HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 - Lot Merger Appeal - 2808 & 2812 Ocean Boulevard�gW Pp�r
CITY OF
NEWPORT B _ C H
C9�F00.N`P City Council Staff Report Agenda Item No. 11
May 8, 2012
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Community Development Department
Kimberly Brandt, AICP, Director
949 - 644 -3226, kbrandt(a�newportbeachca gov
PREPARED BY: Kay Sims, Assistant Planner
APPROVED:
\— 1
TITLE: Appeal of Denial of Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002
to Merge 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard
(PA2011 -141)
ABSTRACT:
An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, October 20, 2011, to deny Lot Merger No.
LM2011 -002, reversing the Zoning Administrator's approval to allow the merger of the following
property under common ownership: portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 located in Corona del
Mar. Also included in the application was a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map.
At the request of the applicant and direction of the City Council, the Planning Commission
reconsidered and recommended approval of the application based on review of alternative
development standards voluntarily proposed by the applicant. At the April 24, 2012, City Council
meeting, Council voted to continue the appeal so that the applicant could provide an executed
document stating the proposed alternative development standards that he is voluntarily proposing.
This report supplements the staff report provided for the April 24, 2012, City Council meeting and
provides information relating to the applicant's proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Conduct a public hearing; and
2. Sustain or reverse the Planning Commission's decision by either:
a. Adopting the draft resolution for denying Lot Merger Application No. LM2011 -002
(Attachment CC 1); or
b. Adopting the draft resolution approving Lot Merger Application No. LM2011 -002
(Attachment CC 2).
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
There is no fiscal impact related to this item.
Appeal — Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 (PA2011 -141)
May 8, 2012
Page 2
VICINITY MAP
11.W1
l l ;ry . q
'• �•
GENERAL PLAN
ZONING
i F ^, \6i> ♦
\b 77 Ri
R 1 R 1' � r 1 R.1 a 'M .. \ R -1 �P t ` \R -1 ♦ /
R.1, ./ \ \ R -1\ ! �.,R -1 \\ 6h R.t
./R."'\ IS \., \ip \.R -j \ •/ '4
\ +LL• \
J.
!^ /Rt /Iii H.1 A/
,. M1b'
\+�
R -� \ /;��\H.i\ ++L./ /\
x•0.1\
.h`= = ) \\ a +tr'' '
V F b d+i \.. +b /r•
R'1 \4 <� \1f t 1
,R.1 %
i
R.1 R 1
R -t \R1\ \2 ^mod
Rt41)
/ ✓ \
R-1 R:1
R1 R -1/ \
\ �
Oi
\
\ ;
WR mm•
'•1 i rt -t
.�.
y.le aq- ii
ZONING
CURRENT USE
LOCATION GENERAL PLAN
ON-SITE Single -Unit Residential Detached
RS -D
Single -Unit Residential
R -1
Single- family residence
NORTH Single -Unit Residential Detached
Single -Unit Residential
Single- family residence
R S -D
R -1
SOUTH Parks and Recreation
(PR)
Parks and Recreation
(PR)
park, beach, and public restrooms
EAST Single -Unit Residential Detached
Single -Unit Residential
Single- family residence
RS -D
R -1
WEST Single -Unit Residential Detached
RS -D
R -1 Single -Unit Residential
Single- family residence
Appeal — Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 (PA2011 -141)
May 8, 2012
Page 3
INTRODUCTION:
Proiect Description and Settin
The applicant proposes to combine 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard for the purpose of
developing a new single - family residence. Furthermore, the applicant proposes to limit
development of the merged property by applying alternative development standards for floor
area, side setbacks, and height, which are more restrictive than those required by the Zoning
Code. The applicant is providing a signed /executed restrictive covenant that details the self
imposed restrictions that are acceptable to the applicant. If the lot merger is approved, this
restrictive covenant will be recorded requiring future development of the merged properties to
comply with the alternative development standards unless and until terminated by the City of
Newport Beach.
The subject properties are located in Corona del Mar adjacent to the northeasterly (inland) side
of Ocean Boulevard between Goldenrod and Heliotrope Avenues. The two properties consist of
portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34. They are generally rectangular in shape with skewed
front property lines and slope gently from the rear toward Ocean Boulevard. Vehicular access is
provided from Ocean Lane via a 20- foot -wide shared, private ingress and egress easement at
the rear of 2812 Ocean Boulevard. Each property is currently developed with a single story,
single - family residence. Lookout Point and Little Corona Beach Park are located directly across
Ocean Boulevard.
Background
The application to merge the two properties was approved by the Zoning Administrator in
September of 2011; the approval was appealed to the Planning Commission, who voted to deny
it at their October 20, 2011, meeting. The denial of the application was then appealed by the
applicant to the City Council. At the January 24, 2012, City Council meeting, at the request of
the applicant, the Council referred the matter back to the Planning Commission for the purpose
of reviewing alternative development standards proposed by the applicant.
Planning Commission's Reconsideration of the Lot Merger
Reconsideration of the application was heard by the Planning Commission on March 22, 2012,
meeting. Staff described the history of the application and explained that the applicant's
proposed alternative development standards for height and maximum floor area limit (FAL) were
more restrictive than the R -1 standards prescribed by the Zoning Code for the Corona del Mar
area.
During public comments, representatives for the applicant stated that in addition to their
alternative development standards, as stated in the staff report, they would be willing to
increase the 4- foot -side setbacks required by the Zoning Code for the merged property to 6-
foot -side setbacks. The representatives then gave a presentation of their proposal that included
architectural renderings and photo simulations of a residence that would comply with the
proposed height and floor area limits (FAL).
Following the applicant's presentation, representatives for the neighborhood group that
appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision stated that the findings for approval could not be
made, and that the merged large lot would be out of character for the neighborhood.
