The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11 - 4-24-12 Appeal of Denial of Lot Merger Staff ReportAgenda Item No. 14 April 24, 2012 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Community Development Department Kimberly Brandt, AICP, Director 949 - 644 - 3226, kbrandt(a)newoortbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Kay Sims, Assistant Planner APPROVED: ftY� V TITLE: Appeal of Denial of Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 to merge 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard (PA2011 -141) ABSTRACT: An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002, reversing the Zoning Administrator's approval to allow the merger of the following property under common ownership: portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 located in Corona del Mar. Also included in the application was a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map.At the request of the applicant and direction of the City Council, the lot merger application was referred back to the Planning Commission for consideration of alternative development standards proposed by the applicant that are more restrictive than those prescribed by the zoning code. On March 22, 2012, the Commission heard the applicant's proposal and recommends approval of the application subject to the alternative development standards stated in draft City Council Resolution for Approval. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the draft resolution of approval as recommended by the Planning Commission at the March 22, 2012 meeting (Attachment No. CC 3) subject to the alternative development standards as stated in the Conditions of Approval attached to the Resolution. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: There is no fiscal impact related to this item. 1 2 Appeal — Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 (PA2011 -141) April 24, 2012 Page 2 VICINITY MAP 11 ¢ a ,h00�4 h f J� � � S ', Na, r h0h . h0 , ✓ ` r F GENERAL PLAN ZONING RI , N RI fi 1 It I Nq R I� . n R-1 e R�1 i tiM1 ^ rv�� P 1 � R I R -I R ` R.I R R_� �g \ R-1 q Rs -o PR nA °'me d R•i 0 1098 o torn �- LOCATION GENERAL PLAN F ZONING CURRENT USE Single -Unit Residential Detached ON -SITE Single -Unit Residential Single- family residence RS -D R -1 NORTH Single -Unit Residential Detached Single -Unit Residential Single- family residence (RS -D) (R -1) Parks and Recreation SOUTH Parks and Recreation Park, beach, and public restrooms PR) PR Single -Unit Residential Detached EAST Single -Unit Residential Single- family residence RS-D R -1 Single -Unit Residential Detached WEST Single -Unit Residential Single - family residence (RS -D) (R -1) S Appeal — Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 (PA2011 -141) April 24, 2012 Page 3 INTRODUCTION Proiect Description and Settin The applicant proposes to combine 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard for the purpose of developing a new single - family residence. Furthermore, the applicant proposes to limit development of the merged property by applying alternative development standards for floor area, side setbacks, and height, which are more restrictive than those required by the Zoning Code. If approved, a covenant or deed restriction would be recorded requiring future development of the merged properties to comply with the alternative development standards. The final form of this agreement would be determined by the City Attorney and Community Development Director, and would be recorded prior to the recordation of the lot merger. The subject properties are located in Corona del Mar adjacent to the northeasterly (inland) side of Ocean Boulevard between Goldenrod and Heliotrope Avenues. The two properties consist of portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34. They are generally rectangular in shape with skewed front property lines and slope gently from the rear toward Ocean Boulevard. Vehicular access is provided from Ocean Lane via a 20- foot -wide shared, private ingress and egress easement at the rear of 2812 Ocean Boulevard. Each property is currently developed with a single story, single- family residence. Lookout Point and Little Corona Beach Park are located directly across Ocean Boulevard. Background Zoning Administrator Approval and Planning Commission Denial Decisions This application was approved by the Zoning Administrator on September 14, 2011. An appeal of the approval was heard by the Planning Commission on October 20, 2011. The Commission determined that elimination of the interior lot line and its associated three - foot - interior -side setbacks (total of six feet) would result in the following: less required setback area (larger buildable area) than currently allowed by the Zoning Code for the total of the two unmerged properties, as developed separately (see Table 2); the larger buildable area would allow more square footage to be constructed on the merged property than the total allowed on the two existing properties, as developed separately (see Table 2); and the merger would create an excessively large lot, which would not be consistent with the pattern of development in the neighboring area. Based on these findings, the Commission denied the application reversing the Zoning Administrator's approval. The denial was, subsequently, appealed to the City Council by the applicant. City Council Hearing and Referral to the Planning Commission At the January 24, 2012, City Council meeting, the applicant requested time to develop and present voluntary alternative standards for development of the merged property, which would be more restrictive than those required by the Zoning Code. The goal of the more restrictive standards would be to ensure that the mass and scale of future development be compatible with the neighboring properties. The Council voted unanimously to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration of the lot merger based on a review of the applicant's proposed alternative development standards. 4 Appeal — Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 (PA2011 -141) April 24, 2012 Page 4 Planning Commission's Reconsideration of the Lot Merger Reconsideration of the application was heard by the Planning Commission at the March 22, 2012, meeting (see Attachment CC 3). Staff described the history of the application and explained that the applicant's proposed alternative development standards for height and maximum floor area limit (FAL) were more restrictive than the R -1 standards prescribed by the Zoning Code for the Corona del Mar area. During public comments, representatives for the applicant stated that in addition to their alternative development standards as stated in the staff report, they would be willing to increase the 4- foot -side setbacks required by the Zoning Code for the merged property to 6- foot- setbacks on each side. The representatives then gave a presentation of their proposal that included architectural renderings and photo simulations of a residence that would comply with the proposed height and floor area limits (FAL). Following the applicant's presentation, representatives for the group that appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision stated that the findings for approval could not be made, and that the merged large lot would be out of character for the neighborhood. Additionally, they discussed the subdivision history of Block 34, neighborhood opposition to the proposed merger, and provided statistics that compared the proposed lot to other lots throughout Corona del Mar. Ten residents spoke in opposition citing issues that included: obstruction of views, the health of nearby residents, the findings of approval could not be made, construction noise, excessive and out of character development, and non- compliance with a private deed restriction limiting the height of structures to one story. Four people spoke in favor of the project indicating that the proposed development standards would: result in a one story residence, development would be consistent with the existing development along Ocean Boulevard, and the size of the proposed lot would not be out of character with the area. Following the close of the public hearing, the Commission discussed the intent of the findings and whether all five findings could be made, the size of the lot in relation to other lots in the area, the accuracy of view simulations, the proposed alternative development standards, and the proposed restrictive covenant. After discussion, the Commission voted (3 ayes, 2 noes) to recommend approval of the lot merger to the City Council with modifications to the applicant's proposed alternative development standards. Their recommendation includes the applicant's proposed alternative development standards, including the 6- foot -side setbacks, plus additional restrictions that limit the floor area to .75 of the buildable area and reduce the proposed height by 3 feet. The Commission also modified Condition of Approval No. 1 in the Resolution of Approval (related to recordation of a restrictive covenant) to state that enforcement of the covenant would be on the part of the City, the applicant, and would also include the affected property owners (2811 and 2821 Ocean Lane). 0 0 Appeal — Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 (PA2011 -141) April 24, 2012 Page 5 Analysis Proposed Alternative Development Standards and Planning Commission Recommendation The applicant's proposed alternative development standards for floor area limit (FAL), height, and side setbacks are shown in Table 1. The proposal indicates that all other required R -1 development standards would be applied to future development. Table 1 compares development standards for the subject properties, as developed independently, and as merged. The columns in color illustrate the following development standards: Zoning Code — orange; applicant's proposed — blue; and Planning Commission recommended green. The exhibits on page 6 and 7 are for the purpose of illustrating the proposed alternative development standards only and do not represent a specific design. Table 1: Comparison of Development Standards *Subterranean basements not included in maximum FAL (as per Newport Zoning Code). * *Roof deck railings shall be transparent and may exceed the maximum height, but shall be no higher than the minimum height required by the latest California Building Code 7 2808 Ocean 2812 Ocean ° Blvd Blvd Total Merged Property Property ( "A" + "B") Property „A„ „B„ Lot Area 7,194 sq ft 6,499 sq It 13,693 sq ft 13.693 sq ft 13.693 sq ft Development Zoning Zoning Zoning Zoning Applicant Planning Standards Code Code Code Code Proposed Commission Recommendation Setbacks: 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft Front loft loft loft loft loft Same Rear 3 ft per side 3 It per side 3 ft per side 4 ft per side 6 ft (as Applicant) Sides Setback Areas 2,432 sq ft 2,332 sq ft 4,764 sq ft 3,647 sq ft 4,205 sq ft Same (Total Sq Ft) as Applicant) Total Same Buildable 4,762 sq ft 4,167 sq ft 8,929 sq ft 10,046 sq ft 9,486 sq ft (as Applicant) Area Floor Area 7,143 sq ft 6,251 sq ft 13,394 sq ft 15,069 sq it 9,488 sq ft 7,116 sq ft Limit (FAL) (1.5 FAIL)* (� 1 5 FAL)* (� ) (1.5 FAL)* (� ) (1.5 FAL)* (� ) (1.0 FAL)* (� ) 75 FAL)* (� ) Floor Area Ratio .99 .96 .98 1.10 .69 .52 FAR 34% up to 15'6" 34% up to 166" (roof deck floor) ** (roof deck floor) ** Height 33% up to 15' 33% up to 15' (flat roof /sloped (top of flat roof) (top of flat roof) roof) 24 ft/29 It 24 ft/29 ft 24 ftl29 ft 24 ft/29 ft 33% up to 14' 33% up to 14' (top of flat roof) (top of flat roof) Measured from: Measured from: Established Grade Established Grade of 70.2' NAVD88 of 67.2' NAVD88 *Subterranean basements not included in maximum FAL (as per Newport Zoning Code). * *Roof deck railings shall be transparent and may exceed the maximum height, but shall be no higher than the minimum height required by the latest California Building Code 7 q Appeal — Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 (PA2011 -141) April 24, 2012 Page 6 City Standard (Zoning Code) @ -P g BuildableArea xae� 10,046 SF ~ City Standard Floor Area Limit (1.5) 15,069 SF �k 70 -FOpl Front Satback Applicant's Proposal with 6' Side Setbacks a /O /R �04 ff v Buildable Area yea 9,488 SF 8' Q Proposed Alternative W/ 6 -Foot Sides .0 Floor Area Limit (1.0). o 9,488 SF t°e d Applicant's Original Proposal with 4' Side Setbacks 7 Buildable Area �., 10,046 SF w� Proposed Alternative Floor Area Limit (1.0) 10,046 SF , 20 .Foot Front Satbaok . a Planning Commission Recommendation g s0 mss° ..°?/,p$ \r� \ �•e4 4w, v, 6�Buildable Area 9� 9,488 SF PC Recommended 4Dv1 Alternative Floor Area q Limit (0.75) gA* 7,116 SF �. v 20 -Foot Front Setback 70 -Foot Pronlsetback The applicant's proposal includes: • increasing side setbacks from 4 feet on each side to 6 feet on each side • decreasing the allowed 1.5 floor area limit (FAL) to a 1.0 floor area limit (FAL) • lowering maximum height allowed and limiting development to a specific percentage allowed at that height 9 )dx ? %7 129 •n� o� @ -P g BuildableArea xae� 10,046 SF ~ City Standard Floor Area Limit (1.5) 15,069 SF �k 70 -FOpl Front Satback Applicant's Proposal with 6' Side Setbacks a /O /R �04 ff v Buildable Area yea 9,488 SF 8' Q Proposed Alternative W/ 6 -Foot Sides .0 Floor Area Limit (1.0). o 9,488 SF t°e d Applicant's Original Proposal with 4' Side Setbacks 7 Buildable Area �., 10,046 SF w� Proposed Alternative Floor Area Limit (1.0) 10,046 SF , 20 .Foot Front Satbaok . a Planning Commission Recommendation g s0 mss° ..°?/,p$ \r� \ �•e4 4w, v, 6�Buildable Area 9� 9,488 SF PC Recommended 4Dv1 Alternative Floor Area q Limit (0.75) gA* 7,116 SF �. v 20 -Foot Front Setback 70 -Foot Pronlsetback The applicant's proposal includes: • increasing side setbacks from 4 feet on each side to 6 feet on each side • decreasing the allowed 1.5 floor area limit (FAL) to a 1.0 floor area limit (FAL) • lowering maximum height allowed and limiting development to a specific percentage allowed at that height 9 10 Appeal — Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 (PA2011 -141) April 24, 2012 Page 7 • development at various maximum heights is allowed at any location within the buildable area • measuring height, per Zoning Code requirements, from an established grade of 70.2 (NAVD88) The Planning Commission's recommendation includes: • 6- foot -side setbacks (as proposed by applicant) • decreasing maximum floor area limit (FAL) to .75 (applicant's proposed 1.0 FAL) • lowering height of development 3 feet by measuring height from an established grade of 67.2' (NAVD88), rather than 70.2' (NAVD88), The graph below illustrates the Zoning Code standard for height (24/29 feet), the applicant's proposed heights (shaded in orange, blue, green), and the Planning Commission recommendation (shaded in brown). Alternative Heights * *Roof deck railings shall be transparent and may exceed the maximum height, but shall be no higher than the minimum height required by the latest California Building Code 11 12 Appeal — Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 (PA2011 -141) April 24, 2012 Page 8 Summary The applicant voluntarily proposed alternative development standards which decrease the maximum height and floor area limit (FAL) and increase the side setbacks with the goal of ensuring that the mass and scale of future development on the merged property would be compatible with the neighboring properties and surrounding area. The Planning Commission's recommendation of approval of the lot merger to the City Council includes the applicant's proposed alternative standards, including the 6- foot - side -yard setbacks, plus additional restrictions that limit the floor area to .75 of the buildable area and reduce the height limit proposed by the applicant by 3 feet. Alternatives: If the City Council finds the facts do not support the findings required to grant approval of the lot merger application, the City Council should adopt the draft resolution (Attachment No. CC 1) upholding the original decision of the Planning Commission reversing the decision of the Zoning Administrator and denying the proposed lot merger. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Should City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission on October 20, 2011 and deny this project. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. Should City Council reverse the decision of the Planning Commission on October 20, 2011 and approve this project, staff recommends the City Council find this project exempt from CEQA, pursuant to Section 15305 (Class 5 - Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the Implementing Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. Class 5 exempts projects which consist of minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than twenty (20 %) percent, which do not result in change in land use or increase in density, including minor lot line adjustments not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. This project is consistent with these requirements. NOTICING: Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways) and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Finally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Submitted by: r Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director 13 Attachments: Appeal — Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 (PA2011 -141) April 24, 2012 Page 9 CC 1 Draft Resolution to Deny CC 2 Draft Resolution to Approve CC 3 Planning Commission March 22, 2012 Meeting Minutes, Staff Report, and Supplemental Materials Received 14 Ciiy Gc.��ii�cil 1,5 10 RESOLUTION NO. ## ## A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, DENYING LOT MERGER APPLICATION NO. LM2011 -002 TO MERGE THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES, UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP: PORTIONS OF LOTS 4, 5, AND 6 OF BLOCK 34 LOCATED IN CORONA DEL MAR (PA2011 -141). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. An application was filed by the John Guida Trust and the Julie Guida Trust, with respect to properties located at 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard, and legally described as Portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 of Corona del Mar requesting approval of a lot merger. 2. The applicants propose a lot merger for the following property under common ownership: portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 located in Corona del Mar. Also included in the application is a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map. 3. The subject property is located within the Single -Unit Residential (R -1) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D). 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B). 5. A public hearing was held by the Zoning Administrator on September 14, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Zoning Administrator at this meeting. 6. Based on the facts of finding for approval and subject to the conditions of approval in the Zoning Administrator Action Letter, the Zoning Administrator approved the proposed lot merger application. 7. On September 23, 2011, the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve Lot Merger No. LM2011 -022 was appealed by Mr. Clifford Jones (2800 Ocean Boulevard), Ms. Joan Campbell (2811 Ocean Lane), and Mr. John Silva (2821 Ocean Lane). 8. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 20, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. The Planning Commission considered evidence, both written and oral presented at this meeting. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance 1-7 City Council Resolution No. Paqe 2 of 4 with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. 9. The Planning Commission determined findings for approval could not be made and reversed the decision for approval of the Zoning Administrator. 10. On October 27, 2011, Mr. John Guida filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action. 11. A public hearing was held by the City Council on January 24, 2012, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 12. The applicant requested that the Council continue the appeal in order to allow him time to develop and present voluntary alternative development standards more restrictive than those required by the Zoning Code for development of the merged property. 13. The Council voted unanimously to continue the hearing and refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration, directing the Commission to make a recommendation of approval or denial of the lot merger based on a review of the applicant's proposed alternative development standards. 14. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 22, 2012, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 15. The applicant voluntarily proposed alternative development standards which are more restrictive than those required by the Zoning Code (1.0 FAL, 6- foot -side setbacks, and maximum height - 15 feet 6 inches above established grade), with the goal of ensuring that the mass and scale of future development on the merged property would be compatible with the neighboring properties and surrounding area. 16. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the lot merger to the City Council with alternative development standards that required the applicant's proposed 6- foot - side -yard setbacks, plus additional restrictions that limit the floor area to .75 of the buildable area, and reduce the height limit proposed by the applicant by 3 feet. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. Tmplt: 03108/11 12 City Council Resolution No. Paqe 3 of 4 SECTION 3. FINDINGS The City Council may approve a lot merger application only after making each of the required findings set forth in Section 19.68.030.H of Title 19 (Subdivision Code: Lot Mergers, Required Findings). In this case, the City Council denied the lot merger application for the following reasons: A. The lot merger would allow development that is incompatible with the size and mass of structures on neighboring properties within Block 34 and in the surrounding area. The removal of the interior lot line would eliminate the interior side setback (three feet) on each property, create a buildable area greater than currently exists on the two separate lots, and eliminate the open space that the interior side setbacks currently provide. B. The lot merger would create a lot size and configuration, which is inconsistent with the development pattern of the subject properties and surrounding lots within Block 34 and in the surrounding area. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies Lot Merger No. LM2011- 022 (PA2011 -141), which includes a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map, and upholds the decision of the Planning Commission made on October 20, 2011. 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. 3. This decision was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of itself or in combination with other decisions in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a precedent for future decisions. 4. This resolution was approved, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the 24th day of April, 2012, by the following vote, to wit: Tmplt: 03108/11 19 City Council Resolution No. Paqe 4 of 4 AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Tmplt: 03108/11 20 City Council Attachment 2 Draft Resolution to Approve 21 22 RESOLUTION NO. ## ## A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, APPROVING LOT MERGER NO. LM2011- 002 TO MERGE THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES, UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP: PORTIONS OF LOTS 4, 5, AND 6 OF BLOCK 34 LOCATED IN CORONA DEL MAR, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BOULEVARD (PA2011 -141). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by the John Guida Trust and the Julie Guida Trust, with respect to properties located at 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard, and legally described as Portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 of Corona del Mar requesting approval of a lot merger. 2. The applicants propose a lot merger for the following property under common ownership: portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 located in Corona del Mar. Also included in the application is a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map. 3. The subject property is located within the Single -Unit Residential (R -1) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D). 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B). 5. A public hearing was held by the Zoning Administrator on September 14, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Zoning Administrator at this meeting. 6. Based on the facts of finding for approval and subject to the conditions of approval in the Zoning Administrator Action Letter, the Zoning Administrator approved the proposed lot merger application. 7. On September 23, 2011, the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve Lot Merger No. LM2011 -022 was appealed by Mr. Clifford Jones (2800 Ocean Boulevard), Ms. Joan Campbell (2811 Ocean Lane), and Mr. John Silva (2821 Ocean Lane). 8. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 20, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. The Planning Commission considered evidence, both written and oral presented at this meeting. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance 23 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 2 of 9 with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. 9. The Planning Commission determined that the required findings for approval could not be made and reversed the decision for approval of the Zoning Administrator. 10. On October 27, 2011, Mr. John Guida filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action. 11. A public hearing was held by the City Council on January 24, 2012, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 12. The applicant requested that the Council continue the appeal in order to allow him time to develop and present voluntary alternative development standards more restrictive than those required by the Zoning Code for development of the merged property. 13. The Council voted unanimously to continue the hearing and refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration, directing the Commission to make a recommendation of approval or denial of the lot merger based on a review of the applicant's proposed alternative development standards. 14. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 22, 2012, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 15. The applicant voluntarily proposed alternative development standards which are more restrictive than those required by the Zoning Code (1.0 FAL, 6- foot -side setbacks, and maximum height - 15 feet 6 inches above established grade), with the goal of ensuring that the mass and scale of future development on the merged property would be compatible with the neighboring properties and surrounding area. 16. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the lot merger to the City Council with alternative development standards that required the applicant's proposed 6- foot - side -yard setbacks, plus additional restrictions that limit the floor area to .75 of the buildable area, and reduce the height limit proposed by the applicant by 3 feet. 17. A public hearing was held by the City Council on April 24, 2012, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 18. Based on the following facts of finding for approval and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, the City Council approved the proposed lot merger application reversing the denial decision of the Planning Commission. 24 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 3 of 9 SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 15305 (Class 5 Minor Alterations in Land Use limitations). 2. Class 5 consists of projects with minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent, which do not result in any changes to land use or increase in density, including minor lot line adjustments not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. This project is consistent with these requirements. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. In accordance with Section 19.68.030.H of Title 19 (Subdivision Code: Lot Mergers, Required Findings) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding A. Approval of the merger will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 19. Facts in Support of the Finding: A -1. The future development on the proposed parcel will comply with the Zoning Code development standards. A -2. The proposed merger will not cause future development to impact public views of the ocean as no public view presently exists. A -3. The project site described in the proposal consists of legal building sites. A -4. The lot merger to combine the existing legal lots by removing the interior lot lines between them will not result in the creation of additional parcels. A -5. The project is in an area with an average slope less than 20 percent and no changes in use or density will occur as a result of the merger. Finding B. The lots to be merged are under common fee ownership at the time of the merger. 215 City Council Resolution No. _ Page4of9 Facts in Support of the Finding: B -1. The portions of lots 4, 5, and 6 to be merged are under common ownership. Finding C. The lots as merged will be consistent or will be more closely compatible with the applicable zoning regulations and will be consistent with other regulations relating to the subject property including, but not limited to, the General Plan and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. Facts in Support of the Finding: C -1. The previously existing single -unit dwellings located on the subject sites will be demolished, and the proposed lot would be redeveloped with a new single -unit dwelling. Section 20.18.030 of the Zoning Code establishes minimum lot area and width requirements. Each of the two existing lots meet the minimum lot area required, but do not meet the minimum lot width required (50 feet). The proposed merger of the lots would create one lot which would comply with the minimum lot width and lot area standards required by the Zoning Code. C -2. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject site as Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D), which is intended to provide primarily for single - family residential units on a single legal lot and does not include condominiums or cooperative housing. The Coastal Land Use Plan designates this site as Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B) which provides for density ranges from 6.0 -9.9 DU/AC. The existing development and proposed development of a single -unit dwelling on the site are consistent with these designations. Finding D. Neither the lots as merged nor adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger. Facts in Support of the Finding: D -1. Vehicular access to and from the subject site and adjacent properties is available via an ingress and egress easement at the rear of the site. Should the ingress and egress easement be terminated, vehicular access is possible from Ocean Boulevard at the front of the existing or merged parcels. Finding E. The lots as merged will be consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and will not create an excessively large lot that is not compatible with the surrounding development. 20 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 5 of 9 Facts in Support of the Finding: E -1. Corona del Mar consists of lots of varying shapes and sizes. The subject lots, as merged, will result in a parcel with a width of 80 feet and area of 13,678 square feet. Other nearby lots on Ocean Boulevard have lot widths as wide as 73 feet and area as large as 13,325 square feet. The merger of the two lots it will not create an excessively large lot in comparison to many of the existing lots in the surrounding area. E -2. Under the City's Zoning Ordinance, development within the R -1 (Single -Unit Residential) Zoning District within Corona del Mar can have a maximum floor area limit (FAL) 1.5 times the buildable area of the lot. The Planning Commission's recommendation of approval of the lot merger includes a Condition of Approval that a Restrictive Covenant be recorded, prior to recordation of the lot merger, setting forth more restrictive standards for height, side setbacks, and maximum floor area for development of the merged property. The maximum floor area (FAL) will be restricted to .75 and will result in development consistent with properties in the surrounding area. Finding F. That the proposed division of land complies with requirements as to area, improvement and design, flood water drainage control, appropriate improved public roads and property access, sanitary disposal facilities, water supply availability, environmental protection, and other applicable requirements of this title, the Zoning Code, the General Plan, and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. Facts in Support of the Finding: F -1. The existing lots currently comply with the design standards and improvements required by the Zoning Code, General Plan, and Coastal Land Use Plan. F -2. The proposed lot merger combines the lot portions into a single parcel of land and does not result in the elimination of more than three lot portions. F -3. Approval of the proposed lot merger would remove the existing interior lot lines, and allow the property to be redeveloped as a single site. The land use, density, and intensity would remain the same. The proposed lot would comply with all design standards and improvements required for new subdivisions by Title 19, the Zoning Code, General Plan, and Coastal Land Use Plan. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE TO: 1. Approve Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 with the alternative development standards as recommended by the Planning commission on March 22, 2012 and waiver of the requirement to file a parcel map for property, under common ownership, consisting of 27 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 6 of 9 portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 located in Corona del Mar, and subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. This approval reverses the decision of the Planning commission on October 20, 2011. 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. 3. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a precedent for future approvals or decisions. 4. This resolution was approved, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the 24th day of April, 2012, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK 22 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 7 of 9 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Prior to recordation of the lot merger, a Restrictive Covenant, setting forth the alternative development standards for height, maximum floor area, and side setbacks proposed by the applicant and described in Condition of Approval No. 3, and the "Established Grade" required by Condition of Approval No. 4 shall be recorded on the merged property with the County Recorder's Office. The Restrictive Covenant shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney and Community Development Director. The alternative development standards shall apply to all future development of the merged properties unless terminated by written agreement by the City of Newport Beach and the owners of the properties located at 2811 and 2821 Ocean Lane. 2. Development of the merged property shall comply with all development standards required by the Zoning Code for R -1 (Single -Unit Residential) located within Corona del Mar, with the exception of the requirements for height and the maximum floor area limit (FAL) as indicated in Condition of Approval No. 3. 3. Development of the merged property shall comply with the following alternative development standards for height and maximum floor area (FAL): • Floor Area Limit (FAL): - .75 (.75 x 9,488.02 square feet = 7,116 square feet) - Subterranean basements shall not be included in maximum FAL (per Newport Beach Zoning Code) • Maximum height for flat roof: - 34 percent up to 15 feet 6 inches (floor of roof deck)* - 33 percent up to 15 feet (measured to top of roof) - 33 percent up to 14 feet (measured to top of roof) *Roof deck railings shall be transparent. Roof deck railings may exceed the maximum height, but shall be no higher than the minimum height required by the latest California Building Code. • Setbacks: - Front — 20 feet - Rear— 10 feet - Right Side — 6 feet - Left Side — 6 feet 4. "Established Grade" for the purpose of measuring height for the principal structure shall be 67.2' (NAVD88). 29 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 8 of 9 5. The design of the development shall not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 6. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 7. The existing broken and /or otherwise damaged concrete sidewalk panels along the Ocean Boulevard frontage shall be reconstructed. Limits of the reconstruction shall be determined by the City Public Works Inspector. 8. All existing drainage facilities in the public right -of -way, including the existing curb drains along Ocean Boulevard, shall be retrofitted to comply with the City's on -site, non -storm runoff retention requirements. 9. All on -site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements. 10. All existing private, non - standard improvements within the public right -of -way and /or extensions of private, non - standard improvements into the public right -of -way fronting the development site shall be removed. 11. New sod or low groundcovers, as approved by the City, shall be installed within the parkway fronting the development site along Ocean Boulevard. 12. An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right -of -way. 13. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement. See City Standard 110 -L. 14. The existing sewer lateral to be used for the future dwelling unit shall have a sewer cleanout installed within the utilities easement per STD - 406 -L. All other laterals to be abandoned shall be capped at the property line. 15. All unused water services to be abandoned shall be capped at the corporation stop. 16. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right -of -way could be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 17. All applicable Public Works Department plan check fees shall be paid prior to review of the lot merger and grant deeds. 18. Prior to recordation of the lot merger, at least one of the existing dwelling units shall be demolished. At no time shall there be more than one dwelling unit located on the merged parcel. 30 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 9 of 9 19. Prior to recordation of the lot merger, grant deeds indicating any changes in titles of ownership should be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. 20. The lot merger and grant deeds reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department should be filed concurrently with the County Recorder and County Assessor's Offices. 21. No building permits may be issued until the appeal period has expired, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Division. 22. Prior to issuance of the building permit for any new construction on the property, the Planning Division shall verify recordation of the document with the County Recorder. 23. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.93.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 24. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger including, but not limited to, Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 (PA2011 -141). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 31 �2 Cicy C�.��ir�cil rAi��dCfllll("IIC Planning Commission March 22, 2012 Meeting Minutes, Staff Report, and Supplemental Materials Received 33 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 22, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item 3 SUBJECT: 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger - (PA2011 -141) ■ Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 APPLICANT: The John Guida Trust and The Julie Guida Trust (APPELLANT) PLANNER: Kay Sims, Assistant Planner (949) 644 -3237 or ksims @newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY At the direction of the City Council, the Planning Commission will reconsider Lot Merger Application No.LM2011 -002 to merge 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard. The Commission will review alternative development standards proposed by the applicant to be applied to development of the property. After review, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council to either deny or approve the lot merger application. jazKovalizim 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Recommend the City Council either approve or deny Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 No._ by adopting: • Draft Resolution for Denial (Attachment No. PC 1); or • Draft Resolution for Approval (Attachment No. PC 2), which includes Exhibit "A" Findings and Conditions, and waiver of the requirement to file a parcel map. 315 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger March 22, 2012 Page 2 LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON -SITE Single -Unit Residential Single -Unit Residential Single- family residence Detached RS -D R -1 NORTH Single -Unit Residential Single -Unit Residential Single- family residence Detached RS -D R -1 SOUTH Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation Park, beach, and public PR PR restrooms EAST Single -Unit Residential Single -Unit Residential Single- family residence Detached RS -D (R-1) WEST Single -Unit Residential Single -Unit Residential Single- family residence Detached (RS -D) (R -1) so 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger March 22, 2012 Page 3 INTRODUCTION Project Description and Settinq The applicant proposes to combine 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard for the purpose of developing a new single - family residence. Furthermore, the applicant proposes to limit development of the merged property by applying alternative development standards for floor area and height, which are more restrictive than those required by the Zoning Code for properties located in the R -1 (Single -Unit Residential) Zoning District within Corona del Mar. If approved, a covenant or deed restriction would be recorded requiring future development of the merged properties to comply with the alternative development standards. The final form of this agreement would be determined by the City Attorney and Community Development Director, and would be recorded prior to the recordation of the lot merger. The subject properties are located in Corona del Mar adjacent to the northeasterly (inland) side of Ocean Boulevard between Goldenrod and Heliotrope Avenues. The two properties consist of portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34. They are generally rectangular in shape with skewed front property lines and slope gently from the rear toward Ocean Boulevard. Vehicular access is provided from Ocean Lane via a 20 -foot- wide shared, private ingress and egress easement at the rear of 2812 Ocean Boulevard. Each property is currently developed with a single story, single - family residence. Lookout Point and Little Corona Beach Park are located directly across Ocean Boulevard. Access and Utility Easements to Ocean Lane P O v >O ?B m� oc��ro S7 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger March 22, 2012 Page 4 Background Zoning Administrator Hearing and Decision On September 14, 2011, the Zoning Administrator conducted a public hearing and reviewed the applicant's request to merge 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard. After hearing public comments and considering the concerns presented, the Zoning Administrator determined that the lot merger would not negatively impact the neighboring area, and that sufficient facts of finding were stated in the Zoning Administrator Approval Action Letter to support the required findings (Attachment No. PC 3, City Council Attachment CC 3). Appeal of Zoning Administrator Decision On September 23, 2011, Mr. Clifford Jones (2800 Ocean Boulevard), Ms. Joan Campbell (2811 Ocean Lane), and Mr. John Silva (2821 Ocean Lane) filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision (Attachment No. PC 4, City Council Attachment CC 4). Planning Commission Hearing and Decision On October 20, 2011, the Planning Commission heard the appeal. During public testimony, the appellants and seven members of the public spoke in opposition to the project. Their concerns included the following: plans submitted to the City for a new, single - family residence did not comply with a private deed restriction, which limits the height of development on the subject properties; the loss of interior side setbacks of the new development would eliminate the existing public and private views across the property and result in devaluation of neighboring. properties; and the alternative access to the proposed lot via Ocean Boulevard was not feasible and would be unsafe. The appellant, Mr. John Guida, his legal counsel, architect, construction contractor, and one member of the public spoke in favor of the lot merger. A point was made that the proposed project was a lot merger of the two properties, not approval of specific plans for the property, and any future development of the two properties, separately or as merged, would comply with the City's required zoning and building code regulations. Mr. Guida stated that the plans referred to by the appellants had not been resubmitted by the applicant, and he did not yet have final plans for the proposed merged property. The Planning Commission determined that elimination of the interior lot line and its associated three foot interior side setbacks (six feet total) would create one large lot, that would accommodate more floor area with less required setback area than what the Zoning Code would allow on the two separate lots (see Table 2). They also determined that the larger lot would not be consistent with the pattern of development within the neighborhood. The Planning Commission voted 6 -1 (Kramer) to reverse the decision of the Zoning Administrator and deny the lot merger. The Planning Commission minutes, resolution of denial, and staff report are provided in Attachment PC 4. MIN 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger March 22, 2012 Page 5 Appeal of Planning Commission Decision On October 27, 2011, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action to the City Council (Attachment No. PC 4, see City Council Attachment No. CC 8). City Council Hearing and Action On January 24, 2012, the applicant requested that the City Council continue the appeal in order to allow him time to develop and present voluntary alternative development standards, which would be more restrictive than those allowed by the Zoning Code for development of the merged property. The goal of the more restrictive standards would be to ensure that the mass and scale of future development be compatible with the neighboring properties. The Council voted unanimously to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission. The Council directed the Planning Commission to make a recommendation of approval or denial of the lot merger based on a review of the applicant's proposed alternative development standards. Staff has included correspondence received prior to the Council hearing, but after publication of the staff report (Attachment No. PC 7). Discussion Proposed Alternative Development Standards The applicant has submitted alternative development standards for floor area limit (FAL) and height, which are shown below (also see Attachment No. PC 5). The applicant proposes that all other City required R -1 development standards be applied to future development of the merged property. The exhibits on page 6 are for the purpose of illustrating the proposed alternative development standards only and do not represent a specific design. Table 1: Applicant's Proposed Alternative Development Standards " bevelo menfStandards '< - " city"' A Ilcaot's Pro osed Alternative Maximum Floor Area Limit FAL 1.5 x buildable area` 1.0 x buildable area` 34% up to 15'8" Maximum Height Limit (floor of roof deck)" (measured from "established grade" 24 feet 33% up to 15' 70.2' per Zoning Code requirements (flat roof /lop of railing or parapet) (measured to top of root) (using NAVD88) 33% up to 14' measure to top of roo 'Subterranean basements not included in maximum FAL (as per Newport Zoning Code). " "Roof deck railings may exceed the maximum height, but shall be no higher than the minimum height required by the latest California Building Code. S9 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger March 22, 2012 Page 6 Comparison of Maximum Floor Area Allowed f{ { I c Buildable At" { Bo10,046 SFea !; 10,0468F i{ Proposed Alternative {I� City Standard Floor Area Limit (1.0) , Floor Are 0 a Limit (0.61 i � � 10,018 9F �Il,fill 15,68 SF(( YO.Foot Front�JY a` —_ s - - Belba 4r a v fi 0 L rn x N Maximum Height Limits 29' 40 Scale IF t' - 6 3!4' -►I 24' 19' Guardrail (O 8 1516" rn 15' m Floor of Roof Deck Top of Roof 14' LL Top of Roof L OI C x A .1 N QI J t) 34% 0-e 33% 104 33 %� 40 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger March 22, 2012 Page 7 Analysis The table below compares development standards for the subject properties, as developed independently, or as merged. The last column (blue) illustrates the applicant's proposed alternative development standards for height and floor area limit (FAL) for the merged property. Table 2: Project Characteristics *Subterranean basements not included in maximum FAL (as per Newport Zoning Code). * *Roof deck railings may exceed the maximum height, but shall be no higher than the minimum height required by the latest California Building Code The applicant is not proposing to deviate from the standard setbacks required by the Zoning Code for the R -1 Zoning District, and development would be located within the resulting buildable area (lot area minus setback areas). The applicant is proposing a 1.0 floor area limit (FAL) rather than the 1.5 (FAL) allowed for R -1 properties located within Corona del Mar. The resulting floor area allowed would be equivalent to the square footage of the buildable area (10,046 square feet). The resulting floor area ratio (FAR) would be .73 rather than 1.10 allowed by the Zoning Code. The alternative standard proposed for height, limits development to the following: 34 percent up to 15 feet 6 inches (floor of roof decks), 33 percent up to 15 feet (top of flat 41 2808 Ocean Blvd 2812 Ocean Blvd Total Merged Property "A" Property "B" "A" + "B" Property Lot Area 7,194 sq R 6,499 sq ft 13,693 s ft 13,693 sq it 13,693 s R Development Proposed Alternative Standards Development Standards Setbacks: 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft Same Rear loft loft loft loft Sides a ft per side 3 ft per side a ft per side 4 it per side Setback Areas (Total Sq Fl) 2,432 sq R 2,332 sq ft 4,764 sq R 3,647 sq ft Same Total Buildable Area 4,762 sq R 4,167 sq R 8,929 sq ft 10,046 sq R Same Floor Area Limit 7,143 sq R 6,251 sq it 13,394 sq R 15,069 sq ft 10,046 sq ft (FAL) (1.5 FAL)' (1.5 FAL)' (1.5 FAL)' (1.5 FAL)* (1.0 FAL)' Floor Area Ratio yy 96 1.10 FAR .98 .73 Height 34% up to 166" (gat roof /sloped roof) (floor of roof decks)" Measured from: 24 ft/29 ft 24 ft/29 it 24 ft/29 ft 24 ft/29 ft 33% up to 15' Established Grade of (top of flat roof) 70.2' (NAVD88) 33% up to 14' (top of flat roo *Subterranean basements not included in maximum FAL (as per Newport Zoning Code). * *Roof deck railings may exceed the maximum height, but shall be no higher than the minimum height required by the latest California Building Code The applicant is not proposing to deviate from the standard setbacks required by the Zoning Code for the R -1 Zoning District, and development would be located within the resulting buildable area (lot area minus setback areas). The applicant is proposing a 1.0 floor area limit (FAL) rather than the 1.5 (FAL) allowed for R -1 properties located within Corona del Mar. The resulting floor area allowed would be equivalent to the square footage of the buildable area (10,046 square feet). The resulting floor area ratio (FAR) would be .73 rather than 1.10 allowed by the Zoning Code. The alternative standard proposed for height, limits development to the following: 34 percent up to 15 feet 6 inches (floor of roof decks), 33 percent up to 15 feet (top of flat 41 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger March 22, 2012 Page 8 roof), and 33 percent up to 14 feet (top of flat roof). Development up to the various maximum height limits is not restricted to specific areas within the buildable area. The applicant has provided conceptual plans and photo sims that appear to comply with the proposed standards (Attachment No. PC 6). However, a more detailed review would take place prior to the issuance of building permits. It should be noted that the plans do not depict a residence built to the maximum 10,046 square feet. Summary The applicant is proposing alternative development standards limiting the height and floor area of future development on the merged property. Specifically, the floor area limit proposed (1.0 FAL) would be a reduction of 33 percent from the floor area limit allowed by the Zoning Code (1.5 FAL). The resulting floor area ratio (.73 FAR) would be 25 percent less than the FAR allowed by the Zoning Code for the two properties, if developed independently (.98 FAR). The height development standard proposed would not only limit the maximum height of development on the property, but would also limit the percentage of development that is allowed up to a specified maximum height. The applicant believes the reductions in the allowed maximum floor area (FAL) and height will ensure that the mass and scale of future development would be compatible with properties in the surrounding area, and are sufficient to allow approval of the proposed lot merger. Should the Planning Commission wish to recommend approval of the lot merger to the City Council, staff has prepared conditions of approval which include: 1.) the applicant's proposed alternative development standards for floor area limit (FAL) and height stated in Table 1 and Attachment No. PC 5; and 2.) a requirement to record a covenant or deed restriction, prior to development of the merged property, limiting the height and floor area of future development to the applicant's proposed alternative development standards. The final form of the covenant or deed restriction would be approved by the City Attorney and Community Development Director prior to recordation. Alternatives 1. If the Planning Commission determines that the applicant's proposed alternative development standards do not support the findings required to grant approval of the application, the Planning Commission should adopt the draft resolution, which recommends denial of the application to the City Council (Attachment PC No. 1). 