Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout13 - Appeal - Lot Merger - 2808 & 2812 Ocean BlvdCITY OF °� mz NEWPORT BEACH C9C /Fp0.N`P City Council Staff Report Agenda Item No. 13 January 24, 2012 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Community Development Department Kimberly Brandt, AICP, Director 949 - 644 -3226, kbrandt(�i)newportbeachca.00v PREPARED BY: Kay Sims, Assistant Planner APPROVED: A TITLE: Appeal — Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard (PA2011 -141) ABSTRACT: An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002, reversing the Zoning Administrator's approval to allow the merger of portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 located in Corona del Mar, more commonly known as 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard, which are under common ownership for the purpose of development of a new single - family residence. The Zoning Administrator's approval would also have allowed a waiver of the requirement to file a parcel map. If the lot merger is approved, future development would be required to comply with the Single - Unit Residential (R -1) Zoning District development standards. RECOMMENDATION: Sustain or reverse the Planning Commission's decision by either: 1. Adopting the draft resolution for denial (Attachment No. CC 1); or 2. Adopting the draft resolution approving Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 and waiver of the requirement to file a parcel map (Attachment No. CC 2). FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: There is no fiscal impact related to this item. 1 Appeal — Lot Merger No. 2011 -002 (PA2011 -141) January 24, 2012 Page 2 0 •-.R T 4 T �� 7 GENERAL PLAN M1 R� 'Poo O5� � \ e h�o i I R-0 R 1� P. R.1 S' N.1 R1 j R1 � n� L' I\�9 I _..r< ZONING R -1 �vp gn Na %1� <1� R -1A R'1 � e F Q R -i\ g R I �RI\zi�R -1 R17 R11 9 / R1 e'n \R -1 \. / \ 1.0 �'4 y R.1 \.R 1 / \ R1 -1 Rt /R9/ .R -1 •R-0 R�I' �° R -1 yl lel. R.1 m1�Y' 49 Rq �IOOIt— e LOCATION I GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON -SITE . Single -Unit Residential Detached Single -Unit Residential Single- family residence RS -D (R -1) NORTH Single -Unit Residential Detached IF Single -Unit Residential Single- family residence RS-D) (R -1) SOUTH Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation park, beach, and public restrooms PR (PR) EAST Single -Unit Residential Detached Single -Unit Residential I Single- family residence (RS -D) (R -1 WEST Single -Unit Residential Detached 11 Single -Unit Residential Single- family residence RS -D) -1) 2 Appeal — Lot Merger No. 2011 -002 (PA2011 -141) January 24, 2012 Page 3 DISCUSSION: Project Setting and Description The subject properties, located on the northeasterly (inland) side of Ocean Boulevard between Goldenrod and Heliotrope Avenues, consist of portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34, but are more easily identified as 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard. The properties are generally rectangular in shape with skewed front property lines and slope slightly from the rear toward Ocean Boulevard. A 20- foot -wide shared, private ingress and egress easement at the rear of the properties allows vehicular access via Ocean Lane. Each property is currently developed with a single - family residence. Lookout Point and Little Corona Beach Park are located directly across Ocean Boulevard. Block 34, Corona del Mar N a �r. F o� NV I e R -1 The appellant, Mr. John Guida, proposes the lot merger for the purpose of developing one new single - family residence. Table 1 provides a comparison of the total lot area of each of the two existing properties, the property as merged, and neighboring properties within Block 34, and those on the inland side of Ocean Boulevard, east of Heliotrope Avenue. 3 Appeal — Lot Merger No. 2011 -002 (PA2011 -141) January 24, 2012 Page 4 TABLE 1: LOT AREA COMPARISON PROPERTY LOT AREA Subject Properties_: 2808 Ocean Blvd. 7,194 sq ft 2812 Ocean Blvd. 6,499 sq ft Proposed property (as merged) 13,693 sq ft Typical Lot Size Corona del Mar 3,540 sq. ft. 30 ft. x 118 ft. Block 34 Properties Largest subject property) 7,194 sq ft Smallest 211 Heliotrope) 3,965 sq ft Average area of all lots 5,683 sq ft Neighboring Properties Adjacent to Ocean Blvd. 2900 Ocean Blvd. 13,326 sq ft 2908 Ocean Blvd. 10,049 scLft Background Zoning Administrator Hearing and Decision On September 14, 2011, the Zoning Administrator conducted a public hearing and reviewed the applicant's request. Fifteen members of the public spoke opposing the project, and a petition opposing the project signed by 29 members of the public was presented. Also presented were copies of a private deed restriction document, which limits the height of structures allowed on the subject and neighboring properties abutting Ocean Boulevard and documents relating to ingress and egress easements, which currently provide vehicular access for the subject properties via Ocean Lane. With the exception of the applicant, all public comments were in opposition to the lot merger. The comments expressed concerns related to possible negative impacts of the lot merger and included: loss of public and private views, property devaluation, and the effect on the health and welfare of the neighbors. The Zoning Administrator explained that the City does not enforce private deed restrictions, nor has policies or ordinances that protect private views. After considering the concerns presented, the Zoning Administrator determined that the lot merger would not negatively impact the neighboring area, and sufficient facts of finding were stated in the Zoning Administrator Approval Action Letter to support the required findings (Attachment No. CC 3). The Zoning Administrator, therefore, approved the lot merger. Appeal of Zoning Administrator Decision On September 23, 2011, Mr. Clifford Jones (2800 Ocean Boulevard), Ms. Joan Campbell (2811 Ocean Lane), and Mr. John Silva (2821 Ocean Lane) filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision (Attachment No. CC 4). C9 Appeal — Lot Merger No. 2011 -002 (PA2011 -141) January 24, 2012 Page 5 Planning Commission Hearing and Decision On October 20, 2011, the Planning Commission heard the appeal. During public testimony, the appellants and seven members of the public spoke in opposition to the project. Their concerns included the following: plans submitted to the City for a new, single - family residence did not comply with the private deed restriction, which limits the height of development on the subject properties; the loss of interior side setbacks of the new development would eliminate the existing public and private views across the property and result in devaluation of neighboring properties; and the alternative access to the proposed lot via Ocean Boulevard was not feasible and would be unsafe. The appellant, Mr. John Guida, his legal counsel, architect, construction contractor, and one member of the public spoke in favor of the lot merger. A point was made that the proposed project was a lot merger of the two properties, not approval of specific plans for the property, and any future development of the two properties, separately or as merged, must comply with the City's required zoning and building code regulations. Mr. Guida stated that he does not yet have final plans for the site. The previously submitted plans have not been resubmitted by the applicant. The Planning Commission determined that elimination of the interior lot line and its associated three foot interior side setbacks (total of six feet) would create one large lot that would accommodate more floor area with less required setback area than what the Zoning Code would allow on the two separate lots, if added together (see Table 2). They also determined that the merger would create an excessively large lot, which would not be consistent with the pattern of development within Block 34 (see Table 1). The Planning Commission then voted 6 -1 (Kramer) to deny the lot merger application, reversing the decision of the Zoning Administrator. The Planning Commission minutes, resolution of denial, and staff report are provided as Attachment Nos. 5 -7. Table 2: Development Standards 2808 Ocean Blvd. 2812 Ocean Blvd. Total Proposed Property Difference Property "A" Property "B" "A^ + ^B" as merged) Lot Area 7,194 sq ft 6,499 sq ft 13,693 sq ft Same Setbacks: Front 20 ft 20 ft same 20 ft same Rear loft loft same loft same Sides 3 ft per side 3 ft per side 3 It per side 4 ft per side +1 ft per side/ -6 ft interior setbacks Total Sri Ft of Setback Areas: 2,432 sq ft 2,332 sq It 4,764 sq ft 3,647 sq ft -1,117 sq ft 23.4% decrease Total Buildable Area 4,762 sq ft 4,167 sq ft 8,929 sq ft 10,046 sq It +1,117 sq ft (lot area minus (12.5% increase) setbacks) Floor Area Allowed (1.5 x buildable 7,143 sq ft 6,251 sq ft 13,394 sq ft 15,069 sq ft + 1, 675 sq ft area ) (12.5% increase Height 24 ft/29 ft 24 ft/29 ft 24 ftf29 ft 24 ft/29 ft 24 ft/29 ft Appeal — Lot Merger No. 2011 -002 (PA2011 -141) January 24, 2012 Page 6 Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision On October 27, 2011, Mr. John Guida filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action (Attachment No. CC 8). Pursuant to Section 20.64.030 of the Zoning Code, a public hearing on an appeal is conducted "de novo." The City Council is not bound by the Planning Commission's prior decision, and also is not limited to the issues raised on appeal. On review, the City Council may affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the Planning Commission. The City Council may also adopt additional conditions of approval that may address issues or concerns other than those that were the basis of the appeal. Alternatives: 1. If the City Council finds the facts do not support the findings required to grant approval of the application, the City Council should adopt the draft resolution (Attachment No. CC 1) upholding the decision of the Planning Commission and denying the proposed lot merger. 2. If the City Council finds there are findings of fact to support the findings required to grant approval of the application, the City Council should adopt the draft resolution (Attachment No. CC 2) reversing the decision of the Planning Commission and approving the proposed lot merger. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Should City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny this project. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. Should City Council reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and approve this project, staff recommends the City Council find this project exempt from CEQA, pursuant to Section 15305 (Class 5 - Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the Implementing Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. Class 5 exempts projects which consist of minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than twenty (20 %) percent, which do not result in any changes in land use or density, including minor lot line adjustments not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. This project is consistent with these requirements. NOTICING: Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways) and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. N Appeal — Lot Merger No. 2011 -002 (PA2011 -141) January 24, 2012 Page 7 Finally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Submitted by: Kimberly Brandt, Community Deve Attachment Nos: CC 1 CC 2 CC 3 CC 4 CC 5 CC 6 CC 7 CC 8 Draft Resolution — To Uphold and Deny Draft Resolution — To Reverse and Approve Zoning Administrator Approval Action Letter Appeal of Zoning Administrator Approval Planning Commission Minutes Planning Commission Resolution Planning Commission Staff Report Appeal of Planning Commission Denial 7 2 C;i�t�.y Cc•��a��cil /A\ CE-tiNo fff> c� It 1 Draft Resolution — To Uphold and Deny 9 10 1:7 *lei RI1IN1 \IILI A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DENYING LOT MERGER NO. LM2011 -002 TO MERGE THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES, UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP: PORTIONS OF LOTS 4, 5, AND 6 OF BLOCK 34 LOCATED IN CORONA DEL MAR (PA2011 -141). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by the John Guida Trust and the Julie Guida Trust, with respect to properties located at 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard, and legally described as Portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 of Corona del Mar requesting approval of a lot merger. 2. The applicants propose a lot merger for the following property under common ownership: portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 located in Corona del Mar. Also included in the application is a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map. 3. The subject property is located within the Single -Unit Residential (R -1) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D). 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B). 5. A public hearing was held by the Zoning Administrator on September 14, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Zoning Administrator at this meeting. 6. Based on the facts of finding for approval and subject to the conditions of approval in the Zoning Administrator Action Letter, the Zoning Administrator approved the proposed lot merger application. 7. On September 23, 2011, the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve Lot Merger No. LM2011 -022 was appealed by Mr. Clifford Jones (2800 Ocean Boulevard), Ms. Joan Campbell (2811 Ocean Lane), and Mr. John Silva (2821 Ocean Lane). 8. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 20, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. The Planning Commission considered evidence, both written and oral presented at this meeting. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance i1 City Council Resolution No. Paqe 2 of 3 with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. 9. The Planning Commission determined findings for approval could not be made and reversed the decision for approval of the Zoning Administrator. 10. On October 27, 2011, Mr. John Guida filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action. 11. A public hearing was held by the City Council on January 24, 2012, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. The City Council considered evidence both written and oral presented at this meeting. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. SECTION 3. FINDINGS The City Council may approve a lot merger application only after making each of the required findings set forth in Section 19.68.030.H of Title 19 (Subdivision Code: Lot Mergers, Required Findings). In this case, the Planning Commission denied the lot merger application and reversed the approval of the Zoning Administrator based on the following findings: FINDINGS A. The lot merger would allow development that is incompatible with the size and mass of structures on neighboring properties within Block 34. The removal of the interior lot line would eliminate the interior side setback (three feet) on each property, create a buildable area greater than currently exists on the two separate lots, and eliminate the open space that the interior side setbacks currently provide. B. The lot merger would create a lot size and configuration, which is inconsistent with the development pattern of the subject properties and surrounding lots within Block 34. 10090 "9 [.70 eM10101[.9107011 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies Lot Merger No. LM2011- 022 (PA2011 -141), which includes a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map, and upholds the decision of the Planning Commission. Tmpll 03/08/11 12 City Council Resolution No. Page 3 of 3 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. 3. This decision was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of itself or in combination with other decisions in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a precedent for future decisions. 4. This resolution was approved, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the 24th day of January, 2012, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS •: ATTEST: CITY CLERK Tmplh 03/08/11 13 14 Draft Resolution — To Reverse and Approve 15 10 RESOLUTION NO. ; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVING LOT MERGER NO. LM2011 -002 TO MERGE THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES, UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP: PORTIONS OF LOTS 4, 5, AND 6 OF BLOCK 34 LOCATED IN CORONA DEL MAR, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BOULEVARD (PA2011 -141). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by the John Guida Trust and the Julie Guida Trust, with respect to properties located at 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard, and legally described as Portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 of Corona del Mar requesting approval of a lot merger. 2. The applicants propose a lot merger for the following property under common. ownership: portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 located in Corona del Mar. Also included in the application is a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map. 3. The subject property is located within the Single -Unit Residential (R -1) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D). 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B). 5. A public hearing was held by the Zoning Administrator on September 14, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Zoning Administrator at this meeting. 6. Based on the facts of finding for approval and subject to the conditions of approval in the Zoning Administrator Action Letter, the Zoning Administrator approved the proposed lot merger application. 7. On September 23, 2011, the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve Lot Merger No. LM2011 -022 was appealed by Mr. Clifford Jones (2800 Ocean Boulevard), Ms. Joan Campbell (2811 Ocean Lane), and Mr. John Silva (2821 Ocean Lane). 8. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 20, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. The Planning Commission considered evidence, both written and oral presented at this 17 City Council Resolution No. Paae 2 of 7 meeting. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. 9. The Planning Commission determined that the required findings for approval could not be made and reversed the decision for approval of the Zoning Administrator. 10. On October 27, 2011, Mr. John Guida filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action. 11. A public hearing was held by the City Council on January 24, 2012, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. The City Council considered evidence both written and oral presented at this meeting. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 15305 (Class 5 Minor Alterations in Land Use limitations). 2. Class 5 consists of projects with minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent, which do not result in any changes to land use or density, including minor lot line adjustments not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. This project is consistent with these requirements. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. In accordance with Section 19.68.030.H of Title 19 (Subdivision Code: Lot Mergers, Required Findings) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding A. Approval of the merger will not, under the circumstances of this 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 lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 19. 1-g City Council Resolution No. _ Pace 3 of 7 Facts in Support of the Finding A -1. The future development on the proposed parcel will comply with the Zoning Code development standards. A -2. The proposed merger will not cause future development to impact public views of the ocean as no public view presently exists. A -3. The project site described in the proposal consists of legal building sites. A -4. The lot merger to combine the existing legal lots by removing the interior lot lines between them will not result in the creation of additional parcels. A -5. The project is in an area with an average slope less than 20 percent and no changes in use or density will occur as a result of the merger. Finding B. The lots to be merged are under common fee ownership at the time of the merger. Facts in Support of the Finding: B -1. The portions of lots 4, 5, and 6 to be merged are under common ownership. Finding C. The lots as merged will be consistent or will be more closely compatible with the applicable zoning regulations and will be consistent with other regulations relating to the subject property including, but not limited to, the General Plan and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. Facts in Support of the Finding: C-1. The previously existing single -unit dwellings located on the subject sites will be demolished, and the proposed lot would be redeveloped with a new single -unit dwelling. Section 20.18.030 of the Zoning Code establishes minimum lot area and width requirements. Each of the two existing lots meet the minimum lot area required, but do not meet the minimum lot width required (50 feet). The proposed merger of the lots would create one lot which would comply with the minimum lot width and lot area standards required by the Zoning Code. C -2. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject site as Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D), which is intended to provide primarily for single - family residential units on a single legal lot and does not include condominiums or cooperative housing. The Coastal Land Use Plan designates this site as Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B) which provides for density ranges from 6.0 -9.9 DU /AC. The existing 19 City Council Resolution No. _ Page4of7 development and proposed development of a single -unit dwelling on the site are consistent with these designations. Finding D. Neither the lots as merged nor adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger. Facts in Support of the Finding: D -1. Vehicular access to and from the subject site and adjacent properties is available via an ingress and egress easement at the rear of the site. Should the ingress and egress easement be terminated, vehicular access is possible from Ocean Boulevard at the front of the existing or merged parcels. Finding E. The lots as merged will be consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and will not create an excessively large lot that is not compatible with the surrounding development. Facts in Support of the Finding: E -1. Corona del Mar consists of lots of varying shapes and sizes. The subject lots, as merged, will result in a parcel with a width of 80 feet and area of 13,678 square feet. Other nearby lots on Ocean Boulevard have lot widths as wide as 73 feet and area as large as 13;325 square feet. The merger of the two lots it will not create an excessively large lot in comparison to many of the existing lots in the surrounding area. E -2. Development within the R -1 Zoning District can have a maximum floor area 1.5 times the buildable area of the lot. The proposed parcel will not be developed beyond this maximum square footage, and will be developed consistent with the surrounding development. Finding F. That the proposed division of land complies with requirements as to area, improvement and design, flood water drainage control, appropriate improved public roads and property access, sanitary disposal facilities, water supply availability, environmental protection, and other applicable requirements of this title, the Zoning Code, the General Plan, and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. Facts in Support of the Finding: F -1. The existing lots currently comply with the design standards and improvements required by the Zoning Code, General Plan, and Coastal Land Use Plan. 20 City Council Resolution No. Page 5 of 7 F -2. The proposed lot merger combines the lot portions into a single parcel of land and does not result in the elimination of more than three lot portions. F -3. Approval of the proposed lot merger would remove the existing interior lot lines, and allow the property to be redeveloped as a single site. The land use, density, and intensity would remain the same. The proposed lot would comply with all design standards and improvements required for new subdivisions by Title 19, the Zoning Code, General Plan, and Coastal Land Use Plan. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE TO: 1. Approve Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 and waiver of the requirement to file a parcel map for property, under common ownership, consisting of portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 located in Corona del Mar, and reversing the decision of the Planning Commission, and subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. 3. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a precedent for future approvals or decisions. 4. This resolution was approved, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the 24th day of January, 2012, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS IT,���- ATTEST: CITY CLERK 21 City Council Resolution No. _ Page 6 of 7 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The design of the development shall not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 2. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. The existing broken and /or otherwise damaged concrete sidewalk panels along the Ocean Boulevard frontage shall be reconstructed. Limits of the reconstruction shall be determined by the City Public Works Inspector. 4. All existing drainage facilities in the public right -of -way, including the existing curb drains along Ocean Boulevard, shall be retrofitted to comply with the City's on -site, non -storm runoff retention requirements. 5. All on -site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements. 6. All existing private, non- standard improvements within the public right -of -way and /or extensions of private, non - standard improvements into the public right -of -way fronting the development site shall be removed. 7. New sod or low groundcovers, as approved by the City, shall be installed within the parkway fronting the development site along Ocean Boulevard. 8. An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right -of -way. 9. All 'improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement. See City Standard 110 -L. 10, The existing sewer lateral to be used for the future dwelling unit shall have a sewer cleanout installed within the utilities easement per STD - 406 -L. All other laterals to be abandoned shall be capped at the property line. 11. All unused water services to be abandoned shall be capped at the corporation stop. 12. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right -of -way could be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 13. All applicable Public Works Department plan check fees shall be paid prior to review of the lot merger and grant deeds. 22 City Council Resolution No. _ Page 7 of 7 15. Prior to recordation of the lot merger, grant deeds indicating any changes in titles of ownership should be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. 16. The lot merger and grant deeds reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department should be filed concurrently with the County Recorder and County Assessor's Offices. 17. No building permits may be issued until the appeal period has expired, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Division. 18. Prior to issuance of the building permit for any new construction on the property, the Planning Division shall verify recordation of the document with the County Recorder. 19. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.93.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 20. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger including, but not limited to, Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 (PA2011 -141). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 23 24 City council Attachment 3 Zoning Administrator Approval Action Letter 25 M September 14, 2011 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 3300 Newport Boulevard, Building C, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 644 -3200 Fax: (949) 644 -3229 www. newportbeachca. eov NOTICE OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION The John Guida Trust and The Julie Guida Trust 1335 S. Prairie Avenue #2001 Chicago, IL 60605 Application No. Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 (PA2011 -141) Site Address 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger On September 14, 2011, the above referenced application was approved based on the findings and conditions in the attached action letter. By:_��� J6me Murillo, Zoning Administrator JM /ks APPEAL PERIOD: Lot merger applications do not become effective until 10 days following the date of action. Prior to the effective date the applicant or any interested party may appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator to the Planning Commission by submitting a written appeal application to the Community Development Director. For additional information on filing an appeal, contact the Planning Division at 949 644 -3200. cc: Todd Skenderian 1100 South Coast Highway Suite 316 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 TmpI1:07 /06/11 27 Application No. Applicant Site Address Legal Description COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 3300 Newport Boulevarcl, Building C, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 644 -3200 Fax(949)644 -3229 www.newportbeachea.gov ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION LETTER Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 (PA2011 -141) The John Guida Trust and The Julie Guida Trust 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger Portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6, Blk 34 of Corona del Mar On September 14, 2011, the Zoning Administrator approved the following: a lot merger for the following property, under common ownership: portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 located in Corona del Mar. Also included in the application is a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map. The property is located in the R -1 (Single -Unit Residential) District. The Zoning Administrator's approval is based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions. Findings A. Finding: The proposed project is in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Facts in Support of the Finding: A -1. The project qualifies for an exemption from environmental review pursuant to Section 15305 (Class 5 Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the Implementing Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which consists of projects with minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent, which do not result in any changes in land use or density, including minor lot line adjustments not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. This project is consistent with these requirements. B. Finding: Approval of the merger will not, under the circumstances of this 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 lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 19. 22 2808 & 2812 O, -,n Boulevard Lot Merger September 14, 2011 Page 2 Facts in Support of the Finding: B -1. The future development on the proposed parcel will comply with the Zoning Code development standards. B -2. The proposed merger will not cause future development to impact public views of the ocean as no public view presently exists. B -3. The project site described in the proposal consists of legal building sites. B -4. The lot merger to combine the existing legal lots by removing the interior lot lines between them will not result in the creation of additional parcels. B -5. The project is in an area with an average slope less than 20 percent and no changes in use or density will occur as a result of the merger. C. Finding: The lots to be merged are under common fee ownership at the time of the merger. Facts in Support of the Finding: C -1. The portions of lots 4,5, and 6 to be merged are Linder common ownership. D. Finding: The lots as merged will be consistent or will be more closely compatible with the applicable zoning regulations and will be consistent with other regulations relating to the subject properly including, but not limited to, the General Plan and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. Facts in Support of the Finding: D -1. The previously existing single -unit dwellings located on the subject sites will be demolished, and the proposed lot would be redeveloped with a new single -unit dwelling. Section 20.18.030 of the Zoning Code establishes minimum lot area and width requirements. Each of the two existing lots meet the minimum lot area required, but do not meet the minimum lot width required (50 feet). The proposed merger of the lots would create one lot which would comply with the minimum lot width and lot area standards required by the Zoning Code. D -2. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject site as Single - Unit Residential Detached (RS -D), which is intended to provide primarily for single - family residential units on a single legal lot and does not include condominiums or cooperative housing. The Coastal Land Use Plan designates this site as Single Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B) which provides for density ranges from 6.0 -9.9 DU/AC. The existing development and proposed development of a single -unit dwelling on the site are consistent with these designations. F:Wsers \PLN \Shared \PA's\PAs - 2011 \PA2011- 141\LM2011 -002 Adn Lltr.doc Twph: 04 /18/11 29 2808 & 2812 O, an Boulevard Lot Merger September 14, 2011 Page 3 E. Finding: Neither the lots as merged nor adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger. Facts in Support of the Finding: E -1. Vehicular access to and from the subject site and adjacent properties would remain the same via an alley and an ingress and egress easement at the rear of the site. F. Finding: The lots as merged will be consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and will not create an excessively large lot that is not compatible with the surrounding development. Facts in Support of the Finding: F -1. Corona del Mar consists of lots of varying shapes and sizes.The subject lots, as merged, will result in a parcel with a width of 80 feet and area of 13,678 square feet. Other nearby lots on Ocean Boulevard have lot widths as wide as 73 feet and area as large as 13,325 square feet. The merger of the two lots it will not create an excessively large lot in comparison to many of the existing lots in the surrounding area. F -2. Development within the R -1 Zoning District can have a maximum floor area 1.5 times the buildable area of the lot. The proposed parcel will not be developed beyond this maximum square footage, and will be developed consistent with the surrounding development. In accordance with Section 19.08.030 of the Municipal Code (Waiver of Concurrent Parcel Map), the Zoning administrator approved a waiver of the parcel map requirement since no more than three parcels are eliminated. G. Finding: That the proposed division of land complies with requirements as to area, improvement and design, flood water drainage control, appropriate improved public roads and property access, sanitary disposal facilities, water supply availability, environmental protection, and other applicable requirements of this title, the Zoning Code, the General Plan, and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. Facts in Support of the Finding: G -1. The existing lots currently comply with the design standards and improvements required by the Zoning Code, General Plan, and Coastal Land Use Plan. G -2. The proposed lot merger combines the lot portions into a single parcel of land and does not result in the elimination of more than three lot portions. G -3. Approval of the proposed lot merger would remove the existing interior lot lines, and allow the property to be redeveloped as a single site. The land use, density, and F:\Users \PLN1SharedWA's \PAs - 2011 \PA2011 - 141 \LM2011 -002 Actn Lllr.doc 1,111P11: 04/18/11 3o 2808 & 2812 O,. an Boulevard Lot Merger September 14, 2011 Page 4 intensity would remain the same. The proposed lot would comply with all design standards and improvements required for new subdivisions by Title 19, the Zoning Code, General Plan, and Coastal Land Use Plan. Conditions 1. The design of the development shall not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 2. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. The existing broken and /or otherwise damaged concrete sidewalk panels along the Ocean Boulevard frontage shall be reconstructed. Limits of the reconstruction shall be determined by the City Public Works Inspector. 4. All existing drainage facilities in the public right -of -way, including the existing curb drains along Ocean Boulevard, shall be retrofitted to comply with the City's on- site, non -storm runoff retention requirements. 5. All on -site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements. 6. All existing private, non - standard improvements within the public right -of -way and /or extensions of private, non - standard improvements into the public right -of- way fronting the development site shall be removed. 7. New sod or low groundcovers, as approved by the City, shall be installed within the parkway fronting the development site along Ocean Boulevard. 8. An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right - of -way. 9. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement. See City Standard 110 -L. 10. The existing ingress and egress and utilities easements shall be maintained 11. The existing sewer lateral to be used for the future dwelling unit shall have a sewer cleanout installed within the utilities easement per STD - 406 -L. All other laterals to be abandoned shall be capped at the property line. 12. All unused water services to be abandoned shall be capped at the corporation stop. F: \Users \PLN \Shared \PA's\PAs - 2011 \PA2011- 141 \LM2011 -002 Actn Lltr.doc •n» plt:04/18/1 1 31 2808 & 2812 G, An Boulevard Lot Merger September 14, 2011 Page 5 13. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right - of -way could be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 14. All applicable Public Works Department plan check fees shall be paid prior to review of the lot merger and grant deeds. 15. Prior to recordation of the lot merger, the development of the parcels combined shall conform to current zoning regulations pertaining to the number of dwelling units and the distance between detached structures. The proposed parcel shall have one dwelling unit. One structure shall be modified or demolished to achieve the required separation between structures and density. 16. Prior to recordation of the lot merger, grant deeds indicating the changes in titles of ownership should be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. 17. The lot merger and grant deeds reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department should be filed concurrently with the County Recorder and County Assessor's Offices. 18. No building permits may be issued until the appeal period has expired, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Division. 19. Prior to issuance of the building permit for any new construction on the property, the Planning Division shall verify recordation of the document with the County Recorder. 20. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.93.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 21. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger including, but not limited to, Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 (PA2011 -141). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the F: \Users \PLN \Shared \PA's\PAs - 2011 \PA2011- 141 \LM2011 -002 Adn Ur.doc 'rmpll: 04mij I S2 2808 & 2812 O, .,n Boulevard Lot Merger September 14, 2011 Page 6 City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this application was mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights -of -way and waterways) including the applicant and posted on the subject property at least 10 days prior to the decision date, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. APPEAL PERIOD: Lot Merger applications do not become effective until 10 days following the date of action. Prior to the effective date the applicant or any interested party may appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator to the Planning Commission by submitting a written appeal application to the Community Development Director. For additional information on filing an appeal, contact the Planning Division at (949) 644 -3200. By:- ��_ /_� Jai 6e Murillo, Zoning Administrator JM /ks Attachments: ZA 1 Vicinity Map ZA 2 Lot Merger Map F: \Users \PLN \Shared \PA's\PAs - 2011 \PA2011- WIM2011 -002 AM Ltlr.doc 'I'mpll: 04/18/1 I 33 S4 Attachment No ZA 1 Vicinity Map S5 so 2808&28120, .n Boulevard Lot Me,ger September 14, 2011 Pace 7 VICINITY MAP n ' i ♦ p'� tr ry1 4 i y7 r a • 1 i w i i � b Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 PA2011 -141 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard 1, P �t 0 n F.