Appeal — Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 (PA2011 -141)
May 8, 2012
Page 4
Additionally, they discussed the subdivision history of Block 34, neighborhood opposition to the
proposed merger, and provided statistics that compared the proposed lot to other lots
throughout Corona del Mar. Ten residents spoke in opposition, citing issues that included:
obstruction of views, the health of nearby residents, the findings of approval could not be made,
construction noise, excessive and out of character development, and non - compliance with a
recorded private deed restriction limiting the height of structures to one story.
Four people spoke in favor of the project indicating that the proposed development standards
would: result in a one story residence, development would be consistent with the existing
development along Ocean Boulevard, and the size of the proposed lot would not be out of
character with the area. The Planning Commission discussed the Condition of Approval related
to recordation of a restrictive covenant to state that enforcement of the covenant would be on
the part of the City, the applicant, and would also include two property owners (2811 and 2821
Ocean Lane).
Following the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission discussed the intent of the
findings and whether all five findings could be made, the size of the lot in relation to other lots in
the area, the accuracy of view simulations, the proposed alternative development standards,
and the proposed restrictive covenant.
After discussion, the Planning Commission voted (3 ayes, 2 noes) to recommend approval of
the lot merger to the City Council with modifications to the applicant's proposed alternative
development standards. Their recommendation includes the applicant's proposed alternative
development standards, including the 6- foot -side setbacks; plus additional restrictions that limit
the floor area to 0.75 of the buildable area and reduce the proposed height by 3 feet; and
enforcement of the restrictive covenant would include the City and the property owners at 2811
and 2821 Ocean Lane.
City Council Continuance
On April 24, 2012, the City Council voted to continue the appeal to its May 8, 2012, meeting in
order to allow the applicant time to execute a restrictive covenant, which would include the
alternative development standards that the applicant is voluntarily proposing.
Analysis
Table 1: Comparison of Develonment Stanriarrlc
Development Standards
City
Planning Commission
Applicant's Proposed
Recommendation
Alternative
Maximum Floor Area Limit (FAL)
1.5 x buildable area*
0.75 x buildable area*
1.0 x buildable area"
Side Setbacks
4'
6'
6'
34% up to 166"
34% up to 15'6"
(floor of roof deck) **
(floor of roof deck) **
Maximum Height Limit
24'
33% up to 15'
33% up to 15'
(flat roof /top of railing/ parapet)
(measured to top of roof)
(measured to top of roof)
33% up to 14'
33% up to 14'
(measure to top of roof)
(measure to top of root)
Measured from:
Measured from:
Established Grade of
Established Grade of
67.2' (NAVD88 )
70.2' NAVD88)
Subterranean basements not included in maximum FAL (as per Newport Beach Zoning Code).
*Roof deck railings shall be transparent and may exceed the maximum height, but shall be no higher than the minimum
height required by the latest California Building Code.
Appeal — Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 (PA2011 -141)
May 8, 2012
Page 5
The applicant has provided plans (Attachment CC 4) that reflect a home designed in
accordance with the proposed alternative development standards. The applicant is also
providing a voluntary restrictive covenant to be recorded against the merged properties that
incorporates these standards. Table 1 compares those alternative development standards with
the standards as required by the Zoning Code and those recommended by the Planning
Commission. For a more detailed analysis of the proposal as compared to the standards
required by the Zoning Code and recommended by the Planning Commission, please see the
April 24, 2012, City Council staff report and Attachments (beginning on handwritten page 7).
Summary
The applicant has voluntarily proposed alternative development standards which decrease the
maximum height and floor area limit (FAL) and increase the side setbacks with the goal of
ensuring that the mass and scale of future development on the merged property would be
compatible with the neighboring properties and surrounding area. The Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval of the lot merger includes the applicant's proposed alternative
standards, including the 6- foot - side -yard setbacks, plus additional restrictions that limit the floor
area to 0.75 of the buildable area and further reduces the height limit by measuring from an
elevation of 67.2' NAVD88 rather than 70.2' NAVD88 as required by the Zoning Code.
Alternatives
If the City Council finds the facts do not support the findings required to grant approval of
the lot merger application, the City Council should adopt the draft resolution (Attachment
No. CC 1) upholding the October 20, 2011, decision of the Planning Commission
reversing the decision of the Zoning Administrator and denying the proposed lot merger.
2. If the City Council finds the facts do support the findings required to grant approval of the
lot merger application, the City Council should adopt the draft resolution (Attachment No.
CC 2) reversing the October 20, 2011, decision of the Planning Commission and
upholding the decision of the Zoning Administrator approving the proposed lot merger,
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Should City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission on October 20, 2011, and
deny this project. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review.
Should City Council reverse the decision of the Planning Commission on October 20, 2011,
and approve this project, staff recommends the City Council find this project exempt from
CEQA, pursuant to Section 15305 (Class 5 - Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of
the Implementing Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), because
it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.
2. Class 5 exempts projects which consist of minor alterations in land use limitations in areas
with an average slope of less than twenty percent, which do not result in any changes in
land use or density, including but not limited to, minor lot line adjustments not resulting in
the creation of any new parcel. The existing and proposed properties have a slope less
than twenty percent. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject
properties as Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D), which is intended to provide
Appeal — Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 (PA2011 -141)
May 8, 2012
Page 6
primarily for single - family residential units on a single legal lot and does not include
condominiums or cooperative housing. The Coastal Land Use Plan designates the
properties as Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B) which provides for density ranges
from 6.0 -9.9 DU /AC. The Zoning Code designation is Single -Unit Residential (R -1), which
is also intended for single - family residential development. The existing development of
single -unit dwellings on each property and the proposed development of a single -unit
dwelling on the merged site are consistent with these designations.
Submitted by:
Kimberly Brandt, Co m nity Development Director
Attachments:
CC 1
Draft Resolution to Deny
CC 2
Draft Resolution to Approve
CC 3
Correspondence
CC 4
Plans
May 8, 2012
City Council
Attachment 1
Draft Resolution to Deny
RESOLUTION NO. ###ff
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH, DENYING LOT MERGER APPLICATION NO. LM2011 -002 TO
MERGE THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES, UNDER COMMON
OWNERSHIP: PORTIONS OF LOTS 4, 5, AND 6 OF BLOCK 34
LOCATED IN CORONA DEL MAR (PA2011 -141).