2. If the Planning Commission determines that the applicant's proposed alternative development standards allow development that would support the findings required to approve the proposed lot merger application, the Commission should recommend approval to the City Council by adopting the Draft Resolution of Approval and Conditions of Approval (Attachment No. PC 2), which include 42 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger March 22, 2012 Page 9 Condition of Approval No. 1 requiring recordation of a covenant or deed restriction limiting future development of the property to the proposed alternative development standards. Environmental Review This project is categorically exempt under Section 15305 (Class 5 — Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Implementing Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. Class 5 exempts projects which consist of minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent, which do not result in any changes in land use or density, including minor lot line adjustments not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. This project is consistent with these requirements. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways) and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Prepared by: / Sub itted by: / Kay Sims, Assistant Planner Br4ndiYWis-neski4'AlqP, Deputy Director ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution Recommending Denial PC 2 Draft Resolution Recommending Approval Exhibit "A" Findings and Conditions PC 3 City Council Minutes (January 24, 2012) PC 4 City Council Staff Report and Attachments PC 5 Proposed Alternative Development Standards PC 6 Conceptual Plans and Photo Sims PC 7 Correspondence Received After Publication of Staff Report 43 44 Attachment N®. PC 1 Draft Resolution Recommending Denial 4,5 40 RESOLUTION NO. #### A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING DENIAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF LOT MERGER NO, LM2011 -002 TO MERGE THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES, UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP: PORTIONS OF LOTS 4, 5, AND 6 OF BLOCK 34 LOCATED IN CORONA DEL MAR, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BOULEVARD (PA2011- 141).) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: 1. An application was filed by the John Guida Trust and the Julie Guida Trust requesting a lot merger and waiver of the requirement to file a parcel map for properties located at 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard, which are under common ownership, and legally described as Portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 of Corona del Mar. 2. The subject property is located within the Single -Unit Residential (R -1) Zoning District, and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D). 3. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B). 4. A public hearing was held by the Zoning Administrator on September 14, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Zoning Administrator at this meeting. 5. Based on the facts of finding for approval and subject to the conditions of approval in the Zoning Administrator Action Letter, the Zoning Administrator approved the proposed lot merger application. 7. On September 23, 2011, the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve Lot Merger No. LM2011 -022 was appealed by Mr. Clifford Jones (2800 Ocean Boulevard), Ms. Joan Campbell (2811 Ocean Lane), and Mr. John Silva (2821 Ocean Lane). 8. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 20, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. The Planning Commission considered evidence, both written and oral presented at this meeting. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. 9. The Planning Commission determined that the required findings for approval could not be made and reversed the decision for approval of the Zoning Administrator. 47 Planning Commission Resolution No. Paae 2 of 3 10. On October 27, 2011, Mr. John Guida filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action. 11. A public hearing was held by the City Council on January 24, 2012, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 12. The applicant requested a continuance of the hearing to allow time to develop and present voluntary alternative development standards, which would be more restrictive than those required by the Zoning Code. 13. The Council voted unanimously to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for further consideration and directed the Planning Commission to make a recommendation of approval or denial of the lot merger based on a review of the proposed alternative development standards. 14. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 22, 2012, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION 1. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 15305 (Class 5 Minor Alterations in Land Use limitations). 2. Class 5 consists of projects with minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent, which do not result in any changes to land use or increase in density, including minor lot line adjustments not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. This project is consistent with these requirements. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. The Planning Commission may approve a lot merger application only after making each of the required findings set forth in Section 19.68.030.1-1 of Title 19 (Subdivision Code: Lot Mergers, Required Findings). In this case, the Planning Commission was unable to recommend approval of the lot merger based on the following findings. FINDINGS A. The lot merger, even if the proposed alternative development standards were voluntarily recorded on the subject property, would allow development that is incompatible with the size and mass of structures on neighboring properties, other properties along Ocean Boulevard, and properties throughout Corona del Mar. Specifically, the removal of the interior lot line would eliminate the interior side setback 42 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paae 3 of 3 (three feet) on each property, create a buildable area greater than currently exists on the two separate properties, and eliminate the open space that the interior side setbacks currently provide. B. The lot merger would create a lot size and configuration, which is inconsistent with the development pattern of the surrounding area. Although there are lots within the surrounding area, along Ocean Boulevard, and within Corona del Mar that are similar in size to the proposed merged lot, on average, most lots are smaller in area than the proposed merged lot. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Commission recommends denial to the City Council of Lot Merger Application No. LM2011 -002, to merge 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard, two properties under common ownership, and consisting of the following: portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 Located in Corona del Mar. 2. This action shall become final and effective ten (10) days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS MARCH 22, 2012. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Michael Toerge, Chairman JOIN Fred Ameri, Secretary 49 50 Attachment No. PC 2 Draft Resolution Recommending Approval Exhibit "A" Findings and Conditions 151 152 RESOLUTION NO. #### A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF LOT MERGER NO. LM2011 -002 TO MERGE THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES, UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP: PORTIONS OF LOTS 4, 5, AND 6 OF BLOCK 34 LOCATED IN CORONA DEL MAR, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BOULEVARD (PA2011 -141). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by the John Guida Trust and the Julie Guida Trust requesting a lot merger and waiver of the requirement to file a parcel map for properties located at 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard, which are under common ownership, and legally described as Portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 of Corona del Mar. 2. The subject property is located within the Single -Unit Residential (R -1) Zoning District, and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D). 3. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B). 4. A public hearing was held by the Zoning Administrator on September 14, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Zoning Administrator at this meeting. 5. Based on the facts of finding for approval and subject to the conditions of approval in the Zoning Administrator Action Letter, the Zoning Administrator approved the proposed lot merger application. 7. On September 23, 2011, the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve Lot Merger No. LM2011 -022 was appealed by Mr. Clifford Jones (2800 Ocean Boulevard), Ms. Joan Campbell (2811 Ocean Lane), and Mr. John Silva (2821 Ocean Lane). 8. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 20, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. The Planning Commission considered evidence, both written and oral presented at this meeting. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. 153 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 2 of 9 9. The Planning Commission determined that the required findings for approval could not be made and reversed the decision for approval of the Zoning Administrator. 10. On October 27, 2011, Mr. John Guida filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action. 11. A public hearing was held by the City Council on January 24, 2012, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 12. The applicant requested a continuance of the hearing to allow time to develop and present voluntary alternative development standards, which would be more restrictive than those allowed by the Zoning Code. 13. The Council voted unanimously to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for further consideration and directed the Planning Commission to make a recommendation of approval or denial of the lot merger based on a review of the proposed alternative development standards. 14. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 22, 2012, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION 1. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 15305 (Class 5 Minor Alterations in Land Use limitations). 2. Class 5 consists of projects with minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent, which do not result in any changes to land use or increase in density, including minor lot line adjustments not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. This project is consistent with these requirements. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. In accordance with Section 19.68.030.H of Title 19 (Subdivision Code: Lot Mergers, Required Findings) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: 154 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paae 3 of 9 Finding A. Approval of the merger will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 19. Facts in Support of the Finding: A -1. The alternative development standards for height and maximum floor area (FAL) proposed by the applicant will limit development on the proposed merged property so that any future development will be compatible with the size and mass of structures on neighboring properties, other properties along Ocean Boulevard, and properties throughout Corona del Mar. A -2. The lot merger would not create a lot size and configuration, which is inconsistent with the development pattern of the surrounding lots. A -3. The proposed merger will not cause future development to impact public views of the ocean as no public views presently exist. A -4. The existing properties to be merged are legal building sites. A -5. The lot merger to combine the existing properties by removing the interior lot lines between them will not result in the creation of additional lots. A -6. The proposed lot merger consists of properties that have an average slope less than 20 percent and no changes in use or increase in density allowed on the merged property will occur. Finding B. The lots to be merged are under common fee ownership at the time of the merger. Facts in Support of the Finding: B -1. The two properties to be merged, 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard are under common ownership. Finding C. The lots as merged will be consistent or will be more closely compatible with the applicable zoning regulations and will be consistent with other regulations relating to the subject property including, but not limited to, the General Plan and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. 1515 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 4 of 9 Facts in Support of the Finding: C -1. Section 20.18.030 of the Zoning Code establishes minimum lot area and width requirements. Each of the two existing properties meet the minimum lot area required, but do not meet the minimum lot width required (50 feet). The proposed merger of the properties would create one property, which would comply with the minimum lot width and lot area standards required by the Zoning Code. C -2. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject site as Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D), which is intended to provide primarily for single - family residential units on a single legal lot and does not include condominiums or cooperative housing. The Coastal Land Use Plan designates this site as Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B) which provides for density ranges from 6.0 -9.9 DU/AC. The existing development and proposed development of a single -unit dwelling on the site are consistent with these designations. Finding D. Neither the lots as merged nor adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger. Facts in Support of the Finding: D -1. Vehicular access to and from the subject site and across adjacent properties is available pursuant to a recorded ingress and egress easement at the rear of the site. Should the ingress and egress easement be terminated, vehicular access is possible from Ocean Boulevard at the front of the existing or merged parcels. Finding E. The lots as merged will be consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and will not create an excessively large lot that is not compatible with the surrounding development. Facts in Support of the Finding: E -1. Corona del Mar consists of lots of varying shapes and sizes. The subject lots, as merged, will result in a parcel with a width of 80 feet and area of 13,678 square feet. Other nearby lots on Ocean Boulevard have lot widths up to as wide as 73 feet and area up to as large as 13,325 square feet. The merger of the two properties will not create an excessively large lot in comparison to some of the existing lots in the surrounding area. E -2. Development within the R -1 (Single -Unit Residential) Zoning District within Corona del Mar can have a maximum floor area limit (FAL)1.5 times the buildable area of the lot. The proposed merged property will be developed with a 1.0 FAL, which is equal to the buildable area of the merged lot, and will result in development consisted With properties in the surrounding area. 150 Planning Commission Resolution No. Finding F. That the proposed division of land complies with requirements as to area, improvement and design, flood water drainage control, appropriate improved public roads and property access, sanitary disposal facilities, water supply availability, environmental protection, and other applicable requirements of this title, the Zoning Code, the General Plan, and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. Facts in Support of the Finding: F -1. The existing properties currently comply with the design standards and improvements required by the Zoning Code, General Plan, and Coastal Land Use Plan. F -2. The proposed lot merger combines the existing properties into a single parcel of land and does not result in the elimination of more than three lots or lot portions. F -3. Approval of the proposed lot merger would remove the interior lot lines between the two properties, and allow the property to be redeveloped as a single site. The allowed land use, density, and intensity on the merged property would remain the same. The proposed merged property would comply with all design standards and improvements required for new subdivisions by Title 19, the Zoning Code, General Plan, and Coastal Land Use Plan. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Commission recommends approval to the City Council of Lot Merger Application No. LM2011 -002, to merge 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard, two properties under common ownership, and consisting of the following: portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 Located in Corona del Mar, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A ", which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 2. This action shall become final and effective ten (10) days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS MARCH 22, 2012. AYES: B ABSTAIN: ABSENT: GI's Michael Toerge, Chairman Fred Ameri, Secretary Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 6 of 9 ffio Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 7 of 9 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Prior to recordation of the lot merger, a Restrictive Covenant, setting forth the alternative development standards for height and maximum floor area proposed by the applicant and described in Condition of Approval No. 3 and the "Established Grade" required by. Condition of Approval No. 4 shall be recorded on the merged property with the County Recorder's Office. The Restrictive Covenant shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney and Community Development Director. The alternative development standards shall apply to all future development of the merged properties unless terminated by written agreement by the City of Newport Beach. 2. Development of the merged property shall comply with all development standards required by the Zoning Code for R -1 (Single -Unit Residential) located within Corona del Mar, with the exception of the requirements for height and the maximum floor area limit (FAL) as indicated in Condition of Approval No. 3. 3. Development of the merged property shall comply with the following alternative development standards for height and maximum floor area (FAL): • Floor Area Limit (FAL): - 1.0 (1 x 10,046 square feet = 10,046 square feet) - Subterranean basements shall not be included in maximum FAL (per Newport Beach Zoning Code) • Maximum height for flat roof: - 34 percent up to 15 feet 6 inches (floor of roof deck)* - 33 percent up to 15 feet (measured to top of roof) - 33 percent up to 14 feet (measured to top of roof) *Roof deck railings may exceed the maximum height, but shall be no higher than the minimum height required by the latest California Building Code. 4. "Established Grade" for the purpose of measuring height for the principal structure shall be 70.2 NAVD. 5. The design of the development shall not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 6. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 7. The existing broken and /or otherwise damaged concrete sidewalk panels along the Ocean Boulevard frontage shall be reconstructed. Limits of the reconstruction shall be determined by the City Public Works Inspector. `59 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 8 of 9 8. All existing drainage facilities in the public right -of -way, including the existing curb drains along Ocean Boulevard, shall be retrofitted to comply with the City's on -site, non -storm runoff retention requirements. 9. All on -site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements. 10. All existing private, non - standard improvements within the public right -of -way and /or extensions of private, non - standard improvements into the public right -of -way fronting the development site shall be removed. 11. New sod or low groundcovers, as approved by the City, shall be installed within the parkway fronting the development site along Ocean Boulevard. 12. An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right -of -way. 13. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement. See City Standard 110 -L. 14. The existing ingress and egress and utilities easements shall be maintained. 15. The existing sewer lateral to be used for the future dwelling unit shall have a sewer cleanout installed within the utilities easement per STD - 406 -L. All other laterals to be abandoned shall be capped at the property line. 16. All unused water services to be abandoned shall be capped at the corporation stop. 17. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right -of -way could be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 18. All applicable Public Works Department plan check fees shall be paid prior to review of the lot merger and grant deeds. 19. Prior to recordation of the lot merger, the development of the parcels combined shall conform to current zoning regulations pertaining to the number of dwelling units and the distance between detached structures. The proposed parcel shall have one dwelling unit. One structure shall be modified or demolished to achieve the required separation between structures and density. 20. Prior to recordation of the lot merger, grant deeds indicating the changes in titles of ownership should be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. 21. The lot merger and grant deeds reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department should be filed concurrently with the County Recorder and County Assessor's Offices. 00 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paae 9 of 9 22. No building permits may be issued until the appeal period has expired, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Division. 23. Prior to issuance of the building permit for any new construction on the property, the Planning Division shall verify recordation of the document with the County Recorder. 24. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.93.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 25. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger including, but not limited to, Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 (PA2011 -141). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 01 02 Attachment No. PG 3 City Council Minutes (January 24, 2012) 03 04 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 24, 2012 K14 VA nd displayed pictures of the event. He requested that the City place a plaque at San Miguel m orialize the event. City Manager Kiff stated that the item can be referred to the Parke, ] and reation Commission for appropriate action. / Peggy Port, ewport Beach Restaurant Association, clarified that the association fu a a portion of Restaurant Wee through assessments and listed other sources of funds. Jim Welker, Newport ach Restaurant Association, reported that Reataur t Week has taken place for the past six years an as grown each year. He noted that the re urant industry in Newport Beach ranks first or second r City tax revenues. He added that the ' crease in sales taxes obtained during Restaurant Week will o et the taxes or donations suppl' by the City. He stated that all restaurants are invited to participa 'n the event, but not all a se to do so. Bob Kuczewski, former Regional Director the U.S. H g- Gliding and Para - Gliding Association and President of the U.S. Hawks Hang-Gliding Boma ' n, spoke in support of Mr. Grundy and Mr. Colver's request. Council Member Henn reported that a Neighborhood Revi ization Committee met on January 12 and received an updato about the boa Village Citizens' Adviso Panel (CAP). He further discussed the Corona del Mar Design Rev' CAP, including details of the prop ad changes to the intersection at MacArthur Boulevard and et Highway. Additionally, he reported t the Balboa Village CAP met on January 17 and ZrevieCode Enforcement policy and activity in the Ba oa Village. He referenced a presentation by apanel rnembera who recently visited Leavenworth, ashington, which has undergone a renal conversion into a Bavarian Village atmosphere and i as felt to be a good example for ch ging the vision at Balboa Village. He reported that the next as of the Balboa Village CAP ill be held on February 21 at 4:00 p.m. at the ExplorOcean Nautical Muse where there will be a item dealing with the governance of parking in the Village and economic develop t review for t area. Council Member Henn also reported that the Tidelands Committee met on Jan ry 18 w re an update was presented on the Lower Bay dredging project. He indicated that the comm ee tarted discussing the 10-year Harbor Master Plan. XV. PUBLIC HEARINGS 19. APPEAL - LOT MERGER NO. LM2011 -002 - 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BOULEVARD (PA 2011 -141). 1100 -20121 Coralee Newman, Government Solutions, Inc. and representative for the applicant, addressed redesigns and requested that the appeal be continued and sent back to the Planning Commission so that design restrictions could be placed on the project and then considered by Council. City Attorney Harp inquired whether the client would be willing to waive the time limit under Title 10, as well as the Subdivision Map Act. Me. Newman confirmed. City Manager Kiff noted that there will be an opportunity to make public comments at the Planning Commission level. Community Development Director Brandt repotted that staff is not prepared to announce which Planning Commission meeting date this item will be reconsidered, but the item would be noticed at the Planning Commission level as a public meeting. Mayor Gardner opened the public hearing. Robert Hawkins stated the issue is the merger of two lots and asked whether design conditions Volume 60 - Page 362 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 24, 2012 can be placed on the subdivision map that will alleviate the view problem City Attorney Harp reported that if the applicant wants to voluntarily put deed restrictions on their property that would limit the size and mass, then that would be acceptable and will be what the Planning Commission would be considering. Discussion ensued relative to the Planning Commission's broad consideration of the item Jim Mosher believed that the item needs clarification and suggested continuing the item for proper consideration of what is being requested. Jeff DuFine wondered what deed restriction could be placed on a house that would change the lot size. He believed that this is not about the house but rather the lot merger. Melinda Luthin, representing many of the residents of Block 34, noted that the items must not be detrimental to residents and must be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 10, the General Plan, and the Local Coastal Plan, She stated that the lots should be consistent with the surrounding areas and not create an excessively large lot. Clifford Jones spoke in opposition to the lot merger and expressed concerns with the delays in the process. Dan Purcell reported that both properties have started to deteriorate and wanted assurances that the property owner will continue to maintain the properties. Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Gardner closed the public hearing. Council Member Henn requested that the item be expedited as much as possible. Motion by Council Member Henn. seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Curry to continue this item for the purpose of referring the matter to the Planning Commission and requesting that the Planning Commission provide a recommendation to the City Council on the approval or denial of the merger application based on the proposed design restrictions. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Hill, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tern Curry, Mayor Gardner, Council Member Selich, Council Member Henn, Council Member Daigle 14. -NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB (PA2006 -140) -GOLF REALTY FUND - 160 D 18 AST COAST HIGHWAY - PROPOSAL FOR REDEVELOPMENT THE EXISTIN&XRIVATE GOLF COURSE CLUBHOUSE AND TENNIS B (C- 6088), 1100 -20121 Community Development Du r Brandt provided genera ments for Public Hearing Items 14 and 16 related to the Newpor ach Country C (NBCC). She addressed its location, boundaries, and specific areas to be con ' red uding the golf course and tennis club. She noted that the NBCC is located in a uni tistical area with very specific land use and vehicle trip allocations to its various - areas. A ' 'onally, she stated that there are specific policies that allow transfers of elopment allocations een the sub - areas. She addressed General Plan considers ' a, displayed the General Plan L Use Map, project site, the overlap between th o applications; and provided project summary arisons, entitlements needed, and t etions required of Council. She discussed the need for ap al of a Mitigated Negativ eclaration (MND) for both applications, approval of a General Plan dment for th ewport Beach Country Club Inc. proposal, adoption of a Planned Dev ment Volume 60 - Page 853 Attachment No. PC 4 City Council Staff Report and Attachments 07 Wo CITY OF °� mz NEWPORT BEACH C9C /Fp0.N`P City Council Staff Report Agenda Item No. 13 January 24, 2012 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Community Development Department Kimberly Brandt, AICP, Director 949 - 644 -3226, kbrandt(�i)newportbeachca.00v PREPARED BY: Kay Sims, Assistant Planner APPROVED: A TITLE: Appeal — Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard (PA2011 -141) ABSTRACT: An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002, reversing the Zoning Administrator's approval to allow the merger of portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 located in Corona del Mar, more commonly known as 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard, which are under common ownership for the purpose of development of a new single - family residence. The Zoning Administrator's approval would also have allowed a waiver of the requirement to file a parcel map. If the lot merger is approved, future development would be required to comply with the Single - Unit Residential (R -1) Zoning District development standards. RECOMMENDATION: Sustain or reverse the Planning Commission's decision by either: 1. Adopting the draft resolution for denial (Attachment No. CC 1); or 2. Adopting the draft resolution approving Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 and waiver of the requirement to file a parcel map (Attachment No. CC 2). FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: There is no fiscal impact related to this item. Appeal — Lot Merger No. 2011 -002 (PA2011 -141) January 24, 2012 Page 2 0 •-.R T 4 T �� 7 GENERAL PLAN M1 R� 'Poo O5� � \ e h�o i I R-0 R 1� P. R.1 S' N.1 R1 j R1 � n� L' I\�9 I _..r< ZONING R -1 �vp gn Na %1� <1� R -1A R'1 � e F Q R -i\ g R I �RI\zi�R -1 R17 R11 9 / R1 e'n \R -1 \. / \ 1.0 �'4 y R.1 \.R 1 / \ R1 -1 Rt /R9/ .R -1 •R-0 R�I' �° R -1 yl lel. R.1 m1�Y' 49 Rq �IOOIt— e LOCATION I GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON -SITE . Single -Unit Residential Detached Single -Unit Residential Single- family residence RS -D (R -1) NORTH Single -Unit Residential Detached IF Single -Unit Residential Single- family residence RS-D) (R -1) SOUTH Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation park, beach, and public restrooms PR (PR) EAST Single -Unit Residential Detached Single -Unit Residential I Single- family residence (RS -D) (R -1 WEST Single -Unit Residential Detached 11 Single -Unit Residential Single- family residence RS -D) -1) 70 Appeal — Lot Merger No. 2011 -002 (PA2011 -141) January 24, 2012 Page 3 DISCUSSION: Project Setting and Description The subject properties, located on the northeasterly (inland) side of Ocean Boulevard between Goldenrod and Heliotrope Avenues, consist of portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34, but are more easily identified as 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard. The properties are generally rectangular in shape with skewed front property lines and slope slightly from the rear toward Ocean Boulevard. A 20- foot -wide shared, private ingress and egress easement at the rear of the properties allows vehicular access via Ocean Lane. Each property is currently developed with a single - family residence. Lookout Point and Little Corona Beach Park are located directly across Ocean Boulevard. Block 34, Corona del Mar N a �r. F o� NV I e R -1 The appellant, Mr. John Guida, proposes the lot merger for the purpose of developing one new single - family residence. Table 1 provides a comparison of the total lot area of each of the two existing properties, the property as merged, and neighboring properties within Block 34, and those on the inland side of Ocean Boulevard, east of Heliotrope Avenue. 72 Appeal — Lot Merger No. 2011 -002 (PA2011 -141) January 24, 2012 Page 4 TABLE 1: LOT AREA COMPARISON PROPERTY LOT AREA Subject Properties_: 2808 Ocean Blvd. 7,194 sq ft 2812 Ocean Blvd. 6,499 sq ft Proposed property (as merged) 13,693 sq ft Typical Lot Size Corona del Mar 3,540 sq. ft. 30 ft. x 118 ft. Block 34 Properties Largest subject property) 7,194 sq ft Smallest 211 Heliotrope) 3,965 sq ft Average area of all lots 5,683 sq ft Neighboring Properties Adjacent to Ocean Blvd. 2900 Ocean Blvd. 13,326 sq ft 2908 Ocean Blvd. 10,049 scLft Background Zoning Administrator Hearing and Decision On September 14, 2011, the Zoning Administrator conducted a public hearing and reviewed the applicant's request. Fifteen members of the public spoke opposing the project, and a petition opposing the project signed by 29 members of the public was presented. Also presented were copies of a private deed restriction document, which limits the height of structures allowed on the subject and neighboring properties abutting Ocean Boulevard and documents relating to ingress and egress easements, which currently provide vehicular access for the subject properties via Ocean Lane. With the exception of the applicant, all public comments were in opposition to the lot merger. The comments expressed concerns related to possible negative impacts of the lot merger and included: loss of public and private views, property devaluation, and the effect on the health and welfare of the neighbors. The Zoning Administrator explained that the City does not enforce private deed restrictions, nor has policies or ordinances that protect private views. After considering the concerns presented, the Zoning Administrator determined that the lot merger would not negatively impact the neighboring area, and sufficient facts of finding were stated in the Zoning Administrator Approval Action Letter to support the required findings (Attachment No. CC 3). The Zoning Administrator, therefore, approved the lot merger. Appeal of Zoning Administrator Decision On September 23, 2011, Mr. Clifford Jones (2800 Ocean Boulevard), Ms. Joan Campbell (2811 Ocean Lane), and Mr. John Silva (2821 Ocean Lane) filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision (Attachment No. CC 4). 72 Appeal — Lot Merger No. 2011 -002 (PA2011 -141) January 24, 2012 Page 5 Planning Commission Hearing and Decision On October 20, 2011, the Planning Commission heard the appeal. During public testimony, the appellants and seven members of the public spoke in opposition to the project. Their concerns included the following: plans submitted to the City for a new, single - family residence did not comply with the private deed restriction, which limits the height of development on the subject properties; the loss of interior side setbacks of the new development would eliminate the existing public and private views across the property and result in devaluation of neighboring properties; and the alternative access to the proposed lot via Ocean Boulevard was not feasible and would be unsafe. The appellant, Mr. John Guida, his legal counsel, architect, construction contractor, and one member of the public spoke in favor of the lot merger. A point was made that the proposed project was a lot merger of the two properties, not approval of specific plans for the property, and any future development of the two properties, separately or as merged, must comply with the City's required zoning and building code regulations. Mr. Guida stated that he does not yet have final plans for the site. The previously submitted plans have not been resubmitted by the applicant. The Planning Commission determined that elimination of the interior lot line and its associated three foot interior side setbacks (total of six feet) would create one large lot that would accommodate more floor area with less required setback area than what the Zoning Code would allow on the two separate lots, if added together (see Table 2). They also determined that the merger would create an excessively large lot, which would not be consistent with the pattern of development within Block 34 (see Table 1). The Planning Commission then voted 6 -1 (Kramer) to deny the lot merger application, reversing the decision of the Zoning Administrator. The Planning Commission minutes, resolution of denial, and staff report are provided as Attachment Nos. 5 -7. Table 2: Development Standards �-3 2808 Ocean Blvd. 2812 Ocean Blvd. Total Proposed Property Difference Property "A" Property "B" "A^ + ^B" as merged) Lot Area 7,194 sq ft 6,499 sq ft 13,693 sq ft Same Setbacks: Front 20 ft 20 ft same 20 ft same Rear loft loft same loft same Sides 3 ft per side 3 ft per side 3 It per side 4 ft per side +1 ft per side/ -6 ft interior setbacks Total Sri Ft of Setback Areas: 2,432 sq ft 2,332 sq It 4,764 sq ft 3,647 sq ft -1,117 sq ft 23.4% decrease Total Buildable Area 4,762 sq ft 4,167 sq ft 8,929 sq ft 10,046 sq It +1,117 sq ft (lot area minus (12.5% increase) setbacks) Floor Area Allowed (1.5 x buildable 7,143 sq ft 6,251 sq ft 13,394 sq ft 15,069 sq ft + 1, 675 sq ft area ) (12.5% increase Height 24 ft/29 ft 24 ft/29 ft 24 ftf29 ft 24 ft/29 ft 24 ft/29 ft �-3 Appeal — Lot Merger No. 2011 -002 (PA2011 -141) January 24, 2012 Page 6 Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision On October 27, 2011, Mr. John Guida filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action (Attachment No. CC 8). Pursuant to Section 20.64.030 of the Zoning Code, a public hearing on an appeal is conducted "de novo." The City Council is not bound by the Planning Commission's prior decision, and also is not limited to the issues raised on appeal. On review, the City Council may affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the Planning Commission. The City Council may also adopt additional conditions of approval that may address issues or concerns other than those that were the basis of the appeal. Alternatives: 1. If the City Council finds the facts do not support the findings required to grant approval of the application, the City Council should adopt the draft resolution (Attachment No. CC 1) upholding the decision of the Planning Commission and denying the proposed lot merger. 2. If the City Council finds there are findings of fact to support the findings required to grant approval of the application, the City Council should adopt the draft resolution (Attachment No. CC 2) reversing the decision of the Planning Commission and approving the proposed lot merger. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Should City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny this project. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. Should City Council reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and approve this project, staff recommends the City Council find this project exempt from CEQA, pursuant to Section 15305 (Class 5 - Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the Implementing Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. Class 5 exempts projects which consist of minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than twenty (20 %) percent, which do not result in any changes in land use or density, including minor lot line adjustments not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. This project is consistent with these requirements. NOTICING: Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways) and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. 74 Appeal — Lot Merger No. 2011 -002 (PA2011 -141) January 24, 2012 Page 7 Finally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Submitted by: Kimberly Brandt, Community Deve Attachment Nos: CC 1 CC 2 CC 3 CC 4 CC 5 CC 6 CC 7 CC 8 Draft Resolution — To Uphold and Deny Draft Resolution — To Reverse and Approve Zoning Administrator Approval Action Letter Appeal of Zoning Administrator Approval Planning Commission Minutes Planning Commission Resolution Planning Commission Staff Report Appeal of Planning Commission Denial 70 ��cil /��i( �.� �� h I» �� I1 Draft Resolution — To Uphold and Deny 77 �Lg 1:7 *19111I111 N1 \I \[ems A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DENYING LOT MERGER NO. LM2011 -002 TO MERGE THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES, UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP: PORTIONS OF LOTS 4, 5, AND 6 OF BLOCK 34 LOCATED IN CORONA DEL MAR (PA2011- 141). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by the John Guida Trust and the Julie Guida Trust, with respect to properties located at 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard, and legally described as Portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 of Corona del Mar requesting approval of a lot merger. 2. The applicants propose a lot merger for the following property under common ownership: portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 located in Corona del Mar. Also included in the application is a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map. 3. The subject property is located within the Single -Unit Residential (R -1) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D). 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B). 5. A public hearing was held by the Zoning Administrator on September 14, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Zoning Administrator at this meeting. 6. Based on the facts of finding for approval and subject to the conditions of approval in the Zoning Administrator Action Letter, the Zoning Administrator approved the proposed lot merger application. 7. On September 23, 2011, the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve Lot Merger No. LM2011 -022 was appealed by Mr. Clifford Jones (2800 Ocean Boulevard), Ms. Joan Campbell (2811 Ocean Lane), and Mr. John Silva (2821 Ocean Lane). 8. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 20, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. The Planning Commission considered evidence, both written and oral presented at this meeting. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance City Council Resolution No. Paqe 2 of 3 with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. 9. The Planning Commission determined findings for approval could not be made and reversed the decision for approval of the Zoning Administrator. 10. On October 27, 2011, Mr. John Guida filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action. 11. A public hearing was held by the City Council on January 24, 2012, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. The City Council considered evidence both written and oral presented at this meeting. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. SECTION 3. FINDINGS The City Council may approve a lot merger application only after making each of the required findings set forth in Section 19.68.030.H of Title 19 (Subdivision Code: Lot Mergers, Required Findings). In this case, the Planning Commission denied the lot merger application and reversed the approval of the Zoning Administrator based on the following findings: FINDINGS A. The lot merger would allow development that is incompatible with the size and mass of structures on neighboring properties within Block 34. The removal of the interior lot line would eliminate the interior side setback (three feet) on each property, create a buildable area greater than currently exists on the two separate lots, and eliminate the open space that the interior side setbacks currently provide. B. The lot merger would create a lot size and configuration, which is inconsistent with the development pattern of the subject properties and surrounding lots within Block 34. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies Lot Merger No. LM2011- 022 (PA2011 -141), which includes a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map, and upholds the decision of the Planning Commission. Tmplt: 03/08/11 20 City Council Resolution No. Page 3 of 3 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. 3. This decision was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of itself or in combination with other decisions in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a precedent for future decisions. 4. This resolution was approved, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the 24th day of January, 2012, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS •: ATTEST: CITY CLERK Tmplh 03/08/11 21 R2 3 1 C,ir.y �C�)�lllCl Draft Resolution — To Reverse and Approve g3 R4 RESOLUTION NO. #11## A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVING LOT MERGER NO. LM2011 -002 TO MERGE THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES, UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP: PORTIONS OF LOTS 4, 5, AND 6 OF BLOCK 34 LOCATED IN CORONA DEL MAR, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BOULEVARD (PA2011 -141). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by the John Guida Trust and the Julie Guida Trust, with respect to properties located at 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard, and legally described as Portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 of Corona del Mar requesting approval of a lot merger. 2. The applicants propose a lot merger for the following property under common. ownership: portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 located in Corona del Mar. Also included in the application is a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map. 3. The subject property is located within the Single -Unit Residential (R -1) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D). 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B). 5. A public hearing was held by the Zoning Administrator on September 14, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Zoning Administrator at this meeting. 6. Based on the facts of finding for approval and subject to the conditions of approval in the Zoning Administrator Action Letter, the Zoning Administrator approved the proposed lot merger application. 7. On September 23, 2011, the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve Lot Merger No. LM20.11 -022 was appealed by Mr. Clifford Jones (2800 Ocean Boulevard), Ms. Joan Campbell (2811 Ocean Lane), and Mr. John Silva (2821 Ocean Lane). 8. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 20, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. The Planning Commission considered evidence; both written and oral presented at this 25 City Council Resolution No. Paae 2 of 7 meeting. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. 9. The Planning Commission determined that the required findings for approval could not be made and reversed the decision for approval of the Zoning Administrator. 10. On October 27, 2011, Mr. John Guida filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action. 