGHT -OF -WAY and remove all or part of the improvements installed by OWNER with one
exception. That one exception shall be the CITY cannot deny vehicular access to the subject
property. Termination because of breach shall be upon a minimum of ten (10) days' notice,
with the notice specifying the date of termination. In the event of litigation commenced with
respect to any term of condition of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to
reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred.
12. OWNER shall defend, indemnify, waive, and hold harmless CITY, its City Council,
boards and commissions, officers and employees from and against any and all loss, damage,
liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable attorneys' fees
(when outside attorneys are so utilized), regardless of the merit or outcome of any such claim
or suit arising from or in any manner connected with the design, construction, maintenance, or
continued existence of the PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS.
13. OWNER agrees that this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect from
execution thereof; shall run with the land; shall be binding upon the heirs, successors, and
assigns of OWNERS' interest in the land whether fee or otherwise, and shall be recorded in
the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County, California.
lU
4 79
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed on
• the day and year first -above written.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
f
ATTEST:
City Attorney
City Clerk
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
a Municipal corporation
M
City Manager
OWNER:
By
Rexford E. Brandt
Successor to the Brandt
Family Survivor's Trust
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) ss:
COUNTY OF ORANGE)
On , 2001, before me, personally
appeared personally known to me (or proved to me
•on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are subscribed to the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he /she /they has executed the same in his /her /their authorized
capacity(ies), and that by his /her /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of
which the person acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
11
Notary Public in and for said State
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) ss:
COUNTY OF ORANGE)
(This area for official notarial seal)
On , 2001, before me, personally
appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me
on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are subscribed to the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he /she /they has executed the same in his /her /their authorized
capacity(ies), and that by his /her /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of
which the person acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary Public in and for said State
(This area for official notarial seal)
F: \Users \PB W\ Shared\ ENCROACH\ FORMS \agmt- EP2000- 254Brandt- CDM.doc
_7�
Z
z
w
z 3:
Z w
w
W:,
CY
0
W
IL Z
0-
W
W
Q� Of
O
'o
Y. LU
Q w
z IL
Lu 0 6)_
07
< LU
w
z
0
co u
0 <
M W
a m
IL W
< �
me
ii
Exhibit No. A
.00,0C
Jo
dr
,e
A
Z
W
0
o0
z
w
Z
W U. 0
2
� ED
.40
CL >-
W
Lu
Oz
W
:3O S
m I
m w
CL W LL
4L
Q
61
sc
Exhibi'o
t No. 11
Pta
r
• fir. �.
'�'�. •gym ^5 ���,t, �- .S"'�:j• !
f� ka ei �m �tl
1� S1l '��' ti } 3 J y r 1•ei , l ,+>a�u F f .fir.
!+}..� Q, i,.r ;�4,.��•r �. � '3•, rte• 1•j!v' J rl �! t - ri: ;,r
l 1 N*� iA' •1 yt <' i F .'4j�y'' � . 1 Y Yr r� .
f e
• 4
r
• fir. �.
'�'�. •gym ^5 ���,t, �- .S"'�:j• !
f� ka ei �m �tl
1� S1l '��' ti } 3 J y r 1•ei , l ,+>a�u F f .fir.
!+}..� Q, i,.r ;�4,.��•r �. � '3•, rte• 1•j!v' J rl �! t - ri: ;,r
l 1 N*� iA' •1 yt <' i F .'4j�y'' � . 1 Y Yr r� .
f e