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An application was filed by the John Guida Trust and the Julie Guida Trust, with respect to
properties located at 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard, and legally described as Portions of Lots
4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 of Corona del Mar requesting approval of a lot merger.
2. The applicants propose a lot merger for the following property under common ownership:
portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 located in Corona del Mar. Also included in the
application is a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map.
3. The subject property is located within the Single -Unit Residential (R -1) Zoning District and the
General Plan Land Use Element category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D).
4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is
Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B).
5. A public hearing was held by the Zoning Administrator on September 14, 2011, in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place
and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Zoning
Administrator at this meeting.
6. Based on the facts of finding for approval and subject to the conditions of approval in the
Zoning Administrator Action Letter, the Zoning Administrator approved the proposed lot
merger application.
7. On September 23, 2011, the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve Lot Merger No.
LM2011 -022 was appealed by Mr. Clifford Jones (2800 Ocean Boulevard), Ms. Joan Campbell
(2811 Ocean Lane), and Mr. John Silva (2821 Ocean Lane).
8. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 20, 2011, in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. The Planning
Commission considered evidence, both written and oral presented at this meeting. A notice of
time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach
Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the
Planning Commission at this meeting.
9. The Planning Commission determined that the required findings for approval could not be
made and reversed the decision for approval of the Zoning Administrator thereby denying the
application.
10. On October 27, 2011, Mr. John Guida filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action.
City Council Resolution No.
Page 2 of 4
11. A public hearing was held by the City Council on January 24, 2012, in the City Hall Council
Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and
purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
12. The applicant requested that the City Council continue the appeal in order to allow him time to
develop and present voluntary alternative development standards more restrictive than those
required by the Zoning Code for development of the merged property.
13. The City Council voted unanimously to continue the hearing and refer the matter back to the
Planning Commission for reconsideration, directing the Commission to make a
recommendation of approval or denial of the lot merger based on a review of the applicant's
proposed alternative development standards.
14. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 22, 2012, in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place
and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning
Commission at this meeting.
15. At the hearing, the applicant voluntarily proposed alternative development standards which are
more restrictive than those required by the Zoning Code: 1.0 floor area limit (FAL), 6- foot -side
setbacks, and maximum height - 15 feet 6 inches measured from an established grade of 70.2'
(NAVD88), which is calculated pursuant to the Zoning Code requirements. The applicant
proposed these alternative development standards with the goal of ensuring that the mass and
scale of future development on the merged property would be compatible with the neighboring
properties and surrounding area.
16. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the lot merger to the City Council with
alternative development standards proposed by the applicant, plus additional restrictions that
limit the floor area to 0.75 of the buildable area, and reduce the height limit proposed by the
applicant by 3 feet by measuring from an established grade of 67.2' (NAVD88) rather than
70.2' (NAVD88) as required by the Zoning Code and proposed by the applicant, and subject to
enforcement by the City and the property owners at 2811 and 2821 Ocean Lane.
17. A public hearing was held by the City Council on April 24, 2012, in the City Hall Council
Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and
purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
18. A memorandum received from staff recommended continuation of the item to May 8, 2012 to
allow the applicant sufficient time to prepare and execute a restricted covenant that would include
development standards as voluntarily proposed by the applicant. The City Council approved a
motion to continue the item to May 8, 2012.
19. A public hearing was held by the City Council on May 8, 2012, in the City Hall Council Chambers,
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the
meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both
written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this meeting.
Tmplt: 03/08111
City Council Resolution No. _
Pape 3 of 4
20. For the public hearing, the applicant provided a signed document entitled "Restrictive
Covenant." The document states that the applicant will comply with the following voluntarily
proposed alternative development standards:
U Floor Area Limit (FAL):
1.0 (1.0 x 9,488.02 square feet = 9,488.02 square feet)
Subterranean basements shall not be included in maximum FAIL (per Newport
Beach Zoning Code)
o Maximum height for flat roof:
- 34 percent up to 15 feet 6 inches (floor of roof deck)*
- 33 percent up to 15 feet (measured to top of roof)
- 33 percent up to 14 feet (measured to top of roof)
- "Established Grade" for the purpose of measuring height for the principal structure
shall be 70.2' (NAVD88)
*Roof deck railings shall be transparent.. Roof deck railings may exceed the maximum
height, but shall be no higher than the minimum height required by the latest California
Building Code.
G Setbacks:
- Front — 20 feet
- Rear — 10 feet
- Right Side — 6 feet
- Left Side — 6 feet
21. Based on the reasons stated below in Section 3. FINDINGS, the City Council voted to deny
Lot Merger Application No. LM2011 -002, upholding the Planning Commission's October 20,
2011, decision to deny the application.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, projects which
a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review.
SECTION 3. FINDINGS
The City Council may approve a lot merger application only after making each of the required findings
set forth in Section 19.68.030.1-1 of Title 19 (Subdivision Code: Lot Mergers, Required Findings). In
this case, the City Council denied the lot merger application for the following reasons:
A. The lot merger would allow development that is incompatible with the size and mass of
structures on neighboring properties within Block 34 and in the surrounding area. The removal
of the interior lot line would eliminate the interior side setback (three feet) on each property,
create a buildable area greater than currently exists on the two separate lots, and eliminate the
open space that the interior side setbacks currently provide.
Tmplt: 03/08/11
City Council Resolution No.
Page 4 of 4
B. The lot merger would create a lot size and configuration, which is inconsistent with the
development pattern of the subject properties and surrounding lots within Block 34 and in the
surrounding area.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies Lot Merger No. LM2011 -022
(PA2011 -141), which includes a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map, and
upholds the decision of the Planning Commission made on October 20, 2011.
2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City
Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.
3. This decision was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of itself
or in combination with other decisions in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a precedent for
future decisions.
