HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPA GP2005-003296_1 Cliff Dr (PA2005-158)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 3
March 8, 2007
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Planning Department
Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner
Imurillo _city.newport- beach.ca.us
(949) 644 -3209
SUBJECT: 2961 Cliff Drive
General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -003 and
Parcel Map No. 2005 -035
(PA 2005 -158)
APPLICANT: Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc.
ISSUE
Should the City approve a General Plan Amendment and Parcel Map to authorize the
subdivision of an existing, single - family lot into two single - family parcels?
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending City
Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -003 and Tentative Parcel Map
No. 2005 -035.
DISCUSSION
Project Description
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing single - family residence and subdivide
the existing lot into two parcels for the development of two single - family residences. The
General Plan prohibits residential subdivisions that would result in additional dwelling
units within existing neighborhoods, unless specifically authorized by an amendment to
the General Plan. Therefore, the applicant is seeking approval of this subject General
Plan Amendment and Parcel Map request. As discussed in more detail later in this report,
the applicant has designed two parcels to comply with all applicable requirements of the
Zoning Code and applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City's
Subdivision Code (Title 19) (Exhibit 2 - Tentative Parcel Map).
2961 Cliff Drive (PA2005 -158)
March 8, 2007
Page 2 of 15
2961 Cliff Drive (PA2005 -158)
March 8, 2007
Page 3 of 15
Existing General Plan Land Use Designations
Existing Zoning Designations
d9
R +4
R�1pi�
k
��
u x�'�� •r ��yP' Q'6c � \89.i
��'
�y.yy Kai
�
a ,
K
R -1
S" {RSQ
J
2961 Cliff Drive (PA2005 -158)
March 8, 2007
Page 4 of 15
Existing Site Conditions
The lot is currently developed with a 2,123 square -foot, single - family dwelling that was
constructed in 1947. To the north, across Cliff Drive, are single - family dwellings. West of
the site, across Santa Ana Avenue, are single - family dwellings. East of the site is a single -
family dwelling located on the upper half of its property, similar to the subject property.
South of the site, across the partially unimproved Avon Street, are retail/commercial office
uses and an automobile dealership.
The subject lot is 33,193 square -feet in size. The current buildable area of the lot is
approximately 28,500 square feet, resulting in a maximum floor area limitation of 57,000
square feet. The northeasterly portion of the lot (upper 1/3 of the lot) is relatively flat and
developed with an existing dwelling. The southwesterly remainder of the lot consists of
sloping, undeveloped terrain which has recently been enclosed with a wooden fence and
significantly landscaped with grass, hardscaping, and olive trees (Exhibit 3). A majority of
the site (91 %) has a slope less than 2:1 (Exhibit 4 - Slope Analysis).
Proposed Parcel Configurations
Parcel 1 is the northeasterly of the two parcels is at the higher elevation and is proposed
to be 14,767 square -feet in area. The parcel will have Cliff Drive as its primary street
frontage and it will also take vehicular access from Cliff Drive. Structures on the lot will
have a required minimum 20 -foot front yard setback from Cliff Drive, 4 -foot side yard
setbacks, and 10 -foot rear yard setback to the lot below. The resulting buildable area of
the parcel is 11,204 square feet allowing for a potential structure of 22,408 gross square
feet.
Parcel 2 is the southwesterly of the two parcels and is at a lower elevation and is
proposed to be 18,426 square feet in area. The parcel will have Santa Ana Avenue as its
street frontage and it will also take vehicular access from Santa Ana Avenue.
Development of this lot will be required to maintain a minimum required 20 -foot front yard
setback from Santa Ana Avenue, 4 -foot side yard setbacks, and 10 -foot rear yard setback
to the east opposite Santa Ana Avenue. The resulting buildable area of Parcel 2 is
12,777 square feet allowing for a potential structure with 25,554 square feet of gross
floor area. No vehicular access to Avon Street below is proposed.
Architectural Plans
Although review of this application is limited to whether or not the City should approve a
General Plan Amendment authorizing a subdivision, and whether or not the proposed
subdivision will result in parcels that are suitable for the type and density proposed, the
applicant has provided staff with detailed architectural plans, a conceptual grading plan,
and landscape plans (Exhibit 5) to help demonstrate the suitability of the site for the
development of two single - family residences. In addition to those plans, the applicant has
i
2961 Cliff Drive (PA2005 -158)
March 8, 2007
Page 5 of 15
also provided preliminary geotechnical investigations and a preliminary
hydrology /hydraulic report for the site to demonstrate that the site itself is safe and
suitable for development (Exhibits 6 and 7). However, staff would like to emphasize that
the design of the buildings is not under review, and should this approval be granted, the
property owner will only be required to construct residences in compliance with the
current R -1 development standards of the Zoning Code and any applicable design
guidelines for residential development.
The applicant states that the residences have been designed for compatibility with the
surrounding neighborhood and to minimize view impacts to the neighboring residences to
the maximum extent possible. The residence on Parcel 1 is proposed to be approximately
9,500 square feet in size and located generally in the same location as the existing
residence. The residence on the Parcel 2 is proposed to be approximately 8,800 square
feet and has been designed into the hillside using the natural topography of the site and a
majority of the building mass below the curb line of Santa Ana Avenue. In addition, that
residence has been deigned to include elements of flat "green" roofs (planted with natural
grasses) to visually minimize and soften the mass and aesthetics of the proposed
residence as viewed from the neighboring homes. Both residences have been designed
to comply with the 24 -foot height limit as measured from the existing natural grade.
ANALYSIS
General Plan - Land Use Element
The Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth objectives, policies and limitations
for development in the City and designates the general distribution and location of land
uses and residential and commercial densities. The Land Use Element designates the
site as Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D) with no; density standard. The proposed
subdivision is consistent with this designation as two detached single - family residences
would result; however, Land Use Policy 4.2 (Prohibition of New Residential Subdivisions)
states:
Prohibit new residential subdivisions that would result in additional dwelling units unless
authorized by an amendment of the General Plan (GPA). Lots that have been legally merged
through the Subdivision Map Act and City Subdivision Code approvals are exempt from the GPA
requirements and may be re- subdivided to the original underlying legal lots. This policy is
applicable to all Single Unit, Two Unit, and Multiple Unit Residential land use categories.
Pursuant to this policy, since the proposed subdivision would result in one additional
dwelling unit, a General Plan Amendment is required to authorize the project. This policy
was adopted as a continuation of previous subdivision prohibitions contained within the
previous 1988 amended Land Use Element in effect prior to the adoption of the General
Plan in November of 2006. The prohibition was previously only applied to certain
neighborhoods (including this subject site), and has now been expanded to apply to all
existing residential subdivisions in the City. This policy provides a mechanism for the City
I
2961 Cliff Drive (PA2005 -158)
March 8, 2007
Page 6 of 15
to authorize subdivisions through an amendment of the General Plan and allows the City
to track these amendments for the purposes of implementing Charter Section 423
(Greenlight).
Staff believes the proposed subdivision to create two separate single - family parcels is
compatible with the detached single - family character of the neighborhood and will result
in a project density of 2.6 d.u. /acre. For comparison, the average density of the nine
residential lots along the south side of Cliff Drive is 2.7 d.u. /acre, consistent with the
proposed project. The average density of the single - family residences along the vicinity of
Santa Ana Avenue is approximately 6.74 d.u. /acre, higher than the density of proposed
project. Additionally, the existing topography of the lot naturally divides the property into
two parcels. Although Parcel 2 completely consists of sloping terrain, the average grade
of the slope is 15 — 29% (depending on direction of slope; see Exhibit 4) and is gentle
enough to accommodate safe construction of a terraced residence.
The project promotes the City's satisfaction of regional housing needs by one additional
unit, consistent with Land Use Policy LU 6.2.1 (Residential Supply), which requires the
City to accommodate a diversity of residential units that meets the needs of the City's
population and fair share of regional housing needs in accordance with the Land Use
Plan's designations, applicable density standards, design and development policies,
and the adopted Housing Element.
Since the General Plan Amendment is not a speck change in the land use designation,
the amendment will be implemented with a change to the Land Use Map to reflect the
subdivision of the lot and this amendment will appear on the Charter Section 423
(Measure S) tracking table.
Charter Section 423 (Measure S)
Council Policy A -18 requires that proposed General Plan amendments be reviewed to
determine if a vote of the Newport Beach Electorate would be required. If a project
generates more than 100 peak hour trips, 40,000 square feet of non - residential floor
area or exceeds 100 dwelling units, a vote of the electorate would be required if the City
Council approves the suggested General Plan Amendment. The proposed amendment
requests approval of only 1 additional dwelling unit, does not include any commercial
floor area, and results in an increase of 0.75 AM peak hour trips and 1.01 PM peak
hour trips based on the Single - Family Detached Housing trip rates reflected in Council
Policy A -18. Therefore, none of the three thresholds to require a vote pursuant to
Charter Section 423 are exceeded. No other prior amendments have been approved
within Statistical Area H -2, and therefore no vote would be required based on
cumulative amendments. This amendment will be tracked for ten years in accordance
with Section 423.
M
2961 Cliff Drive (PA2005 -158)
March 8, 2007
Page 7 of 15
Local Coastal Program
The Coastal Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) sets forth goals,
objectives, and policies that govern the use of land and water in the coastal zone within
the City and addresses land use and development, public access and recreation, and
coastal resource protection. Currently, the project site is designated for Very Low
Density Residential (RVL 2.6 - 4.5 DU/AC). The proposed subdivision is consistent with
this designation as the proposed project density is 2.6 d.u. /acre. During its review, staff
found that several of the policies contained within the LCP should be considered and
are discussed below:
Location of New Development
2.2.1 -1 Continue to allow redevelopment and infra development within and adjacent to the existing
developed areas in the coastal zone subject to the density and intensity limits and resource
protection policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan.
2.2.1 -2 Require new development be located in areas with adequate public services Orin areas that
are capable of having public services extended or expanded without significant adverse
effects on coastal resources.
The subject property is located within an existing developed area of the Coastal Zone and
its proposed density is below the maximum density limit established for the RVL
designation of the Coastal Land Use Plan. Redevelopment of the site with two separate
parcels with one home on each parcel will be below the density limit. Public services and
infrastructure are currently available and serve the existing development (8" sewer line is
located in the Avon Street right -of -way and a 6" water line is located in the Cliff Drive right -
of -way), and all applicable improvements required by Section 19.28 (Subdivision
Improvements) of the Subdivision Code must to be satisfied by the applicant. Such
improvements include sidewalk construction, sewer and water connections, drainage
improvements, and utility undergrounding.
Residential Development
2.7 -1. Continue to maintain appropriate setbacks and density, floor area, and height limits for
residential development to protect the character of established neighborhoods and to
protect coastal access and coastal resources.
The future residential structures proposed to be constructed within the subject parcels will
be required to comply with all applicable R -1 development regulations of the City's Zoning
Code, including setbacks, floor area, and height limitations, to insure design compatibility
with the surrounding neighborhood. The site does not provide coastal access and the
project will not impact coastal resources.
r
2961 Cliff Drive (PA2005 -158)
March 8, 2007
Page 8 of 15
Hazards and Protective Devices
2.8.1 -1. Review all applications for new development to determine potential threats from coastal
and other hazards.
2.8.1 -2. Design and site new development to avoid hazardous areas and minimize risks to life and
property from coastal and other hazards.
2.8.1 -3. Design land divisions, including lot line adjustments, to avoid hazardous areas and
minimize risks to life and property from coastal and other hazards.
2.8.1 -4. Require new development to assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create
nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or
surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would
substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.
2.8.7 -1. Require new development to provide adequate drainage and erosion control facilities that
convey site drainage in a non - erosive manner in order to minimize hazards resulting from
increased runoff, erosion and other hydrologic impacts to streams.
2.8.7 -2. Require applications for new development where applicable [i.e., in areas of known or
potential geologic or seismic hazards], to include a geologiclsoilslgeotechnical study that
identifies any geologic hazards affecting the proposed project site, any necessary
mitigation measures, and contains a statement that the project site is suitable for the
proposed development and that the development will be safe from geologic hazard.
Require such reports to be signed by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or
Geotechnical Engineer and subject to review and approval by the City.
As previously stated, the applicant has provided Preliminary Geotechnical Investigations
for both of the proposed residences to demonstrate that the two parcels can safely be
developed with two single - family residences. The reports conclude that the proposed
residential development is feasible and safe from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided it is
constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided within the reports (Exhibit
6). No active faults were observed or previously mapped through the site, and fault
rupture within the property is not anticipated. No slumps or landslips that potentially could
impact the site were noted in the study area or on any reviewed referenced publications.
The potential for liquefaction is remote due to a low water table and identified soil
conditions. Additionally, it was concluded that the development of the site will not
adversely impact adjoining properties from a geotechnical standpoint provided the
recommendations of the report are implemented in design, construction, and
maintenance.
A Preliminary Hydrology /Hydraulic Report was also prepared for the proposed project by
Gilbert Engineering & Associates, Inc., to determine the volume of storm water
discharges generated within the on -site drainage areas and to demonstrate that the storm
water and flood protection goals can be met. The report concludes that the drainage
patterns or direction of flow will not change from the existing conditions. When
development of the parcels occur, the discharge will actually be improved from the
11
2961 Cliff Drive (PA2005 -158)
March 8, 2007
Page 9 of 15
existing uncontrolled sheet flow down the slope to a controlled concentrated flow through
drainage control devices, ultimately improving the drainage of the site.
Should this subject subdivision be approved, and prior to issuance of building permits for
the construction of the future residences, the applicant will be required to submit new
geotechnical and hydrological reports to the City for review and approval. Additionally, a
Water Quality Management Plan will be required to ensure that the project complies with
the City's water quality and on -site storm runoff retention requirements. Therefore, it is
staffs belief that the project is consistent with these policies.
Coastal Resource Protection
Policies 4.4.1 -1 through 4.4.1 -10 of the Coastal Land Use Plan pertain to the design of
structures to protect public coastal views and preserve or enhance the visual qualities
of the coastal zone. Although a limited public view is afforded from Santa Ana Avenue,
the street is not identified by the LCP as a public view street requiring view protection.
Although not subject to public view policies, staff analyzed potential impacts to public
views from Santa Ana Avenue for the Commission's information. The public view
currently afforded from Santa Ana Avenue through the project site is significantly limited
due to the recent fence and landscaping improvements to the property (permitted
improvements). Should this subdivision be approved, the future height of a residence
constructed on Parcel 2 will be measured from the existing natural topography of the
property (Exhibit 8 — Topographic Survey) and will be required to maintain a 20 -foot
setback from Santa Ana Avenue. The difference in grade elevation at the 20 -foot front
yard setback is approximately 9 -feet below the adjacent street elevation on Santa Ana
Avenue, and increases further as the property slopes away. As a result of the front yard
setback and difference in grade, a large portion of any future building constructed will
be located below the Santa Ana Avenue curb elevation. Only the upper portions of a
residence will be visible above the curb elevation and should not exceed the height of
the existing trees. Therefore, the future construction of a residence on Parcel 2 should
not impact the existing public view that is currently afforded.
Policies 4.4.3 -1 through 4.4.3 -18 pertain to the protection of coastal bluffs as a
significant scenic and environmental resource; however, the site does not meet the
definition of a coastal bluff, as the topography of the slope does not consist of a
headland, nor does it consist of a precipitous or steep cliff face, and it is not subject to
marine erosion. Therefore the referenced policies do not apply to this subject
development.
Policies 4.5.1 -1 through 4.5.1 -5 pertain to the protection of paleontological and
archaeological resources. Specific requirements of the policies relate to monitoring,
preservation of resources and notification of cultural organizations. Six Native American
Tribes, as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission, that may have
1a
2961 Cliff Drive (PA2005 -158)
March 8, 2007
Page 10 of 15
traditional lands or cultural places located within the boundaries of the General Plan
Amendment, were notified of the project and invited to consult in the planning process of
this application. Only one tribe, The Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians, responded to
the notice and requested monitoring of the site and that if any artifacts are removed, that
they be returned to the proper tribe. Condition Nos. 10, 11, and 12 are consistent with this
request, as well as the policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan, and will insure that should
any paleontological /archaeological resources be uncovered during the future
development of the parcels, development activity will be suspended to avoid destruction
of such resources until a determination can be made as to their significance and proper
handling.
Zoning Code (Title 20)
The subject property is located within the R -1 (Single - Family Residential) District and the
development of the proposed parcels must conform to the R -1 standards. The proposed
design of the two parcels meets the minimum lot development standards as illustrated
below:
6,000 square feet 114,767 square feet
50 feet 189.5 feet average
Subdivision Compliance (Title 19 of the Municipal Code)
18,426 square
137 feet average
In accordance with Title 19 (Subdivision Code), approval of a Parcel Map is required for
the subdivision of land creating 4 or fewer parcels. The Planning Commission must
make the following findings in approving the tentative parcel map:
1. 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.
As noted in the previous sections, staff believes that the proposed subdivision can be
found consistent with the Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D) General Plan
designation of the site provided the proposed General Plan Amendment is approved.
The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed tentative map and believes it
is consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Title 19) and applicable
requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. The project has been conditioned to provide a
number of public improvements, including the construction of full length sidewalks along
both the Cliff Drive and Santa Ana Avenue frontages. However, due to topographical
13
2961 Cliff Drive (PA2005 -158)
March 8, 2007
Page 11 of 15
constraints that exist between Santa Ana Avenue and Avon Street, the development will
not be required to connect Avon Street to Santa Ana Avenue. Additional conditions of
approval have been included to ensure compliance with Title 19.
2. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development.
The two parcels are 14,767 and 18,426 square feet in area and are large enough to
support a home on each parcel. Vehicular access to Parcel 1 will be from Cliff Drive
and access to Parcel 2 will be from Santa Ana Avenue. To ensure vehicular access
onto the public streets is safe and proper sight distance is provided (particularly for
Santa Ana Avenue), the Traffic Engineer has required a condition ensuring the
driveway intersections of any future development be designed at 90 degrees with the
public streets. Backing out onto the streets has been prohibited and the residences will
be required to provide adequate space on -site to turn around. Additionally, the
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigations that have been prepared and conclude that
residential development is feasible and safe from a geotechnical viewpoint.
3. 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 Califomia Environmental Quality Act that
specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project altematives identified in the environmental impact report.
