HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0_Moriarty Parcel Map Appeal_PA2008-207CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
November 5, 2009 Meeting
Agenda Item 3
SUBJECT: Moriarty Parcel Map Appeal
2128 Mesa Drive - PA2008 -207
■ Tentative Parcel Map NP2008 -024
APPLICANT/ Richard Moriarty
APPELLANT:
PLANNER: Makana Nova, Assistant Planner
(949) 644 -3249, mnova @newportbeachca.gov
PROJECT SUMMARY
A parcel map to consolidate existing portions of lots and parcels into a single parcel for
single - family development was approved with conditions by the Zoning Administrator.
The applicant, Richard Moriarty, has appealed the decision of the Zoning Administrator
to the Planning Commission and requests relief from conditions of approval relating to
Coastal Commission approval and the ingress /egress access easement.
RECOMMENDATION
1) Conduct a de novo hearing; and
2) Adopt Resolution No. denying the appeal and upholding and affirming the
decision of the Zoning Administrator and approving Parcel Map No. NP2008 -024,
subject to the findings and conditions of approval included within the attached draft
resolution (Attachment No. PC1).
Moriarty Parcel Map Appeal
November 5, 2009
Page 2
F:1Users%PLN\Shared%PA'stPAs - 20081PA2008- 2071PC Appeal Cont111- 05- 09WP2008 -024 PC rpt 11 -05- 09.doc
VICINITY MAP
:cel
zzz)
ANN VERSARY tN
Subject Property
EE50 tx0>
L, EE01 t
c Er rzuf
FCtq
I
ii.5 ix)S�P 5123 I
xtx.x
F4,.
♦ ���
�,•
F)'a�
•'__ zat xlax
d�'ss �1F �cF S)tro
EE)t
C,i �4 (Y
ilH SIIO
zzu
��
aez zxa "M
GENERAL PLAN
ZONING
zu
W
4S •r
4r'
y' /.
0.S9
/ V:r, /
rw,
I _
/r
LOCATION
GENERAL PLAN
ZONING
CURRENT USE
ON-SITE
Single -Unit Residential
Residential Agricultural
Single - Family Residence/Winery
Detached (RS-D)
(R -A
NORTH
Single -Unit Residential
SP -7 Santa Ana Heights,
Residential Equestrian
Detached (RS -D)
Residential Equestrian
SOUTH
Open Space (OS)
Upper Newport Bay
Open Space
Regional Park PC-44
EAST
Single -Unit Residential
Residential Agricultural
Single - Family Residence
Detached (RS -D)
(R -A)
WEST
Single -Unit Residential
Residential Agricultural
OC Flood Control Channel,
Detached (RS-D)
(R -A
ingress/Egress Easement
F:1Users%PLN\Shared%PA'stPAs - 20081PA2008- 2071PC Appeal Cont111- 05- 09WP2008 -024 PC rpt 11 -05- 09.doc
Moriarty Parcel Map Appeal
November 5, 2009
Page 3
INTRODUCTION
Project Setting and Description
The application is for a parcel map to combine existing portions of lots and parcels into
a single parcel of land for single - family development. The subject property is located
within the Coastal Zone in the R -A (Residential - Agricultural) District along Mesa Drive in
Santa Ana Heights. The property is landlocked as there is no recorded access
easement for the subject property. Access is currently obtained through a driveway to
Mesa Drive.
Background
On December 8, 2008, the Zoning Administrator approved Parcel Map No. NP2008-
024.
On December 22, 2008, the applicant filed the appeal, requesting that the Planning
Commission remove the conditions relating to the ingress /egress access easement and
Coastal Commission approval.
On February 19, 2009, the Planning Commission continued the appeal hearing to May
21, 2009, to allow time for the stakeholders in this issue to reach an agreement
regarding conditions requiring that the applicant establish an ingress /egress access
easement to the subject property.
On May 21, 2009, the Planning Commission, at the request of the applicant, continued
the appeal hearing to August 20, 2009.
On August 20, 2009 the Planning Commission, at the request of the applicant,
continued the appeal hearing to November 5, 2009.
DISCUSSION
The County of Orange and the City held a meeting on October 13, 2009, and agreed
that the City would take the lead in approving the construction plan for the access
driveway and supervise construction of the driveway and trail because the City will be
responsible for the continued maintenance of the right -of -way. The current budget for
the required improvements is estimated at $50,000 to $75,000 depending on the type of
road surface the applicant selects. The plans, as approved by the City, would then be
routed to OC Parks, Orange County Flood Control Division (OCFCD), and the property
owner of 2100 Mesa Drive where the access easement is located, Carla Brockman, for
review and comment.
F:%UserstPLNtSharedVPA's1PAs - 2008VPA2008 -207kPC Appeal Contll1- 05- 09WP2008 -024 PC rpt 11 -05- 09.doc
Moriarty Parcel Map Appeal
November 5, 2009
Page 4
Once the OC Parks Permit is approved and an escrow account is established to handle
the required real estate transactions, construction will be permitted to commence. The
County of Orange would then acquire easement rights from Carla Brockman and grant
non - exclusive easement rights to Richard Moriarty for the required improvements and to
establish access to the subject property. Richard Moriarty would also quitclaim any
access rights over 2100 and 2148 Mesa Drive.
