HomeMy WebLinkAboutJackson Residence (PA2001-062) 3631 Ocean BlvdCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item: 5
April 7, 2005
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner
(949) 644 -3219, gramirez (c)citv.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Jackson Residence
3631 Ocean Boulevard
Variance No. 2001 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2001 -092
Amendment No. 1 (PA2001 -062)
APPLICANT: Bill Peters of Lohrbach Associates, for Doug and Sandi Jackson,
property owners
REQUEST
The applicant requests approval
Modification Permit that allowed a
height limit and subterranean porti
into the required 10 -foot front yard
building design that would increase
in a garage that would exceed the
approved project requires that the
applicant desires to raise the floor
driveway from an approximate 20%
RECOMMENDATION
of an amendment to an approved Variance and
new single - family residence to exceed the 24 -foot
ms of two floors, including the garage, to encroach
Setback. The applicant is requesting a change to the
the height of the garage by 2 feet 6 inches resulting
Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limit, where the
entire building comply with that height limit. The
of the garage in order to reduce the slope of the
slope to an approximate slope of 13 %.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and Deny the
request by adopting the findings for denial included as Exhibit No. 1
DISCUSION
Project Background
The Planning Commission approved the Variance and Modification Permit request at
their meeting of September 20, 2001. The approval allows the construction of a 6,044
square foot square foot single - family dwelling. The approval permits the height of the
Jackson Residence
April 7, 2005
Page 2
building to be approximately 34 -feet 6- inches above the existing grade at the highest
point on the bluff side. The approval requires the new construction to comply with the
Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limit. Additionally, the approval included a
Modification Permit that allows one above grade floor, which includes the garage, and
two subterranean floors to encroach 10 feet into the required 10 -foot setback. The
residence is currently under construction.
The original design of the residence proposed in 2001 included a nearly identical
garage design that exceeded the top of curb height by 2 feet 6 inches. The applicant
requested that portion of the variance in order to provide a driveway with a gentler slope
which was considered by the Planning Commission at their meeting of August 23, 2001.
At that meeting the Planning Commission directed the applicant to come back with a
design solution that would bring the project into conformance with the Ocean Boulevard
top of curb height limit. The Commission suggested several options including designing
a zigzag driveway or pushing the garage farther away from the curb.
The applicant redesigned the project by lowering the garage by 2 feet 6 inches with a
driveway slope of approximately 20 %. The revised project was presented to the
Planning Commission at their meeting of September 20, 2001. Although the
Commission considered the potential that the steep driveway may potentially create
hazards associated with vehicle maneuvering, parking and potential pedestrian conflicts at
the sidewalk, they concluded that a driveway slope of 20% was acceptable and
approved the project. The approval included a condition of approval (No. 4) requiring
that the final driveway design have a slope of not more than 20% unless otherwise
approved by the Traffic Engineer.
The final driveway design resulted in a driveway slope of approximately 20.5% which was
approved by the Public Works Department during the building permit plan check process.
A building permit issued for the project on March 2, 2004. The approved driveway, as
shown on the building plans, is shown on Sheet A -7D (Section C Approved Driveway) of
the proposed plans attached as Exhibit 10. The proposed driveway section is also shown
on Sheet A -7D.
Property Characteristics
Lot size:
8,081 square feet
Buildable area:
6,534 square feet
Floor area limit (1.5):
13,066 square feet
Zoning District
R -1
General Plan and
Local Coastal Plan
Single Family Residential
Jackson Residence
April 7, 2005
Page 3
Jackson Residence
April 7, 2005
Page 4
Height Limit Variance
The Zoning Code defines the height of a structure as the vertical distance between the
highest point of a structure and the grade directly below. The height limit in the R -1
zoning district is 24 feet as measured from existing /natural grade to the top of a flat roof
or mid -point of a sloping roof with a maximum ridge height of 29 feet.
The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program advocate
the preservation of public views. In this particular case, public view preservation along
Ocean Boulevard is specifically addressed within the Zoning Code. The Code limits the
height of structures on the seaward side of Ocean Boulevard to the height of the top of
the adjacent Ocean Boulevard curb. In this case, the adjacent top -of -curb elevations
range from 98.5 to 97.6 as shown on the topographic survey dated March 18, 2003. The
height of the proposed garage exceeds this limitation by approximately 2 feet 6 inches.
Projects requesting to exceed this height limit require the approval of a variance.
Section 20.91.035(8) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant
any variance, the Planning Commission must find that the applicant has established the
following grounds for a variance:
1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including
size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of
this code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in
the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
The approved variance for the seaward side of the property provides the
applicant with relief from the height limit for the purpose of constructing a
new dwelling. The approved project does not exceed the Ocean Boulevard
top of curb height limit. The project plans, including the driveway design
have been approved by the Public Works Department during plan check
which demonstrates that a single family residence can be designed and
constructed to adhere to the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limits and
satisfactorily meet City design standards.
2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant.
The majority of the subject property is unimproved coastal bluff. The
existing variance approval allows the property owner to construct a
dwelling of similar floor area when compared to the size of homes on
similar sized parcels without the need to exceed the Ocean Boulevard top
of curb height limit.
Jackson Residence
April 7, 2005
Page 5
3. That the granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this
code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district.
The Code provides the flexibility in application of land use and
development regulations by way of permitting variance applications. The
variance procedure is intended to resolve practical physical hardships
resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in
the area and on this lot. The existing approval of the height variance is
consistent with the intent of the established height limitations to ensure
that buildings are not out of scale with nearby buildings, since the height of
this building is comparable to those on nearby properties with similar
topography. This request to exceed the top of curb height is for new
construction and plans have been submitted that demonstrate the new
residence can be constructed without the need to exceed the Ocean
Boulevard top of curb height limit.
4. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the
particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and
will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in
the neighborhood.
The subject property is designated for single family residential use and the
granting of the variance would not increase the density beyond what is
planned for the area, thereby avoiding additional traffic, parking, or
demand for other services. However, staff believes that the intent of the top
of curb height limit is to have each home on the bluff side of Ocean
Boulevard designed to preserve and enhance public views. The project
involves a complete redevelopment of the site and the proposed residence
includes a garage that exceeds the top of curb thereby obstructing public
views of the Pacific Ocean. Although a driveway with a gentler slope is
typically desirable to lessen the potential for vehicle and pedestrian conflicts,
the plans have been reviewed by the Public Works Department who
determined that an adequate design can be achieved without the need for
the garage floor to be raised.
Based on the above findings, staff believes that the mandatory findings to allow the garage
to exceed the top of curb height limit can not be made due to the impact to public views.
Additionally, the existing variance and modification permit approval allow the applicant to
construct a new residence that is of comparable size to other single family dwellings in the
area with a driveway design that has been approved by the Public Works Department.
Jackson Residence
April 7, 2005
Page 6
Environmental Review
A Mitigated Negative Declaration was certified with the existing variance and
modification permit approval. There are no additional or alternative mitigation measures
that should be considered in conjunction with said project since the project considered
during the environmental review included a garage of basically the same size, location and
height.
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, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website.
Alternatives
1. Approve Amendment No. 1 to Variance No. 2001 -001 and Modification Permit
No. 2001 -092 by offering findings for approval.
2. The Commission may direct the applicant to redesign the project in order to
consider a modified project that better conforms to the height limit or provides
safer vehicular ingress and egress. This may be achieved by redesigning the
driveway to provide a vehicle turn around so vehicles do not back up onto Ocean
Boulevard or re- design the driveway in a manner to reduce the slope.
Prepared by:
4'/�� IC ,
Gregg B. mirez, Associate anner
Submitted by:
Patricia L. Temple, Nanning Director
Jackson Residence
April 7, 2005
Page 7
Exhibits:
1. Findings for Denial
2. Variance Justification Submitted by Applicant
3. Resolution No. 1536 Approving Variance No. 2001 -001 and Modification Permit
No. 2001 -092
4. Staff report from the August 23, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting
5. Minutes from the August 23, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting
6. Staff Report from the September 20, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting
7. Minutes form the September 20, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting
8. Letters Received in Opposition to the Proposed Project (4)
9. Approved Plans
10. Proposed Plans
EXHIBIT NO.
Findings for Denial
0
Findings for Denial
1. The approved variance for the seaward side of the property provides the
applicant with relief from the height limit for the purpose of constructing a
new dwelling. The approved project does not exceed the Ocean Boulevard
top of curb height limit. The project plans, including the driveway design
have been approved by the Public Works Department during plan check
which demonstrates that a single family residence can be designed to
adhere to the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limits and satisfactorily
meet City design standards.
2. The majority of the subject property is unimproved coastal bluff. The existing
variance approval allows the property owner to construct a dwelling of
similar floor area when compared to the size of homes on similar sized
parcels without the need to exceed the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height
limit.
3. The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development
regulations by way of permitting variance applications. The variance
procedure is intended to resolve practical physical hardships resulting from
the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area and on
this lot. The existing approval of the height variance is consistent with the
intent of the established height limitations to ensure that buildings are not out
of scale with nearby buildings and the height of the approved building is
comparable to those on nearby properties with similar topography. This
request to exceed the top of curb height is for new construction and plans
have been submitted that demonstrate the new residence can be
constructed without the need to exceed the Ocean Boulevard top of curb
height limit.
4. The subject property is designated for single family residential use and the
granting of the variance would not increase the density beyond what is
planned for the area, thereby avoiding additional traffic, parking, or demand
for other services. The intent of the top of curb height limit is to have each
home on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard designed to preserve and
enhance public views. The project involves a complete redevelopment of the
site and the proposed residence includes a garage that exceeds the top of
curb thereby obstructing public views of the Pacific Ocean.
k6
EXHIBIT NQ. 2
Variance Justification Submitted by Applicant
1k
Variances: Required Findings:
That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this code deprives such
property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning
classification.
2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights of the applicant.
That the granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and will not
constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in
the vicinity and in the same zoning district.
4. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case,
materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not under the circumstances of the
particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or
improvements in the neighborhood.
To aid staff in determining that the finding can be made in this particular case please answer the
following questions with regard to your request. (Please attach on separate sheet, if necessary.)
1. What exceptional circumstances apply to the property, including size, shape, topography, location
or surroundings? $ b-� 1f-!G A OQ Y�fittt/7- '7h 7r
RF�T,Q/�TS TAe A&'kWf7 aF 'ry TAe Tom cG
77HO 15a4A9FL5
Y sue.
2. Why is a variance necessary to preserve property rights? I" VA-tZkk-;tlGZ 1:!$ hl GFWMMrz,;r
1 A� DiLtVJZ Tb mid s7ROG A JVAAI X3 "Ar y Tb r"
On-
nUi,
b�i�+d ws To ROrH TH+AF, eWNft, sAOV fO-oe-sTiRiA -nls anJ
r9E. P,dPAIT
3. Why will the proposal not be detrimental to the neighborhood? -06 fy-0PO sAL.
WiLi, i4Tr W- 6O r46i OWL-`(
T)4B hko—AW oN• rMs sge7j -& 4 NO ate/ $4,V 'p. JL)vr
,its 01044 , ?H-r,- PKhor ` Aa 1 bow o74 7 4is I-t:rT WAs tLV oW
141OW-4b OITIOVU-T ANr WrAcr To NFa�H:,r;�2)P-HOo4t:>
t;k
EXHIBIT NO. 3
Resolution No. 1536 Approving Variance No. 2001 -001 and
Modification Permit No. 2001 -092
0
RESOLUTION NO. 1536
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING VARIANCE
NO. 2001 -001 AND MODIFICATION NO. 2001 -092 FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3631 OCEAN BOULEVARD
(PA2001 -062)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY
FINDS, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. An application was duly filed by the applicant, Ed Lorbach on behalf of
the property owners Mr. and Mrs. Jackson with respect to property located at 3631 Ocean
Boulevard and legally described as Parcel 15 of Parcel Map 1257, requesting approval of a
Variance and Modification Permit to construct a three level, 6,044 square foot residence that
exceeds the 24/28 -foot height limit. The residence would also encroach within the 10 -foot front
yard setback up to 10 feet in some places. The property is located within the R -1 (Single - Family
Residential) zone district.
Section 2. A public hearing was duly held on August 23, 2001 and September 20,
2001, at 6:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport
Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was duly given.
Evidence, both written and oral, was duly presented to and considered by the Planning
Commission at the aforesaid meeting.
Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows:
a) The proposed development, a detached single family home, is consistent with the
General Plan, Land Use Element designation of the property which is Single - family
Detached.
b) An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in
compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The contents of the environmental
docwnent have been considered in the various decisions on this project. On the
basis of the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed project does
not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment.
There are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the
project. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other
projects. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that
would be caused by the proposed project.
C) The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements
acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the
proposed development. The only easement that exits on the site is a sewer easement
1l
Planning C lmission Resolution No. 1536
11 Page 2 of 7
that will serve the proposed construction. The sewer easement will remain accessible
with the implementation of the project provided that a sewer clean out is installed.
.d) Alteration of the more natural portion of the coastal bluff is minimized due to the
siting of the proposed residence. The residence will occupy the required front
yard setback which is presently developed rather than having the residence extend
further upon the relatively undisturbed seaward portion of the bluff. Additionally,
a majority of the project is does not extend beyond a "stringline" drawn between
the two adjacent residences. The lowest extent of the development, including the
at -grade deck is similar to the elevation of the lower portions of the two adjacent
residences (approximately 5 -6 feet lower than the residence to the west and
approximately 5 -6 feet higher than the residence to the east).
e) The granting of the variance to allow portions of the residence to exceed permitted
height limits is warranted in that there are special circumstances applicable to the
property; approval is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights of the applicant; approval is consistent with the purposes of this code;
and will not be materially detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood for the
following reasons:
The steeply sloping topography of the site restricts the ability to comply with the
height limitations while constructing a residence comparable to newly
constructed residences located in Corona Del Mar.
2. The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development
regulations by way of permitting variance applications, and the variance
procedure is intended to resolve practical and unnecessary physical hardships
resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area
and on this lot.
3. The entire residence will be constructed at a lower level than the existing
residence which will improve public views from Ocean Boulevard.
4. Due to the siting of the proposed residence within a " stringline" drawn between
die two adjacent residences, its footprint elevation being similar to the two
adjacent residences and its location, which is relatively distant from Corona Del
Mar Beach, the proposed project will not significantly impact the views of the
coastal bluffs.
f) The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort
and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such
proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the
neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed
modification is consistent with the legislative intent of this code for the following
reasons:
15
Planning C knission Resolution No. 1536
Page 3 of 7
1) The proposed residence will be approximately 44 feet from the existing
sidewalk. This increased distance sufficiently separates the building mass from
the sidewalk especially due to the lower overall height of the residence as
measured in relation to the curb and sidewalk.
2) The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development
regulations by way of permitting modification applications, and the variance
procedure is intended to resolve practical and unnecessary physical hardships
resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the
area and on this lot.
Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby
approves Variance No. 2001 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2001 -092, subject to the Conditions
set forth in Exhibit "A' attached.