The existing lot is currently developed with a single - family, two -story residence on the
upper portion of the property. The lower portion of the site is isolated from other natural
areas and dominated by non - native vegetation, and given its location within a
developed urban setting, the likelihood that the proposed project would cause
substantial environmental damage or adversely affect wildlife or their habitat is
improbable. Additionally, the project qualifies for Class 3 Categorical Exemption (New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) under the California Environmental
Quality Act as the project will result in the construction of one additional single - family
residence and is located on a developed site with no environmentally significant
resources present.
4. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
The development of two parcels for residential use is not expected to cause serious
public health problems given the use of typical construction materials and practices. No
evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the proposed subdivision will
generate any serious public health problems. The parcels have been designed in
1`
2961 Cliff Drive (PA2005 -158)
March 8, 2007
Page 12 of 15
compliance with all applicable subdivision standards of Title 19 and any future
proposed residences will be required to comply with R -1 development standards of the
Zoning Code, insuring the protection of adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for
each dwelling unit, and insuring design compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
5. 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 altemate easements, for access or for
use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to
ones 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
detennine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or
use of property within a subdivision.
No public easements for access through or use of the property have been retained for
the use by the public at large.
6. 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.
The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract; therefore, this finding does not
apply.
7. That in the case of a "land project' as defined in Section 11000.5 of the
Califomia 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.
The subject property is not located within the boundaries of a specific plan; therefore,
this finding does not apply.
8. 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.
Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code requires new construction to meet minimum
heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The
6
2961 Cliff Drive (PA2005 -158)
March 8, 2007
Page 13 of 15
Newport Beach Building Department will enforce Title 24 compliance through the plan
check and field inspection processes for the construction of any future proposed
residences. Additionally, due to the topography of Parcel 2, any residence developed
on that parcel will be built into the slope and should benefit from southern exposure of
the sun and will take maximum advantage of solar and passive heating.
9. 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.
The proposed subdivision facilitates the creation of one new residential unit that will be
added to the City's housing stock and furthers the City's goal of meeting its housing
needs as identified in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The addition of one
unit will not cause an undue strain on City resources and public services are available
to serve the proposed development of the site.
10. 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.
Waste discharge into the existing sewer system will be consistent with the existing
residential use of the property and does not violate Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) requirements. Additionally, sewer connections have been conditioned
to be installed per City Standards, the applicable provisions of Chapter 14.24 (Sewer
Connection, Permits), and the latest revision of the Uniform Plumbing Code.
11. 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.
The project is consistent with the City's Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan as
discussed previously in this report. The subject site to be subdivided does not abut the
ocean or bay, and does not provide public access to coastal resources; therefore, no
impacts to coastal access are anticipated.
Environmental Review
The project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15303 (New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the Implementing Guidelines of the
California Environmental Quality Act as the project will result in the construction of one
additional single - family residence, below the maximum threshold permitted under this
1b
2961 Cliff Drive (PA2005 -158)
March 8, 2007
Page 14 of 15
exemption, and is located on a developed site with no environmentally significant
resources present. In urbanized areas, up to three single- family residences may be
constructed under this exemption.
Public Notice
Notice of this 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 that was posted at City Hall and on the city website.
Summary
Staff has received several letters of opposition, primarily raising concerns that the
project is not in the public's interest, it is damaging to the existing character of the
neighborhood, the site is not suitable for development, and that the property consists of
a coastal bluff and is subject to the specific development restrictions of the Coastal
Land Use Plan. However, as discussed in detail in the staff report, staff believes the
findings necessary for project approval can be made. It is staffs opinion that the two -
parcel subdivision would not prove detrimental to the area and is compatible with the
surrounding area of Newport Heights. If the Planning Commission believes that the
design of the structures is an important factor in support of findings of approval of the
requested applications, the applicant should be required to develop the two lots in
conformance with the plans accompanying this application. Without a condition of
approval requiring that the development be in compliance with the plans, the applicant
or future builder could propose any design consistent with the development standards
of the Zoning Code.
Should the Planning Commission conclude that the project as proposed would not be
compatible with the surrounding uses and that the project would not be appropriate for
the site, the project should be denied or modified to address specific concerns
identified.
Prepared by:
i
Jaime urillo, Associate fanner
Submitted by:
�� of
avid Lepo, Planning Director
11
2961 Cliff Drive (PA2005 -158)
March 8, 2007
Page 15 of 15
Exhibits
1. Draft Resolution No. 2007 -_; findings and conditions of approval
2. Tentative Parcel Map
3. Site Photographs
4. Slope Analysis
5. Architectural Plans
6. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Reports
7. Hydrology /Hydraulic Study
8. Topographic Survey
9. Letters of Opposition
J�
EXHIBIT 1
Draft Resolution of Approval
w
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2005 -003 AND TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP NO. 2005 -035 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2961
CLIFF DRIVE (PA 2005 -158).
WHEREAS, an application was filed by Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc., with respect
to property located at 2961 Cliff Drive, and legally described as Lot Park "Z° of the First
Addition to Newport Heights in the City of Newport Beach, State of California, as per map
filed in Book 4, page 94, of miscellaneous maps, in the office of the County Recorder to
subdivide an existing single - family lot into two separate single - family parcels. The
application requests an amendment to the General Plan to authorize the subdivision of an
existing, single - family lot into two single - family parcels, consistent with Land Use Policy
4.2; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Newport Beach Planning
Commission on March 8, 2007 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport
Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the meeting
was given in accordance with the Municipal Code and State Law. Evidence, both written
and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting;
and
WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for
Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D) land uses. This designation is intended to
allow for a detached single - family residential dwelling unit on a single legal lot. The
proposed subdivision is consistent with this designation as it will result in the
development of a single - family home on each of two lots; and
WHEREAS, Land Use Policy LU 4.2 of the Land Use Element prohibits new
residential subdivisions that would result in additional dwelling units unless authorized
by an amendment of the General Plan. The proposed General Plan amendment would
permit 1 additional dwelling unit; and
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision to create two separate single - family parcels
is compatible with the detached single - family character of the neighborhood and will result
in a project density of 2.6 d.u. /acre. For comparison, the average density of the nine
residential lots along the south side of Cliff Drive is 2.7 d.u. /acre, consistent with the
proposed project. The average density of the single - family residences along the vicinity of
Santa Ana Avenue is approximately 6.74 d.u. /acre, slightly higher than the density of
proposed project. Additionally, the existing topography of the lot naturally divides the
property into two parcels. Although Parcel 2 completely consists of sloping terrain, the
average grade of the slope is between 15 — 29% and is gentle enough to accommodate
safe construction of a terraced residence; and
A
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 2 of 17
WHEREAS, the project promotes the City's satisfaction of regional housing needs
by one additional unit, consistent with Land Use Policy LU 6.2.1 (Residential Supply)
which requires the City to accommodate a diversity of residential units that meets the
needs of City's population and fair share of regional housing needs in accordance with
the Land Use Plan's designations, applicable density standards, design and
development policies, and the adopted Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, the Coastal Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) sets
forth goals, objectives, and policies that govern the use of land and water in the coastal
zone and addresses land use and development, public access and recreation, and coastal
resources protection. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the LCP for the following
reasons:
1. The project site is designated for Very Low Density Residential (RVL 2.6 - 4.5
DU /AC) by the LCP and the proposed subdivision creates a 2.6 du/ac project,
consistent with this density.
2. Public services and infrastructure are available to serve the proposed development,
and all applicable improvements required by Section 19.28 (Subdivision
Improvements) of the Subdivision Code are to be satisfied by the applicant,
including sidewalk construction, sewer and water connections, drainage
improvements, and utility undergrounding.
3. Future residential structures proposed to be constructed within the subject parcels
will be required to comply with all applicable R -1 development regulations of the
City's Zoning Code, including setbacks, floor area, and height limitations, to insure
design compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
4. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigations have been prepared for both of the
proposed residences to demonstrate that the two parcels can safely be developed
with two single - family residences. The reports concluded that the proposed
residential developments are feasible and safe from a geotechnical viewpoint.
Additionally, the study noted that geologic hazards were not observed or
anticipated on the site.
5. Preliminary Hydrology /Hydraulic Report have been prepared for the proposed
project to determine the volume of storm water discharges generated within the on-
site drainage areas and to demonstrate that the storm water and flood protection
goals can be met. The report concluded that the drainage patterns or direction of
flow will not change from the existing conditions to the proposed development.
However, when development of the parcels occur, the discharge will actually be
improved from the existing uncontrolled sheet flow down the slope to a controlled
concentrated flow through drainage control devices, ultimately improving the
drainage of the site.
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 3 of 17
6. Although a limited public view is afforded from Santa Ana Avenue, the street is
not identified by the LCP as a public view street or point requiring public view
protection. However, future construction of a residence on Parcel 2 should not
impact the existing public view that is currently afforded.
7. The subject site does not meet the definition of a bluff, nor a coastal bluff, as the
topography of the slope does not consist of a headland, nor does it consist of a
precipitous or steep cliff face, and it is not subject to marine erosion. Therefore,
policies related to protection of coastal bluffs as a significant scenic and
environmental resource do not apply.
8. The project has been conditioned to insure that should. any
paleontological/archaeological resources be uncovered, development activity will
be suspended to avoid destruction of resources until a determination can be made
as to the significance and deposition of the resources.
9. No impacts to coastal access are anticipated given the project location, as the
site does not abut the ocean or bay and does not currently provide public access
to coastal resources.
WHEREAS, Council Policy A -18 requires that proposed General Plan
amendments be reviewed to determine if a vote would be required. If a project
generates more than 100 peak hour trips, 40,000 square feet of non - residential floor
area or exceeds 100 dwelling units, a vote of the electorate would be required if the
Council approves the suggested General Plan Amendment. The proposed amendment
requests approval of only 1 additional dwelling unit, does not include any commercial
floor area, and results in an increase of 0.75 AM peak hour trips and 1.01 PM peak hour
trips based on the Single - Family Detached Housing trip rates reflected in Council Policy
A -18. Therefore, none of the three thresholds to require a vote pursuant to Charter
Section 423 are exceeded. No other prior amendments have been approved within
Statistical Area H -2, and therefore no vote would be required based on cumulative
amendments. This amendment will be tracked for ten years in accordance with Section
423; and
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the existing R -1 (Single -
Family Residential) Zoning designation as the project will result in the development of
two single - family residential parcels designed to exceed the minimum 6,000 lot size and
60 -foot lot width requirements established for the district; and
WHEREAS, the project is located within Newport Heights where public services
and infrastructure are available to serve the additional dwelling unit to be created by this
proposed subdivision. Additionally, all applicable improvements required by Section 19.28
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 4 of 17
(Subdivision Improvements) of the Subdivision Code are to be satisfied by the applicant;
and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Section 19.12.070 of the City Subdivision Code, certain
findings and facts in support of such findings shall be made for approval of a Tentative
Parcel Map. Such findings and facts to support such findings are as follows:
1. Finding: That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the
subdivision are consistent with General Plan and any applicable specific plan,
and with the applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City
Subdivision Code.
Facts in Support of Finding:
a. With the approval of this General Plan Amendment, the proposed parcels are
consistent with Single Family Detached General Plan designation of the site.
b. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed Tentative Parcel
Map and found it consistent with the Title 19 and applicable requirements of
the Subdivision Map Act, and no exceptions have been requested from the
design standards.
c. Due to topographical constraints that exist between Santa Ana Avenue and
Avon Street, the development will not be required to connect Avon Street to
Santa Ana Avenue.
d. Conditions of approval have been included to ensure compliance with Title 19
and the Subdivision Map Act.
e. No specific plan is applicable for this property.
2. Finding: That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of
development.
Facts in Support of Finding:
a. The two parcels are 14, 767 and 18,426 square feet in area and are large
enough to support a home on each parcel.
b. Adequate and safe vehicular access can be provided as conditioned,
including a condition requiring driveway intersections of future development to
be designed at 90 degrees to the public streets and requiring adequate space
on -site to turn around, without backing out onto the streets.
a'�
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 5 of 17
c. The site is physically suitable for the development and geologic hazards were
not observed or anticipated on the site by the Preliminary Geotechnical
Investigations that have been prepared for both of the proposed residences,
which also concluded the residential developments as feasible and safe from a
geotechnical viewpoint.
3. Finding: 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
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:
a. The site currently exists as a single - family lot with a two -story residence
developed on the higher elevation of the property and the property can
currently be completely built on with no development restrictions beyond the
minimum R -1 development standards of the Zoning Code.
b. The proposed subdivision will not increase the total floor area that can be
developed on the site, but increases the density by permitting one additional
unit.
c. The site is dominated by non - native vegetation, and given its location within a
developed urban setting, the likelihood that the proposed project would cause
substantial environmental damage or adversely affect wildlife or their habitat
is improbable.
4. Finding: 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:
a. The development of the two parcels is for residential use and is not expected
to cause serious public health problems given the use of typical construction
materials and practices.
b. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the proposed
subdivision will generate any serious public health problems.
19
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 6 of 17
c. The parcels have been designed to comply with all applicable subdivision
standards of Title 19 and any future proposed residences are required to
comply with R-1 development standards of the Zoning Code, insuring the
protection of adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling
unit, and insuring design compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.
5. Finding: 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 ones 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: No public easements for access through, or use of,
the property have been retained for the use by the public at large.
Finding: 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: The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract;
therefore, this finding does not apply.
7. Finding: 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: The subject property is not located within the
boundaries of a specific plan; therefore, this finding does not apply.
8. Finding: 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.
aO
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 7 of 17
Facts in Support of Finding:
a. Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code requires new construction to meet
minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and
climate.
b. The Newport Beach Building Department will enforce Title 24 compliance
through the plan check and field inspection processes for the construction of
any future proposed residences.
c. Due to the topography of Parcel 2, any residence developed on that parcel
Will be built into the slope and should benefit from southern exposure of the
sun and will take maximum advantage of solar and passive heating.
9. Finding: 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:
a. The proposed subdivision facilitates the creation of one new residential unit
that will be added to the City's housing stock and further the City's goal of
meeting its housing needs as identified in the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment.
b. The addition of one unit will not cause an undue burden on City resources
and public services are available to serve the proposed development of the
site
10. Finding: 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:
a. Waste discharge into the existing sewer system will be consistent with the
existing residential use of the property and does not violate Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements.
b. Sewer connections have been conditioned to be installed per City Standards,
the applicable provisions of Chapter 14.24 (Sewer Connection, Permits), and
the latest revision of the Uniform Plumbing Code.
0
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 8 of 17
11. Finding: 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:
a. The project has been designed and conditioned for consistency with the City's
Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan.
b. The subject site to be subdivided does not abut the ocean or bay, and does
not provide public access to coastal resources; therefore, no impacts to
coastal access are anticipated.
WHEREAS, the project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section
15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the Implementing
Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act as the project will result in the
construction of one additional single - family residence, below the maximum threshold
permitted under this exemption, and is located on a developed site with no
environmentally significant resources present, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's
CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time
consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in
such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals,
it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any
such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and
damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
Section 1. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council
of the City of Newport Beach adopt General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -003 to authorize
the subdivision of 2961 Cliff Drive into two separate single - family parcels as depicted on
Exhibit "A° and to be tracked in accordance with Charter Section 423 as shown in
Exhibit `B,"
Section 2. The Planning Commission hereby further recommends that the City
Council of the City of Newport Beach approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -035,
subject to Conditions of Approval in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and made part hereof.
PC
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 9 of 17
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8th DAY OF MARCH 2007.
BY:
Jeffery Cole, Chairman
ilm
Robert Hawkins, Secretary
AYES:
ABSENT:
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 10 of 17
Exhibit "A"
The subdivision creates the potential for one (1) additional unit above
the existing condition within Statistical Area H -2. All other provisions
of the Land Use Element of the General Plan remain unchanged.
3�
U P
m O
C O
z
N
a�a
m �a
zo
O N
U c
0
�Uf
M
E
O
U
c
m
a
m
t
x
w
*� Y
C V
W t0
= N
d �
Q O
d
4y
LM
a
e
C7 V
bm
U r
m O
Ci C-4
� Z
a c rn
CL) 2a
z?
o N
a m
U c
0
Z
N
O
m
C
C
C
f6
EL
w
C v
m
a~
� N
m tl.
Q O
ti d
0- V>
� V
N
3�+
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 13 of 17
Exhibit "C"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -035 (PA 2005 -158)
Conditions in bold- italics are project specific conditions all others are standard conditions.
Planning Department
The Map shall be in substantial conformance with the Tentative Parcel Map
dated February 15, 2006, except as noted in the following conditions.
The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards,
unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
3. The Tentative Parcel Map shall expire within 24 months from the date of approval
unless extensions are granted prior to expiration in accordance with the
Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Map Act.
4. Height of proposed future residences shall be measured from natural grade
as depicted on the topographic survey prepared by Myers & Associates on
August 31, 2005 for the subject site.
5. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify, defend
and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions,
officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all
claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits,
losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses
(including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court
costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any
manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the General Plan
Amendment No. 2005 -003 and Parcel Map No. 2005 -035; andlor the City's
related California Environmental Quality Act determinations.
6. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and
Fire Departments. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City -
adopted version of the California Building Code.
7. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all administrative costs
identified by the Planning Department within 30 days of receiving a final notification
of costs or prior to the release for recordation of the parcel map.
8. Prior to the recordation of the parcel map, the applicant shall obtain a Coastal
Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission.
35
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 14 of 17
9. Prior to the recordation of the parcel map, park dedication fees for one
dwelling unit shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 19.52 of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code.
10. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall provide written
evidence to the Planning Director that a qualified archaeologist has been
retained to observe grading activities and conduct salvage excavation of
archaeological resources as necessary. The archaeologist shall be present at the
pre - grading conference, shall establish procedures for archaeological resources
surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the applicant, procedures for
temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and
evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If additional or unexpected
archaeological features are discovered, the archaeologist shall report such
findings to the applicant and to the Planning Department. If the archaeological
resources are found to be significant, the archaeological observer shall
determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, for exploration
and/or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the
resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director.
11. Prior to the issuance of the any grading permits, the applicant shall provide
written evidence to the planning director that a qualified paleontologist has been
retained to observe grading activities and conduct salvage fossils as necessary.
The paleontologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference, shall establish
procedures for paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish
cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting
work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of fossils. If major
paleontological resources are discovered which require long term grading or
redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the
applicant and to the Planning Department. The paleontologist shall determine
appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, which ensure proper
exploration and /or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and
disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning
Director.
