Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20 - Amendment 908 - Site Plan Review Overlay for CdM Coastal Bluff PropertiesO�16wPOgre CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: April 24, 2001 >� PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: ?,0 �= 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3210 (949) 6443200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PROJECT: Amendment No. 908 - Site Plan Review Overlay for coastal bluff properties in Corona Del Mar ACTION: 1. Refer the ordinance to the Planning Commission for further study, 1' 2. Table the ordinance. Recommendation In the previous staff report for this item, staff indicated that criteria or standards for the proposed site plan review process are being developed. In continuing our work on this matter as directed by the Planning Commission, staff has found that there are several approaches to guidelines or standards for review of coastal bluff development. Staff believes that these approaches merit more careful review and consideration. It is therefore recommended, that this ordinance be referred back to the Planning Commission. If the City Council does not wish to consider review of development of coastal bluff properties, staff recommends that the ordinance be tabled. The Planning Commission has approved the minutes from April 5, 2001 with corrections and they are attached. Background Staff has reviewed approximately 15 coastal bluff and hillside ordinances from other jurisdictions including San Diego, Oceanside, Del Mar, Laguna Beach, Orange County, City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, Malibu, Santa Barbara County, and San Luis Obispo County. This research shows that regulation and review of developments on or near coastal bluffs is a very common occurrence in California due to the Coastal Act of 1976. Hillside regulation in general is a fairly common occurrence as well. Most of the ordinances reviewed are fairly detailed and all provide limited discretion to decision- makers for deviation. Regulations take several forms and are outlined as follows: • Prohibition with few exceptions Many jurisdictions prohibit development on coastal bluffs and exceptions are generally limited to emergency repairs of slopes to protect primary buildings or critical public facilities that cannot reasonably be relocated. A limitation on grading presently applies within Planned Community districts. This type of regulation is most effective when existing development provides a setback which is not the case with most of the lots in Corona Del Mar. Expanding this limitation to CDM would not permit the expansion of buildings or structures, and staff does not recommend such a standard. • Bluff -top setback limitations Setbacks vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and generally range between 20 and 40 feet. Deviations from setbacks (more and less) are generally allowed with supporting geologic, hydrologic or soils investigations. Newport Beach has a setback standard that applies to all Planned Community districts and new subdivisions. The property line setback from the edge of a bluff should be located no closer to the edge of the bluff than the point at which the top of the bluff is intersected by a line drawn from the solid toe of the bluff at an angle of 26.6 degrees to the horizontal. A greater setback distance is required where warranted by geological or groundwater conditions, but in no case shall a property line be located closer than 40 feet to the edge of a bluff. In addition, no part of a proposed development shall be located closer than 20 feet to the bluffside property line. The required building setback from the property line may be increased or decreased by the Planning Commission in the review of a proposed site plan consistent with the purposes of the Section. Therefore, the total setback is 60 feet from the bluff edge. This 60 -foot standard is not appropriate to Corona Del Mar due to the depth of the lots and existing development pattern, but the 20 -foot building setback might be considered where development is presently providing a setback • Building footprint limitations based upon slope or location The most common method of regulation is prohibiting or limiting development on areas where the slope exceeds a specified amount. Again, slope limitations differ from city to city and range from 20% to 50 %. For example, the City of San Diego prohibits development on slopes in excess of 40% and development on coastal bluff faces is limited to emergency repairs to protect principal buildings. On steep hillside areas when encroachment is unavoidable, a 20% to 25% coverage limit is applied. Santa Barbara County does not permit development on slopes that exceed 40 %. Coastal bluff alteration is limited with specific evaluation criteria related to foundation design for bluff top structures and their future removal as the bluff erodes and exposes the foundations. Alteration that exceeds applicable criteria would require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. The City of Laguna Beach has a lot coverage limit based that decreases as the slope increases. On slopes in excess of 45 %, zero coverage is permitted. Another method that is used in evaluating development requests by Coastal Commission staff is a "stringline" technique. Encroachment on sloped areas is generally allowed, regardless of Amendment No. 908 April 24, 2001 Page 2 of 3 slope, and the standard maintains the predominant line of existing development. San Luis Obispo County uses a stringline method where a line is drawn between adjacent residences or along the predominant line of development and no further encroachment, except for minor structures, is permitted without a variance. Corona Del Mar has an established pattern of development and the Planning Commission is not recommending a prohibition in development or redevelopment. The Commission has identified a need to permit development consistent with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan policies related to minimal bluff alteration. The City could set a standard for review based upon a definition of minimum alteration (e.g. less than 50 %). • Grading limitations based upon slope or quantity or size This type of regulation is similar to the type of standard above as it relies on a slope standard, but the quantified standard limits grading quantities. The City of Oceanside has a limit of 7,500 cubic yards of earthwork per acre graded. This type of limit would permit a modest cut or fill in a relatively small area or would permit a smaller cut or fill over a larger area. Most jurisdictions simply include grading activities in all development restrictions that are based upon an allowable coverage limit and the slope of the lot rather than a specific quantity of cut or fill. Some jurisdictions, including Oceanside, limit the size of a cut or a fill by either height or length or both. Submitted by: Sharon Z. Wood Assistant City Manager 4f'/ Exhibits Prepared by: JAMES CAMPBELL Se for Planner 1. Approved minutes from the Planning Commission meeting April 5, 2001 F:\USERS\PLN\SHARED\lCrFYCNL\2001\0424\A909 cc =pun supplement cc Amendment No. 908 April 24, 2001 Page 3 'of 3 Exhibit No. 1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 building. SUBJECT: sed Development Plan Review Procedures A proposed amendment to Title 20 of th wport Beach Municipal Code to establish procedures for development plan revs Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue ' Item due to the lateness of the hour to April 19th Ayes: McDaniel, I(iser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None SUBJECT: Coastal Bluff Site Plan Review • Amendment No. 908 - Site Plan Review Overlay for coastal bluff properties in Corona Del Mar Amendment to Zone Districting Maps # 16, # 17 & # 18 to combine the Site Plan Review Overlay (SPR) designation to the existing zoning designation of coastal bluff properties located within Corona Del Mar. Senior Planner James Campbell noted that this overlay entails applying an existing chapter of the Code (20.92) for Site Plan Review to the coastal bluff properties in Corona del Mar. He noted the map attached to the report that Identifies affected properties and addresses and basically encompasses all the coastal bluff properties from Irvine Terrace and Little Corona beach. The Site Plan Review Chapter would require the Planning Commission to review any new structures Including fences and additions to existing structures that exceed 50% of the gross floor area or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less. The Planning Commission can review these projects and apply discretion In the Implementation of existing General Plan and Local Coastal Program policies that address public views and preservation of coastal bluffs. He then presented slides of the coastal bluff areas. At Commission direction, he noted concerns that both the City Council and Planning Commission have that gave rise to this Amendment. A project may come forward and be approved as It is fully compliant with the Zoning Code, but it could potentially be inconsistent with local coastal program and general plan land use policies that talk about minimizing the alteration of the bluff as well as preservation of public views. He noted specific properties and functions of the amendment: • Coastal bluff properties on Ocean Boulevard, Hazel Drive, Carnation, Pacific Drive, Avocado Avenue and Breakers Drive. • This area is where there is an Increased amount of development pressure. 30 INDEX Item No. 7 Discussion Item Only Continued to 04/19/2001 Item No. 8 A 908 Recommended for Approval City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 • Amendment would apply Site Plan Overlay Map designator to the existing zoning of the property. • Underlying zoning of R -1, R -2 or Multi- family would remain the same. • All properties subject to Chapter 20.92. • Approval would be required for any grading or building for any new structure including fences. • These applications would go before the Planning Commission for review and City Council upon appeal. • This amendment is prompted by Planning Commission concern that a project could come in and possibly do two, three, four and /or five levels and come all the way down the bluff. This would create a significant change to the view as well as alter the open areas of the bluff. It could be potentially a ministerial project, meaning that the City would not have the ability to apply any discretion in the application of policies that have been adopted by the City regarding preservations of these features. Public comment was opened. Jay Cowan, 3030 Breakers Drive noted that he is in the process of obtaining a permit for the development of his property in accordance with the building codes and a variance that he had been granted. Speaking as president of the Breakers Drive Association, he noted that he has heard complaints and concerns from the Breakers Drive residents: • Limits development of sites, • Taking of private property for public use is illegal as referenced in his letter, • Roof tops, by Code, are no higher than curb site; and • Public use consists of viewing from the ocean and the parking lot. Commissioner Tucker clarified with staff that the Variance granted to Mr. Cowan a few months ago exempts him from this review process. Mr. Campbell noted that staff is suggesting that any prior existing variance, use permit or site plan review approved by the Planning Commission that remains valid would be exempt from the review process. Staff is recommending a change to the effective date of the review process than noted in the staff report. Staff now recommends that other projects would need to have a building permit in hand on the effective date of this Ordinance. Commissioner Tucker noted that the Planning Commission is not part of the City that sets policy. The Planning Commission attempts to follow the policy set by the City Council. There is a policy in our General Plan that states that the siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along the bluffs and cliffs. The coastal program that we have has similar language in the grading part, it states that permitted development shall be designed to minimize the alteration of natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. What came to our attention, when you appeared for your variance and a nearby neighbor as well, 31 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 was that we actually have these policies in our General Plan and Local Coastal Program but we do not have anything to implement these policies. We brought this to the attention of the City Council and they adopted a resolution that they desire to initiate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and District Maps to implement coastal bluff development regulations and procedures with the intent to implement the policies of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. That is what this discussion is all about. Staff was directed and the public has had fair warning of what the review process will be and what these policies are. Continuing, he commented that there are issues looking at the bluffs. We are not denying people the right to develop their property, there is a review process that is supposed to be in place earlier than now that hasn't been in place. If the City Council does not want that policy in place that will be its ultimate decision. The Planning Commission will recommend something to the City Council that is consistent with the policy that is in the General Plan. Daniel Leonard, 3124 Breakers Drive stated that this property has been in his wife's family since 1955. They have developed building plans with an architect and have been working with the Planning Department since 1999. He then asked for an exemption stating the following: • Invested a significant amount of money to date. • Plans submitted to the Building Department are in compliance with existing building and planning codes. • Architect has been in contact with the Planning Department. • Neither he nor his architect have been notified that this issue was coming up for discussion. • Asked that a permit be issued to him for this development. Commissioner Kranzley noted that on the staff report there was a date certain for this amendment to become effective. That date has been changed to the effective date of that ordinance which is when this ordinance would pass the City Council. It is no longer March 24th. Ms. Clauson clarified that the date selected was the date that actually would give more rights to the people who have approvals in concept or other types of approvals before the notice date, which are not legally considered to be when you are vested. Vested right shall mean that the project shall have performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance on a valid building permit issued prior to the effective date of this ordinance. This amendment will have to go on to City Council and the soonest it could become effective would be after the first and second reading and thirty days after that, which would probably be approximately June 8th. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Campbell reviewed the changes in the original staff report on application. Staff had looked at this after several challenges about review date retroactive from adoption. Therefore, we came up with a different scenario to start. An applicant would need to have a building permit vested prior to the effective date of the ordinance. Referring to page 3 of the draft City Council Ordinance Section 2 states that, "projects that have a vested right to 32 I. U7 *1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 proceed with construction or have been approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to a Use Permit, Variance or Site Plan Review shall not be subject to Site Plan Review pursuant to Chapter 20.92. Vested right shall mean that the project shall have performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance on a valid building permit issued prior to the effective date of this ordinance." Mr. Charles Dawkins, 2329 Pacific Drive noted: • Poor notification of this subject within the neighborhood. • My home is newly re -built and was rigorously examined by the City and neighbors. • Question if this amendment is necessary since there is a height and square foot limitation. Staff explained that a mailing list was developed of all the affected property owners notifying them that their property could potentially be subject to this review. Additionally, within a 300 -foot radius we mailed notices to property owners as well as posted ten notices on stakes throughout the area. Kent Moor, 210 Carnation noted he received a notice and saw that the property was posted. I have met with staff and commend them that this item is up for review. My neighbors also concur with me and approve this amendment. He noted the following in support: • 200 block of Carnation is one of the five G3 streets in Corona del Mar. • This amendment is well thought out and will protect the overall integrity of the bluffs. Robert Lockleigh, Goldenrod Avenue homeowner noted the bluff is one of the premier overlook views in Southern California. Many people walk along this bluff throughout the years. Over time there has been an encroachment by the bluff top homeowners into the view space and public green belt on Ocean Boulevard. The rooflines continue to come up and the buildings continue to go out and you can't see the beach. He stated his support of this amendment, noting that this is not the taking of private property for public use, rather it is the private development blocking of public views. If you allow permits in progress to continue and they build these 12000 square foot step down homes, the bluff will be destroyed. He then talked about the various sizes of houses in Corona del Mar. He closed by stating his support of this amendment. Scoff Pine, architect with Danielian Associates, Irvine noted his opposition: • Policy in place now is very strong with floor area ratios and height limits. • Zoning Ordinance deals with issues that do not allow overly massive structures to be built unless it meets the guidelines. • To impose an additional hearing on a project that meets the guidelines of the Zoning Code seems over zealous. • We spend a lot of time on land development. Open space is important in development but is arguable at the beginning when land is being developed and you are dealing with bluffs and landforms that you want to 33 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 maintain. Dealing with land already sold, makes it more difficult. Jerry Lutsky, 216 Poppy stated that this ordinance should have been in place before now. He expressed his concern that this does not go far enough as the bluffs along Hazel are on the same slopes and should be included. Jeanine Paquette, 211 Goldenrod noted that she received a card in the mail notifying her of the meeting. She noted her support of this amendment stating that the views and preservation of Newport Beach need to be upheld. Lawrence Tabak 3431 Ocean Boulevard stated: • He did not receive a notice. • 50 year old home and is planning on rebuilding after checking with both the Planning and Building Departments. • Concerned about a moratorium of building on the bluff. • He has engaged an architect and has submitted plans to the Building Department today. • This procedure is unfair to me. Judy Hodgeson, 2200 Bayside Drive noted that on Pacific Drive there is a line of site restriction. She asked if her lot is a slope and prohibits building on her lot. She stated she is not in favor of this. Tom Hood, 12 Pomona, Newport Coast stated he is in support of this ordinance and asked for an expansion of the language to include the bluffs along Hazel and the canyon. Ken Jorski, Pacific Drive asked if people are not able to build down the bluff does that take away their square footage allotment? I live on the opposite side of Pacific Drive and if the houses go higher, than I will be impacted. Carol Rudat, 254 Evening Canyon Road noted: • Overview by a panel is too arbitrary. • Need specific calculations in accordance to the lots. • This ordinance needs to apply everywhere along the bluffs. • All bluff dwellings should be treated the same. Jean Rooten, 219 Goldenrod stated she is very pleased to see that the bluffs are being protected. Corona del Mar bluffs are for the public and it is up to the Planning Commission to protect the public views and retain our California legacy. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Selich noted the following in response to the comments made during the public hearing: • The Planning Commission initiated this item a few months ago in a recommendation to the City Council that an urgency ordinance be 34 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 adopted. This was in response to a variance request for a 12,000 square foot house on Breakers Drive at the end of Marguerite Avenue. The City Council did not feel an urgency ordinance was appropriate but did direct staff to develop a proposed method to deal with the Commission's concern. The Commission was concerned because the grading necessary for that proposal would have completely obliterated the bluffs and appeared to be in direct contradiction to the City's General Plan policies. In regards to where it is applied and not applied, the Commission felt this was an imminent problem that the City needed to deal with and look at the areas that were the most threatened. • It is the Commission's intent that if this survives the process through the City Council, then it will be a zoning designation that can be carried forth in other bluff areas, if necessary. • In response to public comments regarding notification of the public hearing on this item, the Planning Commission has been doing an experiment. When notification cards are mailed, staff sends a copy to each Commissioner. I personally got the notification card for this hearing the day after staff sent it out in the mail. What happens to those cards when they get to your individual mailbox, I don't know, but they are being mailed properly. • This is not an unusual concept in Newport Beach. As a long time owner of property on lower Milford Drive in Cameo Shores 1 had restrictions on the development of that property due to the sensitive environmental nature of the property and only had use of 50% of the lot. This was due to restrictions on developing the portions of property that were in Morning Canyon. • This is a matter of public policy; there is a need to balance property rights with the good of the greater community. • 1 agree that some criteria are needed and that the review can not be completely arbitrary. But at the same time, there is a necessity now to get this ordinance in front of the City Council because there is a direct threat to the bluffs right now that is in contradiction to adopted city policy. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Clauson stated that there is nothing to prevent anyone from applying for a building permit now. If they do not have their building permit by the time this is effective, they could still apply for the building permit. It is just that particular project would be subject to the Site Plan review which is from the General Plan policies on preservation of bluffs. Commissioner Tucker added that the ordinance would provide a mechanism for the Planning Commission to implement a policy that has been in the General Plan. This is not a moratorium, but it does have a procedure. The issue before us is, are we going to have a policy that has a review process or not. Commissioner Gifford noted that it was just recently that people started looking at building homes on a much larger scale than we have seen in the past. At least two speakers tonight had come before us looking for variances to build 35 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 INDEX more than their normal entitlement, one was approved, and one was not. The trend to build these much larger houses is what brought to the City's attention the fact that the policy had been adopted, but the mechanism for implementing the policy had not. Site Plan review is not some kind of new invention or something that is seldom used. It is a frequently used process and it does not provide any new restrictions, it simply Implements an existing policy. Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to approve Resolution 1527 recommending approval of Amendment No. 908 to the City Council. The motion further recommended that staff immediately begin to develop criteria to evaluate applications that would come before the Planning Commission for review as it is important to have objective criteria. He further elaborated that perhaps the criteria could come out of the Land Use Element and be adopted as a separate, accompanying policy to the ordinance. The motion further stated that the criteria should go to the City Council along with this ordinance. Commissioner Tucker noted he would like to see this item continued to allow for more public input. He then expressed his reservation about the effective date. Chairperson Selich stated he was not in favor of continuing this item as it is such an important matter and time is of the essence. He stated that it needs to get to the City Council quickly in order for them to have a full review of the issue. He noted that it would be re- noticed in the paper and will probably also get a lot of news coverage. He also stated that the way staff has worded the effective date is fair and whatever cut -off date is picked, somebody will be affected. He further noted that this ordinance does not prohibit anyone from using their property and has no problem with the way the ordinance is worded. Commissioner Kiser noted his support of the comments made adding that it would be best to add some specific standards because of subjective decisions made by a committee. In view of the imminent potential of the destruction of Coastal bluffs to be included in this, that one or two structures proposed at 12,000 square feet and /or a five story would wipe out part of the bluff entirely. I would like to see this extended to other bluff areas if this works and seems appropriate. I would choose the earliest effective date possible. Ayes: Al Ayes Noes: None Additional Business a.) City Coundil -up - Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood reported that, at the last meeVtg9QLthe Council, a public outreach program for the Harbor and Bay Element w—drvpQroved with a workshop on April 11 m and will then come to the Planning Comr*fiiiapfor a public hearing. The Newport Riverboat Restaurant item was referred the Commission. The Rex Brandt Tnjst items were continued and will be to the 36 �,aE`X'PORr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: April 24, 2001 oI� PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: 20 = 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3210 (949) 6443200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PROJECT: Amendment No. 908 - Site Plan Review Overlay for coastal bluff properties in Corona Del Mar SUMMARY: Amendment to Zone Districting Maps #16, #17 & #18 to combine the Site Plan Review Overlay (SPR) designation to the existing zoning designation of coastal bluff properties located within Corona Del Mar. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Hold a public hearing, and introduce Ordinance No. 2001- , approving Amendment No. 908. AFFECTED PROPERTIES: Coastal bluff properties generally between Irvine Terrace and Little Corona beach. A map with the street address of each affected property is attached as Exhibit No. 1 INITITIATED BY: City of Newport Beach Introduction On April 5, 2001, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1527 (Exhibit No. 2) that recommends the City Council approve Amendment No. 908. Amendment No. 908 applies the Site Plan Review overlay to coastal bluff properties in Corona Del Mar. This overlay designation will require the Planning Commission to review certain residential projects proposed on coastal bluff properties. At the hearing, many members of the public spoke both in favor and against the amendment and a copy of the draft minutes is attached as Exhibit No. 3. Comments ranged from why other coastal bluff properties in the community were not included to a perceived threat to property values. Several property owners expressed concerns about introducing a review process when they already have invested thousands of dollars in design costs based upon the present code, which does not include a review process. Several comments focussed on a need to create objective standards or guidelines for bluff developments. In adopting its recommendation to approve Amendment No. 908, the Planning Commission saw this need, and directed staff to prepare a set of guidelines or standards that could be used by property owners, developers and the City in the design and review process. However, the Planning Commission felt that applying the SPR overlay was urgently needed as several pending projects that could cause significant alteration of the bluffs inconsistent with General Plan and Local Coastal Program policies may be approved without discretionary review. Staff is preparing guidelines and standards for the implementation of site plan review for coastal bluff properties for the Planning Commission and City Council's consideration and they will be available for the City Council's second reading of the ordinance. Background In August of 2000, the Planning Commission considered two projects in Corona Del Mar that proposed considerable alteration of the coastal bluff and would have effected public views. Coastal bluffs are identified as a significant environmental resource by the General Plan and Local Coastal Program (LCP). During the review of these projects in relation to the Land Use Element and the LCP policies regarding coastal bluff preservation, it became evident that there is a lack of a Municipal Code provisions or guidelines to implement these policies. Development proposals that fully comply with zoning can be approved ministerially even if they might cause significant and negative impacts on public views and coastal bluffs, contrary to the General Plan and LCP. Due to pending and planned projects of this type, the Planning Commission and staff believed that immediate action was necessary. On September 7, 2000, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend that an urgency ordinance be prepared and adopted by the City Council providing for discretionary review of development projects located on coastal bluffs while a long -term approach is considered. On September 26, 2000, considering the Commission's and staffs recommendations, the City Council declined to enact an urgency ordinance on projects on coastal bluffs, but did recognize the need to amend Title 20 to address the issue. The City Council initiated Amendment No. 908 to establish development regulations and procedures to implement the policies of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. Analysis Existing Policies and Regulations Land Use Element Development Policy D is attached as Exhibit No. 4, and LCP policies that address view and bluff preservation are attached as Exhibit No. 5. The discussion section of Policy D clearly states the City's policy to preserve valuable natural resources or environmentally sensitive habitats. The implementation section begins by defining what a coastal bluff is and states that preservation is the goal and that all development is subject to "regulations" contained within Policy D. Local Coastal Program policies are nearly identical to Land Use Element Policy D and these policies have been in effect since 1982. The portion of the policies regarding public view preservation is implemented through height limits contained within