Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 - Rex Brandt Trust - 2720 & 2730 Bayside DriveCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: March 27, 2001 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: 16 i= 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3210 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 Appeal Period: None SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PROJECT: Rex Brandt Trust (Eric Welton) 2720 & 2730 Bayside Drive DISCUSSION: Staff has met with the applicant regarding the design of the driveway extension covered by the proposed encroachment agreement in an effort to improve its design and preserve as much of the greenbelt as possible. The applicant was concerned with the recommendation that angled parking would be necessary for the easterly property due to the reduced driveway width, which would be contrary to the architecture approved by the Planning Commission. The architect prepared a drawing of the driveway extension recommended by the Public Works Department showing perpendicular parking. The garage openings are proposed to be widened to better facilitate access from a more narrow driveway. Due to this fact, staff believes that the perpendicular garage access is acceptable. Therefore, the applicant will be able to use the approved architectural drawings approved by the Planning Commission. A revised exhibit to the encroachment agreement is attached and replaces the exhibit in the first staff report. The narrowest point of the driveway will be 14 feet at the a proposed tree well for the mature eucalyptus tree to be preserved. The proposed design also elimintates the previously proposed 5 -6- foot retaining wall near the footpath. The plan will include a decorative keystone blocks no taller than 30 inches in height. This element will soften the grade difference between the footpath and the proposed driveway. The driveway will be no closer than 10 feet from the footpath. The proposed driveway disturbs the smallest amount of open space in Bayside Drive and preserves the existing mature eucalyptus tree while providing adequate access to the proposed project. Staff received a letter indicating that access to public records was not provided. Staff has made every effort to work with the interested indivduals and has made all public records available for inspection. Submitted By: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director Exhibits Prepared By: JAMES CAMPBELL Senior Planner 1. Revised Exhibit A to Encroachment Agreement No. 2000 -254. �r 100.00dM U w 2 U Q N w U O c0 N Q w N QJ C7 O N U n4—. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: March 27, 2001 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: 16 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell wrc.....�..�.. nc en„ nn m<co I (OAM AAA-11 If) REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PROJECT: Rex Brandt Trust (Eric Welton) 2720 & 2730 Bayside Drive SUMMARY: A request to establish a 4 -foot front yard setback on the Districting Map along Bayside Drive in conjunction with a project to demolish an existing duplex, adjust the existing lot configuration creating two lots facing Bayside Drive and the construction of two duplexes. Additionally, the project includes consideration of an encroachment agreement (N2001- 254) for the construct and maintenance of a private driveway within Bayside Drive to access the project. I; 1 ulUl_ ► 1 1, ACTION: Hold a Public Hearing; Project approval requires the following actions to be taken: 1. Adopt the findings and conditions of approval for Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000- 013, attached as Exhibit No. 8. 2. Introduce Ordinance No. 2001- approving Amendment No. 909 establishing a 4 -foot front yard setback for the subject lots. (Exhibit No. 9). 3. Approve an Encroachment Agreement for non - standard improvements as shown in Exhibit No. 6. a. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement. b. Authorize and direct the City Clerk to have the agreement recorded with the Orange County Recorder. 4. Authorize the issuance of an Encroachment Permit by the Public Works Department, subject approval of all improvements by the Fire, General Services and Public Works Departments. GENERAL PLAN/ ZONE: Two - Family Residential R -2 (Two - family Residential) OWNER: Rexford E. Brandt, successor to the Brandt Family Survivor's Trust Introduction The Planning Commission considered the proposed project at a noticed public hearing held on February 8, 2001 and February, 22, 2001. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the proposed project subject to conditions. The minutes reflecting the discussion and action of the Commission and Planning Commission staff reports are attached as Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4. Proiect Description The applicant seeks redevelop the property located at 2720 & 2730 Bayside Drive. The project site is located on the northerly side of Bayside Drive and Bayside Park directly west of the Goldenrod Avenue footbridge that spans Bayside Drive. The project will involve the demolition of an existing duplex and the adjustment of the underlying two legal lots (Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000 -13) resulting in two lots that face Bayside Drive. The applicant would then construct two new duplexes on the reconfigured lots in conformance with the R -2 district development standards. The applicant also requests approval of an Amendment of the Districting Map to establish a 4 -foot front yard setback for the reconfigured lots. The two reconfigured lots will have access provided from an existing driveway constructed within the Bayside Drive right of way. The applicant proposes to extend the driveway approximately 82 feet easterly from its present terminus toward the Goldenrod footbridge. Vicinity Map P Project Site J� �P A[Cess Stairs OQ O�� V Pam �/�\ FoWEriE e S�. \ N W E qL :51� Amendment No. 909 Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000 -13 AMENDMENT No. 909, LLA No. 2000 -13 & EPN 2000 -254 March 27, 2001 Page 2 Lot Line Adjustment 2000 -13 Lot Line Adjustments are subject to Chapter 19 (Subdivisions) and the procedural requirements of Chapter 20 (Zoning). The proposed lot line adjustment meets the criteria for an exemption to the subdivision standards of Chapter 19 pursuant to Section 19.08.050. Chapter 20.93 establishes the procedural requirements and findings for approval of lot line adjustments. The Planning Commission concluded that all procedural requirements have been met and made affirmative findings recommending approval of the proposed lot line adjustment. In recommending approval of the project, the Planning Commission felt strongly that the design of the project was a key element to making findings for approval. Therefore, the Commission specifically recommended that the design of the proposed duplexes be consistent with the attached architectural plans (Exhibit No. 5), and that alteration of the open space within Bayside Drive for the access driveway be minimal. Amendment No. 909 The applicant requests that the city amend the District Map to establish a 4 -foot front yard setback for the reconfigured lots. This setback is consistent with the setbacks of the three existing residences that use the driveway from Bayside Drive. Using the suggested 4 -foot setback, will not create larger buildings in terms of square feet than what a typical Corona Del Mar lot would allow. Without the establishment of the setback on the District Map, the minimum 20 -foot setback would apply which is used to derive the buildable area and resulting floor area limit of the future duplexes. Using a 20 -foot setback would result in a limited floor area, which could result in a variance request. A more complete analysis of the requested setback is provided in the February 8, 2001 Planning Commission staff report attached as Exhibit No. 4. Encroachment Agreement (EPN 2000 -254) The units are proposed to have garage access directly off of the extended driveway presently located within Bayside Drive. The greenbelt along the north side of Bayside Drive, including the area in front of the project site, is dedicated right -of -way for street and highway purposes. The area was not dedicated for park purposes, although the area was improved to its present condition in 1975 and is generally considered " Bayside Park." The applicant's proposal has garages that are perpendicular to Bayside Drive and would utilize a driveway extension that is twenty -two feet (22') wide and extends to within approximately twelve feet (12') of the easterly property line. This configuration would require the construction of a five to six foot high retaining wall that would be located within two feet of the existing footpath through the greenbelt. The wall would allow minimal opportunity for landscaping between it and the footpath and would eliminate the open area that exists along the northerly edge of the path. The applicant has prepared a landscape plan (attached) which he believes will soften the impact of the proposed driveway and retaining wall. The proposed driveway, retaining wall and landscaping require approval of an encroachment agreement pursuant to Council policy L -6. Council Policy L -6, "Private Encroachments in the Public Right -of- Way ", requires the prior approval of City Council for private structural improvements such as planters, stairs, etc. in public easements or rights -of -way. The draft AMENDMENT No. 909, LLA No. 2000 -13 & EPN 2000 -254 March 27, 2001 Page 3 encroachment agreement will allow construction of the driveway, landscaping and other appurtenances in the right -of -way as approved by the Public Works Department. Additionally, it will require that the property owner maintain the proposed encroachments. Proposed landscaping shall be approved by the General Services Department and maintained by the owner. The Encroachment Agreement will include a hold harmless clause indemnifying the City of Newport Beach against any liability of any manner connected with the proposed encroachments in the Bayside Drive right -of -away. Staff has worked with the applicant's proposed design with respect to minimizing the amount of greenbelt that is to be paved attempting to save a mature eucalyptus tree and preserve as much open space as possible. The goal of minimal encroachment or alteration of the greenbelt is also recommended by the Planning Commission. Staff is suggesting that the easterly unit be redesigned to allow angled access from a driveway narrower than what is proposed by the applicant. This would reduce the height or eliminate the need for a retaining wall and allow a more open feeling for those using the footpath and this concept is shown in Exhibit No. 6. The applicant has prepared a letter and alternative sketch in response to the reduced driveway concept (Exhibit No. 7). The sketch appears to be consistent with staffs recommendation and reduces the total paved area, preserves the existing mature tree and reduces or eliminates the need for a retaining wall. It also appears that adequate maneuvering area will exist to access the proposed perpendicular parking stalls. Staff will study the proposal and provide an oral report at the meeting. The Fire Department had originally requested the applicant to provide a twenty foot (20') clear access across the property. This would have required further encroachment into the landscape area or the removal of the mature eucalyptus tree. Further discussions have resulted in the Fire Marshall agreeing to the layout proposed by the Public Works Department subject to two additional conditions being imposed. The two conditions within the attached Encroachment Agreement (Exhibit No. 10) are that the buildings be sprinklered and there be no parking on the driveway which results in less than twenty feet (20') of clear width. Should the City Council determine that the access originally proposed by the applicant is preferred over the concept staff has proposed, staff recommends the following condition be substituted for the condition requiring fire sprinkler systems: 77ze applicant shall relocate the existing footpath from the base of the stairs westerly to provide a minimum of ten feet (10') clear between the path and the proposed retaining wall. The area between the wall and the path shall be landscaped in a manner to minimize the visual impact of the wall. Summary Staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed the project and alternatives to the project including different access schemes and a lot merger. These alternatives were dropped in favor of the proposed project, and staff recommends project approval in accordance with the conditions of approval and the provisions of the attached draft encroachment agreement based on the staff design shown in Exhibit No. 6. AMENDMENT No. 909, LLA No. 2000 -13 & EPN 2000-254 March 27, 2001 Page 4 The project has not been well received by the existing residents who would share the driveway access. They are concerned that the project will impact the peaceful, park -like atmosphere, increase traffic and create safety and liability issues. Although there would be disruption with project construction, it will be temporary and the project is not anticipated to create any significant safety issues. The project's registered geologist testified to the Planning Commission that the implementation of the project will not cause damage to the abutting properties. The proposed landscape plan along with the preservation of the mature eucalyptus tree will soften the driveway extension and help maintain the unique character of the area. DON WEBB PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Public Works Director Planning Director / �5 Exhibits 1. Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes dated February 22, 2001. 2. Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes dated February 8, 2001. 3. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 22, 2001. 4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 8, 2001. 5. Site plans (before and after), architectural plans and landscape plans. 6. Modified encroachment agreement driveway plan. 7. Letter from the applicant in response to the modified driveway plan. 8. Findings and conditions of approval for Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000 -013. 9. Draft ordinance approving Amendment No. 909 10. Draft Encroachment Agreement No. 2000 -254 11. Site photographs F: \Users\PIMSha d\ICrrYCNU2001 \0327 A909 pmport 3- 27 -0IDOC AMENDMENT No. 909, LLA No. 2000 -13 & EPN 2000 -254 March 27, 2001 Page 5 Exhibit No. 1 • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2001 really that is being something that is required. I understand that may be desirable from the management company's point of view, but my conclusion is that it is not necessary. Substitute motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to overturn the decision of the Modification Committee and deny the modification. Commissioner Agajanian noted his support of the substitute motion. He stated that driving by to check this signage out, his biggest problem was not so much the landscaping that got in the way of seeing the sign, it was the cars ahead of him. He simply could not see the sign until he was well past the exit area and even then, the landscaping blocked it. I am not sure this is a sign letter size issue, but I have no problem allowing the 24 -inch letters as I think the sign could be better proportioned. Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley Noes: Tucker Excused: Kiser Exhibit No. 2 Findings for Denial • The establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed sign will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood for the following reasons: a) The proposed sign is inconsistent with the legislative intent of the Newport Village Planned Community, which limits lettering to 24 inches in height. b) No evidence has been identified to indicate that a sign comprised of 24- inch high letters is less effective than the proposed 30 -inch letters. The lettering style can be changed to a thicker letter, which would achieve the applicant's objective of increasing the visibility of the sign. C) The proposed 30 -inch high letters do not show restraint and are excessive and aesthetically unappealing due to their size. SUBJECT: Rex Brandt Trust (Cont'd from 02/08/2001) 2720 & 2730 Bayside Drive • Amendment No. 909 • Lot Line Adjustment 2000 -13 Establish a 4 -foot front yard setback on the Districting Map along Bayside Drive in conjunction with a project to demolish an existing duplex, adjust the existing lot • configuration creating two lots facing Bayside Drive and the construction of two duplexes. INDEX Item 5 A 909 LLA 2000 -13 Recommended approval 3 for City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2001 Mr. Campbell noted that he had sent a late fax to all of the Commissioners with the revised drawings prepared by the architect showing the proposed buildings on the lot. Continuing, he reported that there was a meeting between the applicant and the residents. Transportation /Development Services Manager stated that one of the topics not directly connected with the application is that of access. There has been a tremendous amount of activity since the last meeting between the property owners and myself interacting with various departments over this issue. There are clearly some conflicting ideas on the amount of access and how it might be provided. Last summer, the Publics Works Director met with Mr. Welton at the site and walked the site and gave him what he felt was the amount of passive open space that could be infringed upon with access. The plans that have been submitted go considerably beyond that and may have been drawn up in an attempt to satisfy concerns of the Fire Department. Because the structure is more than 150 feet from a public street, typically that department would want a minimum of a 20 -foot access and a turn around. The Fire Department is suggesting that in lieu of a turn around the buildings could sprinklered. The 20- foot access could partially be provided for in the park and partially in private property if the setback were greater. Additionally, the General Services Department, who has maintained that open space area, had written to the Public Works Director two memos recommending that this approach to access be avoided and some other system identified, preferably accessing off Goldenrod from above. One of the outcomes of the meeting last week was an agreement between the property owners and adjacent neighbors that would call for a brand new driveway to be constructed to these two properties via across the open space from Bayside Drive. This would have significant impacts on the open space and would require building a driveway that would require a grading of nearly 150 -foot section that would rise to 5 feet. It would create a mound in the open space area that is currently flat and has a pedestrian pathway that is in constant use. The Public Works Department has not resolved the best approach to access and, therefor, the item that was going to be before the City Council next week has been pulled from the agenda to allow staff more time for review of the various options and have further discussions with the owner and architect. At Commissioner inquiry, Mr. Edmonston noted that there has been nothing approved by the Public Works Department. The Public Works Director confirmed that mature trees would be impacted and that the access should not extend beyond the relatively beyond the flat section that is front of the property now. We had seen site plan proposals on earlier submittals by the architect that appeared to more closely correspond to those criteria, although it was unusual and required the garages to be at an angle to the house so that they could be entered from a narrower driveway. It was only at the last meeting that I began to see these revised drawings that showed a much greater encroachment into the open space area. iO INDEX 0 4 • 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2001 Chairperson Selich noted that its basic to have the access issue worked out prior to the lot line adjustment considerations. Mr. Edmonston noted his concern with the conflicting requests from groups like the Fire Department. Their desire to have 20 feet is met on private property so in this case, that would interface with the request you have for the 4 -foot setback. 1 realize it puts you in a tough position and we've spent some time discussing with staff a better way to do this and what order these approvals ought to be processed. It is potential the Planning Commission could approve this and the City Council may or may not approve the access because that is their issue to resolve. They will probably have different opinions from different departments and we are trying to work to resolve them. Commissioner Tucker asked if the applicant proposed anything different than what was proposed several months ago on the access. Mr. Edmonston answered that different people in Public Works had different contacts with the applicant. I had seen other plans prior to the ones two weeks ago that you had that were different. I did not realize the full extent of the impact of those revised plans until subsequent to the meeting when I was able to talk with representatives from other departments. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Edmonston stated that the Public Works Director's issue is the extent to which the encroachment permit would take out some vegetation. He had met Mr. Welton on site, walked the area and out onto the Goldenrod footbridge and looked down on the site. The concept of that meeting was to discuss the feasibility of re- orienting the lots as it is now proposed. At that time, the Public Works Director indicated to Mr. Welton that the two criteria he had was not impact any more onto the park in terms of having to fill any additional park land area nor to remove any mature trees. So, there was an intermediate plan that saved one mature tree but that was then impinging on the twenty -foot area that the Fire Department was looking for. There was another plan that I first saw two weeks ago that showed that tree removed and that would be something to be addressed and the value of that tree and /or any replacement trees in the encroachment agreement. Commissioner Tucker clarified that the applicant came forth with a proposal that was consistent with what the Public Works Director had requested and then when the plan got to the Fire Department they did not agree with what the Public Works Director had suggested. Mr. Edmonston answered that there may have been more steps than that because the copy of a plan shows an island around the tree to protect it and did show the full extent of encroachment that is on the plan you saw the last time. Somewhere along the line between the original plan we saw with a narrower driveway, that access area has grown. It may have grown to address the • applicant's issues and some of the changes may have been to address some of the issues of the Fire Department. 11 INDEX I City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2001 Commissioner Tucker noted that we do not know whether the applicant was told to make the area larger in order to get access into the garages or carports. Mr. Edmonston answered that when subsequent plans were submitted, staff was not informed that the submitted plan was contrary to what the Public Works Director had indicated to the applicant very early on in the project. It may have gone to other staff people who were not aware there was an issue. Commissioner Agajanian asked if the possibility of reconfiguring those three parcels was an option looked at? Staff answered that it was an issue that was discussed, but it wasn't something that the applicant is proposing. Ms. Temple noted that there is another area along Bayside Drive where three lots fronting towards Bayside with access from the hillside above was implemented a very long time ago with a lot of cross easements, etc. That type of solution has been done and could be investigated by the applicant and his architect. The only implication that I would observe is that solution will tend to force more of the structure down on the slope and towards Bayside Drive because the upper area would be reserved for some type of a motor court yard. Chairperson Selich noted that he had received a fax from the architect who stated that they had studied those alternatives. He then asked about the Encroachment Agreement and this item. Mr. Edmonston noted that the applicant had requested with two encroachment agreements, one for the extension of the alley that would serve the uphill lot of the adjacent project, and this encroachment off the parkway area along Bayside. Public Works is processing those two agreements with draft reports and a Council Memo prepared for this upcoming Council meeting. Friday of last week it came to my attention that there were these issues from other departments. Public comment was opened. Chairperson Selich stated to the applicant that this meeting had been continued so that he could meet with the neighbors, would you report on that and comment on the access issue. Mr. Eric Welton, applicant stated that a good portion of the meeting did involve access alternatives. Among those mentioned previously, turning three of the lots sideways and extending Goldenrod was one we looked at early on. However, as you are aware there is a stairway adjacent to the footbridge. That would be removed and would be a major disruption due to the hillside. My recollection of the meeting with Don Webb when we walked the property, his admonition was centered on not moving the footpath that is at the toe of the slope adjacent to 12 INDEX 0 0 is City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2001 the parkland. I thought it was clear during that discussion that there would be an extension of the driveway to whatever minimum extent would be required to facilitate access into the garages down below. Creating three lots would cause more traffic. This is a public access way and there is no exclusive control over it. There are seven dwelling units to be served by this road and at the conclusion of this project there will be nine. We are talking about a net increase of two units. I met with the neighbors but there was no mutual agreement. They asked about screening the retention wall at the end of the upper alley extension and I am willing to talk to Mr. Webb. As to the access, the angled parking referred to by Mr. Edmonston didn't work for a variety of reasons. In order to minimize the grading of the site, we only took as much in back or in front of the project as was necessary to meet the back up and Fire Department requirements. The enlargements from some original versions were to accommodate those requirements. Chairperson Selich noted that it was stated that if the project was moved back, you would not need the four foot encroachment and the encroachment would be less into the Bayside Drive right of way. What constraints are you faced with there? Andrew Goetz, architect for the project answered if the recommendation was to have a greater setback versus the three -foot side yard setback, which simply would mean we would have to dig deeper into the hill. If we would have taken the three lots and had tandem, which is typical in Corona del Mar, we would have gone 40 feet into the hill resulting in 22 -25 foot high retaining walls. Mr. Welton stated that access is a major concern. Retaining walls of those proportions would also create aesthetic issues as well. I understand your dilemma with the access question remaining open, I would suggest that if you were to act on this tonight with an approval, it would then fall in the lap of City Council. We would have to demonstrate to them that we have satisfied the access issues, but I am not sure how they relate to the lot re- configuration. Chairperson Selich asked how can we address a lot line adjustment when the access is not resolved. That is a basic component to a lot line adjustment as there is. Chris Taylor noted a letter that he faxed to the Planning Commission and noted: • Going from 7 to 9 units is a 29% increase for that access way. • Direct access off Bayside is not ideal but is acceptable by people who are most impacted. • Lowering the pad grade so that it is closer to the park would have less an impact. • It is either park and no more of it should be given away to exclusive use, which would be an indicator to do a lot merger, or that it is parkway and direct access. Pick one or the other. • Remain opposed to this application as it is. 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes 22, 2001 Chris Cushman, 2700 Bayside Drive noted: • Direct access from Bayside Drive was agreed upon by the neighbors and the applicant and should be one of the alternatives to be more strongly considered. • Footbridge on Goldenrod has many chips in the stairs and is uneven; the retaining wood and poles are not safe and it is the stairway that was asked to be fixed. • Security and safety are being loss by the current residents. • I will lose 15% of the adjacent park view if this proposed driveway is extending. Construction pad will degregate my pad with the heavy construction equipment traversing across the way. • The Fernleof project construction across the street directly impacted my income as I work out of my house. 1 am losing value. Susan Caro, 2710 Bayside Drive thanked the Planning Commission to meet with the applicant to learn more about the project. At the meeting held by the applicant she noted that this project is eight condominiums to be built at the some time. She then presented her notes after making several comments similar to previous testimony. Lisa Cushman, 2700 Bayside Drive noted similar opposition as previously stated. Public comment was closed. Commissioner McDaniel asked what are we actually voting on tonight, are there issues that need to be dealt with prior to a vote? I met with the applicant and I have received faxes from some of the others. I understand what the project is, but I am not sure what the vote is going to be on. Chairperson Selich stated that the issue is that the property has legal access because it fronts on the right of way of Bayside Drive. The difficulty is that it takes an encroachment agreement to get all of the driveway and circulation aspects taken care of. What the applicant is desirous of is that we take our action on this and move the item on to Council and let the Council work out the final details with the Public Works Department. I have mixed feelings on that myself because I certainly would not be in favor of a new and separate access point off Bayside Drive; it should take access from the existing drive. It is much better to have a continuation of that access point than to create a separate access off Bayside Drive. It sounds like the Public Works department is in concurrence with that position. It is a matter of where else this whole access issue may go in front of the Council and whether working out the final details of that access is something that we should do at this level or allow it to go on to the Council for them to work out. The thing that is disturbing to me about this application is that I know that it has been going on for a long time. Mr. Welton has been following the procedures and provisions of the Zoning Code and filed the proper applications. This application has been in the works since October 11, 2000. 1 have a favorable 14 INDEX • 0 . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2001 position on the lot line adjustment. I am in favor of a condition that the exhibits submitted to us tonight be attached as part of the application approval and would be in favor of an approval on that basis. I don't like the idea of sending this on with the access issue not quite tied up, but in deference to the time the applicant has spent processing this application. I would be in favor of moving this on to Council and letting Council make the final resolution on the access issue. Commissioner Tucker agreed with the previous comments adding that a lot merger is not a fair resolution. Commissioner Agajonion noted his agreement with previous statements adding his concern of direct access off Bayside Drive. He commented that three lots of 90 by 40 solution would be the best possible approach from a planning perspective and for the benefit of the City. That would allow access off the alley and off Goldenrod for all three lots. I agree that we should move this forward to Council, but I prefer a merger over this current proposal. Commissioner Kranzley noted that the best idea is to initiate merger proceedings. I am concerned with the lack of direction to the issue of access. The Planning Commission first saw this two weeks ago and we have questions again that have been brought up tonight and need to be answered before we vote on this item. • Chairperson Selich stated that other than what the extent of the encroachment is going to be in Bayside Drive he is satisfied with the project if we attach some additional conditions to it. If we approve this with the recommendation to Council that the encroachment into Bayside Drive be minimized as much as possible taking into consideration the concerns of the Public Works and Fire Departments, I don't see what we gain by continuing this item. It would be unfair to the applicant to continue it. In the end Public Works and Fire Department criteria will probably overrule any of our aesthetic concerns. Chairperson Selich noted that the Assistant City Attorney has advised us that we can condition this project so far as it conforms to building and zoning regulations and to the degree that the Commissioners feel that adding the plans to the conditions satisfy those regulations then it can be so conditioned. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to deny this project and recommend that City Council direct staff to initiate merger proceedings. Substitute Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to approve Amendment 909 and Lot Line Adjustment 2000 -13 with the findings and conditions as recommended by staff with the inclusion of the site plan and elevations submitted this evening and titled LI, PW -1, A -2, A -2a, and A -3 be adhered to as a condition of approval. The recommendation to the City Council will also incorporate a recommendation that in approving the encroachment agreement that any encroachment into the landscaped parkway area on • Bayside Drive be minimal. INDEX 15 n, City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2001 Ms. Temple asked to be added to the motion that since we have not done a full zoning plan review of these new plans, that also to the extent that they are in compliance with Title 20. Chairperson Selich agreed to add that to the substitute motion. Ayes: McDaniel, Selich, Gifford, Tucker Noes: Agajanion, Kranzley Excused: Kiser Findings and Conditions of Approval Amendment No. 909 & Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000 -013 Findings: 1. The site is designated for two- family residential uses by both the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. This designation permit the construction of a single family or a duplex on each legal lot. The project will result in the construction of two duplexes on the project site in conformance with density requirements. 