12. During construction of any proposed improvements, in accordance with Public
Resources Code 5097.94, if human remains are found, the Orange County
Coroner must be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. If the coroner
determines that the remains are not recent, the coroner will notify the Native
American Heritage Commissions in Sacramento to determine the most likely
descendent for the area. The designated Native American representative then
determines, in consultation with the property owner, the disposition of the human
remains.
3(Q
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 15 of 17
Fire Department
13. Prior to the recordation of the parcel map, the applicant shag provide an
additional fire hydrant in a location approved by the Fire Department.
14. Parcel 2 shall be addressed off Santa Ana Avenue.
Public Works
15. Future project driveways, and improvements at the corner of Cliff Drive and
Santa Ana Avenue, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic
Engineer to ensure adequate sight distance is provided per City Standard
STD- 110-L. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be
considered in line -of -sight requirements. Landscaping within the line of
sight shall not exceed a height of twenty -four inches. The sight distance
requirement may be modified at non - critical locations, subject to the
approval of the Traffic Engineer.
16. Future driveway approaches shall be designed to intersect with the public
street at 90 degrees and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic
Engineer to ensure compliance with all City standards and Council
Policies.
17. Future residences shall be designed in such a manner that allow vehicles
exiting garage spaces adequate space to turn around on site; backing out
onto adjacent public streets shall be prohibited.
18. Vehicular access shall be taken from either Cliff Drive or Santa Ana
Avenue, and access shall be prohibited from Avon Street
19. Plantings within the public right -of -way along Santa Ana Avenue and Cliff
Drive shall be turf or other low planting that can accommodate pedestrian
traffic.
20. All work conducted within the public right -of -way shall be approved under an
encroachment permit and all non - standard improvements within the public right -
of -way requires an encroachment agreement issued by the Public Works
Department.
21. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public
Works Department.
22. Upon submittal of building plans for plan check, a hydrology and hydraulic
study shall be submitted by the applicant, and approved by the City, to
31
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 16 of 17
ascertain the existing storm drain system along Avon Street has sufficient
excess capacity to accept all of the on -site storm runoff proposed for
discharge into said system.
23. The design of all public facilities required to serve the development shall comply
with the City's Design Criteria, Standard Plans, and drawing submittal
requirements. All of the plan sheets shall be wet sealed, dated, and signed by the
California registered professionals responsible for the designs shown on said
plans.
24. A minimum 10 -foot radius cut-off easement for street and utilities purposes
at the Santa Ana Avenue/ Cliff Drive property corner shall be recorded as
part of the Map.
25. All private easements shall be recorded as part of the Map.
26. Full width sidewalks shall be constructed along the length of the Santa Ana
Avenue and Cliff Drive frontages.
27. An ADA compliant curb access ramp shall be constructed at the Santa Ana
Avenue/Cliff Drive return.
28. Future driveway flares (top of "X "s) shall maintain a minimum clear
distance of 5-feet from the nearest power pole, pipe vents, above ground
facilities, or other public facilities.
29. All storm drain and sanftary sewer mains shall be installed with MacWrap.
30. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code or other applicable section or chapter, one new street tree
shall be planted along the Cliff Drive frontage and existing street trees shall
be protected in place during the construction of subject project, unless
otherwise approved by the General Service Department and the Public
Works Department through an encroachment permit or agreement, if
required.
31. The developer shall be responsible for repairing and /or reconstruction of
damage done to the Santa Ana Avenue or Cliff Drive roadway pavement
surrounding the development site by private work.
32. Provisions shall be made to prevent the garages of future residences from
being flooded by storm runoff traveling on the inclined driveways.
3B
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 17 of 17
33. Each unit shall be served by individual water service and sewer lateral
connection to the. public water and sewer systems.
34. All overhead utilities serving the development shall be undergrounded.
35. Vehicular traffic on Santa Ana Avenue shall be maintained throughout the
duration of construction of the sites.
36. Prior to recordation of the Map—S, the surveyor /engineer preparing the Maps shall
submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital- graphic
file of said Maps in a manner described in the Orange County Subdivision Code
and Orange County Subdivision Manual. The Map shall be prepared on the
California Coordinate System (NAD83). The Maps to be submitted to the City
of Newport Beach shall comply with the City's CADD Standards. Scanned
images will not be accepted.
37. Prior to recordation of the Mans, the surveyor /engineer preparing the Maps shall
tie the boundary of the Maps into the Horizontal Control System established by
the County Surveyor in a manner described in Section s 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.
38. Prior to encroachment permit issuance, construction surety in a form acceptable
to the City, guaranteeing the completion of various required public improvements,
shall be submitted to the Public Works Department.
3q'
EXHIBIT 2
Tentative Parcel Map
%kk
N
O z
N o
O
Z
�o
"J U
W Q
m
ti
Q
O
Q U
W
rn n
2 a
e
loo
i[[[ i pppp tt
Jill
EXHIBIT 3
Site Photographs
A5
pow"
{
4.
L
N�
LLC
C
L
3
m
l
1 �Y
f.
q
v ;
EXHIBIT 4
Slope Analysis
5k
EXHIBIT 5
Architectural Plans
F
7�
a �
5_s
�_3F3
R
C�
w
V
nW u
Wilt
a3
A N ZW
51
I 'llo 5
me36�
k E��
a
a
oa
aw
H
W
U
z
w
a
qN
T�
V
i
51
Al
P y�5¢ a 5k€
3 d�a�Eo - 36S
till', I $ l
x
0
F
O�
El
0
W
w
w
V.
0
l_
IfR :
^ ""Olps4S 3
R &xRRdv9o3li 9t
t
a%
H
W .d
A
k9D
I
I
I
t
A
0
K
z
a
z
1
I
I
A
I
I
I
I
1�
1§
t
0
6
ti
W
O
h
0
z
0
w
a
0
w
U
z
w
a
A� I
a
v
W"
�I
`I
{I
I
m �
o. UW
W
a
U
z
�o
�o�
P
Fv
Oa
as
0
W
U
z
N
U
2
E
`a
a
�V
0
W
U
z
ul
A N
.8 E�
a
P
['�cifa[6d >H6C i
6F263a ac_sxg a
a
S
F
oN
w
z
NI
U
s
G�
is t)
V
NR
kv
A 0=
a^
�P
z
w
d
y
0
w
U
z
w
w
a
aG
U
41
'o
FU
Out
W
V
z
w
a
W!
Al
if
No�
^�^ ° 69926 V.)
NVld Id '�t7V9912aNV l.lff1 Wd/d7N
W. 03 Jd dN" z1m
i a
Y
$a #4�33S45a #3k a #g
���8
pa
4 I I I 9 a
HIM
VL
@ i
� ry
P
ill
1 !i # € #a $at aaPfagti % a
e fi
Y
e%k
;
Rif
�
II
Q
fi@Ili ll 1e1t1pC €? 2Q9F e$€ 3 N V
I
ea
b
asa $e
p� qq
$ (U � � 3'y cA a &i � � $ aE
ggg p eg gg[p h
sK/r
�v V/
v R� / i�a' `� °.�$ v •P� r 3499E
oc
1'W'
\ 11 .$ r .
uj-
a�
Y
EXHIBIT 6
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Reports
13
DAVID A. PURKIS, PE
Consulting Civil Engineer
May 6, 2005
Project No, 05 -1647
T0: Elan Enterprises Inc.
1380 Moorea
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Attention: Kaveh Lahijani
SUBJECT: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Foundation Design
Residential Development of Lot 1 of 2961 Cliff Drive, Newport Beach,
California
INTRODUCTION
The results and recommendations of our preliminary geotechnical investigation, pertinent to
proposed residential development of the subject property, are provided herein. The
investigation has addressed the distribution and engineering properties of earth materials in
order to develop appropriate conclusions regarding the proposed development and to
provide recommendations for design and construction. A topographic survey (Reference 1)
depicting the proposed development was used as a base map (Plate 1) to plot the locations
of exploratory excavations and geologic data for the subject site.
Conclusions and recommendations herein are pertinent to construction of a new single -
family residence as depicted on Plate 1. Grading and foundation plans are not available at
this time and will utilize portions of this report for their preparation. This office should
review these plans to determine the applicability of the contents of this report. This
investigation was conducted in conjunction with the adjacent lot (Lot 2 of 2961 Cliff Drive).
SCOPE OF WORK
The investigation included:
1. Geotechnical reconnaissance of the subject site.
2. One exploratory boring drilled with a truck mounted bucket auger.
3. Four exploratory trenches excavated by hand.
4. Core and bulk sampling of representative earth materials from the excavations.
5. Laboratory testing of representative samples.
6. Engineering and geotechnical analysis.
7. Preparation of this report and the accompanying illustrations.
2377 S. EL CAMINO REAL #203, SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672. 949.369.9701 • fax 949.661.1562
'15
Elan. Lot I
May 6, 2005
Page 2
ACCOMPANYING ILLUSTRATIONS AND APPENDICES
Figure 1 -
Site Location Map
Figure 2 -
Geologic Map (Morton & Miller, 198 1)
Figure 3 -
Geologic Map (Fife, 1973)
Figure 4 -
Regional Fault Map
Figure 5 -
Active Fault Near - Source Zones Map
Figure 6 -
Seismic Hazard Zones Map
Figure 7 -
USGS Ground Acceleration Lookup Results
Figure 8 -
Typical Retaining Wall Subdrain Detail
Appendix A -
Logs of Exploratory Borings
Appendix B -
Exploration, Field and Laboratory Testing
Appendix C -
List of References
Appendix D - Standard Grading Specifications
Appendix E - Guidelines for General Site Maintenance
Plate 1 - Geotechnical Plot Plan
Plate 2 - Geotechnical Cross Sections
SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site is an irregular shaped lot with an approximate area of 10,000 square feet
and is approximately half of a proposed lot split of the existing property. The site has a
relatively level pad area fronting Cliff Drive to the northeast and a descending slope to the
southwest. The current pad is at an approximate elevation of 70t feet above sea level. The
property is adjacent to Santa Ana Street to the northwest and residential property to the
southeast. The subject property is presently developed with a two -story residenti al structure
as depicted on Plate 1. The site is located at approximately N33.62° latitude by W 117.93°
longitude.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Based on Reference 1, the proposed development will consist of a multiple -level residence
with associated hardscape and landscape elements. The residence will have a lower level
requiring retaining walls that will daylight on the rear slope area.
1�
Elan. Lot l
May 6, 2005
Page 3
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The surface runoff associated with the site is essentially that which falls directly on the lot
as precipitation. Surface water collected on the site should be directed to the street or a
suitable storm drainage collection.
FIELD EXPLORATION
-One exploratory boring and four exploratory trenches were excavated at the subject site to
the approximate depths and at the approximate locations shown in Appendix A and on Plate
1. Core and bulk samples obtained for laboratory testing and analysis. The excavations
were logged following excavation. The logs of the borings are included in Appendix A. A
more detailed description of the field sampling process is contained in appendix B.
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing consisted of moisture /density, maximum density /optimum moisture,
grain size, direct shear, expansion index and sulfate ion determinations. Testing procedures
and test results are contained in Appendix B. Certain of the results are also contained on
the trench logs in Appendix A.
GFOTE HNICAL CONDITIONS
GEOLOGIC SETTING
The City of Newport Beach is situated on the southwesterly slope of the San Joaquin Hills
that descends south to southwesterly to the Pacific Ocean with a coastal zone comprised of
wave -cut terraces that slope gently. The subject site is situated on the coastal terrace at
roughly 70 feet above sea level.
The terraces in the region of the subject site were cut in sedimentary bedrock, which has
been assigned to the Monterey or Capistrano Formation of Miocene age (Reference 4).
Wave - transported sediments (principally medium to fine sands) were deposited on the
terraces as they were cut.
11
Elan. Lot 1
May 6, 2005
Page 4
EARTH MATERIALS
Based on a review of the literature, geologic maps, field observations and subsurface
exploration (Appendix A), the following geologic units were observed or noted:
Artificial Fill (Af) / Residual Soils (Qrs).
Surficial earth materials consisting of artificial fill and undifferentiated residual soils that
extend approximately 15 feet below the existing pad on the property. These soils are
reddish brown, silty sands that are moist and medium dense to dense. The upper portions
of these soils are not suitable for foundation support without reprocessing and
recompacting.
Marine Terrace Deposit (Qtm)
Lying beneath the. surface soils are Marine Terrace Deposits consisting of gray brown fine
to coarse sands and silty sands. These materials are moist and dense to very dense.
edrock
Based on regional mapping, the bedrock underlying the site at depth is assigned to the
Monterey Formation or the Capistrano Formation, which are sedimentary rock of marine
origin and of Miocene age. The bedrock was not encountered in the exploratory
excavations.
Competent terrace deposits, certified fill and/or approved soils are suitable for support of
proposed building loads.
SURFICAL RUNOFF
No evidence of former uncontrolled runoff onto or from the site has been observed. The
proposed development on the relatively flat lot is not anticipated to adversely impact
surrounding properties, provided proper civil engineering design for the control of drainage
is implemented.
GROUND WATER
Groundwater was not encountered in any of the exploratory excavations made during this
investigation and is not anticipated to be a constraint to construction.
1�
Elan. Lot 1
May 6, 2005
Page 5
LIQUEFACTION AND LANDSLIDES
The subject site is not located in a seismic hazard zone as depicted on Reference 5 by the
California Department of Conservation (refer to Figure 6). This reference depicts zones of
required investigation for Liquefaction or Earthquake4nduced Landslides in the Newport
Beach Quadrangle. Reference 8 defines these areas as: "Areas where historical occurrence
of liquefaction / landslide movement, or local geological, geotechnical and groundwater /
subsurface water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such
that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code section 2983 (c) would be required ".
However, the base of the slope near Pacific Coast Highway is depicted as a zone of potential
liquefaction. Site - specific exploration indicates that there is a lack of groundwater in the
upper 50 feet of the subject site, therefore, the potential for liquefaction is considered
remote.
No slumps or landslides that may impact the site were noted in the study area during our
investigation or on any of the reviewed referenced publications. The non - cohesive soils that
comprise the lower slopes may experience localized surficial instability. Surficial slope
conditions are not anticipated to be problematic to the proposed development provided
adequate setback of foundation elements as recommended herein are utilized in design and
construction.
SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS
There are no active faults observed or previously mapped that pass through the site. The
nearest active fault is the Newport Inglewood Fault (NIF) [refer to Figure 4). The Newport-
Inglewood Fault Zone could produce an earthquake of magnitude 6.9 (Reference 11) with
local strong ground motion equivalent to at least VIII on the modified Mercalli Scale. The
Southern California area is susceptible to strong shaking from earthquakes originating from
the NIF, the Elsinore Whittier Fault, the San Jacinto Fault and the San Andreas Fault
(Figures 4 & 5).
A large earthquake, magnitude 6.3 occurred off Newport Beach on March 11, 1933, and
more recently a 4.6 to 4.9 magnitude earthquake occurred just offshore from Newport
Beach on April 7, 1989. Both of these earthquake epicenters were on the NIF. In Laguna
Beach a 4.5 magnitude earthquake occurred on October 27, 1969. The epicenter was
located 1000 feet offshore of Crescent Bay. From 1934 to 1937, earthquakes with
1g
Elan. Lot I
May 6, 2005
Page 6
epicenters west of Emerald Bay and magnitudes ranging from 1.5 to 2.0 were reported. In
1812, an earthquake of sufficient magnitude to destroy the mission occurred in San Juan
Capistrano.
The Probalistic Seismic Hazard Mapping Ground Motion website of the California
Geologic Survey returns a Peak Ground Acceleration value of 0.43g (alluvium site) for 10
percent probable exceedance in a 50 year period for the site's global coordinates (refer to
Figure 7),
The Active Fault Near - Source Zone Map, N -34 (Figure 5) indicates the site is located
approximately 1.5 Kilometers from the Newport Inglewood fault. The Newport Inglewood
fault is identified as a "Type B" fault, capable of a Moment Magnitude 6.9 earthquake.
In summary, this property is not subject to any special seismic hazards as compared to other
nearby residences in similar geologic environments. Ground rupture or liquefaction as a
result of seismic shaking is remote. There is no evidence of active faulting or ground
rupture on the site. Seismic design in accordance with the latest edition of the California
Building Code using the parameters provided in the recommendation section of this report
is considered appropriate.
CONCLUSIONS
1. A proposed residential development can be feasible and safe from a geotechnical
viewpoint provided it is done in accordance with the conclusions and
recommendations provided herein and that this office is retained during the design .
and construction phases to assure conformance with these requirements.
2. A multiple story wood framed single- family residence is proposed for the subject
lot.
3. Earth materials underlying the proposed development area, as revealed in the
exploratory excavations and as depicted in literature consist of sufficial soils and
Terrace Deposits atop bedrock of the Monterey or Capistrano Formations.
Elan. Lot I
May 6, 2005
Page 7
4. Groundwater was not encountered at the site and is not anticipated to be a
development or construction constraint.
5. Unapproved soils in areas supporting structural elements should be removed and
recompacted to a minimum depth of two feet below the bottoms of proposed
footings.
6. Competent approved native or certified fill soils will be suitable for support of
foundation elements. All slabs and footings should be designed in accordance with
the recommendations of this report to mitigate against substrata imperfections and
seismic shaking.
7. Results of laboratory tests indicate very low expansion potential for near surface
soils in accordance with Table 18 -I -B of the 2001 California Building Code (CBC).
8. Results of laboratory tests indicate a negligible sulfate exposure classification in
accordance with Table 19 -A-4 of the CBC.
9. Earth materials at the subject site should excavate readily with conventional
construction equipment.
10. Fault rupture across the property is not anticipated. Liquefaction is considered
remote.
11. Seismic design in accordance with the latest edition of the California Building Code,
using the parameters contained in the Seismic Design Section of the
Recommendations portion of this report, is considered appropriate.
12. Development of the subject site will not geotechnically adversely impact adjoining
properties provided the recommendations of this report are implemented in design,
construction and maintenance of the project.
N.
Elan. Lot I
May 6, 2005
Page 8
SITE PREPARATION
General: Except as modified by the recommendations presented in this report, all site
preparation and grading should be done in accordance with Appendix D. All significant
amounts of organic materials should be removed from areas to be graded. Any unsuitable
earth materials in the proposed construction area should be removed to a minimum depth of
2 feet below the bottom of proposed conventional footings and recompacted to the
recommended density. The recommended minimum density is 90 percent of the maximum
as determined using Test Designation ASTM D 1557 -00. A designated representative of
this office should approve in writing the bottom of all over- excavations prior to any fill
placement. The excavated onsite soils may be used for compacted fill provided they are
cleaned of deleterious materials in accordance with the recommendations of Appendix D.