Upon completion of the improvements under City supervision, the County easement
rights would be transferred to the City for continued maintenance with reserved access
easement rights for Richard Moriarty, OC Parks and OCFCD.
Analysis
The applicant is requesting a 90 -day continuance, citing the necessity to complete the
driveway improvements and record the access easement prior to approval of the
tentative parcel map (Attachment No. PC2).
Conclusion
The applicant remains unwilling to accept the conditions of approval for the tentative
parcel map until the applicant can improve the driveway and record the access
easement. The Zoning Administrator's conditions of approval are necessary for
compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and the City Subdivision Ordinance. The
Conditions of approval have no bearing on the negotiation between the applicant and
the other parties as to the rights of the ingress /egress easement. Therefore, staff
recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the decision of
the Zoning Administrator and approve the parcel map with the findings and conditions in
the attached resolution (Attachment No. PC1).
Alternatives
The Zoning Administrator's conditions of approval are necessary for compliance with
the Subdivision Map Act and Title 19 of the Municipal Code (Subdivision Code). In
addition to the Planning Department's recommendation to deny the subject appeal and
uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval of the parcel map with conditions, the
Planning Commission may deny the application in its entirety if the findings cannot be
met.
The Planning Commission may also grant the applicant's request for another
continuance.
Environmental Review
This project qualifies for an exemption from environmental review pursuant to Section
15315 (Class 15) of the Implementing Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality
F:\LJsersTLN\Shared\PA7skPAa- 2006 \PA2008 - 207 \PC Appeal Cont \11 -05- 09\NP2008 -D24 PC rpt 11-05 -09.doc
rl
Moriarty Parcel Map Appeal
November 5, 2009
Page 5
Act (CEQA). The project consists of the division of property in urbanized areas zoned for
residential, commercial, or industrial use into four or fewer parcels when the division is
in conformance with the General Plan and zoning, no variances or exceptions are
required, all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are
available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous
two years and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent.
Public Notice
This item was continued from to a date certain in the Planning Commission minutes
from August 20, 2009. Notice for the August 20, 2009 hearing was published in the
Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property, and posted at the
site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal
Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was
posted at City Hall and on the City website.
Prepared by:
Makdfia N a, Assistant Planner
ATTACHMENTS
Submitted by:
PC1. Draft resolution
PC2. Applicant's continuance request
PC3. Planning Commission Minutes, August 20, 2009
PC4. Planning Commission Minutes, May 21, 2009
PC5. Planning Commission Minutes, February 19, 2009
F:NUsers\PLN\Shared \PA's \PAs - 2008 \PA2008- 207\PC Appeal Cont\11- 05-09 \NP2008 -024 PC rpt 11- 05- 09.doc �y
Attachment No. PC 1
Draft Resolution
i
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING AN APPEAL BY THE
APPLICANT AND UPHOLDING AND AFFIRMING THE
DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND
APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 2008 -024 WITH CONDITIONS
(PA2008 -207)
THE PLANNING COMMISION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HERBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An application was filed by the applicant, Richard Moriarty, with respect to property
located at 2128 Mesa Drive, and legally described as a Portion of Lot 152, Block
51 Irvine's Subdivision, Portions of Lots 104 -115 inclusive and portions of Lots
120 and 121, Tract 706.
2. The applicant proposes to combine existing portions of lots and parcels into a
single parcel of land for single - family residential development.
3. The subject property is located within the Residential Agricultural (R -A) Zoning
District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Single -Unit Residential
Detached (RS -D).
4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan
category is Single Unit Residential Detached (RSD -A).
5. A public hearing was held on December 8, 2008, in the City Council Conference
Room, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time,
place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal
Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, considered by, and
approved with conditions by the Zoning Administrator at this meeting.
6. An appeal was filed on December 22, 2008, by the applicant, Richard Moriarty.
7. Public hearings were held on February 19, May 21, and August 20, 2009, in the
City Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A
notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with
the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and
considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 15 (Minor
Land Divisions).
9
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 2 of 9
2. The project consists of the division of property in urbanized areas zoned for
residential, commercial, or industrial use into four or fewer parcels when the
division is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning, no variances or
exceptions are required, all services and access to the proposed parcels to local
standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger
parcel within the previous two years and the parcel does not have an average
slope greater than 20 percent.
SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS.
The Planning Commission determined in this case that the proposed parcel map is
consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code
and is approved based on the following findings per Section 19.12.070 of Title 19:
Finding:
A. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are
consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with
applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code.
Facts in Support of Finding:
A -1. The proposed parcel map is to combine portions of 14 lots to create one parcel of
land for single family residential purposes. The residential density on the site will
remain the same. The proposed subdivision and improvements are consistent
with the density of the R -A (Residential- Agricultural) Zoning District and the
current General Plan Land Use Designation "Single -Unit Residential Detached ".
Finding:
B. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development.
Facts in Support of Finding:
B -1. The lot is regular in shape, has a slope of less than 20 percent, and is suitable for
development.
Finding:
C. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the
decision- making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an
environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made
pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that
10
Planning Comn ii5sion Resolution No.
Pace 3 of 9
specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
Facts in Support of Finding:
C -1. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is
categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act under Class 15 (Minor Land Divisions). The design of the lot merger
and roadwork improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
Finding.
D. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
Facts in Support of Finding:
D -1. The construction of the proposed single family residence will comply with all
Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes. Public improvements will be required of
the developer per Section 19.28.010 of the Municipal Code and Section 66411 of
the Subdivision Map Act. All ordinances of the City and all conditions of approval
will be complied with.
D -2. That public improvements will be required of the applicant per the Municipal
Code and the Subdivision Map Act.
Finding:
E. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of,
property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision- making
body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for
use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to
easements previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to
easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to
determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or
use of property within a subdivision.
Facts in Support of Finding:
E -1. That the design of the development will not conflict with any easements acquired
by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed
development.
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paue 4 of 9
E -2. That adequate ingress /egress will be provided via a recorded access easement
prior to final recordation of the parcel map.
E -3. That the easement will be improved to the satisfaction of the Public Works
department prior to recordation of the Parcel Map.
Finding:
F. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision
Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California
Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a
subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or
the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial
agricultural use of the land.
Facts in Support of Finding:
F -1. The property is not subject to the Williamson Act since the subject property is
not considered an agricultural preserve and is less than 100 acres.
Finding:
G. That, in the case of a "land project' as defined in Section 11000.5 of the
California Business and Professions Code: (a) there is an adopted specific plan
for the area to be included within the land project; and (b) the decision - making
body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for
the area.
Facts in Support of Finding:
G -1. The property is not a "land project' as defined in Section 11000.5 of the
California Business and Professions Code.
Finding:
H. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have
been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the
Subdivision Map Act.
Facts in Support of Finding_
H -1. The proposed parcel map and improvements are subject to Title 24 of the
California Building Code that requires new construction to meet minimum heating
and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport
Beach Building Department enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check
and inspection process.
I 9
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paae 5 of 9
Finding:
I. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map
Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's
share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the
region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal
and environmental resources.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1 -1. The proposed parcel map is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision
Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the
City's share of the regional housing need. The residential density on the site will
remain the same, which allows one unit for the R -A Zoning District. No affordable
housing units are being eliminated based upon the fact that the previously
existing units were not occupied by low or moderate income households and the
proposed number of units remains the same.
Finding:
J. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing
sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by
the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Facts in Support of Finding:
J -1. Wastewater discharge into the existing sewer system will remain the same and
does not violate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements.
Finding:
K. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the
subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where
applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the
Coastal Act.
Facts in Support of Finding:
K -1. The proposed parcel map is located in the Coastal Zone and conforms to the
certified Local Coastal Program. The Coastal Land Use Plan designates this site
as Estate Residential (RE), which is intended to provide for very low- density
single - family detached residential development on large lots, and the current
development is consistent with this designation.
K -2. That Coastal Commission approval will be obtained for the Parcel Map prior to
recordation.
15
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Paae 6 of 9
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Parcel
Map No. 2008 -024, subject to the Conditions set forth in Exhibit "A ".
2. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of
this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or
this is called for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of
Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009.
AYES:
Eel
.s
I1I. it
'in
19
Robert Hawkins, Chairman
Charles Unsworth, Secretary
ji
Planning Comniitsion Resolution No. _
Paoe 7 of 9
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PARCEL MAP NO. 2008 -024
1. A parcel map shall be recorded with the Orange County Clerk- Recorder
Department. The Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system
(NAD83). Prior to recordation of the Map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the
Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital -
graphic file of said map in a manner described in Section 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of
the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual,
Subarticle 18. The map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall
comply with the City's CADD Standards. Scanned images will not be
accepted.
2. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the map
shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established
by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337
of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual,
Subarticle 18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set on each lot
corner, unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments
shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project.
3. All improvements shall be constructed as required by City Ordinance and the
Public Works Department. In addition, improvements for domestic water and
sanitary sewer service connections shall be constructed as required by the Irvine
Ranch Water District and the Costa Mesa Sanitary District respectively.
4. No permanent structures can be built within the limits of any easement within the
property.
5. All work conducted within the public right -of -way shall be approved under an
encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department.
6. All applicable Public Works Department plan check fees, improvement bonds
and inspection fees shall be paid prior to processing of the map by the Public
Works Department.
7. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be undergrounded to the nearest
appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.28.090 of the Municipal Code
unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is
unreasonable or impractical.
8. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 (or any other applicable
chapters) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, additional street trees may be
required and existing street trees shall be protected in place during construction
of the subject project, unless otherwise approved by the General Services
15
Planning Commi�� ion Resolution No. _
Paoe 8 of 9
Department and the Public Works Department through an encroachment permit
or agreement.
9. All existing drainage facilities in the public right -of -way shall be retrofitted to
comply with the City's on -site non -storm runoff retention requirements. The
Public Works Inspector shall field verify compliance with this requirement prior to
recordation of the parcel map.
10. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement. See
City Standard 110 -L.
11. All on -site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements.
12. Additional Public Works improvements, including street and alley reconstruction
work may be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector.
13. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development
site by the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right -
of -way could be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector.
14. All existing private, non - standard improvements within the public right -of -way
and /or extensions of private, non - standard improvements into the public right -of-
way fronting the development site shall be removed unless an Encroachment
Agreement is applied for and approved by the Public Works Department.
15. Two -car parking, including one enclosed garage space, shall be provided on site
for each dwelling unit per requirements of the Zoning Code.