\ UsersIPLMShared \PA's\PAs - 2011 \PA2011 -141 \LM2011 -002 Actn Lttr. doc Impll 0-1I8i 11 S7 S2 Attachment No. Zn, :2 Lot Merger Map 39 IN EXHIBIT 'A' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT MERGER No. LM_ 11 _ —____ (Lego) Description) I Owners I er Existing Parcels I Proposed Parcels 9 AP Numb Reference Number W THE JOHN GUIDA TRUST, DATED 9/17/2010, AS TRUSTEE THE JULIE GUIDA TRUST, DATED 9/17/2010, AS TRUSTEE PARCEL 1: 052 - 061 -26 052- 061 -25 0.314 AC (gross) 0.296 AC (net) SHEET 1 OF 1 In the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California being all of Lots 4 through 6 in Block 34 of the Re- Subdivision of Corona Del Mar, as per map recorded in Book 4, Page 67, of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said Orange County. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the Northeasterly 96.00 feet thereof. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM the Southeasterly 10.00 feel of said Lot 4. Containing 0.314 Acres (13,697 sq. fl.), more or less. All as shown on Exhibit 'B' attached hereto and by this reference made a par[ hereof. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS, RIGHTS, RIGHTS OF WAY, AND OTHER MATTERS OF RECORD, IF ANY. ���� APPROVED BY: 2 jam•` ❑ Planning Director C Zoning Administrator ❑ Planning Commission ❑ City Council ❑ As Submitted ❑ As Modified Refer to: ❑ Resolution D Approval Letter # of Pgs Approved: Date: I Q SAND SCR \ OLAV S. o MEUM No. 4384 kP PREPARED B.)' M OR UNDER MY DIRE¢ ,TIQN ONIl�PRIL 08, 2011. 6-14 EXHIldII tJ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT MERGER No. LM-11 ------ (map) Owners Existing Parcels Proposed Parcels AP Numb( I Reference Number THE JOHN GUIDA TRUST, DATED 9/17/2010, AS TRUSTEE 052-061-26 PARCEL 1 THE JULIE GUIDA TRUST, DATED 9/17/2010, AS TRUSTEE 052-061-25 0.314 AC (gross) 0.296 AC (net) SCALE: 1 " =50' LEGEND: w z w Q 0 O (If z w 0 J O 0 SEE PAGE 2 OF EXHIBIT 'B' FOR EASEMENT & SURVEYOR'S NOTE. I I i— — — — — — — — J N 505 �- — 712-5.0o -f °I of I o ° I I �r N 50'00'00° W 145.0( 65.00' -- 80.OI i I I o \ w PA °\ ° I 0 I I o\ Z I �\ I t , 3 goal ot R=10.00' A= 94'23'56° L= 16.48' EXISTING LOT LINE TO REMAIN — — — — — EXISTING LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED C° 0 I� rn SHEET 1 OF 2 L-- - - - - -- I 5 .cr ALLEY — I— 1125.00'1 I I I I I I I I I I I I- ), ', % o 0' � Irn I I ° •' I'. � I ': N I I I I I LU I I ' I I y 6 w 0 Z w a w a- O /Y F- O J Li I �9p6 y�V SAND SGRL\ I 00 1 ? 02 p OLAV S. o 1380 IJ 16 ��PRQ MEUM �( No. 4384 OC` P\ 9lF OF' cA;'\ oo PREP M R UNDER MY DIR N 0 IL 8, 2011 OLAV S. MEUM LS 4384 11 1 EXHIBIT 'B' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT MERGER No. LM— 11 ------- (Map) Owners Existing Parcels Proposed Parcels AP Number Reference Number PARCEL 1 THE JOHN GUIDA TRUST, DATED 9/17/2010, AS TRUSTEE 052- 061 -26 0.314 AC (gross) THE JULIE GUIDA TRUST, DATED 9/17/2010, AS TRUSTEE 052- 061 -25 0.2.96 AC (net) SHEET 2 OF 2 EASEMENT NOTE: AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS, PIPE LINES, POLE LINES AND OTHER PUBLIC A- A UTILITIES FOR THE BENEFIT OF AND TO BE USED IN COMMON BY THE OWNERS OF LAND IN LOTS 3, 4, 5 & 6 OF BLOCK 34 AS RECORDED ON MAY 11, 1951 IN BOOK 2187, PAGE 233 & BOOK 2187, PAGE 235, BOTH OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 10' WIDE EASEMENT FOR SEWER PURPOSES RECORDED IN BOOK 2165, PAGE 614 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 65, PAGE 21 OF PARCEL MAPS. 10' WIDE EASEMENT FOR SEWER PURPOSES RECORDED IN BOOK 2165, PAGE 611 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 65, PAGE 21 OF PARCEL MAPS. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: A PORTION OF THE LAND INCLUDED WITHIN THIS LOT MERGER AS DESCRIBED IN PARCEL 2 OF THE LATEST GRANT DEED RECORDED ON DECEMBER 20, 2010 AS INSTRUMENT No. 2010000708142 O.R. AGREES WITH THE LAND SHOWN AS PARCEL 1 OF A PARCEL MAP RECORDED ON DECEMBER 5, 1974 . IN BOOK 65, PAGE 21 OF PARCEL MAPS. LANICI I 1, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �- LOT MERGER No. (Site Map) Owners Existing Parcels Proposed Parcels AP Number Reference Number THE JOHN GUIDA TRUST, DATED 9/17/2010, AS TRUSTEE 052-061-26 PARCEL 1 THE JULIE GUIDA TRUST, DATED 9/17/2.010, AS TRUSTEE 052-061-25 . 0.314 AC (gross) 0.296 AC net SCALE: 1 ° =50' SHEET 1 OF i I ICI I L- - - - - -- i L--- - - - - -- , ALLEY — N 5-0'00'00" W0 _ 1- 0_I _ ��— 1_ — Z 25.0 ' /' 2500 I-0 w I .,.,•. I .,•. I_ I I I I Q C! 0 a I of : ;I�.. :i;: 'oI�' I ° of • I; I:;,.... II' I I I I o U N 50'00'00'" W 145.00" i '`� r.� I I I I W 65.00' 80.00 i I \ a; I I (a10 •� I I ti I �9 I I z ' I Iti e(oAz I o(oo N� 6�W G I ° LO I o,\ PARCEL 1 oom\ °o \5Cn9oe i y`c9ee Wo �0 �i.li� . iiii I Res I *'de e5� oI I I ) I o I � 66 Z°° OLAV �ti•38Oh' - �� MEUM " J I {< R o dia R= 10.00' �C�P No. 4384 6= 94'23'56" �� Q L= 16.48' qrF OF CA�tF��� LEGEND: EXISTING LOT LINE TO REMAIN PREP D Y OR UNDER ! ✓)' — — — — — EXISTING LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED DIR N N: RIL 8, 2011 614 -�1 OLAV S. MEUM LS 4384 Appeal of Zoning Administrator Approval 45 :'lw 15-Sep-201110:12 AM Clty of Newport IBoach 049. 644.3220 Community Development Department Planning Divlslon 3300 Newport 80I.119VArd, Newport Beach, CA 92803 (949)8443204 Telephone 1(949)844 -922.9 Fac elin1le www.ncawnorlheachcanov Application to appeal the decision of the: Appellant information.-, Name(s): C�- Address: 7 9 Zoning Administrator © Planning Director n {-baring Officer 0 zv11 Date Appeal Filed: z3 / rao laec:elvcad:,9 33 170 Received by:. &,§ C:^M P P EL L. T i-H-/ f S( !_..,/ city/state/zip: C l2c a�,d{�/��/ m �-/� `� C) -z / S Phone: S -`705 max; �j��(• (�� �, 5�'7 Email: L-Y^l iD r - c ` " NTT•( Appealing Applicaltion Regarding: J"Gr'tf-1 Gqu 1 1>A -r0,i S'T Name of Applicant: U LIE G o (Q/� 'T�U `ST Date of Decielon: �361fr l�(r 2 ProjeotNo. (PA): FA Zpt I - 14 ( ActivltyNo.:, LM 2, O 1 (, ,LO-7 Site Address;, Z Z ! 1 2 'D- Description: Lt2-[a G S',4, � D (� g (�L � 4 Reason(s) for Appeal (attach a separate sheet If necessary): Along with application, please submit the following: e Twelve (12) 11X17 sets of the project plans e One set of mailing labels (Avery 5900) for property owners within 300 ft. radius of subject property slanatum of GAppeil>ant: Date. `J41 �- X: 1Uooro11' LNl9lraredUnlrannfu000lApplloatloneVlppanllAppl !anllon.dwx E]Fm copy LE D Upllolnrl 5l10111 ANNE 47 .,, We do not feel the findings referred to "13- findings, L- landings" have been adequately addressed. The findings were as follows: Approval of the merger will not, under the circumstances of this 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 incurious to properly and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and Further that the proposed lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 19. Neither the lots as merged nor adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger. (Easement) 13y the City allowing the inter lot lines to be removed by the lot merger, the City has (according to the formula for the deed restriction on each lot) given him the opportunity to break the current restrictions and go to an increase of height addition by 7,5 feet plus considerable increase in the bulk of his structm•e. In addition to the above we feel that the total economic impact on surrounding properties, the loss of enjoyment of the view (deed restriction) and the potential undermining of the stability of the adjacent properties had not been adequately addressed and can only be accessed by experts in those areas. 42 September 14, 2011 I'o whom it may concern, The subject vicinity along Ocean Boulevard is sorely in need of renewal and improvement. In that regard, I have no objection to the subject proposed lot assembly along Ocean Boulevard as such. However I do have concerns as regards the related subsequent residential development. It would appear that, as proposed, this development may result in an excessive structural height and bids not intended in the terms of the original legal deed restrictions governing the development of these parcels. IPapproved as proposed, the development would likely adversely affect the adjacent properties governed by Ole deed restrictions and other neighboring properties as well. Thus the developer should be encouraged proceed to renew these lots but with a modestly redesigned project more in keeping with file intent of the deed restrictions, especially as regards overall height considerations. Sincerely / 1AI JUIm H. Anderson 214 Goldenrod Avenue 949 - 723 -1556 4-9 50 City (council Attachment 5 Planning Commission Minutes 151 52 r� V , NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES j, n I ` 10/20/2011 AB7(RECUSE- D.):_Nlyers and Unsworth ABSTAIN: None. Chai�rih- and -C -owner Myers returned to the Chambers and ITEM NO.4 Appeal of Lot Merger (PA2011 -141) 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Kay Sims, Assistant Planner, reported the item is an appeal to approve a lot merger for 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard and provided a brief PowerPoint presentation Assistant Planner Sims addressed location of the properties, current lot configuration, private egress /ingress easements and locations of the existing structures on the properties. In addition; Ms. Sims provided background including previous consideration of the item by the Zoning Administrator on September 14, 2011, through a public hearing wherein concerns were voiced by the public that approval of a lot merger would allow: 1.) a higher structure on the property which would eliminate views across Ocean Boulevard to the neighboring properties to the rear. The views are protected by means of a private deed restricting the height of structures on a lot and loss of the views would result in devaluation of those neighboring properties. 2.) access to the properties if the egress /ingress was eliminated. After consideration of public comments and concerns, the Zoning Administrator addressed them by stating the City does not regulate or enforce private deed restrictions or the Covenant, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &Rs) and has no private view protection ordinance. If private egress /ingress easement was eliminated, there is alternative access available from Ocean Boulevard. In addition, the size of the proposed lots is similar to other lots in the area; therefore, compatible. New development on the two (2) lots, whether individual or merged, is required to comply with the City's Zoning Code development standards for the Single Family Residential Zoning District. Assistant Planner Sims reported that the Zoning Administrator approved the lot merger after finding there were facts to support all the findings. It was noted that an appeal was filed on September 22, 2011. The appellants do not believe that findings related to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighboring properties and residents, and legal access to the property were adequately addressed by the Zoning Administrator in making his decision. The appellants stated that approval of the lot merger would allow the applicant to break the private deed restriction limiting height and allow an increase in the size of the structure allowed on the property. Also, a resulting loss of view by higher structures would result in a devaluation of those properties. Assistant Planner Sims noted the Planning Commission's possible actions and presented an update to the findings relative to availability of alternative vehicular access to and from the property. Commissioners Hawkins, Toerge, Myers, and Chair Unsworth reported meeting with the appellants and visiting the site. Commissioner Ameri reported visiting the site. Commissioner Hillgren requested clarification of which lots were granted height restrictions and inquired regarding future developments planned for the property. Staff responded that at this time, the application is a request for a lot merger, should a development be proposed it would be required to comply with the Zoning Code, and it was noted that the City does not enforce private view restrictions. In response to an inquiry from the Commission, City Traffic Engineer Brine reported safe access could be achieved from Ocean Boulevard and referenced other precedents. He indicated the preference would be to try and maintain on- street parking and have access remain through the rear easement. Access from Ocean Boulevard would be a last resort option. In response to an inquiry from the Commission, Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill explained that it is an application to merge two (2) parcels under the Subdivision Map Act and the City is looking at its Codes and Regulations to determine whether the application satisfies the City Standards. She noted it does so without an independent investigation as to whether a private agreement may or may not affect the property. Currently the Page 10 of 16 153 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10120/2011 property has access from the rear as a result of a private easement. Should something happen to the private access, the City recognizes there is an alternative access off of Ocean Boulevard. Chair Unsworth opened the public hearing. Chair Unsworth asked the appellant to come forward if he wished to make a presentation. Clifford Jones, appellant, made his presentation and addressed that the easements were given for ingress and egress, but noted the easements can be withdrawn at any time. He stressed that the lot line merger would take away eight (8) feet of view corridor that world normally be there, addressed deed restrictions, proposed uses, and compliance with standards. He reported the property owner has plans for development that would eliminate views for adjacent properties. He spoke in opposition to the lot merger. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Ameri, Mr. Jones reported the easement agreement with the City is for utilities. He also mentioned the egress /ingress for the two (2) subject lots facing Ocean Boulevard. Peter Campbell, Corona del Mar resident, spoke in opposition to the lot merger with concerns regarding negative impacts to the health and safety of the current residents. Joan Campbell, Corona del Mar resident, indicated she is almost 85 years old and all she has left is to keep her view. Valerie Marcotte, resident, spoke in support of Joan and Robin Campbell, who live in the house most- impacted by the proposed merger. They are both 85 years old, they have lived in their house for 34 years, and depend daily on their view. She expressed concerns with the noise from the construction that they will have to live with for the next two (2) years and the resulting loss of their view. Ms. Marcotte stressed that this would be very disruptive to the Campbells, would create anxiety, as well as depreciate their home's value.. John Silva, Corona del Mar resident, noted it is causing increased stress for him and stated opposition to the lot merger. In response to an inquiry from the Commission, Mr. Silva reported the easement can accommodate ambulances and is used for utility access for the properties in the front. Alberta Silva, Corona del Mar resident, reported living in the area for 44 years and listed her activities in helping the community. She spoke in opposition of the lot merger noting the issue has caused a lot of stress. Danny Daneshmand, Corona del Mar resident, reported her daughter is the property owner and is representing her at this meeting. He expressed concern for the decreased property values if the current view is eliminated and spoke in opposition of the lot merger. He took issue with the City not honoring the established CC &Rs and opined this could result in a lawsuit. Dan Purcell, Corona del Mar resident, provided a brief history of the lots and opined the financial impact on the property owners would be very injurious and felt access on Ocean Boulevard would be unsightly. Jeffrey DuFine thanked the Commission for considering the issue and noted his main concerns regarding the easements and not honoring the established CC &Rs. He reported the easements were given in order to maintain the site lines and views. He reported the attorney for the subject property owner intimated to the Campbells and that if this went to court, they would be buried in legal fees. Philip Larson spoke representing his father who is recovering from an operation. He opined this will be a beginning step to something that will turn into a problem and spoke in opposition of the merger. John Whelan, Attorney representing the owners of the subject properties, John and Julie Guida, noted approval by the Zoning Administrator and that the deed restrictions indicate permitted structures would be one -story in height. He addressed elimination of the easement for access and stated the deed restriction does not prohibit a Page 11 of 16 154 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1 0/2 012 01 1 lot merger. He stressed the lot merger that has been applied for is consistent with the City's zoning ordinances and ought to be approved. Commissioner Hawkins noted the Commission must make certain findings to approve the lot merger. Chair Unsworth asked Mr. Whelan if he agreed that the finding "approval of the merger would not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, peace, comfort, general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood" could not be made. He addressed some of the impacts that will occur. Mr. Whelan addressed the appellants' concerns by noting that the concerns are to be attributed to the construction of the home and not the lot merger. In response to an inquiry by Chair Unsworth, Mr. Whelan stated that there would be a home built on the merged lots. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's inquiry, Mr. Whelan acknowledged a deed restriction stating it concerns the five (5) lots and felt the intent of the deed restriction was to restrict the height of the structures based on the lots as they were configured at the time. Mark Todd, Realtor and President Elect for the Newport Beach Realtor's Association, spoke in support of the lot merger. He reported reading the deed restriction and indicated it does not address the merger of the lots, but rather height restrictions and easements. He stated Mr. Guida intends to build a one -story structure, to be a good neighbor and not to block the view. He reported many senior citizens prefer one -story homes and spoke in support of the lot merger. John Guida, applicant, explained why he attended with representation. He stressed the intent is to build a single -story structure, addressed the architectural plans, and stated he is trying to build to code. He offered to meet with the Commission at the site, and stated he understands the restrictions but is trying to do his best to resolve the issues. Andrew Patterson of Patterson Construction noted that he encouraged a meeting with the neighbors and explained the attorney was expressing that he did not want to go into litigation when he made his comments to the Campbells. He stated the applicant is trying to work with the neighbors and spoke in support of the lot merger. Christopher Courts of Sinclair Associates Architects, Inc. addressed the proposed square footage of the house, the highest point in the house, and the maximum height of the elevator shaft. Mr. Jones re- addressed the Commission noting the front of the lot will be raised five and a half (51/2) feet from the sidewalk area because, if it is raised six (6) feet, the basement will be considered a first story. He addressed the height of existing homes and noted that, with the proposed structure, the views from the back homes would be eliminated, which produce a negative impact. In addition, Mr. Jones presented some photos. Commissioner Kramer questioned the accuracy of the hand drawn lines representing the potential blocking of views. Christopher Courts reported they are trying to construct something that is complimentary to the neighborhood and that the drawings do not depict what will be built. Mr. Jones reported inviting the architect to look at what the impacts would be and asked them to stake out what they wanted to do, but that they refused. Chair Unsworth closed the public hearing. Commissioner Toerge commented on lot mergers noting they are not without a cost or negative impact to neighbors. He expressed concerns with giving away side yard setbacks in mergers. He felt the impacts with this item are significant and the loss of the side yard setbacks is clearly detrimental and that the lot merger would result in a lot inconsistent with the surrounding development pattern. Page 12 of 16 55 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/20/2011 Motion made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner At eri; and carried (6 — 1) to reverse the decision of the Zoning Administrator and adopt a Resolution to reverse the Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002. Commissioner Hillgren expressed support for the motion and felt that merging the lots is inconsistent with the intent of the pattern of development. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Ameri, Hawkins, Hillgren, Myers, Toerge, and Unsworth NOES: Kramer ABSENT(RECUSED): None. ABSTAIN: None. It was noted the appeal period for this item is ten (10) days. NO. 5 Lido Village Design Guidelines (PA2011 -148) Guidelines would affect future projects within the Lido Village area generally boup ed by \ Newport Boulevard, 32nd Street and Newport Harbor 7 Principal PPanpner James Campbell provided an introduction to the draft of the Lido Village De rgn Guidelines. He stated thal:N e City Council Ad -Hoc Neighborhood Revitalization Committee, with full C�W Council support, initiated and foste d the preparation of architectural and landscape design guidelines th would be applied to properties within the ado Village area. He reported hiring a project manager and archi cts and noted that staff has gone through an eRtgnsive public participation process. Project Manager Tim Colli reassertion of the purpose of In response to Commissioner unifying theme. provided a PowerPoint presentation addredsing history and background, ,qesign guidelines and community outreaclj and involvement. Todd Larner reviewed details of the consideration of on -going feedback. inquiry Mr. Collins Commissioner Toerge commended consultants inquired regarding efforts for the waterfront in t( noting the issue severely impacts pedestrians �, in the design guidelines stating that the Lido) /Tllz content of the use of public rights -of -ways as a guidelines, key elements, next steps, and for a romptness in developing the design guidelines. He pit of st g�g of passengers of cruise ships or charter boats 1 people visa iqg Lido Village. He took exception to a sentence 3e was an emoticlnal gateway to Newport Beach. Discussion followed regarding the time name for the potential rebuild of:(he marina and planning for the staging of passengers of cruise ships or ch rter boats and accommodating all l� ers in the evolution of the plans. It was noted this is a multilayeXpross and that the design guidelines are jut ne component. In response to a comment r Unsworth, it was noted the guidelines will ncorporated to the City's existing review process./ Commissioner Toe efe referenced a typographical error on the agenda report. Chair UnswooK opened the public hearing. :hroeder reported he was one of the six (6) residents appointed to serve on the Citizens dvisory nded all of the meetings, and noted they were well- attended. Mr. Schroeder spoke in support '01 the and the plan. Page 13 of 16 50 Attachment 6 Planning commission Resolution 57 �g RESOLUTION NO. 1857 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND DENYING LOT MERGER NO, LM2011 -002 FOR A LOT MERGER FOR THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY, UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP: PORTIONS OF LOTS 4, 6, AND 6 OF BLOCK 34 LOCATED IN CORONA DEL MAR. ALSO INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION IS A REQUEST TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT TO FILE A PARCEL MAP, FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BOULEVARD (PA2011 -141) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by The John Guida Trust and the Julie Guida Trust, with respect to properties located at 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard, and legally described as Portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 of Corona del Mar requesting approval of a lot merger. 2. The applicant proposes [project description a lot merger for the following property, under common ownership, portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 located in Corona del Mar. Also included in the application is a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map 3. The subject property is located within the Single -Unit Residential (R -1) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D). 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B). 5. A public hearing was held on September 14, 2011 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Zoning Administrator at this meeting. 6. On September 22, 2011, the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve Lot Merger No. LM2011 -022 was appealed by Mr. Clifford Jones, Ms. Joan Campbell, and Mr. John Silva. The appeal was filed to further consider two findings, which the applicants felt were not adequately addressed in the Zoning Administrators decision. 7. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 20, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. The Planning SCANNED 159 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1857 Page 2 of 3 Commission considered evidence, both written and oral presented at this meeting. A notice of lime, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. 8. Pursuant to Section 20,64.030.0, the public hearing was conducted "de novo," meaning that it is a new hearing and the decision being appealed has no force or effect as of the date the call for review was filed. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. The Planning Commission may approve a lot merger application only after making each of the required findings set forth in Section 19.68.030.1-1 of Title 19 (Subdivision Code: Lot Mergers, Required Findings). In this case, the Planning Commission was unable to make the following required findings. FINDINGS A. Approval of the merger will not, under the circumstances of this 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 lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 19. A -1. The lot merger would allow development that is incompatible with the size and mass of structures on neighboring properties within Block 34. The removal of the Interior lot line would eliminate the interior side setback (three feet) on each property, create a buildable area greater than currently exists on the two separate lots, and eliminate the open space that the interior side setbacks currently provide. B. The lots as merged will be consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and will not create an excessively large lot that is not compatible with the surrounding development. B -1. The lot merger would create a lot size and configuration, which is inconsistent with the development pattern of the subject properties and surrounding lots within Block 34. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Tmpll: 03108/11 M Planning Commission Resolution No. 1857 Pacle 3 of 3 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies Lot Merger No. 2011 -022 (PA2011 -1 11), reversing the decision of the Zoning Administrator. 2. This action shall become final and effective ten (10) days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Cleric in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach MUnicipal Code. PASSED, APPROVI :D AND ADOPTED THIS 20 °' DAY OI' OCTOBER, 2011. AYES: Ameri, Hawkins, Hillgren, Myers, Toerge, and Unsworth NOES: Kramer ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None, BY BY Tmpll: 03/00111 01 02 City Council Attachment 7 Planning Commission Staff Report O3 04 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT October 20, Planning Commission Hearing Agenda Item 4 SUBJECT: Appeal of Lot Merger (PA2011 -141) 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard U Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 APPLICANT: The John Guida Trust and The Julie Guida Trust PLANNER: Kay Sims, Assistant Planner (949) 644 -3237 or ksims @newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve Lot Merger No. LM2011- 002, which allowed the merger of portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 located in Corona del Mar, under common ownership, for the purpose of development of a new single family residence. The decision also included approval of a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a de novo public hearing; and 2) Uphold or reverse the decision of the Zoning Administrator and adopt Resolution No. _ (Attachment No. PC 1 or PC 2) for Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002. INTRODUCTION Project Setting The subject lots consist of portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34, but are more easily identified as 2808 and 2812 Ocean - Boulevard. The properties, located on the northeasterly (inland) side of Ocean Boulevard between Goldenrod and Heliotrope Avenues, are generally rectangular in shape with skewed front property lines and slope slightly from the rear toward Ocean Boulevard. Vehicular access is provided via a 20- foot- wide, shared, private ingress and egress easement, which extends from the rear of the properties to Ocean Lane. Each property is currently developed with a single -unit residential dwelling. Lookout Point and Little Corona Beach Park are located directly across Ocean Boulevard. -1 05 Appeal of Lot Merger (PA2011 -141) 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard October 20, 2011 Page 2 VICINITY MAP GENERAL PLAN ZONING I CURRENT USE ON -SITE �m ➢� l k � A •. �� 3^ Y' S��,NF 119E V�\NNNr_ �F�B . Single -unit residential dwelling �'i Detached (RS-D) (R -1 NORTH Single -Unit Residential Single -Unit Residential [Single-unit residential dwellings `;'7 'i'}��y /��1 ;F y�l{ �1=.. 1• r �j N� /� �J° t4 �. , R-1) `�xL �X� fir'q° i°�°7°af� zlr Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation �• +'Y��t2+t^� �jiy ��`aNa �`•c". 'if �� ^n, y*tSt r 4-�< f � 00 fit " f' PR _- "` f EAST r.'.�;�,�"3i wi.�S _ ^�_ �^i`S, S Single -Unit Residential GENERAL PLAN ZONING E. ! /RS M F/�\\ 1 , S °�N / ry\ S \. / \ '^ y/ L\ R1 N1 ti R:1 '' .F \ R•1 )1 R•1 \2 ; \YR.1 J' qt \V( /\\RI1 ZX i/ R P 1 a �R I f WEST Single -Unit Residential Single -Unit Residential Single -unit residential dwellings �� \ � �/ ¢! `• / � \� /,�. Y R/ 0.1 \\ 1�-�,i i 1�� f k \\ L •YU Id �1 � .+ f .•. i \ � ft.f R.i � ai VR 1 \ \LO C R1 �/ �iOMt- - 0 LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING I CURRENT USE ON -SITE Single -Unit Residential Single -Unit Residential Single -unit residential dwelling Detached (RS-D) (R -1 NORTH Single -Unit Residential Single -Unit Residential [Single-unit residential dwellings Detached RS -D R-1) SOUTH Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation Park; beach, and public restrooms PR PR EAST Single -Unit Residential Single -Unit Residential Single -unit residential dwellings Detached (RS-D) (R -1 WEST Single -Unit Residential Single -Unit Residential Single -unit residential dwellings Detached (RS-D) (R-1 3 00 Appeal of Lot Merger (PA2011 -141) 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard October 20, 2011 Page 3 Zoning Administrator Hearing and Action Prior to the Zoning Administrator hearing on September 14, 2011, staff spoke over the telephone and met with members of the public to describe the project and answer questions. Four (4) comment letters (Attachment No. PC 4) were received that expressed concerns about the project. Staff also received a copy of a private deed restriction regarding the height of structures allowed on the subject properties and neighboring properties adjacent to the rear. On September 14, 2011, the Zoning Administrator conducted a public hearing, reviewed the applicant's request, and received testimony from the applicant and 15 members of the public. All speakers opposed the lot merger. Additionally, a petition in opposition (Attachment No. PC 4) signed by 29 members of the public was presented. Stated reasons for opposition, including in comment letters received, were: elimination or blocking of private views, devaluation of surrounding properties, vehicular access, and not abiding by the deed restriction, which limits the height of any structures. Prior to making his decision, the Zoning Administrator explained that the City does not enforce deed restrictions nor have policies or ordinances that protect private views. The Zoning Administrator also explained that the properties have vehicular access via Ocean Boulevard in addition to the private, shared easement. He further explained that the size of the lot proposed was similar to others in the area (see Table 1: Project Characteristics below) and was compatible with the character of the area. After considering public comments and concerns presented, the Zoning Administrator determined that there were facts in support of the required findings and approved the project (Attachment No. PC 3). Table 1: Project Characteristics Property Total Area (approximately) Width at widest point) R -1 Zoning District Interior Lot Standards: 5,000 sq. ft. 50 feet 2808 Ocean Boulevard 7,217 sq. ft. 40 feet 281.2 Ocean Boulevard 6,483 sq. ft 40 feet Proposed Merged Lot 13,699.58 sq. ft. 80 feet Comparable Properties Adjacent to Ocean Boulevard 2900 Ocean Boulevard 13, 326 sq. ft. 66 feet 2908 Ocean Boulevard 10,049 sq. ft. 78 feet 3222 Ocean Boulevard 14,579 sq. ft. 111 feel 07 Appeal of Lot Merger (PA2011 -141) 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard October 20, 2011 Page 5 stated that the appellants feel that the following required findings were not adequately addressed: 1. Approval of the merger will not, under the circumstances of this 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 lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 19. The Zoning Administrator determined that facts presented in the action letter supported making the health, safety, and welfare finding. The City does not regulate and enforce private deed restrictions and does not have the authority to protect private views and new development on the two (2) lots individually or merged, must comply with the all Zoning Code Development Standards for the R -1 Zoning District. 2. Neither the lots as merged nor adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger. (Easement) Legal access is currently provided via a private, shared easement to both lots and will remain if the lots are merged. Alternatives 1. Should the Planning Commission find that there are facts to support the findings required to grant approval of the Lot Merger as proposed, the Planning Commission should adopt Resolution No. _ (Attachment No. PC 1), upholding the decision of the Zoning Administrator and approving Lot Merger No. LM2011- 002. 2. Should the Planning Commission find that the facts do not support the findings required to grant approval of the Lot Merger, the Planning Commission should adopt Resolution No. _ (Attachment No. PC 2), reversing the decision of the Zoning Administrator, and denying Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002. Environmental Review If upheld and approved, then this project is exempt from CEQA, pursuant to Section 15305 (Class 5 Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the Implementing Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which consists of projects with minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than twenty (20 %) percent, which do not result in any changes in land use or density, including minor lot line adjustments not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. This project is consistent with these requirements. 7 02 Attachment No. PC I Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions —To Uphold 9 09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND APPROVING LOT MERGER NO. LM2011 -002 FOR A LOT MERGER FOR THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY, UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP: PORTIONS OF LOTS 4, 5, AND 6 OF BLOCK 34 LOCATED IN CORONA DEL IVIAR. ALSO INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION IS A REQUEST TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT TO FILE A PARCEL MAP, FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BOULEVARD (PA2011 -141) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by The John Guida Trust and the Julie Guida Trust, with respect to properties located at 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard, and legally described as Portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 of Corona del Mar requesting approval of a lot merger. Also included in the application is a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map. 2. The applicant proposes a lot merger for the following property, under common ownership, portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 located in Corona del Mar. Also included in the application is a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map 3. The subject property is located within the Single -Unit Residential (R -1) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D). 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B). 5. A public hearing was held on September 14, 2011 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Zoning Administrator at this meeting. 6. On September 22, 2011, the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve Lot Merger No. LM2011 -022 was appealed by Mr. Clifford Jones, Ms. Joan Campbell, and Mr. John Silva. The appeal was filed to further consider two findings, which the applicants felt were not adequately addressed in the Zoning Administrator's decision. 7. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 20, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. The Planning 11 70 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 3 of 7 A -5. The project is in an area with an average slope less than 20 percent and no changes in use or density will occur as a result of the merger. B. The lots to be merged are under common fee ownership at the time of the merger. Facts in Support of the Finding: B-1. The portions of lots 4,5, and 6 to be merged are under common ownership. C. The lots as merged will be consistent or will be more closely compatible with the applicable zoning regulations and will be consistent with other regulations relating to the subject property including, but not limited to, the General Plan and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. Facts in Support of the Finding: D -1. The previously existing single -unit dwellings located on the subject sites will be demolished, and the proposed lot would be redeveloped with a new single -unit dwelling. Section 20.18.030 of the Zoning Code establishes minimum lot area and width requirements. Each of the two existing lots meet the minimum lot area required, but do not meet the minimum lot width required (50 feet). The proposed merger of the lots would create one lot which would comply with the minimum lot width and lot area standards required by the Zoning Code. D -2. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject site as Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D), which is intended to provide primarily for single - family residential units on a single legal lot and does not include condominiums or cooperative housing. The Coastal Land Use Plan designates this site as Single Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B) which provides for density ranges from 6.0 -9.9 DU/AC. The existing development and proposed development of a single -unit dwelling on the site are consistent with these designations. D. Neither the lots as merged nor adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger. Facts in Support of the Finding: E -1. Vehicular access to and from the subject site and adjacent properties would remain the same via an alley and an ingress and egress easement at the rear of the site. E. The lots as merged will be consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and will not create an excessively large lot that is not compatible with the surrounding development. Facts in Support of the Finding: -3 71- AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN ABSENT: BY: BY: Charles Unsworth, Chairman Bradley Hillgren, Secretary Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 5 of 7 15 72 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 7 of 7 15. Prior to recordation of the lot merger, the development of the parcels combined shall conform to current zoning regulations pertaining to the number of dwelling units and the distance between detached structures. The proposed parcel shall have one dwelling unit. One structure shall be modified or demolished to achieve the required separation between structures and density. 16. Prior to recordation of the lot merger, grant deeds indicating the changes in titles of ownership should be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. 17. The lot merger and grant deeds reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department should be filed concurrently with the County Recorder and County Assessor's Offices. 18. No building permits may be issued until the appeal period has expired, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Division. 19. Prior to issuance of the building permit for any new construction on the property, the Planning Division shall verify recordation of the document with the County Recorder. 20. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.93.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 21. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger including, but not limited to, Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 (PA2011- 141.). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 2,7 /I3 Attachment No. PC 2 Draft Resolution — To Reverse RESOLUTION NO. # A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND DENYING LOT MERGER NO. LM2011 -002 FOR A LOT MERGER FOR THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY, UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP: PORTIONS OF LOTS 4, 5, AND 6 OF BLOCK 34 LOCATED IN CORONA DEL MAR. ALSO INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION IS A REQUEST TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT TO FILE A PARCEL MAP, FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BOULEVARD (PA2011 -141) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by The John Guida Trust and the Julie Guida Trust, with respect to properties located at 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard, and legally described as Portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 of Corona del Mar requesting approval of a lot merger. 2. The applicant proposes [project description a lot merger for the following property, under common ownership, portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 located in Corona del Mar. Also included in the application is a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map 3. The subject property is located within the Single -Unit Residential (R -1) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D). 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B). 5. A public hearing was held on September 14, 2011 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Zoning Administrator at this meeting. 6. On September 22, 2011, the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve Lot Merger No. LM2011 -022 was appealed by Mr. Clifford Jones, Ms. Joan Campbell, and Mr. John Silva. The appeal was filed to further consider two findings, which the applicants felt were not adequately addressed in the Zoning Administrator's decision. 7. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 20, 2011 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. The Planning 21-75 AM Bradley Hillgren, Secretary Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paae 3 of 3 TmpIC 03108/11 23 70 Attachment No. PC 3 Zoning Administrator Action Letter 2,577 Application No. Applicant Site Address < 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 3300 Newport BOUlevnrd, Building C, Newport Bench, CA 92663 (949) 644 -3200 142x: (949) 644 -3229 . \Ytt' \4.I1Cw�Ori �]C71C11Cil. G:OV ZONING ADWINNIISTRA'TOR ACTION LETTER Lot Merger No. LIV12011 -002 (PA2011 -141) The John Guida Trust and The Julie Guida Trust 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard 2808 and 2812 Ocean - Boulevard Lot Merger Legal Description Portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6, Blk 34 of Corona del Mar On September 14, 2011, the Zoning Administrator approved the following: a lot merger for the following property, under common ownership: portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Blocl< 34 located in Corona del Mar. Also included in the application is a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map. The property is located in the R -1 (Single -Unit Residential) District, The Zoning Administrator's approval is based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions. Findincrs A. Finding: The proposed project is in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Facts in Support of the Finding: A -1. The project qualifies for an exemption from environmental review pursuant to Section 15305 (Class 5 Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the Implementing Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which consists of projects with minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent, which do not result in any changes in land use or density, including minor lot line adjustments not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. This project is consistent with these. requirements. B. Finding: Approval of the merger will not, under the circumstances of this 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 lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 19. 27 72 2808 & 2812 0, Jn Boulevard Lot Merger September 14, 2011 Page 3 E. Finding: Neither the lots as merged nor adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger. Facts in Support of the Finding: E -1. Vehicular access to and from the subject site and adjacent properties would remain the same via an alley and an ingress and egress easement at the rear of the site. F. Finding: The lots as merged will be consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and will not create an excessively large lot that is not compatible with the surrounding development. Facts in Support of the Finding: F -1. Corona del Mar consists of lots of varying shapes and sizes.The subject lots, as merged, will result in a parcel with a width of 80 feet and area of 13,678 square feet. Other nearby lots on Ocean Boulevard have lot widths as wide as 73 feet and area as large as 13,325 square feet. The merger of the two lots it will not create an excessively large lot in comparison to many of the existing lots in the surrounding area. F -2. Development within the R -1 Zoning District can have a maximum floor area 1.5 times the buildable area of the lot. The proposed parcel will not be developed beyond this maximum square footage, and will be developed consistent with the surrounding development. In accordance with Section 19.08.030 of the Municipal Code (Waiver of Concurrent Parcel Map), the Zoning administrator approved a waiver of the parcel map requirement since no more than three parcels are eliminated. G. Finding: That the proposed division of land complies with requirements as to area, improvement and design, flood water drainage control, appropriate improved public roads and property access, sanitary disposal facilities, water supply availability, environmental protection, and other applicable requirements of this title, the Zoning Code, the General Plan, and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. Facts in Support of the Finding: G -1. The existing lots currently comply with the design standards and improvements required by the Zoning Code; General Plan, and Coastal Land Use Plan. G -2. The proposed lot merger combines the lot portions into a single parcel of land and does not result in the elimination of more than three lot portions. G -3. Approval of the proposed lot merger would remove the existing interior lot lines, and allow the property to be redeveloped as a single site. The land use, density, and F:UlsarMPLN\ShareffA's1PAs • 20111PA2011- 1411LM2011-002 Acln LUr.doc q ......_.., 29 2808 & 2812 G. an Boulevard Lot Merger September 14, 2011 Page 5 13. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right - of -way could be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. '14. All applicable Public Works Department plan check fees shall be paid prior to review of the lot merger and grant deeds. 15. Prior to recordation of the lot merger, the development of the parcels combined shall conform to current zoning regulations pertaining to the number of dwelling units and the distance between detached structures. The proposed parcel shall have one dwelling unit. One structure shall be modified or demolished to achieve the required separation between structures and density. 16. Prior to recordation of the lot merger, grant deeds indicating the changes in titles of ownership should be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. 17. The lot merger and grant deeds reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department should be filed concurrently with the County Recorder and County Assessor's Offices. 18. No building permits may be issued until the appeal period has expired, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Division. 19. Prior to issuance of the building permit for any new construction on the property, the Planning Division shall verify recordation of the document with the County Recorder. 20. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.93.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 21. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court rods) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger including, but not limited to, Lot Merger No. LNI2011 -002 (PA2.01.1.141). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the FAUsors1PLWSharedlPA's1PAs - 20111PA2011- 14MM2011 -002 Adn LOr.doc 20 31 Attachment No.A 1 Vicinity Map 33 21 2808 & 2812 Oe ..n Boulevard Lot Merger September 14, 2011 Page 7 Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 PA2011 -141 INCHES 11ci ` : 2 OOCI<�r7 FAUsers\ PLN1Shar ed lPA's1PAs- 20111PA2011- 141QM2011 -002 Actn Utrdac 22 .d •r....i�. n.vi ain /_\ 'c ,a c.; I� u�o c WIN (y c•> .�h'� Lot Merger Map Not Included - See PC Attachment No. 6 37 es Attachment No. PC 4 Correspondence, Petition, and Exhibits (Zoning Administrator Hearing) 39 24 September 14, 2011 To whom it may concern, The subject vicinity along Ocean Boulevard is sorely in need of renewal and improvement. In that regard. 1 have no objection to the subject proposed lot assembly along Ocean Boulevard as such. However I do have concerns as regards the related subsequent residential development. It would appear that, as proposed, this development may result in an excessive structural heigIn and bulk not intended in the terms of the original legal deed restrictions governing the development of these parcels. If approved as proposed, the development would likely adversely affect the adjacent properties governed by the deed restrictions and other neighboring properties as well. Thus the developer should be encouraged proceed to renew these lots but with a modestly redesigned project more in keeping with the intent of the deed restrictions, especially as regards overall height considerations. Sincerely JJI,l J n H. Anderson 214 Goldenrod Avenue 949 - 727 -1556 41 25 %,jeo By qV !"X4 .4,c . 'I, lilz—1 rkelz /- ;IZZ C c L 7-ILz txu�l- ML 61, S C- R-," vc/ b C- Ll,,wC -M'/VZ _lap (-b VI UJ r ri, Lot 2808•and 2812 Ocean DO., Corona del Mar, Ca. ot Merger. Lot - Merger No.' LM2011 -002 (PA ?_01;1 -141) Legal Description, Portions of Lots 4, 5, and'6,131k 34 of Corona del Mar Applicant The John Guida Trust and The Julie Guida Trust. We the undersigned challenge this project,based on the finding Q and E listed in the zoning Administrator. Zoning Action Letter.o Finding: Approval of the merger wlli'not under the circumstances of this 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 a� nd improven ent in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the Cih /, and further that.the proposed lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 19. E. Finding: Neither the lots as merged nor adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger. NAME ADDRESS Sl�t ATUR -------- --------------- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ t 'y,/ l �- -=- -- - - - -- �i =! ! �, -- - - - - -= - -- dim C' 45.27 1111�f I1ECEn� 0 CO /- �orAllarp� A v asr zcrzaz�l SFP 0 20 n o m a n n n p%FNT ry 'ORT Be r KNOW ALL tali BY TIM319 PRIs"9MiP 1 TRAT &lIB.R S, the undorslgnod MALTIZA B. We8ACTSIM and LILLIAN M. UoROMERp, his wifo, or* tho :.wnoru of Lots j and 11 and the underoignod, PAUL 0. CLRLA):D and 3YLVIA A. CLELAND, his wife, are tho owners of Loto S and 6, all in Block 34, Rooubdivlolon of Corona dol nor, as shown on Nap thereof In Book 11, at page 67, of 11119- oallanooun vapor r000rdo of Orange, County, 8tato of California, and WBSIUJU , the partloo horeto mutually donlro to ro- atriot the holght of buildings which may hor*aftor be pl000d or conntruatod upon said proporty, N019, TIDMPORB. in oonalderatlon of tho pronlaos f and of tl,o advantages dorivod by each of the parties h.ro- to by the waking or this doolar•atlon and further in :on- nl,iorutlon of tho beno Pitn which will accrue to neld real property and to ouch and ovory puroel thereof, IT 13 RIERLBY NITPUALLY CO`ENANTED, . ACNER. AND MCLARTD j that ea!d land and noon find every park . and parool thereof, oxc•apt the Nor•thenotorly 46 foot theroor, ohal 1, fray And after the data hereof. be subject to the following restrlc- tionn and/or oovonnnta ahioh aha'L.l Apply to and be bind - l nc. cq>nn !ha portion horoto and oer.h .,C tholr ouoi:oonaru and a:talGna,. an Pollowai That any building or structure plucod or conatruotod 1_ 4722 �syaol3b 7,f5sti. ,w nee Llr; at,<t.st 5s m-k noLf;oo `;.az -eoL° 4Pdii r+l 0 OFD v�10 O F�Op �% 'P, M�NT =Elea palm �U't� t��RTIeEACN truota much m000avuyanoe ohail net in any meassoa a"aot i Ma valldity or oontimwtion of, t&o eovenzn", PodErIOU0W or dnol"WORD hoSoin contain". but tho 60.00 oholl mmmin In full fnroo and Want for tho t'oncrlt or oamtl party horete rand for tho bmnorit . of tho awconotve Oenor- er omore '! of void coal rro,^orty and coon and overy lot or pnrccl W %oroofe It! MTV?-" WMIMOP the parttea horoto havo ace th*lr ti d,.itv'iA L Y,,!L� Tmw �ATI'v :Sn 01;:..;:. a - -__, askakto d .Jv ",.i.� �� • S t r 87AM CF CALSYCRRIA 1 County of Loa Angolon ) we On thin 255th datT of April, 1951, bofem mn, the Ixndor- algnod.11otarp Public in and for aald county and otato, nor - oonollr oppoarod MALTER S. .troMCMIN, LSLLIAA N. NcEAC.rWIf. PAUL 6. CI&LAh'U mad SYLVIA A. CLi &5b, hnmm to we to bo the poraono teftboo names am eubcoxrl and no knomldgad that o bbad ht A9 auwithin lnotru ont o � ar or Loo oo, Stdto oP Crs li Pornio 'alp Cowwaalvlon Sixplroet Pab 1, 1952 y r N 49 29 ,.; �. l.;• l a �; I I u_.: ,rte c_ ��—:.i L+:I -trJ ' � n e•= ' �Ir i — rinT�y +I t ^—i. ',.f I : I.. I O � •1 ar� � v� 0. JC_/�' CO ,,. •� D ion! ,I. '! Ti'l'II ���j1�')I.LI.i :i�k of ` �04 `oIl I _ ' ..� � • I anew: o le. 8 �� (��N i C I •i JJxI ,. Lf. I '.Iri xa olr .h+i l •Artl�rrr ort'�IMI...il cJ' n, ,1�J�'/�Y,��,� �%•A V 1 1L • 1 In ul 1,1W(p li,l / l rr JI��O F J I 1 ! I IF 4 1 4 {( � 1 • 1 In ul 1,1W(p li,l / l rr JI��O F J I 1 ! I IF 4 4 l l el '1 Iry I I � `Jy I w •� 1 ry • 1 In ul 1,1W(p li,l / l rr JI��O F J Ic 0 � _� o J e Ipn r.m GObvNTYj ( 1 60W'n 1p4 Id li a ti ry •i "1 'V l lei i o G , I � R�Ici) I• p101 a t x I.r,, e.m � 1 Ir s n JVJ U'VaJ i --- - - - - -- FI 17 tau; a II Z. s2 90 I 1 ! I IF 4 4 Hit- _� o J e Ipn r.m GObvNTYj ( 1 60W'n 1p4 Id li a ti ry •i "1 'V l lei i o G , I � R�Ici) I• p101 a t x I.r,, e.m � 1 Ir s n JVJ U'VaJ i --- - - - - -- FI 17 tau; a II Z. s2 90 I• p101 a t x I.r,, e.m � 1 Ir s n JVJ U'VaJ i --- - - - - -- FI 17 tau; a II Z. s2 90 C' :ew: ., Place Intoranl''Rovonuo Stamps in thin Spec; m2187 w 233 aoIJoinR ART Affix I.R.S. 0N, � y FOR VALUABLE CORSIDERATIOR, racolpt of which in hereby naknoulodgod, PAUL 0. CLEWID and SYLVIA A, CLELAND, his vile, 'Ti . a _. .> . . ::.,. .... - .. .. Ao hereby GRANT to FUALTER S. UoEACi(RRN and LILLIAN 11, McEACHEMI,f his wife, as yolrit Tenants, tho_raal property In the County of Orange, Stato of Callfornln, doo- crlbed aat 'An o¢`somenk foc ingroao-•and�ogrbon, -'pl lHma- y:;polo_lines and otho:• - -- °pub11'o util'1't1'oe�over� ocrooa•�anA:.iinAO:r.: that �poctlon,of- �[ntv5 -ln Block 34 of Reeubdlvislon of Corona del liar, no shown on a map ro- corded In Book 4, at pago 67, of itt000llnneoun Napo,-racords of Ornngo County, Callfomia, lying within the folloping described pnrool land, said easement to be for the bonotit or and to be.'::uaod'ln nom16n, _"emer-of 11=d1in "Lots Jy, j, j pni1.6�o.f -aald Block Np by_the BEGINRINO at the most Easterly eornor of said Lot $ and running thence Rorthoantorly along the lforthonotorly line of sold Loti;.1151_ 10 fpat;. thonoo Bouthwontorly pnr- allel with the Southeasterly lino of said Lot $, 96 foot; thence Northoontorly parallel. wl th the Northeasterly lino of said Lot 5, 10 foot; thence Southpostorly parallel with the Southonstorly lino of gold fot 5, 20 foot; thence Southoasterly parallol with the northeaaterly line of said Lot 5 and the Northeasterly line or Lot 4 in said Block Ni, 40 foot; thonoo Northoantorly pnrollol with the North- westerly line of cold let 4, 20 foot.) thence Northoantorly parallel with tho Northoantorly lino of anid Lot -1}; 10 foot; thence Northoantorly parallol with the Northwesterly lino —f61� "F:7, — Uvw' APN b52.— 0p1" 25 .. s.3 91 G k i +> l 4 1 �} } t a I r ,F ' FJl � `sue" •: r, i4 i u�1f r. s t r 'i % Qf rr fr9 �� d 1 I"'tj Ir F IL }' ^ U {( + C s{ ` II l Q�I• Y t\ I I '1= ' k`r /��- r—I it t� . a r. s t r 'i % Qf rr fr9 �� d 1 I"'tj Ir F IL }' ^ U {( + C s{ ` II l Q�I• Y t\ I I '1= ' k`r /��- r—I L53T' Y 1, a ° O&V 579S � ±y2 � , \� . �<a .- � � � / �� � � : : ,��< .�� /�\ �d 2��\ � /���� 1 x.� 1 � 1 N 4`sy I FC M {# 1 e �3 V Y 6 g d.,. r ;. J,'.3' tft 'ffj r A t �4 #1 } 1 � 1 T ;,L C i { 0- �,/y7 "4 gi 1 T a k. n h ,F 4 A' .'i tai * �{ � v � --• !v , 0 s. a� t S. YAIy' M A; F gi 1 T a k. n h ,F 4 A' .'i tai * �{ � v � --• !v , 0 P rt lip' r0 Q�Q i'., \'T 6 a t. dA i n 4 1 rI:a A f fh �YF ti 1 G� Ftft .n X ,sue-'" , y , a ' -k • ; •t• fw ` T ZYl o +, .y. y3„t ` � qtr' S `r' • ' 14 j jl f rd J r a `i { t I' u I F `i { 07,�4, � 1 � ! 5, t � o y 51, *4_ s, >F � vT �..ry f a F 1f1 A. t ''1 t J _ k P a A 1 jar's r i 5l 4.. i y{ rN-',wa T� sit, P 1. o q r! t t t ✓J.e'fci+li.f e rt Y 1 t }S M i ._ f- y � +• � 7 n. � •5r �f�1: a l { 4 c F ! F l lip,., 4 OVA r., n i; 1 ! tf{ p^ i i' .nom 1u 'n I` 4 r oo wi r ana� i•w t F ! F l lip,., 4 OVA r., n i; 1 ! tf{ p^ i i' .nom 1u 'n I` 4 r m � � r 1,1 t• ,fJ k. t �,1 1 I ". l tSi I� 3 .J yN m � � r 1,1 t• ,fJ k. t �,1 1 I ". l tSi I� 6j _ Ix,_ r t' k 1 i 51 )� In" ' aJ 'i IL iY' i r a 3 b x w c "t+ 1 ( h+ h f jl I ti rt �v R f % . S t�yy r:Y 'r R h � r N 711 rfT. Appeal Statement 83100 15-Sep-201110,12 AM Clty of Newport Beach 949- 6443229 Community Development Department Planning Division 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (049)644 -3204 Telephone I (949)844.3229 Favolmlle www.nowooribeechca,aov Application to appeal the daclalon of the: Appellant information: Name(s):. CL- Address: Z< 10 zoning Administrator • Planning Director • Hearing Officer 1) 2_ , , .I I 4 Date Appeal Flied: G( -12 f / 1414 Fee Received: t 31 , -.. Received by: !ti j/ 1 C/hM P 13 fit-- L- M6 t- " S c LA/ City /State /11p: C -2a-?Aj i -4 D r—L� /YI A- 22 . 0 A 9 = ( ; Phone: ax: 4,1 - 6 -Z -, -5-4j '-( Email: Appealing Application Regarding: 761-tt-i Gnu I PA -rI2W, ;T Name of Applloant: f l,l L IE G w 1 �(a 'MU 5T Date of Decision: �T 141 Project No. (PA): Pk ZGM 1 •- 14 1 Activity No,: i -M :Z- C) 1 i - 2 Site Address: Z n D R 4 2 `f) 1 -1 (ti P_tELA n--\ a L-.v "Dp Description: PC�2 T ) (2 M `S or— t.-_ C7 TS 4'. E3-,A-t\) Q L 11 3 �F Reasons) for Appeal (attach a separate sheet If necessary): F L&/SSE S Along with application, ple aso submit the f0lowing: e Twelve (12) 11x17 seta of the project plans U One set of mailing labels (Avery 6960) for property owners within 300 ft. radius of subject property 21/yv cUr� a Signature of Appellant: 1�k /li �[.�_,� Date: APOt[ i X:1 UunrtN' I. N19hiirnulln Ira tin luouul+ 1pplloallonalAppoaMpplWollon .dccx updnlod U11PJ11 Fur copy 6,. t .rclrir SIT Nc•�. I "C E S? J-- I - 102 EXHIBIT 'A' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT MERGER No. LM 71 (Legal Description) Owners Existing Parcels Proposed Parcels AP Number Reference Number THE JOHN GUIDA TRUST, DATED 9/17/2010, AS TRUSTEE 052- 061 -26 PARCEL 1 0.314 THE JULIE GUIDA TRUST, DATED 9/17/2010, AS TRUSTEE 052 - 061 -25 AC (gross) 0.2296 96 AC net PARCEL 1: SHEET 1 OF 1 In the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California being all of Lots 4 through 6 in Block 34 of the Re- Subdivision of Corona Del Mar, as per map recorded in Book 4, Page 67, of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said Orange County. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the Northeasterly 96.00 feet thereof. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM the Southeasterly 10.00 feet of said Lot 4. Containing 0,314 Acres (13,697 sq. H.), more or less. All as shown on Exhibit 'B' attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS, RIGHTS, RIGHTS OF WAY, AND OTHER MATTERS OF RECORD, IF ANY. SAND SURL\ OLAV S. o MEUM No. 4384 PREPARED BY M OR UNDER Mlr DI ON PRIL 08, 2011. 6-14-11 OLAV S. MEUM LS 4384 EXHIBIT 'B' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT MERGER No. LM 11 —___ _ (Mop) Owners Existing Parcels Proposed Parcels AP Number Reference Number THE JOHN GUIDA TRUST, DATED 9/17/2010, AS TRUSTEE 052 - 061 -26 PARCEL 1 0.314 AC (gross) THE JULIE GUIDA TRUST, DATED 9/17/2010, AS TRUSTEE 052 - 061 -25 0.2296 96 AC net. SHEET 2 OF 2 EASEMENT NOTE: AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS, PIPE LINES, POLE LINES AND OTHER PUBLIC A- A UTILITIES .FOR. THE BENEFIT OF AND TO BE USED IN COMMON BY THE OWNERS OF LAND IN LOTS 3, 4, 5 & 6 OF BLOCK 34 AS RECORDED ON MAY 11, 1951 IN BOOK 2187, PAGE 233 & BOOK 2187, PAGE 235, BOTH OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 10' WIDE EASEMENT FOR SEWER PURPOSES RECORDED IN BOOK 2165, PAGE 614 OF OFFICIAL v RECORDS, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 65, PAGE 21 OF PARCEL MAPS. 10' WIDE.EASEMENT FOR SEWER PURPOSES RECORDED IN BOOK 2165, PAGE 611 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 65, PAGE 21 OF PARCEL MAPS. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: A PORTION OF THE LAND INCLUDED WITHIN THIS LOT MERGER AS DESCRIBED IN PARCEL (DD— 2 OF THE LATEST GRANT DEED RECORDED ON DECEMBER 20, 2010 AS INSTRUMENT No. 2010000708142 O.R. AGREES WITH THE LAND SHOWN AS PARCEL 1 OF A PARCEL MAP RECORDED ON DECEMBER 5, 1974 IN BOOK 65, PAGE 21 OF PARCEL MAPS. l SCA NNE D Item. No. 4a Materials Received Appeal of Lot Merger PA2011 -141 ocT 11 � �fl o&, EC 0 �MFNY N�Aq b��Gd, Ow r i ( I ' =JTIL p cLm-av l-a Ls E 0-1 ja I ��� h�4 " V D` c ;,71Z.- �J v 16, li-j- i ocT 11 � �fl o&, EC 0 �MFNY N�Aq b��Gd, Ow r i ( I ' =JTIL p cLm-av l-a Ls E 0-1 ja I ��� h�4 " V D` c ;,71Z.- �J v 16, li-j- tip i e' Item No. 4d d >! Eh IaS Appeal of Lot Merger pA-QII -141 SCA' T'll') _ _ __ — - � - 'I'fjjjr!��- rt�t''jjIII 1j 's Illlf i ' i -�•� 411M13fY) t �� ❑ � V N�.¢.•`�I�•o Yj 1�6 a`.._..—..—........ _..— ..— ..— ..11..— .._.._..� 9 ,1� i I a s l vg jTyt z •'� ,tr i 9 : s> I :: k . ..�'. i � \l .+'� "asst s -(�• � ' L' �i�� n � i I k�+� �?, i`i��i 9 's� �i�T �a �� (i °i, Si$ f 5� ° "�I i v s � 1! k� � d ° F � t Si "•r�l�i�.l ° � - � i_ -�P �rI jRRM��I),6 -�., �I EM �: h ✓(i(i'� t ij2';l�l L�'. Y sa U I �a'9x l 1 5 t X, SdS , ktY � vK4^�tY` .,• 7�' $; � FYliat*N� id n,1{ � w €l?��; W r'�f �.5p �A'f'c,,.•'� �� o .H�� � y rtC`'t�},�,�,'S�yy � I � ice; � I ? i 4 4 1'r �'�•v�`t It� S 4 3 y�) r � 11�4r,rN7 , K 2 -A `� t° °9 l.r��r 112 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a citizen of Ilia United States and a resident of the County of Los Angeles; .I am over the age of eighteen years, acid not a party to or interested in the notice published. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACN/COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, which was adjudged a newspaper of general circulation on September 29, 1961, case A6214, and June 11, 1963, case A24631, for the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, and the State of California. Attached to this Allidavil Is a true and complete copy as was printed and published On the following date(s): Saturday, October 8, 2011 I certify (or declare) under penally of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 11, 2011 at Los Angeles, California AWLZ Signature ISIMI) p$ Oy COMMUNITY OCT 132011 p�OEVELOPMEIIT ZL Op tInvi,00 e 4�i"VIPoAJCZ e OL' e �tlOPnd` ildttlliE(t COPY 1 "r,,� >i1!�R(- 1�� 114 C:ity Council Attachment �- 115 110 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - RECEIVED APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNINQ4ICOWN9SI 0: 1414 Application No. Project No. PA2011 -141; Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 Name of Appellant John Guida or person filing: 8 Old Course Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Address: Date of Planning Commission decision: October 20, 2011 120 Regarding application of: Phone: The John Guida Trust and The Julie Gttida Trust BECACH for (Description of application filed with Planning Commission) On October 20, 2011, the Planning Commission considered an appeal of the City Zoning Administrator's approval of John and Julie Guida's application for a lot The Planning Commission reversed the Zoning Administrator's decision and rejected the Guidas' request for a lot merger. The lot merger application concerns portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 34 of Corona del Mar, commonly known as 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar. Reasons for Appeal : The Planning Commission improperly concluded that the proposed lot merger would have a detrimental effect on the health, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood, and it improperly concluded that the merged lot would be inconsistent with the surrounding pattern of development and would create a lot whose size was incompatible with the Date %U—/�'- 9 /l Signatdre of Appellant -11 D„ , f FOR OFFICE USE ONLY /� �oAUI eo Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: I/(,IL5C . V I 20 �. Hearing Date. An appeal shall be scheduled for a hearing before the City Council within sixty (60) 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: $4,062.00 pursuant to Resolution No. 2011 -24 adopted on 3 -8 -11. (Deposit funds with Cashier in Account #2700 -5000) 2Ij JULIE A. GUIDA n3.r1 JOHN GUIDA 1335 5 PRAIRIE AVE., UNIT 2001 CHICAGO. IL 60605.3145 JP,Morgan JPMorgan Chaso Bank, N.A. Chloaoo. Illlnolo NOW 1.0 7 60000 6 310 iw234 519 G// LLAas 8�,.; 11g RECEIVED BY: MARIA TODAY'S DATE: 10/27/11 27005000 ZONING & SUBDIVISION FEES CHECK REF NUM: 519 $4,062.00 RECEIPT NUMBER: 04000002462 PAYOR: GUIDA REGISTER DATE: 10/27/11 TIME: 10:46 $4,062.00 TOTAL DUE: $4,062.00 $.00 X19 4�EWPoR H � Q c�LIF0AN�r.. Memorandum CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD, BLDG. C NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3237 To: City Council From: Kay Sims, Assistant Planner Date: January 18, 2012 Cc: Dave Kiff, Dana Smith, Aaron Harp, Steve Badum & Kim Brandt Re: 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger Appeal (PA2011 -141) The appellant, Mr. John Guida, has provided the attached information and revised residential plans for your review in advance of the January 24, 2012 City Council meeting. Please keep these documents for the January 24, 2012, meeting. Thank you. IFA GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS »_ January 12, 2012 Mayor Nancy Gardner & Members of the Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 33oo Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 OOWED BY COMMUNITY JAN 13 ZU12 DEVELOPMENT VZ 'YOF lvawo,6 0� RE: Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002- Appeal of the Planning Commission 10/20/11 Action 2808 & 2812 Ocean Blvd. The John Guida Trust and The Julie Guida Trust Dear Mayor Gardner & Fellow Members of the Newport Beach City Council: On behalf of the John & Julie Guida Trust(s), we are requesting the City Council's approval of the Lot Merger for the properties located at 28o8 & 2812 Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar. As you are aware, while the Zoning Administrator approved this Lot Merger on September 14, 20u, the item was appealed by the adjacent residents to the Planning Commission on October 20, 2011. The Planning Commission denied the Zoning Administrator's approval on a set of Findings which we believe were not appropriate and based on inaccurate assumptions. We are therefore requesting, with our appeal of the Planning Commission's action, that you approve the Lot Merger. While technically a Lot Merger is not based on the home that may be built on the merged lots, the appeal that went forward to the Planning Commission, was essentially based on the Guida's residence being "too tall". The resident's claimed the proposed home violates 1951 Joint Tenancy Grant Deed which stipulates a "one -story home(s)" be built on the properties in question. Their stated appeal was based however on the "health, safety, peace comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in thg neighborhood ". Given the Silva's (2821 Ocean Lane) and Campbell's (28u Ocean Lane) concerns, and given that Mr. and Mrs. Guida have purchased these lots to build their personal residence, they have attempted to resolve, to the best of their abilities, the Silva's and Campbell's stated concerns regarding the home being one -story. (These two residences are parties to the 1951 Joint Tenancy Grant Deed.) The Guidas believe that their proposed home meets the terms of the Grant Deed, and in fact is a one -story home. However, in an attempt to resolve the Campbell's / Silva's concerns, they have redesigned their home several times to lower the roof line. They have also removed the rear roof deck and removed the associated solid guardrail and eliminated the interior stairs and the elevator to the roof. We have attached the plans of this proposed home as evidence of the Guidas continued good faith effort to appease their neighbors' concerns. These plans were also given the Silvas and Campbells on January 12, 2012, via their attorney, per their request. It should be noted that the proposed home meets all of the city s zoning, planning, and building standards and is in full compliance with all the city requirements. 1 San Joaquin Plaza, Suite 230 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • 949 -717 -7343 main • 949 -717 -7942 fax • www.govsol.com As noted above, we support and agree with the Zoning Administrator's findings that were made in approval of the Lot Merger. For the Council's reference, we've listed selected findings of the Zoning Administrator's September 14, 2orr approval: B. Finding: Approval of the merger will not, under the circumstances of this particular case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or worldng 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 lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 19. Selected Facts in Support of the Finding: B -i. The future development on the proposed parcel will comply with the Zoning Code development standards. B -2. The proposed merger will not cause future development to impact public views of the ocean as no Dublic view uresently exists. B -3. The project site described in the proposal consists of the legal building sites. D. Finding: The lots as merged will be consistent or will be more closely compatible with the applicable zoning regulations and will be consistent with other relations relating to the subject property including, but not limited to, the General Plan and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. Selected Facts in Support of the Finding: D -i. The previously existing single -unit dwellings located on the subject sites will be demolished and the proposed lot would be redevelopment with a new single -unit dwelling. Section 20.18.030 of the Zoning Code establishes minimum lot area and width requirements. Each of the two existing lots meet the standards of the Zoning Code. F. Finding: The lots as merged will be consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and will not create an excessively large lot that is not compatible with the surrounding development. F -1. Corona del Mar consists of lots of varying shapes and sizes. The subject lots, as merged, will result in a parcel with a width of 8o feet and area of 13,678 square feet. Other nearby lots on Ocean Boulevard have lot widths as wide as 73 feet and area as large as 13,325 square feet. The merger of the two lots will F -2. Development with the R -1 Zoning District can have a maximum floor area 1.5 times the buildable area of the lot. The pronosed parcel will not be develoned beyond this maximum souare footage. and v 2 In conclusion, we believe it is important to note that the Planning Commission came to their conclusions by a narrow view of the term "neighborhood ". And, made their findings based on the single block where these properties are located - Block 34. (Planning Commission Finding A -i) We agree with staffs interpretation of the term "neighborhood" as meaning the general vicinity and not a single Block where a property maybe located. We believe the proposed Lot Merger meets all required findings and request the City Council's approval. Sincerely, �� Coralee S. Newman Applicant's Representative & Principal — Government Solutions, Inc. CC: Kay Sims, Assistant Planner 3 -, �EWPp�- 04 � Memorandum CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD, BLDG. C NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3237 To: City Council From: Kay Sims, Assistant Planner Date: January 18, 2012 Cc: Dave Kiff, Dana Smith, Aaron Harp, Steve Badum & Kim Brandt Re: 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger Appeal (PA2011 -141) The attached information was received from Mr. Clifford Jones and neighbors opposed to the approval of the subject lot merger. At their request, the information is being provided for your review prior to the January 24, 2012 City Council meeting. Please keep these documents for the January 24, 2012, meeting. Thank you. COMMUNITY .IAN 172012 THE LOT MERGER OF 2808 & 2812 OCEAN BLVD. O DEVELOPMENT vd ( SUPPORT RESOLUTION NO. 1857) of - r 0 i`/EWPOR A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH `DENYING' LOT MERGER OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT • 2808 & 2812 OCEAN BOULEVARD • (PA2011 -141) REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL (Ch. 19.68): A -1 The lot merger would allow development that is incompatible with the size and mass of structures on neighboring properties within Block 34. The removal of the interior lot line would eliminate the interior side setback (three feet) on each property, create a buildable area greater than currently exists on the two separate lots, and eliminate the open space that the Interior side setbacks currently provide. B -1 The lot merger would create a lot size and configuration, which is inconsistent with the development pattern of the subject properties and surrounding lots within Block 34. C -1 Approval of the merger will 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 lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of this title. • The conservation of open space in the City; • The protection of landowners, lot purchasers and surrounding residents; • The provision of orderly and controlled growth within the City; • The protection and stabilization of property values; RESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT: Elected officials and City staff listen and respond to the interests of residents. The undersigned ask to the Newport Beach City Council to support the Planning Commission decision & deny the appeal for the lot merger: i e, 4 �1 BLOCK #34 UNANIMOUSLY OPPOSES LOT MERGER Q 1. — RED DOTS: SIGNED PETITION a �v • OLD CORONA DEL MAR • • NEW CORONA DEL MAR • (13,500 SQ.FT. LOTS) r�� =��.•� Ct•�lt.�llil C)r�! P,:.al`' Let me begin by stating that everyone supports orderly growth through revitalization and the merging of lots to create lots that are consistent with the General Plan (which stresses maintaining the character of it's particular neighborhoods and villages). The 2 lots in this proposed merger at 6500 and 7500 sq.ft. are already larger than any of the lots in Block 34. In fact, they are larger than over 93% of Old Corona Del Mar. In gathering signatures, the opposition to this merger was virtually unanimous. Old Corona Del Mar cannot possibly sustain the assemblage and merging of lots totaling 13,500 sq.ft. This village was never intended to be a community of lots that are that 3 to 4 times larger than the average lot size today. No City Council, Mayor, Planning Commissioner in it's history would ever have thought to propose such a plan. The village atmosphere and charm of "Old Corona del Mar" has been and continues to be one of the reasons we are such a desirable and vibrant neighborhood in Newport Beach. If this merger is approved, we begin down a road that has no return. There are no do overs or mulligans when it involves the protection of the residents of Corona Del Mar and their community. In April 2010 the Corona Del Mar Residents Association under the direction of Karen Tringali, took a survey of all 6,350 residential households in Corona del Mar (Zip 92625) regarding how the members of the community felt about saving and preserving the 1.5 FAR. The results were virtually unanimous. Over 88% of survey respondents wanted to maintain the character and village atmosphere in the Flower Streets, and didn't believe that could be achieved if the floor area ratio was increased any larger than 1.5. Based on the number of respondents and the overwhelming majority opinion, it was determined that between 78 %-98% of all Corona del Mar residents would have responded the same way. During that General Plan hearing, time and again residents stated their desire to: "Maintain the charm of our neighborhoods" and "Reign in the "mansionization" of our community ". This village started with small beach cottages and evolved into a community of three and four bedroom homes of 3,500 sq.ft. The fear at that time was that if FAR was increased we could become a community with five and six bedroom homes of 4,000to 6,300sq.ft. with underground facilities roof decks and parking. It must certainly follow that If elimination of the 1.5 FAR contradicted this philosophy for CdM, the assemblage of 13,500 sq.ft. lots `obliterates what has always been the general plan for Corona Del INiar. The predominant lot size in CdM is 3,600 sq. ft. With the average lot being about between 4000 — 5000 sq.ft., allowing merged lots of 13,500 sq.ft. (more than 3 fold larger) could, in the future, potentially reduce the number of households by 66 %. Creating a "New Corona Del Mar" consisting not of 61000 households, but instead 2,000 enormous mansions. The community is more than alarmed that allowing the assemblage of 13,500 sq.ft, lots will have a devastating and irreversible impact in the future. The precedent set by allowing this merger will set this village on the road from which there is no turning back. Designers, architects and home owners will design and build directly to the maximum limit, which in this "New Corona Del Mar" would be houses that have a floor area of 14,300 sq.ft. The original lot sizes and setbacks were designed to encourage developments of a certain type and size and to discourage overbuilding. One of a kind modifications destroy the intent of the 1.5 FAR limit in the Newport City code as it relates to Corona Del Mar. The citizens of this city fought hard to maintain a smaller village that makes us what we are and what we always have been. On the Newport Beach website, Wikipedia and in Orange County publications CdM is described as a quaint picturesque village filled with charming houses, small streets and well tended neighborhoods. You, the City Council have the opportunity to represent the opinion and the will of the citizens of Corona Del Mar, and oppose the more than tripling of the average lot size through this merger. It would render the 1.5 FAR meaningless and ineffective in the future. As stated in the Newport Beach General Plan: Responsive Government "Elected officials and city staff listen and respond to the interests of residents." 10 L ZI P. I �=, i CTj ,_, i 1. Approval of the merger will, under the circumstances of this 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 lot merger is inconsistent with the legislative intent of this title. 2. The lots as merged will not be consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and will create an excessively large lot that is not compatible with the surrounding development. The lot merger would create a lot size and configuration, which is inconsistent with the development pattern of the subject properties and surrounding lots within Block 34. 3. The lot merger would allow development that is incompatible with the size and mass of structures on neighboring properties within Block 34 and create a buildable area greater than currently exists on the two separate lots. 4. Conservation of open space: The removal of the interior lot line would eliminate the open space of the interior side setback (three feet) on each property thus eliminating the open view corridor that they currently provide. 5. Proposals shall be reasonably compatible with the existing neighborhood character in terms of scale of development. Designs should minimize the appearance of over building substantially in excess of existing structures. The height of the structures should maintain to the extent practicable, some consistency with the height of neighboring properties. Designs should consider, to the extent practicable, neighbors' existing views. Referencing the fact that the intended structure is a single story house (with 3 separate levels) that includes a 3 story elevator with a 13 foot housing on the roof would be inconsistent with the pattern of development in the area. 6. Residents testified that the lot development pattern was an important component in the character of their neighborhood and that the proposed lot merger would negatively impact that character. As a result of the change in development pattern attributable to the proposed lot merger, the character of the neighborhood would be altered would be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of the community. 7. Approval of this proposed lot merger would set a poor precedent for future requests that if approved, would detract from the consistent form, scale and character of the neighborhood as established by the original subdivision design. 