Section 5. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption
of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this action is call
for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning,
of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THUS 20th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2001.
BY:
AYES: McDaniel, Kiser, Anianian, Tucker
Kranzlev, Selich
I`►[93=
ABSENT: Gifford
Larry T``ucker, Chairman
� ti�'I t1—
BY L�i r
Earl McDaniel, Secretary
Ilk
Planning( Amission Resolution No. 1536
Page 4 of 7
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VARIANCE NO. 2001 -001 &
MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2001-092
The development shall be in substantial conformance with the revised site plan, floor plan
and elevations dated 09 /13/2001 except as noted below.
2. All public improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public
Works Department.
3. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee
satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building
permit prior to the completion of the public improvements.
4. The final design of the driveway shall have a maximum grade of 20% with minimum 5 -foot
tangents and maximum grade changes of II% unless otherwise approved by the Traffic
Engineer. The final driveway design shall be subject to further review by the Traffic
Engineer.
5. The existing 5 -foot wide public sidewalk shall remain where it presently is constructed (8' to
12' back of curb) except at the proposed driveway approach where it shall be placed a
minimum of 5 feet from the back of curb face. The driveway approach must have a
minimum 6" hike -up in order to prevent Ocean Boulevard drainage from entering the
property. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public
Works Department.
6. A City Council approved encroachment permit and encroachment agreement shall be
executed by the property owner to permit private improvement encroachments within the
Ocean Boulevard right -of -way.
That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of
constructiorrrvehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and
flagnen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in
accordance with state and local requirements.
S. The intersection of the private drive and Ocean Boulevard shall be designed to provide sight
distance for a speed of 30 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstruction
shall be considered in the sight distance requirement. Landscaping within sight line shall not
exceed 24 inches in height.
9. Chimneys shall not exceed the minimum height required by the Uniform Building Code and
any portion of the chimney which extends above applicable height limits of the Zoning
1^
Planning C !mission Resolution No. 1536
Page 5 of 7
Code shall be no wider than 2 feet and no deeper than 4 feet. For the purpose of this
condition, the smaller dimension of the chimney will be parallel to Ocean Blvd.
10. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be placed underground to the nearest appropriate
pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by
the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical.
11. A drainage study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Building
Department showing all on -site drainage being directed to Ocean Boulevard.
12. Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of any building, grading or
demolition permits.
13. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits.
14. Exiting from each level of the residence shall comply with applicable standards of the
Building and Fire Code. The structure requires a fire suppression system (sprinklers) as the
structure exceeds 5,000 square feet.
15. Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a shoring
plan that shall be subject to the review and approval of the Building Department if it is
determined that shoring is necessary for the construction of the proposed project.
16. A sewer main lateral and cleanout shall be installed behind and under the proposed
residence subject to the standards and permit requirements of the Building Department and
Utilities Department. The existing water meter shall be upgraded if determined necessary for
the fire suppression system.
17. a) During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply
with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce nuisance due to odors from
construction activities. (Mitigation Measure No. 1)
b) During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the following measures
are complied with to reduce short-term (construction) air quality impacts associated
with the project: a)controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust
palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District
( SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b)maintaining equipment engines in proper
tune; and c) phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project -
related emissions. (Mitigation Measure No. 1)
c) To control dust, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures:
• Limit the disturbance area to the extent feasible.
• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
• Cover all.haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
• Apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas.
`a
Planning C ,knission Resolution No. 1536
Page 6 of 7
• Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt
deposition on any public roadway.
• Use street sweepers to clean and pick up trailing dust from roads in the vicinity of
the project.
e Cover or water twice daily any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty
material.
• Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
• Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain inactive for
more that 96 hours after clearing is completed.
(Mitigation Measure No. 1)
d) To control emissions, the project proponent shall comply with the following
measures:
• Require 90-day low -Nox tune -ups for off -road equipment.
• Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment.
Mitigation Measure No. 1)
e) To minimize off -site impacts, the project proponent shall comply with the following
measures:
• Encourage car pooling for construction workers.
• Limit lane closures to off -peak travel periods.
• Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways.
• Wet down or cover dirt hauled off site.
• Wash or sweep access points daily..
• Encourage receipt of materials during non -peak traffic hours.
• Sandbag construction sites for erosion control.
(Mitigation Measure No. 1)
18. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written
evidence to the City that a qualified paleontologistlarchaeologist has been retained to
observe grading activities and salvage and catalog cultural material or fossils as
necessary. The paleontologistlarchaeologist shall be present at the pre - grading
conference,— establish procedures for paleontological / archaeological resource
surveillance, and establish, in cooperation with the Applicant, procedures for temporarily
halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the
cultural material or fossils. If major paleontological /archaeological resources are
discovered, which require long -term halting or redirecting or grading, the paleontologist/
archaeologist shall report such findings to the Applicant and the City. The
paleontologist/archaeologist shall deter -mine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the
Applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be
offered to the City, or its designee, on a first - refusal basis. The Applicant may retain said
finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange
County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County
indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be
Planning C Mission Resolution No. 1536
Page 7 of 7
donated to the City, or designee. These actions shall be subject to the approval of the
City. (Mitigation Measure No. 2)
19. During construction activities, the project will comply with the erosion and siltation
control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local and State
building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading
Code (NBMC Section 15.10). (Mitigation Measure No. 3)
20. The recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Investigation (Petra Report No. J.N.
358 -00) and any subsequent geotechnical or geologic report for the project shall be
incorporated into the project. (Mitigation Measure No. 4)
21. The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works
Department to determine compliance. (Mitigation Measure No. 5)
22. The applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with the provisions of the City of
Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code pertaining to noise
restrictions. During construction activities, the hours of construction and excavation
work are allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and holidays. (Mitigation Measure No. 6)
23. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a traffic control and
construction access plan to address construction traffic, haul routes, truck hauling
operations and parking in order to maintain safe access to the site during construction.
The construction access plan shall include alterative pedestrian and bicycle path routes
and an employee parking plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Traffic
Department and the Planning Department. Additionally, the applicant shall obtain a haul
route permit from the Revenue Division. No construction equipment shall be permitted
to park overnight on Ocean Boulevard. (Mitigation Measure No. 7)
24. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval
as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
a
EXHIBIT NO. 4
Staff report from the August 23, 2001
Planning Commission Meeting
0
i
4J
��,ea`POq CITY OF NEWI',RT BEACH Hearing , ate: August 23, 2001
.l PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item- 4
S MT NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell
�u,paY'Y NEWPORT BEACH, CA g2658 (949) 644 -3210
(90) 644-V—, FAX (gqg) 644-5250 Appeal Period: 14 days
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FILE COPY
PROJECT: Jackson Residence (PA2001 -062)
3631 Ocean Boulevard
SUMMARY: Request to demolish an existing single family home (2,924 gross square
feet) and replace it with a new single family home (6,044 gross square
feet) including grading, paving, fencing lighting, landscaping and
irrigation. The proposed project includes the changes to the existing
driveway and front yard landscaping presently located within the public.
right -of -way. The project also includes a variance request to exceed
established height limits of Zoning Code due to unique topographical
circumstances. Lastly, the project includes a request to deviate from the
required front yard setback of 10 feet providing a 0' to 4' front setback.
ACTION: Approve Variance No. 2001 -001 and Modification No. 2001 -092 and
ADOPT Resolution No. entitled,. "A Resolution of the
Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach Approving Variance
No. 2001 -001 and Modification No. 2001 -092 (PA2001- 062)."
X2
Deny Variance No. 2001 -001 and Modification No. 2001 -092 by
adopting the findings contained in Exhibit No. 2
APPLICANT: Ed Lohrbach
31681 Camino Capistrano, Suite # 106, San Juan Capistrano.
LOCATION: Located at the intersection of Poinsettia Avenue and Ocean Boulevard in
Corona Del Mar
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION: Lot 15 of Tract 1257
GENERAL PLAN/
LCP: Single Family Detached
ZONING
DISTRICT: R -1 (Single Family Detached)
0
Background
The subject property was developed with a single family residence in 1962. The two -level
residence was permitted to partially encroach up to 8 feet within the required front yard setback(
by the approval of Variance No. 645. Additionally, the height of the residence was limited to 3
feet above the average curb height of Ocean Boulevard by this approval. The residence was
altered and expanded in 1981, which was authorized through Modification Permit No. 2647.
Site Overview
The project site is a coastal bluff that slopes steeply away from Ocean Boulevard to the
Pacific Ocean. The upper third of the site is presently developed with the existing 2,924
square foot, two story home. The rear portion of the home is cantilevered over the slope with
the earth directly below covered with gunnite. The existing front yard area, which is within the
public right -of -way, is terraced and landscaped. Seaward of the existing residence is a
relatively small sloping area with an average slope of approximately 1:1 above a near
vertical cliff with an average slope of approximately 1:5. The property is zoned R -1 and has
the following characteristics:
Lot size:
8,081 square feet
Buildable area:
6,534 square feet
Floor area limit (1.5):
13,066 square feet
Pro, ject Overview
The contemporary designed residence has three levels with the following basic characteristics:
Lower level:
Middle level:
Upper level:
Subtotal (living area):
Garage (at upper level):
Gross floor Brea:
Decks (at each level):
Bedrooms:
Bathrooms:
1,842 square feet
1,934 square feet
1,706 square feet
5,494 square feet
450 square feet, accommodates 2 cars
6,044 square feet
500 square feet total
4
4 1/2
Setbacks:
Required
Existing
Proposed
Front:
10 ft.
2 - 10 ft.
0 - 4 ft.
Rear:
10 ft.
±95 ft.
1
±95 ft.
house ( ±88 ft. lower deck
Side:
4 ft.
4 - 6 ft.
4 ft.
Building height
Required
Existing
Proposed
limit:
Top of Ocean Blvd.
3 ft.
above top
of
2 -6" above .curb for
curb & 24/28 ft.
curb
garage only, Exceeds
above natural rode
24 ft. up to 10' -6" ft.
Jackson Residence (PA2001 -062)
August 23, 2001 a
Page 3 of 17
The upper two levels of the proposed residence will occupy the some basic volume of space
that is presently occupied by the existing residence. The lower level will be accommodated by
excavating the existing building envelope from the front property line to a "stringline" between
the adjacent two residences approximately 5 -6 feet below the lower elevation of the residence
to the west.
The project also includes the renovation of the area between the residence and the street that is
part of the public right -of -way. This renovation will include a new driveway with decorative
paving. The driveway will also have a "hammerhead" that will permit either the ability to turn a
car around or two guest parking spaces. A sunken patio with a dining /bar -b -q /bar area is also
proposed. Terraced landscape planters and steps with gated access to the patio will complete
the project within the public right -of -way. All the improvements suggested by the applicant will
require the approval of an Encroachment Agreement and Encroachment Permit by the City
Council.
Analysis
The proposed project, a detached single family residence, is consistent with the land use
designations of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, which is
"Single Family Detached." The proposed residence is also well within the floor area limit of 1.5
times the buildable area of the lot established by Chapter 20.10 of the Zoning Code.
Public Views
Both the Land Use Element (Policy D) and the Local Coastal Program promote the preservation
and enhancement of public views. This policy is implemented through the height limitations of
the zoning code, which in the case of properties on the ocean side of Ocean Boulevard,
structures are limited to the top of the adjacent curb. The height of the existing structure
exceeds the height of the top of the curb at Ocean Boulevard by approximately 3 feet,
thereby blocking portions of the scenic vista from Ocean Boulevard toward the Pacific
Ocean. The new structure will only exceed the height of the top of the curb at Ocean
Boulevard by 2' -6" for the garage. Additionally, a small portion of the upper level which
houses the elevator and a 1/2 bath will exceed the curb by 2 feet. The remainder of the
residence will be at the height of the curb. The .garage portion is approximately 39% of the
width building (23 feet); the elevator /bath portion is approximately 10% of the width of the
building (6 feet) and the remainder of the residence is 51% of the width (29.5 feet). The rear
portion of the upper level of proposed residence will exceed the 24 -foot height limit by
approximately 10' -6 ".
Due to the fact that the new residence will be lower than the existing residence, views from
Ocean Boulevard will be improved to the horizon. A view to the surf zone is presently not
afforded due to the existing residence, and compliance with the 24 -foot height limit will not
create this view due to the proximity of the surf zone and height differential between the street
and the ocean. In other words, the view to the surf zone will be blocked with a complying
Jackson Residence (PA2001 -062)
August 23, 2001
Page 4 of 17
residence anyway. However, enforcing the existing height limit regulations would reduce any
potential negative impacts to the public scenic vista.
The public view of the coastal bluff will be impacted, but the area to be altered will be located
within a "stringline" drawn between the two adjacent residences at an elevation down the bluff
comparable to the adjacent to residences. The area also has limited visibility from public
spaces from a distance (CDM State Beach). The intent of these policies is to protect and
improve ocean views, and therefore, project approval can be found consistent with view
preservation policy in staffs opinion.
Coastal Bluff Preservation
Land Use Element Policy D and Local Coastal Program policies states that it is the City's policy
to preserve valuable natural resources or environmentally sensitive habitats. The policies also
indicate that development shall be properly sited to minimize the alteration of natural
landforms along bluffs and cliffs.
A majority of the proposed residence will be located within existing disturbed areas. The
footprint of the proposed residence will remain in the same approximate position, but an
exterior at grade deck will be extended toward the ocean an approximately 18 feet beyond
the existing residence. This area is approximately 575 square feet of sloping bluff with no
exposed rock outcroppings visible. The level of alteration is also comparable to the alteration
of the two adjacent properties in terms of location and elevation. The building wall that faces
the ocean is within a stringline of the two adjacent residences. The at grade deck extends
further than a stringline between ocean facing decks on the two adjacent residences between
2 to 10 feet. The lowest extent of the deck; or the elevation down the bluff, is near the some
elevation as the lower portions of the two adjacent residences (approximately 5 -6 feet lower
than the residence to the west and approximately 5 -6 feet higher than the residence to the
east). The more severely sloping portion of the bluff below, which does have exposed rock
outcroppings that are visible from the rocky beach below and CDM State Beach, will not be
impacted with grading or construction.
The reduction of the front yard setback helps to minimize greater development down the bluff
by providing additional usable area to locate the dwelling away from the more natural
portion of the bluff. This additional area does facilitate a larger residence which is the desire
of the applicant at the expense of the front yard setback which is presently developed. Staff
believes that the reduction of the front yard setback assists in the preservation of a significant
portion of the bluff which is the intent of Land Use Element Policy D.
Due to the location of the proposed construction, staff believes that the project can be found
consistent with the policies that require minimization of coastal bluff alteration. If the Planning
Commission believes that the proposed extent of alteration of the property is excessive, and
therefore inconsistent with bluff alteration policies, project redesign or denial is warranted.
Jackson Residence (PA2001 -062)
August 23, 2001 ��
Page 5 of 17
Reducing the size of the lower level at -grade deck is an option to reduce the amount of bluff
alteration.
Variance from Height Limits
Section 20.91.035(B) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any
variance, the Planning Commission must find that the applicant has established the following
grounds for a variance:
1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the properly, including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this code deprives such
property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning
classification.
