The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About14 - Circle Residence - 3415 Ocean BoulevardCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. L February 8, 2005 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3219, g ram irez a city. newport- beach. ca. us SUBJECT: Circle Residence 3415 Ocean Boulevard Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006) APPLICANT: Brion Jeannette Architecture for Jan and Doug Circle, property owners ISSUE Should the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve an amendment to previously approved Variance and Modification Permit applications to allow portions of a new single - family residence to exceed the 24 -foot height limit and allow a subterranean portion of the residence to encroach 10 feet into the required 10- foot front yard setback? RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council hold a public hearing and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve Amendment No. 1 to the applications. DISCUSSION On January 6, 2005 the Planning Commission approved the proposed project to allow a 4,873 square foot single family residence to exceed the 24 foot height limit and a subterranean floor to encroach 10 feet into the required 10 -foot setback. The proposed project complies with the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limitation. The approval allowed for design changes to a variance and modification permit application that was previously approved by the Planning Commission and City Council in April of 2003. Circle Residence February 8, 2005 Page 2 N '�1ry G �1 �0 Ale 5 � �1 Sub'ect Pro e 0 2�00 400 Feet VICINITY MAP pE B 3415 Ocean Boulevard Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006) Amendment No. 1 Current Development: Single - Family Residence To the north: Single Family Residences To the east: Single Family Residences To the south: Single Family Residences To the west: Corona Del Mar State Beach Circle Residence February 8, 2005 Page 3 During the course of the review for the modified project, the Commission considered the height of the structure above the existing grade and if the sloping topography of the property justified approval of the Variance. The Commission also considered the overall height of the structure and how it would relate to neighboring properties located on the bluff and whether the subterranean front setback encroachments would be detrimental to the neighborhood. The Commission concluded that approval of the applications was warranted based on the sloping topography of the property, the project's compliance with the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limit and the fact that the front yard encroachment is completely subterranean. Additionally, the proposed structure is comparable to the neighboring development in terms of height and visible mass. In summary, the Planning Commission was able to make the following findings: 1. The sloping topography of the subject property creates a relatively narrow buildable depth and the proposed design complies with the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limit. 2. The proposed design is similar in size and scale to existing homes on similar sized lots in the vicinity. 3. The variance request will not adversely impact public views. 4. The variance request will not be detrimental to surrounding private properties since adjoining properties will retain a vast majority of a nearly 180 degree view. As a condition of their approval, the Commission reduced the depth of two decks. The deck on the first floor (street level), which complies with the height limit, was reduced by 2 feet. The second floor deck, which exceeds the 24 -foot height limit by approximately 4 feet, was reduced in depth by approximately 4 feet. The reduction of the decks decreased the proposed structure's encroachment within views from adjoining properties and will reduce the visibility of the project. As a result of the Planning Commission's action, the Circle residence and associated decks would be permitted to extend approximately 49 feet from the front property line at its farthest point. By comparison, an existing exterior deck at 3401 Ocean Boulevard (appellant's property) extends approximately 42 feet from the front property line at its farthest point and the existing lower deck at 3425 Ocean Boulevard extends approximately 44 feet from the front property line. As an additional comparison, the two properties located to the southeast of the subject property at 3425 and 3431 Ocean Boulevard have recently been approved for new development by the Coastal Commission. Although the residence at 3425 Ocean Boulevard was originally built with the approval of a variance that allowed the residence Circle Residence February 8, 2005 Page 4 to exceed the height limit, the proposed decks and accessory structures that will extend approximately 60 feet from the front property line will not exceed the height limit. The development at 3431 Ocean Boulevard includes house and deck features that extend approximately 54 feet from the front property line with additional accessory structures that extend approximately 66 feet from the front property line. These accessory structures extending beyond the footprint of the existing residence do not exceed the height limit. APPEAL The appellant resides in the adjacent home northwesterly of the subject property at 3401 Ocean Boulevard. The appellant does not agree with the Commission decision to amend the approved project by removing Condition of Approval No. 16 which states: No portion of the structure may exceed the applicable deck or building stringline as established by the decks and buildings on the two adjoining properties. This regulation includes slab on grade decks and patios, which may not exceed the deck stringline. The appellant believes the basement and first floor deck, which, as approved by the Planning Commission, encroach 8 -9 feet beyond the furthest projection of the appellant's home at 3401 Ocean Boulevard, should not be permitted to extend beyond a line created by development on the adjacent properties. STRINGLINE Deck and building stringlines were used by the original applicant (Ensign) as an analytical tool to assist in the design and review of the original project. At the time of the original review (April 2003), the method by which the stringlines were drawn was not specifically evaluated by staff or the Planning Commission. In that particular case, the stringline provided by the original applicant proved helpful in identifying the approved limits of the project. The City does not have a definition of stringline or a written policy relating to stringlines. The City's development standards are stated in the Zoning Code, with siting of structures governed by setbacks. In this case, the proposed project conforms to the rear setback. Although the City's recently adopted Local Coastal Program includes the term "predominant line of development" that is intended to limit further encroachment of development on coastal bluffs, the method for implementation has yet to be determined. Regulations governing bluff development in relation to the "predominant line of development" will ultimately become part of the LCP implementation plan, which is Circle Residence February 8, 2005 Page 5 under preparation and ultimately will require City Council and Coastal Commission approval. The Coastal Commission uses a stringline as an analytical tool for the review of projects on coastal bluffs and is not an adopted regulation. In other words, it is not an established standard and it is not even an adopted guideline. Given how the Coastal Commission applies it through consideration of individual projects, some in the community believe the stringline to be regulatory. The Planning Commission evaluated the stringline and predominant line of development concepts during their review. Although there is no written definition or policy for these two concepts, the Commission considered the location of existing and future development of the coastal bluff along this portion of Ocean Boulevard. As a result, the Commission reduced the depth of the over - height second floor deck to bring it generally in -line with development on adjacent properties. Additionally, the Commission reduced the depth of the height - compliant first floor deck by two feet to help limit its encroachment beyond the existing line of development. Environmental Review: The proposed project has been reviewed and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (Construction of a single - family residence in a residential zone). Public Notice: Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Alternatives: The Council has the following options: 1. Modify the decision of the Planning Commission by reducing the height of the structure and setback encroachments. 2. Refer the applications back to the Planning Commission with instructions. 3 Deny the application. Prepared by: Gregg Ramire z P nner Attachments: Circle Residence February 8, 2005 Page 6 Submitted by: Patricia L. Temple, Pl nning Director A. Appeal Application B. Planning Commission Staff Report and Exhibits, December 9, 2004 C. Planning Commission Staff Report, January 6, 2005 D. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1658, Approved January 6, 2005 E. Minutes from the Planning Commission Hearing of December 9, 2004 F. Minutes from the Planning Commission Hearing of January 6, 2005 G. Previously Approved Plans (Ensign) H. Proposed Project Plans (Circle) ATTACHMENT A Appeal Application q CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FEiVB APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. '05 JAN 18 A 9 :41 Name of Appellant or person filing: Ph, lLp -1- L-V r4 e, i] ��M �e lc1 Ph' FI,,E P 9 �P�s C1 Address: 34}o► f'Y Ay, . C)� 92G2vr 3F►ty . C�� ` Date of Planning Commission decision: —0G ^05 20 015 Regarding application of: _ %r—L \C ,acccz ( V A -:11003 "aO6 ) for 34 15 OGEP�N . o (Description of application filed with Planning Commission) eousi'�"� CLM[?CZd. 0 Ac��ooed Uar�c3�c1�i �1 M , r o0 '2oo'g -a —r S:A� C F 11 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date j RN 18 Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: 20 OJ . Hearing Date. An appeal shall be scheduled for a he ring before the City Council within thirty (30) days of the filing of the appeal unless both applicant and appellant or reviewing body consent to a later date (NBMC Sec. 20.95.060) cc: Appellant Planning; Furnish one set of mailing labels for mailing) File APPEALS: Municipal Code Sec. 20.95.050(B) Appeal Fee: $485 pursuant to Resolution No. 2004 -60 adopted on 7- 13 -04. (Deposit funds with Cashier in Account #2700 -5000) ATTACHMENT B Planning Commission Staff Report and Exhibits, December 9, 2004 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item: 8 December 9, 2004 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3219, g ram irez ti) city. newport- beach. ca. us SUBJECT: Circle Residence 3415 Ocean Boulevard Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006) APPLICANT: Brion Jeannette Architecture for Jan and Doug Circle, property owners REQUEST The applicant requests approval of an amendment to an approved Variance and Modification Permit that allowed a new single - family residence to exceed the 24 -foot height limit and subterranean portions of 3 floors to encroach into the required 10 -foot front yard setback. The applicant is requesting changes to the building design that include an increase to the height on the bluff side of the proposed residence. The applicant does not request to exceed the top of curb height of Ocean Boulevard. PROJECT BACKGROUND The Commission approved the Variance and Modification Permit request at their meeting of April 3, 2003. The applicant at that time was Curt Ensign. The approval allows the construction of a 6,100 square foot square foot, 4 -story, single - family dwelling with a roof deck. The approval permits the height of the building to be approximately 34 -feet above the existing grade at the highest point on the bluff side, with an overall height from the approved finished grade of approximately 40 feet. The approval requires the new construction to comply with the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limit. Additionally, the approval included a Modification Permit that allows three subterranean levels to encroach 10 -feet into the required 10 -foot front yard setback. The application was subsequently called for review by the City Council who upheld the decision of Planning Commission at their meeting of April 22, 2004. Lf "n.:." i�-ry' I , '•:hi LAXY ot Ai Sj.. , Circle Residence December 9, 2004 Page 3 DISCUSSION The review of the original request focused on four issues, the required findings to approve a variance, the required findings to approve a modification permit, potential impacts to public views, and conformance with General Plan Policy D relating to coastal bluff preservation. Site Overview: The subject property was developed with a two level single - family residence and attached garage in 1956. The dwelling is approximately 10 feet in height at the front (Ocean Blvd.) side and 20 feet high on the bluff side, and conforms to all current development regulations. The subject property is a coastal bluff that slopes away from Ocean Boulevard down to the unimproved portion of Breakers Drive and Corona Del Mar State Beach. The upper third of the site is developed with the existing residence. Access to the property is off Ocean Boulevard via a narrow access road located within the Ocean Boulevard right -of- way. An existing path /stairway winds down the coastal bluff to the beach. The remaining portion of the bluff is heavily landscaped. The Subject property is zoned R -1 and has the following development regulations: Lot Size: 7,800 square feet (65 x 120) Required Setbacks: Front: 10 feet Sides: 4 feet Rear: 10 feet Buildable Area: 5,700 square feet (57 x 100) Maximum Floor Area: 8,550 square feet (5,700 x 1.5) Height Limit: 24' flat roof /mid -point (29' ridge) and no portion of structure may exceed height of curb at Ocean Boulevard Project Overview: The proposed project involves the demolition of the existing single - family dwelling and the construction of a new three - level, single family dwelling with an attached two -car garage. No roof deck is proposed as part of the new design. The proposed project has the following characteristics: U Proposed Project Features: Basement: 2,262 square feet First Floor: 1,187 square feet Second Floor: 1,097 square feet Garage (at First Floor): 360 square feet Total: 4,906 square feet Proposed height above existing grade (front): Proposed height above existing grade (bluff side): Proposed height above finished grade (bluff side): Proposed height of second floor deck: Circle Residence December 9, 2004 Page 4 24 feet 37 feet 9 inches 45 feet (From base of retaining wall) 28.5 feet from EG (approx.) The Variance and Modification Permit approved by the Planning Commission allows the construction of a new 4- level, single family residence with the following characteristics. Note that the approved basement level is entirely subterranean. Approved Project Features: Upper Level: 1,260 square feet Mid - Level: 877 square feet Lower Level: 1,887 square feet Basement Level: 1,603 square feet Garage (at Mid - Level): 473 square feet Total: 6,100 square feet Roof deck: 483 square feet Approved height above existing grade (front): 24 feet Approved height above existing grade (bluff side): 34 feet Approved height above finished grade (bluff side): 40 feet Analysis: The applicant requests amendments to Condition Nos. 1 and 16 of the approved Variance and Modification Permit. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations dated March 11, 2003 with the exception of any revisions required by the following conditions. 16. No portion of the structure may exceed the applicable deck or building stringline as established by the decks and buildings on the two adjoining properties. This �3 Circle Residence December 9, 2004 Page 5 regulation includes slab on grade decks and patios, which may not exceed the deck stringline. The project has been re- designed resulting in a slight decrease in building mass when viewed from the street but additional building mass and height when viewed from the bluff side. The revised plan also increases the overall depth of the building and decks, causing them to encroach beyond the imaginary "stringline" as depicted on the approved plan. The front yard encroachment has been reduced to a one floor subterranean encroachment of 10 feet rather than the three subterranean floors previously approved. If the proposed residence was constructed in compliance with the height regulations, the entire second floor living area and exterior decks and portions of the first floor living areas would have to be eliminated or redesigned to become compliant. In their project justification letter, the applicants point out that the "Municipal Code does not recognize a stringline for the buildings or decks as a limit of construction" and that the actual setback is 10 feet. Although they are correct in both instances, the Planning Commission used the stringline, as provided by the original applicant, as an analytical tool for the comparison and analysis of the encroachment of the approved structure on the coastal bluff. In the case of the prior approval, a stringline was drawn between the buildings and decks located on the adjacent properties located at 3401 and 3425 Ocean Boulevard. Since these properties have the same width and depth (60'x120') of the subject property, using the existing development on those sites is appropriate to assist in establishing a predominant line of development. The staff and Planning Commission used the following features and their depths as measured from the front property line to develop a stringline as a guide for the design of the approved project: 3401 Ocean Boulevard: Enclosed Portion of Dwelling: 34 feet Corner of Deck: 40 feet 3425 Ocean Boulevard: Enclosed Portion of Dwelling: 40 feet Corner of Deck: 44 feet The result was two diagonal "stringlines," one drawn from deck to deck and one drawn from enclosed dwelling to enclosed dwelling. The approved project allows the dwelling to be located 37 feet from the front property line and related decks to be located a \A Circle Residence December 9, 2004 Page 6 maximum of 43 feet from the front property line at their farthest points, which are within the established stringlines. The proposed plans depict both building and deck stringlines, but different points on the adjacent properties were used to establish those lines. The building stringline was established by using the corner of the deck at 3401 Ocean and the corner of the dwelling at 3425 Ocean, both of which have a 40 foot depth as measured from the front property line. The deck stringline was established by using a curved portion of the deck at 3401 Ocean (43.5 foot depth) and the cantilevered deck (44 foot depth) at 3425 Ocean Boulevard. Other than a minor 1 -foot encroachment at the second floor master bath and the decks, the proposed project has been designed to be consistent with the 40 -foot line of development of the adjacent properties. However, as the table below indicates, the proposed decks on various floors extend beyond the approved stringlines from the previous plan and deck stringline shown on the proposed plans. Depth From Front Property Line and Rear Setback Feature Depth Rear Setback Existing Development Dwelling/Front Yard Improvements 32 feet 88 feet Rear Concrete Patio 39 feet 81 feet Edge of Cantilevered Deck 41.5 feet 78.5 feet Approved Development Dwelling ales by Floor 29 -37 feet 83-91 feet Cantilevered Decks aties by Floor 41 -43 feet 77 -79 feet Slab on Grade 43 feet 77 feet Proposed Development Dwelling all floors 40 feet 80 feet First Floor Cantilevered Deck 50 feet 70 feet Basement Patio on Grade /Cantilevered Deck 49 feet 71 feet Second Floor Cantilevered Deck 47 feet 73 feet On Grade Deck/Path to Beach 49 feet 71 feet As indicated on the table, the proposed dwelling projects 3 -11 feet beyond the approved dwelling. The proposed on -grade development projects 6 feet beyond the approved slab on grade development. Finally, the proposed cantilevered decks project 4 -9 feet beyond those on the approved plan. Public Views The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program advocate the preservation of public views. In this particular case, public view preservation along 6 Circle Residence December 9, 2004 Page 7 Ocean Boulevard is specifically addressed within the Zoning Code. The Code limits the height of structures on the seaward side of Ocean Boulevard to the height of the top of the adjacent Ocean Boulevard curb. In this case, the adjacent top -of -curb height ranges from 91.91 mean sea level to (MSL) to 93.01 MSL. The height of the proposed structure complies with this height limitation. Although the proposed project encroaches farther on the bluff, it is set back approximately 71 feet from the rear (bluff) property line, which is 61 feet more than the required 10 -foot setback. Staff believes that, given the nature of surrounding developments, the size of the property and the proposed building setback, this increase is relatively minimal and impacts to public views from the beach or Inspiration Point will not be adversely impacted. Coastal Bluff Preservation Land Use Element Policy D and Local Coastal Program policies state that it is the City's policy to ensure that development shall be properly sited to minimize the alteration of natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. The majority of the proposed residence is located within the footprint of the existing development (front yard improvements, dwelling, rear deck) which extends approximately 39 feet from the front property line. Although the proposed development extends beyond the imaginary stringline established by the original approval, staff believes that, since approximately 71 feet of the bluff will essentially remain undeveloped, the proposed project can be found consistent with this policy. Approved Local Coastal Program Policies The City Council adopted the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan on May 25, 2004. Although the Plan is not officially in effect until approved by the California Coastal Commission and the Implementation Regulations are adopted by the City and the Coastal Commission, a brief discussion has been included addressing two specific policies relative to development on coastal bluffs. Staff presents analysis for informational purposes only. Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan policy 4.4.3 -4 states: In areas where the Coastal Bluff has been altered, establish setback lines for the principal and accessory structures based on the predominant line of the existing development along the bluff in each block. Apply the setback line downward from the edge of the bluff and/or upward from the toe of the bluff to restrict new development from extending beyond the predominant line of the existing development. Lo Circle Residence December 9, 2004 Page 8 This policy would limit the development of the site to an approximate depth of 40-44 feet to be consistent with the adjacent properties. If the proposed project were designed to comply with this policy, the enclosed portion of the dwelling, depending on where the stringline is drawn, would be compliant. However, portions of the exterior decks, especially the lower deck on- grade /path to beach, which extends approximately 10 feet beyond the existing development, would have to be scaled back or eliminated to achieve conformance. Please see the table on Page 6 for specific depths of potentially affected project features. Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan policy 4.4.3 -5 states: In areas where the Coastal bluff has been altered, design and site development to minimize alteration of those portions of coastal bluffs with slopes in excess of 20 percent (5:1 slope). Prohibit development on those portions of coastal bluffs with the unaltered natural slopes in excess of 40 percent (2.5:1 slope), unless the application of this policy would preclude any reasonable economic use of the property. As with the preceding policy, strict adherence to this policy would affect the design of the proposed project in the same way. The footprint of the existing on -grade development is approximately 39 feet with a cantilevered second floor deck with a depth of approximately 41.5 feet, as measured from the front property line. The slope beyond the existing on -grade development is partially altered with a staircase that leads to the beach. It is likely that the remaining portion of the slope is a combination of altered and unaltered bluff. Based on the topographic survey, the area of the bluff proposed for development beyond the existing footprint has an approximate 7:7 or 100% slope. Since this exceeds the thresholds established by this policy, the proposed project would have to be redesigned to avoid any additional bluff alteration beyond the existing footprint. This would specifically affect the dwelling, the patio on grade at the basement level and the new on -grade path to the beach. Since cantilevered decks do not physically alter the bluff, staff believes it is appropriate to allow them to be constructed over affected slopes as long as they do not physically alter the slope below. Please see the table on Page 6 for specific depths of potentially affected project features. Height Limit Variance Amendment The Zoning Code defines the height of a structure as the vertical distance between the highest point of a structure and the grade directly below. The height limit in the R -1 zoning district is 24 feet as measured from existing /natural grade to the top of a flat roof or mid -point of a sloping roof with a maximum ridge height of 29 feet. The approved project allows the dwelling to be approximately 34 feet above the existing grade at the highest point on the bluff side. The overall height from the proposed finished grade will be approximately 40 -feet on the bluff side. The proposed project 11 Circle Residence December 9, 2004 Page 9 requests approval of a structure measuring approximately 37 feet 9 inches from existing grade and 45 feet from finished grade measured from the base of the retaining wall. The project also includes a second floor deck that exceeds the 24 foot height limit by approximately 4.5 feet. Section 20.91.035(B) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any variance, the Planning Commission must find that the applicant has established the following grounds for a variance: 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. The subject property is encumbered by sloping topography that creates a relatively narrow buildable depth of approximately 30 feet and restricts the ability to adhere to the natural grade height limitation specked in the Zoning Code while avoiding alteration of the bluff. The proposed project does however, comply with the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limitation. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. The majority of the subject property is unimproved coastal bluff. Granting the variance will allow the property owner to construct a dwelling of similar floor area when compared to the size of homes on similar sized parcels while limiting extensive alteration to the coastal bluff significantly beyond the footprint of the existing development. However, if strict application of the height limit were implemented, portions of the second floor living area and exterior decks would need to be eliminated and the project redesigned. 3. That the granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting variance applications. The variance procedure is intended to resolve practical physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area and on this lot. The granting of this request is consistent with the intent of the established height limitations to ensure that buildings are not out of scale with nearby buildings since the height of this building is b� Circle Residence December 9, 2004 Page 10 relatively comparable to those on adjacent properties. Therefore, staff believes this finding can be made. 4. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. The subject property is designated for single family residential use and the granting of the variance would not increase the density beyond what is planned for the area, thereby avoiding additional traffic, parking, or demand for other services. Additionally, granting the variance request for height will not adversely impact public views as the proposed structure adheres to the Ocean Boulevard top-of -curb height limitation. The proposed building extends farther away from Ocean Boulevard and will encroach within the private views of the adjacent properties. Since they will retain a vast majority of a nearly 180 degree view, staff believes the proposed project will not be detrimental to these properties and will result in a structure that is similar to surrounding dwellings located along the coastal bluff with respect to size, bulk and design. Based on the above findings, staff believes that the mandatory findings can be made in this case due to the sloping topography, the preservation of public views and the preservation of a significant portion of the natural coastal bluff. Modification of Front Yard Setback The existing approval includes a Modification Permit that allows the following subterranean encroachments into the required 10 -foot front yard setback: Upper Level: 0 feet Mid Level: 10 feet Lower Level: 10 feet Basement Level: 10 feet The Commission's approval of the encroachments was based on the fact that the requested setback encroachments were below grade on and not visible. The proposed revised plan reduces the number of floors encroaching into the setbacks to one, the Basement Floor. Staff believes that this request is in substantial conformance with the approved plans and will not be detrimental to the neighborhood or the City. Circle Residence December 9, 2004 Page 11 Environmental Review The proposed project has been reviewed and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (Construction of a single - family residence in a residential zone). Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and consider the following options: Approve Amendment No. 1 to Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006) based on the findings and conditions of approval included within this staff report and attached Draft Planning Commission Resolution. The Commission may determine that a scaled back project that better conforms to the spirit of the stringline, or a project that includes less building mass on the bluff side, may be achieved while not infringing on the property rights of the owner. Lowering interior ceiling heights and eliminating over height second floor deck are possible changes that the Commission may see fit to consider, in which case the Commission should direct the applicant to redesign the project and continue the item. I Deny the request by adopting the findings for denial included as Exhibit No. 2. Prepared by: Gregg B. amirez, Associate fanner Submitted by: Sharon Z. Wood sistant City Manager ab Circle Residence December 9, 2004 Page 12 2. Findings for Denial 3. Applicant Letter of Justification 4. Staff report from the April 3, 2003 Planning Commission Hearing 5. Minutes from the April 3, 2003 Planning Commission Hearing 6. Staff Report from the April 22, 2003 City Council Hearing 7. Minutes form the April 22, 2003 City Council Hearing 8. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1594 9. AppFeved PFejeet Plans 4 9. Prepesed Plans EXHIBIT NO. 2 Findings for Denial Findings for Denial Amendment No. 1 to Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006) The granting of a variance to allow portions of the proposed residence to exceed the 24/28 -foot height limit is not warranted by special circumstances or for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, would be considered a grant of special privilege, and would be detrimental to surrounding properties because: a) The existing approval allows for the construction of a single family residence of similar size, height and bulk as buildings on properties encumbered with topography similar to that which occurs on the subject property. b) The existing approval limits the further encroachment of structures down the coastal bluff by limiting the development to approximately the same location and depth as the existing development. c) Adequate area exists on the subject property to construct a reasonably sized dwelling while complying with the standard development regulations. d) The proposed structures deviate from the predominant line of development created by buildings and structures on the adjacent properties. 