8. The proposed lot line adjustment is not consistent with the legislative intent of Title 19 (Subdivision Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code which is in part to implement the General Plan 9. The protection of landowners, lot purchasers and surrounding residents; 10. The provision of orderly and controlled growth within the City; 11. The protection and stabilization of property values; 12. The preservation of the public health, safety and general welfare 13. Planning Commission & City Council must consider height restrictions and deed restrictions California zoning commission re: Enabling act 14. Newport Beach tax base will be lowered from the devastating effect to adjoining properties value 15. The merger would have the effect of continuing to divide CDM into a 2 tier city. A street lined wall to wall with huge houses on Ocean Blvd and the rest of Old Corona Del Mar. Now relegated to looking out upon the rear of these massive structures. 16. Legislative intent of Title 20.10.040 (essentially an anti McMansion ordinance) which limits building to 1.5 x buildable area of lots would be made ineffective by such mergers. Lots could then be combined enabling the construction of larger "blocky" houses and the elimination of open view corridors provided by side setbacks. 20.10.040 Special Development Regulations for Corona del Mar, West Newport, and the Balboa Peninsula 1. In the R -1, R -2, and MFR Districts in the area designated as Old Corona del Mar, the total gross floor area (excluding those structures excepted under Section 20.10.030) shall not exceed 1.5 times the buildable area of the site. 17. Title 20.10.010 - Ensures adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling, and protect residents from the harmful effects of excessive noise, population density, traffic congestion, and other adverse environmental effects. 18. The proposed lot widths are not consistent with the intent of the original tract map. The proposed lot sizes are not compatible with the surrounding area and are substantially larger by more than fivefold than the lots of the original subdivision (30 x 89.62 ft. lots or 2.529 sq. ft.) when the Corona del Mar Tract including Block 34 was established. The lots created will result in nonconforming conditions with respect to side setbacks as well. 19. The proposed lot merger would result in a single lot that is approximately 80 feet in width and twice the size of the predominant lots of the immediate neighborhood, especially those lots located in Block 34. Development of the proposed lot would create a single residence based upon an 80 -foot wide lot that would be over twice the width of homes on neighboring lots and would be inconsistent with the form, scale and character of the neighborhood. The lot and resulting development would significantly alter the way in which the lot is viewed from the street and no other lots of development pursuant to it would compare. 20. Lastly and most importantly the covenant pertaining to view and the potential loss of the easement as it relates to Mr. Guida will prevail in the courts. (King v Kugler (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 651, 655) DOMINO EFFECT. The cumulative adverse impacts associated with allowing this development is also a concern. Many of the homes that exist in the immediate vicinity are older and likely to be redeveloped. If this site were allowed to be developed in the proposed manner, matching proposals on adjacent and nearby lots would likely follow. Such proposals would have a significant adverse cumulative impact on the surrounding neighborhood and community character. Result could be 3 giant houses spanning across each block up and down Ocean Blvd. with side setbacks cut in half. CONCLUSION' The applicant (Mr. Guida) has not identified any valid error of fact or law that could have altered the Planning Commission's decision to deny the merger. In addition, none of the applicants arguments here are new. Mr. Guida has not presented any relevant new evidence which was not presented at the previous hearing on the matter on October 2011. The Commission already considered his arguments, and rejected them. The Commission found that the lot merger would allow development that is incompatible with the size and mass of structures on neighboring properties within Block 34. The removal of the interior lot line would eliminate the interior side setback (three feet) on each property, create a buildable area greater than currently exists on the two separate lots, and eliminate the open space that the interior side setbacks currently provide. The result would be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood. The lot merger would create a lot size and configuration, which is inconsistent with the development pattern of the subject properties and surrounding lots within Block 34. Mr. Guida's conclusion that his proposal is similar to others nearby is false, thus, his premise that his project wouldn't contribute to significant adverse cumulative impacts is also false. The basis of the request for reconsideration shall be either that there is relevant new evidence which was not presented at the hearing on the matter or that an error of fact or law has occurred which has the potential of altering the Commission's initial decision. As neither of these was borne out, consequently, there should no basis for his appeal and his request for reconsideration should therefore be denied. Lots As Merged Incompatible With Surrounding Neighborhood S LISQ; i i • COMPARATIVE LOT SIZE • Table 1: Project Characteristics Property Total Area Width (a oximatel) (at widest point) R -1 Zoning District Interior Lot Standards: 5,000 sq. ft. 50 feet 2808 Ocean Boulevard 7,217 -sq. ft. 40 feet 2812 Ocean Boulevard 6,483 s . ft 40 feet Proposed Merged Lot 13,699.58 s . ft. 80 feet Comparable Properties Adjacent to Ocean Boulevard 2900 Ocean Boulevard 13, 326 s . ft. 66 feet 2908 Ocean Boulevard 10,049 s . ft. 78 feet 3222 Ocean Boulevard 14,579 s . ft. 111 feet 3 properties were used as evidence of comparable lot sizes. But none are in Block 34. As you can see there is a sharp drop off after the first three 14,579, 13,699, 13,326 and then a drop of 3,277 sq.ft to 10,049. His merged lot would be second largest in Old Corona Del Mar. They are in in no way compatible or consistent to other properties in the surrounding neigborhood. In fact these lots are anomalies and they were merged prior to the Lot Merger Amendment (2009 -30) which came into effect in 2009 9 F Approx 275 ft. depth 96 ft. 179 ft. 1951 Re-Subdivision ®f Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 ® Block #34 ALLEY Before 1951 Subdivision (Before Deed Restrictions & Easement) LOT LOT LOT LOT Approx. 6 5 4 3 197 ft. depth 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. OCEAN BOULEVARD After 1951 Subdivision (With Deed Restrictions & Easement) EASEMENTS 60 ft. ; ; 60 ft. 2811 2821 OCEAN LANE ;10' 10' ; OCEAN LANE v e a e a v 40 ft. 40 ft. 40 ft. 96 ft. 101 ft. . . .. ... ...... .... . .. .. .. .. :• This 1951 Subdivis. ...ion . . Divided 4 (3tD9) Lots .. . In. to .. 5 . Lot...s> : ;• As A Result 3 Deed Restrictions Relating To View Were Adopted. ;• Consequently 8 Easements Were Put In Place (Quid Pro Quo). ;• Lots Are Integrally Connected • Any Change To One Affects All. .................................................. ............................... Lot Merger vs. Lot Line Adjustment • Post 2009 (Ordinance 2009 - 30) 1. The creation of subdivisions which a e consistent o ith and serve to implement the Policies and provisions of the General Plan; 2. The conservation of open space in the City; I The protection of landowners, lot purchasers and surrounding residents; 4. The provision of orderly and controlled growth within the City; S. The provision of adequate traffic circulation, utilities and other services; 6. The protection and stabilization of property values; and 7• The preservation of the public health, safety and general welfare. `AJUII ii_nL An application for a Lot Line Adjustment may be Loth accepted when it can be determined that the 8 An application for a Lot Proposal complies with the following specfcations: Merger may sa accepted when it can be determined that the proposal complies (Chapter 19.76) with the following specifications: (Chapter 19.68) 1. Approval of the Lot Line Adjustment will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safe 1. Approval of the merger will not, under the ty, peace, comfort, and circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental general welfare of persons residing or working in the to the health, safety neighborhood of such 8 welfare of Peace, comfort and general detrimental or injurious to property an use or be neighborhood Of uch proposed use or be�detrimen detrimental in the neighborhood or the generaldwela�e of ments City, and further that the prop osed lot line adjustment neighborhood injurious to property and improvements y the is consistent with the legislative intent of this title. neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed lot merger is consistent with 2. The number of parcels resulting from the Lot Line the legislative intent of this title. Adjustment remains the same as before the Lot Line 2. The lots t be merged are under common fee Adjustment. ownership at the e time of the merger. I The Lot Line Adjustment is consistent with applicable zoning regulations except that nothing 3. The lots as merged will be consistent or will be herein shall prohibit the approval of a Lot Line more closely compatible with the applicable zoning Adjustment so long as none of the resultant parcels is more nonconforming as to lot width, depth and area 8 regulations and will be consistent with other than the parcels that existed regulations relating to the subject property including, Prior to the lot line but not limited to, the General Plan and adjustment. applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. any will Neither the lots as of legaldaccess as a adjoining rult Ofthe lot 8 4. Neither the lots as e merged nor adjoining parcels Tine adjustment. will be deprived of legal access as a result of the S. That the final configuration of the parcels merger. involved 5. The lots as merged will be consistent with the vehicular will from result in Chet alley or any 'reof surrounding pattern el development and will not the parcels that are included in the Lot Line create an excessive) large a lot that is Adjustment. compatible with the surrounding develo not 6. That the final configuration of a reoriented lot does Pment. not result in any reduction of the street side setbacks as currently exist adjacent to a front yard of any adjacent key, unless such reduction is accomplished rEwnp� through a zone change to establish appropriate street o4 side setbacks for the reoriented lot. The Planning Commission and City Council, in approving the zone change application, shall determine that the street u > side setbacks are appropriate and are consistent and compatible with the surrounding pattern of gr`�FCRn�. and existing adjacent setbacks. development 166 ft. 36 ft. 32 ft. 40 ft. CORONA DEL MAR 1.5 FAR (Floor Area Ratio) Easement - - - 126 ft.I 32 ft. 40 ft. 166 ft. 166 ft. Easement 1136 ft 136 ft. 72 ft. 80 ft. 2808 (ocean) 32' x 136' = 4,352 72' x 136` = 9,792 sq.ft. 2812 (ocean) 32' x 126' = 4,032 Easement 26`x10` — 260 8,384 sq.ft. 9,532 sq.ft. 8,384 x 1.5 = 12,576 sq.ft. 9,532 x 1.5 = 14,298 12,576 sq.ft. (Total) 14,298 sq.ft. (Total) 166 ft. 4 Represents a loss of nearly 2000' sq.ft . of open space & view corridor 113.6% Larger " if FAR is carelessly combined with traditional setbacks, assembled or merged lots have a considerable advantage over individual lots, which has a negative effect on fine grained cities and the diversity of ownership." Kii�c.� v. 4��ICy!"I� j 1 �•)�r Coal. A�•��•a. �c•1 r.»:�1 � As you requested, here is relevant case law relating to CC &R's, and your deed covenant in particular. The cases cited directly relate to your current situation. It is also more than relevant in that the first one was a CA appellate court case "[Citation.]" ( King v. Kugler (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 651, 655.)" that affirmed the prior courts ruling as to "intent" of height restrictions and one story residence. This case has been cited in dozens of cases (including those indicated below) which all support your assertion that these restrictive covenants (Campbell & Silva; at al; v. Guida), as to the lots in question, are not vague and need to be enforced as to their intent. In addition, a court may imply a term missing from the contract "only when it is necessary to prevent injustice and it is abundantly clear that the parties intended to be bound by such term." [1] "Although the instrument does not expressly declare the intent of the grantor to preserve the view of lot owners, it is obvious from the language used, the topography and the [197 Cal. App. 2d 6551 finished ground elevations of the tract and the general physical appearance of the land and the existing structures thereon, that the purpose of the height restriction in the plan is to protect the lot owner's view from one elevation to another. [2] Contrary to appellant's claim, we see nothing vague, ambiguous or uncertain in the meaning of the restrictive phrase "one story in height," or as to what was intended thereby. It does not appear, nor have appellants contended, that the words have a technical, special or peculiar meaning; they merely argue that to control the height the grantor "should" have inserted a limit in feet and inches or other language from which the intended maximum height could have been inferred exactly. Therefore, the phrase is to be interpreted in its ordinary and popular sense rather than according to some strict legal or technical meaning. "'This ordinary and popular sense is to be related to the circumstances under which the words are used, having in mind the purpose of the contract and the general situation which brought it into existence' (12 Cal.Jur.2d 353 - 354.)" (Harrison v. Frye, 148 Cal. App. 2d 626, 628 [307 P.2d 76].)" [3] The document expressly declares that the restrictions and conditions contained therein shall "run with the land and shall be binding on all parties "), apply to all lots in the tract and be mutually enforceable, reflecting a specific intent to create enforceable restrictions. (Gamble v. Fierman, 82 Cal.App, 180 [255 P. 2691; Martin v. Holm, 197 Cal. 733 [242 P. 718].) That the restrictions and conditions contained in the declaration of record apply, as therein provided, to all lots in the tract and were expressly carried into the deeds, is found in the language of each deed wherein the conveyance is specifically made subject to "covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, easements, rights and rights of way of record." (Smith v. Rasqui, 176 Cal. App. 2d 514 [1 Cal.Rptr. 478].) The trial court's reliance on the Webster's Dictionary definition constitutes an acceptable manner of ascertaining the ordinary and popular usage of words in the English language. "The same rules that apply to interpretation of contracts apply to the interpretation of CC &R's. "'[W]e must independently interpret the provisions of the document.... It is a general rule that restrictive covenants are construed strictly against the person seeking to enforce them, and any doubt will be resolved in favor of the free use of land. But it is also true that the "'intent of the parties and the object of the deed or restriction should govern, giving the instrument a just and fair interpretation. " "" [Citation.]" (Chee v. Amanda Goidt Property Management (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1360, 1377.) "[Citation]' [Citation]' [Citation]` [Citation]" 1. King v Kugler (1961) 197 CaLApp.2d 651, 655. 2. ZABRUCKY v McAdams, Cal: Court of Appeals, 2nd Appellate Dist., 7th Div 2008 3. CaLApp. 4 Dist.,2009. Monarch Point HomeownersAss'n v Arditi, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2009 WL 1838286 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.) 4. Seligman v Tucker (1970) 6 Cal. App. 3d 691 [86 CaLRptr 187] COVENANTS "Much of the value of any property within [a coastline development with an ocean view] depends on the quality of the view. To significantly obstruct any homeowner's view of the Pacific Ocean is to depreciate the economic worth of their property -often by several hundred thousand dollars -as well as dramatically reduce their enjoyment of the home they bought and live in." - in Fox v CORNICHE SUR MER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, 2008 The drafters of the original covenant that have always applied to Mr.Guida's lots were not being vague, they had no special affinity to 1 story housing, their intent was clearly to protect the ocean views for the benefit of each lot of this parcel. The ruling case on point (King v. Kugler), has been cited in dozens of cases which all support our assertion that these restrictive covenants , as to the lots in question, are not vague and will be enforced as to their intent. In addition, a court may imply a term missing from the contract "only when it is necessary to prevent injustice and it is abundantly clear that the parties intended to be bound by such term. "When the issue turns on the meaning of a phrase employed in CC &R's, "the phrase is to be interpreted in its ordinary and popular sense rather than according to some strict legal or technical meaning. This ordinary and popular sense is to be related to the circumstances under which the words are used, having in mind the purpose of the contract and the general situation which brought it into existence." A court may imply a term missing from the contract "only when it is necessary to prevent injustice and it is abundantly clear that the parties intended to be bound by such term." - in King v Kugler (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 651 Legal Effect of Covenants When properly recorded on a deed conveying land, a covenant ( "restrictive deed covenant ") has the legal effect of a binding contract term, and may be so enforced. When covenants are instead signed privately among neighbors, as in a mutual compact or agreement, they are still binding upon the signatories and may be litigated if breached. Neighborhoods that follow their covenants and standards tend to be safer, look better, maintain better relationships with local governments, and better retain or increase the investments that homeowners have made in their properties. Because covenants are voluntary, they may be more restrictive that zoning ordinances. Advice for Home Buyers Many home buyers are so charmed by the appearance of a house for sale that they fail to take the time to read the CC &Rs that come with the property. They are so pleased with a property that they sign a purchase agreement without realizing that existing CC &Rs may prevent them from keeping their boat or truck on the property, or erecting a basketball hoop in the driveway or building a Mcmansion. No real estate contract should be signed until a purchaser has reviewed all the CC &Rs (and zoning laws) affecting the property and is able to abide by them. In a nutshell, deed restrictions can place more stringent limits on a piece of land but cannot loosen restrictions imposed by zoning [private cannot countermand government], but . CC &Rs are binding upon the purchaser, and the purchaser will become subject to them, whether or not they have been reviewed, read, or understood. However, remember that deed restrictions must be considered even if the City is not authorized to enforce them. EASEMENT EXTINGUISHMENT Appeal of Lot Merger (PA2011 -141) 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 Please be advised, that in the event Mr. Guida gains permission from the Planning Commission and /or City Counsel to merge his properties and build as he now intends, this case will end up in court, where besides strict enforcement of the covenant as to height, we will seek to extinguish the access to the rear of his property that he now enjoys. I think a close reading of the easement, contained in the covenant, will show that Mr. Guida is not a direct beneficiary, so closing it off to him will be a low hurdle to clear. 2. The courts, as demonstrated by the citations submitted herewith, have consistently, upheld covenants in deeds, particularly where, as here, they have a stated goal. In this case, the building restriction of one story, is plainly and unambiguously stated. Next, the easement is also plainly and clearly stated, and is clearly limited in its scope and intent, to wit, to allow the municipality ingress & egress, to install and service utility lines, and to allow the residents of the Guida properties to place their garbage at the site designated by the City for pick up. The Campbells and the Silvas will enforce the limits of the easement should the Guidas seek to violate the height restrictions of the covenant. 1. The easement is for the benefit of the city and Mr. Guida is not a direct beneficiary. It does not impede access to his property. It was specifically for the benefit of his assignors. 2. He can't claim adverse possession because the Campbell & Silva families know he is using the driveway. He is using it with their permission. Mr. Guida also knows that he has their permission. 3. This is a unilateral accommodation which can be withdrawn by the Campbell's and Silva's at any time. 4. At best, Mr. Guida has an equitable interest which can only be enforced if he has clean hands. 5. By breaking the deed covenant as to the height restriction, Mr. Guida no longer has clean hands and the court should extinguish his access to the 96 foot road that runs through the property of the Campbell's and Silva's. Enclosed please find the citation which stands for the above proposition. (Citation]" Russell v. Palos Verdes Properties [218 Cal. App. 2d 754] ® PUBLIC & PRIVATE • LOSS OF VIEWS VIEW FROM BAYVIEW DRIVE Defending Private Property Rights: Private property rights are increasingly being undermined and are the target of increasing assaults even though our government has a constitutional duty to preserve and protect them. • When people's actions only affect themselves, we usually could care less what they do. But when individuals' actions begin to harm others, then we do care and we want to stop it • When the government does restrict the behavior of individuals, this is not necessarily a bad thing. These forms of "mutual coercion" are usually in the public interest and work to our common benefit. l know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life. "Protecting the rights of even the least individual among us is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing." - Ronald Reagan "There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right." - Ronald Reagan MELINDA LUTHIN LAW WRITTEN COMMENTS OF ROBIN CAMPBELL, JOAN CAMPBELL, JOHN SILVA, ALBERTA SILVA, PETER CAMPBELL AND LUCINDA CAMPBELL, AND RICHARD ARDIS In opposition of the Appeal of John and Julie Guida Regarding the Denial of the Application to Merge Two Lots located at 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar, California 1 2737 East Coast Highway, Suite F • Corona del Mar, California 92625 • 949.673.1161 • 949.673.1191 [f] On September 14, 2011, the Zoning Administrator approved an application of John and Julie Guida ( "Guidas ") to merge two contiguous lots, addresses 2808 and 2810 Ocean Blvd., in Corona del Mar ("Lot Merger "). (See Zoning Administration Action Letter dated September 14, 2011 [ "Action Letter "].) The decision was appealed to the Planning Commission by Joan Campbell, John Silva and Clifford Jones. The Planning Commission disagreed with the findings of the Zoning Administrator and denied the lot merger. (See Planning Commission Resolution No. 1857 [ "Res. 1857 "].) The Guidas have appealed the Planning Commission's denial to the City Council. "All residential development in the City requires review to determine compliance with the City's development regulations and guidelines." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Element, Development Review Process, p. 5 -93.) Before a lot merger is approved, the local agency must make certain findings of fact that support the decision, including compliance with local regulations and ordinances, adherence to the General Plan and any relevant Specific Plans. The Lot Merger must also comply with or be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.), and must comply with the California Coastal Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 30000 et seq.) and the Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code, § 65000 et seq.). The Zoning Administrator found that the lot merger was exempt from CEQA. (Action Letter, Finding A -1, p. 1.) The Planning Commission made no findings regarding CEQA. (Res. 1857, § 2.) The Zoning Administrator found that the lot merger met all five requirements of the Lot Merger Ordinance. (Action Letter, Findings, pp. 1 -4.) The Planning Commission found that the merger would not meet two of the requirements, and made no comment regarding three requirements. Neither the Planning Commission nor the Zoning Administrator discussed the California Coastal Act. As discussed below, the lot merger (1) is inconsistent with the General Plan; (2) does not meet the requirements of the Lot Merger Ordinance; (3) violates the Coastal Act; (4) violates the Planning and Zoning Law; and (5) has not been evaluated for compliance with CEQA. Therefore, the City Council must deny the lot merger. Importantly, the merger would conflict with the purpose of the creation of the existing subdivision and cause havoc on a block of lots that are delicately and totally intertwined, such that any modification to the lot lines would result in undoing several easements as well as open the door to multiple lawsuits among neighbors. Lastly, the Guidas appear not to be the legal owners of all of the property in issue. According to the description of the operative grant deed, the Guidas do not own the first 20 feet of property facing the street. (See Grant Deed No. 2010- 00708142, excepting southwesterly 20 feet of Lot 5.) Although the Guidas attempted to correct the deed, the subsequently recorded deed is invalid, as it was not signed and executed by the legal owner of the property. This information is provided to the City by Melinda Luthin, Esq. of Melinda Luthin Law, on behalf of Robin Campbell, Joan Campbell, Clifford Jones, John Silva, Alberta Silva, Peter Campbell and Lucinda Campbell, Jeffrey DuFine and Richard Ardis. 2 Contents 1. THE LOT MERGER DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LOT MERGER ORDINANCE............ 1 A. The Lot Merger Does Not Meet The Findings Contained In 19.68.030(H)(1) Protecting Persons, Property In The Neighborhood And The Welfare Of The City ................................... ............................... 1 (1) The proposed merger will be detrimental to the health, safety, peace; comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood ............................... ............................... 1 (2) The merger will be detrimental and injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood........................................................................................................ ............................... 2 (3) The merger will be detrimental or injurious to the general welfare of the City ...................... 2 (4) The merger is inconsistent with the legislative intent of Title 19 ............. ............................... 2 B. The Lot Merger Does Not Meet The Findings Contained In 19.68.030(H)(3) Because The Lot As Merged Will Not Will Be More Closely Compatible With The Applicable Zoning Regulations And Will Be Inconsistent With Other Regulations Relating To The Subject Property .................. ............................... 2 C. The Lot Merger Does Not Meet The Findings Contained In 19.68.030(H)(4) Because The Lot As Merged May Extinguish The Access Easement To The Alley ..................................... ............................... 3 D. The Lot Merger Does Not Meet The Findings Contained In 19.68.030(H)(5) Because The Lot As Merged Will Not Be Consistent With The Surrounding Pattern Of Development And Will Create An ExcessivelyLarge Lot ................................................................................................. ............................... 3 2. THE LOT MERGER IS INCONSISTENT WITH LOCAL LAW AND REGULATIONS ........ ............................... 4 A. The Proposed Lot Merger Is Inconsistent With And In Violation Of The General Plan .................... 4 B. The Proposed Lot Merger Is Inconsistent with the Vision Statement of the General Plan ............. 6 C. The Proposed Lot Merger Violates the Elements of the General Plan .............. ............................... 7 (1) The Proposed Lot Merger Violates The Land Use Element ....................... ............................... 7 (2) The Proposed Lot Merger Violates The Housing Element ......................... ............................... 9 (3) The Proposed Lot Merger Violates The Natural Resources Element ...... ............................... 10 D. The Proposed Lot Merger Is Inconsistent With The Implementation Plan ..... ............................... 11 3. THE LOT MERGER HAS NOT MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COASTAL LAND ACT AND IS CONTRARY TO THE COASTAL LAND USE PLAN..... ........................................................... .......................... 13 A. The Lot Merger Has Not Met The Requirements Of The Coastal Land Act ..... ............................... 14 B. The Lot Merger Is Contrary To The Coastal Land Use Plan ............................. ............................... 14 4. THE LOT MERGER HAS NOT MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CEQA ....................... ............................... 15 5. THE LOT MERGER SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED .................................................. ............................... 16 1 1. THE LOT MERGER DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LOT MERGER ORDINANCE. Title 19 of the Newport Beach Code Chapter 19.68 (Lot Merger Ordinance) governs the approval of lot mergers in the City. The Lot Merger Ordinance was created in 2009. Prior to this, lot mergers were virtually unregulated. The subject application for merger is the first of its type in Corona del Mar since the Lot Merger Ordinance was enacted. The Lot Merger Ordinance mandates that five findings (each containing multiple subfactors) be made in order for the City to approve a lot merger. A. The Lot Mercer Does Not Meet The Findings Contained In 19.68.030(H)(1) Protecting Persons, Property In The Neighborhood And The Welfare Of The C Finding H(1) of the Merger Ordinance mandates findings that "[ a]pproval of the merger will not, under the circumstances of this 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 lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of this title." (1) The proposed merger will be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. The Planning Commission properly found that the proposed merger would be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. As stated in Resolution No. 1857, the merger would allow the property owners to build across eight linear feet of open space that is currently designated as side setbacks and therefore, not buildable. (Res. No. 1857, Finding A -1, p. 2.) This loss of open space is detrimental to the health safety and general welfare of those residing and working in the neighborhood. 1 In addition, the loss of open space will hinder the view along the ocean facing portion of Ocean Blvd. as well as along the view corridor of Ocean Blvd., Goldenrod Ave. and the Alley between Goldenrod Ave. and Heliotrope Ave. (2) The merger will be detrimental and injurious to rp operty and improvements in the neighborhood. As identified in several City documents, the people of Corona del Mar have made clear that they do not want mansionization of the village. The city of Newport Beach recognizes that the newer subdivisions have larger lots, but that the average lot in Corona del Mar is less than 4,000 square feet. The creation of a lot of over seven times the average lot size will negatively affect the property and improvements of the neighborhood. (3) The merger will be detrimental or injurious to the general welfare of the City consistency. is one of the General Plan's (4) The merger is inconsistent with the legislative intent of Title 19 The merger provisions of Title 19 are intended to help streamline the elimination of non- conforming lots, i.e. lots that are too small. The two lots in issue here are already among the largest lots in Corona del Mar. Neither is non- conforming. The purpose of Title 19 will not be served by merging these lots. B. The Lot Merger Does Not Meet The Findings Contained In 19.68.030(H)(3) Because The Lot As Merged Will Not Will Be More Closely Compatible With The Applicable Zoning Regulations And Will Be Inconsistent With Other Regulations Relating To The Subject Property. Purpose of merger ordinance is to streamline the elimination of non - conforming lots. Merging two conforming lots will not "be more closely compatible with the zoning regulations." In fact, the lots as merged would be less compatible with the zoning regulations, as the zoning regulations anticipate a certain amount of growth and open space, both of which will be impossible with this proposed lot merger. 2 Furthermore, the lots as merged will be inconsistent with the General Plan as well as other regulations relating to the subject property. This is discussed in detail below. C. The Lot Merger Does Not Meet The Findings Contained In 19.68.030(H)(4) Because The Lot As Merged May Extinguish The Access Easement To The Alley. Section 19.68.030(H)(4) mandates that the merger must not result in a deprivation of access. Here, the only access to the lots is through the alley, via an easement. If the lots are merged, and the Guidas attempt to build a house across the property lines in violation of a duly recorded and enforceable covenant, the remaining subdivision lot owners will deem the Guida's violation to extinguish their access easement. As a result, the lots, as merged will not have access to the street. D. The Lot Merger Does Not Meet The Findings Contained In 19.68.030(13)(5) Because The Lot As Merged Will Not Be Consistent With The Surrounding Pattern Of Development And Will Create An Excessively Large Lot. The Planning Commission properly found that the lots as merged would create a lot size and configuration inconsistent with the development pattern within Block 34. (Res. No. 1857, Finding B -1, p. 2.) Currently the lots are approximately 7,200 and 6,400 square feet. As merged, the lot would be nearly 14,000 square feet. The lots are currently 40 feet in width, facing the street. As merged, the frontage along Ocean Blvd. would be 80 feet. Block 34 consists of 20 lots, with average lot size of approximately 5,600 square feet and average street- facing width of 45 feet. The lot size of the proposed merger is 2.5 times the average lot size, with a street facing width of nearly twice the average in Block 34. The merged lots would not only be inconsistent with Block 34, the surrounding properties, it is grossly inconsistent with the development pattern of Corona del Mar, as a whole. As stated above, the standard lot size is 3,500 and average size is estimated to be just over 4,000 square feet. The Standard lot has 30 feet facing the street. It is impossible to 3 conclude that a lot of nearly four times the standard size, with nearly three times the standard width is not "excessively large" and inconsistent with the surrounding pattern of development. The zoning administrator claims that "nearby lots have widths as wide as 73 feet and area as large as 13,325 square feet," and as such, the proposed lot merger is consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and does not create an excessively large lot. (Zoning letter finding R1.) This is a gross misstatement of the facts. First, the lots that the zoning administrator discusses are two of only three lots that are excessive in size. Three lots among thousands is hardly an adequate sample of the "surrounding development." Second, the Zoning Administrator did not use "comparable" lots "within the surrounding area of development," as required by the Merger Ordinance. Instead, for his analysis, the Zoning Administrator used three anomalous lots that are the three largest lots in the whole of Corona del Mar. Third, the Zoning administrator conveniently combined the measurements of the lots as if they were one. He also misconstrues the facts by claiming that "other nearby lots have widths as wide as 73 feet." (Zoning letter finding F -1, p.3.) One "comparable" lot is 13,325 square feet has a frontage width of 66 feet. The "comparable lot with a frontage of 73 feet has a lot size of 10,049 square feet. There is only one lot in all of Corona del Mar with larger street frontage and larger square footage. All of the large lots are anomalies that occurred long before the Merger Ordinance was enacted. The proposed lots, as merged, would be the second largest lot, with the second largest street frontage in all of Corona del Mar. As stated above, these sizes are nearly four times the average size. 2. THE LOT MERGER IS INCONSISTENT WITH LOCAL LAW AND REGULATIONS A. The Proposed Lot Merger Is Inconsistent With And In Violation Of The General Plan. "Under California law, every city and county must adopt a comprehensive long -term General Plan to provide guidance to decision makers regarding the conservation of resources and M the future physical form and character of development for the city." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, Organization of the General Plan by Element, p. 1 -11.) The law mandates that local agencies develop a General Plan for development. The General Plan must contain certain Elements, and must comply with state law, Newport Beach developed their mandated General Plan "to ensure that the City achieves the vision by, among many other things, doing the following: ...Creating guidelines that preserve the charm and beauty of our residential neighborhoods ...Preserving public views of the ocean, harbor, and bay" (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, pp. 1 -2, 1 -3.) "Newport Beach is renowned for its beautiful coastal lands and harbor... and quality residential neighborhoods." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, p. 1 -3.) "The General Plan "focuses on conserving the existing pattern of land uses and establishes policies for their protection and long term maintenance" and "provides guidance to preserve the qualities that define the natural and built environment. (Ibid.) "Specific goals and policies address the enhancement of open space, marine and harbor uses, historic and cultural resources, and recreational facilities." (Ibid.) "The Plan is a legal document and much of its content is dictated by statutory requirements relating to background data, analysis, maps, and exhibits." (N.B. General Plan, How to Use the General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, p. 1 -9.) The General Plan is more than a guideline. Adherence to its provisions is mandatory and "Future development decisions must be consistent with the Plan." (N.B. General Plan, How to Use the General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, P. 1 -9.) Allowing a lot merger that destroys thousands of feet of open space, eliminates public views, and degrades the charm of Corona del Mar, ignores the thousands of hours of research and technical studies that went into the General Plan development, and flies in the face of the purpose of the General Plan. The Proposed Lot Merger will not meet the goal of "enhance[ing] the character of the community, preserv[ing] and enhance[ing] critical environmental and historical resources, and minimize hazards." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, p. 1 -4.) 5 The creation of a mega lot that is four times the average Corona del Mar lot size violates the General Plan, which is "intended to provide protection and preservation for existing neighborhoods." (N.B. General Plan, How to Use the General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, p. 1 -4.) We request that the City Council utilize this important tool to help them "make land use and public investment decisions" and deny the application to merge the lots. (N.B. General Plan, How to Use the General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, p. 1 -9.) B. The Proposed Lot Merger Is Inconsistent with the Vision Statement of the General Plan. The Vision statement describes the great efforts the City and its citizens have made to successfully preserve and enhance "our character as a beautiful, unique residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods. [Newport Beach residents] value our colorful past, the high quality of life, and our community bonds. The successful balancing of the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors has been accomplished with the recognition that Newport Beach is primarily a residential community." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 2, Vision Statement, Community Character, p. 2 -2.) The Vision Statement describes the City's conservative growth strategy that emphasizes residents' quality of life ... cherishes and nurtures our estuaries, harbor, beaches, open spaces, and natural resources." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 2, Vision Statement, Community Character, p. 2- 3.) Design principles are scrutinized to ensure they "emphasize characteri stics that satisfy the community's desire for the maintenance of its particular neighborhoods and villages. Public view areas are protected. Trees and landscaping are protected." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 2, Vision Statement, Community Character, p. 2 -23.) The City has vowed to "maintain access to and visibility of our beaches, parks, preserves, harbor, and estuaries." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 2, Vision Statement, A Healthy Natural Environment, p. 2 -4.) Elected officials have vowed to listen and respond to the interests of residents and the business community." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 2, Vision Statement, Responsive Government, p. 2 -5.). Allowing the applicants to merge two of the largest lots in Corona del 0 Mar will not be in harmony with the principles described and the promises made in the Vision Statement. C. The Proposed Lot Merger Violates the Elements of the General Plan. "By law, a General Plan must contain the following seven elements and must be internally consistent element to element." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, Organization of the General Plan by Element, p. 1 -11.) In addition to the mandatory elements, "the Newport Beach General Plan also includes ... Harbor and Bay Elements. Though optional by statute, once adopted they hold equal weight under the law as the mandated elements." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, Organization of the General Plan by Element, p. 1 -11.) (1) The Proposed Lot Merger Violates The Land Use Element. "The Land Use Element presents goals and policies pertaining to how existing development is going to be maintained and enhanced and new development occur." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 1, Inriroduction, Organization of the General Plan by Element, p. 1 -12.) The Land Use Element is intended to allow land use that maintains and enhances the "beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods, business districts, and harbor that together identify Newport Beach." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 3, Land Use Element, Goals and Policies, p. 3 -5.) Many of the City's older communities are located near the coast, and are characterized by small lots and the close grouping of structures. (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 3, Land Use Element, Residential Neighborhoods, p. 3 -63.) This setting is recognized as one residents wish to preserve. Any proposed modification to land use must "Protect the natural setting that contributes to the character and identify of Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and visitors. Preserve open space resources, beaches, harbors ..." (Ibid.) The Land Use Element Contains specific restrictions to "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 3, Land Use Element, Goals and Policies, p. 3- 7 6.) Importantly, the Land Use Element mandates that the pattern of residential neighborhoods and harbor and ocean districts must be protected. (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 3, Land Use Element, Goals and Policies, p. 3 -9.) Changes in use and /or density /intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents." (Ibid.) "When reviewing proposals for land use changes, [the City must] give full consideration to the impact on coastal- depended and coastal related land uses, including not only the proposed change on the subject property, but also the potential to limit existing coastal - dependent and coastal - related land uses on adjacent properties." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 3, Land Use Element, Goals and Policies, p. 3 -10.) Here, the lot merger will displace two houses for one along Ocean Blvd., which is a change in the density in an area that is not considered underperforming. Corona del Mar citizens realize the mansionization will not enhance the value of the neighborhood. It will also impermissibly reduce the amount of affordable housing near the beach, and curtail the goal of diversity within neighborhoods. (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 3, Land Use Element, Residential Neighborhoods, p. 3 -65.) The Land Use Element mandates that "the open space and recreational facilities that are integrated into and owned by private residential development are permanently preserved as part of the development approval process and are prohibited from converting to residential or other types of land uses." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 3, Land Use Element, Residential Neighborhoods, p. 3 -65.) A lot merger which proposes to obliterate thousands of square feet of open space setbacks flies in the face of this mandate. The Proposed Lot Merger wishes to take two houses, one 1,400 square feet, the other 1,300 square feet and create one house of nearly five times the combined size of the existing houses that virtually covers both of the lot. A lot merger that creates a mega -lot for the purpose 3 of overbuilding a mansion violates the provision that replacement of existing houses must be "at comparable building heights and scale," (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 3, Land Use Element, Corona Del Mar, p. 3 -129.) This certainly will not "compliment the scale and form of existing housing. (2) The Proposed Lot Merger Violates The Housing Element. "The Housing Element is mandated by Sections 65580 to 65589 of the Government Code. State Housing Element law requires that each city and county identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs within their jurisdiction and prepare goals, policies, programs, and quantified objectives to farther the development, improvement, and preservation of housing." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Element, Executive Summary, p. 5 -2.) : "There exists strong public sentiment in favor of preserving the suburban environment in the City." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Element, Nongovernmental Constraints, p. 5 -81) "The City of Newport Beach's Housing Element details the City's strategy for enhancing and preserving the community's character, identifies strategies for expanding housing opportunities and services for all household types and income groups, and provides the primary policy guidance for local decision - making related to housing. The Housing Element provides in- depth analysis of the City's population, economic, and housing stock characteristics as well as a comprehensive evaluation of programs and regulations related to housing. Through this evaluation and analysis, the City has identified priority goals, polices, and programs that directly address the housing needs of current and future City residents." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Element, Executive Summary, p. 5 -2.) Like the Land Use Element, the Housing Element recognizes that Newport Beach is A balanced residential community, comprised of variety of housing types, designs, and opportunities for all social and economic segments." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Element, Newport Beach Housing Element: Goals, Conservation and Improvement Housing, p. 5 -119.) It seeks to "[e]ncourage preservation of existing and provision of new housing affordable to ... moderate - income households." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Elements, Variety of Housing Opportunities, p. 5 -120.) G "The Housing Element addresses issues, goals, and policies related to ensuring an adequate supply of housing opportunities for all residents." (N.B. General Plan, Ch, 1, Introduction, Organization of the General Plan by Element, p. 1 -13.) As in other sections of the General Plan, the Housing Element states that the purpose of the Element is to "Conserve and improve the condition of housing and neighborhoods, including existing affordable housing; Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability; and Preserve for lower income households the publicly assisted multi - family housing developments within each community." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Element, Executive Summary, p. 5 -3.) The Housing Element is designed to "Maintain rental opportunities by restriction conversion of rental units to condominiums unless the vacancy rate in Newport Beach for rental housing is an average 5% or higher for four (4) consecutive quarters...." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Elements, Variety of Housing Opportunities, p. 5 -120.) Analogous to this is the need to preserve rental houses by preventing the destruction of cottages in order to build mega - mansions. (See N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Elements, Provisions and Preservations of Affordable Housing, p. 5 -130 [discussing the need to maintain and preserve the City's rental housing stock].) According to the Housing Element, overcrowding of housing units is a problem that the City is committed to addressing. In addition, "The City's goal is that an average of 15 percent of all new residential development will be affordable to very low -, low -, and moderate - income households. The City Council has also established an Affordable Housing Task Force that works with developers and landowners to facilitate the development of affordable units and determines the most appropriate use on in -lieu fee funds." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Element, Executive Summary, p. 5 -3.) Neither the reduction of overcrowding nor the creation of affordable housing will be furthered by removing two rental houses and replacing it with one mega mansion that is to be occupied by two people. (3) The Proposed Lot Merger Violates The Natural Resources Element. Newport Beach recognizes that "Visual resources are an important component of the 10 quality of life." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 10, Natural Resources Element, Visual Resources, p. 10 -16.) The "City's habitat areas and open spaces are among the contributing visual resources ... Coastal views are also provided from a number of streets and highways and, due to the grid street pattern in ... Corona del Mar, many north -south tending streets provide view corridors to the ocean and bay." (Ibid.) The Proposed Merger would obliterate the view corridor along Ocean Blvd., along Goldenrod Ave., along Heliotrope Ave., and along the alley between Goldenrod Ave. and Heliotrope Ave. The City must create and implement development restrictions, including "bulk and height limits in the areas around the bay, [in order to] ...preserve scenic views and regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 10, Natural Resources Element, Visual Resources, p. 10 -17.) The Proposed Lot Merger will not "maintain the intensity of development around Newport Bay to be consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 10, Natural Resources Element, Goals and Policies, p. 10 -17.) Nor will it protect the public views by regulate the visual and physical mass structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach, as mandated by the Natural Resources element. (Ibid.) D. The Proposed Lot Merger Is Inconsistent With The Implementation Plan. "Implementation Programs describe the actions to be taken by the City to carry out the goals and policies defined by the General Plan." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, Organization of the General Plan by Element, p. 1 -13.) It delineates "the principle set of actions and procedures necessary to carry out the goals and policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 13, Implementation Program, p. 13 -2.) Corona del Mar has a unique "half -mile linear view park that provides spectacular views of the harbor entrance and Pacific Ocean is located along the bluff top above Corona del Mar State Beach." (N. B. LCP, Coastal Land Use Plan, Ch. 3, Public Access and Recreation, Bluff Top Access, p. 3 -11.) The scenic and vial qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and 11 protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting." (N. B. LCP, Coastal Land Use Plan, Ch. 4, Coastal Resource Protection, Scenic and Visual Resources, p. 4 -71.) The Implementation Plan states that compliance with the General Plan requirements is not optional. "California statutes require that a city's decisions regarding its physical development must be consistent with the adopted General Plan." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 13, Implementation Program, Programs, p. 13 -3.) The City must "ensure that Private Development and Capital Improvements are Consistent with the General Plan." (Ibid.) The Implementation Plan states that the City must "continue to maintain appropriate setbacks and density, floor area, and height limits for residential development to protect the character of established neighborhoods and to protect coastal access and coastal resources." (N. B. LCP, Coastal Land Use Plan, Ch. 2, Land Use and Development, General Policies, Residential Development, Policies, p. 2 -48.) The Proposed Lot Merger violates this mandate. According to the Implementation Plan, "it is necessary for Newport Beach to review all subdivision and development applications and make written findings that they are consistent with all goals and policies of the General Plan." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 13, Implementation Program, Programs, p. 13 -3.) Here, the Planning Commission discussed only two of the five required findings mandated by the local merger ordinance. The Planning Commission's denial did not address CEQA, or the Coastal Land Act compliance or compliance with the General Plan, any of its elements, or compliance with the Local Coastal Plan. Before the City approves a lot merger, it must evaluate all of the above. Based on the facts of the Proposed Lot Merger, it has not - - and cannot be approved without violating same. 17 3. THE LOT MERGER HAS NOT MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COASTAL LAND ACT AND IS CONTRARY TO THE COASTAL LAND USE PLAN. Corona del Mar is located within a costal zone designated by the State of California that is subject to the Coastal Act. (Pub. Resources Code § 30000 et seq.) The California Legislature made the following findings regarding the California Coastal Zone: (a) That the California coastal zone is a distinct and valuable natural resource of vital and enduring interest to all the people and exists as a delicately balanced ecosystem; (b) That the permanent protection of the state's natural and scenic resources is a paramount concern to present and future residents of the state and nation. (c) That to promote the public safety, health, and welfare, and to protect public and private property, wildlife, marine fisheries, and other ocean resources, and the natural environment, it is necessary to protect the ecological balance of the coastal zone and prevent its deterioration and destruction. (d) That existing developed uses, and future developments that are carefully planned and developed consistent with the policies of this division, are essential to the economic and social well -being of the people of this state and especially to working persons employed within the coastal zone. (Pub. Resources Code, § 30001.) The legislature enacted the Coastal Act in order to protect the Coastal Zone. Cities like Newport Beach must create and follow their Local Land Use Plans. "One of the major goals of the California Coastal Act and the Coastal Land Use Plan is to assure the priority for coastal - depended and coastal related development over other development in the Coastal Zone, which is a constraint on residential development, particularly in areas on or 13 near the shoreline." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Element, Local Coastal Program, p. 5- 93.) A. The Lot Merger Has Not Met The Requirements Of The Coastal Land Act. The Coastal Act regulates, among other things, activity considered to be "development." (E.g. Pub. Resources Code, §§ 30600 - 30627.) For purposes of the Coastal Act, lot line adjustments and lot mergers fall within the meaning of "development." (See La La Fe, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1999, Cal App 2d Dist) 73 Cal App 4th 231, 86 Cal Rptr 2d 217.) Therefore, the proposed merger must comply with the restrictions of the Coastal Act, including the requirement that the applicants obtain a permit from the Coastal Commission. (See Pub. Resources Code § 30106 et seq.) In addition, "Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas." (Pub. Resources Code, § 30251.) New Development shall "protect special communities and neighborhoods that, because of their unique characteristics, are popular visitor destination points for recreational uses." (Pub. Resources Code, § 30253.) Prior to approving the lot merger, the City must ensure that the lot merger complies with the Coastal Act. B. The Lot Merger Is Contrary To The Coastal Land Use Plan. In addition, the Coastal Act mandates the City to create and abide by a coastal plan (LCP). Newport Beach's Coastal Land Use Plan "consists of land use designations and resources protection and development polices for the Coastal Zone. The Land use Plan Policies result in consistency with Chapter 3 of California Coast Act, which addresses the planning and management of coastal resources." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Element, Local Coastal Program, p. 5 -93.) "Where there are conflicts between the policies set forth in this Coastal Land Use Plan those set forth in any element of the City's General Plan, zoning, or any other ordinances, the policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan shall take precedence. (N. B. LCP, Coastal Land Use 001 Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, General Policies, p. 1 -2.) "[I]n addition to obtaining any other permit required by law from any local government or from any state, regional, or local agency, any person, as defined in Section 21066, wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone ... shall obtain a coastal development permit." (N. B. LCP, Coastal Land Use Plan, Ch. 2, Land Use and Development, General Policies, General Development Policies, §30600 (a), p. 2 -21.) A lot merger is considered "development under the Act. (See La Fe, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1999, Cal App 2n Dist) 73 Cal App 4`h 231, 86 Cal Rptr. 2d 217.) Therefore, the Proposed Lot Merger must undergo the scrutiny required to obtain a development permit in accordance with the Coastal Act. 4. THE LOT MERGER HAS NOT MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CEQA. The Zoning Administrator letter states that the "proposed project is in conformance with CEQA," and the Lot Merger "qualifies for an exemption from environmental review... [as a] minor alteration in land use...." (Action Letter, Finding A -1, p. 1.) The Planning Commission made no findings regarding CEQA. (Res. 1857, § 2.) Consistent with California's strong environmental policy, whenever the approval of a project is at issue, the statute and regulations "have established a three- tiered process to ensure that public agencies inform their decisions with environmental considerations." (Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose, 54 Cal. App. 4th 106, 112 (Cal. App. 6th Dist, 1997).) There is a three tiered process for determining the appropriate level of CEQA review (Ibid.) "The first tier is jurisdictional, requiring that an agency conduct a preliminary review in order to determine whether CEQA applies to a proposed activity. (Guidelines, §§ 15060, 15061.)" (Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose, supra, 54 Cal.AppAth at p. 112.) CEQA applies if the activity is a "project' under the statutory definition, unless the project is exempt. (See §§ 21065, 21080.) "If the agency finds the project is exempt from CEQA under any of the stated exemptions, no further environmental review is necessary." (Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose, supra, 54 Ca1.AppAth p. 113.) "Only those projects having no 15 significant effect on the environment are categorically exempt from CEQA review." (Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v. County of Marin (2004) 125 Cal.AppAth 1098, 1107 [23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 321].) If the project is not exempt— either because it does not fall within an exempt category or because an exception makes the exemption unavailable —then the agency must proceed to the second tier and conduct an initial study. (Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce v. City of Santa Monica (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 786, 792 [124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 731]; see Guidelines, § 15063.) Lot mergers do not qualify for a categorical CEQA exemption, and therefore, the City must conduct an initial study prior to approving the Lot Merger. 5. THE LOT MERGER SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED. For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the City deny the Proposed Lot Merger. Date: January 17, 2012 y 1i� Melinda M. Luthin, Esq. of I MELINEDA LUTHIN I LAW 16 Harris, Lillian From: Sims, Kay Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 9:11 AM To: Harris, Lillian Subject: RE: Message from KONICA MINOLTA COPIER Hi Lillian, The applicant is the appellant in this case and requested that the hearing be delayed until the January 10th hearing date so that they could properly prepare their case. Please let me know if you need any further information. Thank you, Kay From: Harris, Lillian Sent: Thursday, November 17, 20119:07 AM To: Sims, Kay; Goodwin, Monika Cc: Brown, Leilani Subject: FW: Message from KONICA MINOLTA COPIER Hello Kay, According to NBMC Section 20.95.060, appeals are to be scheduled for a hearing before Council within 60 days of the filing of the appeal unless both applicant and appellant or reviewing body consent to a later date. The attached appeal was received in the City Clerk's Office on October 27, 2011. Please advise. Thanks From: Harris, Lillian Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:49 AM To: Sims, Kay; Goodwin, Monika Cc: Brown, Leilani Subject: FW: Message from KONICA MINOLTA COPIER The attached appeal was received in the City Clerk's Office today. Thanks From: cityclerk(cbnewportbeachca.gov fmai Ito: citvclerk ( ilnewportbeachca govl Sent: Thursday, October 27, 20113:48 AM To: Harris, Lillian Subject: Message from KONICA MINOLTA COPIER COPY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECEIVED APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLAN NINQ$((CQISI O: 44 Application No. ect No. PA2011 -141; Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 Name of Appellant John Guida or person filing: Address: 8 Old Course Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: Date of Planning Commission decision: October 20, 2011 , 20 Regarding application of: The John Guida Trust and The Julie Guida Trust BEACH for (Description of application filed with Planning Commission) On October 20, 2011, the Planning Commission considered an appeal of the City Zoning Administrator's approval of John and Julie Guida's application for a lot merger. The Planning Commission reversed the Zoning Administrator's decision and rejected the Guidas' request for a lot merger. The lot merger application concerns portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 34 of Corona del Mar, commonly known as 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard, Carona del Mar. Reasons for Appeal : The Planning Commission improperly concluded that the proposed lot merger would have a detrimental effect on the health, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood, and it improperly concluded that the merged lot would be inconsistent with the surrounding pattern of development and would create a lot whose size was incom signature of Appellant 4-.. h the surroundine devel Date //J-- ,�2 9 — rl FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: ( /(,CAB I 20 Hearing Date. An appeal shall be scheduled for a hearing before the City Council within sixty (60) 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: $4,062.00 pursuant to Resolution No. 2011 -24 adopted on 3 -8 -11. (Deposit funds with Cashier in Account #2700 -5000) JULIE A. GUIDA o3 -11 JOHN GUIDA 1335 S PRAIRIE AVE., UNIT 2001 CHICAGO, IL 60605 -3145 J P. Morgan JPMorgen Chase Bank, NA. Chicago, Illinois MEMO "0 7 10000 1310. 519 ,Rs RECEIVED BY: MARIA TODAY'S DATE: 10/27/11 27005000 ZONING & SUBDIVISION FEES CHECK $4,062.00 REF NUM: 519 RECEIPT NUMBER: 04000002462 PAYOR: GUIDA REGISTER DATE: 10/27/11 TIME: 10:46 $4,062.00 --------------- - - -- TOTAL DUE: $4,062.00 $4,062.00 $.00 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, January 24, 2012, at 7:00 p.m., a public hearing will be conducted in the City Council Chambers (Building A) at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider the following application: 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger Appeal - An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002, reversing the Zoning Administrator's approval to allow the merger of the following property under common ownership: portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 located in Corona del Mar. Also included in the application was a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map. The project is categorically exempt under Section 15305, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). All interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this application. 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. The agenda, staff report, and documents may be reviewed at the City Clerk's Office (Building B), 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachea.gov on the Friday prior to the hearing. For questions regarding details of the project please contact Kay Sims, Assistant Planner, at (949) 644 -3237 or ksims @newportbeachca.gov. Project File No.: PA2011 -141 Activity No.: LM2011 -002 Zone: R -1 (Single -Unit Residential) General Plan: RS -D (Single -Unit Residential Detached) Location: 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Applicant: Mr. John Guida Leilani I. Brown City Clerk City of Newport Beach NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, January 24, 2012, at 7:00 p.m., a public hearing will be conducted in the City Council Chambers (Building A) at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider the following application: 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger Appeal - An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002, reversing the Zoning Administrator's approval to allow the merger of the following property under common ownership: portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 located in Corona del Mar. Also included in the application was a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map. The project is categorically exempt under Section 15305, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). All interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this application. 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. The agenda, staff report, and documents may be reviewed at the City Clerk's Office (Building B), 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca.aov on the Friday prior to the hearing. For questions regarding details of the project please contact Kay Sims, Assistant Planner, at (949) 644 -3237 or ksims@newportbeachca.gov. Project File No.: PA2011 -141 Activity No.: LM2011 -002 Zone: R -1 (Single -Unit Residential) General Plan: RS -D (Single -Unit Residential Detached) Location: 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Applicant: Mr. John Guida Leilani I. Brown City Clerk City of Newport Beach NOTICE OF PUBLIC GEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, January 24, 2012, at 7:00 p.m., a public hearing will be conducted in the City Council Chambers (Building A) at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider the following application: 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger Appeal - An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002, reversing the Zoning Administrator's approval to allow the merger of the following property. under common ownership: portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 located in Corona del Mar. Also included in the application was a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map. The project is categorically exempt under Section 15305, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). All interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this application. 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. The agenda, staff report, and documents may be reviewed at the City Clerk's Office (Building B), 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663 or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca.gov on the Friday prior to the hearing. For questions regarding details of the project please contact Kay Sims, Assistant Planner, at (949) 644 -3237 or ksims@newportbeachca.gov. Project File No.: PA2011 -141 Zone: R -1 (Single -Unit Residential) Location: 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Activity No.: LM2011 -002 General Plan: RS -D (Single -Unit Residential Detached) Applicant: Mr. John Guida Leilani Brown, ity Clerk City of Newport Beach w031Gane'AAM n alma} el za;lnsua. 932 -66 -053 DEAN T WICKSTROM 209 FERNLEAF AVE CORONA DEL MAR CA �wwowcy.. vp puv] V . 932 -65-058 26TH STREET LLC 5934 CONROY.WINDERMERE RD 92625 ORLANDO FL 32835 932 - 66-066 KMR LLC 909 BRIGHAM YOUNG DR CLAREMONT CA 91111 Owner /Applicant fi The John ui Trust and The Julie Ada Trust 1335 S. rain venue #2001 Chica , IL 60 o The John Guida Trust and The Julie Guida Trust 1335 S. Prairie Avenue #2001 Chicago, IL 60605 932 - 66-067 - TODD A ROTHWEILER 208 DAHLIA AVE , CORONAT EL MAR CA- 92625 Contact Todd Sken erian chitect 1100 South o t Hwy #316 Laguna Be CA 92651 @09LS @AN3AV11jegen al zasimn 932 -66 -059 ; :: salad a salpej sa;;anbi ;3 " IAMES,. MEDAK' -' 2618.00EAKBIND CORONA DELI MAR CA 92625 Todd SWn an A 1100 S. Coast #316 " Laguna B CA 51` . 11 Todd Skenderian Architect PA2011 -141 for LM2011 -002 1100 South Coast Hwy #316 2808 & 2812 Ocean Blvd Laguna Beach, CA 92651 CD Trust CD 6 92 Labels Yaan;eaj laad �(se9 a01 - - waded paajp @09LS 31dldW31 ®A +any asn mi 1 ;aayS uopna ;sul aa5 ® 0 I slagel laad 6se3 Use AveryO Template 5160® #4636 6/14/2011 30 nershi ng (exdudi -ways) P-repWred for: 052- 061 -25 052- 061 -26 JOHN GUIDA 2808 & 2812 OCEAN BLVD CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 052- 032 -03 NICK A SHUBIN 1601 DOVE ST 100 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 052- 032 -13 FREDRIC H JONES 1729 RIDGE POINT DR BOUNTIFUL. UT 84010 052- 032 -23 ROBERT P WARMINGTON 2628 OCEAN BLVD CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 052- 042 -11 DONALD W CALLENDER 4029 WESTERLY PL 111 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 052 - 042 -16,17 052- 045 -06,08 CATHERINE T CALLENDER 2620 WAY LN CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 052- 044 -01 CHARLES MASg ERS PO BOX 632 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 052 - 044 -04 JOHN HAMILTON 100 NEWPORT CENTER DR 20 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 052- 045 -10 UDVARE JOSEPH B 88 BILTMORE EST PHOENIX AZ 85016. Etiquettes faciles 6 peter Utilisez le gabarit AVERY@ 51600 c T➢� Feed Paper expose Pop -Up EdgeT"' advanced Listing Services ,tic Ownership Listings & Radius Maps P.O. Box 2593 • Dana Point, CA • 92624 Office: (949) 361 -3921 • Fax: 19491361 -3923 vwwv.Advancedlisting. corn 052- 032 -05 CUMMINGS J H & C 2723 W COAST HWY NEWPORT BEACH CA U� AVER ® 5960TM j f3 052- 032 -10 JEFFREY D CARSTEN 1330 HAMPSHIRE CLR 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 052- 032 -17 ANNE DONAHUE - LAMPMAN 2612 OCEAN BLVD CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 052- 040 -03 DONALD R ROGERS 1015 BASIL RD MCLEAN VA 22101 052- 042 -12 PETER S SCOFIELD 2627 WAY LN CORONA DEL MAR CA 052- 043 -06 WARREN H JAMES 2627 COVE ST CORONA DEL MAR CA 052- 044 -02 PARKER HAROLD G 2700 COVE ST CORONA DEL MAR CA 1 052- 032 -22 VICTOR D TRUJILLO 2624 OCEAN BLVD CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 052- 042 -10 ALAN GIN 1129 CAMPANILE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 052- 042 -13 WILLIAM J ROSOFF 2626 COVE ST 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 052 - 043 -07 052- 043 -08 COVE CHINA 17900 VON KARMAN AVE 200 92625 IRVINE CA 92614 052- 044 -03 PROTAXLLC 2704 COVE ST 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 052 -0 01 052- 051 -1.. 52- 051 -22 CITY OF WPO BEACH 3300 NEV BLVD NEWPORT A 92663 052- 045 -03 052- 045 -07 B H TRUST 3334 E COAST HWY 228 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 052- 046 -02 052- 046 -03 HELGA PRALLE WILLIAM H GROSS 2727 OCEAN BLVD 144 MONTE CARLO DR CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 Sens de Repliez a la hachure afin de i www.avery.com chargement r6veler le rebord Pop -UpTm 1- 800 -GO -AVERY Use Avery® Template 51600 052- 046 -05 MARLA E YACOEL 2701 OCEAN BLVD CORONA DEL MAR CA Feed Paper expose Pop -Op Edge - V �V�98tiv 5960TH i A 052- 046 -06 NANCY CALDWELL 2711 OCEAN BLVD 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 052 - 046 -08 JOHN W HAMILTON 100 NEWPORT CENTER DR 200 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 052- 050 -09 052- 050 -11 GERTRUDE B RALPHS 1645 S EUCLID AVE SAN MARINO CA 91108 052- 050 -27 BRIAN G & KAY MULVANEY 2719 SHELL ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92625 052- 050 -30 RICHARD LEWIS 2889 WAY LN CORONA DEL MAR CA 052- 051 -18 JEREMY SWEENEY PO BOX 4086 TUSTIN CA 92781 052- 061 -03 ALICE REMER 210 GOLDENROD AVE CORONA DEL MAR CA 052 - 046 -07 W ELLIS 2741 OCEAN BLVD 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 .052 - 050 -01 STATE OF CALIFORNIA PARK 1416 NINETH ST SACRAMENTO CA 95814 052-050-10,22,23 051-14,21 STATE OF CALIFORNIA PO BOX 187000 SACRAMENTO CA 95818 052- 050 -28 GERALD L THOMPSON 2701 SHELL ST CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 052- 050 -31 MICHAEL H MUGEL 1234 E 17TH ST 92625 SANTA ANA CA 92701 052- 061 -01 GREGORY L HELMS 218 GOLDENROD AVE CORONA DEL MAR CA 052- 061 -04 CARL THON 6718 BICKMORE AVE 92625 CHINO CA 91708 052 - 061 -06 PATRICIA A ENGLISH 1707 PORT SHEFFIELD PL NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 052- 061 -14 EDWARD HEPNER 2831 BAYVMW DR CORONA DEL MAR CA 052- 061 -11 CHARLES CLIFFORD 215 HELIOTROPE AVE CORONA DEL MAR CA 052- 061 -16 SHIDEH LOWARY 2591 DALLAS PKWY 203 92625 FRISCO TX 75034 052 - 061 -20 PETER CAMPBELL 2811 OCEAN LN CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 f:tiquettes faciles a peler Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 51600 052- 050 -07 JAMES B BEAUCHAMP 2411 E COAST HWY 300 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 052- 050 -24 052- 050 -26 PATRICK R BOYD 2717 SHELL ST CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 052- 050 -29 MICHAEL D & PAULETTE MACDONALD 2733 SHELL ST CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 052- 051 -15 MARY WALLACE 539 FOREST HIGHLANDS FLAGSTAFF AZ 86001 052- 061 -02 052- 061 -15 CHARLES M SAYERS 214 GOLDENROD AVE 92625 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 052- 061 -05 CLJ FAMILY LIMITED 21521 BLUEJAY ST TRABUCO CANYON CA 92679 052- 061 -13 CAMPBELL PROPERTIES LLC 7964 W 79TH ST 92625 PLAYA DEL REY CA 90293 052- 061 -22 JOHN M SILVA 2821 OCEAN LN CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 A Sens de Repliez A is hachure afin de chargement reveller le reborn Pop -UpTM 052 - 061 -17 DUCHETTA & CO INC 1211 W IMPERIAL HWY 102 BREA CA 92821 052 - 061 -24 RICHARD L ARDIS 2818 OCEAN BLVD CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 vvww.avery.com � 1- 800 -GO -AVERY 1„ Compatible with Avery' JSbO- iempiate V 052- 061 -25 052 - 061 -26 JOHN GUIDA 1335 S PRAIRIE AVE 2001 CHICAGO IL 60605 G & LYNETTE BLANCH 2384 FIELD ROSE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84121 EDWARD & DEBRA SMITH 6609 N 31ST PL PHOENIX AZ 85016 PETER C LEPORT 2920 OCEAN BLVD CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 ROBERT MOYZIS 209 IRIS AVE CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 SCOTT GUENTHER 20291 SW CYPRESS ST NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 LUCILLE PAQUETTE 211 GOLDENROD AVE CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 JAMES H & SUSAN HART 200 FERNLEAF AVE CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 JOEL P MOSKOWITZ 224 GOLDENROD AVE CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 GARY G NEWTON 760 W 16TH ST J COSTA MESA CA 92627 Feed Paper 052- 061 -27 PAUL W BATEMAN 221 HELIOTROPE AVE CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 THEODORE C BALLOU 224 HELIOTROPE AVE CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 ALAN R FENS T ERMACHER 218 HELIOTROPE AVE CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 JAMES STODDARD 2928 OCEAN BLVD CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 SHIRLEY A JOBE 2908 OCEAN BLVD CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 LEWIS I & MICHELLE SCHAINUCK 2900 OCEAN BLVD CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 MARY 'f MC NULTY 213 GOLDENROD AVE CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 ROBERT F ANDERSON 204 -1 FERNLEAF AVE CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 052- 072 -07 LINDA J OSTEEN 2820 BAYVIEW DR CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 MARTHA BUTTON 2614 OCEAN BLVD A CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 052- 061 -29 HARLAN E RUSHING 22 TOLUCA ESTATES DR TOLUCA LAKE CA 91602 DENNIS D ASSAEL 222 HELIOTROPE AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92625 FRANKLIN,E VRANICAR 214 HELIOTROPE AVE CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 JOHN L COONS 207 IRIS AVE CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CLIFFORD ROBERTS 213 IRIS AVE CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 KAY M WURTS 2700 OCEAN BLVD CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 MARY W JENKINGS 2720 BAYVIEW DR CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 LESTER A EDELBERG 215 GOLDENROD AVE CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 MICHAEL ILAMP 222 GOLDENROD AVE CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 CURT W ENSIGN 31 BLUE HERON IRVINE CA 92603 - EEET-966 -008 -Z 9�Janyap ®09TSjpege6alaanealgpedwo0 IJ 1"J siagei /woo HE MMM aase� sa ;�anbi�3 RECEI\ /ED CITY CLERK' OFFICE AFFIDAVIT OF b9f Md, to_ 1' r _I OnSAfJ�A�`/ 1� 2012, 1 posted the Notice of Pudic Hearing regarding: 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger Appeal PA2011 -141 Date of City Council Public Hearing: January 24, 2012 o� U ` 'Ar at c9tlFO BN�P Memorandum CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD, BLDG. C NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3237 To: City Council From: Kay Sims, Assistant Planner Date: January 18, 2012 Cc: Dave Kiff, Dana Smith, Aaron Harp, Steve Badum & Kim Brandt Re: 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger Appeal (PA2011 -141) The attached information was received from Mr. Clifford Jones and neighbors opposed to the approval of the subject lot merger. At their request, the information is being provided for your review prior to the January 24, 2012 City Council meeting. Please keep these documents for the January 24, 2012, meeting. Thank you. ,�CEIVED BY COMMUNITY ®+De ®�� IAN 172012 THE LOT MERGER OF 2808 & 2812 OCEAN BLVD. �DEVELOPMENT -Z- (SUPPORT RESOLUTION NO. 1857) OP NEWPOR- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH `DENYING' LOT MERGER OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT • 2808 & 2812 OCEAN BOULEVARD • (PA2011 -141) REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL (Ch.19.68): A -1 The lot merger would allow development that is incompatible with the size and mass of structures on neighboring properties within Block 34. The removal of the interior lot line would eliminate the interior side setback (three feet) on each property, create a buildable area greater than currently exists on the two separate lots, and eliminate the open space that the interior side setbacks currently provide. B -1 The lot merger would create a lot size and configuration, which is inconsistent with the development pattern of the subject properties and surrounding lots within Block 34. C -1 Approval of the merger will 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 lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of this title. • The conservation of open space in the City; • The protection of landowners, lot purchasers and surrounding residents; • The provision of orderly and controlled growth within the City; • The protection and stabilization of property values; RESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT: Elected officials and City staff listen and respond to the interests of residents. The undersigned ask to the Newport Beach City Council to support the Planning Commission decision & deny the appeal for the lot merger: W n 0 h X41 'Yry d tip.4 BLOCK #34 UNANIMOUSLY OPPOSES LOT MERGER 0- RED DOTS: SIGNED PETITION • OLD CORONA DEL MAR • • NEW CORONA DEL MAR • (13,500 SQ.FT. LOTS) Let me begin by stating that everyone supports orderly growth through revitalization and the merging of lots to create lots that are consistent with the General Plan (which stresses maintaining the character of it's particular neighborhoods and villages). The 2 lots in this proposed merger at 6500 and 7500 sq.ft. are already larger than any of the lots in Block 34. In fact, they are larger than over 93% of Old Corona Del Mar. In gathering signatures, the opposition to this merger was virtually unanimous. Old Corona Del Mar cannot possibly sustain the assemblage and merging of lots totaling 13,500 sq.ft. This village was never intended to be a community of lots that are that 3 to 4 times larger than the average lot size today. No City Council, Mayor, Planning Commissioner in it's history would ever have thought to propose such a plan. The village atmosphere and charm of "Old Corona del Mar" has been and continues to be one of the reasons we are such a desirable and vibrant neighborhood in Newport Beach. If this merger is approved, we begin down a road that has no return. There are no do overs or mulligans when it involves the protection of the residents of Corona Del Mar and their community. In April 2010 the Corona Del Mar Residents Association under the direction of Karen Tringali, took a survey of all 6,350 residential households in Corona del Mar (Zip 92625) regarding how the members of the community felt about saving and preserving the 1.5 FAR. The results were virtually unanimous. Over 88% of survey respondents wanted to maintain the character and village atmosphere in the Flower Streets, and didn't believe that could be achieved if the floor area ratio was increased any larger than 1.5. Based on the number of respondents and the overwhelming majority opinion, it was determined that between 78 % -98% of all Corona del Mar residents would have responded the same way. During that General Plan hearing, time and again residents stated their desire to: "Maintain the charm of our neighborhoods" and "Reign in the "mansionization" of our community ". This village started with small beach cottages and evolved into a community of three and four bedroom homes of 3,500 sq.ft. The fear at that time was that if FAR was increased we could become a community with five and six bedroom homes of 4,000 to 6,300 sq.ft. with underground facilities roof decks and parking. It must certainly follow that If elimination of the 1.5 FAR contradicted this philosophy for CdM, the assemblage of 13,500 sq.ft. lots `obliterates what has always been the general plan for Corona Del Mar. The predominant lot size in CdM is 3,600 sq. ft. With the average lot being about between 4000 — 5000 sq.ft., allowing merged lots of 13,500 sq.ft. (more than 3 fold larger) could, in the future, potentially reduce the number of households by 66 %. Creating a "New Corona Del Mar" consisting not of 6,000 households, but instead 2,000 enormous mansions. The community is more than alarmed that allowing the assemblage of 13,500 sq.ft. lots will have a devastating and irreversible impact in the future. The precedent set by allowing this merger will set this village on the road from which there is no turning back. Designers, architects and home owners will design and build directly to the maximum limit, which in this "New Corona Del Mar" would be houses that have a floor area of 14,300 sq.ft. The original lot sizes and setbacks were designed to encourage developments of a certain type and size and to discourage overbuilding. One of a kind modifications destroy the intent of the 1.5 FAR limit in the Newport City code as it relates to Corona Del Mar. The citizens of this city fought hard to maintain a smaller village that makes us what we are and what we always have been. On the Newport Beach website, Wikipedia and in Orange County publications CdM is described as a quaint picturesque village filled with charming houses, small streets and well tended neighborhoods. You, the City Council have the opportunity to represent the opinion and the will of the citizens of Corona Del Mar, and oppose the more than tripling of the average lot size through this merger. It would render the 1.5 FAR meaningless and ineffective in the future. As stated in the Newport Beach General Plan: Responsive Government "Elected officials and city staff listen and respond to the interests of residents." fi F,�- ��.