HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0_Beard Residence_1_Staff Report_PA2021-130CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT February 17, 2022 Agenda Item No. 3
SUBJECT: Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Variance No. VA2021-002
Coastal Development Permit No. CD2021-025
Encroachment Permit No. N2022-0040 SITE LOCATION: 3625 Ocean Boulevard
APPLICANT: Brandon Architects
OWNER: Ron and Marsha Beard
PLANNER: David S. Lee, Associate Planner 949-644-3225, dlee@newportbeachca.gov
PROJECT SUMMARY
A request for a coastal development permit to demolish an existing single-unit residence and construct a new 5,413-square-foot, single-unit residence with an attached 522-square-foot two-car garage. The applicant requests a variance for the following deviations:
1.A building height of three (3) feet above mean curb height of Ocean Boulevard, where
the Zoning Code requires the building height to be no greater than the elevation ofthe curb;
2.A flat roof height of 38 feet, where the Zoning Code requires a maximum flat roof
height not to exceed 24 feet from grade.
3.An encroachment of ten (10) feet into the required 10-foot front yard setback area;
4.The construction of a two-car garage, where the Zoning Code requires a three-car
garage for single-unit residences that include livable floor area of 4,000 square feet
or greater.
Additionally, a request for an encroachment permit to construct private improvements within the Ocean Boulevard public right-of-way consisting of site walls, stairs on-grade,
bio-retention planter, sump-pumps, railings and a decorative concrete driveway that
encroach up to 47-feet into the 110-foot-wide Ocean Boulevard public right-of-way.
1
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE2
Beard Residence (PA2021-130) Planning Commission, February 17, 2022 Page 2
RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; 2) Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; 3) Waive City Council Policy L-6, Encroachments in Public Rights-of-Way, to retain
existing non-compliant private improvements within the Ocean Boulevard public right-of-way consisting of site walls, stairs on-grade, bio-retention planter, sump-pumps, railings and a decorative concrete driveway that encroaches in excess of 1 foot into the 110-foot-wide Ocean Boulevard public right-of-way, contingent upon all conditions of the Encroachment Permit process being met (Attachment No. PC 1);
and
4) Adopt Resolution No. PC2022-002 waiving City Council Policy L-6 and approving Variance No. VA2021-002, Coastal Development Permit No. CD2021-025 and Encroachment Permit No. N2022-0040 (Attachment No. PC 1).
3
Beard Residence (PA2021-130) Planning Commission, February 17, 2022 Page 3
VICINITY MAP
GENERAL PLAN ZONING
LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE
ON-SITE Single-Unit Residential Detached (RS-D) Single-Unit Residential (R-1) Single-Unit Residence
NORTH RS-D R-1 Single-Unit Residence
SOUTH N/A N/A Ocean
EAST RS-D R-1 Single-Unit Residence
WEST RS-D R-1 Single-Unit Residence
4
Beard Residence (PA2021-130) Planning Commission, February 17, 2022 Page 4
INTRODUCTION Project Setting The subject property is an 8,039-square-foot coastal bluff lot located on the westerly side
of Ocean Boulevard, abutting the ocean. The property is one of ten single-unit residences
(3601 to 3729 Ocean Boulevard) located on the bluff face side of Ocean Boulevard, between Orchid and Poppy Avenue. Since there is no rear access, the property takes vehicular access from Ocean Boulevard.
The site is currently developed with a 5,227-square-foot, three-story, single-unit residence
that encroaches 8 feet into the required 10-foot front setback. The existing residence is constructed 3 feet above the Ocean Boulevard curb height, where the Zoning Code requires a maximum height to be no greater than the curb elevation. The existing residence includes an attached 448-square-foot two-car garage at the top of the structure
with an approximately 50-foot-deep driveway within the public right-of-way to the street
itself. Project Description
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing single-unit residence and construct a
new 5,935-square-foot single-unit residence, which includes an attached 522-square-foot two-car garage. The proposed residence consists of three stories that descend from Ocean Boulevard towards the bluff. However, only the garage level is visible from Ocean Boulevard, and the overall proposed height of the residence is 3 feet above the Ocean
Boulevard curb consistently with the height of the existing residence.
Additionally, the applicant is requesting an encroachment permit to construct private improvements within the Ocean Boulevard public right-of-way consisting of site walls, stairs on-grade, bio-retention planter to meet water quality standards, sump-pumps,
railings and a decorative concrete driveway and walkway that encroach up to 47-feet into
the 110-foot-wide Ocean Boulevard public right-of-way. City Council Policy L-6 (“Policy”) does not allow the proposed encroachments in excess of 1 foot into the public right-of-way and the Owner is requesting a waiver of the Policy to allow the reconstructed elements in generally the same position as the existing improvements.
Background The project site is located on a steep bluff on the westerly side of Ocean Boulevard, which creates hardships in constructing a usable residence that strictly complies with applicable
development standards. The subject property, along with the surrounding residences on the bluff, has a history of being granted relief from Zoning Code standards. On June 6, 1963, Variance No. 751 was approved by the Planning Commission, which authorized the construction of the existing residence 8 feet into the required 10-foot front setback, as well as allowing the maximum height to be 3 feet above the Ocean Boulevard curb. On
5
Beard Residence (PA2021-130) Planning Commission, February 17, 2022 Page 5
August 6, 1999, the Modification Committee approved Modification Permit No. 4941, which authorized additional accessory structures and a new chimney to encroach up to 10 feet of the required 10-foot front setback, as well as a new retaining wall and deck to further encroach onto the bluff side. Subsequent to these approvals, the existing residence underwent major renovation in 2001, taking advantage of the deviations
previously authorized by the modification permit, as well as a 369-square-foot addition. Due to the previously mentioned topographical restraints, all ten residences on the Ocean Boulevard bluff between Orchid and Poppy Avenue (3601-3729 Ocean Boulevard) have been granted relief from Zoning Code standards in order to construct residences. All 10
residences were granted relief from the 10-foot front setback standards to be able to construct principal and accessory structures within the setback area. Additionally, nine of the 10 residences requested relief from maximum height standards, which were granted by the Planning Commission.
DISCUSSION
Analysis General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, and Zoning Code
The site is designated as Single-Unit Residential Detached (RS-D) by the General Plan Land Use Element and Single Unit Residential Detached – 0.0-5.9 DU/AC (RSD-A) by the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP). It is located within the Single-Unit Residential (R-1) Zoning District and Coastal Zoning District. The single-unit residence is a permitted use
under these land use designations. With the exception of the requested deviations for maximum building height, front setback, and parking, the proposed residence complies with all other applicable development standards of the R-1 Zoning and Coastal Zoning Districts as illustrated in Table 1 below:
Table 1: Zoning and Coastal Zoning Development Standards Development Feature Required Existing Proposed
Setbacks (min.)
Front Rear (1) Left Side (West) Right Side (East)
10’ 10’ 4’ 4’
2’ 10’ 3’ 3’-6”
0’ 10’ (0F1) 4’ 4’
Flat Height (max.) 24’ 44’ 38’
Open Space (min.) 888 sq. ft. 4,000 sq. ft. 4,231 sq. ft.
Floor Area Limit (max.) 8,881 sq. ft. 5,227 sq. ft. 5,935 sq. ft. Parking (min.) 3 spaces 2 spaces 2 spaces
1 The new structure is permitted to be built to the existing line of development, which exceeds 10 feet from the rear property line.
6
Beard Residence (PA2021-130) Planning Commission, February 17, 2022 Page 6
Variance Findings
The variance is requested to exceed the maximum height limit, encroach into the required front setback, and deviate from required parking, all standards which are required by the
Zoning Code and certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) Implementation Plan. A variance
is a request to waive or modify certain standards when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical features, the strict application of the development standards otherwise applicable to the property denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property
owners in the vicinity and in the same zoning district.
Section 20.52.090.F (Variances, Findings and Decision) of the Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to make the following findings before approving a variance:
A. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject
property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical
features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an
identical zoning classification; B. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an
identical zoning classification;
C. Granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights of the applicant; D. Granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district;
E. Granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly
growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the
public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood; and
F. Granting of the Variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this
Section, this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan.
7
Beard Residence (PA2021-130) Planning Commission, February 17, 2022 Page 7
Topographic Constraints
Image 1: Coastal Bluff
The subject property is a coastal bluff lot located on the westerly side of Ocean Boulevard (Image 1). The rear of the property includes a bluff which severely slopes towards the
ocean. The lot has a unique topography as it is located at the transition of the bluff on Ocean Boulevard and includes a steep decline towards the adjacent property at 3619 Ocean Boulevard. The topography declines approximately 40 feet from the front of the property line to the northwesterly rear limit of existing development. Additionally, the topography declines approximately 20 feet in the transition from the southeasterly to
northeasterly side yards (Figure 1).
Subject Property
8
Beard Residence (PA2021-130) Planning Commission, February 17, 2022 Page 8
Figure 1: Topography of Subject Property
Although the lot is large in total area, new development is limited to not extend farther onto the bluff face beyond existing development in order to comply with Zoning Code and Local Coastal Plan policies. The lot is constrained by the topography, which slopes steeply from the front of the lot to the bluff edge, and steeply from side property line to
side property line. These constraints make it difficult to comply with the development
standards required by the Zoning Code such as building height, front setback, and parking.
Height Deviation
The existing residence has a building height that is 3 feet above the mean curb height of Ocean Boulevard, where the Zoning Code requires a maximum height to be no greater than the curb. The existing residence was permitted through Variance No. VA751, which
was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission on June 6, 1963. The applicant
is proposing an entirely new structure in the same footprint of the existing residence. If the proposed residence could be constructed to be below the height of the Ocean Boulevard top of curb requirement, compliance with the standard would be achieved but more importantly, public views over the property to the Pacific Ocean would be improved.
The Applicant’s design has the new garage, along with the main entry area proposed to
be constructed 3 feet above the mean curb height, matching the existing residence. In order to construct a useable driveway that complies with City driveway slope standards along with a garage that meets minimum Code standards results in a building height that exceeds the mean curb height by 3 feet. If the height of the garage is constructed to
comply with the mean curb height, the driveway slope would be severe and unsafe for
9
Beard Residence (PA2021-130) Planning Commission, February 17, 2022 Page 9
use by the residents. The remaining levels below do not exceed the mean curb height as it descends towards the bluff. The applicant’s design reduces the area of encroachment above the top of curb elevation standard and reduces overall visual mass when compared to the existing structure (see figure 2 below).
Figure 2: Reduction in Structure Volume
Although the proposed residence exceeds the Code-required height limit, the applicant has designed the project to have a significant reduction in volume in comparison to the existing structure (Figure 2). Where the existing structure has a roof eave footprint of
2,543 square feet at the highest level (above the height limit), the proposed residence
has a reduced eave footprint at the highest level of 1,076 square feet which is a reduction of 1,467 square feet of volume which currently has a visual impact to the neighborhood (Figure 3).
10
Beard Residence (PA2021-130) Planning Commission, February 17, 2022 Page 10
Figure 3: Footprint at Highest Level
Additionally, the Zoning Code requires a maximum height for flat roofs to be 24 feet from grade. Since the subject property is located on a bluff where there is significant elevation change in multiple directions, strict compliance with the maximum height limitations would deprive the subject property of a useable residence. Due to the varying topography, the
building height varies, but the worst-case area is 38 feet high where there is a severe
decrease in topography towards 3619 Ocean Boulevard. In comparison, the existing structure is 44 feet height in the worst-case areas. It is not feasible to build a comparable residence while complying with the height limitations, as it would not be able to comply with Code-required ceiling heights nor provide adequate access between levels.
Front Setback Deviation
The proposed residence encroaches 10 feet into the required 10-foot front setback area. Although the lot is large in total area, new development is limited to not extend farther
onto the bluff face beyond existing development in order to comply with Zoning Code and
Local Coastal Plan policies. The lot is further constrained by the topography within the buildable area, which slopes steeply from the front of the lot to the bluff edge, and steeply from side property line to side property line. These constraints create difficulty in constructing a reasonably-sized residence without encroaching into the front setback
area.
All 10 residences located on the Ocean Boulevard bluff between Orchid and Poppy Avenues, including the existing residence on the subject property, have been authorized by discretionary approvals to encroach into the required ten-foot front setback area. Strict
compliance with the required 10-foot front setback would deprive the property owner of
livable area which the surrounding properties enjoy, especially due to the topography constraints of the lot. Additionally, the reduction in footprint would create constrained floor
11
Beard Residence (PA2021-130) Planning Commission, February 17, 2022 Page 11
levels and difficult access between floor levels.
Image 2: Rendering of View from Ocean Boulevard
The proposed encroachment does not create a visual detriment when viewed from Ocean Boulevard (Image 2). There is an approximately 60-foot-deep public right-of-way area
between the subject property line and Ocean Boulevard, which reduces the impact of the encroachment. Additionally, the proposed residence is reducing building volume on the northwestern portion, where the existing residence does not provide any view corridor (Exhibits 3 and 4). Developments on neighboring properties have been similarly approved to encroach to the front property line and have not proven to be detrimental to the
neighborhood.
Parking Deviation
The applicant is proposing to construct a two-car garage, where the Zoning Code requires
a three-car garage for single-unit residences which exceed livable floor area of 4,000 square feet or greater. The proposed project includes 5,413 square feet of livable floor area. The unique topography of the lot, which slopes from the front to the rear bluff as well as
from side to side property lines, creates a difficulty in constructing a height-compliant three-car garage without reducing the entry area to an unusable size. The proposed entry area, which is less than 400 square feet and approximately 17 feet wide, includes the entry door, foyer, and access to the lower levels. The construction of the Code-required three-car garage would reduce the entry area to approximately 160 square feet and
approximately 7 feet wide, which is not practical for the residents.
12
Beard Residence (PA2021-130) Planning Commission, February 17, 2022 Page 12
The project design includes a split-level design where feasible to lessen the visual impact of the structure from Ocean Boulevard. Constructing a three-car garage would add additional building mass which exceeds the curb height and maximum flat roof height. The existing residence exceeds 4,000 square feet of livable floor area but provides a two-car garage which has not caused a detriment to the neighborhood. The driveway in front
of the garage can also accommodate parked vehicles because the slope is not excessive. Staff believes that due to the topographic restraints, a two-car garage is adequate to serve the proposed residence.
Coastal Development Permit Findings
The subject property is located within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, the proposed demolition of the existing single-unit residence, and construction of a new single-unit residence requires a coastal development permit. Per Section 21.52.015.F of NBMC, the required findings to approve a coastal development permit are as follows:
1. Conforms to all applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal Program;
2. Conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the
Coastal Act if the project is located between the nearest public road and the sea or shoreline of any body of water located within the coastal zone.
The proposed deviations to the front setback, building height, and parking comply with 21.52.090(2) Variances, which allows for waiver or modification of certain standards of the Implementation Plan because of special circumstance including location. Topographical challenges exist for all of the bluff side properties on Ocean Boulevard
between Orchid Avenue and Poppy Avenue. However, the subject property is especially constrained since it is located on the transition of the bluff which has a significant decline in elevation towards the adjacent property at 3619 Ocean Boulevard. These deviations allow for a development that is similar and compatible in design, bulk, and scale of the existing single-family neighborhood pattern of development and expected future
development on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard. Since the subject property abuts the ocean, a coastal hazards report was provided by the applicant. The report, prepared by GeoSoils, Inc. on May 30, 2021, concludes that the proposed project is safe from hazards, which includes shoreline movement, waves and
wave runup, and flooding with future sea level rise, for a minimum of 75 years. The historical water elevation at the Newport Bay is 7.7 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Based on the “medium-high risk aversion, low emissions” scenario, which is estimated to have a sea level rise (SLR) of 6 feet by the year 2100, the future extreme bay water level may reach as high as 13.7 feet NAVD 88 (7.7 feet NAVD 88 + 6
feet SLR) over the next 75 years (ie. life of future development). While the site sits on a bluff that is approximately 55 feet NAVD 88 in elevation, the projected sea level rise and wave run up will not reach the top of bluff where the proposed structure is located. Additionally, there exists bedrock at the back of the beach that acts like natural shore protection and protects the site from waves and erosion. The study states that there are
13
Beard Residence (PA2021-130) Planning Commission, February 17, 2022 Page 13
no recommendations necessary to mitigate potential coastal hazards, and that no new shore protection is required to protect the development over the next 75 years. As conditioned, the applicant is required to submit an acknowledgement of coastal hazards present at the site, as well as execute an agreement with the City for the waiver of future shoreline protection devices, as required by the LCP.
The project site is located approximately 200 feet southeast of Inspiration Point, which is designated by the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) as a public view point. Additionally, the CLUP designates Ocean Boulevard as a coastal view road. The project site is visible from various locations along Ocean Boulevard when viewing the ocean. Additionally, the site
and bluff face is visible from Inspiration Point while facing southwest. Benches are available for the public to enjoy panoramic views of the ocean, which includes the Ocean Boulevard bluff. The existing residence is constructed 3 feet above the adjacent curb on Ocean Boulevard and offers limited articulation and modulation in the building design. The proposed residence matches the existing height of 3 feet above the adjacent curb
but includes portions of the roof sunk beneath the curb, recessed balcony areas, and an overall reduction in building volume in comparison to the existing structure (Figure 4). The proposed structure provides an improvement of the public views from both Inspiration Point and Ocean Boulevard. An investigation of the project site and surrounding area did not identify any other public view opportunities. Therefore, the project does not have the
potential to degrade the visual quality of the Coastal Zone or result in significant adverse impacts to public views. The reduction of the building mass and especially the portion above the top of the Ocean Boulevard curb will enhance public views over the property.
14
Beard Residence (PA2021-130) Planning Commission, February 17, 2022 Page 14
Figure 4: Side Elevation of Proposed Structure
The existing residential lot does not currently provide nor inhibit public coastal access. The subject property is located approximately 200 feet from Inspiration Point, which is identified as a public beach access point by the CLUP to Corona del Mar State Beach. Additionally, Ocean Boulevard is identified by the CLUP as blufftop access. The proposed
project is the demolition of an existing single-unit residence and the construction of a new single-unit residence. Access to the beach remains available through Inspiration Point and the beach parking lot. Therefore, the development will not impact public access to local coastal resources.
Relief from Implementation Plan Development Standards Findings
Per Section 21.52.090 (Relief from Implementation Plan Development Standards), the Planning Commission may approve a waiver to a development standard of the
Implementation Plan only after making all of the following findings:
1. Whether or not the development is consistent with the certified Local Coastal
Program to the maximum extent feasible; and
15
Beard Residence (PA2021-130) Planning Commission, February 17, 2022 Page 15
2. Whether or not there are feasible alternatives that would provide greater
consistency with the certified Local Coastal Program and/or that are more
protective of coastal resources.
3. The granting of the variance is necessary due to special circumstances applicable to the property, including location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, and/or
other physical features, the strict application of the development standards
otherwise applicable to the property denies the property owner privileges enjoyed
by other property owners in the vicinity and in the same coastal zoning district; and
4. The modification or variance complies with the findings required to approve a coastal development permit in Section 21.52.015(F);
5. The modification or variance will not result in development that blocks or
significantly impedes public access to and along the sea or shoreline and to coastal
parks, trails, or coastal bluffs;
6. The modification or variance will not result in development that blocks or significantly impairs public views to and along the sea or shoreline or to coastal
bluffs and other scenic coastal areas;
7. The modification or variance will not result in development that has an adverse
effect, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources, including wetlands,
sensitive habitat, vegetation, or wildlife species; and 8. The granting of the modification or variance will not be contrary to, or in conflict
with, the purpose of this Implementation Plan, nor to the applicable policies of the
certified Local Coastal Program.
As previously discussed, the proposed development is consistent with the certified Local
Coastal Program to the maximum extent possible without depriving the applicant of a useable residence that is enjoyed by the surrounding properties. Staff has analyzed the alternatives of the variance and believes that the proposed project is necessary for a viable project while it does not cause a detriment to the surrounding neighborhood.
Exceeding the flat roof height limit required by the Zoning Code is necessary for adequate ceiling heights and living space where there are topographical constraints due to significant bluff transitions. Where feasible, the applicant has designed the project to have a split-level design, which reduces portions of the building height and protects/enhances public views from Ocean Boulevard which were not previously provided by the existing
residence. The proposed residence is not excessive in area or height in comparison to the other residences in the surrounding area and presents a reduction in overall volume and bulk compared to the existing structure on the site. Constructing the proposed residence with the Code-required 10-foot front yard setback
diminishes livable area which the existing and surrounding residences currently enjoy. Without encroaching into the front setback, the proposed residence would have constrained floor levels with difficulty to access lower levels. Encroachment into the front setback has been a relief from the topographical restraint for all of the bluff side residences on Ocean Boulevard between Orchid and Poppy Avenues, as all of the
16
Beard Residence (PA2021-130) Planning Commission, February 17, 2022 Page 16
residences have been authorized to encroach into the front setback area. Staff has considered the alternative of an 8-foot encroachment into the front yard setback similar to the existing structure. However, the additional 2-foot encroachment further shifts the structure two feet away from the steepest parts of the bluff and allows for a reduction of massing in the rear.