2. The alteration of the coastal bluff associated with the project does not constitute minimal alteration of the natural coastal bluff landform as it increases and extends the building slab footprint envelope beyond the existing altered area with the proposed lower level on -grade deck. This increased alteration of the coastal bluff is inconsistent with Land Use Element Development Policy D and applicable Local Coastal Program policies that mandate proper siting of structures on coastal bluffs to minimize alteration of natural landforms. EXHIBIT NO. 3 Applicant Letter of Justification Ai ae rion Jeannette Architecture September 16, 2004 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Attn: Planning Department Re: 3415 Ocean Boulevard Variance Application To. Whom It May Concern: The proposed construction project at 3415 Ocean Boulevard includes the demolition of the existing 2 -story single - family residence with attached 2 -car and the construction of a new 3 -sto7 single - family residence with attaced.2 -car garage. The previous owners of the property proposed a similar project on the site, and received. approval for a 4 -story single - family residence with attached 2 7car garage. Their approval included Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006), both of which were approved by.'-the Planning Commission per Resolution No. 1594. The plans and approvals were. transferred to the current owners of the property with the _purchase of the house, but the design,and architect have changed due to owner - specific needs and tastes: The new design substantially conforms to the parameters of the approved design,.so that the Variance. and Modification Permit may still be applied. All of the findings of Resolution No. 1594 are still applicable, and the Conditions of Approval listed -in Exhibit "A" therein are met, with the following two exceptions: 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved .plot plan, floor plans and elevations• dated March 11, 2003 with the exception of any revisions required by the following conditions. As explained above, the plans and elevations have changed to.suifthe new owners of the property. The previous plans were for a 4 =story, 6100 sf residence: our.proposed structure is only a 3- story, 4906 sf residence. Also, the high point of the previous plans was 92.53', with the lowest floor at 43.65' (48,88' total height), versus our proposed high point of 92.1'; and lowest floor at 54.75' (37.36' total height). In addition, the building mass as viewed from the street has been reduced by 4 %. 470 Old Newport Blvd . Newport Beach, CA 92663 . T: 949.645.5854 F: 949.645.5983 W Members AIA & NCARB . www.customarchitecture.com Energy Conscious Design' O� 16. No portion of the structure may exceed the applicable deck or building stringline as established by the decks and buildings on the two adjoining properties. This regulation includes slab on grade decks and patios, which may not exceed the deck stringline. The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code does not recognize a "stringline" for buildings or decks as a limit of 'construction. The required rear yard setback is 10', and the proposed building has a 79.8' rear yard setback. The proposed decks are set back from the property line 70', leaving approximately two - thirds of the lot untouched to preserve the face of the bluff, as encouraged by General Plan Policy D. The proposed decks do not affect public views. Also, the required guardrails on the decks are clear glass for minimal view impact. Please let us know if any further information is needed for the Planning Commission to approve substantial conformance with prior variance and modification approvals. ljegards v D\\,oVV1ln Anctil Brion Jeannette Architecture Brion Jeannette Architecture EXHIBIT NO. 4 Staff Report from the April 3, 2003 Planning Commission Hearing a� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FILE COPY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 6 April 3, 2003 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3219, gramirezOcity.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Ensign Residence, 3415 Ocean Boulevard Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 Request for a Variance to allow portions of a new single - family residence to exceed the 24 -foot height limit. The application also includes a request for a modification permit to allow subterranean portions of 3 floors of the new residence to encroach into the required 10 -foot front yard setback. The applicant does not request to exceed the top of curb height of Ocean Boulevard. (PA2003 -006) APPLICANT NAME: G. Robert Ensign, applicant for Curt W. Ensign, property owner ISSUE: Should the Planning Commission approve a Variance to allow portions of a new single - family residence to exceed the 24 -foot height limit and a Modification Permit to allow subterranean portions of 3 floors of the new residence to encroach into the required 10- foot front yard setback? RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and approve Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006) based on the findings and conditions of approval included within this staff report and attached Draft Planning Commission Resolution. No — ec': 'i 3�1�'� � �� • !. � "�: `'uP : :.Ph �. ��. t �.. ��' +: :� Y" `: •. ' �F� � i .. 1.I ..�. r• �� \, ��, r r' � ` �\ A.. .�Z 1 a .. .i �T� ,,i�� , ;. .� ��:. M'� „' / �� ,V �' t �. . \t �' � ._!�...• . ��. �� ;% r ibt" Ensign Residence April 3, 2003 Page 3 DISCUSSION: Background: The subject property was developed with a two level single - family residence and attached garage in 1956. The dwelling is approximately 10 feet in height at the front (Ocean Blvd.) side, 20 feet high on the bluff side and conforms to all current development regulations. Site Overview: The subject property is a coastal bluff that slopes away from Ocean Boulevard down to . the unimproved portion of Breakers Drive and Corona Del Mar State Beach. The upper third of the site is developed with the existing residence. Access to the property is off Ocean Boulevard via a narrow access road located within the Ocean Boulevard right -of- way. An existing path /stairway winds down the coastal bluff to the beach. The remaining portion of the bluff is heavily landscaped. The Subject property is zoned R -1 and has the following development regulations: Lot Size: 7,800 square feet (65 x 120) Required Setbacks: Front: 10 feet Sides: 4 feet Rear: 10 feet Buildable Area: 5,700 square feet (57 x 100) Maximum Floor Area: 8,550 square feet (5,700 x 1.5) Height Limit: 24' flat roof /mid -point (29' ridge) and no portion of structure may exceed height of curb at Ocean Boulevard Project Overview: The proposed project involves the demolition of the existing single - family dwelling and the construction of a new four - level, single family dwelling with an attached two -car garage and roof deck. The proposed project has the following characteristics: Proposed Square Footage Tabulation: Upper Level: 1,260 square feet Mid - Level: 877 square feet Lower Level: 1,887 square feet 3a Basement Level: 1,603 square feet Garage (at Mid - Level): 473 square feet Total: 6,100 square feet Roof deck: 483 square feet Maximum floor area to buildable area ratio: 1.5 Proposed floor area to buildable area ratio: 1.07 Proposed height above existing grade (front): 24 feet Proposed height above existing grade (bluff side): 34 feet Proposed height above finished grade (bluff side): 40 feet Analysis: Public Views Ensign Residence April 3, 2003 Page 4 The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program advocate the preservation of public views. In this particular case, public view preservation along Ocean Boulevard is specifically addressed within the Zoning Code. The Code limits the height of structures on the seaward side of Ocean Boulevard to the height of the top of the adjacent Ocean Boulevard curb. In this case, the adjacent top -of -curb height ranges from 91.91 mean sea level to (MSL) to 93.01 MSL. The height of the proposed structure complies with this height limitation. Except for an on grade deck at the "Lower Level ", the new construction will generally be located within the same footprint of the existing development. As noted on the site plan, the proposed structure adheres to both a building and deck "stringline ". The "stringline" is an imaginary line drawn between the two adjacent residences used as an analytical tool for comparison and analysis of the encroachment of structures on the coastal bluff. As a result of using the "stringline ", the proposed residence is setback approximately 75 -feet from the rear property line, well away from the 10 -foot minimum requirement. Additionally, since the proposed residence does not project beyond the "stringline" of the adjacent residences, public views from Inspiration Point will not be affected. Coastal Bluff Preservation Land Use Element Policy D and Local Coastal Program policies state that it is the City's policy to ensure that development shall be properly sited to minimize the alteration of natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. The majority of the proposed structure is located within the existing disturbed area. However, an exterior on grade deck at the "Lower Level" will be constructed approximately 4 -feet beyond the existing footprint. The proposed finished floor elevation of the lower level on grade deck on the bluff side is 52.65 MSL, approximately 6 -feet lower than the existing deck. However, as noted in the 4J � ��U Ensign Residence April 3, 2003 Page 5 "Public View" discussion, the proposed residence (including the deck on grade) will maintain an approximate 75 -foot rear yard setback leaving approximately two- thirds of the coastal bluff unaltered by this project. Due to the location of the proposed structure and minimal bluff alteration beyond the footprint of the existing development, staff believes that the project can be found consistent with the policies that require coastal bluff alteration be kept to a minimum. Height Limit Variance The applicant requests approval of a variance to exceed the required 24 -foot height limit for portions of the proposed structure. The Zoning Code defines the height of a structure as the vertical distance between the highest point of a structure and the grade directly below. As mentioned in the project description, the proposed structure is approximately 34 -feet above the existing grade at the highest point on the bluff side. The overall height from the proposed finished grade will be approximately 40 -feet on the bluff side. In addition to the standard above grade height regulation, the Zoning Code limits the height of structures on the seaward side of Ocean Boulevard to the adjacent top of curb height. In this particular case, the top of curb height ranges from 91.91 Mean Sea Level (MSL) to 93.01 MSL which, coincidentally, is approximately 24 -feet above existing grade at the front to the subject property. The proposed project has been designed to have a maximum height of 92.53 MSL to comply with the top of curb height regulation. Section 20.91.035(6) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any variance, the Planning Commission must find that the applicant has established the following grounds for a variance: 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. The subject property is encumbered by sloping topography that creates a relatively narrow buildable depth of approximately 30 feet and restricts the ability to adhere to the natural grade height limitation specified in the Zoning Code while avoiding alteration of the bluff. The proposed project does however, comply with the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limitation. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. The majority of the subject property is unimproved coastal bluff. Granting the variance will allow the property owner to construct a dwelling of similar 3�' Ensign Residence April 3, 2003 Page 6 floor area when compared to the size of homes on similar sized parcels while limiting extensive alteration to the coastal bluff beyond the footprint of the existing development. However, if strict application of the height limit were implemented, the roof deck and portions of the kitchen, dining room, and vaulted ceiling over the living room would be eliminated 3. That the granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the some zoning district. The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting variance applications. The variance procedure is intended to resolve practical physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area and on this lot. Additionally, the proposed floor area is well below the maximum permitted by the Zoning Code, and therefore, staff believes this finding can be made. 4. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. The subject property is designated for single family residential use and the granting of the variance would not increase the density beyond what is planned for the area, thereby avoiding additional traffic, parking or demand for other services. Additionally, granting the variance request for height will not adversely impact public views as the proposed structure adheres to the Ocean Boulevard top -of -curb height limitation and is within the "stringline" of the adjacent properties. Therefore, staff believes the proposed project will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood and will result in a structure that is similar to surrounding dwellings located along the coastal bluff with respect to size, bulk and design. Based on the above findings, staff believes that the mandatory findings can be made in this case due to the sloping topography, the preservation of public views and the preservation of a significant portion of the natural coastal bluff. �5 Ensign Residence April 3, 2003 Page 7 Modification of Front Yard Setback In conjunction with the variance request, the applicant requests approval of a Modification Permit to allow portion of the proposed structure to encroach into the required 10 -foot front yard setback. The proposed setbacks are: Upper Level: 10 feet Mid Level: 0 feet Lower Level: 0 feet Basement Level: 0 feet Section 20.93.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code requires that in order to grant relief through a modification permit, the Planning Commission must find that the "establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or building will not, 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 of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of this code. " The basic intent of front yard setbacks is to provide adequate separation between structures on private property and the public right -of -way and to provide a consistent look from the street. In this particular case, the front property line is located approximately 57 feet from the existing Ocean Boulevard sidewalk. The right -of -way between the sidewalk and property in question consists of a steep slope and access road for the properties located along the bluff. The proposed encroachments are below existing and proposed finished grade and taking in to account the 57 -foot linear separation of the structure from the Ocean Boulevard sidewalk, staff believes the proposed encroachments are reasonable requests. Additionally, these encroachments will allow additional construction on the site without substantial alteration to the coastal bluff on the seaward side of the subject property. Environmental Review: The proposed project has been reviewed and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (Construction of a single - family residence in a residential zone) since the proposed structure will replace an existing structure in approximately the same footprint. Public Notice: Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this 31 Ensign Residence April 3, 2003 Page 8 hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Alternatives: If the Commission is unable to make affirmative findings for the Variance or Modification Permit request, staff suggests that the Commission either direct the applicant to reduce the height or front yard encroachments to an acceptable level and continue the item, if desired, or deny the application. Findings for denial have been prepared and are included as Attachment No. 2. Conclusion: Staff believes the findings for approval of the Variance and Modification Permit requests can be made and that the design of the structure is reasonable given the topography and location of the subject property. The project, as designed, will allow the property owner to construct a dwelling that meets their needs while limiting encroachment down and alteration of the coastal bluff. Additionally, the proposed structure adheres to the Ocean Boulevard top -of -curb height limit. As of the writing of this staff report, staff has received no comments regarding this application. Prepared by: Gregg BA mirez, Associate anner Attachments: Submitted by: P 11 1 A , i , Patricia L. Temple, Plannin Director A. Re5emutien u V B. Findings for Denial V C. Applicant Letter of Justification 4ai ATTACHMENT B FINDINGS FOR DENIAL Ed Findings for Denial Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006) 1. The granting of a variance to allow portions of the proposed residence to exceed the 24/28 -foot height limit is not warranted by special circumstances or for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, would be considered a grant of special privilege, and would be detrimental to surrounding properties because: a) The applicant has not demonstrated that a single - family residence cannot be designed to fully comply with applicable height limits. The applicant can design a smaller residence and comply with applicable height limits. 2. The alteration of the coastal bluff associated with the project does not constitute minimal alteration of the natural coastal bluff landform as it increases and extends the building slab footprint envelope beyond the existing altered area with the proposed lower level on -grade deck. This increased alteration of the coastal bluff is inconsistent with Land Use Element Development Policy D and applicable Local Coastal Program policies that mandate proper siting of structures on coastal bluffs to minimize alteration of natural landforms. 3. The granting of the reduction in the required front yard setback will 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 reduced setback of the residence locates structures and uses closer to the sidewalk. Potential future use of the expanded Ocean Boulevard right -of -way would be negatively affected due to the reduced setback. b) The reduced setback places the foundation of the proposed residence in a position where it will provide lateral support for the public right -of -way due to the extensive excavation proposed. This is a potential liability for the city. c) The reduction of the front yard setback will be viewed by property owners and developers as establishing a precedent to support similar relief without similar site constraints. 31 .44 ATTACHMENT C APPLICANT'S LETTER OF JUSTIFICATION 3� 3 4 15 OCEAN BOUI.&VARD Supplement to Aeef 8 of Apphcafion 1. What exceptional circumstances apply to the property? The property is located on a bluff. The lot is 65 feet wide and 120 feet deep. There is more than 60 vertical feet offall from the front of the lot to the back of the lot. The steep slope makes it virtually impossible to comply with the height limit on the ocean side of the home. 2. Why is this variance necessary? Homes built along this street are subject to a very strict "string line "setback pursuant to the Coastal Act to preserve views for adjacent residences and the public. Compliance with that "string line" limits the width on one side of the house to slightly more than 20 feet. Homes on that bluff have historically been approved and constructed to be three stories above grade in order to provide reasonable living area and comply with the "string line" setback. 3. Why will the proposal not be detrimental to the neighborhood? The height of the proposed home when viewed from the front is less than the 24 foot height limit requirement. Only the rear of the home exceeds the height limit due to the downward slope of the property. The variance on height will be in keeping with the other homes along the bluff on Ocean Boulevard. They have been allowed to use the top of curb elevation of Ocean Bouvlevard as the criteria for the building height limit, for which this application complies. A 31 P, �J l 3415 Ocean Blvd. Sam F_; : L in' •'.1�1 N.n�•A The project consists of the demolition of the existing residence and the construction of a new residence located at 3415 Ocean Boulevard. The proposed new residence, which shares a bluff along Ocean Boulevard with twelve other homes, has been designed to respect the same "string line" and height limits that have governed the adjacent homes. The contemporary design of the proposed home provides an arched roofline that keeps the majority of the ridgeline well below the "top of curb" limit and preserves some view of the beach from the street above. The home is essentially a three -story home with a basement. There is a split down the middle causing the floors on the west side of the home to be several feet higher than the floors on the east side of the home. This split was necessary to enable the living room, dining room and kitchen /nook to. all be connected and still provide a 2 -car garage on the street level. The front door and entryway is raised with access occurring across a bermed landscape area. When viewed from the street, the home takes on the character of a single story on the east side with the kitchen located above the garage on the west side of the home. The bedrooms occupy the lower floors. The limits of the string line" allow very little depth to the home. The proposed design utilizes a portion of the front yard setback below street grade in order to allow for proper floor plan design. This livable area that is within the front yard setback is below the existing street grade, within the legal lot and invisible to the neighborhood. It is our hope that the City will allow this variance in light that it has no impact to the neighborhood and greatly improves the livable area of the home. �a V EXHIBIT NO. 5 Minutes from the April 3, 2003 Planning Commission Hearing �V City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2003 INDEX • The three lot use does not support residential use consistent with the other residential use on Balboa Island. • The idea is to go from three to two lots and then have residential lots that will be slightly larger but more consistent with the neighborhood. • This will result in either single family or duplex homes on each lot. • Both 'of those development patterns are consistent with the residential development already on Balboa Island. • This is generally a lower intensity use. • There will only be two property owners, whether there is a duplex or single family residence that decision has not been made yet. However, they are leaning towards fwo single family homes. • The garages are off the alley. Commissioner Tucker noted: • The pure housing is rather incompatible with the area. • Something other than a parking lot is certainly an entitlement, although the parking is nice to have there. Public comment opened. Alan Beek, resident of Balboa Island noted that'this conversion is a great idea and more is needed in the City. He asked that this be approved. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Agajanian to recommend approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment No. 2002 -003, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 2003 -001, Code Amendment No. 2002 -009, Newport Parcel Map No. 2002 -031 (PA2002 -244). Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Selich, Tucker Recused: Kiser ti Excused: Gifford SUBJECT: Ensign Residence (PA2003 -006) 3415 Ocean Blvd. Request for a Variance to allow portions of a new single - family residence to exceed the 24 -foot height limit. The application also includes a request for a modification permit to allow subterranean portions of 3 floors of the new residence to encroach into the required 10 -foot front yard setback. The applicant does not request to exceed the top of curb height of Ocean Boulevard. Chairperson Kiser noted the additional conditions of approval distributed. Item No. 6 PA2003 -006 Approved F-ja City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2003 INDEX Mr. Ramirez noted those additional conditions reflect required Fire and Building Code policies that, considering the scope of the project, should be in written form so everyone can be made aware of these issues. He then made a short slide presentation noting the project site, aerial photo depicting access off the frontage road along with five other homes, and noted a couple of those properties that had variances that either allowed height above top of curb (no access off frontage road) or height above natural grade, as well as views of the property from the beach. Also included in the slide presentation were the plans and artist rendering of the proposed project that were also included as part of the packet. He then noted the 24 foot height limit of the existing grade, the line of existing grade, the site topography, and the line of the finished grade on the plans as well as the slab on grade deck. Also noted was the elevation of the floor of the roof deck as it relates to the curb height, which measured approximately 6 feet below the top of curb height. Commissioner Selich, noting the existing topography of the property, stated it was curious that the house on one side had to get a variance in order to be constructed and the house on the other side was constructed without a variance. Both the houses appear to be at the same height so I suspect that one was in condition like this site where they had to grade a pad out on the bluff, where the house on the other side the pad had already been excavated and were able to construct without a variance. Is this true? Ms. Temple answered she could research that but added that in addition to the natural grade a lot of the issues related to compliance with the 24 foot height limit oftentimes flow out of the actual design of the roof as well. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Ramirez noted that all the homes on that frontage road as depicted in a slide taken from the beach area will have similar roof heights as they all must comply with the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limitations. Chairperson Kiser acknowledged receipt of a letter from Mr. Phil and Lynn Butterfield; a copy of the letter from Zumbrum Law Firm dated April 151 opposed to the project, and a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Halfacre in support of the project. Public comment was opened Kurt Ensign, resident and applicant noted the following: • Care was taken in consideration of views and issues related to scale and size With regard to the neighboring properties. • The height does not exceed the top of curb limitation; does not exceed the 24 foot height limit as viewed from the front of the house; compared to the neighbors, the rendering matches the ridge line of the neighboring home and on the other side, it slopes down. • We have preserved view corridors on either side of the project. • This is a three story home that does have a split with a basement. The homes on either side are three stories. • A denial of this proposal would be inconsistent with what is built around the 10 p City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2003 subject property. • We are all held to the fact that we can not build out towards the ocean and over 2/3 of our lot on the rear is not buildable. • We only have 25 feet of buildable depth of house once the front yard setback is subtracted and comply with the string line in the back. That is the hardship that necessitates a variance. • The building height on the beach side is why we need the variance. We have been careful to match what the existing homes have on the base of the home. • We are requesting to encroach into the front yard setback but it is entirely below the street grade. The livable space will not be visible to anyone. • We have proposed a basement. We will be subject to the Building Department and the basement will be constructed pursuant to appropriate codes and structural engineering standards and requirements, etc. and all our contractors will provide the essential insurance. • The roof deck is a concern of our neighbor across and above us on the other side of the street. Therefore, I have offered and will be recording a covenant that restricts any portable furnishings that exceed top of curb height not be allowed on the roof deck. It will be recorded and subject to civil litigation. • The variance is more of a technical one as the proposed height is consistent with the neighbors; the size is three stories, the same as the neighbors'; the design complies with the string line along the rear of the home and the variance for the front yard is not visible and is consistent with recent approvals. Chairperson Kiser noted that every variance granted is done so on its own merits and is not considered a precedent. Commissioner Selich, referring to the slides noted his concern of taking away more of the bluff area. Mr. Ensign noted that there is an existing retaining wall on the right side of the house. When that is removed, we will intersect the dirt at that natural grade line. Referring to the slides, he noted the slab at the ground, retaining wall and the natural grade between the homes. The adjacent homes are three stories and do not have basements. Alan Beek, resident of the City noted the following: • The setback is a vital part of the narrow street which gives access to other houses and the project should be conditioned upon the ceiling of these rooms being constructed with sufficient strength to support these heavy vehicles and the setback area being paved to form a continuation of the street. • The maximum height of the house should not be more than the minimum height of the Ocean Blvd., curb that is 91.91 MSL, as proposed if is 92.53 MSL. The loss of half a foot of the view of the ocean is significant. • The encroachment of four feet beyond the string line for the grade level INDEX V14 Sm City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2003 INDEX patio on the ocean side should not be granted and the applicant should be made to hold the line. If you hold to the standard and grant no exceptions, everyone has equal treatment and the homes present a smooth front with no exceptions. The proposed findings are slanted for the applicant. The same circumstances and conditions apply to the whole row of homes on the top of the bluff. The proposed project does not comply with the Ocean Blvd. top of curb height limitation; it actually violates the limitation by 0.62 feet. The other properties have been held to the string line criterion and the curb height criterion; to grant even small exceptions for this property does constitute a grant of special privilege. The project as designed is unreasonable. Given the number of bedrooms and the total floor area, this six - bedroom house with 5,627 square feet is more than a 'luxury'. These bedrooms average only 138 square feet - somewhat more like a barracks than a home. The five of them have only two bathrooms and one of those must be accessed through the game room. I ask that you condition the project on not exceeding the string line with the grade level patio, on being lowered 0.62 feet to meet the height -of -curb criterion, and the front setback be made part of the street and supported with enough strength to carry City trash trucks. I strongly recommend that you require more garage spaces for six bedrooms as we all know that bedrooms translate to cars. Let's be realistic. Commissioner Selich noted that the area referenced as the low point of the curb is also the low