2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights of the applicant.
3. That the granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and will
not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other
properties in the vicinity and in the some zoning district.
4. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular
case; materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not under the circumstances of the
particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or
improvements in the neighborhood.
Staff believes that the mandatory findings can be made in this case due to the sloping
topography; the improvement of public views and the preservation of a significant portion of the
more natural coastal bluff discussed above.
Allowing the garage to exceed the top of curb is considerable due to existing development
standards of the Zoning Code and Public Works Department. Parking for two cars is required
and access can only be taken from Ocean Boulevard. The maximum slope for the driveway that
crosses the public right -of -way is 15 %. Lowering the garage floor to make the roof comply with
the curb height limit can be done, but it would result in two potentially undesirable
consequences. First, the driveway slope would increase creating additional hazards associated
with vehicle maneuvering, parking and potential pedestrian conflicts at the sidewalk. Second,
lowering the garage floor while maintaining the driveway slope at 15% would require locating
the garage further away from the street. This alternative would put the garage at the seaward
edge of the building thereby reducing ocean views for habitable portions of the residence. This
would give cause to the applicant to consider other design options to offset the loss of views. A
likely option would include a larger residence to increase views from habitable rooms which
could put greater pressure to possibly increase alteration of more of the coastal bluff. The
interior height of the garage is approximately 8 " -6" and when added to the roof structure, the
overall height will be 2 " -6" above the curb. This interior height of the garage cannot be reduced
very much while maintaining effective vehicle storage.
Jackson Residence (PA2001 -062)
August 23, 2001
Page 6 of 17 r1 1
The "downslope" height variance can also be supported by the severe topography when taken in
context with the city policy to minimize alteration of the coastal bluff. However, the applicant is
r proposing 10 -foot ceilings that cause roughly 114 of the seaward edge of the upper floor of the
residence to exceed the 24 -foot height limit. The downslope height issue effects the abutting
properties more than it will impact an existing public view from Ocean Boulevard as the existing
residence presently is higher and blocks a portion of the view.
Finally, as stated previously, strictly enforcing the existing height limit regulations would
eliminate any potential negative impacts to the public scenic vista. If, after receiving testimony
and considering the facts of the request, the Planning Commission finds that mandatory findings
cannot be made, staff has included Findings for Denial as Exhibit 2 to this staff report.
Modification of Front Yard Setback
Section 20.93.040(1) Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant relief to
an applicant through a modification permit, the Planning Commission must find that the
"establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or building will not,
under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace,
comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such
proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the
neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification
is consistent with the legislative intent of this code. "
The basic intent of the requiring a front yard setback is to separate private buildings from the
street for aesthetic purposes. This separation also separates residential uses from street activity,
which, from. the residents point of view, can be a nuisance at times. In this case, the front
property line is located approximately 44 feet from the existing sidewalk. This increased distance
sufficiently separates the building mass from the sidewalk especially due to the lower overall
height of the residence as measured in relation to the curb and sidewalk. The proposed patio
areas add to the structures within the front yard, but these structures are below existing natural
grade. Staff believes that the combination of the reduced setback and front yard amenities
should not present a problematic massing or proximity to the sidewalk. The proposed reduction
in setback also assists in avoiding further alteration of the lower portion of the coastal bluff that
is a more sensitive resource by permitting the building closer to the street.
The reduced setback does place the foundation of the proposed residence in a position where it
will provide lateral support for the public right -of -way due to the extensive excavation proposed.
This is a potential liability for the city. The reduction of the front yard setback might be
detrimental if the city were to attempt to "reclaim" the use of the public right -of -way fronting
Ocean Boulevard for the use by the general public. This is unlikely as it is contrary to past
policy. Lastly, the reduction of the front yard setback might be viewed by property owners and
developers as establishing a precedent to support similar requests. .
Jackson Residence (PA2001 -062)
August 23, 2001
Page 7 of 17
7
Public Right -of -Way Encroachments
As noted in the project description, the applicant proposed to construct extensive improvements
within the public right -of way. The encroachments will require the approval of an Encroachment
Agreement by the City Council through a separate action. According to Public Works staff, the
improvements requested are more extensive than previous encroachments permitted by the City
Council along Ocean Boulevard. However, it should be noted that the Planning Commission
has no review authority over these improvements.
Environmental Review
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared and circulated for
public review in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines; and City Council Policy K -3. In considering the proposed project and the analysis
set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, 7 mitigation measures were
identified that will mitigate any potential impact to the environment to a less than significant
level. The mitigation measures address potential impacts related to the following issues:
Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology /Soils,
Hydrology/WaterQuality, Noise, Transportation/Traffic.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration and its Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are
attached for the Commission's consideration.
Recommendation
Based upon the discussion and analysis detailed above, staff believes that the findings for
approval of the Variance and Modification Permit can be made. Adoption of the attached
resolution containing draft findings and conditions of approval is in order if the Planning
Commission believes project approval is warranted by the facts. However, the project can be
modified to comply with the front yard setback and height limit if the Commission finds that the
project does not meet the intent of the code to have new construction fully comply with
applicable standards, if so, findings for denial are provided in Exhibit No. 2.
Submitted by:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
Planning Director
Prepared by:
JAMES W. CAMPBELL
Senior Planner
W.
Jackson Residence (PA2001 -062)
August 23, 2001 ��
Page 8 of 17
Exhibits
Findings 2. .
3. Mitigated Negative Declaration & Mitigation Monitoring Report
• . • �C�
F: \Users \PLN\Shomd\PA's \PA2001 - 062 \VA2001 -001 rpt.dac
Jackson Residence (PA2001 -062)
August 23, 2001 ��
Page 9 of 17
Exhibit No. 2
Findings for Denial
Variance No. 2001 -001 and Modification No. 2001 -062
The granting of a variance to allow portions of the proposed residence to exceed the top
of curb and 24/28 -foot height limit is not warranted by special circumstances or for the
preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, would be
considered a grant of special privilege, and would be detrimental to surrounding
properties because:
a) The applicant has not demonstrated that a single family residence cannot be
designed to fully comply with applicable height limits. The applicant can design a
smaller residence and comply with applicable height limits.
b) Intent of the height limits of the Zoning Code is to have each home on the bluff side
of Ocean Boulevard be. designed to not exceed the top of the curb in order to
preserve and enhance public views. The project entails a complete redevelopment of
the site and the replacement home blocks public views intended to be opened
through strict compliance with height limits.
2. The alteration of the coastal bluff associated with the project does not constitute minimal
alteration of the natural coastal bluff landform as it increases and extends the building
envelope with the proposed lower level at -grade deck beyond the existing altered area. This
increased alteration of the coastal bluff is inconsistent with Land Use Element Development
Policy D and applicable Local Coastal Program policies that mandate proper siting of
structures on coastal bluffs to minimize alteration of natural landforms
3. The granting of the reduction in the required front yard setback will be detrimental to the
health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood for the following reasons:
a) The reduced setback of the residence in association with the extensive
encroachments requested within the public right -of -way places structures and uses in
close proximity to the sidewalk. Potential future use of the expanded parkway would
be negatively be effected due to the reduced setback.
b) The reduced setback places the foundation of the proposed residence in a position
where it will provide lateral support for the public right -of -way due to the extensive
excavation proposed. This is a potential liability for the city.
C) The reduction of the front yard setback will be viewed by property owners and
developers as establishing a precedent to support similar relief without similar site
constraints.
9-
'Ex"'I IV,,,*
35
Ci Y OF NEWPORT BEAD H
3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
(949) 644 -3200
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
To: From: City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
ElOffice of Planning and Research 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768
P.O. BOX 3044 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Sacramento, Sacramento, CA 95812 -3044 (Orange County)
XaCounty Clerk, County of Orange
Public Services Division
P.O. Box 238 Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk:
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Public review period: July 23, 2001 to August 22, 2001
Name of Project: Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062)
Project Location: 3631 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar, California
Project Description: Demolish existing single family home (2,924 gross square feet) and replace with new
single family home (5,934 gross square feet) including grading, pavipg, fencing
lighting, landscaping and irrigation. The propsed project includes the changes to the
existing driveway and front yard landscaping presently located within the public
right -of -way. The project also includes a variance request to exceed established -
height limits of Zoning Code due to unique topographical circumstances. Lastly, the
project includes a request to deviate from the required front yard setback of 10 feet
providing no front setback.
Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K -3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the
California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined
that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. t�(
A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is M attached El on file at the Planning
Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts.
This document will be considered by the decision- maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. A public hearing will be
held to consider this project after the conclusion of the public comment period. A notice of the time and location will be
published in accordance with applicable Municipal code requirements.
Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you
would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned.
If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing
prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you
believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be
adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also invited
to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document.
If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644 -3200.
C Date z o
James Campbell, Senior Planner rj
Yt J J
'4
_POxQII
Wlr�
PETRA GEOTECHNICAL INC,
J.N. 358-00 June 001
Fs j
1 000 ROWO 1000 2000 . 3000 4000 FEET
Printed from TOPO! 01996 Wildflower Productions (www.topo.com)
LOCATION MAP
Ref: Portion of U. S. G. S. Topographical Map
LAGUNA BEACH QUADRANGLE
7.5 Minute Series, 1965, Photo Revised 1981
7,
7' 1
2.
0
5
Q
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Project Title:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Jackson Residence
VA 2001- 001(PA2001 -062)
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard,
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Contact Person and Phone Number: James Campbell, Planning Department
(949) 644 -3210
Project Location: 3631 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar
Project Sponsors Name
and Address: Ed Lorbach
31681 Camino Capistrano, Suite 106
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Douglas & Sandra Jackson
Property Owners
General Plan Designation: Single Family Detached
Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential)
Section 20.65.040 - 24/28 Foot Height Limitation Zone
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Demolish and remove existing single family home (2,924 gross square feet) and replace with new,
single family home (5,934 gross square feet) including grading, paving, fencing lighting,
landscaping and irrigation. The propsed project includes the changes to the existing driveway and
front yard landscaping presently located within the public right -of -way. The project also includes a
variance request to exceed established height limits of Zoning Code due to unique topographical
circumstances. Lastly, the project includes a request to deviate from the required front yard setback
of 10 feet providing no front setback. The project, as proposed, requires a variance to exceed the
24128 feet height limit, as well as, the requirement to ensure that roof heights on new
construction do not exceed the top of the curb height at Ocean Boulevard per Sections 20.65.040
and 20.65.060 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. The garage, as proposed, exceeds
height limit of the curb by 2' - 6 ". The rear portion of the upper level of proposed residence will
exceed the 24 foot height limit by approximately 10'- 6 ".
3
Environmental Checklist
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)
Current Development:
Single Family Residence
To the north:
Ocean Boulevard, Single Family Residential
To the east:
Single Family Residence
To the south:
Pacific Ocean
To the west:
Single Family Residence
9. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
California Coastal Commission (Coastal Development Permit)
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
❑ Land Use Planning
❑ Population & Housing
PGeological Problems
❑ Water
❑ AiI Quality
Transportation/
Circulation
❑ Biological Resources
❑ Energy & Mineral
Resources
❑ Hazards
i6
,O
QA Mandatory Findings of
'Significance
❑ Public Services
❑ Utilities & Service
Systems
'Aesthetics
RCultural Resources
❑ Recreation
Jackson Residence (PA
•062) • Page 2
Environmental Checklist
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions
in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent.
A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the
environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact'
or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain
to be addressed. ❑
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further is required. ❑
Prepared & Submitted by:
dames Campbell, yen
Planning Department
Z()
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 3
0 11 3
Environmental Checklisd
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 4 ��
Potentimy
Less rnan
Less man
no
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
I.
AESTHETICS.
Would the project:
a)
Have a substantial adverse effect
❑
❑
0
❑
on a scenic vista?
b)
Substantially damage scenic
❑
❑
0
❑
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
C)
Substantially degrade the existing '
❑
❑
0
❑
visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
d)
Create a new source of substantial
❑
❑
❑
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
11.
AGRICULTURE RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a)
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
❑
❑
❑
0
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b)
Conflict with existing zoning for
❑
❑
❑
0
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c)
Involve other changes in the
❑
❑
❑
0
existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use?
111.
AIR QUALITY.
Would the project:
a)
Conflict with or obstruct
❑
0
❑
❑
implementation of the applicable air
nimlity nlan?
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 4 ��
Environmental Checklist }
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting
a substantial number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations
or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
EN
F07
n
0
V
A
X
L7
0
Significant
Significant
Significant Impact
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Violate any air quality standard or
❑
❑
❑ 0
contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
C) Result in a cumulatively
❑
❑
❑ 0
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non- attainment
under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting
a substantial number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations
or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
EN
F07
n
0
V
A
X
L7
0
❑
0
❑
IN
Lit
L�
J
J
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 5�
Environmental Checklist
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 6
Potentially
Less Than
Lessthan
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d)
Interfere substantially with the
❑
❑
❑
0
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impeded the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
e)
Conflict with any local policies or
❑
❑
❑
0
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f)
Conflict with the provisions of an
❑
❑
❑
0
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
V.
CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a)
Cause a substantial adverse
❑
❑
❑
0
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b)
Cause a substantial adverse
❑
0
❑
❑
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
C)
Directly or indirectly destroy a
❑
❑
❑
0
unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
d)
Disturb any human remains,
❑
❑
❑
I
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
VI.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Would the project:
a)
Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 6
Environmental Checkli�
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or ❑ a ❑ ❑
the loss of topsoil?
C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project and potentially result in on-
or off -site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
defined in Table 18- 1 -B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately ❑ ❑ ❑ 8
supporting the use septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS.
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the ❑ ❑ ❑
public or the environment through
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) . Page 7 4�—
roxemu ri
Significant
mesa 1nen
Significant
w *anon
Significant
wo
Impact
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
❑
D
❑
❑
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist - Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division
of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground
❑
®
❑
❑
shaking?
iii) Seismic- related ground failure,
❑
0
❑
❑
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
❑
Q
❑
❑
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or ❑ a ❑ ❑
the loss of topsoil?
C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project and potentially result in on-
or off -site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
defined in Table 18- 1 -B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately ❑ ❑ ❑ 8
supporting the use septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS.
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the ❑ ❑ ❑
public or the environment through
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) . Page 7 4�—
Environmental Checklist
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
Potentially
Less Than
Less than
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
❑-
❑
❑
c) Emit hazardous emissions or ❑ ❑ ❑
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one - quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is ❑ ❑ ❑
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites which complied
pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard
to the public or the environment?
e) For a project within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
0
0
Impact
l5
■ v
f) For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ ❑ ❑
private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
g) mpair implementation of or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wiidland fires,
including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
X
u
■ J
Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 8
Environmental Checklist
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 9 13V -k
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
VIII.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY.