The alternative to construct a three-car garage with an adequate entry area would diminish the additional public views by making the portion of the residence that encroaches above the top of curb wider than what the applicant is proposing. The proposed residence is designed to have approximately 40 lineal feet of frontage width
extend above the adjacent curb height of Ocean Boulevard, while the remaining 20 lineal feet of frontage width drops below the curb height. Where the existing residence exceeds the curb height for the entire 60 lineal feet of frontage width, the applicant has designed the project to provide additional public views of the Ocean from Ocean Boulevard. A three-car garage would result in additional bulk and mass and diminish public views of the
ocean. Parking would be permitted on the driveway leading to the home reducing the need to park on the street. Finally, given the fact that the project site is located on a bluff top abutting the ocean, the Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan states that new development shall not
extend further onto the bluff face beyond the existing line of development. The proposed project complies with this limitation and will not have an adverse effect on the bluff or any other coastal resource, as stated by the prepared Geotechnical and Geologic Investigation Report by Coast Geotechnical, Inc. dated May 27, 2021.
Encroachment into Public Right of Way
City Council Policy L-6, Encroachments in Public Rights-of-Way, explains and describes how the public rights-of-way are to be reserved for public use or open space; and that the rights of the public, present and future, are not to be diminished by the installation of
private improvements within the public rights-of-way. The Policy specifies allowable and
prohibited encroachments and describes the required permits and/or encroachment agreements. Private encroachments in public rights-of-way are prohibited; however, minor
encroachments such as fences, walls, patios, raised planters, etc., which encroach in
excess of one (1)-foot into the public right-of-way or exceeds three (3)-feet in height can be allowed by the Public Works Department. Improvements that exceed these standards are prohibited without a waiver of Policy L-6. The applicant is requesting a waiver of this policy to retain the existing improvements that encroach in excess of 1 foot into the Ocean
Boulevard public right-of-way.
The existing improvements are complementary to the area; several residences along the Ocean Boulevard right-of-way have similar private encroachments. The proposed plan has similar improvements in the same general location. The Ocean Boulevard right-of-
17
Beard Residence (PA2021-130) Planning Commission, February 17, 2022 Page 17
way is approximately 110-feet wide, which is unusually wide for a residential area. The width of the right-of-way between the back of sidewalk and the property line is approximately 47-feet wide. This portion of Ocean Boulevard slopes downward toward private property and the Pacific Ocean with an elevation change of approximately 7-feet. The existing private improvements do not diminish the rights of the public along the Ocean
Boulevard right-of-way. The existing public sidewalk along the southerly side of Ocean Boulevard is at the top of slope adjacent to the street and is unobstructed and it will remain even during construction. There are no existing City utilities within the encroachment area and the City has no plans to widen Ocean Boulevard. The recommended actions would not diminish public rights for future use.
The proposed site walls, stairs on-grade, bio-retention planter, sump-pumps, railings and a decorative concrete driveway are minor detached structures associated with the existing single-family residence. Their location and presence do not pose a conflict to coastal resources, coastal access, or other adverse environmental effects. The
encroachments do not alter the existing bluff oceanward of the existing home. Therefore, the encroachments are exempt from the requirement for a coastal development permit. Staff supports the policy waiver for the proposed private improvements. In staff’s review of the site conditions, the proposed improvements do not hinder the use of the public
right-of-way. The proposed private improvements will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. The proposed private improvements do not diminish the rights of the public, present and future at this location, provided an encroachment agreement between the City and the Owner will be executed. Staff also recommends that all landscaping within the Ocean Boulevard right-of-way be limited to 36-inches in
height to maintain views from the public sidewalk and street to the Pacific Ocean. Should the Planning Commission approve the waiver of the existing private improvements and appurtenances, staff recommends an encroachment agreement be entered into with the property owner consistent with Policy L-6. The encroachment agreement specifies
the rights of the City and any liability associated with the existing private improvements would be transferred to the Owner. Additionally, if the need for public improvements should arise in the future, the Owner shall agree to remove all encroachments at no cost to the City. The encroachment agreement will be recorded onto the property’s title, provides important notice for the current and future property owner, and protects the City.
Environmental Review This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the
CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.
18
Beard Residence (PA2021-130) Planning Commission, February 17, 2022 Page 18
Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of-way and waterways) including the applicant and posted on the subject property at least 10 days
before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
__________________________ David S. Lee, Associate Planner
__________________________
David Keely, Senior Civil Engineer
ATTACHMENTS
PC 1 Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions PC 2 Variance Exhibits PC 3 City Council Policy L-6 (Encroachments in Public Rights-of-Way)
PC 4 Project Renderings
PC 5 Project Plans
19
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE20
Attachment No. PC 1
Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions
21
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE22
RESOLUTION NO. PC2022-002
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA SUPERCEDING
VARIANCE NO. 651 AND MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 4941 AND
APPROVING VARIANCE NO. VA2021-002 AND COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. CD2021-025 TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENCE AND TO
WAIVE CITY COUNCIL POLICY L-6 AND APPROVE
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. N2022-0040 TO RETAIN
EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-
WAY FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3625 OCEAN
BOULEVARD (PA2021-130)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An application was filed by Ryan McDaniel of Brandon Architects, Inc. (“Applicant”), on
behalf of Ronald P. Beard and Marsha Yun Beard, Trustee of The RPB and MYB
Community Property Trust established August 12, 2020 (“Owners”), with respect to
property located at 3625 Ocean Boulevard, and legally described in Exhibit “A” which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (“Property”) requesting approval of
a variance and a coastal development permit.
2. The Applicant requests a coastal development permit to demolish an existing single-unit
residence and construct a new 5,413 square-foot, single-unit residence with an attached
522 square-foot two-car garage. The Applicant requests a variance for the following
deviations:
a. A building height of three (3) feet above mean curb height of Ocean Boulevard,
whereas Titles 20 and 21 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (“NBMC”) requires
the building height to be no greater than the elevation of the curb;
b. A flat roof height of 38 feet, whereas Titles 20 and 21 require a maximum flat roof
height of 24 feet.
c. An encroachment of ten (10) feet into the required 10-foot front yard setback area;
d. The construction of a two-car garage, whereas Titles 20 and 21 require a three-car
garage for single-unit residences which include livable floor area of 4,000 square
feet or greater;
3. In addition to the entitlements set forth in Section 2, the Applicant requests approval of
Encroachment Permit No. N2022-0040 (PA2021-130) to retain existing non-compliant
improvements within the Ocean Boulevard public right-of-way including site walls, stairs
on-grade, bio-retention planter, sump-pumps, railings and a decorative concrete
23
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2022-002
Page 2 of 21
driveway that encroach up to 47-feet into the 110-foot wide public right-of-way at the
Property (“Project”).
4. The requested encroachments are not specifically provided for within City Council Policy
L-6 (Encroachments in Public Rights-of-Way) (“City Council Policy L-6”). Thus, the Project
is prohibited under Section A (Private encroachments that are prohibited without a waiver
and approval) of said policy. Due to this prohibition, the requested encroachment may only
be approved upon the waiver of City Council Policy L-6 and approval of the encroachment
permit by the Planning Commission.
5. The Property is designated Single-Unit Residential Detached (RS-D) by the General Plan
Land Use Element and is located within the Single-Unit Residential (R-1) Zoning District.
6. The Property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan designation
is Single Unit Residential Detached (RSD-A) (0.0 – 5.9 DU/AC) and it is located within
the Single-Unit Residential (R-1) Coastal Zone District. The Property is also located in
the Bluff (B) Overlay District, which restricts new development from extending further
onto the bluff face beyond the existing development.
7. A public hearing was held on February 17, 2022, in the Council Chambers located at 100
Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the
hearing was given in accordance with California Government Code Section 54950 et
seq. (“Ralph M. Brown Act”) and Chapters 20.62 and 21.62 (Public Hearings) of the
(“NBMC”). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the
Planning Commission at this hearing.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. This Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to
Sections 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of
the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3,
because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.
2. Class 3 exempts the construction of limited numbers of new, small structures, including
one single-family residence. The Project is a new single-family residence located within
the Single-Unit Residential (R-1) Zoning District and Single-Unit Residential (R-1)
Coastal Zone District.
3. The exceptions to this categorical exemption under Section 15300.2 of the CEQA
Guidelines are not applicable. The Project’s location does not impact an environmental
resource of hazardous or critical concern, does not result in cumulative impacts, does
not have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances, does not
damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway, is not a hazardous waste site,
and is not identified as a historical resource.
24
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2022-002
Page 3 of 21
SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS.
Variance
In accordance with NBMC Subsection 20.52.090(F) (Variances – Findings and Decision), the
following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth:
Finding:
A. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject
property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical
features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical
zoning classification.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The Property is a coastal bluff lot located on the westerly side of Ocean Boulevard.
Although the lot is large in total area, new development is limited to not extend farther
onto the bluff face beyond existing development in order to comply with Titles 20 and
21. The lot is further constrained by the topography within the buildable area, which
slopes steeply from the front of the lot to the bluff edge, and steeply from side property
line to side property line. These constraints make it impractical to comply with the front
setback requirements required by Titles 20 and 21 and still design a driveway, garage,
and entry into the dwelling while complying with the existing line of development.
2. The Property has a unique topography as is located at the transition of the bluff on
Ocean Boulevard and includes a steep decline towards the adjacent property at 3619
Ocean Boulevard. The topography declines approximately 40 feet from the front of the
property line to the northwesterly rear limit of development. Additionally, the topography
declines approximately 20 feet in the transition from the southeasterly to northeasterly
side yards.
3. The garage, along with the entry area, is proposed to be constructed three (3) feet above
the mean curb height. The remaining levels below do not exceed the mean curb height.
There is a significant decrease in grade elevation between Ocean Boulevard and the
location of the existing garage. The construction of a useable driveway which best
complies with City driveway slope standards along with a garage to meet minimum Code
standards results in a building height which exceeds the mean curb height by three (3)
feet.
4. The existing residence has a building height that is three (3) feet above the mean curb
height of Ocean Boulevard, where Titles 20 and 21 require a maximum height to be no
greater than the curb. The residence was authorized through Variance No. VA751,
which was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission on June 6, 1963. The
proposed residence will not exceed the height of the existing residence nor diminish any
existing views of the ocean.
25
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2022-002
Page 4 of 21
5. The unique topography of the lot, which slopes from the front to the rear bluff as well as
from side-to-side property lines, creates a difficulty in constructing a height-compliant
three-car garage without reducing the entry area to an unusable size. The proposed
entry area, which is less than 400 square feet and approximately 17 feet wide, includes
the entry door, foyer, and access to the lower levels. The construction of the Code-
required three-car garage would reduce the entry area to approximately 160 square feet
and approximately 7 feet wide, which is not practical usable for the residents.
Finding:
B. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning
classification.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The Property is one (1) of ten (10) single-unit residences (3601 to 3729 Ocean
Boulevard) located on the bluff face side of Ocean Boulevard, between Orchid and
Poppy Avenue. All ten (10) residences have been previously authorized by discretionary
approvals to encroach into the required ten-foot front setback area. Strict compliance
with the required ten-foot front setback would deprive the Owners of livable area which
the surrounding properties enjoy, especially due to the topography constraints of the lot.
Additionally, the reduction in footprint would create constrained floor levels and difficult
access between floor levels.
2. Titles 20 and 21 require all structures on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard in Corona
del Mar to have a maximum building height that is not greater than the elevation of the
adjacent curb. Strict compliance with this height restriction would deprive the Property
of a safe driveway slope. Since there is a significant decline in elevation from Ocean
Boulevard to the proposed garage, the finished floor of the garage needs to be elevated
in order to decrease the driveway slope as much as possible. This necessitates the
overall height of the garage to be three (3) feet above the adjacent curb on Ocean
Boulevard, which is the height of the existing structure on the Property. Furthermore,
surrounding properties such as 3631, 3709, 3719, and 3725 Ocean Boulevard were
granted similar height deviations above the curb height, while 3729 Ocean Boulevard
was granted a maximum building height which is nine (9) feet above the curb height.
3. Strict compliance with the maximum height limitations required by Titles 20 and 21 (24
feet for a flat roof) would deprive the Property of a usable residence. Since the Property
is located on a bluff where there is significant elevation change in multiple directions, it
is not feasible to build a livable residence while complying with the height limitations, as
it would not be able to comply with Code-required ceiling heights nor provide adequate
access between levels.
Although the proposed residence exceeds the Code-required height limit for a flat roof,
the Applicant has designed the Project to have a significant reduction in volume in
comparison to the existing structure. Where the existing structure has a roof eave
26
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2022-002
Page 5 of 21
footprint of 2,543 square feet at the highest level (above the height limit), the proposed
residence has a reduced eave footprint at the highest level of 1,076 square feet, which
is a reduction of 1,467 square feet of volume.
Finding:
C. Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights of the applicant.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The Property consists of a steep coastal bluff. The Project is limited within the buildable
area, between the front and side setbacks and the existing rear line of development.
The denial of the requested deviations would reduce the buildable area to be less than
the existing development on-site, as well as other residences located on the bluff.
2. The design and location of the Project achieves reasonable development of the Property
within the topographical restraints and limits of development on the bluff face. Granting
of the variance preserves the Applicant’s right to construct a residence which is
comparable with the neighborhood while preserving the bluff face.
Finding:
D. Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. Titles 20 and 21 permit the approval of variances to resolve practical physical hardships
resulting from the unique topography and location restraints that exist on this lot and
surrounding area. The ten (10) residences, including the subject Property, which are
located on the bluff face of Ocean Boulevard between Orchid Avenue and Poppy
Avenue, all have similar topographical constraints and have previously received relief
from development standards through discretionary approvals.
2. The requested height deviations are necessary to permit a residence that is comparable
to neighboring lots along the Ocean Boulevard bluff and therefore would not constitute
the granting of special privileges.
3. The requested front setback deviation is consistent with the surrounding residences on
the Ocean Boulevard bluff, which all have been granted deviations to encroach into the
front setback. The existing structure on the Property also encroaches into the front
setback.
27
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2022-002
Page 6 of 21
Finding:
E. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of
the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public
convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working
in the neighborhood.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The proposed 10-foot encroachment into the required 10-foot front setback does not
create a visual detriment when viewed from Ocean Boulevard. There is an
approximately 60-foot public right-of-way area between the Property line and Ocean
Boulevard, which reduces the impact of the encroachment. Developments on
neighboring properties have been similarly approved to encroach to the front property
line and have not proven to be detrimental to the neighborhood.
2. The Applicant is proposing to deviate from the maximum height restriction. The existing
structure is constructed three (3) feet above the adjacent curb height and maintains the
deviated height along the entire width of the buildable frontage (approximately 60 lineal
feet), which is visible from Ocean Boulevard. The Applicant is proposing to reduce the
area of the residence which will exceed the curb height to be 40 lineal feet, while
lowering the remaining 20 lineal feet of frontage to below the curb height. This reduces
the massing which is visible from Ocean Boulevard and opens additional opportunities
for public views of the ocean.
3. The Project utilizes recessed balconies on multiple floor levels as seen from the bluff
side and offers a reduction of volume as the viewed from the adjacent properties and
the bluff side. The granting of the variance will result in a project that is not detrimental
to the surrounding neighborhood, but instead designed to have less bulk than the
existing structure.
4. The existing residence includes an attached, 448-square-foot two-car garage, where
Titles 20 and 21 require a three-car garage. The Project requests a deviation to construct
a similar 522-square-foot two-car garage instead of a three-car garage. The existing
two-car garage has not caused a detriment to the neighborhood. Adding a three-car
garage would remove additional views to the ocean, and require an additional curb cut
to Ocean Boulevard which removes street parking.
Finding:
F. Granting of the variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this section,
this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. Granting the variance request would not increase the density beyond what is planned
for the area, and will not result in additional traffic, parking, or demand for other services.
28
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2022-002
Page 7 of 21
2. The proposed variance request provides similar setbacks for the Property consistent
with the existing development pattern along Ocean Boulevard.
3. The proposed variance request provides a maximum floor area that is consistent with
neighboring lots of similar size, located within the same zoning designation. There is no
deviation requested for floor area.
4. The Property is not located within a specific plan area.
Coastal Development Permit
In accordance with NBMC Subsection 21.52.015(F) (Coastal Development Permits - Findings
and Decision), the following findings and facts in support of such findings as set forth:
Finding:
G. Conforms to all applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal Program.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The proposed deviations to the front setback, building height, and parking allow for a
development that is similar and compatible in design, bulk, and scale of the existing
single-family neighborhood pattern of development and expected future development
on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard.
2. The proposed deviations comply with NBMC Subsection 21.52.090(2) (Relief from
Implementation Plan Development Standards, Variances), which allows for waiver or
modification of certain standards of the Implementation Plan because of special
circumstance including location. Topographical challenges exist for all of the bluff side
properties on Ocean Boulevard between Orchid Avenue and Poppy Avenue. However,
the Property is especially constrained since it is located on the transition of the bluff
which has a significant decline in elevation towards the adjacent property at 3619 Ocean
Boulevard.
3. The Project is located on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard, directly adjacent to the
ocean. A coastal hazards report, prepared by GeoSoils, Inc. on May 30, 2021, concludes
that the Project is safe from hazards, which includes shoreline movement, waves and
wave runup, and flooding with future sea level rise, for a minimum of 75 years. The
historical water elevation at the Newport Bay is 7.7 feet North American Vertical Datum
of 1988 (NAVD 88). Based on the “medium-high risk aversion, low emissions” scenario,
which is estimated to have a sea level rise (SLR) of six (6) feet by the year 2100, the
future extreme bay water level may reach as high as 13.7 feet NAVD 88 (7.7 feet NAVD
88 + 6 feet SLR) over the next 75 years (ie. life of future development). While the
Property sits on a bluff that is approximately 55 feet NAVD 88 in elevation, the projected
sea level rise and wave run up will not reach the elevation where the proposed structure
is located. Additionally, there exists bedrock at the back of the beach that acts like
29
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2022-002
Page 8 of 21
natural shore protection and protects the Property from waves and erosion factoring in
sea level rise. The study states that there are no recommendations necessary to mitigate
potential coastal hazards, and that no new shore protection is required to protect the
development over the next 75 years.
4. With the exception of the variance requests, the proposed development complies with
applicable residential development standards including, but not limited to, side and rear
setbacks, floor area, and open space:
a. A 4-foot setback is required from both side property lines and a 10-foot rear
setback is required from the rear property line. The proposed residence provides
a 4-foot side setback on each side, and the limit of development is approximately
80 feet from the rear property line.
b. The maximum floor area for the residence, including the garage, is 8,881 square
feet. The proposed residence is 5,413 square feet with an attached 522-square-
foot garage, which results in a total floor area of 5,935 square feet.
c. A minimum of 888 square feet of open volume area is required and the proposed
residence provides approximately 4,230 square feet of open volume area.
5. Pursuant to NBMC Section 21.35.050 (Water Quality and Hydrology Plan), due to the
proximity of the development to the shoreline and the development containing more than
2,500 square feet of impervious surface area, a Water Quality Management Plan
(“WQMP”) is required. A WQMP prepared by Thomas M. Ruiz, Civil Engineer, dated June
4, 2021, has been submitted and will be reviewed by the City’s Engineer Geologist. The
WQMP includes a polluted runoff and hydrologic site characterization, a sizing standard
for Best Management Practices (“BMP”), use of a Low Impact Development (“LID”)
approach to retain the design storm runoff volume on site, and documentation of the
expected effectiveness of the proposed BMPs.
6. The Property is located in an area known for the potential of seismic activity and
liquefaction and is required to comply with the California Building Code (“CBC”) and
City’s Building Division standards and policies. Geotechnical investigations specifically
addressing liquefaction are required to be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance
of building permits. Permit issuance is also contingent on the inclusion of design
mitigation identified in the investigations. Construction plans are reviewed for
compliance with approved investigations and CBC prior to building permit issuance.
7. Proposed landscaping complies with NBMC Section 21.30.075 (Landscaping). A
condition of approval is included that requires drought-tolerant landscaping, and
prohibits invasive, species. Prior to issuance of building permits, the final landscape
plans will be reviewed to verify invasive species are not planted.
8. The Project site is located approximately 200 feet southeast of Inspiration Point, which
is designated by the Coastal Land Use Plan (“CLUP”) as a public view point.
Additionally, the CLUP designates Ocean Boulevard as a coastal view road. The Project
30
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2022-002
Page 9 of 21
site is visible from various locations along Ocean Boulevard when viewing the ocean.
Additionally, the site and bluff face is visible from Inspiration Point while facing
southwest. Benches are available for the public to enjoy panoramic views of the ocean,
which includes the Ocean Boulevard bluff. The existing residence is constructed three
(3) feet above the adjacent curb on Ocean Boulevard and offers limited articulation and
modulation in the building design. The proposed residence matches the existing height
of three (3) feet above the adjacent curb, but includes portions of the roof sunk beneath
the curb, recessed balcony areas, and an overall reduction in building volume in
comparison to the existing structure. The proposed structure provides an improvement
of the public views from both Inspiration Point and Ocean Boulevard. An investigation
of the Project site and surrounding area did not identify any other public view opportunities.
Therefore, the Project does not have the potential to degrade the visual quality of the
Coastal Zone or result in significant adverse impacts to public views.
Finding:
H. Conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the
Coastal Act if the project is located between the nearest public road and the sea or
shoreline of any body of water located within the coastal zone.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. The existing residential lot does not currently provide nor inhibit public coastal access.
The Property is located approximately 200 feet from Inspiration Point, which is identified
as a public beach access point by the CLUP to Corona del Mar State Beach.
Additionally, Ocean Boulevard is identified by the CLUP as blufftop access. The Project
is the demolition of an existing single-unit residence and the construction of a new
single-unit residence. Access to the beach remains available through Inspiration Point
and the beach parking lot. Therefore, the development will not impact public access to
local coastal resources.
