Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 - Troesh Residence Appeal_PA2015-122 - PA2015-122 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT July 21 , 2016 Meeting Agenda Item No. 2 SUBJECT: Troesh Residence Appeal (PA2015-122) 336 Catalina Drive and 333 La Jolla Drive • Modification No. MD2015-008 • Variance No. VA2015-003 APPLICANT: Jon and Elsa Troesh OWNER: Jon and Elsa Troesh PLANNER: Jason Van Patten, Assistant Planner (949) 644-3234, jvanpatten@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY The applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission's December 17, 2015, decision to deny Modification Permit No. MD2015-008 and Variance No. VA2015-003. The Planning Commission denied the following in conjunction with a proposed dwelling: • Modification Permit— to allow an addition greater than 10 percent (of the existing on-site floor area) on property with nonconforming parking. A separate dwelling fronts Catalina Drive and has nonconforming parking. The interior width of the existing two-car garage is narrower than the minimum requirement. • Variance— to allow a retaining wall and guardrail to exceed the 42-inch height limit in the 5-foot front setback adjacent to La Jolla Drive. Since filing the appeal January 4, 2016, the appellant revised the project in response to comments raised by the Planning Commission and the public. On June 14, 2016, the City Council referred the revised project back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. After the Planning Commission reconsiders the project and makes a recommendation, the City Council will take final action at a date to be determined. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. recommending the City Council uphold the December 17, 2015, decision of the Planning Commission and deny Modification No. MD2015- 008 and Variance No. VA2015-003 with the attached Findings and Conditions (Attachment No. PC 1); or 3) Adopt Resolution No. recommending the City Council reverse the December 17, 2015, decision of the Planning Commission and approve Modification Permit No. MD2015-008 and Variance No. VA2015-003 with the attached Findings and Conditions (Attachment No. PC 2). 1 V� QP �P Troesh Residence Appeal Planning Commission, July 21, 2016 Page 2 VICINITY MAP u Y � ' 4 l� k "5 Subject Property GENERAL PLAN ZONING FPw w 6. 00 w P � '1 •r •N p• n LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ONSITE RT Two Unit Residential R-2 Two-Unit Residential Single-unit dwelling NORTH RS-D (Single-Unit R-1 (Single-Unit Residential) Single-unit dwelling Residential Detached SOUTH RS-D R-1 Single-unit dwelling EAST RT R-2 Single-unit dwelling WEST RT R-2 Single-unit dwelling S Troesh Residence Appeal Planning Commission, July 21, 2016 Page 3 INTRODUCTION Project Description The appellant maintains the request for a modification permit and variance in conjunction with the construction of a detached dwelling. The Modification Permit would allow a 4,443-square-foot second dwelling. The variance would allow a retaining wall and guardrail to exceed the height limit in the 5-foot front setback adjacent to La Jolla Drive. However, in response to public comment, the appellant proposes the following design changes: • The garage is set back 10 feet 2-3/4 inches from the La Jolla Drive property line allowing for a minimum driveway depth of 20 feet measured to back of drive approach. Previously, the garage was set back 5 feet 6-1/4 inches from the property line. The added driveway depth would provide sufficient depth for two additional vehicles to park off the street. • The addition of a gated pedestrian path (east side) leading from Catalina Drive up to the rear of the proposed dwelling. The intent is to allow guests to park on Catalina Drive, providing an alternative to La Jolla Drive. • Architectural changes to the upper level and roof of the dwelling meant to reduce the visible mass of the structure from La Jolla Drive. • A 72-square-foot reduction in the upper level floor area resulting in a 4,443- square-foot dwelling overall. The appellant's project description, exhibit depicting changes, and findings for approval are included as Attachment No. PC 3. A detailed analysis of project changes are discussed below. Background Planning Commission Hearing and Decision On October 8, 2015, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and reviewed the applicant's request for a modification permit and variance. Several residents spoke in opposition. They based their concerns on limited public parking along La Jolla Drive, traffic, safety, and neighborhood character. No members of the public spoke in support. Refer to the October 8, 2015, meeting minutes regarding public comments (Attachment No. PC 4). At the conclusion of the meeting, the Planning Commission continued the item to provide staff additional time to consider and respond to public comment. 4 Troesh Residence Appeal Planning Commission, July 21, 2016 Page 4 On December 17, 2015, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and reviewed the applicant's request. The proposal was unchanged from the October 8, 2015, meeting. Several residents spoke in opposition. They expressed similar concerns to those previously raised regarding public parking along La Jolla Drive, traffic, safety, and neighborhood character. No members of the public spoke in support. The Planning Commission considered the testimony received. After extensive discussion, a majority determined there were insufficient facts to support required findings for approval. Five commissioners voted to deny the project and two voted to approve. Commissioners in opposition generally felt the project was inconsistent with neighborhood character, expressed there were alternatives to the proposed design, and indicated off-street parking required further review. (Refer to Attachment Nos. PC 5 and PC 6 for meeting minutes and the adopted resolution for denial). All public correspondence received for previous Planning Commission meetings are included as Attachment No. PC 7. Appeal of Planning Commission Decision On January 4, 2016, Craig Smith, on behalf of the property owner, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. The appellant's appeal application is included as Attachment No. PC 8. On June 14, 2016, the City Council referred the matter back to the Planning Commission for further consideration due to project changes proposed by the applicant. Conduct of Hearing Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 20.64.030.C.3 (Conduct of Hearing), a public hearing on an appeal is conducted "de novo," meaning that it is a new hearing and the prior decision of the Planning Commission has no force or effect. The Planning Commission is not bound by the previous decision or limited to the issues raised by the appeal. DISCUSSION Original Request— October 8 and December 17, 2015, Meetings The original proposal presented to the Planning Commission consisted of a detached, three-level 4,451-square-foot dwelling with two-car garage on the undeveloped southerly half of the property. This included vehicular access from La Jolla Drive. The existing dwelling (336 Catalina Drive) on the northerly half of the property with nonconforming two-car garage was to remain unchanged. Table 1 summarizes the original proposal. Troesh Residence Appeal Planning Commission, July 21, 2016 Page 5 Table 1: Original and Revised Proposal Standard Existing' Original Revised 336 Catalina 333 La Jolla 333 La Jolla Setbacks Front (Catalina) 10' 9' 6-1/4" 74' 8-1/2" 68' 7-3/4" Front (La Jolla) 5' 74' 5-1/2" 5' 0" 5' 1-1/2" Side (east) 4' 3' 6" 4' 1" 4' 1" Side (west) 4' 4' 8" 4' 1" 4' 1" Floor Area Limit 9,092 sq. ft. 2,758 sq. ft. 4,451 sq. ft. 4,443 sq. ft. maximum (7,209 sq. ft. total (7,201 sq.ft. total w/existing) w/existing) Parking 2 spaces per unit 2-car garage 2-car garage 2-car garage 20'Wx20' D 19' YWx2VTD 20'Wx20' D 20'Wx20' D minimum interior (nonconforming) (4 spaces total (4 spaces total w/existing) w/existing) Height 24' (flat roof) 21' 6-1/2" roof ridge 23' 11"top of trellis 22' 11"top of rail 29' (pitched roof) 28' 9" roof ridge 28' 10" roof ridge Wall/Rail Height 42" maximum N/A 8' 11" maximum 8' 10" maximum (La Jolla setback) Existing dwelling fronting Catalina Drive. In conjunction with the proposed dwelling, the applicant requested a modification permit and variance due to existing site conditions. The existing dwelling fronting Catalina Drive maintains a two-car garage measuring 19 feet 3 inches wide by 21 feet 7 inches deep, where a minimum 20-foot width and 20-foot depth are required. Based on Zoning Code provisions specific to nonconforming parking, residential development on the property is limited to a maximum addition of 10 percent (of the existing floor area on- site), unless the nonconforming parking is corrected. Ten percent of the existing 2,758- square-foot dwelling (northerly half of the property) equates to an addition of 275 square feet. The addition requested (4,451-square-foot dwelling) exceeded 10 percent, requiring the approval of a modification permit. The applicant cited physical and practical difficulties associated with correcting the existing nonconforming parking as justification for the request. The variance addressed the height of a retaining wall (retaining fill beneath the driveway) and guardrail located in the 5-foot front setback adjacent to La Jolla Drive. The maximum height proposed was 8 feet 11 inches when measured from existing grade. This exceeds the 42 inch height limit in a front setback by 5 feet 6 inches. The applicant cited the steep topography as justification for the request. Troesh Residence Appeal Planning Commission, July 21, 2016 Page 6 Public Comments and Project Changes During public hearings on October 8, 2015, and December 17, 2015, the Planning Commission and the public cited several concerns. Collectively, Commissioners in opposition felt they were unable to find that the proposed development would be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. They cited issues with access from two entry points, stating that no one else has that in the neighborhood. Commissioners cited the scale of the proposed dwelling and indicated there were alternatives. They stated that the applicant could move the house back or make it smaller and felt La Jolla Drive was a challenge without addressing off-street parking. Written and verbal comments raised by the public expressed generally the same concerns: the proposal would affect parking, access, and safety on La Jolla Drive; the project size (floor area) is not compatible with the character of the neighborhood; and the project will set precedence for future development. The following discussion summarizes the appellant's project changes in response to general comments. Comment 1: The project would affect parking, access, safety on La Jolla Drive. Response 1: The appellant proposes two changes to address these comments. 