2. The project site is comprised of two legal lots within the Corona Del Mar Tract. In 1981, the boundary between the two lots was adjusted through the recordation of N.B.L.L.A. No. 81 -1. The resulting lots are legal lots and are presently built upon, and therefore buildable. 3. The land taken from each lot will be added to the adjacent parcel and no additional parcels will result from the lot line adjustment. 4. The parcels proposed to be created by the lot line adjustment comply with all applicable zoning regulations, and that there will be no change in the land use, density, or intensity on the property. The lots are exempt from the minimum area requirements of Title 20 pursuant to Section 19.08.050 of the Municipal Code as a nonconforming lot may be adjusted provided that the lots are no smaller than the original lots of a final map that created the nonconforming lots. The two original lots of the CDM Tract are both 30 feet wide by 118 feet deep which is 3,540 square feet. Each of the two proposed lots will be 59 feet wide by 60 feet deep and 3,540 square feet. Several conditions of approval have been required which will ensure minimum vehicular access require pursuant to the Zoning Code is be provided 5. The lot line adjustment results in the need for additional improvements for vehicular access. Conditions of approval have been included that will ensure that the driveway is provided in accordance with applicable standards. INDEX • 16 1D • . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2001 This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303 (Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the California Environmental Quality Act Implementing Guidelines. This exemption permits the construction of up to three single - family dwellings or up to 10,000 square feet of commercial structures. The project consists of two residential units. Amendment No. 909 establishes a 4 -foot front yard setback for the reconfigured lots associated with Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000 -013. The suggested setback is very similar to the setbacks of 2700, 2706 & 2710 Bayside Drive which use the some access driveway. The suggested setback will not create a larger building than what a typical CDM lot would allow. Using the 20 -foot default setback standard would limit the development of the subject lots unreasonably and create units are not typical of the area. These facts suggest that the 4 -foot front yard setback reasonable. Conditions: 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved Lot Line Adjustment and site plan dated February 8, 2001. . 2. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department standards. 3. The Lot Line Adjustment shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. 4. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the driveway access. 5. Each dwelling unit shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems. 6. The final design of the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the Planning Department and Traffic Engineer. 7. The proposed driveway shall be designed so that existing trees shall not be disturbed except as required by the Fire Department and that the slope adjacent to the City Park is not disturbed. 8. The developer shall execute an encroachment agreement with the City of Newport Beach to guarantee maintenance of the proposed driveway extension in the city park. The agreement will require the owner to maintain • the nonstandard improvements and protect the City from liability for injuries 17 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes • February 22, 2001 INDEX caused because of the existence of the proposed improvements. The encroachment agreement shall be reviewed in accordance with all applicable procedures and requirements and shall be recorded prior to the recordation of Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000 -013. 9. A drainage and utility plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the drainage and utility plan or as deemed necessary by the Public Works Department shall be the responsibility of the developer. 10. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and or movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the City park except where the driveway extension proposed. 1 1 . The site plan and elevations submitted this evening and titled L1, PW -1, A -2, A- 2a and A -3 are adhered to as a condition of approval to the extent that they are in compliance with Title 20. The recommendation will also incorporate that in approving the encroachment agreement that any encroachment into • the landscaped parkway area on Bayside Drive be minimized to the maximum extent. SUBJECT: Proposed Development Plan Review Procedures Item 6 Initiation of an amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to Continued to establish procedures'--.for development plan review. Information on 03/22/2001 development review procedures in other California cities. Following a five- minute break the Planning Commission meeting was resumed. Senior Planner Patrick Alford gave a brief summary of the staff report. He stated that there was additional information provided tonight based on Commissioner Kranzley's request to see similar development review procedures in other coastal cities in California. Chairperson Selich suggested that the discussion be of the concerns with the major concepts and then actually get into the wording of the"p[oposed ordinance as appropriate and necessary. 4 • 18 • Exhibit No. 2 • • rai City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 -.. otherwise approved by the Building Department. INDEX 29. All' mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets within the limits authorized by this permit, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport'.Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 30. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is physically infeasible. 31. The residential units shall be constructed with heightened sound attenuation techniques beyond normal construction standards and said techniques shall be subject to the review and approval by the Building and Planning Department. The residential units shall be provided air conditioning units. 32. The applicant or property owner shall include a` disclosure statement within any commercial or residential lease that identifies abutting land uses and the potential negative issues associated with them. The'disclosure statement shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director before use. 32. The applicant shall donate 2 additional sheet trees in addition to the minimum number required pursuant to the Municipal Code. Said trees shall be•planted in the general area in accordance with General Services requirements. SUBJECT: Rex Brandt Trust (Eric Welton) Item 4 2720 & 2730 Bayside Drive A 909 • Amendment No. 909 LLA 2000 -13 • Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000 -13 A request to establish a 4 -foot front yard setback on the Districting Map along Continued to Bayside Drive in conjunction with a project to demolish an existing duplex, adjust 02/22/2001 the existing lot configuration creating two lots facing Bayside Drive and the construction of two duplexes. Commissioner Kiser stepped down from the dais because of a possible conflict of interest as he represents an owner of property near the subject property. Mr. Campbell then made a slide presentation of the site, noting: • Block faces Bayside Drive where it has been developed as a park. • Site is accessed from a public driveway from Bayside Drive to serve four properties. • Guest parking areas for four properties. Landscaping in general area. • Landscaping to be removed. • 19 I� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 • Goldenrod footbridge. • Buildings to be removed. • Placement of a future retaining wall necessary to support the driveway. • Hill slope up above with existing alley. Views from Goldenrod. Commissioner Tucker asked if the alley between Fernleaf and Goldenrod goes all the way down to the public driveway, is that all public? He was answered that the alley extends all the way to Bayside Drive where the small guest parking area is and that whole area is public. The entire Bayside park as well as that driveway is in the public right of way. Chairperson Selich clarified that although the right of way is landscaped and is called Bayside park, it is not dedicated parkland, it is actually street right of way. It is a wide parkway area that is being used for landscape and park purposes but is not dedicated for that purpose. Assistant City Attorney Robin Clauson answered that is correct. Commissioner Agajanian asked about the accessibility of the parcel from the point of the public driveway to the units and how it was done. Are there no other access points to this property or are they just given easements? Mr. Campbell answered that there is no agreement or easement over this area, it is public right of way. Transportation /Development Services Manager Rich Edmonston added that this proposal would extend essentially the three lots there shown on the map, which were created in similar fashion many decades ago. This is similar to other areas along Bayside Drive that have driveways parallel that go back in to service typically one or two property units. The parking area may have been constructed in the late 50's before the time when the City had the level of regulations and an active Encroachment Permit Agreement process like we have today. It is street right of way and not unlike the typical single family residences where you have a driveway and probably the first ten feet of it back from the curb is in the public right of way. It is a different configuration but a similar concept. The City does not maintain those areas; they are treated like the portion of the individual property owners driveway in a similar situation or in a more conventional neighborhood where that first ten feet is in the right of way and theirs to maintain. Commissioner Agajanian, referring to page 4 of the staff report, noted that declaring the lot non - buildable and prohibiting its development may constitute a taking requiring just compensation. He asked how this affects our decision tonight. Ms. Clauson answered that if it is a lot created pursuant to the Subdivision Map 20 INDEX I& City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 INDEX Act at a time when it existed and the City takes a regulatory action and prevents it from being built then the property owner may have an argument that it was a taking. I don't know if I conclude that it was, but the property owner would have a good argument to that effect. If the lot line adjustment was not approved, I don't know what the result would be on the buildability of the second lot. The upper lot does not have full development; it only has an encroachment from the adjoining lot to it. The second lot does not have any individual separate structure on it that has access from any viewpoint. The question that would rise in my mind as to the second lot would be the accessibility to it. It would be a legal lot with no access to it, but there is access to it on paper through the subdivision map from Goldenrod. Commissioner Kranzley clarified that if we don't do the lot line adjustment, it could be deemed a taking. If we do a merger, would it be a taking? Ms. Clauson answered that if the Commission does not approve the lot line adjustment, then the property owner would have to try to figure out how to access that second lot. If there wasn't a way to access that second lot, then they may be able to have an argument that there is a taking there, because there is no access from any of the streets. I am not concluding that there would be a taking, but there is a subdivision that provides that Goldenrod comes down and Bayview goes across; they are both streets. It is designed to have an improved street in front of it and to have access. There have been circumstances in other cities that property owners have made the allegation that property owners have abutters rights to have access to a street. If they were to make an argument that the action the City is taking has prevented them from having access to the street, they may have an argument. Chairperson Selich noted that there are many lots in Corona del Mar that only have pedestrian access to the streets, most of the vehicular access is off an alley. Ms. Clauson stated that the alley access qualifies as public access. Discussion continued on the design of the project map and the issue of access to the property. Chairperson Selich noted he had asked the Assistant City Attorney for an opinion as to whether the Planning Commission could put a condition on this application and through the Encroachment Permit stating that the Planning Commission would have architectural and site plan review of the two lots that would be created under the lot line adjustment as well as the lot at 405 Goldenrod. She informed me that in her opinion this could not be done. He asked her to explain. Ms. Clauson answered that the lot line adjustment has restrictions under the Subdivision Map Act. The Map Act specifically exempts lot line adjustments and has a provision that says the local advisory agencies shall not impose conditions or exactions on the lot line adjustment approval except to conform to local zoning and building ordinances. Based upon that and case law that has 21 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 interpreted this section, I don't believe that since the City does not already have local zoning and building ordinances that require site plan review for this project that we would be able to impose it as a condition of the lot line adjustment. The other issue that I looked at was the amendment to the Districting Map for the setbacks for a site plan review. The problem is that is a legislative act and you can't condition a legislative act on the approval because if they don't comply with it you can't take back the legislative act. Public comment was opened. Eric Welton, 2855 East Coast Highway applicant noted that he is open to any questions. He noted he has a geologist to explain issues as needed. Andrew Goetz, architect for the project noted: • Looked at alternative accesses for the second parcel, could have applied to extend the alleyway in back of Goldenrod with a very large excavation and make a right hand turn into the second lot. This did not seem to be an aesthetically good choice, or a practical choice. • The planned project will eventually become condominiums and perhaps there may be some contingencies that could be tied into the subdivision of the condos and hence enforcing specific plan relative to that issue. • Have a set of plans for this project. Lisa Salisbury Cushman, 2700 Bayside Drive spoke in opposition to this project noting the following while distributing some photos: • Geotechnical soils stability issues. Bedrock that we are built on is the some as Fernleaf Avenue. • Inspector at my home less than 60 days ago reported major slippage and subsidence from the bedrock on which her home is built. Drilling caissons into the bedrock will compromise it. • Impact of what is being done in the neighborhood has not been addressed by the project manager or the City. • Architectural integrity - Rex Brandt designed and built these homes. Perhaps there is some architectural integrity that they can not be demolished. • Removal of ten mature trees - would this lead to soils and stability issues that could contaminate the problem? • Current bedrock issues with the removal of mature tree roots might cause lateral damage to my property. • Demonstrate the accuracy of the staff report. There are two areas in which this lot line adjustment does not meet procedural requirements in Chapter 19. 