Would the project:
a)
Violate any water quality standards
❑
0
❑
❑
or waste discharge requirements?
b)
Substantially deplete groundwater
❑
❑
❑
Q
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g.,
the production rate of pre- existing
nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
C)
Substantially alter the existing
❑
❑
❑
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off -site?
d)
Substantially alter the existing
❑
❑
❑
0
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of a
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on or off -site?
e)
Create or contribute runoff water
❑
❑
❑
0
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f)
Otherwise substantially degrade
❑
❑
❑
water quality?
g)
Place housing within a 100 -year
❑
❑
❑
0
flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 9 13V -k
Environmental Checklist I
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 10 .i
Potentially
Less Than
Less than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
h)
Place within a 100 -year flood hazard
❑
❑
❑
area structures which would impede
or redirect flood flows?
i)
Expose people or structures to a
❑
❑
❑
p
significant risk of loss; injury or
death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of
a levee or dam?
j)
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
❑
❑
❑
0
mudflow?
IX.
LAND USE AND PLANNING.
Would the proposal:
a)
Physically divide an established
❑
❑
❑
community?
b)
Conflict with any applicable land use
❑
❑
a
❑
plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to
the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
C)
Conflict with any applicable habitat
❑
❑
❑
conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
X.
MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a)
Result in the loss of availability of a
❑
❑
❑
D
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b)
Result in the loss of availability of a
❑
❑
❑
locally- important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other
land use plan?
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 10 .i
I Environmental Checkliil )
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
XI. NOISE.
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or ❑
generation of noise levels in excess
of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
C) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an
airport land use land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the project:
0
n
0
0
a) Induce substantial population ❑
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
0
0
iii
FM-
A
❑ ❑
❑
0
❑
0
❑
❑
❑
0
C
C
J
J
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page t 1 ' Y'
°ice
I Environmental ChecklIS& I
XIII.
Potentially
Less Than
Less than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
❑
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
substantial adverse physical
Incorporated
b) Displace substantial numbers of
❑
❑
❑
existing housing, necessitating the
provision of new or physically
construction of replacement housing
altered government facilities, need
elsewhere?
for new or physically altered
C) Displace,substantial numbers of
❑
❑
❑
0
people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
significant environmental impacts, in
XIII.
PUBLIC SERVICES
❑
❑
❑
0
a)
Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically
altered government facilities, need
for new or physically altered
government facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of
the public services:
Fire protection?
❑
❑
❑
Police protection?
❑
❑
❑
Schools?
❑
❑
❑
Other public facilities?
❑
❑
❑
0
XIV.
RECREATION
a)
Would the project increase the use
❑
❑
❑
E{
of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
b)
Does the project include
❑
❑
❑
10
recreational facilities or require the
construction of or expansion of
recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? opportunities?
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 12
V
Environmental Checklisi )
b) Exceed either individually or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
C) Result in a change in air traffic ❑ ❑ ❑ D
patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change
in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due ❑ ❑ ❑
to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
access?
f) Result in inadequate parking ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ❑ D
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 13 U
s=
rocenuany
1-1155 man
1.1515® elan NU
Significant
Significant
Significant Impact
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
XIV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
❑
LJJ
❑ ❑
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed either individually or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
C) Result in a change in air traffic ❑ ❑ ❑ D
patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change
in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due ❑ ❑ ❑
to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
access?
f) Result in inadequate parking ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ❑ D
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 13 U
s=
Environmental Checklist
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 14
Potenvany
Less roan
Less than
no
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b)
Require or result in the construction
Q
❑
❑
0
of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental effects?
C)
Require or result in the construction
❑
❑
❑
0
of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant
environmental effects?
d)
Have sufficient water supplies
❑
❑
❑
0
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources,
or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e)
Result in a determination by the
❑
O
❑
0
wastewater treatment provider,
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity
to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's
existing commitments?
f)
Be served by a landfill with sufficient
❑
❑
❑
0
permitted capacity to accommodate
the project's solid waste disposal
needs?
g)
Comply with federal, state, and local
❑
❑
❑
0
statutes and regulation related to
solid waste?
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 14
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
A) Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self -
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major period of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
( "Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
C) Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
:antially Less Than Leas than
niticant Significant Significant
npact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
❑ ❑ 0
A
0
0
A
X
0
Impact
U
5
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which
they address site - specific conditions for the project.
f;
Environmental Checklist
SOURCE LIST
The following enumerated documents are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach, Planning
Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660.
Final Program EIR — City of Newport Beach General Plan
2. General Plan, including all its elements, City of Newport Beach.
3. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
4. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code.
Plans for Single Family Residence at 3631 Ocean Boulevard, prepared by Ed Lorbach, dated.
6. Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Petra, Report No. 358 -00, 6/5/2001.
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 16 G,
M
} Environmental Checklist )
MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measure No. l (Air Quality)
a) During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with
SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce nuisance due to odors from construction activities.
b) During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the following measures are
complied with to reduce short-term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the project:
a) controlling fugitive dust by regular waterine watering, or other dust palliative measures to
meet South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b)
maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling construction
activities to minimize project - related emissions.
c) To control dust, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures:
• Limit the disturbance area to the extent feasible.
• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
• Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
• Apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas.
• Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on
any public roadway.
• Use street sweepers to clean and pick up trailing dust from raids in the vicinity of the
project.
• Cover or water twice daily any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material.
• Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
• Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain inactive for more
thatn 96 hours after charing is completed.
d) To control emissions, the project proponent shall compy with the following measures:
• Require 90 -day low -Nox tune -ups for off -road equipment.
• Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment.
e) To minimize off -site impacts, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures:
• Encourage car pooling for construction workers.
• Limit lane closures to off -peak travel periods.
• Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways.
• Wet down or cover dirt aauled off site.
• Wash or sweep access points daily.
• Encourage receipt of materials during non -peak traffic hours.
• Sandbag construction sites for erosion control.
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 17 �a
Environmental Checklisr
Mitigation Measure No. 2 (Cultural Resources)
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City
that a qualified paleontologist/archaeologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage
and catalog cultural material or fossils as necessary. The paleontologist/archaeologist shall be present at
the pre - grading conference, establish procedures for paleontological / archaeological resource
surveillance, and establish, in cooperation with the Applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or
redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the cultural material or fossils. If
major paleontological/archaeological resources are discovered, which require long -term halting or
redirecting or grading, the paleontologist/ archaeologist shall report such findings to the Applicant and
the City. The paleontologist/archae- ologist shall deter -mine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the
Applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City,
or its designee, on a first - refusal basis. The Applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is
provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special
significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time,
in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions shall be subject to the
approval of the City.
Mitigation Measure No. 3 (Geology and Soils)
During construction activities, the project will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of
the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local and State .building codes and seismic design
guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.10)
Mitigation Measure No. 4
The recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Investigation (Petra Report No. J.N. 358 -00) and
any subsequent geotechnical or geologic report for the project shall be incorporated into the project.
Mitigation Measure No. 5 (Hydrology and Water Quality)
The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department to determine compliance.
Mitigation Measure No. 6 (Noise).
The applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach
General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code pertaining to noise restrictions. During
construction activities, the hours of construction and excavation work are allowd from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30
p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and holidays.
Mitigation Measure No. 7 (Transportation/Traffic)
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a traffic control and construction
access plan to address construction traffic, haul routes, truck hauling operations and parking in order to
maintain safe access to the site during construction. The construction access plan shall include
alternative pedestrian and bicycle path routes and an employee parking plan. The plan shall be reviewed
and approved by the Traffic Department and the Planning Department. Additionally, the applicant shall
obtain a haul route permit from the Revenue Division. No construction equipment shall be permitted to
park overnight on Ocean Boulevard.
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 18
Era
} Environmental Analysis
The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions contained in the
Environmental Checklist regarding the proposed project's environmental impacts.
I. Aesthetics
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less than Significant. City policy expressly addresses structures along Ocean Boulevard and
dictates that the height of new structures be limited in order to preserve public scenic vistas from
Ocean Boulevard, as well as, preserve the visual character of the bluff face.
New structures built along Ocean Boulevard shall not exceed the height limit of the top of the
curb at Ocean Boulevard. Furthermore, structures within the R -1 Zone along Ocean Boulevard
are not to exceed height limits of twenty -four (24) feet from natural grade. The project proponent
has requested a variance to exceed the height limits. The project proponent has cited extreme
topographical constraints as cause for the variance. Specifically, the project proponent cites that
the height variance is needed to accommodate the proposed garage which will take access from
Ocean Boulevard.
The existing two -story, single family structure on the site will be replaced by a new, three -story;
single family residential structure. The height of the existing structure exceeds the height of the
top of the curb at Ocean Boulevard by approximately 3 feet, thereby blocking portions of the
scenic vista from Ocean Boulevard toward the Pacific Ocean. The new structure will only exceed
the height of the top of the curb at Ocean Boulevard by 2" - 6" for the garage and the remainder
of the residence will be at the height of the curb. The rear portion of the upper level of proposed
residence will exceed the 24 -foot height limit by approximately 10' - 6 ". Due to the fact that the
new residence will be lower than the existing residence, views from Ocean Boulevard will be
improved.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Less than significant impact. A majority of the proposed residence will be located within
existing disturbed areas. The footprint of the proposed residence and exterior at grade deck will
be extended toward the ocean an average of 18 feet. This area is approximately 575 square feet
of moderately sloping bluff with no exposed rock outcroppings visible. The area is not visible
from public spaces. The building wall that faces the ocean is within a stringline of the two
adjacent residences. The at grade deck extends further than a stringline between ocean facing
decks on the two adjacent residences between 2 to 10 feet. The location of the residence and
deck does not alter the steeper portion of the coastal bluff below that does have exposed
outcroppings of rocks which are visible from the rocky beach below.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
Less than significant. See I (a) and (b) above.
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 19 6�
U
Environmental Analysis
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
No impact. The site currently houses a single family home, including residential lighting. The
proposed project will replace the existing single family home with a new single family home,
including residential and landscape lighting. No significant impacts from light and glare are
anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary.
II. Agricultural Resources
a) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance
(farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use?
No Impact. The project site is not located within or near an area designated as farmland pursuant
to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. No
mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No impact. The site is zoned for residential use and is not a part of a Williamson Act contract.
No mitigation measures are necessary.
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of farmland, to non - agricultural use?
No impact. See II (a) and (b) above.
III. Air Quality
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Construction related emissions contribute to
the non - attainment status of the southern area air basin. The following mitigation measures are
necessary to reduce potential impacts to air quality to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure No. 1
a) During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with
SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce nuisance due to odors from construction
activities.
b) During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the following measures are
complied with to reduce short -term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the
project: a) controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust palliative measures
to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 20
i �J
Environmental Analysis
Dust); b) maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling
construction activities to minimize project - related emissions.
c) To control dust, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures:
• Limit the disturbance area to the extent feasible.
• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
• Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
• Apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas.
• Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt
deposition on any public roadway.
• Use street sweepers to clean and pick up trailing dust from raids in the vicinity of
the project.
• Cover or water twice daily any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty
material.
• Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
• Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain inactive for
more than 96 hours after clearing is completed.
d) To control emissions, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures:
• Require 90-day low -Nox tune -ups for off -road equipment.
• Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment.
e) To minimize off -site impacts, the project proponent shall comply with the following
measures:
• Encourage car pooling for construction workers.
• Limit lane closures to off -peak travel periods.
• Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways.
• Wet down or cover dirt hauled off site.
• Wash or sweep access points daily.
• Encourage receipt of materials during non -peak traffic hours.
• Sandbag construction sites for erosion control.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. See III (a) above.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. See III (a) above.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Jackson Residence (PA 2001.062) . Page 21
`7
' Environmental Analysis
No impact. The proposed project will not create substantial pollutant concentrations. No
mitigation measures are necessary.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No impact. The proposed project will not create objectionable odors. No mitigation measures
are necessary.
IV. Biological Resources
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
No impact. The site is presently developed with a single family home and is located in a
developed, urbanized area. Existing landscaping includes non - native, ornamental vegetation.
The non - native, ornamental vegetation will be graded and replaced with new, ornamental plant
materials. The proposed project will not directly or indirectly have any impacts on sensitive
biological resources. No mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of FYsh and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No impact. See IV (a) above. The site does not contain riparian habitat or sensitive natural
communities. No mitigation measures are necessary.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No impact. See IV (a) above. The site does not include wetlands, nor is it in the vicinity of
designated wetlands. No mitigation measures are necessary.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No impact. See IV (a) above. The site does not include or provide habitat for any migratory fish
or wildlife species. No mitigation measures are necessary.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 22
2Y.
` Environmental Analysis
No impact. No unique trees or vegetation exist on site. Existing non - native vegetation will be
removed due to grading.. The proposed project includes installation of new, ornamental, non-
native landscaping. Removing the existing vegetation and the provision of non - native
landscaping does not conflict with any established policies or ordinances. No mitigation
measures are necessary.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
No impact. The project site is not subject to any established conservation plan. No mitigation
measures are necessary.
V. Cultural Resources
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined
in Section 15064.5?
No impact. No known historical resources are located within or in the vicinity of the proposed
project. No mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 150645?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No known archaeological resources are
located within or in the vicinity of the proposed project. A standard condition of approval
requiring that an archeologist be consulted during grading will be applied to the project in case of
unknown artifacts being unearthed. See Mitigation Measure No. 2.
Mitigation Measure No. 2 - Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall
provide written evidence to the City that a qualified paleontologist/archaeologist has been
retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalog cultural material or fossils as
necessary. The paleontologist/archaeologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference,
establish procedures for paleontological / archaeological resource surveillance, and establish, in
cooperation with the Applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit
sampling, identification, and evaluation of the cultural material or fossils. If major
paleontological/archaeological resources are discovered, which require long -term halting or
redirecting or grading, the paleontologist/ archaeologist shall report such findings to the
Applicant and the City. The paleontologist/archaeologist shall deter -mine appropriate actions, in
cooperation with the Applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds
shall be offered to the City, or its designee, on a first - refusal basis. The Applicant may retain said
finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County,
unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to
study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or
designee. These actions shall be subject to the approval of the City.
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 23
�i
Environmental Analysis
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
No impact. No known paleontological or geologic resources are located within or in the vicinity
of the proposed project. See Mitigation Measure No. 2.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? .
No impact. See V (b) and (c) above.
VI. Geology and Soils
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving: .
1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
Less than significant impact. The geotechnical investigation (Petra Report No. J.N. 358-
00) prepared for the proposed project states that no known active faults or projections of
faults transect the property. The report concludes that potential damage to the property
due to surface rupturing along faults is considered remote. Adherence to geotechnical
report recommendations, the City Grading Ordinance and standard conditions of approval
will mitigate potential risks to a less than significant impact. See Mitigation Measures
No. 3 and 4 below.
it. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The geotechnical investigation
prepared for the proposed project concludes that the site will be affected by seismic
accelerations generated by earthquakes along active faults which are distant from the site.
The Newport- Inglewood Structural Zone is located 2 or 3 miles southwesterly of the site.
Hypothetical peak based accelerations were estimated and specific recommendations for
design, construction and maintenance of the proposed project and site are included in the
geotechnical report. Implementation of the recommendations will help to mitigate
potential seismic ground shaking impacts. See Mitigation Measures No. 3 and 4 below.