11. A public hearing was held by the City Council on January 24, 2012, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. The City Council considered evidence both written and oral presented at this meeting. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 15305 (Class 5 Minor Alterations in Land Use limitations). 2. Class 5 consists of projects with minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent, which do not result in any changes to land use or density, including minor lot line adjustments not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. This project is consistent with these requirements. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. In accordance with Section 19.68.030.H of Title 19 (Subdivision Code: Lot Mergers, Required Findings) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding A. Approval of the merger will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that-the proposed lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 19. 20 City Council Resolution No. _ Pace 3 of 7 Facts in Support of the Finding A -1: The future development on the proposed parcel will comply with the Zoning Code development standards. A -2. The proposed merger will not cause future development to impact public views of the ocean as no public view presently exists. A -3. The project site described in the proposal consists of legal building sites. A -4. The lot merger to combine the existing legal lots by removing the interior lot lines between them will not result in the creation of additional parcels. A -5. The project is in an area with an average slope less than 20 percent and no changes in use or density will occur as a result of the merger. Finding B. The lots to be merged are under common fee ownership at the time of the merger. Facts in Support of the Finding: B -1. The portions of lots 4, 5, and 6 to be merged are under common ownership. Finding C. The lots as merged will be consistent or will be more closely compatible with the applicable zoning regulations and will be consistent with other regulations relating to the subject property including, but not limited to, the General Plan and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. Facts in Support of the Finding: C-1. The previously existing single -unit dwellings located on the subject sites will be demolished, and the proposed lot would be redeveloped with a new single -unit dwelling. Section 20.18.030 of the Zoning Code establishes minimum lot area and width requirements. Each of the two existing lots meet the minimum lot area required, but do not meet the minimum lot width required (50 feet). The proposed merger of the lots would create one lot which would comply with the minimum lot width and lot area standards required by the Zoning Code. C -2. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject site as Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D), which is intended to provide primarily for single- family residential units on a single legal lot and does not include condominiums or cooperative housing. The Coastal Land Use Plan designates this site as Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B) which provides for density ranges from 6.0 -9.9 DU /AC. The existing 27 City Council Resolution No. _ Page4of7 development and proposed development of a single -unit dwelling on the site are consistent with these designations. Finding D. Neither the lots as merged nor adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger. Facts in Support of the Finding: D -1. Vehicular access to and from the subject site and adjacent properties is available via an ingress and egress easement at the rear of the site. Should the ingress and egress easement be terminated, vehicular access is possible from Ocean Boulevard at the front of the existing or merged parcels. Finding E. The lots as merged will be consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and will not create an excessively large lot that is not compatible with the surrounding development. Facts in Support of the Finding: E -1. Corona del Mar consists of lots of varying shapes and sizes. The subject lots, as merged, will result in a parcel with a width of 80 feet and area of 13,678 square feet. Other nearby lots on Ocean Boulevard have lot widths as wide as 73 feet and area as large as 13;325 square feet. The merger of the two lots it will not create an excessively large lot in comparison to many of the existing lots in the surrounding area. E -2. Development within the R -1 Zoning District can have a maximum floor area 1.5 times the buildable area of the lot. The proposed parcel will not be developed beyond this maximum square footage, and will be developed consistent with the surrounding development. Finding F. That the proposed division of land complies with requirements as to area, improvement and design, flood water drainage control, appropriate improved public roads and property access, sanitary disposal facilities, water supply availability, environmental protection, and other applicable requirements of this title, the Zoning Code, the General Plan, and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. Facts in Support of the Finding: F -1. The existing lots currently comply with the design standards and improvements required by the Zoning Code, General Plan, and Coastal Land Use Plan. ILI City Council Resolution No, Page 5 of 7 F -2. The proposed lot merger combines the lot portions into a single parcel of land and does not result in the elimination of more than three lot portions. F -3. Approval of the proposed lot merger would remove the existing interior lot lines, and allow the property to be redeveloped as a single site. The land use, density, and intensity would remain the same. The proposed lot would comply with all design standards and improvements required for new subdivisions by Title 19, the Zoning Code, General Plan, and Coastal Land Use Plan. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE TO: 1. Approve Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 and waiver of the requirement to file a parcel map for property, under common ownership,, consisting of portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 located in Corona del Mar, and reversing the decision of the Planning Commission, and subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. 3. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a precedent for future approvals or decisions. 4. This resolution was approved, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the 24th day of January, 2012, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS IT, ATTEST: CITY CLERK g9 City Council Resolution No. _ Page 6 of 7 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The design of the development shall not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 2. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. The existing broken and /or otherwise damaged concrete sidewalk panels along the Ocean Boulevard frontage shall be reconstructed. Limits of the reconstruction shall be determined by the City Public Works Inspector. 4. All existing drainage facilities in the public right -of -way, including the existing curb drains along Ocean Boulevard, shall be retrofitted to comply with the City's on -site, non -storm runoff retention requirements. 5. All on -site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements. 6. All existing private,, non- standard improvements within the public right -of -way and /or extensions of private, non - standard improvements into the public, right -of -way fronting the development site shall be removed. 7. New sod or low groundcovers, as approved by the City, shall be installed within the parkway fronting the development site along Ocean Boulevard. 8. An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right -of -way. 9. All 'improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement. See City Standard 110 -L. 10. existing sewer lateral to be used for the future dwelling unit shall have a sewer cleanout installed within the utilities easement per STD- 406 -L. All other laterals to be abandoned shall be capped at the property line. 11. All unused water services to be abandoned shall be capped at the corporation stop. 12. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right -of -way could be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 13. All applicable Public Works Department plan check fees shall be paid prior to review of the lot merger and grant deeds. 90 City Council Resolution No. _ Page 7 of 7 15. Prior to recordation of the lot merger, grant deeds indicating any changes in titles of ownership should be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. 16. The lot merger and grant deeds reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department should be filed concurrently with the County Recorder and County Assessor's Offices. 17. No building permits may be issued until the appeal period has expired, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Division. 18. Prior to issuance of the building permit for any new construction on the property, the Planning Division shall verify recordation of the document with the County Recorder, 19. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.93.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 20. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger including, but not limited to, Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 (PA2011 -141). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 9:L 92 City Council Attachment 3 Zoning Administrator Approval Action Letter 93 94 September 14, 2011 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 3300 Newport Boulevard, Building C, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 644 -3200 Fax: (949) 644 -3229 www. ncwportbeachca. eov NOTICE OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION The John Guida Trust and The Julie Guida Trust 1335 S. Prairie Avenue #2001 Chicago, IL 60605 Application No. Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 (PA2011 -141) Site Address 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger On September 14, 2011, the above referenced application was approved based on the findings and conditions in the attached action letter. By. Jame Murillo, Zoning Administrator JM /ks APPEAL PERIOD: Lot merger applications do not become effective until 10 days following the date of action. Prior to the effective date the applicant or any interested party may appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator to the Planning Commission by submitting a written appeal application to the Community Development Director. For additional information on filing an appeal, contact the Planning Division at 949 644 -3200. cc: Todd Skenderian 1100 South Coast Highway Suite 316 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 TmpI1:07 /06/11 95 Application No. Applicant Site Address Legal Description COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 3300 Newport Boulevarcl, Building C, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 644 -3200 Fax: (949) 644-3229 www.newportbeachea.gov ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION LETTER Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 (PA2011 -141) The John Guida Trust and The Julie Guida Trust 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger Portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6, Blk 34 of Corona del Mar On September 14, 2011, the Zoning Administrator approved the following: a lot merger for the following property, under common ownership: portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 located in Corona del Mar. Also included in the application is a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map. The property is located in the R -1 (Single -Unit Residential) District. The Zoning Administrator's approval is based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions. Findings A. Finding: The proposed project is in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Facts in Support of the Finding: A -1. The project qualifies for an exemption from environmental review pursuant to Section 15305 (Class 5 Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the Implementing Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which consists of projects with minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent, which do not result in any changes in land use or density, including minor lot line adjustments not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. This project is consistent with these requirements. B. Finding: Approval of the merger will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 19. M 2808 & 2812 O, -.n Boulevard Lot Merger September 14, 2011 Page 2 Facts in Support of the Finding: B -1. The future development on the proposed parcel will comply with the Zoning Cade development standards. B -2. The proposed merger will not cause future development to impact public views of the ocean as no public view presently exists. B -3. The project site described in the proposal consists of legal building sites. B -4. The lot merger to combine the existing legal lots by removing the interior lot lines between them will not result in the creation of additional parcels. B -5. The project is in an area with an average slope less than 20 percent and no changes in use or density will occur as a result of the merger. C. Finding: The lots to be merged are under common fee ownership at the time of the merger. Facts in Support of the Finding: C -1. The portions of lots 4,5, and 6 to be merged are under common ownership. D. Finding: The lots as merged will be consistent or will be more closely compatible with the applicable zoning regulations and will be consistent with other regulations relating to the subject property including, but not limited to, the General Plan and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. Facts in Support of the Finding: D -1. The previously existing single -unit dwellings located on the subject sites will be demolished, and the proposed lot would be redeveloped with a new single -unit dwelling. Section 20.18.030 of the Zoning Code establishes minimum lot area and width requirements. Each of the two existing lots meet the minimum lot area required, but do not meet the minimum lot width required (50 feet). The proposed merger of the lots would create one lot which would comply with the minimum lot width and lot area standards required by the Zoning Code. D -2. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject site as Single - Unit Residential Detached (RS -D), which is intended to provide primarily for single - family residential units on a single legal lot and does not include condominiums or cooperative housing. The Coastal Land Use Plan designates this site as Single Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B) which provides for density ranges from 6.0 -9.9 DU /AC. The existing development and proposed development of a single -unit dwelling on the site are consistent with these designations. FAUsers \PLN\ Shared \PA's\PAs - 2011 \PA2011- 141 \LM2011 -002 Actn Ltlr.doc Tmph; 04/18/11 9/ 77 2808 & 2812 0, An Boulevard Lot Merger September 14, 2011 Page 3 E. Finding: Neither the lots as merged nor adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger. Facts in Support of the Finding: E -1. Vehicular access to and from the subject site and adjacent properties would remain the same via an alley and an ingress and egress easement at the rear of the site. F. Finding: The lots as merged will be consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and will not create an excessively large lot that is not compatible with the surrounding development. Facts in Support of the Finding: F -1. Corona del Mar consists of lots of varying shapes and sizes.The subject lots, as merged, will result in a parcel with a width of 80 feet and area of 13,678 square feet. Other nearby lots on Ocean Boulevard have lot widths as wide as 73 feet and area as large as 13,325 square feet. The merger of the two lots it will not create an excessively large lot in comparison to many of the existing lots in the surrounding area. F -2. Development within the R -1 Zoning District can have a maximum floor area 1.5 times the buildable area of the lot. The proposed parcel will not be developed beyond this maximum square footage, and will be developed consistent with the surrounding development. In accordance with Section 19.08.030 of the Municipal Code (Waiver of Concurrent Parcel Map), the Zoning administrator approved a waiver of the parcel map requirement since no more than three parcels are eliminated. G. Finding: That the proposed division of land complies with requirements as to area, improvement and design, flood water drainage control, appropriate improved public roads and property access, sanitary disposal facilities, water supply availability, environmental protection, and other applicable requirements of this title, the Zoning Code, the General Plan, and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. Facts in Support of the Finding: G -1. The existing lots currently comply with the design standards and improvements required by the Zoning Code, General Plan, and Coastal Land Use Plan. G -2. The proposed lot merger combines the lot portions into a single parcel of land and does not result in the elimination of more than three lot portions. G -3. Approval of the proposed lot merger would remove the existing interior lot lines, and allow the property to be redeveloped as a single site. The land use, density, and F:\ Users \PLMShared\ PA's \PAs - 20MPA2011- 141IM2011.002 Actn Lllr.doc ,,n,pit 04,18,11 92 2808 & 2812 O,. an Boulevard Lot Merger September 14, 2011 Page 4 intensity would remain the same. The proposed lot would comply with all design standards and improvements required for new subdivisions by Title 19, the Zoning Code, General Plan, and Coastal Land Use Plan. Conditions 1. The design of the development shall not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 2. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. The existing broken and/or otherwise damaged concrete sidewalk panels along the Ocean Boulevard frontage shall be reconstructed. Limits of the reconstruction shall be determined by the City Public Works Inspector. 4. All existing drainage facilities in the public right -of -way, including the existing curb drains along Ocean Boulevard, shall be retrofitted to comply with the City's on- site, non -storm runoff retention requirements. 5. All on -site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements. 6. All existing private, non - standard improvements within the public right -of -way and /or extensions of private, non- standard improvements into the public right -of- way fronting the development site shall be removed. 7. New sod or low groundcovers, as approved by the City, shall be installed within the parkway fronting the development site along Ocean Boulevard. 8. An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right - of -way. 9. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement. See City Standard 110 -L. 10. The existing ingress and egress and utilities easements shall be maintained 11. The existing sewer lateral to be used for the future dwelling unit shall have a sewer cleanout installed within the utilities easement per STD - 406 -L. All other laterals to be abandoned shall be capped at the property line. 12. All unused water services to be abandoned shall be capped at the corporation stop. F: \Users \PLN \Shared \PA's\PAs - 2011 \PA2011 - 141 \LM2011 -002 Actn Lltr.doc TniplC 04 /18/11 2808 & 2812 G. an Boulevard Lot Merger September 14, 2011 Page 5 13. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right - of -way could be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 14. All applicable Public Works Department plan check fees shall be paid prior to review of the lot merger and grant deeds. 15. Prior to recordation of the lot merger, the development of the parcels combined shall conform to current zoning regulations pertaining to the number of dwelling units and the distance between detached structures. The proposed parcel shall have one dwelling unit. One structure shall be modified or demolished to achieve the required separation between structures and density. 16. Prior to recordation of the lot merger, grant deeds indicating the changes in titles of ownership should be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. 17. The lot merger and grant deeds reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department should be filed concurrently with the County Recorder and County Assessor's Offices. 18. No building permits may be issued until the appeal period has expired, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Division. 19. Prior to issuance of the building permit for any new construction on the property, the Planning Division shall verify recordation of the document with the County Recorder. 20. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.93.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 21. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger including, but not limited to, Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 (PA2011 -141). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the F:\Users \PLN \Shared \PA's \PAs - 20111PA2011- 141 \LM2011 -002 Actn Lllr.doc nnpll: 04 /18/11 100 2808 & 2812 O, .,n Boulevard Lot Merger September 14, 2011 Page 6 City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this application was mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights -of -way and waterways) including the applicant and posted on the subject property at least 10 days prior to the decision date, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. APPEAL PERIOD: Lot Merger applications do not become effective until 10 days following the date of action. Prior to the effective date the applicant or any interested party may appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator to the Planning Commission by submitting a written appeal application to the Community Development Director. For additional information on filing an appeal, contact the Planning Division at (949) 644 -3200. By: \ Jai 6e Murillo, Zoning Administrator JM /ks Attachments: ZA 1 Vicinity Map ZA 2 Lot Merger Map FAUsers \PLN \Shared \PA's\PAs - 2011 \PA2011- 141 \LM2011.002 Adn LUr.doc 'I'ngill: 04/18/11 Z�2 102 Attachment No ZA 1 Vicinity Map 10 o 104 M � 1a ti 2808 & 2812 O, .n Boulevard Lot Merger September 14, 2011 Rage 7 is:. Ii/�o X11 y I � I ti A h 7 l V Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 PA2011 -141 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard ' I s` i � 4 �Q I F. IUsersTMSharedTA'sTAs - 2011,PA2011- 1411LM2011 -002 AcIn Lttr doc fmrlt (11,18 11 105 100 Attachment No. Zn, 2 Lot Merger Map 107 102 EXHIBIT 'A' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT MERGER No. LM_ 11__ —____ (Legal Description) I Owners Existing Parcels Proposed Parcels AP Numbt I Reference Number THE JOHN GUIDA TRUST, DATED 9/17/2010, AS TRUSTEE THE JULIE GUIDA TRUST, DATED 9/17/2010, AS TRUSTEE PARCEL 1: 052- 061 -26 052- 061 -7.5 0.314 AC (gross) 0.296 AC (net) SHEET 1 OF 1 In the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California being all of Lots 4 through 6 in Block 34 of the Re- Subdivision of Corona Del Mar, as per map recorded in Book 4, Page 67, of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said Orange County. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the Northeasterly 96.00 feet thereof. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM the Southeasterly 10.00 feet of said Lot 4. Containing 0.314 Acres (13,697 sq. fl.), more or less. All as shown on Exhibit 'B' attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS, RIGHTS, RIGHTS OF WAY, AND OTHER MATTERS OF RECORD, IF ANY. �� APPROVED BY: \'�� ❑ Planning Director G Zoning Administrator ❑ Planning Commission D City Council ❑ As Submitted ❑ As Modified Refer to: ❑ Resolution ❑ Approval Letter # of Pgs Approved: Date: I jo SAND SCR U25 r OLAV S. o MEUM No. 4384 OF, D �\/ PREPARED BY Mq OR UNDER MY D1REUI(>N ONI PRIL 08, 2011. 6-14 EXHIUil Is CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT MERGER No. LM--11 ------- (map) Owners Existing Parcels Proposed Parcels AP I Reference Number THE JOHN GUIDA TRUST, DATED 9/17/2010, AS TRUSTEE 052-061-26 PARCEL 1 THE JULIE GUIDA TRUST, DATED 9/17/2010, AS TRUSTEE 052-061-25 0.314 AC (gross) 0.296 AC (net) SCALE: 1 " =50' SEE PAGE 2 OF EXHIBIT 'B' FOR EASEMENT & SURVEYORS NOTE. I N -,j �� 125.0o -T I I 0 o z of LLJ Q) I I I zl 0 C7 I N 50'00'00" IV 1, 65.00" - -� ��• F W 0 0 u._ o o\ o m\ o Z I o\ I \. h 1� 3odpl ' R R= 10.00' A= 94'23'56 LEGEND: L= 16.48' EXISTING LOT LINE TO REMAIN - - - - - EXISTING LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED I 'W I l I` o Ip o i0 b lol°i I 10 I" I I ^,,. zl SHEET 1 OF 2 L— — — — — — — — I ?50.00" ALLEY — T '— - .I � 1 725.00 "� �I I I I - i I I I I I I rn LQ tL 1 I" WI I I I 1 I nl I I I I z 11pa y, I I 6 w M z LLJ Q W CL 0 0 J W 2 /1gp6 �v�AND gGR I I 4L �0, �\ �y02p o OLAV S. o I'1380 t� � � P�Q � MEUM �D No. 4384 a\P OG�P\ lF OF CA\ \00 PREP UNDER MY 0,r 8, 2011 6 -14 -11 OLAV S. MEUM _LS 4384 EXHI ®IT 'B" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT MERGER No. LM— 1 l - - -_ I Owners I er Existing Parcels I Proposed Parcels A AP Numb Reference Number THE JOHN GUIDA TRUST, DATED 9/17/2010, AS TRUSTEE THE JULIE GUIDA TRUST, DATED 9/17/2010, AS TRUSTEE 052 - 061 -26 052- 061 -25 0.314 AC (gross) 0.2.96 AC (net) SHECf 2 OF 2 EASEMENT NOTE: AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS, PIPE LINES, POLE LINES AND OTHER PUBLIC D A UTILITIES FOR THE BENEFIT OF AND TO BE USED IN COMMON BY THE OWNERS OF LAND IN' LOTS 3, 4, 5 & 6 OF BLOCK 34 AS RECORDED ON MAY 11, 1951 IN BOOK 2187, PAGE 233 & BOOK 2187, PAGE 235, BOTH OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. \ 10' WIDE EASEMENT FOR SEWER PURPOSES RECORDED IN BOOK 2165, PAGE 614 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 65, PAGE 21 OF PARCEL MAPS. 10' WIDE EASEMENT FOR SEWER PURPOSES RECORDED IN BOOK 2165, PAGE 611 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 65, PAGE 21 OF PARCEL MAPS, SURVEYOR'S NOTE: A PORTION OF THE LAND INCLUDED WITHIN THIS LOT MERGER AS DESCRIBED IN PARCEL D 2 OF THE LATEST GRANT DEED RECORDED ON DECEMBER 20, 2010 AS INSTRUMENT No. 2010000708142 O.R. AGREES WITH THE LAND SHOWN AS PARCEL 1 OF A PARCEL MAP RECORDED ON DECEMBER 5, 1974 . IN BOOK 65, PAGE 21 OF PARCEL MAPS. LXM1131I L CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �- LOT MERGER No. (Site Map) I Owners I mer Existing Parcels I Proposed Parcels q AP Nub Reference Numher THE JOHN GUIDA TRUST, DATED 9/17/2010, AS TRUSTEE THE JULIE GUIDA TRUST, DATED 9/17/2010, AS TRUSTEE I /yr r _ _ N 50'00 uJ ( —F12- _ 5.00' 1- - 1' of Lu O C) Z O o I z l 1 1 I1oo, N 50'00'00" W 145.00' 65.00' - -; 80.00 \ I I N I I • � I I I o,\ PARCEL o\ o I I o� 2 ey I \ I I I I� �13oa�di" ' R R= 10.00' A= 94'23'56 L= 16.48' LEGEND: EXISTING LOT LINE TO REMAIN — — — — — EXISTING LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED I J :2 1 E +`y. R °y 052 - 061 -26 I 052 — 0.314 AC (gross) 061 —7.5 0.296 AC (net' SHEET 1 �I I V 250.00' ALLEY 125.00'7 ' I,6 I m ' I I I I I 01 I^ Ld jo Oq ell' I I 0 to I N 1 o I de o I I I - o I O / 190 6 v �! 2p0 X6.0 �� SAND SOR RQ 25 LF OLAV S. o �0 MEUM No. 4384 Of cm,0 ocoP OF w z W a w 0- O i- O J uI PREP D JR OR UNDER I ✓,1' DIR lJ IL 8, 2017 OLAV S. MEUM LS 4384 Appeal of Zoning Administrator Approval 11-71 114 19 -"Sep- 201110:12 AM Clty of Nowport IBoach 949. 644.3226 Community Development Department Planning Division 3300 Newport 801.119vArd, Newport Beach, CA 92003 (949)044 -3204 Telephone 1(949)044 -3229 Facabrnlle www.newoortbeachca.nav A+pplicatlon to appeal the decision of the: Appellant Information: Name(s): C�- Address: 9 Zoning Administrator 0 Planning Director n Hearing Officer ,i) Z�)11- Dato Appeal Filed: •2-3 • 1( Fee Received:• 33 • eo Received by :,a.,.. LS C:/ -,Mn 7,5 05-r-1_L- S<L-V City /State /Zip: c-4&g?,(v,AQ/L/vr/4- o /a id's. l 7 Phone: Rif F,3 max: _9 4�q - 61'--3 -5119 Emall: L Yl") D r 1_ u 0 A:TT, r Appealing Appllcaglon Regarding: 761-tf-� 6LL I PA Name of Applicant: U L I E (1, r_, r Q%{ 'TR.0 �'>T- Dato of Dac1aIon: Project No. (PA): FA 2GI. 1 - 14 ( Activity No.: L M -Z Site Address-., Z 5 Q 9,; �L '7-`3 1 2 b 0- LA-- /J -51a-\-J V - Descrlptlon: Pco2r I (2 � S d l" Lo-FS a S' ,a-AI n (a Reason(s) for Appeal (attooh a separate sheet If necessary): FL - SL Along with application, pl®asle submit the following; e Twelve (12) 11x17 sets of the project plans o One set of malling labels (Avery 5900) for property owners within 300 ft, radius of subject property Signature of Appellant: � / %i . U Z� Date, X:1 UnoralhLN1311aradVnlrannlooaoWppllonlloneWPpwIXAppllonUon .doox 2 n c py .1 IIp�� UpllalndG /tli /11 41. We do not feel the findings referred to "13- findings, E--findings" have been adequately addressed. The findings were as follows: Approval of the merger will not, under the circuunstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons resid'mng or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and Further that the proposed lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 19. Neither the lots as merged nor adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger. (Basement) I3y the City allowing the inter lot lilies to be removed by the lot merger, the City has (according to the formula for the deed restriction on each lot) given him the opportunity to break the current restrictions and go to an increase of height addition by 7,5 feet plus considerable increase in the bulk of his structure. In addition to the above we feel that the total economic innpact on surrounding properties, the loss of enjoyment of the view (deed restriction) and tine potential undermining of tine stability of the adjacent properties had not been adequately addressed and can only be accessed by experts in those areas. 110 City (council Attachment 5 Planning Commission Minutes 117 112 ,7n TWIN CO rl� 7i NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FCJ❑ u� i, I ` 10/20/2011 AB7(REEUSE- D.):_"'e's and Unsworth ABSTAIN: None. Chair th- and -C -owner Myers returned to the Chambers and ITEM NO.4 Appeal of Lot Merger (PA2011 -141) 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Kay Sims, Assistant Planner, reported the item is an appeal to approve a lot merger for 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard and provided a brief PowerPoint presentation Assistant Planner Sims addressed location of the properties, current lot configuration, private egress /ingress easements and locations of the existing structures on the properties. In addition; Ms. Sims provided background including previous consideration of the item by the Zoning Administrator on September 14, 2011, through a public hearing wherein concerns were voiced by the public that approval of a lot merger would allow: 1.) a higher structure on the property which would eliminate views across Ocean Boulevard to the neighboring properties to the rear. The views are protected by means of a private deed restricting the height of structures on a lot and loss of the views would result in devaluation of those neighboring properties. 2.) access to the properties if the egress /ingress was eliminated. After consideration of public comments and concerns, the Zoning Administrator addressed them by stating the City does not regulate or enforce private deed restrictions or the Covenant, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &Rs) and has no private view protection ordinance. If private egress /ingress easement was eliminated, there is alternative access available from Ocean Boulevard. In addition, the size of the proposed lots is similar to other lots in the area; therefore, compatible. New development on the two (2) lots, whether individual or merged, is required to comply with the City's Zoning Code development standards for the Single Family Residential Zoning District. Assistant Planner Sims reported that the Zoning Administrator approved the lot merger after finding there were facts to support all the findings. It was noted that an appeal was filed on September 22, 2011. The appellants do not believe that findings related to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighboring properties and residents, and legal access to the property were adequately addressed by the Zoning Administrator in making his decision. The appellants stated that approval of the lot merger would allow the applicant to break the private deed restriction limiting height and allow an increase in the size of the structure allowed on the property. Also, a resulting loss of view by higher structures would result in a devaluation of those properties. Assistant Planner Sims noted the Planning Commission's possible actions and presented an update to the findings relative to availability of alternative vehicular access to and from the property. Commissioners Hawkins, Toerge, Myers, and Chair Unsworth reported meeting with the appellants and visiting the site. Commissioner Ameri reported visiting the site. Commissioner Hillgren requested clarification of which lots were granted height restrictions and inquired regarding future developments planned for the property. Staff responded that at this time, the application is a request for a lot merger, should a development be proposed it would be required to comply with the Zoning Code, and it was noted that the City does not enforce private view restrictions. In response to an inquiry from the Commission, City Traffic Engineer Brine reported safe access could be achieved from Ocean Boulevard and referenced other precedents. He indicated the preference would be to try and maintain on- street parking and have access remain through the rear easement. Access from Ocean Boulevard would be a last resort option. In response to an inquiry from the Commission, Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill explained that it is an application to merge two (2) parcels under the Subdivision Map Act and the City is looking at its Codes and Regulations to determine whether the application satisfies the City Standards. She noted it does so without an independent investigation as to whether a private agreement may or may not affect the property. Currently the Page 10 of 16 119 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10120/2011 property has access from the rear as a result of a private easement. Should something happen to the private access, the City recognizes there is an alternative access off of Ocean Boulevard. Chair Unsworth opened the public hearing. Chair Unsworth asked the appellant to come forward if he wished to make a presentation. Clifford Jones, appellant, made his presentation and addressed that the easements were given for ingress and egress, but noted the easements can be withdrawn at any time. He stressed that the lot line merger would take away eight (8) feet of view corridor that would normally be there, addressed deed restrictions, proposed uses, and compliance with standards. He reported the property owner has plans for development that would eliminate views for adjacent properties. He spoke in opposition to the lot merger. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Ameri, Mr. Jones reported the easement agreement with the City is for utilities. He also mentioned the egress /ingress for the two (2) subject lots facing Ocean Boulevard. Peter Campbell, Corona del Mar resident, spoke in opposition to the lot merger with concerns regarding negative impacts to the health and safety of the current residents. Joan Campbell, Corona del Mar resident, indicated she is almost 85 years old and all she has left is to keep her view. Valerie Marcotte, resident, spoke in support of Joan and Robin Campbell, who live in the house most- impacted by the proposed merger. They are both 85 years old, they have lived in their house for 34 years, and depend daily on their view. She expressed concerns with the noise from the construction that they will have to live with for the next two (2) years and the resulting loss of their view. Ms. Marcotte stressed that this would be very disruptive to the Campbells, would create anxiety, as well as depreciate their home's value.. John Silva, Corona del Mac resident, noted it is causing increased stress for him and stated opposition to the lot merger. In response to an inquiry from the Commission, Mr. Silva reported the easement can accommodate ambulances and is used for utility access for the properties in the front. Alberta Silva, Corona del Mar resident, reported living in the area for 44 years and listed her activities in helping the community. She spoke in opposition of the lot merger noting the issue has caused a lot of stress. Danny Daneshmand, Corona del Mar resident, reported her daughter is the property owner and is representing her at this meeting. He expressed concern for the decreased property values if the current view is eliminated and spoke in opposition of the lot merger. He took issue with the City not honoring the established CC &Rs and opined this could result in a lawsuit. Dan Purcell, Corona del Mar resident, provided a brief history of the lots and opined the financial impact on the property owners would be very injurious and felt access on Ocean Boulevard would be unsightly. Jeffrey DuFine thanked the Commission for considering the issue and noted his main concerns regarding the easements and not honoring the established CC &Rs. He reported the easements were given in order to maintain the site lines and views. He reported the attorney for the subject property owner intimated to the Campbells and that if this went to court, they would be buried in legal fees. Philip Larson spoke representing his father who is recovering from an operation. He opined this will be a beginning step to something that will turn into a problem and spoke in opposition of the merger. John Whelan, Attorney representing the owners of the subject properties, John and Julie Guida, noted approval by the Zoning Administrator and that the deed restrictions indicate permitted structures would be one -story in height. He addressed elimination of the easement for access and stated the deed restriction does not prohibit a Page 11 of 16 120 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1 0/2 012 01 1 lot merger. He stressed the lot merger that has been applied for is consistent with the City's zoning ordinances and ought to be approved. Commissioner Hawkins noted the Commission must make certain findings to approve the lot merger. Chair Unsworth asked Mr. Whelan if he agreed that the finding "approval of the merger would not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health,, peace, comfort, general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood" could not be made. He addressed some of the impacts that will occur. Mr. Whelan addressed the appellants' concerns by noting that the concerns are to be attributed to the construction of the home and not the lot merger. In response to an inquiry by Chair Unsworlh, Mr. Whelan stated that there would be a home built on the merged lots. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's inquiry, Mr. Whelan acknowledged a deed restriction stating it concerns the five (5) lots and felt the intent of the deed restriction was to restrict the height of the strictures based on the lots as they were configured at the time. Mark Todd, Realtor and President Elect for the Newport Beach Realtor's Association, spoke in support of the lot merger. He reported reading the deed restriction and indicated it does not address the merger of the lots, but rather height restrictions and easements. He stated Mr. Guida intends to build a one -story structure, to be a good neighbor and not to block the view. He reported many senior citizens prefer one -story homes and spoke in support of the lot merger. John Guida, applicant, explained why he attended with representation. He stressed the intent is to build a single -story structure, addressed the architectural plans, and stated he is trying to build to code. He offered to meet with the Commission at the site, and stated he understands the restrictions but is trying to do his best to resolve the issues. Andrew Patterson of Patterson Construction noted that he encouraged a meeting with the neighbors and explained the attorney was expressing that he did not want to go into litigation when be made his comments to the Campbells. He stated the applicant is trying to work with the neighbors and spoke in support of the lot merger. Christopher Courts of Sinclair Associates Architects, Inc. addressed the proposed square footage of the house, the highest point in the house, and the maximum height of the elevator shaft. Mr. Jones re- addressed the Commission noting the front of the lot will be raised five and a half (51/2) feet from the sidewalk area because, if it is raised six (6) feet, the basement will be considered a first story. He addressed the height of existing homes and noted that, with the proposed structure, the views from the back homes would be eliminated, which produce a negative impact. In addition, Mr. Jones presented some photos. Commissioner Kramer questioned the accuracy of the hand drawn lines representing the potential blocking of views. Christopher Courts reported they are trying to construct something that is complimentary to the neighborhood and that the drawings do not depict what will be built. Mr. Jones reported inviting the architect to look at what the impacts would be and asked them to stake out what they wanted to do, but that they refused. Chair Unsworth closed the public hearing. Commissioner Toerge commented on lot mergers noting they are not without a cost or negative impact to neighbors. He expressed concerns with giving away side yard setbacks in mergers. He felt the impacts with this item are significant and the loss of the side yard setbacks is clearly detrimental and that the lot merger would result in a lot inconsistent with the surrounding development pattern. Page 12 of 16 121 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/20/2011 Motion made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner At eri; and carried (6 — 1) to reverse the decision of the Zoning Administrator and adopt a Resolution to reverse the Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002. Commissioner Hillgren expressed support for the motion and felt that merging the lots is inconsistent with the intent of the pattern of development. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Ameri, Hawkins, Hillgren, Myers, Toerge, and Unsworth NOES` Kramer ABSENT(RECUSED): None. ABSTAIN: None. It was noted the appeal period for this item is ten (10) days. NO. 5 Lido Village Design Guidelines (PA2011 -148) Guidelines would affect future projects within the Lido Village area generally boup ed by \ Newport Boulevard, 32nd Street and Newport Harbor 7 Principal Planner James Campbell provided an introduction to the draft of the Lido Village De ign Guidelines. He stated thal:N e City Council Ad -Hoc Neighborhood Revitalization Committee, with full C Council support, initiated and foste d the preparation of architectural and landscape design guidelines th would be applied to properties within the ado Village area. He reported hiring a project manager and archi cts and noted that staff has gone through an eRtgnsive public participation process. Project Manager Tim Colli reassertion of the purpose of In response to Commissioner unifying theme. provided a PowerPoint presentation addredsing history and background, ,qesign guidelines and community outreaclj and involvement. Todd Larner reviewed details of the consideration of on -going feedback. inquiry Mr. Collins Commissioner Toerge commended consultants inquired regarding efforts for the waterfront in t( noting the issue severely impacts pedestrians �, in the design guidelines stating that the Lido) /91a content of the use of public rights -of -ways as a guidelines, key elements, next steps, and for a romptness in developing the design guidelines. He pit of st giing of passengers of cruise ships or charter boats 1 people visa iq�g Lido Village. He took exception to a sentence 3e was an emoticgnal gateway to Newport Beach. Discussion followed regarding the time name for the potential rebuild of.(he marina and planning for the staging of passengers of cruise ships or c rter boats and accommodating all l ers in the evolution of the plans. It was noted this is a multilayer pro ss and that the design guidelines are jus ne component. In response to a comment y Chair Unsworth, it was noted the guidelines will ncorporated to the City's existing review process./ Commissioner Toe efe referenced a typographical error on the agenda report. Chair Unswoolef opened the public hearing. :hroeder reported he was one of the six (6) residents appointed to serve on the Citizens dvisory nded all of the meetings, and noted they were well- attended. Mr. Schroeder spoke in support (the and the plan. Page 13 of 16 12 City council Attachment 6 Planning commission Resolution 123 124 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND DENYING LOT MERGER NO. LM2011.002 FOR A LOT MERGER FOR THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY, UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP: PORTIONS OF LOTS 4, 6, AND 6 OF BLOCK 34 LOCATED IN CORONA DEL MAR. ALSO INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION IS A REQUEST TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT TO FILE A PARCEL MAP, FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BOULEVARD (PA2011 -141) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by The John Guida Trust and the Julie Guida Trust, with respect to properties located at 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard, and legally described as Portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 of Corona del Mar requesting approval of a lot merger. 2. The applicant proposes [project description a lot merger for the following property, Linder common ownership, portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 located in Corona del Mar. Also included in the application is a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map 3. The subject property is located within the Single -Unit Residential (R -1) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D). 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B). 5. A public hearing was held on September 14, 2011 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Zoning Administrator at this meeting. 6. On September 22, 2011, the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve Lot Merger No. LM2011 -022 was appealed by Mr. Clifford Jones, Ms. Joan Campbell, and Mr. John Silva. The appeal was filed to further consider two findings, which the applicants felt were not adequately addressed in the Zoning Administrator's decision. 7. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 20, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. The Planning EML 1215 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1857 Page 2 of 3 Commission considered evidence, both written and oral presented at this meeting. A notice of lime, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. 8. Pursuant to Section 20,64.030.C, the public hearing was conducted "de novo," meaning that it is a new hearing and the decision being appealed has no force or effect as of the date the call for review was filed. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. The Planning Commission may approve a lot merger application only after making each of the required findings set forth in Section 19.68.030.H of Title 19 (Subdivision Code: Lot Mergers; Required Findings). In this case, the Planning Commission was unable to make the following required findings. FINDINGS A. Approval of the merger will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 19. A -1. The lot merger would allow development that is incompatible with the size and mass of structures on neighboring properties within Block 34. The removal of the Interior lot line would eliminate the interior side setback (three feet) on each property, create a buildable area greater than currently exists on the two separate lots, and eliminate the open space that the interior side setbacks currently provide. B. The lots as rnerged will be consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and will not create an excessively large lot that is not compatible with the surrounding development. B -1. The lot merger would create a lot size and configuration, which is inconsistent with the development pattern of the subject properties and surrounding lots within Block 34. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Tmpll: 03108/11 120 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1857 Pacle 3 of 3 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies Lot Merger No. 2011 -022 (PA2011 -1 11), reversing the decision of the Zoning Administrator. 2. This action shall become final and effective ten (10) days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Cleric in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach MUnicipal Code, PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20 °' DAY OF OCTOBER, 2011. AYES: Ameri, Hawkins, 1- lillgren, Myers, Toerge, and Unsworth NOES: Kramer ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None, BY BY Tmplli 03/00111 Z27 122 ig (IiF F'� L RIMW I] 17 I 1 ri /, Planning Commission Staff Report 1�9 ISO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT October 20, Planning Commission Hearing Agenda Item 4 SUBJECT: Appeal of Lot Merger (PA2011 -141) 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 APPLICANT: The John Guida Trust and The Julie Guida Trust PLANNER: Kay Sims, Assistant Planner (949) 644 -3237 or ksims @newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve Lot Merger No. LM2011- 002, which allowed the merger of portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 located in Corona del Mar, under common ownership, for the purpose of development of a new single family residence. The decision also included approval of a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a de novo public hearing; and 2) Uphold or reverse the decision of the Zoning Administrator and adopt Resolution No. _ (Attachment No. PC 1 or PC 2) for Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002. Protect Setting The subject lots consist of portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34, but are more easily identified as 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard. The properties, located on the northeasterly (inland) side of Ocean Boulevard between Goldenrod and Heliotrope Avenues, are generally rectangular in shape with skewed front property lines and slope slightly from the rear toward Ocean Boulevard. Vehicular access is provided via a 20- foot -wide, shared, private ingress and egress easement, which extends from the rear of the properties to Ocean Lane. Each property is currently developed with a single -unit residential dwelling. Lookout Point and Little Corona Beach Park are located directly across Ocean Boulevard. 