Estimated Shrinkage and Subsidence: A shrinkage factor of 5 to 10 percent may be utilized
as an aid in estimating volume change of the materials during grading. It should be noted
that these numbers are estimates only as shrinkage and subsidence are difficult to estimate
accurately without extensive in -situ testing.
STRUCTURALSETBACK
The bottom of all residence foundation elements should be of sufficient depth to meet the
requirements of the 2001 California Building Code. The lateral distance between the lowest
outside edge of the foundation element and the descending slope face must be a minimum
of one -third the total height of the slope or 40 feet, whichever is greater.
CONTINUOUS FOOTINGS
Bearing Ca
paci : The allowable bearing capacity of conventional strip footings having a
minimum width of 15 inches and founded a minimum of 24 inches below lowest adjacent
grade in approved earth materials should not exceed 1,500 pounds per square foot. This
value may be increased by one -third for short duration loading as may result from wind or
seismic action. The bottoms of all footings should be placed upon a level surface.
Lateral Resistance: Lateral loads may be resisted by passive pressure forces and friction
acting on the bottom of footings. For footings cast against approved earth materials, the
%X
Elan. Lot 1
May 6, 2005
Page 9
lateral bearing resistance may computed using a value of 200 pounds per square foot,
which may be increased by 200 psf for each additional foot of depth, but should not exceed
3000 pounds per square foot. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used in computing
the frictional resistance.
It should be noted that these allowable earth material resistance parameters appropriately
reflect a factor -of -safety of 1.5.
Footing Reinforcement: A minimum of two No. 5 bars should be placed at the top and
bottom of continuous footings in order to minimize tension cracks during seismic shaking
due to subsurface imperfections.
Footing eometry: Exterior footings should be embedded a minimum of 24 inches below
lowest adjacent grade in competent earth materials.
Garage Openings: Footing steel and geometry should be continuous across garage door
openings.
Settlement: Total settlement due to structural loads is estimated not to exceed 1/4 inch for
footings supported on approved earth materials. Differential settlements due to structural
loads will be similar to total settlements and can be estimated to be approximately 114 inch
over a horizontal distance of 20 feet. It is expected that settlements, should they occur, will
do so essentially as the loads are applied. Potential settlement due to liquefaction under a
strong seismic event is estimated to be approximately 1/4 inch.
ISOLATED PAD FOOTINGS
Bearing Caoacity: The allowable bearing capacity of soils supporting pad footings founded
a minimum of 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade in approved earth materials is 1,500
pounds per square foot, increased by 20 percent for each additional foot of depth and/or
width beyond l foot to a maximum of 4,500 pounds per square foot. This value may be
increased by one -third for short duration loading as may result from wind or seismic action.
The bottoms of all footings should be placed upon a level surface.
c�3,
Elan. Lot .l
May 6, 2005
Page 10
Lateral Resistance: Lateral loads may be resisted by passive pressure forces and friction
acting on the bottom of footings. For footings cast against approved earth materials, the
lateral bearing resistance may be computed using a value of 200 pounds per square foot,
which may be increased by 200 psf for each additional foot of depth, but should. not exceed
3000 pounds per square foot. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used in computing
the frictional resistance.
It should be noted that these allowable earth material resistance parameters appropriately
reflect a factor -of- safety of 1.5.
Pad Footing Reinforcement: A minimum grid of No. 5 bars C 16" on- center each -way
should be placed on chairs at the bottom of pad footings
Pad Footing Geometry: Pad footings should be a minimum of 24 inches square and a
minimum of 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade in competent earth materials.
CAISSONS
Vertical Bearing Cal2acily and Settlement: The end bearing component of the allowable
bearing capacity of cast -in -place concrete caissons founded in approved soil is 1500 pounds
per square foot with an allowable increase of 20 percent for each additional foot of width
and /or depth beyond the minimum of 1 foot not to exceed 4500 pounds per square foot.
These values may be increased by one -third for short duration loading as may result from
wind or seismic action. The frictional component of the allowable bearing capacity is 250
pounds per square foot and may be taken only in competent terrace deposits below a depth
of 8-feet.
Lateral Load :.Caissons cast against creep prone soils should be designed to resist a lateral
load equal to 1000 pounds per linear foot of creep prone materials. For design purposes
the creep zone should be computed to a depth of 4 feet below the slope surface.
Lateral Resistance: Lateral loads may be resisted by passive pressure forces and friction
acting on the bottom of caissons. For caissons cast against approved undisturbed native
materials, the lateral bearing resistance may be computed using a value of 200 pounds per
square foot per foot of depth below natural grade which may be increased by 200 pounds
eg A
Elan. Lot 1
May 6, 2005
Page 11
per square foot for each additional foot of depth, but should not exceed 3000 pounds per
square foot. These values may be doubled for isolated conditions, defined as a minimum. of
3 diameters between caissons. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used in computing
the frictional resistance. It should be noted that these resistant parameters appropriately
reflect a factor -of- safety of 1.5.
Caisson Geometry: Caissons should be a minimum of N4 -inch diameter to facilitate down -
hole inspection during the construction and should be provided with sufficient steel to meet
requirements as reinforced concrete members. The structural foundation engineer will
generate the anticipated depths of caissons based on structural load requirements. Actual
depths of caissons may be adjusted in the field after caisson excavations are examined by
the geotechnical consultant.
Construction Considerations: No steel or concrete should be placed in caisson excavations
until the holes are observed and approved in writing by the geotechnical consultants. All
caisson excavations should be thoroughly cleaned of loose soil and debris. Should
substantial volumes of groundwater be encountered, approved special drilling and
installation strategies will be needed. Provisions should be made to temporarily case
excavations should caving soils be encountered during construction and for downhole
inspection if needed. Caissons should not be excavated within 6 feet (edge to edge) of
another caisson excavation unless that caisson has been filled with concrete for more than
24 hours.
RETAINING WALLS
Lateral Loading on Retaining_ Walls: The lateral loads acting on cantilevered retaining walls
backfilled with approved non - expansive granular materials such as compacted sands or
gravel, having a width equal to or greater than half the retained height, can be computed
using an active pressure force equal to an equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pounds per square
foot per foot of depth for level backfill and 50 pounds per square foot per foot of depth for
2 :1 (horizontal: vertical) sloping backfill. These values should be increased by 50 percent
for walls structurally restrained. The on -site soils are not suitable for backfill against the
wall.
q5
Elan. Lot I
May 6, 2005
Page 12
Surcharge loading: Lateral loads acting on retaining walls due to structural or vehicular
surcharges should be superimposed atop the earth pressures.
Lateral Resistance Design Values: Lateral loads may be resisted by passive pressure forces
and friction acting on the bottom of footings. For footings cast against approved soils, the
lateral bearing resistance may be computed using a value of 200 pounds per square foot,
which may be increased by 200 psf for each additional foot of depth, but should not exceed
3000 pounds per square foot. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used in computing
the frictional resistance. It should be noted that these resistant parameters appropriately
reflect a factor -of -safety of 1.5.
In addition to the soil loading, the retaining walls should be designed to support any
adjacent structural or vehicular surcharge loading that occurs within a 45- degree plane of the
base of the wall.
Vertical Bearing Design Values: The allowable bearing capacity of soils supporting
retaining wall footings founded atop approved earth materials is 1,500 pounds per square
foot, increased by 20 percent for each additional foot of depth and/or width beyond 1 foot to
amaximum of 4,500 pounds per square foot. This value may be increased by one -third for
short duration loading as may result from wind or seismic action. The bottoms of all
footings should be placed upon a level surface.
Subdrains: A recommended drainage design for achieving control. of seepage forces behind
retaining walls is shown on Figure 8. This design consists of single sized gravel wrapped
with geotextile fabric separator or graded washed gravel placed in contact with undisturbed
native material. Collection is with a 4 -inch diameter perforated pipe embedded at the base of
the gravel tied to a 4 -inch diameter non - perforated outlet pipe which discharges at
convenient locations selected during foundation plan review. The pipe should be placed
such that the gradient is not less than 0.01 ft. /ft. The fabric wrapped gravel envelope should
be placed at a similar gradient. The drain should have a minimum of 2 cubic feet per foot of
gravel.
All subdrain pipes should be SDR -35 or approved equivalent. Perforations may be either
bored holes not less than 3/16 -inch or larger than 1/2 -inch diameter or 1/8 -inch slots placed
e,, �o
Elan. Lot 1
May 6, 2005
Page 13
on the bottom one -third of the pipe perimeter. If the pipe is to be bored, a minimum of 5
holes should be uniformly placed per foot of length. Slots should not exceed 2 inches in
length and total length of slots should not be less than 50 percent of the pipe length.
The geotextile filter fabric should be in accordance with Orange County Standard Plan 808.
The fabric pore spaces should be between 30 and 100 mesh openings. The fabric should be
placed such that a minimum lap of 6 inches exists at all splices. The fabric wrapped gravel
envelope should consist of 1f2 -inch minimum single size drain rock. All subdrain
installations should be inspected by this office or designated representative.
Waterproofing : All interior building retaining walls should be protected from moisture
penetration with a suitable waterproofing method specified by the project architect or a
qualified experienced professional.
Wall Backfill: Approved on -site soils may be used .for the select backfill zone that is
adjacent to the wall. Approved self- compacting gravel backfill may be placed in quantity
behind the walls. All other materials should be.placed in 6 to 8 inch loose lifts and
mechanically compacted to at least 90 percent of ASTM- 1557 -00 maximum density.
Notification of this office is required prior to all retaining wall backfill operations.
SEISMIC DESIGN
Seismic Design in accordance with the 2001 California Building Code, should use the
following criteria:
2001 CBC Table No.
Factor
16-I
Seismic Zone Factor, Z
0.40
16 -J
Soil Profile Type
Sd
16 -Q
Seismic Coefficient, Ca
0.44 Na
16 -R
Seismic Coefficient, Cv
0.64 Nv
16-S
Near- Source Factor, Na
1.3
16-T
Near - Source Factor, NY
1.6
16 -U
Seismic Source type
B
q'.
Elan. Lot 1
May 6, 2005
Page 14
CONCRETE
Results of site specific Sulfate ]on Tests indicate a "Negligible" sulfate exposure
classification in accordance with Table 19 -A-4 of the 1997 UBC (2001 CBC). While no
requirements are imposed by the Uniform Building Code, the use of Type V Cement for all
concrete in contact with earth materials is considered prudent.
TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS
All temporary excavations should be in accordance with CalOSHA requirements and
applicable governing agency grading and building codes. Any excavation over 5 feet in
height should be constructed at a 1:1 (horizontal: vertical) slope, or shored. Any excavations
that extend below an imaginary 1:1 plane projected from the bottom of any existing
structure footing or utility should also be shored or slot cut.
The contractor is entirely responsible for the job site conditions during the entire course of
construction, including insuring lateral support to and protection of existing structures and
property.
DRIVEWAY AND HARDSCAPE SLABS
Subgrade soils beneath driveway and hardscape flatwork elements should be overexcavated
a minimum of 12 inches below the bottom of the element and recompacted to at least 90
percent of maximum density as determined by test designation ASTM 1557 -00. Exterior
slabs should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and be reinforced with a minimum of
#3 bars at 12 inches on- .center each -way located at the center of the slab. The outer 8 -inch
edge of driveways and patio slabs should be thickened to a minimum of 8 inches.
HARDSCAPE FOOTINGS
All hardscape elements supported on footings should be founded entirely in approved soils.
Footings founded in soils may be designed for a vertical allowable bearing capacity of 1,500
pounds per square foot. These values may be increased by one -third for short duration
loading, as may result from wind or seismic action. Lateral loads may be resisted by a
passive pressure force equal to 150 pounds per square foot for footings founded in
approved soils. A friction coefficient of 0.25 may be used for soil. The bottoms of all
footings should be placed upon a level surface. All hardscape footings should be reinforced
with a minimum of four number 4 bars, two top and two bottom.
�T
Elan. Lot I
May 6, 2005
Page 15
SWIMMING POOL AND SPA
The structural design of swimming pool and spa shells should meet the requirements of
Section 1919 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. Care should be taken during excavation
of the pool and /or spa to minimize disturbance of support soils. If a transition in support
conditions is exposed during excavation, then the entire base of the support soils should be
overexcavated and recompacted a minimum of 2 feet below the bottom of the proposed
shell. Observations and /or tests should be performed by the geotechnical consultants to
verify that exposed soil conditions are consistent with design assumptions.
Bearing Cap ca itv: The allowable bearing capacity of approved soils supporting pool and spa
shells is 1,500 pounds per square foot, increased by 20 percent for each additional foot of
depth beyond 1 foot to a maximum of 4,500 pounds per square foot.
Settlement: Total settlement due to structural loads is estimated not to exceed 1/4 inch.
Differential settlements can be estimated to be approximately 1/4 inch over a horizontal
distance of 20 feet. It is expected that settlements, should they occur, will do so essentially
as the loads are applied.
Lateral loads: Pool walls should be designed to withstand lateral soil loads equal to an
equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pounds per square foot per foot of depth for walls gunited or
cast against excavations in existing soils. These values should be increased by 50 percent
for walls structurally restrained. In addition to the soil loading, the pool or spa walls should
be designed to support any adjacent structural surcharge loading that occurs within a 45-
degree plane of the base of the wall.
Lateral resistance: Lateral loads may be resisted by passive pressure forces and friction
acting on the bottom of the. pool or spa. For pools cast against approved soils, the lateral
bearing resistance may be computed using a value of 200 pounds per square foot, which
may be increased by 200 psf for each additional foot of depth, but should not exceed 3000
pounds per square foot. Lateral resistance should not be taken for any soils subject to slope
creep (within 4 feet of slope surface). A coefficient of friction of 0.25 may be used in
computing the frictional resistance. It should be noted that these resistant parameters
appropriately reflect a factor -of- safety of 1.5.
N
F1
Elan. Lot 1
May 6, 2005
Page 16
Setback: The swimming pool and /or spa should be founded in competent earth materials
such that a minimum horizontal distance between the outer lowermost portion of the pool
foundation and the descending slope face is at least one -sixth the height of the slope or 20
feet, whichever is less. Caisson support may be needed for the proposed pool.
LANDSCAPING
Landscaping and irrigation should implemented in a manner that mitigates the impact on
foundation and hardscape elements and the earth materials supporting these elements.
Trees or bushes .that develop large root systems or that require significant water should be
avoided near foundations and hardscape flatwork. Variations in moisture content can
severely impact the characteristics and strength of earth materials. Planter areas adjacent to
structures should be designed such that foundation support soils are protected from
saturation. Drainage patterns approved for the project should be maintained throughout the
life of the project. Slopes and graded areas should be planted as soon as is practical with
suitable ground cover and plants as recommended by an experienced landscape design
professional and /or is in accordance with the governing jurisdictional agency.
UTILITY TRENCHES
Utility trenches should be backfilled with clean sand, gravel, or approved soils. The soil
materials should be compacted to a density at least equal to 90 percent of the maximum
density as determined by test designation ASTM 1557 -00. Contractors should keep
detailed records /map of the location and depths of all underground utility lines installed.
Notification of this office is required prior to any utility line backfill operations.
DRAINAGE RUNOFF
Water should not be permitted to pond adjacent to the structure. All runoff water should
drain positively (solid pipe) to the street or alley.
ROOF DRAINAGE
The finished structure should be equipped with eaves; troughs and downspouts that collect
roof runoff and conduct it to pipes or other non - erosive drainage devices through which it
can be directed to the street or alley.
Elan. Lot l
May 6, 2005
Page 17
REVIEW
The undersigned should review and approve in writing the final project grading and
foundation plans to confirm compliance with the geotechnical recommendations.
FIELD INSPECTIONS
Observations and tests should be made during construction to confirm the project
geotechnical recommendations are properly implemented. These inspections should occur:
following excavations for all overexcavation bottoms prior to placement of fill, during any
fill placement and compaction, following retaining wall subdrain installation, during
retaining wall backfill operations, during all utility trench backf ill placement and compaction;
during caisson excavations, following footing excavations prior to steel placement, and
following slab subgrade preparation. The above inspections and testing conducted during
construction; as we11 as, attending pre -grade meetings or responses to agency review items
are beyond the scope and budget of this investigation and will be billed on a time and
materials basis in accordance with our most recent Fee Schedule. Timely notification (48
hours) of the geotechnical phases of construction is the responsibility of the client or their
representative.
The above construction inspections do not supersede or replace any normally required
certified independent inspections or agency inspections.
PRE - CONSTRUCTION MEETING
A pre - construction conference should be held with representatives of the owner, contractor;
architect, civil engineer, soil engineer, geologist and building official representative prior to
commencement of grading to clarify any questions relating to the intent of these
recommendations and to coordinate the necessary construction inspections.
MAINTANENCE AND FUTRE INPROVEMENTS
Throughout the life of the project, regular site maintenance should be conducted to insure
that drainage components are clean of obstructions and that they properly control surface
waters. Any alteration of drainage patterns or landscape features may result in adverse
conditions that can affect the performance of the proposed development. Landscaping
installations should be maintained in a manner that does not allow water to pond near sloped
r
Elan. Lot 1
May 6, 2005
Page 18
areas or in areas adjacent to structures, and that generally protects the surface of slopes from
erosional damage. Site and slope maintenance guidelines are attached in Appendix F.
The recommendations of this report are specific to the current scope of the project as
discussed herein. Any future proposed improvements or changes to site conditions would
require additional geotechnical evaluation and possibly additional investigation.
CLOSURE
This investigation was conducted in accordance with generally accepted practice in the
geotechnical field, as currently practiced in this or similar localities. Proper implementation
of the recommendations of this report should provide suitable performance for the lifetime
of the project. No expressed or implied.warranty is made regarding the use of the contents
of this report. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on
surface and subsurface conditions encountered and the present state of geotechnical
knowledge. The results of and conclusions drawn from observations made, tests conducted
and information obtained for this report, are believed to be representative of the site
conditions impacting the proposed project. Subsurface conditions may vary between
observation points. Should conditions be revealed that are at variance with the findings of
this report, such conditions will need to be evaluated by the geotechnical consultants with
supplemental recommendations possibly resulting. As site _geotechnical conditions may
alter with time, the recommendations presented in this report are considered valid for a
period of one year from the report date.