Mitigation Measure No. 3 - During construction activities, the project will comply with
the erosion and siltation control measures -of the City's grading ordinance and all
applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the
City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.10)
Jackson Residence (PA 2001.062) • Page 24 "✓ !
4.
Environmental Analysis -
Mitigation Measure No. 4 - The recommendations contained in the Geotechnical
Investigation (Petra Report No. J.N. 358 -00) and any subsequent geotechnical or geologic
report for the project shall be incorporated into the project.
W. Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less than significant impact. The Geotechnical Report did not note soil conditions that
would be susceptible to However, measures recommended by the Geotechnical Report,
including the use of a caisson and beam foundation embedded in bedrock, will serve to
mitigate potential liquefaction risks. See Mitigation Measure No. 3 and 4.
iv. Landslides?
Less than significant impact. The project site is located on a bluff face within a zone of
required investigation for earthquake induced landslides. The Geotechnical Report
prepared for the proposed project concludes that investigation of geologic conditions
which back the bluff slope indicate the bluff slope should not be affected by instability
during an earthquake or otherwise. Implementation of the recommendations included in
the Geotechnical Report for construction, drainage and maintenance will serve to
minimize the risk of landslides. See Mitigation Measures No. 3 and 4 above.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less- than significant impact. The Geotechnical Report prepared for the proposed project
recommends controlling drainage to avoid the introduction of water to the slope and filled areas
. which will serve to minimize the risk of soil erosion. Through implementation of the City's
grading ordinance, potential erosion and siltation impacts will be mitigated to a less than
significant impact. See Mitigation Measures No. 3 and 4 above.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in on or off -site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than significant impact. See VI (a) above.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
No impact. Boring samples of the project site's soils were analyzed in the Geotechnical Report
prepared for the proposed project. The report concludes that onsite soils have a very low
expansive potential. No mitigation measures other than those listed in Mitigation Measure No. 3
and 4 are necessary.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 25
�6
Environmental Analysis }
No impact. The project site is served by a waste water and sewage disposal system. No
mitigation measures are necessary.
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
No impact. The proposed project does not involve the transport, use or disposal of hazardous
materials. No mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
No impact. See VII (a) above.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous material,
substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No impact. See VII (a) above.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which
complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No impact. The project site is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites. No
mitigation measures are necessary.
e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No impact. The project site is located over five (5) miles from the nearest airport (John Wayne
Airport). No mitigation measures are necessary.
f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No impact. See VII (e) above.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No impact. The project will not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No mitigation measures are necessary.
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 26 " p
t
/ Environmental Analysis
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
No impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area. The risk of wildland fires is
insignificant. No mitigation measures are necessary.
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project will not substantially
increase runoff or violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Existing site
drainage is collected and transported to the base of the coastal bluff. On site runoff will be re-
directed away from the bluff via the use of deck, building and site drains. The runoff will be
collected and pumped to Ocean Boulevard that flows into the storm drain system and ultimately
into the ocean. The runoff expected from the site can be described as residential in nature and
less than significant amounts of contaminates are expected from a single family residence. With
the incorporation of City standard conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures during
grading, construction and ongoing site maintenance, no cumulative impacts associated with
hydrologic conditions are anticipated as a result of the project. See Mitigation Measure No. 5.
Mitigation Measure No. 5 - The project shall conform to the requirements of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the
Public Works Department to determine compliance.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop
to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing single family home. Although
extensive grading of the slope is included in the project, no impacts to groundwater are
anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on -or of -site?
No impact. See VIII (a) above.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on — off -site?
tD�
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 27
Environmental Analysis '
No impact. See VIII (a) above. The site does not presently direct its runoff to Ocean Boulevard,
but due to relatively limited impervious area of the site, Public Works department staff does not
believe that the small increase in drainage at Ocean Boulevard is significant. No mitigation
measures are necessary.
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
No impact. See VIII (a) AND (d) above.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
No impact. See VIII (a) above.
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard
Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
No impact. The project site is not located within a 100 -year flood zone. No mitigation measures
are necessary.
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
No impact. The project site is not located within a 100 -year flood zone. No mitigation measures
are necessary.
i) Expose people of structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
No impact. The project site is not located near a levee or dam. No mitigation measures are
necessary.
J) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No impact. Said risks to the City were evaluated in 1974 (A Preliminary Study of Flood
Probability at Newport Beach ". Potential risks from seiche, tsunami or mudflow are remote. No
mitigation measures are necessary.
IX. Land Use and Planning
a) Physically divide an established community?
No impact. The site is presently developed with a single family home in an urbanized,
residential neighborhood. The proposed project consists of a new, larger single family home to
replace the existing residence. No mitigation measures are necessary.
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 28
a
Environmental Analysis
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Less than significant impact. The project site is subject to the height limits imposed by the R -1
zone (Section 20.65.040 of the Municipal Code), the Shoreline Height Limitation Ordinance
(Section 20.65.060 of the Municipal Code) and Coastal Element Policy pertaining to coastal
views (page 28 of the City of Newport Beach Coastal Element). The applicable ordinance
sections and policy are noted below.
• City of Newport Beach Municipal Code 20.65.040 A. — 24/28 Foot Height Limitation
Zone. In the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation Zone the height limit for any structure shall
be twenty -four (24) feet; provided, however, that a structure may exceed twenty -four (24)
feet up to a maximum of.28 feet through the adoption of a Planned Community District,
or through the adoption of a Specific Plan, or through the approval of a use permit. This
height limitation zone applies to all R -1, R -1.5, R -2, and OS Districts, which applies to
the subject property.
• Cityy of Newport Beach Municipal Code 20.65.060 B — Structures on the bluff side of
Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar, which were in existence or under construction on
the effective date of this chapter (October 11, 1972) may be changed; provided, such
change does not result in a roof height above top of curb; and provided, further that the
roof height does not exceed the height limit established by the 24/28 height limitation
zone. For purposes of this chapter, the top of curb height limitation shall be established
by a horizontal plane created by the extension of the top of curb line across each site
located on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard. Where a question arises as to the
interpretation of this code, the Planning Director shall review and render a decision. New
structures may be constructed on vacant sites subject to the same criteria.
• City of Newport Beach General Plan Local Coastal Program Land Use Element January
9, 1990; Coastal Views — Where coastal views from existing roadways exist, any
development on private property within the sight lines from the roadway shall be sited
and designed to maximize protection of the coastal view. This policy is not intended to
prohibit development on any site. Coastal View Area (a) — Ocean Boulevard, Corona del
Mar.
The existing two - story, single family structure on the site will be replaced by a new, three- story,
single family residential structure. The height of the existing structure exceeds the height of the
top of the curb at Ocean Boulevard by approximately 3 feet, thereby blocking portions of the
scenic vista from Ocean Boulevard toward the Pacific Ocean. The project proponent has
requested a variance to exceed the height limits. The project proponent has cited extreme
topographical constraints as cause for the variance. The new structure will only exceed the
height of the top of the curb at Ocean Boulevard by 2" - 6" for the garage and the remainder of
the residence will be at the height of the curb. The rear portion of the upper level of proposed
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 29
V�
;a
-i
Environmental Analysis
residence will exceed the 24 -foot height limit by approximately 10' - 6 ". Due to the fact that the
new residence will be lower than the existing residence, views from Ocean Boulevard will be
improved. However, enforcing the existing height limit regulations would eliminate any potential
negative impacts to the public scenic vista. The intent of these policies is to protect and improve
ocean views, and therefore, project approval will have a less than significant impact to land use
to the environment in the area of land use policy.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
No impact. The project site does not lie within a conservation plan habitat or natural community
conservation plan. No mitigation measures are necessary.
X. Mineral Resources
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the
region and the residents of the state?
No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing structure in an urbanized area. No loss
of availability of any known mineral resource would occur as a result of the project. No
mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No impact. See X (a) above.
XI. Noise
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project will include the
demolition of an existing single family residential and the construction of a new, single family
residential structure. Short term, construction related noise impacts would be mitigated through
the application of the standard conditions of approval required by the City's Noise Ordinance,
including limited hours of construction. No continuing noise impacts are anticipated. See
Mitigation Measure No. 5.
Mitigation Measure No. 6 - The applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with the
provisions of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code
pertaining to noise restrictions. During construction activities, the hours of construction and
excavation work are allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and holidays.
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 30 � 5
1
Environmental Analysis
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground
borne noise levels?
No impact. See XI (a) above. The project will not be using a pile driven foundation system
which could generate excessive ground borne vibration or noise.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
No impact. See XI (a) above.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
No impact. See XI (a) above.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working the project area to excessive noise levels?
No impact. The project is not located within an airport land use plan. The nearest airport, John
Wayne Airport, is located approximately 5 miles away. No airport related noise impacts are
anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No impact. The project is not located within an airport land use plan. The nearest airport is
located 5 miles away. No airport related noise impacts are anticipated. No mitigation measures
are necessary.
XII. Population and Housing
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing single family residence with a new
residence. No increase in population growth is anticipated. No mitigation measures are
necessary.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
No impact. See XII (a) above.
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 31
c
Environmental Analysis
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
No impact. See XII (a) above.
XIII. Public Services
a) Fire Protection?
No impact. The site is presently served by the Newport Beach Fire Department. The proposed
project will replace an existing single family residence with a new single family home. The
proposed residence will have approximately 5,484 gross square feet and fire sprinklers are
required for all new residences that exceed 5,000 square feet. No impact or change to fire
protection is anticipated from the proposed project. No mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Police protection?
No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residential unit with a new residential
unit. The site is presently served by the Newport Beach Police Department. No impact or
change to fire protection is anticipated from the proposed project. No mitigation measures are
necessary.
c) Schools?
No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residence with a new single family
residence. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site.
Applicable school fees will be required for the site prior to issuance of a building permit. No
additional school impacts are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary.
d) Other public facilities?
No impact. See XIII (a), (b) and (c) above.
XIV. Recreation
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing single family residence with a new
residence. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. No
additional impacts to recreational facilities or services are anticipated. No mitigation measures
are necessary.
kol
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 32
C �'
Environmental Analysis
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment? Opportunities?
No impact. See XIV (a) above.
XV. Transportation/Traffic
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load
and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number
of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersection)?
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project will replace an
existing residential unit with a new residential unit. The use is consistent with the zoning and
General Plan designations for the site. No increases in traffic are anticipated with the continued
occupancy and use the project. However, during implementation of the project, construction
traffic can create localized traffic disruption. Implementation of the following mitigation
measure will ensure minimal traffic related impacts,
Mitigation Measure No. 7 - Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit
a traffic control and construction access plan to address construction traffic, haul routes, truck
hauling operations and parking in order to maintain safe access to the site during construction.
The construction access plan shall include alternative pedestrian and bicycle path routes and an
employee parking plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Traffic Department and
the Planning Department. Additionally, the applicant shall obtain a haul route permit from the
Revenue Division. No construction equipment shall be permitted to park overnight on Ocean
Boulevard.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residential unit with a new residential
unit. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. No
increases in traffic are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residential unit with a new residential
unit. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. No
increase in traffic is anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
%0J,
Jackson Residence (PA 2001.062) a Page 33
-/1
Environmental Analysis '
No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residential unit with a new residential
unit. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. No
changes in the circulation system would result from the project. No mitigation measures are
necessary.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No impact. See XV (d) above.
fj Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residential unit with a new residential
unit. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. Parking
needs will be accommodated on site per City zoning requirements. No mitigation measures are
necessary.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
No impact. See XV above.
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residential unit with a new residential
unit. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site.
Wastewater treatment impacts would not result from the project. No mitigation measures are
necessary.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residential unit with a new residential
unit. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. No new or
expanded wastewater treatment drainage facilities would be needed as a result of the project. No
mitigation measures are necessary.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
No impact. See XVI (b) above.
kA
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 34
Environmental Analysis }
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
No impact. Sufficient water supplies are available to serve the project. No mitigation measures
are necessary.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
No impact. Sufficient wastewater capacity exists to serve the proposed project. No mitigation
measures are necessary.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's
solid waste disposal needs?
No impact. Sufficient landfill capacity exists to serve the proposed project. No mitigation
measures are necessary.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste?
No impact. The proposed project complies with all federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste. No mitigation measures are necessary.
Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 35 �d
Environmental Analysis
XVII. Mandatory i Indings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Less than Significant Impact. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed project does
not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. The project site is
located in a developed urbanized area of the City. The new structure will replace and existing
structure. No change in use is proposed. The proposed use is consistent with the zoning and
general plan designations for the site, with the exception of the height limit regulations noted in
Sections I and IX above. Development of the proposed project would not impact any special
status species. No significant impacts would result from project development. No mitigation
measures other than mitigation Measures 1 through 6 noted above, are necessary.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
No impact. See XVII (A) above. The proposed project would generate less than significant
impacts or no impacts in the areas of noise, air quality, traffic, circulation and others. Any
potential impact generated by the proposed project would be mitigated to a level of less than
significant through the application of standard conditions of approval, City ordinances and site
specific recommendations included in the Geotechnical Report prepared for the project and listed
herein. No significant cumulative impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. No
mitigation measures are necessary.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
No impact. Any potential impact generated by the proposed project would be mitigated to a
level of less than significant through the application of standard conditions of approval, City
ordinances and site specific recommendations included in the Geotechnical Report prepared for
the project and listed herein. No significant cumulative impacts are anticipated as a result of the
proposed project. No mitigation measures are necessary.
/1�
Jackson Residence (PA 2001 -062) • Page 36
a �
ti
o
O x
O 'r
aF�g
0
10
Ha �
b
M
o�
N
z
O
U
W F.
O
O
O
.r
O C
O N
O
�z
a;
amo
0
sib
a Do -0
4
v y
o
4
p
`�
� � �
s `o
c�01�
yy
Y
�
o
�'
v
•�
'r
Rj
3
O
b
•n
�4
C C
C 0
n
:`
C
L
w
it 5
eO
•°.:
n s h C
0.w
v
�:�
°
4
c �
o
�
n
0
`
O O
ti
O
n
C
-0
At
z
lz
tZI
3 cs
Qp
3 Z2
am
m,
..
•� v b
'� n
� ea s �
.4 �'
�
� «
� �
`ti y
'�
i � �'
.mod. s
4.�
° v
_
r
o
o
c
4 1
` �
n c a
3°
`0
3 a
o o
v ry
v
v
gi
�
ec
O y 'CS
C 'fi
r.`
n 0 v
Q.
u
T y
':t
m
o V tl
•.
c°�
ti '�
U w:,
y
�n
C
e4i
e�
o�
N
z
O
U
W F.
O
O
O
.r
O C
O N
O
�z
N
b
z
O
O
Fir
ti
b
b p
n 8
O
�Or
,c, O
oz
��b�rrA
€'
x r
�
I
Ly
..... ..........
O
0. y
4 Fy
�
O
p
x[
� 1 � V.