the Zoning Code. Height limits are most applicable when the public view is from above, but the term public view also includes the view from public beaches, roads, Newport Bay and the Pacific Ocean. The size, height, mass, location and level of alteration of a site are all factors in how a project may impact the public view from below. The City has not addressed implementation of this policy from this perspective in the past. Amendment No. 908 April 24, 2001 Page 2 of 5 At this time, several large homes are nearing the completion of their designs and the Planning Commission directed staff to develop a means to provide the City the authority to review these types of projects pursuant to the direction provided by the City Council in the interim. Staff believes that using the existing Site Plan Review provisions of the Zoning Code will provide the Planning Commission the ability to review these projects pending the adoption of specific regulations or guidelines for coastal bluff sites. Proposed Amendment The proposed amendment would combine the existing zoning of each affected property with the Site Plan Review overlay district map designator ( -SPR). This would make each of these properties subject to Chapter 20.92 (Site Plan Review) which is an existing chapter of the Zoning Code. This Chapter does not change or amend applicable development standards nor does it prohibit development of the sites. It simply requires review of certain projects by the Planning Commission or City Council, and therefore, the application of Site Plan Review does not constitute a taking of property rights. Chapter 20.92 is attached as Exhibit No. 6. The following existing threshold of review would apply to projects on the affected properties: Approval shall be required prior to the issuance of a grading permit or a building permit for any new structure, including fences, to be constructed, or existing building to be reconstructed or remodeled to increase the gross floor area by 50 percent or 2,500 square feet whichever is less, or increase the roofline or height. The purpose of the review process and 12 standards for review are articulated in Sections 20.92.010 & 20.92.030 that are within Exhibit No. 6. These sections are the guiding principles and findings for project approval. In addition to these sections, projects must be found consistent with the Land Use Element and the Local Coastal Program. The standards contained in Section 20.92.030 must be met in order for the City to approve a project. The most relevant standards applicable to development on coastal bluffs require that projects be graded and developed with due regard for the aesthetic qualities of the natural terrain and landscape, giving special consideration to waterfront resources and unique landforms such as coastal bluffs. Projects must be found compatible with the character of the neighborhood and surrounding sites and must be sited and designed to maximize protection of public views, with special consideration given to views from public parks and from roadways. Furthermore, the standards state that environmentally sensitive areas be preserved and protected and no structures be permitted in areas of potential geologic hazard unless mitigated. Lastly, projects must be found physically compatible with the development site, taking into consideration site characteristics including, but not limited to, slopes, submerged areas, and sensitive resources. Staff surveyed the coastal bluff properties of Corona Del Mar and has selected those properties that would potentially create the greatest impact to public views and coastal bluffs if redeveloped pursuant to the latest trends. Staff used the definition of a coastal bluff provided in the General Amendment No. 908 April 24, 2001 Page 3 of 5 Plan as a guide in conjunction with field surveys to include properties within the overlay area. A map of the properties with their addresses is attached as Exhibit No. 1. The City Council can remove properties from the proposed overlay if they believe it to be appropriate. Adding new sites to the proposed overlay will require additional notification as the prior public noticing for this amendment clearly made a distinction between affected and non - affected properties. Applicability In its present form, the draft ordinance (Exhibit No. 7) would apply the Site Plan Review process to all projects unless they have a vested right before the effective date of the ordinance. A vested right means that there has been substantial work performed on the project and substantial liabilities incurred in good faith reliance on a valid building permit. The draft ordinance would also exempt un- expired projects that were previously approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to a Use Permit, Variance or Site Plan Review. Staff and the Commission believe that requiring a second review of projects would not be fair. The draft applicability language is as follows: Section 2: Projects that have a vested right to proceed with construction or have been approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to a Use Permit, Variance or Site Plan Review shall not be subject to Site Plan Review pursuant to Chapter 20.92. Vested right shall mean that the project shall have performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance on a valid building permit issued prior to the effective date of this ordinance. The City Council has the option to select different applicability dates, or choose to exempt other classes of projects such as pending projects, or choose not to act at this time pending the development of specific guidelines or standards. Staff has developed the following options that could replace Section 2: Option 1. Section 2: Projects that have a vested right to proceed with construction or have been approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to a Use Permit, Variance or Site Plan Review shall not be subject to Site Plan Review pursuant to Chapter 20.92. Vested right shall mean that the project shall have performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance on a valid building permit issued prior to _ 2001. Option 2. Section 2: Projects that have a vested right to proceed with construction or have been approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to a Use Permit, Variance or Site Plan Review or have a valid Approval -in- Concept issued by the Planning Department shall not be subject to Site Plan Review pursuant to Chapter 20.92. Vested right shall mean that the project shall have performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance on a valid building permit issued prior to the effective date of this ordinance. Option 3. Section 2: Projects that have a vested right to proceed with construction or have been approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to a Use Permit, Variance or Site Plan Review or any project that complies with all provisions of the Zoning Code and is Amendment No. 908 Apra 24, 2001 Page 4 of 5 under review shall not be subject to Site Plan Review pursuant to Chapter 20.92. Vested right shall mean that the project shall have performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance on a valid building permit issued prior to the effective date of this ordinance. For the purposes of this ordinance, projects under review shall mean those projects that have submitted an application and plans for a building permit or an Approval -in- Concept and have a plan check or permit number issued by the Building Department prior to the effective date of this ordinance. Option No. 1 simply establishes a future date by which a project must have a vested right to proceed in order to be exempt from the Site Plan Review process. This would provide time for projects now in plan check to complete that process. Option No. 2 would exempt those projects with an Approval -in- Concept in addition to those previously reviewed and approved projects. Option No. 3 exempts the largest number of pending projects by including projects already in plan check. Both Option No. 2 and Option No. 3 will exempt three to four projects presently under review that arguably will alter the bluffs in a significant way without review. Additionally, the City Council may use a date other than the effective date of the ordinance in Options 2 & 3. Inevitably, any change in policy will affect some projects that are being contemplated regardless of when the City makes it effective. In this case, the Planning Commission believes that implementation of a review process is urgent due to several pending projects that will alter the bluffs and impact public views. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Plannin Director Exhibits Prepared by: JAMES CAMPBELL Senior Planner 1. Map of potentially affected properties of Amendment No. 908 2. Resolution No. 1527 3. Excerpt of draft minutes from the April 5, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. 4. Element Development Policy D 5. Local Coastal Program policies 6. Chapter 20.92 (Site Plan Review) 7. Draft Ordinance approving Amendment No. 908 111CITYCNU2001 \04241H908 cc reportAcc Amendment No. 908 April 24, 2001 Page 5 of 5 #20 Exhibit No. 1 Amendment No. 908 Newport Harbor 1 r It, Site Plan Review Overlay 3 for Coastal Bluff Properties MAP No. 1 Amendment No. 908 Corona State Beach Inspiration Pacific Ocean Site Plan Review Overlay y for Coastal Bluff Properties MAP No. 2 Exhibit No. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 1527 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AMENDMENT NO. 908 TO AMEND THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP NOS. 16,17 & 18 ESTABLISHING A SITE PLAN OVERLAY REVIEW DISTRICT FOR COASTAL BLUFF PROPERTIES IN CORONA DEL MAR WHEREAS, Land Use Element Development Policy D states that the siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs; and WHEREAS, the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program states that natural bluffs constitute a significant scenic resource and environmental resource and in an effort to preserve these unique landforms, development shall be designed to minimize the alteration of natural landforms along bluff and cliffs. WHEREAS, recent development proposals in the Corona del Mar area have requested significant alteration of coastal bluff resources, and present development trends suggest that additional projects will follow that may request significant alteration of coastal bluffs. There is every reason to believe that this trend will continue given the good economic climate and general prosperity of the community. The cumulative effect of new development could significantly alter the coastal bluffs contrary to preservation policies and should be evaluated by the city through a discretionary process to ensure consistent application of the coastal bluff preservation policies; and, WHEREAS, existing development regulations and review processes contained in the Zoning Ordinance do not directly support or implement coastal bluff preservation policies adequately. Due to pending and anticipated projects along coastal bluffs, the loss of significant environmental resources may result which will negatively impact the community's welfare. Applying the Site Plan Overlay designation to the coastal bluff properties will require review of projects which could have a possibility to impact coastal bluff resources and public views. The review of these projects pursuant to the Site Plan Review provisions of Title 20 (Zoning) will provide the city the ability to exercise discretion in the implementation of existing General Plan and Local Coastal Program policies; and, WHEREAS, in conjunction with the consideration of the subject amendment to the Zoning Code, the proposed amendment has been determined to be Categorically Exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the State CEQA Guidelines pursuant to Section 15307 and 15308 which exempt regulatory activities designed to preserve and protect natural resources or the environment. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1527 Page 2 of 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Zone Districting Map Nos. #16, #17 & #18 of the City of Newport Beach to combine the Site Plan Review Overlay (SPR) designation to the existing zoning designation of coastal bluff properties located within Corona Del Mar identified in Exhibit "A" attached to the proposed ordinance. M ffig ADOPTED this 5th day of April 2001, by the following vote, to wit: Edward Selich, Chairman Steven Kiser, Secretary AYES: McDaniel, Kiser Agaianian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley and Tucker NOES: None ABSENT i Exhibit No. 3 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes Aoril 5, 2001 shoff terminote within 30 days of finol occupancy of the proposed storage building. SUBJECT: Proposed Developm Plon Review Procedures A proposed amendment to Title 20 of the Newport Bea unicipal Code to establish procedures for developmenr plan review. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranztey to continue this item du `tithe lateness of the hour to April 19th Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None DRAFT INDEX Item No. 7 Discussion Item Only Continued to 04/19/2001 SUBJECT: Coostal Bluff Site Plan Review Item No. 8 • Amendment No. 908 - Site Plan Review Overlay for A 908 coastal bluff properties in Corona Del Mar Amendment to Zone Districting Maps n16, T 17 & T 18 to combine the Site Plan Recommended for Review Overlay (SPR) designation to the existing zoning designation of coastal Approvol bluff properties located within Corona Del Mar. Senior Planner James Campbell noted that this overlay entails applying an existing chapter of the Code (20.92) for Site Plan Review to the coastal bluff properties in Corona del Mar. He noted the map attached to the report that identifies affected properties and addresses and basically encompasses all the coastal bluff properties from Irvine Terrace and little Corona beach. The Site Plan Review Chapter would require the Planning Commission to review any new structures including fences and additions to existing structures that exceed 50% of the gross floor area or 2500 square feet, whichever is less. The Planning Commission can review these projects and apply discretion in the implementation of existing General Plan and local Coastal Program policies that address public views and preservation of coastal bluffs. He then presented slides of the coastal bluff areas. At Commission direction, he noted concerns that both the City Council and Planning Commission have that gave rise to this Amendment. A project may come forward and be approved as it is fully compliant with the Zoning Code, but it could potentially be inconsistent with local coastal program and general plan land use policies that talk about minimizing the alteration of the bluff as well as preservation of public views. 