16. Prior to recordation of the final Parcel Map the applicant shall prove that the
applicant has the right to access the property (i.e. ingress /egress to and from the
property) from Mesa Drive. The applicant shall establish proof that the applicant
has the right to access the property from Mesa Drive in a form and manner
acceptable to the Office of the City Attorney, in its sole discretion. Reference to
recorded instruments covering rights for ingress, egress, and utility services to
the property shall be shown on the final Parcel Map.
17. The applicant shall complete roadwork improvements on the ingress /egress and
utilities easement to the subject property to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Department prior to recordation of the Parcel Map. The required improvements
shall include the construction of a 20 -foot wide, paved driveway with drainage
improvements including a bottomless trench drain at the end of the driveway.
18. Utilities shall be connected to the satisfaction of the Irvine Ranch Water District
and the Costa Mesa Sanitary District prior to recordation of the Parcel Map.
19. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of
construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control
Vp
Planning Commaion Resolution No.
Paqe 9 of 9
equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and
materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements.
20. In compliance with the requirements of Chapter 9.04, Section 901.4.4, of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code, approved street numbers or addresses shall be
placed on all new and existing buildings in such a location that is plainly visible
and legible from the street or road fronting the subject property. Said numbers
shall be of non - combustible materials, shall contrast with the background and
shall be either internally or externally illuminated to be visible at night. Numbers
shall be no less than four inches in height with a one -inch wide stroke. The
Planning Department Plan Check designee shall verify the installation of the
approved street number or addresses during the plan check process for the new
or remodeled structure.
21. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building
permits, if required by the Public Works Department or the Building Department.
22. Prior to the recordation of the parcel map, the applicant shall obtain a
determination, in writing, from the Coastal Commission that the merger of parcels
as proposed by the parcel map is not development under the California Coastal
Act or obtain Coastal Commission approval of the parcel map.
23. This parcel map shall expire if the map has not been recorded within 3 years of
the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Director in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.16 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code.
11
Attachment No. PC 2
Applicant's Continuance Request
W
JONES DAY
3161 MICHEL N DRIVE • SURE SW • IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612
TELEPHONE: 969 -851 3939 • FACSIMILE: 949-553-7539
Direct Number: (949) 553.7588
pfrafterty@jonesday.com
JP013193 :llt October 30, 2009
248206 - 600001
Via E -mail: mnova�Wnewportbeachea.gov
Ms. Makana Nova
Planning Department
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: Request for Further Extension on Moriarty Appeal Set
for November 5th, 2009
Dear Ms. Nova:
Please accept this letter as Richard Moriarty's request for another extension to the final
determination by the Planning Commission of the Appeal earlier filed by Mr. Moriarty. Another
extension is necessay to continue the efforts of Moriarty, adjacent land owners, the County of
Orange and the City of Newport Beach ( "City ") to solve the unique issues existing with
Moriarty's property and Birch street. The parties have not delayed in their efforts since the
Planning Commission last extended this matter, and progress is being made. But, a ruling now
on the Moriarty Appeal could upset the balance in place, and remove the impetus upon the
parties to promptly conclude this matter.
Since the Planning Commission granted its last extension, the City has made great strides
to solve the logjam that prevented prompt improvement of Birch. As the Commission may
recall, it is necessary to improve Birch, during which a series of transfers will ultimately vest
ownership of Birch in the City. During the transfer process, Mr. Moriarty will at last obtain
recorded access to his property. This is the only outcome that will satisfactorily resolve the
subject matter of the Appeal.
To the City's credit, in the last 4 weeks it has met with the County and indicated it will
take over the Birch street improvement. It has already recharacterized the project in a manner
that can allow improvement in very short order. The City's characterization will also
dramatically reduce cost, and avoid delay. Last week, the City returned to Moriarty its changes
to the Birch street plans. This week, Moriarty's engineer is reworking the plans. In the next two
weeks, the plans will then be distributed to all interested parties for final approval. The City's
Mr. Steve Badum has been incredibly helpful in providing sound advice to bring this to
conclusion.
ATLANTA • BEIJING • BRUSSELS • CHICAGO • CLEVELAND • COLUMBUS • DALLAS • DUBAI • FRANKFURT • HONG KONG • HOUSTON
IRVINE • �ONOON • LOS ANGELES MADRID • MEXICO CITY • MILAN • MOSCOW • MUNICH • NEW DELHI • NEW YORK • PARIS • PITTSBURGH
SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO SHANGHAI • SILICON VALLEY SINGAPORE SYDNEY TAIPEI TOKYO WASHINGTON
11
JONES DAY
Ms. Makana Nova
October 30, 2009
Page 2
Once the above occurs, the City has indicated its willingness to then promptly issue an
encroachment permit to allow Mr. Moriarty to improve Birch. Possible delays may include the
drafting of all necessary easements, property rights, and agreements to address the continuing
interests of the County, Brockman, Moriarty and the City.
From the Planning Commission's standpoint, its delay in ruling on Moriarty's Appeal,
and its past words of encouragement to the interested parties, are directly responsible for setting
into motion the series of efforts that are now solving this problem. And so, it is no surprise that
Moriarty, Ms. Brockman and the City have in the past encouraged the Planning Commission's
delay in ruling on Mr. Moriarty's appeal. In fact, it is our understanding that the City has also
requested an extension this time around (along with Mr. Moriarty) to avoid changing the status
quo, and to allow the parties to continue their efforts without a change in status.