-.1
u o
42,
i
h
y
O
0.9,0 dC'i
Ct
in o ti 'y
b
0
3 tl
r
r`Tt G 4
V
V �+
u
M
o
. U C$ h N y �. "
tl
•`3
.s r p d
4
5 Y
sr
''a.oy�
5
i
d'
4�c''d}�
y
O
1
O n
w
N
A
4
y
L n
}r' Zt y
y
❑�
01 +pa y y y tl
tt
n
7
fti
r
y
�
o u
>
N
O
tl Y M "� O w
•o � V 'n a
p
•0
'�
O .' N
� �` tl
y
ti �O b
p
r v
cVi
u ,3
,s
, O
V�
y
tl
n
•9 v '� ?. 3
`3
tl
°'
u�
i
v i
�
pn� ,.i O .d i O� i�
` y
tt
o
C 3 u
o
n y o 0
N
x
C
i •'qO
C
e, -S '� tt [.
O C r ao
O
y FR
y
M
o
.�
o�
0.
E m d
a
C
N
N
b
z
O
O
Fir
ti
b
b p
n 8
O
�Or
,c, O
oz
��b�rrA
M
O
O
N
z
0
U
w
bq
r
o
O
O
O
•,w d
bo
al
1411,
-(C.f
jQ
w
y
o�� i
Cb
y
°o
�g
&y
c
y
,.._.
y a t3 v
4 a a
n
O n
O a
4 a
v c
v 4 y
v Ry
4y
y4y
a"i Oy
a
a i
a ts
e
4
Yo y
s c e c
a°
r °i
°o
o
a
«
C4. u
•
_
�.. i
ti
C
e y
p 4
v 'tY
O
a ti
4
eo
.'• Y. U
y
a d
C
a
Y Tt O
£
,.'4`
�a
4 C.
of •�• .�„
= �.. -sp
r O• V
Q 'i
z.. v
`
3
w
�i w o�
"� e�
U T
•s F.
C
O a
ptiay
�+ p
O T
.Y VwV
Ali
«s
e ya -0
P i e
y
a n a
a: a
5
X039
a
3 m
.Ls.
C '�
w 'tS y
Y >. 4
O it
L
'4 C
`S •Q
s
P` C i
0
�.
G
w
a
y
2�
v
n.
a
v a .s
U
OL u
q'ti
a
4
e
O a
O a
b r
3 co
a po
a a .S
v
« e
5
Z 4
y y N3
O
C ca
ri Y3
O
m S
s [.a
a 'y o
p V
O
q
m
0 r
M a
w a 3
p
p
5 U Oi
p c m 01 U
4 ro
4 -`•
M
O
p U
v
.O C
V N
^. V
Cp v
b
-0
d
Oi
y yM C
pa
�0 p y
3Y
ce
V sO V
Y p
V
O
y p
•',
0
Z Y
`JV 0i
L C
a °°
.5 •y E't:
a
Y.Y. c°10 �
4
y
.`:
M
O
O
N
z
0
U
w
bq
r
o
O
O
O
•,w d
bo
al
1411,
-(C.f
EXHIBIT NO. 5
Minutes from the August 23, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting
/)5
, t
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
August 23, 2001
and not impact anybody whatsoever.
Com sioner Agajanian noted that the inspector had actually seen a project
and note' d the owner who, in this case, has filed for this variance. We are
getting a Qt of miscommunication between individuals who are starting
projects, conff nfing our inspectors and not stopping the building at that point.
It is continuing a'4a we are confronted with a variance in an 'ex post facto' sort
of way. I don't lik it are
I think this could have been avoided. It could
have been modified rly on, at the time the inspector saw it. I would certainly
approve a small varianteif we could cut back the two bays on the right, but I
can not support the varian as it stands right now.
Vice Chairman Kiser noted thoNQrIcinces are difficult to give. In this case I have
a different take on it as the str Lure itself as it stands, presents a minimal
incursion into any kind of view and is minimal part of the structure. I would be
willing to support the motion in this ase. Other considerations are, the
applicant could take down the trellis an ut tables with large umbrellas on the
same balcony that I believe would do abo the same view wise to the extent
that there is any obstruction. The applicant c d also run some light wires and
have plants strung across. The residences on the er side and from Kings Road
have no view blockage as I could determine. With e lack of complaints other
than the letter from Mr. Roman who addresses the oblem as a historically
sensitive area and generally blocked vistas from the blu side of Kings Road, is
much broader based than something that would raise an real question from
me about this particular minor structure. While I am hesita to support any
variances, in this case, I would support the motion.
Ayes: Kiser, Gifford, KranAey,
Noes: McDaniel, Agajanian
Absent: Tucker, Selich
•s•
INDEX
SUBJECT: Jackson Residence Rem No. 4
3631 Ocean Boulevard PA2001.062
• Variance No. 2001 -001 and
• Modification No. 2001 -092 (PA2001 -062)
Request to demolish an existing single family home (2,924 gross square feet) and Continued to
replace with a new single family home (6,044 gross square feet) including 09/20/2001
grading, paving, fencing lighting, landscaping and irrigation. The proposed
project includes the changes to the existing driveway and front yard
landscaping presently located within the public right -of -way. The project also
includes a variance request to exceed established height limits of Zoning Code
due to unique topographical circumstances. Lastly, the project includes a
request to deviate from the required front yard setback of 10 -feet providing a 0'
to 4' front setback.
J(0
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
August 23, 2001
Mr. Campbell then made a slide presentation noting the following:
• Demolition of existing home constructed in 1962 and construction of a new
three -level residence.
• A 1962 Variance allowed the home to encroach into the front yard
setback and was conditioned that the house not exceed 3' above the top
of the curb; this predated the curb height limit that was put into place
later.
• Proposed site plan depicting the area that would exceed the top of the
curb by approximately 2' 6 ", which is approximately 6" lower than the
residence today; portions shown that would comply with the curb height
limit and those portions that exceed the curb height limit.
• Elevations were explained showing the elevator, powder room, chimneys,
three - levels from the ocean side and elevations showing the left and right
sides of the house.
Commissioner Kranzley asked where the string line was for the patio.
Mr. Campbell answered that the building string line was put on the drawing for
analysis purposes and has no regulatory framework related to it. The string line for
the patio was indicated on the exhibit. Continuing with the slide presentation he
noted:
• Elevations on the right side of the residence along with the chimneys.
• Lower level decks.
• Section drawings that showed where the residence exceeds the 24 -foot
height limit. The drawing had green lines depicting outline of the existing
residence, red lines depicting the top of the curb and a dark outline showing
the portions of the garage.
• Pictures were then presented taken from sides, top and across the existing
residence.
The sidewalk is proposed to be relocated towards the curb.
• Public Works Department is recommending that the sidewalk stay in its
present location.
• Garage will have a flat roof and will be 6" lower than the peak of the
present sloping roof. The garage roof will be approximately 18" higher than
the existing one at the face of the garage as the roof is flattened and
extended towards the front of the property. The view shed will be brought
closer to the front of the lot.
• Slides showing the rear of the property shouting the encroachment of the
deck and areas of the proposed residence; views towards the east
depicting the cemented portions in place to prevent soil erosion.
• Adjacent neighbor's house that is currently being remodeled.
• Slides depicting the bluff area and vegetation.
In conclusion, he stated that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission
approve this variance due to the sloping topography, slight improvement of the
view over the top of the residence and the applicant is building in an area that is
already developed. The encroachment of the deck and other features do
extend out over the bluff. The General Plan suggests that we minimize bluff
INDEX
11
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
August 23, 2001
alteration, so the Commission has the option to cut back that deck if they feel it
does encroach too far over the bluff. Staff believes that the front yard setback
modification is warranted as it assists the applicant staying off the bluff by bringing
the building closer to the street. Due to the deep parkway and lower elevation of
the residence, staff does not believe that the project will create a negative
impact to Ocean Boulevard.
Commissioner Kranzley noted that on page 7, it refers to 10' ceilings that cause
roughly one quarter of the seaward edge of the upper floor to exceed the 24 -foot
height limit. If we brought the ceilings down it would reduce the amount of the
Variance.
Referring to the slide elevation, Mr. Campbell explained the garage level. He
agreed that if the ceilings were lowered, it would reduce the amount of the
Variance by approximately 25 %.
Commissioner Gifford stated that the plate of the garage is 8'6 ". What is the
dimension of the floor right now? Can the floor of the garage be brought any
lower?
Staff answered it was approximately 7'6 ". The floor could be lowered and would
cause the slope of the driveway to increase. The other option would be to move
the garage further away from the street as discussed in the staff report. If the
garage stays in the some location, the slope would be approximately 21 -22%.
Commissioner Kranzley stated that the 8'6" as the shortest height of the garage
that is recommended would be higher than the garage that currently exists there.
The garage has a sloped roof, but you are flattening the roof and raising the front
of the garage so the opening is actually going to be higher by a foot than the
existing garage.
Mr. Campbell stated the 8'6" was scaled off the drawings for the interior clear
height to the bottom of the roof member. The door itself is about 7'6" based on
the drawings. This dimension could be brought down and does not have to be
8'6".
Mr. Edmonston stated that there is a minimum height for a garage height either
6'6" or 7', certainly less than the 8'6 ".
Commissioner McDaniel noted that as long as the Code permits, we could make
some adjustments on the garage. Don't lower the floor, but lower the ceiling to
make it closer to what we are looking for.
Mr. Edmonton added that another factor is as you are coming down the slope as
you come into the garage the back end of the car comes down. The front end of
the car if it were a box, the door may have to be taller than a door if you were
coming in flat.
1�
City of Newport Beach
Plannina Commission Minutes
INDEX
Commissioner Selich asked if rather than having the driveway come in
perpendicular to the street, having it come in at a transverse angle or a zigzag
driveway in order to take the driveway down to a lower level so you can get the
garage floor lower and not exceed the 15% slope? He was answered no, staff
does not know if the applicant studied that option or not.
Commissioner Selich asked for information on the Variance that was approved for
the house at the end of Poppy Street. Staff answered they had that 10e.
Ms. Temple noted in relation to the project at the end of Poppy Street, that the
original proposal was for the garage and elevator area to exceed the curb height
limit. It was originally proposed to exceed the height limit by almost 8'6" feet. The
Planning Commission reduced that to 4'6" by pressing the building further into the
slope. The lot was much wider than this one.
Commissioner Selich noted that the garage could be moved out towards the
ocean and lowered so that a drive approach would not exceed the 15 %. The
reason for doing that is that they want to have a room on the other side of the
garage that had an ocean view. Is that correct?
Mr. Campbell answered, yes. If the garage was pushed away from the curb and
lowered, you could get to 15 %. That area is a kitchen now, and the applicant
does not want to lose the ocean views.
Mr. Edmonston noted that 15% is the standard maximum used for a driveway
slope. In the hillside areas of the City, and this would certainly fall into that, we do
look at projects on a case -by -case basis and allow typically up into the 17 -18%
range, very rarely 20 %. There are factors that can be allowed if that is your goal.
The driveway is allowed to have different slopes at different points as there is a
need to provide gradual changes so the cars do not bottom out as they go over
a sharp angle.
Vice Chairman Kiser asked about the other homes along that portion of Ocean
Drive and how much they encroach into the front yard setbacks. Staff answered
that there were nine encroachments permitted and range from 9 feet into the 10
feet setback to 10 feet into the 10 feet setback; there are several of them for the
entire house but the majority are for portions of homes only.
At Commission inquiry, staff added that the City does not use the concept of string
line. Where it has gained its prominence is in the Coastal Zone, where the Coastal
Commission staff uses it as analytical tool. Although once again, it is not a
regulatory limit established by the Coastal Commission. It is just a way to look at a
project for analysis purposes.
Commissioner Gifford stated that if the stringline concept was to be taken into
consideration, it would change the traditional view we have had on Variances
not setting a precedent because if we give variances and then use a stringline on
those variances, we are in a place of difficulty.
J`)i
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
Auaust 23.2001
Ms. Temple added another thing to think about when you look at the relevance
of the stringline is that in some cases, you might have extremely old houses on
either side of a property, maybe even small homes. A stringline would then tend
to compress the buildable footprint. Maybe in a location like this that would be a
good thing; in other places it may work to the Commission's detriment in the sense
they may be forced to approve more or greater variances because of the
compressed building footprint areas. There are implications that can reverberate
through a common application of that sort. Just as a way of information and
understanding where the building is sited in relationship to the neighboring
properties, it certainly is a relevant thing to consider.
At Commission inquiry, Ms. Clauson noted that if the Commission wanted to use
this as a fact or finding in support of the decision, then we would have a problem.
However, if it is just part of conceptualization to analyze the project, there would
be no problem.
Vice Chairperson Kiser asked if the applicant was not requesting the setback and
public right of way modification and variance, could they replace the home that
is existing with one that is three feet over the curb line today?
Staff answered that if they were going to remodel the existing, without tearing it
down, yes as they would be able to maintain what they have. If they demolish
the entire building, they would not be able to rebuild. The variance in 1962 was for
the front yard setback encroachment of the house and not for building height. A
condition was put on that variance to limit the curb height by three feet, which
has pre -dated that standard that you see today in the Code.
Public comment was opened.
Ed Lohrbach, architect for the project, stated that the applicant has worked very
hard to not have variances on this project. Referring to the site plan, he noted
that having a flat roof lowers the house as much as possible from a practical stand
point. With a pitched roof, they would have to go down farther to get any ceiling
heights. Going below the 15% to get down to the garage is dangerous, because
of the steeper slope, which is why I have kept the roof of the garage up. There is
no code for garage heights; 7'6" is very low. We could drop it, but I am trying to
keep some difference of elevations for the style. Looking at the curb you don't
see the house from the street because it is so low. I use a stringline during my
design process because I think it is a considerate way to design for the neighbors.
I don't want to go beyond them even though I could, and yes, Coastal does look
at it that way. The houses on either side are both remodeled and above the curb
height. Comparing our elevations, we are lower. To accomplish the right grade
we would have to bring the house back to the back of the garage to meet the
24 -foot height limit. It is a tough situation.
At Commission inquiry, he noted the following:
• Standard garage height is 7 feet.
10
INDEX
N
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
August 23, 2001
The driveway from a safety standpoint as designed to pull in and turn
around. If it is made steeper, it will be hard to pull around and back up
and prefers not to push it down any farther
If I make 9' plates, the house will be down below all the other houses, even
below the curb heights.
I really don't believe the difference between the 9' or 10' will make a
difference to the mass of the house.
Commissioner Selich noted that he would like to get the elevation of the garage
lower and maintain a 15% driveway by lengthening the distance from where you
approach from the sidewalk to where you reach the garage. Did you look at
angling it where you would be a greater distance from the street and what that
would dot Did you look at zigzagging the driveway so you could run parallel to
the property and then parallel back the other direction to make the grade? How
much additional lowering could you achieve?
Mr. Lohrbach answered that there would not be enough room to do that. I did
analyze that. You would not achieve any more lowering of the garage because
you are taking up the whole front yard with concrete or asphalt to do that.