In accordance with NBMC Section 21.52.090 (Relief from Implementation Plan Development
Standard), the Planning Commission may approve a waiver to a development standard of the
Implementation Plan only after making all of the following findings:
Finding:
I. The Planning Commission has considered the following:
i. Whether or not the development is consistent with the certified Local Coastal
Program to the maximum extent feasible; and
ii. Whether or not there are feasible alternatives that would provide greater consistency
with the certified Local Coastal Program and/or that are more protective of coastal
resources.
31
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2022-002
Page 10 of 21
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. Constructing the proposed residence with the Code-required 10-foot front yard
setback diminishes livable area which the existing and surrounding residences
currently enjoy. Without encroaching into the front setback, the proposed residence
would have constrained floor levels with difficulty accessing lower levels.
Encroachment into the front setback has been a relief from the topographical
restraint for all of the bluff side residences on Ocean Boulevard between Orchid and
Poppy Avenues, as all of the residences have been authorized to encroach into the
front setback area.
2. The alternative to construct a three-car garage with an adequate entry area would
diminish the enhanced public views the Applicant is proposing. The proposed
residence is designed to have approximately 40 lineal feet of frontage width extend
above the adjacent curb height of Ocean Boulevard, while the remaining 20 lineal
feet of frontage width drops below the curb height. The existing residence exceeds
the curb height for the entire 60 lineal feet of frontage width. A three-car garage
would result in additional bulk and mass and diminish public views of the ocean.
3. Exceeding the flat roof height limit required by Titles 20 and 21 is necessary for
adequate ceiling heights and living space where there are topographical constraints
due to significant bluff transitions. Where feasible, the Applicant has designed the
Project to have a split-level design, which reduces portions of the building height and
protects public views from Ocean Boulevard which were not previously provided by
the existing residence.
4. A residence which complies with the front setback and height restrictions would
create design constraints for adequate floor area on each level as well as access
between levels. The proposed residence is not excessive in area or height in
comparison to the other residences in the surrounding area, and presents a
reduction in overall volume and bulk compared to the existing structure on the site.
Finding:
J. The granting of the variance is necessary due to special circumstances applicable to the
property, including location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, and/or other
physical features, the strict application of the development standards otherwise
applicable to the property denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property
owners in the vicinity and in the same coastal zoning district.
Facts in Support of Finding:
Facts in Support of Finding A above are hereby incorporated by reference.
Finding:
K. The variance complies with the findings required to approval a coastal development
32
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2022-002
Page 11 of 21
permit in NBMC Section 21.52.015(F).
Fact in Support of Finding:
Facts in Support of Findings G and H above are hereby incorporated by reference.
Finding:
L. The variance will not result in development that blocks or significantly impedes public
access to and along the sea or shoreline and to coastal parks, trails, or coastal bluffs.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. The Property does not currently provide access to the sea or shoreline, nor does it
provide access to any coastal parks, trails, or coastal bluffs.
2. Vertical access to the beach and ocean to the south of the project site is available for
the public from Inspiration Point and the Corona del Mar State Beach Ramp both located
to the west of the site. The Project does not result in development that will impede
existing public access because all construction is limited to the project site and the public
sidewalk fronting the site will remain.
Finding:
M. The variance will not result in development that blocks or significantly impairs public
views to and along the sea or shoreline or to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal
areas.
Facts in Support of Finding:
Fact 8 in support of Finding G above is hereby incorporated by reference.
Finding:
N. The variance will not result in development that has an adverse effect, either individually
or cumulatively, on coastal resources, including wetlands, sensitive habitat, vegetation
or wildlife species.
Fact in Support of Finding:
The existing and proposed residence is located on a bluff top between Ocean Boulevard
and the ocean. Per Section 21.28.040.D.5.d (Bluff Overlay District) of the NBMC, new
development shall not extend further onto the bluff face beyond the existing
development. The proposed residential structure complies with this limitation and will
not have an adverse effect on the bluff. There are no other coastal resources on the
property nor are there any in the immediate area that could be affected by its
redevelopment.
33
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2022-002
Page 12 of 21
Finding:
O. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to, or in conflict with, the purpose of this
Implementation Plan, nor to the applicable policies of the Local Coastal Program.
Fact in Support of Finding:
Facts in Support of Finding G above are hereby incorporated by reference.
Encroachment Permit
In accordance with City Council Policy L-6 (Encroachments in the Public Rights-of-Way), the
following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth:
Finding:
A. The proposed private improvements will not be a detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the public.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The Project does not hinder the present or future use of the public right-of-way, including
sidewalks, and there are no existing City utilities located within the encroachment area.
2. The Ocean Boulevard parkway within the public right-of-way is approximately 47 feet
wide of the overall 110-foot right-of-way width.
3. The Project does not diminish the rights of the public along the Ocean Boulevard right-
of-way. The existing public sidewalk along Ocean Boulevard is at the top of the slope
and will remain unobstructed.
4. Ocean Boulevard slopes downward toward private property and the Pacific Ocean with
an elevation change of approximately 7-feet.
5. Approval would require the Owners to enter into an Encroachment Agreement to allow
the proposed improvements as requested, and any liability associated with the proposed
private improvements would be transferred to the Owner. Additionally, if the need for
public improvements should arise in the future, Owner shall agree to remove all
encroachments at no cost to the City.
Finding:
B. The individual circumstances applicable to this application and the proposed
encroachment are consistent with the public interest.
34
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2022-002
Page 13 of 21
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. Improvements are complementary to the area; adjacent neighbors have similar private
encroachments within the Ocean Boulevard right-of-way. Some of the adjacent
encroachments are permitted through an encroachment permit and agreement,
whereas others have been constructed without approval.
2. The maximum height of proposed structures in the right-of-way will not exceed three (3)
feet in height above the existing sidewalk grade. Public views along the Ocean
Boulevard sidewalk will remain unobstructed.
3. There are no existing City utilities within the encroachment area.
4. The Property is located in the coastal zone and the approval of an Encroachment Permit
and Agreement including the waiver of City Council Policy L-6 for the existing
improvements does not require a coastal development permit in accordance with
Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 21.52.035 (Projects Exempt from
Coastal Development Permit Requirements). NBMC Subsection 21.52.035.C(1) refers
to coastal act exemptions related to existing single-unit residential buildings, including
ancillary structures normally associated with a single-unit residence, such as garages,
swimming pools, fences, storage sheds, but not including houses or self-contained
residential units; and landscaping on the lot, unless they involve a risk of adverse
environmental effects. The existing site walls, stairs on-grade, patios, guardrails, potted
plants, planters, and decorative concrete driveway are minor detached structures
associated with the proposed single-family residence. Their location and presence do
not pose a conflict to coastal resources, coastal access, or other adverse environmental
effects. The encroachments do not alter the existing bluff oceanward of the existing
home. Any future improvements may require a coastal development permit.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby finds this Project is
categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section
15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has
no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.
2. Planning Commission approves the waiver of L-6.
3. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves VA2021-002
and CD2021-025, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “B,” which is attached hereto
and incorporated by reference.
35
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2022-002
Page 14 of 21
4. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution
was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance
with the provisions of Titles 20 and 21 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Final action
taken by the City may be appealed to the Coastal Commission in compliance with Section
21.64.035 (Appeal to the Coastal Commission) of the City’s certified LCP and Title 14
California Code of Regulations, Sections 13111 through 13120, and Section 30603 of the
Coastal Act.
5. This resolution supersedes Variance No. 651 and Modification Permit No. 4941, which
upon vesting of the rights authorized by this Variance and Coastal Development Permit,
shall become null and void.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
BY:_________________________
Lee Lowrey, Chairman
BY:_________________________
Curtis Ellmore, Secretary
Attachment(s): Exhibit A – Legal Description
Exhibit B – Conditions of Approval
36
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2022-002
Page 15 of 21
EXHIBIT “A”
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THAT PORTION OF BLOCK A OF CORONA DEL MAR, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 3,
PAGES 41 AND 42, MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER
OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THAT PORTION OF SAID LOCK “A” LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY
LINE OF TRACT NO. 1257, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 38, PAGE 25 OF
MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY,
AND EASTERLY OF A LINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF OCEAN BOULEVARD AS SHOWN ON
SAID MAP, DISTANT THEREON SOUTH 30° 23’ 25” EAST 68 FEET FROM THE MOST
EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID TRACT AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 56° 31’ 49” WEST
TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BLOCK A.
EXCEPTING ANY PORTION OF THE DESCRIBED PROPERTY BELOW THE LINE OF
NATURAL ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK WHERE IT WAS LOCATED PRIOR TO ANY
ARTIFICIAL OR AVULSION CHANGES IN THE LOCATION OF THE SHORELINE.
37
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2022-002
Page 16 of 21
EXHIBIT “B”
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
(Project-specific conditions are in italics)
Planning Division
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor
plans and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval (except as
modified by applicable conditions of approval).
2. The Project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless
specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
3. The Applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of
any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Use
Permit.
4. Variance No. 2021-002 and Coastal Development Permit No. 025 shall expire unless
exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 of
the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted by the
Community Development Director.
5. This Variance and Coastal Development Permit may be modified or revoked by the
Planning Commission should they determine that the proposed uses or conditions under
which it is being operated or maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or
materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the Property is
operated or maintained so as to constitute a public nuisance.
6. Any change in operational characteristics, expansion in area, or other modification to
the approved plans, shall require an amendment to this Variance and Coastal
Development Permit or the processing of a new Variance and Coastal Development
Permit.
7. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit “A” shall be
incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans prior to issuance of the
building permits.
8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a landscape and
irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate
drought tolerant and noninvasive plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and
the plans shall be approved by the Planning Division.
9. Prior to final building permit inspection, an agreement in a form approved by the City
Attorney between the property owner and the City shall be executed and recorded
waiving rights to the construction of future shoreline protection devices to address the
38
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2022-002
Page 17 of 21
threat of damage or destruction from waves, erosion, storm conditions, landslides,
seismic activity, bluff retreat, sea level rise, or other natural hazards that may affect the
property, or development of the property, today or in the future. The agreement shall be
binding against the property owners and successors and assigns.
10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall submit a notarized
signed letter acknowledging all hazards present at the site, assuming the risk of injury
or damage from such hazards, unconditionally waiving any claims of damage against
the City from such hazards, and to indemnify 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
development. This letter shall be scanned into the plan set prior to building permit issuance.
11. The applicant is responsible for compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
In compliance with the MBTA, grading, brush removal, building demolition, tree
trimming, and similar construction activities shall occur between August 16 and January
31, outside of the peak nesting period. If such activities must occur inside the peak
nesting season from February 1 to August 15, compliance with the following is required
to prevent the taking of native birds pursuant to MBTA:
A. The construction area shall be inspected for active nests. If birds are observed flying
from a nest or sitting on a nest, it can be assumed that the nest is active. Construction
activity within 300 feet of an active nest shall be delayed until the nest is no longer
active. Continue to observe the nest until the chicks have left the nest and activity is no
longer observed. When the nest is no longer active, construction activity can continue
in the nest area.
B. It is a violation of state and federal law to kill or harm a native bird. To ensure
compliance, consider hiring a biologist to assist with the survey for nesting birds, and
to determine when it is safe to commence construction activities. If an active nest is
found, one or two short follow-up surveys will be necessary to check on the nest and
determine when the nest is no longer active.
12. Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Good Housekeeping Practices (GHPs) shall
be implemented prior to and throughout the duration of construction activity as
designated in the Construction Erosion Control Plan.
13. The discharge of any hazardous materials into storm sewer systems or receiving waters
shall be prohibited. Machinery and equipment shall be maintained and washed in
confined areas specifically designed to control runoff. A designated fueling and vehicle
maintenance area with appropriate berms and protection to prevent spillage shall be
provided as far away from storm drain systems or receiving waters as possible.
39
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2022-002
Page 18 of 21
14. Debris from demolition shall be removed from work areas each day and removed from
the project site within 24 hours of the completion of the project. Stock piles and
construction materials shall be covered, enclosed on all sites, not stored in contact with
the soil, and located as far away as possible from drain inlets and any waterway.
15. Trash and debris shall be disposed in proper trash and recycling receptacles at the end
of each construction day. Solid waste, including excess concrete, shall be disposed in
adequate disposal facilities at a legal disposal site or recycled at a recycling facility.
16. Revisions to the approved plans may require an amendment to this Coastal
Development Permit or the processing of a new coastal development permit.
17. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless
specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
18. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of
any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Coastal
Development Permit.
19. All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained in accordance with
the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and
growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All
landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be
kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of
regular maintenance.
20. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall pay any unpaid
administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning
Division.
21. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations
of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the
Director of Community Development, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative
impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Director may order
the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively
illuminated.
22. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter
10.26 and other applicable noise control requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code. The maximum noise shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the
specified time periods unless the ambient noise level is higher:
Between the hours of 7:00AM
and 10:00PM
Between the hours of
10:00PM and 7:00AM
Location Interior Exterior Interior Exterior
Residential Property 45dBA 55dBA 40dBA 50dBA
Residential Property located within
100 feet of a commercial property 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 50dBA
40
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2022-002
Page 19 of 21
Mixed Use Property 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 50dBA
Commercial Property N/A 65dBA N/A 60dBA
23. 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 Beard Residence including, but not limited to, Variance No. VA2021-002 and
Coastal Development Permit No. CD2021-025 (PA2021-130). 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.
Fire Department
24. Dwelling unit shall be protected by a fire sprinkler system (NFPA 13D).
25. A three-foot wide accessway shall be provided from the street to the rear of the property.
Building Division
26. The Applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City’s Building Division
and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City-
adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all
applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. Approval from the Orange County
Health Department is required prior to the issuance of a building permit.
27. The Applicant shall employ the following best available control measures (“BACMs”) to
reduce construction-related air quality impacts:
Dust Control
• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
• Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
• Pave or apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas.
• Sweep or wash any site access points within two hours of any visible dirt deposits
on any public roadway.
• Cover or water twice daily any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty
material.
• Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph.
Emissions
41
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2022-002
Page 20 of 21
• Require 90-day low-NOx tune-ups for off road equipment.
• Limit allowable idling to 30 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment.
Off-Site Impacts
• Encourage carpooling for construction workers.
• Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods.
• Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways.
• Wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site.
• Sweep access points daily.
• Encourage receipt of materials during non-peak traffic hours.
• Sandbag construction sites for erosion control.
Fill Placement
• The number and type of equipment for dirt pushing will be limited on any day to
ensure that SCAQMD significance thresholds are not exceeded.
• Maintain and utilize a continuous water application system during earth
placement and compaction to achieve a 10 percent soil moisture content in the
top six-inch surface layer, subject to review/discretion of the geotechnical
engineer.
28. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of
the Building Division and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP
shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that no
violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur.
29. A list of “good housekeeping” practices will be incorporated into the long-term post-
construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants will be used,
stored or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. These may include frequent
parking area vacuum truck sweeping, removal of wastes or spills, limited use of harmful
fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of storm water away from potential sources of
pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). The Stage 2 WQMP shall list
and describe all structural and non-structural BMPs. In addition, the WQMP must also
identify the entity responsible for the long-term inspection, maintenance, and funding for
all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMPs.
30. Rooms used for sleeping shall have emergency egress open into the courtyard.
31. A 42-inch minimum height guardrail shall be provided at rear yard where a 30-inch or
greater difference in elevation occurs.
Public Works Department
22. No structural encroachments for the home, including tiebacks, caissons, walls etc. shall
be permitted within the public right-of-way or easement area with the exception the
proposed lower level building corner over the sewer easement.
42
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2022-002
Page 21 of 21
23. The proposed encroachments with the Ocean Boulevard right of way shall require a City
Council Policy L-6 waiver by the Planning Commission and a new encroachment
agreement shall be required for the proposed encroachments.
24. The City sewer line running through the property shall be replaced from the property line
adjacent to 3619 Ocean Boulevard to the manhole located at 3631 Ocean Boulevard.
A new easement shall be granted that is centered over the newly reconstructed sewer
main. The portion of the sewer main from the westerly property line to the area under
the new home shall be sleeved to accommodate future replacement of the sewer main.
25. The proposed driveway shall be constructed consistent with City Standard STD-162.
The approach bottom width shall be 20-foot maximum.
26. The Project shall be able to accommodate an 8-foot wide sidewalk along the Ocean
Boulevard project frontage with exception of the driveway approach.
27. A new 5-foot wide easement shall be provided that is centered along the sewer main.
28. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works
Department.
29. All damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Ocean Boulevard frontage shall be
reconstructed per City Standard.
30. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work activities within the public right-
of-way.
31. All improvements shall comply with the City’s sight distance requirement. See City
Standard 110-L.
32. The slope of the driveway shall be limited to 19.1 percent maximum and the transitions
and grade changes shall comply with City Standard.
33. 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.
43
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE44
Attachment No. PC 2
Variance Exhibits
45
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE46
3625 OCEAN BLVD., CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625
| Variance Exhibits
47
EXHIBIT 01 | ROOF PLAN & MASSING
3625 OCEAN BLVD., CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625
SITE
BRANDON ARCHITECTS
DATE
EX-1
PROJECT CONTACTRYAN McDANIEL, AIA
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT ADDRESS
3625 OCEAN BLVD.
CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625
OWNER INFORMATION
RON & MARSHA BEARD
3208 OCEAN BLVD.NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92625
PROJECT STATUSVARIANCE / CDPPLAN CHECK NO.202035
REVISIONS
NO.
DATE
06/04/21 BEARD RESIDENCEROOF PLAN EXHIBIT
151 KALMUS DRIVE, SUITE G-1COSTA MESA, CA 92626714.754.4040WWW.BRANDONARCHITECTS.COM
REVISIONS
These documents are the property of BRANDONARCHITECTS INC., and are not to be duplicated,altered or utilized in any ay by any other partywithout the expressed authorization ofBRANDON ARCHITECTS. Any unauthorizedduplication or alteration of these documents byany party is a violation of BRANDONARCHITECTS expressed common law copyrightand other property rights thereto, and is subjectto full civil liabilities and penalties. These plansare also not to be assigned to any third partywithout obtaining written authorization andexpressed permission by BRANDONARCHITECTS, who shall then be held harmlessand absolved of any liability regarding any useof these documents by such third party whether
depicted or implied hereon.
1
1
#DrgID
#LayID
#DrgID
#LayID
2
A-5.0
2A-5.0
3
EX-2
2EX-2 2EX-2
2EX-6
1
EX-6
1EX-6
1A-4.1
2A-4.1
1A-4.0
2
A-4.04'-0"S.Y.S.B.4'-0"S.Y.S.B.4'-7 3/4"1'-5 3/4"30'-8 7/8"
41'-6 7/8"
50'-5 1/4"
9'-5 1/2"4'-3 1/4"2% MIN.2% MIN.
2% MIN.
2% MIN.
02.06
02.06
2% MIN.
11.2911.30
103.39' T.R.HT. CERT. REQ'D.
103.39' T.W.HT. CERT. REQ'D.103.39' T.W.HT. CERT. REQ'D.
97.40' T.R.76.64 NG
97.40' T.R.
103.39' T.R.HT. CERT. REQ'D.92.60 FS
97.40' T.R.
97.40' T.R59.24 FS
A 1'-1 3/8"50'-5 1/4"
2% MIN.
02.06
02.06
ROOFING - TPO MEMBRANE
ROOFING - STANDING SEAM METAL
ROOFING - STANDING SEAM METAL
02.06
97.40' T.R.70.74 FS
LIMIT OF DEVELOPMENTFURTHEST LINE OFEXISTING PATIO/DECK
103.39' T.R.HT. CERT. REQ'D.82.31' FS
103.39' T.R.
HT. CERT. REQ'D.