1) The revised proposal sets the garage 10 feet 2-3/4 inches from the La Jolla Drive property line and provides a minimum driveway depth of 20 feet measured to back of driveway approach. Previously, the garage was set back 5 feet 6-1/4 inches from the property line. The extended driveway provides safe and sufficient depth for two additional parking spaces off the street. The opportunity for four parking spaces (2 driveways, 2 garages) may alleviate potential concerns related to access and safety through La Jolla Drive by getting additional vehicles off the street. 2) The revised proposal includes a gated pedestrian path (east side) leading from Catalina Drive up to the rear of the proposed dwelling. The opportunity for guests to park on Catalina Drive and access the dwelling is an alternative to accessing the property from La Jolla Drive. Comment 2: The project is not compatible with the character of the neighborhood. There are alternatives to the scale, size, and location of the dwelling. The applicant has damaged the character by removing mature trees in the right-of-way. Response 2: The appellant proposes three changes to address the comments. Troesh Residence Appeal Planning Commission, July 21, 2016 Page 7 1) The revised plan proposes a third floor area of 109 square feet. This represents a 72-square foot reduction from the original design (181 square feet). The floor area was relocated away from the street, decreasing the scale visible from La Jolla Drive. The overall floor area of the dwelling decreased eight square feet (4,451 to 4,443 square feet) due to these changes. 2) The revised plan eliminated portions of the upper roof area and a trellis in an effort to reduce the visible mass of the structure from La Jolla Drive. The revised roof measures 24 feet 10-3/4 inches wide. Previously the roof area at the upper level extended 32 feet 3 inches wide. The location of the garage aims to reduce the massing visible from La Jolla Drive by stepping the structure further into the lot. 3) The applicant proposes three, 36 inch box Water Gum trees within the La Jolla Drive right-of-way as replacements for Eucalyptus trees affected by this project. Three stepped planter beds are proposed at the westerly property line (adjacent to La Jolla Drive) to screen and soften the aesthetics of the driveway retaining wall. Staff compared the proposed 4,443-square-foot detached dwelling with properties in the vicinity. Table 2 summarizes the findings. The complete data set and a map of properties evaluated is included as Attachment No. PC 9. Table 2: Floor Area Comparison Use Quantity FAR FAR 3,000+ 4,000+2 Avg. Range Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Single-Family 35 0.64 0.28-0.94 18 7 Two-Unit 4 0.69 0.49-0.96 3 2 Total Records 39 21 9 Found Does not include subject property. Included in 3000+count. FAR is floor area ratio. The applicant's revised proposal results in two detached dwellings on the property and a total floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.17. FAR is a ratio of the floor area limit to the lot area and is a method for comparing the maximum square footage allowed on a lot relative to a lot's size. The proposed 4,443-square-foot dwelling would on its own result in an FAR of 0.72. However, it is important to note that a modification permit would be necessary to accommodate the addition of a second dwelling 2 Troesh Residence Appeal Planning Commission, July 21, 2016 Page 8 unit of any size because the floor area would exceed 10 percent in every case. Comment 3: The applicant is requesting driveway access from two streets, inconsistent with others in the neighborhood. Residents generally suggested taking access from Catalina Drive. Response 3: The appellant indicates that it is infeasible to take access from Catalina Drive because it requires demolition of the existing dwelling at 336 Catalina Drive. They also indicate that access from two streets is already in place at 325 La Jolla Drive and that the request does not represent a grant of special privilege. Within the Newport Heights Community, staff identified three other properties that currently maintain drive approaches from two different streets. Table 3 provides a summary. Table 3: Access from Two Streets Address Zone Use Driveway Access 325 La Jolla Dr. R-2 Two-unit La Jolla / Catalina 328 Catalina Dr. 3245 Clay St. R-2 Two-unit Clay/ Broad 3262 Broad St. 3239 Clay St. R-2 Two-unit Clay/ Broad 3256 Broad St. 243 Ocean View Ave. R-1 Single-unit Ocean View/ Riverside Summary The request for a modification permit and a variance remain. Approval of the revised proposal would authorize: 1) a 4,443-square-foot dwelling addition to the subject property; and 2) allow a retaining wall and guardrail up to a maximum height of 8 feet 10 inches in the 5-foot setback adjacent to La Jolla Drive. The appellant's revised design includes three principal components: 1) a driveway design suitable for two vehicles; 2) a pedestrian path from Catalina Drive up to the rear of the dwelling; and 3) less building mass visible from La Jolla Drive through a reduction in the upper roof/floor area, and relocation of the garage further into the lot. Alternatives If the Planning Commission finds the facts do not support the findings required to grant approval of the modification permit and variance applications, the Planning Commission 9 Troesh Residence Appeal Planning Commission, July 21, 2016 Page 9 should adopt the draft resolution recommending the City Council uphold the December 17, 2015, decision to deny the request. Environmental Review The project is categorically exempt under Section 15303, of the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines - Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Class 3 exempts the construction of limited numbers of new, small structures, including one single-family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. The proposed project involves the addition of a dwelling on property that is currently developed with a dwelling in a Two-Unit Residential Zoning District. Public Notice Notice of this review was published in the Daily Pilot, 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 before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of 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 b Submitted by: 1 Ja on Van Patten, Assistant Planner r �, r""W, j rOn a Wisnes i, ICP, Deputy Director ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution Recommending Denial PC 2 Draft Resolution Recommending Approval PC 3 Appellant's Description and Findings PC 4 October 8, 2015, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes PC 5 December 17, 2015, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes PC 6 Resolution No. 2005 PC 7 Public Correspondence PC 8 Appellant's Appeal Application PC 9 Comparison of Floor Area PC 10 Project Plans 10 Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution Recommending Denial 11 V� QP �P 2� RESOLUTION NO. #### A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. MD2015-008 AND VARIANCE NO. VA2015-003 TO ADD A 4,443-SQUARE-FOOT DWELLING ON PROPERTY WITH NONCONFORMING PARKING AND TO ALLOW A RETAINING WALL AND GUARDRAIL TO EXCEED 42 INCHES IN HEIGHT WITHIN A FRONT SETBACK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 336 CATALINA DRIVE AND 333 LA JOLLA DRIVE (PA2015-122) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Jon and Elsa Troesh, property owners, with respect to property located at 336 Catalina Drive and 333 La Jolla Drive, legally described as Lot 4 of Tract No. 444 in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 19, Page 29 of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said county requesting approval of a modification permit and variance. 2. The applicant proposes the addition of a 4,443-square-foot detached dwelling fronting La Jolla Drive and requests a modification permit and variance. The modification permit allows an addition on property with nonconforming parking that exceeds 10 percent of the existing floor area developed on site. A separate detached dwelling fronts Catalina Drive and is nonconforming in parking due to the interior dimension of the garage. The existing dwelling would remain unchanged. The variance allows a retaining wall and guardrail to exceed 42 inches in height within the 5-foot front setback adjacent to La Jolla Drive. The maximum overall height of the retaining wall and guardrail is 8 feet 10 inches when measured from existing grade. 3. The subject property is located within the Two-Unit Residential (R-2) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Two-Unit Residential (RT). 4. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone. 5. On October 8, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. 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. The Planning Commission continued the project to November 5, 2015, 6. On November 5, 2015, the item was continued at the request of the applicant to a date to be determined. 13 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005 Page 2 of 5 7. On December 17, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. 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. 8. The Planning Commission voted to adopt Resolution No. 2005 denying Modification Permit No. MD2015-008 and Variance No. VA2015-003. 9. On January 4, 2016, Craig Smith, on behalf of the property owner, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. 10. On June 14, 2016, the City Council held a public hearing in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. 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. 11. The City Council voted unanimously to refer the request to the Planning Commission for further consideration due to project changes. 12. On July 21, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. 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. 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 modification permit and variance only after making each of the required findings set forth in Section 20.52.050 (Modification Permits) and 20.52.090 (Variances). In this case, based upon the oral and written evidence provided at the public hearing, the Planning Commission was unable to make the following findings: Modification Permit Finding: A. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. 10-15-2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005 Page 3 of 5 Facts Opposed to Finding: 1 . The proposed project is inconsistent in scale with existing properties nearby that generally contain less floor area. 2. The proposed project will result in vehicular access from two points of entry, La Jolla Drive, and Catalina Drive, and is inconsistent with a majority of the existing development in the neighborhood that provide vehicular access from a single point of entry. Therefore, this finding for approval cannot be made. Finding: B. There are no alternatives to the modification permit that could provide similar benefits to the applicant with less potential detriment to surrounding owners and occupants, the neighborhood, or to the general public. Facts Opposed to Finding: 1. Alternatives do exist that could provide similar benefits to the applicant with less detriment to surrounding owners and the neighborhood. The scope of the project could be altered to provide a reduction in square footage. Therefore, this finding for approval cannot be made. Finding: C. The granting of the modification would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, to the occupants of the property, nearby properties, the neighborhood, or the City, or result in a change in density or intensity that would be inconsistent with the provisions of this Zoning Code. Facts Opposed to Finding: 1. Granting of the modification results in a dwelling that provides vehicular access from La Jolla Drive, which is a narrow right-of-way that allows for parking on both sides of the street. The proposed development will impact on-street parking and traffic through La Jolla Drive and will be detrimental to nearby properties and the neighborhood that travel through the street. Therefore, this finding for approval cannot be made. Variance Finding: D. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification. 10-15-2013 15 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005 Page 4 of 5 Facts Opposed to Finding: 1. Strict compliance with the Zoning Code would not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under the same zoning district. A second dwelling could be built with modifications to the existing dwelling that fronts Catalina Drive. Therefore, this finding for approval cannot be made. Finding: E. Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. Facts Opposed to Finding: 1. The variance is only necessary to provide vehicular access from La Jolla Drive and is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the applicant. The applicant is not deprived of substantial property rights without the variance because alternatives do exist that could provide similar benefits to the applicant. Therefore, this finding for approval cannot be made. Finding: F. Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. Facts Opposed to Finding: 1. Granting of the variance will constitute a special privilege by allowing the subject property to maintain vehicular access from two streets, La Jolla Drive and Catalina Drive, which is inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district that take access from one street. Therefore, this finding for approval cannot be made. Finding: G. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood Facts Opposed to Finding: 1. Granting of the variance will allow vehicular access from La Jolla Drive. The additional vehicles attributed to residents of the dwelling or guests of the dwelling will add to parking on the street, which will be detrimental to persons residing in the neighborhood due to the already narrow width of the right-of-way. Therefore, this finding for approval cannot be made. 10-15-2013 10 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005 Page 5 of 5 SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends the City Council deny Modification Permit No. MD2015-008 and Variance No. VA2015-003. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2016. AYES: None NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None BY: Kory Kramer, Chairman BY: Peter Zak, Secretary 10-15-2013 2� V� QP �P sg Attachment No. PC 2 Draft Resolution Recommending Approval 19 V� QP �P �o RESOLUTION NO. #### A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. MD2015-008 AND VARIANCE NO. VA2015-003 TO ADD A 4,443-SQUARE-FOOT DWELLING ON PROPERTY WITH NONCONFORMING PARKING AND TO ALLOW A RETAINING WALL AND GUARDRAIL TO EXCEED 42 INCHES IN HEIGHT WITHIN A FRONT SETBACK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 336 CATALINA DRIVE AND 333 LA JOLLA DRIVE (PA2015-122) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Jon and Elsa Troesh, property owners, with respect to property located at 336 Catalina Drive and 333 La Jolla Drive, legally described as Lot 4 of Tract No. 444 in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 19, Page 29 of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said county requesting approval of a modification permit and variance. 2. The applicant proposes the addition of a 4,443-square-foot detached dwelling fronting La Jolla Drive and requests a modification permit and variance. The modification permit allows an addition on property with nonconforming parking that exceeds 10 percent of the existing floor area developed on-site. A separate detached dwelling fronts Catalina Drive and is nonconforming in parking due to the interior dimension of the garage. The existing dwelling would remain unchanged. The variance allows a retaining wall and guardrail to exceed 42 inches in height within the 5-foot front setback adjacent to La Jolla Drive. The maximum overall height of the retaining wall and guardrail is 8 feet 10 inches when measured from existing grade. 3. The subject property is located within the Two-Unit Residential (R-2) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Two-Unit Residential (RT). 4. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone. 5. On October 8, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. 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. The Planning Commission continued the project to November 5, 2015, 6. On November 5, 2015, the item was continued at the request of the applicant to a date to be determined. 21 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 2 of 12 7. On December 17, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. 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. 8. The Planning Commission voted to adopt Resolution No. 2005 denying Modification Permit No. MD2015-008 and Variance No. VA2015-003. 9. On January 4, 2016, Craig Smith, on behalf of the property owner, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. 10. On June 14, 2016, the City Council held a public hearing in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. 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. 11. The City Council voted unanimously to refer the request to the Planning Commission for further consideration due to project changes. 12. On July 21, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. 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. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (Section 15303, Article 19 of Chapter 3, Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act) under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). 2. Class 3 exempts the construction of limited numbers of new, small structures, including one single-family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. The proposed project involves the addition of a dwelling on property that is currently developed with a dwelling in a Two-Unit Residential Zoning District. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. In accordance with Section 20.52.050 (Modification Permits) and 20.52.090 (Variances) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: 03-03-2015 22 Planning Commission Resolution No. Ott Page 3 of 12 Modification Permit Finding: A. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The neighborhood is generally comprised of a development pattern of single-unit and two-unit dwellings. The request to allow the addition of a detached dwelling on property developed with a dwelling is compatible with nearby properties that consist of two dwelling units. 2. With the exception of the retaining wall and guardrail, the proposed dwelling complies with all applicable development standards. This includes setback requirements, floor area limit, parking, and height. 3. The proposed multiple-level dwelling with decks will be compatible in bulk and scale with others in the Newport Heights Community that were similarly designed with multiple levels and decks. 4. The proposed dwelling fronting La Jolla Drive will be entirely detached from the existing dwelling fronting Catalina Drive, will not intensify or alter the existing nonconformities on-site. The proposed project will provide a code compliant two-car garage and space for two additional vehicles in the driveway. Finding: B. The granting of the modification is necessary due to the unique physical characteristic(s) of the property and/or structure, and/or characteristics of the use. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The site, originally developed in 1955 and added to in 1987 and 2008, contains a 2,758-square-foot dwelling with attached two-car garage. The garage, which measures 19 feet 3 inches wide and 21 feet 7 inches deep, complied with requirements at the time of original construction (one garage space not less than 8 feet wide by 20 feet deep). However, due to amendments to the Zoning Code, the existing dwelling is now nonconforming in parking because it does not provide a minimum interior width of 20 feet and depth of 20 feet. 2. The existing two-level dwelling and garage encroaches 6 inches into the side setback. Therefore, expanding the garage to a minimum width of 20 feet is not feasible without physically altering the interior of the floor plan at both levels or encroaching further into the required side setback. An additional encroachment into the side setback would necessitate a variance and eliminate the pedestrian path proposed. The alterations 03-03-2015 23 Planning Commission Resolution No. Ott Page 4 of 12 would include reconfiguring the stairwell leading to the second floor, relocating an adjacent powder room, and modifying the front entrance to the dwelling. 3. The existing dwelling is located on the northerly half of a through lot, with access from both La Jolla Drive and Catalina Drive. Unlike a typical duplex, the project characteristics are unique in that it consists of the development of a second detached dwelling unit that will be both physically and vertically separated due to the topography of the lot. Due to the separation of the dwellings and secondary vehicular access that is available from Catalina Drive, construction of the proposed second dwelling will not require any alterations to the existing dwelling. 4. The granting of the Modification Permit is necessary to allow the construction of a second detached dwelling on property that is within a Zoning District that permits two dwelling units. Approval would allow improvements to a site that complied with parking standards in effect at the time of original construction and that are currently adequate in size for the parking of two vehicles. Finding: C. The granting of the modification is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The intent is to construct a detached dwelling without altering the existing dwelling. Requiring the nonconforming garage to provide a compliant width would result in significant alterations to the interior design of the existing detached dwelling. Expanding the garage to the west requires reconstruction of the stair leading to the second floor and a reconfiguration of the floor plan to accommodate the revised design. Expanding the garage to the east is not feasible without further encroaching into the required side setback, exacerbating the existing condition. 