131 Appeal of Lot Merger (PA2011 -141) 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard October 20, 2011 Page 2 VICINITY MAP GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON -SITE LAt Single -Unit Residential Single -unit residential dwelling Detached (RS -D R -1 NORTH Single -Unit Residential Single -Unit Residential Single -unit residential dwellings {} B F Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation Park, beach, and public restrooms PR i • � EAST iii r M1a , � Single -unit residential dwellings Detached (RS -D) (R -1) GENERAL PLAN WEST ZONING Single -Unit Residential [ fb r 4 R4 R -t� HI R-I R it ' R1 _ _ s -e' L ^n1 /R1� RI RI �R1 R1 R1 'L R, [A 3 R.1 �R-0 - R.1 Rd R1 .P R -1 R -0/ A AR R R -1 _R-1 09 o soe OS Rq R-1 R R zo wa+w]� —.a PR ' m R -I LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON -SITE Single -Unit Residential Single -Unit Residential Single -unit residential dwelling Detached (RS -D R -1 NORTH Single -Unit Residential Single -Unit Residential Single -unit residential dwellings Detached RS -D R-1) SOUTH Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation Park, beach, and public restrooms PR PR EAST Single -Unit Residential Single -Unit Residential Single -unit residential dwellings Detached (RS -D) (R -1) WEST Single -Unit Residential Single -Unit Residential Single -unit residential dwellings Detached (RS -D R -1 2S2 Appeal of Lot Merger (PA2011 -141) 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard October 20, 2011 Page 3 Zoning Administrator Hearing and Action Prior to the Zoning Administrator hearing on September 14, 2011, staff spoke over the telephone and met with members of the public to describe the project and answer questions. Four (4) comment letters (Attachment No. PC 4) were received that expressed concerns about the project. Staff also received a copy of a private deed restriction regarding the height of structures allowed on the subject properties and neighboring properties adjacent to the rear. On September 14, 2011, the Zoning Administrator conducted a public hearing, reviewed the applicant's request, and received testimony from the applicant and 15 members of the public. All speakers opposed the lot merger. Additionally, a petition in opposition (Attachment No. PC 4) signed by 29 members of the public was presented. Stated reasons for opposition, including in comment letters received, were: elimination or blocking of private views, devaluation of surrounding properties, vehicular access, and not abiding by the deed restriction, which limits the height of any structures. Prior to making his decision, the Zoning Administrator explained that the City does not enforce deed restrictions nor have policies or ordinances that protect private views. The Zoning Administrator also explained that the properties have vehicular access via Ocean Boulevard in addition to the private, shared easement. He further explained that the size of the lot proposed was similar to others in the area (see Table 1: Project Characteristics below) and was compatible with the character of the area. After considering public comments and concerns presented, the Zoning Administrator determined that there were facts in support of the required findings and approved the project (Attachment No. PC 3). Table 1: Project Characteristics Property Total Area (approximately) Width (at widest point) R -1 Zoning District Interior Lot Standards: 5,000 sq. ft. 50 feet 2808 Ocean Boulevard 7,217 sq. ft. 40 feet 2812 Ocean Boulevard 6,483 sq. ft 40 feet Proposed Merged Lot 13,699.58 sq. ft. 80 feet Comparable Properties Adjacent to Ocean Boulevard 2900 Ocean Boulevard 13, 326 sq. ft. 66 feet 2908 Ocean Boulevard 10,049 sq. ft. 78 feet 3222 Ocean Boulevard 14,579 sq. ft. 111 feet 133 Appeal of Lot Merger (PA2011 -141) 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard October 20, 2011 Page 4 DISCUSSION Analysis Required Findings Pursuant to Section 19.68.1-1 (Lot Mergers, Required Findings) of Title 19 (Subdivision Code) of the Municipal Code, the following findings must be made in order to approve a lot merger: 1. Approval of the merger will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 19; and 2. The lots to be merged are under common fee ownership at the time of the merger; and 3. The lots as merged will be consistent or will be more closely compatible with the applicable zoning regulations and will be consistent with other regulations relating to the subject property including, but not limited to, the General Plan and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan; and 4. Neither the lots as merged nor adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger; and 5. The lots as merged will be consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and will not create an excessively large lot that is not compatible with the surrounding development. The Zoning Administrator approval included facts in support of the required findings, which are provided in the draft resolution upholding the Zoning Administrator's decision (Attachment No. PC 1). Also approved was the request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map pursuant to Section 19.68.030.M (Waiver of Concurrent Parcel Map), which allows waiver of the parcel map requirement in conjunction with a lot merger where no more than three (3) parcels are eliminated. Appeal On September 22, 2011, Mr. Clifford Jones, Ms. Joan Campbell, and Mr. John Silva appealed the Zoning Administrator's action. The appeal letter (Attachment No. PC 5) IS4 Appeal of Lot Merger (PA2011 -141) 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard October 20, 2011 Page 5 stated that the appellants feel that the following required findings were not adequately addressed: 1. Approval of the merger will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 19. The Zoning Administrator determined that facts presented in the action letter supported making the health, safety, and welfare finding. The City does not regulate and enforce private deed restrictions and does not have the authority to protect private views and new development on the two (2) lots individually or merged, must comply with the all Zoning Code Development Standards for the R -1 Zoning District. 2. Neither the lots as merged nor adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger. (Easement) Legal access is currently provided via a private, shared easement to both lots and will remain if the lots are merged. Alternatives 1. Should the Planning Commission find that there are facts to support the findings required to grant approval of the Lot Merger as proposed, the Planning Commission should adopt Resolution No. _ (Attachment No. PC 1), upholding the decision of the Zoning Administrator and approving Lot Merger No. LM2011- 002. 2. Should the Planning Commission find that the facts do not support the findings required to grant approval of the Lot Merger, the Planning Commission should adopt Resolution No. _ (Attachment No. PC 2), reversing the decision of the Zoning Administrator, and denying Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002. Environmental Review If upheld and approved, then this project is exempt from CEQA, pursuant to Section 15305 (Class 5 Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the Implementing Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which consists of projects with minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than twenty (20 %) percent, which do not result in any changes in land use or density, including minor lot line adjustments not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. This project is consistent with these requirements. 135 Appeal of Lot Merger (PA2011 -141) 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard October 20, 2011 Page 6 If reversed and denied, the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding intervening rights -of -way), and posted at the project site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this meeting consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: Submitted by: liay Si s, Assistant Planner Gregg Ramirez, Acting Planning M nager ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions - Uphold PC 2 Draft Resolution - Reverse PC 3 Zoning Administrator Action Letter PC 4 Correspondence, Petition, and Exhibits (Zoning Administrator Hearing) PC 5 Appeal Statement PC 6 Lot Merger Map 13 o Attachment No. PC I Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions — To Uphold 137 1�g RESOLUTION NO. #### A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND APPROVING LOT MERGER NO. LM2011 -002 FOR A LOT MERGER FOR THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY, UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP: PORTIONS OF LOTS 4, 5, AND 6 OF BLOCK 34 LOCATED IN CORONA DEL MAR. ALSO INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION IS A REQUEST TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT TO FILE A PARCEL MAP, FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BOULEVARD (PA2011 -141) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by The John Guida Trust and the Julie Guida Trust, with respect to properties located at 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard, and legally described as Portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 of Corona del Mar requesting approval of a lot merger. Also included in the application is a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map. 2. The applicant proposes a lot merger for the following property, under common ownership, portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 located in Corona del Mar. Also included in the application is a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map 3. The subject property is located within the Single -Unit Residential (R -1) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D). 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B). 5. A public hearing was held on September 14, 2011 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Zoning Administrator at this meeting. 6. On September 22, 2011, the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve Lot Merger No. LM2011 -022 was appealed by Mr. Clifford Jones, Ms. Joan Campbell, and Mr. John Silva. The appeal was filed to further consider two findings, which the applicants felt were not adequately addressed in the Zoning Administrator's decision. 7. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 20, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. The Planning ls9 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 2 of 7 Commission considered evidence, both written and oral presented at this meeting. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. 8. Pursuant to Section 20.64.030.C, the public hearing was conducted "de novo," meaning that it is a new hearing and the decision being appealed has no force or effect as of the date the call for review was filed. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 15305 (Class 5 Minor Alterations in Land Use limitations). 2. Class 5 consists of projects with minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent, which do not result in any changes to land use or density, including minor lot line adjustments not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. This project is consistent with these requirements. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. In accordance with Section 19.68.030.H of Title 19 (Subdivision Code: Lot Mergers, Required Findings) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding A. Approval of the merger will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 19. Facts in Support of the Finding: A -1. The future development on the proposed parcel will comply with the Zoning Code development standards. A -2. The proposed merger will not cause future development to impact public views of the ocean as no public view presently exists. A -3. The project site described in the proposal consists of legal building sites. A -4. The lot merger to combine the existing legal lots by removing the interior lot lines between them will not result in the creation of additional parcels. 140 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paoe 3 of 7 A -5. The project is in an area with an average slope less than 20 percent and no changes in use or density will occur as a result of the merger. B. The lots to be merged are under common fee ownership at the time of the merger. Facts in Support of the Finding: B -1. The portions of lots 4,5, and 6 to be merged are under common ownership. C. The lots as merged will be consistent or will be more closely compatible with the applicable zoning regulations and will be consistent with other regulations relating to the subject property including, but not limited to, the General Plan and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. Facts in Support of the Finding: D -1. The previously existing single -unit dwellings located on the subject sites will be demolished, and the proposed lot would be redeveloped with a new single -unit dwelling. Section 20.18.030 of the Zoning Code establishes minimum lot area and width requirements. Each of the two existing lots meet the minimum lot area required, but do not meet the minimum lot width required (50 feet). The proposed merger of the lots would create one lot which would comply with the minimum lot width and lot area standards required by the Zoning Code. D -2. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject site as Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D), which is intended to provide primarily for single - family residential units on a single legal lot and does not include condominiums or cooperative housing. The Coastal Land Use Plan designates this site as Single Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B) which provides for density ranges from 6.0 -9.9 DU /AC. The existing development and proposed development of a single -unit dwelling on the site are consistent with these designations. D. Neither the lots as merged nor adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger. Facts in Support of the Finding: E -1. Vehicular access to and from the subject site and adjacent properties would remain the same via an alley and an ingress and egress easement at the rear of the site. E. The lots as merged will be consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and will not create an excessively large lot that is not compatible with the surrounding development. Facts in Support of the Finding: 141 Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 4 of 7 F -1. Corona del Mar consists of lots of varying shapes and sizes.The subject lots, as merged, will result in a parcel with a width of 80 feet and area of 13,678 square feet. Other nearby lots on Ocean Boulevard have lot widths as wide as 73 feet and area as large as 13,325 square feet. The merger of the two lots it will not create an excessively large lot in comparison to many of the existing lots in the surrounding area. F -2. Development within the R -1 Zoning District can have a maximum floor area 1.5 times the buildable area of the lot. The proposed parcel will not be developed beyond this maximum square footage, and will be developed consistent with the surrounding development. F. That the proposed division of land complies with requirements as to area, improvement and design, flood water drainage control, appropriate improved public roads and property access, sanitary disposal facilities, water supply availability, environmental protection, and other applicable requirements of this title, the Zoning Code, the General Plan, -and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. Facts in Support of the Finding: G -1. The existing lots currently comply with the design standards and improvements required by the Zoning Code, General Plan, and Coastal Land Use Plan. G -2. The proposed lot merger combines the lot portions into a single parcel of land and does not result in the elimination of more than three lot portions. G -3. Approval of the proposed lot merger would remove the existing interior lot lines, and allow the property to be redeveloped as a single site. The land use, density, and intensity would remain the same. The proposed lot would comply with all design standards and improvements required for new subdivisions by Title 19, the Zoning Code, General Plan, and Coastal Land Use Plan. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 (PA2011 -141) and waiver of a required parcel map requirement, upholding the decision of the Zoning Administrator, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 2. This action shall become final and effective ten (10) days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20v' DAY OF OCTOBER 2011. 142 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN ABSENT: BY: Charles Unsworth, Chairman BY: Bradley Hillgren, Secretary Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paae 5 of 7 143 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paoe 6 of 7 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The design of the development shall not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 2. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. The existing broken and /or otherwise damaged concrete sidewalk panels along the Ocean Boulevard frontage shall be reconstructed. Limits of the reconstruction shall be determined by the City Public Works Inspector. 4. All existing drainage facilities in the public right -of -way, including the existing curb drains along Ocean Boulevard, shall be retrofitted to comply with the City's on -site, non -storm runoff retention requirements. 5. All on -site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements. 6. All existing private, non - standard improvements within the public right -of -way and /or extensions of private, non - standard improvements into the public right -of -way fronting the development site shall be removed. 7. New sod or low groundcovers, as approved by the City, shall be installed within the parkway fronting the development site along Ocean Boulevard. 8. An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right -of -way. 9. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement. See City Standard 110 -L. 10. The existing ingress and egress and utilities easements shall be maintained. 11. The existing sewer lateral to be used for the future dwelling unit shall have a sewer cleanout installed within the utilities easement per STD - 406 -L. All other laterals to be abandoned shall be capped at the property line. 12. All unused water services to be abandoned shall be capped at the corporation stop. 13. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right -of -way could be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 14. All applicable Public Works Department plan check fees shall be paid prior to review of the lot merger and grant deeds. 14 -4 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 7 of 7 15. Prior to recordation of the lot merger, the development of the parcels combined shall conform to current zoning regulations pertaining to the number of dwelling units and the distance between detached structures. The proposed parcel shall have one dwelling unit. One structure shall be modified or demolished to achieve the required separation between structures and density. 16. Prior to recordation of the lot merger, grant deeds indicating the changes in titles of ownership should be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. 17. The lot merger and grant deeds reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department should be filed concurrently with the County Recorder and County Assessor's Offices. 18. No building permits may be issued until the appeal period has expired, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Division. 19. Prior to issuance of the building permit for any new construction on the property, the Planning Division shall verify recordation of the document with the County Recorder. 20. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.93.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 21. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger including, but not limited to, Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 (PA2011 -141). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 145 140 Attachment No. PC 2 Draft Resolution — To Reverse -14 142 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND DENYING LOT MERGER NO. LM2011 -002 FOR A LOT MERGER FOR THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY, UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP: PORTIONS OF LOTS 4, 5, AND 6 OF BLOCK 34 LOCATED IN CORONA DEL MAR. ALSO INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION IS A REQUEST TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT TO FILE A PARCEL MAP, FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BOULEVARD (PA2011 -141) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by The John Guida Trust and the Julie Guida Trust, with respect to properties located at 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard, and legally described as Portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 of Corona del Mar requesting approval of a lot merger. 2. The applicant proposes [project description a lot merger for the following property, under common ownership, portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 located in Corona del Mar. Also included in the application is a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map 3. The subject property is located within the Single -Unit Residential (R -1) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D). 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B). 5. A public hearing was held on September 14, 2011 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Zoning Administrator at this meeting. 6. On September 22, 2011, the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve Lot Merger No. LM2011 -022 was appealed by Mr. Clifford Jones, Ms. Joan Campbell, and Mr. John Silva. The appeal was filed to further consider two findings, which the applicants felt were not adequately addressed in the Zoning Administrator's decision. 7. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 20, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. The Planning :L49 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Paqe 2 of 3 Commission considered evidence, both written and oral presented at this meeting. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. 8. Pursuant to Section 20.64.030.C, the public hearing was conducted "de novo," meaning that it is a new hearing and the decision being appealed has no force or effect as of the date the call for review was filed. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. The Planning Commission may approve a lot merger application only after making each of the required findings set forth in Section 19.68.030.H of Title 19 (Subdivision Code: Lot Mergers, Required Findings). In this case, the Planning Commission was unable to make the required findings. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies Lot Merger No. 2011 -022 (PA2011 -141), reversing the decision of the Zoning Administrator. 2. This action shall become final and effective ten (10) days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 201h DAY OF OCTOBER, 2011. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN ABSENT: Charles Unsworth, Chairman Tmplt: 03/08111 1150 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 3 of 3 BY: Bradley Hillgren, Secretary Tmplt: 03108/11 1151 1152 Attachment N®. PC 3 Zoning Administrator Action Letter 115 1154 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 3300 Newport Boulevard, Building C, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 644 -3200 Fax: (949) 644-3229 �a.nc��purtlicacltc�i.gw ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION LETTER Application No. Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 (PA2011 -141) Applicant The John Guida Trust and The Julie Guida Trust Site Address 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger Legal Description Portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6, Blk 34 of Corona del Mar On September 14, 2011, the Zoning Administrator approved the following a lot merger for the following property, under common ownership: portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Block 34 located in Corona del Mar. Also included in the application is a request to waive the requirement to file a parcel map. The property is located in the R -1 (Single -Unit Residential) District. The Zoning Administrator's approval is based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions. Findings A. Finding: The proposed project is in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Facts in Support of the Finding: A -1. The project qualifies for an exemptior from environmental review pursuant to Section 15305 (Class 5 Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the Implementing Guidelines of the California Envii,-mmental Quality Act (CEQA), which consists of projects with minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent, which do not result in any changes in land use or density, including minor lot line adjustments not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. This project is consistent with these requirements. B. Finding: Approval of the merger will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 19. -515 2808 & 2812 0. ,n Boulevard Lot Merger September 14, 2011 Page 2 Facts in Support of the Finding: B -1. The future development on the proposed parcel will comply with the Zoning Code development standards. B -2. The proposed merger will not cause future development to impact public views of the ocean as no public view presently exists. B -3. The project site described in the proposal consists of legal building sites. B -4. The lot merger to combine the existing legal lots by removing the interior lot lines between them will not result in the creation of additional parcels. B -5. The project is in an area with an average slope less than 20 percent and no changes in use or density will occur as a result of the merger. C. Finding: The lots to be merged are under common fee ownership at the time of the merger. Facts in Support of the Finding: C -1. The portions of lots 4,5, and 6 to be merged are under common ownership. D. Finding: The lots as merged will be consistent or will be more closely compatible with the applicable zoning regulations and will be consistent with other regulations relating to the subject property including, but not limited to, the General Plan and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. Facts in Support of the Finding: D -1. The previously existing single -unit dwellings located on the subject sites will be demolished, and the proposed lot would be redeveloped with a new single -unit dwelling. Section 20.18.030 of the Zoning Code establishes minimum lot area and width requirements. Each of the two existing lots meet the minimum lot area required, but do not meet the minimum lot width required (50 feet). The proposed merger of the lots would create one lot which would comply with the minimum lot width and lot area standards required by the Zoning Code. D -2. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject site as Single - Unit Residential Detached (RS -D), which is intended to provide primarily for single - family residential units on a single legal lot and does not include condominiums or cooperative housing. The Coastal Land Use Plan designates this site as Single Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B) which provides for density ranges from 6.0 -9.9 DU/AC. The existing development and proposed development of a single -unit dwelling on the site are consistent with these designations. F:1Users%PLN4S haredlPA'sWAs - 2011 TA2011- 1411LM2011 -002 Actn Lttr.doc 1150 Tirph 04'18/!1 2808 & 2812 O, n Boulevard Lot Merger September 14, 2011 lla!Ae J E. Finding: Neither the tots as merged nor adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger. Facts in Support of the Finding: E -1. Vehicular access to and from the subject site and adjacent properties would remain the same via an ally y and an ingress and egress easement at the rear of the site. F. Finding: The lots as merged will be consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and will not create an excessively large lot that is not compatible with the surrounding development. Facts In Support of the Finding: F -1. Corona del Mar consists of lots of varying shapes and sizes.The subject ! Is. as merged, will result in a parcel with a width of 80 feet and area of 13,678 square feet. Other nearby lots on Ocean Boulevard have lot widths as wide as 73 feet and area as large as 13,325 square feet. The merger of the two lots it will not create an excessively large lot in comparison to many of the existing lots in the surrounding area. F -2. Development within the R -1 Zoning District can have a maximum floor area 1.5 times the buildable area of the lot. The proposed parcel will not be developed beyond this maximum square footage, and will be developed consistent with the surrounding development. In accordance with Section 19.08.030 of the Municipal Code (Waiver of Concurrent Parcel Map ), the Zoning administrator approved a waiver of the parcel map requirement since no more than three parcels are eliminated. G. Finding: That the proposed division of land complies with requirements as to area, improvement and design, flood water drainage control, appropriate improved public roads and property access, sanitary disposal facilities, water supply availability, environmental protection, and other applicable requirements of this title, the Zoning Code, the General Plan, and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. Facts in Support of the Finding: G -1. The existing lots currently comply with the design standards and improvements required by the Zoning Code, General Plan, and Coastal Land Use Plan. G -2. The proposed lot merger combines the lot portions into a single parcel of land and does not result in the elimination of more than three lot portions. G -3. Approval of the proposed lot merger would remove the existing interior lot lines, and allow the property to be redeveloped as a single site. The land use, density, and F: Wsers`PLN',Shared\PA'sTAs - 201'.IPA2011- 1411LM2011 -002 Adn Lttr.doc TmpIL 04/18/11 157 2808 & 2812 G. An Boulevard Lot Merger September 14, 2011 Page 4 intensity would remain the same. The proposed lot would comply with all design standards and improvements required for new subdivisions by Title 19, the Zoning Code, General Plan, and Coastal Land Use Plan. Conditions 1. The design of the development shall not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 2. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. The existing broken and /or otherwise damaged concrete sidewalk panels along the Ocean Boulevard frontage shall be reconstructed. Limits of the reconstruction shall be determined by the City Public Works Inspector. 4. All existing drainage facilities in the public right -of -way, including the existing curb drains along Ocean Boulevard, shall be retrofitted to comply with the City's on- site, non -storm runoff retention requirements. 5. All on -site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements. 6. All existing private, non - standard improvements within the public right -of -way and /or extensions of private, non - standard improvements into the public right -of- way fronting the development site shall be removed. 7. New sod or low groundcovers, as approved by the City, shall be installed within the parkway fronting the development site along Ocean Boulevard. 8. An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right - of -way. 9. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement. See City Standard 110 -L. 10. The existing ingress and egress and utilities easements shall be maintained 11. The existing sewer lateral to be used for the future dwelling unit shall have a sewer cleanout installed within the utilities easement per STD - 406 -L. All other laterals to be abandoned shall be capped at the property line. 12. All unused water services to be abandoned shall be capped at the corporation stop. F:\Users\PLN \Shared\PAVPAs - 2011\PA2011-141 \LM2011 -002 Adn Lttr.doc Tmplt: 04/18/11 152 2808 & 2812 G. An Boulevard Lot Merger September 14, 2011 Page 5 13. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right - of -way could be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 14. All applicable Public Works Department plan check fees shag be paid prior to review of the lot merger and grant deeds. 15. Prior to recordation of the lot merger, the development of the parcels combined shall conform to current zoning regulations pertaining to the number of dwelling units and the distance between detached structures. The proposed parcel shall have one dwelling unit. One structure shall be modified or demolished to achieve the required separation between structures and density. 16. Prior to recordation of the lot merger, grant deeds indicating the changes in titles of ownership should be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. 17. The lot merger and grant deeds reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department should be filed concurrently with the County Recorder and County Assessor's Offices. 18. No building permits may be issued until the appeal period has expired, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Division. 19. Prior to issuance of the building permit for any new construction on the property, the Planning Division shall verify recordation of the document with the County Recorder. 20. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.93.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 21. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger including, but not limited to, Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 (PA2011 -141). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the F9Users1PLNlSharedlPA's1PAs - 20MPAN11- 1411LM2011 -002 AM Lhr,docc Tmpie 04/18:11 15q 2808 & 2812 O. .n Boulevard Lot Merger September 14, 2011 Page 6 City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this application was mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights -of -way and waterways) including the applicant and posted on the subject property at least 10 days prior to the decision date, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. APPEAL PERIOD: Lot Merger applications do not become effective until 10 days following the date of action. Prior to the effective date the applicant or any interested party may appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator to the Planning Commission by submitting a written appeal application to the Community Development Director. For additional information on filing an appeal, contact the Planning Division at (949) 644 -3200. By: Jaime Murillo, Zoning Administrator JM/ks Attachments: ZA 1 Vicinity Map ZA 2 Lot Merger Map FAUsersIPLMSharWPXMPAs - 20111PA2011 -141 %M2011.002 Adn LOr.doc Tmplt: 04/18/11 100 Vicinity Map 101 102 2808 & 2812 O� .n Boulevard Lot Merger September 14, 2011 Page 7 Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 PA2011 -1'41 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard F Wse rs1PLMShared\PA's1PAs - 2011 TA2011- 1411LM2011 -002 Actn Lttr.doc 'implC 04'1 ➢/l l 2�� 104 Attachment No. ZA 2 Lot Merger Map Not Included — See PC Attachment No. 6 105 100 Attachment No. PC 4 Correspondence, Petition, and Exhibits (Zoning Administrator Hearing) 1.O7 102 September 14, 2011. To whom it may concern The subject vicinity along Ocean Boulevard is sorely in need of renewal and improvement. In that regard. I have no objection to the subject proposed lot assembly along Ocean Boulevard as such. However I do have concerns as regards the related subsequent residential development. It would appear that, as proposed, this development may result in an excessive structural height and bulk not intended in the terms of the original legal deed restrictions governing the development of these parcels, If approved as proposed, the development would likely adversely affect the adjacent properties governed by the deed restrictions and other neighboring properties as well. Thus the developer should be encouraged proceed to renew these lots but with a modestly redesigned project more in keeping with the intent of the deed restrictions, especially as regards overall height considerations. Sincerely An H. Anderson 214 Goldenrod Avenue 949- 723 -1556 Io9 Cam' 7' �.E-._ ''��'i.��_. ✓ 'KGs h' o� F ,�..— �' a~�n .^' "':nom °' r r.,;— .:...P'!� "•�.�1°' { J'��...2}r.a°:"., i��F " °r°"� ✓� /,- °„° %I. "rly.!" �.e!". «" � .. �� f.` r:'M y v t "m r . _. - F ".,", .'rt, X �� e , ^- ^"'"'�' frM '� .n✓a" ,LY 'rn.^"r' �-3`"/ `A �" ±,1 ei .'° �. c �.ar.A -. .Y' .__.;t+' a��+^n �" .. n� r,+y ""'�—....,w `F r �"YV"` .r °fj�- J✓ `'`�'uH°�,� "..�,, � �y ° _ r r m w' ;, "� t jam° F e' t _ a_ _ .=tip � _ — _ r ,� .•,. T��D A 11 z ;7rl- :e7 /— 'L 4x,- C�tiVso BY 10 OF N 77 "ICY- "ICY- Ed J LIMA e CpMMUNo i LLPATIQX kP RMTR.IMORI SEP n 0 7Z�II oaa nee �OF�F�p'OM 0* Y FiyT 001 ALL M= BY TIMIC PRM8YMT8 r � 6EPG THAT W"RF UR, the undersigned SAV MR S. McEACOM and LILLIAN M. NoWlE HM, his e1fo, are the .mars of Lota J and 4 and the undersigned, PAUL 0. CLRLAXD an,d SYLYIA A. CLELAND, his wife, are the omen of Lot* $ and b, all in Block 34, Reeubdivislon of Corona del Mar, ae shown on Map thereof in book 4, at page 67. of W s- cellaneous Maps, "cords of Orange County, State of California, and FUKAS, the parties hereto mutually desire to re- strict the height of buildings which may hereafter be placed or constructed upon said property, NOW. TH1fRE"I $, in consideratlon of the praaisoe and of the advantages derived by each of the parties h, ve- to by the soaking of this declaration and further in =on- aideretion o: the benefits which will accrue to said real property and to each and every parcel thereof, IT 15 H5*�Y NiMULLY CO`&WAHiSu, AGKU& 3 A,-,D CEZURBD - .. that Bald land and each end avery p ^.art and perael thereof, except the Northeasterly 96 foot "ho-vat, shall, from and .deter the date hereof, be subject to the following reatric- _ tiona axndjor covenants which she" apply to and be bind- ing .r)> n ha r.ertla> hereto and rich c, thvir sisocaaeara ana assl' -na, as followa9 That any building or structure pieced or constructed I- 1715 rte;" "a' .. �"r'i# . V 'i ✓y� s� a:_ � i L4 rJ N f r S'P 07101! O�EiOP on said real proplrty, or any portion thereof, shall be A, 7' O Ni limited to one story in height and the roof of MAY 6110h PGA PORT 9E 1 builds ng *hall hers 1 maxln,m pitch of BLit® x 12s, * -!=et i Is to say, such roof shall haw a naatnma rtae of U inches to each 12 Inches of roof span. Tha covenants and declarations heist- :cnt_'_nzd are ., made for the benefit of ouch lot or parcel as against each M and every other of said lots or parcels and for the bene- fit of the owner or owners of each and every other lot or parcel, and that said covenants, restrictions &Wor declar- ations anal operate as a covenant running with the land and the same is hereby created as a mutual, equitable eervttude in favor of each parcel an against each and every other 1 parcel of said land. It is hereby expressly declared that the foregoing j covenantal restrictions and declarations shall inure to the jbenefit of each and all of the parties hersto and shall extend to and bind the successors and assigna of the parties hereto and each of them and that any breach of said covenants, i res trietione and/or declarations may be enjoined, abated or I r remedied by appropriate proceedings by t!:e parties hereto or by either of them, their end each of their euccessors or 1111 assigns. Any provision heroin to the contrary notwithstanding, a violation of the covenants and restrittlans harain con- i tained shall not dofeat or render invalid the limn of any . mortgago or deed of trust made in good feith and for value. that in the event of a reconveyance of sold property, i or any portion thereof, by the Truetce nzaod In any deed of a 2. 170 j V 1 >N, •'m1Ni4] t rh" tL O� L,F4Op� 2 FNT SEA ��RT�BEA�N IN !runts tut$ ae sot+ruyanee >hall not in any saaansa afaa4 the vaLliQEty or oontlr"Uan of time noveaan4e reetri"Iew or doslarationz Derma oontainsd' but the ^are "ll rusaalt In Poll fnros and *"*at for the brnetit of eeah party hersto and for the bwwrit of the a-ccsssiva owner- or avnora �f "Id real rro,^erty ft?W eson egad troy jut a. r;-c¢i L`.s d'aafo IN IUTVMS WMFMOT the pem4lao hereto have sat thmir hande and seals this 25th day of April, 1951, _ l.� //// G��fG ,.� Star asr f�G01�1?� +sL&%"CX T"" aane.eeeee M!y Y Fist eo ltJOR sa 0. 4Z&,M y JJJ- /J6 CAW- LA III an ro ONSCLAL saca�p o.s.o•tIftoedn n "Je.A it clolam yv• A. C1*1and STATE cr CAL.l"HxIA 3 County of loo Angola& ) se On thin 25th day of April, 1Q$2, before me, tho uot,%r- alga" Notary ftbllo in and for said county and atsto„ par- zonally appeared WAGTIM S. VvMCl MX. L1LLrAN a. KcRAGWON, PAUL G. CL£L.P:D and A1'$:VIA A. CL&LMffi to cmc to bm �?s persons abbes names are aubacribed 4 the w1thin 4nstruvont end that tvwy a ceted )tho OMMOWA Notary rmxro 'M and 11F- of Loa A0101es. Stats or ca ll rerni a My Cossaioolon stxpiresa rob 1. 2952 a �-, 'IX 80 V, BEPO, ....... .... , I kA oj oil -ac L) 7N(Y.7 ply, -0 "I x A� - lN k - � - Lo A Zia II i J'Ju of Eli /'Ot j Ot —77j-- Yl 17q wl, i - i J'Ju of Eli /'Ot j Ot —77j-- Yl 17q OR�° of 71 r7k� atifvn�r ; "'�''t5 i ra -\ � r:v f •/ I f ll j-Z /may( i f � s. IT -✓�' ^. lT Fly 44 �• ! A"rjr.. T , ft ! 4 '4' .' -:.. !' rl �F .�a r -t �.. ,/ , r� ✓ �- �`,�,1,. �`*` .'.� I ` / _._:gip y�ya�4: FOR 4ALUABYZ CONS* Moir, racelpt of which is hereby acknowlodged, PAUL 0. CLELAND and SYLVIA A. CLELAND, his wife, do hereby GRANT to WALTER S. XZZAC11tAN and LILLIAN M. McEACREa2N, his wife, as .70"t Tenants, the real property in the County of Oranaa, state of California, des- cribed set An easement for ingress and *grass, pip* lines, polo lines and other public utilities over, acres* and ander that portion of Lot 5 in Block 34 of Reaubdivision of Corona del Mar, as shown on a map re- corded in Book 4, at gags 67, of KieeOIUn**ua Maps, records or Orange County, California, lying withYn the following described parcel. of .._. lend, said easement to be for ma benefit or and to be used in common by the owners of land in Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6 of said Block 34a BEGIMMING at the most Easterly corner of said Lot 5 and running thence Northwesterly along the Northeasterly line of said Lot 5, 10 rest; thence Southwesterly par- allel with the Scuth*sst *rly line of said Let 5, 96 root; thence Northwesterly parallel with the Northeasterly line of said Lot 5, 10 feet; thence Southwesterly parallel with the Southeasterly lint of said Lot 5, 20 reeiy thence Southeasterly parallel wit's the Northeasterly line of said Lot 5 end the Northeasterly line or Yet b in said Block 314, 40 feet; thence Northeasterly parallel with the North - west*rly lino of $aid Yet 4, 20 foot; thence Northwesterly parallel with the Morthtaaterly line of said Lot 4, 10 feat; thence Northeasterly parallel with the Northwesterly line 12- Of maid lot 4, 96 fact to the Northeasterly line of said Lot 4; theme 1orth44aterl7 along said Northeastarly line 10 foot to the point of beginning. ALSO an easement for the placement of garbage, rubbish, etc., over the Northeasterly 3 feet of the Northwesterly 10 feet of the South- easterly 20 feet of said let 5, said easement to be for the benefit of and to be used in common by the owners of land in Lots 3, 4, 5 and 5 of said Block 34. SUS=T SOS - Taxes for the fiscal year 1951 -52 •—^ - - Covenants, conditions, reservations,,_, restrictions, rights M* ='�•-- and rights of way and assoments of record. teds J ; 1951 Paul e7and SmATS OP CALIPOMIA ) county of Los Angeles) as on ^ , 1951, before ma, the era gno , a Notary Public in anI or said county and state, par - sonally appeared PAIIL 0. CLSLAND and SYLVIA A. CLELAND, known to mo to be the persons whose names are sub- scribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same. NSTRBSS my hwA and official anal. O ary Pohl n an OP a Y: A. C C y v R ia A. eland Item No. 4a Materials Received Anneal of Lot Merger 1 -141 ZT-Al i il� 1ryE„� IJCct4q,3 f�'-vv ( (CvRAz;t -n z>�� 2512 $NOW Cv0 1 Oc o-t.4 L-*%L.%E m t` %Wh Ott I.. � �`0p"'Fnr TBEP' % I Z 2s ;?Ott; (u� toy t I $NOW Cv0 1 Oc o-t.4 L-*%L.%E m t` %Wh Ott I.. � �`0p"'Fnr TBEP' % I Z 2s 2$oa,Zg�V2 pc�A tit �st_�t P. N +tiT �f r IF. IL . t- + ' L=rC� 2°1 r Z8o0 O c-vc--A#Z $L't'A. 2q ` +ta OCZOArN All lu AMM 4 ec OZI I le V 4 6, IRZ LANE +61 ax-ts, ZS( I oc.�� Ah.N L.tsrvZ-07 +G _ stov • * em ZA , SAN -r up . 200 6GE�N ,Z q 4 erd- ?� 013 OG eA N 1.J'rIvc To z Iry .r civ 2m ( 2082 t DcjeiAup lo%A N e *- G ' 494 &V, Af eTM zq 2 l't f�E L 1 o'r R 0 PE 2� � -om- ku t ebmr ROPE 4 01v jkll, . I ozc( �e 11 �9 2 t Appeal Statement 1�� 200 M- I I -Smp-20 4 I rU112 AM City of ri ort Seah UO-544-3229 Appeal Application Commnfiy Ise lop Departrnent Planning Division 330-0 NoWPOtt BOUbWard, Nmvpert Beach, CA 92663 (94,9)044�3204 Tetaphorn t (049)"A -33229 �-SC$Kpfa MnLPM, Mrdhaachmom Application to appeal the decision of fho, 51 Zoning AdminIstrator 0 Planning Director 13 Haeft Officer Appeflant Information: A Date Appeal Red. 4:4 Fes Racalvad-_L9 -3 I'- Reason( s) for Appeal (attach a separate sheet If necessary): — —FLj -A E: r, i4-1;e�71� MSME�� 0 Twelve (12) llxl7sota of the project plans One set of malling labels (Avery 5960) for property owners within 300 M radius of subject property 'Al Signature of Appellate, 1�77 Datat t amil We do not feet the findings mferred to "B-findings, E-findings" have been adequately addressed. The findings were as follows: Approval of the merger Avi tj not, under the circurns, ances or this particular case, be detrimental to the health< safety, and weverin rveifare Of petsogs residing or working w"t R Jim the neiWaborhood of such proposed use or deuirazilialorini2liousto prr ettj_an ntprinygnie; ritic ighborlicod or the general welfare of the CiV, and atsin i __Tle: oo further that the proposed lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 19- Neither the lots as merged nor adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger, (EAsernea-0 By the City allowing the inter tot lines to be removed by the tot "merger, the City has faccording to the lbrinula for the deed restriction on crich Im-) given him the opportunity to break the current restrictions and go to an increase of height addition by 7,5 feet plus considerable increase in the bulk of his structure. In addition to the above we feel that the total economic impact on surrounding properties, the loss of enjoyment of the view (deed restriction) and the potential undermining of the stability of the adjacent properties had not been adequately addressed and can only be accessed by experts in those areas, 202 Attachment N®. PC 6 Proposed Lot Merger Map 203 204 EXHIBIT 'A' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT MERGER No. LM_ 11 (Legal Description) Owners Existing ParCE AP Number THE JOHN GUIDA TRUST, DATED 9/17/2010, AS TRUSTEE 052 - 061 -26 THE JULIE GUIDA TRUST, DATED 9/17/2010, AS TRUSTEE 052- 061 -25 PARCEL 1: Proposed Parcels 0.314 AC (gross) 0.296 AC (net) SHEET 1 OF 1 In the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California being all of Lots 4 through 6 in Block 34 of the Re- Subdivision of Corona Del Mar, as per map recorded in Book 4, Page 67, of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said Orange County. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the Northeasterly 96.00 feet thereof. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM the Southeasterly 10.00 feet of said Lot 4. Containing 0.314 Acres (13,697 sq. ft.), more or less. All as shown on Exhibit'B' attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS, RIGHTS, RIGHTS OF WAY, AND OTHER MATTERS OF RECORD, IF ANY. �yF,O LAND SUS'`\ OLAV S. o MEUM No. 4384 \9Te of CA\F��\/ PREPARED BY M q OR UNDER MY PRIL 08, 2011. OLAV S. MEUM LS 4384 JN 144 205 SCALE: 1 " =50' SEE PAGE 2 OF EXHIBIT 'B' FOR SHEET 1 OF 2 EASEMENT & SURVEYOR'S NOTE. I ICI I L-------- dal----- - - ---� I _ w �. _ N 50'00'00" X0.00' ALLEY — Z ;_`� 7125.007 — �2s -12i w w0 i,l i o o l Q w l I i.' I o lrn I I 11 4_ ° 0 w O U' N 50'00'00" W 145.00' �\ �� I I I I W 65.00' ,4 80.00 i , . 0) I i I 0\ PARCEL 1 \ I J _\ I I z \oo I I I 1 9066 D�- NDS \ I I 020 OLAV S. o I � I 1a48� N 96 .,tl —' MEUM A W N �� 308101, R R= 10.00' A= 94'23'56" LEGEND: L= 16.48' EXISTING LOT LINE TO REMAIN EXISTING LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED No. 4384 \TF OF, CA0E��\/ PREP M R UNDER MY DIR N O IL 8, 2011 6 -l4 -11 OLAV S. MEUM LS 4384 j dN 14 20 EXHIBIT 'B' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT MERGER No. (Map) Owners Existing Parcels Proposed Parcels AP Number Reference Number THE JOHN GUIDA TRUST, DATED 9/17/2010, AS TRUSTEE 052- 061 -26 PARCEL 1 0.314 AC (gross) THE JULIE GUIDA TRUST, DATED 9/17/2010, AS TRUSTEE 052- 061 -25 n oor, nr, SCALE: 1 " =50' SEE PAGE 2 OF EXHIBIT 'B' FOR SHEET 1 OF 2 EASEMENT & SURVEYOR'S NOTE. I ICI I L-------- dal----- - - ---� I _ w �. _ N 50'00'00" X0.00' ALLEY — Z ;_`� 7125.007 — �2s -12i w w0 i,l i o o l Q w l I i.' I o lrn I I 11 4_ ° 0 w O U' N 50'00'00" W 145.00' �\ �� I I I I W 65.00' ,4 80.00 i , . 