93.25' FSPORTION BLOCK
"A"(98.76)TC(98.10)FL(98.90)TC(98.12)FL(99.35)TC(98.63)FL(100.14)TC(99.33)FL(100.85)TC(100.15)FL
(101.38)TC
(100.59)FL
(100.39)TW(100.14)FS (99.79)FL (99.55)FS(100.42)FS(98.75)FS(98.07)FS(98.85)FS(98.97)FS(98.99)FS(99.86)FS(99.45)TW(98.08)NGEXISTINGBUILDINGEXISTINGBUILDING
EXISTING
BUILDING
(65.54)FS(72.54)TD(64.68)FS (103.07)ROOF (59.24)NG(58.80)NG (105.13)CHIMNEY TOP (92.67)FS(92.63)FS(92.58)FS(92.67)FS(92.65)FS(92.78)FF(92.65)FS(93.32)FS(92.62)FS(93.28)FFG(93.25)FS
(88.91)
FS
(100.65)FS(100.66)FS (100.10)TC 0"(99.53)TC 0"(99.38)FS(99.55)FS (99.52)FS(100.05)FS(93.25)FS
(100.72)
TW
(101.12)TW(100.99)
FS
(101.37)FS
(98.70)FS(99.00)TW(99.14)TW(97.68)TW(95.92)TW(92.54)AD (93.94)TW(92.62)FSPROPERTYLINEPROPERTYLINEPROPERTYLINEPROPERTYLINE (99.18)TS(94.65)FS(94.64)TS(92.66)FS (99.32)TWS(97.58)TWS(95.95)TW (95.61)FS(95.37)FS(95.37)FS (98.81)FS
(101.04)FS(97.64)TW (99.89)FS(99.40)FS(95.34)FS(82.31)FS(70.74)FS(52.43)FS(52.37)FS(57.86)FS(59.62)FS(62.09)FS FRENCHDRAINFRENCHDRAINDECKOVERHANG GM(99.58)WM(95.93)TW (93.89)TW(95.92)TW (97.62)TWS (97.65)TW (100.39)TW(100.38)TW(99.35)FS(66.60)TS(66.74)FS(66.65)FS (99.33)TWS(97.63)TWS(95.75)TW(102.73)CHIMNEY TOP
(66.45)FS (93.65)FS OCEAN BOULEVARDCLCONSTRUCTIONCLN57°07'31"E 75.40'N51°12'17"E 125.68'TPBEPBACU(68.29)FS(88.64)RIDGE(45.79)FSCLM CLMFOUNTAINN38°47'43"W 68.00'(89.63)TW(85.22)TW(79.97)NG(78.34)TW(83.68)TW (85.97)NG(69.68)TW(67.86)TW(65.64)TW(63.69)TW(62.70)TW(61.15)TW(59.95)TW(59.19)TW(57.76)TW(70.24)NG(62.72)NG(58.78)TS(57.97)TS(59.66)TS (82.30)AD (82.33)BS(70.80)BSPA PAPA PA PAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPAPA PAPAPAPAPA(63.12)TS(55.85)TS(63.03)TS(54.60)TS(52.42)FS (60.45)TS(62.03)TS(61.26)TS(63.80)TS (63.01)FS(65.42)TS (65.34)TS(65.90)TS(65.86)FS(67.08)FS(67.24)FS(70.71)TS (67.20)FS(72.42)TD RKRKRKRKRKRKRK PA(93.21)FS DIPA PADI(82.35)FS(93.36)TS (93.37)FS(85.54)TWS (89.57)TWS
(96.71)TW
(86.64)
FS
(69.05)
FS
(93.38)TW
(89.71)TW
(80.78)
FS
(82.36)TS(90.57)TW(72.28)FS(71.71)BS(79.73)TSPORTION OF BLOCK ATRACT NO. 186M.M. 3/40-41
PORTION OF B
L
O
C
K
A
M.M. 3/40-41
LOT 15TRACT NO. 1257DENSE BRUSH
CONTOURS IN THISAREA ARE APPROXIMATE (95)(100)(94)(96)(97)(98)(99)(10)(15)(20 )(25)(30)(35)(50)(55)(60)(65)(25)(30)(35)(40)(45)(50)(55)(60 )(20)(15)(14)(11)(10)(9)(10)(9)(8)(67.20)FS (82.36)FS (82.35)TWS (76.64)NG(67.91)TW(62.72)NG(59.24)NGEAVEEAVE RIDGELINERIDGELINERIDGELINEEAVERIDGELINE(103.26)RIDGE (103.26)RIDGE(101.44)EAVE(101.11)EAVE(103.02)RIDGE (102.50)RIDGE(102.83)RIDGE (103.22)RIDGE(103.30)RIDGE(103.02)RIDGE(102.89)RIDGE
EXISTING STRUCTURE - ROOF EAVE FOOPRINT AT HIGHEST FLOOR LEVEL PROPOSED STRUCTURE - ROOF EAVE FOOPRINT AT HIGHEST FLOOR LEVEL SQUARE FOOTAGE GAINED = 1,467 S.F.
PROPOSAL - DETAILED AXONOMETRIC VOLUME GAINED BACK FROM EXISTING STRUCTURE PROPOSED STRUCTURE MASSINGEXISTING STRUCTURE MASSING
PROPOSAL - ROOF PLAN
EXISTING SURVEY
~ 37'-6"
~ 14'-6"
~ 6'-0"
~ 27'-6"
~ 51'-0"
2,543 S.F.1,076 S.F.1,467 S.F.
PROPOSED STRUCTURE - ROOF EAVE FOOPRINT AT HIGHEST FLOOR LEVEL
EXISTING STRUCTURE - ROOF EAVE FOOPRINT AT HIGHEST FLOOR LEVEL
48
EXHIBIT 02 | VOLUME STUDY
3625 OCEAN BLVD., CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625
SITE
BRANDON ARCHITECTS
DATE
EX-2
PROJECT CONTACTRYAN McDANIEL, AIA
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT ADDRESS
3625 OCEAN BLVD.CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625
OWNER INFORMATION
RON & MARSHA BEARD3208 OCEAN BLVD.
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92625
PROJECT STATUSVARIANCE / CDPPLAN CHECK NO.202035
REVISIONS
NO.
DATE
06/04/21 BEARD RESIDENCEROOF PLAN EXHIBIT
(CONT'D.) &
DRIVEWAY SLOPE
EXHIBIT
151 KALMUS DRIVE, SUITE G-1COSTA MESA, CA 92626714.754.4040WWW.BRANDONARCHITECTS.COM
REVISIONS
These documents are the property of BRANDONARCHITECTS INC., and are not to be duplicated,altered or utilized in any ay by any other partywithout the expressed authorization ofBRANDON ARCHITECTS. Any unauthorizedduplication or alteration of these documents byany party is a violation of BRANDONARCHITECTS expressed common law copyrightand other property rights thereto, and is subjectto full civil liabilities and penalties. These plansare also not to be assigned to any third partywithout obtaining written authorization andexpressed permission by BRANDONARCHITECTS, who shall then be held harmlessand absolved of any liability regarding any useof these documents by such third party whetherdepicted or implied hereon.
66.00'
LOWER LEVEL FF
66.00'
LOWER LEVEL FF
76.50'
MAIN LEVEL FF
76.50'
MAIN LEVEL FF
87.00'
UPPER LEVEL FF
87.00'
UPPER LEVEL FF
93.00'
GARAGE LEVEL FF
93.00'
GARAGE LEVEL FF
5'-0"39'-3 3/4"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"5'-11 3/4"5 1/2"37'-4 5/8"2'-5 3/4"
27'-6"1 1/4"7 3/4"6"103.39'
10%
13%
15%
2%9%FLOW LINEOCEAN BOULEVARD
DRIVEWAY
SIDEWALK
3'-0" ABV. MEAN CURB
0.5%
66.00'
LOWER LEVEL FF
76.50'
MAIN LEVEL FF
87.00'UPPER LEVEL FF93.00'GARAGE LEVEL FF96.50'37'-4 5/8"42" MIN.ABV. F.F.42" MIN.ABV. F.F.42" MIN.ABV. F.F.42" MIN.ABV. F.F.7"TYP.7"TYP.4'-11 5/8"5'-9 5/8"16'-4"27'-6"
STOR. / W.I.C.
103.39'3'-0" ABV. MEAN CURB 2% MIN.161720262
37
PANTRYDINING
MEDIA ROOM
FOYERBREEZEWAYSTAIRS
STAIRSWINE
MECH.LOW ROOF PLATE 2% MIN.2% MIN.2% MIN.
2% MIN.
SLOPE PER CIVILOUTDOOR LIVING / DINING
OURDOOR LOUNGE
66.00'
LOWER LEVEL FF
76.50'
MAIN LEVEL FF
87.00'UPPER LEVEL FF93.00'GARAGE LEVEL FF51'-0 3/4"18'-7 5/8"37'-4 5/8"2'-5 3/4"14'-4 5/8"5'-9 5/8"SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3LONGITUDINAL SECTION - EXHIBIT
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1TRANSVERSE SECTION - EXHIBIT
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2TRANSVERSE SECTION - EXHIBIT
SQUARE FOOTAGE GAINED = 675 S.F.SQUARE FOOTAGE GAINED = 670 S.F.
SQUARE FOOTAGE GAINED = 240 S.F.
= PROPOSED DESIGN = VOLUME GAINED BACK FROM EXISTING STRUCTURE= VOLUME GAINED FROM EXISTING STRUCTURE
49
EXHIBIT 03 | UNIQUE LOT VS. SURROUNDING VICINITY
3625 OCEAN BLVD., CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625
3625 Ocean Blvd. is uniquely situated at the transition of the bluff along Ocean Blvd. The topography drops 40 feet in elevation from the
front of the property line to the rear limit of development, which is similar to the adjacent bluff properties that have been granted vari-
ances in height and front yard setback. In addition, 3625 Ocean Blvd. also uniquely drops over 20 feet from the East to West side yard
property lines.
BRANDON ARCHITECTS
DATE
EX-3
PROJECT CONTACT
RYAN McDANIEL, AIA
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT ADDRESS
3625 OCEAN BLVD.CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625
OWNER INFORMATION
RON & MARSHA BEARD
3208 OCEAN BLVD.NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92625
PROJECT STATUSVARIANCE / CDPPLAN CHECK NO.202035
REVISIONS
NO.
DATE
06/04/21 BEARD RESIDENCEUNIQUE LOT VS.
SURROUNDING
VICINITY EXHIBIT
151 KALMUS DRIVE, SUITE G-1COSTA MESA, CA 92626714.754.4040WWW.BRANDONARCHITECTS.COM
REVISIONS
These documents are the property of BRANDONARCHITECTS INC., and are not to be duplicated,altered or utilized in any ay by any other partywithout the expressed authorization ofBRANDON ARCHITECTS. Any unauthorizedduplication or alteration of these documents byany party is a violation of BRANDONARCHITECTS expressed common law copyrightand other property rights thereto, and is subjectto full civil liabilities and penalties. These plansare also not to be assigned to any third party
without obtaining written authorization andexpressed permission by BRANDONARCHITECTS, who shall then be held harmlessand absolved of any liability regarding any use
of these documents by such third party whetherdepicted or implied hereon.
SITE
50
EXHIBIT 04a | PRESERVING PUBLIC & PRIVATE VIEWS
3625 OCEAN BLVD., CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625
Existing condition from Ocean Blvd.
51
EXHIBIT 04b | PRESERVING PUBLIC & PRIVATE VIEWS
3625 OCEAN BLVD., CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625
BRANDON ARCHITECTS
DATE
EX-3
PROJECT CONTACT
RYAN McDANIEL, AIA
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT ADDRESS
3625 OCEAN BLVD.CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625
OWNER INFORMATION
RON & MARSHA BEARD
3208 OCEAN BLVD.
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92625
PROJECT STATUSVARIANCE / CDP
PLAN CHECK NO.
202035
REVISIONS
NO.
DATE
06/04/21 BEARD RESIDENCEUNIQUE LOT VS.
SURROUNDING
VICINITY EXHIBIT
151 KALMUS DRIVE, SUITE G-1COSTA MESA, CA 92626714.754.4040WWW.BRANDONARCHITECTS.COM
REVISIONS
These documents are the property of BRANDONARCHITECTS INC., and are not to be duplicated,altered or utilized in any ay by any other partywithout the expressed authorization ofBRANDON ARCHITECTS. Any unauthorizedduplication or alteration of these documents byany party is a violation of BRANDONARCHITECTS expressed common law copyrightand other property rights thereto, and is subjectto full civil liabilities and penalties. These plans
are also not to be assigned to any third partywithout obtaining written authorization andexpressed permission by BRANDONARCHITECTS, who shall then be held harmless
and absolved of any liability regarding any useof these documents by such third party whetherdepicted or implied hereon.
Proposed condition from Ocean Blvd.
52
EXHIBIT 04c | PRESERVING PUBLIC & PRIVATE VIEWS
3625 OCEAN BLVD., CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625
Existing condition from Inspiration Point.
53
EXHIBIT 04d | PRESERVING PUBLIC & PRIVATE VIEWS
3625 OCEAN BLVD., CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625
Proposed condition from Inspiration Point.
54
EXHIBIT 05 | DRIVEWAY FEASIBILITY STUDY - 10’-0” F.Y.S.B.
3625 OCEAN BLVD., CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625
10'-0"FRONT YARD SETBACK
20'-0"GARAGE CLR. WIDTH 8'-6"GARAGE CLR. HT.11'-0"FLOOR PLATE11'-0"FLOOR PLATE4'-7 7/8"48'-4 1/4"5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"6"8'-9 1/8"8"1 1/4"5 1/2"13%2%9%
10%
18%
OCEAN BOULEVARD
DRIVEWAY
SIDEWALK
MEAN TOP OF CURB - MAX HT.
29' SLOPED MAX RIDGE HT.
24' SLOPED MAX FLAT HT.
55
EXHIBIT 06 | 3-CAR GARAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
3625 OCEAN BLVD., CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 11'-0"FLOOR PLATE11'-0"FLOOR PLATE8'-6"FLOOR PLATE3'-11 5/8"7'-2 3/4"11'-0 3/4"6'-0 3/4"3'-0" ABV. MEAN TOP OF CURB - MAX HT.
29' SLOPED MAX RIDGE HT.
24' SLOPED MAX FLAT HT.
TRA NS ITION T O S LO PED G RA DE PLA NE BAS ED ON
MOR E RE STR ICTI VE ZON IN G REQ U IREM EN T
3:12 ROOF S LOPE
8'-6"GARAGE CLR. WIDTH28'-3"GARAGE CLR. WIDTH
MINIMUM WIDTH OF 3-CAR GARAGE, SHOWING NON-COMPLIANCE AT 24’ SLOPED MAX FLAT HEIGHT.
AREA SHOWING THE EXTENT OF OUR PROPOSED DESIGN THAT INCLUDES AN ADEQUATE ENTRY/FOYER AND ELEVATOR SPACE, REQUIRED BY THE CLIENT.
THE PROPOSED DESIGN AT BEDROOM #3, ACCESSIBLE FROM THE COURTYARD, SHOWING THE NECESSITY FOR A SPLIT LEVEL AND COMPLYING WITH THE 29’ SLOPED MAX RIDGE HEIGHT.
56
Attachment No. PC 3
City Council Policy L-6 (Encroachments in
Public Rights-of-Way)
57
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE58
L-6
1
ENCROACHMENTS IN PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY
It is the general policy of the City that the public rights-of-way shall be reserved for public
use or open space; and that the rights of the public, present and future, shall not be
diminished by the installation of private improvements within the public rights-of-way.
For any project located within the Coastal Zone also look to Newport Beach Municipal
Code Title 21, or any successor title.
Categories of encroachments and improvements are listed below, together with the
permit requirement for each category.
Permit and/or encroachment agreement required.
A. Except as expressly set forth herein, permits and/or encroachment agreements
are required for encroachments into the public rights-of-way.
B. Application for any permit, as required by this policy, shall be filed with the
Public Works Department on a form to be provided by the City and shall show
the proposed planting or work and the nature thereof. Drawings for
encroachment permits requiring Planning Commission review shall be
prepared to scale. Plan and elevation drawings shall accurately depict location,
height, and extent of the proposed encroachments.
C. If the application is for a permit required under private encroachments that
are prohibited without a waiver, it shall be forwarded to the Community
Development Department, Planning Division, for submission to the Planning
Commission.
1. The Planning Commission is designated to grant or deny a waiver and
approve, conditionally approve, or deny applications for encroachment
permits, subject to the findings in subsection (a), of this Section.
a. The Planning Commission may grant a waiver and may approve or
conditionally approve an application for an encroachment permit if
the Planning Commission finds the encroachment will not be a
detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the public.
b. If an application for a private encroachment that is prohibited
without a waiver is part of a larger approval requiring City Council
approval then the Planning Commission shall make a
recommendation to the City Council regarding whether this policy
59
L-6
2
should be waived and the permit granted. Any decision made by
the Planning Commission may be appealed or called for review in
accordance with Chapter 20.64.
2. Notice of the Planning Commission’s review of a request to waive a
provision of this policy shall be mailed to property owners within 300
feet of the project site at least ten (10) calendar days in advance of a
meeting. The notice shall contain the address of the project site, the
applicant’s name, a brief description of the improvements, date, time,
and place of the meeting, and a statement informing the public that they
have the ability to provide comments to the Planning Commission.
Private encroachments that are prohibited without a waiver and approval.
A. All structural encroachments including, but not limited to, fences, walls, patios,
raised planters, landscaping, etc., which encroach in excess of one (1)-foot into the
public right-of-way, or exceed thee (3)-feet in height, measured from the top of
curb elevation/or from sidewalk elevation where sidewalk exists.
B. Driveway approaches not conforming to Council Policy L-2.
C. Modifications to original design concepts approved by the City.
D Private signs except as provided for in the Building Code.
E. Lighting.
F. Parkway walkway surfacing of loose rock, gravel, or any surfacing other than
standard or colored/textured concrete or flat stone/brick/pavers installed at
grade.
G. Private dwellings and appendages including raised patios decks and bay
windows, except as provided for in this section and the Building Code.
H. Pay telephones and private mail carriers drop boxes.
General private encroachments that require an encroachment permit and if applicable,
an encroachment agreement from the Public Works Department.
A. Drive approaches conforming to Council Policy L-2.
60
L-6
3
B. Standard sidewalks.
C. Carriage walks (not to exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the parkway area).
D. Parkway surfacing (standard or colored/textured concrete or flat stone/brick)
installed at grade (not to exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the parkway area).
E. CATV and public utility facilities.
F. Structural encroachments including, but not limited to, fences, walls, patios, raised
planters, etc., which encroach one (1) foot or less and do not exceed three (3) feet
in height within the public right-of-way. If, however, in the opinion of the Public
Works Department, the nature or location of this type of encroachment is such that
Planning Commission review is warranted, the Department may forward the item
to the Planning Commission for action in accordance with the procedures set forth
for granting waivers for private encroachments that would otherwise be
prohibited.
G. Mailboxes, when required by the U.S. Postal Service. Mailboxes shall be installed
per U.S. Postal Service requirements. Mailbox base construction length and width
shall not exceed the length of the mailbox, or twenty-four (24) inches, whichever
is less.
H. The placement of utility pedestals shall be at the back of sidewalks on arterials and
major pedestrian thoroughfares without zero setbacks. There shall be at least four
(4) feet of clear sidewalk width and/or pedestals shall be placed in the parkway
outside of walk area.
I. When connecting to or relocating public utilities.
J. Artificial Turf (permeable) up to 100% of the required parkway landscape area.
Artificial turf grass shall be installed in accordance to manufacturers’
recommendations. Material must be securely anchored and maintained so as to
eliminate disrepair, fading, tearing, wrinkling and or edge curling or any other
type of material performance. Material shall be replaced prior to the
aforementioned conditions occur. Prohibited application: Indoor and outdoor
carpet, green in color or otherwise. The Director of Public Works shall from time
to time update the standards for this application. See Artificial Turf Material and
Installation Standards.
K. Tree and shrub planting and removal.
L. Median landscaping.
61
L-6
4
If, in the opinion of the Public Works Departments, the approved planting is not being
maintained for view, safety clearance and sight distance, Newport Beach Municipal Code
Chapter 10.50, “Public Nuisance Abatement,” or any successor statute, shall be used to
remove offending plant material.
The permit applicant shall reimburse the City of Newport Beach for the value of any City
tree removed by this process. This value shall be determined by the City Arborist using
the International Society of Arboriculture’s “Guide for Plant Appraisal” or a minimum
forty-eight (48) inch box tree replacement value.
Area specific private encroachments requiring an encroachment permit from the Public
Works Department and subject to the execution of an encroachment agreement for
non-standard improvements.
A. Structural encroachments not otherwise listed which do not exceed three (3) feet
in height measured from the top of curb elevation/or from sidewalk elevation
where sidewalk exists, including, but not limited to fences, walls, and raised
planters in public rights-of-way in areas that are more than eight (8) feet behind
the face of curbs on the following streets:
1. Santa Ana Avenue from Cliff Drive to Fifteenth Street.
B. Permitted Structural Encroachments on Balboa Island along South Bay Front,
North Bay Front, Grand Canal, and East Bayfront are as follows:
1. Planters that do not exceed one (1) foot in height may be installed between
the back of existing sidewalk and property line, planted with ground cover
and shrubs not to exceed two (2) feet in height measured from sidewalk
elevation;
2. Fences and walls with a minimum setback of two (2) feet six (6) inches from
back of sidewalk.
a. For patios constructed at grade elevation to one (1) foot above
sidewalk grade elevation, fences and walls may be three (3) feet high
above sidewalk grade.
b. For patios constructed greater than one (1) foot above sidewalk
grade elevation, fences and walls must be set back a minimum of
three (3) feet from back of sidewalk, not exceed two (2) feet six (6)
inches in height above the patio, have at least forty percent (40%)
62
L-6
5
visibility through them, and not to exceed four (4) feet in height
above existing public sidewalk grade.
3. Patios with a minimum setback of two (2) feet six (6) inches from the back
of sidewalk.
a. Raised Patios are permitted provided they have a maximum height
of two (2) feet six (6) inches above sidewalk grade, are set back a
minimum of two (2) feet six (6) inches from back of sidewalk, and
provided all bulkhead deadman and tiebacks supporting the Bay
front bulkhead are replaced “If required by the Public Works
Department” in conformance with the requirements of the Public
Works Department; Stairs located a minimum of two (2) feet six (6)
inches from back of sidewalk.
C. Structural encroachments not otherwise listed which do not exceed three (3) feet
in height, including, but not limited to fences, walls, patios, and raised planters in
public rights-of-ways in areas that are five (5) feet behind the face of curb on the
following streets:
1. Southerly side of West Bay Avenue between 8th Street and 15th Street.
D. Non-standard encroachments, including, but not limited to fences, walls, and
raised planters within City easements as approved by the Public Works Director.
E. Buena Vista Boulevard – Bay Avenue to Edgewater Avenue. The street right-of-
way in this reach is ten (10) feet wide, with private property on both sides of the
public way. Improvements allowed at this location shall consist of the following:
1. A minimum six (6) foot wide public sidewalk along the inland side of the
right-of-way line maintained by the City.
2. Landscaping under twenty-four (24) inches in height and park-like
improvements in the remaining portion of the right-of-way shall be allowed
if installed and maintained by the adjoining property owners. Private
improvements such as walls, fences, gates, signs and living areas such as
cabanas and other roofed structures shall not be allowed.