2. The proposed dwelling will have no impact on the existing dwelling and will be located on the southerly half of the property. Strict application of the Zoning Code would require that the existing garage width be expanded 9 inches, resulting in significant physical improvements to an entirely separate dwelling unit. 3. The existing garage provides two useable spaces, thereby fulfilling the intent of the Zoning Code by providing adequate parking on-site. Approval of the Modification Permit allows the applicant to continue the use of the existing two-car garage, which has not proven detrimental to the occupants or neighbors of the dwelling and will allow for the proposed dwelling. 03-03-2015 24 Planning Commission Resolution No. Ott Page 5 of 12 Finding: D. There are no alternatives to the modification permit that could provide similar benefits to the applicant with less potential detriment to surrounding owners and occupants, the neighborhood, or to the general public. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The alternative would require that the applicant widen the existing nonconforming garage 9 inches to comply with the Zoning Code resulting in unreasonable and unnecessary expenses. Expanding the garage towards the interior of the property requires significant alterations to interior living area, which is detrimental to the applicant. Expanding the width of the garage further into the required 4-foot side setback is not feasible without a variance, may limit access through the side yard, and places the structure closer to the adjacent property owner. 2. The other alternative is to reduce the size of the addition to not more than ten (10) percent of the floor area of the existing 2,758-square-foot structure (275 square feet maximum) and comply with the requirements of the Zoning Code. Given the proposal is to add a detached dwelling, a reduction in size renders the project infeasible and does not meet the objectives of the applicant. 3. The existing nonconforming garage has not proven to be detrimental to the occupants of the property, nearby properties, neighborhood, or City. Approval of the modification permit would allow the existing garage to remain unchanged and provides for the construction of a dwelling that complies with setback, height, floor area, and parking requirements. 4. The project design incorporates an opportunity to park four vehicles off the street (two in driveway, two in garage). A pedestrian path at the easterly property line provides additional relief to La Jolla Drive by allowing guests to park on Catalina Drive. The reduced upper floor area and garage step back minimize the scale and mass visible from La Jolla Drive. Finding: E. The granting of the modification would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, to the occupants of the property, nearby properties, the neighborhood, or the City, or result in a change in density or intensity that would be inconsistent with the provisions of this Zoning Code. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed dwelling will front La Jolla Drive, will maintain a minimum distance of five feet from the front property line, four feet from neighboring properties, and will provide adequate protection for light, air, and privacy. The garage will be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line and provide a minimum driveway depth of 03-03-2015 2.5 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 6 of 12 20 feet measured from back of driveway approach. The addition of a second dwelling unit on the property will not preclude access to the existing dwelling that fronts Catalina Drive and will be consistent in scale with other dwellings in the neighborhood that have multiple floors. 2. The existing nonconforming garage has not proven to be detrimental to the occupants of the property, nearby properties, neighborhood, or City and is adequate in width to park two vehicles. 3. The proposed dwelling will be located on property that allows for two dwellings and will not result in a density or intensity that is inconsistent with the Zoning Code. 4. As conditioned, the applicant is required to obtain all necessary permits in accordance with the Building Code and other applicable codes. 5. As conditioned, the applicant is required to submit a construction management plan to minimize construction related impacts to neighboring properties and ensure adequate access through La Jolla Drive. Variance Finding: F. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The property is located within the Two-Unit Residential Zoning District, which includes several properties along Catalina Drive and La Jolla Drive. The steep topography and design of the subdivision are generally unique relative to a majority of properties in the vicinity under the same zoning district. The site is one of six (6) through lots that slope from La Jolla Drive down to Catalina Drive with an approximate drop in elevation of 22 feet. Many of the properties nearby in the same zoning district are relatively flat in topography and are not through lots. 2. The drop in elevation between La Jolla Drive and the front setback line is approximately 6 feet, which generally does not apply to nearby properties in the same zoning district. 3. The property is bound by two streets, La Jolla Drive and Catalina Drive, providing a distinct address and distinct potential access point to both property frontages. There are many properties in the vicinity in the R-2 Zoning District, but only six are bound by two streets. This represents a unique circumstance that does not apply generally to the other properties in the project vicinity 03-03-2015 20 Planning Commission Resolution No. Ott Page 7 of 12 Finding: G. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The property currently enjoys the right to build a structure within five feet of the front property line as well as take vehicular access from La Jolla Drive. Providing vehicular access is not feasible without a retaining wall and guardrail that exceed 42 inches in height within the front setback due to the existing topography and City standards for driveway design. The area at which the proposed dwelling will be constructed is at a significantly lower elevation than the public street. The driveway must also comply with a City standard that dictates slope and change in grade of driveways. Using the City standard, the proposed driveway profile is at the minimum elevation achievable as it passes through the 5-foot front setback area and does not allow for a shorter retaining wall. The retaining wall measures 5 feet 4 inches at its maximum height and would not exceed the top of curb elevation along La Jolla Drive. The guardrail located directly above the retaining wall extends 42 inches high. 2. Without approval of the variance, vehicular access from La Jolla Drive is not feasible, which is a privilege enjoyed by other properties in the R-2 zone. 3. Strict application of the Zoning Code would require that the proposed dwelling take access from Catalina Drive. Requiring access from Catalina Drive would severely impact the existing dwelling and deprive the property owner of the privilege enjoyed by others who take access from La Jolla Drive. Finding: H. Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The granting of the variance is necessary to preserve the ability to provide vehicular access from La Jolla Drive, similar to other properties fronting the street. 2. The applicant presently has the right to develop two dwelling units on the property and may provide access from both Catalina Drive and La Jolla Drive. Providing separate access for the enjoyment and use of each dwelling unit is a significant property right of through lot properties. 3. The subject property allows for the construction of a second dwelling unit and driveway. In order to comply with parking requirements for the proposed dwelling, it is necessary to take access from La Jolla Drive. Taking access from Catalina Drive 03-03-2015 27 Planning Commission Resolution No. Ott Page 8 of 12 would require demolition of the existing dwelling at 336 Catalina Drive. Without a driveway, the proposal is infeasible and the applicant would be unable to construct a second dwelling unit on the property. Granting of the variance to allow a retaining wall and rail in the front setback is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of property rights of the applicant. Finding: 1. Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The granting of the variance allows the property owner to maintain parity with properties in the vicinity that maintain vehicular access from La Jolla Drive. La Jolla Drive is an existing street accessible from Cliff Drive and Beacon Street and is enjoyed by adjacent residential properties. The granting of the variance does not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. Finding: I Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The retaining wall will not be detrimental or constitute a hazard to persons residing in the neighborhood because it will not extend above the top of the curb elevation at the street. There will be no visual impact created by the improvements. 2. The guardrail located directly above the retaining wall extends 42 inches in height, consistent with the height limit of accessory structures typically visible in front yard areas. The guardrail is a requirement of the California Building Code due to the drop in elevation between the driveway and the side yard. The guardrail is at a minimum height and is a measure of safety to prevent a fall. The guardrail has an open design to allow the passage of air and light, and will serve to benefit the general welfare of persons residing on the property and in the neighborhood. 3. The proposal includes features that are responsive to resident concerns related to parking on La Jolla Drive. The driveway provides parking for two vehicles in addition to the two spaces in the garage. The creation of a pedestrian path from Catalina Drive allows guests to park on Catalina Drive instead of La Jolla Drive. Stepped planter beds have been added to the west elevation in order to soften the visual appearance of the retaining wall. 03-03-2015 22 Planning Commission Resolution No. Ott Page 9 of 12 4. The proposed dwelling as viewed from La Jolla Drive will be setback a minimum of 20 feet from the curb. The building mass is designed such that only a portion of the frontage visible from La Jolla Drive will be two stories in height. 5. Given another property in the immediate vicinity and in the same zoning district enjoys access from two different streets, no special privilege will be granted for the subject property. Finding: K. Granting of the variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this section, this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject property Two-Unit Residential (RT). The RT land use designation is intended to provide for a range of two-family residential dwelling units such as duplexes and townhomes. 2. The granting of the variance would allow a retaining wall and guardrail associated with the addition of a detached dwelling. The proposed dwelling is allowed within the RT land use designation and R-2 Zoning District. 3. The subject property is not located within a specific plan area. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends the City Council approve Modification Permit No. MD2015-008 and Variance No. VA2015-003, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 03-03-2015 �9 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 10 of 12 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2016. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Kory Kramer, Chairman BY: Peter Zak, Secretary 03-03-2015 Planning Commission Resolution No. eft Page 11 of 12 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLANNING DIVISION 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval. (Except as modified by applicable conditions of approval.) 2. Modification Permit No. MD2015-008 and Variance No. VA2015-003 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 3. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 4. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Use Permit. 5. Landscaping shall be provided adjacent to the retaining wall and guardrail and shall comply with traffic safety visibility requirements of the Zoning Code. 6. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit "A" shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans prior to issuance of the building permits. 7. Prior to commencement of demolition and grading of the project, the applicant shall submit a construction management plan to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The plan shall include discussion of project phasing, parking arrangements during construction, anticipated haul routes, and address minimization of construction disruptions to the adjacent right-of-way. Upon approval of the plan, the applicant shall be responsible for implementing and complying with the stipulations set forth in the approved plan. 8. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise-generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise-generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or holidays. 9. 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 03-03-2015 31 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 12 of 12 every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the Troesh Residence including, but not limited to, Modification Permit No. MD2015-008 and Variance No. VA2015-003 (PA2015-122). 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. BUILDING DIVISION 10. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Building Division and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 11. The driveway profile shall comply with City Standard STD-160-L-C with a maximum slope of 15 percent and a maximum grade change of 11 percent with a minimum 5- foot interval. 12. Minor grading is permitted within the La Jolla Drive public right-of-way. The extent of proposed grading shall not project past the projection of the side property line and shall not impact the adjacent neighbors. 13. No structural encroachments are permitted within the La Jolla Drive public right-of-way including but not limited to, walls, retaining walls, tie-backs, caissons, etc. 14. Three new 36 inch box street trees shall be installed within the La Jolla Drive public right-of-way consistent with Council Policy G-6 and subject to final approval by the Municipal Operations Department. 15. Each unit shall be served by separate water and sewer services. Each shall be installed per the applicable City standard. 16. The brick pavers and brick wall with fence shall be removed from the Catalina Drive public right-of-way and replaced with a new sidewalk along the Catalina Drive frontage per City Standard STD-180-L. 17. The driveway along La Jolla Drive shall be installed per City Standard STD-162-L. The driveway along Catalina Drive shall be reconstructed per City Standard STD-162-L. 03-03-2015 32 Attachment No. PC 3 Appellant's Description and Findings 33 V� QP �P 31{ Troesh Residence Description of Project Revisions The Troesh Residence project(PA2015-122), 336 Catalina Drive and 333 La Jolla Drive, has been updated following denial of the project by the Planning Commission in December 2015. In June 2016 the City Council remanded the project back to the Planning Commission following appeal of the denial by the project proponent.The plan revisions are intended to respond to concerns expressed by nearby residents and the City's Planning Commission. Changes to the proposed plan are reflected on the attached exhibit. The plan on the left side of the page represents the prior proposal,the center plan depicts the revisions in color, and the plan on the right side of the page represents the updated proposal. In response to resident concerns the following changes were made: 1. Creation of a walkway from Catalina Drive to the front door of the second residence along La Jolla Drive (shown on the attached exhibit in yellow).The purpose of the walkway will be to allow for visitors and guests to 333 La Jolla Drive to parking along Catalina Drive,where the street is considerably wider and parking is possible on both sides of the street without impeding the flow of traffic.The walkway will include an access gate at the side yard of 336 Catalina Drive and will lead to the front entry of 333 La Jolla Drive. A privacy gate will secure the yards between 336 Catalina Drive and 333 La Jolla Drive. 2. Switching the location of the driveway and the front door for 333 La Jolla Drive (shown in red).The driveway was relocated from the east side of the property to the west side of the property, and the front door from the west to the east.This change allowed for a pedestrian walkway to connect the residences along the eastern property line directly from Catalina Drive to La Jolla Drive. 3. The garage was setback an additional five feet from La Jolla Drive in order to lengthen the driveway(shown in green). In addition,the grade of the driveway was reduced to make the driveway less steep.These changes were made to allow for the addition of two uncovered parking spaces within the driveway. While the City's Municipal Code requires only two covered parking spaces, it is acknowledged that the size of the proposed residence is large and the creation of additional parking demand along La Jolla Drive is undesirable.The project has been redesigned to provide four total parking spaces where only two are required. 4. The increased garage setback provides additional articulation to the front of the residence. The second story is pushed back considerably; the area above the garage on the west and the area above the front door on the east are both single story.A two story feature is located between the garage and the front door,featuring multiple windows, a chimney, and a sloped roof which is below the City's height limit.The proposed residence follows the sloping topography and falls away from La Jolla Drive down the slope. 5. Addition of three stepped planter beds to reduce the visual appearance of the retaining wall as viewed from 332 Catalina Drive (shown in blue). Resident concerns were expressed in the form of testimony provided during the October and December 2015 Planning Commission hearings, via written letters and also during an open house hosted by the Troesh family on June 27, 2016. Nearby residents were alerted to the open house via direct mailing (utilizing the City's mailing radius required for public notice).Those concerns are summarized as follows: S5 Troesh Residence Description of Project Revisions Concern Plan Revision/Response Concern related to the character of the The massing of the house has been further reduced from La community and the size of the house. Jolla Drive as detailed above. Redevelopment has occurred consistent with City floor area limitations in the immediate block surrounding La Jolla Drive including Beacon Street, Santa Ana Avenue and Cliff Drive.The majority of the flatter lots in the project vicinity have already been redeveloped to build out consistent with City floor area limits.The lot in question is large and would allow for a total floor area of 9,092 square feet whereas the second residence would increase the total floor area to 7,201 square feet.The proposed residence is well within the City's floor area limits and consistent with the trend to redevelop older areas of the City including the surrounding streets. Concerns related to precedence setting There is no precedent setting action associated with the actions. project. The property located at 325 La Jolla Drive and 328 Catalina Drive already has identical access as that proposed. The residences on either side of 336 Catalina Drive were issued modification permits for features within a setback and 341 La Jolla Drive was issued an encroachment permit for the driveway apron and railing within the setback. Several properties appear to feature improvements which require a variance or modification permit, but for which none has been issued. The subject property is on Catalina Drive The project will not create an access condition that does and that is where access should be taken not already exist.The property at 325 La Jolla Drive and 328 Catalina Drive,which is zoned R-2, is configured in the same way with respect to access from both streets. Safety/emergency concerns with traffic Given the existing narrow condition of La Jolla Drive, fire on La Jolla Drive trucks do not drive down street. Rather hoses would be pulled from either end of the street.The additional of one residence will not change the provision of emergency access. Concern about the lot being subdivided in The existing non-confirming residence at 336 La Jolla Drive the future would prevent subdivision of the property for condominiums. Concerns related to driveway and Considerable revisions were made to address the driveway additional parking along La Jolla Drive and parking along La Jolla Drive as summarized above. Included addition of two extra off-street parking spaces and a walkway connecting the residences to allow visitor/guest parking on Catalina Drive. Concern of how this will affect resident's The project is consistent with the City's height limits with ocean view distance separating the different roof peaks. Private views are not regulated by the City. Prior tree removal Project has been conditioned to plant three new threes. so CATALINA DRIVECATAUNA DRIVE CATALINA DRIVE --_ ------------------�------------------- -----------------¢ — ----------------- ------------------t---------------- s:nua� zmEwNx EoewwK 'iiiii�ii�ti/Ks+` � awenTua Som MO'OE]EE _ _ �ITIM Som FinaGnE - _ ' �" -- %Fs:%Kr�'' /ORy9lITLNE Am NVOGOG� rl NEW ENTRTGATE FOR ACCESS TO NEW RESIDENLE LOCATED ATM3 __ LA AOLLA GATE TO NAVE r-------- r- r------------ I YCAOR/.Mp GALE KARDW I I NAROWARE FOR REMOTE T111ZZ N. I —MW PMA42PM I I 1 I / 1 OS11KWRW1/ I G�IF� bRWI/ �. 1 TIES /, E05TFSIIDOtNNb) /. i� I 616115RGOER/JS) /.'.. 1 EV1115RRRRMW 1 I F I i 4 I I I � NEW RBVALY FENOE AND GATE FOR I I I / I 336 CAT/JJPV`pRNE RESIDENCE I I I I 1 I I I I I !4 NEW ENCELOORACCET TO IOW j RESIDENCE L(XATEp AT 333 LA C_ C C_] 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3 � 3 STE o RANTERS ---- C - _ ----- --- ------ PLAN LEGEND 0 I: - NEWRESOFaCE IM M PEW t%C.BIYUE SOm STSO3'ST� ..- :::. iBW Com"SSION IxNG - CCf'IFL551011 VNEWS 9 c o o aer2xne FRaoEED aevuONE 0 77-777 -------------------- ------------- -------_ _—_»-0. _E..._—_______—___—__ ---.