point of the roof and that roof is substantially below the 92.53, which appears at the other end of the property. Is that correct staff? Ms. Temple answered that the curb adjoining this property at Ocean Boulevard is not at a consistent elevation and in fact slopes from a high to low point. This particular house was designed so that at any static point along the frontage, the building conforms to the limitation of no higher than curb. The City's Zoning Code does not require no higher than the lowest point of curb adjoining the property, but only that it be no higher than the curb at that point. This particular property does conform to that provision. Chairperson Kiser noted that the project will be conditioned so that no part of the structure will be built higher than the curb height. The home is not being built underneath that access road. The excavation below grade into the setback and to the property line will only go up to the ocean side of that access road and no portion of the residence will be underneath the access road. Staff concurred. Continuing, he noted that we will be discussing the lower grade patio. Phil Butterfield, neighbors of the proposed project noted the following: • Concerned that the applicant stays within the restrictions that all the neighbors had to abide by. • Concerned with the excavation that is proposed and wants to be assured that the licensed contractors have insurance and that it will be built 12 45 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2003 INDEX according to City guidelines. There is a difference between a retaining wall and actually removing an enormous amount of dirt that is planned. Not knowing the bluff stability, thinks that would be a great concern to the other neighbor as well. Lynn Butterfield, distributed handouts to the Planning Commission and noted: • The size of her newly constructed home and comparisons to the proposed project. • Asked that the project not be given anything more than the neighbors. • Concerned with safety issues of bluff erosion. • Roof deck with no umbrellas is not feasible as if gets very hot. • The granting of this application would be preferential treatment to the applicant. • At Commission inquiry, she stated that other than the excavation issue, she is concerned with the public right of way; exceeding the string line with the deck; and the height in back is taller than other projects. Don Cazarian, 3412 Ocean Boulevard across from the Ensign project noted: • The top deck could have been eliminated. • The project is a nice design. Chairperson Kiser asked if this project could be conditioned to require the recordation of a view easement that would prevent anything being placed on the top deck that would exceed the curb height. Ms. Clauson answered not in that regard. The concept of being involved with reviewing covenants, their effectiveness and what they are in exchange for along with rights would put the City in the position to see what is complied. You could look at putting a condition in to prohibit anything on the roof, although I do not know the practicality of if. Chairperson Kiser noted that since we are talking about a public view and we have the authority to condition this for the public view from the walkway along Ocean Blvd., could we not condition the project? Ms. Clauson answered you could. Ms. Temple added that this is a legitimate concern, however from a practicality standpoint if someone puts out an umbrella for three hours on Saturday afternoon and brought it back in and on Monday there is a complaint, there is nothing we could do about it. If there was a storage shed, that may require building permits. It would not be permitted because it would exceed the height limit. There are a number of things after fact that people do try that require a building permit. I am concerned as an enforcement officer, not an attorney, that implying to the community that by imposing such a condition we could also effectively enforce it. i think it would be very difficult to stand up before the community and say we can impose it and yes we are going to be able to enforce it. 13 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2003 INDEX Ms. Clauson stated that if the owner puts on their own covenant and there is no consideration for it, the next owner can take it off. There is really no enforcing capability that comes out of that particularly with future owners. Public comment was opened. Mr. Ensign noted that he has prepared the covenant and is going to record it because he gave his word. He added that the house was designed with two string lines in mind, one for the house and one for the deck. In both cases we comply and do not exceed either one. Mr. Ramirez added that per the plans the string lines are complied with. The confusion may lie in the deck that goes beyond the string line is the one that is on the lowest level on grade 4 feet beyond the string line. Mr. Ensign answered that it is not a deck, it is a slab that is on grade. Following a brief discussion he added that he has no intention of protruding beyond the string line on any level. Mr. Ramirez added that according to the plan from the front property line to the back of the furthest most portion of the deck /slab on grade (sheet A2), the lower level floor plan, that dimension as identified on plan is 44 feet. The other decks from the front setback to the farthest most portion dimension is 41 feet. Mr. Ensign noted that these are concept plans and there will be no deck there. If you want to add a condition to preclude any decks from extending beyond the string lines from the adjacent properties, I am fine with that. Chairperson Kiser noted that anything that is approved tonight is based on the plans that are presented with the proper dimensions. Commissioner Selich noted that if this is a slab on grade, it could be landscape as well. Mr. Ensign noted that any railings on the decks will be glass. Rod Jones, 3328 Ocean Boulevard commended the applicant on the design and feels it will be an asset to the neighborhood. He voiced his concern with the amount of excavation that could happen. Public comment was closed Commissioner Selich noted his support of the project: • Variance is warranted as the property has a steep slope going down. • There are two homes on either side, one needed a variance and one did not. • The topography of the property makes it difficult to build a reasonable house. 14 �1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2003 The basement is the primary contribut any home can dig down and create c within the square footage limits. It is a well designed home and stays Boulevard. INDEX r to the extra square footage and basement area as long as they are below the curb height from Ocean Commissioner Agajanian noted his support of the project for similar reasons stated above. Commissioner McDaniel noted his support of the project as it gives consistency with everybody else. Commissioner Toerge noted his support of the project stating: • This parcel is not unique compared to the properties next door to it. • 1 am disappointed in our aged General Plan and Zoning Codes allow six bedrooms in this house while requiring only two cars of parking that on a frontage street that provides no off - parking. • Putting 6 bedrooms and providing two parking spaces can only create problems for the neighbors. • Concerned that the size of the home would start to encroach into the bluff area and change the character of the bluff, however, with the existing retaining wall in place, there will not be a significant difference. • With the retaining wall in place and the amount of grading to be done, hopefully there will not be a tremendous difference. Commissioner Tucker noted his support of the project: • The excavation issues are challenging and outside our purview. The setback encroachment in front is not an issue. • The string line issues have been addressed. Chairperson Kiser noted his support of the project for similar reasons stated and made Motion to approve Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006) based on the findings and conditions of approval included within the staff report with the additional conditions 13, 14 and 15 distributed at the meeting with additional conditions that no portion of the residential structure would exceed the string line from the homes on either side of the project, no portion of a project deck would exceed the string line from the decks of the homes on either side of the project, and the word 'deck' would be deleted from the plans which include the words 'slab on grade' so that no approval of a deck on the slab on grade shown on the plans would be implied. An additional Condition that nothing is to be placed on the roof deck that would exceed the height of the curb at Ocean Boulevard. Ms. Clauson noted that the condition may be worded that nothing shall exceed the height of 4 -6 feet on the top deck so that it would be enforceable for any item, such as furniture, plants. Chairperson Kiser stated the condition should read no plantings, structures, 15 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 3, 2003 furniture or any other objects can exceed the height of the rail of the roof deck as approved by this variance, which is about 6 feet above the level of the deck. Public comment was reopened. Mr. Ensign said he agrees with the additional conditions. Public comment was closed. Ayes: Toerge, Agajanian, McDaniel, Kiser, Selich, Tucker Excused: Gifford a) `\City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted that the City Council on March 251", discussed the staffing levels of the Planning Department as two new positions are requested; the Council endorsed the Vision Statement; and introduced and passed to second hearing the Landmark Building statute. b) Oral reporiNtrom Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Development 'Committee - Commissioner Selich noted that the April 23rd meeting will havq a presentation of the City's traffic model being used for the General Plan dpdate. c) Report from Planning %commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - Commissioner Agajanian reported that nominations had been approved to 'fill out the vacancies; and agreement was reached on the process and�how the Planning Commission and City Council will be involved. d) Report from Planning Commission's "representative to the Local Coastal Plan Update Committee - no meeting. �\ e) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - none. `�1„ f) Matters that a Planning Commissioner may wish,,to place on a future agenda for action and staff report - create a consent calendar mechanism for the Planning Commission meetings. g) Status report on Planning Commission requests - Ms. Templ&.distributed an updated listing. Following a brief discussion item 4 is remove, item 9 is finished, and item 13 is going to be placed on the City Council Study Session in two weeks. h) Project status- We have received two applications, St Marks and St Andrews and staff has determined both require an environmental impact report. The 16 IIHIIW� f Additional Business Al 4 EXHIBIT NO. 6 Staff Report from the April 22, 2003 City Council Hearing 60 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 9 April 22, 2003 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3219, gramirez e city. newport- beach. ca. us SUBJECT: Ensign Residence, 3415 Ocean Boulevard Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 APPLICANT NAME: G. Robert Ensign, applicant for Curt W. Ensign, property owner ISSUE: Should the City Council approve a Variance to allow portions of a new single - family residence to exceed the 24 -foot height limit and a Modification Permit to allow subterranean portions of 3 floors of the new residence to encroach into the required 10- foot front yard setback? RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council hold a public hearing and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006) based on the findings and conditions of approval contained within the attached Planning Commission Resolution. DISCUSSION: On April 3, 2003 the Planning Commission approved the applications permitting a single family residence to exceed the 24 -foot height limit and encroach up to 10 -feet into the required 10 -foot front yard setback. The project was approved as requested by the applicant with the exception of a slab on grade deck which was not permitted to project beyond a stringline established between the two adjacent residences (Condition No. 16). During the course of the hearing, the Commission considered the height of the structure above the existing grade and if the sloping topography of the property justified approval. The Commission also considered the overall height of the structure and how it would relate to neighboring properties located on the bluff and whether the subterranean front setback encroachments would be detrimental to the neighborhood. �1 `1 � Ensign Residence April 22, 2003 Page 2 The Commission concluded that approval of the applications was warranted based on the sloping topography creating a narrow building pad of the property, the project's compliance with the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limit and the fact that the front yard encroachments are completely subterranean. Additionally, the proposed structure is comparable to the abutting properties in terms of height and visible mass. Additional Information The subject property is one of six homes that take access off the small Ocean Boulevard frontage road. Of these six, one located at 3425 Ocean Boulevard (adjacent to the subject property) received approval of two variances to exceed the 24 -foot height limit. Variance No. 1063 (A) permitted a roof mid -point height of 37 feet above existing grade at the highest point. The top of ridge is approximately 4 feet higher but appears to comply with the 29 -foot ridge height limit above natural grade based on location higher up the slope. Variance No. 1153 permitted two second floor decks on the bluff facing side to exceed the 24 -foot height limit and have a maximum height of 29 feet. The structure located on the other side of the subject property, 3401 Ocean Boulevard, appears to have been constructed in compliance with the height regulations based on a review of Building Department records. This was achieved by using pitched roofs, which can be constructed to 29 -feet above existing grade so long as the mid - points of the roofs do not exceed 24 feet, and by locating the ridge peaks farther up the slope. However, the height of the structure as measured from finished floor to top of ridge as a result of construction is approximately 34 feet. The height of the proposed structure from finished floor is approximately 34 feet above natural grade and approximately 40 feet above finished /proposed grade at the highest point towards the southeasterly side of the property. The structure has more floor area than the other homes on the bluff due to the construction of a basement level and subterranean portions of other levels. The Commission received testimony from a neighboring property owner who expressed concerns regarding the stability of the property and adjoining properties due to the excavation. The Commission noted that the project will require extensive geotechnical and engineering studies that will be reviewed by the Building Department during plan check. Additionally, the contractors, engineers and other design professionals associated with the project are required to have liability insurance should damage to adjacent properties occur. Environmental Review The proposed project has been reviewed and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (Construction of a single - family residence in a residential zone) since the proposed structure will replace an existing structure in approximately the same footprint. 5,3- Ensign Residence April 22, 2003 Page 3 Public Notice: Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Alternatives: The Council has the following options: Modify the decision of the Planning Commission by reducing the height of the structure and setback encroachments. 2, Refer the applications back to the Planning Commission with instructions. 3 Deny the application. Prepared by: �• Qii9 Gregg B. Re mirez, Associate tanner Attachments: Submitted by: r�Wff41FI,ionLl. WI-11'' Wi - - MR- 2099 heaFinq' G. Planning Ge-.99n9issien St , LVV D. Additional Correspondence 53 x ATTACHMENT D ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE 5� ;V i W&I 4 —t 2003 3401 OCEAN BLVD. CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 943875-7482 PHONE 949675.4666 FAX To: Planning Commissioner City of Newport Beach Subject: Ensign Residence, 3415 Ocean Blvd. CDM Variance No. 2003.001 Modification Permit No. 2003.004 Public liearing April 3, 2003 @ 6:30PM We strongly oppose the project as it is currently designed. There is no justification in the findings that warrants issuance of this variance or modification to Mr. Ensign. We feel doing so would set an adverse precedent for future applicants who ultimately would want to push the building envelope even further. The height and width of construction in our area has been dictated and strictly adhered to for nearly 50 years as indicated by the six homes presently residing on our bluff. See photo. Our properties in this particular area have always been more restricted due to the fact that we all abut CDM State Beach and must preserve the bluff and views for the public and surrounding neighbors. This is further substantiated by the new forthcoming NPB General Plaa/Local Coastal Plan update. We are not necessarily happy about these restrictions but we were all made aware of them when we purchased our homes on this section of the bluff. Why does Mr. Ensign feel he shotdd be granted special building privileges given that the other five surrounding homeowners Have all had similar building limitations and have built their homes accordingly'' Mr. Ensign like the rest of us can design a livable home that will meet his needs and still conform to the existing building restrictions, without feeling deprived of his private property rights. However, if he needs more living space and insists on digging out three subterranean floors adjacent to our home we would expect him to indemnify us (backed by insurance) prior to the start of his construction. This is an absolute must to ensure our safety and peace of mind in that the stability of our home and its stnrcnure would be safe lion harm during his unprecedented excavation. Mr. Ensign's project is attractive and would be a welcome addition to the neighborhood if he could pull in and scale back to conform to the existing homes around hint. Respectfully. Philip & Lytutc Butterfield 3401 Ocean Blvd. Coruna del Mar. CA 91623 MR THE ZUMBRUN LAW FIRM ri Pmjessiona! Corpprarion April 1, 2003 blr. Stcvcn Kiser Chairma», Planning Commission City of Newport Reach 240 Ncwgport Center Drive, Suite 210 Newport Brach. CA 92660 Dcsr MW Kiser: Re: Ensign Residence. 341; Occan Boulevard, Agenda Itam No. 6 for April 3, 2003; Variance No. 2003.001 and Modification Permit No. 2003.004 r` 4'd'aod3 This is to advise you that I'have been retained by tilr. and Mfrs. Philip Butterfield to represent theist concerning the above matter. The Bunerticlds arc nest door nci ;hbors (3401 Ocean Boulevard) to the north of qtr. and Mrs. Curt Ensign. Tire Butterlields oppose the F risigns' request lbr a variance to allow portions of their new single- family residence to exceed the 24-foot height limit. The Butterftclds also strongly oppose the Ensigns' request for a utodification permit to allow subterranean portions of three floors of their new residence to encroach into the required 10 -foot front yard setback. The Butterfields object to the approval of the above items based in part on the following continents. Variance to Pxceed the 24 -Foot fleieht i.itnit No showing has been made that special circumstances are applicable to the Ensign property which justify the approval of a variance. The Ramirez Staff Report regarding this maucr mentions that the subject property has a sloping topography. The Staff Report does not discuss what tt;akcs the Ensign property specifically unique compared to its neighboring properties which would justify disparate treatment between neighboring properties. Other property owners within the subject neighborhood also have sloping topography; however, compliance with the 24 -foot height limit has previously been enforced. Additionally. although the Staff Report concludes that "the variance will allow tic property owner to construct a d%velling (if similar floor area when compared to the size of homes on similar sized parcels," no showing has been presented to the Planning Commission as to 3800 Wan Accnoc Suite 101 Saerunenro, Gt 9i,821 Tel 916- 496.5900 Fax 916486.5959 Mr. Steven Kiser. Chnirman ..Page .2o April 1, 2003 what similar size parcel the Gisigns' property is being compared. At best. the Staff Report is conclusory and not Supported by sufficient evidence. As aptly stated in the Findings for Dcnial. "The applicant Itas not demonstrated that a single- family residence cannot be dcsi-:tcd to fully comply ttith the applicable height limits. P.c2ucst to F..ncronch tic Rcouired 10•Foot Front Yard Setback: No provisions have been made to establish that the implementation of the Fnsign project will maintain.dte hcnith, salty, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or \working in die neighborhood. Section 20.93.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code requires the finding cf the above factors and accordingly provides a standard of care by which Newport Beach and the Ensigns have a duty to abide. It is reasonably foreseeable that the extensive excavation on sloping topography being proposed by the Ensigns may cause detriment or injure' to neighboring properties and to the general welfare of \awport Beach. As cited in the Findings for Denial. the extensive excavation may compromise dw lateral support to (lie public 6011-of-Way. As the neighboring property owners, the Butterlicids arc lcgilimateiy concerned that support of their property may be compromised as well. Rather thui keeping their proposed "extensive excavation" to a mininiurn, the Ensigns now seek to increase the cxcavatici and encroach upon the required 10 -foot front yard setback. The Butcrfields strongly oppose the Ensigns' proposed "extensive excavation" project. If such a project werc permitted to go forward. Section 20.93.040 requires that safety, comlort, and general wcifar- must be provided for. The Buncrfields request that the Planning Commission condition any approval of the Ensigns' "extcisiw'e excavation" with the requirement that sufficient insurance coverage be obtained to hold Newport Beach harmless and to cower arty injury to the ButterfieNs' property resulting from the EnsiLms' project. It is respectfully recomrioniad that the subject Agenda Item No. 6 for April 3, 2003 be denied as sufficient ev idcncc' and findings have not been made to justify a variance or encronchntent of uniformly enforced standards. In the alternative, the Buncrfields strongly Petition that sufficient insuranc: coweraue be obtained prior to permitting the F,nsigns' extensive oxcavatOn. Sincerely, Rc.iNALD A. ZU.'MO (`N Attortcy for Mr. and Mrs, Phillip ductcrlicid EXHIBIT NO. 7 Minutes form the April 22, 2003 City Council Hearing City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes April 22, 2003 INDEX The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, Proctor, Ridgeway, Adams, Webb, Mayor Bromberg Noes: None Abstain: Nichols Absent: None 9. ENSIGN RESIDENCE, 3415 OCEAN BLVD - VARIANCE NO. 2003- Variance No. 001 AND MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2003 -004. 2003 -0011 Modification Planning Director Temple stated that the variance is for a property on Permit the coastal bluff side of Ocean Boulevard to exceed the 24 -foot height No. 2003 -0041 limit. She pointed out that this area of Corona del Mar has a dual height PA2003 -006 limit, one for 24 feet as measured from existing or natural grade and one Ensign Residence for the top of the curb height on Ocean Boulevard. Planning Director (91) Temple stated that the project complies with the curb height limit, but exceeds the 24 -foot height limit on the coastal bluff side of the property, due to the drop in elevation on the site. She reported that the Planning Commission did recommend approval of the variance. Council Member Nichols stated that there is more than one type of property along the bluffs in Corona del Mar. He stated that one type allows a house to cascade down the bluff and is allowed by current codes. He stated that a second type uses a string line to measure height and distance out, which prevents houses from continuing all the way down the bluff. Council Member Nichols stated that in this situation, the property owner is proposing to cut into the slope and continue down approximately 27 feet into the bluff. He noted that the lowest level would have no windows and serve as a basement, making the house four stories and not three. He stated that regulations should be put in place for the undercutting of the bluff that will take place, and that the area should be reinforced. He also disagreed with the bluff being cut into so massively, but wasn't sure if the string line method should be used. Mayor Bromberg stated that the property owner is entitled to build into the bluff. He also felt that the Planning Commission made good findings and noted that they approved the variance, unanimously. Council Member Webb stated that the property owner is also requesting to build below grade in the front yard setback. He asked how much extra excavation would be needed if this occurred. Public Works Director Badum stated that it would probably amount to 500 to 600 cubic yards, and would require approximately 50 to 60 trucks for removal. Council Member Webb noted that the existing driveway is in poor condition. He suggested that a requirement to repair or restore the driveway be considered. Public Works Director Badum stated that a requirement to maintain the driveway in its current condition would be a part of the encroachment permit. He noted that the number of trucks that will be driving on the site will most likely require the driveway to be rebuilt. He added that the driveway is a shared facility and serves six homes. Council Member Webb stated that there is a drainage pipe that runs adjacent to the site. Since the property owner is planning to lower the garage by approximately eighteen inches, which would put the elevation Volume 56- Page 108 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes April 22, 2003 INDEX of the garage close to the drain, he asked if there should be a requirement to provide an overflow so that the water wouldn't go into the garage in case the inlet were plugged. Public Works Director Badum stated that this, again, would be looked at during the building process and that the property owner would be required to prevent flooding and protect the drain. He added that the property owner will alsQ be required to maintain the driveway access for the neighbors. Council Member Webb confirmed with Public Works. Director Badum that drains coming down the slope are required to be below grade, or subsurface. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked if the surface of the garage is higher or lower than the drain. Council Member Webb stated that, according to the plans, the surface of the garage floor is approximately six inches higher than the top of the curb right above the catch basin. He added that if the catch basin were plugged and an overflow device weren't in place, water could potentially go into the garage. In regard to the truck traffic that will take place, Council Member Heffernan noted a previous incident where damage was done to a City waterline due to excavation and trucks. Public Works Director Badum stated that conditions would be placed in the encroachment permit which would require existing City improvements to be maintained. He noted that in the incident cited, the property owner was responsible for repair. He also confirmed that during the building permit and plan check process, staff will be looking at these types of items. Council Member Nichols stated that his calculations show that 540 cubic yards of material would be removed in the setback area, which would require about 70 trucks for removal. Mayor Bromberg asked if the property owner would be agreeable to maintaining and repairing the driveway, if necessary. He stated that it appears that the other issues would be handled during the building process by the Public Works Department. Mayor Bromberg opened the public hearing. Curt Ensign, property owner, stated that he and another neighbor, who will also be starting construction on his home, have already discussed the need to obtain an encroachment permit so that they can repave and possibly enhance the driveway. He confirmed that he has no problem with a condition that would require him to repair the street. Council Member Nichols asked if the property owner had to have the basement. He noted that it undermines the wall and allows for more square footage than the other homes in the area. Mr. Ensign stated that he feels he needs the basement for storage and to serve as a recreation area for his children. He stated that it won't be visible to the public and he will comply with the building and safety requirements for the design and construction of the area. Volume 56 — Page 109 ►00 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes April 22, 2003 Hearing no further. testimony, Mayor Bromberg closed the public hearing. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006) based on the findings and conditions of approval contained within the Planning Commission Resolution, and adding an additional condition that the encroachment permit require the driveway to be maintained and that the plan check process insures that the floor elevation of the garage is higher than the drain. Mr. Ensign stated that the storm drain flows down to the beach and he will be asking if he can connect into that drain per a City- approved plan. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway stated that he wants to make sure that the garage won't flood. Mr. Ensign stated that an inflow location could be provided into the storm drain below the level of the catch basin. Council Member Webb confirmed that he is confident that the driveway issue will be handled by the Public Works Department and the encroachment permit process. Council Member Nichols stated that he would prefer that concrete retaining walls not be utilized. The motion carried by the following roll call vote INDEX Ayes: Heffernan, Proctor, Ridgeway, Adams, Webb, Mayor Bromberg Noes: Nichols Abstain: None Absent: None 10. CURCI PROPERTY, 129 AGATE AVENUE — GENERAL PLAN Res 2003 -23 AMENDMENT NO. 2002 -003, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM Ord 2003 -7 AMENDMENT NO. 2003 -001, CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2002 -009, General Plan NEWPORT PARCEL NO. 2002 -031 (PA2002 -244). Amendment No. 2002 -003/ Planning Director Temple stated that the property is located at the Local Coastal corner of Agate Avenue and Park Avenue on Balboa Island. She stated Program that it is currently being used as a private commercial parking lot and is Amendment designated as Retail and Service Commercial (Residential). The No. 2003 -001/ applicant is requesting to change the designation to Two - Family Code Amendment Residential, to rezone the property to R -1.5 and to subdivide the existing No. 2002 -0091 three lots into two lots for residential development. Planning Director PA2002 -244 Temple stated that the principal. issue is the long -term use of the Curci Property property in the area, since it is located in a small commercial district. (45) Council Member Nichols stated that he is in support of the recommended action. Mayor Bromberg opened the public hearing. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway to approve the applications by adopting Resolution NTo. 2003 -23 and introducing Ordinance No. 2003 -7 Volume 56 — Page 110 �D' Jloie EXHIBIT NO. 8 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1594 �,a RESOLUTION NO. 1594 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2003 -001 AND MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3415 OCEAN BOULEVARD THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was filed by Curt W. Ensign with respect to property located at 3415 Ocean Boulevard, and legally described as Lot 6, Tract 1257, requesting approval of a Variance and Modification Permit to construct a 6,100 square foot residence that exceeds the 24 -foot height limit and, encroaches up to 10 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback. Both the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Zoning Code designates the site as Single Family Detached residential. Section 2. A public hearing was held on April 3, 2003 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows: a) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and /or uses in the same district. The subject property is encumbered by sloping topography that creates a relatively narrow buildable depth of approximately 30 feet and restricts the ability to adhere to the natural grade height limitation specified in the Zoning Code without additional bluff alteration. The proposed project complies with the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limitation. b) That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. The majority of the subject property is unimproved coastal bluff that General Plan Policy D encourages preservation. Granting the variance will allow the property owner to construct a dwelling of similar floor area when compared to the size of homes on similar sized parcels while limiting extensive alteration to the coastal bluff beyond the footprint of the existing development. c) That the granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. lIi City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1594 Page 2 of 5 The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting variance applications, and the variance procedure is intended to resolve practical physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area and on this lot. Additionally, the proposed floor area is well below the maximum permitted by the Zoning Code. d) The granting of the requested variance will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. The subject property is designated for single family residential use and the granting of the variance would not increase the density beyond what is planned for the area, thereby avoiding additional traffic, parking or demand for other services. Additionally, granting the variance request for height will not adversely impact public views as the proposed structure adheres to the Ocean Boulevard top -of -curb height limitation and is within the "stringline" of the adjacent properties. Therefore, the proposed project will not be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood and will result in a structure that is similar to surrounding dwellings located along the coastal bluff with respect to size, bulk and design. e) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or building will not, 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 of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of this code for the following reasons: 1) Due to the wide Ocean Boulevard right -of -way, the proposed below grade encroachments wiil be approximately 57 feet from the existing sidewaik. The above grade portion of the structure maintains the required 10 -foot setback and is located approximately 67 feet from the Ocean Boulevard sidewaik. This increased distance sufficiently separates the building mass from the sicewalk especially due to the fact that the height of the proposed residence dces not exceed the adjacent top of curb height. 2) The code provides flexibility in the application of land use and develccment regulations by way of permitting modification and variance appiicatic�s. This procedure is intended to resolve practical and unnecessary physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configuraticr.s 'hat exist in the area and on this lot. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1594 Pace 3 of 5 f) The project has been reviewed and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (Construction of a single- family residence in a residential zone). Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission approves Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A ", the plans dated March 11, 2003. Section 5. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this action is called for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 3rd DAY OF APRIL 2003. AYES: Toerae Agaianian, McDaniel Kiser Selich and Tucker ABSENT: Gifford NOE BY: Steven Kiser, Chairman cl (_� U I, j BY: ti: j.i --r� � crdtary City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1594 Pace 4 of 5 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VARIANCE NO. 2003 -001 & MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2003 -004 The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations dated March 11, 2003 with the exception of any revisions required by the following conditions. 2. Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2002 -004 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 3. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire Departments. The project shall comply with all applicable Fire and Building Code regulations. 4. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 5. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the final design of the driveway shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 6. Exiting from each level of the residence shall comply with applicable standards of the Fire and Building Code. 7. Prior to the issuance of demolition, grading or building permits, the applicant shall obtain approval from the California Coastal Commission for the demolition of the existing residence and the construction of the new residence. 8. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 9. Chimney heights shall comply with the regulations specified by section 20.65.070 of the Zoning Code 10. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, a drainage plan shall be prepared. Site drainage shall be directed to the existing drain line or directed to Ocean Boulevard unless otherwise approved by the Building, Public Works and Planning Departments. City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1594 Paqe 5 of 5 11. The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. 12. The height of the structure shall not exceed the adjacent Ocean Boulevard top of curb height as shown on the approved set of plans. 13. As part of the submittal requirements for grading and building permits, an extensive geotechnical investigation and geotechnical report shall be prepared. Included in the recommendations shall be a shoring plan designed to protect the adjacent properties and right of way from damage resulting from the temporary removal of lateral support. 14. During excavation and construction, vehicular access to adjacent properties shall be maintained at all times. 15. Automatic fire extinguishing system (sprinklers) shall be installed in all occupancies when the total floor area exceeds 5,000 square feet. 16. No portion of the structure may exceed the applicable deck or building stringline as established by the decks and buildings on the two adjoining properties. This regulation includes slab on grade decks and patios, which may not exceed the deck stringline 17. Fixed or portable objects including, but not limited to, umbrellas, space heaters, cabinets, furniture, and plantings placed on the roof deck may not exceed the height of the 6 -foot roof deck privacy wall facing Ocean Boulevard. 18. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall submit a revised set of drawings to the Planning Department 'for inclusion in the Variance file showing the deletion of the word "Deck" from the plans as shown on Sheet A -2, Lower Level Floor Plan. 19. The applicant shall maintain the access driveway through an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department.' 20. The floor elevation of the garage shall be designed to be higher than the drain.' Added by the Ciry Council April 23.'_00? ko1 ATTACHMENT C Planning Commission Staff Report, January 6, 2005 0/ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item: 3 January 6, 2005 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3219, gramirezO—city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Circle Residence 3415 Ocean Boulevard Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006) APPLICANT: Brion Jeannette Architecture for Jan and Doug Circle, property owners This project was continued from December 8, 2004. Discussion at that prior meeting focused on the location of the proposed residence in relation to several "stringlines" that were used for design purposes with both the previously approved plan and the proposed plan. The Stringline The use of a stringline is used by the Coastal Commission in their analysis and permitting of projects on coastal bluffs. Its use is analytical in nature and is not regulatory. In other words, it is not an established standard and it is not even an adopted guideline, even though many in the community believe it is given how the Coastal Commission applies it through consideration of individual projects. As noted in the previous report, a stringline was used by the applicant for design purposes with the prior approved plan with the hope that it would ease the review process with both the City and the Coastal Commission. With that prior approval, the method by which the stringlines were drawn was not specifically evaluated by staff or the Planning Commission. The stringlines did assist the City in evaluating the position of the approved project in relation to the abutting buildings. It also provided a clear sense that the proposed project was comparable in size, height and location to its neighbors. New LCP Policies The December 81h staff report marked the first instance that a project was compared with any of the newly adopted Local Coastal Program (LCP) policies. This was done for 61 Circle Residence January 6, 2005 Page 2 informational purposes only since the LCP policies have not been certified by the Coastal Commission. Staff did not intend the discussion to become as important a consideration as it became. Nevertheless, the applicable LCP policies use the term "predominate line of development" as a limit to further encroachment on developed coastal bluffs. Staff is considering several methods of implementing this term and a stringline is one method, but it has its drawbacks. Staff is leaning toward using the median developed depth of 4 to 6 abutting lots as a limit to development. This concept, along with other alternatives including the stringline concept, is presently being studied by staff. Applying any particular standard at this time would be premature as they have not been evaluated by the LCP Committee or Planning Commission and they have not been adopted as part of the broader LCP implementation plan. It is important to emphasize that the subject application is a variance to building height and the location of the building is only relevant as it affects its height. Additionally, the findings for Variance approval do not specifically require a determination of conformity with the General Plan or the LCP Land Use Plan, and therefore the discussion of whether or not the proposed project conforms to a stringline is not entirely germane. Heioht Variance The proposed project appears to have a height of approximately 37 feet 9 inches from existing grade and 45 feet from finished grade measured from the base of the retaining wall to the top of the highest roof feature as depicted on the west elevation on Sheet A- 4 of the proposed plan. However, because of the site topography and location of the existing pad, the main ridge of the proposed residence is approximately 32 feet high at a location of approximately 26 feet from the front property lines. According to Building Department records, the adjoining properties at 3401 and 3425 Ocean Boulevard have similar ridge heights that occur at approximately 22 and 25 feet from their respective front property lines. The north and south elevations shown on Sheet A -5 of the proposed plans depict the lines of natural grade on the sides of the property, corresponding height limit and portions of the proposed residence that exceed the height limit. It should be noted that the project also includes a second floor deck that exceeds the 24 foot height limit by approximately 4.5 feet. This deck and the majority of the second floor are the only features that exceed the 24 -foot height limit. "Story Poles' The adjacent neighbor to the west erected on their property three horizontal beams depicting the horizontal projection of the decks proposed by the applicant on their lot. The neighbor represents them to be accurate, but there is no way to verify the accuracy and they are a bit misleading in that they are not on the subject property and a true representation was not created. Staff has a picture of the installation that will be shown I Circle Residence January 6, 2005 Page 3 at the hearing. The applicant elected to erect a vertical PVC pipe to show the vertical and horizontal location of the building. Again, there is no way to independently verify the accuracy of the display. Staff must point out that both displays were voluntary and were not directed by staff since the Planning Commission retains that privilege per previous determinations made by the Commission several years ago. The project plans clearly show that the proposed building and decks will further encroach within the peripheral view of the two adjacent properties. The Commission must determine whether or not it represents a significant detriment to warrant modification or denial of the project since this consideration directly relates to the required findings for approval of a Variance. Summary As submitted in the previous staff report and resolution, staff believes the findings for approval of the variance can be made for the following reasons: 1. The sloping topography of the subject property creates a relatively narrow buildable depth and the proposed design complies with the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limit. 2. The proposed design is similar in size and scale to existing homes on similar sized lots in the vicinity. 3. The variance request will not adversely impact public views. 4. The variance request will not be detrimental to surrounding private properties since adjoining properties will retain a vast majority of a nearly 180 degree view. Although staff believes that the findings for project approval can be made and is necessary for the preservation of substantial property rights, there is a fair argument that approval of the variance for the second floor deck may not be necessary to preserve a substantial property right. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission conclude a public hearing and consider the following options: 1. Approve Amendment No. 1 to Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006) based on the findings and conditions of approval included within the staff report and Draft Planning Commission Resolution dated December 8, 2004. A variant of this alternative can be taken should the Commission determine that the findings can be made to approve most of the eA1 Circle Residence January 6, 2005 Page 4 proposed dwelling but that the findings cannot be made to approve the second floor deck over - height as designed. 2. Further modify the proposed project. Staff would suggest a continuance of sufficient length for the applicant to redesign the project pursuant to the Commission's direction: 3. Deny the requested amendment to Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006). Prepared by: Raw Gregg Ef. Ramirez, Associa a Planner Submitted by: 2"CialLwL Patricia L. Temple, fanning Director /1a ATTACHMENT D Planning Commission Resolution No. 1658, Approved January 6, 2005 �3 RESOLUTION NO. 1668 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO VARIANCE NO. 2003 -001 AND MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2003 -004 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3416 OCEAN BOULEVARD (PA2003 -006) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, an application was filed by Curt W. Ensign with respect to property located at 3415 Ocean Boulevard, and legally described as Lot 6, Tract 1257, requesting approval of a Variance and Modification Permit to construct a 6,100 square foot residence that exceeds the 24 -foot height limit and, encroaches up to 10 feet into the required 10 foot front yard setback. A public hearing was held on April 3, 2003 at which time the Planning Commission conditionally approved Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 that permitting the development of the proposed project. The City Council subsequently called the application for review and, at their meeting of April 22, 2004, upheld the decision of the Planning Commission. Both the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Zoning Code designates the site as Single Family Detached residential. WHEREAS, an application was filed by Brion Jeannette Architecture on behalf of Jan and Doug Circle, property owners, requesting approval of an amendment to Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 to permit changes to the approved building design and site improvement plans. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on December 9, 2004 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California to consider the proposed amendments. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows: a) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and/or uses In the same district. The subject property is encumbered by sloping topography that creates a relatively narrow buildable depth of approximately 30 feet and restricts the ability to adhere to the natural grade height limitation specked in the Zoning Code while avoiding alteration of the bluff. The proposed project does however, comply with the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limitation b) That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. d City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Paqe 2 of 5 The majority of the subject property is unimproved coastal bluff. Granting the variance will allow the property owner to construct a dwelling of similar floor area when compared to the size of homes on similar sized parcels while limiting extensive alteration to the coastal bluff significantly beyond the footprint of the existing development. c) That the granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting variance applications. The variance procedure is intended to resolve practical physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area and on this lot. The granting of this request is consistent with the intent of the established height limitations to ensure that buildings are not out of scale with nearby buildings since the height of this building is relatively comparable to those on adjacent properties. Additionally, the proposed floor area is well below the maximum permitted by the Zoning Code. d) The granting of the requested variance will not under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. The subject property is designated for single family residential use and the granting of the variance would not increase the density beyond what is planned for the area, thereby avoiding additional traffic, parking or demand for other services. The granting of the variance request for height will not adversely impact public views as the proposed structure adheres to the Ocean Boulevard top -of -curb height limitation. Although the proposed building extends farther away from Ocean Boulevard and will encroach within the private views of the adjacent properties, they will retain a vast majority of a nearly 180 degree view. Therefore, the proposed project will not be detrimental to these properties and will result in a structure that is similar to surrounding dwellings located along the coastal bluff with respect to size, bulk and design. e) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or building will not, 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 of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of this code for the following reasons: /15 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 3 of 5 1) Due to the wide Ocean Boulevard right -of -way, the proposed below grade encroachment will be approximately 57 feet from the existing sidewalk. The above grade portion of the structure maintains the required 10 -foot setback and is located approximately 67 feet from the Ocean Boulevard sidewalk. This increased distance sufficiently separates the building mass from the sidewalk especially due to the fact that the height of the proposed residence does not exceed the adjacent top of curb height. 2) The code provides flexibility in the application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting modification and variance applications. This procedure is intended to resolve practical and unnecessary physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area and on this lot. f) The project has been reviewed and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (Construction of a single - family residence in a residential zone). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves an amendment to Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" the plans dated December 1, 2004. Section 2. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this action is called for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9th DAY OF DECEMBER 2004. AYES: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker Selich. McDaniel and Hawkins NOES: None BY: Larry Tucker, Chairman BY: - Cole, Secretary 10 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Paae 4 of 5 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AMENDMENT NO.1 TO VARIANCE NO. 2003-001 & MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2003-004 The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations dated December 1, 2004 with the exception of any revisions specked below and as required by any of the following conditions. a. The depth of the first floor deck shall be reduced 2 feet. b. The crescent shaped portion of the second floor deck shall be pulled back and redesigned to not project beyond the "deck stringline" as depicted on sheet A -3, second floor plan. C. The final design is subject to the approval of the Planning Director, prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2002 -004 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specked in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 3. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire Departments. The project shall comply with all applicable Fire and Building Code regulations. 4. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 5. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the final design of the driveway shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 6. Exiting from each level of the residence shall comply with applicable standards of the Fire and Building Code. 7. Prior to the issuance of demolition, grading or building permits, the applicant shall obtain approval from the California Coastal Commission for the demolition of the existing residence and the construction of the new residence. 8. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. /)1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Paqe 5 of 5 9. Chimney heights shall comply with the regulations specked by section 20.65.070 of the Zoning Code 10. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, a drainage plan shall be prepared. Site drainage shall be directed to the existing drain line or directed to Ocean Boulevard unless otherwise approved by the Building, Public Works and Planning Departments. 11. The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. 12. The height of the structure shall not exceed the adjacent Ocean Boulevard top of curb height as shown on the approved set of plans. 13. As part of the submittal requirements for grading and building permits, an extensive geotechnical investigation and geotechnical report shall be prepared. Included in the recommendations shall be a shoring plan designed to protect the adjacent properties and right of way from damage resulting from the temporary removal of lateral support. 14. During excavation and construction, vehicular access to adjacent properties shall be maintained at all times. 15. Automatic fire extinguishing system (sprinklers) shall be installed in all occupancies when the total floor area exceeds 5,000 square feet. 16. The applicant shall maintain the access driveway through an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 17. The floor elevation of the garage shall be designed to be higher than the drain. J ATTACHMENT E Minutes from the Punning Commission Hearing of December 9, 2004 IN Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 41 of 47 no substantial change to the Environmental Impact Report that will be necessary, an that we determine that recirculation is not necessary. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: ne Motion was mad y Commissioner Selich to recommend to the City Council that they approve the se Permit and the Zone change in the General Plan Amendment subject t he findings and conditions in the terms of the Resolution that have been handed this evening with all the changes discussed during the course of this hearing. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Tuc Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: Toerge Absent: None Abstain: None Chairperson Tucker then asked that a rep of the Planning Commission of some variety be sent forth to the City Council tha commends to the City Council that the Council not act on this matter until the ool District Agreement has been approved by the Planning Commission. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker that we r that the Council, because the school agreement is an integral part of this r approval and is vital, have the Planning Commission approve that agrefore the Council acts. Commissioner Eaton asked about the Permit Streamlin if it applies to this project if the timing wasn't correct. \wfththe Ms. Clauson answered that the Permit Streamlining Act apply to, a Zone change or the General Plan Amendment, it only applies se Permit. here isn't an issue on the Use Permit because the Use Penot be appr , d without the General Plan Amendment, otherwise it woul with the Gene Plan. Chairperson Tucker affirmed that if the Coun cil wanted to they could certify the EIR and later vote to deny the project if they so chose. I\ Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None SUBJECT: Circle Residence (PA2003 -006) ITEM NO. 6 3415 Ocean Boulevard FILE COPY PA2003 -006 Request for an amendment to an approved Variance and Modification Permit that allowed a new single - family residence to exceed the 24 -foot height limit and Continued to subterranean portions of 3 floors to encroach into the required 10 -foot front yard The is to include 0110612005_ setback. applicant requesting changes the building design that an file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \1209.htm 01/17/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 increase to the height on the bluff side of the proposed residence. The applicant does not request to exceed the top of curb height of Ocean Boulevard. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to waive the provision the Planning Commission not take up new items for consideration after 10:30 p.m. Page 42 of 47 Ayes: Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich and Hawkins Noes: Eaton Absent: McDaniel I Abstain: None Brion Jeannette, architect for the project noted the following: . This project was originally approved by the Planning Commission at 6,100 square feet; the proposal is now a 4,900 square feet, three level project with a roof top project already approved by the Commission. . The house is lower relative to the street elevation. . The basement level has been removed. . The proposed project meets the newly adopted LCP in that the protection of the coastal bluff and following the pattern of development issue. . There were questions of issues of stringline. stringline is difficult to define and connect the dots when you look at development on a bluff like this. . You have to look at the configuration of each of the homes relative to the whole stretch, not just neighbor to neighbor, which is why I believe the LCP discussed the issue of following the predominant pattern of development rather than the common stringline definition. . He then presented and explained his exhibits that consisted of view simulations down the shoreline taken on both sides of his client's home. . He explained that they are looking to increase the size of the house and come out as far as they can. . He noted that the houses along the bluff meander and the Tabak residence (two doors down), and the house adjacent to it is out further by 5 to 7 feet, the decks in some cases go beyond that; they all hit the ground at different elevations at different distances from the street. . Coastal Commission. language defines the stringline as the furthest most portion of the structure at that adjacent corner, not enclosed, not defined in any way other than the structure holding up whatever is there, which would be the corner holding the deck up above it. . The City has no definition of stringline. . There is sort of a general line of development, which is how we designed the project. X file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \1209.htm 01/17/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 43 of 47 We have gone out further with the center portion of a cantilevered deck that extends further than the house but at a point where it does not affect anybody's view. . The view is the 'view in front of you.' . It was important to not impact the next door neighbor's view of Inspiration Point, so we made sure that nothing extends too far into that area that would interfere with this view. . That was how we established the design. He then referred to the exhibit and noted the points used for the stringline. Chairperson Tucker asked about the stringline and how it has been used. Mr. Campbell noted that staff hasn't used this stringline other than in the prior application, which was for the Ensigns. In that application, the project architect designed the project with stringlines in mind and he drew them in a different method. We utilized those stringlines to analyze the project and the project was approved based on those stringlines and in fact it was conditioned and altered to be in compliance with those stringlines. Staff does not have a definition of stringline established at this point in time. We have a policy in the new LCP, which has been adopted by the Council, but yet to be certified by the Coastal Commission, that establishes policy based on the predominant line of development Staff has not set up where we are drawing that line. A discussion of that policy is in the staff report for the Commission's information. The applicant's proposal does not seem to be that far beyond the predominant line of development. It is our opinion of the plans that the plan does come out a little bit further on the bluff face than the prior approved project. It is on an area that has been altered and within those policies there is discretion that the Commission can exercise to evaluate whether it is consistent with those policies. Again, those policies have been adopted by the Council, but not certified and not formally adopted to be applied to a project today. This is the first project that staff is looking at the stringline issue. This project exceeds the prior variance approval, which is why we are here. The overall volume of the house as viewed from Ocean Boulevard is comparable to that prior approval. It is really the down slope 24 -foot height off the natural grade that is being exceeded here. In that respect, the project does not affect any public views given the positions of the houses next to it. It would have an affect on the adjacent properties more than on the public views. If you follow the predominant line of development, staff believes that this project can be approved. Commissioner Eaton noted that besides the height variance, the applicant is seeking to modify the prior condition that did refer to the stringlines. What stringlines would you apply if that condition was not