Thi;s•report is intended for the specific currently proposed development by our client and is
to be used only as necessary to obtain permits and for the design and construction of said
development. Changes in the proposed land use or development may require supplemental
investigations or recommendations. This report is intended for the sole use of our client in
conjunction with the undersigned and may not be assigned or transferred, or any portion
thereof be assigned or transferred, to a third party without written permission and consent
from this office. Any independent use of this report, in any form, is not valid unless
specific, written verification of the applicability of the recommendations is obtained from
this office.
qd.,.
Elan. Lot 1
May 6, 2005
Page 19
Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, please call.
Respectfully Submitted,
David A. PUrkis
Civil Engineer(RCE42810)
Expires 3 -31 -06
Distribution:
Addressee (5) No. 42810
a Exp. 03 -31.06
Ian S. Kennedy
Engineering Geologist (CEG 1057)
Expires 1 -31 -06
r--
NO. 1057
CERTIFIED
A GEOLOGCS'r ,
Q
DAVID A. PURKIS, PE
Consulting Civil Engineer
May 6, 2005
Project No. 05 -1647
TO: Elan Enterprises Inc.
1380 Moorea
Laguna. Beach, CA 92651
Attention: Kaveh Lahijani
SUBJECT: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Foundation Design
Residential Development of Lot 2 of 2961 Cliff Drive, Newport Beach,
California
INTRODUCTION
The results and recommendations of our preliminary geotechnical investigation, pertinent to
proposed residential development of the subject property, are provided herein. The
investigation has addressed the distribution and engineering properties of earth materials in
order to develop appropriate conclusions regarding the proposed development and to
provide recommendations for design and construction. A topographic survey (Reference 1)
depicting the proposed development was used as a base map (Plate 1) to plot the locations
of exploratory excavations and geologic data for the subject site.
Conclusions and recommendations Herein are pertinent to construction of a new single -
family residence as depicted on Plate 1. Grading and foundation plans are not available at
this time and will utilize portions of this report for their preparation. This office should
review these plans to determine the applicability of the contents of this report. This
investigation was conducted in conjunction with the adjacent lot (Lot 1 of 2961 Cliff Drive).
SCOPE OF WORK
The investigation included:
1. Geotechnical reconnaissance of the subject site.
2. One exploratory boring drilled with a truck mounted bucket auger.
3. Four exploratory trenches excavated by hand.
4. Core and bulk sampling of representative earth materials from the excavations.
5. Laboratory testing of representative samples.
6. Engineering and geotechnical analysis.
7. Preparation of this report and the accompanying illustrations.
2377 S. EL CAMINO REAL #203, SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672 # 949.369.9701 • fax 949.661.1562
C�A
Elan. Lot 2
May 6, 2005
Page 2
ACCOMPANYING ILLUSTRATIONS AND APPENDICES
Figure I
- Site Location Map
Figure 2 -
Geologic Map (Morton & Miller, 198 1)
Figure 3
- Geologic Map (Fife, 1973)
Figure 4
- Regional Fault Map
Figure 5 -
Active Fault Near - Source Zones Map
Figure 6 -
Seismic Hazard Zones Map
Figure 7
- USGS Ground Acceleration Lookup Results
Figure 8 -
Typical Retaining Wall Subdrain Detail
Appendix A - Logs of Exploratory Borings
Appendix B - Exploration, Field and Laboratory Testing
Appendix C - List of References .
Appendix D - Standard Grading Specifications
Appendix E - Guidelines for General Site Maintenance
Plate 1 - Geotechnical Plot Plan
Plate 2 Geotechnical Cross Sections
SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site is an irregular shaped lot with an approximate area of 10,000 square feet
and is approximately half of a proposed lot split of the existing property. The site is
comprised of sloping ground, descending from Santa Ana Avenue on the northwest to
Avon Street below. Lot 1 of 2961 Cliff Drive, which is proposed to be developed in
conjunction with the subject lot, is to the northeast. The subject property is presently
undeveloped with grasses and some trees on it. The site is located at approximately
N33.62° latitude by W 117.93° longitude.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Based on Reference 1, the proposed development will consist of a multiple -level residence
with associated hardscape and landscape elements. The approximate location of the
proposed residence is depicted on Plates I & 2.
95
Elan. Lot 2
May 6, 2005
Page 3
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The surface runoff associated with the site is essentially that which falls directly on the lot
as precipitation. Surface water collected on the site should be directed to the street or a
suitable storm drainage collection.
INVESTIGATION
FIELD EXPLORATION
One exploratory boring and four exploratory trenches were excavated at the subject site to
the approximate depths and at the approximate locations shown in Appendix A and on Plate
1. Core and bulk samples obtained for laboratory testing and analysis. The excavations
were logged following excavation. The logs of the borings are included in Appendix A. A
more detailed description of the field sampling process is contained in appendix B.
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing consisted of moisture /density, maximum density /optimum moisture,
grain size, direct shear, expansion index and sulfate ion determinations. Testing procedures
and test results are contained in Appendix B. Certain of the results are also contained on
the trench logs in Appendix A.
GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
GEOLOGIC SETTING
The City of Newport Beach is situated on the southwesterly slope of the San Joaquin Hills
that descends south to southwesterly to the Pacific Ocean with a coastal zone comprised of
wave -cut terraces that slope gently. The subject site is situated on the coastal terrace at
roughly 70 feet above sea level.
The terraces in the region of the subject site were cut in sedimentary bedrock, which has
been assigned to the Monterey or Capistrano Formation of Miocene age (Reference 4).
Wave- transported sediments (principally medium to fine sands) were deposited on the
terraces as they were cut.
(0
Elan. Lot 2
May 6, 2005
Page 4
EARTH MATERIALS
Based on a review of the literature, geologic maps, field observations and subsurface
exploration (Appendix A), the following geologic units were observed or noted:
Artificial Fill (Af) / Residual Soils (Ord.
Surficial earth materials consisting of artificial fill and undifferentiated residual soils that
extend approximately 15 feet below the existing pad on the property. These soils are
reddish brown, silty sands that are moist and medium dense to dense. The upper portions
of these soils are not suitable for foundation support without reprocessing and
recompacting.
Marine Terrace Deposit (Qt m)
Lying beneath the surface soils are Marine Terrace Deposits consisting of gray brown fine
to coarse sands and silty sands. These materials are moist and dense to very dense.
e r k
Based on regional mapping, the bedrock underlying the site at depth is assigned to the
Monterey Formation or the Capistrano Formation, which are sedimentary rock of marine
origin and of Miocene age. The bedrock was not encountered in the exploratory
excavations.
Competent terrace deposits, certified fill and /or approved soils are suitable for support of
proposed building loads.
SURFICAL RUNOFF
No evidence of former uncontrolled runoff onto or from the site has been observed. The
proposed development on the relatively flat lot is not anticipated to adversely impact
surrounding properties, provided proper civil engineering design for the control of drainage
is implemented.
GROUND WATER
Groundwater was not encountered in any of the exploratory excavations made during this
investigation and is not anticipated to be a constraint to construction.
00
Elan. Lot 2
May 6, 2005
Page 5
LIQUEFACTION AND LANDSLIDES
The subject site is not located in a seismic hazard zone as depicted on Reference 5 by the
California Department of Conservation (refer to Figure 6). This reference depicts zones of
required investigation for Liquefaction or Earthquake - Induced Landslides in the Newport
Beach Quadrangle. Reference 8 defines these areas as: "Areas where historical occurrence
of liquefaction / landslide movement, or local geological, geotechnical and groundwater /
subsurface water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such
that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code section 2983 (c) would be required ".
However, the base of the slope near Pacific Coast Highway is depicted as a zone of potential
liquefaction. Site - specific exploration indicates that there is a lack of groundwater in the
upper 50 feet of the subject site, therefore, the potential for liquefaction is considered
remote.
No slumps or landslides that may impact the site were noted in the study area during our
investigation or on any of the reviewed referenced publications. The non - cohesive soils that
comprise the lower slopes may experience localized surficial instability. Surficial slope
conditions are not anticipated to be problematic to the proposed development provided
adequate setback of foundation elements as recommended herein are utilized in design and
construction.
SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS
There are no active faults observed or previously mapped that pass through the site. The
nearest active fault is the Newport Inglewood Fault (NIF) (refer to Figure 4). The Newport -
Inglewood Fault Zone could produce an earthquake of magnitude 6.9 (Reference 11) with
local strong ground motion equivalent to at least VIII on the modified Mercalli Scale. The
Southern California area is susceptible to strong shaking from earthquakes originating from
the NIF, the Elsinore Whittier Fault, the San Jacinto Fault and the San Andreas Fault
(Figures 4 & 5).
A large earthquake, magnitude 6.3 occurred off Newport Beach on March 11, 1933, and
more recently a 4.6 to 4.9 magnitude earthquake occurred just offshore from Newport
Beach on April 7, 1989. Both of these earthquake epicenters were on the NIF. In Laguna
Beach a 4.5 magnitude earthquake occurred on October 27, 1969. The epicenter was
located 1000 feet offshore of Crescent Bay. From 1934 to 1937, earthquakes with
q�
Elan. Lot 2
May 6, 2005
Page 6
epicenters west of Emerald Bay and magnitudes ranging from 1.5 to 2.0 were reported. In
1812, an earthquake of sufficient magnitude to destroy the mission occurred in. San Juan
Capistrano.
The Probalistic Seismic Hazard Mapping Ground Motion website of the California
Geologic Survey returns a Peak Ground Acceleration value of 0.43g (alluvium site) for 10
percent probable exceedance in a 50 year period for the site's global coordinates (refer to
Figure 7).
The Active Fault Near - Source Zone Map, N' -34 (Figure 5) indicates the site is located
approximately 1.5 Kilometers from the Newport Inglewood fault. The Newport Inglewood
fault is identified as a "Type B" fault, capable of a Moment Magnitude 6.9 earthquake.
In summary, this property is not subject to any special seismic hazards as compared to other
nearby residences in similar geologic environments. Ground rupture or liquefaction as a
result of seismic shaking is remote. There is no evidence of active faulting or ground
rupture on the site. Seismic design in accordance with the latest edition of the California
Building Code using the parameters provided in the recommendation section of this report
is considered appropriate.
1. A proposed residential development can be feasible and safe from a geotechnical
viewpoint provided it is done in accordance with the conclusions and
recommendations provided herein and that this office is retained during the design
and construction phases to assure conformance with these requirements.
2. A multiple story wood framed single - family residence is proposed for the subject
lot.
3. Earth materials underlying the proposed development area, as revealed in the
exploratory excavations and as depicted in literature consist of surficial soils and
Terrace Deposits atop bedrock of the Monterey or Capistrano Formations.
IN
Elan. Lot 2
May 6, 2005
Page 7
4. Groundwater was not encountered at the site and is not anticipated to be a
development or construction constraint.
5. Unapproved soils in areas supporting structural elements should be removed and
recompacted to a minimum depth of two feet below the bottoms of proposed
footings.
6. Competent approved native or certified fill soils will be suitable for support of
foundation elements. All slabs and footings should be designed in accordance with
the recommendations of this report to mitigate against substrata imperfections and
seismic shaking.
7. Results of laboratory tests indicate very low expansion potential for near surface
soils in accordance with Table 18 -1 -B of the 2001 California Building Code (CBC).
8., Results of laboratory tests indicate a negligible sulfate exposure classification in
accordance with Table 19 -A-4 of the CBC.
9. Earth materials at the subject site should excavate readily with conventional
construction equipment.
10. Fault rupture across the property is not anticipated. Liquefaction is considered
remote.
11. Seismic design in accordance with the latest edition of the California Building Code,
using the parameters contained in the Seismic Design Section of the
Recommendations portion of this report, is considered appropriate.
12. Development of the subject site will not geotechnically adversely impact adjoining
properties provided the recommendations of this report are implemented in design,
construction and maintenance of the project.
�ba
Elan. Lot 2
May 6, 2005
Page 8
RECOMMENDATIONS
SITE PREPARATION
General: Except as modified by the recommendations presented in this report, all site
preparation and grading should be done in accordance with Appendix D. All significant
amounts of organic materials should be removed from areas to be graded. Any unsuitable
earth materials in the proposed construction area should be removed to a minimum depth of
2 feet below the bottom of proposed conventional footings and recompacted to the
recommended density. The recommended minimum density is 90 percent of the maximum
as determined using Test Designation ASTM D 1557 -00. A designated representative of
this office should approve in writing the bottom of all over- excavations prior to any fill
placement. The excavated onsite soils may be used for compacted fill provided they are
cleaned of deleterious materials in accordance with the recommendations of Appendix D.
Estimated Shrinkage and Subsidence: A shrinkage factor of 5 to 10 percent may be utilized
as an aid in estimating volume change of the materials during grading. It should be noted
that these numbers are estimates only as shrinkage and subsidence are difficult to estimate
accurately without extensive in -situ testing.
STRUCTURALSETBACK
The bottom of all residence foundation elements should be of sufficient depth to meet the
requirements of the 2001 California Building Code. The lateral distance between the lowest
outside edge of the foundation element and the descending slope face must be a minimum
of one -third the total height of the slope or 40 feet, whichever is greater.
CONTINUOUS FOOTINGS
Bearing Capacity: The allowable bearing capacity of conventional strip footings having a
minimum width of 15 inches and - founded a minimum of 24 inches below lowest adjacent
grade in approved earth materials should not exceed 1,500 pounds per square foot. This
value may be increased by one -third for short duration loading as may result from wind or
seismic action. The bottoms of all footings_ should be placed upon a level surface.
Lateral Resistance: lateral loads may resisted by passive pressure forces and friction
acting on the bottom of footings. For footings cast against approved earth materials, the
Npk
Elan. Lot 2
May 6, 2005
Page 9
lateral bearing resistance may be computed using a value of 200 pounds per square foot,
which may be increased by 200 psf for each additional foot of depth, but should not exceed
3000 pounds per square foot. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used in computing
the frictional resistance.
It should be noted that these allowable earth material resistance parameters appropriately
reflect a factor -of -safety of I.S.
Footing Reinforcement: A minimum of two No. 5 bars should be placed at the top and
bottom of continuous footings in order to minimize tension cracks during seismic shaking
due to subsurface imperfections.
Footing Geometry: Exterior footings should be embedded a minimum of 24 inches below
lowest adjacent grade in competent earth materials.
Garage Openings Footing steel and geometry should be continuous across garage door
:,openings.
Settlement Total settlement due to structural loads is estimated not to exceed 1/4 inch for
footings supported on approved earth materials. Differential settlements due to structural
loads will be similar to total settlements and can be estimated to be approximately 1/4 inch
over a horizontal distance of 20 feet. It is expected that settlements, should they occur, will
do so essentially as the loads are applied. Potential settlement due to liquefaction under a
strong seismic event is estimated to be approximately 1/4 inch.
ISOLATED PAD FOOTINGS
Bearing Capacity: The allowable bearing capacity of soils supporting pad footings founded
a minimum of 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade in approved earth materials is 1,500
pounds per square foot, increased by 20 percent for each additional foot of depth and/or
width beyond l foot to a maximum of 4,500 pounds per square foot. This value may be
increased by one -third for short duration loading as may result from wind or seismic action.
The bottoms of all footings should be placed upon a level surface.
16�
Elan.. Lot 2
May 6, 2005
Page 10
Lateral Resistance: Lateral loads may be resisted by passive pressure forces and friction
acting on the bottom of footings. For footings cast against approved earth materials, the
lateral bearing resistance may be computed using a value of 200 pounds per square foot,
which may be increased by 200 psf for each additional foot of depth, but should not exceed
3000 pounds per square foot. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used in computing
the frictional resistance.
It should be noted that these allowable earth material resistance parameters appropriately
reflect a factor -of -safety of 1.5.
Pad Footing Reinforcement A minimum grid of No. 5 bars C& 16" on- center each -way
should be placed on chairs at the bottom of pad footings
Pad Footing Geometry Pad footings should be a minimum of 24 inches square and a
minimum of 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade in competent earth materials.
CAISSONS
Yerticat Searing Capacity and Settlement: The end bearing component of the allowable
bearing capacity of cast -in -place concrete caissons founded in approved soil is 1500 pounds
per square foot with an allowable increase of 20 percent for each additional foot of width
and /or depth beyond the minimum of 1 foot not to exceed 4500 pounds per square foot.
These values may be increased by one -third for short duration loading as may result from
wind or seismic action. The frictional component of the allowable bearing capacity is 250
pounds per square foot and may be taken only in competent terrace deposits below a depth
of 8 feet
Lateral Loads: Caissons cast against creep prone soils should be designed to resist a lateral
load equal to 1000 pounds per linear foot of creep prone materials. For design purposes
the creep zone should be computed to a depth of 4 feet below the slope surface.
Lateral Resistance: Lateral loads may be resisted by passive pressure forces and friction
acting on the bottom of caissons. For caissons cast .against approved undisturbed native
materials, the lateral bearing resistance may be computed. using a value of 200 pounds per
square foot per foot of depth below natural grade which may be increased by 200 pounds
'p`5
Elan. Lot 2
May 6, 2005
Page 11
per square foot for each additional foot of depth, but should not exceed 3000 pounds per
square foot. These values may be doubled for isolated conditions, defined as a minimum of
3 diameters between caissons. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used in computing
the frictional resistance. It should be noted that these resistant parameters appropriately
reflect a factor -of- safety of 1.5.
Caisson Geometry: Caissons should be a minimum of 24 -inch diameter to facilitate down -
hole inspection during the construction and should be provided with sufficient steel to meet
requirements as reinforced concrete members. The structural foundation engineer will
generate the anticipated depths of caissons based on structural load requirements. Actual
depths of caissons may be adjusted in the field after caisson excavations are examined by
the geotechnical consultant.
Construction. Considerations: No steel or concrete should be placed in caisson excavations
until the holes are observed and approved in writing by the geotechnical consultants. All
caisson excavations should be thoroughly cleaned of loose soil and debris. Should
substantial volumes of groundwater be encountered, approved special drilling and
installation strategies will be needed. Provisions should be made to temporarily case
excavations should caving soils be encountered during construction and for downhole
inspection if needed. Caissons should not be excavated within 6 feet (edge to edge) of
another caisson excavation unless that- caisson has been filled with concrete for more than
24 hours.