Robert Lockleigh, Corona del Mar noted his opposition of any construction that
encroaches into the public view of the ocean, or expansion beyond legal curb
height limits. He further requested that any encroachment whatever into the
public right of way be disapproved. The public land that they propose to take for
their front yard belongs to the people of Newport Beach. In relation to the
sidewalk, the report shows 44 feet from the existing sidewalk is the front properly
line, that is 44 feet of public park space. Perhaps they need to place the garage
some place else. At what point do we stop building 6,000+ square foot houses on
unbuildable lots with room for 2,000 square foot houses, it's a cliff. A lot has
changed since 1962; we no longer have the public view and access to the
beaches. This is one of the few places where we have access. The owners state
they don't want to loose their views by modifying the house, but nobody seems to
care about the public views. I ask that you deny anything beyond what is legally
permissible.
At Commission inquiry, Mr. Lockleigh noted that the sidewalk in the past was a
curving greenbelt that went along that whole area. What he is proposing and
would like to see is all public property returned to the public and used as a park for
the people. It does not belong to just the nine people who live along that street, it
belongs to all of us. There can be an aesthetic joint use of the land where
everyone can work together.
Bill Benz, 3625 Ocean adjacent owner next door noted his concerns of the
potential for erosion and de- stabilization. He stated he has submitted plans for
remedial treatments due to the dig going on the other side of him with a six -foot
high retaining wall going into remedy existing erosion on that side. The additional
prospect of erosion from this construction makes him a little nervous. He would
have the same issue and concern with the excavation in general and the fact as
11
INDEX
U�
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
August 23, 2001
seen in one of the photos of the front of the houses is an 18' high retaining wall.
He's nervous that this might de- stabilize and lead to more problems. At
Commission inquiry, he stated he did not need a variance for his remodel.
John Garcia, architect on the project at 3625 Ocean added that there was a
modification for the front yard setback and a 12' section of the house to go 8"
above the existing curb height. Some of the patio was cut back on the bluff side.
Ms. Temple added that the Modification Committee, within certain limits, could
approve certain types of architectural features. If it were not an architectural
feature, the Planning Commission would see any variance.
Christine Brooks stated she had submitted a letter on behalf of Mr. Benz stating his
position. She noted that the stringline is not a regulation. During the slide
presentation, a slide shows that the deck- to-deck stringline goes beyond 10'.
There is a privacy wall that comes up there that will potentially block views. We
request a continuance of this matter in order to work with the applicant to resolve
some issues between the neighbors, or, a denial of the application.
Commissioner Gifford asked if there have been any points of agreement in the
discussions with the applicants?
Ms. Brooks stated there has been no final resolution reached to date.
Doug Jackson, applicant commented that he could not lower the garage floor. It
is a very short run into the garage and we have difficulty now. We have to back
out of the driveway and that causes a safety issues with on coming traffic.
Ed Lohrback noted that we have stepped back on the top floor following
discussions with Mr. Benz. By using the stringline, I am using the comer of their
house as our privacy wall. The next floor, we are discussing landscaping, but have
not committed to pulling the wall back. We are within our rights to match their
wall. Because they put windows on their side, should not penalize us. We are
looking straight out. He added that he would have sump pumps for the water
from the site pumped back up to the street.
Jean Bruton, Goldenrod Avenue noted her opposition to granting this variance.
She presented her personal views and gave a brief history of the loss of public
views and grasslands.
Public comment was closed.
Commissioner Gifford, referring to page 7 and the statement that the reduced
setback does place the foundation of the proposed residence in a position where
it will provide lateral support for the public right -of -way due to the extensive
excavation proposed. I don't understand this sentence.
Mr. Campbell explained that there is a foundation wall for the three level
12
INDEX
Rai
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
August 23, 2001
residence in this location, which is approximately 18 feet deep. All of the land in
that area will be supported by that construction. If the construction were to be
done using in less than adequate techniques or if there was a problem with the
site, the area might be de- stabilized. The geotechnical report did not show any
flaws with the geology of the site and adherence to the Uniformed Building Code
Standards and Grading Standards should minimize those types of issues. i don't
think this is an issue of concern. There is no evidence that there is inadequate
support today.
Commissioner Agajanian referring to the some page asked if the reduction of the
front yard setback might be detrimental if the city were to attempt to reclaim the
use of the public right -of -way fronting Ocean Boulevard for the use by the general
public. This is unlikely as it is contrary to past policy. What do these statements
mean?
Mr. Campbell explained that if the structure was located in this proposed position,
the proximity to general public use of the space here is kind of hypothetical to re-
claim this space for general use and occupancy would have to be re- evaluated.
It is not necessarily a significant concern, but a "what if' kind of question.
Commissioner Agajanian noted his concern of the policy that it would never be
reclaimed or that we don't care about claiming if now.
Mr. Campbell noted that the Council has not come in and actually attempted to
remove existing private improvements in the right of way. These approvals
actually go to City Council for the encroachment, and we fill find out if these
improvements are excessive or not. The City Council may suggest these
improvements not go in and reclaim that space. The Modification deals with the
front yard setback on private property. .
Commissioner Selich noted that this encroachment into the right of way is not
within our purview, it is a matter for the City Council to approve or not. My
concern is on the garage area exceeding the height limit in this structure. I think
the other requests are within reason. To the degree that this building may have
been pushed back to satisfy the views out of the windows of the Benz' property
next door to the degree that affects the design of this and pushes the garage
structure higher, I think the public view benefits far outweigh the benefits gained
by pushing the structure back to enhance that view, which is already a pretty
good view straight over the water. I think there is another solution here and I am
not convinced from the answers I got to my questions tonight that there isn't a
way that this house could be designed and the that the garage can be brought
within the height limit. Some Commissioners have mentioned modification of
plate heights, I mentioned studying the slope at the driveway, and Mr. Edmonton
mentioned modifying the slope. Maybe it's not anyone of those solutions but
some combination somehow to make it work. Perhaps with that kind of direction,
the applicant could go back and do some more work on it and bring the height
down where it would not require a variance to the curb height limit.
13
�,3
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
August 23, 2001
Commissioner Kranzley noted his agreement with the previous testimony. He
added that it is important to have that curb height limit and I feel that more work
can be done on this project on a number of different areas, including plate height
and garage height. 1 would move for continuance of this item.
Commissioner McDaniel stated that when a building of 6,000 square feet of new
residence, it seems we ought to be able to cure as many of the problems we had
before and bring this into compliance as close as we can. I wouldn't be able to
approve this project the way it is tonight and agree with the previous statements.
Vice Chairman Kiser stated he agrees with the previous statements as well.
Dropping a large portion of the home by 3 feet creates a somewhat more public
view even though the roof would be flat. The front yard setback matches other
homes on this street and in the immediate area. However, on the height
variance, I agree with what has been said. A 10 -foot floor plate might be
reduced as well as a lower garage, and these might get the structure to a point
where it could fit within the curb height and without the variance. Then it is just a
matter of solving the driveway problem; I agree with previous comments that
there was not a whole lot of study about that. It seems to be a matter that needs
a lot of time and attention applied to it. The other problem I have is the lower
level at grade deck. The height variance is my primary concern. I would support
continuing this item.
Commissioner Gifford stated that she agrees with the previous comments adding
that in our overall assessment, the public views are the primary concern rather
than the private views. I too support a continuance.
Vice Chairman Kiser asked the applicant what would be a reasonable amount of
time for the architect to review the things that have been suggested by the
Commission.
Mr. Lohrbach answered he would study it and attempt to get the garage down.
He answered that he could drop the floors and the garage a bit if that is what it
takes. The mass of the building is hardly any bigger than what exists. He
suggested that September 20th would be a good date.
Commissioner Kranzley commented that at looking at the other houses on the
street that have not been torn down. Many of them exceed the height of the
curb. There was a very long and hard fought baffle to get the new standards in
regarding curb heights as the limit. Whatever the existing circumstances are
there, I feel it is my job when new houses are being built there, to try to attain the
new standards. You are building a new house here.
Commissioner Gifford added that on occasion when we have granted a height
variance, it has been a trade off often for some type of lateral shrinkage or some
other factor that we felt in total created an overall benefit for the public views.
Those of you who may take some type of policy implication that there have been
height variances, you should not think of it as strictly a height variance with
14
c6
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
August 23, 2001
nothing else having changed.
Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to September
20'^.
Ms. Temple noted that the most critical issue appears to be the curb height limit
as opposed to the overall height limit.
Commissioner Kranzley noted that the public view is most important but I am not
ready to sacrifice private views for variances. If we reduce plate height we will
improve the 24 -foot variance. My primary concern is curb height.
Commissioner Selich added his concern is curb height limit. The rest is
reasonable giving the topography of the lot.
Commissioner Agajanian noted he is interested in the curb height; lower level
deck extension and particularly concerned about the erosion.
Commissioner McDaniel noted his primary concerns are curb height and deck.
Vice Chairman Kiser noted his primary concerns are curb height and deck.
Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich
Noes: None
Absent: Tucker
a) City uncil Follow -up - no planning items at the last meeting.
b) Oral report fr Planning Commission's representative to the Economic
Development Co ittee - no meeting this month.
C) Matters that a Planning Co issioner would like staff to report on at a
subsequent meeting - Commissi r Agajanian noted his concern about
tonight's variance. It bothers me th he inspectors go out to the sites,
see the work being done, and in this �se it was reported it was
dangerous so they couldn't leave it so they hadtto continue it. I would
like to find out and have a report on what our pbliry is. Obviously we
didn't bring a halt to this construction.
Ms. Temple answered that when we find something going on HRI ut a
building permit, we put a stop work order on it. What this applic stt
15
Additional Business
g5
EXHIBIT NO. 6
Staff Report from the September 20, 2001
Planning Commission Meeting
is
CrrY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing ..late: September 20, 2001
PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: 2
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell)
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3210
(949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 6443250 Appeal Period: 14 days
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT: Jackson Residence (PA2001 -062)
3631 Ocean Boulevard FILE o 1 P
SUMMARY: Request to demolish an existing single family home (2,924 gross square
feet) and replace it with a new single family home (6,044 gross square
feet) including grading, paving, fencing lighting, landscaping and
irrigation. The proposed project includes the changes to the existing
driveway and front yard landscaping presently located within the public
right -of -way. The project also includes a variance request to exceed
established height limits of Zoning Code due to unique topographical
circumstances. Lastly, the project includes a request to deviate from the
required front yard setback of 10 feet providing a 0' to 4' front setback.
ACTION: Approve Variance No. 2001 -001 and Modification No. 2001 -092 and
ADOPT Resolution No. entitled, "A Resolution of the
Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach Approving Variance
No. 2001 -001 and Modification No. 2001 -092 (PA2001- 062)."
W
Deny Variance No. 2001 -001 and Modification No. 2001 -092 by adopting
the findings contained in Exhibit No. 2
APPLICANT: Ed Lohrbach
31681 Camino Capistrano, Suite # 106, San Juan Capistrano.
LOCATION: Located at the intersection of Poinsettia Avenue and Ocean Boulevard in
Corona Del Mar
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION: Lot 15 of Tract 1257
GENERAL PLAN/
LCP: Single Family Detached
ZONING
DISTRICT: R -1 (Single Family Detached)
0
1 l
Discussion
This project was continued from August 23, 2001. The Planning Commission directed the
applicant to redesign the project to make it comply with the Ocean Blvd. Curb height limit.
Additionally, the size of the lower level, at -grade deck on the ocean side of the proposed
residence was questioned. The draft minutes from the previous meeting are attached for review.
The. applicant iii redesigned the project so that the residence does not exceed the height of the
curb The piste height of each level remains at 10 feet, and therefore, the encroachment of the
upper level above the 24 -foot height limit remains. The interior height of the garage will be T -6"
and the slope of the driveway will be no more than 20 %. This slope is the maximum slope
recommended by the Public Works Department. The applicant requests that the Commission
consider increasing the slope of the driveway to afford increased height of the garage. The
increased height of the garage would be accomplished by lowering the garage floor rather than
increasing the height of the roof above the curb. Each 6 -inch increase in garage height increases
the slope of the driveway by 1.5 %. Again, the Public Works Department recommends that the
slope not exceed 20%. The revised plans are included in the agenda packet.
There was discussion of decreasing the slope of the driveway by lengthening it through an "S"
design. Although this would decrease the slope of the driveway, it would increase the amount of
pavement in the public right -of -way. The area needed for an "S" driveway design would preclude
the applicant's proposed use of the public right -of -way for private patios. The feasibility of such a
design, in the context of vehicle maneuverability, has not been studied by staff. The applicant
contends that it is not feasible and it would be aesthetically unpleasing to have the additional
pavement.
The applicant has reduced the size of the at -grade deck by approximately 8 feet in response to the
Commission's concern of bluff alteration. The applicant's engineer will be present at the hearing
to address the Commission's questions about erosion.
Recommendation
Staff believes that the applicant has achieved most of the objectives set forth by the Commission at
the last meeting. The Planning Commission has the option to approve the project as redesigned,
approve the original design (or some variant thereof) or the Commission can deny the project.
Submitted by:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
Planning Director
Prepared by:
JAMES W. CAMPBELL
Senio��Pl��anner
V, C
Jackson Residence (PA2001 -062)
September 20, 2001
Page 2 of 3 (/
Exhibits
. . . . M.W. -
..
— .__ .. ....: ..
..
F:\ UsersS PLMShared\PA 's\PA2001- 0621VA2001 -001 staff "rt 9- 20.doc
Jackson Residence (PA2001 -062)
September 20, 2001
Page 3 of 3 1
EXHIBIT NO. 7
Minutes form the September 20, 2001
Planning Commission Meeting
r�.
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
INDEX
La Salsa; Milestone Management Item No. 1
(Continued from 08- 23 -01) PA2001 -086
4341 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite F
• Use Permit No. 2001 -018 (PA2001 -086)
A Use Permit requested fbr eating and drinking establishment and a waiver of I Continued to
parking to expand the seating°frqT 21 seats to 36 seats without an increase in net 10/18/2001
public area.
Ms. Temple noted that the applicant has' ky ed for another continuance to
October 18, 2001.
Chairman Tucker noted that he would recuse himself fro hs end will abstain from
voting on the continuance.
Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Kranzley, Selich
Abstains: Tucker
Absent: Gifford
BJECT: Jackson Residence
3631 Ocean Boulevard
(Continued from August 23, 2001)
• Variance No. 2001 -001 and
• Modification No. 2001 -092 (PA2001 -062)
Request to demolish an existing single family home (2,924 gross square feet) and
replace with a new single family home (6,044 gross square feet) including
grading, paving, fencing lighting, landscaping and irrigation. The proposed
project includes the changes to the existing driveway and front yard
landscaping presently located within the public right -of -way. The project also
includes a variance request to exceed established height limits of Zoning Code
due to unique topographical circumstances. Lastly, the project includes a
request to deviate from the required front yard setback of 10 -feet providing a 0'
to 4' front setback.
Chairperson Tucker asked Vice Chairman Kiser to step in and conduct the hearing
on this item, as the Chairman was not at the last meeting when it was first heard.