Mr. Moriarty recognizes that continuing extensions are irritating for the Commission.
However, with knowledge that the patties are working diligently to finally solve this 11 year old
problem, given the progress above, and with the City's express blessing for an additional
extension, we encourage the Commission to continue the date for hearing and final ruling on the
Appeal for another 90 days.
Very truly yours,
Paul F. erty
IRI.391vI
tth
Attachment No. PC 3
Planning Commission Minutes,
August 20, 2009
at
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Commission Minutes
August 20, 2009
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge, and
Hillgrerr- all were present.
STAFF PRESENT:
David Lepo, Planning Director
Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attomey
Patrick Alford, Planning Manager
Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer
Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner
Makana Nova, Assistant Planner
Chris Savan, Planning Technician
Ginger Verin Administrative Assistant
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
None
POSTING OF THE AGENDA:
POSTING OF
THE AGENDA
The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on August 14, 2009.
HEARING ITEMS
SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of August 6, 2009.
ITEM NO.1
Approved
Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commissioner
Hilgren to approve the minutes as corrected.
Ayes:
Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren
Noes:
None
OBJECT: Moriarty Residence
ITEM NO.2
2128 Mesa Dr.
PA2008 -207
An appeal by the applicant, Richard Moriarty, of the Zoning Administrator
Continued to
approval of a parcel map to consolidate existing portions of lots and parcels into
11/09/2009
a single parcel of land for single- family development. The applicant requests
relief from conditions of approval relating to Coastal Commission approval and
the ingress/egress access easement.
Mr. Lepo noted the applicant has requested a continuance of this item. He
noted that staff recommends action be taken tonight.
0
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 08/20/2009
Chairperson Hawkins noted that staffs recommendation is not to continue, deny
the appeal, and affirm the Zoning Administrator's determination.
Commissioner McDaniel noted that the applicant has not been ready each time
he has come to a hearing, and is not willing to continue this again unless there
is a specific time that this will be heard. Perhaps we should pull this item and
hear it when the applicant is prepared. He noted he does not support continuing
this item.
Commissioner Hillgran noted the applicant was reques work out complex
issues and so we set the hearing for this date. If the a needs more time
we need to give them more time to work through these...___.
Chairman Hawkins noted a letter authored try.:Ms.411 n's attorney
agreeing to a continuance. hi'll Mr. Moriarty, the property owner and a noted he is de both the
County and the City and it has been to get consensus. Is a
meeting tomorrow and hopes this will be d Th %l fr, ntinuance be
the best choice.
Commissioner McDaniel asked;t
another meeting as you owe it W
pull this item and come back when
Mr. Moriarty hs`yi}
easements on d in d
agreement with i`rut it is
are
to would be ready for
to g ,;perhaps you should
as'V'iere are multiple
n,
a wh - s this road, has an
City who are holding us up.
have been many conflicts with
I tomorrow.
stated that' is~ conditions have been prepared to allow the
Co ion to arse " ne that were approved by the Zoning
Admin i9 on
to addres " me o ' Moriarty's concerns, specifically for the
requi Fish and approval, which we are willing to delete. Also,
relating to tiv alifomia stal Commission not saying he has to have a
Spec ific permit ', sim &i Mr. Moriarty needs to get a letter from them
saying he does noti; . _ a!permit from the Coastal Commission, or, verification
of whatever permit reeds, he will get from them. That takes care of the
City's responsibility because the other conditions that require an improved
dedicated roadway can't be deleted as that is per the Subdivision Ordinance
that there is improved access to publicJprivate road. As far as the negotiation,
and what the configuration of that roadway on the County land looks like, is of
no concern to Planning staff or the Planning Commission, as long as Mr.
Moriarty provides that access consistent with the Subdivision Code. You can
act if you chose on the proposed revised conditions. Copies of the revised
conditions were distributed to Commission.
Page 2 of 14
a3
•
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 08/20/2009
revised conditions. He was answered, no.
Commissioner McDaniel noted he has not gotten an answer to his question and
until he does, he is not in support of a continuance.
Mr. Lepo stated there is no need for the Planning Commission to continue this
matter as the negotiations are independent from the decision of the
Commission. As long as Mr. Moriarty is able to provide improved access to that
parcel map K this is good to go.
Chairman Hawkins asked the applicant If he could r commissioner
i ized agreement?
McDaniel's question. When do you believe you will hay4 F
.1.
nl
Mr. Moriarty noted he is not in control of that d&1 ,fie different agencies
involved and can't promise something that he hasi *'i& r.
with
Mr. Harp reiterated the focus here is on r they have led with the
ON I
condition or not, and whether the condrdi, is appropriate. I with Mr.
Lepo's opinion that requiring access to' cel is required. here
required. here
tonight to determine the not the
n
whether condition priate, n r
rel , ,
or not he can satisfy the oonditki. i Is reAftoolargreement fell D
Commissioner Hillgren noted ahead aftppt tonight, but it seems
.
the applicant is here with the of a oori6pnce. To give the
applicant an opportunity to work thirti.. h t d �6& fting motion:
Oil
A-p-
Motion %hossion Commissioner
re
&-.—is
Peotl 1! ite thirty a ppl Roll be prepared to act
with the undersil is ready I ...... to move forward.