RETAINING WALLS
Lateral Loading on Retaining Walls: The lateral loads acting on cantilevered retaining walls
backfilled with approved non - expansive granular materials such as compacted sands or
gravel, having a width equal to or greater than half the retained height, can be computed
using an active pressure force equal to an equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pounds per square
foot per foot of depth for level backfill and 50 pounds per square foot per foot of depth for
2:1 (horizontal: vertical) sloping backfill. These values should be increased by 50 percent
for walls structurally restrained. The on -site soils are not suitable for backfill against the
wall.
90
Elan. Lot 2
May 6, 2005
Page 12
Surcharge loading: Lateral loads acting on retaining walls due to structural or vehicular
surcharges should be superimposed atop the earth pressures.
Lateral Resistance Design Values: Lateral loads may be resisted by passive pressure forces
and friction acting on the bottom of footings. For footings cast against approved soils, the
lateral bearing resistance may be computed using a value of 200 pounds per square foot,
which may be increased by 200 psf for each additional foot of depth, but should not exceed
3000 pounds per square foot. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used in computing
the frictional resistance. It should be noted that these resistant parameters appropriately
reflect a factor -of -safety of 1.5.
In addition to the soil loading, the retaining walls should be designed to support any
adjacent structural or vehicular surcharge loading that occurs within a 45- degree plane of the
base of the wall.
Vertical Bearing Design Valugs: The allowable bearing capacity of soils supporting
retaining wall footings founded atop approved earth materials is 1,500 pounds.per square
foot, increased by 20 percent for each additional foot of depth and /or width beyond 1 foot to
a maximum of 4,500 pounds per square foot. This value may be increased by one -third for
short duration loading as may result from wind or seismic action. The bottoms of all
footings should be placed upon a level surface.
Subdrains: A recommended drainage design for achieving control of-seepage forces behind
retaining walls is shown on Figure 8. This design consists of single sized gravel wrapped
with geotextile fabric separator or graded washed gravel placed in contact with undisturbed
native material. Collection is with a 4 -inch diameter perforated pipe embedded at the base of
the gravel tied to a 4 -inch diameter non - perforated outlet pipe which discharges at
convenient locations selected during foundation plan review. The pipe should be placed
such that the gradient is not less than 0.01 ft. /ft. The fabric wrapped gravel envelope should
be placed at a similar gradient. The drain should have a minimum of 2 cubic feet per foot of
gravel.
All subdrain pipes should be SDR -35 .or approved equivalent. Perforations may be either
bored holes not less than 3/16 -inch or larger than 112 -inch diameter or 1/8 -inch slots placed
I6'si
Elan. Lot 2
May 6, 2005
Page 13
on the bottom one -third of the pipe perimeter. If the pipe is to be bored, a minimum of 5
holes should be uniformly placed per foot of length. Slots should not exceed 2 inches in
length and total length of slots should not be less than 50 percent of the pipe length.
The geotextile filter fabric should be in accordance with Orange County Standard Plan 808.
The fabric pore spaces should be between 30 and 100 mesh openings. The fabric should be
placed such that a minimum lap of 6 inches exists at all splices. The fabric wrapped gravel
envelope should consist of 1/2 -inch minimum single size drain rock. All subdrain
installations should be inspected by this office or designated representative.
Waterproofing: All interior building retaining walls should be protected from moisture
penetration with a suitable waterproofing method specified by the project architect or a
qualified experienced professional:
Wall Backfill: Approved on -site soils may be used for the select backfill zone that is
adjacent to the wall. Approved self- compacting gravel backfill may be placed in quantity
behind the walls. All other materials should be placed in 6 to 8 inch loose lifts and
mechanically compacted to at least 90 percent of ASTM - 1557 -00 maximum density.
Notification of this office is required prior to all retaining wall backfill operations.
SEISMIC DESIGN
Seismic Design in accordance with the 2001 California Building Code, should use the
following criteria:
2001 CBC Table No.
Factor
16 -1
Seismic Zone Factor, Z
0.40
16 -J
Soil Profile Type
Sd
16 -Q
Seismic Coefficient, Ca
0.44 Na
16 -R
Seismic Coefficient, Cv
0.64 Nv
16 -5
Near - Source Factor, Na
1.3
16 -T
Near - Source Factor, Nv
1.6
16 -U
Seismic Source type
B
N6(o
Elan. Lot 2
May 6, 2005
Page 14
CONCRETE
Results of site specific Sulfate Ion Tests indicate a "Negligible" sulfate exposure
classification in accordance with Table 19 -A -4 of the 1997 UBC (2001 CBC). While no
requirements are imposed by the Uniform Building Code, the use of Type V Cement for all
concrete in contact with earth materials is considered prudent.
TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS
All temporary excavations should be in accordance with CalOSHA requirements and
applicable governing agency grading and building codes. Any excavation over 5 feet in
height should be constructed at a 1:1 (horizontal: vertical) slope, or shored. Any excavations
that extend below an imaginary 1:1 plane projected from the bottom of any existing
structure footing or utility should also be shored or slot cut.
The contractor is entirely responsible for the job site conditions during the entire course of
construction, including insuring lateral support to and protection of existing structures and
property.
DRIVEWAY AND HARDSCAPE SLABS
Subgrade soils beneath driveway and hardscape flatwork elements should be overexcavated
a minimum of 12 inches below the bottom of the element and recompacted to at least 90
percent of maximum density as determined by test designation ASTM 1557 -00. Exterior
slabs should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and be reinforced with a minimum of
#3 bars at 12 inches on- center each -way located at the center of the slab. The outer 8 -inch
edge of driveways and-patio slabs should be thickened to a minimum of 8 inches.
HARDSCAPE FOOTINGS
All hardscape elements supported on footings should.be founded entirely in approved soils.
Footings founded in soils may be designed for a vertical allowable bearing capacity of 1,500
pounds per square foot. These values may be increased by one -third for short duration
loading, as may result from wind or seismic action. Lateral loads may be resisted by a
passive pressure force equal to 150 pounds per square foot for footings founded in
approved soils. A friction coefficient of 0.25 may be used for soil. The bottoms of all
footings should be placed upon a level surface. All hardscape footings should be reinforced
with a minimum of four number 4 bars, two top and two bottom.
X61
V.
Elan. Lot 2
May 6, 2005
Page 15
SWIMMING POOL AND SPA
The structural design of swimming pool and spa shells should meet the requirements of
Section 1919 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. Care should be taken during excavation:
of the pool and/or spa to minimize disturbance of support soils. If a transition in support
conditions is exposed during excavation, then the entire base of the support soils should be
overexcavated and recompacted a minimum of 2 feet below the bottom of the proposed
shell. Observations and /or tests should be performed by the geotechnical consultants to
verify that exposed soil conditions are consistent with design assumptions.
Bearing Capacity The allowable bearing capacity of approved soils supporting pool and spa
shells is 1,500 pounds per square foot, increased by 20 percent for each additional foot of
depth beyond 1 foot to a maximum of 4,500 pounds per square foot.
SeItlement: Total settlement due to structural loads is estimated not to exceed 1/4 inch.
Differential settlements can be estimated to be approximately 1/4 inch over a horizontal
distance of 20 feet. It is expected that settlements, should they occur, will do so essentially
as the loads are applied.
Lateral loads: Pool walls should be designed to withstand lateral soil loads equal to an
equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pounds per square foot per foot of depth for walls gunited or
cast against excavations in existing soils. These values should be increased by 50 percent
for walls structurally restrained. In addition to the soil loading, the pool or spa walls should
be designed to support any adjacent structural surcharge loading that occurs within a 45-
degree plane of the base of the wall.
Lateral resistance: Lateral loads may be resisted by passive pressure forces and friction
acting on the bottom of the pool or spa. For pools cast against approved soils, the lateral
bearing resistance may be computed using a value of 200 pounds per square foot, which
may be increased by 200 psf for each additional foot of depth, but should not exceed 3000
pounds per square foot. Lateral resistance should not be taken for any soils subject to slope
creep (within 4 feet of slope surface). A coefficient of friction of 0.25 may be used in
computing the frictional resistance. It should be noted that these resistant parameters
appropriately reflect a factor -of- safety of 1.5.
Xb%
Elan. Lot 2
May 6, 2005
Page 16
Setback : The swimming pool and /or spa should be founded in competent earth materials
such that a minimum horizontal distance between the outer lowermost portion of the pool
foundation and the descending slope face is at least one -sixth the height of the slope or 20
feet, whichever is less. Caisson support may be needed for the proposed pool.
LANDSCAPING
Landscaping and irrigation should implemented in a manner that mitigates the impact on
foundation and hardscape elements and the earth materials supporting these elements.
Trees or bushes that develop large root systems or that require significant water should be
avoided near foundations and hardscape flatwork. Variations in moisture content can
severely impact the characteristics and strength of earth materials. Planter areas adjacent to
structures should be designed such that foundation support soils are protected from
saturation. Drainage patterns approved for the project should be maintained throughout the
life of the project. Slopes and graded areas should be planted as soon as is practical with
suitable ground cover and plants as recommended by an experienced landscape design
professional and/or is in accordance with the governing jurisdictional agency.
UTILITY TRENCHES
Utility trenches should be backfilled with clean sand, gravel, or approved soils. The soil
materials should be compacted to a density at least equal to 90 percent of the maximum
density as determined by test designation ASTM 1557 -00. Contractors should keep
detailed records/map of the location and depths of all underground utility lines installed.
Notification of this office is required prior to any utility line backfill operations.
DRAINAGE RUNOFF
Water should not be permitted to pond adjacent to the structure. All runoff water should
drain positively (solid pipe) to the street or alley.
ROOF DRAINAGE
The finished structure should be equipped with eaves, troughs and downspouts that collect
roof runoff and conduct it to pipes or other non - erosive drainage devices through which it
can be directed to the street or alley.
I09
Elan. Lot 2
May 6, 2005
Page 17
REVIEW
The undersigned should review and approve in writing the final project grading and
foundation plans to confirm compliance with the geotechnical recommendations.
FIELD INSPECTIONS
Observations and tests should be made during construction to confirm the project
geotechnical recommendations are properly implemented. These inspections should occur:
following excavations for all overexcavation bottoms prior to placement of fill, during any
fill placement and compaction, following retaining wall subdrain installation, during
retaining wall backfill operations, during all utility trench backfill placement and compaction,
during caisson excavations, following footing excavations prior to steel placement, and
following slab subgrade preparation. The above inspections and testing conducted during
construction; as well as, attending pre-grade meetings or responses to agency review items
are beyond the scope and budget of this investigation and will be billed on a time and
t materials basis in accordance with our most recent Fee Schedule. Timely notification (48
hours) of the geotechnical phases of construction is the responsibility of the client or their
representative.
The above construction inspections do not supersede or replace any normally required
certified independent inspections or agency inspections.
PRE - CONSTRUCTION MEETING
A pre - construction conference should be held with representatives of the owner, contractor,
architect, civil engineer, soil engineer, geologist and building official representative prior to
commencement of grading to clarify- any questions relating to' the intent of these
recommendations and to coordinate the necessary construction inspections.
MAINTANENCE AND FUTRE INPROVEMENTS
Throughout the life of the project, regular site maintenance should be conducted to insure
that drainage components are clean of obstructions and that they properly control surface
waters. Any alteration of drainage patterns or landscape features may result in adverse
conditions that can affect the performance of the proposed development. Landscaping
installations should be maintained in a manner that does not allow water to pond near sloped
Elan. Lot 2
May 6, 2005
Page 18
areas or in areas adjacent to structures, and that generally protects the surface of slopes from
erosional damage. Site and slope maintenance guidelines are attached in Appendix F.
The recommendations of this report are specific to the current scope of the project as
discussed herein. Any future proposed improvements or changes to site conditions would
require additional geotechnical evaluation and possibly additional investigation.
CLOSURE
This investigation was conducted in accordance with generally. accepted practice in the
geotechnical field, as currently practiced in this or similar localities. Proper implementation
of the recommendations of this report should provide suitable performance for the lifetime
of the project. No expressed or implied warranty is made regarding the use of the contents
of this report. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on
surface and subsurface conditions encountered and the present state of geotechnical
knowledge. The results of and conclusions drawn from observations made, tests conducted
and information obtained for this report, are believed to be representative of the site
conditions impacting the proposed project. Subsurface conditions may vary between
observation points. Should conditions be revealed that are at variance with the findings of
this report, such conditions will need to be evaluated by the geotechnical consultants with
supplemental recommendations possibly resulting. As site geotechnical conditions may
alter with time, the recommendations presented in this report are considered valid for a
period of one year from the report date.
This report is intended for the specific currently proposed development by our client and is
to be used only as necessary to obtain permits and for the design and construction of said
development. Changes in the proposed land use or development may require supplemental
investigations or recommendations. This report is intended for the sole use of our client in
conjunction with the undersigned and may not be assigned or transferred, or any portion
thereof be assigned or transferred, to a third party without written permission and consent
from this office. Any independent use of this report, in any form, is not valid unless
specific, written verification of the applicability of the recommendations is obtained from
this office.
NO
Elan. Lot 2
May 6, 2005
Page 19
Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, please call.
Respectfully Submitted,
David A. Purkis
Civil Engineer (RCE 428 10)
Expires 3 -31 -06
Distribution:
Addressee (5)
Ian 5. Kennedy
Engineering Geologist (CEG 1057)
Expires 1 -31 -06
1057
���FEFiED
1
llx
EXHIBIT 7
Hydrology /Hydraulic Survey
��3
Local Hydrology/ Hydraulic Report March 2006
Hydrology /Hydualic Report
For:
The Mirsafavi Residence
Cliff Drive
Newport Beach, CA
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005 -206
Prepared by:
GILBERT ENGINEERING & ASSOCIATES. INC.
2 Merriweather Place
Ladera Ranch, California 92694
(9491 218 -8075
Project Number.
187.000
Supervising Engineer:
R. William Gilbert, P.E.
RCE No. 53251
Date Prepared:
March 2006
Mirsafavi Residence Newport Heath, CA
Xt5
Local Hydrology/ Hydraulic Report March 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ..................................... ............................... 1
GeographicSetting .................................. ............................... l
Purpose of This Report .............................. ............................... l
References.................................................. ..............................1
Project Site Location Map ........................ ..............................2
11. Existing Topographic & Hydrologic Conditions ...... 3
Existing Topography
3
Existing Drainage Pattern ......................... ..............................3
Existing Storm Drain Facilities .................... ..............................3
Existing Conditions ..................................... ..............................3
111. Proposed Storm Drain Facilities .... ..............................4
IV. Hydrology Study (Local Storm Drains) ............................ 4
Storm Frequency ........................................ ..............................4
Methodology.............................................. ..............................4
V. Local Area Drain Pipe Sizing ......... ............................... 4
VI.Design Criteria ....................................... ..............................4
Excerpts from Orange County Design Manual
V11. Results & Conclusions ..................... ............................... 7
VIII. Appendices ........................................ ..............................8
Appendix 1- Figure 4 -5, Runoff /Acre for Graphic Method
Appendix 2- Local Area Drain Pipe Size Calculations
Appendix 3- Local Hydrology Map (In Pocket)
Mirsafavi Residence Newport Beach, CA
Local Hydrology/ Hydraulic Report
1. Introduction
Geographic Setting
The Study area consists of 2 private residential lots. The northern lot, Lot
1 is 0.34 acres± and the southern lot, Lot 2 is 0.42 acres±. The lots are
located south of Cliff Drive, east of Santa Ana Ave. and north of Avon
Street. East of the two lots is an existing private residence.
Purpose of This Report
The purpose of this report is to accomplish the following objectives:
1. To determine the storm water discharges generated within local
drainage areas within the project.
2. To support the design of "local" storm drains, consisting of laterals
and catch basins, as submitted with this report.
3. To demonstrate that the "storm water' and 'flood" protection goals
as outlined in Addendum No. 1 to the O.C. P.F. &R.D. Design
Manual have been met.
References
• O.C. P.F. &R.D. Hydrology Manual
• O.C. P.F. &R.D. Design Manual
Mirsafavi Residence Newport Beach, CA
1
Local Hydrology/ Hydraulic Report
Project Site Location Map
WROOl®
Thomas Brothers, 2001
Mirsafavi Residence Newport Beach, CA \� b
�
G�zuPaOt.-
cPe"
IDI
Sie
x
100
Az
r
'®20W N$NYM
Thomas Brothers, 2001
Mirsafavi Residence Newport Beach, CA \� b
Local Hydrology/ Hydraulic Report
11. Existing Topographic & Hydrologic Conditions
Existing Topography
The site has an existing house on the northern end of the lot which will
be tom down. Behind the house is a large natural slope which
continues down to Avon St.
Existing Drainage Pattern
The site drainage presently sheet flows across the property, to the
south, and down the hill where it makes its way into a small rectangular
toe of slope drain which daylights into Avon Street, just east of the
parcel. On the northern end of the site a small portion of drainage
from the existing front yard, drains into Cliff Drive and travels down
Santa Ana Ave.
Existing Storm Drain Facilities
All onsite drainage sheet flows around the existing house and down
the hill behind it with the exception of the front yard area which flows
into Cliff Drive.
Existing Conditions
Currently there ore no signs of erosion on the site.
Ill. Proposed Storm Drain Facilities
The front yard of LOT 1 will be collect via area drains and will outlet on
the northwest side of the lot via curb outlet into Santa Ana Ave using
the City Standard 184-L. Bottomless trench drains will also be
incorporated at the driveways.
The backyard and easterly side yard will be collected in a v-d3ch and
will travel down the eastern property line through LOT 2 In a drainage
easement. Prior to crossing Lot 2 there will be a BMP water filter device
that will clean the storm water before sending it into Lot 2.
All of Lot 2 will also be collected by area drains and drain into the
same v -ditch on the eastern side of the property. The southern
property line will also have a v -ditch which will connect with the
eastern v- ditch. At the bottom of the hill the two v- ditches confluence
and at this point another BMP water filter device will be placed to
clean the storm water at the south eastern comer of the property. The
Mirsafavi Residehoe Newport Beach, CA `��
Local Hydrology/ Hydraulic Report
I. Maximum W.S. in CB's for design conditions shall be 0.5' below inlet
(FL.) elevation.
J. Once water is picked up in a storm drain, it should remain in the
system.
K. Pipe size may not be decreased downstream without the City's
approval.
L. Branching of flow is not allowed.
M. Provide hydraulic and energy grade line calculations and plot of
hydraulic grade line on plans with table of appropriate hydraulic
data.