4. This resolution was approved, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Newport Beach, held on the 8th day of May, 2012.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Tmplk 03/08/11
May 8, 2012
City Council
Attachment 2
Draft Resolution to Approve
RESOLUTION NO. ####
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH, APPROVING LOT MERGER NO. LM2011 -002 TO MERGE
THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES, UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP:
PORTIONS OF LOTS 4, 5, AND 6 OF BLOCK 34 LOCATED IN
CORONA DEL MAR, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 2808 AND 2812
OCEAN BOULEVARD (PA2011 -141).
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An application was filed by the John Guida Trust and the Julie Guida Trust, with respect to
properties located at 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard, and legally described as Portions of Lots
4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 of Corona del Mar requesting approval of a lot merger.
2. The applicants propose a lot merger for the following property under common ownership:
portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 located in Corona del Mar. Also included in the
application is a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map.
3. The subject property is located within the Single -Unit Residential (R -1) Zoning District and the
General Plan Land Use Element category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D).
4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is
Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B).
5. A public hearing was held by the Zoning Administrator on September 14, 2011, in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place
and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Zoning
Administrator at this meeting.
6. Based on the facts of finding for approval and subject to the conditions of approval in the
Zoning Administrator Action Letter, the Zoning Administrator approved the proposed lot
merger application.
7. On September 23, 2011, the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve Lot Merger No.
LM2011 -022 was appealed by Mr. Clifford Jones (2800 Ocean Boulevard), Ms. Joan Campbell
(2811 Ocean Lane), and Mr. John Silva (2821 Ocean Lane).
8. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 20, 2011, in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. The Planning
Commission considered evidence, both written and oral presented at this meeting. A notice of
time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach
Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the
Planning Commission at this meeting.
9. The Planning Commission determined that the required findings for approval could not be
made and reversed the decision for approval of the Zoning Administrator thereby denying the
application.
City Council Resolution No. _
Paoe 2 of 8
10. On October 27, 2011, Mr. John Guida filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action.
11. A public hearing was held by the City Council on January 24, 2012, in the City Hall Council
Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and
purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
12. The applicant requested that the City Council continue the appeal in order to allow him time to
develop and present voluntary alternative development standards more restrictive than those
required by the Zoning Code for development of the merged property.
13. The City Council voted unanimously to continue the hearing and refer the matter back to the
Planning Commission for reconsideration, directing the Planning Commission to make a
recommendation of approval or denial of the lot merger based on a review of the applicant's
proposed alternative development standards.
14. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 22, 2012, in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place
and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning
Commission at this meeting.
15. At the hearing, the applicant voluntarily proposed alternative development standards which are
more restrictive than those required by the Zoning Code: 1.0 floor area limit (FAL), 6- foot -side
setbacks, and maximum height - 15 feet 6 inches measured from an established grade of 70.2'
(NAVD88), which is calculated pursuant to the Zoning Code requirements. The applicant
proposed these alternative development standards with the goal of ensuring that the mass and
scale of future development on the merged property would be compatible with the neighboring
properties and surrounding area.
16. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the lot merger to the City Council with
alternative development standards proposed by the applicant, plus additional restrictions that
limit the floor area to 0.75 of the buildable area, and reduce the height limit proposed by the
applicant by 3 feet by measuring from an established grade of 67.2' (NAVD88) rather than
70.2' (NAVD88) as required by the Zoning Code and proposed by the applicant, and subject to
enforcement by the City and the property owners at 2811 and 2821 Ocean Lane.
17. A public hearing was held by the City Council on April 24, 2012, in the City Hall Council
Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and
purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
18. A memorandum received from staff recommended continuation of the item to May 8, 2012, to
allow the applicant sufficient time to prepare and execute a restricted covenant that would include
development standards as voluntarily proposed by the applicant. The City Council approved a
motion to continue the item to May 8, 2012.
19. A public hearing was held by the City Council on May 8, 2012, in the City Hall Council Chambers,
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the
meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both
written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this meeting.
City Council Resolution No. _
Paqe 3 of 8
20. For the public hearing, the applicant provided a signed document entitled "Restrictive
Covenant." The document states that the applicant will comply with the following voluntarily
proposed alternative development standards:
G Floor Area Limit (FAL):
1.0 (1.0 x 9,488.02 square feet = 9,488.02 square feet)
Subterranean basements shall not be included in maximum FAL (per Newport
Beach Zoning Code)
C Maximum height for flat roof:
- 34 percent up to 15 feet 6 inches (floor of roof deck)*
- 33 percent up to 15 feet (measured to top of roof)
- 33 percent up to 14 feet (measured to top of roof)
- "Established Grade' for the purpose of measuring height for the principal structure
shall be 70.2' (NAVD88)
*Roof deck railings shall be transparent. Roof deck railings may exceed the maximum
height, but shall be no higher than the minimum height required by the latest California
Building Code.
G Setbacks:
- Front — 20 feet
- Rear— 10 feet
- Right Side — 6 feet
- Left Side — 6 feet
21. Based on the following facts of finding for approval and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval, the City Council approved the proposed lot merger application reversing the
Planning Commission's decision of denial at its October 20, 2011, meeting.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
This project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act under Class 15305 (Class 5 Minor Alterations in Land
Use Limitations), because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.
Class 5 exempts projects which consist of minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with
an average slope of less than twenty percent, which do not result in any changes in land use or in
density, including but not limited to, minor lot line adjustments not resulting in the creation of any
new parcel. The existing and proposed properties have a slope less than twenty percent. The
Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject properties as Single -Unit
Residential Detached (RS -D), which is intended to provide primarily for single - family residential
units on a single legal lot and does not include condominiums or cooperative housing. The
Coastal Land Use Plan designates the properties as Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B)
which provides for density ranges from 6.0 -9.9 DU /AC. The Zoning Code designation is Single -
Unit Residential (R -1), which is also intended for single - family residential development. The
existing development of single -unit dwellings on each property and the proposed development of
a single -unit dwelling on the merged site are consistent with these designations.
City Council Resolution No. _
Paoe 4 of 8
SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS.