modified? Mr. Campbell answered that we would be looking at a stringline similar to the way the applicant has drawn on the new plans, which is from the furthest extent to the adjacent properties. Referring to the exhibit, he pointed them out. He noted that the house does fit within the stringline shown. The difference between this �a file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \1209.htm 01/17/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 44 of 47 stringline and what the Ensigns had drawn was Ensign used the corners of both houses. The house proposed by the applicant comes out 4 to 5 feet further based on the new stringlines. The decks, which are cantilevered on the upper levels, come out farther than these stringlines and hence the need to amend the prior conditions that require the project to comply with a stringline. There were two stringlines on the previous plan, one for the residence and one for the decks. (referring to the exhibit he pointed them out) The house is coming out four feet further on one side than the prior stringline for the house; and the decks are coming out even further, but I don't know the exact distance. He went on the say that the basis of this policy relates to the alteration of the natural terrain and discussed reasoning for stringlines, cantilevered decks, and policy language. At Commission request, Mr. Jeannette showed the distances of depth down the hillside the new house would be. He noted that the Butterfield house has a five foot retaining wall before it hits the ground. He further explained that the Building Department has identified that the three level building would need to have two exits out of the upper floor, put a five foot retaining wall at the base of the building to limit it to a two story basement concept. The only reason we are touching the ground is to meet the Building Department's requirement to not have to provide a second exit at the upper level. Commissioner Cole asked if this constitutes a special privilege that wouldn't be detrimental to the adjacent property owners and what kind of findings would have to be made to determine it would be a special privilege? Mr. Campbell answered that the proposed house will be comparable to homes on either side. This property couldn't be developed in a consistent fashion or a very similar fashion as the adjacent properties so we felt that the subject property would not enjoy the same privileges as their neighbors. Public comment was opened. Lynn Butterfield, resident of 3401 Ocean Boulevard, noted her home on the exhibit. She stated that the homes line up almost identical by design and good planning. The neighbors are aware of the views. The newer projects dig down in order to get more footage as the previous owner had wanted to do as well as encroach into the front yard setback, which is 10 feet. This had all been approved with a prior variance and modification. We all have similar contours to our properties. There is a small curve so they are all a little bit off, but all the homes adhere to a stringline. The new proposal increases the project towards the ocean. The home will be bigger in volume and matches to our decks and from there he is proceeding to go out further 7, 9 and 11 feet with decking past our home, which will definitely impact and infringe our views. The views are taken from Inspiration Point and from the beach as well as Ocean Boulevard. It would set a precedent if this application is approved. We strongly oppose this application to amend the variance. She noted her concern of view infringement and the extensive excavating that will take place will not undermine her home. Don Kazarian, 3412 Ocean Boulevard above the subject property asked if the roof top deck will exist or not. He was told it will be gone. file : //H:\Plancomm\2004 \1209.htm 01/17/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 45 of 47 Public comment was closed Chairperson Tucker asked how wide the applicant's house and the subject property house is? Mr. Campbell referring to the staff report, discussed the depths of the developments as measured from the front property line. Commissioner McDaniel noted that a fair amount of time was spent going over the previous application. This looked like the way it was going to be done, so that was the reason why we approved the Ensign project the way it was. This change, for me, would set a different precedent. I am concerned about it jetting out, I am concerned about the next person who wants to build and I am certainly concerned about the Butterfields. I am not going to support this, we did this once before and it worked fine and I would like to stick with what we did before and let everybody know we are consistent. Chairperson Tucker noted that we seem to have different ways of computing a stringline and we never really looked at any hard fashion whether the way it was done in the first place was the proper way to do it. I am kind of torn about what is the proper way to do it. Commissioner Selich noted he agrees with Commissioner McDaniel. I would be in favor of supporting what we did with the Ensign residence. Commissioner Toerge noted that this project is consistent with the previous project except that this is smaller. One complete floor is eliminated. The stringline determination is anything but certain and is not a clear cut policy and our LCP, while it may have been adopted, is not certified. I am not sure the procedure whereby the stringline is interpreted is clear. The location of the bluff is a convex curve, so it is clear to me that this house is going to stick out further than the Butterfield home. To me, this is a much smaller home with less excavation of the slope is clearly what we are looking to do in our community. I would approve this project. Commissioner Cole noted he concurred that based on what has been presented with the size of the project is important and does not see the significant impact to the adjacent property owners. I agree with staff and recommend for approval. Commissioner Eaton noted he agrees with Commissioner McDaniel's comments. Commissioner Hawkins noted his concern of the stringline and the width of the proposed project. He agrees with Commissioner McDaniel's comments. Chairperson Tucker asked do any of those improvements pertain to the variance? The variance request is for a height variance and the modification request is for a setback encroachment. I am not sure how the stringline concept got into the last variance discussion, but it is not before us tonight. The issue is would granting the variance cause harm to the adjacent residences. We need to make a finding that granting a variance would not be. harmful. We have a set of conditions for approval and a set of findings for denial. The denial side is in the majority. file:!/H:\Plancomm\2004 \I209.htm 01/17/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 12/09/2004 Page 46 of 47 Mr. Jeannette noted that the concept of the stringline and the way you are interpreting it has only to do with the corner of this building. He then referred to the exhibit and noted the Coastal stringline interpretation, the livable area, the placement of the Butterfield residence, and which point to use for the stringlines and how to base the analysis. Motion was made to continue this item to January 6, 2005. Commissioner Selich noted he agrees to the continuance and would like to see the proposed applicant be more in conformance with the Ensign residence in measuring the stringline. Mr. Jeannette noted he agrees with the continuance and said this would be a good time to look at the stringline concept. Commissioner Toerge noted he agrees. This project does not meet the test in his opinion, to impact negatively one neighbor or multiple neighbors the way it is designed. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None on was made by Commissioner Hawkins to reconsider item 3. Approved Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: one Absent: Abstain: None Commissioner Hawkins ed his vote was to abstain and asked that this be Approved reflected in the minutes. Motion was made by Commissioner wkins to change the minutes as requested. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, lich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS a. City Council Follow -up - no time. b. Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Developm Committee - no time. c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plan Update Committee - no time. 4j file: //H:\Plancomm\2004 \1209.htm 01/17/2005 ATTACHMENT F Minutes from the Planning Commission Hearing of January 6, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Toerge, Tucker, Selich, M None None None BJECT: Circle Residence (F 3415 Ocean Blvd !quest for an amendment to an approved Variance and Modifica rmit that allowed a new single - family residence to exceed the 24- ight limit and subterranean portions of 3 floors to encroach into luired 10 -foot front yard setback. The applicant is requesting char the building design that include an increase to the height on the le of the proposed residence. The applicant does not request to exc a top of curb height of Ocean Boulevard. Ramirez noted a letter in opposition that had been received afte ! ication of the staff report and distributed to the Commission tonight. itionally, there are photos of the site that are available. A emission inquiry, he noted: . The variance is a request to exceed the 24 foot height limit. . There had been previous discussions on the predominant line development and how this site lines up with that in relation to otl houses on the block. . The proposed project proposes features to exceed the height limit they are the upper floor that partially exceeds the height limit as wel as a deck that protrudes off the upper floor. . The house complies with the other top of curb height limit. height variance is requested due to the slope of the bluff causes the house to exceed the height limit. . Referring to a PowerPoint presentation, he showed photographs the existing house in relationship to the adjacent houses alo Ocean Boulevard with Corona del Mar State Beach below. . The neighbors were concerned about the proposed developm so they had some boards erected, which show the extent of proposed development from their property. (photograph) . A pole erected by the applicant shows the extent of the point of the deck on the proposed house. Tucker asked about the stringline issue. Page 4 of 32 ITEM NO. 3 PA2003 -006 Approved httn• / /.y.yav city nrwnnrr -hrach ra nc/P1n Aornrlac /mn01 -0F -05 htm OinRnani S1 Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 1r. Campbell answered that the stringline is an analytical tool that ha: rimarily been used by the Coastal Commission to keep properties in line pith each other as they are located on the bluff with the premise tc iinimize the alteration of the bluff. The City does not have a standard fo tringline and does not use that analytical method at all except for thin roperty as a variance was approved several years ago for the Ensigns. Ir. Ensign is an architect who designed a home for this lot wilt tringlines in mind, and the house was designed with stringlines on the lans. His proposal' was presented to the Planning Commission with a ariance for structure height and that variance was approved. Th( ommission required that the project be altered to meet the stringlin( hown on the plans and a. deck at grade that was further oceanward that ie stringline depicted, and conditioned the project to be consistent witl ie stringlines. The stringline drawn on those drawings was part of the roject approval and made part of the conditions. The Ensigns sold the roperty to the Circles who abandoned the approved design and hav( rawn up this new proposal. The new architect has drawn a nev tringline based on his experience of how the Coastal Commission woul( pply a stringline. At the prior approval with the stringlines drawn, therr ras no analysis of how they were developed. They were on the plans fc emonstration purposes and may have assisted in that approval. is particular project does not adhere to the prior approval and that y we are here, to amend the prior variance. In the prior staff report, H wided an informational discussion related to new Local Coast gram (LCP) policies that were recently adopted by the City that ha% t to be certified by the Coastal Commission and re- adopted by the Ci application to projects. Staff felt it was important to provide th ormation to the Commission for informational purposes, and was nevi ended to guide how the site and project would come to resolution. Th ue was discussed at the last meeting and staff was asked to look at d present how a stringline or similar method might be implemented a r policies would refer to it as 'predominant line of development'. TF iff report outlines a method under consideration using the medic velopment depth of the 4 to 6 abutting lots. If you have 6 to veloped at varying depths from the front property line, you would tal a median of those and apply that to the lot in question and then look at is being proposed at that point. This has not been discussed at ar en forum except this evening, it has not been taken to the LCP steerir mmittee in context of the implementation plan of the LCP, which A we are working on presently. staff wants to emphasize the fact that this is a variance and the locati f the structure is only relevant as to its height. Following discussio rith the City Attorney, staff wants to stress the fact that we are deali rith the height of the structure where it is proposed and whether t ndings can be met for approval of the variance. There are facts upport findings for approval of the variance; however, staff questio rhether the findings could be met for the upper level deck as it really of a substantial property right, which is a required variance finding. St Page 5 of 32 htt. - /himmi rite na,xmnrt- },aar.}, rn nc/Pin A opmiac /mnnI - of -n'; },tm ni nRl ?nn4 M Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 ves that a slightly modified project can meet the test for approval o variance. Although it hasn't been constructed, there is still at oved variance that affords a two level house fairly consistent in size bulk as the two houses adjacent to it based on the Ensign drawings. ng this house smaller than that prior approval, given the volume o :e and height that it would afford, it would not be appropriate, in staff: ion, as it would be going back on what was already approved. The aspect of this property that is taller or outside that volume that the gn approval afforded is the upper level deck. The actual mair :ture is fairly consistent in terms of its location and height wher pared to the prior approval. lairperson Tucker noted that the concept of the stringline is not really ;luded in City Ordinance at this point and we do not have a certifies ical Coastal Plan at this point. That concept is one that you can use tc extent that you want to use it, but it is not something that we are ligated and indeed there is no basis to apply it as if it were law because is not law. We are back to our general approaches to variances. sople asking for variances usually ask for what they would like to have it what they need to meet the variance findings. It seems like on every riance, people ask for more than what they need to become similar tc ier properties in the area. We had one in Corona del Mar not long agc 10 said as long as they were here, they asked for a basement too. The uare footage was well over what everybody else had, but this was a �rfect example of asking for more as long as they were here, but no iving the need. is it staffs position that the decks that you refer to g( tyond the necessity to pull it in to parity with other similar properties it e area and fall in the category of something the applicant wants, bu ally doesn't need, to become comparable to other properties in thi: Campbell answered yes and it is applicable to the upper level decl posed by the applicant. An outdoor deck above the height limit is no our opinion a substantial property right that would need to be served. It is something that is more of a want than a need. Staf )stions whether the finding can be made for the height of the deck. finding indicates that the granting of the application is necessary fo preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights by the Acant. The existing house is an existing property right although it i1 necessarily as high as the other houses and we do have that prio iance to consider. It is questionable about the deck is a substantia , perty right in my opinion. nmissioner Selich asked you don't think that on a property re is a slope and you have no yard area, having a deck as a su a yard area is a substantial property right? r. Campbell answered it is a sloping property and it does instraints. You could look at it in that light as well. Page 6 of 32 N httn- /An v (rity npx m Tt_hPach rta nc/P1nAoPndn.Q1mn01_0iS- K htm 01 /2R /20NK Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 7 of 32 iairperson Tucker noted the area we need to look at is the granting e variance will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, aterially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property a iprovements in the neighborhood. So that is where a lot of the decis going to lie. ;loner Eaton asked, if the Commission decided a variance but decided that they did not want to eliminate the con( to string lines, what would the result of that be? Ramirez answered that if this plan was approved, the project e to be constructed according to the approved plan and staff refer to a stringline. Campbell added that condition 16 talks about no portion of th( icture may exceed the applicable deck or building stringline ac ablished by the decks and buildings on the two adjoining properties. current plans we have show a stringline in a different location. W( Iht need to modify this language to refer to the stringline on the curren ins. You could use a similar condition to refer to the new stringlines. Commission inquiry, he noted this proposal is an amendment to th( variance. immissioner Cole noted he went to the adjacent properties to view th e. In the last staff report, the potential encroachment out into the bluff the decks was five feet from the common development line that is ther w. Today, it looked like on some of those decks it went out as far as 8 feet from the adjacent deck. Is it 5 or 8 feet? The one finding that i having difficulty with is the fourth finding, a detrimental effect to th blic welfare of the neighborhood and the adjacent property. Can yo dress what the encroachment is for these decks? . Ramirez, referring to page 6 of the original staff report, noted pth of the existing and proposed developments. He went on to exF s table and noted that the poles as depicted in the photographs sh the prior presentation were fairly accurate in relation to 3401 Oc Fd. and 3425 Ocean Blvd. All the measurements were based on ins and surveys, and the measurements were taken from the prop as that is static. imissioner Cole noted that 3415 Ocean Blvd would be the only hor g that stretch, _so an aerial after this proposed project was built wot ally show the deck portion going out about an average 8 to 10 feet, what you are saying? Could the proposed depths of those decks I ced and still provide a useable deck? Ramirez answered yes, and referred to the aerial in the presents comparisons. A redesign could get some deck area by pulling de building back. At Commission inquiry, he added that the enck ion of the proposed residence goes out on the bluff away from Oc MS htrn- / /www.citv.newnort- beach. ca.us /P1nAeendas/mn01- 06- 05.htm 01/28/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 rd. as far as the decks do at the adjacent property at 3401 and s 3425 on the other side, with the exception of the lower deck that t another 4 feet. Doug Circle, owner and applicant, noted he and his wife intend e this their permanent home and asked that the Plann emission approve their application. Brion Jeannette, architect for the proposed project, referred to bit and noted the following: . The furthest parcel (Tabak residence) has been approved by tl California Coastal Commission and the City with a height varian to exceed, out from the street, 56 feet. They had asked for variance and received it and Coastal has given them the directive not do any construction below an elevation of 33, which is about feet beyond (away from Ocean Blvd.) where we are building at ti point. . The house adjacent (Halfacre residence) an "approval in concept, which has been granted that has an extension of the building b about 46 feet out. The relationship I am drawing is from the fror property line to the furthest extension. That was granted approvz to increase the depth of the basement and push the building out ti about 46 feet with decks that went out as far as 50 to 60 feet ani cascading pools, etc. down the bluff. . He then distributed an exhibit of a site plan consisting of properties along the bluff and noted the dimensions of today a what they are anticipating and have been approved either by t City and/or by Coastal Commission. *Referring to the handout, he noted the various depths of properties in relationship to his proposal, site plans and silhouetl cantilevered decks flowing down the bluff and side sections buildings. . He discussed comparisons of the adjacent properties to the residence. . At Commission inquiry, he noted that all the decks that are added on the adjacent properties are within the height limits. . He then compared the Butterfield's residence and the residence and the lines drawn that were based on the deck posts. . What they are proposing is to align with the Butterfiield's deck that actually establishes a stringline in that case. Page 8 of 32 q httn• / /www.cicv.newnort- heach. ca.us /P1nAeendas/mn01- 06- 05.htrn 01/28/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 hairperson Tucker noted you are proposing to have the house be to >int, but not the deck. So in other words, the stringline you are tal )out, the line for the house for the Circle property, would be consie ith the line for the deck on the Butterfield's property. r. Jeannette answered, that is correct; and continued his stringlir gn with the structures, which is what the Coastal Commission uses definition of livable area, where the structure ends, that is where ,ingline begins. hairperson Tucker asked why the applicants need the additic iriance from what was already granted in order to enjoy the se -operty rights as others have. Is this something that you are asking ore than what you need to enjoy the rights that others have or is this inimum you need to enjoy the rights that others have? Jeannette referencing the floor plans - A3 the upper most floor plan deck that has the variance, noted the need for an overhang to sha deck, and that this area could be adjusted. The house that w inally approved had on top of this level another roof deck, so the ; deck beyond this on the uppermost level of the house what woi snsibly be the roof of this house that we are not even proposing. hairperson Tucker asked how much of that deck area you said yor ould be willing to work on? Are you talking about eliminating that deck? r. Jeannette answered that the discussion is on that portion beyond t ring line and if that was a roof, I am satisfied with making that work. I )per floor in this proposal is about a third the upper floor that was in t for granted variance proposal. So I have a much smaller footprint of t gilding on this upper floor. I purposely set it back away from t itterfield residence to allow some views through, which is that swath nd where the office area ends and the property line is. I moved it aw give them more distance between the two buildings. We also reduc e building by 1,400 square feet from what was originally approved. i e first level where the main living functions are, this is where the de ctends out furthest. That means there is a deck at 12 feet depth frc e house at its greatest point, that is the extent of their back yard. The not a lot of yard to work with down below. This is the primary Iivi ea of the house and is about 12 feet deep. For those of you who we >le to see the erected post on the property, that post represented 1 rthest projection of the radius deck at this level, not only in height I so in extension out from the house. This extension has no affect on 1 itterfield's view of Inspiration Point and especially when these other b )proved projects get built, I will be in the shadow of them. hairperson Tucker asked why you believe that if we grant this variant would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious operty or improvements to the neighborhood. Page 9 of 32 M, httn / /.xnxny rity nrwnnrt -hrnrh rn 11R/PInAaenlinR/mnol- 0E- 05.htm 01/28/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Ir. Jeannette answered that the public welfare issue is the substantiv sue. The public will get a better view of the ocean with this prograr ian with the prior approved variance. There is a view corridor betwee its house and the Butterfiled's house; the house in portions is a little b ewer than the prior proposal; the decks are not even seen; the buiidin, hadows them from the public viewing from Ocean Blvd. toward th each to the point you won't notice whether the deck is out there 9 feet c 5 feet. I have enhanced the view corridors from the public viewing are n Ocean Blvd to the beach. We are asking for what other people hav sked for and been granted. Being there is no limitation developed by tringline through the City, I don't think it is germane, as sta :commends, that it all of a sudden be applied here without real] nderstanding how it should work and whether it is important, or whethe ie issue of the pattern of development, which if you look at the site plan istributed, we are substantially within the pattern of development and w re not reaching out further than what the Tabaks or Halfacres hav comment was opened. n Butterfield, 3401 Ocean Blvd., neighbor, noted she opposes lication and asked that it be denied. She noted: . The proposed application differs significantly from the orig design and is inconsistent with the original approval and conditions. . The stringline restriction was conditioned on number 16 of original approval. . The Circles' proposed project exceeds both the deck and stringlines compared to current homes there today. . The stakes we had erected on our property, based on the curre proposed design, indicate how much further the project v encroach into the bluff front area than the previously approv plan. Top to bottom, the three levels exceed the stringline from feet, 9 feet and 10 feet respectively. . Thus further encroachment into the sensitive coastal bluff represents a significant impact to the public of its views Inspiration Point as well as from Corona del Mar State Beach warrants denial of the project. . The proposed project differs in height from the approved project the bluff side at existing grade and finished grade, 3 feet 9 incl and 5 feet, respectively. This will increase the overall mass of home and further encroach into the bluff area changing character of the bluff and alter public views. Page 10 of 32 q3 htt„- / /www city ne.wnnrt- heach. ca_us/PlnAeendas/mn01- 06- 05.htm 01/28/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 . The second floor deck exceeds the 24 foot height limit approximately 4 and 1/2 feet. . The Local Coastal Plan adopted in 2004 by the City Council sta where the coastal bluff has been altered establishes setback Iii for the principal structures based on the predominant line development as to limit further encroachment on developed coa bluff. . It appears our bluff has been following this yet- to -be- certified for over fifty years, so why change now? . All six homes on the bluff have identical characteristics, sic topography, narrow buildable decks, top of curb height limits string line restrictions. Our home is the newest re -build on the bluff with three levels 3,200 square feet that was done without encroaching into the front or past the stringline of our neighbors. This was done wit a variance or modification. She noted that many of Commissioners had viewed her site. . This proposal is not similar to existing homes on the bluff in scale size. It is larger and more intrusive. . This project can be re- designed and she asked that this be den as currently proposed. missioner McDaniel noted he too had viewed the site. issioner Eaton, referring to the exhibits distributed by Mr %tte, asked about the orange columns, which appear to be ou than house. r. Jeannette answered that those are the columns of both the secoi id first floor decks. They do not align with one another, but there a >rtions of the building that almost touch that line. He then discussed tl unded elements of the Butterfield home. irperson Tucker asked about the fall of the bluff. He was it is almost a 2 to 1 slope, straight down. imissioner Cole, referring to the exhibit presented by Mr. Jeanne �d about the lines on the first drawing. Are they new deck lines g lines allowed for the approved development of these 1 ,erties? For the Tabak property, does this line show how far the 6 come out? Jeannette answered they are the deck stringlines and elevated Page 11 of 32 qi httn• / /ananv rite namm�A_Marh ra iWPIn A oPnrlaa /mn01 -06 -05 htm 01/_8/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 patios for those two properties. Correct, the shaded area approved building, and the Circle residence depicts the imissioner McDaniel affirmed that the lines on the exhibits are hill and not on the same level as the rest of the buildings are. hairperson Tucker noted that a variance had been granted for abak residence within the last few years. Campbell added that the decks shown for the Halfacre and Ta idences all comply with the height limit. The upper level deck of :le residence does not. Kazarian, 3412 Ocean Blvd., who lives directly across from le residence noted that during the process of the original variai roval he had a discussion with staff who showed him the plans i ained the views. Now, he is unable to look at any new plans, stions if this proposal will open up any view corridors. The ho fiction noted by the architect is underground; and the procedure Ensign variance front setback was underground. Mr. Tabak got th ie setbacks above ground and now we have a request for additic pack variance than Tabak. My question is, where does it stop? comment was closed. ssioner Toerge noted he had been on the Commission when variance was discussed and approved. He then noted: . The proposed building is 1,400 square feet smaller than the Ensig residence. . An entire floor level has been eliminated in this plan as opposed the other approved plan. . The stringline tool is not an adopted policy by the City. . The project eliminates a roof deck that was once approved on Ensign residence. . The project is consistent with the pattern of development and pattern of future development that is occurring there. . Relative to the four findings that we have to make, the sic topography of the subject property does create a relatively na buildable depth and the proposed design complies with the Oi Boulevard height restriction. . The proposed design is similar in size and scale to existing Page 12 of 32 a5 htfn / /vmmr rih, ra nc/pinA".A.c /mn0I -0A-0r l.tm ni /Room Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 on similar sized lots in the vicinity. . The variance request does not adversely impact any public views. e The property complies with the height restriction at the curb height. . The variance is not detrimental to the surrounding properties an our Code has that description that it has to be material detrimental. It does not say you are not going to see it. You ar certainly going to see the deck from neighboring properties, but don't believe it will be materially detrimental. . Because these four findings can be met, I will be supporting project. ition was made by Commissioner Toerge to approve amendment riance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 (PA20( 3) based upon the findings and conditions of approval included with 1 ff report and the draft Planning Commissioner Resolution dal cember 8, 2004 and my comments heretofore. ommissioner Selich noted that the last time this subject was discussed got off on the stringline concept and after discussing