-- ------------- ------------- LA JOLLA DRIVE °W�- ATLA JUUA DRIVE IA JOLLA DRIVE SITE PLAN PER DECEMBER 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SITE PLAN PER JUNE 2016 PROPOSED REVISIONS SITE PIAN OVERLAY DECEMBER 15, 2015 ff JUNE 2016 3 SCALE:V8'=T-a SCALE:V8'=1'-O' SCALE V8'=T-0' Troesh Residence Modification Permit Findings 1. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood; The proposed home is compatible with existing development in the neighborhood for the following reasons: Existing residential development in the neighborhood consists of a variety of large, newly developed homes and older, generally smaller, homes. Area homes that have been recently rebuilt or renovated along La Jolla Drive, Cliff Drive, Beacon Way, and Santa Ana Avenue are of comparable size and character to the home proposed at 333 La Jolla Drive. Proposal represents the construction of a second residence on an R-2 lot. The subject lot and several lots surrounding it present challenges with respect to topography. Many of the lots in the surrounding blocks are more desirable from a redevelopment perspective, and as such have already seen redevelopment. The size of the proposed second residence is compatible with residences along Santa Ana Avenue, Beacon Street and Cliff Drive in the immediate block surrounding La Jolla Drive. To the north of Catalina, the project is compatible with R-2 zoned properties along Broad Street, Clay Street, Westminster Avenue and Bolsa Avenue. As with the subject home, the original area homes were built in large part in the 1950's. Since the home at 336 Catalina Drive was constructed, the City's standards related to the size of garages have changed over time, including the 2010 Comprehensive update to the Zoning Code. The City's standards require a 20' by 20' garage where the garage of the existing residence is 217" by 19' 3". The existing residence will remain unchanged, that is to say the square footage increase applies to a second dwelling unit and not the existing residence, nevertheless the code requires a modification permit for the existing non-conforming garage. The proposed residence will include parking in excess of City standards. The project will be compatible with existing development in that many homes in the vicinity of the subject site have been granted modification permits for non-conforming parking. The nearest example of this is 309 La Jolla Drive,five lots west of the subject site. 2. The granting of the modification is necessary due to the unique physical characteristic(s) of the property and/or structure,and/or characteristics of the use; The subject property is unique and warrants the granting of a modification permit, as the original two-car garage was built in 1955 to zoning standards at that time. Due to updates to the City's Zoning Code, present day garage dimensions have increased since the home was built. As detailed above, the City's Zoning Code requires a 20' by 20' garage. The existing garage at 336 Catalina Drive exceeds the required 20 foot depth by 1' 7". However, the existing garage measures 19' 3", which is 9" too narrow. Widening the garage is infeasible due to its proximity to the side yard setback and structural elements of the existing home. Widening the garage would require either: 1. a variance for an encroachment into the side yard setback and the removal of the pedestrian pathway to the proposed residence at 333 La Jolla Drive, or 2. the relocation of the existing stairwell and interior structural support features. 38 Troesh Residence Modification Permit Findings 3. The granting of the modification is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code; In order to achieve compliance with the City's Zoning Code, the existing garage would need to be widened by 9". Increasing the width of the existing garage is infeasible as detailed above because the easterly garage wall is an exterior wall currently located within the required side yard setback. Moving the garage wall further into the setback would exacerbate the encroachment triggering a variance. Additionally, the project proposes a walkway from Catalina Drive to the proposed home on La Jolla Drive, and moving the exterior garage wall would interfere with the new walkway. Increasing the width of the westerly garage wall is infeasible as well. The westerly wall is an interior wall and moving the wall would push the garage into the existing stairwell. Relocating the existing stairwell would have several consequences related to structural stability and the layout of the existing residence at 336 Catalina Drive. 4. There are no alternatives to the modification permit that could provide similar benefits to the applicant with less potential detriment to surrounding owners and occupants, the neighborhood, or to the general public; and Alternatives to granting a modification permit include bringing the existing garage into conformance with current zoning standards by extending the width by 9". This approach has been examined and determined infeasible because widening the garage would require either: 1. a variance for an encroachment into the side yard setback and the removal of the pedestrian pathway to the proposed residence at 333 La Jolla Drive, or 2. the relocation of the existing stairwell and interior structural support features. As an alternative to the original site plan for 333 La Jolla Drive, which provided no opportunity for uncovered parking, the home was redesigned to lengthen and reduce the slope of the driveway to allow for two driveway parking spaces. In addition, the garage and driveway were relocated from the east side of the property to the west side of the property in order to accommodate a pedestrian pathway providing access from Catalina Drive. The City's Zoning Code requires the proposed residence at 333 La Jolla Drive to provide two covered parking spaces and there is no requirement for uncovered parking.The updated design provides parking in excess of City Code standards by providing four parking spaces, two in the garage and two in the driveway. In recognition of the narrow configuration of La Jolla Drive, and the limited availability of on- street parking the project has been redesigned to include pathway leading from Catalina Drive to the home at 333 La Jolla Drive for guest access. This will allow guests to park along Catalina Drive. The design changes will result in the least impactful solution for provision of parking in excess of City Code Standards. 39 Troesh Residence Modification Permit Findings 5. The granting of the modification would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare,to the occupants of the property, nearby properties, the neighborhood, or the City, or result in a change in density or intensity that would be inconsistent with the provisions of this Zoning Code. The requested modification permit will not change the number of onsite parking spaces at 336 Catalina Drive. The City Zoning Code requires two covered parking spaces for the home at 336 Catalina Drive, where two covered parking spaces are currently provided and will remain. There will be no changes made along Catalina Drive. The granting of a modification permit for the existing garage at 336 Catalina Drive is necessary for the construction of a new residence at 333 La Jolla Drive.The existing garage, which is 9" too narrow, will not result in detriments to public health, safety or welfare because the existing residence is required to provide two parking spaces, which exist. The proposed residence at 333 La Jolla Drive will exceed the City's parking standards by providing four parking spaces (two covered,two uncovered)where only two spaces are required. In a further effort to minimize impacts to nearby properties, a preliminary construction management plan has been prepared for City review. The 28 point plan is intended to minimize the impacts on adjacent residential properties during the construction process. This includes, but is not limited to identification of off-site parking locations, limitations on dumpsters and material storage, daily street cleaning, no radios or music, and the future preparation of a site logistics plan once a contractor has been selected. 40 Troesh Residence CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN RULES FOR CONTRACTORS PERFORMANCE 1. Use of site: Confine construction operations to areas indicated on the plans and allow for Owner occupancy of the site. Keep all driveways and entrances clear and available to the Owner and emergency vehicles at all times. Contractor to provide plan,upon selection of contractor. 2. Storage will be limited to areas indicated on the Site Logistics Plan and as designated by the Owner and Contractor. Contractor is responsible for securing and maintaining the storage area and repair to any damage to the area. Shall be located on private property.Contractor to provide plan,upon selection of contractor. 3. Dumpster locations will be limited to areas indicated on the Site Logistics Plan and as designated by the Owner. Contractor shall be responsible to maintain the area in a clean and orderly manner. Limit the removal of dumpsters between 10:00 am and 5:00 pm. Shall be stored on site. Contractor to provide access for haulers to site.Contractor to provide plan,upon selection of contractor. 4. A pre-construction meeting will be required with the City of Newport Beach inspectors to provide plans where indicated within these rules. 5. All contractors must be dressed in appropriate trade clothing including shirts,long pants,work boots, construction hard hats,and appropriate safety clothing. 6. The contractors are to park along Catalina Drive and walk up to the site along the side yard of 336 Catalina Drive. Parking is also available along Santa Ana Avenue. Contractor to provide plan,upon selection of contractor, for number of parking spaces allowed on each street.Contractor to break down quantity required for each phase of construction(i.e. grading,demo,etc.) 7. Contractors/Tradesmen shall use the area directly in front of the site at 333 La Jolla Drive only for receiving or unloading of goods/tools. Contractor to provide plan,upon selection of contractor. 8. There will be no alcohol,beer or wine consumed while on the job. No exceptions! Non-compliance will call for immediate request to leave the premises. 9. The owner is not responsible for the Contractor's/Tradesmen's property. Contractor must approve job boxes or storage locations. Job boxes are to be locked if on premises. Contractor to provide plan,upon selection of contractor. 10. All work areas must be kept clean at all times. Each trade will be responsible for their own materials and work area. Any clean up needed due to repairs or construction will be billed back to the contractor at a rate of$120.00 per hour. 11. There will be no use of radios of any kind in the work areas. 12. All contractors and subcontractors will conduct themselves in a professional manner.The Owner reserves the right to have any uncooperative contractor personnel removed from site with no penalty to the Owner or the project contract. 13. No shouting,profanity or confrontation will be tolerated. 