In accordance with Section 19.68.030.H of Title 19 (Subdivision Code: Lot Mergers, Required
Findings) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such
findings are set forth:
Finding
A. Approval of the merger will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental
to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and
improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the
proposed lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 19.
Facts in Support of the Finding:
A -1. The future development on the proposed parcel will comply with the Zoning Code
development standards.
A -2. The proposed merger will not cause future development to impact public views of the ocean as
no public view presently exists.
A -3. The project site described in the proposal consists of legal building sites.
A -4. The lot merger to combine the existing legal lots by removing the interior lot lines between them
will not result in the creation of additional parcels.
A -5. The project is in an area with an average slope less than 20 percent and no changes in land
use or increase in density will occur as a result of the merger.
Finding
B. The lots to be merged are under common fee ownership at the time of the merger.
Facts in Support of the Finding:
B -1. The portions of lots 4, 5, and 6 to be merged are under common ownership.
Finding
C. The lots as merged will be consistent or will be more closely compatible with the applicable
zoning regulations and will be consistent with other regulations relating to the subject property
including, but not limited to, the General Plan and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific
Plan.
Facts in Support of the Finding:
C -1. The previously existing single -unit dwellings located on the subject sites will be demolished, and
the proposed lot would be redeveloped with a new single -unit dwelling. Section 20.18.030 of the
Zoning Code establishes minimum lot area and width requirements. Each of the two existing lots
meet the minimum lot area required, but do not meet the minimum lot width required (50 feet).
City Council Resolution No.
The proposed merger would create one lot, which would comply with the minimum lot width and
lot area standards required by the Zoning Code.
C -2. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject properties as Single -Unit
Residential Detached (RS -D), which is intended to provide primarily for single - family residential
units on a single legal lot and does not include condominiums or cooperative housing. The
Coastal Land Use Plan designates the properties as Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B)
which provides for density ranges from 6.0 -9.9 DU /AC. The Zoning Code designation is Single -
Unit Residential (R -1), which is also intended for single - family residential development. The
existing development of single -unit dwellings on each property and the proposed development of
a single -unit dwelling on the merged site are consistent with these designations.
Finding
D. Neither the lots as merged nor adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of
the merger.
Facts in Support of the Finding:
D -1. Vehicular access to and from the subject site and adjacent properties is available via an ingress
and egress easement at the rear of the site. Should the ingress and egress easement be
terminated, vehicular access is possible from Ocean Boulevard at the front of the existing or
merged parcels.
Finding
E. The lots as merged will be consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and will not
create an excessively large lot that is not compatible with the surrounding development.
Facts in Support of the Finding:
E -1. Corona del Mar consists of lots of varying shapes and sizes. The subject lots, as merged, will
result in a parcel with a width of 80 feet and area of 13,678 square feet. Other nearby lots on
Ocean Boulevard have lot widths as wide as 73 feet and area as large as 13,325 square feet.
The merger of the two lots it will not create an excessively large lot in comparison to many of the
existing lots in the surrounding area.
E -2. Under the City's Zoning Ordinance, development within the R -1 (Single -Unit Residential) Zoning
District within Corona del Mar can have a maximum floor area limit (FAL) 1.5 times the buildable
area of the lot. The applicant has provided a signed 'Restrictive Covenant" setting forth more
restrictive alternative development standards for height, side setbacks, and maximum floor area,
which will result in development consistent with properties in the surrounding area.
Finding
F. That the proposed division of land complies with requirements as to area, improvement and
design, flood water drainage control, appropriate improved public roads and property access,
sanitary disposal facilities, water supply availability, environmental protection, and other
applicable requirements of this title, the Zoning Code, the General Plan, and any applicable
Coastal Plan or Specific Plan.
City Council Resolution No. _
Page 6 of 8
Facts in Support of the Finding:
F -1. The existing lots do not meet the lot width standards of the Zoning Code. The proposed lot would
comply with the design standards and improvements required by the Zoning Code, General Plan,
and Coastal Land Use Plan.
F -2. The proposed lot merger combines the lot portions into a single parcel of land and does not result
in the elimination of more than three lot portions.
F -3. Approval of the proposed lot merger would remove the existing interior lot lines, and allow the
property to be redeveloped as a single site. The proposed lot would comply with all design
standards and improvements required for new subdivisions by Title 19 and the Zoning Code. The
Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject properties as Single -Unit
Residential Detached (RS -D), which is intended to provide primarily for single - family residential
units on a single legal lot and does not include condominiums or cooperative housing. The
Coastal Land Use Plan designates the properties as Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B)
which provides for density ranges from 6.0 -9.9 DU /AC. The Zoning Code designation is Single -
Unit Residential (R -1), which is also intended for single - family residential development. The
existing development of single -unit dwellings on each property and the proposed development of
a single -unit dwelling on the merged site are consistent with these designations.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE TO:
Approve Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 with the alternative development standards as
recommended by the Planning Commission on March 22, 2012, and waiver of the requirement
to file a parcel map for property, under common ownership, consisting of portions of Lots 4, 5,
and 6 of Block 34 located in Corona del Mar, and subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit
A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. This approval reverses the
decision of denial of the Planning Commission on October 20, 2011.
2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City
Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.
3. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of itself
or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a precedent for
future approvals or decisions.
4. This resolution was approved, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Newport Beach, held on the 8th day of May, 2012.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
City Council Resolution No.
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Prior to recordation of the lot merger, the applicant shall provide a copy of a recorded
instrument, setting forth the voluntary alternative development standards proposed by the
applicant, that will apply to all future development of the merged properties unless terminated
by written agreement by the City of Newport Beach.
2. Prior to recordation of the lot merger, at least one of the existing dwelling units shall be
demolished. At no time shall there be more than one dwelling unit located on the merged parcel.
3. Prior to recordation of the lot merger, grant deeds indicating any changes in titles of ownership
should be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval.
4. The lot merger and grant deeds reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department
should be filed concurrently with the County Recorder and County Assessor's Offices.