it with staff an( :)nsidering it and reading the staff report, it was probably not the way tc pproach it. The pattern of development is the way to approach it. As iok at the illustration provided by Mr. Jeannette showing all the homes, i clear to me the home fits within the pattern of development in the area. agree with most of the comments made by Commission Toerge. HE oted he would rather see the decks that are proposed encroaching tle bit into the height area as opposed to say, looking at the Halfacre midence where you have these massive decks cascading down the hill. think that is the better design solution to the property. That doesn' lean that in the future someone can't come along and add decks goinc own the hill, because they wouldn't come before the Planninc ommission. As a design solution for this house and property, I think i a good solution and fits within the pattern of development that has beer stablished with things that have been approved out there. I don't believ( sere is any injury to adjacent properties through view impairment or am Cher aspect of this development. I support this motion. missioner Cole noted he would like to modify the motion. He stat he believes there is some detriment to the surrounding adjac( :rties at it relates to privacy issues. Looking at the elevations on 1 the first floor deck appears to cantilever out substantially about I believe there is room to reduce, particularly that first floor de i to 8 or 10 feet to be consistent with the other two decks. (refer A5 in the plans) hairperson Tucker asked if that deck is over the height limit. Page 13 of 32 , lwn- / /www nits ne.wnort- beach. ca.us /P]nAeendas/mn01- 06- 05.htm 01/28/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 01 /06/2005 Campbell answered that, based on the drawings and information, it upper level deck only that is over the height limit and the two low ks are not over the height limit. Cole noted he is referring to the middle deck. immissioner Selich noted he would agree with Commissioner Cole if is a rectangular deck. The way the deck is arched around, it doe :sent some sensitivity to the adjacent neighbors. That was one of tt ngs that convinced me on that whole deck concept. iirperson Tucker noted that the applicant's architect had indicated th; e was room to pull back the upper deck back to what is designated c plan as the stringline, which appears to be about four feet at the plat ire it is bowed out the most. That one does have a height limit issue. issioner Cole noted he agrees with that modification as well. if there was any support on the middle deck. rperson Tucker noted he was not sensing any. missioner Toerge noted he does not understand this ification and needs to look at it. Eaton and Hawkins agreed with Commissioner Cole decks. mmissioner McDaniel noted he would not vote for this project unles re were some substantial changes. He noted he was on tt mmission when the Ensign variance was heard. He was concern( n about the development pushing out. This is a bluff that is a ve tsitive part of the community and he does not want to denigrate it at re than it has to be. He noted the decks would have to come nificantly before he votes for this project. The proposed decks pose nificant impact to the neighbors. nmissioner Eaton noted his agreement with the previous commer ing the stringline issue will have to be implemented at some point He noted the Tabak residence is due to the bluff curving as w had come before the Planning Commission. The Halfacre residen not come before the Planning Commission. mmissioner Toerge noted the deck on the plans narrow down th I being held at the stringline. However, there has been no valida verification as to exactly what it was drawn from to confirm it is ;urate stringline. hairperson Tucker noted it is not being proposed to have a stringline. e noted that the architect is willing to pull that deck back to where it say! Page 14 of 32 qI httn• /hanvw r;tv np- n Tt_hranh ra.nc/P1nAvendas/mn01- 06- 05.htm 01/28/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 ne on the plans, regardless of what you call it. sion followed on the width of the deck; further reduction of of the house to preserve the deck width; proposed pr( risons; and actual need for a variance. r. Jeannette noted that the deck at the upper level, which is the m, sdroom level, wraps along to the north as well. That would be one could give up in "order to work with the line that we have di agonally across the paper. It is much more important to try eserve the area where the family will be, which is the first floor id is the extent of their back yard. mmissioner Hawkins noted that there is support for this. SubstitL otion was made to give direction to staff to have this item come back next regularly scheduled meeting to reduce either the size of t -ks or the encroachment of the entire structure so that the Commissi i come to some middle ground. He restated his motion so that it w continue this item with direction to either reduce the size of the dec reduce the depth of the house so that the line that we are talki out, that is said to be a stringline at some point, is pulled back on be second floor as well as the top floor. iairperson Tucker noted that technically we are supposed to vote of s substitute motion first but would like to have more discussion on the )in motion. He noted that the second floor deck could be pared bacl d should be pared back because it is not a necessity for the variance. would make the house nicer, but it is not a necessity. He woul( ggest that we accept that offer on the second floor deck to move it bacl the area on the plan that is labeled as a stringline, whether it is or is nc not the issue. As far as the first floor deck is concerned, he is not a fai introducing changes to a project that aren't part of the variance itself. ey have a right to build that deck there and not be in violation of an, auirements. As a real estate developer, when I hear that you have ti ree to not do something that you are entitled to do in order to have u: ant this permission, it sets wrong for me. He believes the second decl in play, the first deck he doesn't see as being in play. With that change the second deck, he supports the motion. There will be an effect of Butterfields but he does not believe it will be a material adverse erson Tucker polled the Commission to move the second deck ice on the plan labeled as a stringline on page A3. The other de( be left alone. ner Hawkins - no ner McDaniel - no ner Selich - yes ner Toerge - stated he did not know where the stringli on the Butterfield property or the adjacent property that Page 15 of 32 �D httre / /www.citv.newDort- beach. ca .us /P1nA,gendas/mn01- 06- 05.htm 01/28/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 rrently going to be re- developed. The encroachment into that area i; 50 feet away from the Butterfields' property and is all the way out. deck currently complies. imissioner Cole - yes. He added that he understands that the lowe is not part of the variance request, but the first floor deck can b( ced by 2 - 4 feet and would be a great improvement to the adjacen hbor and not impact the quality of the project. imissioner Eaton - no irperson Tucker advised Commissioner Toerge that the variance, wits second floor deck change, will pass tonight with your support of it. :rwise, it sounds like it may not pass. )mmissioner Toerge asked the architect if this suggestion would this something you are willing to do to gain approval of what is tonight? I am not sure what you need to do to comply. Jeannette answered two feet I can make work on the first floor; on th and floor we all agree that I can bring it back and work that one ou first floor deck area is off their primary living space, and I don't want t ce it more complicated, but if I took this curve and made it mor :angular, I would start to take the extension off but keep it close to th ding but get a little more square feet on that deck. Again that is th i total of their outside back yard on the sunny side of the house. So, trying to say that maybe there is a way I can pull it back but ye are it off a little bit, but it is the usability of the deck issue that I ar 3t concerned about for the family. mmissioner Toerge stated what I understand now that the Chairm posed is there would be no modification to the first floor deck, which he living level, but encouraging some modification to the second fle :k, which is off the master bedroom. You are suggesting that you o that and I am not sure how much exactly we are asking you to mo ; back. Do we know, is it this dimension on the plan? Jeannette answered referencing the plans, it is taking the furthest action and pulling it in by approximately 4 feet. hairperson Tucker noted the architect would give up the space on the scond deck and leave the first deck the way it is. That was my proposal id I have three ayes. Toerge agreed to this. Jeannette answered yes, that would be the best for the family. rairperson Tucker asked if the maker of the substitute motion would have his motion voted on, or if he would like to withdraw it? Page 16 of 32 • httn-/Amx rity neumnrt -hearh na imMin A 0entindmnO 1- 06- 0i.htm 01/28/2005 Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 missioner Hawkins answered he wanted a vote and asked itect if there was room to pull back the first floor deck by s Jeannette answered, in light of a possible continuance to anothe ining Commission hearing and finding the stringline in the City, etc. , we would want to work with the Commission to come up wits iething that is agreeable. I threw that out because it is certainly i ile choice. I fully' agree with what Commissioner Toerge is proposing I also want to come to a conclusion that is successful for all and get pleted tonight. missioner Hawkins restated his Substitute Motion to continue th with direction to either reduce the size of the decks or reduce tt i of the house so that the line that we are talking about, that is sa a stringline at some point, is pulled back on both the second floor a Eaton, McDaniel and Hawkins Selich, Toerge, Tucker and Cole None None irperson Tucker suggested a modification to the main motion to crescent shaped portion of the upper level deck back to the c gline as labeled on page A3, second floor plan. imissioner Cole noted in light of discussion with Mr. Jeannette, uld be further modified to reflect the willingness to reduce the fi r deck two feet, which is something that he would be willing to we I would like the motion to reflect the two feet he offered to be part motion. imissioner Toerge affirmed that area (first floor deck) is not above ht limit and therefore he does not support modifying the motion. nissioner McDaniel noted that the architect offered it. If the first can be modified then I can support it; if not, I am not going to it. Jeannette suggested a 1 foot reduction of the first floor deck 'erring with his client, the applicant. maker of the motion agreed. nmissioner Cole stated he is not willing to vote in favor of the motic only a 1 foot reduction of the first level deck and would not vote for ass it was a 2 foot reduction. Jeannette stated they would go with the 2 feet reduction of the Page 17 of 32 htt. -/Aim vrite nr.amr.rt_hrach rn nc/PlnAvenAaa /mn01- 0E- 0'i.htm 01/2R/2005 160. Planning Commission Minutes 01/06/2005 Page 18 of 32 floor deck and he will come back to staff to assure that the first floor deck esign is okay. Modified motion to approve the applications with two changes; 1) reduce the second floor deck such that it is not oceanward of th tringline as labeled on sheet A3 second floor plan; 2) reduce the depth f the first floor deck by two feet. Ayes: , Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Noes: ns Absent: one LNn Abstain: LhkJECT: Gates Residence Appeal (PA2004 -208) ITEM NO. 4 505 J. Street PA2004 -208 ppeal of a determination of compliance with the provisions of Chapter Continued to 0.65 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (Building Height) by th 01/20/2005 Planning Direc related to the approval of a plan revision for a project a 505 J Street. The peal contests the correctness of that determination. Staff requested that th item be continued to January 20, 2005. Motion was made by Chair rson Tucker to continue this item to January 0, 2005 Ayes: Eaton, Cole, To e, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Noes: Hawkins Absent: None Abstain: None None OBJECT: Anthony Ciasulli representing Geo Le Plastrier ITEM NO. 5 227 Goldenrod Avenue Determination Appeal of the determination of the Planning Director o bility o was Upheld City height limits to a canvas patio cover on a third flo Commissioner Hawkins noted he had visited the sed th canopy. He asked if staff had reviewed the canopy tting that \potftte he poles are no longer fixed or screwed in but are in lants, r otherwise fixed. Mr. Campbell answered that planning staff has n to t roperty this week. Based on what was just indicated, that particular Iteration is not compliant with the previous stop work order that was resented to the property owner January of last year. The Chief Building inspector was sent out today to issue a second stop work order. He was not granted entry to see the area in question. That was an unauthorized Iteration to the previous attachment of the structure to the building. Mr. Anthony Ciasulli, representing Geoff Le Plastrier, noted the following: h"n• / /wauav rity na.a A -hrarh ra na/P1n A oPnriac /mnni- (115 -(K him 61 ni /?R /2(1(K ATTACHMENT G Previously Approved Plans (Ensign) `�a a Y. Tim pmo in In I L.''m m 10,11 t .. pv[oY[[ IMeI a15zC neIIQR1v ID.98.Jdm�9t+ n v.� �,.•..x N•.•P•1 ....0 nIr E �. ' u %ICUg :if l�np •s�ly.V�o 'ryy 3 .3Ot 1 M• ,.l ..u••. . I 0 4 %a'�F�p� y�v N C. r� 1 o � aI ' to � • Y N 4 i mCo o � z � a °N a o � ; II S i L---------- - - - - -_ s0 Is R I I ti I v€ I _ I 6aa i — — — — — — - - — — — — — -- a �I I ra I� ' e i i I 4 � � 5 ipg U4.` I� jj I11 ta v�a i 1 L1 I A N C C. 8 lbu ATTACHMENT H Proposed Project Plans (Circle) IbI V-:) 'Nv' q 1w VNOaoo I _...._ . ,� _..�__ I Nb''Id 3119 VNM Nd370 6149 axy�s4!4�ry ai4a,� uuoa�uo 133H5 31LI1 3�T13C193TJ 3'ih117 ��/ iOUZ 0 330 H 1v �-T1 Not o 330 —� 3 -- Yy� k d �a, s� 5t ------ [`- .. #- _ - -4 -1- h' -- i I I a �a y" n� 41 I lib Ilk (m vv '21b'w 'I2a a ps NVS'" 514E I`y!4N ua:� uo Y 1M19 15L1 N24.lw6 MA4=IS=w M17siv Not o 330 —� 3 -- Yy� k d �a, s� 5t ------ [`- .. #- _ - -4 -1- h' -- i I I a �a y" n� 41 I lib Ilk (m — NOR 10 330 - - - -- - -- -- — ------ - - - --- - - -- `g ..... - -- 1 o� F y^ :8 Yd • r 1 1 it - - — -I- r- i ' b I I I , 5 i 08 SS Oe 1 i I ma AL I t [3 - -��— — — — — — — -- — 1 q Ya I � < f i 1 F I oa al 1 �rsa� la #UOZ 0 030 wmnnnru •. . aJ, y.• ��I� 1 II�-.ryII l We ipf "raC s ..Y:i�•�sei�IB��. • �11ID1�11 CI�'il r�� II�1� ,�.I'.L �..�� a VCmV ■: 'n.dl0t ul" .i; i. ��ti11 1 IN, � Ii mini I� 7i �. I i_ { {�A' I I {{r { i . ^ I ■\ I � I1I 'I —�I,_ I IIP 1�•• 1i ae�•ia�� {•, orrp { -.,m� �• i��l�l I � I 1�_ �!.1 '- r:e �� n�P �■ �� n� 0 • tUna �� !ill �- /{fir ii•+i iris i�� ' ®.�(J l�i ��'1 a' i �'' • � I�,I � , �■� ' �CI�I III \�l'�I�II �fr �l :, l ill '� �Q.. �� x•; '� - ICII111� ��r�i�iii ICL(�/"�►'� W 0-330 wo ^19 aQ 'o %it s o I e° I 13I fl €VIII ° §� �I 2^JN3QI53LI 3i'J'211'7 �`^l�a4N�N epawoaf uoµ SNOLLY/�3Ta 4 S a Q I I Fc 1 �`j "e 1 gp I I f� it 7: :': .'�.:.�� I :'f •°�+ ,'(".: .i J R- m / �p • it x:3 .1F �� Q � 8 Ed �� I I I I Ytl1V1 W RI AnIL �( IPbI'Ot W N 1 -.K 9i 2 I d I �til� I_ fat;_ ti it ®. :... •. ti�l i� I me IS I li and:. I R �Ry7 xswu .r.w all WOZ 10 339 Iv3'JNMO99 J 37 O I aq� awoa� uo!ig� eO I NOLLOMS al I H I f I I I I I I I ^I �I 91 i00Z 10 330 r a m g1 3 I kI �I I �I I I i I l i I I 1 kM 9 i00Z 10 330 r a m 1 m i Z a w 0 M, I I I � I I III �_u I I I� r- 1 �� 1 1 1 �0 330 m w m o �1 i I Illlllll 1111 II 11111 �IIIII� lllil� � 11111111111 III I �' IIIII 11111 1111111111111 1111111111 1 1 1 {1{111{III1 1 1 I 11111 1 I ' jl�J.lj�I�11 1 I a r•—Lb - -g�, F I 111111111 I I >� 111111 IIIII � I -a o�� IIIIIIII 1111111 I j111111V111 { I I I I�J� C3 �� e . �iiiili�llllll � F NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Circle Residence (PA2003 -006) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Brion Jeannette Architecture, on behalf of Doug and Jan Circle, property owners, for Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 on property located at 3415 Ocean Boulevard. The property is located in the R -1 District. Request for an amendment to an approved Variance and Modification Permit that allowed a new single - family residence to exceed the 24 foot height limit and subterranean portions of 3 floors to encroach into the required 10 foot front yard setback. The applicant is requesting changes to the building design that include an increase to the height on the bluff side of the proposed residence The applicant does not request to exceed the top of curb height of Ocean Boulevard This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (Construction of a single - family residence in a residential zone). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on February 8. 2005, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. o n' LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach i NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Circle Residence (PA2003 -006) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Brion Jeannette Architecture, on behalf of Doug and Jan Circle, property owners, for Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 on property located at 3415 Ocean Boulevard. The property is located in the R -1 District. Request for an amendment to an approved Variance and Modification Permit that This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (Construction of a single - family residence in a residential zone). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on February8. 2005, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. I a onne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Circle Residence (PA2003 -006) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Brion Jeannette Architecture, on behalf of Doug and Jan Circle, property owners, for Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 on property located at 3415 Ocean Boulevard. The property is located in the R -1 District. Request for an amendment to an approved Variance and Modification Permit that allowed a new single- family residence to exceed the 24 -foot height limit and subterranean portions of 3. floors to encroach into the required -10 -foot front yard setback. The applicant is requesting changes to the building design that include an increase to the height on the bluff side of the proposed residence. The applicant does not request to exceed the top of curb height of Ocean Boulevard. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (Construction of a single - family residence in a residential zone). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on February- 2005, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. 0 La onne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach Jam Free Printing Use Avery* TEMPLATE 51600 September 14, 2004 300' Ownership Listing Prepared for: 052. 120 -22 TR CIRCLE 3415 Ocean Blvd. Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 www.avery.com 1- 800-GO -AVERY >r Advanced Listing Services Ownership Listings & Radius Maps P.O. Box 2593 • Dana PorL Ca • 92624 Office: 19491 36 1-392 1 • Fax: (949) 361 -3923 v w AdvancedListing.com 052 - 113 -07 HOWARD CUSIC 5000 BIRCH ST 10 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 -2127 052 - 113 -10 RAY JONES 3328 OCEAN BLVD CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 -3256 052 - 120 -18 G KELLOGG 3309 OCEAN BLVD CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 -3257 052. 120 -22 TR CIRCLE 10252 CAMDEN CIR VILLA PARK CA 92861 052 - 120 -56 SALVATORE PALERMO 3317 OCEAN BLVD CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 -3257 052 - 141.04 FRANCES CARLSON 212 MARIGOLD AVE CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 -3047 052 - 141 -08 MICHAEL H MUGEL 1234 E 17TH ST SANTA ANA CA 92701 052 - 141 -11 LAWRENCE WARDRUP 215 NARCISSUS AVE CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 -3004 052 - 113 -08 MARVIN NEBEN 3312 OCEAN BLVD CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 -3256 052 - 113 -I1 TR TURI 20902 MARIGOLD LN CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 -3048 052- 120 -20 KENNETH BATTRAM 7241 GARDEN GROVE BLVD M GARDEN GROVE CA 92841 -4217 052 - 120 -24 HARRIS PO BOX 1768 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658.8915 052 - 120 -63 MARION HALFACRE 3425 OCEAN BLVD CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 -3259 052 - 141 -05 MMPIELLC 9021 GROVE CREST LN LAS VEGAS NV 89134 -0522 052 - 141 -09 NICHOLAS REED 3428 OCEAN BLVD CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 -3258 052 - 141 -16 EVERETT SADLER 3400 OCEAN BLVD CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 -3258 aAVERY® 51600 052 - 113 -09 HELEN ANDERSON 3320 OCEAN BLVD CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 -3256 052 - 113 -12 MICHAEL MADZOEFF 211 MARIGOLD AVE CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 -3048 052 - 120 -21 PHILIP BUTTERFIELD PO BOX 787 CHINO CA 91708 -0787 052 - 120 -55 GEORGE MC NAMEE 3329 OCEAN BLVD CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 -3257 052 - 120 -64 LAWRENCE TABAK 3431 OCEAN BLVD CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625-3259 052 - 141.07 TR KAZARIAN 3412 OCEAN BLVD CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625.3258 052 - 141 -10 RALPH & GEORGENE SMITH 209 NARCISSUS AVE CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625.3004 052 - 141 -17 TR SMITH 3408 OCEAN BLVD CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 -3258 ®0915 cmALl3A�/ 1�l AHW-0"08-6 g09ts31V1dW31�awmn Jam Free Printing www.avery.com Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® 1- 800-GO -AVERY AVERY® 5160® 052- 142 -06 052- 142 -07 052- 142 -08 KENNETH D BERNSTEIN RICHARD HUNSAKER ELMER DREWS 26231 DIMENSION DR PO BOX 2423 3516 OCEAN BLVD LAKE FOREST CA 92630 -7805 SANTA ANA CA 92707 -0423 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 -3007 052 - 142 -29 052- 142 -30 052 -150- 01,02,03 DAVID L & BARBARA MYERS BARCLAY HOLDINGS XXIV LLC STATE OF CALIFORNIA PARK 208 NARCISSUS AVE 8145 N 86TH PL 2501 Pullman CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 -3003 SCOTTSDALE AZ 85258 -4310 SANTA ANA CA 92705 Breakers Drive Assn. Brion Jeannette Architecture Mr. Jay Cowan 470 Old Newport Blvd. 3030 Breakers Newport Beach Ca 92663 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 ®09L5 ® ��/ A83AV-09 -008 -L ®09L5 uvidwu zlUany asn WOT/GaAWMMM 6ununA sau umr Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number A -6214, September 29, 1961, and A -24831 June 11, 1963. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH - COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following dates: JANUARY 29,2005 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on JANUARY 29,2005 at Costa Mesa, California. Signature *3 FEB -3 pin :n) N07](1 0F PURR( HUMID Cuds Raddente WAY003-00(I) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of Brian Jeannette Architecture, on behalf of Doug and Jan Circle, property owners, for Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modifica- tion Permit No. 2003 -004 on properly located at 3415 Ocean Boulevard. The properly is located in the R -1 District. Request for an amendment to an op- Zoved Variance and o difkation Permit Hart allowed a new single - familyy residence to exceed tha 24 -loot height limit and sub - terranean portions of 3 floors to encroach Into the required 10 feet front yard set- back. The applicant is requesting changes to the building esign. that include an in- crease to the height on the bluff side of the proposed residence. The applicant does not request to exceed the top of curb height of Ocean Boulevard. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that d is categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Eovi. ronmenlal Qualify Act under Class 3 (Construction of a single family residence in a residential zone). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on February 8, 2005, at the hour of 7.00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the New- port Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boule- vard, .Newport. Beach, California. at which time and place any and all persons' interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written corre- spondence delivered to the City al, or prior lo, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. /s /EaVonne M. Hardest, City Clerk City of Newport Beach Published Newport Beach /Costa Mesa Daily Pilot January 29, 2005 sa768 � I �z> a fib Z � ;-- z -- - - - - -- � -------- - - - - -- °� r'" Z Prp NDzzOF m Amy Nz Has m p QA -Im p i Z 1 71 9NOi z -0D D O Z I Fn =�Ar �m m� —` �i D Do + Z� z �1 m m s c i m N D Ch- GRADE. 1 IN `^"ROVEINENT — �o I pm A F- 0>- 0-00 � . OF 'AT-0 1 mti — O O <G -O O y A I n m RO° t Fr0U5E 1 moo 150-o', eQi � 7EGK f11 0 l T '%. HOU5 1 D O Z x z �Ex DEGK . R > m 1 >u N 5TRUG . r T -13 (U Y <3- i � -- AP°Q'J ✓CG 1 — Zrn Q p O A�PRO✓ p 1 (� g _D O__p 1 ill N l� APPROVED ° <' O Y I O D Yz (P PPROVED PATIO 1 p Y� (� 0 m IOr OTM 1 mmOO7 1 Ax -DA \ wD Ou+�rO 0-13 APPROVED yA T A Om _ z D D m A o y� r 54 E I O n M APPROVED 1-0 1_ { z D Fn 50:_8„ 7 O /\7 3 z U) APPROVED DECK 3 gV—nQ' pV-q bb' -b" 1 N APPROVED PATIO 1 BRIDh JEANNE TE fAFrHi FC1TUF- Pr101 =Gi. URL_E RE5IDEK'.E SG4LE. =20 4'10 OLD N:}yPg2T 5L'J NB, GA 42663 949.6495954 GRAWIN6: OCEAN DATE: 2/2/C5 • �� 411 • i ✓^Yl Sil �... r. . 7: FkFm DWI ��6�.�� a/ .ice'. ', ?. `' ia� _. - •. 1} _ ' . 1 r •. I 1 ..r ----------------------------------------------- r - - -- -- ---------- - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- znujrm b7 m z d i (\ (\ N -0 DMA I OnDrAn \4wv I p -Da A D Z Ar AOrnz � az 00 m Irn < rn A D I< m0 ADO 1 - -�I dT < -a-1 wD II 0117 NAB Dr II -crn mOz OO \ (\ Z ul tj ul A r N f 0 U( <m N �zz d0 O p] d SN rn I d n Z z (\ \ �U -1 rn A r N r� n zm - =A rn tl w< A A � 9 rn A� -I O yul d rn P dA 1Z -0= -a0 O p] -1 D m rn w O �N ON < -O D o -1 �Am O CJOP IN SRION JEANNETTE ARGHITEGIVRE Prsa,1ECT. uRCLE rscsicewce SLALE, /6. i•b. 4'ID OLD NEWPORT BLVD. NH, LA 92663 949b455S54 DRAWING: OOMPAW SON TO HALFACR DATE: L: \TEMP04�`9E EV. WO. 11%1TL- XefO%.]3 /OS 4665 Rn Mn aa mav9 if Thomas W. Allen Attorney at Law 3322 Via Lido Newport Beach CA 92663 Mayor Bromberg and Members of the City Council: C 0 ILI il A E iDA PI � I represent Mr. and Mrs. Philip Butterfield who own the residential property at 3401 Ocean Boulevard, which abuts the Circle property on the northwest. Mr. and Mrs. Butterfield have appealed the Planning Commission action of January 6, 2005, approving amendments to Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 ((PA2003- 006)), which variance and modification were sought by, and approved for the Ensigns, the former owners of the Circle property. The original Ensign approvals were for a height variance and a modification permitting the Ensigns to encroach into the front setback. The approvals were conditioned on the new residence remaining within the line of existing development on the bluff -side of the lot. The Ensigns planned to build a 6100 square foot home within the approved footprint. Before any construction was done, the Circles purchased the Ensign property with a right to the height variance and modification into the front setback, but subject to the condition that any new structure remain within the existing line of development on the bluff -side. The Circles designed new plans to rebuild an approximately 5000 square foot house on the site. To accommodate the new design, the Circles sought amendments to the variance and modification approvals, and the removal of the condition confining their construction to the existing line of development. The Planning Commission approved the amendments to the variance and modification and removed the condition limiting the rear /seaward extension to the existing line of development (the "Circle Project). The Circle Project calls for a deck that extends seaward on the bluff -side approximately 10 feet beyond the structures built along the existing line of development of the other residences on the block. The Circles' deck is designed such that a person standing on the deck may look directly into the interior of the Butterfields' living space and dining room. The deck structure itself, any deck furniture, vegetation and persons using the deck impede the Butterfields' down coast view of the bluff and their view of the landmark Inspiration Point. From the City's perspective, a decision by the Council upholding the Planning Commission will create chaos and uncertainty for existing and future 1 residents along the bluff. Permit applicants will justifiably seek more and more extension seaward on the bluff, either to gain views beyond their neighbors' structures, or to avoid having their views blocked by a future neighbor's development. On the other hand, fairness, equity and good planning argue that the City should adhere to the apparent historical policy of preserving the integrity of this cherished bluff, and should continue to treat the residents on this bluff equally in their ability to rebuild. Moreover, adhering to the historical line of development on the bluff is consistent with the California Coastal Act, the Local Coastal Plan as submitted to the Coastal Commission, and the desires of Newport Beach's residents.' The following are factors arguing against upholding the decision of the Planning Commission: 1. There Is A Historical "Stringline" of Development That Has Existed For At Least 40 Years. In its approval of the Circle Project, the Planning Commission opined that because the use of a "stringline" approach to planning on the Coastal Bluffs is not specifically required by the City Code or Regulations, an analysis using a stringline as a limit on development on the bluff was not warranted. The aerial photographs of the Circle Project bluff included in the packet and presentation, however, make it abundantly clear the existing development along this bluff has been adhered to as an almost straight line, from residence to residence, across the bluff. Whether one calls the line a "stringline ", a "predominant line of development ", or a "line of existing development ", the line has been observed in project after project for at least 40 years. The homes along the Circle Project bluff were built at various time over the last forty years, and all have adhered to the stringline. The house the Butterfields purchased was constructed without extending past the stringline and their realtor advised them that they could only rebuild to that line. When the Butterfields built their home in 1994, their local architect confirmed there was requirement that all residences hold to the established building line along the seaward side of their lot. The lot at issue in the Circle Project has a similar history. During the April 3, 2003 Planning Commission hearing on the Ensign height variance, Mr. Ensign stated: "We are all held to the fact that we can not build out towards the ocean and over 2/3 of our lot on the rear is not buildable. We only have 25 feet buildable depth of house once the front yard setback is subtracted and comply [sic] with the string line in the back. That is the hardship that necessitates a ' The Newport Beach Vision 2025 Survey found that 56% of Newport Beach residents considered increased protection of the Coastal Bluffs a higher priority for the City than protecting the rights of owners of property along the Coastal Bluffs (38 %). 