0) I i I 0\ PARCEL 1 \ I J _\ I I z \oo I I I 1 9066 D�- NDS \ I I 020 OLAV S. o I � I 1a48� N 96 .,tl —' MEUM A W N �� 308101, R R= 10.00' A= 94'23'56" LEGEND: L= 16.48' EXISTING LOT LINE TO REMAIN EXISTING LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED No. 4384 \TF OF, CA0E��\/ PREP M R UNDER MY DIR N O IL 8, 2011 6 -l4 -11 OLAV S. MEUM LS 4384 j dN 14 20 EXHIBIT 'B' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT MERGER No. LM 1? —_,_ (Map) Owners Existing Parce AP Number THE JOHN GUIDA TRUST, DATED 9/17/2010, AS TRUSTEE 052 - 061 -26 THE JULIE GUIDA TRUST, DATED 9/17/2010, AS TRUSTEE 052- 061 -25 EASEMENT NOTE: Proposed Parcels 0.314 AC (gross) 0.296 AC (net) SHEET 2 OF 2 AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS, PIPE LINES, POLE LINES AND OTHER PUBLIC A UTILITIES FOR THE BENEFIT OF AND TO BE USED IN COMMON BY THE OWNERS OF LAND IN LOTS 3, 4, 5 & 6 OF BLOCK 34 AS RECORDED ON MAY 11, 1951 IN BOOK 2187, PAGE 233 & BOOK 2187, PAGE 235, BOTH OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 10' WIDE EASEMENT FOR SEWER PURPOSES RECORDED IN BOOK 2165, PAGE 614 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 65, PAGE 21 OF PARCEL MAPS. 10' WIDE EASEMENT FOR SEWER PURPOSES RECORDED IN BOOK 2165, PAGE 611 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 65, PAGE 21 OF PARCEL MAPS. SURVEYOR'S NOTE: A PORTION OF THE LAND INCLUDED WITHIN THIS LOT MERGER AS DESCRIBED IN PARCEL 2 OF THE LATEST GRANT DEED RECORDED ON DECEMBER 20, 2010 AS INSTRUMENT No. 2010000708142 O.R. AGREES WITH THE LAND SHOWN AS PARCEL 1 OF A PARCEL MAP RECORDED ON DECEMBER 5, 1974 IN BOOK 65, PAGE 21 OF PARCEL MAPS. 207L EXHIBIT 'C' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT MERGER No. LM --� l I Owners I mer txistmg Narcels I Proposed Parcels I AP Nub Reference Numher THE JOHN GUIDA TRUST, DATED 9/17/2010, AS TRUSTEE I 052-061-26 ( 0,314 AC (gross) THE JULIE GUIDA TRUST, DATED 9/17/2010, AS TRUSTEE 052 - 061 -25 0.296 AC (net) SCALE: 1 " =50' SHEET 1 OF 1 I ICI I L - - - - - -- I< — — — — — — — — —� I — ALLEY — - _ N 50'00'00'_W 2T0.00' _ Z � T12s.DD -f -1 - '.i' f — 1i25 .000'T w Z of I I i IWC I I I _ WI I�h Li CL o o I I I ui O I a I I 110 0 N 50'00'00" W 145.00' i `� r�� I I I W 56 .00' - -' 80.00 1 1 �\ „, • ZI ° \ ' t I I °to9e I °°q w N N\ 6� G G 10� I I I I I o,\ PARCEL 1 D OO I I IV re of I 6.56 I/ k .W 1 38 pti _ R= 10.00' A= 94'23'56" L= 16.48' LEGEND: EXISTING LOT LINE TO REMAIN — — — — — EXISTING LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED 1 6 O LAND SV � �Q �5E RL(" P U OMEUM o J P No. 4384 sgTF OF CAI\F0�a\/ PRWLNN IR11 OR UNDER MY DI 8, 2011 OLAV S. MEUM LS 4384 202 Correspondence Item No. 4b Appeal of Lot Merger PA2011 -141 October 3, 2011 To Whom It May Concern, As you requested, here is relevant case law relating to CC & R's, and your deed covenant In particular. The cases cited directly relate to your current situation. It is also more than relevant in that the first one was an CA appellate court case "[Citation.j" (. (in vg Kualer (1961) 197 Ca1,App.2d 851, 655.)" that affirmed the prior courts ruling as to "Intent" of height restrictions and one story residence. That case has been cited in dozens of cases (Including (Campbell & Silva; at al; v. Guida), as to the lots in question, are not vague and need to be enforced as to their Intent. [1] "Although the Instrument does not expressly declare the Intent of the grantor to preserve the view of lot owners, it is obvious from the language used, the topography and the 1197 Cal. App. 2d 655] finished ground elevations of the tract and the general physical appearance of the land and the existing structures thereon, that the purpose of the height restriction in the plan is to protect the lot owner's view from one elevation to another. [2] Contrary to appellant's claim, we see nothing vague, ambiguous or uncertain in the meaning of the restrictive phrase "one story In height," or as to what was intended thereby. it does not appear, nor have appellants contended, that the words have a technical, special or peculiar meaning; they merely argue that to control the height the grantor "should" have inserted a limit in feet and Inches or other language from which the Intended maximum height could have been inferred exactly. Therefore, the phrase is to be interpreted in its ordinary and popular sense rather than according to some strict legal or technical meaning. "'This ordinary and popular sense Is to be related to the circumstances under which the words are used, having in mind the purpose of the contract and the general situation which brought It Into existence' (12 Cai,Jur.2d 353.354.)" (Harrison v. Frye, 148 Cal. App. 2d 626, 628 [307 P.2d 76].)" [3] The document expressly declares that the restrictions and conditions contained therein shall "run with the land and shall be binding on all parties "), apply to all lots in the tract and be mutually enforceable, reflecting a specific Intent to create enforceable restrictions. (Gamble v. Fierman, 82 Cal.App. 180 [255 P. 2691; Martin v. Holm, 197 Cal. 733 [242 P. 718].) That the restrictions and conditions contained in the declaration of record apply, as therein provided, to all lots in the tract and were expressly carried into the deeds, Is found in the language of each deed wherein the conveyance is specifically made subject to "covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, easements, rights and rights of way of record." (Smith v. Rasqul, 176 Cal. App. 2d 514 [1 Cal.Rptr. 478].) REQF�V� 00%, d� 0 OCT I Nrry 0 oF�FZoa y MFG %bar BEN01, 209 The trial court's reliance on the Webster's Dictionary definition constitutes an acceptable manner of ascertaining the ordinary and popular usage of words in the English language. "The same rules that apply to Interpretation of contracts apply to the interpretation of CC &R's. "'[W]e must independently interpret the provisions of the document.... It is a general rule that restrictive covenants are construed strictly against the person seeking to enforce them, and any doubt will be resolved in favor of the free use of land. But it is also true that the "'Intent of the parties and the object of the deed or restriction should govern, giving the instrument a just and fair interpretation. " "" [Citation.]" (Chee v. Amanda Goldt Property Management (2006) 143 Cal.AppAth 1360, 1377.) When the issue turns on the meaning of a phrase employed in CC &R's, "the phrase is to be interpreted in its ordinary and popular sense rather than according to some strict legal or technical meaning. "'This ordinary and popular sense is to be related to the circumstances under which the words are used, having in mind the purpose of the contract and the general situation which brought it into existence." "[Citation]' [Citation]' [Citation]' [Citation]' 1. King v. Kugler (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 651, 655. 2. ZABRUCKY v. McAdams, Cal: Court of Appeals, 2nd Appellate Dist., 7th Div. 2008 3. Cal.App. 4 Dist,2009. Monarch Point Homeowners Assn v. Arditi, Not Reported In Cal.Rptr.3d, 2009 WL 1838286 (CaLApp. 4 Dist.) 4. Seligman v. Tucker (1970) 6 Cal. App. 3d 691[86 CaLRpfr. 187] King v. Kugler [197 Cal. App. 2d 651] [Civ. No. 25708. Second Dist., Div. One. Dec. 4, 1961.] WALTER F. KING at al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. ROBERT L. KUGLER, JR., at al., Defendants and Appellants. COUNSEL: Robert C. Pannell for Defendants and Appellants. Raymond L. Winters for Plaintiffs and Respondents OPINION: LILLIE, J. Appeal is taken from a judgment enjoining defendants from building any structure of a height exceeding that of a single -story dwelling presently on the premises. The following factual background is taken from an agreed statement. Plaintiffs and defendants reside in adjacent houses built in a 174 -lot tract by the original grantor, Allied Gardens Corp. Both parties purchased their homes from Allied in 1952. Prior thereto, the original grantor recorded a declaration of conditions and restrictions, the terms of which applied to all lots in the tract; the deeds thereafter given to the 174 lot owners, including the parties herein, were made subject thereto. Although they did not recite the individual restrictions [197 Cal. App. 2d 6531 and conditions contained in the declaration, the deeds were made specifically subject to "covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, easements, rights and rights of way of record," and therein expressly so stated. The restriction in question contained In the declaration, and of record, provides: "2. That no structures shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any 210 residential building plot other than one detached single family dwelling not to exceed one story in height and a private garage for not more than three cars, together with the customary fences, walks and out buildings incidental to residential use'; and under paragraph 13, "each and all covenants and conditions" contained therein shall "run with the land, and shall be binding on all parties." Later defendants obtained a building permit from the City of Torrance to build a garage with a room overhead, and began construction. The proposed structure was to have a garage floor and ceiling and, above the garage, a room with a floor and ceiling, Plaintiffs, contending that the building exceeded "one story in height" in violation of Condition 2, brought the within action for injunctive relief. The trial court found that Allied Gardens Corp. had recorded the declaration applying to all lots Including 40 and 41 prior to their sale; that defendants had constructive notice of the declaration; that defendants' lot 41 is at a lower level than plaintiffs' lot 40; that there was an extensive view from plaintiffs' lot, Important to the property and of immeasurable value to plaintiffs, and they relied on the restrictions for the preservation of their view when they purchased the property; that the proposed structure would impair plaintiffs' view; that defendants' plans for construction appear to be in conflict with Condition 2 in that the contemplated addition would embrace a structure of more than one story in height. Appellants, arguing that building restrictions are strictly construed since there are public policies in favor of the free use of land and such restrictions must be certain and clear before they can be enforced by Injunctive proceedings (Wing v. Forest Lawn Cemetery Assn., 15 Cal. 2d 472 (101 P.2d 1099, 130 A.L.R. 120); Werner v. Graham, 181 Cal. 174 [183 P. 945]), contend that the phrase used in Condition 2 "not to exceed one story in height," is too uncertain to support injunctive relief. Admitting "[t]he conceded purpose of the height restriction in this case was to preserve an upper owners' view," appellants also submit, somewhat obscurely [197 Cal. App. 2d 654] and without argument or citation of authority, that the "restriction fails to spell out this intent." (A.O.B., p. 3.) The declaration recorded by the grantor sets up a comprehensive and uniform plan of restrictions for the Improvement of the entire tract and for the benefit of each lot and its owner. The document expressly declares that the restrictions and conditions contained therein shall "run with the land and shall be binding on all parties" (Condition 13), apply to all lots in the tract and be mutually enforceable, reflecting a specific intent to create enforceable restrictions. (Gamble v. Fierman, 82 Cai,App, 180 [255 P. 269]; Martin v. Holm, 197 Cal. 733 [242 P. 718].) That the restrictions and conditions contained in the declaration of record apply, as therein provided, to all lots in the tract and were expressly carried into the deeds, is found in the language of each deed wherein the conveyance is specifically made subject to "covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, easements, rights and rights of way of record." (Smith v. Rasqui, 176 Cal. App. 2d 514 [1 Cal.Rptr. 478j.) The general purpose of restrictions and conditions is ordinarily expressed in the instrument creating them. In the instant case the language of the declaration reflects the clear Intent and desire of the grantor, for the improvement of the entire property and for the benefit of each lot and its owner, to formulate a common plan - -to confine the land to residential purposes exclusively (Condition 1), specifically restricting the structures to single family dwellings not to exceed one story in height, three car garages and incidental out buildings (Condition 2) and fences, walls, et cetera, of a certain height (Condition 10); and the instrument so states. It also requires, in order to enforce this common plan, approval by a committee of all building and alteration plans for conformity and harmony of external design with "existing structures" and "as to location of the building with respect to topography and finished ground elevations." (Condition 3.) The language of the deeds referring to the conditions and restrictions of record and the 221 recorded declaration containing the same, makes It clear that the lots conveyed were subject to the common plan set forth therein. (Weston v. Foreman, 108 Cal. App. 2d 686 [239 P.2d 513]; Kent v. Koch, 166 Cal. App. 2d 579 [333 P.2d 411].) [1] Althoug view o]Toi 2d 655] frnl and the exi serve the 7 Cal. App. of the land Ian is to protect the tot owner's view from one elevation to another. Any suggestion that Its purpose was, Instead, to prevent the construction o multiple family dwellings or apa men s, Ts-not well taken, for other restrictions in the cleciaration oxgressly con ine tfe use o f ifi- a a-n-dTo� residential purposes exclusively' Condition and the lots specifically to "one detached single family dwelling." (Condition 2.) (See discussion In Weber v. Graner, 137 Cal. App. 2d 771 [291 P.2d 173].) 2] Contrary to appellant's claim, we see nothing vague, ambiguous or uncertain In the meaning of the restrictive phrase "one story In height," or as to what was Intended thereby. It does not appear, nor have appellants contended, that the words have a technic el, ecial or peculiar meaning; they merely argue a o cont roI the height the grantor s ou -Rave inserted a limit in feet an nc es or o er anguage rom which the intended maximum — ` height could have been Inferred exactiy. there ore, the ph rase is to be interpreted In its ordinary a�popuT sense rather than according to some strict legal or technical meaning. "'This ordinary and popular sense Is to be related to the circumstances under which the words are used, having in mind the purpose of the contract and the general situation which brought it into existence' (12 Cal.Jur.2d 353 - 354.)" (Harrison v. Frye, 148 Cal. App. 2d 626, 628 [307 P.2d 76].) The words "one story In height" in Condition 2 are simply and concisely used; construed in the light of the entire Instrument (Paddock v. Vasquez, 122 Cal. App. 2d 396 [265 P.2d 121]) and the general plan and appearance of existing structures established in the tract (Martin v. Holm, 197 Cal. 733 [242 P. 718]), and given their plain, ordinary and popular meaning (Wood v. Mandrilla, 167 Cal. 607 [140 P. 279]; Weber v. Graner, 137 Cal. App. 2d 771 [291 P.2d 1731; Harrison v. Frye, 148 Cal. App. 2d 626 [307 P.2d 76]), we can only conclude, as did the trial court, that a structure not to exceed "one story in height" neither encompasses nor contemplates defendants' proposed structure, which is to have a garage floor and ceiling and a room with a floor and ceiling above the garage. Resorting to the popular and common meaning of the phrase "first class buildings only" as used In a like restriction, the court in Harrison v. Frye, 148 Cal. App. 2d 6261307 P.2d 76), [197 Cal. App. 2d 6561 held such language to be certain in its meaning and intent. Similarly we find the popular and common usage of the phrase "one story in height" to render the restriction sufficiently clear and certain to support injunctive relief. [3] The word "story" is defined in Webster's New International Dictionary, second edition (unabridged) at page 2487, as "A set of rooms on the same floor or level; a floor, or the habitable space between two floors ... A story comprehends the distance from one floor to another." Commonly accepted as the ordinary meaning, this definition of the word "story" has been adopted by courts in and out of this jurisdiction. in Biber v. O'Brien, 138 Cal.App. 353 [32 P.2d 425], an issue arose concerning the height of a structure and what, in relation thereto, constituted a "story'; the court said at page 360: "A story has been defined as the habitable space between two floors (Hunter v. Narragansett Electric Lighting Co., 50 R.I. 196 [146 A. 624, 6251; Vallen v. Cullen, 238 Mass. 145 [130 N.E. 216]; and as a set of rooms on the same floor or level. (Lagler v. Bye, 42 Ind.App. 592 [85 N.E. 36]); ..." Similar is the definition of "story" in the California Health and Safety Code used In relation to housing: "that portion of a building Included between the finished floor and IV 212 the finished ceiling of any floor ..." (§ 18510), and its reference throughout the State Housing Act (Health & Saf. Code, div. 13, pt. 1). [4] Nor is there anything ambiguous about the term "height." It Is simply used in Condition 2 to describe the measure of the structure upward from the ground. Its common definition is found in the State Housing Act: "The height of a building is the perpendicular distance from the actual adjoining sidewalk or ground level to the lowest point of the finished ceiling of the top story of the building." (Health & Saf. Code, § 15850.) In the light of the restrictions and conditions contained in the declaration, the topography of the tract and elevation of the lots, and the existing structures thereon, the general plan of the grantor reflects its plain intent and desire to maintain a one story height for all structures In the tract for the purpose of preserving the view of the individual lot owners at varied elevations. In accord with this plan, the grantor originally constructed no building outside of the restrictions, and today the structures, including garages and out buildings in the 174 -lot tract, are all only one story high. Appellants' illustrations of "the vagueness of the restrictions" [197 Cal. App. 2d 6571 (A.O.B., p. 4) are concededly extreme, the obvious result of strained constructions of an ordinary, common phrase, and we deem them to be unreasonable and of no validity in their argument. [5] Appellants' claims that the one story height restriction does not apply to a garage, thus the structure - -a garage with a second story on top - -is not prohibited; and that In any event, the building may be considered an "out building incidental to residential use" to which the restriction does not apply, are wholly without merit. The general plan expressed in the declaration and reflected in the physical appearance of the tract and the existing structures, and the obvious purpose of the height restriction, point to the only reasonable construction of Condition 2 - -that no structure, be it a "detached single family dwelling," a "private garage for not more than three cars" or "out buildings incidental to residential use," shall be more than one story high; and it is apparent that the grantor did not contemplate within the terms "private garage" and "out buildings," or intend to include therein, a garage with a second story on top. Moreover, "garage" in its ordinary usage does not normally encompass a second story; the term is commonly used to mean a structure for the housing of a vehicle - -in the instant case "not more than three cars." "Garage" as in Webster's New International Dictionary, second edition, (unabridged), is defined as "1. A building for housing automotive vehicles." (P. 1033.) And it is so used in connection with housing in the California Health and Safety Code, and defined therein as, "any space in any building used for the storage of automobiles." (§ 18507.) Thus, a reasonable Interpretation of the term "private garage" as used in Condition 2, is a one story structure to be used exclusively for the storing and housing of not more than three vehicles. For this type of building a second story Is not necessary, contemplated or reasonable. [6) Nor, to circumvent the plain intent of the grantor, can defendant's proposed structure be construed as an "out building incidental to residential use." "Out building," within the meaning of a covenant of this nature which also specifically mentions other structures Including a "private garage," could not be reasonably construed to encompass either a single story garage or one with a second story on top of it. Moreover, defendants' proposed two story building Is clearly not what is meant by "incidental to residential use" as the phrase is used in Condition 2. It was actually intended [197 Cal. App. 2d 658] basically as a garage and that defendants proposed to add a story above it, depriving it of its "garage" classification, does not permit the transformation of the structure into an "out building Incidental to residential use" for the purpose of avoiding the application of the restriction. In any event, such a construction is of little aid to defendants, for we have already held, in accordance with the common plan of the grantor, that "out buildings LVA 213 incidental to residential use" are included in the structures subject to the one story height. It would be Incongruous to restrict the dwelling and garage to one story, yet permit an incidental "out building" to exceed the prohibited height; nor was this the plan or intent of the grantor. For the foregoing reasons the judgment is affirmed. Wood, R J., and Fourt, J., concurred. ZABRUCKY v. McAdams, Cal- Court of Appeals, 2nd Appellate Dist., 7th Div. 2008 Interpretation of the CC &Rs: The court stated: "Reading the CC &Rs as a whole, the court concludes that the main dwelling structure is governed by Paragraph 1 and not Paragraph 11. The wording of Paragraph 11 clearly addresses structures relating to fences, hedges and landscaping, and not the main dwelling." Appellants contend the court misinterpreted Paragraph 11 and should have used the plain meaning of "structure" as a broad term. "[W]e must independently interpret the provisions of the document. It Is a general rule that restrictive covenants are construed strictly against the person seeking to enforce them, and any doubt will be resolved In favor of the free use of land. But It is also true that the "'Intent of the parties and the object of the deed or restriction should govern, giving the Instrument a just and fair interpretation. "' The intention of the parties is to be determined from the document as a whole, and if possible still give effect to every part." (Citations omitted.) (White v. Dorfman (1981)116 Cal.App.3d 892,897; see also Ezer v. Fuchsloch (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 849,861 [ "'[P]articular words or clauses must be subordinated to general Intent.' "].) In the Instant case, in determining that "any structure" was limited to landscape-type structures, the superior court found support for its interpretation in the rule of construction of ejusdem generis as discussed in White v. Dorfman, supra, 116 Cal.App. 3d 892. Appellants assert that Paragraph 11 absolutely prohibits, i.e., has a zero tolerance for, anything that obstructs the view of another lot in any manner and that the court's Interpretation defeats the Intent or main goal of the CC &Rs to protect views. In appellants' opinion, If a residence is destroyed or demolished, any replacement must be built within the footprint of the original approved plan unless any extension or change does not obstruct the view of another lot in any manner whatsoever. Appellants assert this case is governed by Seligman v. Tucker (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 691. In Seligman, the court was called upon to Interpret a recorded restriction for a subdivision, which provided In pertinent part: "'No ... structure shall be ... erected ... upon any lot In such location or In such height as to unreasonably obstruct the view of any other lot. . . ."" (Id., at p. 693.) in concluding that the term "unreasonably obstruct" was not too vague or uncertain to be enforced, the court reasoned: "It is clear from the surrounding circumstances and the timing of the filing of the declaration of restrictions that the views dealt with In the'view- protection' clause were those which the residences had upon their completion, by reason of their orientation on the lots and their room and window locations and of the open spaces left on other lots." (Id., at pp. 697, 699.) VI 214 However, other paragraphs of the Instant CC & Rs prohibit certain trades, activities and uses of the lots. Thus, reading the CC &Rs as whole, it is evident that protecting views was one of their purposes not their only or their main purpose. Accordingly, the question Is how much protection was intended. In common with most coastline housing in Southern California, the prime thing the Marquez Knolls development sold Its prospective homeowners was a beautiful ocean view. In fact, like most such housing, much of the value of any property within the development depends on the quality of the view. To significantly obstruct any homeowner's view of the Pacific Ocean is to depreciate the economic worth of their property - often by several hundred thousand dollars - as well as dramatically reduce their enjoyment of the home they bought and live In. Thus, it is not surprising the rest of the Zabrucky's neighbors, the MKPOA, filed an amicus brief seeking to enforce the development's CC &Rs. These provisions, and especially the Paragraph 11 at issue in this case, form their only bulwark against rampant expansions of existing residences that would obstruct views and depreciate land values throughout the entire Marquez Knolls neighborhood. It seems highly unlikely those who framed Paragraph 11 intended to limit Its protections to "fences, hedges and landscaping" and not to the erection of other kinds of "structures" that might significantly destroy the views and value of homes in the Marquez Knolls development. When the lots were first sold and houses designed and constructed, views were protected by an architectural committee whose approval was required for the design and placement of all structures constructed on the lots. But once the lots were built out and the architectural committee disbanded, Paragraph 11 was the only remaining restriction against what otherwise could be unlimited structural additions (at least single story ones) to some original existing residences at the expense of the views enjoyed by other homeowners. At the same time, while fairly confident about the probable intent behind Paragraph 11, the language employed in this provision is not crystal clear on the question whether it prohibits the type of construction respondents propose. Many years ago, in a different context, Justice Johnson of this court pointed out the Legislature had "handed us a true conundrum" when an ambiguous statute was open to two inconsistent but reasonable interpretations. (People v. Weatherill (1989)215 Cal.App.3d 1569 , 1589.) in that instance, he found one of those interpretations "marginally more persuasive" than the other and thus dissented. (Id., at p. 1580.) In the case at bar, the drafters of Paragraph 11 appear to have handed this court a contractual "true conundrum." (The fact, as explained below, that Division 5 appears to have gone both ways when interpreting nearly identical view obstruction restrictions, which also happen to be similar to the restriction before this court, in two cases decided a decade apart tends to support this characterization.) In any event, even though the trial court's construction of Paragraph 11 is not illogical or unsupportable, we are persuaded a contrary reading is marginally more logical and supportable. Thus, it would be more "just and fair" to adopt the interpretation of Paragraph 11 understood as the proper rule by the vast majority of homeowners in Marquez Knolls. It is the interpretation calculated to protect the views and property values of these residents. And it Is the one that seems most consistent with the meaning the English language ascribes to the words used in this paragraph. After all, the word "any" is defined to mean "of whatever kind" or "without restriction." (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dict. (10th ad. 1993) p. 53, col. 1.) And "structure" means "[a]ny construction, production, or piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts purposefully joined together (a building is a structure)." (Black's Law Dict. (8th ed. 2004) p. LVU 215 1464, col. 1.) To say that the addition of several rooms to an existing residence does not fit under the term "any structure" is to say a building is not a structure and "any" means "of a special type" rather than "of whatever kind" There Is no doubt it would have been preferable for the drafters of Paragraph 11 to have located the prohibition against erection of "any structure" that obstructs the view of an adjoining homeowner in its own paragraph or subparagraph. Then presumably there would have been no room for a contrary interpretation of this expansive language. But at the same time those drafters are entitled to expect the courts construing the contractual language to give ordinary words their ordinary meaning - and certainly not an opposite meaning. The term "any structure" if given its ordinary meaning certainly covers the erection of an addition containing several rooms, as Is proposed here. However, it is not reasonable to Interpret the CC &Rs as prohibiting any obstruction of existing views as urged by appellants. We agree with the trial court's observation that it would have been Impractical for the original drafters of the CC &Rs to have intended that no house be built which obstructed any other owner's view. Thus, we conclude it would be in keeping with the Intent of the drafters of the CC &Rs to read Into Paragraph 11 a provision that the view may not be unreasonably obstructed, thus the sentence would read, "may at present or in the future unreasonably obstruct the view from any other lot." (Change underlined.) In Seligman, the court noted it would determine "what Is reasonable or unreasonable in light of the matter and the circumstances involved." (Seligman v. Tucker, supra, 6 Cal.App.3d at p. 697.) Such a provision would accord with what the architectural committee actually did when It approved of the design and location of buildings as reflected by the court's view of the development which revealed that respondents' existing home partially blocked appellants' view and various other homes In the tract also partially blocked other owners' views. III. Two story structure We need not address appellants' contention the court erred In finding respondents' addition was not a two -story structure and should have granted their motion for reconsideration or new trial because there was no substantial evidence respondents' addition was one story. DISPOSITION The judgment is reversed. Appellants to recover costs on appeal. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION Iconcur: JOHNSON, J. Vlll 210 Correspondence Item No. 4c Appeal of Lot Merger PA2011 -141 Please be advised, that in the event that Mr. Guida gains permission from the City Planning Commission and /or City Counsel to merge his properties and build as he now intends, this case will end up in court, where besides strict enforcement of the covenant as to height, we will seek to extinguish the access to the rear of his property that Ire now enjoys. I think a close reading of the easement, contained in the covenant, will show that Mr. Guida is not a direct beneficiary, so closing it off to him will be a low hurdle to clear. 1. The easement is for the benefit of the city and Mr. Guida is not a direct beneficiary. It does not impede access to his property. It was specifically for the benefit of his assignors. 2. He can't claim adverse possession because the Campbell & Silva families know he is using the driveway. He is using it with their permission. Mr. Guida also knows that he has their permission. 3. This is a unilateral accommodation which can be withdrawn by the Campbell's and Silva's at any time. 4. At best, Mr. Guida has an equitable interest which can only be enforced if he has clean hands. 5. By breaking the deed covenant as to height restriction Mr. Guida no longer has clean hands and the court should extinguish his access to the 96 foot road that runs through the property of the Campbell's and Silva's. Finally, reading appellate cases involving similar issues, the courts have been generous awarding legal fees to those resisting the violation of a covenant. To continue with your project could result in your having to pay lawyers for both sides without being able to do the renovation work you are now seeking. Enclosed please find the citation which stands for the above proposition. 217 i [Civ. No. 26530. Second Dist., Div. One. July 31, 1963.1 G. M. RUSSELL. et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. PAL OS VERDES PROPERTIES et al., Defendants and Respondents. COUNSEL Roy B. Woolsey, Aidlin, Martin & Mamakos, Arthur L. Martin and Richard B. Cutler for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Harold H. Streight, Mason, Kinley & Wallace, William Kinley and Owen F. Goodman for Defendants and Respondents. OPINION LILLIE, J. Plaintiffs Russell sued Palos Verdes Properties (hereinafter referred to as "Properties ") and Rolling Hills Community Association of Rancho Palos Verdes (referred to herein as "Association ") for declaratory relief and to quiet title to Parcel 1 (approximately 8.6 acres of unimproved land), Parcels 2 and 3 (easements for "road purposes ") and Parcel 4 (.019 acre, not here involved), seeking relief from certain restrictions contained in Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W. Defendants cross - complained to enjoin plaintiffs from constructing any building on the land without first securing the approval of Association, and from granting to others the unrestricted right to use Parcels 2 and 3, easements for road purposes, except upon the sale of Parcel 1 as a unit. Judgment in favor of defendants and cross - complainants decreed that plaintiffs are the owners of Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4, subject, as to Parcel 1 only, to easements and rights of way for road and other purposes over certain portions thereof and across and under certain other described lands, with the right of Properties to grant to others, and subject further, as to Parcels 1, 2 and 3, to all "restrictions, [218 Cal. App. 2d 7581 conditions, covenants, reservations, liens and charges set forth in Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W'; that Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W is a valid and existing agreement enforceable against plaintiffs; and that the interests, rights and easements reserved by Palos Verdes Corporation, as set forth in Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W and in the deed to the Douglases, are now held by Properties. It also enjoins plaintiffs, for the term prescribed in Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W, from constructing any building on Parcel 1 without approval of Association; and permanently enjoins them as owners of Parcel 1, except with prior consent of Association, from conveying the right to others or permitting others any right to use the road easements (Parcels 2 and 3) or any portion thereof except for use normally associated with the use of Parcel 1 as a unit for one single family residence. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment. In 1926 Palos Verdes Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Corporation ") acquired certain lands on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Rolling Hills Community Association, a nonprofit corporation, is a homeowners' protective association the membership of which consists of all persons owning land in the area subject to an Agreement and Declaration to which it is a party. This area is known as the "Community Area" which has the same boundaries as the City of Rolling Hills, over which Association has jurisdiction and control. The Association has the right, authority and duty to engage in various activities to develop and improve the Area, maintain all roads therein and a system of gates and guards at all entrances to prevent entry of the public, and provide members with police 212 protection; and to actively enforce the provisions of all Agreements and Declarations to which it is a party. On May 14, 1936, Association and Palos Verdes Corporation, while the latter was still owner of all lands therein described, executed and recorded Declaration of Establishment of Restrictions No. 150 (Ex. D) containing, among other things, a general plan of restrictions; it designated and created the initial Community Area. Thereafter, the Corporation began selling various parcels of its holdings, but before conveying the same and for the future use of the land, imposed on each the above restrictions in the form of separate Agreements and Declarations between it and Association. Thus, UP to June 18, 1945, the date of the execution of Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W, 22 additional Agreements and Declarations (Nos. 150 -A through V (Exs. [218 Cal. App. 2d 759] E through AA)) were entered into between Association and Corporation, and recorded. Particularly with reference to articles therein entitled "General Basic Restrictions" (art. 1), "Rolling Hills Community Association" (ail. 11), "Zoning" (art. III), and "Duration, Enforcement, Amendment' (art. IV), all 2.2 instruments (except 150 -A) contain the same provisions, restrictions, covenants and conditions- - identical with those in Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W. Each instrument describes a portion of the present Community Area under the jurisdiction of Association the owners of which are Association members; included in the lands were all parcels lying along the northerly side of Crest Road between Parcel 1 and property affected by Declaration of Establishment of Restrictions No. 150. The 22 separate Agreements and Declarations and Declaration of Establishment of Restrictions No. 150 were designed to establish a general plan for the development, improvement and protection of the Area under which it has become "a rigidly- restricted, high - class, country - style, residential community." (Finding No. XXIII.) Association, in executing these instruments did so as the representative, and for the benefit, of its members in the use of their properties in the Area. The Association owns none of the land nor has it ever owned any of the property under its jurisdiction. On June 18, 1945, Corporation, then owner of Parcels 1, 2 and 3, and Association executed Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W (Ex. BB), the provisions, restrictions, covenants and terms of which are substantially the same as those set forth in Agreements and Declarations Nos. 150 -B through V. After the preamble in part referring to Association's power under certain provisions of Declaration of Establishment of Restrictions No. 150 to enforce the restrictions, to the covenants and reservations imposed upon the property described therein, and to the restrictions imposed upon other land subject to similar Agreements and Declarations to which it is a party, appears the following agreement: "That it is agreed by and between Palos Verdes Corporation and Rolling Hills Community Association of Rancho Palos Verdes that the said property above described (Parcels 1, 2 and 3) shall be field, sold and conveyed subject to the restrictions, conditions, covenants, reservations, liens and charges hereinafter set forth, and that after recordation of this Declaration and Agreement in the office of the County Recorder said Association shall in respect to said property have all the [218 Cal. App. 2d 760] rights and powers herein set forth and also the right and duty to grant to the owners of said property, their grantees and assigns, memberships in the Association, all as herein provided, and said Association and its Board of Directors do hereby approve this Declaration of Restrictions and agree to be bound thereby." Corporation, having recited it was about to convey Parcel 1 in portions, thereafter declared that it has "established the General Plan for the protection, maintenance, improvement and development of said property, and has fixed and does hereby fix the general basic and local restrictions, conditions, covenants, reservations, liens and charges upon and subject to which all lots, parcels and portions of said property shall be held, leased or sold and /or conveyed by it as such owner, each and all of which is and are for the benefit of said property and of each owner of land therein and shall inure to and pass with said property and of each and every parcel of land therein and shall apply and bind the respective successors in 229 interest of the present owner thereof, ..." Article I of Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W sets forth "General Basic Restrictions," article III, 'Zoning" and Article V, "Local Restrictions'; article 11 grants Association various rights and powers, and among others, imposes upon it the obligation of enforcing the liens, charges, restrictions, conditions and covenants therein set forth for the benefit of owners of property at any time within the jurisdiction of the Association, and to commence and maintain actions to restrain and enjoin the breach of any restrictions, conditions or covenant set forth in any declaration affecting said property. (Art. II § 2[m).) AfterAgreoment and Declaration No. 150 -W was executed and recorded, Corporation, in November 1945, sold Parcel 1 as a unit, together with Parcels 2 and 3, easements for "road purposes," to R. R. and B. L. Douglas. The grant deed made the conveyance "subject to: 1. (Taxes) 2.... each and every provision, condition, restriction, reservation, lien, charge, easement and covenant set forth in that certain Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W executed by Palos Verdes Corporation, filed June 26, 1945, as Document No. 2443, all of which provisions, conditions, restrictions, reservations, liens, charges, easements and covenants are herein incorporated in this deed to the same effect as if set forth in full herein. 3. The above described premises shall constitute a single building site for one single family dwelling." Later Duke and Memory became owners of Parcels 1, 2 and [218 Cal. App. 2d 76113, and 4 (not included in Agreement and Declaration); in November 1952, they conveyed to Corporation an easement over Caballeros Road, a portion of Parcel 1. Thereafter C. M. Douglas became the owner. Plaintiff Russell, acting as her attorney in fact and under article I, section 14, Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W, filed on tier behalf with Association plot plan (Ex. B) and application for permission to subdivide Parcel 1; it was denied. (The lower court confirmed that the plan submitted "was not reasonable or appropriate with respect to the topography of the property and with respect to the division of other properties within the vicinity of said Parcels 1 and 4." (Finding No. XI.)) During the course of these proceedings, and on July 17, 1959, plaintiffs, Russell and his wife, became owners of the property. The grant deed provided that it passed to them free and clear of encumbrances "except conditions, restrictions, reservations, covenants, easements, rights and rights of way of record." Plaintiffs Russell then submitted to Association for its approval plans and specifications for a residence to be erected on Parcel 1; approval was denied. Plaintiffs nevertheless commenced construction; they were preliminarily, now permanently, enjoined. In their opening brief, acknowledging only the unilateral declaration of restrictions by Palos Verdes Corporation and erroneously designating Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W as "Declaration No. 150 -W," and ignoring the executed bilateral agreement between Corporation and Association contained therein, appellants argue that inasmuch as the Corporation did not divide Parcel 1 no mutually enforceable restrictions were created thereon (Werner v. Graham, 181 Cal. 174 [183 P. 945]), and since respondents own no land in the Area they cannot enforce the restrictions. (Kent v. Koch, 166 Cal. App. 2d 579 [333 P.2d 411).) There is no claim that mutually enforceable restrictions were ever created, nor has there been an attempt to enforce any restrictions as covenants running with the land or any rights arising out of the unilateral declaration of restrictions; and it was not on this basis that the lower court found the restrictions created by Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W to be enforceable against plaintiffs. Yet, it was not until their reply brief that appellants made any effort to rneet the real issue -- whether the restrictions arising out of Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W entered into by Association [218 220 Cal. App. 2d 7621 with Corporation, the then owner of land adjacent to land subject to the jurisdiction of Association by virtue of other like Agreements and Declarations, are enforceable in equity against plaintiffs, Corporation's remote successors in interest who acquired title with knowledge, actual and constructive, of the existence of Agreement and Declaration 150 -W and Association's interest in its enforcement. In addition to the unilateral declaration of restrictions which failed to create mutually enforceable restrictions, Agreement and Declaration No, 150- W contains a complete bilateral agreement between Association and Corporation whereby, in exchange for the benefits to be received from Association by way of maintenance, improvement and development of the Area and its active enforcement of the same restrictions against all other owners in the Area arising out of Agreements and Declarations to which it is a party, Corporation agreed to hold, sell and convey Parcels 1, 2 and 3 subject to the restrictions, conditions, covenants, reservations, liens and charges set forth in subsequent articles of the instrument, and that a continuing lien shall be imposed on said property. The rights Association seeks to enforce are derived from this bilateral agreement. Appellants would have us declare the entire instrument void because the Corporation did not divide Parcel 1, but conveyed it as a unit. While division of Parcel 1 by the Corporation was a condition precedent to the effectiveness of its unilateral declaration of restrictions to create valid mutually enforceable restrictions or covenants running with the land, it had no such effect on the validity or enforceability of the executed bilateral agreement. Immediately upon its execution, even before the original conveyance of Parcel 1, the bilateral agreement became a binding contract enforceable by either Association or Corporation (art. IV, § 10); and nowhere in the record have plaintiffs claimed otherwise. It has since remained valid and enforceable. While in the preamble the Corporation contemplated a division of Parcel 1, nothing in Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W required it to subdivide or prevented it from selling Parcel 1 as a unit subject to the restrictions contained therein. Covenants, if they are to run with the land, must conform to certain legal requirements; none were herein created. [1 ] However, if because of absence of essential requirements a covenant does not run with the land, equity will, in a proper case, enforce the obligation, even though of a personal [218 Cal. App. 2d 7631 nature, at the suit of the original covenantee against the grantees of the covenantor who acquired the land with notice of the covenant. This doctrine was first applied over a hundred years ago in Tulk v. Moxhay (1848) 41 Eng. Rep. 1143, and has been consistently followed in California. (Los Angeles Terminal Land Co. v. Muir, 136 Cal. 36 [68 P. 3081; Hunt v. Jones, 149 Cal. 297 [86 P. 6861; McBride v. Freeman, 191 Cal. 152 [215 P. 6781; Martin v. Holm, 197 Cal. 733 [242 P. 718]; Wayt v. Patee, 205 Cal. 46 [269 P. 660]; Richardson v. Callahan, 213 Cal. 683 [3 R2d 9271; Thew v. Thew, 35 Cal. App. 2d 691 [96 P.2d 8261; Marra v. Aetna Constr. Co., 15 Cal. 2d 375 [101 P.2d 490].) "The marked tendency of our decisions seems to be to disregard the question of whether the covenant does or does not run with the land and to place the conclusion upon the broad ground that the assignee took with knowledge of the covenant and it was of such a nature that when the intention of the parties coupled with the result of a failure to enforce it was considered, equity could not in conscience withhold relief." (Richardson v. Callahan, 213 Cal. 683, 686 [3 P.2d 927].) [2] Thus, personal covenants are enforceable (Thew v. Thew, 35 Cal. App. 2d 691 [96 P.2d 8261; Wayt v. Patee, 205 Cal. 46 [269 P. 6601; Barbieri v. Ongaro, 208 Cal. App. 2d 753 [25 Cal.Rptr. 471]; Guarantee Realty Co. v. Recreation Gun Club, 12 Cal.App. 383 [107 P. 6251; Marra v. Aetna Constr. Co., 15 Cal. 2d 375 [101 P.2d 490]), and aside from the requirement that their enforcement must be equitable, the successor of the covenantor against whom enforcerent is sought must have had notice, actual or constructive, of the covenant at the time of the conveyance to him. (Martin v. Holm, 197 Cal. 733 [242 P. 7181; Wayt v. Patee, 205 Cal. 46 [269 P. 6601; Barbieri v. Ongaro, 208 Cal. App. IV 221 2d 753 [25 Cal.Rptr. 4711; Thew v. Thew, 35 Cal. App. 2d 691 (96 P.2d 826].) But, relying mainly on Werner v. Graham, 181 Cal. 174 [183 P. 9451, and Kent v. Koch, 166 Cal. App. 2d 579 [333 P.2d 4111, appellants argue that in addition, the deed containing the restrictions or other instruments of record must show a common plan and that there must be, by map or other method, a designation of the extent of the land affected by the restrictions. In Werner v. Graham, 181 Cal. 174 [183 P. 9451, and other cases falling within its classification, the parties derived title from a common grantor who was not a party to the action; in Kent v. Koch, 166 Cal. App. 2d 579 [333 P.2d 411 ], plaintiff [218 Cal. App. 2d 7641 was a subdivider who had divested himself of his interest in the property to be benefited by the restrictions and thus could not enforce them. In the instant case, the Association is the original covenantee; it does not own and has never owned any of Parcel 1 or any land in the Area. It seeks equitable enforcement of a promise restricting the use of Parcel 1 made to it by the then owner, plaintiffs' predecessor, of which promise plaintiffs had both actual and constructive notice when they took title. In Thew v. Thew, 35 Cal. App. 2d 691 [96 P.2d 826], the first wife, the original covenantee, sued on a purely personal covenant contained in a property settlement agreement by which the husband took certain land and agreed to pay to her a percentage of profits from the sale of minerals extracted from the property. Relying heavily on Richardson v. Callahan, 213 Cal. 683 [3 P.2d 927], the court enforced it against the husband's second wife who acquired the title to the property with full knowledge of the covenant. Directing the result of this case, Hunt v. Jones, 149 Cal. 297, 301 [86 P. 686], Wayt v. Patee, 205 Cal. 46, 50 [269 P. 660], and Richardson v. Callahan, 213 Cal. 683, 687 [3 P.2d 9271, is the doctrine stated in Whitney v. Union Ry. Co., 77 Mass. (11 Gray) 359 [71 Am.Dec. 715]: "The precise form of the nature of the covenant or agreement is quite immaterial. It is not essential that it should run with the land. A personal covenant or agreement will be field valid and binding in equity on a purchaser taking the estate with notice. It is not binding on him merely because he stands as an assignee of the party who makes the agreement, but because he has taken the estate with notice of a valid agreement concerning it, which he cannot equitably refuse to perform." Actually, the Association, the original covenantee, became the beneficiary for its members, landowners in the area, of the promise made to it by the Corporation. (3] "To the extent to which the promise is enforceable in equity it creates in the beneficiary thereof an equitable interest in the land of the promisor to which the successors of the promisor are subject as they are to other equitable interest." (Rest., Property, ch. 45; see also § 539, topic B.) [41 Acquiring title with actual or constructive notice of the covenant, the grantees of the promisor "will take the premises bound by the covenant, and will be compelled in equity either to specifically execute it, or will be restrained from violating it, at the suit of the original covenantee or of any other person (218 Cal. App. 2d 7651 who has a sufficient interest, ... in such performance." (4 Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence (5th ed.) § 1295, p. 846.) [5aj One cannot read Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W and its reference therein to certain provisions of Declaration of Establishment of Restrictions No. 150, other properties in the Area, the restrictions thereon (contained in 22 Agreements and Declarations), and the obligation of Association to enforce them, without acknowledging that by the consistency of the restrictions contained therein there was created a common plan showing a general scheme for the development, improvement and protection of the Community Area, of which Parcel 1, which adjoined other land in the Area, became a part upon execution of Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W, for the mutual benefit of the various parcels of land in the Area adjoining Parcel 1 held subject to the same restrictions. The owners of these parcels are all members of the Association and owned the same at the time of the original conveyance to the Douglases and, like plaintiffs, were either the V 222 rernote or original grantees of the Corporation. Each bought his property and improved it in reliance upon the creation and enforcement of the same kind of restrictions on Parcel 1 as on his own; and in accordance with its promise to the Association, the Corporation conveyed Parcels 1, 2 and 3 to the Douglases "subject to" the provisions of Agreernent and Declaration No. 150 -W and the restriction that Parcel 1 shall constitute a single building site for one single family dwelling. Under Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W Association has the right and the duty to protect the investments of its members in the improvement of their properties by creating and enforcing restrictions on Parcel 1 consistent with those on the properties of its members. Thus, even though Association is not now, and has never been an owner of property in the Area, as the original covenantee it has sufficient material interest in the subject matter of its agreement with Corporation to enable it to secure equitable enforcement thereof (Payette Lake Protective Assn. v. Lake Reservoir Co. (1948) 68 Idaho 111 [189 P.2d 1009]). [6] Inasmuch as Declaration of Establishment of Restrictions No. 150 was expressly referred to in Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W, we perceive no error in its admission in evidence (Ex. D); or in the receipt of the other 22 agreements (Exs. E through AA) to show the nature of the Association's relations with its members and its purpose in entering [218 Cal. App. 2d 7661 into the covenant. (Townsend v. Allen, 114 Cal. App. 2d 291 [250 P.2d 292].) [5b] We find no reason for not enforcing the personal covenant involved herein at the suit of the original covenantee even though it is not a,subdivider, original grantor, grantee, or subsequent grantee of a subdivider or original grantor, as in the majority of cases applying the doctrine. [7] It would be inequitable to permit plaintiffs to breach the covenant against the original covenantee. Without question plaintiffs took Parcels 1, 2 and 3 with constructive notice of the provisions of Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W; the deed not only put them on notice of the recorded instrument but by express proviso incorporated therein all of its provisions, restrictions and covenants. But of greater import is the actual knowledge plaintiffs had of Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W, Declaration of Establishment of Restrictions No. 150, the 22 other instruments and the plan for the development, improvement and maintenance of the Rolling Hills Community, and Association's interest in enforcing them. Before he ever took title, plaintiff Russell attempted, under the instrument on behalf of the then owner, to obtain Association's approval to subdivide Parcel. 