1 can show you that to enforce the lot line adjustment as a City we have to look at Chapter 20; there are two areas that have not been met. • This will invite litigation and problems when the Code is not complied with to the letter. At Commissioner inquiry she noted that her lot is the first lot that fronts Bayside INDEX 22 I / E L J . City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 Drive next to Fernleaf Avenue. Commissioner Tucker asked if she had an existing slippage problem. She answered yes. Continuing he noted that problem continues whether this project goes forward or not. The property designed by Rex Brandt is not recognized on our historical register and we, as a body can not decide to become a Historical Society. Susan Carol, 2710 Bayside Drive owner for the past fifteen years spoke in opposition to this application. She distributed photos and noted: • Tranquil setting overlooking Bayside park. • Soils issues prior to her purchasing her home have required her to maintain the various slopes by planting trees, specific vegetation choices using moisture control and other geotechnical means for stabilization. • The proposed project does not address these soil issues. The proposed project also does not address parking, maintenance, landscape, trees and the offer of insurance to be provided to each of the homeowners on the street. • Plans have been withheld to the last moment because the applicant does not want to make any commitments. • No master plan has been made available. . Now, there are plans to put a driveway and parapet over my bedroom window. • I ask that you continue this matter so that we can all see the complete picture as to impacts on safety, soil erosion, slope stability, removal of trees, parking and access. Chris Taylor, land use and community development consultant with Harris Taylor Management at 315 West 3rd St., Santa Ana spoke representing Bill and Harriet Harris who own 2706 Bayside Drive. He stated that there is an inability to get the complete picture on this application. He then distributed a copy of a letter regarding access to the information on file. There is an argument that the lot line adjustment could be ministerial and understanding that the zoning code amendment for the district map could have some precedent for establishing set backs there. We do not have an adverse reason to keep some quality development in that area but we do have a major encroachment agreement here that does need significant public review. The historic kind of resistance we have seen to provide the information or documentation is taken as adversarial and I am not sure that is necessary if given more time. There are some conflicts within the staff report that need to be pointed out; we have 11 guest spaces currently but we have an increase of bedroom count pursuant to this application that is over 50% for this area of guest parking. This particular condition is unique to the area of Bayside Drive. Most of these access points only service two units, in this case we serve more than two and talking about greatly expanding it down a very narrow access way. In the staff report, this is identified as occurring at the base of a steep slope and has previously been lot line adjusted for topography . and building and that you need to make a determination that this lot line adjustment can be made without the need for public involvement. I don't think 23 INDEX Ia City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 you can make that finding. You have the resulting legal lots presently built upon and you have some illegal lots with houses crossing lot lines in the current condition. You have identified that there is not access and a steep slope condition that could create the value of that slope condition to be very slight. Commissioner Tucker asked Mr. Taylor: • Parking spaces referred to are in the public right of way? - Answered, correct. • Those spaces are for lot owners in that particular area? - Answered, correct. • Wouldn't the owner of the lot (Rex Brandt Trust) have the some claim to the parking spaces as the other owners? Is the complaint that some of the other owners will have less public parking spaces? - Answered, we will have about 64% of today's parking ratio when this unit count is built out. • Building across lot lines, wouldn't this resubdivision and demolition solve that problem? - Answered, you need to make findings that existing lots comply and are legally built and the future ones are too. There is nothing built on one lot unless you consider an illegal structure crossing the lot line on it. You can't make the finding that is necessary that the project as described in the proposal consists of legal building sites. They are built in an illegal configuration currently. That makes this staff report in error, and you are basing your decision making on that. Continuing, Commissioner Tucker noted that the plan that we have looks like there can be some parallel spaces put in that parking area, but I don't know what the count will end up being. The staff report indicates that they don't need any permits for the 405 Goldenrod address. A developer will come in and do it all at the some time. When you tear down the existing structure it is no longer built illegally, it is gone. Chris Cushman, 2700 Bayside noted his opposition to this application. He stated that he purchased his home with the parklands as a key component of that purchase. This application before you tonight, roughly 2,000 square feet of what I consider park land to be replaced or destroyed is more than 10% of the immediate view in front of my house. I consider that a significant impact. The request that we are asking for this evening is for continued discussions on alternatives. A relocation of the driveway access to the top of Goldenrod near the walkway, I think you might find less destruction for the overall neighborhood. The visibility might be impacted by fewer than by those who drive up and down Bayside park and those who enjoy that parkland. Those are considerations that we have not heard from the developer or his architect and I think we should consider alternatives at this point. At Commissioner inquiry, Mr. Cushman noted that he heard and understood that this is dedicated street right of way and not dedicated parkland. Eric Welton noted the following in rebuttal: 24 • INDEX ,0 t • • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 • Letter of support contradicts the assertion that there has been no effort on my part to communicate. • Trees to be removed - the Fire Department has requested that one be removed to facilitate their vehicular access. • Landscape plan would be one of the conditions that are to be approved. If the neighbors would like to give input on it, I would be happy to consider any suggestions they might have. • Extending Goldenrod as an alternative method of access I don't think would be feasible. We did examine extending the current alleyway from down below to the interior lot, however, in my first meeting with Ms. Carol she indicated her desire to retain the encroachments that abut her property that she uses for entry stairs as well as landscaping to enhance her property. To accommodate her, we tried to work around other alternatives. If we were to go in and extend that alley it would be an unsightly tall retaining wall up to 27 feet. • Parking issues - on my count we are removing two legal guest spots and replacing with three with a net gain of one. • If you examine all of the off street parking available to any of the flower streets, we come up with the some number of guest parking spots under the proposed arrangement as would be available for developing a 30 foot lot on a normal street elsewhere in Corona del Mar. • I feel that there has been adequate communication. All my documents have been available for public review during the last few months in the course of their development. At Commissioner inquiry, Mr. Welton answered that he is not in accord with a continuance on this matter as proposed by the opposing speakers. Their assertion that they have not had access to the exhibits posted on the wall or the soils report that was prepared and ready January 22nd is not correct. Chairperson Selich noted that we have no way of knowing what type of communication has taken place before an item actually gets to us. In many instances we have a continuance to give the project proponent and the neighbors a chance to meet and discuss the project. How would you be or would you be harmed if there were a continuance? Mr. Welton answered that he would be substantially harmed by virtue of some forfeitable deposit money and a very substantial sum that has already been released to the seller who has given me an extension of time that would elapse prior to any subsequent meeting from tonight. There is a great amount of money that would be at risk. Commissioner Gifford noted that even if we were to vote in favor of this project tonight, there would still be an appeal to the City Council possible. How does that fit with your timeline of expiration of your extension? • Mr. Welton answered that had been taken into account and in fact is another forum in which the opponents can voice their objections. Between now and 25 INDEX p City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes • February 8, 2001 INDEX then I would hope to be able to satisfy their concerns. I don't take kindly to the notion of having them participate in the refining of design elements. Commissioner Gifford clarified that when you say this is a crucial deadline for you, you're actually saying based on the time for appeal or when it could come before the City Council that is really the expiration of your deadline. Is this correct? She was answered, yes. Ms. Wood clarified that this application would automatically be forwarded to City Council because of the amendment to the Districting Map. Commissioner Tucker asked if the applicant went forward with the existing lot configuration and came up with an alternative alley access route into the property, that wouldn't require him to come to us for a District Map change or a lot line adjustment would it? Yet most of the concerns that the people who oppose the project have voiced would still befall them anyway, would they not? Mr. Campbell answered that if alternative access was provided and there was no need for the amendment or the lot line adjustment, the project would not be here. At Commissioner inquiry, he agreed that the project would still happen and all the things that the people have complained about would still occur. Presently there is a 15 -foot setback off Goldenrod that would apply. If the applicant designed a project that complied with all the zoning requirements, he . would not be here. Mr. Welton added that he could design a project that would only necessitate the removal of Ms. Carol's alley encroachments and scoop out those stairs and plantings that form her front yard. I am not sure it would be economically feasible, but it is an alternative. We were trying to be accommodating and skipping that as an alternative. At Commission inquiry, he had his architect note on the Exhibit where the added parking spaces would be. Commissioner Tucker asked about the soils stability issues raised. The staff report indicates a soils report had been prepared and then reviewed by staff. It states that the site is not prone to liquefaction and site grading can be performed with current conventional techniques. Does that mean the soils problem on the adjoining properties really pertain to problems with the original grading of those properties? It seems to indicate that this property can be properly graded using regular techniques. Mr. Campbell answered that the report is for the project site and does not make any inferences of any soil conditions on adjacent properties. Mr. Welton added that his geologist is here tonight and can answer any questions. The adjacent properties were built without a retaining wall in between them and therein lies the source of the slippage. Chairperson Selich noted that the geology is an engineering problem and we 26 22 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 have qualified geologists; this does not get into discretionary aspects. Commissioner McDaniel noted his concern about cutting away the area; I would like to know what would happen. Chairperson Selich asked the geologist to come forward to give a dissertation on the effect grading of the proposed project would have on the adjacent properties to the west. Todd Alsio, Stata Tech, geologist stated the following: • Performed an investigation on the subject property two months ago. • Site can be developed using standard construction techniques. • If the alley extension is done, they may have to drill some caissons to get into the bedrock. • The geologic conditions sometimes change from one site to the next. • The problems that the other properties are experiencing are probably from some poor grading or construction techniques that were done when they were constructed. • Work on this project will be carefully observed and documented. • The trees to be removed are down on the flat portion of the site where the parking lot is going to be extended. • Anything that is going to be done will not affect any of these properties. Mr. Edmonston commented that in the last fifteen years, when various projects have created access areas through the Bayside right of way open space, they have not included any parking in those areas. We have tried to maximize those areas and maintain them as open space. This site is still a little different as those other properties front an approved and improved public street where there was parking. In this case, there is not an adjacent approved public street so it would be up to the ,Commission to weigh in on that topic, if you choose. At Commissioner inquiry he answered that the parkway between the curb edge of Bayside Drive and the front of this property is public property. Referencing page 2 of the staff report, on the vicinity map he pointed out the area that lies within the Bayside Drive right of way that is developed as an open space with turf, trees and asphalt pathway. The whole area is dedicated for street and highway purposes and the City has not to date had a need to actually improve its full width. In order to add open space and improve the area for the community, it has been developed over the years as what would appear to be more of a linear park. However, it all lies within the public street public right of way and is an extension of a public street. Commissioner Agalanian clarified that the way the lots are currently configured, the access off Bayside provides direct access to the lower parcel. If we approve the re- alignment of those parcels, then the parcel to the right would not have access to Bayside. We are extending that parking area to provide access to that newly created lot, is that correct? • Mr. Edmonston answered yes; we would consider it a driveway that is being 27 INDEX 2� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 INDEX extended through that newly created parcel. Ms. Clauson added that the street right of way is there, so we are requiring the property owner to provide that access. The street right of way is there; it is just not improved. The condition of the lot line is to have the property owner provide it. We would need to allow for a provision of access to the street. Public comment was closed Commissioner Tucker noted that we have two lots that exist today that are in a configuration that don't really fit. The applicant's proposal is two lots that do fit. I have heard all issues of the opponents, but when all is said and done, it is not going to change the character of the project; it's two lots that are going to be re- oriented in different directions. The parking issues seem to be taken care of and quite frankly I would like to see more 59 by 60 -foot lots instead of 30 by 118 lots. It will end up with different architecture or different architectural character than a long skinny lot. The proposal seems to make sense. I don't know what really is the situation with the neighbors' geology, but it is clear from the testimony from the geologist that this particular project is not going to create a problem. I think it is also nice that Mrs. Carol's encroachment into a public alley way can continue to be there as it is a nice softening effect in that area. All things considered, I think this is a sensible project and proposal and I am going to support it. Commissioner Kran7ley noted that when we have had issues where the neighbors are in such conflict as we have tonight, we have provided at least a period of time where we have asked them to get together for some resolution. I am not convinced that a continuance for a couple of weeks wouldn't be a good idea. Let the neighbors get together and figure out if there is some meeting ground. If there is none, than it can be brought back for a resolution. Commissioner Gifford asked if the lots remained the way they are now, does the City have an obligation to extend the alley to provide access to the interior lot? Ms. Clauson answered she did not know what the City would have to do. I know the property owner would look at how he was going to access the interior lot. We would have to look at his proposals and somehow some sort of accommodation would have to be made so that he could get access to it. I don't know if it would be to extend Goldenrod as suggested on the interior next to Ms. Carol's property or maybe from the top, extending a portion. I don't know if it is possible or not. We can't have a legal parcel with no access. Chairperson Selich asked if the City's ultimate protection in that situation is if the applicant or property owner insists on that access, the City could merge that lot with 405 Goldenrod, which has access. Ms. Clauson answered that the City can go through the merger process as long as the property is owned by the some owner(s), which it is. 28 r� u City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 Commissioner Gifford noted her agreement of the idea that these two lots facing Bayside become more interesting lots. Also, this particular configuration provides an easy solution to the issue of access to the property. I appreciate it involves the removal of some trees that are there simply because there has been no development up to this point. They are not there by right. Because we can't control this through a site plan review nor the architecture, any agreement that is arrived at between the developer and the neighbors based on further discussion is something that we will not be able to guarantee the implementation of. I am inclined to approve this project based on it being the best solution among ones that are not very pleasing to the people who live there but ones that involve recognition that we have two legal parcels there, and we are going to wind up with two legal parcels there if we were to approve this. Commissioner Agajanian clarified that our choice tonight is approval, continuance or a denial based on the fact that the proposed lot line adjustment does not conform to the City's zoning or building ordinances. Ms. Clauson answered I don't know if anything has been established in the staff report but you could direct looking further into making sure the project conforms if you have some doubt as to whether the staff report addresses all the City zoning and building regulations. . Commissioner McDaniel supported a continuance as he Is having difficulty really understanding what the project is going to be when it is done. I was hoping for a better understanding, but I am having a difficulty recommending something that I don't understand. I think the applicant would be better off spending time to provide that. Chairperson Selich stated that 59 by 60 -foot loots are terribly awkward size lots and invariably end up with variances and deviations from standards. I agree with