2 variance." At this same hearing, Mr. Alan Beek spoke on the project and stated: "The other properties have been held to the string criterion and the curb criterion; to grant even small exceptions for this property does constitute a grant of special privilege." He further stated: "I ask that you condition the project on not exceeding the string line with the grade level ...." Accordingly, Planning Chairperson Kiser moved to approve the project, which was unanimously approved, and on the condition that: "... with additional conditions that no portion of the residential structure would exceed the string line from the homes on either side of the project, no portion of a project deck would exceed the string line from the decks of the homes on either side of the project ...." On April 22, 2003, the City Council affirmed the Planning Commission approval with its condition limiting development to the stringline, thus approving the condition upholding the long- standing City practice with regard to that bluff. Apparently well aware of the long- standing adherence to the line of existing development on the bluff, the applicants developed a rather unique argument to describe the applicable stringline. According to the applicants, the furthest point seaward of the deck of the Butterfield residence is the point to which the Circle residential structure, exclusive of any decks, can be built. From that point, the Circles argue they can attach decks to the house, apparently of any size feasible to build, which decks extend further seaward. In other words, the line the applicants used for the main structure (house) is actually the Butterfield deck line, not the house, and the deck line extends beyond that point by approximately 9'. This approach yields an absurd result that, if continued in subsequent developments, would essentially allow successive developers to "leap- frog" over prior develops further and further out over the bluff. As recognized by Chairperson Kiser in the Ensign approval, and as routinely used by the Coastal Commission, two stringlines are appropriately analyzed during planning along the bluffs. One is a line for each main structure (the habitable portion of the residence), and the other line is for each deck. To measure the permissible extension of a proposed residence, one line is drawn between the nearest adjacent corners of the main structures of the residences on each side of the subject property and the seaward limit of the proposed main structure is held to that line. Another line is drawn between the furthermost seaward decks of the two neighboring properties and the seaward decks serving the proposed main structure are held to that line. This is the regular practice of the Coastal Commission and other coastal cities with regard to coastal bluff development. By recommending and approving this project, the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission have repudiated the use of an existing line of development analysis on this bluff, and their decision represents a sea change in the policy that has guided development on this bluff for decades. The cumulative impact of increased building mass on, over, or down this bluff will diminish its magnificent vista as seen from the public beach below, from Inspiration Point, and from the 3 ocean -going vessels that carry the City's residents and visitors along the coastline. Moreover, one might question as future property developers certainly will, if increased development on this bluff is permitted, why not permit the same on other bluffs? 2. There Is No Justification To Depart From The Established Line Of Development For The Circle Project. The Planning Commission did not articulate the basis to change the City's policy for development on the Coastal bluffs, or specifically on this bluff. The challenge for the City Council in this appeal is to analyze whether there are any changes in circumstance or policy to justify departing from the long- established line of development. We submit there are none, and in fact, approval of the Circle Project constitutes a special privilege to the Circles at the expense of the public's views of the bluff and the private view of residents who have adhered to the limitations heretofore imposed on the lots because of the unique value of the Coastal Bluffs. Have there been changed circumstances in the area or along the bluff which make the Circle parcel any different than the others along the bluff? No. Has the City Council announced a new policy viewpoint or has the city staff or Planning Commission developed independent justification for this departure? No. Somehow, the Planning Commission found it within its policy discretion, without articulating reasons, to reverse long standing policy in approving this project. 3. The Circle Project Approval Does Not Comply With the Local Coastal Plan (LCP): The City's approved LCP is relevant to the present proposal. Policy 4.4.3- 4 states: "In areas where the coastal bluff has been altered, establish setback lines for principal and accessory structuresZ based on the predominant line of existing development along the bluff in each block. Apply the setback line down from the edge of the bluff and /or upward from the toe of the bluff to restrict new development extending beyond the predominant line of existing development." The predominant line of development is not defined by the City In the context of this application; however, the aerial views presented to the Council depict the general line between the Tabak property (3431 Ocean) on the southeast and the Battram property (3335 Ocean) on the northwest. This view shows the line to be quite even and straight as it proceeds along this block of five properties which are served by the frontage road from Ocean Boulevard. Accordingly, the established practice of applying a stringline to the seaward 2 A "structure, accessory" is defined in Section 20.03.030 of the Zoning Code as: "Structures that are incidental to the principal structure on a site. This classification includes fences, walls, decks, landings, patios, platforms, porches and terraces and similar minor structures other than buildings ". extension of construction of the main structures has heretofore been in compliance with the LCP and this practice should be continued. 4. The Circle Project Approval Does Not Comply With The Recommendations of the General Plan Amendment Committee. With respect to the question: "How far should we go to protect Coastal Bluffs ? ", the GPAC coastal bluff group said, in part, that: "In the areas where there has already been construction [on the coastal bluffs], care must be given when additional construction takes place to not allow additional encroachment or disarrangement of the bluffs and to protect view corridors." "By setting standards and adhering to them, the entire community benefits and property values are enhanced. We felt that a major problem in all areas including the bluffs that there is not enough enforcement of codes." (See GPAC Minutes of September 9, 2002). 5. The Circles Should Be Granted The Same Privilege To Build As Their Neighbors. The grant of approval by the Planning Commission for a height variance and the modification to the front yard setback is acceptable to the Butterfields to the extent that these two items assist the Circles in building the amount of square footage they desire while, at the same time, maintaining a rear building line consistent with existing bluff development. However, to the extent the removal of the stringline condition is a part of the total project approval, the Butterfields object on the basis that these approvals violate the long- standing seaward development limit. Moreover, by looking up and down the predominant line of development along this block of five homes, it does not appear that any of the existing properties are, or have been, subjected to a condition where their neighbor can gaze directly into and onto their deck and living areas. Yet the Butterfields would clearly be subjected to this visual intrusion if this project is approved as proposed. 6. There Is No Hardship On The Circles By Holding Them To The Existing Line of Development. There is no hardship to the Circles are not permitted to build beyond the existing line of development. A denial of this specific project does not deprive the Circles of the opportunity to build a large home on this site. The Ensign project, that is, the already approved project on the Circle parcel, was designed for a 6100 square foot home and the Circles are seeking approximately 5000 square feet. Unfortunately, the Circles want 5000 square feet in three stories, not four as designed by the Ensigns. The Circles apparently deem it entirely appropriate to impair the Butterfields view of Inspiration Point and their deck and dining area privacy to justify a design in three stories instead of four. Did the Circles buy this property with a reasonable expectation of being able to build out ten feet beyond the existing stringline? They could not have done so because no such project has been approved to date along this bluff. Did they rely on a city code or standing policy to be able to do this? Could there have been any representations made to them by anyone that they could clearly do this? We suggest the answer to all of these questions is "No ". 7. Conclusion. The Circle Project is not in keeping with the existing line of development with regard to its seaward extension. The appellants requests that the proposed amendments to Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006) be denied based on the Findings for Denial proposed by the appellants and attached to this letter. Appellants' Proposed Findings for Denial: (Circle Project) The granting of an approval, via a variance and modification permit, to allow portions of the proposed residence to extend in a seaward direction in excess of a line drawn connecting the existing building lines and deck lines respectively is not warranted by special circumstances or for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant and such approval would constitute a grant of a special privilege and would be detrimental to surrounding properties because: a. the applicant has not demonstrated that a single - family residence cannot be designed to fully comply with existing seaward extensions and to the applicable rear yard line established by other development along the bluff and as established by the existing approval (Ensign). The applicant can design a residence of equal or greater square footage than proposed and still comply with the existing bluff development line by utilizing a design similar to that which is already approved. b. the existing approval allows for the construction of a single family residence of similar size, height and bulk as buildings on other adjacent properties encumbered with topography virtually identical to that which occurs on the subject property. c. the existing approval (Ensign) limits the further encroachment of structures down the coastal bluff by limiting the development to approximately the same location and depth as the other development along the block. d. adequate area exists on the subject property to construct a reasonably sized dwelling while complying with the existing bluff development line. e. the proposed structures deviate from the predominant line of development created by buildings and structures on the adjacent properties. f. the stringline approach used by the applicant is invalid because it runs from the proposed house line to the Butterfield deck line thus mixing structures to the unfair disadvantage of the neighboring properties 7 g. The alteration of the coastal bluff associated with the project does not constitute minimal alteration of the natural coastal bluff landform because it increases and extends the building footprint envelope beyond the existing altered area with the proposed lower level on -grade deck. This increased alteration of the coastal bluff is inconsistent with Land Use Element Development Policy D and applicable LCP policies that mandate proper siting of structures on coastal bluffs to minimize alteration of natural landforms. h. No hardship from a building size perspective is imposed on the applicant by denying this application. The approved Ensign project was designed for 6100 square feet and the Circles are seeking just less than 5000 feet. There could not have been an expectation by the Circles of the ability to build out ten feet beyond the existing stringline because no one to date had been permitted to do so and there is no city code or standing policy which would allow this. 0 r 1 1 •R a a n P2 .Z� n 1 �� N 1 f,9 i r 1 1 •R a a n P2 .Z� n 1 �� N 1 f,9 i ,J 1 f e ` w AA wnr :.1' .;•• ✓Y x F.fsf�� ~, s.� LLY •r R �.. _____ ., .z ��; �_ �' 'r 0 _� a f� V L N u �° \� �� AFTER AGENA RIP H. McNamee 3612 Ocean Boulevard G,rona del Mar. Gali►ornia 92625 NN (JP o RT l3Rm c>' c; TJ Coil �cCAV (SLvQ /,IAVE 1ivgp oiJ 0""' dL�p SAnts" //�vs� siyce LAT1 O's A)JD HAP 141Arcgr0 OC"AI 13LVD GcT l3►_TTGR iAC4 16-AR. 7'i` P�ApNg GolnMiSSto/v WHo /oV 11pr ,Doty A,Q £xcf /lrNr 3-09 ar �I's &iag T £vrfyON.' 9.4 vp up rs q�� `o /�ou,uy y��n A��QuveA o�n►�,,,�c�s T. 4- cAsF ANn yuv Ouv, o UPNo,h Al t fuVAL of 3y 1S 0CFAN I-PA fq � 4�_ -n x, ON .g 1 c- A a v et Avdt 5' r.ifli: Aql� ;-- � i V 0 c e'l it /5) i v Loraxa det Mar cry q�6zs MFvoc^ Stevr Oroim licr7 -the CITY Couocll , ON t 9 arclin' 0 V a rt a.4 c, o A,-i, 2 Oc> 3 - 00, and Mods - / c a t-1610 Alo Oo-3 —ooq ,4-t ' ocea, 13 J vdo, Th i-J'jl y 1 ill 0 haL has Served I-,(!) P,-05,Cr-vO tho View.5 d-F Uhe' -S/)( h v;m P -5 /7 -),5 LvLtrkeot Weil Per- 50 VPar5, PjP05e d,-n*t C-hailye cl- 6 e Z: b a - c &- the Thai & e r ti SO ff)c-,CL�C-1V0- tA an k K o o, /I / G h and A rdf y O NED AFTER AG P Filt I T E D: 2108 Fuentes Newport Beach, CA 92660 February 6, 2005 City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RE: 3415 Ocean Boulevard Variance No. 2003-001 Modification Permit No. 2003-004 Dear Council Member: We believe it is important that the City Council deny any development plan that exceeds permitted height limits, setbacks or encroachments. The applicant would not be prevented development and residents in the area can continue to enjoy their views without further blockage. Sincerely, Brian C. Adams CZ:' FEB -08 -05 TUE 0517 PM ZUMBRUN LAW FIRM FAX N0, 916 486 5959 February 8, 200 P. 02 "RECEIV��D,AFTER AGENDA PRINTED:° 1A ZUMBRUN LAW FIRM •05 FED _3 P5:17 A Profavvional Corporalion Mayor Steve Bromberg and Members of the City Council Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mayor Bromberg and Members of the City Council: VIA FACSIMILE Re: Agenda Item No. 14 of Newport Beach City Council's February 8, 2005 Meeting, Variance No. 2003 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006) This letter is written in support of Appellants Phil and Lynne Butterfield who oppose Brion Jeannette Architecture's variance and modification request to exceed the applicable deck or building string line. This letter seeks to provide clarification regarding two improvements to the Butterfields' property: (1) the lower landing on their stairway to the beach and (2) the sunbathing area at the toe of the bluff Both improvements have gone through Coastal Commission's approval process, On December 7, 2001, the Coastal Commission voted to approve the permit application for both improvements. Coastal Commission staff, however, failed to issue the Butterfields their Coastal Development Permit, With The Zumbrun Law Firm representing the Butterfields on January 13, 2002, Commissioner Eleanor Palk of the Orange County Superior Court issued a writ of mandate ordering the Coastal Commission to issue the Butterfields their permit, The Coastal Commission sought a writ of mandate against Palk's order, but the appellate court refused to even hear the Coastal Commission's case. The Coastal Commission has appealed the case and is now awaiting oral argument. Before the appellate court, the Butterfields are being represented by Pacific Legal Foundation. 3900 Watt Avenue Suite 101 Sacramento, CA 95,921 Tel 916- 486.590o Fax 916•,186 -5959 FEB -08 -05 TUE 05 17 PM ZUMBRUN LAW FIRM FAX N0. 916 486 5959 P. 03 Mayor Steve Bromberg and Members of City Council February 8, 2005 Page 2 of 2 Although some claims may have been made that the Butterfields' lower- stairway landing may encroach upon the neighboring property, such a claim has not been proven. Up to this point, the Butterfields have been successful in their litigation. Furthennore, the current lower- stairway landing existed even before the Butterfields moved in on December 18, 1994. To the extent that there is any encroachment by the lower- stairway landing, prescriptive rights have been secured during the past decade. Thank you for your careful consideration of the Butterfields' concerns regarding the unprecedented variance and modification being requested by Brien Jeannette Architecture, Very truly yours, Mark A, Teh Attorney at Law Feb 07 05 11:29a D.'.rk McNamee 949 - 675 -7074 p.1 Date: - cpl _l f. - Cam F 3 ✓� i - cf�.iv I�� Il�j� 2122E Ref: Circle Residence- 3415 Ocean Blvd.; (PA2003 -006) Notice Of Public Hearing We have reviewed the plans for the residence referenced above. We understand the plans and are in full support of this project; therefore we feel the plans should be allowed and the appeal denied. The Planning Commission, which has previously and unanimously approved this project, should be upheld. Signed, RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FEB 0 7 2005 PM 7 819110 1l l X12 ,l 121314,516 N-M? -0� Feb 07 05 11:29a Dirk McNamee 949- 675 -7074 p.2 Date: O(— / — CS I Cv , Ref. Circle Residence — 3415 Ocean Blvd.; (PA2003 -006) Notice Of Public Hearing We have reviewed the plans for the residence referenced above. We understand the plans and are in full support of this project; therefore we feel the plans should be allowed and the appeal denied. The Planning Commission, which has previously and unanimously approved this project, should be upheld. Sign , '"l Feb 07 05 11:30a Dirk McNamee 949 - 675 -7074 p.3 Date: J U boll L 3 Occ�rA✓) I l u C- Ref: Circle Residence — 3415 Ocean Blvd.; (PA2003 -006) Notice Of Public Hearing We have reviewed the plans for the residence referenced above. We understand the plans and are in full support of this project; therefore we feel the plans should be allowed and the appeal denied. t q'��e t(.Uj ftwd } %li- rI' m In The Planning Commission, which has previously and unanimously approved this Rroject, should be upheld. G15 Pf 1 V d4' I e— -'(U f-(W - Siggne ned, , I J Feb 07 05 11:30a Dirk McNamee 949 - 675 -7074 p.4 i Date: �. c Ref: Circle Residence — 3415 Ocean Blvd.; (PA2003 -006) Notice Of Public Hearing We have reviewed the plans for the residence referenced above. We understand the plans and are in full support of this project; therefore we feel the plans should be allowed and the appeal denied. The Planning Commission, which has previously and unanimously approved this project, should be upheld. Signed, Feb 07 05 11:30a Dirk McNamee 949 - 6'75 -7074 p.5 Date: i C; �I c-, Y, (% s� "A . Ref: Circle Residence — 3415 Ocean Blvd.; (PA2003 -006) Notice Of Public Hearing We have reviewed the plans for the residence referenced above. We understand the plans and are in full support of this project; therefore we feel the plans should be allowed and the appeal denied. The Planning Commission, which has previously and unanimously approved this project, should be upheld. Signed, Feb 07 05 11:30a Dirk McNamee 949 - 675 -7074 p.6 I Date: T) 1• �1 Ref: Circle Residence — 3415 Ocean Blvd.; (PA2003 -006) Notice Of Public Hearing We have reviewed the plans for the residence referenced above. We understand the plans and are in full support of this project; therefore we feel the plans should be allowed and the appeal denied. The Planning Commission, which has previously and unanimously approved this project, should be upheld. Signed, Feb 07 05 11:31a Dirk McNamee 949- 675 -7074 p.7 Date: ;) ° /�-� -5�-f Ref: Circle Residence — 3415 Ocean Blvd.; (PA2003 -006) Notice Of Public Hearing We have reviewed the plans for the residence referenced above. We understand the plans and are in full support of this project; therefore we feel the plans should be allowed and the appeal denied. The Planning Commission, which has previously and unanimously approved this project, should be upheld. Signed, l E P6 Po,�T Feb 07 05 11:31a Dirk McNamee 949 - 675 -7074 p.8 2 Date: c 5 Ref: Circle Residence — 3415 Ocean Blvd.; (PA2003 -006) Notice Of Public Hearing We have reviewed the plans for the residence referenced above. We understand the plans and are in full support of this project; therefore we feel the plans should be allowed and the appeal denied. The Planning Commission, which has previously and unanimously approved this project, should be upheld. Signed, Feb 07 05 11:31a Dirk McNamee 949 - 675 -7074 p.9 i i Date: Zi 'k(r Il Ref: Circle Residence — 3415 Ocean Blvd.; (PA2003 -006) Notice Of Public Hearing We have reviewed the plans for the residence referenced above. We understand the plans and are in full support of this project; therefore we feel the plans should be allowed and the appeal denied. The Planning Commission, which has previously and unanimously approved this project, should be upheld. Feb 07 05 11:32a Dirk McNamee 949 - 675 -7074 p.10 Date: S LU 5 CS C tiA 71 CL >AA)Q- Ref: Circle Residence — 3415 Ocean Blvd.; (PA2003 -006) Notice Of Public Hearing We have reviewed the plans for the residence referenced above. We understand the plans and are in full support of this project; therefore we feel the plans should be allowed and the appeal denied. The Planning Commission, which has previously and unanimously approved this project, should be upheld. Signed, (D ff � Feb 07 05 11:32a Dirk McNamee 949 - 675 -7074 p.11 Date: 2- f' )—` MIL s ' Ref: Circle Residence — 3415 Ocean Blvd.; (PA2003 -006) Notice Of Public Hearing We have reviewed the plans for the residence referenced above. We understand the plans and are in full support of this project; therefore we feel the plans should be allowed and the appeal denied. The Planning Commission, which has previously and unanimously approved this project, should be upheld. Signed, Date: ? ' 3511 C,r017a 4& IL14 «I Ref: Circle Residence — 3415 Ocean Blvd.; (PA2003 -006) Notice Of Public Hearing We have reviewed the plans for the residence referenced above. We understand the plans and are in full support of this project, therefore we feel the plans should be allowed and the appeal denied. The Circle residence respects the existing pattern of development on the bluff. The Planning Commission, which has previously and unanimously approved this project, should be upheld. Signed,,) pa-�C C%f cv UL /Utl /UJ UB:UZ PN.1 y4U 004 51UL Date: .2 - 9' O ' r Ref: Circle Residence — 3415 Ocean Blvd.; (PA2003 -006) Notice Of Public Hearing We have reviewed the plans for the residence referenced above. We understand the plans and are in full support of this project, therefore we feel the plans should be allowed and the appeal denied. The Circle residence respects the existing pattern of development on the bluff. The Planning Commission, which has previously and unanimously approved this project, should be upheld. Signed, l3 °1 e PL A N r4 e, !"4 A 2 WJ VU Feb 08 05 07:42a �k d lz4� � V� ►�9r� (949)566 -9993 p.2 Date: ;,, / _0 Ref: Circle Residence — 3415 Ocean Blvd.: (PA2003-006) Notice Of Public Hearing We have reviewed the plans for the residence referenced above. We understand the plans and are in full support of this project, therefore we feel the plans should be allowed and the appeal denied_ The Circle residence respects the existing pattern of development on the bluff. The Planning CW mission, which has previously and unanimously approved this project, should belulnl'l L Feb 08 05 07:42a [949)566 -9993 P.1 Date: Z o CA '17-io z' Ref: Circle Residence — 3415 Ocean Blvd.; (PA2003 -006) Notice Of Public Hearing We have reviewed the plans for the residence referenced above. We understand the plans and are in full support of this project, therefore we feel the plans should be allowed and the appeal denied. The Circle residence respects the existing pattern of development on the bluff. The Planning Commission, which has previously and unanimously approved this project, should be upheld. -_well �� i ,' �. Feb 07 05 07:39p (9491566 -9993 Date_ 02- 100 S i 9a�t� A �0 SJSA� � CIL�c avr Ref. Circle Residence — 3415 Ocean Blvd.; (PA2003 -006) Notice Of Public Hearing We have reviewed the plans for the residence referenced above. We understand the plans and are in full support of this project, therefore we feel the plans should be allowed and the appeal denied. The Circle residence respects the existing pattern of development on the bluff. The Planning Commission, which has previously and unanimously approved this project, should be upheld. p.4 i i L Feb 07 05 07:39p [9491566 -9993 p.1 Date: 7 O� L..IJI Ref: Circle Residence — 3415 Ocean Blvd.: (PA2003006) Notice Of Public Hearing We have reviewed the plans for the residence referenced above. We understand the plans and are in full support of this project, therefore we feel the plans should be allowed and the appeal denied. The Circle residence respects the existing pattern of development on the bluff. The Planning Commission, whight has previously and unanimously approved this project, should bqI upheld. Feb 07 05 07:39p Date: Ref: Circle Residence — 3415 Ocean Blvd.; (PA2003 -006) Notice Of Public Hearing (949)566 -9993 p.2 We have reviewed the plans for the residence referenced above. We understand the plans and are in full support of this project, therefore we feel the plans should be allowed and the appeal denied. The Circle residence respects the existing pattern of development on the bluff. The Planning Commission, which has previously and unanimously approved this project, FEB-07 -05 05:19PM FROM-REDMOUNTAINRETAILGROUPiI +7144601590 T-133 P.02 /02 F -457 Date: �_ — 7 - o 5 MichU2( 3L-,Eo De &o Nvrd, Ref: Circle Residence — 3415 Ocean Blvd_, (PA2003 -006) Notice Of Public Hearing We have reviewed the plans for the residence referenced above. We understand the plans and are in full support of this project, therefore we feel the plans should be allowed and the appeal denied. The Circle residence respects the existing pattern of development on the bluff- The Planning Commission, which has previously and unanimously approved this project. should be upheld. Signed, C�Iyloneo.tS . Sv\e' 'blL 6"P_ c,P d-2 s';' t- 62! 0712005 16:35 94967366 06 JEFF /LYLEEN EWING PAGE 02 r 2/ 2 Date: Ref: Circle Residence — 3415 Ocean Blvd.; (PA2003 -006) Notice Of Public Hearing We have reviewed the plans for the residence referenced above. We understand the plane and are in full support of this project, therefore we feel the plans should be allowed and the appeal denied. The Circe residence respects the existing pattern of development on the bluff. The Planning Commission, which has previously and unanimously approved this project, should be upheld. i 02/07 -:005 15:03 FAX I- / U�: t4 :5 a 001"002 : 1 1 c, 2 Date: _ ��1 �d ?�or- -)POP /J/ribN �Ir.D Ref: Circle Residence — 3415 Ocean Blvd.; (PA2003 -006) Notice Of Public Hearing We have reviewed the plans for the residence referenced above. We understand the plans and are in full support of this project, therefore we feel the plans should be allowed and the appeal denied. The Circle residence respects the existing pattern of development on the bluff. The Planning Commission, which has previously and unanimously approved this project, should be upheld. 02.07%2005 15:00 FAX 0 002;002 c- i- o5:i3 -3: Date: 1 U 7 Q Ref: Circle Residence -3415 Ocean Blvd.; (PA2003-006) Notice Of Public Nearing We have reviewed the plans for the residence referenced above. We understand the plans and are in full support of this project, therefore we feel the plans should be allowed and the appeal denied. The Circle residence respects the existing pattern of development on the bluff. The Planning Commission, which has previously and unanimously approved this project, should be upheld. Signed, Feb -07 -05 05:26P Quality Enterprises 1 949 6735922 P.O1 Date. February 7, 2005 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Council Members, Ref: Circle Residence — 3415 Ocean Blvd.; (PA2003 -006) Notice Of Public Hearing We have reviewed the plans for the residence referenced above. We understand the plans and are in full support of this project, therefore we feel the plans should be allowed and the appeal denied. The Circle residence respects the existing pattern of development on the bluff. The Planning Commission, which has previously and unanimously approved this project, should be upheld. Signed, Llo and Linda Rasner 2500 Ocean Blvd Corona del Mar, CA 92625 02/04/2005 22:05 949- 675 -4666 LYNNE EUTTERFTELD PAGE 01 February 3, 2005 Hon. Steven Bra City of Newport City Council Mt C/O City Hall City of Newport 1 3300 Newport BI RE: PA -30i Public Dear Mayor "RECEIV D AFTER AGENDA PRINTED." y * ** CONFIDENTIAL * ** URGENT COMMUNICATION Circle Residence — 3415 Ocean Boulevard, CDM, CA g, Tuesday, February 8, 2005, 7:00 PM & City Council Members: We are writing to you out of great concern as to the proposed new custom residential Project Immediate) in to the left and southeast of our family home, `The Sandcastle' which is located at 3401 Oce Boulevard. The recent approv 1 by the planning commission came as a shock to us and many of our neighbors as the c esign proposed for 3415 Ocean Boulevard clearly would negatively Impact our properties. The unobstructed views we have all enjoyed for many years would be destroyed, along with the harmony of our little oceanfront neighborhood. The proposed design would be the first residence extending forward of the `string line' of private homes along all the bluff b iildings which have existed In this fashion for more than a half century. Although the appli at has since suggested pulling back the deck line by one or two feet, the fact remains that sc lid deck structure and solid building structure on three (3) levels would still he extending o it many feet into our view of a primary natural landmark and widely enjoyed promontory known to all of us as 'Inspiration Point', enjoyed by residents and guests of the CDM community for over a century. This was one of the main reasons we purchased our prol erty, also with the understanding and expectation that our views would never he taken awn from us as all the existing structures held to a uniform line of building and deck constr'ucti n over all these years. The photo includk in the Daily Pilot front page article of Thursday. February 3, 2005 clearly shows them ignitude of the proposed removal of so much of our view of Inspiration Point on the two t p primary living levels of our home, not to mention impact to the enjoyment of open space, light and air, should this project be approved. Clearly, our privacy as well as our views would be taken away to a very damaging extent. The lower level deck, not seen a this particular frame, would also have a very negative impact. m erg, Mayor i Lch ;h }_ N Newport Beach, CA 92663 Circle Residence — 3415 Ocean Boulevard, CDM, CA g, Tuesday, February 8, 2005, 7:00 PM & City Council Members: We are writing to you out of great concern as to the proposed new custom residential Project Immediate) in to the left and southeast of our family home, `The Sandcastle' which is located at 3401 Oce Boulevard. The recent approv 1 by the planning commission came as a shock to us and many of our neighbors as the c esign proposed for 3415 Ocean Boulevard clearly would negatively Impact our properties. The unobstructed views we have all enjoyed for many years would be destroyed, along with the harmony of our little oceanfront neighborhood. The proposed design would be the first residence extending forward of the `string line' of private homes along all the bluff b iildings which have existed In this fashion for more than a half century. Although the appli at has since suggested pulling back the deck line by one or two feet, the fact remains that sc lid deck structure and solid building structure on three (3) levels would still he extending o it many feet into our view of a primary natural landmark and widely enjoyed promontory known to all of us as 'Inspiration Point', enjoyed by residents and guests of the CDM community for over a century. This was one of the main reasons we purchased our prol erty, also with the understanding and expectation that our views would never he taken awn from us as all the existing structures held to a uniform line of building and deck constr'ucti n over all these years. The photo includk in the Daily Pilot front page article of Thursday. February 3, 2005 clearly shows them ignitude of the proposed removal of so much of our view of Inspiration Point on the two t p primary living levels of our home, not to mention impact to the enjoyment of open space, light and air, should this project be approved. Clearly, our privacy as well as our views would be taken away to a very damaging extent. The lower level deck, not seen a this particular frame, would also have a very negative impact. 