1. We are not impressed with appellants' argument that the enforcement of the restrictions would be inequitable, or that they are unreasonable. The restrictions imposed on each lot owner in the Area are the same; by their uniformity they were designed to and did establish a general plan for the development and improvement of the Area under which it has become a high- class, country-style, residential cornmunity. When each owner in the Area bought his land and invested in a home, he relied upon the creation and enforcement of the same restrictions on Parcel 1. On the other hand, plaintiffs Russell, familiar with the restrictions, before they took title consulted a lawyer relative to their enforceability and, upon his advice that they were invalid, bought the property and went into the Area with the admitted intention of subdividing Parcel 1 without regard for the restrictions, the other property owners, or the Area. The lower court specifically found the restrictions to be reasonable; there has been no change of circumstances or conditions of property adjoining or in the vicinity of ... Parcels 1 and 4 ... which would render (their) enforcement, ... arbitrary, discriminatory, inequitable, oppressive, burdensome [218 Cal. App. 2d 7671 or unreasonable ..." (Finding No. XVIII). Moreover, it should be noted that while Association withheld approval of the proposed subdivision of parcel 1 according to the plot plan submitted on behalf of C. M. Douglas as not reasonable or appropriate with respect to the topography of the property or the division or other properties within the vicinity of Parcels 1 and 4, Parcel 1 is susceptible of subdivision under "a reasonable plan consistent with the VI 223 development and division of adjoining properties," and the lower court so found (Finding No. XI). The situation here is not one in which plaintiffs will never be able to subdivide Parcel 1. Presented a proper and reasonable plan consistent with the Area, the Association no doubt will, as it has done with other owners, grant plaintiffs permission to subdivide. But no such plan has yet been submitted or proposed by plaintiffs; instead, they seek to have all restrictions declared invalid throwing the property open to unlimited division for any and all purposes without regard to the development and division of adjoining land. Inasmuch as we deem Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W to be a valid and enforceable agreement and its provisions to be expressly incorporated in the original deed and the deed to plaintiffs, we dismiss appellants' argument that the "subject to" clause in the deeds is ineffective because such reference thereto cannot make an invalid restriction enforceable. While it is true that reference to, and incorporation of the provisions of, Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W in the "subject to" clause cannot create valid covenants running with the land when none before existed, it does operate to bind plaintiffs with the valid restrictive covenants arising out of the bilateral agreement between Corporation and Association and existing at the time Corporation conveyed the land to the Douglases. Without substance is appellants' position that Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W neither Prohibits a division of Parcel 1 nor requires approval of Association therefor. The court below did not directly enjoin plaintiffs from dividing Parcel 1. They were permanently enjoined, except with prior consent of the Association, from "conveying the right to others or permitting to others any right to use the road easements, heretofore described as Parcels 2 and 3 or any portion thereof excepting for use normally associated with the use of said Parcel 1 as a unit for use of one, single family residence." (Judgment, par. 7.) This was [218 Cal. App. 2d 768] based, not on any prohibition in Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W, but on the theory that plaintiffs have no unilateral right against Association, by their unlimited use of Parcels 2 and 3 (road easements) in connection with the use of Parcel 1, to increase the burden of Association to maintain and repair the private road system in the Area. Parcels 2 and 3 are nonexclusive easements for "road purposes" over Portuguese Bend and Crest Roads from the Main Gate to Parcel 1; they were intended to be, and are, according to the conveyances, appurtenant to Parcel 1. In the original deed Corporation limited the use of Parcel 1 to "a single building site for one single family dwelling'; by doing so it defined and limited the burden on Parcels 2 and 3 to that which would be placed thereon by the use of Parcel 1 as a single family dwelling site. Our courts do not look with favor on increases in the burden upon the servient tenement (Whalen y. Ruiz, 40 Cal. 2d 294 (253 R2d 4571; Wall v. Rudolph, 198 Cal. App. 2d 684 [18 Cal.Rptr. 1231; § 806, Civ. Code; North Fork Water Co. v. Edwards, 121 Cal. 662 [54 P. 691; Crimmins v. Gould, 149 Cal, App. 2d 383 [308 P.2d 786]); and if plaintiffs are allowed to subdivide Parcel 1 such increase is inevitable. Association's 1950 written undertaking with Corporation (Ex. EE) to construct, maintain and repair all roads in the Area, including Parcels 2 and 3 (with funds derived from charges and assessments levied against all owners of property subject to the jurisdiction of Association [see art. lll, § 2(b)]) was made in the light of the then existing burdens on the roads and the increased burdens which will normally result from annexations to the Area. Association neither agreed upon nor contemplated the increased burden on its duty to repair and maintain the surface of roads over Parcels 2 and 3, which will necessarily arise out of their unlimited use if Parcel 1 is freed from the restrictions and divided into unlimited building sites resulting in a greater volume and a different kind of vehicular traffic. That this was the basis of the restraint imposed on plaintiffs is borne out by Finding No. XXIX, and the permanent nature of the injunction (Judgment, par. 7) not fimited, as in the other restraint, to the term of Agreement and Declaration No, 150 -W (par. 6). Im 224 However, the instrument clearly does prohibit division of Parcel 1 without the approval of Association. Article 1, section 14, provides: "No part of said property shall be subdivided ... unless and until ... approved in writing by [2.18 Cal. App, 2d 7691 ... Association .... The approval, however, of the Association shall not be necessary as to any part of said property, the record ownership of which is vested in Palos Verdes Corporation." Appellants' claim that under article IV, section 8, "Assignment of Powers," they succeeded to the original right of Corporation to divide Parcel 1 without approval of Association, is without merit. The deed contains neither a description nor an assignment of this or any other special right of Corporation; further, the right to subdivide Parcel 1 without the approval of Association was personal to the Corporation and not intended to pass to its grantee, for, under Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W, once Corporation conveyed the land, whether in parcels or as a unit, "subject to" the instrument, "record ownership" no longer vested in it (ail. I, § 14) and the right to divide Parcel 1 without approval of Association ceased. Relative to Palos Verdes Properties, it succeeded to all rights and interests of the Corporation in 1954. The interests Properties herein seeks to protect consist of certain valuable road easements and reversionary rights reserved to its predecessor in Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W and the original conveyance. The lower court found that plaintiffs held Parcels 2 and 3, easements for "road purposes," subject to the instrument, and that the burden they might place thereon is limited to a use consistent with that normally associated with one single family dwelling. Appellants claim that, as owners of Parcels 2 and 3, they are entitled to their unrestricted use. While the owner of Parcels 1, 2 and 3, Corporation, in Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W, reserved to itself various easements and rights of way over and under certain described strips and parcels of land (art. V, §2[a]1, 2) and over certain portions of Parcel 1 (art. V, §2[a]3), for purposes of roads, parkways, public utilities, et cetera (art. V, § 2[b]). In connection with, and following the reservation of these easements and rights of way appears the following restriction: "The above described premises (Parcel 1) shall constitute a single building site for one single family dwelling." (Art. V, § 2[a]4.) In 1952 an easement over Caballeros Road, a portion of Parcel 1, was conveyed to Corporation. Also reserved to the Corporation are certain reversionary rights under which the breach of any restriction, condition or covenant contained in Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W shall cause the land upon which the breach occurs to [218 Cal. App. 2d 7701 revert to it, or its successors, and the Corporation shall have the right of immediate reentry in the event of such breach. (Art. IV, § 4.) The nonexclusive road easements above described, and owned by Properties, are over the major private roads in the Community Area -- Portuguese Bend and Crest Roads. In addition to serving Parcel 1 from the Main Gate over Portuguese Bend and Crest Roads, they serve several parcels of land owned in fee by Properties consisting of substantial acreage -- "Flying Triangle" (39.5 acres) and "San Pedro Hills" (in excess of 100 acres) -- located on the southerly and easterly boundaries and adjoining, but outside of, the Community Area; these parcels may be brought into the Area under a 1950 agreement between Association and Corporation. Properties also owns two parcels in the Area it uses for business and administrative offices; they too are served by the easements. It appears that these nonexclusive road easements held by Properties are valuable; that they are the only practical means of access to "Flying Triangle" and necessary to its development and use, and constitute an essential access road of primary importance to "San Pedro Hills." (Finding No. XXX.) [8] By the original deed Corporation conveyed Parcels 1, 2 and 3 "subject to" the provisions of Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W, incorporated therein by reference, and the restriction that Luf[ 215 "The above described premises shall constitute a single building site for one single family dwelling" Parcels 2 and 3 were expressly conveyed therein as easements for "road purposes." They consist of nonexclusive road easements running from the Main Gate over Portuguese Bend and Crest Roads to Parcel 1; they are coextensive with, and pass over more than a mile of, Properties' underlying road easements hereinabove described. Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W, the provisions of which were expressly incorporated in the deeds, twice specifically set up the single dwelling building restriction. Article III, "Basic Zone Restrictions," relative to character of use, provides: "No ... structures ... shall be erected ... on any ... parcel, ... which shall be used, designed or intended to be used for any other purpose other than that of a single family dwelling ..." (§ 2); article V, "Local Restriction," and "Easements and Rights of Way," provides: "The above described premises shall constitute a single building site for one single family dwelling." (§ 2[41.) Accordingly the original (218 Cal. App. 2d 7711 deed and that conveying Parcels 1, 2 and 3 to plaintiffs were made "subject to," not only the provisions of Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W but, specifically, the restriction that the premises "shall constitute a single building site for one single family dwelling." Thus, it is apparent that Parcels 2 and 3 were intended to be, and are appurtenant to Parcel 1, and that their use is limited to that consistent with the use of Parcel 1 as a site for one single family dwelling; and the lower court so found. (Finding No. XXVIII.) Plaintiffs took title with personal knowledge of the restrictions and limitations on the use of Parcels 1, 2 and 3. On this appeal they speak of dividing Parcel 1 into four lots for construction of a single family dwelling on each, but this is misleading for herein they really seek removal of all restrictions which would throw open the 8.6 acres of Parcel 1 to subdivision into an unlimited number of sites not only for private homes but for other types of buildings, the practical result of which would be a change in the use of Parcels 2 and 3 from the very limited one appurtenant to Parcel 1 as a single building site, to an unlimited use which would inevitably and necessarily include an increased burden of travel thereon - -in the number and kind of vehicles. This increased burden would obviously be considerably in excess of that originally contemplated over Portuguese Bend and Crest Roads underlying which Properties have road easements which serve the several large parcels owned by it, and over the above rights originally granted by Corporation to the Douglases. It cannot be denied that by Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W and its original conveyance Corporation intended Parcels 2 and 3 to be appurtenant to Parcel 1, as the same is used as a single building site, in order to protect its retained interests in the underlying road easements; thus, if Parcel 1 is used for unrestricted purposes, its unlimited use will result not only in an increased burden on Portuguese Bend and Crest Roads but an increased burden of maintenance thereon. (Finding No. XXX.) Whether plaintiffs' proposed use of the road easements is unreasonable is a question of fact (Pasadena v. California- Michigan etc. Co., 17 Cal. 2d 576 [110 P.2d 983,133 A.L.R. 11861; the record herein supports the lower court's finding that it is. (91 "The extent of a servitude is determined by the terms of the grant, or the nature of the enjoyment by which it was acquired." (Civ. Code, § 806.) Referring to this section the Supreme Court in Whalen v. Ruiz, 40 Cal. 2d 294 [253 (218 Cal. App. 2d 7721 P.2d 457] said: ".., it is well settled that 'both parties have the right to insist that so long as the easement is enjoyed it shall remain substantially the same as it was at the time the right accrued, entirely regardless of the question as to the relative benefit and damage that would ensue to the parties by reason of a change in the mode and manner of its enjoyment.' (Allen v. San Jose Land & Water Co., 92 Cal. 138, 141 [28 P. 215, 15 L.R.A. 93]; see Hannah v. Pogue, 23 Cal. 2d 849, 854 [147 P.2d 572].)" (P. 302.) [101 And where easements are granted for the specific use of an undivided dominant tenement the grantee, while tie may partition the latter thereby granting to others rights in the use of the easements, may not.do so if it will result IX 220 in an increase in the burden on the easements. (Civ. Code, § 807.) "'A principle which underlies the use of all easements is that the owner of an easement cannot materially increase the burden of it upon the servient estate or impose thereon a new and additional burden.' (17AAm.Jur. § 115, p. 723.)" (Wall v. Rudolph, 198 Cal. App. 2d 684, 686 [18 CaLRptr. 1231; Bartholomew v. 3taheli, 86 Cal. App. 2d 844 [195 P.2d 8241.) In Wall v. Rudolph, supra, the court held that the grants were made for road purposes in broad terms which created a general right of way capable of use in connection with the dominant tenement for all reasonable purposes limited by the requirement that the use be reasonably necessary and consistent with the purposes for which the easement was granted which include "normal future development within the scope of the basic purpose (see C. F. Lott Land Co. v. Hogan, 177 Cal. 169, 173 [169 P. 10351; Fristoe v. Drapeau, 35 Cal. 2d 5, 9 (215 P.2d 7291; 17A Am.Jur. § 115, p. 723), but not an abnormal development, one which actually increases the burden upon the servient tenement. (Rest., Law of Property, § 484, illus. 3, p. 3021.)" (P. 692.) The court said further with respect to uses in connection with the dominant tenement (pp. 696, 697): "3 Powell on Real Property, section 405, page 386, says: 'The requirement that the easement involve only a limited use or enjoyment of the servient land is a corollary of the nonpossessory character of the interest. If a conveyance purported to transfer to A an unlimited use or enjoyment of Blackacre, it would be in effect a conveyance of ownership to A, not of an easement.' To the same effect is Restatement of the Law of Property, section 471, comment e, page 2964. Chapman v. Newmarket Mfg. Co., 74 N.H. 424 [68 A. 8681, remarks that'an unlimited [218 Cal. App. 2d 7731 conveyance of an easement is in law a grant of unlimited reasonable use.' To the same effect is 17A, American Jurisprudence, section 113, page 720." [111 In order to protect its retained rights in valuable underlying road easements, Corporation in the original deed conveyed Parcels 2 and 3 expressly for "road purposes" and therein specifically limited their use as appurtenant to Parcel 1, as it is used as a single family dwelling site. It would not only be contrary to the principle underlying the use of all easements but unfair to now permit plaintiffs, who had full knowledge of the express limitations on the use of Parcels 2 and 3 at the time they were conveyed to them, unlimited use of the easements contrary to the express purpose for which they were granted, and their consequent imposition on Properties' underlying road easements of additional unreasonable burdens. Properties has the right to enjoin such increase in the burden on its road easements. (121 Contrary to appellant's argument based upon Kent v. Koch, 166 Cal. App. 2d 579 [333 P.2d 4111, and Young v. Cramer, 38 Cal. App. 2d 64 [100 P.2d 5231, the valuable underlying road easements and reversionary rights owned by Properties constitute sufficient material interest in Parcels 1, 2 and 3 to protect it by suit to enforce the restrictions thereon and secure performance of Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W. (Rosecrans v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co., 21 Cal. 2d 602 [134 P. 2d 2451; Faus v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co., 187 Cal. App. 2d 563 [9 CaLRptr. 6971.) Agreement and Declaration No. 150 -W gives Properties the right, in various ways, to enforce its provisions. (Art. IV, § 6; art. IV, § 10; art. IV, § 4.) The remaining contentions and arguments, minor in nature, do not justify further extension of this opinion. For the foregoing reasons the judgment is affirmed Wood, P. J., and FOUrt, J., concurred. 2.27 r= n F r..t O 2804 Balcony I r J 2804 Deck U 2804 Deck. Looking toward 2811 & 2821 U 2800 Master Bedroom UR O 2611 Deck 2821 Meetereedroom R A.r� ek:48 3A O Steet L.V.l(1) 2804,2808,& 2812 "V O Street Level (2) 2804, 2806,& 2812 b 4 0 Street level (6) M,1,280, & 2812 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS STREET VIEW t1 - nri ,vmmrxn � I L..— ..- --- ------ -- --- OCEAN LANE -1 --- -- -- ---- r I _ 1 I ekk i 20111 ?BID 'O Reek \ 0nr I i AN. J- 199 QeA re mQ manwupm SITE PLAN uwm "oa d ro (t w D (D N o m 0 0 o (1 C C� < IQ LQ Q �m IWO •tom coo Iii yYN Uno hulh)b••Irl im�n.n %� •17MA�MMe n..n.m� (� })m IKI I P910cti• j.'I lAl �kl•V �ecYOOm i T � r.... i�.rp i' :Tr• >•fC_•or, I.1 `MeM livni f/t9 &Y ]ECl n:.IC hn 91me1lonl p)}RM.MESifMI: I Is I_ I � J El A -I 2 ll {-�E L I OT R 0 � � �' E-u 2ct % 11 �aq k- uioTIsoPE eTc Zq' 2.'s oa OGeA t4 $x-�j D i1 bit K. r S of 4 4 + ECG -9( fr 2800 o $L�YD. !! - « -r 7 'A 2� ' b.:t— - . ozrj I p ol 1.0 2 S o 4 OCZ#ArN 'L-`J= 2�{ � AM ft � 1 y _ � s I $cft)4 4ncjt PAN 1, lri� irl n � 1 a Gr � i � •f 2aoS I Ze l2 q o�EA tit �St_� Q 0 ao--C�r 1 UC. poft L-AWE +(", aw. Za1I oc..er-a#�,J L^ +G ` Im L'v• * vo mot' -'-Co` ea.,\/ 4 9e. SOO d ' 'ZOO OG,E P. N 2.8 2 t w oCIEE-A6N IA N E �P- (p ' r1rof. fzv, + eTr— zq 4 _�y ✓ 1. Gmeral and special tares for the fiscal year 1975°°1976, n lim not yet payable. 2. A right of way or easement for the purpose of the erection, laying and 0onstruction of a pipe lute or pipe lines to convey sewagep and pipe line or pipe lines tea c:orrvay taster togetber with apj�wtenanxs with the right of cpzng in, c-ier and under the Lvendses ¢or the purpose of repair- ing, atai,ntainiag and replacing Of said pipe lain in, Over the Lbrth° westerly 10 feet of said lard as granted to the City nf v4e%� Rwichr a rrm cipal comporation, by deed recorded July 20, .1.951 in bocA 2l%-k;0 611, Official .horde. 3. An easemont for ingress and egress, pipe lines and other public utilities over the terly 10 feet of said lam, as granted to Paul O. Cleland and Sylvia A. Cleland, his wife, as joint tenants, by dew dated April 25, 1951 in book 2181, pages 235 and 237, respectively of Official raoords. 4. An easement for the pl4cement of garbage, rubbish, etc" over the Noe asterly 3 feet of the Southeasterly 10 feet Of the Northwesterly 20 feet of said Tot 4 as granted in the deeds dated April 25, 1951 and recorded May 11, 1951 in book 2187, pages 235 and 237 respectively of Official Records. 5. An eawmmt for the placumut uc ;"r )aya p i;;dZiah, over the North- easterly 3 feet of the Southeast .(y N 'ezr4 , f L! t 31 as granted to Jmries D. Ray and Hazel Ma t5j, : ` a r i , "C:ttL! if ;_a" .it,4:r3 25, 1953 and recorded August 11, 195? . Ye Yak 2853, rwn° 6041. MN —'it?2 Rvn as. 6. A dead of trust to secure an indebtedness of $70,000.000 and any other wounts as therein provided, recorded June 17, 1976 as doommt No. 23523. Dated: June 7, 1976. Tnastort John M. Silva and Jill P. Silva, husband and wife. Trustee: nTperial Cbxp=aticn of Auerica, a corporation. 8_efic:.ioxy: n►parial sal( ngs and Lain Asacciation, ax corporation, 245 Appeal of Lot Merger (PA2011 -141) 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 Many municipalities have regulations in their zoning codes that limit the size and scope of new strictures (these include height and size restrictions, etc.). They were enacted in many communities to discourage the destruction of old neighborhoods and their replacement by oversized McMansions. The Newport Beach Planning commission approved this merger based on the following findings and subject to their conditions in their Zoning Administration Action Letter dated September 14, 2011, B. Approval of the merger, will not under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing in or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 19. Also, in regard to the easement: E. Neither the lots as merged nor adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of this merger E -1. Vehicular access to and from the subject site and adjacent properties would remain the same via an alley and ingress and egress easement at the rear of the site. ARGUMENT AGAINST APPROVAL OF THE MERGER: 1. Re: Section B: The proposed construction would have an impact on the general welfare of the neighborhood and the tax base of the City by reducing the value of the affected property interests of the superior estates that are used to allow access to the rear of the Guida property. This reduction in value would result in lowered income to the City from the three superior estates as well, in all likelihood as other surrounding property. This is a significant sacrifice being foisted on the population at large for the dubious benefit of one family. In addition, the attitude expressed by the Guidas through their counsel, regarding the unlimited funds they will put into a legal fight and further implying that he would bury the Cambells and Silvas under a mountain of legal fees, can only be described as elder abuse considering the ages of the two families most immediately affected. These families are now under no legal obligation to continue to permit the Guidas to use the rear passage, running through their property. The easement as described in their deeds runs only in favor of the City, and the assignors, and not the Guidas. 240 Appeal of Lot Merger (PA2011 -141) 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 2. Re: Section E and E -1: a. Since the city does not recognize deed covenants, it should make no reference to the so- called easement in its decision, and make that decision in light of what rights would exist without the covenant. b. In this case, without the covenant, under the current zoning rules, without the easement, the Guidas do not have a right to combine the two lots, and the application should therefore be denied. c. The personal easement granted to the Guida properties was given solely for the purpose of allowing the owners thereof to take their garbage to the point of collection. None of the wording of the easement grants the owners of the Guida lots legal, enforceable permission to use the passage as a driveway. Therefore, the Campbells and the Silvas have a legal right to bar any and all non - municipal vehicular traffic. d. In addition, since it is possible that the Guidas and the owners of the driveway are headed for a legal baffle, the determination of the Guidas application to combine the two lots should at least be stayed until the issue of the so- called easement is resolved in court. e. Sections E & E -1, assume that the Guidas would continue to have access to the passage in the rear of the their property. The owners of the passage have taken the position that it is not an easement that runs for the benefit of the Guida property but an accomodation, and that they can bar access at any time for any reason. The City glossed over this issue by omitting section E -1 from its recent staff report (page 4, section 4). f: �ll< ii` Id�i !1_�'i'Lld,•3�L�I.I7�J�P.If�[�l Dated October 20, Planning Commission Hearing Agenda Item 4 SUBJECT: Appeal of Lot Merger (PA2011 -141) 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Members of this Planning Commission, these deed restrictions must either be considered in their entirety or ignored. You can't cherry pick the parts of the covenant that support the approval of this merger and disregard others as they relate to height. For the reasons enumerated above, you must uphold our appeal and block the merger. Respectfully submitted by: )0f' c�..�..�beil 41Ze, -ea Suva 247 Appeal of Lot Merger (PA2011 -141) 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 Please be advised, that in the event Mr. Guida gains permission from the City Planning Commission and /or City Counsel to merge his properties and build as he now intends, this case will end up in court, where besides strict enforcement of the covenant as to height, we will seek to extinguish the access to the rear of his property that he now enjoys. I think a close reading of the easement, contained in the covenant, will show that Mr. Guida is not a direct beneficiary, so closing it off to him will be a low hurdle to clear. 1. The easement is for the benefit of the city and Mr. Guida is not a direct beneficiary. It does not impede access to his property. It was specifically for the benefit of his assignors. 2. He can't claim adverse possession because the Campbell & Silva families know he is using the driveway. He is using it with their permission. Mr. Guida also knows that he has their permission. 3. This is a unilateral accommodation which can be withdrawn by the Campbell's and Silva's at any time. 4. At best, Mr. Guida has an equitable interest which can only be enforced if he has clean hands. 5. By breaking the deed covenant as to the height restriction, Mr. Guida no longer has clean hands and the court should extinguish his access to the 96 foot road that runs through the property of the Campbell's and Silva's. Enclosed please find the citation which stands for the above proposition. '(Citation]" Russell v. Palos Verdes Properties [218 Cal. App. 2d 754] 242 COVENANTS "Much of the value of any property within [a coastline development with an ocean view] depends on the quality of the view. To significantly obstruct any homeowner's view of the Pacific Ocean is to depreciate the economic worth of their property -often by several hundred thousand dollars -as well as dramatically reduce their enjoyment of the home they bought and live in." - in Fox v. CORNICHE SUR MER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, 2006 The drafters of the original covenant that have always applied to Mr.Guida's lots were not being vague, they had no special affinity to 1 story housing, their intent was clearly to protect the ocean views for the benefit of each lot of this parcel. The ruling case on point, has been cited in dozens of cases which all support our assertion that these restrictive covenants , as to the lots in question, are not vague and will be enforced as to their intent. "When the issue turns on the meaning of a phrase employed in CC &R's, "the phrase is to be interpreted in its ordinary and popular sense rather than according to some strict legal or technical meaning. This ordinary and popular sense is to be related to the circumstances under which the words are used, having in mind the purpose of the contract and the general situation which brought it into existence." A court may imply a term missing from the contract "only when it is necessary to prevent injustice and it is abundantly clear that the parties intended to be bound by such term." - in King v. Kugler (1951) 197 Cal.App.2d 651 Legal Effect of Covenants When properly recorded on a deed conveying land, a covenant ( "restrictive deed covenant ") has the legal effect of a binding contract term, and may be so enforced. When covenants are instead signed privately among neighbors, as in a mutual compact or agreement, they are still binding upon the signatories and may be litigated if breached. Neighborhoods that follow their covenants and standards tend to be safer, look better, maintain better relationships with local governments, and better retain or increase the investments that homeowners have made in their properties. Because covenants are voluntary, they may be more restrictive that zoning ordinances. Advice for Home Buyers Many home buyers are so charmed by the appearance of a house for sale that they fail to take the time to read the CC &Rs that come with the property. They are so pleased with a property that they sign a purchase agreement without realizing that existing CC &Rs may prevent them from keeping their boat or truck on the property, or erecting a basketball hoop in the driveway or building a Mcmansion. No real estate contract should be signed until a purchaser has reviewed all the CC &Rs (and zoning laws) affecting the property and is able to abide by them. In a nutshell, deed restrictions can place more stringent limits on a piece of land but cannot loosen restrictions imposed by zoning [private cannot countermand government], but. CC &Rs are binding upon the purchaser, and the purchaser will become subject to them, whether or not they have been reviewed, read, or understood. However, remember that deed restrictions must be considered even if the City is not authorized to enforce them. 249 Appeal Lot Merger (PA2011 -141) As you requested, here is relevant case law relating to CC & R's, and your deed covenant in particular. The cases cited directly relate to your current situation. It is also more than relevant in that the first one was an CA appellate court case "[Citation.]" ( King v. Kugler (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 651, 655.)" that affirmed the prior courts ruling as to "intent" of height restrictions and one story residence. That case has been cited in dozens of cases (including those indicated below) which all support your assertion that these restrictive covenants (Campbell & Silva; et al; v. Guide), as to the lots in question, are not vague and need to be enforced as to their intent. [1] "Although the instrument does not expressly declare the intent of the grantor to preserve the view of lot owners, it is obvious from the language used, the topography and the [197 Cal. App. 2d 655] finished ground elevations of the tract and the general physical appearance of the land and the existing structures thereon, that the purpose of the height restriction in the plan is to protect the lot owner's view from one elevation to another. [2] Contrary to appellant's claim, we see nothing vague, ambiguous or uncertain in the meaning of the restrictive phrase "one story in height," or as to what was intended thereby. It does not appear, nor have appellants contended, that the words have a technical, special or peculiar meaning; they merely argue that to control the height the grantor "should" have inserted a limit in feet and inches or other language from which the intended maximum height could have been inferred exactly. Therefore, the phrase is to be interpreted in its ordinary and popular sense rather than according to some strict legal or technical meaning. "'This ordinary and popular sense is to be related to the circumstances under which the words are used, having in mind the purpose of the contract and the general situation which brought it into existence' (12 Cal.Jur.2d 353 - 354.)" (Harrison v. Frye, 148 Cal. App. 2d 626, 628 [307 P.2d 76].)" [3] The document expressly declares that the restrictions and conditions contained therein shall "run with the land and shall be binding on all parties "), apply to all lots in the tract and be mutually enforceable, reflecting a specific intent to create enforceable restrictions. (Gamble v. Fierman, 82 Cal.App. 180 [255 P. 269]; Martin v. Holm, 197 Cal. 733 [242 P. 718].) That the restrictions and conditions contained in the declaration of record apply, as therein provided, to all lots in the tract and were expressly carried into the deeds, is found in the language of each deed wherein the conveyance is specifically made subject to "covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, easements, rights and rights of way of record." (Smith v. Rasqui, 176 Cal. App. 2d 514 [1 Cal.Rptr. 478].) The trial court's reliance on the Webster's Dictionary definition constitutes an acceptable manner of ascertaining the ordinary and popular usage of words in the English language. "The same rules that apply to interpretation of contracts apply to the interpretation of CC &R's. '"[W]e must independently interpret the provisions of the document.... It is a general rule that restrictive covenants are construed strictly against the person seeking to enforce them, and any doubt will be resolved in favor of the free use of land. But it is also true that the "'intent of the parties and the object of the deed or restriction should govern, giving the instrument a just and fair interpretation " "" [Citation.]" (Chee v. Amanda Goldt Property Management (2006) 143 Cal.AppAth 1360, 1377.) When the issue turns on the meaning of a phrase employed in CC &R's, "the phrase is to be interpreted in its ordinary and popular sense rather than according to some strict legal or technical meaning. "This ordinary and popular sense is to be related to the circumstances under which the words are used, having in mind the purpose of the contract and the general situation which brought it into existence." "[Citation)' [Citation]' [Citation)' [Citation]" 1. King v. Kugler (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 651, 655. 2. ZABRUCKYv. McAdams, Cal., Court of Appeals, 2nd Appellate Dist., 7th Div. 2008 3. Cal.App. 4 Dist.,2009. Monarch Point Homeowners Assn v. Arditi, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2009 WL 1838286 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.) 4. Seligman v. Tucker (1970) 6 Cal. App. 3d 691186 Cal.Rptr. 187] 2150 C,ity Council n Attachment �- 2151 2152 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - RECEIVED APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNIN%lC(QWN9SI 0! 44 Application No. No. PA2011 -141; Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 Name of Appellant John Guida or person filing: 8 Old Course Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Address: Phone: Date of Planning Commission decision: October 20, 2011 , 20 The John Guida Trust and The Julie Gttida Trust Regarding application of: BEACH for (Description of application filed with Planning Commission) On October 20, 2011, the Planning Commission considered an appeal of the City Zoning Administrator's approval of John and Julie Guida's application for a lot The Planning Commission reversed the Zoning Administrator's decision and rejected the Guidas' request for a lot merger. The lot merger application concerns portions of Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 34 of Corona del Mar, commonly known as 2808 and 2812. Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar. Reasons for Appeal : The Planning Commission improperly concluded that the proposed lot merger would have a detrimental effect on the health, comfort and general welfare of or working in the neighborhood, and it improperly concluded that the merged lot would be inconsistent with the surrounding pattern of development and would create a lot whose size was incompatible with the surrounding development. n A 1 — Dale Af — �2 9 — // Signattire of Appellant � FOR OFFICE USE ONLY /n� q�r Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: II f robg� E Ov I 20 �. Hearing Date. An appeal shall be scheduled for a hearing before the City Council within sixty (60) days of the filing of the appeal unless both applicant and appellant or reviewing body consent to a later date (NBMC Sec. 20.95.060) cc: Appellant Planning (furnish one set of mailing labels for mailing) File APPEALS: Municipal Code Sec, 20.95.050(B) Appeal Fee: $4,062.00 pursuant to Resolution No. 2011 -24 adopted on 3 -8 -11. (Deposit funds with Cashier in Account #2700 -5000) X153 254 Attachment No. PG 5 Proposed Alternative Development Standards 2515 250 Proposed Guida Development Standards 2808 & 2812 Ocean Blvd. Lot Merger No. LM2011 -002 Corona del Mar March 8, 2012 Zoning Code Standards sited below are from the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code — Title 20 (Ordinance No 2010 -21) Adopted October 26, 2010. Effective November 25, 2010. Lot Size: Zone: R -1 (Single-Unit Residential 2808 Ocean Blvd: 7,194 SF Front: 20' 2812 Ocean Blvd: 6,499 SF 20' Lots as Merged: 13,693 SF Rear: City Requirements — Set Backs Proposed Development Standards Front: 20' Front: 20' Rear: 10' Rear: 10' Left Side yard: 4' Left Side yard: 4' Right Side yard: 4' Right Side yard: 4' City Requirements — Proposed Development Standards Merged Lots Buildable Area Establishment of Grade: "The grade of a lot shall 10,046 SF 10,046 SF Maximum Floor Area Limit By averaging four corners of 1.5 F.A.L 1.0 F.A.L. 15,069 SF 10,046 SF Per Newport Beach Zoning Code Subterranean Basements SF does not count toward F.A.L. 33% up to 15' City Requirement — Establishment of Grade Proposed Development Standards Base Height Zone R -1: Establishment of Grade: "The grade of a lot shall Height Based on Established Grade of: 70.2' be established by one of the following methods" By averaging four corners of 71.4' 34% up to 15'6" 72.4' 5 percent or less slope. On lots where the slope of 33% up to 15' 68.7' the 4 -sided polygon is 5 percent or less, the grade of 68.3' the surface from which structure height is measured Total 280.8 +4= 70.2' shall be a plane established using the average of the elevations at each corner of the 4 -sided polygon. City Requirement - Height Proposed for Flat Roof One-Story Home Base Height Zone R -1: Proposed Maximum Building Height: Allowed Maximum Building Height All heights measured from Established Grade of 70.20' 24' -0" for Flat Roof 34% up to 15'6" Floor of Roof Deck 33% up to 15' Measured to top of roof 33% up to 14' Measured to top of roof 257 2152 Attachment No. PC 6 Conceptual Plans and Photo Sims 2,a�9 200 Jy IA 270 Attachment No. PC 7 Correspondence Received After Publication of Staff Report 271 2�2 Lucinda Cott„ XII February 27, 2012 Dear Mayor Gardner & Members of the City Council, I must begin by stating that my family and I believe that, as our elected representatives, you try your best to balance all that comes you way while protecting the citizens. I am definitely not one to write letters to grouse about things. With that said, Mr. Guida, unrestrained and without remorse, is doing real damage to my parents and their neighbors. At first, although I opposed this merger, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I believed his actions were innocent and due to inexperience. For one year, however, my parents have been plagued by and forced to deal with delays, misrepresentations, and his aversion to a covenant he knew existed when he purchased these lots. Now, his lack of respect for all involved (including the City Council) is quite evident and appears calculated. Ms. Coralee Newman, in our last meeting on December 7, 2011, referred to Mr. Guida as: `Better the devil you know, than the devil you don't. " Should this be my parents or Corona Del Mar's only choice? In clear and open defiance of the City Council, the pleadings of his elderly neighbors, and now Code enforcement, Mr. Guida continues his pattern of noncompliance and is once again ignoring a deadline. In this instance the deadline was given by Code Enforcement (Title 20.30.040 - Height of Hedges and Bashes) to maintain his property and trim the bushes between his two lots by February 24th. In a strange and questionable request to the Code enforcement officer, Mr. Guida asked for and was granted another extension so he could hire a specialist to trim these bushes. This, despite the fact that he already has, under his employ, a gardner to maintain the properties. His request is even more suspect because of his stated intent to remove them. He has not complied with their order and is in violation of the code. By allowing the bushes to grow to almost 18 feet, Mr. Guida is trying to do with them what he has thus far failed to do with his house. As he has already openly disregarded the `60' year old covenant existing on his lots, he should not be trusted, now or in the future, to self impose any deed restrictions. This failure to abide by code enforcement, and your order to keep his properties maintained, is only his latest and most obvious attempt to harass his neighbors. These actions have now reached the level of persecution of my 85 year old parents and their elderly neighbors. They are being forced to suffer at his hand. The only possible reason for the delays and overgrown bushes is clearly the infliction of additional emotional harm on them in order to break their resolve. This is not a war or a game, people's lives and finances lie in the balance. So much for expediting matters in deference to the health of these seniors............ As I mentioned in my last letter, he has asked for and received a multitude of extensions. By acquiescing to these delays, his attempt to include the City Council as a participant in his quest to build his "DREAM HOUSE" at any cost will become successful. My parents have no more time! They are frail and their health (which until Mr. Guida appeared was fine) is declining at a rapid pace. You cannot be made a party to this elder abuse any longer. His lots are clearly incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. He has used up any goodwill or accommodation that has thus far been afforded him. His neighbors and the citizens of Corona Del Mar are overwhelmingly against this lot merger. The only champions he has are his well paid representatives. Finally, as you may already know, his representative threatened to bury my parents under a mountain of legal fees. I'm afraid the words `huty them' were not just a metaphor. Mr. Guida has been indulged by all involved far to often. These families, your constituents, your good neighbors and friends, constitute the majority of residents of Corona Del Mar who would never even think of inflicting their unreasonable desires on others. This has reached a critical stage. The Campbells and the Silvas deserve far better. Mr Guida cannot be permitted to overwhelm them. This has got to stop! With respect, / Q / "cy r— �a6el� ��3 Lut i 111 C- Ctt„FLC-II Dear Mayor Gardner and Members of the City Council, I am writing this letter to inform you of Mr. Guida's disregard for my parents, his elderly neighbors and the will of the community (who have made abundantly clear their opposition to overbuilding, mansionization and disproportionally oversized lots). Apparently, he now holds the City Council with the same disregard. His interpretation of your directive to "expedite" is suspect. He has asked for and been granted his 3rd extension since the January 24th meeting. He has missed the deadline for 2/9, 2/24 and 3/8. The next scheduled meeting on 3/22 will be a full 2 months since the Council Meeting. He has been given no time limit and the extensions are of such a nebulous nature that it appears to be a further delaying tactic by Mr. Guida in defiance of the City Council. Because of the ages of his neighbors, I fear that lie is just waiting for their resolve to wane, the exhaustion of their resources, or their demise. Mayor Gardner, members of the Council, what if this was occurring to your parents in the last stage of their lives? I am seeing the life being drained from my parents who have attempted to remain strong and have always treated Mr. Guida with respect. For the specious benefit of one man, many are being made to suffer. It is important to note that the original date his appeal was filed was October 27, 2011. By law, it was to be heard by the City Council within 60 clays (NBMC Sec. 20.95.060). He signed and agreed to these terms in his application and now as is his nature he continues to ignore any urgency or restrictions that he deems fit. This blatant disregard of my parents and their neighbors is shameful. Mr. Guida has in the past and continues now to thumb his nose at any one who opposes him. Through his lawyer, lie has threatened from the start to bury his neighbors under a mountain of legal fees. He has now added delay after delay to his arsenal. My parents should not be made to pay with their health or, God forbid, their lives. At Councilman Henn's urging, you made it quite clear that this process must be expedited in deference to the families involved. Now, I'm afraid that by ignoring your order to do so he is attempting to make you a party to his `win at any cost' attitude. Additionally, in defiance of your directive to maintain his properties Mr. Guida has failed to trim the bushes in the side setback from the current height of approximately 18 feet to a reasonable height (`Title 20.30.040'- Rear and interior side setbacks 6 feet). When we asked Mr. Guida's attorney, at the meeting, he rudely refused and suggested we report them to Code enforcement. This continuing pattern of disregard and disrespect for my family has now expanded to include the will of the City Council. You cannot condone or support this. The people of Corona Del Mar expect you to protect them, to listen to them, to fight for them. For the sake of `one' rich man you cannot not allow yourselves to be put in a position to forsake the people who elected you. As stated in the Newport Beach General Plan regarding responsive government — "El leeted officials and city staff listen and respond to the interests of residents." The fact is that he has neither the support of the Planning Commission (which denied the merger) or the community at large. There is an important history and heritage to this city. Our local government has been entrusted with the solemn duty to protect and preserve the uniqueness of this cottage community, while at the same time shepherding it's orderly growth. The people of Corona Del Mar expect nothing less. I implore you to put these delays to a stop. It is my hope that my parents will live to see that right does win over might and they as seniors, who have lived here for 70 years, will not be asked to just fade away. It is my fear, however, that all of these seniors will just be ignored. I believe that there is great wisdom in this quote from Ronald Reagan "There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right." Thank You, / D Jae ei�ela ca4,�iLl 27 �i,�vrok! Memorandum CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD, BLDG. C NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3237 To: City Council From: Kay Sims, Assistant Planner Date: January 18, 2012 Cc: Dave Kiff, Dana Smith, Aaron Harp, Steve Badum & Kim Brandt Re: 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger Appeal (PA2011 -141) The appellant, Mr. John Guida, has provided the attached information and revised residential plans for your review in advance of the January 24, 2012 City Council meeting. Please keep these documents for the January 24, 2012, meeting. Thank you. 275 Jamnary 12, 2012 Mayor Nancy Gardner & Members of the Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 33oo Newport 111%,1. Newport Beach, CA 92663 ■ rommumn JAN I;'71,11 a UEVELOI'MENT �� 0 Op 1VF.'WI'U�� RBt Lot Merger No. LMeott -oo2- Appeal of the Planning Commission to /ao /t1 Action 2808 BE 2812 Ocean Blvd. Tire John Guida Trust and The Julie Guida Trust Dear Mayor Gardner & Pellow Members of the Newport Beach City Council: On behalf of the John & Julie Guida Trust(s), we are requesting the City Council's approval of the Lot Merger for the properties located at 2808 & 2812 Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar. As you are aware, while the Zoning Administrator approved this Lot Merger on September 14, 2011, the item was appealed by the adjacent residents to the Planning Commission oil October 20, 2011. The Planning Commission denied the Zoning Administrator's approval on a set of Pindings which we believe were not appropriate and based on inaccurate assumptions. We are therefore requesting, with our appeal of the Planning Commission's action, that you approve the Lot Merger. While technically a i.ot Merger is not based on the home that may be built on the merged lots, the appeal that went forward to the Planning Commission, was essentially based on the Guida's residence being "togh, tall ". The resident's claimed the proposed home violates 1951 Joint Tenancy Grant Deed which stipulateft. a "one -story home(s)" be built on the properties in question. Their stated appeal was based however on the " eal h, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons restdine or working in the neighborhood". Given the Silva s (2821 Ocean Lane) and Campbell's (2811 Ocean Lane) concerns, and given that Mr, and Mrs. Guida have purchased these lots to build their personal residence, they have attempted to resolve, to the best of their abilities, the Silva's and Campbell's stated concerns regarding the hone being one -story. (These two residences are parties to the 1951 Joint Tenancy Grant Deed•) The Guidas believe that their proposed home meets the terms of the Grant Deed, and in fact is a one -story home. However, in an attempt to resolve the Campbell's /Silva a concerns, they have redesigned their home several times to lower the roof line. They have also removed the rear roof deck and removed the associated solid guardrail and eliminated the interior stairs and the elevator to the roof. We have attached the plans of this proposed home as evidence of the Guidas continued good faith cifort to appease their neighbors' concerns. These plans were also given the Silvas and Campbells on January 12, 2012, via their attorney, per their request. It should be noted that the proposed home meets all of the city's zoning planning and building standarl� and is in full comuliance with all the city requirements, ..n.OJQ," flim,&wj A•!a::vr I acad,. CA 12M•3 +3717- 7y:3"t,• 02.717.7212 la••ar.