the premise that it is better to get more interest on Bayside Drive. My inclination is to support the project if we could have architectural and site plan review not only on these two lots but on the lot next door to make sure they fit together properly. This is a beautiful area of Corona del Mar. I know from looking at the drawings presented, there has been sensitivity taken in the project design. My major concern is, without being able to tie the architecture and site plan to it, we are just giving an open checkbook to whomever owns the property to do whatever they want. There is no guarantee that will happen, an offer could come in tomorrow to sell the property for an increased price and they could decide to take it. We could then be faced with two property owners on two 59 by 60 -foot lots coming in most likely asking for a variance of some type. I am not saying the applicant would do that, but looking at it legally that is where we would be if we approved it without any controls on it. There are other alternatives; all four lots are owned by the some property owner who has the option to do a lot line adjustment on three of the lots instead of two and create three rectangular lots similar to the ones that exist between the alley and Fernleof now. I understand there are some topographic restraints on Goldenrod that make that a more difficult site to build upon but it is feasible. It is also feasible to 29 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2001 INDEX cut the alley into the slope and provide access as it is presently configured. This really is not our only alternative. The solution that the applicant has come up with is the best solution but without being able to tie the architecture and site planning to the lot I really have a problem with it. Ms. Clauson added that there is an option of a merger. Commissioner Agajanian noted that he supports a continuance to find another solution for the lots involved. Mr. Welton noted that he had examined all the options available to him for this project. He stated that he would bear the brunt of the additional expense and risk retaining control. The downside is that I may not be able to retain control of the property and you may have someone else to deal with and an entirely different set of criteria for developing the property. That may or may not be a good thing. I will assume the burden of a two week continuance during which time I will work with the neighbors. Motion was made by Commissioner Agajanian to continue this item to the next Planning Commission meeting on February 22nd Ayes: McDaniel, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Recused: Kiser \SUBJECT: Cafe II Farro (Domenico Maurici, applicant) Item 5 111 21st Place UP 3690 • Use Permit No. 3690 A request to upgrade an existing alcohol license to permit the sale of general Approved alcoholic beverages-for on -site consumption (Type 47 License) in conjunction with an existing restaurant. No physical changes to the establishment are proposed and no change in'haurs of operation is requested. Public comment was opened. Domenico Maurici, applicant at 111 21st Street stated that he is requesting an upgrade to his liquor license at the request of his'patrons. At Commission inquiry, he stated he would like to retain the late hour of 1:3d'a.m. as his closing time. He added that the majority of his business is food related (80 %); there is no bar in his restaurant and he only wants to serve cocktails at the tables. Mr. Campbell noted that there are no regulations on the restaurant ash is legal and non - conforming and it has no use permit. The hours on the outdook'�atio during the summer hours are regulated to 1:30 a.m. closing. 30 0 Exhibit No. 3 0 • a� 6(9 r� Li 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item No.: 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92658 (949) 644 -3200: FAX (949) 644 -3250 Council Review: February 22, 2001 James Campbell (949) 644 -3210 Automatic SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Rex Brandt Trust (Eric Welton) 2720 & 2730 Bayside Drive SUMVi IARY: A request to establish a 4 -foot front yard setback on the Districting Map along Bayside Drive in conjunction with a project to demolish an existing duplex, adjust the existing lot configuration creating two lots facing Bayside Drive and the construction of two duplexes. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve, modify or deny Amendment No. 909 and Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000 -13 Discussion This item was continued from February 8, 2001 for the purpose of providing additional time for the applicant to meet with residents. A meeting between the applicant and residents was conducted on February 15`h, and the parties may be able to provide an oral report during the meeting. In response to concerns expressed by the Planning Commission, staff explored if there were any available tools in the Zoning and Subdivision Codes which could provide the opportunity for additional site and/or architectural review, but no effective processes were identified. The Public Works Department is presently preparing an agenda item for the February 27, 2001 City Council meeting concerning the encroachment agreement for the proposed driveway. The alley extension proposed by the applicant for the adjacent project will also be considered at that time as a separate agreement. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a recommendation that the City Council approve the project making the necessary findings for the approval of the lot line adjustment and amendment to the District map establishing a 4 -foot front yard setback for the lots. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director 410. Exhibits Prepared by: JAMES W. CAMPBELL Senior Planner Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 8, 2001. `t Exhibit No. 4 • 31 i O��2LEW��PpR�rB CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 Hearing Date: Agenda Item No.: Staff Person: A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Rex Brandt Trust (Eric Welton) 2720 & 2730 Bayside Drive February 8, 2001 4 James Campbell (949) 644 -3210 14 days SUMMARY: A request to establish a 4 -foot front yard setback on the Districting Map along Bayside Drive in conjunction with a project to demolish an existing duplex, adjust the existing lot configuration creating two lots facing Bayside Drive and the construction of two duplexes. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve, modify or deny Amendment No. 909 and Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000 -13 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1 & 3 of Block 333 of the Corona Del Mar tract as modified by NBLLA No. 81 -1. . GENERAL PLAN: Two - Family Residential ZONE: R -2 (Two - family Residential) OWNER: Rexford E. Brandt, successor to the Brandt Family Survivor's Trust POINTS AND AUTHORITY: 1. Conformance with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program The site is designated for two - family residential uses by both the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. This designation permit the construction of a single family or a duplex on each legal lot. The project will result in the construction of two duplexes on the project site in conformance with density requirements. 2. Conformance with the Zoning Ordinance a. Amendment procedures pursuant to Chapter 20.94 of the Municipal Code b. Lot Line Adjustment set forth in Chapter 20.92 of the Municipal Code. 3. Lot Line Adjustment standards contained in Chapter 19 (Subdivisions) of the Municipal Code. • �3 4. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303 (Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the California Environmental Quality Act Implementing Guidelines. This exemption permits the construction of up to three single family dwellings or up to 10,000 square feet of commercial structures. The project consists of two residential units. Vicinity Map Du lex To the north: Single family residence To the east: Goldenrod footbridge, duplexes and single family dwellings east of the footbridge To the south: Ba side Park, Ba side Drive, duplexes and single family dwellings south of Ba side Drive To the west: Duplexes and single family dwellings �9: Project Site ^^ QUWIC P AMe55 Stave Q [[�O F=bnd e SLR N ,... .. S_IWE Amendment No. 909 Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000 -13 Subiect Property and Surrounding Land Uses Current Development: Du lex To the north: Single family residence To the east: Goldenrod footbridge, duplexes and single family dwellings east of the footbridge To the south: Ba side Park, Ba side Drive, duplexes and single family dwellings south of Ba side Drive To the west: Duplexes and single family dwellings 0 3y 9 Amendment No. 909, LLA No. 2000 -13 February 8, 2001 Page 2 Introduction The applicant seeks redevelop the property located at 2720 & 2730 Bayside Drive. The project site is located on the northerly side of Bayside Drive and Bayside Park directly west of the Goldenrod Avenue footbridge that spans Bayside Drive. The project will involve the demolition the existing duplex and the adjustment of the underlying two legal lots (Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000 -13) resulting in two lots that face Bayside Drive. The applicant would then construct two new duplexes on the reconfigured lots in conformance with the R -2 zone standards. The applicant also requests approval of an Amendment of the Districting Map to establish a 4 -foot front yard setback for the reconfigured lots. Background The subject property was developed along with three abutting properties in the mid 1960's using a driveway from Bayside Drive. The driveway access to the property is within the right -of -way of Bayside Drive and is public property. Presently, the driveway has 11 guest parking spaces. No known encroachment agreement was approved for the access driveway, therefore, the city retains responsibility and liability for it. In 1975, the city improved the northerly portion of the Bayside right -of -way creating Bayside Park. The project site is currently developed with a duplex that is located at the base of a steep slope that leads up to the westerly side of the 400 block of Goldenrod Avenue. The subject property owner also owns the abutting property to the north which is 405 Goldenrod Ave. A portion of the residence constructed at 405 Goldenrod Ave. was constructed across the upper part of the subject property. In 1981, the city approved Lot Line Adjustment No. 81 -1 which reconfigured the original two Corona Del Mar Tract lots roughly based upon the topography and the building locations. Analvsis Lot Line Adjustment 2000 -13 Lot Line Adjustments are subject to Chapter 19 (Subdivisions) and the procedural requirements of Chapter 20 (Zoning). Section 19.08.050 establishes standards for exemptions to the subdivision standards of Chapter 19. Subsection D states: "Lot Line Adjustments. The provisions of this title do not apply to a lot line adjustment between two or more adjacent parcels, where the following conditions exist: 1. The lot line adjustment is minor and routine in nature, and a determination can be made without the need for extensive review and public involvement; 2. The land taken from one parcel is added to the adjacent parcel; 3. A greater number of parcels than originally existed is not thereby created, 4. The lot line adjustment is approved under procedures set out in Title 20. . When the aforementioned conditions have been met, a parcel map, tentative or final map shall not be required " Amendment No. 909, LIA No. 2000 -13 February 8, 2001 Page 3 The requested adjustment meets all these criteria. A finding of "minor and routine in nature" is debatable, but the finding states that a "determination can be made without the need for extensive review and public involvement" than a parcel map would otherwise require. In this case, the lot line adjustment is being considered in conjunction with an amendment to the Districting Map, and requires increased public involvement beyond a parcel map because the entire project will require City Council consideration. Although this project has undergone extensive review, requiring a parcel map will not enhance the review process presently undertaken. The two lots are contiguous and no greater number of parcels will result with project approval. Finally, procedural requirements of Title 20 are being followed through the present review and hearing process. These factors led staff to conclude that a parcel map was not required. Chapter 20.93 establishes the procedural requirements and findings for approval of lot line adjustments. Lot line adjustments are reviewed and approved by the Modifications Committee and are subject to the findings contained in Section 20.93.040. When an application that would be normally subject to the Modifications Committee is associated with an application under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission or City Council, all associated applications become subject to the higher decision making authority. The findings that the Modification Committee must make for approval of a lot line adjustment apply to the Planning Commission and City Council and are discussed below. 111. The project site described in the proposal consists of legal building sites; The two lots that comprise the project site were originally created with the filing of the Corona Del Mar Tract. In 1981, the boundary between the two lots was adjusted through the recordation of N.B.L.L.A. No. 81 -1. The resulting lots are legal lots and are presently built upon and therefore buildable. There is no definition of what constitutes a buildable lot. The site has steep topography and limited access, but the lot is not underwater and is zoned for two family residential use. Declaring the lot non - buildable and prohibiting its development may constitute a takings requiring just compensation. 2. Any land taken from one parcel will be added to an adjacent parcel and no additional parcels will result from the lot line adjustment; A drawing of the proposed lot line adjustment is attached as Exhibit No. 1. The land taken from each of the two lots is added to the adjacent parcel and two lots will result. 3. The parcels proposed to be created by the lot line adjustment comply with all applicable zoning regulations, and that there will be no change in the land use, density, or intensity on the property; The existing lots are nonconforming with respect to lot size and lot width. Title 20 requires that a R -2 lot be a minimum 5,000 square feet and 50 feet wide. A corner lot in the R -2 zone would be 6,000 square feet and 60 feet wide. The adjustment of a nonconforming lot is permissible as Section 19.08.050 creates an exception for the creation of substandard lots provided that the lots are no smaller than the original lots of a final map that created the nonconforming lots. The two original lots of the CDM Tract are 3(5' Amendment No. 909, LLA No. 2000 -13 February 8, 2001 Page 4 both 30 feet wide by 118 feet deep which is 3,540 square feet. Each of the two proposed lots will be 59 feet wide by 60 feet deep and 3,540 square feet. Although one of the resulting lots is technically a comer lot due to the intersection of Goldenrod Avenue and Bayside Drive, staff and the City Attorney's office believe that the exception permitted by Section 19.08.050 can be used to exempt the comer lot from being 60 feet wide. Additionally, the intersection of Goldenrod and Bayside exists only on paper the city has no intention of ever improving it for vehicular traffic and eliminating a portion of Bayside Park. With the designation of Bayside Park, staff also believes that the lot is not defined as a comer lot. The resulting lots comply with other applicable zoning provisions provided that vehicular access is provided pursuant to Section 20.66.040. Several conditions of approval have been prepared that will require vehicular access to the lots be provided from the existing driveway from Bayside Drive. The lots will remain R -2 and the use will not change. The density of ultimate development will not change as the subject site presently permits the development of two duplexes and the number of allowed dwelling units will not change. 