��;�.,�� 1. Approval of the merger will, under the circumstances of this 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 lot merger is inconsistent with the legislative intent of this title. 2. The lots as merged will not be consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and will create an excessively large lot that is not compatible with the surrounding development. The lot merger would create a lot size and configuration, which is inconsistent with the development pattern of the subject properties and surrounding lots within Block 34. 3. The lot merger would allow development that is incompatible with the size and mass of structures on neighboring properties within Block 34 and create a buildable area greater than currently exists on the two separate lots. 4. Conservation of open space: The removal of the interior lot line would eliminate the open space of the interior side setback (three feet) on each property thus eliminating the open view corridor that they currently provide. 5. Proposals shall be reasonably compatible with the existing neighborhood character in terms of scale of development_ Designs should minimize the appearance of over building substantially in excess of existing structures. The height of the structures should maintain to the extent practicable, some consistency with the height of neighboring properties. Designs should consider, to the extent practicable, neighbors' existing views. Referencing the fact that the intended structure is a single story house (with 3 separate levels) that includes a 3 story elevator with a 13 foot housing on the roof would be inconsistent with the pattern of development in the area. 6. Residents testified that the lot development pattern was an important component in the character of their neighborhood and that the proposed lot merger would negatively impact that character. As a result of the change in development pattern attributable to the proposed lot merger, the character of the neighborhood would be altered would be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of the community. 7. Approval of this proposed lot merger would set a poor precedent for future requests that if approved, would detract from the consistent form, scale and character of the neighborhood as established by the original subdivision design. 8. The proposed lot line adjustment is not consistent with the legislative intent of Title 19 (Subdivision Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code which is in part to implement the General Plan 9. The protection of landowners, lot purchasers and surrounding residents; 10. The provision of orderly and controlled growth within the City; 11. The protection and stabilization of property values; 12. The preservation of the public health, safety and general welfare 13. Planning Commission & City Council must consider height restrictions and deed restrictions California zoning commission re: Enabling act 14. Newport Beach tax base will be lowered from the devastating effect to adjoining properties value 15. The merger would have the effect of continuing to divide CDM into a 2 tier city. A street lined wall to wall with huge houses on Ocean Blvd and the rest of Old Corona Del Mar. Now relegated to looking out upon the rear of these massive structures. 16. Legislative intent of Title 20.10.040 (essentially an anti McMansion ordinance) which limits building to 1.5 x buildable area of lots would be made ineffective by such mergers. Lots could then be combined enabling the construction of larger "blocky" houses and the elimination of open view corridors provided by side setbacks. 20.10.040 Special Development Regulations for Corona del Mar, West Newport, and the Balboa Peninsula 1. In the R -1, R -2, and MFR Districts in the area designated as Old Corona del Mar, the total gross floor area (excluding those structures excepted under Section 20.10.030) shall not exceed 1.5 times the buildable area of the site. 17. Title 20.10.010 - Ensures adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling, and protect residents from the harmful effects of excessive noise, population density, traffic congestion, and other adverse environmental effects. 18. The proposed lot widths are not consistent with the intent of the original tract map. The proposed lot sizes are not compatible with the surrounding area and are substantially larger by more than fivefold than the lots of the original subdivision (30 x 89.62 ft. lots or 2.529 sq. ft.) when the Corona del Mar Tract including Block 34 was established. The lots created will result in nonconforming conditions with respect to side setbacks as well. 19. The proposed lot merger would result in a single lot that is approximately 80 feet in width and twice the size of the predominant lots of the immediate neighborhood, especially those lots located in Block 34. Development of the proposed lot would create a single residence based upon an 80 -foot wide lot that would be over twice the width of homes on neighboring lots and would be inconsistent with the form, scale and character of the neighborhood. The lot and resulting development would significantly alter the way in which the lot is viewed from the street and no other lots of development pursuant to it would compare. 20. Lastly and most importantly the covenant pertaining to view and the potential loss of the easement as it relates to Mr. Guida will prevail in the courts. (King v Kugler (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 651, 655) DOMINO EFFECT. The cumulative adverse impacts associated with allowing this development is also a concern. Many of the homes that exist in the immediate vicinity are older and likely to be redeveloped. If this site were allowed to be developed in the proposed manner, matching proposals on adjacent and nearby lots would likely follow. Such proposals would have a significant adverse cumulative impact on the surrounding neighborhood and community character. Result could be 3 giant houses spanning across each block up and down Ocean Blvd. with side setbacks cut in half. C®I!ICLUSI ®Vile The applicant (Mr. Guida) has not identified any valid error of fact or law that could have altered the Planning Commission's decision to deny the merger. In addition, none of the applicants arguments here are new. Mr. Guida has not presented any relevant new evidence which was not presented at the previous hearing on the matter on October 2011. The Commission already considered his arguments, and rejected them. The Commission found that the lot merger would allow development that is incompatible with the size and mass of structures on neighboring properties within Block 34. The removal of the interior lot line would eliminate the interior side setback (three feet) on each property, create a buildable area greater than currently exists on the two separate lots, and eliminate the open space that the interior side setbacks currently provide. The result would be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood. The lot merger would create a lot size and configuration, which is inconsistent with the development pattern of the subject properties and surrounding lots within Block 34. Mr. Guida's conclusion that his proposal is similar to others nearby is false, thus, his premise that his project wouldn't contribute to significant adverse cumulative impacts is also false. The basis of the request for reconsideration shall be either that there is relevant new evidence which was not presented at the hearing on the matter or that an error of fact or law has occurred which has the potential of altering the Commission's initial decision. As neither of these was borne out, consequently, there should no basis for his appeal and his request for reconsideration should therefore be denied. Lots As Merged Incompatible With Surrounding Neighborhood • COMPARATIVE Table 1: Proiect Characteristics T SIZE Property Total Area Width (approximately) (at widest point) R -1 Zoning District Interior Lot Standards: 5,000 sq. ft. 501 eet 2808 Ocean Boulevard 7,217 s . ft. 40 feet 2812 Ocean Boulevard 6,483 s . ft 40 feet Proposed Merqed Lot 13,699.58 s . ft. 80 feet Comparable Properties Adjacent to Ocean Boulevard 2900 Ocean Boulevard 13, 326 s . ft. Efeet 2908 Ocean Boulevard 10,049 s . ft. 3222 Ocean Boulevard 14,579 s . ft. 1 3 properties were used as evidence of comparable lot sizes. But none are in Block 34. As you can see there is a sharp drop off after the first three 14,579, 13,699, 13,326 and then a drop of 3,277 sq.ft to 10,049. His merged lot would be second largest in Old Corona Del Mar. They are in in no way compatible or consistent to other properties in the surrounding neigborhood. In fact these lots are anomalies and they were merged prior to the Lot Merger Amendment (2009 -30) which came into effect in 2009 on ® ®© ®� ®® s see. ©�5 ■HIN Approx. LOT LOT LOT LOT Approx. 27511 ' 6 S 4 3 197 ft. depth depth 96 ft. 179 ft 30 ft. 30 It 30 ft. 30 ft. OCEAN BOULEVARD After 1951 Subdivision (With Deed Restrictions & Easement) EASEMENTS 60 ft. 60 ft. 2511 2821 OCEAN LANE :10, 10' ; OCEAN LANE e x a a v e 40 ft. 40 ft. 96 ft. 101 ft. .• This 1951 Sulsdivision Divided 4 (361) Lots Into 5 Lots. As A Result 3 Deed Restrictions Relating To View Were Adopted. Consequently 8 Easements Were Put In Place (Quid Pro Quo). :• Lots Are Integrally Connected • Any Change To One Affects All. Lot Merger vs, Lot Lin Post 2009 a Adjustment (Ordinance 2009 - 30 1• The creation of subdivisio 19.04.020 p policies and ns which urpose • 2 The conse pfOvisions of the Gene r consistent with and 3_ rvation of open s fan; serve to implement 4 The protection of land se m the the The provision city; 5. of orderly and Purchasers and s G The Of of adequate controlled gr °h urroundin The protection and s bilizationo circulatio within the City9 residents; 7• The Preservation , utilities ation Of Pro rty values; amid oth er services; of the public health, safe An ty and general welfare. application for a Lot Line accepted when it Adlmrrbed tthefythe 8 An Proposal Complies w'th thee Bete Laubmar Pter 19.76) following s application for A pecirrcations: when it a Lot Me pproval of the Lot with can wi determined that may be accepted the Line the following Pr complies detri circumstances of the will not, under (Chapter 19.gg mental to the health, safe Particular general welfare of ty, Peace, com se, be 1' Approval ) neighborhood of persons residin and circumstances o the merger will detrimental such Pro o g °f working In the this particular case, under the in the net °r injurious to Property Proposed use or be 8 welfare health, safety, eace, be detrimental ghborthood rty and i Of persons P comfort and City, and further that the the general yve e� ofents neighborhood of such residing °r general s consistent with Proposed lot line the or Injurious to PrOPosed working in the the legislative inte adjustment neighbor Property and use or be detrimental Z• The number of nt of this title. further at the or the gene improvements in the Adjustment remains res the legislative that the Proposed raj welfare of the Ci Adjustment. mains the utting from the intent of this nt and same as before the Lot Line merger is consistent with 3• The Lot Lot Line Ownehshiptat thebe merged under is cc herein shalI Zoning regulations texce nsistent with time of the are common fee merger. Adjustment Prohibit the Pt that With 3• The lots as more g as none approval of a Lot Line nonconfor of the resultant H regulations closely co m merged will be consistent or than the parcels rth as to lot width Parcels is gulations and Patible with the writ be adjustment. that existed ' depth and area regulations will be applicable zoning Prior and to the consistent with 4• Neither deprived jested to the lot line but not limited subject props other the lots as ad apPlr °able Coastal t0' the General including, Will meat tai Plan or S Plan and any line adjustment. of legal access nor adjoining parcels Specific Plan. as a result of the lot d 4• Neither the will be deprived is 5. That the final configuration of involved will not merger ofae9aleaccess as adjoining parcels vehicular access from ant the Parcels result of the the parcels adjacent TOSS of direct 5 The lots as Adjustment, that are included alley for surrou lotn merged will be in any Ot 9 pattern of devee consistent with the the Lot Line create an excessive) development and will not s• That the final 'on compatible y jar not result in guration Patible with the surrounding lot that any reduction °f a reoriented lot does unding develo is not as currently exist figuration f the street side pment. adjacent key, unless to a front setbacks through a zone change reduction is d °f any side setbacks fnr 9e to establish accomplished 4 Nv,WPO Commission and the reoriented I �pTherp�amm�g ,�� street chap PPlication Council, ' P't- Th �Y = ?�cn ge a m a side setbacks are shall determine proving the zone F a oornPatible appropriate and that the street v ,' with the surroundin are consistent and and existing adjacent are of development �'Lrr uxN�1 T 1 y = .r r+ E m N y Cz t6 w co i V- a) w m T co Q C W nNICJ rn of N v ~ � t` oo _C In rr c) X N a, to > L X N X 00 c w CV p a� Q W Q LM AD Lij Cc (2 Q�Q O S (A C ZO Co cj Q c' O W o 0 c,m1 a0, r/ (A C Y M_ V% 1 ' ++ d rq���l��� M co ^ �_ i 4% I 1"� O 1 E 1 N r In CX _N 1 N 1 r '�" N O V' V 00 to 0 0 R G y M II it N O W W N Fo ip m cm C`1 > W y,� m M r O = O C M c d d X ti as R N O co Lf) r 00 C N E t d co co 0 0 i O O T COVENANTS "Much of the value of any property within [a coastline development with an ocean view] depends on the quality of the view. To significantly obstruct any homeowner's view of the Pacific Ocean is to depreciate the economic worth of their property -often by several hundred thousand dollars -as well as dramatically reduce their enjoyment of the home they bought and live in." - in Fox v CORNICHE SUR MER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, 2005 The drafters of the original covenant that have always applied to Mr.Guida's lots were not being vague, they had no special affinity to 1 story housing, their intent was clearly to protect the ocean views for the benefit of each lot of this parcel. The ruling case on point (King v. Kugler), has been cited in dozens of cases which all support our assertion that these restrictive covenants , as to the lots in question, are not vague and will be enforced as to their intent. In addition, a court may imply a term missing from the contract "only when it is necessary to prevent injustice and it is abundantly clear that the parties intended to be bound by such term. "When the issue turns on the meaning of a phrase employed in CC &R's, "the phrase is to be interpreted in its ordinary and popular sense rather than according to some strict legal or technical meaning. This ordinary and popular sense is to be related to the circumstances under which the words are used, having in mind the purpose of the contract and the general situation which brought it into existence." A court may imply a term missing from the contract "only when it is necessary to prevent injustice and it is abundantly clear that the parties intended to be bound by such term." - in King v Kugler (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 651 Legal Effect of Covenants When properly recorded on a deed conveying land, a covenant ( "restrictive deed covenant ") has the legal effect of a binding contract term, and may be so enforced. When covenants are instead signed privately among neighbors, as in a mutual compact or agreement, they are still binding upon the signatories and may be litigated if breached. Neighborhoods that follow their covenants and standards tend to be safer, look better, maintain better relationships with local governments, and better retain or increase the investments that homeowners have made in their properties. Because covenants are voluntary, they may be more restrictive that zoning ordinances. Advice for Home Buyers Many home buyers are so charmed by the appearance of a house for sale that they fail to take the time to read the CC &Rs that come with the property. They are so pleased with a property that they sign a purchase agreement without realizing that existing CC &Rs may prevent them from keeping their boat or truck on the property, or erecting a basketball hoop in the driveway or building a Mcmansion. No real estate contract should be signed until a purchaser has reviewed all the CC &Rs (and zoning laws) affecting the property and is able to abide by them. In a nutshell, deed restrictions can place more stringent limits on a piece of land but cannot loosen restrictions imposed by zoning [private cannot countermand government], but. CC &Rs are binding upon the purchaser, and the purchaser will become subject to them, whether or not they have been reviewed, read, or understood. However, remember that deed restrictions must be considered even if the City is not authorized to enforce them. EASEMENT EXTINGUISHMENT Appeal of Lot Merger (PA2011 -141) 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 Please be advised, that in the event Mr. Guida gains permission from the Planning Commission and /or City Counsel to merge his properties and build as he now intends, this case will end up in court, where besides strict enforcement of the covenant as to height, we will seek to extinguish the access to the rear of his property that he now enjoys. I think a close reading of the easement, contained in the covenant, will show that Mr. Guida is not a direct beneficiary, so closing it off to him will be a low hurdle to clear. 2. The courts, as demonstrated by the citations submitted herewith, have consistently, upheld covenants in deeds, particularly where, as here, they have a stated goal. In this case, the building restriction of one story, is plainly and unambiguously stated. Next, the easement is also plainly and clearly stated, and is clearly limited in its scope and intent, to wit, to allow the municipality ingress & egress, to install and service utility lines, and to allow the residents of the Guida properties to place their garbage at the site designated by the City for pick up. The Campbells and the Silvas will enforce the limits of the easement should the Guidas seek to violate the height restrictions of the covenant. 1. The easement is for the benefit of the city and Mr. Guida is not a direct beneficiary. It does not impede access to his property. It was specifically for the benefit of his assignors. 2. He can't claim adverse possession because the Campbell & Silva families know he is using the driveway. He is using it with their permission. Mr. Guida also knows that he has their permission. 3. This is a unilateral accommodation which can be withdrawn by the Campbell's and Silva's at any time. 4. At best, Mr. Guida has an equitable interest which can only be enforced if he has clean hands. 5. By breaking the deed covenant as to the height restriction, Mr. Guida no longer has clean hands and the court should extinguish his access to the 96 foot road that runs through the property of the Campbell's and Silva's, Enclosed please find the citation which stands for the above proposition. `(Citation]" Russell v. Palos Verdes Properties [218 Cal. App. 2d 7541 • PUBLIC & PRIVATE • LOSS OF VIEWS VIEW FROM BAYVIEW DRIVE Defending private Property Rights: Private property rights are increasingly being undermined and are the target of increasing assaults even though our government has a constitutional duty to preserve and protect them. When people's actions only affect themselves, we usually could care less what they do. But when individuals' actions begin to harm others, then we do care and we want to stop it When the government does restrict the behavior of individuals, this is not necessarily a bad thing. These forms of `mutual coercion" are usually in the public interest and work to our common benefit. I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life. "Protecting the rights of even the least individual among us is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing." - Ronald Reagan "There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right." - Ronald Reagan MELINDA LUTHIN LAW WRITTEN COMMENTS OF ROBIN CAMPBELL, JOAN CAMPBELL, JOHN SILVA ALBERTA SILVA PETER CAMPBELL AND LUCINDA CAMPBELL, AND RICHARD ARDIS In opposition of the Anneal of John and Julie Guida Rmardine the Denial of the _Application to Merge Two Lots located at 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Corona del Mar, California 1 2737 East Coast Highway, Suite F • Corona del Mar, California 92625 • 949.673.1161 • 949.673.1191 [f] INTROIDUCTION On September 14, 2011, the Zoning Administrator approved an application of John and Julie Guida ( "Guidas") to merge two contiguous lots, addresses 2808 and 2810 Ocean Blvd., in Corona del Mar ( "Lot Merger "). (See Zoning Administration Action Letter dated September 14, 2011 [ "Action Letter "].) The decision was appealed to the Planning Commission by Joan Campbell, John Silva and Clifford Jones. The Planning Commission disagreed with the findings of the Zoning Administrator and denied the lot merger. (See Planning Commission Resolution No. 1857 [ "Res. 1857 "].) The Guidas have appealed the Planning Commission's denial to the City Council. "All residential development in the City requires review to determine compliance with the City's development regulations and guidelines." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Element, Development Review Process, p. 5 -93.) Before a lot merger is approved, the local agency must make certain findings of fact that support the decision, including compliance with local regulations and ordinances, adherence to the General Plan and any relevant Specific Plans. The Lot Merger must also comply with or be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.), and must comply with the California Coastal Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 30000 et seq.) and the Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code, § 65000 et seq.). The Zoning Administrator found that the lot merger was exempt from CEQA. (Action Letter, Finding A -1, p. 1.) The Planning Commission made no findings regarding CEQA. (Res. 1857, § 2.) The Zoning Administrator found that the lot merger met all five requirements of the Lot Merger Ordinance. (Action Letter, Findings, pp. 1 -4.) The Planning Commission found that the merger would not meet two of the requirements, and made no comment regarding three requirements. Neither the Planning Commission nor the Zoning Administrator discussed the California Coastal Act. As discussed below, the lot merger (1) is inconsistent with the General Plan; (2) does not meet the requirements of the Lot Merger Ordinance; (3) violates the Coastal Act; (4) violates the Planning and Zoning Law; and (5) has not been evaluated for compliance with CEQA. Therefore, the City Council must deny the lot merger. Importantly, the merger would conflict with the purpose of the creation of the existing subdivision and cause havoc on a block of lots that are delicately and totally intertwined, such that any modification to the lot lines would result in undoing several easements as well as open the door to multiple lawsuits among neighbors. Lastly, the Guidas appear not to be the legal owners of all of the property in issue. According to the description of the operative grant deed, the Guidas do not own the first 20 feet of property facing the street. (See Grant Deed No. 2010- 00708142, excepting southwesterly 20 feet of Lot 5.) Although the Guidas attempted to correct the deed, the subsequently recorded deed is invalid, as it was not signed and executed by the legal owner of the property. This information is provided to the City by Melinda Luthin, Esq. of Melinda Luthin Law, on behalf of Robin Campbell, Joan Campbell, Clifford Jones, John Silva, Alberta Silva, Peter Campbell and Lucinda Campbell, Jeffrey DuFine and Richard Ardis. Contents 1. THE LOT MERGER DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LOT MERGER ORDINANCE............ 1 A. The Lot Merger Does Not Meet The Findings Contained In 19.68.030(H)(1) Protecting Persons, Property In The Neighborhood And The Welfare Of The City ................................... ............................... 1 (1) The proposed merger will be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood ............................... ............................... 1 (2) The merger will be detrimental and injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood........................................................................................................ ............................... 2 (3) The merger will be detrimental or injurious to the general welfare of the City ...................... 2 (4) The merger is inconsistent with the legislative intent of Title 19 ............. ............................... 2 B. The Lot Merger Does Not Meet The Findings Contained In 19.68.030(H)(3) Because The Lot As Merged Will Not Will Be More Closely Compatible With The Applicable Zoning Regulations And Will Be Inconsistent With Other Regulations Relating To The Subject Property .................. ............................... 2 C. The Lot Merger Does Not Meet The Findings Contained In 19.68.030(H)(4) Because The Lot As Merged May Extinguish The Access Easement To The Alley ..................................... ............................... 3 D. The Lot Merger Does Not Meet The Findings Contained In 19.68.030(H)(5) Because The Lot As Merged Will Not Be Consistent With The Surrounding Pattern Of Development And Will Create An ExcessivelyLarge Lot ................................................................................................. ............................... 3 2. THE LOT MERGER IS INCONSISTENT WITH LOCAL LAW AND REGULATIONS ........ ............................... 4 A. The Proposed Lot Merger Is Inconsistent With And In Violation Of The General Plan .................... 4 B. The Proposed Lot Merger Is Inconsistent with the Vision Statement of the General Plan ............. 6 C. The Proposed Lot Merger Violates the Elements of the General Plan .............. ............................... 7 (1) The Proposed Lot Merger Violates The Land Use Element ....................... ............................... 7 (2) The Proposed Lot Merger Violates The Housing Element ......................... ............................... 9 (3) The Proposed Lot Merger Violates The Natural Resources Element ...... ............................... 10 D. The Proposed Lot Merger Is Inconsistent With The Implementation Plan ..... ............................... 11 3. THE LOT MERGER HAS NOT MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COASTAL LAND ACT AND IS CONTRARY TO THE COASTAL LAND USE PLAN ............................................................ ............................... 13 A. The Lot Merger Has Not Met The Requirements Of The Coastal Land Act.... ................................ 14 B. The Lot Merger Is Contrary To The Coastal Land Use Plan ............................. ............................... 14 4. THE LOT MERGER HAS NOT MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CEQA ....................... ............................... 15 5. THE LOT MERGER SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED .................................................. ............................... 16 1 1. THE LOT MERGER DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LOT MERGER ORDINANCE. Title 19 of the Newport Beach Code Chapter 19.68 (Lot Merger Ordinance) governs the approval of lot mergers in the City. The Lot Merger Ordinance was created in 2009. Prior to this, lot mergers were virtually unregulated. The subject application for merger is the first of its type in Corona del Mar since the Lot Merger Ordinance was enacted. The Lot Merger Ordinance mandates that five findings (each containing multiple subfactors) be made in order for the City to approve a lot merger. A. The Lot Mercer Does Not Meet The Findings Contained In 19.68.030(H)(1) Protecting Persons, Property In The Neighborhood And The Welfare Of The Citv. Finding H(1) of the Merger Ordinance mandates findings that "[a]pproval of the merger will not, under the circumstances of this 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 lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of this title." (1) The proposed merger will be detrimental to the health safety, peace comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. The Planning Commission properly found that the proposed merger would be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. As stated in Resolution No. 1857, the merger would allow the property owners to build across eight linear feet of open space that is currently designated as side setbacks and therefore, not buildable. (Res. No. 1857, Finding A -1, p. 2.) This loss of open space is detrimental to the health safety and general welfare of those residing and working in the neighborhood. 1 In addition, the loss of open space will hinder the view along the ocean facing portion of Ocean Blvd. as well as along the view corridor of Ocean Blvd., Goldenrod Ave. and the Alley between Goldenrod Ave. and Heliotrope Ave. (2) The merger will be detrimental and injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood. As identified in several City documents, the people of Corona del Mar have made clear that they do not want mansionization of the village. The city of Newport Beach recognizes that the newer subdivisions have larger lots, but that the average lot in Corona del Mar is less than 4,000 square feet. The creation of a lot of over seven times the average lot size will negatively affect the property and improvements of the neighborhood. (3) The merger will be detrimental or injurious to the general welfare of the Citv consistency, is one of the General Plan's .... (4) The merger is inconsistent with the legislative intent of Title 19 The merger provisions of Title 19 are intended to help streamline the elimination of non- conforming lots, i.e. lots that are too small. The two lots in issue here are already among the largest lots in Corona del Mar. Neither is non - conforming. The purpose of Title 19 will not be served by merging these lots. B. The Lot Merger (Does Not Meet The Findings Contained In 19.68.030(1)(3) Because The Lot As Merced Will Not Will Be More Closely Compatible With The Applicable Zoning Regulations And Will Be Inconsistent With Other Regulations Relating To The Subject Property. Purpose of merger ordinance is to streamline the elimination of non - conforming lots. Merging two conforming lots will not "be more closely compatible with the zoning regulations." In fact, the lots as merged would be less compatible with the zoning regulations, as the zoning regulations anticipate a certain amount of growth and open space, both of which will be impossible with this proposed lot merger. 7 Furthermore, the lots as merged will be inconsistent with the General Plan as well as other regulations relating to the subject property. This is discussed in detail below. C. The Lot Merger Does Not Meet The Findings Contained In 19.68.030(H)(4) Because The Lot As Merged May Extinguish The Access Easement To The Alley. Section 19.68.030(H)(4) mandates that the merger must not result in a deprivation of access. Here, the only access to the lots is through the alley, via an easement. If the lots are merged, and the Guidas attempt to build a house across the property lines in violation of a duly recorded and enforceable covenant, the remaining subdivision lot owners will deem the Guida's violation to extinguish their access easement. As a result, the lots, as merged will not have access to the street. D. The Lot Merger Does Not Meet The Findings Contained In 19.68.030(H)(5) Because The Lot As Merged Will Not Be Consistent With The Surrounding Pattern Of Development And Will Create An Excessively Large Lot. The Planning Commission properly found that the lots as merged would create a lot size and configuration inconsistent with the development pattern within Block 34. (Res. No. 1857, Finding B -1, p. 2.) Currently the lots are approximately 7,200 and 6,400 square feet. As merged, the lot would be nearly 14,000 square feet. The lots are currently 40 feet in width, facing the street. As merged, the frontage along Ocean Blvd. would be 80 feet. Block 34 consists of 20 lots, with average lot size of approximately 5,600 square feet and average street - facing width of 45 feet. The lot size of the proposed merger is 2.5 times the average lot size, with a street facing width of nearly twice the average in Block 34. The merged lots would not only be inconsistent with Block 34, the surrounding properties, it is grossly inconsistent with the development pattern of Corona del Mar, as a whole. As stated above, the standard lot size is 3,500 and average size is estimated to be just over 4,000 square feet. The Standard lot has 30 feet facing the street. It is impossible to 3 conclude that a lot of nearly four times the standard size, with nearly three times the standard width is not "excessively large" and inconsistent with the surrounding pattern of development. The zoning administrator claims that "nearby lots have widths as wide as 73 feet and area as large as 13,325 square feet," and as such, the proposed lot merger is consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and does not create an excessively large lot. (Zoning letter finding F -1.) This is a gross misstatement of the facts. First, the lots that the zoning administrator discusses are two of only three lots that are excessive in size. Three lots among thousands is hardly an adequate sample of the "surrounding development." Second, the Zoning Administrator did not use "comparable" lots "within the surrounding area of development," as required by the Merger Ordinance. Instead, for his analysis, the Zoning Administrator used three anomalous lots that are the three largest lots in the whole of Corona del Mar. Third, the Zoning administrator conveniently combined the measurements of the lots as if they were one. He also misconstrues the facts by claiming that "other nearby lots have widths as wide as 73 feet." (Zoning letter finding F -1, p.3.) One "comparable" lot is 13,325 square feet has a frontage width of 66 feet. The "comparable" lot with a frontage of 73 feet has a lot size of 10,049 square feet. There is only one lot in all of Corona del Mar with larger street frontage and larger square footage. All of the large lots are anomalies that occurred long before the Merger Ordinance was enacted. The proposed lots, as merged, would be the second largest lot, with the second largest street frontage in all of Corona del Mar. As stated above, these sizes are nearly four times the average size. 2. THE LOT MERGER IS INCONSISTENT WITH LOCAL LAW AND REGULATIONS A. The Proposed Lot Merger Is Inconsistent With And In Violation Of The General Plan. "Under California law, every city and county must adopt a comprehensive long -term General Plan to provide guidance to decision makers regarding the conservation of resources and 0 the future physical form and character of development for the city." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, Organization of the General Plan by Element, p. 1 -11.) The law mandates that local agencies develop a General Plan for development. The General Plan must contain certain Elements, and must comply with state law. Newport Beach developed their mandated General Plan "to ensure that the City achieves the vision by, among many other things, doing the following: ...Creating guidelines that preserve the charm and beauty of our residential neighborhoods ...Preserving public views of the ocean, harbor, and bay" (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, pp. 1 -2, 1 -3.) "Newport Beach is renowned for its beautiful coastal lands and harbor—and quality residential neighborhoods." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, p. 1 -3.) "The General Plan "focuses on conserving the existing pattern of land uses and establishes policies for their protection and long term maintenance" and "provides guidance to preserve the qualities that define the natural and built environment. (Ibid.) "Specific goals and policies address the enhancement of open space, marine and harbor uses, historic and cultural resources, and recreational facilities." (Ibid.) "The Plan is a legal document and much of its content is dictated by statutory requirements relating to background data, analysis, maps, and exhibits." (N.B. General Plan, How to Use the General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, p. 1 -9.) The General Plan is more than a guideline. Adherence to its provisions is mandatory and "Future development decisions must be consistent with the Plan." (N.B. General Plan, How to Use the General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, P. 1 -9.) Allowing a lot merger that destroys thousands of feet of open space, eliminates public views, and degrades the chann of Corona del Mar, ignores the thousands of hours of research and technical studies that went into the General Plan development, and flies in the face of the purpose of the General Plan. The Proposed Lot Merger will not meet the goal of "enhance[ing] the character of the community, preserv[ing] and enhance[ing] critical environmental and historical resources, and minimize hazards." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, p. 1 -4.) 