3. Access to existing private piers and floats shall be allowed where a harbor
permit has been granted, but such access structures shall not be expanded
beyond the original permit dimensions.
63
L-6
6
F. Edgewater Avenue – Buena Vista Boulevard to Island Avenue. The street right-
of-way in this reach is forty (40) feet wide with private property on the inland side.
The bay side is improved with a privately constructed bulkhead on public
property. Improvements allowed at this location shall consist of the following:
1. A minimum six (6) foot wide public sidewalk along the inland side of the
right-of-way line maintained by the City.
2. Landscaping under twenty (24) inches in height and park-like
improvements in the remaining portion of the right-of-way (between the
sidewalk and the bulkhead) shall be allowed if installed and maintained by
the adjoining property owner. Private improvements such as fences, gates,
signs, and living areas shall not be allowed.
3. Access to private piers and floats shall be allowed where a harbor permit
has been granted, but such access structures shall not be expanded beyond
the permit dimensions.
G. Edgewater Avenue – Island Avenue to Alvarado Street. The street right-of-way
in this reach is forty (40) feet wide with private property on the inland side. The
bay side is improved with a sloping beach leading to the waters of the bay.
Improvements allowed at this location shall consist of the following:
1. A minimum six (6) foot wide public sidewalk along the inland side of the
right-of-way maintained by the City.
2. The remaining portion of the right-of-way shall be reserved as a public
beach and no private improvements, impediments or boat storage shall be
allowed except for access to existing piers and floats where a harbor or a
mooring permit has been granted, but such access structures shall not be
expanded beyond the original permit dimensions. Any existing permits to
encroach on the right-of-way shall be rescinded
H. Edgewater Avenue – Alvarado Street to Fernando Street. The street right-of-way
in this reach is fifty (50) feet wide. The bay side is improved with a sloping beach
leading to the waters of the bay. The private lots bayward of the public right-of-
way are under water and within State Tidelands. Improvements allowed at this
location shall consist of the following:
1. A minimum six (6) foot wide public sidewalk along the inland side of the
right-of-way maintained by the City.
64
L-6
7
2. The remaining portion of the right-of-way shall be reserved as a public
beach and no private improvements, impediments or boat storage shall be
allowed except for access to existing piers and floats where a harbor permit
has been granted, but such access structures shall not be expanded beyond
the original permit dimensions.
I. Bay Front Street Ends
1. Bay front street ends at beach level may contain two (2) foot wide planting
areas bounded by redwood or concrete strips and containing hedges no
more than two (2) feet in height above the adjacent surface. The planting
areas may be installed:
a. At each side of the prolongation of the street and extending no more
than fifteen (15) feet from the end of the paved street.
b. At the end of the paved street, except that a twelve (12) foot wide
opening must be left for City emergency and maintenance
equipment, and pedestrians to enter the beach area.
2. Bay front street ends where tidal flow prevents standard installation may
be landscaped, subject to the prior approval by the City of specific plans
prepared by the applicant. Access to beach areas shall be provided for in
any such specific plans.
3. Improvements shall be installed at the expense of the adjacent property
owners.
4. Landscape maintenance and watering shall be provided by the adjacent
property owners to the satisfaction of the City. A sprinkler system
connected to the adjacent property shall be installed in each planter
J. Unimproved Ocean Front Street Ends
1. Improvements shall be installed at the expense of the adjacent property
owners.
2. Landscape maintenance and watering shall be provided by the adjacent
property owners to the satisfaction of the City. A sprinkler system
connected to the adjacent property shall be installed in each planter.
3. All work shall be installed to grades established by the Public Works
Department.
65
L-6
8
4. A four (4) foot wide sidewalk shall be provided on each side of the street
right-of-way adjacent to the property line.
5. A minimum of twelve (12) feet of unobstructed access to the beach in the
center of the right-of-way shall be surfaced with brick, asphalt, concrete or
artificial turf, or an equivalent surfacing approved by the City.
a. Portland Cement Concrete. A minimum six (6) inches over native
compacted material.
b. Asphalt Concrete. A minimum two (2) feet six (6) inches of asphalt
concrete over a six (6) inch thick aggregate.
c. Brick. Brick installed over four inches of imported aggregate base.
A dry mix of one-to-one cement and clean plaster sand to be swept
into the one-quarter (1/4) to one-half (1/2) inch space between
bricks. The dry mix shall be moistened with a fine spray of water
after it is in place.
6. Planters five (5) feet wide shall be provided between the side and the center
access along a portion of each side of the street with a heavy emphasis on
drought resistant plant materials. Plant materials shall be installed to City
specifications. A six (6) inch to eighteen (18) inch high lip of concrete, brick
or rock may be installed as part of the planter.
7. Special provisions shall be made in the design when garage access is
required from street ends.
8. Where unusually large quantities of sand exist in a street end area, the City
shall assist the adjacent owners by moving the sand to an area determined
by the City.
K. Unimproved Alleys that End at the Ocean Front
1. Improvements shall be installed at the expense of the adjacent property
owner.
2. All work shall be installed to grades established by the Public Works
Department.
66
L-6
9
3. Landscaping of potted plants shall be permitted in the portion of the alley
right-of-way that terminates at the ocean front sidewalk. A six (6) foot wide
inviting passageway shall be maintained for pedestrian access.
4. Where vehicles or pedestrians will travel, alleys may be surfaced with brick,
asphalt, concrete or equivalent surfacing.
5. Improvements shall extend from the nearest street of alley improvement to
the northerly line of the ocean front.
If, in the opinion of the Public Works Department, the nature or location of this type of
encroachment is such that Planning Commission review is warranted, the Department
may forward the application to the Planning Commission for original action in
accordance with the procedures set forth for granting waivers for private encroachments
that would otherwise be prohibited.
The City Manager is authorized to execute, on behalf of the City, agreements for non-
standard improvements, which are entered into pursuant to this section or other
authorization.
Private encroachments not requiring a permit:
A. Parkway lawn, ground cover and drought tolerant planting. Parkway areas with
the exception of carriage walks/parkway paving/artificial turf shall be entirely
planted with lawn, ground cover and/or drought tolerant planting.
B. Parkway sprinkling systems.
C. Use of public streets and projections over public property, which are covered by
the latest adopted edition of the California Code of Regulations Title 24 under a
valid building permit issued by the City.
Encroachments on public sidewalks
Newport Beach sidewalks are a desirable place to walk, stroll and jog and it is, therefore,
the policy of the City that public sidewalks are to provide unobstructed passage
whenever possible.
Sidewalks shall be reserved for public use and the rights of the public shall not be
diminished by the installation of benches, planters, bicycle racks, etc., by private entities
nor by the installation of facilities by public utilities or other public agencies. It is the
67
L-6
10
policy of the City that encroachments on public sidewalks shall be subject to the
following:
A. General
1. Permitted encroachments shall not reduce the sidewalk width available for
normal pedestrian movement.
2. Permitted encroachments may be located in areas between tree wells or
other existing improvements as long as they do not interfere with
pedestrian travel.
3. Permitted encroachments shall be located at least eighteen (18) inches from
the curb face. In areas where vehicles do not park or otherwise extend over
the sidewalk, this setback may be reduced.
4. Permitted encroachments shall not be located within thirty-six (36) inches
of a parking meter or street light, nor shall they be located where they will
interfere with the normal use of other facilities.
5. Encroachments shall not block access from parked cars.
6. They shall not be located within ten (10) feet of a crosswalk, fire hydrant or
driveway.
7. Encroachments may not be chained or otherwise anchored to any tree,
streetlight, parking meter or other property.
8. Applicant shall pay all costs for City and/or the California Department of
Transportation (“CalTrans”) permit processing where necessary.
9. Applicant shall pay all costs associated with the installation and
maintenance of the encroachments by the City or private installer.
B. Public Benches
1. When applying the above requirements to benches, allowance shall be
made for the space required for a person sitting on the bench.
68
L-6
11
2. Benches to be installed in an area where there is a theme or bench style shall
conform to that theme or style.
C. Public Bicycle Racks
1. Bicycle racks shall be located to allow bicycles to extend five (5) feet from
the center of the rack and comply with the above requirements.
History
(1969, 08/25) – L-6 – Adopted (Private Encroachments in Public Rights-of-Way)
(1969, 08/25) – I-12 – Adopted (Ocean Front Street-End Improvements)
(1970, 03/09) – L-6 – Reaffirmed
(1970, 03/09) – I-12 - Amended
(1971, 02/08) – L-6 - Reaffirmed
(1972, 02/14) – L-6 – Amended
(1972, 02/14) – I-12 - Reaffirmed
(1973, 12/10) – L-6 – Reaffirmed
(1973, 12/10) – I-12 - Amended
(1974, 11/11) – L-6 – Reaffirmed
(1974, 11/11) – I-12 - Amended
(1975, 08/11) – L-6 – Amended
(1977, 03/14) – L-7 – Adopted (Encroachments and Bay Access on Buena Vista Blvd. -
Edgewater Ave. Between bay Ave. and Fernando St.)
(1977, 09/12) – L-7 - Reaffirmed
(1981, 02/09) – L-6 – Amended
(1981, 02/09) – I-12 – Amended
(1981, 08/24) – L-10 – Adopted - incorporating I-12 & L-10
(1981, 11/23) – L-6 – Amended
(1982, 11/08) – L-10 - Amended
(1986, 10/27) – L-6 - Amended
(1987, 01/26) – L-6 - Amended
(1987, 07/13) – L-6 - Amended
(1989, 02/13) – L-6 - Amended
(1989, 08/14) – L-6 - Amended
(1989, 11/27) – L-6 – Amended
(1989, 11/27) – L-10 - Amended
(1991, 12/09) – L-6 - Amended
(1992, 12/14) – L-6 – Amended
(1993, 01/11) – L-18 – Adopted (Encroachments on Public Sidewalks)
(1993, 07/12) – L-6 - Amended
(1994, 01/24) – L-6 – Amended
69
L-6
12
(1994, 01/24) – L-7 – Reaffirmed
(1994, 01/24) – L-8 _ Amended - changed to L-8
(1994, 01/24) – L-15 – Amended – changed to L-15
(1994, 05/09) – L-6 - Amended
(1995, 02/27) – L-6 - Amended
(1996, 02/26) – L-6 – Amended
(1996, 02/26) – L-15 - Amended
(2001, 05/08) – L-6 – Amended
(2001, 05/08) – L-7 – Amended
(2001, 05/08) – L-8 - Amended
(2015, 01/27) – L-6 - Amended
(2018, 08/14) – L-6 – Amended (incorporating L-6, L-7, L-8 & L-15)
(2018, 12/11) – L-6 - Amended
70
Attachment No. PC 4
Project Renderings
71
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE72
BEARD RESIDENCE | STONE PANEL OPTION
3625 OCEAN BLVD, CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 73
BEARD RESIDENCE | EXTERIOR RENDER
3625 OCEAN BLVD, CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 74
BEARD RESIDENCE | EXTERIOR RENDER
3625 OCEAN BLVD, CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 75
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE76
Attachment No. PC 5
Project Plans
77
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE78
79
80
81
BASIS OF BEARINGS
THE BASIS OF BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASEDON THE CONSTRUCTION CENTERLINE OF OCEAN
R.S.B. 280/10-17.
VICINITY MAP
BENCHMARK INFORMATIONTITLE REPORT/EASEMENT NOTES
TITLE REPORT PROVIDED BY CHICAGO TITLECOMPANY, ORDER NUMBER 58602006251-JFA.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND ISDESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THAT PORTION OF BLOCK A OF CORONA DEL MAR, AS PERMAP RECORDED IN BOOK 3, PAGES 40 AND 41 OFMISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTYRECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THAT PORTION OF SAID BLOCK A LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OFTHE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF TRACT NO.1257, AS PER MAPRECORDED IN BOOK 38, PAGE 25 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, INTHE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY,AND EASTERLY OF A LINE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OFOCEAN BOULEVARD, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP, DISTANT
EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID TRACT AND RUNNING THENCE
SAID BLOCK A.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY PORTION OF THE DESCRIBEDPROPERTY BELOW THE LINE OF NATURAL ORDINARY HIGHWATER MARK WHERE IT WAS LOCATED PRIOR TO ANYARTIFICIAL OR AVULSION CHANGES IN THE LOCATION OF THESHORELINE.
LC
EXISTING ELEVATION
LEGEND
( )
AC ASPHALT PAVEMENT
FOUND MONUMENT
SEARCHED, FOUND NOTHING; SETNOTHING
FS
FL
FINISHED SURFACE
FLOWLINE
FFG FINISHED FLOOR GARAGE
CONCRETE SURFACE
T.B.M.TEMPORARY BENCHMARKSET ON A WATER METER (WM)ELEVATION = 99.58 FEET
PAUL D. CRAFT, P.L.S. 8516 DATE
NOTE: SECTION 8770.6 OF THE CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODESTATES THAT THE USE OF THE WORD CERTIFY OR CERTIFICATION BY ALICENSED LAND SURVEYOR IN THE PRACTICE OF LAND SURVEYING OR THEPREPARATION OF MAPS, PLATS, REPORTS, DESCRIPTIONS OR OTHER SURVEYINGDOCUMENTS ONLY CONSTITUTES AN EXPRESSION OF PROFESSIONAL OPINIONREGARDING THOSE FACTS OR FINDINGS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THECERTIFICATION AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY OR GUARANTEE,EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED.
LICENSE RENEWAL DATE 12/31/22
FF FINISHED FLOOR
WATER METERWM
EG EDGE OF GUTTER
GAS METERGM
CENTERLINE
TC TOP OF CURB
GRAPHIC SCALE
SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER SHALL PERMANENTLY MONUMENT PROPERTYCORNERS OR OFFSETS BEFORE STARTING GRADING.
PLEASE CALL PAUL CRAFT @ 714-488-5006 TO SCHEDULE.
SURVEYOR'S NOTES
BLOCK WALL
NG NATURAL GROUND
BENCHMARK NO: NB4-26-71
DESCRIBED BY OCS 2002 - FOUND 3 3\4" OCSALUMINUM BENCHMARK DISK STAMPED "NB4-26-71",SET IN THE TOP OF A 4 IN. BY 4 IN. CONCRETE POST.MONUMENT IS LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNEROF THE INTERSECTION OF POPPY AVENUE AND OCEANBOULEVARD, 60 FT. NORTHEAST OF THE CENTERLINEOF POPPY AVENUE AND 14 FT. NORTHWEST OF THECENTERLINE OF OCEAN BOULEVARD. MONUMENT ISSET LEVEL WITH THE SIDEWALK.
ELEVATION: 87.953 FEET (NAVD88), YEAR LEVELED 1990
ACU AIR CONDITION UNIT
CATV CABLE TV BOX
TILE SURFACE
BRICK SURFACE
AD AREA DRAIN
CLM COLUMN
DI DRAIN INLET
EPB ELECTRICAL PULLBOX
PA PLANTER AREA
RK ROCKS
TD TOP OF DECK
TELEPHONE PULLBOXTPB
TOP OF STEPTS
TOP OF WALLTW
TOP OF WALL STEPTWS
ITEM 7:AN EASEMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION,OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF SEWER FACILITIESIN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED APRIL 9, 2001 AS INSTRUMENTNO. 2001-210071 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. (PLOTTED HEREON)
DETAIL ANOT TO SCALE
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
From:Liz Lewinson
To:Planning Commissioners; Lee, David
Subject:Opposition to coding variance at 3625 Ocean Boulevard
Date:February 14, 2022 4:10:23 PM
Attachments:Opposition to coding variance 3625 Ocean Boulevard.docx
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Planning Commissioners, please see my attached letter expressing strong opposition to ahighly problematic code variance at 3625 Ocean Boulevard.
Thanks,
Liz Lewinson
406.5 Heliotrope AvenueCorona del Mar, CA 94965
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3a - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
February 14, 2022
Delivery by Email: planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov
Newport Beach Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: 3625 Ocean Boulevard—Opposition to Height Variance Request (PA2021-130)
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I am writing you in response to the height variance request submitted for the property located at
3625 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar, CA 92625. As a resident of Corona del Mar, I would
like to express my opposition to this request. The curb height limit for structures located along the
water side of Ocean Boulevard exists to prevents structures from blocking the ocean view of people
using the sidewalk and roadway as well as those neighbors that are located on the opposite side of
the street. This is a critical aspect of life in Corona Del Mar. Other ocean communities have
thoughtlessly allowed building to block off views of the sea. Granting this variance request would
establish a new height limit along Ocean Boulevard, and would negatively and severely impact a
precious coastal resource.
This new standard is problematic for a few reasons: (1) blocking coastal views along Ocean
Boulevard goes against the spirit of the Coastal Act and violates the City’s Local Coastal Program;
(2) current and future residents with similar wishes will expect the same treatment; and (3) the
controversial nature surrounding this matter will lead to bad feelings and angst amongst neighbors.
Please accept this letter as my official statement of my strong opposition to the height variance
request submitted for the property located at 3625 Ocean Boulevard. Please support the City’s
Local Coastal Program, preserve blue water views for locals and visitors, and deny this variance
request.
Sincerely,
Liz Lewinson
406.5 Heliotrope Avenue
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
cc: David S. Lee, Associate Planner (dlee@newportbeachca.gov)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3a - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
February 14, 2022
Delivery by Email: planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov
Newport Beach Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: 3625 Ocean Boulevard—Opposition to Height Variance Request (PA2021-130)
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I am writing you in response to the height variance request submitted for the property located at
3625 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar, CA 92625. As a resident of Corona del Mar, I would
like to express my opposition to this request. The curb height limit for structures located along the
water side of Ocean Boulevard exists to prevents structures from blocking the ocean view of people
using the sidewalk and roadway as well as those neighbors that are located on the opposite side of
the street. Granting this variance request would establish a new height limit along Ocean
Boulevard, and would negatively and severely impact a precious coastal resource. This new
standard is problematic for a few reasons: (1) blocking coastal views along Ocean Boulevard goes
against the spirit of the Coastal Act and violates the City’s Local Coastal Program; (2) current and
future residents with similar wishes will expect the same treatment; and (3) the controversial nature
surrounding this matter will lead to bad feelings and angst amongst neighbors.
Please accept this letter as my official statement of my opposition to the height variance request
submitted for the property located at 3625 Ocean Boulevard. Please support the City’s Local
Coastal Program, preserve blue water views for locals and visitors, and deny this variance request.
Sincerely,
Larry Dorn
1106 Goldenrod Ave
Newport Beach CA 92660
cc: David S. Lee, Associate Planner (dlee@newportbeachca.gov)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3a - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
From:Lee, Amanda
To:Lee, David
Cc:Rodriguez, Clarivel
Subject:FW: 3625 Ocean Boulevard—Opposition to Height Variance Request (PA2021-130)
Date:February 14, 2022 5:14:41 PM
From: Lee West <lwest@hfsoffice.com>
Sent: February 14, 2022 4:46 PM
To: Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Lee, David <dlee@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 3625 Ocean Boulevard—Opposition to Height Variance Request (PA2021-130)
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
February 14, 2022
Delivery by Email
Newport Beach Planning Commission100 Civic Center DriveNewport Beach, CA 92660
RE: 3625 Ocean Boulevard—Opposition to Height Variance Request (PA2021-130)
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I am writing you in response to the height variance request submitted for the property locatedat 3625 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar, CA 92625. As a resident of Corona del Mar, Iwould like to express my opposition to this request. The curb height limit for structureslocated along the water side of Ocean Boulevard exists to prevents structures from blockingthe ocean view of people using the sidewalk and roadway as well as those neighbors that arelocated on the opposite side of the street. Granting this variance request would establish a newheight limit along Ocean Boulevard, and would negatively and severely impact a preciouscoastal resource. This new standard is problematic for a few reasons: (1) blocking coastalviews along Ocean Boulevard goes against the spirit of the Coastal Act and violates the City’sLocal Coastal Program; (2) current and future residents with similar wishes will expect thesame treatment; and (3) the controversial nature surrounding this matter will lead to badfeelings and angst amongst neighbors.
Please accept this letter as my official statement of my opposition to the height variancerequest submitted for the property located at 3625 Ocean Boulevard. Please support the City’sLocal Coastal Program, preserve blue water views for locals and visitors, and deny thisvariance request.
Sincerely,
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3a - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Lee West
642 Toyopa Drive, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
cc: David S. Lee, Associate Planner (dlee@newportbeachca.gov)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3a - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
From:Kimberly West
To:Planning Commissioners
Cc:Lee, David
Subject:3625 Ocean Boulevard—Opposition to Height Variance Request (PA2021-130)
Date:February 14, 2022 5:32:39 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
February 14, 2022
Delivery by Email
Newport Beach Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: 3625 Ocean Boulevard—Opposition to Height Variance
Request (PA2021-130)
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I am writing you in response to the height variance request submitted for the
property located at 3625 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar, CA 92625. As a
resident of Corona del Mar, I would like to express my opposition to this
request. The curb height limit for structures located along the water side of
Ocean Boulevard exists to prevents structures from blocking the ocean view of
people using the sidewalk and roadway as well as those neighbors that are
located on the opposite side of the street. Granting this variance request would
establish a new height limit along Ocean Boulevard, and would negatively and
severely impact a precious coastal resource. This new standard is problematic
for a few reasons: (1) blocking coastal views along Ocean Boulevard goes
against the spirit of the Coastal Act and violates the City’s Local Coastal
Program; (2) current and future residents with similar wishes will expect the
same treatment; and (3) the controversial nature surrounding this matter will
lead to bad feelings and angst amongst neighbors.
Please accept this letter as my official statement of my opposition to the height
variance request submitted for the property located at 3625 Ocean Boulevard.