4. The lot line adjustment, in and of itself, will not result in the need for additional improvements and/or facilities. " The lot line adjustment will require vehicular access be extended to the easterly lot. Conditions of approval have been included that will ensure that the driveway is provided in accordance with applicable standards. The attached site plan shows the proposed driveway extension. This the existing driveway and its extension are within the right of way of Bayside Drive and the Public Works Department is requiring an encroachment agreement and permit. This agreement will specify that the owner of the subject property be required to construct the driveway in accordance with Public Works standards and not at the expense of the city. Additionally, full responsibility for maintenance and liability would rest with the property owner. This agreement will be considered by the City Council with the project, and if approved, be recorded. The agreement will run with the land and bind all successors in interest. This agreement must be recorded prior to the recordation of the lot line adjustment to ensure that compliance with access requirements are met. The land where the driveway extension will be located is presently landscaped area and part of Bayside Park. The eastern portion of the driveway will necessitate the construction of a 5 -foot high retaining wall for support due to its proximity to an existing, paved path within the park. The area of the driveway extension is 1,961 square feet in area. Any loss of open space, however small is of great concern to the residents of the area especially those who face the existing driveway. The proposed driveway is as small as can be while providing minimum vehicular access and satisfying Fire Department access needs. The Fire Department has agreed to a slightly reduced driveway width in order to preserve as much of the park as possible in exchange for residential fire sprinkler systems. Lot Line adjustments may only be conditioned for Building and Zoning compliance and neither Codes would require fire sprinklers. Therefore, the city cannot condition the project to provide fire sprinklers. However, the 3t Amendment No. 909, LLA No. 2000 -13 February 8, 2001 Page 5 city can require the sprinkler systems in conjunction with the encroachment agreement for the construction with the driveway. This type of requirement is unusual with an encroachment agreement, but there is a strong nexus between the design of the improvements covered by the agreement and the Fire Department request. The agreement method would not have the same weight as an ordinance, but the requirement would be enforceable in perpetuity. The driveway extension will be designed to drain to a nearby storm drain within park. The inlet is within the guest parking spaces located on the south side of the existing access driveway. The Public Works Department is not requiring any new drainage facilities for the project as it is their opinion that they are not needed due to the small area. The driveway extension will remove three existing guest parking spaces located at the terminus of the existing driveway. The residents of the three properties who use the driveway are very concerned about the loss of the three spaces and _ the new units generating additional demand for guest parking. The Zoning Code does not have any guest parking requirements for this type of development. Eight spaces will remain to serve a total of 5 lots with 7 total units (4 new and 3 existing). The Planning Commission can recommend that the City Council have the applicant provide additional spaces off the driveway with the encroachment agreement and encroachment permit. Unfortunately, limited space exists off the driveway and indiscriminately adding more parking could lead to the loss of several trees and open space. If additional parking is sought, planning staff suggests that they use alternative paving techniques such as "grasscrete" rather than asphalt or concrete. The use of "grasscrete" would help to preserve the ambiance of Bayside Park which is very precious to the residents that use the existing driveway. In summary, staff believes that the findings for approval of the lot line adjustment can be made. The reconfigured lots are a better fit to the topography of the site and allow better use of the property. The northerly of the two lots that is presently encroached upon by the residence above (405 Goldenrod) presently has no vehicular access. Approval of the lot line adjustment with the recommended conditions of approval will eliminate this circumstance. Amendment No. 909 The applicant requests that the city amend the District Map to establish a 4 -foot front yard setback for the reconfigured lots. This setback is consistent with the setbacks of the three existing residences that use the driveway from Bayside Drive. Without the establishment of the setback on the District Map, the minimum 20 -foot setback would apply. Using this setback would leave a limited buildable area which is used to derive the floor area limit of the future duplex. The buildable area using a standard 20 -foot front setback with standard rear (10 feet) and side (4 feet) setbacks presents a similar circumstance used to justify the approval of variances in the Corona Del Mar area. The following table compares the lot area, buildable area and floor area limit of the applicant's request and alternatives. 3� Amendment No. 909, LLA No. 2000 -13 February 8, 2001 Page 6 Pi The comparison indicates that the applicant's request will not create a larger building than what a typical CDM Iot would allow. Staff believes that this fact along with similar setbacks of the three other dwellings on the access driveway makes the applicant's requested 4 -foot front yard setback reasonable. A larger setback will reduce the size of the resulting buildings and reduce their value, but more importantly, they will be smaller and accommodate smaller households. Using the 20- foot setback standard would roughly create 950 square foot duplex units or one 1,900 square foot single family residence on each lot. The applicant's proposal would roughly create 1,560 square foot duplex units or one 3,120 square foot unit on each lot. Staff believes that the 950 square foot duplex units are not typical of the area and are not highly desirable. Sail Stability Residents have expressed concerns about the stability of the soil under the project and potential impacts grading of the site might create. As a result of this issue, staff requested and received a preliminary soil investigation for the project. The report was prepared by Strata -Tech, Inc. under the supervision of a registered geologist. The report concluded that the site is not prone to liquefaction and the site grading can be performed with conventional techniques. The report does not suggest that there is any extra ordinary hazards associated with the grading of the site. Additional geotechnical investigations will be prepared for building permits and all grading will be conducted under the supervision and control of an engineering geologist and Building Department. Associated Project The applicant is presently planning to redevelop the two abutting residential lots to the north of the project site (405 & 407 Goldenrod Avenue) by constructing two duplexes in the near future. The applicant has requested that the alley to the rear of the 400 block of Goldenrod Avenue be extended approximately 16 feet in order to provide minimum vehicular access to 405 Goldenrod. The redevelopment of these lots and the request for the alley extension is outside the scope of the subject applications and is not analyzed in this report. The construction of duplexes at 405 and 407 Goldenrod Ave. are not discretionary projects pursuant to the Municipal Code and are not subject to further review, except for building permits, unless the applicant sought a Variance or Modification. The proposed alley extension will require an encroachment agreement and encroachment permit that will require the approval of the City Council. This discussion was included to provide additional information to the Commission and public who are concerned about the subsequent project. Amendment No. 909, LLA No. 2000 -13 February 8, 2001 Page 7 Proposed lot Proposed lot Typical CDM lot 20 -foot front yard 4 -foot front yard with 15 -foot front setback setback yard setback Lot dimensions 59'x 60' 59'x 60' 30'x 118' Lot area (sq. ft.) 3,540 3,540 3,540 Buildable area (sq. ft.) 1,530 2,346 2,352 Floor area limit (sq. ft.) 21295 3,519 3,528 (1.5 X buildable area) The comparison indicates that the applicant's request will not create a larger building than what a typical CDM Iot would allow. Staff believes that this fact along with similar setbacks of the three other dwellings on the access driveway makes the applicant's requested 4 -foot front yard setback reasonable. A larger setback will reduce the size of the resulting buildings and reduce their value, but more importantly, they will be smaller and accommodate smaller households. Using the 20- foot setback standard would roughly create 950 square foot duplex units or one 1,900 square foot single family residence on each lot. The applicant's proposal would roughly create 1,560 square foot duplex units or one 3,120 square foot unit on each lot. Staff believes that the 950 square foot duplex units are not typical of the area and are not highly desirable. Sail Stability Residents have expressed concerns about the stability of the soil under the project and potential impacts grading of the site might create. As a result of this issue, staff requested and received a preliminary soil investigation for the project. The report was prepared by Strata -Tech, Inc. under the supervision of a registered geologist. The report concluded that the site is not prone to liquefaction and the site grading can be performed with conventional techniques. The report does not suggest that there is any extra ordinary hazards associated with the grading of the site. Additional geotechnical investigations will be prepared for building permits and all grading will be conducted under the supervision and control of an engineering geologist and Building Department. Associated Project The applicant is presently planning to redevelop the two abutting residential lots to the north of the project site (405 & 407 Goldenrod Avenue) by constructing two duplexes in the near future. The applicant has requested that the alley to the rear of the 400 block of Goldenrod Avenue be extended approximately 16 feet in order to provide minimum vehicular access to 405 Goldenrod. The redevelopment of these lots and the request for the alley extension is outside the scope of the subject applications and is not analyzed in this report. The construction of duplexes at 405 and 407 Goldenrod Ave. are not discretionary projects pursuant to the Municipal Code and are not subject to further review, except for building permits, unless the applicant sought a Variance or Modification. The proposed alley extension will require an encroachment agreement and encroachment permit that will require the approval of the City Council. This discussion was included to provide additional information to the Commission and public who are concerned about the subsequent project. Amendment No. 909, LLA No. 2000 -13 February 8, 2001 Page 7 Construction Staging 0 Staff and residents were concerned about how the applicant would stage the construction effort. The driveway and guest parking below would be a logical staging area, but it could unreasonably restrict access creating hazards and disrupting residents. The applicant, through his architect, has indicated in writing that the two abutting parcels to the north that are controlled by the applicant (405 & 407 Goldenrod) will be used as the staging area for the project. Staff prefers this situation above using the driveway or the park for construction staging. If this project is approved, staff will meet with the applicant and contractors to in order to minimize construction conflicts. Lot Merger The Subdivision Map Act and Title 19 (Subdivisions) of the Municipal Code provides the city the ability to cause the merger of nonconforming lots under certain circumstances. This can be accomplished above the objections of the property owner provided that the city provides due process and notification in accordance with the Map Act prior to recording a notice of merger. The lots must be contiguous, nonconforming as to size and must be held under single ownership. Additionally, one of the parcels must either be either be vacant or developed only with an accessory structure or developed with a single structure, other than an accessory structure, which is partially sited on a contiguous lot. Lastly, one of the following seven circumstances must affect any of the lots: (1) Comprises less than 5,000 square feet in area at the time of the determination of merger. • (2) Was not created in compliance with applicable laws and ordinances in effect at the time of its creation. (3) Does not meet current standards for sewage disposal and domestic water supply. (4) Does not meet slope stability standards. (5) Has no legal access which is adequate for vehicular and safety equipment access and maneuverability. (6) Its development would create health or safety hazards. (7) Is inconsistent with the applicable general plan and any applicable specific plan, other than minimum lot size or density standards. Staff believes that the subject properties would qualify for this procedure if it was determined to be necessary. If the Planning Commission believed that the proposed project was inconsistent with the character of the area, staff recommends that the Commission consider a recommendation for project denial and a recommendation that the City Council direct staff to initiate merger proceedings. Merger proceedings would likely be challenged by the applicant and property owner. Amendment No. 909, LI.A No. 2000 -13 February 8, 2001 Page 8 D0 • • Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a recommendation that the City Council approve the project making the necessary findings for the approval of the lot line adjustment and amendment to the District map establishing a 4 -foot front yard setback for the lots. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director Exhibits Prepared by: JAMES W. CAMPBELL Senior Planner -dam indings -and eonditiens-ofappreval- 2. Map of Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000 -13 --3—. ayside•Park Pian- - y4 itei%rl- \\MIS- I\SYS \USERS\PLN\ SHARED\ IPI.ANCOM\?001\02.08pc\B=d[W909 pcmpon 2- 08.01.DOC Amendment No. 909, LLA No. 2000 -13 February 8, 2001 Page 9 0( LJ • 0 SITE PLAN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT N.B.LLA - M0 -13 OWNER EXISTING PARCELS PROPOSED PARCELS AP NUMBERS REFERENCE NUMBER REXFORD E. BRANDT, AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE A.P. 459 -116 -11 (LOT 1) PARCEL 1 BRANDT FAMILY SURVIVOR'S TRUST REXFORD E. BRANDT, AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE A.P. 459 - 116 -12 (LOT 3) PARCEL 2 BRANDT FAMILY SURVIVOR'S TRUST, — EX. BLDG. - — 1. 23132 .�. P. 12/31101 C7� LOT S (NOT A PART) \ST9� r .5' a clw- 6 �F CAL \F'�'% � •� ' L of �i °j 28' �I 1 PARCEL 1 EX. FENCE 25 -- — — LOT 3 0 J ARCEL 2 — Q EX. STAIRS —5 33' EX. BLDG. LOT L: L EX. FENCE O Ln Lri z CD c: 00 �I cI S 500 E —� BAYSIDE DRIVE — �c 9CF NOTE: EASEMENTS SHOWN HEREON ARE FROM THE = REUMI,NARY IrTLE REPORT PROVIDED BY THE gyp, CLIENT. THERE ARE NO EASEMENTS LISTED IN THE TITLE REPORT PROVIDED. Exhibit No. 2 1`? I EXHIBIT B LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT N.B.LLA - 2000 -0 I (MAP) OWNER EXISTING PARCELS PROPOSED PARCELS AP NUMBERS REFERENCE NUMBER REXFORD E. BRANDT, AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTED OF THE i A.P. 459 - 116 -11 (LOT 1) PARCEL 1 9RANDT FAMILY SURVIVOR'S TRUST, REXFORD E. BRANDT, AE I SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE A.P. 459 - 116 -12 (LOT 3) PARCEL 2 9RANDT FAMILY SURVNOR'S TRUS , ! i:. J..- C23132 it�`'F1 EXP. i331ro1 {�� i 1 \ L'1V i° Lar V3 txrrr a Pa�M SCALE: 1 " =40' 7'l ll8 59 59' I� N LrT 3 - z LJ 3 &' c; PARCEL 2 - - - i1 - s IV 3450 SO. r t.M PARCEL 1, � - - �: o - - ` E0, i 3450 S0. FT. ' w �� • INDICATES 1" I.P. 59' 59' N c TAGGED R.C.E. 118' o 23132 TO BE I _ - S 50° E _C BAYSIDE DRIVE PREPARED BY: MICHAEL A. .MURPHY & ASSOC. LEGEND TO SYMBOLS: - - - - - EXISTING LOT LINE TO BE ADJUSTED EXISTING LOT LINE TO REMAIN R.C.E. 23132 DATE INDICATES NEW LOT LINE J Ott WA • 11 • 0 Exhibit No. 5 • • 09 hi h 1 i ft�b _ � c n o S7�lilll "4illil 1 �� •• ;�; p: — -s ------ ------- I-RI . . -I �Ii I' t i �! l!' i il� �iiii4il(! °15lilt, i yi i I f{ 1 f �i1i I II. 1 1i 17f 1311?II )1! I E�I If It l IEI411�1 {1 t 0 Ill �Il) �! f�IIIElI !! � lI t t� iI(III I iy 1i s ll �li zlli I I i ; r ill �� { �I1.6 I i i i r i l I it I C/O ERIC �TON i i i I • 0 0 �I (;QE'IZ k REY, RM .,�T.TRUST C/O ERTC WELMN L ASS } 1 1 , I IFS I I \ \ rn 1111 1 �\ I 1 d \ II W'��\ I O Z I N I m I I I I I -I. j 1 � 1 j I 1 1 , j ; 1 � I j I I I I I ; I I ,j I , � r I I I I _ I j T J r y O O A -i S 4 A�tf' 11. 1i" li( I, I, I� T 0 r a i N 11,1111111�'�= �,nni1� I I. I, II,. ' �I, ' ' jllillllllllllilllllllll I 1.II'�II Ili ._3, - ! E I I p a 2� � �, .G,v�• S R H "i'�• G P Fg +° � - �'. G'.. q" � dg :'r,Y�l `. .:. � `�'a5 � "• 3 Asa A} �;� i' ..�� p$�" bc.'!� +��p = ;r..� GOETZ & ASSOCII \'1'I':3 E 0,,9 pA O -------- -- �� Il II II I II I I1 1. P - O O I Z7 GOUTZ & AS-SOCIATE S, 170 , AT, 0 pr Mill J (D 0 Is 0 .... . . .... ixl z GOETZ &. ASSOCIATES uas C/O �ELIO" 0 Is 0 i zN o oz wo chi x� rn �m om Y N 1� p -D XZ O r._._._.- ._._. ._._._.r._._. I I I � 0 I I I I m m I I i i sy p I I D I N C 1 1 L._._._._._._.1._._._. L._._.J._._._ ri O C1 O 7 0 xN Z Z Z m 9 cn m O 0 Z� FERNLEAF s -'- '-I- - -' -'� r._._._._._._._._._._.r._._. �._.- ._.r.. 1 t I I N C 1 1 1 �8 az 1 I I 1 I 4. I I ----- --------------- r^ 1 I °tz 1I' WIDE PL.EY 11' WIDE ALLEY 1 I I $° I•� I I 6 - o� \�i:�l •i � 1 gg I m � I I T: I I I I L._._._._._._.l. -. - S1EF'S GOLDENROD F001O DCE I I 1 I N ryfO p� _N �+Bz: S y 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 i I i TO `O ,Z ID o 0� xn A N o mw mZ om N DA Dom} ay JtD Jj J tD �, )7 m X._._._._._._.- ._._._.r_. _._. �._._._._. z I I I I I z I I mz I I Z I I I I I i N I I I j I I I I I I L._._._._._._.1._._._. L._._.J._._._._ II 0 Cl 0 S �N n 1^ Z Z'^ Z O n Zm A I� Z 01-3 rNi V1 FERNLEAF ° r_._._._._._._._._._._.r_._._.. ._._._.. I I I nN vm I I I I I N 1 I I I I ac c°aQ I i- I I 1 I ------------------ -4 V 1 I I I m =z I pO I I "° ta' •MDE K EY ERDY� 14' WIDE AL I 1 I j I I 1 1 1 j 1 l N I I j I o i i I I i I I I I oI �I STEPS GOLDENROD FMTBRIDGE 9 r._. _._._._.�._._._._r_._._.�._._._ sJ N 'Ditir�z { I I I L I c)z I I I I = I I I I l I I 1 I I I I I I I I 40 0 0 Exhibit No. 6 • • 55 Z y . >. - :. is -:.: ,.:.;::J,.: 1°A.A W Z = w a = w dY � 5 Q ao aU, \L O W Z \ U YW W O o- N� - ,9'.OI F iZ o D ( Z oz aW WLL 7 3 o o co'oE 6' Z `� JF F - v 13�tf/e !l O Q J i � W O x ' - -- -' .009- -- -- - --- -- \ I d sx're sa+�ne I ! W Q =" `.