Co McDa ffiftigays i1 long enough, maybe ninety
a nt&" but re is nothing offered that thirty
enough. ° h
Co oner mendment to the motion to ninety days.
The a motion ad'' mendment.
Mr. Lepo as r this two t to a date certain.
Chairman H was anyone else who would like to speak to
the continuance on 'in. There was no response.
Commissioner Hillgren noted the continuance deft would be to November 5,
2009.
Ayes:
Eaton, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren
Noes.
I Unsworth
Page 3 of 14
Attachment No. PC 4
Planning Commission Minutes,
May 21, 2009
as
r'
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Planning Commission Minutes
May 21, 2009
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge, and
Hillgren— Commissioner Hillgren was excused, all others were present.
STAFF PRESENT:
David Lepo, Planning Director
Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorn ey `
Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer
Patrick Alford, Planning Manager s
u=
James Campbell, Principal Planner
Sean McGhie, Planning Intern
Ginger Varin, Administrative Assistant
PUBLIC COMMENTS: M Ali"
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
—
�r
None
..C'r,in nk ill laF h�.
POSTING OF._.VAGE s -a __ =47 -
POSTING OF
gwtp
,K
THE AGENDA
The Planning Corrf`rion da was on March 13, 2009.
F•,... _
p�lyr AWING ITEMS
SUBJ: MINUTEST . he Fre4c"r.meeting of March 19, 2009.
ITEM NO. 1
_= n
Motion ;;; made ti h Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by
Approved
Commissoongi an to a,2'r. ; ve the minutes as corrected.
Ayes: Eaton'!* ..' Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel and Toerge
Noes: None
Excused: Hillgren
SUBJECT: Moriarty Residence (PA2008 -207)
ITEM NO. 2,
2128 Mesa Drive
PA2008 -207
An appeal by the applicant, Richard Moriarty, of the Zoning Administrator
Continued to
approval of a parcel map to consolidate existing portions of lots and parcels
08/13/2009
into a single parcel of land for single - family development. The applicant
requests relief from conditions of approval relating to Coastal Commission
BE
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 03/19/2009
approval and the ingress/egress access easement.
Mr. Lepo, Planning Director, noted the applicant has asked for a 90 day
continuance and that staff is in agreement.
Commissioner Hawkins asked how many times this item had been continued
and was answered this is the W' day of the first continuance. He then noted
his concern that the applicant needs to know this item will be heard August
13, 2009 for this matter if nothing else, no other continuance.
Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by
Commissioner Eaton to continue this item to August 13, 2009.
Note: Actual hearing date is August 20, 2009.
Ayes:
Eaton, Unsworth, Peotter, McDaniel and Toerge
Noes:
None
Absent:
Hawkins
Excused:
Hill ren
xae
SUBJECT: AERIE Condominiums (PA2005 -196)
ITEM NO. S
201 & 207 Carnation Avenue and 101 Bayside Place in Corona de
PA2005 -196
Mar at the comer of the intersection of Ocean Blvd. & Camatio
Ave.
The demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building and a single -famil
home and the construction of a 6- level, 8 -unit multiple- family residentia
condominium complex with subterranean parking on a 1.4 acre site locate
bayward of the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. The
existing General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning Designations of
small portion of the site (584 square feet) would be changed to be consistent
with the larger portion of the site (from two - family residential to mufti - family
residential). The application includes a tentative tract map for the creation of
eight (8) condominium units for individual sale. The Modification Perm'
application requests the encroachment of subterranean portions of the building
within the front and side yard setbacks and above grade encroachments o
portions of the proposed building, including protective guardrails into the fron
and side yard setbacks. Lastly, the Coastal Residential Development Perm'
application relates to replacement of demolished apartments occupied by low oi
moderate income households. No units meeting these criteria are known to
exist, and therefore, no replacement of affordable housing units is required.
A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) (SCH#2007021054) has been
prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application. The
DEIR concludes that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the
environment on Air Quality, Land Use, Noise, Traffic/Circulation, Aesthetics,
Drainage and Hydrology, Public Health and Safety, Cultural Resources, Soil
and Geology, and Biological Resources.
Page 2 of 14
-) I
Attachment No. PC 5
Planning Commission Minutes,
February 19, 2009
PE
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Ml,gUTES
surrounding development, and the character of the island was maintained.
Gear a Seitz, architect for the project, asked if there were any questions
him. There were no questions.
Burr McKee n, owner, noted they have the smallest and the shortest
on the island. 'With the addition of 655 feet, they will still have the sr
home and be low than the adjacent homes.
Public comment
Mary Ann Miller, owner of Xoperty on north west corner of Island
Edgewater, which is adjacent f Bay Island, did not have any spe
concerns on this project. She nted to note her concerns about
construction on the island and th roblems of all the trucks, w
sometimes block her driveway, the tra c, parking, storage of an off
construction project, and killing trees.
Public comment closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by
Commissioner Hawkins to adopt the resolution approving Planning Activity
No. PA2008 -193 subject to the conditions attached to the res�tution.
Commissioner Hawkins asked staff if the application could be
for management of traffic, construction, etc.