5. Prior to issuance of the building permit for any new construction on the property, the Planning
Division shall verify recordation of the lot merger with the County Recorder The design of the
development shall not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access
through or use of property within the proposed development.
6. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works
Department.
7. The existing broken and /or otherwise damaged concrete sidewalk panels along the Ocean
Boulevard frontage shall be reconstructed. Limits of the reconstruction shall be determined by
the City Public Works Inspector.
8. All existing drainage facilities in the public right -of -way, including the existing curb drains along
Ocean Boulevard, shall be retrofitted to comply with the City's on -site, non -storm runoff
retention requirements.
9. All on -site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements.
10. All existing private, non - standard improvements within the public right -of -way and /or
extensions of private, non - standard improvements into the public right -of -way fronting the
development site shall be removed.
11. New sod or low groundcovers, as approved by the City, shall be installed within the parkway
fronting the development site along Ocean Boulevard.
12. An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right -of -way.
13. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement. See City Standard
110 -L.
14. The existing sewer lateral to be used for the future dwelling unit shall have a sewer cleanout
installed within the utilities easement per STD - 406 -L. All other laterals to be abandoned shall
be capped at the property line.
City Council Resolution No. _
Paoe 8 of 8
15. All unused water services to be abandoned shall be capped at the corporation stop.
16. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by the
private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right -of -way could be required
at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector.
17. All applicable Public Works Department plan check fees shall be paid prior to review of the lot
merger and grant deeds.
18. No building permits may be issued until the appeal period has expired, unless otherwise
approved by the Planning Division.
19. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as
specified in Section 20.93.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
20. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City,
its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and
against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits,
losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation,
attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may
arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the 2808 and 2812
Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger including, but not limited to, Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002
(PA2011 -141). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against
the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such
claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the
parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of
City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification
provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any
amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition.
May 8, 2012
City Council 3
Attachment
Correspondence
MEMORANDUM
APRIL 30, 2012
I want to elaborate on the reasons for my vote against the proposed lot merger of 2808 and 2812 Ocean
Blvd. Notwithstanding my "No" vote, I was not against the lot merger as was my friend and colleague
Commission Chair Mike Toerge. Rather, I was of the opinion that the required Findings could be made
to approve of the lot merger as originally proposed by the Applicant. The Applicant, in an attempt to
address some of the concerns expressed by his neighbors, had requested the matter be referred back to
the Commission so the Applicant could volunteer restrictions on the development of the merged lots.
That was fine with me; but when the Commission majority chose instead to impose further restrictions
which had not been proffered by the Applicant, I voted "No ".
But let me digress for a minute. In my view the role of a Planning Commissioner is to implement the
policies of the City as established by the City Council in its adopted Polices and Codes. Because the
Commissioners are unelected, I do not believe the Commission should try to change policies or create
new ones. The Municipal Code sets forth the process for evaluating the propriety of a lot merger
application. Therefore, with respect to the Ocean Blvd. merger request, the issue before the Planning
Commission was one solely of statutory interpretation. It was not related to the personal health or age
of nearby residents, or what the Applicant said or didn't say, or what the neighbors think is right, just or
fair, or if the Applicant is nice or not. Those are not factors that have been codified as a basis for a
decision under Municipal Code Section 19.68. The only question the Code contemplates is: Can the
Findings set forth in Municipal Code Chapter 19.68.030 H. be made? For your easy reference, 1 have
attached Municipal Code Chapter 19.68.
My belief is the required Findings can be made. The merger opponents assert that the Findings required
by Sections Hl and H5 cannot be made. Commissioner Toerge agrees with them. Reasonable minds can
differ, especially given the words that are used in Chapter 19.68.
As for Section Hi, I do not believe substantial evidence established that the merger would be
detrimental or injurious generally to the health, safety, peace, comfort or general welfare of those
nearby, or to property or improvements nearby. The issue is not what may be built on the merged lots,
but rather pertains only to the merger in and of itself. I did not see anything that would be detrimental
or injurious due to the lot merger itself.
As for Section H5, parsing is in order. Would the lots as merged "be consistent with surrounding
patterns of development"? It depends on what the Code means by "surrounding ". If it is just the
houses on all sides of the property in question, or in the same block as the property in question, then
the answer would probably be no. But if it means the broader community in which the property in
question is located, then I believe the answer is yes. This was not a clear cut call, but my sense is that if
the word "surrounding" were narrowly defined, then lots in blocks that had had no change to date
would in essence be frozen in time, even if the blocks next to them had already undergone some
redevelopment and therefore could continue to evolve. The Code did not provide any clues on how to
interpret the word "surrounding" in this context. But I could not envision that the Council intended to
keep some blocks in their original development pattern while other similarly situated and perhaps
contiguous blocks were allowed to accommodate lot mergers. This application provides a chance for
the Council to provide clarity as to the interpretation of the word "surrounding' if it so chooses.
Continuing, would the lot merger "create an excessively large lot'? By adding the adjective
"excessively ", the Code implies that it is ok for a merged lot to be large, but not ok for it to be
excessively large. There are other lots along Ocean Blvd. that seem similarly sized, so would the merged
lots be excessively large by comparison? One of the witnesses, who was opposed to the merger,
conceded that two normal sized lots in CDM would not be excessively large, but because the merger in
question involved lots that were somewhat bigger to begin with, their combination created an
excessively large lot. Without clues in the Code as to what might be "excessively large ", I judged the
merged lots as large, but not excessively large. Again, guidance from the Council as to what is
"excessively large" would provide direction for future lot mergers applications.
Finally, and I apologize forthe lawyerly discussion, but the Code proscribes merged lots that are
excessively large but seemingly only if they are also "not compatible with surrounding development'.