5 The creation of a mega lot that is four times the average Corona del Mar lot size violates the General Plan, which is "intended to provide protection and preservation for existing neighborhoods." (N.B. General Plan, How to Use the General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, p. 1 -4.) We request that the City Council utilize this important tool to help them "make land use and public investment decisions" and deny the application to merge the lots. (N.B. General Plan, How to Use the General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, p. 1 -9.) B. The Proposed Lot Merger Is Inconsistent with the Vision Statement of the General Plan. The Vision statement describes the great efforts the City and its citizens have made to successfully preserve and enhance "our character as a beautiful, unique residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods. [Newport Beach residents] value our colorful past, the high quality of life, and our community bonds. The successful balancing of the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors has been accomplished with the recognition that Newport Beach is primarily a residential community." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 2, Vision Statement, Community Character, p. 2 -2.) The Vision Statement describes the City's conservative growth strategy that emphasizes residents' quality of life ... cherishes and nurtures our estuaries, harbor, beaches, open spaces, and natural resources." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 2, Vision Statement, Community Character, p. 2- 3.) Design principles are scrutinized to ensure they "emphasize characteristics that satisfy the community's desire for the maintenance of its particular neighborhoods and villages. Public view areas are protected. Trees and landscaping are protected." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 2, Vision Statement, Community Character, p. 2 -23.) The City has vowed to "maintain access to and visibility of our beaches, parks, preserves, harbor, and estuaries." (N.B. General Plan, Ch, 2, Vision Statement, A Healthy Natural Environment, p. 2 -4.) Elected officials have vowed to listen and respond to the interests of residents and the business community." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 2, Vision Statement, Responsive Government, p. 2 -5.). Allowing the applicants to merge two of the largest lots in Corona del 9 Mar will not be in harmony with the principles described and the promises made in the Vision Statement. C. The Proposed Lot Merger Violates the Elements of the General Plan "By law, a General Plan must contain the following seven elements and must be internally consistent element to element." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, Organization of the General Plan by Element, p. 1 -11.) In addition to the mandatory elements, "the Newport Beach General Plan also includes ... Harbor and Bay Elements. Though optional by statute, once adopted they hold equal weight under the law as the mandated elements." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, Organization of the General Plan by Element, p. 1 -11.) (1) The Proposed Lot Merger Violates The Land Use Element "The Land Use Element presents goals and policies pertaining to how existing development is going to be maintained and enhanced and new development occur." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, Organization of the General Plan by Element, p. 1 -12.) The Land Use Element is intended to allow land use that maintains and enhances the "beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods, business districts, and harbor that together identify Newport Beach." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 3, Land Use Element, Goals and Policies, p. 3 -5.) Many of the City's older communities are located near the coast, and are characterized by small lots and the close grouping of structures. (N.B. General Plan, Ch, 3, Land Use Element, Residential Neighborhoods, p. 3 -63.) This setting is recognized as one residents wish to preserve. Any proposed modification to land use must "Protect the natural setting that contributes to the character and identify of Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and visitors. Preserve open space resources, beaches, harbors ..." (Ibid.) The Land Use Element Contains specific restrictions to "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 3, Land Use Element, Goals and Policies, p. 3- 7 CE Importantly, the Land Use Element mandates that the pattern of residential neighborhoods and harbor and ocean districts must be protected. (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 3, Land Use Element, Goals and Policies, p. 3 -9.) Changes in use and /or density /intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents." (Ibid.) "When reviewing proposals for land use changes, [the City must] give full consideration to the impact on coastal - depended and coastal related land uses, including not only the proposed change on the subject property, but also the potential to limit existing coastal- dependent and coastal - related land uses on adjacent properties." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 3, Land Use Element, Goals and Policies, p. 3 -10.) Here, the lot merger will displace two houses for one along Ocean Blvd., which is a change in the density in an area that is not considered underperforming. Corona del Mar citizens realize the mansionization will not enhance the value of the neighborhood. It will also impermissibly reduce the amount of affordable housing near the beach, and curtail the goal of diversity within neighborhoods. (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 3, Land Use Element, Residential Neighborhoods, p. 3 -65.) The Land Use Element mandates that "the open space and recreational facilities that are integrated into and owned by private residential development are permanently preserved as part of the development approval process and are prohibited from converting to residential or other types of land uses." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 3, Land Use Element, Residential Neighborhoods, p. 3 -65.) A lot merger which proposes to obliterate thousands of square feet of open space setbacks flies in the face of this mandate. The Proposed Lot Merger wishes to take two houses, one 1,400 square feet, the other 1,300 square feet and create one house of nearly five times the combined size of the existing houses that virtually covers both of the lot. A lot merger that creates a mega -lot for the purpose i of overbuilding a mansion violates the provision that replacement of existing houses must be "at comparable building heights and scale." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 3, Land Use Element, Corona Del Mar, p. 3 -129.) This certainly will not "compliment the scale and form of existing housing. (2) The Proposed Lot Merger Violates The Housing Element "The Housing Element is mandated by Sections 65580 to 65589 of the Government Code. State Housing Element law requires that each city and county identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs within their jurisdiction and prepare goals, policies, programs, and quantified objectives to further the development, improvement, and preservation of housing." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Element, Executive Summary, p. 5 -2.) : "There exists strong public sentiment in favor of preserving the suburban environment in the City." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Element, Nongovernmental Constraints, p. 5 -81) "The City of Newport Beach's Housing Element details the City's strategy for enhancing and preserving the community's character, identifies strategies for expanding housing opportunities and services for all household types and income groups, and provides the primary policy guidance for local decision - making related to housing. The Housing Element provides in- depth analysis of the City's population, economic, and housing stock characteristics as well as a comprehensive evaluation of programs and regulations related to housing. Through this evaluation and analysis, the City has identified priority goals, polices, and programs that directly address the housing needs of current and future City residents." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Element, Executive Summary, p. 5 -2.) Like the Land Use Element, the Housing Element recognizes that Newport Beach is A balanced residential community, comprised of variety of housing types, designs, and opportunities for all social and economic segments." (N.B. General Plan, Ch, 5, Housing Element, Newport Beach Housing Element: Goals, Conservation and Improvement Housing, p. 5 -119.) It seeks to "[e)ncourage preservation of existing and provision of new housing affordable to ... moderate - income households." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Elements, Variety of Housing Opportunities, p. 5 -120.) 9 "The Housing Element addresses issues, goals, and policies related to ensuring an adequate supply of housing opportunities for all residents." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, Organization of the General Plan by Element, p. 1 -13.) As in other sections of the General Plan, the Housing Element states that the purpose of the Element is to "Conserve and improve the condition of housing and neighborhoods, including existing affordable housing; Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability; and Preserve for lower income households the publicly assisted multi - family housing developments within each community." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Element, Executive Summary, p. 5 -3.) The Housing Element is designed to "Maintain rental opportunities by restriction conversion of rental units to condominiums unless the vacancy rate in Newport Beach for rental housing is an average 5% or higher for four (4) consecutive quarters...." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Elements, Variety of Housing Opportunities, p. 5 -120.) Analogous to this is the need to preserve rental houses by preventing the destruction of cottages in order to build mega- mansions. (See N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Elements, Provisions and Preservations of Affordable Housing, p. 5 -130 [discussing the need to maintain and preserve the City's rental housing stock].) According to the Housing Element, overcrowding of housing units is a problem that the City is committed to addressing. In addition, "The City's goal is that an average of 15 percent of all new residential development will be affordable to very low -, low -, and moderate- income households. The City Council has also established an Affordable Housing Task Force that works with developers and landowners to facilitate the development of affordable units and determines the most appropriate use on in -lieu fee funds." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Element, Executive Summary, p. 5 -3.) Neither the reduction of overcrowding nor the creation of affordable housing will be furthered by removing two rental houses and replacing it with one mega mansion that is to be occupied by two people. (3) The Proposed Lot Merger Violates The Natural Resources Element. Newport Beach recognizes that "Visual resources are an important component of the 10 quality of life." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 10, Natural Resources Element, Visual Resources, p. 10 -16.) The "City's habitat areas and open spaces are among the contributing visual resources ... Coastal views are also provided from a number of streets and highways and, due to the grid street pattern in ... Corona del Mar, many north -south tending streets provide view corridors to the ocean and bay." (Ibid.) The Proposed Merger would obliterate the view corridor along Ocean Blvd., along Goldenrod Ave., along Heliotrope Ave., and along the alley between Goldenrod Ave. and Heliotrope Ave. The City must create and implement development restrictions, including "bulk and height limits in the areas around the bay, [in order to] ...preserve scenic views and regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach." (N.B. General 'Plan, Ch. 10, Natural Resources Element, Visual Resources, p. 10 -17.) The Proposed Lot Merger will not "maintain the intensity of development around Newport Bay to be consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 10, Natural Resources Element, Goals and Policies, p. 10 -17.) Nor will it protect the public views by regulate the visual and physical mass structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach, as mandated by the Natural Resources element. (Ibid.) D. The Proposed Lot Mercer Is Inconsistent With The Implementation Plan. "Implementation Programs describe the actions to be taken by the City to carry out the goals and policies defined by the General Plan." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, Organization of the General Plan by Element, p. 1 -13.) It delineates "the principle set of actions and procedures necessary to carry out the goals and policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 13, Implementation Program, p. 13 -2.) Corona del Mar has a unique "half -mile linear view park that provides spectacular views of the harbor entrance and Pacific Ocean is located along the bluff top above Corona del Mar State Beach." (N. B. LCP, Coastal Land Use Plan, Ch. 3, Public Access and Recreation, Bluff Top Access, p. 3 -11.) The scenic and vial qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and 11 protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting." (N. B. LCP, Coastal Land Use Plan, Ch. 4, Coastal Resource Protection, Scenic and Visual Resources, p. 4 -71.) The Implementation Plan states that compliance with the General Plan requirements is not optional. "California statutes require that a city's decisions regarding its physical development must be consistent with the adopted General Plan." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 13, Implementation Program, Programs, p. 13 -3.) The City must `ensure that Private Development and Capital Improvements are Consistent with the General Plan." (Ibid.) The Implementation Plan states that the City must "continue to maintain appropriate setbacks and density, floor area, and height limits for residential development to protect the character of established neighborhoods and to protect coastal access and coastal resources." (N. B. LCP, Coastal Land Use Plan, Ch. 2, Land Use and Development, General Policies, Residential Development, Policies, p. 2 -48.) The Proposed Lot Merger violates this mandate. According to the Implementation Plan, "it is necessary for Newport Beach to review all subdivision and development applications and make written findings that they are consistent with all goals and policies of the General Plan." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 13, Implementation Program, Programs, p. 13 -3.) Here, the Planning Commission discussed only two of the five required findings mandated by the local merger ordinance. The Planning Commission's denial did not address CEQA, or the Coastal Land Act compliance or compliance with the General Plan, any of its elements, or compliance with the Local Coastal Plan. Before the City approves a lot merger, it must evaluate all of the above. Based on the facts of the Proposed Lot Merger, it has not - - and cannot be approved without violating same. 12 3. THE LOT MERGER HAS NOT MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COASTAL LAND ACT AND IS CONTRARY TO THE COASTAL LAND USE PLAN. Corona del Mar is located within a costal zone designated by the State of California that is subject to the Coastal Act. (Pub. Resources Code § 30000 et seq.) The California Legislature made the following findings regarding the California Coastal Zone: (a) That the California coastal zone is a distinct and valuable natural resource of vital and enduring interest to all the people and exists as a delicately balanced ecosystem; (b) That the permanent protection of the state's natural and scenic resources is a paramount concern to present and future residents of the state and nation. (c) That to promote the public safety, health, and welfare, and to protect public and private property, wildlife, marine fisheries, and other ocean resources, and the natural environment, it is necessary to protect the ecological balance of the coastal zone and prevent its deterioration and destruction. (d) That existing developed uses, and future developments that are carefully planned and developed consistent with the policies of this division, are essential to the economic and social well -being of the people of this state and especially to working persons employed within the coastal zone. (Pub. Resources Code, § 30001.) The legislature enacted the Coastal Act in order to protect the Coastal Zone. Cities like Newport Beach must create and follow their Local Land Use Plans. "One of the major goals of the California Coastal Act and the Coastal Land Use Plan is to assure the priority for coastal- depended and coastal related development over other development in the Coastal Zone, which is a constraint on residential development, particularly in areas on or 13 near the shoreline." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Element, Local Coastal Program, p. 5- 93.) A. The Lot Merger Has Not Met The Requirements Of The Coastal Land Act. The Coastal Act regulates, among other things, activity considered to be "development." (E.g. Pub. Resources Code, §§ 30600 - 30627.) For purposes of the Coastal Act, lot line adjustments and lot mergers fall within the meaning of "development." (See La La Fe, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1999, Cal App 2d Dist) 73 Cal App 4th 231, 86 Cal Rptr 2d 217.) Therefore, the proposed merger- must comply with the restrictions of the Coastal Act, including the requirement that the applicants obtain a permit from the Coastal Commission. (See Pub. Resources Code § 30106 et seq.) In addition, "Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas." (Pub. Resources Code, § 30251.) New Development shall "protect special communities and neighborhoods that, because of their unique characteristics, are popular visitor destination points for recreational uses." (Pub. Resources Code, § 30253.) Prior to approving the lot merger, the City must ensure that the lot merger complies with the Coastal Act. B. The Lot Merger Is Contrary To The Coastal Land Use Plan. In addition, the Coastal Act mandates the City to create and abide by a coastal plan (LCP). Newport Beach's Coastal Land Use Plan "consists of land use designations and resources protection and development polices for the Coastal Zone. The Land use Plan Policies result in consistency with Chapter 3 of California Coast Act, which addresses the planning and management of coastal resources." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Element, Local Coastal Program, p. 5 -93.) "Where there are conflicts between the policies set forth in this Coastal Land Use Plan those set forth in any element of the City's General Plan, zoning, or any other ordinances, the policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan shall take precedence. (N. B. LCP, Coastal Land Use 14 Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, General Policies, p. 1 -2.) "[I]n addition to obtaining any other permit required by law from any local government or from any state, regional, or local agency, any person, as defined in Section 21066, wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone ... shall obtain a coastal development permit." (N. B. LCP, Coastal Land Use Plan, Ch. 2, Land Use and Development, General Policies, General Development Policies, §30600 (a), p. 2 -21.) A lot merger is considered "development under the Act. (See La Fe, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1999, Cal App 2n Dist) 73 Cal App 4`h 231, 86 Cal Rptr. 2d 217.) Therefore, the Proposed Lot Merger must undergo the scrutiny required to obtain a development permit in accordance with the Coastal Act. 4. THE LOT MERGER HAS NOT MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CEQA. The Zoning Administrator letter states that the "proposed project is in conformance with CEQA," and the Lot Merger "qualifies for an exemption from environmental review ... [as a] minor alteration in land use...." (Action Letter, Finding A -1, p. 1.) The Planning Commission made no findings regarding CEQA. (Res. 1857, § 2.) Consistent with California's strong environmental policy, whenever the approval of a project is at issue, the statute and regulations "have established a three - tiered process to ensure that public agencies inform their decisions with environmental considerations." (Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose, 54 Cal. App. 4th 106, 112 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. 1997).) There is a three tiered process for determining the appropriate level of CEQA review (Ibid.) "The first tier is jurisdictional, requiring that an agency conduct a preliminary review in order to determine whether CEQA applies to a proposed activity. (Guidelines, §§ 15060, 15061.)" (Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose, supra, 54 Cal.AppAth at p. 112.) CEQA applies if the activity is a "project" under the statutory definition, unless the project is exempt. (See §§ 21065, 21080.) "If the agency finds the project is exempt from CEQA under any of the stated exemptions, no further environmental review is necessary." (Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose, supra, 54 Cal.AppAth p. 113.) "Only those projects having no 15 significant effect on the environment are categorically exempt from CEQA review." (Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v. County of Marin (2004) 125 Cal.AppAth 1098, 1107 [23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 321].) If the project is not exempt— either because it does not fall within an exempt category or because an exception makes the exemption unavailable —then the agency must proceed to the second tier and conduct an initial study. (Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce v. City of Santa Monica (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 786, 792 [124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 731]; see Guidelines, § 15063.) Lot mergers do not qualify for a categorical CEQA exemption, and therefore, the City must conduct an initial study prior to approving the Lot Merger. 5. THE LOT MERGER SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED. For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the City deny the Proposed Lot Merger. Date: January 17, 2012 Melinda M. Luthin, Esq. of I MELINIDA LUTHIN I LAW IN °a <iroRN�P Memorandum CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD, BLDG. C NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3237 To: City Council From: Kay Sims, Assistant Planner Date: January 18, 2012 Cc: Dave Kiff, Dana Smith, Aaron Harp, Steve Badum & Kim Brandt Re: 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger Appeal (PA2011 -141) The appellant, Mr. John Guida, has provided the attached information and revised residential plans for your review in advance of the January 24, 2012 City Council meeting. Please keep these documents for the January 24, 2012, meeting. Thank you. January 12, 2012 Mayor Nancy Gardner & Members of the Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 33oo Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 ,V eCe1VED BY COMMUNITY JAN 13 ?U12 c DEVELOPMENT OZ- 0p NEWPO'k, 0 RE: Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002- Appeal of the Planning Commission 10/20/11 Action 2808 & 2812 Ocean Blvd. The John Guida Trust and The Julie Guida Trust Dear Mayor Gardner & Fellow Members of the Newport Beach City Council: On behalf of the John & Julie Guida Trust(s), we are requesting the City Council's approval of the Lot Merger for the properties located at 28o8 & 2812 Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar. As you are aware, while the Zoning Administrator approved this Lot Merger on September 14, 2oll, the item was appealed by the adjacent residents to the Planning Commission on October 20, 2011. The Planning Commission denied the Zoning Administrator's approval on a set of Findings which we believe were not appropriate and based on inaccurate assumptions. We are therefore requesting, with our appeal of the Planning Commission's action, that you approve the Lot Merger. While technically a Lot Merger is not based on the home that may be built on the merged lots, the appeal that went forward to the Planning Commission, was essentially based on the Guida's residence being "too tall ". The resident's claimed the proposed home violates 1951 Joint Tenancy Grant Deed which stipulates a "one -story home(s)" be built on the properties in question. Their stated appeal was based however on the "health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood ". Given the Silva's (2821 Ocean Lane) and Campbell's (2811 Ocean Lane) concerns, and given that Mr. and Mrs. Guida have purchased these lots to build their personal residence, they have attempted to resolve, to the best of their abilities, the Silva's and Campbell's stated concerns regarding the home being one -story. (These two residences are parties to the 1951 Joint Tenancy Grant Deed.) The Guidas believe that their proposed home meets the terms of the Grant Deed, and in fact is a one -story home. However, in an attempt to resolve the Campbell's /Silva's concerns, they have redesigned their home several tines to lower the roof line. They have also removed the rear roof deck and removed the associated solid guardrail and eliminated the interior stairs and the elevator to the roof. We have attached the plans of this proposed home as evidence of the Guidas continued good faith effort to appease their neighbors' concerns. These plans were also given the Silvas and Campbells on January 12, 2012, via their attorney, per their request. It should be noted that the proposed home meets all of the Ws zoning planning and building standards and is in full compliance with all the city requirements. 1 San Joaquin Plaza, Suite 230 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • 949.717 -7943 main • 949 -717 -7942 fax • www.govsol.com As noted above, we support and agree with the Zoning Administrator's findings that were made in approval of the Lot Merger. For the Council's reference, we've listed selected findings of the Zoning Administrator's September 14, 2011 approval: B. Finding: Approval of the merger will not under the circumstances of this 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 lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of Tntle 1g. Selected Facts in Support of the Finding: B -1. The future development on the proposed parcel will comply with the Zoning Code development standards. B -2. The proposed merger will not cause future development to impact public views of the ocean as no public view rep sently exists B -3. The project site described in the proposal consists of the legal building sites. D. Finding: The lots as merged will be consistent or will be more closely compatible with the applicable zoning regulations and will be consistent with other relations relating to the subject property including, but not limited to, the General Plan and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. Selected Facts in Support of the Finding: D -1. The previously existing single -unit dwellings located on the subject sites will be demolished and the proposed lot would be redevelopment with a new single -unit dwelling. Section 20.18.030 of the Zoning Code establishes minimum lot area and width requirements. Each of the two existing lots meet the F. Finding: The lots as merged will be consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and will not create an excessively large lot that is not compatible with the surrounding development. F -1. Corona del Mar consists of lots of varying shapes and sizes. The subject lots, as merged, will result in a parcel with a width of 80 feet and area of 13,678 square feet. Other nearby lots on Ocean Boulevard have lot widths as wide as 93 feet and area as large as 13,325 square feet. The merger of the two lots will F -2. Development with the R -1 Zoning District can have a maximum floor area 1.5 times the buildable area of the lot. The proposed narcel will not he dPVPInnP l hPt onA th;� 2 In conclusion, we believe it is important to note that the Planning Commission came to their conclusions by a narrow view of the term "neighborhood". And, made their findings based on the single block where these properties are located - Block 34. (Planning Commission Finding A -1) We agree with staffs interpretation of the term "neighborhood" as meaning the general vicinity and not a single Block where a property maybe located. We believe the proposed Lot Merger meets all required findings and request the City Council's approval. Sincerely, rely�%pQ (j�r,ww Coralee S. Newman Applicant's Representative & Principal — Government Solutions, Inc. CC: Kay Sims, Assistant Planner 3 December 21, 2011 Subject: Ocean Boulevard - proposed lot assembly and residential development To whom it may concern, As noted in my related Septemberl0l letter, the subject vicinity along Ocean Boulevard renewal and improvement. In that regard, I continue to have no objection to the subject p assembly along Ocean Boulevard as such. in need of lot However, I do continue to have serious concerns as regards the related subsequent resident al development. It would appear that, as proposed, this development would result in excessive structural he' t and bulk not intended by or provided for in the terms of the original legal deed restrictions governing th development of these parcels. If approved as proposed, the development would certainly adversely affect the adjacent properties governed by and in conformance the deed restrictions. Also, it would unnecessarily cause a variety o }t adverse impacts on additional neighboring properties as well. Then there are the real anxieties of establishe homeowners. Accordingly the developer should be encouraged to renew these lots - but with a sensibly redesigned project which, at a minimum, conforms to the existing legal deed restrictions, especially as regard overall height considerations. I If these legally - binding development limits and protections are to be ignored; then perhaps it is time to revisit in detail the entire set of development ordinances, policies, procedures and representatives responsible for protecting and enhancing the character of this special part of the Newport Beach community - a once highly desirable local residential neighborhood and international tourist destinatio . Sincerely 4 ohn 1, Anderson 214 Goldenrod Avenue 949 - 723 -1556 RECEIVED Marilyn Beck 303 Carnation Avenue 1011 JAN 19 FN 12-- 23 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 C U- OF January 18, 2012 T IE C TY CLERK CITY C- ";'`CRT BEACH Newport Beach City Council c/o Leilani Brown, City Clerk 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: 2808 & 2812 Ocean Blvd (PA2011 -141) Dear Council Members: I live in the neighborhood of this project and want to express concern over the application to merge these two lots and to build a large dwelling that will result in the obstruction of the views of people living behind on Ocean Way. First, the issue of the merger.: Corona del Mar is a village community and the character of this community needs to be maintained. It is the reason we live here rather than other areas of Newport Beach. It is a disturbing trend to see mergers of lots and humongous properties being built. City Code provides protection under Section 19.68.030.H of Title 19. This merger does not meet the requirements of this section. The proposed new structure on the merged lots will be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood and will be detrimental to the 'peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood'. Second, obstruction of views on Ocean Way: I understand that this is not an issue before the City Council, and that it is a legal issue for the courts to determine. But there is a point at which respect for the property of others needs to be considered. We are so concerned about property rights that we've become a neighborhood of 'screw your neighbor' rather than respect for one another. There is a valid agreement documented between the neighbors of the properties on Ocean Way and Ocean Blvd, the intent of which was to protect views. The intent of the agreement was to protect views in perpetuity. That intent needs to be respected. It shouldn't be allowed that fifty years later someone new can come along and negate or cause harm to any of the surviving parties of that original agreement. The intent of the City's approval of these plans should be to ro otect this agreement, not to find ways around it and thus negate it. I urge you to uphold the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and not to approve or allow the merger of these two lots. Thank you. Ma yn Bet �n�� January 19, 2012 Newport Beach City Council c/o Leilani Brown, City Clerk 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Council Members: RECEIVED 2012 JAN 19 AN 10: 22 C'-10E OF TEE CiY CLERK CITY G- =CRT BEACH RE: 2808 & 2012 Ocean Blvd. Lot Merger (PA2011 -141) I am writing to ask that you uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the lot merger for the properties located at 2808 & 2012 Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar (Resolution NO. 1857). The resulting development on these lots should the merger be approved, would be grossly out of character with the surrounding neighborhood, and more specifically the immediate area of Block 34. The residents of Newport Beach have expressed their desire to stop "mansionization" within the City and merging the referenced lots and the subsequent development of them will be in conflict with the City's code protecting neighborhoods from this type of development. While not an issue before the City Council, it is my understanding that there is a recorded deed restriction which prohibits building higher than one -story for development in front of 3 lots on Ocean Way. In this specific case, The Guidas have a protected, unobstructed ocean -view and there is no reason for them to build a "one- story" home that blocks the view(s) of the two -story homes behind them. Please respect the Planning Commission's decision and the time and effort that they put into it by upholding their decision of denial of the lot merger. Thank You, j�✓UZC2� z� Jinx Hansen 221 Goldenrod Avenue Corona del Mar "RECEIVED FTER AGENDA RECEIVED " Marilyn Beck RECEIVED 7 1 303 Carnation Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 2612 JAN 20 M 9: 27 OF January 18, 2012 CI !CE L T F' °: G'1' CLERK CITY C,- . Newport Beach City Council c/o Leilani Brown, City Clerk 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: 2808 & 2812 Ocean Blvd (PA2011 -141) Dear Council Members: I live in the neighborhood of this project and want to express concern over the application to merge these two lots and to build a large dwelling that will result in the obstruction of the views of people living behind on Ocean Way. First, the issue of the merger: Corona del Mar is a village community and the character of this community needs to be maintained. It is the reason we live here rather than other areas of Newport Beach. It is a disturbing trend to see mergers of lots and humongous properties being built. City Code provides protection under Section 19.68.030.H of Title 19. This merger does not meet the requirements of this section. The proposed new structure on the merged lots will be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood and will be detrimental to the 'peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood'. Second, obstruction of views on Ocean Way: I understand that this is not an issue before the City Council, and that it is a legal issue for the courts to determine. But there is a point at which respect for the property of others needs to be considered. We are so concerned about property rights that we've become a neighborhood of 'screw your neighbor rather than respect for one another. There is a valid agreement documented between the neighbors of the properties on Ocean Way and Ocean Blvd, the intent of which was to protect views. The intent of the agreement was to protect views in perpetuity. That intent needs to be respected. It shouldn't be allowed that fifty years later someone new can come along and negate or cause harm to any of the surviving parties of that original agreement. The intent of the City's approval of these plans should be to rp otect this agreement, not to find ways around it and thus negate it. I urge you to uphold the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and not to approve or allow the merger of these two lots. Thank you. Ma /yn Bec < Lillian From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments :•IV:. �: as •'�4L'.,�r)r_li fili:Li "if: Brown, Leilani Tuesday, January 24, 2012 4;11 PM 1011 JdR} 24 Harris, Lillian PM 4: 12 FW: Tonight's Public Hearing re 2808 -2812 OCEAN BLVD., CdM -I oppose dishonoring contiguous Property Owner's Deed Rights & Opt to Preserve their VIEWS ��� LotsMerge2808- 28120ean.doc r F F OFFICE O F ERK CITY 0 -' ` i PORT BEA( H From: Jeanine Paquette fmailto :jeanineoaauettegyahoo.coml Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 4:06 PM To: Brown, Leilani Subject: Re: Tonight's Public Hearing re 2808 -2812 OCEAN BLVD., CdM -I oppose dishonoring contiguous Property Owner's Deed Rights & Opt to Preserve their VIEWS Attn: City Clerk I,prefer that Resolution 2012 -8 be denied(re 2808 -2812 cean Blvd., CdM.).. As discussed with someone in City Hall, I am Emailing in my letter: Herein attached is my letter re Protecting Contiguous Owners' Property Rights and Preserving their VIEWS. I trust my comments will be included in the material presented at tonight's Public Hearing. Thank you. Sincerely, Jeanine Paquette, Property owner, 211 Goldenrod Av. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Jeanine Paquette Jeanine. goodbroker(@Gmail.com ieaninepa uetteavahoo.com Real Estate Broker /Realtor DRE Bkr.Lic. 900473775 949/675 -2225 Home Ofc. 949/375 -4353 Mobile Tuesday, January 24, 2012 TO: Council of Newport Beach TO: Planning Commission, Newport beach, Ca. TO: CdMRA To Whom it May Concern Please adopt Resolution 2012 -8 denying the Lot Merger that would infringe seriously upon contiguous property owners' rights, deeded rights and would interfere with their entitled peaceful enjoyment of their property and ocean views. Regarding the lot merger of 2808 and 2812 Ocean Blvd., Corona del Mar, I ardently feel that the deed restrictions, covenants. et al that were agreed to in 1951 (or any other time in their history) intending to preserve the views from the homes behind 2808 and 2012 Ocean Blvd. should be upheld; I feel they MUST BE upheld and respected. The new owners of those lots proposing to develop a high edifice despite the factual knowledge they could have /should have had before closing escrow. Their neglect of the facts and /or failure to recognize long- existing owners' Property Rights is not the problem of the homeowners behind nor of the property owners throughout Corona del Mar whose rights should be recognized and adhered to. Let our City not set further precedent favoring disruption of legal rights and once again favoring the abhorrent mansionization of Corona del Mar village. It is incumbent upon the City of Newport Beach fathers and paid staff to do the right thing, without betrayal of the property rights and rightful, natural expectations of the affected owners whose views and enjoyment would be sacrificed Sincerely Jeanine Paquette, property owner 211 Goldenrod Av. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Marilyn Beck RECEI\ /E o- 303 Carnation Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Z012 JAN 20 hVI 9-- 27 01 -. CE OF January 18, 2012 TN„ 071, CLERIC CITY C ' .F: %i: ;�T BEA(. H Newport Beach City Council c/o Leilani Brown, City Clerk 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: 2808 & 2812 Ocean Blvd (PA2011 -141) Dear Council Members: I live in the neighborhood of this project and want to express concern over the application to merge these two lots and to build a large dwelling that will result in the obstruction of the views of people living behind on Ocean Way. First, the issue of the merger: Corona del Mar is a village community and the character of this community needs to be maintained. It is the reason we live here rather than other areas of Newport Beach. It is a disturbing trend to see mergers of lots and humongous properties being built. City Code provides protection under Section 19.68.030.1-1 of Title 19. This merger does not meet the requirements of this section. The proposed new structure on the merged lots will be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood and will be detrimental to the 'peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood'. Second, obstruction of views on Ocean Way: I understand that this is not an issue before the City Council, and that it is a legal issue for the courts to determine. But there is a point at which respect for the property of others needs to be considered. We are so concerned about property rights that we've become a neighborhood of 'screw your neighbor' rather than respect for one another. There is a valid agreement documented between the neighbors of the properties on Ocean Way and Ocean Blvd, the intent of which was to protect views. The intent of the agreement was to protect views in perpetuity. That intent needs to be respected. It shouldn't be allowed that fifty years later someone new can come along and negate or cause harm to any of the surviving parties of that original agreement. The intent of the City's approval of these plans should be to rp otect this agreement, not to find ways around it and thus negate it. I urge you to uphold the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and not to approve or allow the merger of these two lots. Thank you. Ma yn �Bec January 19, 2012 Newport Beach City Council c/o Leilani Brown, City Clerk 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Council Members: RECEIVED 2012 JAN 19 AM IDS 22 e,r, I ICE OF TI-E C'iY CLERK CITY OE i. ,:. OR Bi. ACH RE: 2808 & 2012 Ocean Blvd. Lot Merger (PA2011 -141) I am writing to ask that you uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the lot merger for the properties located at 2808 & 2012 Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar (Resolution NO. 1857). The resulting development on these lots should the merger be approved, would be grossly out of character with the surrounding neighborhood, and more specifically the immediate area of Block 34. The residents of Newport Beach have expressed their desire to stop "mansionization" within the City and merging the referenced lots and the subsequent development of them will be in conflict with the City's code protecting neighborhoods from this type of development. While not an issue before the City Council, it is my understanding that there is a recorded deed restriction which prohibits building higher than one -story for development in front of 3 lots on Ocean Way. In this specific case, The Guidas have a protected, unobstructed ocean -view and there is no reason for them to build a "one- story" home that blocks the view(s) of the two -story homes behind them. Please respect the Planning Commission's decision and the time and effort that they put into it by upholding their decision of denial of the lot merger. Thank You, Jinx Hansen 221 Goldenrod Avenue Corona del Mar from f e cleslc Of ILucirda Campidl Dear Council Members, January 20, 2012 We have over 300 face to face signatures collected by this small group that are opposed to the Lot Merger at 2808/2812 Ocean Boulevard. They were collected in a relatively short period of time. The only thing preventing us from gathering more were; houses were vacant or for rent and many people were away for Christmas & New Years. The over 300 signatures includes: 1. The entire Block #34 comprising the surrounding neighborhood. 2. 102 signatures from the houses on Ocean Boulevard. 3. As many other local residents we found home. The neighbors we approached were unanimous in their opposition to this merger (except for one person who supported the merger). They all spoke of the enormity of these lots if merged and believed that they were not compatible. Some expressed concern over a lot of this size being across from "Lookout Point." Many residents expressed their desires to "Reign in Mansionization" and keep the charm that makes Corona Del Mar unique. On the Newport Beach website the following is stated, "Newport Beach is known for its `villages', each with its own distinct character." I must mention that my parents Robin & Joan Campbell (both 85 years old), when able, went door to door to gather signatures themselves. Their character and resolve, which has been surely put to a test, is remarkable. They are not just committed to preserve their own views but also to protect their neighbors from the devastating effect that a 13,700 sq.ft. lot would have on Block 34, their neighborhood. Remember, Old Corona Del Mar where the average lot size is more than 3 times smaller than the one proposed in the merger at 2808/2812 Ocean Boulevard. Let us be perfectly clear, we are opposed to this enormous lot merger. We believe in no way is it compatible or consistent with the neighborhood. What few plans Mr. Guide has been forthcoming with in no way changes our opposition. This is about a lot merger..... My parents hope the City Council (as the Planning Commission did before them) will see that this merger is not compatible with the neighborhood. They believe in "Right Over Might." They are depending on their elected officials to represent what is the prevailing sentiment of the community and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to oppose the merger. Respectfully submitted by. POW (WWt 14 J dy Richar&Ardik )O`..- c�.,...rUe(I Aaw. && Lucy Ca�p6e // STOP THE LOT MERQER Or- 2 OCEAN 8LVD0 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 6D[ENVONG° LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA201 1.041) The and ersogn ®all ask the Newport Beach Coty C6ounc8g to zRiPPOrt the lG�a�'� �rotlS � NCR 2�.ka"x 2a( 2gt � c) 3IvW Own i. 1 �� • % /•-LI�% Y � � I 1 r, P SUPPORT RESOLUTOON NO- 0857 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4DE :NYING' LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA2011 1 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach Cbgy Council t olsaup pool: the (panning Commission decision & deny the epnpaeap for the' Oct merger: i NAME ABORESS Pro N a y) J l • � 0. 322C7�i J y Oj 01 C yh �rP�SA 378 oc:� f�"� .0 . ✓n om v- 3 IZ 0C-e V\ . rC>«z i� ���� 19/ i/�t f ���ck .�f r'tti� q r Y o i P SUPPORT RESCLUTUCH NO. 6857 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 6®ENVBNG9 LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATEDAT 2808AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD.(PA2011 -141) The undersigned ask the mewport Beach City Council to support the Pla nn ft Commission n decision & deny the appeal for the g ®t merger: N J ATO VIE CGS/ ,.- - 9.10. �/%fL3J✓ �%-:t� - / li ✓L. �i�e'ef ll (° CiF Lvrl , C✓1, ?6z5— � `Zipog (KQL1vt IU Zs—z,/ OGC74r/ GIs 2 s ov c ' ( -)CA z�zs J s. J c, „2SO) Ocea1, 21u?- (1-1� C 2�7 - oft �crk Yell 33C) 9 deeLl 7� �P41 S een/ 2� N J STOP THE LOT MERGER Ef'2 tiUwi oRjr 12F SoLU UCH NO. 0857 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 6®ENYUNGR LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA201 1 -141) 1rhe undersigned ask the Newport Beach City Council to support the PlannOng Commission decision & deny the appeal for the lot merger: NAME ADDRESS 5 URIE vm to ►J AY t dl � v s�f�2 fT fE�✓ P� �-7 �3Cid- �- 1<170 UJL 41VO V4 `% i.. M11 -44-P 514--ke6- G r(�S LC/)'672 C1 I 1 Lf A" (i � �� r tor- a L) C, wWS L � C r1le CL-0--t 6c Ad U U 7 I To THE LOT MERGE or 2808 S 28 G d OCEAN QrTLVD. trsOLUTHON NO. 0857 S IR T I NEWPORT a ®�NV0N G° pRESOLUTION ME GEFOR PROPERTIES PLANNING LOCATEED AT 2808 AND 812 OCEAN B D((PA201 1144 ) p0 nni g C�®�or�vs ossi ®w de l b® & deny the ash ezo for the Hot wit®® gG �� sTCP�THE LOT MERGER 2808 & 28 12 OCEAN BLVD SUPPORT RESOLUTION NO. 0857 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 'IDIENYONG' LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA201 1 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach City Council to suppoft the Planning Commission decision & deny the appeal for the Rot morger: NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE ----------- 1 A *LLIL- VY) (CDL/n 6 y S ku- ""2 ee 12 qI-)q 10 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 6®IENYOOYG' LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA201 1 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach Catty Council to support the Planning Commission n ¢decisio n & deny the appeal for the d ®g merger: �V yPV Fs'rr `i` A`i MORRIS v -F (Iv'i GC %fIY,� C'- r{f}NS'L!✓ .� -.-�� �dLp6iv(:C id �0.P'1'I. Z. "�� r LL /7X /�/C£/7.5�1� _2 l G�ldel2 r,),-t /% .✓, �> 1C! Ky_5 14C-LI ai A6'L 14" R!�/•^- /vv K /, 2-1,0 l- �a.lPu-t-✓'r7�2 i Co! c .Q ✓ --- ✓�FSO 9 b G v 15, -r-T l L, (S (o L � ^1"R N G f�o.�tr- ' ��, 1z bnd0. M 6i4 a" rod �fU A -' Alf 4 IN 3 s (�y� {f� Cyr o' -y�()� ��•�T rE�A� `7iMWWW(*0, 12C 5t71-109YT1O€�7 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 611)IE(i9ifON G' LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATEDAT 2808AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA2011 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach Chty Cou n¢6O to support the GP Ha nni ng CommOssaon decRsio n & deny the appemO for the Oct merger: I �M 6v c. LA AM 419 7+C ' Pt A 1 4(11f. a6aCi6A n � >-.NN 30—ITG4�p c f&,L i Da� rb 45 geeerLI), / y I �M STOP THE LOT MERGER Or- 2808 & 2812 OCEAN BLVDO. SUPPORT V ESCLUT900M N®0 9857 RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 6®ENifONG, LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATEDAT 2808AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA201 1 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach CKy CouncWto support the MannOng C®PD9mi$$i ®P9 decisi on & decay the appeal for the 9®t merger- Pldr°,314�� ��� G r21� kP re 6-n 31 3 CA -:T- Lai,- c i, 0()o Se,- ZvieCep I 7 Y I 3I�) T(. i5 ^ �t cylr7) -n O �Cc i0bwS �2,1 r��s G r21� kP re 6-n 31 3 CA -:T- Lai,- c i, 0()o Se,- ZvieCep I 7 Y I STOP THE LOT MERGER ou: 2808 & 28 9 2 OCEAN ELM A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 'DIENY0 N G1 LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATEDAT 2808AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA2011-141) The undersigned ask the Newport: Beach City CouncOg to support the planning CommOssOon decision & dery the appeal for the got merger: ti-L L -0j7jkYZ SAN AN j-1A1Q-CDtZ1 CD 61 w'L LrL uo R vj4e,-) o U L X 27 1-19 ZeL 4) 00 r7 -5(f bf- 0 A e-- /- I C- 00 10 4 q-L C-L- O m � &ok GAY AA 01/12/2012 10:92 FAX Q009 S70P THE LOT MERGER Or 2808 & 2802 OCEAN BLVD. SUPPORT RES@LUTOON NO. 0857 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH'DfEPSYONG, LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATEDAT 280SAND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA2011 -141) The aaovdem6gnedl mgk the K®earPOVt HGQch City CoUnc6o to support the Planning C®mrom OssAcn decision & deny the appeal flow the 0®t m ergen: SUS'f'OO6t� F:fS�'�l�TIOOPd �eOO. 1�::�7 \ RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPOf T BEACH IDEMYOO GP LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATEDAT 2808AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA; 201 1 -141) The aundersugned ask the Newport Beach Catty COUnCul tO support the PlannOng Commission decWon & deny the appeal for the got merger: C �ioh��ii �1 ry�2'1 I µ,yF YF,�II �1C'11U�7 ❑'��.s 4� , r,� � IV. 4 J t �" Lr ��.'"�� a"t v b' ti , d,�,Mv Jx a ha c`�*Ts ,T yya� � ,k�.a � k E ,. �� � T� v fi,!.•N.v6N t t� .w. ; :.Ea, �..s.'r...,..,.;rt., ur..a �.,.,,g, �; r.5s 4 .A II �.�. „x�. �.. �. ,.�.. o-...- i n •"; >sxti�`i4 �"a. an�s,.""r'�'}3k'" xi{E c�.s �'�'�,�ai , LLAAlc IL 1��/ y (/ T-3 2 �5 %/A�✓ �rlc42 S // M (�ao5 var uq rtfli Le G�Cr� Jlo`'��' 184 37o 174 i U$vv,—/ r,e—U , + n Td" i,V — - STOP THE LOT MERGER O ?fib: & a,: { 2 OCEAN BLVD, SUPPORT R SOLUTROPd moo. 0857 RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH °®ENirONG LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATEDAT 2808AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD.(PA2011 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach Gutty CoUn9C80 to Support the pgan ing Commission decision & deny the appeau f ®m the got merger: I ��I I Rio DRESS 6 1712t'� �uf•�1�c�F« i�E �,c >�u�1ow �c�. ��. ;; A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 6DIENYING9 LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA2011 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach Cbtty Council to support the Manning Commission decision & deny the appeap for the p ®t merger. w� �3 � Vr 1J..1r ''^ -.:}s ^Ltrc yy{y4+. ,, ♦r,. - „i'+ s � t � }s' Z nr'! 153!5 p ., .... 2 L x -G n n a CC MD n Q�,- na `�' l SiJ 1 °P'O0 I' {Ti I�t -SOO LUTIOO PZ ^200. I ��S 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 601104YOO G9 LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA201 1 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport orrt Beach C61&T Ccunc60 to Support pOalrangng C®mmmOss6on declsRon & deny the appeal 4 ®r the got m erg®ro INA u t oar I,a-Acj ffaw,A!�u>� -�� � ►' �il (�L �l t -1 ✓l v 1 S t/�ZC�^ e , c - cA �- y r ct� �3yy��� /zr jade . C4 19.0 , �"����Fy'�� rl�-�. t`lto 5 �n �� r•lz gz�bZ i t2D � INA STOP THE LOS' MERGER OF 2808 cis 2812 OCEAN BLVD. SUPPORT RESOLUTION Me. 1857 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH `D ENYON G9 LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATEDAT 2808AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. ( 201 1 -141) The u ndersOgwed ask the Newport Beach Chtty CS'OuncH to support the a ecAsion & deny the appeal° �.T.N' u // 1119�Vly1) i�p 'C y� E Y� l+ l�Y `L I ' VY'htil �U/ �llIX t`4Y'�Y. IV `� • r 9jty1` FT•}• r i i A y � t �F r. � � .� p h t 7 i i 2 iii��� � /, ., CSC »a a -_x, L . +n ii %��i. -�'i .. '� _ � r'% �'s:1 ��i.�e � "��F'e'k�F�y��,• 2 (en Cam. rvti e.znn- P I Co z -c ea rl' , <'A 2_62) 66'2 tae ct � fa�Q l . T fi G07 ge ,90Afa o 0126y Z �� .... • Lu(aa A- 0"IIP&u C<•arn • �2to L5 ;EMI Afyu) I.&AOr, i... � 14171. If IAIJ I Em - i ' / I - • ` . /Idle .i 10-45 5,a�d n STOP THE LOT MERGER ®� 2808 & 2812 OCEAN BLVD. SUPPORT RESOLUTGON RIO. 9857 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPO' LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (F BEACH 1 :10 ENVII G' All -141) The undersigned ask the Newport t Beach City Chou n¢Bll ,�® su papa rtt the pga nvngng Commission decision & deny the appeall for tt a Dot mergere. 4HIM, I M 1, 4C 4®® 211�� Y �d Icy oizb�� - CO - v, I I I I I 4 STOP THE LOT MERGER OF 2808 & 2892 (OCEAN BLVD. SUPPORT RESOLUTOON NO. 08S7 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 'IDENYONGP LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD.( 2011-141) (P 120 The undersigned ask the Newport Beach Oty Councog 0 supp(iwt the PgannOng CommOssAon decls6on & deny the appeag for t 2 got merger: I P , ;ix, bnl' 'Q Palma &�Y-rq -,7 2/AL Ll 0 ttV 0 -k� ( N SU4 0 I P 8 1%11 2 Wil 7 UU 0 ONO A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BE. CH LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA2011 1141) The undersOgned ask the Newport Beach My CouncH to Foanning CommftsOon decOsAan & deny the mppemg for the art the mergd.lim 13 r 3100 Oceaii &/f/J Vee—t„ VW 4--O Y1 500 i D4- odoJug X23 Jel �e 372c0ae� d2f,�� Ov //,t 'rA W/ 4. L9 YA filh)e C15$ AnZY 7- 13 SUPPORT RESOLD RON NO. 9 SS7 i A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPOR�j BEACH 69)E OYONG9 LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATEDAT 2808AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD.(P 011 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach City CounclO to support the Planning C®nvnrr Ass6 ®n decisio n & deny the appea0 for tl�e Pat merger: NAME ADDRESS S9 NATURE C7� /C' 71 c, I� 04- i ,A ti�'L L 5 !(p OC EFl rJ �i v p kA L,�,ej I OCYJJV3 oaa A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT EACH LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA2 11-141) 'DIEO YOIrt G' 5"I'Ihe undersigned ask the Newport Beach City Counc60 to3 support the Pgaiunonuung Commission decOs0o n & deny the appea0 for t h . O®tr merger: NAME 55 ADDRESS 51, QcM ME" j o� r e. o \c C, L t t s ., ) / �I /1 5 L T OF "N'Bloo &28U CREAN BUT& MQU 037 A REVOLLACIN (35 1 fir' CF-fiH6 CITY 01 NEWPORY EACH DT.M)NHNMT LOT M.Er",('lLR FQ'k F5RW-APk*R7LocAiTD A!' '2?-Y),R AND 2812 DWAN BNEW (RA201 k 111) Whe undsrAgned ask the H-urveporl: c:ity C;oqArlcll tc� support vs,"t-Z dod- .-Mc.-rt & dfmny the ap *;&M lsr the hat ryteFgorn NAME ADDRESS s571 suUmu It c, SUPPORT RESOLUTDON No. 0857 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORTI BEACH 6DeNY9la v LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA201 1 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Death .City Council tsupport the Planning Commission decision & deny the appeal for 0®t merger* NAME ADDRESS SIB 4AIrURE FROM FAX NO. Jan. 01/80/2012 08:99 FAX 0a/18/2013 10:89 PAZ NO WL /11 i � 2012 08:40AM P1 %ooa fm 001 STOP THE LOT MERGER or- 2808 & 2812 OCEAN BLVD. SUPPORT RESOLUTION NO. 1857 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 6DIENYONG9 LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (P 01 I -141) The undersAgned ask the Newport Beach COty Councol o support the 4 Plannilng Commossion decis6on & deny the appeal ffom t e lot merger- WHE 71 iE 4-7r�� 11-- 10 �E' — - �Zf Effi Pfo ev /�A 2 PrV 6 CAM kA i P-\ Icni JJ r 'gip e3 0,0 U 1 Vq t�j :Y"q g�- Lf i L wwgF 41.;57 )�v STOP THE LOT MERGER SUE "Ir'OOfl2T RESOLUTION N0. 157 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPO LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATEDAT 2808AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (F The Undersigned ask the Newport Beach City Council FoannAng Commission decision & deny the appeal for � Ali' 1S'rC of s 1341 ck 'rte 4--�� 1 37 BEACH 6DENYONCG' .011 -141) support the not merger: STOP THE LOT MERGER +F 2808 & 2812 (OCEAN BLVD. SU9"1"O12T 1'tESOLUT(OM NO I„SI A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH' &MENYONG1 LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA2 )1 1 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach City COUnCOU to support the Pganning Commission dec5s5On & deny the appeal for tth got merger: N \1 i R-1,560 F42S Ej/ TV )„ Louw� U��1 Z� Q 1 G1.... I cr-- ,C� 5 22 i`S �Lfk- C, -f S�� — '��,�� r,l ,6 N \1 i Lillian From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments :•IV:. �: as •'�4L'.,�r)r_li fili:Li "if: Brown, Leilani Tuesday, January 24, 2012 4;11 PM 1011 JdR} 24 Harris, Lillian PM 4: 12 FW: Tonight's Public Hearing re 2808 -2812 OCEAN BLVD., CdM -I oppose dishonoring contiguous Property Owner's Deed Rights & Opt to Preserve their VIEWS ��� LotsMerge2808- 28120ean.doc r F F OFFICE O F ERK CITY 0 -' ` i PORT BEA( H From: Jeanine Paquette fmailto :jeanineoaauettegyahoo.coml Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 4:06 PM To: Brown, Leilani Subject: Re: Tonight's Public Hearing re 2808 -2812 OCEAN BLVD., CdM -I oppose dishonoring contiguous Property Owner's Deed Rights & Opt to Preserve their VIEWS Attn: City Clerk I,prefer that Resolution 2012 -8 be denied(re 2808 -2812 cean Blvd., CdM.).. As discussed with someone in City Hall, I am Emailing in my letter: Herein attached is my letter re Protecting Contiguous Owners' Property Rights and Preserving their VIEWS. I trust my comments will be included in the material presented at tonight's Public Hearing. Thank you. Sincerely, Jeanine Paquette, Property owner, 211 Goldenrod Av. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Jeanine Paquette Jeanine. goodbroker(@Gmail.com ieaninepa uetteavahoo.com Real Estate Broker /Realtor DRE Bkr.Lic. 900473775 949/675 -2225 Home Ofc. 949/375 -4353 Mobile Tuesday, January 24, 2012 TO: Council of Newport Beach TO: Planning Commission, Newport beach, Ca. TO: CdMRA To Whom it May Concern Please adopt Resolution 2012 -8 denying the Lot Merger that would infringe seriously upon contiguous property owners' rights, deeded rights and would interfere with their entitled peaceful enjoyment of their property and ocean views. Regarding the lot merger of 2808 and 2812 Ocean Blvd., Corona del Mar, I ardently feel that the deed restrictions, covenants. et al that were agreed to in 1951 (or any other time in their history) intending to preserve the views from the homes behind 2808 and 2012 Ocean Blvd. should be upheld; I feel they MUST BE upheld and respected. The new owners of those lots proposing to develop a high edifice despite the factual knowledge they could have /should have had before closing escrow. Their neglect of the facts and /or failure to recognize long- existing owners' Property Rights is not the problem of the homeowners behind nor of the property owners throughout Corona del Mar whose rights should be recognized and adhered to. Let our City not set further precedent favoring disruption of legal rights and once again favoring the abhorrent mansionization of Corona del Mar village. It is incumbent upon the City of Newport Beach fathers and paid staff to do the right thing, without betrayal of the property rights and rightful, natural expectations of the affected owners whose views and enjoyment would be sacrificed Sincerely Jeanine Paquette, property owner 211 Goldenrod Av. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Marilyn Beck RECEI\ /E o- 303 Carnation Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Z012 JAN 20 hVI 9-- 27 01 -. CE OF January 18, 2012 TN„ 071, CLERIC CITY C ' .F: %i: ;�T BEA(. H Newport Beach City Council c/o Leilani Brown, City Clerk 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: 2808 & 2812 Ocean Blvd (PA2011 -141) Dear Council Members: I live in the neighborhood of this project and want to express concern over the application to merge these two lots and to build a large dwelling that will result in the obstruction of the views of people living behind on Ocean Way. First, the issue of the merger: Corona del Mar is a village community and the character of this community needs to be maintained. It is the reason we live here rather than other areas of Newport Beach. It is a disturbing trend to see mergers of lots and humongous properties being built. City Code provides protection under Section 19.68.030.1-1 of Title 19. This merger does not meet the requirements of this section. The proposed new structure on the merged lots will be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood and will be detrimental to the 'peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood'. Second, obstruction of views on Ocean Way: I understand that this is not an issue before the City Council, and that it is a legal issue for the courts to determine. But there is a point at which respect for the property of others needs to be considered. We are so concerned about property rights that we've become a neighborhood of 'screw your neighbor' rather than respect for one another. There is a valid agreement documented between the neighbors of the properties on Ocean Way and Ocean Blvd, the intent of which was to protect views. The intent of the agreement was to protect views in perpetuity. That intent needs to be respected. It shouldn't be allowed that fifty years later someone new can come along and negate or cause harm to any of the surviving parties of that original agreement. The intent of the City's approval of these plans should be to rp otect this agreement, not to find ways around it and thus negate it. I urge you to uphold the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and not to approve or allow the merger of these two lots. Thank you. Ma yn �Bec January 19, 2012 Newport Beach City Council c/o Leilani Brown, City Clerk 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Council Members: RECEIVED 2012 JAN 19 AM IDS 22 e,r, I ICE OF TI-E C'iY CLERK CITY OE i. ,:. OR Bi. ACH RE: 2808 & 2012 Ocean Blvd. Lot Merger (PA2011 -141) I am writing to ask that you uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the lot merger for the properties located at 2808 & 2012 Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar (Resolution NO. 1857). The resulting development on these lots should the merger be approved, would be grossly out of character with the surrounding neighborhood, and more specifically the immediate area of Block 34. The residents of Newport Beach have expressed their desire to stop "mansionization" within the City and merging the referenced lots and the subsequent development of them will be in conflict with the City's code protecting neighborhoods from this type of development. While not an issue before the City Council, it is my understanding that there is a recorded deed restriction which prohibits building higher than one -story for development in front of 3 lots on Ocean Way. In this specific case, The Guidas have a protected, unobstructed ocean -view and there is no reason for them to build a "one- story" home that blocks the view(s) of the two -story homes behind them. Please respect the Planning Commission's decision and the time and effort that they put into it by upholding their decision of denial of the lot merger. Thank You, Jinx Hansen 221 Goldenrod Avenue Corona del Mar from f e cleslc Of ILucirda Campidl Dear Council Members, January 20, 2012 We have over 300 face to face signatures collected by this small group that are opposed to the Lot Merger at 2808/2812 Ocean Boulevard. They were collected in a relatively short period of time. The only thing preventing us from gathering more were; houses were vacant or for rent and many people were away for Christmas & New Years. The over 300 signatures includes: 1. The entire Block #34 comprising the surrounding neighborhood. 2. 102 signatures from the houses on Ocean Boulevard. 3. As many other local residents we found home. The neighbors we approached were unanimous in their opposition to this merger (except for one person who supported the merger). They all spoke of the enormity of these lots if merged and believed that they were not compatible. Some expressed concern over a lot of this size being across from "Lookout Point." Many residents expressed their desires to "Reign in Mansionization" and keep the charm that makes Corona Del Mar unique. On the Newport Beach website the following is stated, "Newport Beach is known for its `villages', each with its own distinct character." I must mention that my parents Robin & Joan Campbell (both 85 years old), when able, went door to door to gather signatures themselves. Their character and resolve, which has been surely put to a test, is remarkable. They are not just committed to preserve their own views but also to protect their neighbors from the devastating effect that a 13,700 sq.ft. lot would have on Block 34, their neighborhood. Remember, Old Corona Del Mar where the average lot size is more than 3 times smaller than the one proposed in the merger at 2808/2812 Ocean Boulevard. Let us be perfectly clear, we are opposed to this enormous lot merger. We believe in no way is it compatible or consistent with the neighborhood. What few plans Mr. Guide has been forthcoming with in no way changes our opposition. This is about a lot merger..... My parents hope the City Council (as the Planning Commission did before them) will see that this merger is not compatible with the neighborhood. They believe in "Right Over Might." They are depending on their elected officials to represent what is the prevailing sentiment of the community and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to oppose the merger. Respectfully submitted by. POW (WWt 14 J dy Richar&Ardik )O`..- c�.,...rUe(I Aaw. && Lucy Ca�p6e // STOP THE LOT MERQER Or- 2 OCEAN 8LVD0 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 6D[ENVONG° LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA201 1.041) The and ersogn ®all ask the Newport Beach Coty C6ounc8g to zRiPPOrt the lG�a�'� �rotlS � NCR 2�.ka"x 2a( 2gt � c) 3IvW Own i. 1 �� • % /•-LI�% Y � � I 1 r, P SUPPORT RESOLUTOON NO- 0857 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4DE :NYING' LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA2011 1 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach Cbgy Council t olsaup pool: the (panning Commission decision & deny the epnpaeap for the' Oct merger: i NAME ABORESS Pro N a y) J l • � 0. 322C7�i J y Oj 01 C yh �rP�SA 378 oc:� f�"� .0 . ✓n om v- 3 IZ 0C-e V\ . rC>«z i� ���� 19/ i/�t f ���ck .�f r'tti� q r Y o i P SUPPORT RESCLUTUCH NO. 6857 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 6®ENVBNG9 LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATEDAT 2808AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD.(PA2011 -141) The undersigned ask the mewport Beach City Council to support the Pla nn ft Commission n decision & deny the appeal for the g ®t merger: N J ATO VIE CGS/ ,.- - 9.10. �/%fL3J✓ �%-:t� - / li ✓L. �i�e'ef ll (° CiF Lvrl , C✓1, ?6z5— � `Zipog (KQL1vt IU Zs—z,/ OGC74r/ GIs 2 s ov c ' ( -)CA z�zs J s. J c, „2SO) Ocea1, 21u?- (1-1� C 2�7 - oft �crk Yell 33C) 9 deeLl 7� �P41 S een/ 2� N J STOP THE LOT MERGER Ef'2 tiUwi oRjr 12F SoLU UCH NO. 0857 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 6®ENYUNGR LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA201 1 -141) 1rhe undersigned ask the Newport Beach City Council to support the PlannOng Commission decision & deny the appeal for the lot merger: NAME ADDRESS 5 URIE vm to ►J AY t dl � v s�f�2 fT fE�✓ P� �-7 �3Cid- �- 1<170 UJL 41VO V4 `% i.. M11 -44-P 514--ke6- G r(�S LC/)'672 C1 I 1 Lf A" (i � �� r tor- a L) C, wWS L � C r1le CL-0--t 6c Ad U U 7 I To THE LOT MERGE or 2808 S 28 G d OCEAN QrTLVD. trsOLUTHON NO. 0857 S IR T I NEWPORT a ®�NV0N G° pRESOLUTION ME GEFOR PROPERTIES PLANNING LOCATEED AT 2808 AND 812 OCEAN B D((PA201 1144 ) p0 nni g C�®�or�vs ossi ®w de l b® & deny the ash ezo for the Hot wit®® gG �� sTCP�THE LOT MERGER 2808 & 28 12 OCEAN BLVD SUPPORT RESOLUTION NO. 0857 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 'IDIENYONG' LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA201 1 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach City Council to suppoft the Planning Commission decision & deny the appeal for the Rot morger: NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE ----------- 1 A *LLIL- VY) (CDL/n 6 y S ku- ""2 ee 12 qI-)q 10 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 6®IENYOOYG' LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA201 1 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach Catty Council to support the Planning Commission n ¢decisio n & deny the appeal for the d ®g merger: �V yPV Fs'rr `i` A`i MORRIS v -F (Iv'i GC %fIY,� C'- r{f}NS'L!✓ .� -.-�� �dLp6iv(:C id �0.P'1'I. Z. "�� r LL /7X /�/C£/7.5�1� _2 l G�ldel2 r,),-t /% .✓, �> 1C! Ky_5 14C-LI ai A6'L 14" R!�/•^- /vv K /, 2-1,0 l- �a.lPu-t-✓'r7�2 i Co! c .Q ✓ --- ✓�FSO 9 b G v 15, -r-T l L, (S (o L � ^1"R N G f�o.�tr- ' ��, 1z bnd0. M 6i4 a" rod �fU A -' Alf 4 IN 3 s (�y� {f� Cyr o' -y�()� ��•�T rE�A� `7iMWWW(*0, 12C 5t71-109YT1O€�7 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 611)IE(i9ifON G' LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATEDAT 2808AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA2011 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach Chty Cou n¢6O to support the GP Ha nni ng CommOssaon decRsio n & deny the appemO for the Oct merger: I �M 6v c. LA AM 419 7+C ' Pt A 1 4(11f. a6aCi6A n � >-.NN 30—ITG4�p c f&,L i Da� rb 45 geeerLI), / y I �M STOP THE LOT MERGER Or- 2808 & 2812 OCEAN BLVDO. SUPPORT V ESCLUT900M N®0 9857 RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 6®ENifONG, LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATEDAT 2808AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA201 1 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach CKy CouncWto support the MannOng C®PD9mi$$i ®P9 decisi on & decay the appeal for the 9®t merger- Pldr°,314�� ��� G r21� kP re 6-n 31 3 CA -:T- Lai,- c i, 0()o Se,- ZvieCep I 7 Y I 3I�) T(. i5 ^ �t cylr7) -n O �Cc i0bwS �2,1 r��s G r21� kP re 6-n 31 3 CA -:T- Lai,- c i, 0()o Se,- ZvieCep I 7 Y I STOP THE LOT MERGER ou: 2808 & 28 9 2 OCEAN ELM A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 'DIENY0 N G1 LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATEDAT 2808AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA2011-141) The undersigned ask the Newport: Beach City CouncOg to support the planning CommOssOon decision & dery the appeal for the got merger: ti-L L -0j7jkYZ SAN AN j-1A1Q-CDtZ1 CD 61 w'L LrL uo R vj4e,-) o U L X 27 1-19 ZeL 4) 00 r7 -5(f bf- 0 A e-- /- I C- 00 10 4 q-L C-L- O m � &ok GAY AA 01/12/2012 10:92 FAX Q009 S70P THE LOT MERGER Or 2808 & 2802 OCEAN BLVD. SUPPORT RES@LUTOON NO. 0857 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH'DfEPSYONG, LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATEDAT 280SAND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA2011 -141) The aaovdem6gnedl mgk the K®earPOVt HGQch City CoUnc6o to support the Planning C®mrom OssAcn decision & deny the appeal flow the 0®t m ergen: SUS'f'OO6t� F:fS�'�l�TIOOPd �eOO. 1�::�7 \ RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPOf T BEACH IDEMYOO GP LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATEDAT 2808AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA; 201 1 -141) The aundersugned ask the Newport Beach Catty COUnCul tO support the PlannOng Commission decWon & deny the appeal for the got merger: C �ioh��ii �1 ry�2'1 I µ,yF YF,�II �1C'11U�7 ❑'��.s 4� , r,� � IV. 4 J t �" Lr ��.'"�� a"t v b' ti , d,�,Mv Jx a ha c`�*Ts ,T yya� � ,k�.a � k E ,. �� � T� v fi,!.•N.v6N t t� .w. ; :.Ea, �..s.'r...,..,.;rt., ur..a �.,.,,g, �; r.5s 4 .A II �.�. „x�. �.. �. ,.�.. o-...- i n •"; >sxti�`i4 �"a. an�s,.""r'�'}3k'" xi{E c�.s �'�'�,�ai , LLAAlc IL 1��/ y (/ T-3 2 �5 %/A�✓ �rlc42 S // M (�ao5 var uq rtfli Le G�Cr� Jlo`'��' 184 37o 174 i U$vv,—/ r,e—U , + n Td" i,V — - STOP THE LOT MERGER O ?fib: & a,: { 2 OCEAN BLVD, SUPPORT R SOLUTROPd moo. 0857 RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH °®ENirONG LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATEDAT 2808AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD.(PA2011 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach Gutty CoUn9C80 to Support the pgan ing Commission decision & deny the appeau f ®m the got merger: I ��I I Rio DRESS 6 1712t'� �uf•�1�c�F« i�E �,c >�u�1ow �c�. ��. ;; A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 6DIENYING9 LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA2011 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach Cbtty Council to support the Manning Commission decision & deny the appeap for the p ®t merger. w� �3 � Vr 1J..1r ''^ -.:}s ^Ltrc yy{y4+. ,, ♦r,. - „i'+ s � t � }s' Z nr'! 153!5 p ., .... 2 L x -G n n a CC MD n Q�,- na `�' l SiJ 1 °P'O0 I' {Ti I�t -SOO LUTIOO PZ ^200. I ��S 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 601104YOO G9 LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA201 1 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport orrt Beach C61&T Ccunc60 to Support pOalrangng C®mmmOss6on declsRon & deny the appeal 4 ®r the got m erg®ro INA u t oar I,a-Acj ffaw,A!�u>� -�� � ►' �il (�L �l t -1 ✓l v 1 S t/�ZC�^ e , c - cA �- y r ct� �3yy��� /zr jade . C4 19.0 , �"����Fy'�� rl�-�. t`lto 5 �n �� r•lz gz�bZ i t2D � INA STOP THE LOS' MERGER OF 2808 cis 2812 OCEAN BLVD. SUPPORT RESOLUTION Me. 1857 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH `D ENYON G9 LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATEDAT 2808AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. ( 201 1 -141) The u ndersOgwed ask the Newport Beach Chtty CS'OuncH to support the a ecAsion & deny the appeal° �.T.N' u // 1119�Vly1) i�p 'C y� E Y� l+ l�Y `L I ' VY'htil �U/ �llIX t`4Y'�Y. IV `� • r 9jty1` FT•}• r i i A y � t �F r. � � .� p h t 7 i i 2 iii��� � /, ., CSC »a a -_x, L . +n ii %��i. -�'i .. '� _ � r'% �'s:1 ��i.�e � "��F'e'k�F�y��,• 2 (en Cam. rvti e.znn- P I Co z -c ea rl' , <'A 2_62) 66'2 tae ct � fa�Q l . T fi G07 ge ,90Afa o 0126y Z �� .... • Lu(aa A- 0"IIP&u C<•arn • �2to L5 ;EMI Afyu) I.&AOr, i... � 14171. If IAIJ I Em - i ' / I - • ` . /Idle .i 10-45 5,a�d n STOP THE LOT MERGER ®� 2808 & 2812 OCEAN BLVD. SUPPORT RESOLUTGON RIO. 9857 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPO' LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (F BEACH 1 :10 ENVII G' All -141) The undersigned ask the Newport t Beach City Chou n¢Bll ,�® su papa rtt the pga nvngng Commission decision & deny the appeall for tt a Dot mergere. 4HIM, I M 1, 4C 4®® 211�� Y �d Icy oizb�� - CO - v, I I I I I 4 STOP THE LOT MERGER OF 2808 & 2892 (OCEAN BLVD. SUPPORT RESOLUTOON NO. 08S7 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 'IDENYONGP LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD.( 2011-141) (P 120 The undersigned ask the Newport Beach Oty Councog 0 supp(iwt the PgannOng CommOssAon decls6on & deny the appeag for t 2 got merger: I P , ;ix, bnl' 'Q Palma &�Y-rq -,7 2/AL Ll 0 ttV 0 -k� ( N SU4 0 I P 8 1%11 2 Wil 7 UU 0 ONO A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BE. CH LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA2011 1141) The undersOgned ask the Newport Beach My CouncH to Foanning CommftsOon decOsAan & deny the mppemg for the art the mergd.lim 13 r 3100 Oceaii &/f/J Vee—t„ VW 4--O Y1 500 i D4- odoJug X23 Jel �e 372c0ae� d2f,�� Ov //,t 'rA W/ 4. L9 YA filh)e C15$ AnZY 7- 13 SUPPORT RESOLD RON NO. 9 SS7 i A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPOR�j BEACH 69)E OYONG9 LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATEDAT 2808AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD.(P 011 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach City CounclO to support the Planning C®nvnrr Ass6 ®n decisio n & deny the appea0 for tl�e Pat merger: NAME ADDRESS S9 NATURE C7� /C' 71 c, I� 04- i ,A ti�'L L 5 !(p OC EFl rJ �i v p kA L,�,ej I OCYJJV3 oaa A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT EACH LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA2 11-141) 'DIEO YOIrt G' 5"I'Ihe undersigned ask the Newport Beach City Counc60 to3 support the Pgaiunonuung Commission decOs0o n & deny the appea0 for t h . O®tr merger: NAME 55 ADDRESS 51, QcM ME" j o� r e. o \c C, L t t s ., ) / �I /1 5 L T OF "N'Bloo &28U CREAN BUT& MQU 037 A REVOLLACIN (35 1 fir' CF-fiH6 CITY 01 NEWPORY EACH DT.M)NHNMT LOT M.Er",('lLR FQ'k F5RW-APk*R7LocAiTD A!' '2?-Y),R AND 2812 DWAN BNEW (RA201 k 111) Whe undsrAgned ask the H-urveporl: c:ity C;oqArlcll tc� support vs,"t-Z dod- .-Mc.-rt & dfmny the ap *;&M lsr the hat ryteFgorn NAME ADDRESS s571 suUmu It c, SUPPORT RESOLUTDON No. 0857 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORTI BEACH 6DeNY9la v LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA201 1 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Death .City Council tsupport the Planning Commission decision & deny the appeal for 0®t merger* NAME ADDRESS SIB 4AIrURE FROM FAX NO. Jan. 01/80/2012 08:99 FAX 0a/18/2013 10:89 PAZ NO WL /11 i � 2012 08:40AM P1 %ooa fm 001 STOP THE LOT MERGER or- 2808 & 2812 OCEAN BLVD. SUPPORT RESOLUTION NO. 1857 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 6DIENYONG9 LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (P 01 I -141) The undersAgned ask the Newport Beach COty Councol o support the 4 Plannilng Commossion decis6on & deny the appeal ffom t e lot merger- WHE 71 iE 4-7r�� 11-- 10 �E' — - �Zf Effi Pfo ev /�A 2 PrV 6 CAM kA i P-\ Icni JJ r 'gip e3 0,0 U 1 Vq t�j :Y"q g�- Lf i L wwgF 41.;57 )�v STOP THE LOT MERGER SUE "Ir'OOfl2T RESOLUTION N0. 157 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPO LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATEDAT 2808AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (F The Undersigned ask the Newport Beach City Council FoannAng Commission decision & deny the appeal for � Ali' 1S'rC of s 1341 ck 'rte 4--�� 1 37 BEACH 6DENYONCG' .011 -141) support the not merger: STOP THE LOT MERGER +F 2808 & 2812 (OCEAN BLVD. SU9"1"O12T 1'tESOLUT(OM NO I„SI A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH' &MENYONG1 LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA2 )1 1 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach City COUnCOU to support the Pganning Commission dec5s5On & deny the appeal for tth got merger: N \1 i R-1,560 F42S Ej/ TV )„ Louw� U��1 Z� Q 1 G1.... I cr-- ,C� 5 22 i`S �Lfk- C, -f S�� — '��,�� r,l ,6 N \1 i PROOF OF RE- CEIVEU PUBLICATION 012 JAN 23 Al Ha 39 j - OF THE v CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA)ITvC= '_.',_3)RTB_ACH ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of Los Angeles; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the notice published. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH /COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, which was adjudged a newspaper of general circulation on September 29, 1961, case A6214, and June 11, 1963, case A24831, for the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, and the State of California. Attached to this Affidavit is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following date(s): Saturday January 14, 2012 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 17, 2012 at Los Angeles, California Signature that on Tues- January. 24, at 7:00 p.m., a hearing will be Led in the City iil Chambers consider the following application: 2808 anti 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger Appeal - An appeal of the Planning Commis- sion's decision to deny Lot Merger No. 1_102011- 002, reversing the Zon- ing Administrator's ap- proval to allow the merger of the following property under common ownership: portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 located in Corona del Mar. Also included in the application was a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map - The project is categori- cally exempt under Sec- tion 15305, of the Cali- fornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Gmdelmes - Class 5 (Mi- nor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). All interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this application. 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 (de- scribed in this notice) j or in written corre- spondence delivered to the City. at, or prior to, California, VZbW or at the City. of Newport Beach website at www. rrewporlb,cx1",gav on the Friday prior to the hearing. ` For questions regarding details of =the project please contact Kay Sims, Assistant .Planner, at (949) 644:3237 or ksims@newportbcach- ca. PreJect File No.: PA2011- 141 Activity No.: LM2011- 002 Zone: R -1 (Single -Unit Residential) General Plan: RS -D (Single -Unit Residential Detached) Location: 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Applicant: Mr. John Guide Leilani Brown, City Clerk City of Newport Beach Published Newport Beach /Costa Mesa Daily Pilot January 14, 2012