01/08/2009
Mr. Lepo answered yes. F 1 o P Y
Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, Toerge, and Hillgren
Noes: None
Excused: McDaniel
xxx
SUBJECT: Richard Moriarty (PA2008 -207) ITEM NO. 4
2128 Mesa Drive PA2008 -027
The applicant requests a parcel map to combine existing portions of lots
and parcels into a single parcel of land for single - family development. The
applicant has appealed the decision of the Zoning Administrator to the
Planning Commission in order to remove conditions requiring the
establishment and improvement of an ingress /egress access easement to
the property and Coastal Commission approval prior to the recordation of
the Parcel Map
Makana Nova, Assistant Planner, gave an overview of the staff report.
Nova provided copies of the revised resolution and conditions, v
incorporated revisions provided by the City Attorney that clarified
conditions reciardina the easement and Coastal aooroval. The folio
Continued for
90 days
Page 4 of 10
a,
.............
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MI,vUTES 01/08/2009
conditions were revised:
1. Condition 16 - revised language for clarification.
2. Condition 17 - revised language for clarification; details of the acc(
easement that would be required by Public Works that includes a 20 -fc
wide driveway with a trench drain at the end of the driveway.
3. Condition 22 — the requirement for Coastal Commission approval v
revised to permit the applicant to receive a waiver for the requirement
the permit from Coastal Commission.
Aaron Harp, Assistant City Attorney, expanded on Condition 22 stating i
the opinion of the City Attorney that under the Coastal Act this project wo
constitute a development. The applicant does not believe this is
development under the Coastal Act and the condition should not apl
therefore, a provision was included so the applicant can get a waiver from
Coastal Commission stating a development permit is not needed or that tl
do not need Coastal Commission approval.
Commissioner Hawkins asked if the applicant decided to get the permit
not seek a waiver from the Coastal Commission, would that satisfy Condit
22.
Mr. Harp answered yes
Commissioner Unsworth asked how long it would take for the waiver o
permit from the Coastal Commission, and would the applicant be in jeopard
of losing time to file the parcel map or the building permit expiring.
David Lepo, Planning Director, said it would take two to three months for th,
Coastal Commission's decision and he would not lose any time.
Mr. Harp pointed out that Condition 23 gave the applicant 3 years from th
date of approval to record the parcel map.
Ms. Nova noted that the building permit is still open and will not have a
expiration date until it is finalized.
General discussion continued noting the following:
1. Parcel map was required as a condition of approval for the building perm
for the house, to satisfy the requirement of the Subdivision Code an
comply with the State Law.
2. Coastal Commission approved the Coastal Development Permit in 200
for the new single - family residence.
3. Coastal Commission permit is required, prior to the recordation of th
Page 5 of 10
3(D
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 01/08/2009
does not have approval authority.
4. Condition 16 and 17 was revised to allow applicant ingress /egress acre
to his property as long as he proves he has access rights, and makes 1
required easement improvements, whether it is through Jackass Alley
the abandoned Birch Street.
5. The property owners and easement owners have been unsuccessful
negotiations to establish a recorded easement from the subject prope
to Mesa Drive.
Public comment opened
Paul Rafferty and Patrick D'Arcy, attorneys representing owner Ricl
Moriarty, made a presentation on the applicant's position for the appeal
the history on the property.
Chairperson Peotter asked Mr. Rafferty if it was his opinion that they t
legitimate legal access via Birch, but cannot prove it.
Mr. Rafferty said yes it was his opinion, but contends that the record
proves that access. No title company will certify this parcel with the past
suits among the adjacent property owners, and the County of Orange st,,
that Mr. Moriarty has no rights on any of the roads.
Chairperson Peotter asked where the negotiations between Mr. Moriarty
Ms. Brockman stand.
Mr. Rafferty said the negotiations were close and noted the following:
1. The County claimed easement rights on Birch and wants Birch improved.
2. He believes Ms. Brockman would like the County to take Birch. She c
not want the liability of the equestrian traffic and he thinks the County
indemnified her of the liability.
3. Mr. Moriarty had been working on a plan with the County, but was
that the City would be driving the development of Birch because it
redevelopment funds and would take over the horse trails and the arr
so he stopped the plan with the County. The City has since scrapped
redevelopment plans and told Mr. Moriarty he may try to
redevelopment funds from the County.
4. There is also the fear of what the Coastal Commission would do with a
plan of improvement on Birch because of the water runoff problem it
the flood basin.
Commissioner Hillgren asked why they did not go to court to finalize
settlement.
Page 6 of 10
51
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 01/08/2009
Mr. Rafferty responded that Mr. Moriarty feels he is close to finalizing
negotiations with the County,, with the assistance of the City and Ms
Brockman, and it is a lot less expensive to settle directly than going to court.
David Cosgrove, attorney representing Carla Brockman owner of 2100 Mese
Drive, supports staff's recommendation to deny the appeal. Mr. Cosgrove
continued with Ms. Brockman's issues, concerns, and differences with Mr
Moriarty. Ms. Brockman is willing to give the property over to the County
subject to conditions discussed with Mr. Moriarty, the City, and the County
so it can be publically owned and improved for public use.
Commissioner Toerge asked for clarification if there is a formal agreemen
between Ms. Brockman and Mr. Moriarty
Mr. Cosgrove said there was a signed letter agreement in May 2003, and i
they go to court the letter will be tested if it is a full agreement.
Commissioner Toerge questioned if Jackass Alley was limited to emergenc)
access.