N. The ratio of normal velocity to critical velocity should be less than
0.9 or greater than 1.2.
O. All pipes and conduits laid parallel to the roadway shall be placed
at least 30" below the roadway surface. However, when pipe
depth is in excess of 10' (measured from top of pipe to ground
surface), the City's approval is required prior to the initial design of
the system.
P. Junction structures should be designed according to the O.C.
P.F.&R.D. "Design Manual" or utilize City of Newport Beach
Standard Plans.
Q. Storm Drain Easement width shall be determined in the following
manner:
1. D = 36" or smaller - Distance from top of pipe to ground level
times 1.5 + diameter of pipe +2.0' (When cover exceeds 10', use
2 below.)
2. D = 39" or greater - a. Distance from bottom of pipe to ground
level times 2.0 + diameter of pipe + 2.0'.
In any case, the width of easement shall not be less than 10.0' in
width.
R. Storm drain shall be located at the center line of the easement.
S. Easement shall be exclusively for storm drain purposes.
T. Storm drain with high fills:
1. Flit Greater than 40 Feet
Storm drains which are installed with cover greater than 40 feet
shall have a diameter a minimum of 12 inches larger than that
required for hydraulic adequacy and shall be constructed using
pre - stressed concrete pipe'.
Newport Beach, CA , 'A®
Local Hydrology/ Hydraulic Report
Storm drains which are installed with cover between 30 and 40
feet shall have a diameter a minimum of 12 inches larger than
that required for hydraulic adequacy and shall be constructed
using pre - stressed concrete pipe if the subgrade of the pipe is in
a fill area.* If subgrade is in native soil, reinforced concrete pipe
may be used.
3. Fill Between 20 and 30 Feet
Storm drains which are installed with cover between 20 and 30
feet shall be constructed using reinforced concrete pipe. A
pipe diameter greater than that required for hydraulic
adequacy may be required if, in the opinion of the City
Engineer's staff, the particular conditions involved warrant the
larger size.
4. Fill Less Than 20 Feet
Normal criteria for storm drain design shall be followed.
. Exceptions may be made for a roadway crossing of a natural
watercourse which will remain undisturbed with future
development.
VII. Results and Conclusions
This report's purpose was to size the proposed storm drain system
only. The drainage patterns or direction of flow did not change
from the existing to the proposed.
Based on our calculations, it is our opinion that the proposed storm
drain system designed to a Q10 Storm Frequency is adequate to
transport the drainage off site and that for a Q 10 storm frequency
there should be no damage to the proposed structures.
MkWavi Residence Newport Beach, CA la \
Local Hydrology/ Hydraulic Report
VIII. Appendices
Appendix 1 - Figure 45, Runoff /Acre for Graphic Method
Appendix 2 - Area Drain Pipe Size Calculations
Appendix 3 - Local Hydrology Map
Mirsafavi Residence Newport Beach, CA
g �� $ § �§ 2$ 2 §2
4-21
1C
77
-C
44-
4-L
lm
#
I
-PT
H
0! 1 �11'
—
f f f
1 1z
J
ILL
t
Xi 1,
.. . .....
it
I
it
-4-
ITTI
4-�
| ; |{
T
4-S
i
1
.4—
UJL
44-
C>
Ob
to to
0
1-ul
US Im. -,A ■ ■
g �� $ § �§ 2$ 2 §2
4-21
iq
2 CrLo
.
0
tm
Les
,l
10
I
FIGURE 4-5
Runoft/Acre for Graphic Method
I
1C
411
is C4
-C
iq
2 CrLo
.
0
tm
Les
,l
10
I
FIGURE 4-5
Runoft/Acre for Graphic Method
I
Table
Rating Table for Circular Channel
Project Description
Project Fk
c lfmovlrrdrsafav fm2
Worksheet
Masafavi Residence Hydrauks
Flow Element
Circular Channel
Metfiod
Manrfts Formula
Solve For
DbdmW
Constant Data
Mamukhgs CoefBdent 0.010
Depth 0.33 R
Diameter 0.33 ft
Rating Table
Chcrarel
Slope
Discharge
ifbW
(fta/s)
0.010000
024
0.020000
0.34
0.030000
0.42
0.040000
0.48
0.050000
0.54
0.060000
0.59
0.070000
0.64
0.060000
0.68
0.090000
0.72
0.100000
0.76
Feb 10, 2006
Narhe
123636
Hassled M*mft, lno. 37 arsolmMo Road Wa wWry, CT 0W0S CMM 76Zr16e6
Fb1A v410
Page 1 of 1
�a
,Y
Table
Rang Table for Triangular Channel
Profect Description
5.72
Project File
cA*wMmlrsafav f n2
Worksheet
Mirs%W V4)rmh Hydraulm
Flow Element
Tdm War Charnel
Method
Mam*Ws FormWe
Solve For
lKscharge
Constant Data
Maw Coefficient 0.013
Depth 1.00 It
Left Side Slope 1.00 H: V
FdgK Side Slope 1.00 H: V
Rating Table
Charnel
Slope Discharge
(Im- (ft m)
0.010000
5.72
0.020000
8.08
0.030000
5190
0.040000
11.43
0.050000
12.78
0.060000
14.00
0.070000
15.12
0.080000
16.16
0.090000
17.15
0.100000
18.07
Feb 1(.2x18 Nme FloAAaster WO
11 ZI A? Waealad MWwc a. Mc. W &Wkskle p. Yoed W4wbUVy. CT 06706 (tea) 7Qi IGW Page i of i
Ia5
Existing Rectangular Channel
Worksheet for Rectangular Chanted
Project Description
Project Fde
c-.V wrlmeaafev.fm2
Worksheet
Masaf M Residence Hydreuks 2
Flow Bement
RedargilarCharmel - f isriNci
Method
Mamftn sFormtda
Solve For
Dischaw
Input Data
Mannkrgs CoeflWent
0.013
Channel Slope
0.010000 ft/ft
Depth
0.50 ft
Bottom WKhh
1.00 ft
Results
Disdwp
227
fF/s
Flow Area
0.50
fta
Wetted Perimeter
2.00
ft
Top Width
1.00
ft
CnTmW Depth
0.54
ft
Critical Slope
0.008044 fvft
Vetodly
4.54
Me
Velocity Head
0.32
ft
Speditc Energy
0.82
ft
Froude Nwnber
1.13
Flow is srwercrikel.
Feb 10. 2006 more Fbwwhksw AM
121240 Hasa &d M**ft. ftm 37 BMOIMft Road Waterbury. CT 08709 (208) T5 MOM Page 1 of 1
l jt lfr
MIRSAFAVI RESIDENCE PROPOSED RECTANGULAR
Worksheet for Rectangular Channel
Worlwheet MIR&AFAVI RESIDENCE PROPOSED RECTANGULAR
Flow Element ReclanguFar ChMel
Metsod Menrk& Formula
input Date
4.00
Mam*W CoeffideO
0.013
Charmw Slope
0.010000 M
DeM
1.00 it
Bottom Width
2.00 ft
Results
Disdmp 14.40 iris
Flow Area 2.00 ft?
Wetted Perimeter
4.00
ft
TOP Wirth
2.00
It
Critical Depth
1.17
It
CMW Slope
0.006571 ftfft
Velocity
720
fus
Velocity Head
0.81
It
Specific Energy
1.81
ft
Froude Number
127
Flow is �.
Feb 1Q MOO Now flower v0c
1390:3e Maeated IYleerods, Ma 3r 9Mc% Me Reed Vkbobry, cr Osroa tM 7657886 Page 1 of 1
al
C4
cc
C.4
4.
Af I
AA
901LOIE w
z
Mi
OEM
Jo
Lh
o 86
N 0 IL 3!
11 u
LL.
'Joe 0
A
U
z
lo,
:3
iii UA cz z
CL ie
+
y
EXHIBIT 8
Topographic Survey
\a°\
9Z
b
.1.3
lids
r
9,m.
N
i
wr.ms �
is
lb`
gill
is
lb`
EXHIBIT 9
Letters of Opposition
�3a
Murillo, Jaime
From: Wood, Sharon
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 10:19 AM
To: Muriilo, Jaime
Subject: FW: PA2005 -158 2961 Cliff Drive
From: Don Krotee [mailto:dkrotee @krotee.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 4:46 PM
To: Wood, Sharon
Cc: Barry Eaton; rcoldren @hkclaw.com; jonv3 @aol.com;
Chocek; DonaldNyre @webtv.net; lydia007 @adelphia.net;
Subject: PA2005 -158 2961 Cliff Drive
Sharon/ Please direct this to Jamie:
We are aware that the request to:
Page 1 of 1
LGeorgeHut @aol.com; Corkizz @aol.coni; LKA; Chris
strataland @earthlink.net, emcdaniel @fullertoncb.com
AMEND THE THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF A PROPERTY
LOCATED WITHIN STATISTICAL AREA H -1 (WHICH CURRENTLY PROHIBITS SUBDIVISIONS). IN ADDITION, A
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF ONE SINGLE -
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT INTO TWO SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS
Our Neighborhood wants to lodge the strongest objection to this level of change in the General
Plan. At the core of the request is the eradication of residential subdivision which would grade
visible hillside. This original prohibition of subdivision of all the hillside lots of this
type was placed on the land by Mayor Evelyn Hart after the approval of a similar subdivision
some years ago. The hope was that the destruction of these visible land forms would never
again occur.
It was her hope and the neighborhood's hope that such an eradication of these basic land use
prohibitions would never be relinquished. As the staff you are the first line of defense of the
new General Plan. Please recommend to the PC that this request not be approved.
Don Krotee
Donald Krotee Partnership, Inc.
515 North Main Street, Suite 200
Santa Ana, CA 92701 -4619
Voice: 714/547 -7621
Fax: 714/647 -0193
dkrWee @krotee.com
02/27/2007
TRANSMITTAL
sent email and faxed 3 -23-06
NEWPORT HEIGHTS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION
PO Box 3242
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92659 -0888
Iimaii: dkrotee@juotee.com
Date: March 23, 2006August 12, 2003
Subject: 2961 CIiDrive
To: City Clerk for Planning Commission
Newport Beach City Council
From: Don Krotee ALA, President Newport Heights Improvement Association
Pages: 1, to follow
SUMMARY FINDINGS:
The Newport Heights Improvement Association does not support the amendment and the eradication
of the referenced portion of the existing General Plan whose amendment would allow for the further
development of this property.
The most substantial intellectual planning concern is that the proposal asks the City to modify the
General Plan that expressly prohibits division of lots or sub - divisions. This law was placed on this
area, perhaps this specific lot, by civic minded administrators to keep densities and housing from
accumulating in these zones. The General Plan should not be amended because the development of
these hillsides represents a level and intensity/ development that exceed the vision of many residents.
When the bulk of residents have attended City Visioning seminars for the new General Plan Update
and made a goal to preserve the visual densities and character of existing neighborhoods, and retain
what many believe to be the beach community that they know and love, the decision by local
government to repeal zoning or to alter a general plans that allow further development, whose current
laws expressly forbids subdivision, is extremely troubling.
QV=me and SeniigsWannU. cal Sellinp\Terpam Imemet ReslOLKWMHR 2951�CO ��
Page 2
2961 CliDrive
We realize fully that this development will achieve lots sizes that are significantly greater than those in
other parts of our neighborhood however, the hillsides, the people's views across and onto the
hillsides, is a distinguishing characteristic in this neighborhood. This development would obliterate
the slope and replace this open hillside forever. And, this can only happen if the Planning
Commission revises recommends our General Plan allow this sub - division where it is currently
forbidden by the existing General Plan.
We suspect their might be a counter argument of 'property rights' and'free enterprise', however the
residents of our Neighborhood Association would like to see the Planning Commission and City
Council hold the line on the integrity of this General Plan provision. We ask the City not to re -write
laws on the books that prevent subdivision so speculation and development can take residents further
from their vision. I also expect the project proponents to make the argument that, it's ok for you to
change the law in this case because the lot is so unique and you are able to see the second home. The
argument of the lot being unique while true, may be precisely why it shouldn't have additional
housing. This present unobstructed hillside is provided by the makers of the present general plan and
is enjoyed by many residents.
S(]me F jxl Stegemel Pft AM" Did FMb]tdw 135
March 21, 2006
Mr. Michael Toerge
Chairman
Newport Beach Planning Commission
C/o Ms. Patricia Temple
Olanning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
FILE COPY
�cbscu 0
r,LANNENQ E)EFAB7 E'4 b
CITY OF ngF'V00PT RFACP
MAR 2 2 2006
7 819110 X11;12111213141516
RE: 2961 Cliff Drive General Plan Amendment No.2005 -003, Parcel Map
No. NP2005 -035 (PA2005 -158)
(Scheduled hearing 3/23/06)
This application for an amendment to the General Plan should be denied due to the
following reasons;
• The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the goals and objectives
expressed by the residents of Newport Beach.
• It is not in the general public's interest or welfare and only in the interest of
the new property owner who is only interested in turning a profit at the
expense of the neighborhood.
• It would create a dangerous precedent for the neighborhood and would be
extremely damaging to its existing character by the proposed construction of
two homes 3 to 4 times larger than the average homes in the neighborhood.
• The property is in the California Coastal Zone and is subject to the
California Coastal Act and the Newport Beach LUP and lies within the
coastal bluff zone between Dover Drive and Semeniuk Slough in West
Newport along Coast Highway.
• The applicant's own geological report for the proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2
states the following;
1. "the subject site is situated on the coastal terrace (bluff) at roughly 70
feet above sea level ".
2. "Surficial earth materials consisting of artificial fill and undifferentiated
residual soils extend approximately 15 feet below the existing pad on the
property." "...these soils are not suitable for foundation support".
"...the base of the slope near Pacific Coast Highway is depicted as a zone
of potential liquefaction."
4. "The non - cohesive soils that comprise the lower slopes may experience
localized surficial instability."
• The area along Santa Ana Ave and the bluffs along Cliff Dr have a history of
instability to the extent that the City of Newport Beach had to pump tons of
concrete under Santa Ana Ave. to help stabilize it.
• The bluffs along Coast Highway are considered significant scenic and
environmental resources and are to be protected.
• New development is to be sited based on stability and public views from
roads and highways and passengers on boats in the harbor and at sea.
• Development is prohibited on bluff faces except for public improvements,
public access, protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety.
• All new bluff -top located on a bluff not subject to marine erosion is required
to be set back from the bluff edge in accordance with the predominate line of
existing development in the subject area.
• The planning department is recommending a project that violates many areas
of the Newport Beach LUP at a time when the City of Newport Beach is in
the certification process to manage the Coastal Zone within Newport Beach.
I strongly urge the Planning Commission to support the goals and objectives
expressed by the majority of Newport Beach residents, especially the
neighborhood surrounding 2961 Cliff, and deny this application and any
subsequent application(s) that pursue amendments to the General Plan or
development on Newport's open space and Coastal Bluffs.
Respectfully,
'4al�
Mr. and Mrs. Christopher R. Chocek
233 Santa Ana Ave.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
cc: Anne Blemker, California Coastal Commission
Newport Beach City Council
3I
,. 1
+r HE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
FRANK J. COUGHLIN
BEVERLY A. BLAis
LESLIE A. PATKO
March 22, 2006
VIA PERSONAL DELIVERY
Mr. Michael Toerge, Chairman
Newport Beach Planning Commission
C/o Ms. Patricia Temple
Planning Director
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
FILE WH
DANIEL A. CONFORTI
CAITLYN M. HOBBS
rLANNING DEPA!1)TMEV i
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MAR 2 2 2006
A 8�911011111211j2131415�6
RE., 2961 Cliff Drive General Plan Amendment No.2005 -003, Parcel Map No.
NP2005 -035 (PA2005 -158) (Scheduled for hearing on 3123106)
Dear Mr. Toerge and Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission:
My office represents a group of homeowners who reside on Cliff Drive, Santa Ana
Avenue and neighboring streets who wish to contest the above - referenced proposed
General Plan Amendment. As set forth in the Case Log & Pending Applications for City
Council, Planning Commission, & Modifications Committee, dated March 10, 2006, the
application pertains to 2961 Cliff Drive and is described as follows:
Request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to allow the
subdivision of a property located within Statistical Area H -1 (which
currently prohibits subdivisions). In addition, a Tentative Parcel Map
application has been submitted to allow the subdivision of one single -
family residential lot into two single - family residential lots. Status: PC
hearing tentatively scheduled 03/23/06.
Summary
The application for the amendment to the General Plan should be denied for a number of
reasons: (1) The applicant is a Beverly Hills developer who wishes to subdivide a lot in a
Statistical Zone where the subdivision of single residence lots is prohibited; (2) The
application is not in the best interest or general welfare of the community; (3) The
neighbors are unwilling to agree to the amendment; (4) The interest of the applicant is
inconsistent with the interests of the existing homeowners; (5) There is no public
necessity to support the proposed amendment; (6) The proposed amendment is
inconsistent with the General Plan; (7) The proposed development would be detrimental
to the general welfare of the neighborhood; (8) The proposed development is in violation
600 WEST SANTA ANA BLVD., SUITE 202
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 /
TELEPHONE: (714) 835 -5681 FACSIMILE: (714) 835 -6176 \�pj
Mr. Michael Toerge, Chairman
Newport Beach Planning Commission
March 22, 2006
Page 2
of the Coastal Act and the Newport Beach LUP as the subject lot, and those contiguous to
it fall within the definition of a coastal bluff; (9) The Planning Department's conclusion
that the lot is not a coastal bluff is premature and is subject to review by the California
Coastal Commission; and (10) The project does not qualify for a Categorical Exemption
pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA as it involves the replacement of one small
structure with two structures almost five times its size.
Introduction
The subject property is located in Newport Heights. It is on the cliff side of the bluff
overlooking Newport Bay and Pacific Coast Highway and is bordered by Santa Ana
Avenue, Cliff Drive and Avon Street. The lot transverses Cliff Drive and slopes down
from Cliff Drive, along Santa Ana Avenue to Avon Street. The existing home on the
subject property, built in 1947, is on the top of the bluff and fronts Cliff Drive. The
contiguous properties also have homes built on the top of the bluff, with undeveloped
property that slopes down to Avon Street. The lot and surrounding neighborhood are
zoned for single - family residences and are within a Statistical Area that prohibits the
subdivision of single residence lots.