30 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 He noted specific properties and functions of the amendment: • Coastal bluff properties on Ocean Boulevard, Hazel Drive, Carnation, Pacific Drive, Avocado Avenue and Breakers Drive. • This area is where there is an increased amount of development pressure. • Amendment would apply Site Plan Overlay Map designator to the existing zoning of the property. o Underlying zoning of R -1, R -2 or Multi - family would remain the same. • All properties subject to Chapter 20.92. • Approval would be required for any grading or building for any new structure including fences. • These applications would go before the Planning Commission for review and City Council upon appeal. • This amendment is prompted by Planning Commission concern that a project could come in and possibly do two, three, four and /or five levels and come all the way down the bluff. This would create a significant change to the view as well as alter the open areas of the bluff. It could be potentially a ministerial project, meaning that the City would not have the ability to apply any discretion in the application of policies that have been adopted by the City regarding preservations of these features. Public comment was opened. Jay Cowan, 3030 Breakers Drive noted that he is in the process of obtaining a permit for the development of his property in accordance with the building codes and a variance that he had been granted. Speaking as president of the Breakers Drive Association, he noted that he has heard complaints and concerns from the Breakers Drive residents: Limits development of sites, Taking of private property for public use is illegal as referenced in his letter, • Roof tops, by Code, are no higher than curb site; and • Public use consists of viewing from the ocean and the parking lot. Commissioner Tucker clarified with staff that the Variance granted to Mr. Cowan a few months ago exempts him from this review process. Mr. Campbell noted that staff is suggesting that any prior existing variance, use permit or site plan review approved by the Planning Commission that remains valid would be exempt from the review process. Staff is recommending a change to the effective date of the review process than noted in the staff report. Staff now recommends that other projects would need to have a building permit in hand on the effective date of this Ordinance. Commissioner Tucker noted that the Planning Commission is not part of the City that sets policy. The Planning Commission attempts to follow the policy set by the City Council. There is a policy in our General Plan that states that the siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique INDEX 31 �2 DRAFT City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes r April 5, 2001 INDEX natural resources. and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along the bluffs and cliffs. The coastal program that we have has similar language in the grading part. it states that permitted development shall be designed to minimize the alteration of natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. what came to our attention.. when you appeared for your variance and a nearby neighbor as well. was that we actually have these policies in our General Plan and Local Coastal Program but we do not have anything to implement these policies. we brought this to the attention of the City Council and they adopted a resolution that they desire to initiate on amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and District Maps to implement coastal bluff development regulations and procedures with the intent to implement the policies of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program. That is what this discussion is all about. Staff was directed and the public has had fair warning of what the review process will be and what these policies are. Continuing. he commented that there are issues looking at the bluffs. we are not denying people the right to develop their property: there is a review process that is supposed to be in place earlier than now that hasn't been in place. If the City Council does not want that policy in place that will be its ultimate decision. The Planning Commission will recommend something to the City Council that is consistent with the policy that is in the General Plan. Daniel Leonard. 3124 Breakers Drive stated that this property has been in his wife's family since 1955. They have developed building plans with on architect and have been working with the Planning Department since 1999. He then asked for on exemption stating the following: Invested a significant amount of money to date. Plans submitted to the Building Department are in compliance with existing building and planning codes. • Architect has been in contact with the Planning Department. Neither he nor his architect have been notified that this issue was coming up for discussion. • Asked that d permit be issued to him for this development. Commissioner Kranzley noted that on the staff report there was a date certain for this amendment to become effective. That date has been changed to the effective date of that ordinance which is when this ordinance would pass the City Council. It is no longer March 24'". Ms. Clauson clarified that the date selected was the date that actually would give more rights to the people who have approvals in concept or other types of approvals before the notice date, which are not legally considered to be when you are vested. Vested right shall mean that the project shall have performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance on a valid building permit issued prior to the effective date of this ordinance. This amendment will have to go on to City Council and the soonest it could become effective would be after the first and second reading and thirty days after that. which would probably be approximately June 8'". At Commission inquiry, Mr. Campbell reviewed the changes in the original staff, 32 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 report on application. Staff had looked at this after several challenges about review date retroactive from adoption. Therefore, we came up with a different scenario to start. An applicant would need to have a building permit vested prior to the effective date of the ordinance. Referring to page 3 of the draft City Council Ordinance Section 2 states that, "projects that have a vested right to proceed w th construction or have been approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to a Use Permit, Variance or Site Plan Review shall not be subject to Site Plan Review pursuant to Chapter 20.92. Vested right shall mean that the project shall have performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance on a valid building permit issued prior to the effective date of this ordinance:' Mr. Charles Dawkins. 2329 Pacific Drive noted: • Poor notification of this subject within the neighborhood. My home is newly re -built and was rigorously examined by the City and neighbors. • Question if this amendment is necessary since there is a height and square foot limitation. Staff explained that a mailing list was developed of all the affected property owners notifying them that their property could potentially be subject to this review. Additionally, within a 300 -foot radius we mailed notices to property owners as well as posted ten notices on stakes throughout the area. Kent Moor. 210 Carnation noted he received a notice and saw that the property was posted. I have met with staff and commend them that this item is up for review. My neighbors also concur with me and approve this amendment. He noted the following in support: • 200 block of Carnation is one of the five G3 streets in Corona del Mar. • This amendment is well thought out and will protect the overall integrity of the bluffs. Robert lockleigh, Goldenrod Avenue homeowner noted the bluff is one of the premier overlook views in Southern California. Many people walk along this bluff throughout the years. Over time there has been on encroachment by the bluff top homeowners into the view space and public green belt on Ocean Boulevard. The rooflines continue to come up and the buildings continue to go out and you can't see the beach. He stated his support of this amendment, noting that this is not the taking of private property for public use, rather it is the private development blocking of public views. If you allow permits in progress to continue and they build these 12,000 square foot step down homes, the bluff will be destroyed. He then talked about the various sizes of houses in Corona del Mar. He closed by stating his support of this amendment. Scott Pine, architect with Danielian Associates, Irvine noted his opposition: Policy in place now is very strong with floor area ratios and height limits. • Zoning Ordinance deals with issues that do not allow overly massive structures to be built unless it meets the guidelines. 33 INDEX �V DRAFT City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 INDEX To impose an additional hearing on a project that meets the guidelines of the Zoning Code seems over zealous. • we spend a lot of time on land development. Open space is important in development but is arguable at the beginning when land is being developed and you are dealing with bluffs and landforms that you want to maintain. Dealing with land already sold, makes it more difficult. Jerry Lutsky. 216 Poppy stated that this ordinance should have been in place before now. He expressed his concern that this does not go for enough as the bluffs along Hazel are on the some slopes and should be included. Jeanine Paquette. 211 Goldenrod noted that she received a card in the mail notifying her of the meeting. She noted her support of this amendment stating that the views and preservation of Newport Beach need to be upheld. Lawrence Tabak 3431 Ocean Boulevard stated: He did not receive a notice. • 50 year old home and is planning on rebuilding after checking with both the Planning and Building Departments. Concerned about a moratorium of building on the bluff. • He has engaged an architect and has submitted plans to the Building Department today. �. • This procedure is unfair to me. Judy Hodgeson. 2200 Bayside Drive noted that on Pacific Drive there is a line of site restriction. She asked if her lot is a slope and prohibits building on her lot. She stated she is not in favor of this. Tom Hood. 12 Pomona, Newport Coast stated he is in support of this ordinance and asked for an expansion of the language to include the bluffs along Hazel and the canyon. Ken Jorski. Pacific Drive asked if people are not able to build down the bluff does that take away their square footage allotment? I live on the opposite side of Pacific Drive and if the houses go higher. than I will be impacted. Carol Rudat. 254 Evening Canyon Road noted: • Overview by a panel is too arbitrary. • Need specific calculations in accordance to the lots. • This ordinance needs to apply everywhere along the bluffs. • All bluff dwellings should be treated the same. Jean Rooten. 219 Goldenrod stated she is very pleased to see that the bluffs are being protected. Corona del Mar bluffs are for the public and it is up to the Planning Commission to protect the public views and retain our California legacy. Public comment was closed. 34 /S City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 Chairperson Selich noted the following: • The Planning Commission initiated this item by making a recommendation to the City Council a few months ago due to a proposed 12,000 square foot house. • we were concerned because the grading necessary would have completely obliterated the bluffs and appeared to us to be in direct contradiction to the City's General Plan policies. • The comments about where it is applied and not applied, the Commission felt this was an imminent problem and the City needed to deal with and look at the areas that were the most threatened. • It is our intention that if this survives the process through the City Council, then it will be a zoning designation carried forth in other bluff areas. • In terms of notification, the Planning Commission has been doing an experiment. when you get your cards, staff sends us a copy too. I personally got the card on this hearing the day after staff sent it out in the mail. what happens to those cards when they get to your mailbox, I don't know. But. they are getting out there. • This is not an unusual concept in Newport Beach. As a long time resident on Milford Drive in Cameo Shores and I had restrictions on the development of that property due to the sensitive environmental nature of the property. I only had use of 50% of the lot. • This is a matter of public policy; there is a need to balance property rights with the good of the greater community. • I agree that we need to have some criteria, it can not be completely arbitrary. But at the same time, we have a necessity now to get this ordinance in front of the City Council because of a direct threat right now that is in contradiction to adopted city policy. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Clauson stated that there is nothing to prevent anyone from applying for a building permit now. If they do not have their building permit by the time this is effective, they could still apply for the building permit. It is just that particular project would be subject to the Site Plan review which is from the General Plan policies on preservation of bluffs. Commissioner Tucker added that the ordinance would provide a mechanism for the Planning Commission to implement a policy that has been in the General Plan. This is not a moratorium, but it does have a procedure. The issue before us is, are we going to have a policy that has a review process or not. Commissioner Gifford noted that it was just recently that people started looking at building homes on a much larger scale than we have seen in the past. At least wo speakers tonight had come before us looking for variances to build more than their normal entitlement, one was approved, and one was not. The tend to build these much larger houses is what brought to the City's attention the fact that the policy had been adopted, but the mechanism for implementing he policy had not. Site Plan review is not some kind of new invention or something that is seldom used. It is a frequently used process and it does not DRAFT INDEX 35 /6 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes April 5, 2001 provide any new restrictions, it simply implements an existing policy. Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to approve Resolution 1527 recommending approval of Amendment No. 908 to the City Council. I would like to recommend that staff immediately begin to come up with criteria to weigh this against because I do feel that is important. Perhaps getting it out of the Land Use Element and adopting it as a separate, accompanying policy and get that to the City Council along with this ordinance. Commissioner Tucker noted he would like to see this item continued to allow for more public input. He then expressed his reservation about the effective date. Chairperson Selich stated he was not in favor of continuing this item as it is such an important matter and time is of the essence. It needs to get to the Council in order for them to have full review. It will be noticed in the paper and will get a lot of coverage. I think the way staff has worded the effective date is fair. Whatever cut -off date you pick you will affect somebody. We are not prohibiting anyone from using their property. I have no problem with the way this is worded. Commissioner Kiser noted his support of the comments made adding that it would be best to add some specific standards because of subjective decisions made by a committee. In view of the imminent potential of the destruction of Coastal bluffs to be included in this, that one or two structures proposed at 12,000 square feet and /or a five story would w pe out part of the bluff entirely. I would like to see this extended to other bluff areas if this works and seems appropriate. I would choose the earliest effective date possible. Ayes: All Ayes Noes: None -ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a.) Ci ouncil Follow -up - Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood reported that, at ast meetings of the Council, a public outreach program for the Harbor an Bement was approved with a workshop on April I 1 th and will then come e Planning Commission for a public hearing. The Newport Riverboat Restou item was referred back to the Commission. The Rex Brandt Trust items we ontinued and will be back to the Council on April 10th she then distn d copies of the report on the General Plan Update Committee on their ing process, which is on the Council agenda for April 10. b.) Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to Development Committee— none. DRAFT INDEX Additional Business c.) Matters that a Planning Commissioner would like staff to report on at a I \�; 36 Exhibit No. 4 ,1? aboard ves . ed to moorings installed over City tidelands. The City shall also consider the adoption rdi ces regulating or restricting the number of commercial activities conducted on thew ewport Bay if and when problems associated with such activity, such as parking, i noise adversely affect the quality of the marine environment. Policy tTi7 D. The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of naturalland forms along bluffs and cliffs. DISCUSSION Newport Beach has developed around and along extremely unique and valuable land forms and resource areas. The City's charm and character, as well as the value of residential and commercial property, are all tied to preserving, protecting, and enhancing Upper and Lower Newport Bay, the oceanfront beaches, and other valuable resources within the City. The City's commitment to preservation and enhancement of these areas is demonstrated by its role in the Upper Newport Bay restoration project. The City was the lead agency in both the development and administration of this project. The natural resources within the City should be enjoyed by residents and visitors alike. Given the value of ocean or bayfront property, there is constant pressure to develop property in and around the bay and beaches. While the City remains committed to protect private property rights, it is also committed to regulate the placement of buildings and structures in areas adjacent to valuable natural resources or environmentally sensitive habitats. IMPLEMENTATION Location of Structures Development of Coastal Bluff Sites. Natural coastal bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource. As used in this Section, "coastal bluff' is any natural landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50 %) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater. Where there is some question as to the applicabilityof this section to a specific landform, a determinationas to whether or not the specific landform constitutes a coastal bluff shall be made by the Planning Commission, consistentwith the purposes of this regulation. 2. In order to preserve these unique landforms, developments proposed for coastal bluff areas shall be subject to the following regulations: f� Land Use Element Page 8 a. The following regulations apply to all building sites on existing subdivided lots, and residential subdivisions containing less than four units: 1) Grading. Permitted development shall be designed to minimize the alteration of natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. In areas of geologic hazard, the City shall not issue a building or grading permit until the applicant has signed a waiver of all claim against the public for future liability or damage resulting from permission to build. All such waivers shall be recorded with the County Recorders Office. 2) Geologic Report. To promote public safety, a geologic study shall be performed for each site to determine areas of potential instability. The bluff areas of potential hazard or instability shall be indicated on maps as a part of any development plan. 3) Shoreline Protective Devices. In the event of an impending or existing natural disaster or other emergency, a property owner, upon the approval of a building and/or grading permit by the City Grading Engineer and Building Official, may install temporary shoreline protective devices, material, or other suitable construction to protect a coastal bluff. Prior to the approval of a building and or grading permit for the construction or installation of the emergency protective device or material, the City Attorney shall approve as to form and content a document signed by the property owner stipulating that said material or devices will be removed im- mediately upon the termination of the threat to the property. In addition, said agreement will also provide for the waiver of all claims and indemnify the City against liability for any damage resulting from approval to install said emergency protective material or devices. The property owner may elect to apply for the appropriate local and state permits to retain the protective material or devices after the threat to the property no longer exists, in which case the agreement shall be modified to state that upon exhaustion of all local and state administrative procedures to retain said material or devices, said material or devices will be removed in the event that the appropriate applications are denied. b. In addition to the regulations set forth above, the following regulations apply to all new tracts and subdivisions. If the development is residential in nature, these regulations will apply to all new subdivisions containing four or more units. 1) Setback Requirement. A bluff setback adequate to provide safe public access, taking into account bluff retreat and erosion, shall be J�L Land Use Element Page 9 provided in all new development. As a general guideline, property lines shall be set back from the edge of the bluff no closer to the edge of the bluff than the point at which the top of the bluff is intersected by a line drawn from the solid toe of the bluff at an angle of 26.6 degrees to the horizontal. A greater setback distance shall be required where warranted by geological or groundwater conditions, but in no case shall a property line be closer than 40 feet to the edge of the bluff. In addition, there shall be a building setback of 20 feet from the bluffside property line. This required building setback may be increased or decreased by the Planning Commission in the review of a proposed site plan consistent with the purposes of this section. 2) Environmentally Sensitive Habitats and Riparian Areas. There are many areas within the City of Newport Beach that are environmentally sensitive in nature. For the most part, these are water- associated habitats such as marine intertidal, riparian, or marsh areas. a. The following environmentally sensitive areas shall be preserved and protected, and no structures or landform alteration shall be permitted within these areas, except as provided in Section d. below: 1) Areas supporting species which are rare, endangered, of limited distribution, or otherwise sensitive 2) Natural riparian areas 3) Freshwater marshes 4) Saltwater marshes 5) Intertidal areas 6) Other wetlands 7) Unique or unusually diverse vegetative communities b. Where there is some question as to the applicability of this section to a specific area, a determination as to whether or not the specific area constitutes an environmentally sensitive area shall be made by the Planning Commission, consistent with the purposes of this regulation. C. These policies are not intended to prevent public agencies and private 23 Land Use Element Page 10 property owners from maintaining drainage courses and facilities, sedimentation basins, public infrastructure, and other related facilities in a safe and effective condition with minimal impact on the environment. d. When the environmental process demonstrates that adverse impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable level, or that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts, the Planning Commission may approve a development plan in an environmentally sensitive habitat or riparian area. Geologic Hazard Areas. There are areas within the City of Newport Beach that the natural geological processes can pose a threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. These areas contain earthquake faults, existing or potential landslides, areas with expansive or collapsible soil, excessive settlement and subsidence, and areas subject to potential erosion and siltation. The following policies shall apply to all areas of potential geologic hazard: a. No structures shall be permitted in areas of potential geologic hazard, except as provided in Section b. below. b. When the environmental process demonstrates that adverse impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable level, or that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts, the Planning Commission may approve a development plan in an area of potential geologic hazard. 4. Residential Areas Impacted by Noise Levels Greater than 65 CNEL. Due to noise sources such as roadways and aircraft overflights, certain residential areas are impacted by exterior noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL. The following policies shall apply to residential subdivisions of four or more units where the existing or future exterior noise levels are greater than 65 CNEL: a. No new residential development shall be permitted within any area where the noise levels are greater than 65 CNEL, unless the environmental process identifies specific mitigation measures that result in exterior areas of any residence, such as patios and other public and private recreation areas, being mitigated to less than 65 CNEL. b. In addition to mitigating exterior noise levels to less than 65 CNEL, all interior portions of a residence shall not exceed 45 CNEL. � q Land Use Element page 11 Exhibit No. S ,�S and when problems associated with such activity, such as parking, marine anitation and noise adversely affect the quality of the marine environment. 3. The 0tf.,Zhall continue to oppose the lease of offshore tracts to oil producers and prohib he construction of new onshore oil facilities except as may be necessary in con ction with the operation of the West Newport oil field. The City shall: a. Continue to monitor federal government's offshore oil leasing programs to insure the City a 'ts citizens are fully aware of all proposed ° offshore activities which could a sely affect the coastal environment, including participation in the Local rnment Coordination Program or other similar programs. b. Oppose and lobby against proposed lease sales ofFN coast of Orange County and elsewhere in the Southern California regi which could adversely affect the environment or the economy of the City ewport Beach and assist jurisdictions in other areas of the state which are o sed to offshore lease sale programs in their vicinity. Development of Coastal Bluff Sites The City of Newport Beach finds that the natural bluffs represent a significant scenic and environmental resource. In order to preserve these unique landforms, develop- _ ments proposed for bluff areas shall be subject to the following regulations: The following regulations apply to all building sites: a. Definition of Bluff. As used in this section, "bluff' is any landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50 %) or greater, with a vertical rise of 25 feet or greater. Where there is some question as to the applicability of this section to a specific landform, a determination as to whether or not the specific landform constitutes a bluff shall be made by the Planning Commission, consistent with the purposes of this regulation. b. Grading. Permitted development shall be designed to minimize the alteration of natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. In areas of geologic hazard, the City shall not issue a building or grading permit until an applicant has signed a waiver of all claim against the public for future liability or damage resulting from permission to build. All such waivers shall be recorded with the county Recorder's Office. C. Geologic Report. To promote public safety, a geologic study shall be performed for each site to determine areas of potential instability. The bluff areas of potential hazard or instability shall be indicated on maps as part of any Planned Community development plan: -25- d. Height of Structures. The height of structures shall be as described in the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 2. The following regulations apply to all tracts and subdivisions. If development is residential in nature, this policy will apply to development of 4 or more units. This policy shall also apply to commercial development. a. Setback Requirement. A bluff setback adequate to provide safe public access, taking into account bluff retreat and erosion, shall be provided in all new development. As a general guideline, the property line setback from the edge of a bluff should be no closer to the edge of the bluff than the point at which the top of the bluff is intersected by a line drawn from the solid toe of the bluff at an angle of 26.6 degrees to the horizontal. A greater setback distance shall be required where warranted by geological or groundwater conditions, but in no case shall a property line be closer than 40 feet to the edge of a bluff. In addition, no part of a proposed development shall be closer than 20 feet to the bluffside property line. This required building setback may be increased or decreased by the Planning Commission in the review of a proposed site plan consistent with the purposes of this section. b. Public Yews. The location and design of a proposed project shall take into account public view potential. C. Public Access and Dedication Requirements. The location and design of a proposed project shall maximize public access to the coastal bluff areas as follows: 1) Public access to coastal bluff areas shall be assured through design of the local street system and through the location of public trails and walkways adjacent to the bluffs. The City may require the dedication of right -of -way, or the granting of easements. These may be improved or not improved at the option of the City Council. 2) Areas adjacent to coastal bluffs having significant view potential shall be designated for use as view parks or vista points consistent with parkland dedication requirements. 3) Land required to be dedicated for neighborhood parks, but which is intended to remain in an unimproved, natural state, should be located adjacent to the bluffs; any portion of that land required to be dedicated for neighborhood parks which is intended to provide i -26- active recreational facilities may be located in the interior portions of the proposed development. 4) Bluff face areas need not be accepted by the City for any type of dedication. d. Subdivision Design. In preparing a development plan, natural bluff areas shall not be included in development areas as designated on the site plan. The design of any subdivision shall not include any bluff face or bluff edge as part of any residential lot or building site. e. Landscape Plans and Plant Material. For the purpose of regulating groundwater conditions, "landscape plans for those areas immediately adjacent to the bluffs shall incorporate native vegetation or other drought- _ resistant plant material. f. Grading. Grading, cutting, and filling of natural bluff faces or bluff edges shall be prohibited in order to preserve the scenic value of bluff areas, except for the purpose of performing emergency repairs, or for the installation of erosion - preventive devices or other measures necessary to assure the stability of the bluffs. Hazard Areas. Th are areas within the City of Newport Beach where the natural processes can pose a real to the public health, safety, and welfare. These areas contain earthquake ults, existing or potential landslides, areas with expansive or collapsible soil, excessive tlement and subsidence, flood hazard areas, and areas subject to potential erosion siltation. The following policies shall apply to all areas of potential natural hazar . 1. No structures shall be pe 'tted in areas of potential geologic hazard, except as provided in Policy 2 below. e 2. When the environmental process de trates that adverse impacts can be mitigated to an acceptable level, or that a benefits outweigh the adverse impacts, the Planning Commission may appro development plan in an area 1 of potential geologic hazard. 3. Hydrologic analysis shall be required for all projects locate 'thin flood hazard areas. 