Mr. Cosgrove said he feels there is a question about the emergency access
that has been given and there is a question about the Tennison's property
access over Jackass Alley. Ms. Brockman did not grant Mr. Moriarty access.
Mr. Moriarty went to the neighbor property and got them to grant the City the
emergency access. Additionally, the County condemned an access
easement over the abandoned Birch Street, in 1997, and paid Ms. Brockmar
for it. Mr. Moriarty did not pay for access.
Harry Huggins, representing the County of Orange, asked that the
Commission and staff refer to the letter he sent dated February 10, 2009.
Part of his role with the County is being responsible for asset management
and watching for the rights and public's rights for all their public parks. His
involvement in this issue is making sure of the public's access rights througt
the questioned area. The Orange County Flood Control District does have
condemned easement through the property. The permit that Ms. Brockmar
entered into with the County parks is for pedestrian, regional riding, anc
hiking trail purposes through this area. He became involved in working wO
the attorneys and Mr. Moriarty and thought they had come to a conclusion it
2008. After receiving and reviewing the "Notice of Appeal" from the Zoning
Administrator on December 22, 2008, it was evident the Mr. Moriarty had no
presented any new evidence to establish legal access to his parcel.
Commissioner Hawkins asked Mr. Huggins if the public had the right to use
the County's easement. If the public had access rights, why didn't Mr
Moriarty have those rights?
Mr. Huggins said the flood control easement is not the same as what the
public can use. The Orange County Parks secured, through their real estate
division, a permit that gives the public rights to access the property fo
recreational purposes only and indemnified Ms. Brockman for that purpose
Page 7 of 10
3a
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 01/08/2009
only. The indemnification was not for any particular individual to use for
other access purpose.
Richard Moriarty, owner, noted his issues with Ms. Brockman and
settlement agreement. He has been working with the City trying to get
permits finalized and would just like to get this finished and not drag it out
further. His house is finished, he is living in it, and thinks he has a tempo
permit.
Public comment closed.
Commissioner Unsworth asked if there was a copy of the 1924 deed.
Mr. Rafferty said there was a copy of the 1924 deed in the packet han
out.
Commissioner Toerge thought this was just a common sense issue since th
property has had access and people have been using the access. Can w
eliminate any of the requirements without breaking any State law? Is it clew
that recorded access is mandated and required?
Mr. Harp stated requiring access to the parcel is an appropriate conditior
The reason for the rule is if Ms. Brockman changes her mind and denie
access to the parcel, making it land locked.
General discussion continued on supporting a continuance for 60 day:
possibly longer if needed, for all parties to try to work out the issues an
come up with a workable negotiation.
Commissioner Toerge asked for direction from staff on the possibility of a k
line adjustment to consolidate the property into a single parcel.
Mr. Harp noted that the Subdivision Code requires a decision be made withi
10 days of hearing the matter, with the applicant agreeing with th
continuance, other wise it is deemed the decision of the Zoning Administrat(
would be affirmed. In addition, a lot line adjustment is for four or less lots.
Chairperson Peotter noted the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66451.11
states you are allowed to merge parcels without a map.
Commissioner Hawkins noted Subdivision Code Section 19.68.060 f(
voluntary mergers specifically requires access issues and may not t
specific for some parties or prohibited for others. Access is key in this matt(
and Conditions 16 and 17 are not unreasonable.
Public comments opened.
Mr. Moriarty said this issue has been going on for 11 years without ar
settlement, just wants it resolved.
Page 8 of 10
33
NEWPORT BE=ACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Mr. Cosgrove said his client, Ms. Brockman, was okay with the 60 -c
continuance. Wanted to note that an impasse was reached on
negotiations in 2005 and he has tried to restart them five or six times sir
then. He thinks they are close, and the City and /or County needs to step
and a take the lead with public improvements and some funding. I
Brockman has indicated to Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager, she we
waive the $65,000 that Mr. Moriarty was to pay her for access over
property so he could invest into the improvements.
Chairperson Peotter asked if Ms. Brockman was requiring the County to
the property and it be a public right -a -way or be a private access over
County's easement area.
Mr. Cosgrove said with the appropriate indemnifications all parties think t
the better proposal is to have it be a public right -a -way. It would eliminate
potential liability issues that Ms. Brockman originally had when she closed
the area.
Mr. Rafferty was concerned that 60 days would not be long enough.
believes that they are very close to an agreement and thinks that all pa
including the City, should get together a come up with a solid plan to pr
to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Harp said he spoke with Mr. Huggins who believes there is progress a
that 60 days may be too short of a period. The City would be willing
facilitate a meeting and volunteered Mr. Kiff to host the meeting.
Mr. Huggins said the County would be pleased to host a meeting to he
resolve all the issues. 60 days may not be long enough for a finalize
agreement, but at least they could have the framework and formula for wh
would achieve an agreement. 90 days would probably be the better choice.
Public comment closed.
Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by
Commissioner Hillgren to continue this item for 90 days.
Ayes: I Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, Toerge and Hillgren
Noes: None
Excused: McDaniel
NESS:
City Council Follow -up —
Mr. Lepo noted City Council initiated an amendment to-the-General Plan for
Newport Beach Country Club and the Newport Beach Tennis -aub -to. a
proposed development plans for clubhouses and tennis courts to go form
and it was approved. We have entered into an agreement with LSA Associ�
01/08/2009
Page 9 of 10
S4