Please support the City’s Local Coastal Program, preserve blue water views for
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3b - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
locals and visitors, and deny this variance request.
Sincerely,
Kimberly West
3628 Ocean Blvd.
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
cc: David S. Lee, Associate Planner (dlee@newportbeachca.gov)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3b - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
From:Courtney Watson
To:Planning Commissioners; Lee, David
Subject:Opposing variation height of 3625 Ocean Blvd
Date:February 15, 2022 11:35:21 AM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Good morning, it is come to our attention that the city is considering a height variation for a new construction at
3625 Ocean Blvd. Please don’t allow this variation. We feel strongly that Ocean Boulevard is for the whole town
and not just a few owners. Therefore we want to preserve the view for everyone. Therefore please don’t allow the
builder a variation on height. Thank you
Courtney Watson 515 Poppy Avenue B and
Mat Cox 323 Dahlia Place
Sent from my iPad
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3b - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
February 15, 2022
Newport Beach Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: 3625 Ocean Boulevard—Opposition to Height Variance Request (PA2021-130)
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I am writing you in response to the height variance request submitted for the property located at
3625 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar, CA 92625. As a resident of Corona del Mar, I would
like to express my opposition to this request. The curb height limit for structures located along the
water side of Ocean Boulevard exists to prevents structures from blocking the ocean view of people
using the sidewalk and roadway as well as those neighbors that are located on the opposite side of
the street. Granting this variance request would establish a new height limit along Ocean
Boulevard, and would negatively and severely impact a precious coastal resource. This new
standard is problematic for a few reasons: (1) blocking coastal views along Ocean Boulevard goes
against the spirit of the Coastal Act and violates the City’s Local Coastal Program; (2) current and
future residents with similar wishes will expect the same treatment; and (3) the controversial nature
surrounding this matter will lead to bad feelings and angst amongst neighbors.
Please accept this letter as my official statement of my opposition to the height variance request
submitted for the property located at 3625 Ocean Boulevard. Please support the City’s Local
Coastal Program, preserve blue water views for locals and visitors, and deny this variance request.
Sincerely,
Celin Miller
1517 Santa Barbara Drive,
Newport Beach, CA 92660
cc: David S. Lee, Associate Planner (dlee@newportbeachca.gov)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3b - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
February 15, 2022
Delivery by Email: planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov
Newport Beach Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: 3625 Ocean Boulevard—Opposition to Height Variance Request (PA2021-130)
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I am writing you in response to the height variance request submitted for the property located at
3625 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar, CA 92625. As a resident of Corona del Mar on Ocean
Boulevard, I would like to express my opposition to this request. The curb height limit for
structures located along the water side of Ocean Boulevard exists to prevents structures from
blocking the ocean view of people using the sidewalk and roadway as well as those neighbors that
are located on the opposite side of the street. Granting this variance request would establish a new
height limit along Ocean Boulevard, and would negatively and severely impact a precious coastal
resource. This new standard is problematic for a few reasons: (1) blocking coastal views along
Ocean Boulevard goes against the spirit of the Coastal Act and violates the City’s Local Coastal
Program; (2) current and future residents with similar wishes will expect the same treatment; and
(3) the controversial nature surrounding this matter will lead to bad feelings and angst amongst
neighbors.
Please accept this letter as my official statement of my opposition to the height variance request
submitted for the property located at 3625 Ocean Boulevard. Please support the City’s Local
Coastal Program, preserve blue water views for locals and visitors, and deny this variance request.
Sincerely,
Gena H. Reed
3428 Ocean Blvd.
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
cc: David S. Lee, Associate Planner (dlee@newportbeachca.gov)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3b - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
From:staceyh360@gmail.com
To:Planning Commissioners
Cc:Lee, David
Subject:Opposition to Height Variance Request (PA2021-130) 3625 Ocean Boulevard, Corona Del Mar
Date:February 15, 2022 12:00:15 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
February 15, 2022 Newport Beach Planning Commission100 Civic Center DriveNewport Beach, CA 92660 RE: 3625 Ocean Boulevard—Opposition to Height Variance Request (PA2021-130) Dear Planning Commissioners: I am writing you in response to the height variance request submitted for the property locatedat 3625 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar, CA 92625. As a resident of Corona del Mar, Iwould like to express my opposition to this request. The curb height limit for structureslocated along the water side of Ocean Boulevard exists to prevents structures from blockingthe ocean view of people using the sidewalk and roadway as well as those neighbors that arelocated on the opposite side of the street. Granting this variance request would establish a newheight limit along Ocean Boulevard, and would negatively and severely impact a preciouscoastal resource. This new standard is problematic for a few reasons: (1) blocking coastalviews along Ocean Boulevard goes against the spirit of the Coastal Act and violates the City’sLocal Coastal Program; (2) current and future residents with similar wishes will expect thesame treatment; and (3) the controversial nature surrounding this matter will lead to badfeelings and angst amongst neighbors. Please accept this letter as my official statement of my opposition to the height variancerequest submitted for the property located at 3625 Ocean Boulevard. Please support the City’sLocal Coastal Program, preserve blue water views for locals and visitors, and deny thisvariance request. Sincerely, Stacey Hillard45-3720 Honokaa Waipio Road, Honokaa, HI 96727 cc: David S. Lee, Associate Planner
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3b - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3b - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
February 15, 2022
Delivery by Email: planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov
Newport Beach Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: 3625 Ocean Boulevard—Opposition to Height Variance Request (PA2021-130)
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I am writing you in response to the height variance request submitted for the property located at
3625 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar. As a resident of Corona Del Mar for over 45 years, I
would like to express my opposition to this request. The curb height limit for structures located
along the water side of Ocean Boulevard exists to prevents structures from blocking the ocean
view of people using the sidewalk and roadway as well as those neighbors that are located on the
opposite side of the street. Granting this variance request would establish a new height limit along
Ocean Boulevard, and would negatively and severely impact a precious coastal resource. This
new standard is problematic for a few reasons: (1) blocking coastal views along Ocean Boulevard
goes against the spirit of the Coastal Act and violates the City’s Local Coastal Program; (2) current
and future residents with similar wishes will expect the same treatment; and (3) the controversial
nature surrounding this matter will lead to bad feelings and angst amongst neighbors.
Please accept this letter as my official statement of my opposition to the height variance request
submitted for the property located at 3625 Ocean Boulevard. Please support the City’s Local
Coastal Program, preserve blue water views for locals and visitors, and deny this variance request.
Sincerely,
Phyllis Jones
3328 Ocean Blvd
Corona Del Mar
cc: David S. Lee, Associate Planner (dlee@newportbeachca.gov)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3b - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
February 15, 2022
Delivery by Email: planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov
Newport Beach Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: 3625 Ocean Boulevard—Opposition to Height Variance Request (PA2021-130)
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I am writing you in response to the height variance request submitted for the property located at
3625 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar, CA 92625. As a resident of Corona del Mar, I would
like to express my opposition to this request. The curb height limit for structures located along the
water side of Ocean Boulevard exists to prevents structures from blocking the ocean view of people
using the sidewalk and roadway as well as those neighbors that are located on the opposite side of
the street. Granting this variance request would establish a new height limit along Ocean Boulevard
and would negatively and severely impact a precious coastal resource. This new standard is
problematic for a few reasons: (1) blocking coastal views along Ocean Boulevard goes against the
spirit of the Coastal Act and violates the City’s Local Coastal Program; (2) current and future
residents with similar wishes will expect the same treatment; and (3) the controversial nature
surrounding this matter will lead to bad feelings and angst amongst neighbors.
Please accept this letter as my official statement of my opposition to the height variance request
submitted for the property located at 3625 Ocean Boulevard. Please support the City’s Local
Coastal Program, preserve blue water views for locals and visitors, and deny this variance request.
Sincerely,
________________________
Joe Pastora
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
cc: David S. Lee, Associate Planner (dlee@newportbeachca.gov)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3b - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
February 15, 2022
Delivery by Email: planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov
Newport Beach Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: 3625 Ocean Boulevard—Opposition to Height Variance Request (PA2021-130)
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I am writing you in response to the height variance request submitted for the property located at
3625 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar, CA 92625. As a resident of Corona del Mar, I would
like to express my opposition to this request. The curb height limit for structures located along the
water side of Ocean Boulevard exists to prevents structures from blocking the ocean view of people
using the sidewalk and roadway as well as those neighbors that are located on the opposite side of
the street. Granting this variance request would establish a new height limit along Ocean Boulevard
and would negatively and severely impact a precious coastal resource. This new standard is
problematic for a few reasons: (1) blocking coastal views along Ocean Boulevard goes against the
spirit of the Coastal Act and violates the City’s Local Coastal Program; (2) current and future
residents with similar wishes will expect the same treatment; and (3) the controversial nature
surrounding this matter will lead to bad feelings and angst amongst neighbors.
Please accept this letter as my official statement of my opposition to the height variance request
submitted for the property located at 3625 Ocean Boulevard. Please support the City’s Local
Coastal Program, preserve blue water views for locals and visitors, and deny this variance request.
Sincerely,
________________________
Brian Pratt
3620 Ocean Blvd.
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
cc: David S. Lee, Associate Planner (dlee@newportbeachca.gov)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3b - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
February l{zozz
Delivery by Email: p!a.nn-[ng.qqm-mlss.|q-ge-r.q@B-e_w.po.rtb-e_gc-hc_a,g-q*y
Newport Beach Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA9266O
RE: 3625 ocean Boulevard-Opposition to Height Variance llequest (p A'2.021 - l 30)
Dear Planning Commi ssioners :
I am writing you in response to the height variance request submitted fcrr the property located at3625 ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar, CA 92625. As a resident of Coronu a.l ptu., I wouldlike to express my opposition to this request. The curb height limit fbr structures located alongthe water side of ocean Boulevard exists to prevents structures fiom blocking the ocean view ofpeople using the sidewalk and roadway as well as those neighbors that are located on theopposite side of the street. Granting this variance request would establish a new height limitalong ocean Boulevard, and would negatively and severely impact a precious coastal resource.This new standard is problematic for a few reasons: (l) blocking coastal views along oceanBoulevard goes against the spirit of the Coastal Act and violates the City,s Lc,cal CoastalProgram; (2) current and future residents with similar wishes will expect the same treatment; andeggleston (3) the controversial nature surrounding this matter will lead to bad feelings and angstamongst neighbors.
Please accept this
submitted for the
Coastal Program,
request.
Sincerely,
letter as my official statement of my opposition to the height variance requestproperty located at 3625 ocean Boulevard. please support the oity,s Localpreserve blue water views for locals and visitors. and deny this variance
5"^,+& 6ee;a.""t-
lrl ( E t^^n*\..*"-* hn'
Insert Name and Addresf*t*'* vaclt, (o q >b6/
cc: David S. Lee, Associate planner (d1.99@n-qw_portb_eachga,gp-y)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3b - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
February 15, 2022
Lee Lowrey, Chairman
Newport Beach Planning Commission 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 By email to llowrey@newportbeachca.gov Re: Opposition to Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Dear Mr. Lowrey:
I own the home located at 3628 Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar. I am writing to express my opposition to the height variance requested by Ron and Marsha Beard for their home at 3625 Ocean Boulevard, which is directly across the street from my home.
The height variances requested by the Beards are driven not by special circumstances, but
instead are driven by design decisions that move their home closer to the street and provide for architectural amenities that drive the building height higher than allowed by the City’s Local Coastal Program and Zoning Code. This increased height will block the public’s coastal views and negatively impact neighbors.
As Planning Commissioners, you know that variances are not supposed to be the rule and
at best should be a very small exception that is used to the minimum extent necessary. Also, the
fact that a variance may have been issued to a neighboring property or even for this property in the past is irrelevant. Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.52.090(G) provides that, “each [variance] application shall be reviewed on an individual case-by-case basis and the granting of a prior variance is not relevant or admissible evidence for the granting of a new variance.” Thus,
any reference in the Staff Report to prior variances or neighboring properties’ variances should
not be considered in relation to the Beard’s current variance application Meeting the height requirement of the Local Coastal Program and Zoning Code could easily be achieved by reducing interior ceiling heights, and/or increasing the slope of the driveway.
I am not against the Beard’s building a new home. The architectural plans show a nice design. But their new home should not negatively impact public coastal views or negatively impact the neighborhood. A small reduction in the height of the home at or below the curb height on Ocean Boulevard would improve the project. But until the Beard’s redesign their home to be
consistent with the City’s Local Coastal Program, I must oppose this height variance request.
Sincerely, SHANNON AIKMAN
cc: City Council (citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov)
Planning Commission (planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov)
David S. Lee, Associate Planner (dlee@newportbeachca.gov)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3b - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022
Item 3b - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
1
February 15, 2022
Delivered Via Electronic Mail: planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov
Mr. Lee Lowrey, Chair
Newport Beach Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
RE: Opposition to Agenda Item No. 3—Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
3625 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar
Dear Chair Lowrey & Planning Commissioners:
I am writing to you today to express my opposition to the proposed home located at 3625 Ocean
Boulevard in Corona del Mar. My neighbors and I only recently became aware of Mr. and Mrs.
Beard’s plans for their home, and I did not receive a public notice in the mail about this project.
Originally, my intention with this letter was to request a continuance of this hearing item to allow
my neighbors and I to meet with the homeowners to discuss our concerns and proposed solutions.
However, following two recent in-person meetings with Mr. and Mrs. Beard it has become
painfully apparent that they are unwilling to entertain any compromises and they had pre-decided
prior to our meetings to proceed with their plans “AS IS.” Thus, my neighbors and I have been
left with no other option than to oppose this project.
I own the home directly across the street from the Beard’s proposed residence at 3620 Ocean
Boulevard, and my property rights and property values will be negatively impacted by this
residence as currently designed. According to the staff report, this project is requesting four
separate variances, a waiver of City Council Policy L-6, and the right to encroach into the public
right-of-way. As explained below, this application violates the City’s Local Coastal Program
(LCP), negatively impacts public views, creates division amongst neighbors, and should be denied:
Height Variance and Coastal Development Permit
Ocean Boulevard is a designated public view corridor and public viewpoints are located all along
the top of Ocean Boulevard. Mr. and Mrs. Beard are requesting a height variance that would allow
the standard 24-foot flat roof height limit to be exceed by 14 feet, which would allow their home
to reach a height of 38-feet. As if that is not bad enough, they are also requesting a variance to
exceed the top of Ocean Boulevard’s curb height limit by 3 feet. These two variances negatively
impact public views from Ocean Boulevard and violate the City’s LCP.
Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 21.30.060(B)(4) states:
4. Structures on Ocean Boulevard. New structures and additions/changes to existing structures
on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar shall not be constructed to a height greater
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3b - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
2
than the elevation of the adjacent curb. The top of curb height limit shall be established by a plane
created by the extension of the top of curb line across each lot.
The staff report and findings acknowledge that the proposed home will exceed the curb height on
Ocean Boulevard while attempting to explain that public views would be “improved” with the new
design over what is currently located on the site. This conclusion is a little suspect to say the least.
However, even assuming this conclusion is correct the standard is not whether a project is an
“improvement” over existing conditions, but whether the design meets the LCP to the maximum
extent feasible and whether there is an analysis of feasible alternatives that would provide greater
consistency with the LCP.
NBMC Section 21.52.090(C) Considerations. In reviewing a coastal development permit
application for development requesting a modification or variance, the review authority shall
consider the following:
1. Whether or not the development is consistent with the certified Local Coastal Program to the
maximum extent feasible; and
2. Whether or not there are feasible alternatives that would provide greater consistency with the
certified Local Coastal Program and/or that are more protective of coastal resources.
It doesn’t appear that either of the requested height variances have been designed consistent with
the City’s LCP to the maximum extent feasible, and no alternatives have been presented to the
Planning Commission for their consideration.
Instead, a review of the plans shows that the new home will have 9.5-foot ceiling heights. Even
the garage of the new home has high ceilings with a proposed height of 8.6-feet. The garage also
features oversized parking spaces set at 11-feet, which represent a 10% excess over the standard
sized parking space. I understand that high ceilings and an oversized garage are desirable, that
they are a nice to have, but not a necessity. A small reduction in ceiling height and garage size
could go a long way in reducing the overall height of the new home, which would achieve greater
compliance with the LCP’s height limits and reduce the overall height to curb height on Ocean
Boulevard, which would enhance and protect ocean views for the public.
It's worth noting that a similar request to exceed the top of curb height for the next-door neighbor’s
garage at 3631 Ocean Boulevard was recommended for denial (PA2001-062). Instead, the City’s
Planning Commission and Public Works Department recommended a steeper driveway (20.5%)
and lower ceilings to keep the structure at or below curb height. During the Planning
Commission’s deliberations, then commissioner Ed Selich, even suggested moving the garage
further away from Ocean Boulevard to reduce the driveway slope and overall structure height. A
similar approach could also be useful here, and should have been considered as an alternative
design.
Since it doesn’t appear that any alternative designs were considered nor presented to the Planning
Commission for their review, the findings for approval cannot be made to exceed the Ocean
Boulevard top of curb height limit, and the height variance should be denied.
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3b - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
3
Setback Variance and Coastal Development Permit
The Beards are requesting a 10-foot encroachment into the required 10-foot setback along Ocean
Boulevard. The staff report generally indicates that development on the lot is restricted to the
location of the existing development and that site topography creates difficulty in constructing a
reasonably sized residence. This is an odd conclusion given that the proposed home and garage
are almost 6,000 square feet, which is a large residence by any standard, especially for a
topographically constrained lot.
Regardless of home size, the LCP (NBMC Section 21.52.090(C)) requires that alternatives be
considered, and findings made. Here, Mr. and Mrs. Beard are requesting a 10-foot encroachment
into a 10-foot setback. The absurdity of this request is self-evident, and demonstrates that they
have made no attempt to design a home to be in compliance with the LCP or the City’s variance
requirements. As explained in NBMC Section 20.52.090(A), a variance is intended to serve a very
narrow purpose in limited and special circumstances:
A variance provides a process for City consideration of requests to waive or modify certain
standards of this Zoning Code when, because of special circumstances applicable to the
property, including location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical
features, the strict application of the development standards otherwise applicable to the
property denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the
vicinity and in the same zoning district.
Page 10 of the staff report indicates that all 10 residences between Orchid and Poppy have been
approved for setback encroachments and essentially everyone needs the variance so everyone gets
approval. The purpose of a variance is to address “special circumstances,” if all the properties in
this area have the same “special circumstances,” the circumstances do not appear to be very special
at all. Instead, rather than pursue a variance, the City should make a comprehensive change to the
LCP to address these regular and routine circumstances in the area. A comprehensive change
allows the setbacks to be evaluated pursuant to CEQA and allows review by the California Coastal
Commission. Continuing with a piecemeal approach that reviews each project individually does
not assess the cumulative environmental impact or cumulative consistency with LCP polices and
the California Coastal Act. Furthermore, if an alternative had been prepared, as required by NBMC
Section 21.52.090(C)(2), the homeowners could have designed a home with a reduced setback
encroachment. Thus, this request violates the LCP, CEQA, and the normal California Coastal
Commission review process for LCP Amendments and the City should deny this request to
encroach 100% into the required setback.
Encroachment
This application requests approval of an encroachment agreement with the City for the continued
use of public right-of-way for personal use. This includes vehicular and pedestrian access and an
outdoor living area. This private use of public property, especially as it relates to a private outdoor
living area, appears to be a gift of public funds. Will the City charge the homeowners for the
public right-of-way they intend to use for their private purposes, or will they give away this public
asset free of charge?
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3b - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
4
Conclusion
In conclusion, this project does not appear to have been designed to comply with the LCP to the
greatest extent possible nor have feasible alternative designs been presented to the Planning
Commission for their consideration. This project has been designed to maximize nice to haves, at
the expense of LCP required minimums. There are simple and identifiable design solutions that
can be made to the home, such as reducing ceiling heights for the home and garage, increasing the
driveway slope, and relocating the garage slightly away from Ocean Boulevard that could bring
the home closer to the requirements in the LCP. Without the LCP required alternative analysis, the
findings for approval of the variance and coastal development permit cannot be made.
The applicant should be directed to redesign the home to comply with the LCP to the maximum
extent feasible. Then, story poles or other markers should be installed so neighbors and the public
can see the real-world implications the proposed variances will have on the impacted coastal bluffs
and protected public coastal views. This will help ensure the design improves upon the existing
conditions to the greatest extent feasible as the LCP requires. Currently, this project is half-baked
and is not ready for Planning Commission consideration. Please support the LCP and the
community and deny this application.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Pratt
cc: City Council (citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov)
David S. Lee, Associate Planner (dlee@newportbeachca.gov)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3b - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
February 15, 2022
Delivery by Email: planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov
Newport Beach Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: 3625 Ocean Boulevard—Opposition to Height Variance Request (PA2021-130)
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I am writing you in response to the height variance request submitted for the property located at
3625 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar. As a resident of Newport Beach and a visitor of my
parents home who have resided in Corona Del Mar for over 45 years, I would like to express my
opposition to this request. The curb height limit for structures located along the water side of
Ocean Boulevard exists to prevents structures from blocking the ocean view of people using the
sidewalk and roadway as well as those neighbors that are located on the opposite side of the street.
Granting this variance request would establish a new height limit along Ocean Boulevard, and
would negatively and severely impact a precious coastal resource. This new standard is
problematic for a few reasons: (1) blocking coastal views along Ocean Boulevard goes against the
spirit of the Coastal Act and violates the City’s Local Coastal Program; (2) current and future
residents with similar wishes will expect the same treatment; and (3) the controversial nature
surrounding this matter will lead to bad feelings and angst amongst neighbors.