• to � I°. I � i�r r , e. iij I Lij. �I x{ 4s) n fO4._RC a tl a� YW O �y m O zzc c � G V0 m mU 2 s �w X W W \ q' \ l O m Y a � y clr Exhibit No. 7 • 69 Mar 19 01 12:22p GOETZ & ASSOC. Via Facsimile (949) 644 -3318 March 19, 2001 LICENSES (949)644 -9317 p.2 GOETZ & ASSOCIATES Architects • Engineers• Consultants Alaska Dear Rich: Arizona I reviewed the fax sent to me by Jim Campbell with respect to the Public Works califomia Colorado Richard Edmonston, P.E. Nevada Oregon City of Newport Beach Utah Public Works Department Building 3300 Newport Boulevard National Newport Beach, California 92660 Council of paving. Archltectwal Regishalion RE: Lots 1,3,5 & 7, Block 33, Corona del Mar Tract Boards NCARB Encroachment Application No. N12000 -254 This drastically reduces the paving area proposed and allows for substantial . additional landscaping to be planted. Please note the fax I am sending has been drawn to a scale of 1 foot = 16 feet. 0 250 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 102 • NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 • (949) 644 -9319 • FAX (949) 6449317 Dear Rich: SOCIETIES I reviewed the fax sent to me by Jim Campbell with respect to the Public Works American revised recommendation to our encroachment application. With some minimal InsiiiWp of revisions, I feel that this alternative is a more practical solution. Please note the cfiit.dt iVA rUA following- Building 1 1 have maintained the location of guest parking at the original end of the A/C Industry Assndatlnn paving. BIA 2. Based on my interpretation of your fax, I have reduced the proposed Amencan S.6AY of extension to 21 feet in width in front of the proposed units. This, in Interior Designers combination with the 4 -foot front yard setback, gives a 25 -foot net backup ASiO space which is consistent with normal backup requirements. Consuuclion Speculcafian 3. 1 have included the location of the existing tree and have allowed for space Inshtule C£I around it National Trust lol 4. 1 have graphically indicated a reduction at the curved portion of the driveway Hislorioal Preservation extension. The closest point to which the footpath exists would be approximately 9 feet 2 inches. If you review my plan, it would seem practical American to allow for some backup area from the location of the last carport to allow National standards the ability to make a three -point turn. This would benefit any potential I "''Mule parking layout on this subject property. This drastically reduces the paving area proposed and allows for substantial . additional landscaping to be planted. Please note the fax I am sending has been drawn to a scale of 1 foot = 16 feet. 0 250 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 102 • NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 • (949) 644 -9319 • FAX (949) 6449317 Mar 19 01 12:23p GOETZ & ASSOC. (949)644 -9317 p.3 L J Richard Edmonston, P.E. March 19, 2001 Page Two If you agree with my comments, I will prepare an exhibit on 8 -1/2 x 11 by tomorrow morning that can be attached to the Planning Department and Public Works Department staff report Please call as soon as possible. Respectfully submitted, C4 - Andrew Goetz, Architect /d eb Enclosure • �& 0 Mar 19 01 12:23p GOETZ & ASSOC. (949)644 -9317 p_4 - 111111 I \ N I r- ' I ml -- ;- - I Op I I � s� v0` I I I dr. I / 1 f \ s / 1 I• FF- d LL i F�• I I , � II `Iir` l ydk£'rfy'�r Exhibit No. 8 • E Findings and Conditions of Approval is Amendment No. 909 & Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000 -013 Findings: The site is designated for two - family residential uses by both the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. This designation permit the construction of a single family or a duplex on each legal lot. The project will result in the construction of two duplexes on the project site in conformance with density requirements. 2. The project site is comprised of two legal lots within the Corona Del Mar Tract. In 1981, the boundary between the two lots was adjusted through the recordation of N.B.L.L.A. No. 81 -1. The resulting lots are legal lots and are presently built upon, and therefore buildable. 3. The land taken from each lot will be added to the adjacent parcel and no additional parcels will result from the lot line adjustment. 4. The parcels proposed to be created by the lot line adjustment comply with all applicable zoning regulations, and that there will be no change in the land use, density, or intensity on the property. The lots are exempt from the minimum area requirements of Title 20 pursuant to Section 19.08.050 of the Municipal Code as a nonconforming lot may be adjusted provided that the lots are no smaller than the original lots of a final map that created the nonconforming lots. The two original lots of the CDM Tract are both 30 feet wide by 118 feet deep which is 3,540 square feet. Each of the two proposed lots will be 59 feet wide by 60 feet deep and 3,540 square feet. Several conditions of approval have been required which will ensure minimum vehicular access require pursuant to the Zoning Code is be provided 5. The lot line adjustment results in the need for additional improvements for vehicular access. Conditions of approval have been included that will ensure that the driveway is provided in accordance with applicable standards. 6. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303 (Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the California Environmental Quality Act Implementing Guidelines. This exemption permits the construction of up to six single- family dwellings in urbanized areas and the project consists of four residential units. 7. Amendment No. 909 establishes a 4 -foot front yard setback for the reconfigured lots associated with Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000 -013. The suggested setback is very similar to the setbacks of 2700, 2706 & 2710 Bayside Drive which use the same access driveway. The suggested setback will not create a larger building than what a typical CDM lot would allow. Using the 20 -foot default setback standard would limit the development of the subject lots unreasonably and create units are not typical of the area. These facts suggest that the 4 -foot front yard setback reasonable. 0 i Conditions: The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved Lot Line Adjustment • and site plan dated February 8, 2001. 2. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department standards. 3. The Lot Line Adjustment shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. 4. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the driveway access. 5. Each dwelling unit shall be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems. 6. The final design of the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the Planning Department and Traffic Engineer. 7. The proposed driveway shall be designed so that existing trees shall not be removed and that the slope adjacent to the City Park is not disturbed. 8. The developer shall execute an encroachment agreement with the City of Newport Beach to guarantee maintenance of the proposed driveway extension in the city park. The agreement will require the owner to maintain the nonstandard improvements and protect the City from liability for injuries caused because of the existence of the proposed improvements. The encroachment agreement shall be reviewed in accordance with all applicable procedures and requirements and shall be recorded prior to the recordation of Lot Line Adjustment No. 2000 -013. 9. A drainage and utility plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the drainage and utility plan or as deemed necessary by the Public Works Department shall be the responsibility of the developer. 10. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and or movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. There shall be no construction storage or delivery of materials within the City park except where the driveway extension proposed. 11. The site plan and elevations submitted this evening (February 22, 2001) and titled L1, PW -I, A -2, A -2a, and A -3 are adhered to as a condition of approval to the extent that they are in compliance with Title 20. The recommendation will also incorporate that in approving the encroachment agreement that any encroachment into the landscaped parkway area on Bayside Drive be minimized to the maximum extent. Exhibit No. 9 0 • • ORDINANCE NO. 2001- A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 909 TO AMEND THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP TO ESTABLISH A 4 -FOOT, FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE BAYSIDE DRIVE FRONTAGE THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2720 & 2730 BAYSIDE DRIVE. WHEREAS, Section 20.94 of the Municipal Code of the City of Newport Beach provides that Title 20 (Zoning Code) may be amended by changing the zoning designation of Districts and other provisions whenever the public necessity and convenience and the public welfare require such an amendment; and WHEREAS, Section 20.94.020 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that amendments to amend Title 20 must be approved by a Resolution of the Planning Commission setting forth full particulars of the amendment; and, WHEREAS, in conjunction with the consideration of the subject amendment to the Zoning Code , the proposed project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt under the Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the State CEQA Guidelines; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20.94, the Planning Commission has held a duly noticed public hearing on February 8, 2001 and on February 22, 2001 to consider Amendment No. 909 to establish a 4 -foot, front yard setback for the Bayside Drive frontage the property located at 2720 & 2730 Bayside Drive, legal description being Lots 1 & 3 of Block 333 of the Corona Del Mar Tract as modified by NBLLA No. 81 -1; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20.94, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on March 27, 2001 to consider the adoption of Amendment No. 909. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Zone Districting Map of the City of Newport Beach shall be amended to establish a 4 -foot, front yard setback for the Bayside Drive frontage the property located at 2720 & 2730 Bayside Drive, legal description being Lots 1 & 3 of Block 333 of the Corona Del Mar Tract as modified by NBLLA No. 81 -1. Section 2: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. • Ordinance No. 2001 -_ Page 2 of 2 This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on March 27, 2001, and was adopted on the 10`h day of April, 2001 by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK 0 • �2 E Exhibit No. 10 • 0 I" RECORDING REQUESTED AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Public Works Department City of Newport Beach Post Office Box 1768 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Space above this line for Recorder's use only. ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT (EPN2000 -254) THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of 2001, by and between Rexford E. Brandt, successor to the Brandt Family Survivor's Trust; hereinafter "OWNER ", and the City of Newport Beach, California, a municipal corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of its Charter and the Constitution and the laws of the State of California, (hereinafter "CITY "), "OWNER" is the owner of property located at 2720 & 2730 Bayside Drive, Newport Beach, California and legally described as Lots 1 & 3, Block 333 of Corona del Mar Tract as shown on a map recorded in Book 3, Pages 41 through 42 inclusively of Miscellaneous Maps and as modified by N.B.L.L.A. No. 81 -1 recorded June 12, 1981 in Book 14099, Page 148 of the Official Records in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County, California; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, OWNER desires to construct and maintain certain non - standard improvements (hereinafter "PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS ") within Bayside Drive right -of- way (hereinafter "RIGHT -OF- WAY ") that is located adjacent to 2720 & 2730 Bayside Drive, Newport Beach, California and legally described as Lots 1 & 3, Block 333 of Corona del Mar Tract as shown on a map recorded in Book 3, Pages 41 through 42 inclusively of Miscellaneous Maps and as modified by N.B.L.L.A. No. 81 -1 recorded June 12, 1981 in Book 14099, Page 148 of the Official Records in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County, California; WHEREAS, said PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS may interfere in the future with CITY'S ability to construct, operate, maintain, and replace CITY and other public facilities and improvements within RIGHT -OF -WAY; and 7S WHEREAS; the parties hereto desire to execute an agreement providing for fulfillment of the conditions required by CITY to permit OWNER to reconstruct and maintain said PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS; • NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. It is mutually agreed that PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS shall be defined as an asphalt concrete driveway access (3" A.C. on 4" base) with concrete curb, landscaping, and appurtenances in Bayside Drive right -of -way as shown on EXHIBIT "A" attached hereto and as approved by the City Engineer. 2. CITY will permit OWNER to repair, maintain, use, operate, repair and replace said PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS and appurtenances incidental thereto, within a portion of RIGHT -OF -WAY, all in substantial conformance with plans and specifications on file in the CITY. CITY will further allow OWNER to take all reasonable measures necessary or convenient in accomplishing the aforesaid activities 3. Specimen trees acceptable to the General Services Department shall be planted to soften the view of the proposed dwellings and parking area. The view of both pedestrians on +� the footpath and those on the footbridge shall be considered as well as the view of motorists on Bayside Drive. 4. OWNER shall install residential fire sprinkler systems in each dwelling unit to the satisfaction of the Building and Fire Departments. 4. Owner shall post signs prohibiting the parking of motor vehicles in the right -of -way except in designated areas approved by the Public Works Department. 5. OWNER shall bring the common driveway between the PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS and Bayside Drive up to a good state of repair prior to occupancy of the new dwelling units being constructed. 6. OWNER shall not unduly restrict access to the other properties taking access from the common driveway during the construction of the PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS and new dwelling units. 2 %L 7. OWNER shall not store construction materials or equipment in areas westerly of the prolongation of the OWNER's alley property line or in greenbelt areas that will not be disturbed . by the construction of the PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS. 8. OWNER shall fence the construction site and materials storage areas. Fencing shall be covered with green cloth material. 9. Rights granted under this Agreement may be terminated by CITY at any time by giving 60 days' notice, specifying in said notice the date of termination. CITY shall incur no liability whatsoever in the event of the termination of this Agreement, or subsequent removal of improvements by CITY. 10. OWNER and CITY further agree as follows: a. OWNER shall construct PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS and appurtenances incidental thereto, in substantial conformance with the plans and specifications therefor on file in the CITY's Public Works Department, and as described on Exhibit "A" hereto attached. b. OWNER shall maintain the PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS in accordance with general prevailing standards of maintenance, and pay all costs and expenses incurred in doing so. However, nothing herein shall be construed to require OWNER to maintain, replace or repair any private -owned or CITY -owned pipeline, conduit or cable located in or under said PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS, except as otherwise provided herein. c. If private- owned, City, or other public facilities or improvements are damaged by the installation or presence of PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS, OWNER shall be responsible for the cost of repairs. d. Owner shall be responsible for his pro -rata share of the cost of maintaining the existing driveway between the curb on Bayside Drive and the property line. e. That should the CITY be required to enter onto said RIGHT -OF -WAY to exercise its primary rights associated with said RIGHT -OF -WAY, including but not limited to, the maintenance, removal, repair, renewal, replacement or enlargement of existing or future public facilities or improvements, CITY may remove portions of the PERMITTED • IMPROVEMENTS, as required, and in such event: (i) CITY shall notify OWNER of its intention to accomplish such work, if any emergency situation does not exist. "2 - -J (ii) OWNER shall be responsible for arranging for any renewal or restoration of the PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS affected by such work by CITY; • (iii) CITY agrees to bear only the cost of any removal of the PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS affected by such work by CITY; (iv) OWNER agrees to pay all costs for renewal or restoration of the PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS. 11. In the event either party breaches any material provision of this Agreement, the other party at its option may, in addition to the other legal remedies available to it, terminate this Agreement, and, in the event the breaching party is OWNER, CITY may enter upon the RIGHT -OF -WAY and remove all or part of the improvements installed by OWNER with one exception. That one exception shall be the CITY cannot deny vehicular access to the subject property. Termination because of breach shall be upon a minimum of ten (10) days' notice, with the notice specifying the date of termination. In the event of litigation commenced with respect to any term of condition of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred. • 12. OWNER shall defend, indemnify, waive, and hold harmless CITY, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers and employees from and against any and all loss, damage, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable attorneys' fees (when outside attorneys are so utilized), regardless of the merit or outcome of any such claim or suit arising from or in any manner connected with the design, construction, maintenance, or continued existence of the PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS. 13. OWNER agrees that this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect from execution thereof; shall run with the land; shall be binding upon the heirs, successors, and assigns of OWNERS' interest in the land whether fee or otherwise, and shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County, California. 