�t�o ;al. c,r 270 As noted above, we support and agree with the Zoning Administrator's findings that were made in approval of the Lot Merger. For the Council's reference, we've listed selected findings of the Zoning Administrator's September 14, 2011 approval: f� menta: to we neapn- samry —neacr eomtort ana general welfare of persons residing or working in the orhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the :borhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed lot merger is consistent the legislative intent of Title i9. Selected It'itels in Support of the Finding: B -1. The future development on the proposed parcel will comply with the Zoning Code development standards. B -2. The proposed merger will not cause future development to impact public views of the ocean as no public Am presently exists B -3. The project site described in the proposal consists of the legal building sites. D. Finding: The lots as merged will be consistent or will be more closely compatible with the applicable zoning regulations and will he consistent with other relations relating to the subject property including, but not limited to, the General Plan and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. Selected Facts in Support of the Finding: D -1. The previously existing single -unit dwellings located on the subject sites will be demolished and the proposed lot would be redevelopment with a new single -unit dwelling. Section 20.18.030 of the Zoning Code establishes minimum lot area and width requirements. Each of the two existing lots meet the F. Finding: l'he lots as merged will be consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and will not create an excessively large lot that is not compatible with the surrounding development. F -1. Corona del Mar consists of lots of varying shapes and sizes. The subject lots, as merged, will result in a parcel with a width of 8o feet and area of 13,678 square feet. Other nearby lots on Ocean Boulevard have lot widths as wide as 73 feet and area as large as 13,325 square feet. The merger of the two lots will 17-2. Development with the R -1 Zoning District can have a maximum floor area 1.5 times the buildable area of the lot. The proposed uarcet will not be developed hevnnd this maximum Rnnaro f,,,,taaa a„A u in conclusion, we believe it is important to note that the Planning Commission came to their conclusions by a narrow view of the term "neighborhood ". And, made their findings based on the single block where these I)m1wiiies are lovatcd - Block ;t4. (Planning Commission FindingA -i) We agree with staffs interpretation of thr term "neighborhood" as meaning the general vicinity and not a single Bluck where a property maybe located. We believe the proposed Lot Merger meets all required findings and request the City Council's approval. Sincerely, 4.07--e,O '�o,14(m � Cornice S. Newman Applicant's Representative & Principal — Government Solutions, Inc. CC: Kay Sims, Assistant Planner 3 278 Memorandum CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD, BLDG. C NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3237 To: City Council From: Kay Sims, Assistant Planner Date: January 18, 2012 Cc: Dave Kiff, Dana Smith, Aaron Harp, Steve Badum & Kim Brandt Re: 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger Appeal (PA2011 -141) The attached information was received from Mr. Clifford Jones and neighbors opposed to the approval of the subject lot merger. At their request, the information is being provided for your review prior to the January 24, 2012 City Council meeting. Please keep these documents for the January 24, 2012, meeting. Thank you. .*PWRO es COMMUNITY 000 STOP see JAN 172012 THE LOT MERGER OF 2808 & 2812 OCEAN BLVD. 11 DEVELOPMENT gy ( SUPPORT RESOLUTION NO. 18S7) OP NF"010 V A RESOLUTION Of' TILE PI.ANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BF_ACR 'DENYING' LOT MERGER OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT • 2808 & 2812OCEAN BOULEVARD • {PA ?0I 1-141) REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL (Ch.19.68) : A -1 The lot merger would allow development that is incompatible with the size and mass of structures on neighboring properties within Block 34. The removal of the interior lot line would eliminate the Interior side setback (three feet) on cinch property, create a buildable area oreater than currently exists on the two separate lots, and eliminate the open space that the interior side setbacks currently provide. H I The lot merger would create a lot :lie and c0110yoration, which is Inconsistent witil the development pattern of the subject properties and surrounding lots within Block 34. C -1 Approval of the merger will be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and Improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of thca City, and further that the proposed lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of this title. • The conservation of open space in the City; • The protection of landowners, lot purchasers and surrounding residents • The provision of orderly and controlled growth within the City; • The protection and stabilization of property values; GOVERNMENT: Elected officials and City staff listen and respond to the Interests of residents. rile undor:,iyned ask to the Newport Beach City Council to support the Planning Commission decision & deny the appeal for the lot merger: S BLOCK #34 UNANIMOUSLY OPPOSES LOT MERGER • - RED DOTS: SIGNED PETITION 7 ll'i t w G , J I a- S I 3,. a — y I n 221 • OLD CORONA DEL MAR • • NEW CORONA DEL MAR • (13,500 SQ.FT. LOTS) �r 222 " A New Corona Del Mar? " Let me begin by stating that everyone supports orderly growth through revitalization and the merging of lots to create lots that are consistent with the General Plan (which stresses maintaining the character of it's particular neighborhoods and villages). The 2 lots in this proposed merger at 6500 and 7500 sq.ft. are already huger than any of the lots in Block 34. In fact, they are larger than over u,i% of Old Corona Del Mar. In gathering signatures, the opposition to this merger was virtually unanimous. Old Corona Del Mar cannot possibly sustain the assemblage and morging of lots totaling 13,50C sq.ft. This village was never intended to be a community of lots that are that 3 to 4 times larger than the average lot size today. No City Council, Mayor, Planning Commissioner in it's history would over have thought to propose such a plan. The village atmosphere and charm of "Old Corona del Mar" has been and continues to be one of the reasons we are such a desirable and vibrant neighborhood in Newport Beach. If this merger is approved, we begin down a road that has no return. There are no do over s or mulligans when it involves the protection of the residents of Corona Del Mar and their community. In April 2010 the Corona Del Mar Residents Association under the direction of Karen Tringall, took a survey of all 6,350 residential households in Corona del Mar (Zip 92625) regarding how the members of the community felt about saving and preserving the 1.5 FAR. The results were virtually unanimous. Over 88% of survey respondents wanted to maintain the character and village atmosphere in the Flower Streets, and didn't believe that could be achieved if the floor area ratio was increased any larger than 1.5. Based on the number of respondents and the overwhelming majority opinion, it was determined that between 78%-98% of all Corona del Mar residents would have responded the same way. During that General Plan hearing, time and again residents stated their desire to: "Maintain the charm of our neighborhoods" and "Reign In the "manslonlzation" of our community ". This village started with small beach cottages and evolved Into a community of three and four bedroom homes of 3,500 sq.ft. The fear at that time was that if FAR was increased we could become a community with five and six bedroom homes of 4,000 to 6,300 sq.ft. with underground facilities roof decks and parking. ft must certainly follow that If elimination of the 1.5 FAR contradicted this philosophy for CdM, the assemblage of 13,500 sq.ft. lots 'gMterates' what has always been the general plan for Corona Del Mar. The predominant lot size In CdM is 3,600 sq. ft. With the average lot being about between 4000 — 5000 sq.tt., allowing merged lots of 13,500 sq.ft. (more than 3 fold larger) could, in the future, potentially reduce the number of households by 66 %. Creating a "New Corona Del Mar" consisting not of 6,000 households, but instead 2,000 enormous mansions. The community is more than alarmed that allowing the assemblage of 13,500 sq.ft. lots will have a devastating and irreversible impact in the future. The precedent set by allowing this merger will set this village on the road from which there is no turning back. Designers, architects and home owners will design and build directly to the maximum limit, which in this 'New Corona Del Mar" would be houses that have a floor area of 14,300 sq.ft. The original lot sizes and setbacks were designed to encourage developments of a certain type and size and to discourage overbuilding. One of a kind modifications destroy the intent of the 1.5 FAR limit in the Newport City code as it relates to Corona Del Mar. The citizens of this city fought hard to maintain a smaller village that makes us what we are and what we always have been. On the Newport Beach website, Wikipedia and in Orange County publications CdM is described as a quaint picturesque village filled with charming houses, small streets and well tended neighborhoods. You, the City Council have the opportunity to represent the opinion and the will of the citizens of Corona Del Mar, and oppose the more than tripling of the average lot size through this merger. It would render the 1.5 FAR meaningless and ineffective in the future. As stated In the Newport Beach General Plan: Responsive Government "Elected officials and city staff listen and respond to fire interests of residents." M40 20 Reasons To Deny The Lot Merger 1. Approval of the merger will, tinder the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working In the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements In file neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed lot merger is inconsistent with the legislative Intent of this title. 2. The lots as merged will not he consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and will create an excessively large lot that is not compatible with the surrounding development. The lot merger would create a lot size and configuration, which is inconsistent with the dovelopnunnt pattern of the subject properties and surrounding lots within Block 34. 3. The (ot4nerger would allow development that is incompatible with the size and mass of structures on neighboring properties within Block 34 and create a buildable area greater than currently exists on the two separate lots. 4. Conservation of open space: The removal of the interior lot line would eliminate the open space of the interior side setback (three feet) on each properly thus eliminating the open view corridor that they currently provide. 5. Proposals shall be reasonably compatible with the existing neighborhood character in terms of scale of development. Designs should minimize the appearance of over building substantfally in excess of existing structures. The height of the structures should maintain to the extent practicable, some consistency with the height of neighboring propertios. Designs should consider, to the extent practicable, neighbors' existing views. Referencing the fact that the Intended structure is a single story house (with 3 separate levels) that Includes a 3 story elevator with a 13 foot housing on the roof would be Inconsistent with the pattern of development in the area. 6. Residents testified that the lot development pattern was an Important component in the character of their neighborhood and that the proposed lot merger would negatively impact that character. As a result of the change in development pattern attributable to the proposed lot merger, the character of the neighborhood would be altered would be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of the community. 7. Approval of this proposed lot merger would set a poor precedent for future requests that if approved, would detract from the consistent form, scale and character of the neighborhood as established by the original subdivision design. 8. The proposed lot line adjustment is not consistent with the legislative intent of'fitle 19 (Subdivision Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code which is In part to implement the General Plan 9. The protection of landowners, lot purchasers and surrounding residents; 10. The provision of orderly and controlled growth within the City; 11. The protection and stabilization of property values; 12. The preservation of the public health, safety and general welfare 13. Planning Commission & City Council must consider height restrictions and deed restrictions California zoning commission re: Enabling act 14. Newport Beach tax base will be lowered from the devastating effect to adjoining properties value 15. The merger would have tile effect of continuing to divide CDM into a 2 tier city. A street lined wall to wall with huge houses on Ocean Blvd and the rest of Old Corona Dal Mar. Now relegated to looking out upon the rear of these massive structures. 16. Legislative Intent of Title 20.10.040 (essentially an anti McMansion ordinance) which limits building to 1.5 x buildable area of lots would be made Ineffective by such mergers. Lots could then be combined enabling the construction of larger "hloeky" houses and the elimination of open view corridors provided by side setbacks. 20.10.040 Special Development Regulations for Corona del 2R4 Mar, West Newport, and the Balboa Peninsula 1. In the R -1. R -2, and MFR Districts in the area designated as Old Corona del Mar, the total gross floor area (excluding those structures excepted under Section 20.10.030) shall not exceed 1.5 times the buildable area of the site. 17. Title 20.10.0,10 - Ensures adequate light, nir, privacy, and open space for each dwelling, and protect residents front the harmful effects of excessive noise, population density. Iroffic congestion, and other adverse environmental effects. 18. Tho proposed lot widths are not consistent with the intent of the original tract map. The proposed lot sizes are not compatible with the surrounding area and are substantially larger by more than fivefold than the lots of the original subdivision (30 x 89.62 ft. lots or 2.529 sq. it.) when the Corona del Mar Tract including Block 34 was established. The lots created will result in nonconfunning conditions with respect to side setbacks as well. 19. The proposed lot merger would result in a single lot that Is approximately 80 feet in width and twice the size of the predominant lots of the inunediale neighborhood, especially those lots located In Block 34. Developmenl el the proposed lot would create a single resident! based upon an 80 -font wide lot that would be over twice the width of homes on neighboring lots and would be inconsistent with the form, scale and character of the neighborhood. The lot and resulting development would significantly alter the way In which the lot is viewed from the street and no other lots of development pursuant to it would compare. 20. lastly and roost importantly the covenant pertaining to view and the potential loss of the easement as it relates to Mr. Guide will prevail In the courts. (King v. Kugler (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 651, 655) DOMINO EFFECT: The cumulative adverse Impacts associated with allowing this development Is also a concern. Many of the homes that exist in the immediate vicinity are older and likely to be redeveloped. If this site were allowed to be developed in the proposed manner, matching proposals on adjacent and nearby lots would likely follow. Such proposals would have a significant adverse cumulative impact on the surrounding neighborhood and community character. Result could be 3 giant houses spanning across each block up and down Ocean Blvd. with side setbacks cut in half. CONCLUSION: The applicant (Mr. Guide) Iles not Identified any valid error of fact or law that could have altered the Planning Commission's decision to deny the merger. In addition, none of the applicants arguments here are new. Mr. Guide has not presented any relevant now evidence which was not presented at the previous hearing on the matter on October 2011. The Commission already considered his arguments, and rejected them. The Commission found that the lot merger would allow development that is incompatible with the size and mass of structures on neighboring properties within Block 34. The removal of the interior lot line would eliminate the interior side setback (three feet) on each property, create a buildable area greater than currently exists on the two separate lots, and eliminate the open space that the interior side setbacks currently provide. The result would be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood. The lot merger would create a lot size and configuration, which is inconsistent with the development pattern of the subject properties and surrounding lots within Block 34. Mr. Guide's conclusion that his proposal Is similar to others nearby is false, thus, his promise that his project wouldn't contribute to significant adverse cumulative Impacts is also false. The basis of the request for reconsideration shall be either that there is relevant new evidence which was not presented at the hearing on the matter or that an error of fact or law has occurred which has the potential of altering the Commission's initial decision. As neither of these was borne out, consequently, there should no basis for his appeal and his request for reconsideration should therefore he denied. 2R5 Lots As Merged Incompatible With Surrounding Neighborhood ,d ow r y�. S i 220 • COMPARATIVE LOT SIZE • Table I Project Charactenstics Property Total Area Width oxunatol at v.1de�t mt _ ft- I Zornng Distract Interior Lot Standard; 5,000 sq It 50 feet 2808 Ocean Boulevard 7,217 sq. ft 40 feet_ 2812 Ocean Boulevard 6,483 c;q ft 40 feet Proposed Merged Lot 13,699 58 --q If 80 feet Comparable Properties Adjacent to Ocean Boulevard 2900 Ocean Boulevard 13, 326 sq ft _ _ 10,049 coq 11 _ 66 feet 78 feet 2908 Ocean Boulevard 3222 Ocean Boulevard 14,579 -q, f t 1 1 1 feet 3 properties were used as evidence of comparable lot sizes. But none are in Block 34. As you can see there is a sharp drop off after the first three 14,579, 13,699, 13,326 and then a drop of 3,277 sq.ft to 10,049. His merged lot would be second largest in Old Corona Del Mar. They are in in no way compatible or consistent to other properties in the surrounding neigborhood. In fact these lots are anomalies and they were merged prior to the Lot Merger Amendment (2009 -30) which came into effect in 2009 fill rll I 227 w fill rll I 227 19S 1 Re-Subdivision of Lots ( 3,4,5,6 • Block #34 ) ALLEY Before 1951 Subdivision (Before Deed Restrictions & Easement) Approx. 215 ft. depths 96 ft 179 ft. LOT I LOT I LOT I LOT 6 5 4 3 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. OCEAN BOULEVARD After 1951 Subdivision With Deed Restrictions & Easement) EASEMENTS 60 ft. ; 60 ft. 2811 ; 2821 OCEAN LANE ;10 i0 OCEAN LANE 2808 OCEAN BLVD 40 ft. ZO EASEMENTS ZO 2812 OCEAN BLVD 40 ft. 2818 OCEAN BLVD 40 ft. App ,ox. 19/ ft. deptl I ;! . 101 ft. ............. • This 1951 Subdivision Divided 4 (301) Lots Into 5 Lots. ;• As A Result 3 Deed Restrictions Relating To View Were Adopted. ;• Consequently 8 Easements Were Put In Place (Quid Pro Quo). :• Lots Are Integrally Connected • Any Change To One Affects All. ................... . ................... . ....................................... : 222 Lot Merger vs. Lot Line Adjustment • Post 2009 (Ordinance 2009 - 30) • 19.04.020 Purpose 1. The creation of subdivisions which are consistent with and serve to Imploment the policies and provisions of the General Plan; 2. The conservation of open space in the City; 3. The protection of landowners, lot purchasers and surrounding residents; 4. The provision of orderly and controlled growth within the City; 5. The provision of adequate traffic circulation, utilities and other services; 6. The protection and stabilisation of property values; and 7. The preservation of the public health, safety and general welfare. 1,"Wil7rTTTP An application for a Lot Line Adjustment may be , An application for a (.of Merger may he arxaptad accepted when it can be determined that the when it can be determined that the proposal complies proposal complies with the following specifications: with the following specifications: (Chapter 19.68) (Chapter 19.76) 1. Approval of the Lot Line Adjustment will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed lot line adjustment Is consistent with the legislative intent of this title. 1. Approval of the merger will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace., comfort and general 4► welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed lot merger is consistent with the legislative Intent of this title. 2. The number of parcels resulting from the [.at Line 2. The lots to be merged are under common fee Adjustment remains the same as before the Lot Line ownership at the time of the merger. Adjustment. 3, The Lot Line Adjustment Is consistent with applicable zoning regulations except that nothing herein shall prohibit the approval of a Lot Line Adjustment so long as none of the resultant parcels is more nonconforming as to lot width, depth and area than the parcels that existed prior to the lot line adjustment. 3. The lots as merged will be consistent or will be more closely compatible with the applicable zoning H regulations and will be consistent with other regulations relating to the subject property including, but not limited to, the General Plan and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. 4. Neither the lots as adjusted nor adjoining parcels 8 4. Neither the lots as merged nor adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of the lot will be deprived of legal access as a result of the line adjustment. merger. 5. That the final configuration of the parcels 5. The lots as merged will be consistent with the Involved will not result In the lose of direct surroundtog pattern of dovelopment and will not vehicular access train an adjacent alley for any of create an excessively largo lot that Is not the parcels that aro included io the Lot Lino compatible with the surromrding development. Adjuslment. 6. That the final configuration of a reoriented lot does not result in any reduction of the street side setbacks �r tvprrk as currently exist adjacent to a front yard of any r T adjacent key, unless such reduction is accomplished 1 9 through a zone change to establish appropriate street IL side setbacks for the reoriented lot. The Planning U Commission and City Council, in approving the zone let, change application, shall determine that the street side setbacks are appropriate and are consistent and compatible with the surrounding pattern of development and existing adjacent setbacks. Pre - 2009 • Lot Merger vs. Lot Line Adjustment (Ordinance 2001 -18) 19.04.020 Purpose 1. The creation of subdivisions which are consistent with and serve to implement the policies and provisions of the General Plan; 2. The conservation of open space in the City; 3. 'rhe protection of landowners, lot purchasers and surrounding residents; 4. The provision of orderly and conbolled growth within the City; 5. The provision of adequate traffic circulation, utilities and other services; S. The protection and stabilization of property values; and 7. The preservation of the public health, safety and general welfare. An application for a Lot Line Adjustment may be accepted when it can be determined that the proposal complies with the following specifications: (Chapter 19.76) General Findings. In approving a lot line adjustment through a modification permit, the Modifications Committee shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of this Subdivision Code, 1. The project site described in the proposal consists of legal building sites; 2. Any land taken from one parcel will be added to an adjacent parcel and no additional parcels will result from the lot line adjustment; 3. The parcels proposed to be created by the lot line adjustment comply with all applicable zoning regulations and there will be no change in the land use, density, or intensity on the property; An application for a Lot Merger may be accepted when it can be determined that the proposal complies with the following specifications: (Chapter 19.66) 1. The lots to be merged are under common ownership at the time of the merger. 2. The lots as merged will be consistent with or will be more closely compatible with the applicable zone district regulations and other regulations relating to the subject property. 3. Neither the lots as merged nor adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger �r,wrnrr�. `may 29 D N 166 ft CORONA DEL MAR 1.5 FAR (Floor Area Ratio)_ Easement 126 ft. 166 k. 166 ft. 32 ft. 40 ft. 40 ft 2808 (Ocears) 32' x 136' = 4,352 2812 (Ocean.) 32' x 126' = 4,032 8,384 sq.ft. 8,384 x 1.5 = 12,576 sq.ft. easemeni 136 ft. 136 ft. 72 ft. SC 4. 72' x 936` 9,792 soft. Easement 26`x1C` - 260 9,542 sq.ft. 9,532 x 1.5 = 14,298 l 3 166 ft 12,576 sgeft. (Total) 14,298 sq.ft. (Total) Represents a loss of nearly `2000' of open space view cor ido 13.6% Larger " if FAR is carelessly combined with traditional setbacks, assembled or merged lots have a considerable advantage over individual lots, which has a negative effect on fine grained cities and the diversity of ownership." King v. Kugler [197 Cal. App. 2d 651] As you requested, here is relevant case law relating to CC &R's, and your deed covenant In particular. The cases cited directly relate to your current situation. It is also more than relevant In that the first one was a CA appellate court case "(Citation.]" ( King v. Kugler (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 651, 655.)" that affirmed the prior Courts ruling as to "intent" of height restrictions and one story residence. This case has been cited In dozens of cases (Including those Indicated below) which all support your assertion that these restrictive covenants (Campbell & Silva; at at; v. Guido), as to the lots In question, are not vague and need to be enforced as to their Intent. In addition, a court may imply a term missing from the contract "only when it is necessary to prevent ktjustlao and It is abundantly clear that the parties intended to be bound by such term." (1 j "Although (118 instrument does not expressly declare the intent of the grantor to preserve the view of lot owners, it is obvious from the language used, the topography and the 1197 Cal. App. 2d 6551 finished ground elevations of the tract and the general physical appearance of the land and the existing structures thereon, that the purpose of the height restriction in the plan is to protect the lot owner's view from one elevation to another. (21 Contrary to appellant's claim, we see nothing vague, ambiguous or uncertain in the meaning of the restrictive phrase "one story in height," or as to what was intended thereby. It does not appear, nor have appellants contended, that the words have a technical, special or peculiar meaning; they merely argue that to control the height the grantor "should" have inserted a limit in feet and Inches or other language frorn which the intended maximum height could have been inferred exactly. Therefore, the phrase Is to be Interpreted In its ordinary and popular sense rather then according to some strict legal or technical meaning. "'This ordinary and popular sense Is to be related to the circumstances under which the words are used, having in mind the purpose of the contract and the general situation which brought It Into existence' (12 Cal.Jur.2d 353- 354.)" (Harrison v. Frye, 148 Cal. App. 2d 626, 628 [307 P.2d 761.)"[3) The document expressly declares that the restrictions and conditions contained therein shall "run with the land and shall be binding on all parties "), apply to all lots In the tract and be mutually enforceable, reflecting a specific Intent to create enforceable restrictions. (Gamble v. Fierman, 82 Cal.App. 180 [255 P. 269]; Martin v. Holm, 197 Cal. 733 1242 P. 718].) That the restrictions and conditions contained in the declaration of record apply, as therein provided, to all lots in the tract and were expressly carried into the deeds, is found in the language of each deed wherein the conveyance is specifically made subject to "covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, easements, rights and rights of way of record." (Smith v. Rasqui, 176 Cal. App. 2d 514 (1 Cal.Rptr. 4781.) The trial court's reliance on the Webster's Dictionary definition constltutes an acceptable manner of ascertaining the ordinary and popular usage of words in the English language. "The same rules that apply to interpretation of contracts apply to the interpretation of CC &R's. "'[Wje must independently Interpret the provisions of the document.... It is a general rule that restrictive covenants are construed strictly against the person seeking to enforce them, and any doubt will be resolved in favor of the free use of land. But it Is also true that the ' "Intent of the parties and the object of the deed or restriction should govern, giving the Instrument a just and fair Interpretation. " "" (Citation.]" (Chas v. Amanda Goldt Property Management (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1360, 1377.) "[Cltationl' iCitation)' [Citation)' (Citation)" I. King v. Kugler (1961) f97Cal.App.2d65f, 655. 2. ZABRUCKY v. McAdams, Cal: Court of Appeals, 2nd Appellate Dist, 7th Div. 7.008 3. Cal-App. 4 Dist., 2009, Monarch Point Homeowners Assn v. Ardill, Not Reported In Cal.Rptr.3d, 2009 W1. 1830286 (Cal. App. 4 Dist) 4. Seligman v. Tucker (1970) 6 Cal. App. 3d 691 (86 Ca1.Rptr. 1871 COVENANTS "Much of the value of any property within [a coastline development with ao ocean view] depends on the quality of the view. To significantly obstruct any homeowner's vlow of the Pacific Ocean Is to depreciate the economic worth of their property -often by several hendied thousand dollars-as well as dramatically reduce their enjoyment of the home they bought and live in." - In Fox v CORNICHE SUR HER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, 2066 The drafters of the original covenant that have always applied to Mr.Guida's lots were not being vague, they had no special affinity to 1 story housing, their intent was clearly to protect the ocean views for the benefit of each lot of this parcel. The ruling case on point (King v. Kugler), has been cited in dozens of cases which all support our assertion that these restrictive covenants , as to the Iota In question, are not vague and will be enforced as to their Inlent. In addition, a court may imply a term missing from the contract "only when it Is necessary to prevent injustice and it is abundantly clear that the parties Intended to be bound by such term. "When the issue turns on the meaning of a phrase employed In CC &R's, "the phrase Is to be Interpreted In Its ordinary and popular sense rather than according to some strict legal or technical meaning. This ordinary and popular sense is to be related to the circumstances under which the words are used, having in mind the purpose of the contract and the general situation which brought it Into existence." A court may Imply a term missing from the contract "only when it is necessary to prevent injustice and it is abundantly clear that the parties Intended to be bound by such terra." - in King v. Kugler (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 651 Legal Effect of Covenants When properly recorded on a deed conveying land, a covenant ( "restrictive deed covenant") has the legal effect of a binding contract term, and may be so enforced. When covenants are Instead signed privately among nelghbors, as in a mutual compact or agreement, they are still binding upon the signatories and may be litigated If breached. Neighborhoods that follow their covenants and standards tend to be safer, look better, maintain better relationships with local governments, and better retain or Increase the investments that homeowners have made in their properties. Because covenants are voluntary, they may be more restrictive that zoning ordinances. Advice for Home Buyers Many home buyers are so charmed by the appearance of a house for sale that they fail to take the time to read the CC &Rs that come with the property. They are so pleased with a property that they sign a purchase agreement without realizing that existing CC &Rs may prevent them from keeping their boat or truck on the property, or erecting a basketball hoop in the driveway or building a Mcmanslon. No real estate contract should be signed until a purchaser has reviewed all the CC &Rs (and zoning laws) affecting the property and is able to abide by them, In a nutshell, deed restrictions can place more stringent limits on a piece of land but cannot loosen restrictions Imposed by zoning [private cannot countermand government], but . CC &Rs are binding upon the purchaser, and the purchaser will become subject to them, whether or not they have been reviewed, read, or understood. I towevO, remember that deed restrictions must be considered even it the City is not authorized to enforce them. �93 EASEMENT EXTINGUISHMENT Appeal of Lot Merger (PA2011 -141) 9808 and 2812 OcRan Boulevard Lot Merger No. LM2u11 -002 Please be advised, that in the event Mr. Guide ,gains permission from the Planning Commission and /or City Counsel to merge his properties and build as he now intends, this caso will end up in court, where basides strict enforcement of the covenant as to height, we will seek to extinguish the access to the rear of his property that he now enjoys. I think a close reading of the easement, contained in the covenant, will show that Mi. Guide is not a direct beneficiary, so closing it off to him will be a low hurdle to clear. 2. The courts, as demonstrated by the citations submitted herewith, have consistently, upheld covenants in deeds, particularly where, as here, they have a stated goal. In this case, the building restriction of one story, is plainly and unambiguously stated. Next, the easement is also plainly and clearly stated, and is clearly limited in Its scope and intent, to wit, to allow the municipality Ingress & egress, to install and service utility lines, and to allow the residents of the Guide properties to place their garbage at the site designated by the City for pick ulr. The Campbells and the Silvas will enforce the limits of the easement should the Guides seek to violate the height restrictions of the covenant. 1. The easement is for the benefit of the city and Mr. Guide is riot a direct beneficiary. It does not Impede access to his property. It was specifically for the benefit of his assignors. 2. lie can't claim adverse possession because the Campbell & Silva families know he is using the driveway. lie is using it with their permission. Mr. Guide also knows that he has their permission. 3. This is a unilateral accommodation which can be withdrawn by the Campbell's and Silva's at any time. 4. At best, Mr. Guide has an equitable interest which can only he enforced It he has clean hands. 5. By breaking the deed covenant as to the height restriction, Mr. Guide no longer has clean hands and the court should extinguish his access to the 96 foot road that runs through the property of the Campbell's and Silva's. Enclosed please find the citation which stands for the above proposition. "tclistion /" Russell v. Palos Verdes Properties [218 Cal. App. 2d 754] X94 • PUBLIC & PRIVATE • LOSS OF VIEWS VIEW FROM BAYVIEW DRIVE 2J5 Defending Private Property Rights: Private property rights are increasingly being undermined and are the target of increasing assaults even ihough our government has a constitutional duty to preserve and protect them. • When people's actions only affect themselves, we usually could care less what they do. But when individuals' actions begin to harm others, then we do care and we want to stop it. • When the government does restrict the behavior of individuals, this Is not necessarily a bad thing. These forms of "mutual coercion" are usually In the public interest and work to our common benefit. • 1 know in my heart that man is ,good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life. "Protecting the rights of even the least Individual among us Is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing." - Ronald Reagan "There are no easy answers' but there are nimplo anNvlors. bye must have the courage to do what we know to morally right. - Ronald Reagan 290 MELINDA LUTHIN LAW WRITTEN COMMENTS OF ROBIN CAMPBELL, JOAN CAMPBELL, JOHN SILVA, ALBERTA SILVA, PF,TER CAMPBELL AND LUCINDA CAMPBELL, AND RICHARD ARDIS In ouposition of the Appeal of John and .fulie Guida Regarding the Denial of the Application to Merge Two Lots located at 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar, California 2737 East Coast Highway, Suite f • Corona del Mar, California 92625 • 949.873.1161 • 949.B ?) (f) INTRODUCTION On September 14, 2011, the Zoning Administrator approved an application of John and Julie Guida ( "Guidas ") to merge two contiguous lots, addresses 2808 and 2810 Ocean Blvd., in Corona del Mar ( "Lot Merger "). (See Zoning Administration Action Letter dated September 14, 201 I [ "Action Letter "].) The decision was appealed to the Planning Commission by Joan Campbell, John Silva and Clifford Jones. The Planning Commission disagreed with the findings of the Zoning Administrator and denied the lot merger. (See Planning Commission Resolution No. 1857 [ "Res. 1857 "].) The Guidas have appealed the Planning Commission's denial to tine City Council. "All residential development in the City requires review to determine compliance with the City's development regulations and guidelines." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Element, Development Review Process, p. 5 -93.) Before a lot merger is approved, the local agency must make certain findings of fact that support the decision, including compliance with local regulations and ordinances, adherence to the General Plan and any relevant Specific Plans. The Lot Merger must also comply with or be exempt from the California Environmental Quali ty Act ( "CEQA ") (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.), and must comply with the California Coastal Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 30000 ct seq.) and the Planning and Zoning Law (Gov. Code, § 65000 et seq.). The Zoning Administrator found that the lot merger was exempt from CEQA. (Action Letter, Finding A -1, p. 1.) The Planting Commission made no findings regarding CEQA. (Res. 1857, § 2.) The Zoning Administrator found that the lot merger met all five requirements of Qte. Lot Merger Ordinance. (Action Letter, Findings, pp. 1 -4.) The Planning Commission found that the merger would not meet two of the requirements, and [Wade no comment regarding three requirements, Neither the Planning Commission nor the Zoning Administrator discussed the California Coastal Act. As discussed below, the lot merger (1) is inconsistent with the General Plan; (2) does not meet the requirements of the Lot Merger Ordinance; (3) violates the Coastal Act; (4) violates the Planning and Zoning Law; and (5) has not been evaluated for compliance with CEQA. Therefore, the City Council must deny the lot merger, Importantly, the merger would conflict with the purpose of the creation of the existing subdivision and cause havoc on a block of lots that are delicately and totally intertwined, such that any modification to the lot lines would result in undoing several easements as well as open the door to multiple lawsuits among neighbors. Lastly, the Guidas appear not to be the legal owners of all of the property in issue. According to the description of the operative grant deed, the Guidas do not own the first 20 feet of property facing the street. (See Grant Deed No. 2010- 00708142, excepting southwesterly 20 feet of Lot 5.) Although the Guidas attempted to correct the deed, the subsequently recorded deed is invalid, as it was not signed and executed by the legal owner of the property. This information is provided to the City by Melinda Luthin, Esq. of Melinda Luthin Laws, on behalf of Robin Campbell, Joan Campbell, Clifford Jones, Jolm Silva, Alberta Silva, Peter Campbell and Lucinda Campbell, Jeffrey DuFine and Richard Ardis. 29 2 Contents 1. THE LOT MERGER DOES NOT MEET'FHE REQUIREMEN'T'S OF'T'HE LOT MERGER ORDINANCE............ 1 A. The Lot Merger Does Not Meet The Findings Contained in 19.68.030(H)(1) Protecting Persons, Property In The Neighborhood And The Welfare Of The City ................................... ............................... 1 (1) The proposed merger will be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood ............................... ............................... i (2) The merger will be detrimental and injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood........................................................................................................ ............................... 2 (3) The merger will be detrimental or injurious to the general welfare of the City ...................... 2 (4) The merger Is inconsistent with the legislative intent of Title 19 ............. ............................... 2 B. The Lot Merger Does Not Meet The Findings Contained In 19.68.030(H)(3) Because The Lot As Merged WIII Not Will Be More Closely Compatible With The Applicable Zoning Regulations And WIII Be Inconsistent With Other Regulations Relating To The Subject Property .................. ............................... 2 C. The Lot Merger Does Not Meet The Findings Contained In 19.68.030(H)(4) Because The Lot As Merged May Extinguish The Access Easement To The Alley ..................................... ............................... 3 D. The Lot Merger Does Not Meet The Findings Contained In 19.68.030(H)(5) Because The Lot As Merged Will Not Be Consistent With The Surrounding Pattern Of Development And WIII Create An ExcessivelyLarge Lot ................................................................................................. ............................... 3 2. THE LOT MERGER IS INCONSISTENT WITH LOCAL LAW AND REGULATIONS ........ ............................... 4 A. The Proposed Lot Merger Is Inconsistent With And In Violation Of The General Plan .................... 4 B. The Proposed Lot Merger Is Inconsistent with the Vision Statement of the General Plan ............. 6 C. The Proposed Lot Merger Violates the Elements of the General Plan .............. ............................... 7 (1) The Proposed Lot Merger Violates The Land Use Element ....................... ............................... 7 (2) The Proposed Lot Merger Violates The Housing Element ......................... ............................... 9 (3) The Proposed Lot Merger Violates The Natural Resources Element ...... ............................... 10 D. The Proposed Lot Merger Is Inconsistent With The Implementation Plan ..... ............................... 11 3. THE LOT MERGER HAS NOT MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COASTAL LAND ACT AND is CONTRARY TO THE COASTAL LAND USE PLAN ............................................................ ............................... 13 A. The Lot Merger Has Not Met The Requirements Of The Coastal Land Act ..... ............................... 14 B. The Lot Merger is Contrary To The Coastal Land Use Plan ............................. ............................... 14 4. THE LOT MERGER HAS NOT MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CEQA ....................... ............................... 15 5. THE LOT MERGER SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED .................................................. ............................... 16 1 ��9 1. THE LOT MERGER DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LOT MERGER ORDINANCE. Title 19 of the Newport Beach Code Chapter 19.68 (Lot Merger Ordinance) governs the approval of lot mergers in the City. The Lot Merger Ordinance was created in 2009. Prior to this, lot mergers were virtually unregulated. The subject application for merger is the first of its type in Corona del Mar since the Lot Merger Ordinance was enacted. The Lot Merger Ordinance mandates that five findings (each containing multiple subfactors) be made in order for the City to approve a lot merger. A. The Lot Merger Does Not Meet The Findings Contained In 19.68,030(H) {1) Protecting Persons, Property In The Neighborhood And The Welfare Of The Q! Finding H(1) of the Merger Ordinance mandates findings that "[a]pproval of the merger will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of this title." (1) The proposed merger will be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of nersons residing or working in the neiphborhood. The Planning Commission properly found that the proposed merger would be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. As stated in Resolution No. 1857, the merger would allow the property owners to build across eight linear feet of open space that is currently designated as side setbacks and therefore, not buildable. (Res. No. 1857, Finding A -1, p. 2.) This loss of open space is detrimental to the health safety and general welfare of those residing and working in the neighborhood. H 100 in addition, the loss of open space will hinder the view along the ocean facing portion of Ocean Blvd, as well as along the view corridor of Ocean Blvd., Goldenrod Ave. and the Alley between Goldenrod Ave. and Heliotrope Ave. (2) The merger will be detrimental and injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood: As identified in several City documents, the people of Corona del !afar have made clear that they do not want nuansionization of the village, The city of Newport Beach recognizes that the newer subdivisions have larger lots, but that the average lot in Corona del Mar is less than 4,000 square feet. The creation of a lot of over seven times the average lot size will negatively affect the property and improvements of the neighborhood. (3) The merger will be dehimental or injurious to the general welfare of the City consistency. is one of the General Plan's .... (4) The merger is inconsistent with the legislative intent of Title 19 The merger provisions of Title 19 are intended to help streamline the elimination of non- conforming lots, i.e. lots that are too small. The two lots in issue here are already among the largest lots in Corona del Mar. Neither is non - conforming. The purpose of Title 19 will not be served by tnerging these lots. B. Tile Lot Merger Does Not Meet The Findings Contained in 19.68.030(H)(.3 Because The Lot As NIc ed Will NoC Will Be Vlore Closely Compatible With The Applicable Zoning Regulations And Will Be inconsistent With Other Regulations Relating To The Subiect Property. Purpose of merger ordinance is to streamline the elimination of nonconforming lots. Merging two conforming lots will not "be more closely compatible with the zoning regulations." In fact, the tots as merged would be less compatible with the zoning regulations, as the zoning regulations anticipate a certain amount of growth and open space, both of which will be impossible with this proposed lot merger. 