Please accept this letter as my official statement of my opposition to the height variance request
submitted for the property located at 3625 Ocean Boulevard. Please support the City’s Local
Coastal Program, preserve blue water views for locals and visitors, and deny this variance request.
Sincerely,
Diane Haney
Newport Beach
cc: David S. Lee, Associate Planner (dlee@newportbeachca.gov)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3b - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
February _15_, 2022
Delivery by Email: planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov
Newport Beach Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: 3625 Ocean Boulevard—Opposition to Height Variance Request (PA2021-130)
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I am writing you in response to the height variance request submitted for the property located at
3625 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar, CA 92625. As a resident of Corona del Mar, I would
like to express my opposition to this request. The curb height limit for structures located along the
water side of Ocean Boulevard exists to prevents structures from blocking the ocean view of people
using the sidewalk and roadway as well as those neighbors that are located on the opposite side of
the street. Granting this variance request would establish a new height limit along Ocean
Boulevard, and would negatively and severely impact a precious coastal resource. This new
standard is problematic for a few reasons: (1) blocking coastal views along Ocean Boulevard goes
against the spirit of the Coastal Act and violates the City’s Local Coastal Program; (2) current and
future residents with similar wishes will expect the same treatment; and (3) the controversial nature
surrounding this matter will lead to bad feelings and angst amongst neighbors.
Please accept this letter as my official statement of my opposition to the height variance request
submitted for the property located at 3625 Ocean Boulevard. Please support the City’s Local
Coastal Program, preserve blue water views for locals and visitors, and deny this variance request.
Sincerely,
Shirley Shikuma
11867 Gonsalves Street
Cerritos, CA 90703
cc: David S. Lee, Associate Planner (dlee@newportbeachca.gov)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3c - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
February _15_, 2022
Delivery by Email: planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov
Newport Beach Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: 3625 Ocean Boulevard—Opposition to Height Variance Request (PA2021-130)
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I am writing you in response to the height variance request submitted for the property located at
3625 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar, CA 92625. As a resident of Corona del Mar, I would
like to express my opposition to this request. The curb height limit for structures located along the
water side of Ocean Boulevard exists to prevents structures from blocking the ocean view of people
using the sidewalk and roadway as well as those neighbors that are located on the opposite side of
the street. Granting this variance request would establish a new height limit along Ocean
Boulevard, and would negatively and severely impact a precious coastal resource. This new
standard is problematic for a few reasons: (1) blocking coastal views along Ocean Boulevard goes
against the spirit of the Coastal Act and violates the City’s Local Coastal Program; (2) current and
future residents with similar wishes will expect the same treatment; and (3) the controversial nature
surrounding this matter will lead to bad feelings and angst amongst neighbors.
Please accept this letter as my official statement of my opposition to the height variance request
submitted for the property located at 3625 Ocean Boulevard. Please support the City’s Local
Coastal Program, preserve blue water views for locals and visitors, and deny this variance request.
Sincerely,
Brandi Shikuma
11867 Gonsalves Street
Cerritos, CA 90703
cc: David S. Lee, Associate Planner (dlee@newportbeachca.gov)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3c - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
February _15_, 2022
Delivery by Email: planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov
Newport Beach Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: 3625 Ocean Boulevard—Opposition to Height Variance Request (PA2021-130)
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I am writing you in response to the height variance request submitted for the property located at
3625 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar, CA 92625. As a resident of Corona del Mar, I would
like to express my opposition to this request. The curb height limit for structures located along the
water side of Ocean Boulevard exists to prevents structures from blocking the ocean view of people
using the sidewalk and roadway as well as those neighbors that are located on the opposite side of
the street. Granting this variance request would establish a new height limit along Ocean
Boulevard, and would negatively and severely impact a precious coastal resource. This new
standard is problematic for a few reasons: (1) blocking coastal views along Ocean Boulevard goes
against the spirit of the Coastal Act and violates the City’s Local Coastal Program; (2) current and
future residents with similar wishes will expect the same treatment; and (3) the controversial nature
surrounding this matter will lead to bad feelings and angst amongst neighbors.
Please accept this letter as my official statement of my opposition to the height variance request
submitted for the property located at 3625 Ocean Boulevard. Please support the City’s Local
Coastal Program, preserve blue water views for locals and visitors, and deny this variance request.
Sincerely,
Paula Broome
35242 Vista de Todo
Dana Point, CA 92624
cc: David S. Lee, Associate Planner (dlee@newportbeachca.gov)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3c - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3c - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3c - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
From:Ken Pratt
To:Planning Commissioners
Cc:Dept - City Council; Ken Pratt
Subject:3625 Ocean Blvd - Neighbor Opposition Letters
Date:February 16, 2022 7:20:41 AM
Attachments:3625 Variance Neighbor Opposition Letters.pdf
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Commissioners,
Please see the attached additional opposition letters from surrounding neighbors in opposition to
the variance requests for the Beard residence located at 3625 Ocean Blvd. slated for tomorrow’s
agenda.
Mary Greenberg 210 Poinsettia
Sanford Greenberg 210 Poinsettia
Both John and Jane at 220 Poinsettia
Elizabeth Burns 215 Poinsettia
Julie Patterson 3708 Ocean
Will Hays 3616 Ocean
Thank you again for your time and understanding on this matter.
-Kenneth Pratt
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3c - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3c - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3c - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3c - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3c - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3c - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3c - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3c - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
February 15, 2022
Delivery by Email: planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov
Newport Beach Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: 3625 Ocean Boulevard—Opposition to Height Variance Request (PA2021-130)
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I am writing you in response to the height variance request submitted for the property located at
3625 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar, CA 92625. As a resident of Corona del Mar, I would
like to express my opposition to this request. The curb height limit for structures located along the
water side of Ocean Boulevard exists to prevents structures from blocking the ocean view of people
using the sidewalk and roadway as well as those neighbors that are located on the opposite side of
the street. Granting this variance request would establish a new height limit along Ocean
Boulevard, and would negatively and severely impact a precious coastal resource. This new
standard is problematic for a few reasons: (1) blocking coastal views along Ocean Boulevard goes
against the spirit of the Coastal Act and violates the City’s Local Coastal Program; (2) current and
future residents with similar wishes will expect the same treatment; and (3) the controversial nature
surrounding this matter will lead to bad feelings and angst amongst neighbors.
Please accept this letter as my official statement of my opposition to the height variance request
submitted for the property located at 3625 Ocean Boulevard. Please support the City’s Local
Coastal Program, preserve blue water views for locals and visitors, and deny this variance request.
Sincerely,
Nina Smith
2224 Heather Lane
Newport Beach, CA 92660
cc: David S. Lee, Associate Planner (dlee@newportbeachca.gov)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3c - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Februarv $,2022
Delivery by Email: planningpom-m_|rs_i_p--ne$@n_e_wpo-rtbe-ac*hg.4.gqy
Newport Beach Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: 3625 Ocean Boulevard-Opposition to
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I am writing you in response to the height variance request submitted fbr
3625 ocean Boulevard, corona del Mar, cA92625. As a resident of crlike to express my opposition to this request. The curb height limit for s
the water side of ocean Boulevard exists to prevents structures from bloc
people using the sidewalk and roadway as well as those neighbors th
opposite side of the street. Granting this variance request would establi
along ocean Boulevard, and would negatively and severely impact 4 pr€rThis new standard is problematic for a few reasons: (l) blocking coastBoulevard goes against the spirit of the coastal Act and violates the
Program; (2) current and future residents with similar wishes will expect t
Ilcight Variance Request (t,A2021- ll0)
he property located at
del Mar. I would
tures locatcd along
ing the ocean view o1'
are located on the
a new height limir
ious coastal resource.
.l views along Ocearr
City's [.ocal (]oastal
sanre trcatl-ncl.tt: alrcl
and angst amongst(3) the controversial nature surrounding this matter will lead to bad f'eeli
neighbors.
Please accept this letter as I
submitted for the property
Coastal Program, preserve
request.
my olficial statement of my opposition to the ight variance requcst
located at 3625 Ocean Boulevard. please su the City's L.ocal
blue water views for locals and visitors. an deny this variancc
Sincerery, S",^4# kep_*bng-
Ar c9 Po |uts_e_t{ tq .f
rnsertName"raf,o%S"" 444 Q.Iz 6z-T
David S. Lee, Associate Planner (d!9e@newportb_eaghc-a,go-v)cc:
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3c - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
February fu,zozz
Delivery by Email: plann_ipg_-c-gmm-issiqnerS@p_e_w-p9rtb_e_gp_-h94.g-9-;v
Newport Beach Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE:3625 Ocean Boulevard--Opposition to Height Variance
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I am writing you in response to the height variance request submitted for3625 ocean Boulevard, corona del Mar, cA 92625. As a resident of Colike to express my opposition to this request. The curb height limit for s
the water side of ocean Boulevard exists to prevents structures from blocpeople using the sidewalk and roadway as well as those neighbors th
opposite side of the street. Granting this variance request would establi
along ocean Boulevard, and would negatively and severely impact a pre
This new standard is problematic for a few reasons: (l) blocking coasBoulevard goes against the spirit of the coastal Act and violates theProgram; (2) current and luture residents with similar wishes will expect th(3) the controversial nature surrounding this matter will lead to bad f'eelin
neighbors.
Please accept this letter as my official statement of my opposition to the I
submitted for the property located at 3625 ocean Eloulevard. please su
coastal Program, preserve blue water views for locals and visitors,
request.
Sincerely,tLr,w &,<rnbg
>to t Po ),t seA#8-
rnsert Name *d Afdg*.,^ a. &eL /K*, Lrr e >6)-f
cc: David S. Lee, Associate planner (dle.9@.newpqgb_9ach-ca,go_v)
uest (PA202l- 130)
property located at
del Mar. I'would
tures located along
ing the ocean vicw o1'
t are located on the
a new height lirrrit
ious coastal resrturce.
views along Occan
lity's Local (loastal
same treatment; and
and angst amongst
ight variance request
the City's Local
deny this variancc
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3c - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
From:gwhighland@aol.com
To:Planning Commissioners
Cc:Lee, David
Subject:3625 Ocean Boulevard—Opposition to Height Variance Request (PA2021-130)
Date:February 16, 2022 2:36:44 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Planning Commissioners: As a long time Flower Street resident, I am opposed to the request for a height variance for theproperty located at 3625 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar, CA 92625.
The curb height limit for structures located along the water side of Ocean Boulevard exists toprevents structures from blocking the ocean view of people using the sidewalk and roadway aswell as those neighbors that are located on the opposite side of the street. Granting thisvariance request would establish a new height limit along Ocean Boulevard, and wouldnegatively and severely impact a precious coastal resource. This new standard is problematicfor a few reasons: (1) blocking coastal views along Ocean Boulevard goes against the spirit ofthe Coastal Act and violates the City’s Local Coastal Program; (2) current and future residentswith similar wishes will expect the same treatment; and (3) the controversial naturesurrounding this matter will lead to bad feelings and angst amongst neighbors.
When a property is significantly changed, it should be brought into agreement with currentzoning and local prescriptions.... to allow something to continue forever is NOT in the spirit ofthe City Code nor the Coastal Act. Please accept this letter as my official statement of my opposition to the height variancerequest submitted for the property located at 3625 Ocean Boulevard.
Please support the City’s Local Coastal Program, preserve blue water views for locals andvisitors, and deny this variance request. Sincerely
Glenn Highland 222 Marigold AveCorona Del Mar, CA 92625
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3c - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
February 15, 2022
Delivery by Email: planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov
Newport Beach Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: 3625 Ocean Boulevard—Opposition to Height Variance Request (PA2021-130)
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I am writing you in response to the height variance request submitted for the property located at
3625 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar, CA 92625. As a resident of Newport Beach, I would like
to express my opposition to this request. The curb height limit for structures located along the
water side of Ocean Boulevard exists to prevents structures from blocking the ocean view of people
using the sidewalk and roadway as well as those neighbors that are located on the opposite side of
the street. Granting this variance request would establish a new height limit along Ocean
Boulevard, and would negatively and severely impact a precious coastal resource. This new
standard is problematic for a few reasons: (1) blocking coastal views along Ocean Boulevard goes
against the spirit of the Coastal Act and violates the City’s Local Coastal Program; (2) current and
future residents with similar wishes will expect the same treatment; and (3) the controversial nature
surrounding this matter will lead to bad feelings and angst amongst neighbors.
Please accept this letter as my official statement of my opposition to the height variance request
submitted for the property located at 3625 Ocean Boulevard. Please support the City’s Local
Coastal Program, preserve blue water views for locals and visitors, and deny this variance request.
Sincerely,
Nina Smith
2224 Heather Lane
Newport Beach, CA 92660
cc: David S. Lee, Associate Planner (dlee@newportbeachca.gov)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3c - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
From:Jim Moore
To:Planning Commissioners; Lee, David
Cc:Brenner, Joy
Subject:Opposition to the Height Variance Request for 3625 Ocean Boulevard (PA2021-130)
Date:February 16, 2022 3:32:25 PM
Attachments:image001.pngimage002.png
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I am writing you in response to the height variance request submitted for the property
located at 3625 Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar.
I became aware of the variance request on the morning of September 3, 2021 while
walking my dog and snapped the two pictures below after seeing the posted notice only after my dog pulled me down the walkway to the front gate following a
neighborhood cat she is infatuated with. The first is the view from the sidewalk where
the notice is clearly not visible. It only is visible when one walks almost up to the
house’s front door (second picture). Note that September 3 was almost 3 months after the notice is dated as being posted! I walk by that house every morning when I
walk my dog when in town, and it took me 3 months to see the notice and I had to
walk well onto the property to do so? Come on. If that is not violation of the rule of
the posting policy, it certainly seems a violation of its intent!
Neighbors across the street on Ocean and Poinsettia informed me of the upcoming
planning hearing, and if I were in town, I would certainly attend to voice my opposition
in person. I am generally accommodative within reason for homeowners requesting small variances to build their dream houses in Corona del Mar, but not when it comes
at the expense of their neighbors, the broader CDM community, and especially not
when it is done in a duplicitous manner that causes me to question their integrity,
sense of fair play, and whether I’d want them as neighbors in the first place.
Please feel free to email me or call me at the number below if you have further
questions.
Regards,
Jim Moore
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
223 Poppy Ave.Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949-375-1354
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3c - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3c - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
From:Bill Braly
To:Planning Commissioners
Cc:Lee, David
Subject:3625 Ocean Boulevard—Opposition to Height Variance Request (PA2021-130)
Date:February 16, 2022 3:42:08 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Newport Beach Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: 3625 Ocean Boulevard—Opposition to Height Variance Request (PA2021-130)
Dear Planning Commissioners:
My wife and I frequently take walks along Ocean Boulevard and along Big and Little Corona beaches. This letter
will be familiar to you, as is was forwarded to me by another concerned resident. It expresses my experience and
views exactly, so I am submitting it as if it were my own.
I am writing you in response to the height variance request submitted for the property located at 3625 OceanBoulevard, Corona del Mar, CA 92625. As a resident of Corona del Mar, I would like to express my opposition tothis request. The curb height limit for structures located along the water side of Ocean Boulevard exists toprevents structures from blocking the ocean view of people using the sidewalk and roadway as well as thoseneighbors that are located on the opposite side of the street. Granting this variance request would establish a newheight limit along Ocean Boulevard, and would negatively and severely impact a precious coastal resource. Thisnew standard is problematic for a few reasons: (1) blocking coastal views along Ocean Boulevard goes againstthe spirit of the Coastal Act and violates the City’s Local Coastal Program; (2) current and future residents withsimilar wishes will expect the same treatment; and (3) the controversial nature surrounding this matter will lead tobad feelings and angst amongst neighbors.
Please accept this letter as my official statement of my opposition to the height variance request submitted for the
property located at 3625 Ocean Boulevard. Please support the City’s Local Coastal Program, preserve blue waterviews for locals and visitors, and deny this variance request.
Sincerely,
Bill Braly
2212 Waterfront Drive
Corona del Mar , CA 92625
cc:David S. Lee, Associate Planner (dlee@newportbeachca.gov)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3c - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3c - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3c - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3c - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3c - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3c - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3c - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
February 17, 2022, Planning Commission Item 3 Comments
These comments on a Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda item are submitted by:
Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229).
Item No. 3. BEARD RESIDENCE (PA2021-130)
The PDF staff report being presented to the Commission and public is large on file size (142
MB, after some highlighting, and choking my computer) but small on clarity, logic and accuracy.
Although it describes itself as a request for “a” variance, it actually seems to be a request for
four separate variances, as well as for additional approvals to use of the public right of way for
private development.
Normally, when an applicant requests a variance, the staff report includes a letter from the
applicant describing what deviations from code are needed, and why. Here, there is none.
Instead, we have some figures, unreferenced and unexplained in the staff report, but which I
find attached to it as “PC 2 Variance Exhibits” starting on handwritten page 47. Of those, Exhibit
5 (handwritten page 55) appears to show it would be feasible to build a 2-car garage entirely
below Ocean Boulevard curb height and compliant with the 10-foot front yard setback, even
though the staff report implies it is not. And Exhibit 6 seems to show it might be possible to build
a 3-car garage (with tandem parking?) also within that constraint, although exactly what it is
showing and from what angle is quite inscrutable to me.
Likewise, when height variances are requested, the staff report normally includes diagrams
pointing out where the deviations would occur and why it would be difficult to avoid them. But
again, there are no such diagrams I can find here.
And for Coastal Development Permits involving construction on a bluff, there would usually be
an explanation of whether the applicant requests grading or caissons or other alterations that
might affect the stability of the bluff. But, again, I find no such discussion or disclosure of such
things here.
As to the variances, I would also like to suggest that the findings that justify one variance
request may not be the same as those that support another. For example, the existence of a
slope on a property may present a topographic anomaly affecting the application of citywide
height or buildable area standards to it, but the same property may not be topographically
peculiar in the application of something like the special height standard created only for the
bluff-face properties, all with similar slopes, along Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar.
Yet here the Commission is being presented with a resolution offering a single set of findings
supposedly justifying all the quite disparate variance requests, in a way readers are left to
disentangle for themselves.
For that reason, and others, I join those who have written in to the Commission objecting to this
application, and especially to its request to violate the long-standing requirement for new
construction on the ocean side of Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar to stay below the Ocean
Boulevard curb height.
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3d - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
February 17, 2022, PC agenda Item 3 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 5
Origin of the Ocean Boulevard Height Restriction
By way of background, in response to concerns about loss of views, the Newport Beach City
Council adopted comprehensive height limits, including the current citywide 24-foot limit for
residential flat roofs, with Ordinance No. 1454 in 1972, which added Chapter 20.09, as it was
then numbered, to the Zoning Code. That was renumbered as Chapter 20.02 when Title 20 was
recodified by Ordinance No. 1657 in 1976.
In 1979, the Council added to Section 20.02.050 of that chapter special restrictions on the
allowable height of residences fronting the oceanward side of Kings Road (with Ordinance No.
1793) and the current curb-height limitation on Ocean Boulevard (Ordinance No. 1822).1
I do not know what happened to the Kings Road restrictions, but the Ocean Boulevard curb-
height restriction survived, but renumbered, as Sec. 20.65.060.E2 when the Zoning Code was
again comprehensively revised by Ordinance No. 97-09:
“Structures on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar, which were in existence
or under construction on the effective date of this chapter (October 11, 1972) may be
changed; provided, such change does not result in a roof height above top of curb; and
provided, further that the roof height does not exceed the height limit established by the
24/28 height limitation zone. For purposes of this chapter, the top of curb height limitation
shall be established by a horizontal plane created by the extension of the top of curb line
across each site located on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard. Where a question arises as to
the interpretation of this code, the Planning Director shall review and render a decision. New
structures may be constructed on vacant sites subject to the same criteria.”
Note that in twice enacting this, the Council was well aware of the special topography of the lots
in question, and thought it was feasible for all new and changed structures built on them not
only to stay below curb height, but also to adhere to the 24-foot height limitation (which could be
raised to 28 feet with a use permit).
During the most recent comprehensive revision of the Zoning Code in 2010, this provision was
reduced to a cryptic footnote to Table 2-2 in Title 20 (“(3) On the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard,
the maximum height shall not exceed the elevation of the top of the curb abutting the lot.”), and
later to the same footnote to Table 21.18-2 in Title 21. But the intent presumably remains the
same. And as to the Local Coastal Program, this is not only an inconspicuous footnote to Title
21, but also a prominent public policy in Chapter 4 (“Coastal Resource Protection”) of our
certified Coastal Land Use Plan:
“4.4.2-4. Prohibit projections associated with new development to exceed the top of
curb on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard. Exceptions for minor projections may be
granted for chimneys and vents provided the height of such projections is limited to the
minimum height necessary to comply with the Uniform Building Code.”
1 For preceding Planning Commission discussion, see Item 5 from August 23, 1979, PC minutes.
2 Renumbered to Sec. 20.65.060.B, but otherwise unchanged, by Ordinance No. 98-21.
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3d - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
February 17, 2022, PC agenda Item 3 comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 5
It makes no sense, then, to argue that a lot on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard in
Corona del Mar should be excused from the curb height restriction because of the
special circumstance that the lot is on a bluff. The restriction was invented specifically for
those lots, understanding, and indeed because, they are on a bluff where construction higher
than the curb would impair public views.