4 %� IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed on 0 the day and year first -above written. APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal corporation By: BY City Attorney ATTEST: By City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) ss: COUNTY OF ORANGE) City Manager OWNER: Rexford E. Brandt Successor to the Brandt Family Survivor's Trust On , 2001, before me, personally appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me •on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they has executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public in and for said State STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) ss: COUNTY OF ORANGE) (This area for official notarial seal) On , 2001, before me, personally appeared , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) islare subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that helshelthey has executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public in and for said State (This area for official notarial seal) F: \Users \P B W \Shared \E NC ROACH \F ORMS\agmt -E P2000 -254 Bra ndt -CDM, doc %9 / � a- • � • � B � • � jI. � �•� • • r� ' � g • � p • 111 w 1111 111 �� �?1!'�t °�Gy1� .�i �r1 1. 11 � � _ 1111 �p'.'.':C�'�r1��11p_�1�fg1, 1111 �''� •�1 ".iWi•� `� 1111 � `„s ^, ': �; II��i �� �ijK Y� {�� � i � ,Y III'�1�` �`, : ":' 'III 1'Iii =�rlM � � f•..�, 3:: ,}1)11. �JfG ryi?r i5. 4''Ti G11�1 .. � 3-I�aq �.� a=s`: ail "� - �, µ� r � a�:Wa �I e � ;,'tea. l ,�. ' .1 11113 �'� '�.5 ��:' F'.:.:Nr °� it .,., ��- .' � �:t'� =.r At��v "V"::_�"�, .. ; - ��� ='W' :sir �� ` � �� >�� -� _ .n ���Rt`' =I Y�f e : rYfi° ,:�`<}�� � e = ��:7a�..� '�Illlllli� y �[ e �� © e �� I e _ � L� i e • �. ® � 4'1' 1 � 0 Exhibit No. 11 . m t s � ` 'tin t a t . "• . 1t �i M t y p nn CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMO March 27, 2001 City Council Agenda Items 10 and 16 Subject: Response to Comments Made In The Taylor Consulting Letter of March 26, 2001. 1. The agreement, as drafted, includes a deceased party. The agreements reference the Rexford E. Brandt Trust as the OWNER (for Item 10) and Rexford E. Brandt, successor to the Brandt Family Survivor's Trust (Item 16). The correct Owner will be listed in the agreements before the final execution of the agreement. This will be determined by a current title report and the owners shown on that report will be incorporated into the final Encroachment Agreements. 2. The agreements as drafted associate all improvements with half of the four properties..... There are two Encroachment Agreements and each agreement relates to separate parcels and issues. It is recommended that they be discussed and resolved separately. The four Rexford Brandt Trust lots are separate parcels. The two closest to Bayside Drive (Item 16) are taken together because the Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) is reconfiguring the lots to face Bayside Drive instead of Goldenrod Avenue. The other two lots are being developed separately and the requested approvals are not connected. 3. It is unclear what justification or public benefit is used to rationalize the gift or use of public property.... Item 10: The encroachment agreement allows the owner of 405/405 %: Goldenrod Avenue to construct a 16 foot long alley extension to allow alley access to the property. The agreement does not restrict the public or adjoining property owners from using the extension. Item 16: The encroachment agreement allows the owners of the newly created 2730 Bayside Drive to have the same type of driveway use of the public property adjacent to their property as the owners of 2700, 2706, 2710 and 2720/2730 Bayside Drive now have. Owners of property in all parts of the City, that take access from a street, are allowed to construct a drive on public property to gain access to the street from their property and the City is obligated to allow this access. Currently 2720 /2730 Bayside Drive (as a single duplex) shares the common access drive with 2700, 2706, and 2710 Bayside Drive. 4. Pro -rata maintenance of the common drive.... The Section 5(d) clause is actually clause 10(d) for the Item 16 agreement. This clause requires the owners of 2720 and 2730 Bayside Drive to be responsible for a pro -rata share of the maintenance of the common drive between their property line and Bayside Drive. Section 10(b) requires the owners of 2720 and 2730 Bayside Drive to maintain the permitted improvements, which are the improvements adjacent to their property, therefore the owner of 2700 would not be asked to share in the cost of maintaining anything adjacent to 2720 and 2730. The management of the drive maintenance will be a cooperative effort of the neighbors as it has been for at least 30 to 35 years. 5. If the 'owner" breaches the agreement, the "city's " only recourse is to take over the improvements. The City cannot deny vehicular access to the various parcels. The Agreements provide for the owners to maintain the permitted improvements. The primary beneficiary of those improvements is the owner. If the improvements become unsafe and they are not repaired, the City can do the repairs and place a lien on the property to recover the City's costs. _ -20001 .�eJy 29GhI: HARRIC TaiLOR T1.1•_724r5° Taylor Consulting -2c P.i91�1.092 70:949 •�-:�1 _ .►����dShoc -S���e� 315 Woot Third Stroet • Santa Ma, Ca. 92701 • Telcphon_!7a% (774) 8/1.4587/499 March 26, 2001 Honorable Members City of Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1769 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Re: March 27"' meeting: Items 10& 16 — Encroachment Agreement EPN 2000 -254 Rex Brandt Trust Honorable Mayor and Council Members: M Y RECEIVES BY PLANNING DEPARTMEN7 CITY nF niGt..to ^�T AC r. 2 7 Lbol )U)L- AM PM 7181911011111211 1213141516 -1 . The exhibits to this coming Tuesday's staff report were made available on Friday. This includes significant information not previously available for review and evaluation. This letter provides concerns with the encroachment agreement, as follows: The agreement, as drafted, includes a deceased party. The agreement, as drafted, associates all improvements with half of the four the properties and not necessarily the property benefiting from the, improvetents. it is unclear how enforcement obligations could be pursued. It is unclear what justification or public benefit is used to rationalize the gift or use of public oruperty. What is the consideration for the City or Public for entering into this agreement? Section 5(d) provides for "prorata" maintenance of cxi�itiug facilities without any specifics. Further, prorata would not be an equitable cost sharing arrangement (i.e. 2700 has no reason to use or go in front of the 2730 property but has to share in his maintenance. 2730 impacts 2720 — 2710 — 2706 & 2700 hit pays no more). Who is going to manage this? S -2901 17;89 FR7Jt4!HARRi5 T-'- L'7R 7i4a724599 Ti i � yqc x,=14 'c ?o w: Taylor Consulting AVAVAVATATAT" 315 Pleat ThUd Street • Santa Ana. Co. 92701 , Telephone9ax i714) 972 - 4597/4599 If" "owner" breaches the agreement, the "city's," only physical recourse is to take over the improvements. We believe there are potential impacts from these public property improvements !hat need to be addressed prior to approval in the following areas: Traffic / Access Noise / Glare Hydrology / Drainage Public resources / property Geologic / Soils Aesthetics Hazards Short-term construction. Thank you for your expected assistance. F' • UU =' C;U2 P1RR -22 -'2001 19:47 FP.OM:HRPF-,S TAYLOT^.. 1149724599 TO'949 644 3229 P.001,204 C7 V' G�QS]c-+aU l-'Jvd 3-6% 1 Taylor Consulting ATAVATAVAYAVAV 319 Weal Third Street • Santa Ana Ca. 92704 • Telephone/fax g t 4) 872 - 4597;4599 March 22, 2001 Honorable Members City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Re: March 27`s meeting: Items 10& 16 — LLA, Encroachment Agreements, & W. Amendment 909 Rex Brsndt Trust Honorable Mayor and Council ;Members: 0 (7 T, <c o ^' M no �T M vrn CDC) N l'' c>\ �4 n C17 c'; OD m CPOr N xT I am taking This opportunity to get my comments into the public record. Although sometimes these decisions appear routine, the laws and codes provide these to be sent for review, input and decision :making. As a precursor to specific continents, I object to the refusal by staff to provide uiformativu ur to provide written response to correspondence. The public process has not been well executed. The staff refused to provide full public access to the informarion on the project in conflict with Council Policy E -I and despite a specific Public Records Act request. The attachments or exhibits to the staff report are not available. The project(s) seem to be in conflict with Council policies G•1, K -3. L -2, and L -6. 1 strongly oppose approval on these decisions based upon die facts that have been presented. fn addition to this letter, please refer to my letter to the Planning Commission on their Staff Report and the deficiencies iucuusistcnciu that still exist. Now and specifically, t have reviewed the staff report and have comments, as follows; MAR -22 -2001 19:49 FP.OM:HARP.IS TAYLOR 7149724599 70: 949 644 x229 We Taylor Consulting ..AVA.A.AVAV.. 515 West Thid Street • Santa Anti. Ca. 92701 • Telaphone/iax (714) 972 - 4597/4599 .Encroachment Agreements In this section, a proposal or letter is being reviewed by staff with a oral report to be provided at the hearing. How can the public and the Citv Council as decision makers be prepared on a material component of a project without having it made available. Summary It is ide,uificd incorrectly that the Planning Commission recommended approval of this package of decisions. The Commission has made a split decision .for approval of the LLA and 'Zoning Code Amendment only. They were specifically instructed and made their decision based upon not having the ability to review or authority over the encroachment agreement and improvements in the public ROW. There continues to be no analysis, discussion, evaluation, or disclosure on what the effects to the maintenance of existing public and private maintenance. Findings Finding one requires a determination that the original and resulting lots are legal lots. Besides being substandard and requiring exceptions and modifications, thee un•built, sloped lot does not have physical access. With no physical access, no residence can legally be built on this lot in the existing condition. Finding two includes an incorrect statement that these lots are both currently built upon and are therefore buildable. Refer to comments on finding one above. Finding tour utilizes exemptions from the subdivision code for Lot Line Adjustments which can be Provided when 4 conditions are met, including "minor and routine in nature, and a determination can be made without the need for extensive review and public involvement'. Ccrtaildy, this Lot Line application has already required significant staff review and the public is strongly requesting involvement. This exclusion does not apply. Finding four indicates "no change in the land use, density, or intensity" yet we know from the previous discussion that some multiple of the existing units are proposed and cannot be built without this approval.. Finding five is in conflict with the code reference section 19.08.05 of finding four in that improvements are ueccssury. P.002 %094 149724599 TO =949 644 3229 MAP. -22 -2001 1848 FP.OM:HAP.RIS TAYLOP. 7 W.- Taylor Consulting AVAVAVAVAVAVAV 315 West Third Street - Santa Ana. Ca. 92701 • Telephonelfax (714) 972 - 459714599 Finding six is appropriate only if all construction were to be within the private lots. The public ROW improvements do not allow use of this exception to CEQA requirements. Section 15304 woWd be a more appropriate exception however the "project" does not meet its requirement either, Conditions Condition two requires compliance with Public Works Standards where the body of the report identifies the improvements as non - standard. Further, is this condition holds then the entire access should be required to be brought up to Public'Wor(W standards. Condition three requires the LLA to be recorded prior to the improvements, At that point, the applicant will have reconfigured non - complying lots without the improvements that are required for compliance. Condition live appears to be concurrence that these really arc separate units, ready to be condominiums in the future, and not a duplex. Condition six is non specific and therefore unenforceable. Condition seven, if actually applied, would prevent this project from being built. Condition eight is in conflict with condition two. Cuuditiun ten is impossible to comply with and therefore unenforceable. Condition eleven is in conflict with Tide I.Q. And, if strictly applied would prevent approval of this request and construction. Therefore it is ambiguous and unenforceable. Irrespective of these comments, you are resting this conglomeration of approvals (LLA, ZC, and encroachment agreements) all on a CFQA section for reconstruction of a house. You have several CEQA `projects" here that would be demonstrated if the appropriate Initial Study were performed. P. 003%004 riNN- ad- 2;�L�i 18:48 FROM:HARRIS TAYLOP. 7149724599 T0:949 x44 3229 P.0041004 WM Taylor Consulting 315 WeSt Third Street • Santa Ana, Ca. 92701 • Telephonetlex (714) 972. 4597 /4599 Ask yourself, if the City were doing the improvements identified, would you have to do and Initial Study and comply with CEQA? Maybc the answer can be obtained by reviewing the CEQA compliance of the wall constriction across the street at Femleaf. We ask that you direct Staff to perform an Initial Study wider the CEQA guidelines to determine if there is potential for impacts. If the potential for impacts exists then an appropriatc evaluation of impacts, alternatives, mitigation measures, and overriding consideration should be made. We believe there are potentinl impacts in the following areas: Traffic / Access Noise / Cilare Hydrology / Urainage Public resources / property Geologic / Soils Aesthetics Hazards Short -term conotction. We ask only for what is required and what will prevent unknown problems from occurring. Full pnhlic disclosure and adequate time for analysis should not be this difficult. Thank you for your expected assistance. Si e 1 Chris Tayl� h1RR -26 -20011 1(!,39 PRGM= HARRIS TGYLOR 71 -09724599 TO =949 6"4 3229 P.001,002 r' "RECEIVED I(, -01 A Taylor Consulting 315 W46t Third Stwt • Sente Ma, Ca. 92701 • Tekph7n.R3x (714) 9 72- -058714`99 March 26. 2001 Honorable Members City of Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Re: March 27`il meeting: Items 10& 16 — Encroachment Agreement EPN 2000 -254 Rex Brandt Trust Honorable Mayor and Council Members: We RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY np: ^cAC`'t 2 J 7 2W WL AM PM 71819110,11,12i112,314IS16 A 0 nT --tT a <� C)m M ^= �m N M -v CDC) { ti- b mcl yr rn x� The exhibits to this coming Tuesday's staff report were m -nde available on Friday. This includes significant information not previously available for review and evaluation. This letter provides concerns with the encrouchment agrccmcat, as follows: The agrcomcnt, as drafted, includes a deceased party. The agreement, as drafted, associates all improvements with half of the four the properties and not necessarily the Property benefiting From the improvurnunts. It is unclear how enforcement obligations could be pursued. It is unclear what justification or public benefit is used to rationalize the gi Ft nr use of public property. What is the consideration for the City or Public for entering into this agreement? Section 5(d) provides For " prorata" maintenance of costing facilities without any specifies. Further, prorata wotdd not be an equitable cost sharing arrangement (i.e. 2700 has no reason to use or go in front of the 2730 property but has w share in his maintenance. 2730 impacts 2720 — 2710 — 2706 & 2700 but pays no more). Who is going to manage this? rt'M25 -2O�1 17!09 FP.OM!HARRIS 79' /LOP, -149 724599 T0:949 544 3c29 P-0021002 W; Taylor Consulting AVAVAVATATATAT 315 West TNrd Steet - Santa Ana. Ca. 92701 - Telephone/iay ;714) 972 -459714599 If "owner" breaches the agrccment, the "city's" only physical recourse is to take over the improvements. We believe there are potential impacts from these public property improvements !hat need to be addressed prior to approval in the follownrg areas: Traffic / Access Noise / Glare Hydrology / Drainage Public resources / property Geologic / Soils Aesthetics Hazards Short -term construction. Thank you for your expected assistance.