So again, the concept of "surrounding development' is important. But because of the added language
about compatibility, it appears possible that a merged lot could be excessively large, but not necessarily
incompatible with surrounding development. If, however, the creation of an excessively large lot were
all that mattered, then the final proviso, "that is not compatible with the surrounding development'
would be unnecessary. Generally speaking, all words in a Code are presumably there for a purpose. As
noted, I did not believe the merged lots would create an excessively large lot so I did not need to reach a
conclusion as to whether an excessively large lot could nonetheless be "compatible with surrounding
development'.
Larry Tucker
(949) 251 -2045
�bapter 19.68
Chapter 19.68
MERGER OF =JTIGUOUS LOTS
Sections:
19 68.010 Purpose and Intent.
19.68.020 Exemptions.
19.68.030 Lot Mergers.
19.68.010 purpose and Intent.
The provisions of this chapter are intended to provide for the merger of parcels as authorized by Section
66499.203/4 of the Government Code. These provisions are intended to be consistent with the State
Subdivision Map Act and shall be so construed. (Ord. 2009 -30 § 1 (Exh. 1 § 8 (part)), 2009)
19.68.020 Exemptions.
A. Old Lots. Any lot of record on August 2, 1943, may be used as a development site even when of less
area or width than that required by the provisions of this Code.
B. Lots in R -1.5 District. On any site of less than five thousand (5,000) square feet which existed prior to
March 10, 1976, a two- family dwelling may be constructed; provided, that there shall be not less than one
thousand (1,000) square feet of land area for each family unit. (Ord. 2009 -30 § 1 (Exh. 1 § 8 (part)), 2009)
19.68.030 Lot Mergers.
A. Application, Mergers of contiguous lots involving four or fewer parcels under one fee ownership may
be initiated by the owner of the fee interest. An application for a lot merger shall be filed in a manner
consistent with the requirements contained in Section 20.90.030 (Application Filing). Application for
merger of contiguous parcels shall be made on forms provided by the Planning Department and shall
include such items as may reasonably be required to make the necessary findings. An application shall be
accompanied by a fee set by resolution of the City Council.
B. Required Plans and Materials. In addition to the other application materials required by Section
20.90.030, an application for a lot merger shall be accompanied by an exhibit showing the lots to be
merged, the property lines of the adjoining parcels, and structures on and adjacent to the lots to be
merged.
C. Planning Department Review. An application for a lot merger shall be initially reviewed by the
Planning Department in accordance with Sections 20.90.040 and 20.90.050.
D. Zoning Administrator. Application for lot merger shall be approved, conditionally approved, or denied
by the Zoning Administrator unless referred to the Planning Commission pursuant to this section.
E. Referral to Planning Commission. The Zoning Administrator may determine that an application should
properly be heard by the Planning Commission and may refer the matter to the Planning Commission for
hearing and original determination on the merits. The procedure for notice and hearings held by the
Planning Commission on such applications shall be in accordance with the same provisions as set forth in
this section.
F. Public Hearings. Lot mergers shall require a public hearing before the Zoning Administrator.
Procedures for noticing and conduct of hearings shall be in accordance with Section 20.93.025.
G. Investigation. The Zoning Administrator shall cause to be made such investigation of facts bearing
upon such application as will serve to provide all information necessary to assure that the action on each
application is consistent with the intent of this section and sound planning practices.
http: / /www.codepublishing. com ICAINewportBeachfhtmUNewportBeach 19lNewporLBeach l968.htm1 4125/2012
Chapter 19.68
H. Required Findings. All of the following findings shall be made prior to approval of a lot merger:
1. Approval of the merger will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to
the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in
the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed lot merger is
consistent with the legislative intent of this title; and
2. The lots to be merged are under common fee ownership at the time of the merger; and
3. The lots as merged will be consistent or will be more closely compatible with the applicable
zoning regulations and will be consistent with other regulations relating to the subject property
including, but not limited to, the General Plan and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan; and
4. Neither the lots as merged nor adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of
the merger; and
5. The lots as merged will be consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and will not
create an excessively large lot that is not compatible with the surrounding development.
I. Conditions of Approval_ The Zoning Administrator may condition a lot merger to account for the
impacts including, among other things, public improvements as well as the payment of drainage and other
fees required for subdivisions by this title.
J. Rendering of Decision. After the conclusion of the hearing on any application for a lot merger, the
Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission shall render a decision within ten (10) days unless
otherwise stipulated by the applicant and the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission.
K. Effective Date and Appeals. Decisions on lot mergers shall not become effective for ten (10) days
after being granted. Appeals shall be made in accordance with the provisions for appeal of tentative parcel
maps, as set forth in Section 19.12.060(B). Upon the filing of an appeal, the original decision shall be
stayed and the matter shall be set for public hearing.
L. Instrument Filed for Record Upon Lot Merger Approval. Upon approval of a lot merger, the applicant
shall file a document, approved by the City in writing, specifying the names of the record owners of the fee
interest and particularly describing the real property with a site map for recordation with the County
Recorder.
M. Waiver of Concurrent Parcel Map. In accordance with Section 19.08.030, the Zoning Administrator
may approve a waiver of the parcel map requirement in conjunction with the lot merger where no more
than three parcels are eliminated. If a merger involves the elimination of more than three parcels, tentative
and final parcel maps shall be required.
N. Expiration and Amendments. Expiration of and amendments to lot merger approvals shall be in
accordance with Chapter 20.93. (Ord. 2009 -30 § 1 (Exh. 1 § 8 (part)), 2009)
http: / /www.codepublishing. con/ CA/ NewportBeach/ html/ NewporLBeachl9 /NewportBeach1968.htm) 4/25/2012
Comments on April 24, 2012 City Council Agenda
Comments by: Jim Mosher (iimmosher(opyahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-
548 -6229)
Item 14. Appeal of Denial of Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002
C Staff Report
On handwritten page 13 (page 8 of the April 24, 2012 staff report), the statement that
CEQA Regulations Section 15305 provides an exemption for projects which "do not
result in ... increase in density' is incorrect.
• Section 15305 actually exempts projects which "do not result in any changes
in land use or density."
• "Density" is generally understood (including in the CNB Zoning Code) to
mean the number of dwelling units per acre.