The Proposed Project
Ramban LLC acquired the property in 2004, the same year it was formed as a limited
liability corporation. The sole principal of Ramban is Mehran Forouzn. In October 2005,
Raniban transferred ownership of the lot to Mr. Forouzan, who is a Beverly Hills real
estate.broker /investor, who has told the owners of the neighboring properties he has no
intention of residing on the property and has acquired it solely as an investment, with the
intent of subdividing it and building two spec homes. The plans call for a 9,500 square
foot home to be built fronting Cliff Drive and a second 8,800 square foot home to be built
on the slope of the bluff, fronting on Santa Ana Avenue.
The General Plan Should Not Be Amended To Permit the Proposed Project.
The Case Log and Public Notice provide the property is located within Statistical Area
H -1, whereas the report of the Planning Department to the Planning Commission
indicates the property is located within Statistical Area H -2. The Case Log, Public Notice
and Report are consistent to the extent they allprovide the property is in a Statistical Area
in which the General Plan prohibits subdivision of single residential lots.
As the Commission is well aware, California requires each local planning agency to
prepare, and the legislative body of each city to adopt, a comprehensive, long term
General Plan for the physical development of the city. (Government Code §65300.)
Government Code §65351 requires that the citizens of a city have the opportunity to
participate in the development of the General Plan. Accordingly, the visions for the
growth and land management of the people living in Newport Beach are reflected in its
General Plan.
11),
Mr. Michael Toerge, Chairman
Newport Beach Planning Commission
March 22, 2006
Page 3
As set forth in the Case Log, Forouzan's architects have applied to amend the land use
element of the General Plan of Newport Beach to allow the subdivision of the lot. As the
lot is located within Statistical Area H -1 or H -2, subdivision of the single - family
residential lot is prohibited. Pursuant to Government Code §65358, the General Plan can
only be amended if the amendment is in the public interest. Newport Beach Municipal
Code §20.94.010 provides the General Plan can only be amended out of public necessity
and if required by the eeneral welfare. Further, page 22 of the Land Use Element of the
General Plan provides, "some area descriptions set forth more stringent minimum
subdivision requirements from which exceptions may not be granted, unless the
subdivision does not result in the creation of additional lots.... In areas with no
subdivision lot standard, no subdivision will be allowed which results in additional
dwelling units." Regarding the proposed amendment, there is no public necessity and the
proposed amendment is not in the general welfare or public interest, but rather is in the
sole interest of the new property owner who is only interested in turning a profit at the
expense of the neighborhood. To permit one property owner to subdivide the lot and
build two mansion -sized homes on the otherwise single - family R -I lot would create a
dangerous precedent for the neighborhood and would be extremely damaging to its
existing character of the neighborhood and to the other homeowners, most of whom have
lived in the neighborhood for over twenty years.
The proposed amendment is analogous to spot zoning, wherein a section of an existing
neighborhood is singled out and placed in a different zone from that of neighboring
property. Spot zoning is generally prohibited and is rarely justified based on the adverse
effect it has on the current uses of neighboring properties and the ramifications to their
value. In this regard, zoning variances are granted only in special circumstances
applicable to the specific property and are to be granted only in circumstances necessary
to provide the applicant with the same privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the
vicinity and under the identical zoning classification. (Government Code §65906.) A
variance may not be used to grant a special privilege to a landowner. (Orinda Assn. v.
Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 Ca1.App.3d 1145.) Newport Beach Municipal Code
20.93.030 allows zoning variances only if they are compatible with existing development
in the neighborhood and only if they do not adversely affect the health or safety of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be
detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the
neighborhood.
It is submitted the standard for amending the General Plan is more strictly construed than
that for obtaining a zoning variance, and that based on the standards for zoning variances
promulgated by state and local law, a variance for this property would be nothing more
than the granting of a "special privilege, which is prohibited. At the time the new owner
purchased the lot he was on notice of the prohibition against subdivision and the R -1
zoning under the General Plan. Further, whether the standard is "in the public interest" or
"the general welfare," as expressed by the neighboring homeowners, they are vehemently
�0
Mr. Michael Toerge, Chairman
Newport Beach Planning Commission
March 22, 2006
Page 4
opposed to the subdivision of the lot and believe it would be detrimental to the general
welfare of the neighborhood.
The Proposed Amendment Of The General Plan Is Inconsistent With The General Plan.
The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the Statement of Objectives in the January
2006 Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Study, which as stated at page 2, was
developed through an extensive public outreach and participation process. Through this
process the citizens of Newport Beach determined there is a great interest in preserving
and enhancing Newport Beach's character as "a beautiful, unique residential community"
and "protecting property values by conserving established neighborhoods." It was further
determined there is a great interest in a conservative growth strategy, including land use
changes only to areas where residents have expressed willingness. As indicated in the
attached petition, the majority of the neighboring homeowners to the subject property are
not willing to allow the proposed land use change. Further, page 10 of the January 2006
Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR Study states, "for most of the City, the updated
General Plan conserves the existing pattern of uses and intensity of development, and
establishes policies for protection and long -term maintenance of established
neighborhoods." Page 16 of the Study provides the Land Use Element embodies General
Plan policies that encourage maintenance and enhancement of Newport Beach's
residential neighborhoods, including the maintenance of physical and visual continuity
and a sense of complete and identifiable neighborhoods.!
The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the goals and objectives expressed by
Newport Beach residents. Between 2001 and 2003, the City facilitated a community
visioning process to elicit the values, aspirations and ideas of the Newport Beach
Community. The findings in the report, entitled Community Directions for the Future: A
Summary of the General Plan Update Visioning Process, were compiled for use as a .
framework for the General Plan Update and to guide future planning efforts. The findings
clearly indicate a concern by the residents of Newport Beach about house size and its
effects on community character. As stated in the Newport Beach Larger Homes
community Character Discussion Paper, EIP Associates, December 8, 2004, 65% of
residents who responded to EIP Associates questionnaire indicated a desire for the City to
implement restrictions on the construction of larger homes. Not only does the project
' The recently published newsletter, Preserving Newport, Protecting our Quality of Life, provides that since
its inception, the General Plan Advisory Committee has met with hundreds of people, held more than 50
public meetings and engaged in many one-on -one discussions and listening sessions." It. further states that
the "group is made up of homeowners, environmentalists, parents, retirees, and neighborhood leaders. It is
a cross - section of the city's population — tasked with developing recommendations for how to preserve and
protect Newport Beach's unique way of life.... How can the people of Newport Beach enjoy the
conveniences of modern -day living while still preserving the unique small-town character that originally
attracted us to live here? This has been the question confronted by the three dozen community leaders
charged with overseeing the development of a general plan update for the city's future, one that will
protect our neighborhoods from the threats of character changing growth.. . " [Emphasis added.]
,1t
Mr. Michael Toerge, Chairman
Newport Beach Planning Commission
March 22, 2006
Page 5
currently before the Planning Commission seek to subdivide a single residence lot into
two lots, but it also encompasses the building of two mansion -sized homes (9,900 and
8,800 square feet) which would negatively impact the building density, open space and
public views in the neighborhood and from Santa Ana Avenue, an often traveled access
road into and out of Newport Heights. It should also be noted that the subject property is
legally described as "Lot Park Z of the First Addition to Newport Heights," raising the
issue as to whether the property was originally designed as parkland.
The Application Should Be Denied On The Basis It Does Not Conform With The
California Coastal Act.
The property clearly falls within the California Coastal Zone, and is therefore subject to
the California Coastal Act and the Newport Beach LUP. It is submitted the project does
not comply with the Act or the existing or proposed LUP. More specifically, the plan
violates certain development requirements that pertain to California coastal bluffs,
including the predominant line of development requirements and restrictions on
development of the bluff face and may violate the setback requirements. Paragraph No.
143 of the City of Newport Beach LUP Update, defines a Coast Bluff as "a bluff
overlooking a beach or shoreline or that is subject to marine erosion. Many coastal bluffs
consist of a gently sloping upper bluff and a steeper lower bluff or sea cliff. The term
"coastal bluff' refers to the entire slope between a marine terrace or upland area and the
sea. The term "sera cliff' refers to the lower, near vertical portion of a coastal bluff. For
purposes of establishing jurisdictional and permit boundaries coastal bluff include (1)
those bluffs, the toe of which is now or was historically (generally with the last 200
years) subject to marine erosion; and (2) those bluffs the toe of which lies within an area
otherwise identified as an Appealable Area." Although the Planning Department has
concluded the subject property is not a coastal bluff, it is submitted such a determination
is premature and is subject to review of the California Coastal Commission.
Further, there are also issues with the public visual impact of building on the coastal bluff
face. As can be seen from the attached photographs, the slope on which Forouzan has
requested to build is highly visible from Newport Boulevard, the Newport Bay and Lido
Village, and if permitted to go forward, would constitute an alteration of this natural
landform, which is inconsistent with the goal of protecting the overall visual quality of
the coastal zone.
The local homeowners also have concern over the stream that runs along Avon Street.
Paragraph No. 164 of the Newport Beach LUP Update provides that a stream is "a
topographic feature that at least periodically conveys water through a bed or channel
having banks. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that
supports or has supported riparian vegetation." The Coastal Act requires environmentally
sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) to be protected against significant disruption of habitual
values. Development in areas adjacent to ESHA must be sited and designed to prevent
11_
Mr. Michael Toerge, Chairman
Newport Beach Planning Commission
March 22, 2006
Page 6
impacts that would significantly degrade those areas and be compatible with the
continuance of those habitat areas. There is concern among members of the community
that due to its proximity to the stream, the stream and its habitat would be negatively
impacted by the proposed construction on the slope near the stream. As stated on page 25
of the City of Newport Beach LUP Update, there is a presumption that areas such as the
Avon Street stream are ESHA and the burden of proof is on the property owner or project
proponent to demonstrate that the presumption is rebutted by site - specific evidence.
Lastly, to the extent there is a history of artificial fill below the existing pad on the
property, there may be a Coastal Commission issue as to the actual bluff edge as
specified in the Newport Beach LUP Update.
The Project Does Not Qualify for A Categorical Exemption Pursuant To The Guidelines
of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 1503.
The Planning Department has incorrectly concluded "the project qualifies for a
Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15303 (New construction or Conversion of
Small Structures) of the implementing Guidelines of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) as the project will result in the construction of one additional singe -
family residence, below the maximum threshold permitted under this exemption, and is
located on a developed site with no environmentally resources present."
Section 15300 of the Guidelines of the CEQA, provides that there are certain classes of
projects that do not have a significant effect on the environment, and accordingly have
been declared to be categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of
environmental documents. Section 15303 of the Guidelines of the CEQA, upon which the
City Planning Department has relied, is entitled New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures, and provides, in part, for construction of "new, small facilities or
structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the
conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor
modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. The numbers of structures
described in this section are the maximum allowable on any legal parcel. Examples of
this exemption include, but are not limited to: (a) One single - family residence, or a
second dwelling unit in a residential zone."
There are many key issues that undermine the Planning Department's conclusion that the
proposed project is exempt from the CEQA, which include: (1) the General Plan's
prohibition against subdividing single residential lots; (2) the R -1 zoning; (3) the
proposed houses are not small structures; (4) the proposed project involves the removal
of a small structure (2,128 square feet) and the building of two extremely large structures
(9,500 and 8,800 square feet) in its place; and (5) the Planning Department's premature
conclusion that the lot does not constitute a coastal bluff, which is subject to review by
the Coastal Commission. Pursuant to the discussion section of this exemption, the
exemption pertains to small projects involving new construction or conversion of existing
\A3
Mr. Michael Toerge, Chairman
Newport Beach Planning Commission
March 22, 2006
Page 7
small structures. As the proposed project involves the removal of a small structure and
the construction of two structures that are each almost five times the size of the existing
structure, combined with the location of the lot on a coastal bluff, the project would have
a significant impact on the environment. Accordingly, the proposed project is not exempt
from CEQA.
Conclusion — The Application Should Be Denied.
The applicant has had the benefit of thoroughly planning his request to amend the
General Plan. It is clear through his submission that the professionals he has hired have
spent literally months, studying the property and preparing their reports, The applicant has
submitted Architectural Plans, a Preliminary Geotechnical Report, a Hydrology/Hydualic
Report and a Topographic Survey, all with the implied intent of impressing the
Commission and justifying the request to amend the General Plan. Page 3 of the Planning
Department Report states, "the applicant has designed two custom residences, which the
property owner is committed to constructing and intends to submit plans for building
permits upon receiving approval of the subdivision."
It is submitted that the various reports attached as exhibits to the Planning Department
Report are irrelevant and have been prematurely submitted as part of the application
currently before the Planning Commission. What is key at this stage of the proceeding is
whether the proposed amendment to the General Plan is in the public interest. As
evidenced by the petition submitted herewith, the neighboring homeowners, who are the
people who will be immediately impacted by such an amendment, are vehemently
opposed to the proposed amendment and clearly do not believe amendment of the
General Plan is in the public interest. Accordingly,.it is respectfully submitted that the
Planning Commission deny General Plan Amendment No. GP2005 -003, parcel Map No.
NP2005 -035 (PA2005 -158) in its entirety.
Very truly y s,
TI
U
:af
cc: Anne Blemker, California Coastal Commission
Newport Beach City Council
`A
Photographs of the Subject Lot and Neighborhood
I'
m I
1
nw.
q.
I Rimy it,
Amp
Amp
1M
ai
'fit It
1,
Y
C
t1
-t,Ztz, d "-f
ME
"I'llw
I
a 's �W,:r
WN
,c 9M F 5 WeRb� T
Ta .4
e ^.
-go-"
a a
x
a
q.
I
Y f
NORMAN, w
IM
2r-aS t t _F l I� *_r:_,,�
F
7
d
yy�
_xraa _ice
�,��m- ;
A 7 �r "'
✓.
L_�
.t. � C� �,. 'f � �r'
_'.: s4 Z - at S 7. �..�'" -1A`. %ASS ....
_.. 2w�
n r ... ¢ F'x -k.> Yi.
.. .. _ /�.. y''j "�
j,
�.-
i _
a,k Hill Ep �✓/' ef&uw '.' ... '-- s'�,- �'�'�I+t d �/ i ) i
^ ," 4z
VA
SIM
1"
F
®eas
r � r
s *�- ;'
'i
.. ...:.. f. _..... _ ....:
.�
�;`
� ' . � _ .°"l . c
u
-�...t
�j 4
•. �
is
4
l� � ��
c;4 �J
li
Y'_: t
Y'-
3 TCY
._.
^a
l �
y �
� ^i
�. w �.
� S.
x
. \: �. �!
Petition
I
b tv
PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
TO ALLOW SUBDIVISION OF 2961 CLIFF DRIVE
To: The Newport Beach Planning Commission and the Newport Beach City Council
W1IFREAS, the property located at 2961 Cliff Drive is currently zoned for single family
residences within a Statistical Area where subdivisions are prohibited; and
WI 1GREAS. the General Plan can only be amended if it is in the public interest; and
WHGRI3AS, the undersigned are homeowners residing on Santa Ana Avenue, Cliff Drive
and neighboring streets to the subject property and believe that the proposed General Plan
amendment is not in the public interest, but rather in the sole interest of the project
applicant (a nonresident real estate investor /developer); and
WHL',RHAS; allowing the subdivision of 2961 Cliff Drive would create a precedent for
the subdivision of other properties in the neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, allowing; the subdivision of properties within the neighborhood, including
2961 Cliff Drive, would increase our neighborhood's density and traffic, and negatively
impact the character of our neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, most of us have lived in this neighborhood for twenty years or more and
believe the proposed amendment to the General Plan would damage the physical and
visual continuity of our neighborhood; and
WHEREAS. Santa Ana Avenue, below Cliff Drive, is a narrow street, the addition of a
new driveway access, would create a potentially hazardous road condition; and
Wtil.?REAS, the subdivision of the existing lot and construction of a 8,800 square foot
house on the down slope of the lot would obstruct views, from both above and below the
proposed construction, including from points on Newport Bay, Newport Boulevard and
Lido Village, of what is now a natural landform providing open space;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: we, the undersigned, believe the proposed
amendment to the General Plan is not in the public interest, and we strongly oppose it.
Xgq
lV'amNe-
Add f(f S S
Doll,
ry
S (= \(O urn q 3 La 4n) /a lD U, N2ur acZi
J e Zo 5- Qr(4A j1e /Vz3 '?Z(� 6 3
1 1'cec �k /�� 2ol *) JO 1,5 92GG3
ao
lrcf
-so)
t\ Abo in (E (AS2M A, 9-P 1, Q l LT I — &z- R M t,,-f L
xka
s'
23,
PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
TO ALLOW SUBDIVISION OF 2961 CLIFF DRIVE
To: The Newport Beach Planning Commission and the Newport Beach City Council
WI IEREAS, the property located at 2961 Cliff Drive is currently zoned for single family
residences within a Statistical Area where subdivisions are prohibited; and
Wl ll?REAS. the General Plan can only be amended if it is in the public interest; and
WHEREAS, the undersigned are homeowners residing on Santa Ana Avenue, Cliff Drive
and neighboring streets to the subject property and believe that the proposed General Plan
amendment is not in the public interest, but rather in the sole interest of the project
applicant (a nonresident real estate investor /developer); and
WHEREAS; allowing the subdivision of 2961 Cliff Drive would create a precedent for
the subdivision of other properties in the neighborhood; and
WHEREAS. allowing the subdivision of properties within the neighborhood, including
2961 C liii'Drive, would increase our neighborhood's density and traffic, and negatively
impact the character of our neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, most of its have lived in this neighborhood for twenty years or more and
believe the proposed amendment to the General Plan would damage the physical. and
visual continuity of our neighborhood; and
WHEREAS. Santa Ana Avenue, below Cliff Drive, is a narrow street, the addition ora
new driveway access, would create a potentially hazardous road condition; and
WHEREAS, the subdivision of the existing lot and construction of a 8,800 square foot
house on the down slope of the lot would obstruct views, finm both above and below the
proposed construction, including from points on Newport Bay> Newport Boulevard and
Lido Village, of what is now a natural landform providing open space;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: we, the undersigned, believe the proposed
amendment to the General Plan is not in the public interest. and we strongly oppose it.
Name Address
d
1ti1
2�%
r 30It GLIT�!F Qf�IZ- A)EWfoR 6e4r.? Cl- 2-6G
Zg
t l
WT Q.
36�
i
33
_ -rte
67-
�5
DID
(0 Z -Oq SAA-VI XA-IA
AL,,b
I U63
'/
3g
•1 A� 4 FINN
e�,
`��G63
Dr,
,ba