02/04/2005 22:05 949 - 675 -4666 LYNNE BUTTERFIELD PAGE 02 Mayor Bromberg/ ity Council Page Two of Two February 3, 2005 The aerial photos lown on page A3 of the Pilot clearly shows the historic nature of building massing along III bluff above CDM main beach, with building and deck lines in unison with one another, sensibly and carefully designed we can only presume, to maintain a harmonious relatio uship, and preserve one another's views in a logical and neighborly way. The additional ei croachment into the bluff area would also significantly change the character of the bl Iff from both the point and the beach, and niter public views as well. There is nothing 't eighborlyl about the proposed project. To the contrary, were this project approved, it woulc absolutely turn it's back on the tradition set by all the existing homes, and set a dangero is precedent along the entire bluff. As to property values, for whatever little appreciation o our property which might result from this project, there would be a trebled offset by th negative impact to our property value with the destruction of views and harmful impact to he bluff. We will be at the meeting this Tuesday prepared with aerial photos, scale floor plans, comparative build g profile and sight line studies, view impact visuals and photographs from multiple an g s for your review. We will be presenting professional testimony from local real estate, a hitectural and construction specialists relative to our objections to this application. We w' 1 also be bringing a petition signed by many local and regional persona in support of a de ial of this project. We sincerely hope that this will be helpful to you in making your decia n. It is important for 'on to know that we had our home carefully designed and created so as to not require any special approvals, and also with great care so as to not inhibit anyone else's views or prh ate pr' property rights. We have also honored our fellow property owners with the preservati u of their privacy as well as their views. We all expect the very same from others who bi ild or come in to this neighborhood to live. This is not an unreasonable expectation. Ours a not a vacation home, it is our permanent residence. We are very saddened and also ngered by the prospect of our primary view and well as our privacy and property values be ng taken away. There is no reason whatsoever why the subject home cannot alsu be des ed In such a sensible and non- Invasive manner. We would like to st in the wisdom and foresight of our elected officials. We respectfully request that this a ptiwtlon be denied and sent back for appropriate re- design We pray that you will recog iie as we have, the imperatives here and the fervent need to readdress this issue, to and e land the magnitude of the losses we face, and to honor the maintenance of peace and harm y we have all enjoyed here for many years. Resident Owners `The Sandcastle' Mayor Bromberg '05 FCfl -! .19 :10 City Council Members Date: Re: Feb. a 2005 Appeal of Circle Residence PA 2003 -006 HOLD THAT LINE — STOP FURTHER COASTAL BLUFF ENCROACHMENT We oppose this project and respectfully urge our Newport Beach City Council to set policy NOW that will comply with are already adopted LOCAL COASTAL PLAN. The LCP as written RESTRICTS new development from extending beyond the predominant line of existing development on COASTAL BLUFFS. The City Council needs to implement this policy immediately and not wait for Coastal approval. Time is of the essence. Protect our COASTAL BLUFFS NOW for the future preservation and enjoyment of everyone. � 1 L� '05 FEB -7 ,A9 :12 OFF i ',, - I-:.- . '- . is v R6 Tz- zl -Z r. , C. ..:FIB -7 012 :22 OF F:': _:;? Y CLERrt Cl i Y ,POR? BEACH THIS PETITION WILL HOLD THE LINE ON NEW DEVELOPMENT ON THE BLUFFS OVERLOOKING CDM STATE BEACH STOP FURTHER SEAWARD ENCROACHMENT OF HOMES NOW Re: Feb. 8m 2005 Appeal of Circle Residence PA 2003 -006 To the City Of Newport Beach and Honorable Mayor Bromberg & City Councilmen: We the undersigned residents of the City of Newport Beach in the Village of Corona del May respectfully oppose the proposed new development project of Doug & Jan Circle at 3415 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar, designed by Architect Brion Jeannette. We respectfully urge the City Council to set policy that will comply with our newly adopted LOCAL COASTAL PLAN. The LCP as written "RESTICTS new development from EXTENDING BEYOND the predominant line of EXISTING development on COASTAL BLUFFS." The City Council needs to implement this policy IMMEDIATELY and not wait for Coastal approval. Time is of the essence. PROTECT OUR COASTAL BLUFFS NOW for the future preservation of private as well as public views and the enjoyment of everyone. WNam �{-� : J --------------------- _ ------- `--- -__f.. _---- _- Y`-- _- -- - -_. °_--- _---- Cam- -1 - -_ Sirow- - C*1 ,2.: .-` stale_. \. t4 `•t Z,.c;- �ft LM awe =w a p��f11e �� ,�� lilt _____________------ z- `= aderesa(1 {: c___________ _____________________ --- r sin"awm _ _-- r I r C*r C4r sale CL zip E i U -4P -- - - - - - -- A �ZL - - -- - ----------- �!__4�x L _- - - - - -- sIFewre �.� e�! C* r` sham( zip�;Z�s "Z Pft s -lame �J �L _s f_�c ATC Adftm — _ --E_G=-- -1 ---- / -- Cly Sf31ecK r4 �I,�NLS e '' =' -.� �s ,J. ..c7 -• -� 70 1 ` 111--- - a C \�� CyJ Riri - Date —US— �5 - Fjrinl Name I o'C Sign �: - --- CItY Stan ZpC 2 2. Pnnl Name 1 G c — - 0�. F Andres r% 7-- -- I - - -- Z- "`-a ------- - - - - -- )Signature 3. Print Name - - G=— . - A- "' -""' ------------ -- - ..a -�- / CRY C 4 /L1 Address -- --- ------------- State e' 'j Z'p 1 - - -- -- - -J L--- -----5 t-------------------- Signature " '' ��v, /-'---- city /V I> State C f1 Zip �/ Z 4. Print Name / /,t L"�il- �!t "-Z_ (�. Address - -? `7�� C � ��U - -----------------------------I --------------- --'-- Signature _- _ -------------------- ul - .. com State CA Zip t )4-,;J. 5. PSrig in lNm --- ---- -- -- - - - - ---- -- - - - - - - � -- City S 6. Print- - - - - -- - - -- ----- �Y- A1T -7' -- Address --- �- I � • ---- - - - - -- Signature lily n Stale (A ZIP Z z Print Name - ---=--- V i �rV f L- L I P M S 1----�--f------------------- -------------------------N------ Address 3 7 �j --------'------- -rppJ Y%) L k - ------- -- ----------------- - - Signature ls� city !/ M State 0/4 Zip 8. PrintNarne /'_ /�' 7z.- _.r.J___+ =i1`. _�_l1.5- Address74?c s- -f `rA�✓ /-- ,- ----- --------------------------- S."Wre -: � �. City Ll Stare " // Fj inl Name C J ( ! yV, c 1` `L Address -. - -- ------ -• � ---------------------� _ / Signah,- city G } �'`^ State p ZG � I 2i oz C 7 2. Print Name Address ----- --------------- 'ignature� -- j=.: a---------------------------------------------------- City - we vw �- �--- I--- -------------------------- ----- 2?f�lwl qh' State 4w Zip 3. v' Print Name J dN� 5 Address �� " Signature City State Zip 4. Print Name Address Y Signature City State Zip 5. Print Name ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Address Signature City State Zip 6. Print Name Address Signature City State Zip 17 Print Name --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Address Signature City State Zip 8. Print Name Address S �nature City State Zip J r=eb 5.? Address r. FM n t Name 3-j-c (-( - ----- ---- Signah QIYN�IWA Q( tlltAL Slahr�A zipt) 2• j Print N3" ' L � 13, t 4L Address --------------------- --------------------------------------- ) ----------------------- �ftnafttre--Lr-A. CKY koQv lakt State N--- zip 7.)- 3. Flint Nam Add, -::> ------------ - ------------ - --------- Stature City C- zlpc, �i,-2It� 4. Print Nam Address ---------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 7 ------------ Signah" city StatL•,,I-;,j.,)' zip -.c6 T S. Print Name jL. k v Address --- - - --- --- - - --------- -- - ------------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------- Signattare City i State `'4 ZIP 6. Print Nam Address Ji ---------------- ------------ - ---- --------- - Signature aty Slaty, Print Name )'j "1 '7 Address 7, S-:-j -e--- ----------- T5-7T--- g- n- -a-tL r-- / city State Zip � Print Nam v Address ------------- -------- ----------------- ------------ - - - - -- ik - I I - --------- -- - - - -- S I "Itffe city State i Mp , 1,- Fjr nl Naff Address ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------ 1� I Signab,� city ( St3e Zp" 2. Print Name tt Address .5 -------------- -------------------------------------------------- I --- --- ---- -------------- �Si ture L C State lrip 3. P f"dress Print Name z -------------- ----------- ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -ef City Sawture State d l ZIP 4. Print NamAddress ---------------------------------------------------------- Signature ' x Mp City Z t 6 ,State 5. Flint Name ------------ Signature state j w7 —A Zip Print Nam C Address ---------------------------------------------- Signature - L city state zip:,�,� Print Name i Address 7. ------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------- Signalise Z city Statir",/ zip fl r. Print Name j>�� Add. ---------- ------- :(. . .. ......... --------------------- ---- - --------------------------- - -------------- -- -J Signature 1:). LIt City state zip I FinM Narrre 17 t�,'�T� _4! } - -- ` -�' -,� �F- t-- ��--------- - ------ - - - - - - - -� -ti =�- -` -` -- `- -' - -- -- Signatnr. : �4 \ City L. J ` v State 1 ". �� Zip I L� 2 PnM Name _ Address r.r " nature ;. _� "a. l=ily State zip > PttM -'----- -- Andress ---- �-- -5--- 4!`_ldte- - t -_ -- -`-i�! ggnah" r City State Zip Name --c /Print Address /r� � - s -- - - -�` -- _ "- ------ -- - ---Z-r-- ------ - t � / -' ) S�� p 5. Print Name ------------ ,= - F - - (- - �- L- -'.- ) - =-1� - - ----- , -- --- Signalrrr? / State zip Print Name �' 1 v� Ct11 - Address S70rature CRY state zip cl )f PuntNan're �, /? /Z !' �� ,5- ; , �1 !'�'C z�C j�I. l'1� -------------- Signature - - - - -- - - - - - C _ city L- State c-lq -mp Print Nam ------- ---- -I S C N i l -------- '--, i 'a_^1� -------- t -------------• i' Fjrint Name "}� 1 f,': p `�r Address j yv! I I. l' �� !- -- - -------- ��' ._,t,l,1�- - - -- -- ---------------------- r� )rl\,t,U z Print Name ----------- -- / . l- ----- --------------- Address l l� h C1 - ------------------------- - -r -p - -v -- - ' - ---1 ---v --- -< - --. -- ---t--- ------- + City Lye r E?G'. , `r'..V state l l zip 3. Print Name j Address l (J-t' l -- - -- Signature -� " r<�' l C r.? .� , -------------- - - - -- -- --- - - - - qty ' l` 1 State Cr riP -Jkfco a Print Nan*', 1�� 1 ) `_�'�- �LMI__4_ Addrests aill rr -1 I %� ' ': _ �- -h- __ 1�7Cti_„� �S. -------------= _ -- ---- -- --- --I�- -- - -• -- �"Y�.I./ -{. 11/t- . ; 1 `. -,.L_ r' / ,� V StatECA ZipCj,� 6 6L [Signahxe �i 5 Print Name }`7 /J i C / Signature — - -- L..- .,_- -- .. �' L. ep�/- XD 4 ./%%fo2 State ( Zip / Z�- Rini Name ��4�.e(e G��1- I�- �i�_ Cl�k--------- A°- 3�10��_ C?ZFCI it,__��(-=--------------- - - - - -- - Sgnabae ( I,n--g-: -- t' -- city State A zip Q mS Print Name /� A �C cF -t31^ Address �_____-- -'—N _ Signature City C r %'^ State Cft Zip a Print Name / / llb_aL Address 7t f 1�5-- j---- ` R Si nature VK _�_: l l'1 H ` -:r _ - - - - -- ,�� QQ ,----- _ qLy � -i yvt ) i' V I r ' State6A Zp ��2".. �I05IQ6 FMnt Name Address --71e, C/ t - ------------- - ------ ---------------- ,Signatim cit" I slat. zi, 7z� C. 2. Print Nam ----------- Address ------ L — -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- v Signature City State o", Zip 3. Print Name Address ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Signatnm Z//k-a 6u city crs (,kA, vlz- zjpyX,� Print Nam I C--a if ii-) Address -<i L,111z ----------- - - - -- -ice C-,-Ll-� -------------------------- --------------------- P ---------- CRY 1� State 6) Zip.,/ 5. Print Name Address --------------------------------------------------------- A 7 ----------------------------------------------- --------- 71� ---- Signattae' city Side Zip 6. Print Narne ---------ature ----% - Sign- Cb �at�4- Zip( i,> Print Name ------------ Address -------- - r Signature S Ig n a 0 I - � CRY State f Zip 8. 8 n Print Name P n tNa m j , E�- 6 / ' I L- '2 Address --------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- 4natLffe 4 na �m ------------------------------------------ city 14 I State 71 Zip n t Narr Address L2. v Skjnab,��. city State ef, zjp Print Name----' Address__,�_ )9-f-/N-c A Ve — ----------------- -_ e\. city state Zip 3. Print Name ------------ Address ( ------ -------- ...... -- - ------------- --k- - -- --------- ---- - -- ---- S ignatme i city f L -ZIP Print Name -------------- Address ------------------------ -- ---- Sigrudwe city Staft /I Zip f; 5. Print Name Address ' j, - ------------ ----------- ------------------------------------------------------------ ------ --L'- Signatiffe City state Zip 6. Print Name am "' - Address - -------------- A V��- ------------------------------------ Signabxe .-Dl M C --- state rrC. zipy. 7. Print Name Address --------------- b �- ------------------ - ----- ------------------------------------ Signawre CRY state ZIP c 8' Print- -- --- ----------- -J - -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ S�na city c 1) i, l stase"-(, Zip Z F L)j 21 5 )CS 96M Nam Ad&ess A, - ---------- ------- -------- Signatom City(,6 If State ('% zipt/N�,,g ,, 11(tdtl 2. Print - --- --- R- - . ..... re S C4 tate 3. Print Address ---------- Signature City State zip Print -- ---- - -- -A--d-d-r-e-s-s --- f- ----- ---- - me M 5. -Print -Name --J, ------------------- city State zip Kr Ptiri� ------------ i Signatur,e, city zv slat� zip _1d Z-/ T.- Print Nan Me ------- ---- -- -- ----------------------------- Address ------------------------- Signature city StatsC, 4 Zip cl,? Print Name Address -------------- ----------------- -------------------------------------- --- - -- C/- % city Sb* Zip Address — -------- - — ------------------ 22 signatvr.. CRY state Ctj Zip 2. Print Name _j __F-_ -----A-dd-r-e -------------- - - ----- .. --- - - - --- --- CRY Print Nam Address -------------- ----------------------- ------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Signature fir.' -1 city state l' -; zip Pri j, —7' ----------------- Address --- ---- Signahlre -3,* A city -state Zip L'' Print Name ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Address Signature CRY 0" state zip, & C�l Print Name d1,q4'1(-- IL 1 4�- --------------------- ----- ---------------- C - --------------------------------------------------- Signature city Cu( -, 61, 1; 1 cl, State ('/'f zip T. Print Name v ------------------------------- ------- ------ _Address_j,,,� t e -1-,� --- A -------- ----------------------------------------------------------- I Signature City C- "/T is: 4� /1 /1, State zip 8-. Print Nam A A k Addrew C -r7 -------; ------------------------ ------- --------------------------------------------------- St aue ------------------------- I State (-� ctyc, IF ( j, % ll. 1� �, C(, Z!P9 , I i)0,5)05 THIS PETITION WILL HOLD THE LINE ON NEW DEVELOPMENT ON THE BLUFFS OVERLOOKING CDM STATE BEACH STOP FURTHER SEAWARD ENCROACHMENT OF HOMES NOW Re: Feb. 8m 2005 Appeal of Circle Residence PA 2003 -006 To the City Of Newport Beach and Honorable Mayor Bromberg & City Councilmen: We the undersigned residents of the City of Newport Beach in the Village of Corona del Mar respectfully oppose the proposed new development project of Doug & Jan Circle at 3415 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar, designed by Architect Brion Jeannette. We respectfully urge the City Council to set policy that will comply with our newly adopted LOCAL COASTAL PLAN. The LCP as written "RESTICTS new development from EXTENDING BEYOND the predominant line of EXISTING development on COASTAL BLUFFS." f The City Council needs to implement this policy EMA4EDIATELY and not wait for Coastal approval. Time is of the essence? PROTECT OUR COASTAL BLUFFS NOW for the future preservation of private as well as public views and the enjoyment of Pv nnP Dare 2-054y6 y"5 A�6 _S :{ .. ------------------------------ .� i Areas C� _ c lrtName 1 I 1 `! ?��'? '� `•_�'_' '_- -- C----- :LYE--- ----- --- -- - - -- (. [i wets P3. L zip 2 , Z7 ; NMane .l ,✓w ?'t- c.'i.�.: �' Yr�'-=!—__--___------ ------- ------- ------ J .:.�__s— �-__-_��---�y----------- soakne Ck Stale aP 4. 1l� , . Arelt �1 — �... RadMaare �_5..�' t:. - -� - -�-�., 1. L .:----- ��.----- �---- ' L c - - - -- �-- = - - - -'` "`- s Y z+v s. Areas _v i ----------- Rad ne Mazip skp re Lu,ieal �iQ l� CRY stale � 5 ' - �� -'rj2 A z� - - - -- -- `< _ - - -= -- - - -- --- - - - - -- - qy C sal 7. zv ' 7 qiK Mame - ------------------ ----- - - - - -- srn �2 C31Y , PfitNans •^��_ 'RiSi _-- ---- -- - - - - ^- --- `---------------°-------- J� AIBiB y . /iW -✓ � .. ! / ShM � -0 C ' - 1{�{�1�uO Dare 2-054y6 y"5 THIS PETITION WILL HOLD THE LINE ON NEW DEVELOPMENT ON THE BLUFFS OVERLOOKING CDM STATE BEACH STOP FURTHER SEAWARD ENCROACHMENT OF HOMES NOW Re: Feb. 8m 2005 Appeal of Circle Residence PA 2003 -006 To the City Of Newport Beach and Honorable Mayor Bromberg & City Councilmen: We the undersigned residents of the City of Newport Beach in the Village of Corona del Mar respectfully oppose the proposed new development project of Doug & Jan Circle at 3415 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar, designed by Architect Brion Jeannette. We respectfully urge the City Council to set policy that will comply with our newly adopted LOCAL COASTAL PLAN. The LCP as written "RESTICTS new development from EXTENDING BEYOND the predominant line of EXISTING development on COASTAL BLUFFS." The City Council needs to implement this policy DAM EDIATELY and not wait for Coastal approval. Time is of the essence. PROTECT OUR COASTAL BLUFFS NOW for the future preservation of private as well as public views and the enjoyment of - -<� yt_ �---------- FW — i ' ?l --- - -- -- �Addrtas -- - -- VAW ZIP 2 �-J—� i�f= PrYH Nape . ' � ll L % a AMMS — — --� --- --�-� --------------------- car /tip. Lt t zl d L� sm (, lqzn 3. RMNare� w r v� (,LLB. -- ^°_ ------- - -• - -- ck a ziv`1Zt L� • Pmt Nane ,. , -.� � <1e- `- k =`- -- � � '_� ------'--- Address -',' i -___ = —_.'1- -r -'` f. --------- --- ---'---_____-". swWk" 1. 't c i My 1 / .� p�idNane - - -r - f=i�C - - - - - - - - -- -- ------ SiAiaA�re -- •��_, , � /� 1�/ � is GC L X C Y C� ZIP ,��% P"Na�e -- - - - - -- t� ��:� ,L1gL__ =!2 L ��, ��`------------- 1� 1 � ' —CAr �_ � � 1 Z AP) PointNane �� dS%�,.C'Li.; d.+i 0.- �---- __ 1- -?4i.N p __�i_V _. ______ _______ —_� __________ <t . 4 . Addw=a I - Snahre ��11 � , .JCt .t� .> car . ' A ' ._ i Date 2 -OS'US THIS PETITION WILL HOLD THE LINE ON NEW DEVELOPMENT ON THE BLUFFS OVERLOOKING CDM STATE BEACH STOP FURTHER SEAWARD ENCROACHMENT OF HOMES NOW Re: Feb. 8'h 2005 Appeal of Circle Residence PA 2003 -006 To the City Of Newport Beach and Honorable Mayor Bromberg & City Councilmen: We the undersigned residents of the City of Newport Beach in the Village of Corona del Mar respectfully oppose the proposed new development project of Doug & Jan Circle at 3415 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar, designed by Architect Brion Jeannette. We respectfully urge the City Council to set policy that will comply with our newly adopted LOCAL COASTAL PLAN. The LCP as written "RESTICTS new development from EXTENDING BEYOND the predominant line of EXISTING development on COASTAL BLUFFS." The City Council needs to implement this policy IMMEDIATELY and not wait for Coastal approval. Time is of the essence. PROTECT OUR COASTAL BLUFFS NOW for the future preservation of private as well as public views and the enjoyment of � a �} - fie, ti; --- - � - - -� — -- r-- CW --- - - - - -- - - - � c_ �� c� �� s� Z pftNaw Lf -' L� c_� i- _ �,z ;� _ _'Ll� _ _ __Y`�_C_._,� 1-- __Li-t?� _1�t4�,`Ly _ ___ - �_ LL�� - ' 1 /YI.� f Sbft zip 3. a, Pdrt Name = A- '- �`- ` C- l _ A i� �) �' (L l_' _L= �"� - - -- --------------------------- - - -- -- s - - -��, CRY - Sala CA zip 4. ----- — �__--__�__- -_- _--_- -- - --' S19 1�c� -C cam' C —. Stela r4 P id Nam 1 I Addls ____ _____________— _____._ ___________ adNane.� - Adder ,✓�^ --. 2 /L- .i-JrH �_ .c�'_f.t�%_ =.1� - - - - -- - ------ - - - - -- -------- - - - - -- -------------------- -------- sale zo AMMM PrmtNane \ L ' G_._�C -� �_ \v_u_'_� ` A _____�__ —_ .x.i L _ — - ShftC4A zo PrMNane �(iY tJY_— lY� r__ __ -J _ ------ r- �r- 'r- - -T -- ____— ___- _- _____________ —__ _ __ ___ ______— �� z -05-Q5 1 ,4,,-r THIS PETITION WILL HOLD THE LINE ON NEW DEVELOPMENT ON THE BLUFFS OVERLOOKING CDM STATE BEACH STOP FURTHER SEAWARD ENCROACHMENT OF HOMES NOW Re: Feb. 8a' 2005 Appeal of Circle Residence PA 2003 -006 To the City Of Newport Beach and Honorable Mayor Bromberg & City Councilmen: We the undersigned residents of the City of Newport Beach in the Village of Corona del Mar respectfully oppose the proposed new development project of Doug & Jan Circle at 3415 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar, designed by Architect Brion Jeannette. We respectfully urge the City Council to set policy that will comply with our newly adopted LOCAL COASTAL PLAN. The LCP as written "RESTICTS new development from EXTENDING BEYOND the predominant line of EXISTING development on COASTAL BLUFFS." The City Council needs to implement this policy D&VEDIATELY and not wait for Coastal approval. Time is of the essence. PROTECT OUR COASTAL BLUFFS NOW for the future preservation of private as well as public views and the enjoyment of everyone. - ------- - - - - -- ' – - -- — -�--• - 1 / pl 1.�. ti.� 1h''� . stale (. ✓ 2 Pdn�n C t�� =� ='"------------------------- `= ----------------- ----- ^ - V .l. �.C.✓- <'. �-E. -� V.! Stale '--r i TAP t �t'�':i Pfilt Nal7Oe' \C(�i: �. !�_ —�!_S L� 1iL �fx- +^`-�r[L L------ ____�_ -1,! __________ _ „ \ C ` W i v $tat � 4. Hntrtame NCB zip A, CIV 5. /i — - - pFirt us= i /7(^.Hyl.7L�'/ `l�''ii t L ✓1 �1 �L. l IIP �( li & _�nl "_ �2=PM t Iia ---------------- - - - - -- - 7. -'�Adaem Prod S 7 _k 5C- `_______ --------- - � (... L) ` Sfax A zo s�natire . CRY + stale iry . Date '� Y � `�:. • :':,.;,,,,gut h _ c (� ' '�:fi!t .�y z,. Km Butterfield Residence 3401 Ocean Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 To whom it may concern: It is my opinion, based on the site visit to the subject property on 01/30/05, that the proposed construction to extend the decks of the property next door to the subject at 3415 Ocean Avenue, would adversely affect the subject's estimate of value. Per my analysis, ocean front property views have a value of $1,000,000+ for unobstructed 180 degree ocean views. The subject would suffer a view loss of + -5% to 10 %. The diminutive value would (could) be in the possible range of +- $100,000. As where the subject currently enjoys a 180 degree unobstructed ocean view, the proposed deck extension would limit the southerly views, more specifically, the southerly views of well known "Inspiration Point'. In addition, the subject's privacy would be encroached upon by this proposed construction, thereby allowing those on the decks of the neighboring property to look directly into the subject. With respect to the loss of privacy, the value is subjective, each person has his/her own opinion and feelings in this regard. However, it is my opinion that this element is quite valuable and quite possibly equal to the loss of view. It is clear to me, per my analysis, that the contributing afore mentioned factors would only serve to diminish the subject's overall estimate of value. 23351 COBBLEF'IELD • Mission Vrejo, CA 92692 • TEL. (949) 770 -2626 • FAx (949) 770 -9744 !J KROH!BROESKE AR HllkclS MEMO Date: February 05, 2005 To: Planning Commission City of Newport Beach From Steven M. Kroh A.I.A. Subject: Circle Residence Variance No. 2003 -001 Modification Permit No. 2003 -004 (PA2003 -006) I am a resident of Corona del Mar on Ocean Blvd. and am writing in strong opposition to the request of Brion Jeannette for the amendment of the above- referenced Variance and Modification Permits. it is my understanding that the applicant was previously granted a variance to allow his client to construct a residence of a spedfic design within conditions discussed at the hearing and approved by the Commission. Subsequent to that approval, the applicant has chosen to re- design the residence with an increase in the depth of the structure. By increasing the depth of the previously- approved design, the rear second floor deck will now exceed the height limit within this zoning classification, extend past the string -line between the neighboring properties, and will obscure ocean view of the neighbors. Approval of this variance would be inconsistent with the provisions of Sedion 20.91.035(6) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code that requires the Planning Commission to find the applicant has established specific grounds for a variance: The proposed increased depth of the residence is not required to allow the applicants clients to enjoy the some privileges or property rights os the neighboring property owners. In fact, the approval of this variance will cause considerable damage to the neighboring homes by substantially reducing their existing ocean views. In this area, property values are in direct relation to views. PH FAX • The granting of this variance will unquestionably constitute a "special privilege" for Mr. Jeannette's clients. By allowing the increase in height of the second floor deck over the 24' limit as established within the zoning code, Mr. and Mrs. Circe will be able to extend their deck toward the ocean in order to capture an unobstructed view of the coastline. The current unobstructed views currently enjoyed by the neighboring residents will be dramatically reduced. These neighboring property owners will now be punished for having built their homes in compliance with the height restrictions and in consideration for their neighbors. In dosing, I believe that the previously- approved variance and modification adequately mitigate any special circumstances relevant to the property. This previously- approved variance currently allows the property owners to construct a home consistent in scale and quality with other properties in the area without damaging the rights or privileges of their neighbors. The proposed amendment would allow an exception to the allowable height of the second floor deck and its' increased projection past the string -line, creating an obtrusive and unnecessary nuisance for the neighbors. Without a strong foundation of mitigating grounds for approval, this variance request should be denied. Sincerely, Sfeven M. Kroh AI.A. 3116 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 949-675.8963 2of2 Dail Pilot KENrrgEPiOW EVULYFIL01 Lynne Butterfield stands on her balcony. The two poles jutting behind her will ruin her view of Inspiration Point, she says. Calling their bluffs Alicia Robinson Dally Pilot CORONA DEL MAR — The otherwise [notice remodel of an Ocean Boulevard home has brought to light a gap in dry codes that could allow property owners to build as In, out ham the bluffs as the laws of physics will suppan, as long as they stay within height and setback limits The city's from code in- cludes a maximum building height and requires setbacks from property lines, and the city's general plan charges of- ficiaLs with comemang afters- that an coastal bluffs. nor nothing says how far out a structure can jut from the bluff. "As I see it, our existing pol- icy really is somewhat vague and doesht deal with the is- me head -on to the extent where its definitive," Newport Beach Mayo, Steve Bmmbarg Continued from Al Newport officials are trying to change a policy Mayor Steve Bromberg calls 'somewhat vague' that could allow coastal homeowners to build well out. said. "Wem hying to change that with the proposed [Local Coastal Plan] that is with the (state] Coastal Commission right now" The issue use because Ocean Boulevard resident Doug Circle wants to build a new home on his bluff -side property with an upper deck that exceeds the height limit When the Planning Cam - mission approved his request. neighbor Lynne Butterfield appealed to the City Council, arguing the new home would interfere with the public's views from Inspiration Paint and Corona del Mar State Beach — as wall as her own to strike a balance between their duty to protect property owners sights and their stewardship of the environmentally sensitive bluffs "I'm concerned about my- thing that would be built farther out than what is there today." Councilman Don Webb said "Until we have a policy that clgarly defines this. were going toehaw to look very carefully at eacti.project" fume worry that if the Cimlestn pipjeWis approved, other prop- er�y rs will try to build simi- .la£ that project beyond elasnag.ones. ' ",'It begs the question — where, if * all, do you stop," Bromberg said $ven if the city approves the project, the Coastal Commission still has to sign off on it While some think the commis- view. An aerial photo taken in 1995 shows existing homes along the bluff more or less lining up with one another, and Bunerffeld dunks, that shouldn't change. The proposed new deck will project about eight feet far- ther than the eusting one, she said. She bad stakes erected on her deck based an the Circles plans to illustrate how far out the new deck woaid reach "I thick we all have an obli- gation to hold the line," But- terfield said. "It makes van a good neigh - b.,, it's good for the public, iCs good for the people across Aperialphota-of Lynne Butted( her neighborsrhomes showthe li sion holds the environment in higher 'i and than .property rights, it "tias recently approved buildings along the same bluff that project farther than the homes there, Assistant City Man- ager Sharon Wood said the sneer" Circle could at be reached for comment an the project which the City Camel ME address 14esday. Some council members see the issue as mare than a rnl ing on one request — theyT be making a policy decision whether they like it or not The city eventually wd have a dewly defined polio} an building projecdaos, ana its Local Coastal Plan is ap proved by the Coastal Cam mission. but that could take year or longer The plan spells out wha! kind of land uses and deval opment us allowed in the mast.] zmoo. an area definer by state law. Its goal is an protect publit access to the coast and coesta resources. For cow, city officals arse or their awn, and they will haw See BLUFFS, Page AF SM1e maybe reached at (W) 966 -4626 orby e-mail at alicia.robinson a letunes.com. I DF :10 RON YEO, FAIA ARCHITECT, INC. 500 JASMINE AVENUE CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA 92625 PHONE: (949) 644 -8111 FAX: (949) 644 -0449 MEMO TO: Honorable Mayor Steven Bromberg City of Newport Beach FROM: Ron DATE: February 2, 2005 RE: String line along the bluffs CC: Patrick Alford NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS ONE: 6 The CCC "string line" is a time honored concept that has worked well the past and should be included in our LCP. Attached are drawings that I developed for Shore Cliffs to cover the several special conditions that exist. Addressing the allowable distance down the slope or bluff is also important. I also feel that "tandem" parking does not work. Very few people park in their garages and I doubt if there is anyone in Corona del Mar that parks in the tandem space. The only case where it should be allowed is where the stalls adjacent to the alley are open. Thanks you for your consideration / lXlA 'Y TRACT Na 1110 nine CITY OF NEWPORT b ORANGE CIOU LL� . . . . . . . . . . Lo °ea 340 E, Green St, SY,,nn,re 2-5191 P,s,d"., C-lif- % VI NOT' T.1 ..M.3,C. OF N-Ull A.. AL. a.- "' srov N '. IFOw Q& qzl_ A 9B Rg a2 2o 43 .A. A. 45 . 4 7" J, ROAD 4 22 1 z 0 9 10 c 1[4 4 1 9 1AXE5 COMO< BEACR VZOW56 6 -v -93 LL� . . . . . . . . . . Developers 340 E, Green St, SY,,nn,re 2-5191 P,s,d"., C-lif- 1AXE5 COMO< BEACR VZOW56 6 -v -93 G[nGVi - U 12� h-- O /NG /NE -'P /Cif - 6X /o coXNO-�, Gc /TouT -7-ola45 y7v oY sWD r AY6 i Go,e,Jpzs p5 r oW/✓ sTiP-' 1,Af6 ItkeoW& -v Za P vi�i,JG ST/L�� vllve lot No �X/�i.C�lay/�/ oA-El-r✓ �T G-z/ 93 W�,4 5e1 / /o�� fi �YD/z.�I�YL STi�k6�//✓E o�X6T. uSEf%��Q� GGNLStoN :� �S G /,VC p,/f uow�v� X ' /d�GK ST/z1N6 G /N� r / o � ��fT�z Tiy�Y/✓ �o ,. ,!,�_u93 �0,57- �u /u0r�/6 t z-+ r_ ,SAX iSOt, /N6 I a �v vraovc= MhX 29 v z' 11r.5; ffeN Y��`.na GA51rfrL514- �o fLaox- /o /6 < ON�Y y r /qC7I1/L L'/✓V�GO/�C STiI /.es�l' S�T6�K S-7 MhX �'a�prN��GP�EYOa�o � %�G /nlL /NL� v iNb Oti cKS �,vo sT/s ocTc//uS //GGaW�o 6 •ZI• `