• As the regulation observes, a minor lot line adjustment not resulting in the
creation of a new parcel will not normally change density since, if it alters
acreages at all, it increase the density on one parcel and add decrease that
on the other resulting in little or no change in the average.
• A lot merger is not a minor lot line adjustment, and results in the present
case, in a change from two units on a certain combined acreage to one unit
on the same acreage. That is a factor of two change in density, and even if it
is environmentally benign it does not meet the stated requirements of the
Section 15305 exemption.
• As a result, staff has not provided a convincing CEQA analysis.
On handwritten page 13 (page 9 of the April 24, 2012 staff report), Attachment CC 3
is described as containing the March 22, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes. This
was not initially the case, but appears to have been corrected.
Y Attachment 1: Draft Resolution to Deny
o "Section 1. Statement of Facts.
Statement 5: the claim that notice "was given in accordance with the
Newport Beach Municipal Code" is questionable. The version published
in the Daily Pilot likely omitted much of the information required by
Municipal Code 20.62.020.A.
April 24, 2012 Council Agenda Item 14 - comments by Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3
G Statement 8: same comment regarding notice being in compliance with
Municipal Code as above
The following two statements (similar to those on handwritten page 24 in
the Draft Resolution to Approve) appear to be missing:
A statement 17 observing: `A public hearing was held by the City
Council on April 24, 2012, in the City Hall Council Chambers,
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of
time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance
with the Newport Beach Municipal Code."
G A statement 18 observing that after hearing and reviewing
testimony both verbal and written, the Council voted to deny the
appeal.
o "Section 4. Decision."
Point 4. If the matter is continued, the date will need to be changed (and
the Statement of Facts corrected).
G Attachment 2: Draft Resolution to Approve
o "Section 1. Statement of Facts."
Same comment as above regarding correctness of notice in Statements 5
and 8.
Either Statement 17 or 18 would normally observe that at its April 24,
2012 meeting the City Council heard evidence, both written and verbal.
o "Section 2. CEQA Determination."
Statement 2 that "This project is consistent with these requirements" is
questionable. Although there is no change in land use, the project is not
a minor lot line adjustment and it will result in a factor of two change in
density.
o "Section 3. Required Findings."
Fact A -2 seems questionable. There are public views affected, although
not necessarily from locations starred in the general plan.
Facts A -5 and F -3, to the extent they state there will be no change in
density, seem incorrect for the reason citied above.
o "Section 4. Decision.
April 24, 2012 Council Agenda Item 14 - comments by Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3
Point 1. There reason for waiving the filing of a parcel map is not entirely
clear, nor do the conditions of approval seem to remind the applicant of
his obligation, in that event, to record a site map with the County
Recorder per Municipal Code 19.08.030.E.
Point 4. If the matter is continued, the date will need to be changed (and
the Statement of Facts corrected).
o Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A)
Condition 2: the reference to "Condition of Approval No. T would seem
like it should be to "Conditions of Approval No. 3 and 4."
Condition 4: It is not clear from the Zoning Code that "established grade'
can be arbitrarily changed. Under Section 20.30.050.C, the director, at
least, appears to be restricted to choosing a value comparable to
adjoining lots. It is unclear from the staff report if 67.2' is such a value, or
3' lower than what would normally be regarded as the established grade.
Other comments:
This may be standard for lot mergers, but the approval does not seem to give any
guidance as the surviving Assessor's Parcel Number or street address for the combined
lots.
In my view the merger requires a Coastal Development Permit (or waiver from the
California Coastal Commission). Even if the lot qualifies for inclusion in the Categorical
Exemption Zone -- which one might question, since like the comparable lots at 200
Poppy and 204 -218 Hazel it appears to be in the first row of residences adjacent to
coastal resources -- the 1977 Exclusion Order applies only to demolition and
reconstruction of single family residences, not to subdivision changes or any other kind
of development. The Coastal Commission may well find that this particular merger
raises no Coastal Act issues, but their review would still appear to be needed.
o Even if Exclusion Order E -77 -5 exempts the lot merger and subsequent
rebuilding from CCC review, the applicant is required to certify his qualification
for this exemption on a form submitted to the CCC as explained in Term and
Condition 5 of CNB Council Resolution 9190 — something it is not obvious the
applicant has been reminded of in the proposed conditions of approval.
Memorandum
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD, BLDG. C
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915
(949) 6443237
To: City Council
From: Kay Sims, Assistant Planner
Date: April 20, 2012
Cc: Dave Kiff, Dana Smith, Aaron Harp, Steve Badum & Kim Brandt
Re: City Council Meeting April 24, 2012, Agenda Item No. 14
Appeal of Denial of Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 to Merge
2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard (PA2011 -141)
Staff is recommending that the hearing of this item be continued to the May 8, 2012
meeting of the City Council to allow the applicant sufficient time to prepare and
execute a restricted covenant that includes the alternative development standards as
voluntarily proposed by the applicant.
Thank you.
May 8, 2012
CONSULTANT UST
PROJECT INFORMATION
SHEET INDEX
ii
(53
tL
V
O
0
�a�
z.
D
0
U
O
cc;
rorK evurne worms
ROM f
/1 ENMYLE LFLOORP sm
\J
I�
I:
I'
,
1 I
I IJ
/ a
7 Ell
I\ I
/.m mieva I U
I
N
LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PIAN .� N
I
I
�i
y<y,
Fd�
gud�
Q n
rc �
�i
u
e yf
a �9
a R�
6
a
evlC
Ay
A1.Oa
(D.ffatT.SIWMETT ELWAMN E952-�-
ME
;ii��li
E
�.�� _ew_. m_
0
N
O
N
m
��lil
�!
'q��li
� i�;
�ii!iiu
=I U
6 �
1
�d�
�a�
u
z i
m
w
U
2
W
G q2
� X�
Q f�
6
�—
A�'l�
e.c
�-�'
- A�
I I9
I I S I
Im
LL
D
0
u
r
V
O
06
E-1