2 01 Furthermore, the lots as merged will be inconsistent with the General Plan as well as other regulations relating to the subject property. This is discussed in detail below. C. The Lot Merger Does Not Meet The Findings Contained In 19.68.030(H)(4) Because The Lot As Merged May Extinguish The Access Easement To The Alley. Section 19.68.030(H)(4) mandates that the merger must not result in a deprivation of access. Here, the only access to the lots is through the alley, via an casement. If the lots are merged, and the Guidas attempt to build a house across the property lines in violation of a duly recorded and enforceable covenant, the remaining subdivision lot owners will deem the Guida's violation to extinguish their access easement. As a result, the lots, as merged will not have access to the street. D. The Lot Merger Does Not Meet The Findings Contained In 19.68.030(H)(5) Because The Lot As Merged Will Not Be Consistent With The Surrounding Pattern Of Development And Will Create An Excessively Large Lot. The Planning Commission properly found that the lots as merged would create a lot size and configuration inconsistent with the development pattern within Block 34. (Res. No. 1857, Finding B -1, p. 2.) Currently the lots are approximately 7,200 and 6,400 square feet. As merged, the lot would be nearly 14,000 square feet. The lots are currently 40 feet in width, facing the street. As merged, the fi ontage along Ocean Blvd. would be 80 feet. Block 34 consists of 20 lots, with average lot size of approximately 5,600 square feet and average street - facing width of 45 feet. The lot size of the proposed merger is 2.5 times the average lot size, with a street facing width of nearly twice the average in Block 34. The merged lots would not only be inconsistent with Block 34, the surrounding properties, it is grossly inconsistent with the development pattern of Corona del Mar, as a whole. As stated above, the standard lot size is 3,500 and average size is estimated to be just over 4,000 square feet. The Standard lot has 30 feet facing the street. It is impossible to 91 X02 conclude that a lot of nearly four times the standard size, with nearly three times the standard width is not "excessively large" and inconsistent with the surrounding pattern of development. The Zoning administrator claims that "nearby lots have widths as wide as 73 feet and area as large as 13,325 square feet," and as such, the proposed lot merger is consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and does not create an excessively large lot. (Zoning letter finding F -l.) This is a grgsg misstatement of the facts. First, the lots that the zoning administrator discusses are two of only three lots that are excessive in size. Three lots among thousands is hardly an adequate sample of the "surrounding development." Second, the Zoning Administrator did not use `comparable" lots "within the surrounding area of development," as required by the Merger Ordinance. Instead, for his analysis, the Zoning Administrator used three anomalous lots that are the three largest lots in the whole of Corona de] Mar. Third, the Zoning administrator conveniently combined the measurements of the lots as if they were onc. lie also misconstrues the facts by claiming that `other nearby lots have widths as wide as 73 feet." (Zoning letter finding F -1, p.3,) One `comparable" lot is 13,325 square feet has a frontage width of 66 feet. The "comparable" lot with a frontage of 73 feet has a lot size of 10,049 square feet. There is only one lot in all of Corona del Mar with larger street frontage and larger square footage. All of the large lots are anomalies that occurred long before the Merger Ordinance was enacted. The proposed lots, as merged, would be the second largest lot, with the second largest street frontage in all of Corona del Mar. As stated above, these sizes are nearly four times the average size. 2. THE LOT MERGER IS INCONSISTENT WITH LOCAL LAW AND REGULATIONS A. The Proposed Lot Merger Is Inconsistent With And In Violation Of The General Plan. "Under California law, every city and county must adopt a comprehensive long -term General Plan to provide guidance to decision makers regarding the conservation of resources and 4 303 the future physical form and character of development for the city." (N.B. General plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, Organization of the General Plan by Element, p. 1 -11.) The law mandates that local agencies develop a General Plan for development. The General Plan must contain coil ain Elements, and must comply with state law. Newport Beach developed their mandated General Plan "to ensure that the City achieves the vision by, among many other things, doing the following: ...Creating guidelines that preserve the charm and beauty of our residential neighborhoods ...Preserving public views of the ocean, harbor, and bay" (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, pp. 1 -2, 1 -3.) "Newport Beach is renowned for its beautiful coastal lands and harbor... and quality residential neighborhoods." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, p. 1 -3.) "The General Plan "focuses on conserving the existing pattern of land uses and establishes policies for their protection and long term maintenance" and "provides guidance to preserve the qualities that define the natural and built environment. (Ibid.) "Specific goals and policies address the enhancement of open space, marine and harbor uses, historic and cultural resources, and recreational facilities." (Ibid.) "The Plan is a legal document and much of its content is dictated by statutory requirements relating to background data, analysis, maps, and exhibits." (N.B. General Plan, How to Use the General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, p. 1 -9.) The General Plan is more than a guideline. Adherence to its provisions is mandatory and "Puturc development decisions must be consistent with the Plan." (N.B. General Plan, How to Use the General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, P. 1 -9.) Allowing a lot merger that destroys thousands of feet of open space, eliminates public views, and degrades the charm of Corona del Mar, ignores the thousands of hours of research and technical studies that went into the General Plan development, and flies in the face of the purpose of the General Plan. The Proposed Lot Merger will not meet the goal of "enhance[ing] the character of the community, preserving] and enhance[ing] critical environmental and historical resources, and minimize hazards." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. I, Introduction, p. 1 -4.) 5 SO4 The creation of a mega tot that is four times the average Corona del Mar lot size violates the General Plan, which is "intended to provide protection and preservation for existing neighborhoods." (N.B. General Plan, How to Use the General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, p. 1 -4.) We request that the City Council utilize this important tool to help them "make land use and public investment decisions" and deny the application to merge the lots. (N.B. General Plan, 1-low to Use the General Plan, Ch. 1, introduction, p. 1 -9.) B. The Proposed Lot Mereer Is Inconsistent with the Vision Statement of the General Plan. The Vision statement describes the great efforts the City and its citizens have made to successfully preserve and enhance "our character as a beautiful, unique residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods. [Newport Beach residents] value our colorful past, the high quality of life, and our community bonds. The successful balancing of the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors has been accomplished with the recognition that Newport Beach is primarily a residential community." (N.B. General Plan, Ch, 2, Vision Statement, Community Character, p. 2 -2.) The Vision Statement describes the City's conservative growth strategy that emphasizes residents' quality of life ... cherishes and nurtures our estuaries, harbor, beaches, open spaces, and natural resources." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 2, Vision Statement, Community Character, p. 2- 3.) Design principles are scrutinized to ensure they "emphasize characteristics that satisfy the community's desire for the maintenance of its particular neighborhoods and villages. Public view areas are protected. Trees and landscaping are protected." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 2, Vision Statement, Community Character, p. 2 -23.) The city has vowed to "maintain access to and visibility of our beaches, parks, preserves, harbor, and estuaries." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 2, Vision Statement, A Healthy Natural Environment, p. 2 -4.) Elected officials have vowed to listen and respond to the interests of residents and the business community." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 2, Vision Statement, Responsive Government, p. 2 -5.). Allowing the applicants to merge two of the largest lots in Corona del 2 Mar will not be in harmony with the principles described and the promises made in the Vision Statement. C. The Proposed [..ot (1fer er Vinlafes the F,Icments of the General Plan. "By law, a General Plan must contain the following seven elements and must be internally consistent element to element." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, Organization of the General Plan by Element, p. I -11.) In addition to the mandatory elements, "the Newport Beach General Plan also includes ... Harbor and Bay Elements. Though optional by statute, once adopted they hold equal weight under the law as the mandated elements." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, Organization of the General Plan by Element, p. i -11.) (1) The Proposed Lot Merger Violates The Land Use Element. "The Land Use Element presents goals and policies pertaining to how existing development is going to be maintained and enhanced and new development occur." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, Organization of the General Plan by Element, p. 1 -12.) The Land Use Element is intended to allow land use that maintains and enhances the "beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods, business districts, and harbor that together identify Newport Beach." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 3, Land Use Element, Goals and Policies, p. 3 -5.) Many of the City's older communities are located near the coast, and are characterized by small lots and the close grouping of structures. (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 3, Land Use Element, Residential Neighborhoods, p. 3 -63.) This setting is recognized as one residents wish to preserve. Any proposed modification to land use must "Protect the natural setting that contributes to the character and identify of Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and visitors. Preserve open space resources, beaches, harbors ..." (/brd.) The Land Use Element Contains specific restrictions to "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." (N.B. General Plan, Ch, 3, Land Use Element, Goals and Policies, p. 3- VA �O� 6.) Importantly, the Land Use I'lement mandates that the pattern of residential neighborhoods and harbor and ocean districts must be protected. (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 3, Land Use Element, Goals and Policies, p. 3 -9.) Changes in use and/or density /intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperfomring, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents," (Ibid.) "When reviewing proposals for land use changes, (the City must) give full consideration to the impact on coastal - depended and coastal related land uses, including not only the proposed change on the subject property, but also the potential to limit existing coastal- dependent and coastal - related land uses on adjacent properties." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 3, Land Use Element, Goals and Policies, p. 310.1 here, the lot merger will displace two houses for one along Ocean Blvd., which is a change in the density in an area that is not considered underperforming. Corona del Mar citizens realize the mansionization will not enhance the value of the neighborhood. It will also impermissibly reduce the amount of affordable housing near the beach, and curtail the goal of diversity within neighborhoods. (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 3, Land Use Element, Residential Neighborhoods, p. 3 -65.) Tile Land Use Element mandates that "the open space and recreational facilities that are integrated into and owned by private residential development are permanently preserved as part of the development approval process and are prohibited from converting to residential or other types of land uses." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 3, Land Use Element, Residential Neighborhoods, p. 3.65.) A lot merger which proposes to obliterate thousands of square feet of open space setbacks flies in the face of this mandate. The Proposed Lot Merger wishes to take two houses, one 1,400 square feet, the other 1,300 square feet and create one house of nearly five times the combined size of the existing houses that virtually covers both of the lot. A lot merger that creates a mega -lot for the purpose P S� of overbuilding a mansion violates the provision that replacement of existing houses must be "at comparable building heights and scale." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 3, Land Use Element, Corona Del Mar, p. 3 -129.) This certainly will not "compliment the scale and form of existing housing. (2) The Proposed Lot Merger Violates The Housing Element. "The Housing Element is mandated by Sections 65580 to 65589 of the Government Code. State Housing Element law requires that each city and county identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs within their jurisdiction and prepare goals, policies, programs, and quantified objectives to further the development, improvement, and preservation of housing." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Element, Executive Summary, p. 5 -2.) : "There exists strong public sentiment in favor of preserving the suburban environment in the City." (N.B. General Plan, Ch, 5, Housing Element, Nongovernmental Constraints, p. 5 -81.) "The City of Newport Beach's Housing Element details the City's strategy for enhancing and preserving the community's character, identifies strategies for expanding housing opportunities and services for all household types and income groups, and provides the primary policy guidance for local decision - making related to housing. The Housing Element provides in- depth analysis of the City's population, economic, and housing stock characteristics as well as a comprehensive evaluation of programs and regulations related to housing. Through this evaluation and analysis, the City has identified priority goals, polices, and programs that directly address the housing needs of current and fture City residents." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, housing Element, Executive Summary, p. 5 -2.) Like the Land Use Element, the Housing Element recognizes that Newport Beach is A balanced residential community, comprised of variety of housing types, designs, and opportunities for all social and economic segments." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Element, Newport Beach ]lousing Element: Goals, Conservation and Improvement ]-lousing, p. 5.119.) It seeks to "[e]ncourage preservation of existing and provision of new housing affordable to ... moderate- income households." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Elements, Variety of Housing Opportunities, p. 5 -120.) 9 FOR "The Housing Element addresses issues, goals, and policies related to ensuring an adequate supply of housing opportunities for all residents." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, Organization of the General Plan by Element, p. 1 -13.) As in other sections of the General Plan, the Housing Element states that the purpose of the Element is to `Conserve and improve the condition of housing and neighborhoods, including existing affordable housing; Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability; and Preserve for lower income households the publicly assisted multi - family housing developments within each community." (N.B. General Plan, Ch, 5, Housing Element, Executive Summary, p. 5 -3.) The Housing Element is designed to "Maintain rental opportunities by restriction conversion of rental units to condominiums unless the vacancy rate in Newport Beach for rental housing is an average 5% or higher for four (4) consecutive quarters...." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Elements, Variety of Housing Opportunities, p. 5 -120.) Analogous to this is the need to preserve rental houses by preventing the destruction of cottages in order to build mega - mansions. (See N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Elements, Provisions and Preservations of Affordable Housing, p. 5 -130 [discussing the need to maintain and preserve the City's rental housing stock].) According to the Housing Element, overcrowding of housing units is a problem that the City is committed to addressing. In addition, "The City's goal is that an average of 15 percent of all new residential development will be affordable to very low -, low -, and moderate - income households. The City Council has also established an Affordable Housing Task Force that works with developers and landowners to facilitate the development of affordable units and determines the most appropriate use on in -lieu fee funds." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Element, Executive Summary, p. 5 -3.) Neither the reduction of overcrowding nor the creation of affordable housing will be furthered by removing two rental houses and replacing it with one mega mansion that is to be occupied by two people. (3) The Proposed Lot Merger Violates The Natural Resources Element. Newport Beach recognizes that "Visual resources are an important component of the 10 09 quality of life." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 10, Natural Resources Element, Visual Resources, p. 10 -16.) The "City's habitat areas and open spaces are among the contributing visual resources ... Coastal views are also provided from a number of streets and highways and, due to the grid street pattern in ... Corona del Mar, many north -south tending streets provide view corridors to the ocean and bay." (Ibid.) The Proposed Merger would obliterate the view corridor along Ocean Blvd., along Goldenrod Ave., along Heliotrope Ave., and along the alley between Goldenrod Ave. and Heliotrope Ave. The City must create and implement development restrictions, including "bulk and height limits in the areas around the bay, [in order to] ...preserve scenic views and regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 10, Natural Resources Element, Visual Resources, p, 10 -17.) The Proposed Lot Merger will not "maintain the intensity of development around Newport Bay to be consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach," (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 10, Natural Resources Element, Goals and Policies, p. 10 -17.) Nor will it protect the public views by regulate the visual and physical mass structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach, as mandated by the Natural Resources element. (Ibid.) D. The Proposed Lot Merger Is Inconsistent With The Implementation Plan. "Implementation Programs describe the actions to be taken by the City to carry out the goals and policies defined by the General Plan." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, Organization of the General Plan by Element, p, 1 -13.) it delineates "the principle set of actions and procedures necessary to carry out the goals and policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 13, Implementation Program, p. 13 -2.) Corona del Mar has a unique "half -mile linear view park that provides spectacular views of the harbor entrance and Pacific Ocean is located along the bluff top above Corona del Mar State Beach." (N. B. LCP, Coastal Land Use Plan, Ch. 3, Public Access and Recreation, Bluff Top Access, p. 3 -11.) The scenic and vial qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and 11 �2� protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting." (N. B. LCP, Coastal Land Use Plan, Ch. 4, Coastal Resource Protection, Scenic and Visual Resources, p. 4-7 1.) The Implementation Plan states that compliance with the General Plan requirements is not optional. "California statutes require that a city's decisions regarding its physical development must be consistent with the adopted General Plan," (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 13, Implementation Program, Programs, p. 13 -3:) The City must "ensure that Private Development and Capital Improvements arc Consistent with the General Plan." (Ibid.) The Implementation Plan states that the City must "continue to maintain appropriate setbacks and density, floor area, and height limits for residential development to protect the character of established neighborhoods and to protect coastal access and coastal resources." (N. B. LCP, Coastal Land Use Plan, Ch. 2, Land Use and Development, General Policies, Residential Development, Policies, p. 2 -48.) The Proposed Lot Merger violates this mandate. According to the Implementation Plan, "it is necessary for Newport Beach to review all subdivision and development applications and make written findings that they are consistent with all goals and policies of the General Plan." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 13, Implementation Program, Programs, p. 13 -3.) Here, the Planning Commission discussed only two of the five required findings mandated by the local merger ordinance. The Planning Commission's denial did not address CCQA, or the Coastal Land Act compliance or compliance with the General Plan, any of its elements, or compliance with the Local Coastal Plan. Before the City approves a lot merger, it must evaluate all of the above. Based on the facts of the Proposed Lot Merger, it has not - - and cannot be approved without violating same. 12 X22 3. THE LOT MERGER HAS NOT MET THE REQUIREMENTS Or THE COASTAL LAND ACT AND IS CONTRARY TO THE COASTAL LAND USE PLAN. Corona del Mar is located within a costal zone designated by the State of California that is subject to the Coastal Act. (Pub. Resources Code § 30000 et seq.) The California Legislature made the following findings regarding the California Coastal Zone: (a) That the California coastal zone is a distinct and valuable natural resource of vital and enduring interest to all the people and exists as a delicately balanced ecosystem; (b) That the permanent protection of the state's natural and scenic resources is a paramount concern to present and future residents of the state and nation. (c) That to promote the public safety, health, and welfare, and to protect public and private property, wildlife, marine fisheries, and other ocean resources, and the natural environment, it is necessary to protect the ecological balance of the coastal zone and prevent its deterioration and destruction. (d) That existing developed uses, and future developments that are carefully planned and developed consistent with the policies of this division, are essential to the economic and social well -being of the people of this state and especially to working persons employed within the coastal zone. (Pub. Resources Code, § 30001.) The legislature enacted the Coastal Act in order to protect the Coastal Zone. Cities like Newport Beach must create and follow their Local Land Use Plans. "One of the major goals of the California Coastal Act and the Coastal Land Use Plan is to assure the priority for coastal- depended and coastal related development over other development in the Coastal Zone, which is a constraint on residential development, particularly in areas on or 13 �2� near the shoreline." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Element, Local Coastal Program, p. 5- 93.) A. The Lot ilerger Ilas Not Met The Rentyq rcments Of The Coastal Land Act, The Coastal Act regulates, among other things, activity considered to be "development." (E.g. Pub. Resources Code, §§ 30600- 30627.) For purposes of the Coastal Act, lot line adjustments and lot mergers fall within the meaning of "development." (See La La Fe, Inc. r. CountY of Los Angeles (1999, Cal App 2d Dist) 73 Cal App 4th 231, 86 Cal Rptr 2d 217.) Therefore, the proposed merger must comply with the restrictions of the Coastal Act, including the requirement that the applicants obtain a permit from the Coastal Commission. (See Pub. Resources Code § 30106 et seq.) In addition, "Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas." (Pub. Resources Code, § 30251.) New Development shall "protect special communities and neighborhoods that, because of their unique characteristics, are popular visitor destination points for recreational uses." (Pub. Resources Code, § 30253.) Prior to approving the lot merger, the City must ensure that the lot merger complies with the Coastal Act. B. The Lot Merger Is Contrary To The Coastal Land Use Plan. In addition, the Coastal Act mandates the City to create and abide by a coastal plan (LCP). Newport Beach's Coastal Land Use Plan "consists of land use designations and resources protection and development polices for the Coastal Zone. The Land use Plan Policies result in consistency with Chapter 3 of California Coast Act, which addresses the planning and management of coastal resources." (N.B. General Plan, Ch. 5, Housing Element, Local Coastal Program, p. 5 -93.) "Where there are conflicts between the policies set forth in this Coastal Land Use Plan those set forth in any element of the City's General Plan, zoning, or any other ordinances, the policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan shall take precedence. (N. B. LCP, Coastal Land Use 14 Plan, Ch. 1, Introduction, General Policies, p. 1-2.) "[I]n addition to obtaining any other pennit required by law from any local government or from any state, regional, or local agency, any person, as defined in Section 21066, wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone ... shall obtain a coastal development permit." (N. B. LCP, Coastal Land Use Plan, Ch. 2, Land Use and Development, General Policies, General Development Policies, §30600 (a), p. 2 -21.) A lot merger is considered "development under the Act. (See La Pe, hie. v. Connly of Los Angeles (1999, Cal App 2n Dist) 73 Cal App 4'h 231, 86 Cal Rptr. 2d 217.) Therefore, the Proposed Lot Merger must undergo the scrutiny required to obtain a development permit in accordance with the Coastal Act. 4. THE LOT MERGER IIAS NOT MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CEQA. The Zoning Administrator letter states that the "proposed project is in conformance with CEQA," and the Lot Merger "qualifies for an exemption from environmental review ... [as a] minor alteration in land use...." (Action Letter, Finding A- 1, p. 1.) The Planning Commission made no findings regarding CEQA. (Res, 1857, § 2.) Consistent with California's strong environmental policy, whenever the approval of a project is at issue, the statute and regulations "have established a three - tiered process to ensure that public agencies inform their decisions with environmental considerations." (DaNdon Homes v. City of San Jose, 54 Cal. App. 4th 106, 112 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. 1997).) There is a three tiered process for determining the appropriate level of CEQA review (Ibid.) "The first tier is jurisdictional, requiring that an agency conduct a preliminary review in order to determine whether CEQA applies to a proposed activity. (Guidelines, §§ 15060, 15061 )" (Davidon Honres v. City gfSan Jose, supra, 54 CaLApp.4th at p. 112.) CEQA applies if the activity is a "project" under the statutory definition, unless the project is exempt. (See §§ 21065, 21080.) "if the agency finds the project is exempt from CEQA under any of the stated exemptions, no further environmental review is necessary." (Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose, supra, 54 Cal.AppAth p. 113.) "Only those projects having no 15 S-14 significant effect on the environment are categorically exempt from CEQA review." (Sahnon Protection & Watershed Network v. County of Marin (2004) 125 Cal.AppAth 1098, 1107 123 Cpl. Rptr. 3d 321).) If the project is not exempt — either because it does not fall within an exempt category or because an exception makes the exemption unavailable —then the agency must proceed to the second tier and conduct an initial study. (Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce r. City ofSanta Monica (2002) 101 Cal.AppAth 786, 792 [ 124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 731); see Guidelines, $ 15063.) Lot mergers do not qualify for a categorical CEQA exemption, and therefore, the City must conduct an initial study prior to approving the Lot Merger. 5. THE LOT MERGER SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED. For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the City deny the Proposed Lot Merger. Date: January 17, 2012 B `I Melinda M. Luthin, Esq. of t,AELINDA LUTHIN I L.nW 16 �2� January 19, 2012 Newport Beach City Council c/o Leilani Brown, City Clerk 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Council Members: RECEIVED 2012 JAN 19 AN 10: 22 O" ICE OF TEE Ty CLERK CITY Or ?ORT BECH RE: 2808 & 2012 Ocean Blvd. Lot Merger (PA2011 -141) I am writing to ask that you uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the lot merger for the properties located at 2808 & 2012 Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar (Resolution NO. 1857). The resulting development on these lots should the merger be approved, would be grossly out of character with the surrounding neighborhood, and more specifically the immediate area of Block 34. The residents of Newport Beach have expressed their desire to stop "mansionization" within the City and merging the referenced lots and the subsequent development of them will be in conflict with the City's code protecting neighborhoods from this type of development. While not an issue before the City Council, it is my understanding that there is a recorded deed restriction which prohibits building higher than one -story for development in front of 3 lots on Ocean Way. In this specific case, The Guidas have a protected, unobstructed ocean -view and there is no reason for them to build a "one- story" home that blocks the view(s) of the two -story homes behind them. Please respect the Planning Commission's decision and the time and effort that they put into it by upholding their decision of denial of the lot merger. Thank You, j 'Jinx Hansen 221 Goldenrod Avenue Corona del Mar 310 PRINITE r Marilyn Beck RECEIVED / 303 Carnation Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 2012 JAN 20 AM 9: 27 Cf "ICE OF January 18, 2012 It CVY CLERK CITY Cr ' ' `''CZT BEACH Newport Beach City Council c/o Leilani Brown, City Clerk 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: 2808 & 2812 Ocean Blvd (PA2011 -141) Dear Council Members: I live in the neighborhood of this project and want to express concern over the application to merge these two lots and to build a large dwelling that will result in the obstruction of the views of people living behind on Ocean Way. First, the issue of the merger: Corona del Mar is a village community and the character of this community needs to be maintained. It is the reason we live here rather than other areas of Newport Beach. It is a disturbing trend to see mergers of lots and humongous properties being built. City Code provides protection under Section 19.68.030.1-1 of Title 19. This merger does not meet the requirements of this section. The proposed new structure on the merged lots will be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood and will be detrimental to the 'peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood'. Second, obstruction of views on Ocean Way: I understand that this is not an issue before the City Council, and that it is a legal issue for the courts to determine. But there is a point at which respect for the property of others needs to be considered. We are so concerned about property rights that we've become a neighborhood of 'screw your neighbor' rather than respect for one another. There is a valid agreement documented between the neighbors of the properties on Ocean Way and Ocean Blvd, the intent of which was to protect views. The intent of the agreement was to protect views in perpetuity. That intent needs to be respected. it shouldn't be allowed that fifty years later someone new can come along and negate or cause harm to any of the surviving parties of that original agreement. The Intent of the City's approval of these plans should be to rp otect this agreement, not to find ways around it and thus negate it. 1 urge you to uphold the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and not to approve or allow the merger of these two lots. Thank you. Ma yn Bec < s'27 {ran 16 CU Of Luci" CampU) Dear Council Members, —_3— January 20, 2012 We have over 300 face to face signatures collected by this small group that are opposed to the Lot Merger at 2808/2812 Ocean Boulevard. They were collected in a relatively short period of time. The only thing preventing us from gathering more were; houses were vacant or for rent and many people were away for Christmas & New Years. The over 300 signatures Includes: 1. The entire Block #34 comprising the surrounding neighborhood. 2. 102 signatures from the houses on Ocean Boulevard. 3. As many other local residents we found home. The neighbors we approached were unanimous in their opposition to this merger (except for one person who supported the merger). They all spoke of the enormity of these lots if merged and believed that they were not compatible. Some expressed concern over a lot of this size being across from "Lookout Point" Many residents expressed their desires to "Reign in Manslonization" and keep the charm that makes Corona Del Mar unique. On the Newport Beach webaite the following is stated, "Newport Beach is known for its 'villages', each with Its own distinct character." I must mention that my parents Robin & Joan Campbell (both 85 years old), when able, went door to door to gather signatures themselves. Their character and resolve, which has been surely put to a test, is remarkable. They are not just committed to preserve their own views but also to protect their neighbors from the devastating effect that a 13,700 sq.ft. lot would have on Block 34, their neighborhood. Remember, Old Corona Del Mar where the average lot size is more than 3 times smaller than the one proposed in the merger at 280812812 Ocean Boulevard. Let us be perfectly clear, we are opposed to this enormous lot merger. We believe in no way is it compatible or consistent with the neighborhood. What few plans Mr. Guide has been forthcoming with in no way changes our opposition. This is about a lot merger..... My parents hope the City Council (as the Planning Commission did before them) will see that this merger is not compatible with the neighborhood. They believe in "Right Over Might " They are depending on their elected officials to represent what is the prevailing sentiment of the community and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to oppose the merger. Respectfully submitted by: RO N 0/46M 94 Jdy« )0� , c�M�belf Aa.,."6d, Richcu d1Ardiy Lucy ca- ,p6e // 31g • y: • MERGER OF is i OCEAN BLVD* 's�.. AeRftgTA;LESOLUTlON NO- 1857 OT RESOLUTION OFTHE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808AND 8112 OCEAN BLVD. (PA201EIA,.I4F1)' ®ENYING The undersigned ask the Newport Beach City Council to support the Planning Commission decision & deny the appeal for the lqt mergilr: 319 P • s SUPPORT RESOLUTION NO. 1857 RESOLUTION PROPERTIES i 1 NEWPORT 1- EiPYIdG' LOT MERGER FOR PLANNING LOCATEED AT 2808 ND 82 OCEAN BLVD. ((PA20). 1-141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach City Council tolsupport the Planning Commission decision & deny the appeal for tho lot mergers i NAME ADDRESS SIG ATURE: APO /0 1 i VVV CLQ 2, ZV r C. yv\, REP6sA 37c* oce �.C. ✓n�cr t�^ 3�IaCCce t. a U(�,L7� OCe Q0 ci. SUPPORT RESOLUTION NO. 1857 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH `DENYING' LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA201 1 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach City Council to support the Planning Commission decision & deny the appeal for the lot merger: NAME ADDRESS . 5th ATURIE CAi e Iso4u - 1?�j Cv . ��4� ✓L. .��G! tGC° Ci?O,M e'q "sp 1 J.,4 0 L- oEepwti Aw essl c� nos Z 52 y OGC_74./ 70e-" e-;- uz Zs of C�^< ?Ctn Q� IVel • 1/ 15 �- .2SlJ1 Oceah oud- �� SIP ��1� z' - 'Er k )fell , ��2 u J SUPPORT RESOLUTION NO. 1857 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 'DENYING' LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA201 1 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach City Council to support the Planning Commission decision & deny the appeal for the lot merger: NAME ADDRESS SIC ATURIE J 4 oM PE f) /kY oWL gn�D �� 6. W- "e fms2,o�' Vo LO IMA21r� U6 U.c- /D StkC L~ �,J o NV� � 2 a oa 06e-04-0 • � it r' C,D - _...... v % ✓Olr -c�r. STOP THE LOT MERGER OF 28 08 & 2812 OCEAN BLVD- SUPPORT RESOLUTION ICI®. 1857 A RFSOLLITION OF FOR THE PLTAINNING COED MI 2808 AND 2812 CITy or OCEAN BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH �ENYItdCv' undersigned si o Planning Commission decision Newport deny the appeal for the lot merger: 32.3 STOWTHE LOT MERGER of 2808 & 2812 OCEAN BLVD* SUPPORT RESOLUTION NO. I SS7 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT REACH dDENYING' LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA2011-14 I) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach City Council to support the Planning Commission decision & deny the appeal for the lot merger: NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE 17 anti �445 ID 'Ail IA Y)CL,� lv� OY S 303 yPw/y Jk— (ale, ---------- Inj Q4 SUPPORT RESOLUTION NO. IBS7 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4DENYING' LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA201 1 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach City Council to support the Planning Commission decision & deny the appeal for the lot merger: I 0 M1%'t f-,1 L. CAS 1�Do.c it �y.S Ell vi 6,pz-AJG jj (r c/ 2 LCO [4( -k (,Y+v d bp— c Q-_ ✓t -- G r <JNnc�r Az-r "-,sa Undo, a rcD 08�\ Col dtYirdd cQa . X6,4- IY r I 0 STOP THE LOT MERGER ; • � r, A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH'IOENYING' LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATEDAT 280SAND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA2011 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach City Council to support the Planning Commission decision & deny the appeal for the lot merger: NAME, ADDRESS iffl ° AA11.RE lbq �a Affi `4 (--4 `) O(SaC,en • n lei 1�N 156-IT4P Q a/ 4 "PA, l I 13 -,.\ RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 6DENYING' LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATEDAT 2808AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA201 1 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach City Council to support the Planning Commission decision & deny the appeal for the lot merger: NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE P, 44 V,�rt \AA-Q- be-l�j L(� 1C�Psly` (k� 4� 51� Sl�%i— �L1 t Yoc� %may G l� a c H 3/3 Ca,n ,4* wad �L I '27 _ A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1°DENYINW LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA201 1 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach City Council to support the Planning Commission decision & deny the appeal for the lot merger: S22 ��u <'1 iGl Cti fH7i teYL SNN i tr62eG D C 17 kA- Q4Q- - -Er\) FR 6WJ-� 00 V7 Se ( z �r 5/ 9 tl4ze/ 2)p �IC�l iJ0 f.V1�k �� l I�� 1✓K M r . Cb� LY-O( V\ Poo �N 5 3�2 1-k,-LeA S22 01/12/2012 10:92 FAX 0009 STOP THE LOT MERGER OF 28 ®8 & 2812 OCEAN BLVD. SUPPORT RESOLUTION NO. 1057 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH `DE1dYING' LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA20 f 1.141) The undersigned ask the Newport Reach City Council to support the Planning Commission decision & deny the appeal for the lot merger: :. :. : • is RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH IDENYINW LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA201 1 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach City Council to support the Planning Commission decision & deny the appeal for the lot energer: `jp , N$ Y p o I,/)>,f42 s \MC4.\ `� WPS00 001") M (�ao5 � VEf7r 3�� rtl* Fers1)84' -� 'I- 'd U ?,3 'A l e-U O \� ��o • RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH `DENYING' LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATEDAT 2808AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA201 1.141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach City Council to support the Planning Commission decision & deny the appeal for the lot merger: NAME ADDRESS S6G AT E �2�1 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH `DENYING' LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA201 1 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach City Council to support the Planning Commission decision & deny the appeal for the lot merger: 1 -2 STOP THE LOT MERGER OF 28 08 & 2812 OCEAN BLVD. SUPPORT RESOLUTION id®. 1857 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH'DENYiNG° LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATEDAT 2808AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA2011 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Reach City Council to support +the Planning Commission decision & deny the appeal for the lot merger: X33 I STOP THE LOT MERGER OF 2808 & 2812 OCEAN BLVD. SUPPORT RESOLUTION NO. 1857 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH `DENYING, LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATEDAT280SAND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (f4201 1 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach City Council to Support the decision & deny the appeal: I �R'�� . e Cc m rYw (A 162J_ (oG7 3e601 tQ A04Z gGjowa 2. v7 m are � �26zy � C-OkvYl L k, LS t 3f C. I ^ f r C'oR -ate A�i� J�lq{z.. U e( 4� IJA cA- r S- n ,dE { yam STOP THE LOT MERGER OF 28 08 & 2812 OCEAN BLVD. SUPPORT RESOLUTION NO. 1857 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPOR BEACH 4DENYINW LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATEDAT 280BAND 2812 OCEAN BLVD.(P 011 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Reach City Council o supp*rt the Planning Commission decision & deny the appeal for t e lot merger: I `7D c Cry • �a� . �, STOP THE LOT MERGER OF 2808 & 2812 OCEAN BLVD. SUPPORT RESOLUTION NO. 1857 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEVVPOR�' BEACH ®EeIYINW LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (P 2011-141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach City Council o supp*rt the Planning Commission decision & deny the appeal for t : e lot merger: e � �� w. �� , 1� . • Imo,, f / ss o FdA d f � a .• ss o STOP THE LOT MERGER OF 28 08 & 2812 OCEAN BLVD* SUPPORT RESOLUTION NO. I867 Q J A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEA, CH d DENYING' , i3 LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA201 It 14 1) r The undersigned ask the Newport Beach City Council to s' pport the Planning Commission decision & deny the appeal for the I t merger. 01 FJe, as+or i)S,s, 31 0 �' co i o4. 3 6 iv.d �.7Z do — v IAO 'A hl/4,4 A I Y 1 1� STOP THE LOT MERGER Of 2808 & 2812 OCEAN BLVD. SUPPORT RESOLUTION NO. 1857 .1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPOR BEACH 'IDENYING' LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (P 01 1 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach City Council t support the Planning Commission decision & deny the appeal for t e lot merger: NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE J G S hod yl2o a� 221 ClF� C G%M• FT- `!k�til 1 y2c£'GL 25'r�v OCEAh1 v L__ z -cF �2�g SUPPORT RESOLUTION NO. 1857 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. {PA2( 'EACH 'DENYI PISS' 11 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach City Council ti, support the Planning Commission decision & deny the appeal for th lot melrger: MIT 339 6 i i i s 339 6 i i STOP THE LOT MERGER 2.808 & 2812 OCEAN BLVD., OF 1 HE F[ANN1If-,1e3 'OP THE CITY (Dr NEWPORT ff U')T MF-DCiLK FOR PROPERT I Pi LOCA'F D 9F),608AND 2AM. CJCIFPt' BUVE3. (PA),;) umd-srsigned ash, tile #M,3v,4? ", &I a0uh vNity coundl ta PlAming corrum.01kan & dony 4--he appim-1 finw thg M E 11 - I -11) nupport lot ntzparqt-�— 5 pc-, AT U R F 11"(0 STOP T- • UAM A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH `DENYIi V LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATEDAT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA 01 1 -141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach .City Council to support the Planning Commission decision & deny the appeal for the lot merger: NAIVE ADDRESS SIG 4ATURE S42 FROM FAX NO. Jan. oiiso /aolz oa:aa eex 01/18/1012 10:39 PAR 2012 08:40g31 P1 0001 16001 r X42 STOP THE LOT MERGER or- 28 08 & 2812 OCEAN 1 LVK). SUPPORT RESOLUTION NO. 1867 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPOR BEACH 40ENYING' LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (P 011-141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach City Council o support the Planning Commission decision & deny the appeal for t e lot merger: X43 vj i ; . . % Ave D O �� d G' �O� Am -0% � 14 le 01 (-A r j L�L/�OL y D bDG i2 ge rLci X43 vj STOP THE LOT MERGER OF 28 08 & 2812 OCEAN BLVD. SUPPORT RESOLUTION No. 1857 A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPOR BEACH'DENYING' LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (P 011-141) The undersigned ask the Newport Beach City Council t support the Planning Commission decision & deny the appeal for t e lot merger: ` 4l /.-gL � , a - .( , S44 STOP THE LT MERGER OF 28 08 & 2812 OCEAN BLVD. SUPPORT RESOLUTION NO. 1857 � A RESOLUTION OFTHE PLANNING COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF NEWPORT EACODENYING' LOT MERGER FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2808 AND 2812 OCEAN BLVD. (PA2 11-141) The undersigned ask the Newport Reach City Council t support the Planning Commission decision & deny the appeal for th lot merger: n I rr5co$/��13 lye r l 1 mi� ✓ U,3 '% Ro � �y ;. E' �r- S- Uo 6-14 U---, y S 22lS 1 I 1 I/V gkg "I V X4,5 From: Brown, Lellani —'—� Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 4:11 PM To: Harris, Lillian 2012 JAN 24 PM 4: 12 Subject: FW: Tonight's Public Hearing re 2808 -2812 OCEAN BLVD., CdM -I oppose dishonoring contiguous Property Owner's Deed Rights & Opt to Preserve their VIEWS Attachments: LotsMerge2808- 28120ean.doe OFFICE OF ' FE CLERK Cil C v3T BD,(4'H From: Jeanine Paquette [mailto:ieaninepaquette@yahoo coml Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 4:06 PM To: Brown, Lellani Subject: Re: Tonight's Public Hearing re 2808 -2812 OCEAN BLVD., CdM -I oppose dishonoring contiguous Property Owner's Deed Rights & Opt to Preserve their VIEWS Attn: City Clerk I_prefer that Resolution 2012 -8 be denied(re 2808 -2812 cean Blvd., CdM.).. As discussed with someone in City Hall, I am Emailing in my letter: Herein attached is my letter re Protecting Contiguous Owners' Property Rights and Preserving their VIEWS. I trust my comments will be included in the material presented at tonight's Public Hearing, Thank you. Sincerely, Jeanine Paquette, Property owner, 211 Goldenrod Av. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Jeanine Paquette Jeanine.goodbroker@Gmail.com jeaninepaquette@yahoo.com Real Estate Broker /Realtor DRE Bkr.Lic. #00473775 949/675 -2225 Horne Ofc. 949/375 -4353 Mobile 340 Tuesday, January 24, 2012 TO: Council of Newport Beach TO: Planning Commission, Newport beach, Ca. TO: CdMRA To Whom it May Concern Please adopt Resolution 2012 -8 denying the Lot Merger that would infringe seriously upon contiguous property owners' rights, deeded rights and would interfere with their entitled peaceful enjoyment of their property and ocean views. Regarding the lot merger of 2808 and 2812 Ocean Blvd., Corona del blar, I ardently feel that the deed restrictions, covenants. et at that were agreed to in 1951 (or any other time in their history) intending to preserve the views from the homes behind 2808 and 2012 Ocean Blvd. should be upheld; I feel they MUST BE upheld and respected. The new owners of those lots proposing to develop a high edifice despite the factual knowledge they could have/should have had before closing escrow. Their neglect of the facts and/or failure to recognize long- existing owners' Property Rights is not the problem of the homeowners behind nor of the property owners throughout Corona del Mar whose rights should be recognized and adhered to. Let our City not set further precedent favoring disruption of legal rights and once again favoring the abhorrent mansionization of Corona del Mar village. It is incumbent upon the City of Newport Beach fathers and paid staff to do the right thing, without betrayal of the property rights and rightful, natural expectations of the affected owners whose views and enjoyment would be sacrificed Sincerely Jeanine Paquette, property owner 211 Goldenrod Av. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 s47 - Correspondence Item No. 3a 2808 and 2812 Ocean Boulevard Lot Merger PA2011 -191 Marion C. Grant 213 Jasmine Avenue Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 March 20, 2011 Sent via Email Michael Toerge - Chair Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 33oo Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Lot Merger 28o8 Ocean Blvd. 2812 Ocean Blvd. Dear Mr. Toerge, As a property owner in Corona del Mar ( 213 Jasmine Avenue) I want to inform you that I am in support of the proposed Lot Merger located at 28o8 and 2812 Ocean Blvd. I do not know or have any relationship with Mr. Guida. However, I have reviewed the proposed plans for the property and believe that the restrictions he is willing to place on himself are well beyond what should be required to obtain a lot merger. I believe ultimate home on these merged lots is well within the scale and the feeling of our neighborhood. Our personal residence was accomplished by a lot line adjustment in which the then owner adjusted two existing lots one which was 30' in width and the other which was 50' in width. Our newly constructed home now resides on a 40' lot in width. We would not have built a new home without a lot line adjustment. Corona Del Mar being an older community which is considered one of the most prestigious places in Orange County to live, lot mergers and lot line adjustments are part of the process of bringing the community up to the modern day standards it deserves and homebuyer's desire. I personally believe the two homes that currently exist on the lots the Guida's purchased need to be removed and are an eyesore. I applaud the Guida's efforts to upgrade the property and bring it up to the current city standards that prominent Ocean Blvd. area deserves. I support the lot merger, the upgrade of the property, and hope that both the Planning Commission and City Council will approve this proposal. Our community deserves the area to be cleaned up and improved in a fashion that is in keeping with beautiful Ocean Blvd., as well as, having a home which meets the current building, safety and energy codes. Thank you for considering my thoughts Sincerely, Marion C. Grant 348 Op Materials Rec Item No. 3b 2808 and 2812 Tan Boulevard Lot Merger PA2011 -141 PA2011 -141 and R -2 lot sizes < 4,000 sf 4,000 - 6,000 sf 6,000 - 8,000 sf - 8,000 - 10,000 sf 10,000 12,000 Sf 12,000 14,000 sf 14,000 Sf MOM=