4. The Emergency Disaster Plan shall beperiodicallyreviewedtoinsurea uate ability to respond to flooding and other natural disasters. -27- Exhibit No. 6 ,71 Page 20.92 -1 Site Plan Review CHAPTER 20.92 SITE PLAN REVIEW Sections: 20.92.010 Purpose 20.92.020 Projects Subject to Site Plan Review 20.92.030 Standards 20.92.040 Application for Site Plan Review 20.92.050 Notice and Public Hearing 20.92.060 Duties of the Planning Commission 20.92.070 Expiration, Time Extension, Violation, Discontinuance, and Revocation 20.92.080 Amendments and New Applications 20.92.090 Rights of Appeal and Review 20.92.010 Purpose The City Council finds, determines and declares that the establishment of site plan review procedures contained in this section promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the community by ensuring that: A. Development of properties will not preclude implementation of specific General Plan or specific plan district objectives and policies. B. The value of property is protected by preventing development characterized by inadequate and poorly planned landscaping, excessive building bulk, inappropriate placement of structures and failure to preserve where feasible natural landscape features, open spaces, and the like, resulting in the impairment of the benefits of occupancy and use of existing properties in such area. C. The benefits derived from expenditures of public funds for improvement, acquisition and beautification of streets, parks, and other public facilities are maximized by the exercise of reasonable controls over the layout and site location characteristics of private buildings, structures and open spaces. D. Unique site characteristics are protected in order to ensure that the community may benefit from the natural terrain, harbor and ocean, to preserve and stabilize the natural terrain, and to protect the environmental resources of the City. 09/23/98 33 Page 20.92 -2 Site Plan Review 20.92.020 Projects Subject to Site Plan Review A. Site plan review approval shall be required prior to the issuance of a grading permit or a building permit for any new structure, including fences, to be constructed, or existing building to be reconstructed or remodeled to increase the gross floor area by 50 percent or 2,500 square feet whichever is less, or increase the roofline or height for the following: Specific Plans. Projects within the areas designated on the land use plan of the General Plan for the development of a specific plan, for which a specific plan has not been adopted. Exception: Site plan review shall not be required for construction or alteration of single - family dwellings or duplexes in any residential zone where such development is consistent with the land use designation of the General Plan. SPR Overlay District. Projects within a SPR overlay district. Establishment of Grade. The establishment of grade by the Planning Commission or the City Council in accordance with Section 20.65.030 (B -3). 4. Other Proiects. Projects which have been designated for site plan review as a condition of apprtval for a resubdivision or tract map by the Planning Commission or City Council. However, no site shall be subject to site plan review unless one of the criteria established in Section 20.55.030. 20.92.030 Standards In addition to the general purposes set forth in Section 20.92.010, in order to carry out the purposes of this chapter as established by said section, the site plan review procedures established by this section shall be applied according to and in compliance with the following standards, when applicable: A. Sites subject to site plan review under the provisions of this chapter shall be graded and developed with due regard for the aesthetic qualities of the natural terrain, harbor, and landscape, giving special consideration to waterfront resources and unique landforms such as coastal bluffs or other sloped areas; trees and shrubs shall not be indiscriminately destroyed; B. Development shall be compatible with the character of the neighborhood and surrounding sites and shall not be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the surroundings and of the City; 0923/98 J Page 20.92 -3 Site Plan Review C. Development shall be sited and designed to maximize protection of public views, with special consideration given to views from public parks and from roadways designated as Scenic Highways and Scenic Drives in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan; D. Environmentally sensitive areas shall be preserved and protected. No structures or landform alteration shall be permitted in environmentally sensitive areas unless specific mitigation measures are adopted which will reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable level or the Planning Commission finds that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts; E. No structures shall be permitted in areas of potential geologic hazard unless specific mitigation measures are adopted which will reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable level or the Planning Commission finds that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts; F. Residential development shall be permitted in areas subject to noise levels greater than 60 CNEL only where specific mitigation measures will reduce noise levels in exterior areas to less than 60 CNEL and reduce noise levels in the interior of residences to 45 CNEL or less; G. Site plan and layout of buildings, parking areas, pedestrian and vehicular access ways, and other site features shall give proper consideration to functional aspects of site development; H. Development shall be consistent with specific General Plan and applicable specific plan district policies and objectives, and shall not preclude the implementation of those policies and objectives; I. Development shall be physically compatible with the development site, taking into consideration site characteristics including, but not limited to, slopes, submerged areas, and sensitive resources; When feasible, electrical and similar mechanical equipment and trash and storage areas shall be concealed; K. Archaeological and historical resources shall be protected to the extent feasible; L. Commercial development shall not have significant adverse effects on residences in an abutting residential district. 09/23/98 .3s Page 20.92 -4 Site Plan Review 20.92.040 Application for Site Plan Review A. Procedure. An application for site plan review shall be filed in a manner consistent with the requirements contained in Chapter 20.90: Application Filing and Fees. B. Required Plans and Materials. The following plans and diagrams shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval: 1. A plot plan, drawn to scale, showing the arrangement of buildings, driveways, pedestrian ways, off - street parking and off - street loading areas, landscaped areas, signs, fences and walks. The plot plan shall show the location of entrances and exits, and the direction of traffic flow into and out of off -street parking and loading areas, the location of each parking space and loading space, and areas for turning and maneuvering vehicles. The plot plan shall indicate how utility and drainage are to be provided. 2. A landscape plan, drawn to scale, showing the locations of existing trees proposed to be removed and proposed to be retained; and indicating the amount, type, and location of landscaped areas, planting beds and plant materials with adequate provisions for irrigation. 3. Grading plans when necessary to ensure development properly related to the site and to surrounding properties and structures. 4. Scale drawings of exterior lighting showing size, location, materials, intensity and relationship to adjacent streets and properties. Architectural drawings, renderings or sketches, drawn to scale, showing all elevations of the proposed buildings and structures as they will appear upon completion. 6. Any other plans, diagrams, drawings or additional information necessary to adequately consider the proposed development and to determine compliance with the purposes of this chapter. 20.92.050 Notice and Public Hearing A. Public Hearings. A public hearing shall be held on all site plan review applications. 09/23/98 96 Page 20.92 -5 Site Plan Review B. Required Notice. Notice of such hearing shall be given as follows: Mailed or Delivered Notice. a. Residential Districts. At least 10 days prior to the hearing, notice shall be mailed to the applicant and all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll or, alternatively, from such other records as contain more recent addresses. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and provide to the City a list and postage paid envelopes with the names and addresses of owners as required by this section. b. Nonresidential Districts. At least 10 days prior to the hearing, notice shall be mailed to the applicant and all owners of property within 300 feet, excluding intervening rights -of -way and waterways, of the boundaries of the site, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll or, alternatively, from such other records as contain more recent addresses. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and provide to the City the names and addresses of owners as required by this section. 2. Posted Notice. Notice shall be posted in not less than 2 conspicuous places on or close to the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing. 3. Published Notice. Notice shall be published in at least one newspaper of general circulation within the City, at least 10 days prior to the hearing. C. Contents of Notice. The notice of public hearing shall contain: A description of the location of the project site and the purpose of the application; A statement of the time, place, and purpose of the public hearing; 3. A reference to application materials on file for detailed information; A statement that any interested person or authorized agent may appear and be heard. D. Continuance. Upon the date set for a public hearing before the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission may continue the hearing to another date without giving further notice thereof if the date of the continued hearing is announced in open meeting. 09/23/99 27- Page 20.92 -6 Site Plan Review 20.92.060 Duties of the Planning Commission A. If all applicable standards established by this section are met, the Planning Commission shall approve the development. Conditions may be applied when the proposed development does not comply with applicable standards and shall be such as to bring said development into conformity. Exception. The City Council shall have final decision - making authority on the applications for site plan review filed concurrently with amendments to the general plan, zoning code, or a planned community development plan or with a development agreement. B. If the development is disapproved, the Commission shall specify the standard or standards that are not met. 20.92.070 Expiration, Time Extension, Violation, Discontinuance, and Revocation A. Expiration. Any site plan review granted in accordance with the terms of this code shall expire within 24 months from the effective date of approval or at an alternative time specified as a condition of approval unless: A grading permit has been issued and grading has been substantially completed; or 2. A building permit has been issued and construction has commenced; or A certificate of occupancy has been issued; or 4. The use is established; or A time extension has been granted. In cases where a coastal permit is required, the time period shall not begin until the effective date of approval of the coastal permit. B. Time Extension. The Planning Director may grant a time extension for a site plan review for a period or periods not to exceed 3 years. An application for a time extension shall be made in writing to the Planning Director no less than 30 days or more than 90 days prior to the expiration date. C. Violation of Terms. Any site plan review granted in accordance with the terms of this code may be revoked if any of the conditions or terms of such site plan review are violated or if any law or ordinance is violated in connection therewith. 09/23/98 37 Page 20.92 -7 Site Plan Review D. Discontinuance. Any site plan review shall lapse if the exercise of rights granted by it is discontinued for 180 consecutive days. E. Revocation. Procedures for revocation shall be as prescribed by Chapter 20.96: Enforcement. 20.92.080 Amendments and New Applications A. Amendments. A request for changes in conditions of approval of a site plan review, or a change to plans that would affect a condition of approval, shall be treated as a new application. The Planning Director may waive the requirement for a new application if the changes are minor, do not involve substantial alterations or addition to the plan or the conditions of approval, and are consistent with the intent of the original approval, B. New Applications. If an application for a site plan review is disapproved, no new application for the same, or substantially the same, the site plan review shall be filed within one year of the date of denial of the initial application unless the denial is made without prejudice. 20.92.080 Rights of Appeal and Review A. Appeals and Review. Decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed by any interested party to the City Council. B. Calls for Review. The City Council may review any decision of the Planning Commission. C. Procedures. Procedures for appeals and calls for review shall be as prescribed by Chapter 20.95: Appeals and Calls for Review. 09/23/98 39 Exhibit No. 7 14/, ORDINANCE NO. 2001- A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 908 TO AMEND THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP NOS. 16, 17 & 18 ESTABLISHING A SITE PLAN OVERLAY REVIEW DISTRICT FOR COASTAL BLUFF PROPERTIES IN CORONA DEL MAR WHEREAS, Section 20.94 of the Municipal Code of the City of Newport Beach provides that Title 20 (Zoning Code) may be amended by changing the zoning designation of Districts and other provisions whenever the public necessity and convenience and the public welfare require such an amendment; and WHEREAS, Section 20.94.020 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that amendments to amend Title 20 must be approved by the Planning Commission and a written report setting forth full particulars of the amendment shall be forwarded to the City Council for consideration; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20.94, the Planning Commission has held a duly noticed public hearing on April 5, 2001 to consider Amendment No. 908 and at the conclusion of said meeting, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution No. 1527 recommending approval of Amendment No. 908; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20.94, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on April 24, 2001 to consider the adoption of Amendment No. 908. WHEREAS, Land Use Element Development Policy D states that the siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs; and WHEREAS, the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program states that natural bluffs constitute a significant scenic resource and environmental resource and in an effort to preserve these unique landforms, development shall be designed to minimize the alteration of natural landforms along bluff and cliffs; and, 1/3 Ordinance No. 2001 -_ Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, recent development proposals in the Corona del Mar area have requested significant alteration of coastal bluff resources, and present development trends suggest that additional projects will follow that may request significant alteration of coastal bluffs. There is every reason to believe that this trend will continue given the good economic climate and general prosperity of the community. The cumulative effect of new development could significantly alter the coastal bluffs contrary to preservation policies and should be evaluated by the city through a discretionary process to ensure consistent application of the coastal bluff preservation policies; and, WHEREAS, existing development regulations and review processes contained in the Zoning Ordinance do not directly support or implement coastal bluff preservation policies adequately. Due to pending and anticipated projects along coastal bluffs, the loss of significant environmental resources may result which will negatively impact the community's welfare. Applying the Site Plan Overlay designation to the coastal bluff properties will require review of projects, which could have a possibility to impact coastal bluff resources and public views. The review of these projects pursuant to the Site Plan Review provisions of Title 20 (Zoning) will provide the city the ability to exercise discretion in the implementation of existing General Plan and Local Coastal Program policies; and, WHEREAS, in conjunction with the consideration of the subject amendment to the Zoning Code, the proposed amendment has been determined to be Categorically Exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the State CEQA Guidelines pursuant to Section 15307 and 15308 which exempt regulatory activities designed to preserve and protect natural resources or the environment. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Zone Districting Map Nos. #16, #17 & #18 of the City of Newport Beach shall be amended to combine the Site Plan Review Overlay (SPR) designation to the existing zoning designation of coastal bluff properties located within Corona Del Mar identified in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. //V Ordinance No. 2001- Page 3 of 3 Section 2: Projects that have a vested right to proceed with construction or have been approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to a Use Permit, Variance or Site Plan Review shall not be subject to Site Plan Review pursuant to Chapter 20.92. Vested right shall mean that the project shall have performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance on a valid building permit issued prior to the effective date of this ordinance. Section 3: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on , 2001, and was adopted on the _ day of , 2001 by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS u/:v' • ATTEST: CITY CLERK �5- of ' !1 i Corona Amendment No. 908 Inspiration Site Plan Review Overlay for Coastal Bluff Properties MAP No. 2 L� ;VW Saftipu 3401 OCEAN BLVD. CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 714- 675.7482 PHONE 714.675 -4666 FAX April 18, 2001 Mayor Gary Adams and City Council Members 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Amendment No. 908 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: My wife and I (Lynne and Phil Butterfield, 3401 Ocean Blvd.) are in favor of Amendment No. 908. We would like to see the same rules apply to all the homes on the bluff in CDM that applied to us and the other homeowners who have built their homes on this bluff. The height restrictions and the string line protect the view for all who enjoy seeing both the ocean and the bluff. We were told by our architect about the height restriction and the string line restriction imposed by the city and the Coastal Commission. Mr. Tabak was also aware of these restrictions prior to hiring his architect because he discussed this with several people, including my wife, Lynne. If the rules are now changed to accommodate Mr. Tabak it will cause a domino effect and the bluff will disappear. Very truly yours, Phil Butterfield Lynne Butterfield R I.i �a1 �:.:..._. _ .ww- :MIy . a VV W • r.d Ct c/] 91 l N W i a ;-4 C� Q RM U a � o • ti � k 0 con Con o ti P64 d a y ° .� W Ly COD v VdJ � U M •O O M � O O C Ct h U ti ti 0 ti ° O O O ti O O O O O ti 00 rn b O U 0 U cd O U 4 an � o > o � a � � b b a � � U U � 4 U O O ¢+ o � o 4-. O O Cis � b C� U aA O O .o N o � o � U O ya � o U � � a,o b � � U bA p, O � U 'O U 9 O U b \ � .§ q _ \ U � � 0 \ \ � C�4 k \ k 2 % o k ON o ' � � g V § g � ■ § ƒ U � 2 q \ � .§ q _ \ U � � 0 \ \ � C�4 k \ k t 0 Ic f - G 1- r � � �• r i kR 1 f 1 1 1 t I � � i 1 pppT � 1% s' F % ! 1 0 i i -� !-• l 1- J t t �1P 1 J r � t t � t +t / I / I � 1 / I / 1 1 >V 6. UFO# y- r-I 6. Who em i M AOWWOR .5 MA O R < N. ty1 0 f lEff -X va Wit - A--"W !Az 4. 'k* z O vl n: �'�t �` •tea -`l. ,� �........�;. 'a Y • -r •j r 7-x jl ff f• t3 1 M 1 .. � i P � 'J I >o I E a ! r f —Vy f• t3 1 M 1 .. � i 4-4 N � � O O •4, N c 4 U z o j ,-N o U 4-j ct ,� a� o N u� a .. • •• ' •. ' • • w CL • u n n • a a a -� Z co 0) O �Q H � 0 tE Z b'3(i i`. G: Q. CL Cft fA H Q O 0 U � N m �U n O .O O ? � H � GA c�3 O O U O � � U U � U U O � bA U •� O � U O U O O bb O O O U O N O �b1p O O O b a� LZ bA .r, a� A .b c� N LZ U O O N bA LZ N O O LZ LZ b N A a� O i a� b a� •r, T LZ 0 LZ U ,L b A O a� U N O a O b O A biD A b U U LZ .S; U N O LZ N 0 U O A I N O N i-. N �i N b LZ v� LZ b a� wo a� v� O w O .b t4 LZ LZ Lq LZ d" � O U C40 A LZ y 1:14 , N u U "" O LZ b � N O eq 3 N O� 4-4 4 U b LZ O bA N LZ r"i ..d b • � � 'C � a�i 3 3 `Z L a "d LZ N vUi c� N N 1:14 C40 �- C40 N a a ua w b a� LZ bA .r, a� A .b c� N LZ U O O N bA LZ N O O LZ LZ b N A a� O i a� b a� •r, T LZ 0 LZ U ,L b A O a� U N O a O b O A biD A b U U LZ .S; U N O LZ N 0 U O A I N O N i-. N �i N b LZ v� LZ b a� wo a� v� O April 18, 2001 From: Lawrence Tabak, resident at 3431 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Phone (949)675 5529 h (714)850 1007 ext. 224 w To: Newport Beach City Council Member Re: Why you should not support "Site Plan Review" for bluffs. Dear City Council Member, My family and I live at the above address. We purchased this house two and a half years ago. Our home was constructed fifty years ago and was intended as a second residence for someone. For the last six months I have been in process with my architect and in consultation with the city to design a new residence to suit my family's needs on that land. During this half -year period I have incurred substantial professional architectural fees. The home we have designed is tastefully done, with terracing levels, including plenty of foliage and greenscape on the balconies, including two large tree wells on balconies, to support trees, all of which are techniques designed to enable the home to blend with the slope in a pleasing and elegant manner. Retaining walls are designed to minimize bluff alteration and removal of bluff soil. We have really made an effort to design a home that is sensitive to the needs of the city. My design in no way violates the height restrictions, the curb height restrictions, setbacks or any other elements of the existing code. I do not intend to seek any variances whatsoever. My home will not in any way obstruct anyone's view of the ocean, which I'm sure is of primary concern to the public. Since my house is the last house next to inspiration point, I have no neighbors on my east side. I have spoken with both of my immediate neighbors on my west side about my project and neither expressed any concerns. Neighbors directly behind me on Ocean Boulevard should not be concerned as my building cannot, per code, exceed curb height, and therefore should have no bearing on them. z When I purchased my home two and a half years ago, I specifically met with officials from the City planning department to make sure I could build this type of a home in the future when I scraped up the money. I was instructed about the height limits, the setbacks and so on and I was told that as long as the home to be constructed met with the code I should have no problem. Based on these representations, I made a decision to invest a substantial amount of money in that land and to prepare for my family's future. Around September 2000, someone on Ocean Boulevard proposed building a 12,500 square foot residence with 12 bedrooms, on the beach, and asked for a height variance. That's when a big red flag was raised to the planning commission, who then reacted by proposing a moratorium on all building permits on the bluffs. At that planning commission meeting, when the moratorium was proposed, I publicly spoke out against it. Fortunately it did not pass. Moreover, at that planning commission meeting, when I spoke to the commission publicly, I was specifically instructed by the planning commission to proceed with my architect and continue working with the city on my plans, and that they saw no reason why I should not be able to build my home. I followed their advice and relied on their representations. I have been working on my plans with my architect and in consultation with the city. Now, out of the blue, I find out about this proposed Site Plan Review ordinance, which states that I must have my building permit in hand by June 8th, or I will be subject to the Site Plan Review ordinance. The City knows full well that it will be impossible for me to have my building permit in hand by that date. I submitted my plans for approval in concept prior to the planning commission voting on this new ordinance on April 5th, 2001. If I become subject to this new ordinance, I feel I will essentially have to throw away my plans and write off the money spent. Not to mention, I will not be able to build a suitable home for my family as well. If this ordinance passes I will be, in essence, sandwiched! Here's why: Per code I cannot build up. My structure cannot exceed curb height. I will also not be able to build down on the bluff. My lot is approximately 55 feet wide, so I cannot go sideways either. How then do I build a suitable home ?? Another issue is this. If I choose to sell my home, a buyer would presumably go down to the city beforehand to see what alterations he could or could not make to the property. The city would then tell him 3 that they can't say because the buyer needs to submit plans to the site plan review board in order to determine that. Who, in their right mind, would purchase my property based on that? Will this affect my property value? I think you know the answer to both of these questions. This ordinance, in my opinion, amounts to a confiscation of property rights without remuneration. Considering my individual situation, relying on the representation of the city planning department and the planning commission itself, and being in process with the city for six months, I think begs the question, "Is it fair to this property owner "? I don't think so. Some supporters of this ordinance are using words and phrases like: The bluffs are about to be "obliterated" because many homeowners are just waiting in the wings with their plans to "decimate" the bluffs. If we don't act now we can say goodbye to the way our city looks forever, and to our way of life. It's critical to pass this ordinance now to save our views and our city from rich developers. If we don't act now it will be too late. This is an emergency. Etc. I think one needs to step back, take a deep breath, count to ten, and find out what reality is. I believe a rational thinking human being, who considers all the facts, will come to the conclusion that the sky is not going to fall in tomorrow and the world as we know it is not going to end if this ordinance does not pass. On the other hand, I do see the point that a 12,500 square foot residence (as proposed by another homeowner) might be inappropriate in a neighborhood where houses are generally a lot smaller. However, I don't think that legislation to prevent it that also takes away rights from all bluff owners in the area is the right approach. I'm sure the planning commission can find a way to achieve their goal without trampling on everyone's rights. I question whether they have really explored all avenues carefully enough. I am asking for your help to protect my property rights and to see that I am treated fairly. Thank you in advance for your attention to this serious matter. lly, , Memorandum TO: James W. Campbell Members of the Planning Commission Senior Planner City of Newport Beach, California City of Newport Beachh FROM: Tom llood /%' ' A Fax: (949) 644 -3250 DATE: April 21, 2001 �� RE: Amendment 908 — Site Plan Review Overlay for Coastal Bluff Properties Corona Del Mar This Mcmorandum is presented in support of the proposed Amendment 908 — Site Plan Rcvicw Overlay for Coastal Bluff Properties, Corona Del Mar, (the "Amendment') and rcqucsts a favorable vote on the Amendment. Question Presented The question before the Planning Commission is whether to approve the Amendment to the Zoning Code of the City of Newport Beach, which would recognize the coastal bluffs within the City as a significant environmental resource in the same manner as the present General Plan, Local Coastal Program ( "LCP ") and the California Coastal Commission. Short Answer The answer is yes. The affirmative approval of this Amendment would be consistent with the recommendation by Staff that a site plan review map designator be established for the Zoning District Maps, 416, #17 and #18. Further, approval of the Amendment would promote and rcinforce the recognition of the Newport Beach and Corona Del Mar coastal bluffs as an irreplaceable natural and environmental resource. While community debate is passionate both "pro' and "cod' addressing the coastal bluff development concerns in a meaningful, consistent manner accomplishes a standard of review articulated in Sections 20.92.010 and 20.92.030 of the Zoning Code. Under the guidelines established by the Amendment, these Sections will permit the Planning Commission or the City Council to be able to use their discretion in the consideration — on a consistent basis — of each project presented to the Planning Commission. Recommendations for Approval of the Amendment Should Include All Coastal Zone Commission Designated Properties (A) Inclusion of Coastal Zoning Commission Designation. The California Coastal Commission has previously designated an "exclusion zone" of properties in its Coastal Zone Exclusion Map (the "Exclusion Map "). The Exclusion Map includes several additional lots that were excludcd because Exhibit 1 to the April 5`h Report was preliminary in nature, Exhibit 1 was developed by a visual field survey. However, not all lot lines and lot boundaries were easily zoo In J119 SBT.LPITOVA AVA £S££008 b1L XVA RU S1 10 /VZ /40 Memorandum James Campbell, Sr. Planner Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission April 21, 2001 Page 2 of 2 ascertained due to overgrown vegetation. Thus, the Exhibit did not include all lots presenth included in the Coastal Zone Exclusion: Map bul should be included. Exhibit I can be easily corrected by including the inadvertently excluded lots designated by the Coastal Zone Exclusion Map. The inclusion of these lots on Hazel Drive (214 and 218 Hazel Drive) and lots similarly situated and designated on Evening Canyon also above Little Corona Beach would provide consistencv and uniformity in the application of the proposed Amendment. Because the Coastal Commission has already designated these properties along with others, the Amendment and their inclusion in the Amendment Map Exhibit is a consistent application of the Coastal Commission interpretation of the definition of coastal bluffs and should also include all defined bluffs within the City for consistency of application of the review process. (B) Definition Of the Coastal Bluffs: The definition of the coastal bluffs should be consistent with the definition of the Coastal Commission. Consistency in the definition established equitable and consistent application of zoning regulations. This definition will require further consideration of: 1. Topographic characteristics (slope, adjacent structures) that grading, modification and alteration of the lot may ultimately have on the surrounding environment; and 2. Preserve all view of coastal bluffs, beaches and scenic canyon areas. Summary and Recommendation The City has correctly recognized the cumulative effect of new development in Corona Del Mar could significantly alter the costal bluffs as designated by the California Coastal Zone Commission — which development can have a negative impact on the abutting structures due to grading, flooding and construction activities. The City further recognizes adequate development controls provided by the Amendment and site plan review overlay designations will insure the retention of the integrity of the coastal bluffs, the scenic beauty and natural topography. Therefore, I respectively support the Amendment as proposed herein with the inclusion of the Coastal Zone Exclusion Map lots and ask for a positive vote from the Planning Commission. Tom Hood 12 Pavona Newport Coast, CA P lLE:U :Vn4OODVim Campbell NPB Planning Department 4.2l ol.dm £OOO dND SBISI7110va 3v3 £S££008 VTL Xvd ST:ST TO /4Z /60 G. BERK KELLOGG 3309 OCEAN BLVD. CRONA DEL MAR, CA 92826 April 19, 2001 City Council of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 RE: Amendment 908 {SPR] Gentlemen: URECEND X�R cCRSn i . ow j� �� PRi1 RECEIVED '01 APR 23 A 8 '29 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH The bluff area of Corona Del Mar overlooking the ocean where we live already has the best views in Newport Beach available to the public which are protected by existing building department criteria. While we don't disagree with some of the objectives of this proposed amendment, in our opinion the planning dept. already has sufficient power over new construction to accomplish these ends. This new proposal grants too much subjective power to the planning commission such as how a property would look from the ocean or beach. This seems to us to be overkill. Sincerely, Laurie & er Kellogg 04/24/2001 11:38 9496753279 RECEIVED LaVonne M.Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach 3300fflJwpA9ZB2tllev*j .'sjl Newport Beach, California — 92663 SR & WR BECKMAN yqpp PAGE 01 23 April , 2001 R No. 908. Combining Site Plan Review Overlay (SPR) to existing zoning designation o c st bluff properties located within Corona Del Mar, covered in Zone Districting Maps #16, #17 & #18. Please forward this important message to the City Council meeting on the above referenced Amendment. As long -time property owners here in Corona Del Mar we have become concerned by increased disregard for zoning ordinances; encroachment by private parties into Corona Del Mar public park space; and the elimination or reduction of public views of the pacific Ocean from the public park spaces and private properties on the coastal bluffs of Corona Del Mar. As regards the coastal bluffs properties in Zone Districting Maps #16, #17 & #18 we strongly urge that the Site Plan Review Overlay (SPR) designation procedures he combined with existing building limits and require Site Plan Review --and disapproval of any application made for floor area that exceeds the specified limit; and disapproval of any application for roofline or height of building to exceed the specified limit. These limits were voted through City Council procedures to preserve the publio view from the city park spaces and residence along Ocean Avenue at the coastal bluffs in Cortina Del Mar. We look for enforcement of these city ordinances. We have struggled with the Planning Commission personnel on overbuilding (exceeding the square foot of living space authorized for the lot size on property adjacent to the bluffs) subsequently approved by the Newport Beach Planning Department. We arc continually aggravated by the creeping unauthorized expansion of building floor space (exceeding the last guy's approval of floor exceedauce or height exceedance by the Planning ,Department) to create monster residences on the small lots of Corona Del Mar. We expect the city ordinances to be mandated (the rules), but find they are regularly skirted with new remodeling and new construction, We were certainly obligated to remain with the ordinance limits when remodeling. Why can't these simple rules (no more than 1.5 square feet of floor space per square foot of lot land, with appropriate height limits and set backs from street and alley) be followed ??? Futhetmore the height restrictions for trees, shrubs, bushes and flowers on the coastal bluffs properties in Zone Districting Maps 416, #17 & #18 should be maintained to permit viewing the Pacific Ocean from the city park spaces atop the coastal bluffs. The current plantings on many of the coastal bluff properties do not permit such views. Thank you for consideration in preserving the public views and residential nature of Corona Del Mar. Sincere) & William R. Beckman gandra R. Beckman Property owners of 206 & 206 % Fernleaf Ave. Corona Del Mar, CA '- aC) y-acj- 519 Iris Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 April 24, 2001 Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Council Member: Re: Corona del Mar Coastal Bluff Properties Ocean Avenue in Corona del Mar along the bluff from Poppy to Carnation extends beyond the road on the coastal side toward the bluffs. We understand further that zoning on the properties restricts home height limits above the curb and prescribes public view planes, meaning shrubbery is to be restricted to that which should not limit the public view plane. Earlier there was a foot path along almost the entire bluff from Iris to Poppy. These public rights have been constantly eroded by individual development and council and/or zoning board acquiescence and variances. In addition rules requiring public views from public properties have not been observed. Note the trees and shrubbery restricting the public land harbor view at Goldenrod and Ocean corner. We think all the current properties should be examined and intrusions, as not observing the one (1) foot sidewalk setback for walls and fences and the shrubbery limitation, to prevent public view should be remedied. Additionally, public right of way access and loss thereof should be addressed and mitigated on all individual properties. As far as building on the bluffs we believe the Planning Commission and Council should strictly adhere to zoning and not allow any variances. To allow more Council and Planning Commission discretion will only take away more public view and allow more zoning variances. We ask that the Planning Commission and City Council strictly enforce zoning throughout CdM. Very truly yours, Richard A. Nichols Date —Ok� Copies Sent To. 3-Mayor &�Ouncil Member [B-Manager Cl Attorney E ❑ _--- -_ ©� RECEIVED '01 APR 25 AS .57 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY OF ttErIPORT BEACH 1�c�i� rc�ise� , ti 1 YY► -over fie- �a earj o -tom_ vle� e bi � c as Ld c.k 6 \h ---- o..s eac.Io\ Iileuo t ,buit� - k4 eew Gs i vt�w 1'l oLW- �i� YAUC-�A o- 4-Q- T-L H AL�e ST771W Pim.d m lOC CSA RECEIVED 101 APR 25 A8 57 !v OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERKS CIT�OF kE1YP0 i 8 A li p ^J 0 007��[�lo Q a 1O � 3 0 k 69 �a3- /Bay Christopher and I3sa Cushman 2700 Bayside Drive Comas del Mar, Ca. 92625 (949) 673 -2141 Hoare (714) 478-4247 Ce0 (949) 566 -4271 Far facsitn le ftwsmittal To: Honorable Members City of Fax: City Council: 949 - 644 -3039 t/ Newport Beach City Council; Rich Edmanston, Public Public Works: 949 -644 -3318 ✓ Works;Robin Clauson, Esq.; Jim Campbell, Planning Robin Clauson: 949 - 644 -3139 ✓ Jim Campbell: 949 -644 -3250 ✓ From: Chris and Lisa Cushman Date: 04/19/01 Re: Rea Brandt Trust Pages: Cv ApplicationsBayside Drive and Goldenrod Street CC: Taylor, Hams, Carol X Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please ❑ Please ❑ Please Comment Reply Recycle Notes: Please see the attached. d �o Date ! PTrXeqj �m di7 coP1es Sent To. (aYor "'= z 0 r4oncil ° '3m C-) tl�l C3 a—' aanger CO� x� ttorney MCI CO a� I �41" VIA FACSIMILE AND ORIGINAL U.S. MAIL To: Honorable Members, City of Newport Beach City Council; Rich Edmanston, Public Works; Robin Clauson, Esq.; Jim Campbell, Planning CC: Rex Brandt Trust Applications File From: Chris and Lisa Cushman Date: 04/19/01 Re: Rex Brandt Trust Applications Please see the attached correspondence received from Mr. Welton's Attorney along with our letter acknowleging receipt and identifying several preliminary inconsistencies. This is the first communication that we have received from Mr. Welton since the Council meeting held on 3/27/01. Have you seen this letter? Were you copied on it? The letter suggests that it was sent to "all concerned." The letter states that "yesterday he received approval from the Newport Beach City Council for the construction." This is yet another misleading statement. Communication from the Applicant continues to be erroneous. The City has yet to issue a building permit. The encroachment agreement is not yet signed. The Lot Line Adjustment has not yet been formalized or recorded and the Legislative Ammendment has not yet been adopted. Clearly, no approval has yet been I April 19, 2001 granted. Clearly, based on these inaccuracies, and the threat that excavation may damage our properties, we are forced to retain Counsel and then formally respond to the letter. Because the lettter states that contiguous properties could be affected by excavation, time is of the essence. We need to review the foundation plans, soils information, geological reports, etc. that your offices and the Council relied on. To date, Mr. Welton has refused to Provide us with copies. Therefore, we have contacted Jim Campbell and Rich Edmanston to obtain file copies. Thank you for placing this information in the Public Record.P C/I G R E E N & A D A M S, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 8 CORPORATE PARK, SUITE 200 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92606 TELEPHONE: (949) 862 -1030 FACSIMILE: (949) 862 -1031 April 11, 2001 VIA FACSIMILE: (949) 566 -9271 & U.S. CERTIFIED MAIL Chris & Lisa Cushman 2700 Bayside Drive Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 VIA FACSIMILE: (714) 972 -4597 & U.S. CERTIFIED MAIL Ms. Harriet Harris c/o Harris Taylor Management 315 W. Third Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 VIA REGULAR MAIL & CERTIFIED MAIL Ms. Susan Carol Brayton 8 Leesbury Court Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Eric D. Welton /2720 & 2730 Bayside Drive and 405 & 407 Goldenrod, Corona Del Mar To All Concerned: r, Pct �Idl// GSC This firm represents Eric D. Welton. As I believe you are aware, Mr. Welton is purchasing property located at 2720 and 2730 Bayside Drive and 405 and 407 Goldenrod Street in Corona Del Mar (collectively, the "Property"). He intends to build four duplexes on the Property. Yesterday he received approval from the Newport Beach City Council for the construction. As part of the construction, Mr. Welton believes that excavation of the Property will be of a greater depth than are the walls or foundations of one or more of your properties. As the owners of contiguous properties that could potentially be affected by that excavation, Mr. Welton is required by law to allow you at least thirty days notice in which you may take measures to F:IWPI NG1864001 U,TR\CUSIR.MN.411 Chris & Lisa Cushman Ms. Harriet Harris Ms. Susan Carol Brayton April 11, 2001 Page 2 protect your properties from any damage caused by the excavation and/or during which time you may extend the foundations of your properties. This letter shall constitute such notice to you. As required by law, Mr. Welton also agrees to provide you with reasonable license to enter on his Property as may be reasonably necessary to accomplish the above purposes. On a related note, Mr. Welton is also requesting that you provide him and his agents permission to enter on your properties to observe and survey their present condition, and to take photographs. We feel it is important for all concerned to have a timely record of the condition of your properties before construction begins. We look forward to hearing from you. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. PWG:nb F: \WPI\PG \884001\L1R=SHMAN.411 GERALD M.LUTZKY 216 POPPY AVENUE CORONA DEL MAR, CALIF 92625 949 - 640 -4100 April 22, 2001 City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Calif 92663 Members of the City Council Date +11,6101 — Copies Sent To: Q'Mayor Ercouncil Member [YManager D Attorney� � ❑ a RECEIVED rot APR 25 A 8 :58 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY OF i':EIJPORT BEACH As a resident of Newport Beach I want to commend you for finally taking some action to protect our coastal views and our natural resources. There are many of us on Poppy Avenue near Ocean Blvd. that have already lost whatever little views that we had by, what we consider, the construction of unreasonably large homes on Hazel Avenue (specifically at 204 and 210 Hazel). It is incredible to me that The City of Newport Beach does not have the procedures to enforce the preservation of our views and have we have waited until 2001 to finally recognize this problem. There are many of us that have complained about this situation, and until now, without any success. I want to strongly encourage you to pass Amendment No. 908. The City of Newport Beach should provide at least equal, if not greater protection, of the coastal views as other Orange County coastal cities. However, your Amendment is unfair, as it does not include the protection of other coastal views and bluffs in a similar situation in Newport Beach. In my case, the house at 218 Hazel is in the coastal designation and is not included in the Amendment. Our existing view, along with our neighbors, will be eliminated should the new owner build up the bluff rather than down. Along with the loss of the view we will incur additional financial loss to the value of our property. While we will never be able to recover our views, we will look to recovery our financial loss. I strongly recommend that the Amendment include all of the homes on all coastal bluffs in the in the City of Newport. Unfortunately I will be out of town and will not be able to attend the hearing on April 24, )ove should you require additional information ter. Mayor Gary Adams And City Councilmen City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Gentlemen: ❑D�O�CtI C� ° Sd s. 3 0 RECEIVED 0 '01 APR 27 A9.29 April 23, 2001 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY OF VEWPORT BEACH I am writing about the pending Amendment regarding the bluffs in Corona del Mar. Unfortunately, I will be out of the country starting on April 24, 2001, and will be unable to attend the meeting. I want to go on record as vehemently OPPOSING any change to the current status or ordinances regarding bluff -top construction. As you know, currently no houses can be built above the bluff line, thereby preserving the view, plane, and lines of those on the street or across from it. We also have numerous view areas where there is no building on the bluff area due to parks or other public areas. The square footage of a house that an individual can build on his property should be his own decision, as long as his decision does not affect his neighbors. Hillside properties, in particular, lack many of the obvious advantages of flat land; i.e., yard area for patios, parking, et cetera. To build on a hillside, you must become more creative. I also think it is inappropriate and a clear violation of property rights to limit the size of someone's house on an arbitrary basis, and a decision made by the Planning Commission (a group not elected by the voters) can not only become arbitrary but personal. I believe our city, county, state, and federal government already have enough laws and enough protections for us. Why don't we just implement what is there? The people who have bought the land on the bluff -top sides have made a sizeable investment with the anticipation, and the right, to build the house of their dreams. This type of arbitrary restriction will no doubt have an immense effect on their property values. I urge you strongly to leave current ordinances and planning vehicles in place. Thank you gentlemen for your consideration and your continued support and service for our community. �ncerely yours, � Jo". Hamilton P sident J W H /cns 100 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE SUITE 200 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 PHONE (949) 721 -9999 FAX (949) 721.0999