He added the Planning Department staff had received a call today concerning
some people who wanted to testify on item 4 also wanted to hear the president's
speech tonight. I indicated to staff that we would hear that item no earlier than
7:30 this evening. If we get to that item before 7:30 we will take a break and start
the item at that time.
Senior Planner, James Campbell noted the changes to the project as directed by
the Commission at the last meeting. The project is to conform to the curb height
limit as well as address concern of the size of the 'at grade' deck to the rear of the
Item No. 2
PA2001 -062
Approved
61
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
September 20, 2001 .
residence above the bluff. The applicant has re- designed the project and there
are new exhibits for consideration. The entire house is below the height of the
curb; the project still exceeds 24 feet to the natural grade toward the seaward
edge of the house; the other change to the project is the reduction of the rear
deck by approximately 8 feet. The slope of the driveway as designed is 20%,
which the Public Works states is the maximum they would like to see.
Vice Chairman Kiser stated that the plans he received do not appear to have an
update; only a sticky on the upper right -hand comer that says 'revised site plans of
09 /13 /01'.Rrst, I want to make sure that the Commission received the right plans
and second, at such time we would approve this, for proper reference to the
plans we need the right dates on the plan sheets.
Mr. Campbell answered that all the Commissioners received the plans that have
the sticker with the date of 09/13/01 and made a correction to condition one
referencing the some date as on the sticker.
Public comment was opened.
Chairman Tucker noted that condition four should be changed to reflect a
maximum grade of 20%. The front yard encroachment is not something that is
within our authority. Effectively, whatever we approve that has anything to do
with front yard issues is subject to an encroachment permit.
Staff answered that there is a modification for the front yard and the
encroachment referred to is within the public right of way and subject to an
encroachment permit pursuant to the City Council's authority.
Mr. Ed Lohrbach, spoke representing the Jacksons. He stated that they had met
with the neighbor and are in accord. The garage has been lowered and the
driveway is at a 20% grade; the building is at the curb height at this point and we
have pulled the deck back and we are in conformance all the way around. He
added that they did try a different driveway approach and it just does not work.
The soils engineer from Petra is here to answer any questions on the stability of the
property. At Commission inquiry, he stated that the applicant has read,
understands and agrees to all the findings and conditions to the application. He
stated he would like to see the garage a foot higher and that the framing of the
garage is at 6 inches and the garage is at 7'6 ". The client is aware of what the
impact is of having a 7'6" ceiling. He confirmed that the deck on the lower floor
was brought back 6 to 8 feet, depending on the location of measurement.
Bill Benz 3625 Ocean Boulevard, noted that he had met with the Jacksons and
they have come to an amicable agreement covering the objections he had
raised at the last meeting. He supports the project as shown including the deck
below.
Public comment was closed.
INDEX
I
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
September 20, 2001
Chairperson Tucker noted that 20% is fairly steep and 7'6" is low. They are
bringing the roofline of the house down in compliance that he would support
the additional foot requested by the applicant. I would like to see 6" of that
dedicated to lessening the grade and 6" to the height of the garage to make it
8 feet so that the grade will be less than 20 %. 1 am a little concerned with
people trying to back out of the driveway.
Commissioner Selich stated he did not agree with the previous comments.
There are a number of design solutions and for the sake of preserving other
aspects of the project, the applicant chose to go with the lower garage height
and steeper driveway. The driveway is acceptable to our Public Works
Department. Many years ago when this curb height regulation was adopted it
was something that was near and dear to the hearts of a lot of people in
Corona del Mar. This is one of the most spectacular views walking along that
sidewalk than there is anywhere in Southern California. Continuing, he noted
that the Planning Commission should adhere to the standard that was set and
there are numerous solutions to the property. The applicant chose this one out
of many solutions that they could have placed there and they are willing to live
with it. We should adhere to the regulations that we imposed on this area many
years ago and maintain that view.
Commissioner McDaniel agreed with the previous comments.
Commissioner Agajanian noted he would like to see the view maintained.
However, he suggested moving the roof portion of the garage up by 1 foot or 6
inches.
Commissioner Kronzley noted that the applicant made a choice to design this
project the way they did. I would agree that they could have done things
differently. I am not willing to compromise the curb height and it is important to
understand that it was an important long and hard fought battle. I don't think it
is necessary in this case to go away from that height limit.
Vice Chairman Kiser, noted his agreement with the plans submitted. The
architect was able to retain the l0 -foot floor heights and given that, I don't think
that the project is compromised by keeping the garage roof height where it is,
particularly in view of the very important public purpose behind what we are
doing. He applauded the bluff top preservation efforts.
Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to approve Variance No. 2001 -001
and Modification No. 2001 -092 with the findings and conditions in the staff report
as amended by staff, adopting Resolution No. 1536.
Following a brief discussion regarding the on -site drainage, the Public Works will
be involved with the details as provided in the drainage study as required by
condition 11.
Vice Chairman Kiser noted the following additions:
INDEX
f�
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
INDEX
• Change in condition t to 'revised site plans dated 09/13/2001'.
• Condition 3, 'desired' instead of 'desires'.
• Condition 4,20% instead of 1517o for maximum grade.
• Condition 9 ...... For the purpose of this condition, the width or depth of
the chimney will be the smaller dimension parallel to Ocean Boulevard.'
It would be clearer to delete, the width or depth of the chimney will be
the, and insert after the word dimension, ...'of the chimney will be..'.
• Condition 11, insert the word, all.
• Condition 17c, 6m bullet change 'raids' to 'roads'.
Chairperson Tucker asked what happens to the variance and modification if the
Council does not approve of the Encroachment Permit? Does the variance
expire?
Staff answered that the variance would not be affected; it would change what
could be built in the front yard. The encroachments that would come under a
lot of scrutiny would be the patios, etc.
Commissioner Tucker noted he had listened to the tape of the public hearing of
August 23, 2001.
Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Kronzley, Selich
Noes: None
Absent: Gifford
EJECT: Collins Residence Item No. 3
312 Buena Vista Blvd. & 604 W. Bay Avenue PA2001 -146
• Off -Site Parking Agreement No. 2001 -001 (PA2001 -146)
Off -site pa�spac eement in conjunction with an addition to 312 Buena Vista. Continued to
Two parkinswill be provided across the alley at 604 West Bay Avenue. 10/04/2001
Both properties are unae[ common ownership.
Mr. Campbell noted that there bre some photographs of the site available for the
Commission and that the Public )keks has suggested two additional conditions
dealing with size of the parking spaces bnt site distances related to their location.
The first condition would be, The parking spad&J, at is shown as 8 feet 9 inches,
shall be 9 feet. The other space shown shall be 8'gNper City standard 805LA and
LB'. The other condition is, 'the existing fence location lIvr�ll be revised to provide
site distance for the new parking spaces'. He then preded with a slide
demonstration noting the: present sites, parking spaces on site; std, istance issues,
closing in of a patio space that triggers the requirement for the addiflbpal parking.
Commissioner McDaniel noted an area that had been enclosed and useZl4as a
patio area was supposed to have been for a parking area that was Wt
-6
EXHIBIT NO. 8
Letters Received in Opposition to the Proposed Project
q5
28 March 2005
Variance No. 2001 -001
Modification Permit No. 2001 -092
Dear Sirs,
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MAR 2 9 2005
AM $1911011 2111213141516
I live across the street fi+om the Jackson residence that is asking for this variance and
modification. I am against the Planning Commission granting the encroachment that
Lobrback Associates is asking for. I believe that a LAW IS A LAWI 1! The City of
Newport Beach has a law in effect that states the top-of -curb limit and I am sure all of the
above parties were aware of what the law read at the time the home was being planned.
I believe if the Planning Commission would not grant so many variances and
modifications to the many homes under construction there would be less asked for.
Is bigger really better? I?
Sincerely,
Doris Stoughton
3708 Ocean Blvd.
Corona del Mar 92625
949 -760 -1724
I
ec�__ 4-0 UVV�__Jia"'�
I ,
rMnA-bep rl,,�TOA, q-;L(,o
I I , -,L- I n . , I
aw-I .-,I
---------------- - -
— _ -Ann- Spencer - ---
Gbrone D1 Mai CA 82828
MAR --- 3-4-
AM Pm
7 0 n 7A 71 I n I nn A 0 ^
Dorothy Barry
3712 Ocean Boulevard
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
March 31, 2005
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Planning Department, City of Newport Beach
RECEIVED By
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Re: Proposal for Variance at 3631 Ocean Boulevard, Corona Del Mar
MAR 3 1 2005 PM
7 819110111112111213141516
The purpose of this letter is to request that Variance 2001 -001 and Modification Permit
No. 2001 -092 be denied. I have lived at 3712 Ocean Boulevard, Corona Del Mar, for 40
years — across the street from the new construction.
It was previously approved, at the last public hearing, and agreed by all, that this garage
could be built to comply with the Ocean Boulevard height limit law! The other new
homes on the same bluff side and same block have conformed to Ocean Boulevard
ordinance height limits. I believe that a LAW is a LAW!! Why have these policies and
development rules if we do not have to comply with them ??
It is important that this garage not exceed top of curb elevation to help preserve the up blic
view.
Sincerely,
Dorothy Barry
6'a"
Lesley and Ronald Clear
3700 Ocean Boulevard
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
(949) 644 -7100
lclear @lclear.com
March 31, 2005
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Planning Department, City of Newport Beach
REIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
MAR 31 2005
7 819110111112111213,415�6
Re: Proposal for Variance at 3631 Ocean Boulevard, Corona Del Mar
We are writing to express our concerns regarding the application of Lohrbach Associates
for an amendment to Variance No. 2001 -001 and Modification Permit No. 2001 -092 on
the property located at 3631 Ocean Boulevard. We live directly across the street from the
subject property and, while we want to be good and supportive neighbors to the new
property owners, we feel a larger responsibility to be good neighbors to others on the
block and to act in the best interest of the community at large.
In exceeding the height limit law, views will be partially blocked for our neighbors and
the public view will be impeded for those who enjoy walking along Ocean Boulevard and
for those visiting our beaches.. We feel that it is in the best interest of all that the top -of-
curb height limit law be maintained.
As it was determined at the last public hearing on this matter that the garage could in fact
be built in a way to ensure the safety and well being of the property owners and others,
we respectfully request that this most recent application for amendment be denied.
EXHIBIT NO. 9
Approved Plans
166
y
[" A
F
4
sr i +�i r ii! EI �r {ErN
filjl; n
!E IE�iii3 l���� e
r nn
!,Il��IIlh�
uui�r�ul
al
141
gig
tO
j a-
f
-'
11 ME
IMMU
Iso
�m'".1
IMMUNE,
1Emmmm1
IMMORMI
IMMEWMI
ImmommI
I
.JII
ii�H }AiEI e
iE� {� ilfi z
�PEi�E
lili�l
e
i;
omm� 0 0
ififfi e
�il�f f $ g�
aB
Sa
0
1$3
F
VMM1 Mv ®
�I+,rluadiNow n
A a
Y
�.
frJ ��f7il:a a �Et {� e�
4 Ell
a e
'• N ��
SF
n
0
S
6
S
} `iS L
IN
III
o
O �
1
of
frJ ��f7il:a a �Et {� e�
4 Ell
a e
'• N ��
SF
n
0
S
6
S
} `iS L
s
f i
a
i
0
r
0
s
0
s
)6 5
�
111_ :
iil! ° °.�
�J�il•
a
hl�!
Ilpllll������l�lllllllilllllltlllll
�
1�®I
I�IIMM�RO11
�
1
IW��V�
ROOM
i
0
r
0
s
0
s
)6 5
�q§ !
) /§!
|/»
r
§
|
§
9
U'
||
�
\|
■
16 /
I
I
I
I�
I
1
z
ij
d b
MI
(�lli �iA z l��l
eni
slm
l°1
.0 3
16Y
n
4
.0 3
16Y
EXHIBIT NO. 10
Proposed Plans
t6�
n
t f($q w °=
8&
V E4 U m
N f Z:Z 9 m= p mp P f
J Saki a � �° oo3 NzIti 8 i¢!
I
Jill
j s e gill
3MMEERNS E)
tS3S�' HE v ea xx x e r x m
aa. ! {�'t E6v91�11 €alPivEa "
t
s
n
0
0
� N
a
•c
o'� a
nn i �•j
r?0W
W
O � W
6 M d
Zlt
a4
n
8�g
&�@ j
I
I
i
kohl
v
W
O
Y °
e�uam�fnrooi�s�meuiemmmv�aeemalwiarmaevmuir�wem
! �I
mz an
l�
Ueii
:■ ��7C��CC��uin�C�iCiii��iliiini�rir?.�e�imr
I i l6 � tj$ Ei F
n7
°.n Rom ■.
■■ ■
i isg l 1� l�
�'
lid
■
rl
■°
a
iir� ■■
■
jiu1�1
-NMI
jjc�
7 fCy7
o }IIt�si. €�a
ui
kohl
g
a
J
WW
J
W
O
J
l��
e�uam�fnrooi�s�meuiemmmv�aeemalwiarmaevmuir�wem
l�
Ueii
:■ ��7C��CC��uin�C�iCiii��iliiini�rir?.�e�imr
■■
n7
°.n Rom ■.
■■ ■
u�nr
�'
lid
■
rl
■°
a
iir� ■■
■
jiu1�1
-NMI
jjc�
7 fCy7
ui
MOM
Itit
■rGl
g
a
J
WW
J
W
O
J
l��
■
M
m
�■
I
�
|�
�
,
}
� !� |
! a
( Ah | | � |l.
§� §� � ,
| "Hill §/ }
° §§o �$�I)k§ :
$m� J l" :
)
)§ /!
!
- 2
§
k / § ;§§
■
M
m
�■
I
�
|�
�
,
}
� !� |
! a
( Ah | | � |l.
§� §� � ,
| "Hill §/ }
° §§o �$�I)k§ :
$m� J l" :
L
U
4
L
J
J)fi
3 ia9
00rc az
S g
g M g
wu
FQiRi
mii a3£
�tt�3 8
fi=n
S
ig551 t
iigil Yt
P
1 9tg t
Eiat
iYY $9
v �ifiFi3
�IlJ� �•
.m. All �l lag i
ziS€1i1lsi
J)fi
0
z
0
r
a
J
QK
W
u'
z
0
w
LL
1�A
d
z
{�
Z Z ? E
a
C,11
On a
Ia
�aW
0
z
0
r
a
J
QK
W
u'
z
0
w
LL
1�A
z
z
# a 0 F
yy I1 W
2¢�
j
3
vn.rc owtw�ou�mmo
g�
r
U
w of
Z'Z x °w
m Y
Ow ugmz au
U) ooh
ddyy s
O �q
w3
U m
yy Lu
J g!2 7
F
z
z
# a 0 F
yy I1 W
2¢�
j
3
vn.rc owtw�ou�mmo
i
U
0
yy
i
9
N
dgk
Om�
�16
Mmrnaune U ro �
xrno rtx
A3AWs OIHdV856d01 m ,�, ;�; '�NI `DNIZIHHNjD11q 'Tvnt �
2 �
08YA31AOG MV330 e,
ih
Y�C fir:+
��5 a
s a
r „�y
a
1 &eel