Purported Reasons for Being Unable to Provide a Height-Compliant Three-
Car Garage on this Particular Lot
Without saying what the City standards are (Council Policy L-2 and STD-162?), the staff report
asserts that complying with the City standards for driveway slopes makes it infeasible for the
applicant to build a garage with a roof below curb height. Yet most of the other 10 lots the report
refers to seem to have solved that problem, often with an even shorter distance between street
and garage, which presumably forces an even steeper driveway slope. And Exhibit 5 on
handwritten page 55 seems to show it could be done rather easily here for a 2-car garage (even
with a 8’ 6” vertical clearance, where only 7’ is required per NBMC Subsection 20.40.090.A.4),
as well as for a three-car garage (Exhibit 6).
In the variance findings, the staff report says the lot is further constrained by the fact that the lot
not only slopes down toward the ocean, but also down toward the lower lots to its northwest. But
the second slope, rather than a constraint, actually opens more opportunity to build structures of
a given height out of sight from the road: why is the garage being proposed to be placed on
the highest part of the lot, where it is most visible from Ocean Boulevard, rather than on
the lower part? The driveway could curve over to a low structure on that side, and the problem
would, seemingly, be solved, with a gentler slope to a lower elevation.
As to the question of the requirement for a 2-car versus a 3-car garage, that is a dilemma of the
applicant’s own making (creating by deciding to build a home over 4,000 sf), and variances are
not supposed to be offered to solve self-created problems. In addition, the staff report’s
suggestion that parking on the driveway will make up for the deficiency in spaces is erroneous,
since the driveway slope will be far too steep to park within City standards.
On the other hand, the 3-space requirement could be met with a tandem arrangement (as is
possibly being illustrated in Exhibit 6 on handwritten page 55, and would be even more feasible
if moved to the lower northwestern part of the lot.
There would even seem to be a possibility to provide the parking at a still lower level connecting
to the road in the public right of way serving the lots to the northwest, eliminating the need for
the current and proposed expanse of private driveway concrete visible from Ocean Boulevard.
Some Additional Specific Problems with the Proposed Resolution
In reading parts of the proposed resolution, I noticed these additional problems:
Handwritten page 23: In the Resolution title, “VARIANCE NO. 651” should be “751”.
Handwritten page 23: In Section 1.1, “Trustee” was likely intended to be “Trustees”.
Handwritten page 23: Section 1.3 says the request is to “retain” improvements in the public
right of way. But it appears the applicant wants to construct new ones. Which is it?
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3d - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
February 17, 2022, PC agenda Item 3 comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 5
Handwritten page 24: In Section 2.3, couldn’t a coastal bluff be “an environmental resource of
hazardous or critical concern”?
Handwritten page 25: A.2: “The Property has a unique topography as it is located at …”
Handwritten page 25: It is unclear that Facts A.3 or A.4 have anything to do with establishing
the lot has physical constraints. They seem to statements about zoning history. More
importantly, the only physical constraint that differs from those on identically-zoned lots subject
to the Ocean Boulevard curb height regulation seems to be the side-to-side slope.
Handwritten page 26: last line of top paragraph: “The construction of the Code-required three-
car garage would reduce the entry area to approximately 160 square feet and approximately 7
feet wide, which is not practical usable for the residents.” [?]
Handwritten page 26: Fact B.1: I agree with one of the commenters (Kenneth Pratt) that if all
10 properties need a variance to the front setback to build, this is a not a special condition that
should be remedied by one-off variances, but requires an amendment to the setback
requirement in the code.
Handwritten page 27: Fact D.1: It is not at all clear that all 10 of the other residences have
been granted relief from the curb height restriction. In fact, I don’t think that is true.
Handwritten page 28: It is not at all clear what Fact D.3 has to do with whether the variance is
granted or not.
Handwritten page 28-29: The facts in support of Finding F do not address the requested
variance from the curb height restriction. And this finding cannot be made for that
request. Granting that variance would be in stark and obvious conflict with the intent of
that code, whose entire purpose is to protect public views by keeping new structures on
the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard below the curb height.
Handwritten page 29: The proposal obviously does not conform to Coastal Land Use Policy
4.4.2-4, as cited above, even though the footnote was added to the Implementation Plan to
ensure conformance to it. Fact G.2 is particularly inapplicable to the curb height variance
request, since the “a special circumstance” that “fact” says allows the curb height
footnote to be ignored is precisely the circumstance that caused the footnote to exist. In
other words, the resolution is, again, saying a restriction applicable to the bluff side of Ocean
Boulevard can be ignored because of the special circumstance that the applicant’s lot is on the
bluff side of Ocean Boulevard.
Handwritten page 31: At the bottom of the page, two required findings (I.i and I.ii) are
addressed as one. I cannot see where either the applicant or City staff has made a good
faith effort to explore “Whether or not there are feasible alternatives that would provide
greater consistency with the certified Local Coastal Program and/or that are more
protective of coastal resources.” Handwritten page 16 of the staff report says “Staff has
analyzed the alternatives of the variance” but does not explain what the alternatives analyzed
were or how they were chosen. For example, even if driveway slope constraints required
the garage roof to be over curb height (something I don’t believe since similar lots
haven’t required over-height garage roofs), why couldn’t the roof over the remainder of
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3d - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
February 17, 2022, PC agenda Item 3 comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 5
that level (the “foyer” entrance) be lowered for greater consistency with the LCP? The
cross-sectional plans on handwritten page 111 suggest that might be quite feasible since the
“room” under the foyer appears to be a possibly unnecessary mechanical space and the
adjacent room appears to have an over height ceiling, with stairs needed to reach its floor.
Handwritten page 35: Fact 4: I don’t believe the claim that a coastal development permit is
not required for the private development in the public right of way. Normally, residential
improvements, including landscaping and accessory structures, would be part of the overall
CDP application. Specifically, the exemption cited refers to “landscaping on the lot.” This
landscaping is not on the applicant’s residential lot. It is in the public right of way.
Handwritten page 36: paragraph 5 should say “This resolution supersedes Variance No. 751”
not “651.”
Handwritten page 37: paragraph 3 should begin “THAT PORTION OF SAID LOCK LOT “A”
LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF ..”
Handwritten page 38: Condition 4 was presumably intended to begin “Variance No. VA2021-
002 and Coastal Development Permit No. CD2021-025 shall expire unless …”
Handwritten page 42: Conditions 27 and 28 suggest grading will take place on the bluff. As
best I can tell, this is not discussed in the staff report, even though this is a request for a Coastal
Development Permit and the CLUP includes bluff protection and landform alteration policies.
Handwritten pages 42-43: The conditions go through a Condition 31 near the bottom of
page 42, then restart with a Condition “22”. This appears to be an error, with all
subsequent condition numbers off by 10.
Handwritten page 42: Condition “22” refers to “proposed lower level building corner over the
sewer easement” that will extend over the public right of way. As best I can tell, nothing about
this proposed structural intrusion into the public right of way is disclosed in the staff
report.
Handwritten page 43: Conditions “23” and “27” (which, it would seem, could be combined)
further suggest there is an issue involving a sewer line that is not disclosed in the staff report.
Handwritten page 43: Condition “25” requires the driveway to be constructed consistent with
City Standard STD-162. STD-162 allows a maximum 10% slope. But the applicant’s exhibit on
handwritten page 49 suggests that even with an artificially raised garage whose roof is over the
curb height, a 15% slope will be needed to reach its entrance, and the plan on page 111 shows
an even greater slope of 19.8% is being proposed. How is the applicant expected to construct a
driveway consistent with STD-162 without an even greater height variance for the garage?
Handwritten page 43: Condition “32” limits the driveway slope to a maximum of 19.1%. This is
inconsistent with both with Condition “25” and the plan on handwritten page 111, which
proposes a slope of 19.8%.
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3d - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
February 17, 2022, PC – Additional Item 3 Comments
These comments on a Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda item are submitted by:
Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229).
Item No. 3. BEARD RESIDENCE (PA2021-130)
My previously-submitted comment on this item omitted the following observations regarding
Fact in Support of Finding B.2 on handwritten page 26, which reads:
“Titles 20 and 21 require all structures on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard in Corona del
Mar to have a maximum building height that is not greater than the elevation of the adjacent
curb. Strict compliance with this height restriction would deprive the Property of a safe
driveway slope. Since there is a significant decline in elevation from Ocean Boulevard to the
proposed garage, the finished floor of the garage needs to be elevated in order to decrease
the driveway slope as much as possible. This necessitates the overall height of the garage to
be three (3) feet above the adjacent curb on Ocean Boulevard, which is the height of the
existing structure on the Property. Furthermore, surrounding properties such as 3631,
3709, 3719, and 3725 Ocean Boulevard were granted similar height deviations above
the curb height, while 3729 Ocean Boulevard was granted a maximum building height
which is nine (9) feet above the curb height.”
The highlighted portion of this “fact” is both factually incorrect and highly misleading.
Between Poppy/Little Corona and Orchid/Inspiration Point there are 10 bluff-side lots along
Ocean Boulevard. Their addresses, in that order (facing the ocean from Ocean Boulevard), are
3729, 3725, 3719, 3713, 3709, 3631, 3625, 3619, 3611 and 3601.
The subject property, 3625, is, as the staff report says, at a transition in the contour of
the bluff.
The three properties to the subject property’s northwest (3619, 3611 and 3601) take
advantage of this to be sited well below curb height and are accessed by a shared,
depressed drive aisle that has been allowed in the public right of way but out of sight
from Ocean Blvd.
Contrary to this staff report’s “fact,” 3631, the property to the subject property’s
immediate southeast, has not been granted a variance to allow its garage roof to
protrude above curb height. Quite the to the contrary, requests to allow an over-height
garage to accommodate a gentler driveway slope were twice refused by the
Planning Commission when that site underwent a similar demolition and rebuild, first
with PA2001-062 and then with PA2005-004, with, in the latter case, the applicant
withdrawing the request after the staff report recommended denial. As that staff report
indicated, in the original hearing “The Commission suggested several options including
designing a zigzag driveway or pushing the garage farther away from the curb,” but the
applicant chose to proceed with the steep driveway required to comply with the curb
height ordinance. In subsequently approving the Coastal Development Permit, the
California Coastal Commission was assured the structure was entirely below curb height
(T10c-12-2002).
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3d - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
February 17, 2022, additional PC Item 3 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2
3713 similarly appears to have been constructed in 1989 in compliance with the
Council’s 1979 curb height ordinance (VA-1129 allowed other exceptions, only).
Of the remaining lots, the one with a roof 9 feet above curb height is 3719, not 3729
as stated in the present staff report. That garage with high peaked roof appears to
have been approved in 1957 (see VA-433) long before the curb height restriction was
enacted. Although modifications were approved by VA-1151 in 1989, they were lower
than the existing heights.
Closer to the subject property, 3709, the second lot to the subject property’s southwest,
was apparently built in 1959 with a roofline 2’ 8” above curb height, again, long before
the curb height restriction (see VA-523). An addition was approved by VA-1220 in 1998
that included a single new feature over curb height – a curved arch over the entryway,
protruding 10.5 inches above curb height. But that did not conflict with the intent of the
curb height ordinance, since it was entirely below the pre-existaing roofline and did not
further impede public views.
The remaining two properties, 3729 and 3725 are at a location far from the subject
property where the curb slopes sharply downward toward the entry to Little Corona.
o 3729 was approved by the Coastal Commission in 1998 (see T14c-7-1998) with
a curved roof peaking possibly 4’ 5” above the sloping curb height. See also VA-
1218 where a 9’ plan may have been approved locally (note also that the
Planning Commission minutes from that day run 42 pages).
o 3725 was approved at a maximum 3’ 10” over the sloping curve after much
contention and continuations by the Coastal Commission in 2013 (see W19d-2-
2013), with the applicant arguing it was an improvement over the existing home
and consistent with the properties on either side – which is definitely not the case
here (see the exhibits starting on page 25 of the CCC PDF, as well as local
history of PA2010-034, which may have included approval of a garage roof 4’ 6”
above curb).
In short, the only comparable demolition and new construction that has been allowed to
violate the curb height restriction occurred at 3729 and 3725 Ocean Boulevard, far from
and under different circumstances than the present application. An identical variance
request for the immediately adjacent property at 3631 Ocean Boulevard was twice
denied. Proposed Finding B.2 hides and obscures these important facts.
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3d - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
From:mary jones
To:Planning Commissioners
Cc:Lee, David
Subject:3625 Ocean Blvd., Corona del Mar
Date:February 16, 2022 9:01:52 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
February 16,2022 Delivery by Email: planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov Newport Beach Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: 3625 Ocean Boulevard—Opposition to Height Variance Request (PA2021-130) Dear Planning Commissioners:
I am writing you in response to the height variance request submitted for the property located
at 3625 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar, CA 92625. As a resident of Newport Beach, I
would like to express my opposition to this request. The curb height limit for structures
located along the water side of Ocean Boulevard exists to prevents structures from blocking
the ocean view of people using the sidewalk and roadway as well as those neighbors that arelocated on the opposite side of the street. Granting this variance request would establish a new
height limit along Ocean Boulevard, and would negatively and severely impact a precious
coastal resource. This new standard is problematic for a few reasons: (1) blocking coastal
views along Ocean Boulevard goes against the spirit of the Coastal Act and violates the City’sLocal Coastal Program; (2) current and future residents with similar wishes will expect the
same treatment; and (3) the controversial nature surrounding this matter will lead to bad
feelings and angst amongst neighbors.
Please accept this letter as my official statement of my opposition to the height variance
request submitted for the property located at 3625 Ocean Boulevard. Please support the City’s
Local Coastal Program, preserve blue water views for locals and visitors, and deny this
variance request.
Sincerely,
Mary Jones
315 Avenida Cerritos
Newport Beach CA
cc:David S. Lee, Associate Planner (dlee@newportbeachca.gov)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3d - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
From:Erin
To:Planning Commissioners
Cc:Lee, David
Subject:BEARD RESIDENCE (PA2021-130) 3625 OCEAN BOULEVARD
Date:February 16, 2022 10:07:44 PM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
RE: 3625 OCEAN BOULEVARD - OPPOSITION TO THE HEIGHT VARIANCE REQUEST
Dear Planning Commission,
My husband and I have owned the residence located at 214 Poinsettia Ave for almost 19 years. We have
enjoyed the village of Corona del Mar for decades. We have become aware of the variance requested for
the property located at 3625 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar, Ca 92625. We highly oppose this variance
request. The curb height limits for structures located on the water side of Ocean Boulevard, and really
everywhere in our beautiful city, have been put in place for serious and well thought out reasons… to
protect all of us who live here. They have been, and still are, in place to protect the quality of life and the
most amazing features we who are privileged to live here enjoy…the ocean and all it brings to our daily
lives. The ocean views are the reason many people live here, not to mention why many people travel from
other neighborhoods just to enjoy them as well.
Just a simple drive or a walk down Ocean Boulevard is an amazing way to reconnect to one of the most
important things in our lives…natures beauty!
It’s actually very simple. Here are just some of the reasons we oppose the height variance that is being
requested:
A. It’s not necessary to achieve the homes square footage ie., ceiling heights, sloped driveways and garages
etc.
B. It’s not a need, it’s a want
C. It would set a dangerous precedent, a slippery slope for the future
D. Blocking coastal views violates the spirit of the Coastal Act and violates the City’s Local Coastal
Program
Protecting our beautiful coastal views for all to enjoy I’m sure is a priority to all of the Planning
Commission Members.
This is why we are requesting all of you to simply enforce the building codes in place and deny this
variance request.
Thank you so much for your consideration on this matter, and for doing the right thing for all of us who live
here and many others who enjoy this beautiful coast!
Sincerely full of hope,
Erin & Scott McDonald
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3d - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
From:Ingrid Greenberg
To:Planning Commissioners; Lee, David
Subject:Community Letter of Opposition for the house at 3625 Ocean
Date:February 17, 2022 10:28:58 AM
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
February 17, 2022
Delivery by Email: planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov
Newport Beach Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: 3625 Ocean Boulevard—Opposition to Height Variance Request (PA2021-
130)
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I am writing you in response to the height variance request submitted for the property located
at 3625 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar, CA 92625. My parents reside in Corona del Mar
and I visit them regularly. I would like to express my opposition to this request. The curb
height limit for structures located along the water side of Ocean Boulevard exists to prevent
structures from blocking the ocean view of people using the sidewalk and roadway as well as
those neighbors that are located on the opposite side of the street. Granting this variance
request would establish a new height limit along Ocean Boulevard, and would negatively and
severely impact a precious coastal resource. This new standard is problematic for a few
reasons: (1) blocking coastal views along Ocean Boulevard goes against the spirit of the
Coastal Act and violates the City’s Local Coastal Program; (2) current and future residents
with similar wishes will expect the same treatment; and (3) the controversial nature
surrounding this matter will lead to bad feelings and angst amongst neighbors.
Please accept this letter as my official statement of my opposition to the height variance
request submitted for the property located at 3625 Ocean Boulevard. Please support the City’s
Local Coastal Program, preserve blue water views for locals and visitors, and deny this
variance request.
Sincerely,
Ingrid Greenberg
Ingrid Greenberg
4532 Rolfe Road
San Diego, CA 92117
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3d - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
cc: David S. Lee, Associate Planner (dlee@newportbeachca.gov)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3d - Additional Materials Received Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item 3e - Additional Materials Received After Deadline Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Beard Residence
Variance, CDP, Encroachment Permit
3625 Ocean Boulevard
Planning
Commission
Public Hearing
February 17, 2022
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Request
New 5,413 sq. ft. residence
522 sq. ft. 2 car garage
Variance
Coastal Development Permit
Encroachment Permit
Community Development Department -Planning Division 2
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 3
Vicinity Map
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
4
Subject
Property
•Variance approved in 1963
•8-foot encroachment
•3 feet above Ocean Blvd. curb
•Modification Permit approved in 2001
•Major renovation
•Chimney encroach front setback
•369 sq. ft. addition
•Deck Encroachment into bluff
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 5
Vicinity Map
[aerial photograph]
[highlight site]
[highlight relevant nearby uses]
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 6
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 7
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 8
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 9
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
10
Feature Required Existing Proposed
Floor Area 8,881 sq. ft. 5,227 sq. ft. 5,935 sq. ft.
Overall Height Average Curb Height 3 feet abv. curb 3 feet abv. curb
Flat Roof Height 24 feet 44 feet (worst-case)38 feet (worst-case)
Setbacks
Front 10 feet 2 feet 0 feet
Left Side (West)
Right Side (East)
Rear
4 feet
4 feet
10 feet
3 feet
3 feet 6 inches
10 feet
4 feet
4 feet
10 feet
Parking 3-car garage 2-car garage 2-car garage
Open Space 888 sq. ft. 4,000 sq. ft. 4,231 sq. ft.
Development Standards
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 11
90’
80’70’
60’
50’
40-foot decline
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 12
Subject Property
H
S
H
S
H
S
H
S
H
S
H
S
H
S
H
S
H
S
S
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
13
3’ abv. curb
Chimney
5’ abv. curb
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 14
Existing
Proposed
3’ abv. curb
3’ abv. curb
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
15
Neighbor
3619 Ocean
Subject
Property
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
16
Neighbor
3619 Ocean Subject
Property
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 17
Stepped back
~15 feet
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 18
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
Recommended
Action
Conduct a public hearing
Find this project exempt from CEQA pursuant
to Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion
of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines
Adopt Resolution PC2022-002, approving:
Variance No. VA2021-002
Coastal Development Permit No. CD2021-025
Encroachment Permit No. N2022-0040
Community Development Department -Planning Division 19
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
For more
information
Contact Questions?David S. Lee
949-644-3225
dlee@newportbeachca.gov
www.newportbeachca.gov
Community Development Department -Planning Division 20
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3f - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Staff Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
|Public Hearing
3625 OCEAN BLVD., CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3g - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Applicant Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
City Approved Variance Application No. 751 dated June 6, 1963
EXISTING RESIDENCE |Approved Variance
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3g - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Applicant Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
FRONT PERSPECTIVE |Existing Residence
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3g - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Applicant Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
FRONT PERSPECTIVE |Proposed Residence
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3g - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Applicant Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
FRONT PERSPECTIVE |Existing Residence
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3g - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Applicant Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
FRONT PERSPECTIVE |Proposed Residence
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3g - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Applicant Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
STREET PERSPECTIVE |Existing Residence
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3g - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Applicant Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
STREET PERSPECTIVE |Proposed
Residence
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3g - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Applicant Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
INSPIRATION POINT PERSPECTIVE |Existing
Residence
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3g - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Applicant Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
INSPIRATION POINT PERSPECTIVE |
Proposed Residence
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3g - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Applicant Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
•Existing roof area is 2,600 s.f.@
3’ –0” abv. mean top of curb
•Proposed roof area is reduced
by 60% as 1,025 s.f.of roof area
abv. mean top of curb
•Remaining area of the proposed
roof design is min. 6’ –0” lower
than the existing roof line with
the largest reductions located
along the leading edge (along
ocean) with reductions of appx.
14’ –6” and 37’ –6” in height.
•Negative space and lowered
roof lines at the rear of the
proposed residence significantly
improves views beyond the
mean top of curb requirements
when considering views from
adjacent neighbors
MAXIMUM ROOF HEIGHT |Existing vs.
Proposed
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3g - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Applicant Beard Residence (PA2021-130)
•Proposed design exceeds
maximum driveway slope at
19.1% (15% Max. )
•Proposed garage elevation is
appx. 6” lower than existing
garage elevation
•Ceiling height in garage is
proposed as 8’ –6” to provide
adequate clearance for vehicle
entering on downward slope
MAXIMUM DRIVEWY SLOPE |City
Standards
Planning Commission - February 17, 2022 Item No. 3g - Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by Applicant Beard Residence (PA2021-130)