14. Utility shut-offs must be approved in advance of the job. 41 15. Contractors are responsible for taking all necessary precautions required to protect the Owners and neighboring properties and fumishings. 16. Contractors employees are to follow all applicable regulatory requirements, as well as any local or state codes. 17. Contractors will conduct daily safety checks of their employee's work practices,tools and equipment. 18. A clear,safe path of egress from the buildings must be maintained at all times during construction at all required fire exits. 19. Construction fencing and gate must be maintained and in good working condition at all times. 20. Construction gate must be locked daily after each shift. 21. Public street must be maintained and broomed daily. 22. Public sidewalk must be open and usable at all times. 23. No storage of materials on public street. 24. Flag men shall be used during excavation and hauling of fill material. 25. Any closure of streets or parking areas will require a temporary street&sidewalk closure permit obtained from the Public Works Department.Coordination&notification to all impacted residences shall be provided. Traffic control plans and detour routes may be required at the discretion of the Public Works Department. 26. Contractor to provide methods for concrete pours,deliveries,construction equipment to occur. 27. Contractor to identify number of trucks for each phase of construction. 28. The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code 10.28.040-Construction Activity-Noise Regulations describes the regulations on construction activity and noise allowed in the City.Below is a summary of the Municipal Code: Weekdays-construction allowed 7:00 a.m. -6:30 p.m. Saturdays-construction allowed 8:00 a.m. -6:00 p.m. Sundays and Federal Holidays-no construction activity allowed 42 Troesh Residence Variance Findings 1. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property(e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings,topography, or other physical features)that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification. The subject property orientation and topography are generally unique to other properties in the vicinity for the following reasons: 1.The subject property is bound by two streets, La Jolla Drive and Catalina Drive, providing a distinct address and distinct potential access point to both property frontages.There are approximately 99 properties with the identical R-2 designation in the project vicinity and only six properties are bound by two streets.This represents a unique circumstance that does not apply generally to the other properties in the project vicinity. 2.The topography of the site slopes steeply from La Jolla Drive towards Catalina Drive with approximately 27 feet of fall between the streets.The steep topography represents a unique circumstance where the majority of the other properties with the identical R-2 designation have relatively flat entries to the property frontage.This steep topography requires a retaining wall within the front setback to support the proposed driveway. 2. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification. The City right of way along La Jolla Drive extends 15' northerly as measured from the street to the property line. Where the Zoning Code requires a 5' front yard setback for this property,the proposed retaining wall will be setback 15' from the street and the nearest portion of the house will be approximately 20'from the street because of the unusual circumstance of having 15' of unimproved right of way separating the property from La Jolla Drive. Within the front setback,the maximum height of the retaining wall will be 5'4" as measured from existing grade (124.45'—119.14').With the railing,the overall height will be 8'10" at the worst case (127.95-119.14).These heights gradually decline as the wall nears La Jolla Drive. At no point will the retaining wall exceed the top of curb elevation.The introduction of three stepped planter beds ranging from 2'10"to 4'8"will further reduce the visual impression of the retaining wall. Other properties within the vicinity of 333 La Jolla Drive enjoy driveways similar to the configuration proposed.This includes 325 La Jolla Drive,which is separated from the subject property by a single lot. 325 La Jolla Drive includes the same R-2 zoning designation and contains a driveway, retaining wall, and railing within the City's right of way. Several other nearby properties contain substantial improvements and overheight features within the City's right of way,the majority of which appear to be unpermitted.Vehicular access to a garage at 333 La Jolla Drive from Catalina Drive is infeasible because the existing residence at 336 Catalina Drive would have to be demolished to accommodate such access. -4.3 Troesh Residence Variance Findings Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties (325 La Jolla Drive among others) in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification of R-2. 3. Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. The subject site is zoned R-2 which allows for the construction of a second single family residence, including a driveway, by right. Municipal Code Section 20.40.040,Table 3-10: Off- Street Parking Requirements requires the proposed residence to include a two car garage. In order to comply with the City's requirement, it is necessary to situate the driveway and garage from La Jolla Drive because access from Catalina Drive would require demolition of the existing residence at 336 Catalina Drive.Without a driveway,the project is infeasible and the applicant would be unable to locate a second house on the R-2 lot.Therefore,granting of the variance to allow for a retaining wall and driveway railing within the front setback is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of property rights of the applicant. 4. Granting of the variance will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district; No special privilege will be granted to the applicant because the same driveway configuration is already in place at 325 La Jolla Drive, which is located to the west of the subject property, separated by a single lot. The site topography requires the driveway to be supported by a retaining wall. Further, given the steep slope to the north (falling away from La Jolla Drive), a railing is required atop the retaining wall for safety purposes. Given that another R-2 property in the immediate project vicinity already enjoys the driveway configuration including the retaining wall and railing and the placement of two homes with access from two separate streets (325 La Jolla Drive and 328 Catalina Drive), no special privilege will be granted for the subject property. 5. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger,jeopardize,or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. The granting of a variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City nor constitute a hazard to the public or the surrounding neighborhood because the proposed residence has been designed to be sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood. The project will also include features that are responsive to resident concerns related to parking on La Jolla Drive through the redesign of the driveway providing parking in excess of City standards (2 cars in the garage and 2 cars in the driveway where parking for 2 cars is required) and the creation of a pedestrian pathway from Catalina Drive allowing guests to park on Catalina Drive and walk to the front door rather than park on La Jolla Drive. Stepped planter beds have been added to the west elevation in order to soften the visual appearance of the retaining wall. Additional street trees will be added along La Jolla Drive consistent with City Conditions of Approval. 44 Troesh Residence Variance Findings The house, as viewed from La Jolla Drive will be setback between 20'to 25'from the street, and the building massing is sensitive to the neighborhood. Only a portion of the frontage will be two stories in height with the areas above the garage and the front door having reduced heights. In addition,the project includes architectural features with multiple ridges and peaks from all four building elevations, creating a residence that is attractive from all vantage points and is consistent with City height standards. It is recognized that La Jolla Drive is a particularly narrow street. The City's Fire Department does not drive fire trucks down the street.The nominal increase in vehicle trips will result in no change to the provision of emergency services. In order to maintain traffic flow, residents and guests must monitor themselves to park on one side of La Jolla Drive (the south side).This is an existing condition resultant of an unimproved City right of way, unregulated by signage or red curb striping,which will remain as such at the behest of area residents.The driveway proposed at the subject property will not exacerbate this narrow situation and the new home will include the construction of two garage parking spaces and two driveway parking spaces to provide a total of four onsite parking spaces, where only two garage spaces are required. 6. Granting of the variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this section,this Zoning Code,the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan. The construction of a second residence at the subject site, including construction of a driveway, is permitted by right of the R-2 zoning district.The granting of a variance is necessary due to site topography and also because of the unusual configuration of unimproved City right of way, which extends 15'from the street to the property line.The retaining wall and railing will support the driveway, and are consistent with the intent and purpose of the zoning code and General Plan. 45 V� QP �P Attachment No. PC 4 October 8, 2015, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 47 V� QP �P �g NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/08/15 'r Kramer noted his agreement with the Community Development Director's determination and noted that the ap Ilant's suggestions to utilize elevations following the artificial fill on the site, is contrary to the definition o tablished grade as identified in the Municipal Code. Additionally, he stated he cannot find granting a spec rivilege in this case as grades on adjacent properties are representative of the natural grade. Likewise, ev ith the denial, a house can be built and the owners can enjoy their property; it just needs to conform to the c Motion made by Commissioner Koe and seconded by Chair Kramer to adopt Resolution No. 1994 denying the appellant's Appeal to Planning Co ission and upholding the Community Development Director's establishment of grade. AYES: Brown, Koetting, Kramer,Weig ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Hillgren, Lawler, Zak Community Development Director Brandt and Deputy Community Develop nt Director Wisneski re-entered the Chambers. As there were technical difficulties with the presentation for Item No. 3, Item No. 5 we nsidered at this time. TROESH RESIDENCE(PA2015-122) ITEM N0.3 Site Location: 336 Catalina Drive and 333 La Jolla Drive Assistant Planner Jason Van Patten presented the staff report including details of the applications, location, existing conditions, vehicular access, the proposed new dwelling, topography, Zoning Code requirements, setbacks, City standards for driveway design, and findings and recommendations. He noted that the City received correspondence from various members of the public, addressing circulation through La Jolla Drive, traffic and parking, and that the City Traffic Engineer and the project architect are available to answer questions at this time. Commissioner Weigand noted a phone conversation with Assistant Planner Van Patten and summarized their discussion regarding the subject property. He commented on parking issues and expressed concerns with construction traffic and parking. Additionally, he expressed concerns regarding emergency safety vehicle access. Assistant Planner Van Patten explained there is sufficient emergency access and there is no change to the existing access with the addition of the proposed dwelling. City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine stated there is no history regarding the adjacent street being a one-way street. He added that aerial photographs show that consistently, people park on the south side of the street and there is little-to-no parking on the north side. Additionally residents of the area seem to police themselves in terms of driving and parking on the street. Red zones would not be implemented unless there is a request from the neighborhood. Discussion followed regarding maintaining a clear roadway as well as on-street parking. Chair Kramer noted the issues for consideration at this time. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Craig Smith, project architect, offered to respond to questions or concerns. In response to Commissioner Koetting's question, Assistant Planner Van Patten reported that the existing structure which is accessed from Catalina Drive will be a rental property. The property owner will live in the new unit. Page 33 of 10 4q NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/08/15 John Ogbum, nearby resident, confirmed that residents self-police the neighborhood and have assigned parking spaces. He added that arrangements for parking are made for anyone planning on entertaining guests. In terms of fire vehicles, he reported that it is impossible for them to make a turn when parking is full. He commented on construction access from La Jolla Drive and expressed concerns regarding access to homes of other residents while construction vehicles are present. In that case, emergency vehicles would not be able to get through. He addressed the proposed retaining wall and stated he cannot understand how the project could move forward without adequate conditions for slippage on the property. He noted this is a new address and expressed concerns that the project, if approved, would set a precedent for neighboring lots. He added that red curbs would make it difficult for resident parking. He referenced a petition signed by community members on La Jolla Drive and Catalina Drive and opposed accessing the new residence from La Jolla Drive. Discussion followed regarding the possibility of making the project work, depending on design, similar conditions of other properties in the area, the evolution of the neighborhood from summer homes to permanent homes, children's play houses, interactions with the applicant,and existing properties that currently have driveways. Chair Kramer noted that the zoning is R-2,which makes it legitimate for a property owner to have two units on a property. Assistant Planner Van Patten noted that the property abuts two public streets and access can be from either side. The City can assign an address that applies to the front-facing house. Chair Kramer reported that the property provides a unique circumstance and allows for different access. They may have two different addresses, one on La Jolla Drive and the other on Catalina Drive. Jim Young spoke in opposition to the project creating access from La Jolla Drive. He referenced his written comments and asked whether an R-2 lot may have two different addresses. He expressed concern that there is a double standard and asked that the Commission not encroach on La Jolla Drive with five more driveways. Gavin Sacks, adjacent property owner, commented on the narrow streets and the character of that particular area. He added there are always cars parked on the south side of La Jolla and related an incident where his son almost got run over by a utility vehicle. He noted it is extremely narrow and that there is not enough buffer area for people to walk safety. He addressed existing mature trees and referenced the Zoning Code in terms of the Planning Commission's purview in ensuring that plans are kept in character with the neighborhood. He commented on the average square footage of houses in the area, and opined that it is in everyone's best interest to determine that the proposed project does not conform to the unique character of the neighborhood. Bill Anderson spoke in opposition to the project and felt that it would change the character of the neighborhood, dramatically. He commented on La Jolla being a one-way street and asked the Commission to consider this matter, carefully and with common sense. Mr. Ogburn invited the Commission to walk the street on a Sunday afternoon to see how tight and narrow the street is. He reiterated concerns with access for emergency vehicles. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Koetting commented on the square footage limit and Assistant Planner Van Patten addressed the City's calculation for maximum floor area. Additionally, he reported on review of the plans by the Building Division. City Traffic Engineer Brine indicated that the City would not propose red curbs on one side of the street and it is not something that neighbors would want because there would be a loss of on street-parking. Vice Chair Brown commented on the unique character of the neighborhood and suggested adding a Condition of Approval that construction vehicles would have to park off-site. Page 4 of 10 50 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/08/15 Chair Kramer indicated he is not satisfied with the amount of data that has been presented, in order to make a decision. He requested continuing this item to allow staff to gather more facts. He added there are too many unanswered questions and noted residents'concerns. Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres suggested continuing the matter to a date certain and Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski suggested scheduling for November 5, 2015. Motion made by Chair Kramer and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to continue this matter to the Planning Commission meeting of November 5, 2015. AYES: Brown, Koetting, Kramer,Weigand ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Hillgren, Lawler, Zak RECESS AND RECONVENE Chair Kramer called for a recess at 8:21 p.m. Chair Kramer reconvened the meeting at 8:26 p.m. with all Members present, except Commissioners Hillgren, Lawler and Zak. M NO. 4 VERIZON MONOEUCALYPTUS TREE (PA2015-128) Site Location: 23 Corporate Plaza Associate Planner Makana Nova provided details of the staff report addressing the proposed telecommuni tions facility, project site, surrounding properties, site plan, location of the monopole and additional euca tus trees to be planted, as well as the location of support equipment, screening, the antenna plan, heig of the facility and height limit, one-carrier design, mesh screening and climbing vines, materials, other telec m facilities in the area, and increased data capacity resulting from the project. She addressed CEQA exemp ' ns, findings and staff's recommendation for approval of the proposed facility. Vice Chair Brown inquired abo Condition No. 23 and Associate Planner Nova stated that the site can only hold one carrier and suggested th the condition is not applicable and should be deleted. Secretary Koetting asked regarding th adequacy of the trash enclosures and Associate Planner Nova reported that the project meets the code quirements in terms of trash area to serve the surrounding buildings. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Jim Mosher commented on the applicant and the possibilit f having two parallel applications going through. He expressed concern with Verizon having two sites, closet ether, and wondered why they are not using the rooftop at a nearby building. He referenced his written com nts and recent approvals of other Verizon sites in terms of antenna heights. Additionally, he commented on t materials board and on the importance of Condition No. 12. Jim Warren, nearby resident, expressed concern regarding the height o ucalyptus trees along Coast Highway and with the loss of views of the Harbor. He asked that the Planni Commission continue this matter until further information can be provided so those affected may pa 'cipate in the process. Additionally, he expressed concerns regarding decreased property values because of loss of views. Jim Heinrich, representative for the project applicant, Verizon Wireless, addressed the subje and other sites and reported that the proposed site fits best in their network. He indicated that the proposed pro t meets the City's height standards and that the facility will stay at 32 feet. He addressed maintenance and u eep and Associate Planner Nova noted that Condition No. 11 addresses maintenance. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Page 5 of 10 51 V� QP �P Attachment No. PC 5 December 17, 2015, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 53 V� QP �P CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers— 100 Civic Center Drive Thursday, December 17, 2015 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 p.m. I. CALL T RDER- The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. It. PLEDGE OF LEGIANCE—Chair Kramer III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: rown, Hillgren, Koetting, Kramer, Lawler, Weigand,Zak Staff Present: Deputy Com unity Development Director Brenda Wisneski; Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres; City Traffic Engineer y Brine; Assistant Planner Jason Van Patten; Planning Program Manager Patrick Alford, Police Civilian In stigator Wendy Joe; Administrative Support Specialist Jennifer Biddle; Administrative Support Technician T ci Makinen IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES - None VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3,2015 Recommended Action: Approve and file Commissioner Hillgren clarified his comments related to the Villag nn, in the minutes of December 3, 2015. He noted that no public uses should be allowed on the residential lot an that the only thing allowable would be the unpermitted kitchen, and, only if it is made fully compliant. He address the CUP and noted that an open mind should be kept as it provides opportunities for improvements that don't exi today. It was noted that Mr. Jim Mosher provided written comments with suggestions amending the minutes. Chair Kramer opened public comments. Chair Kramer closed public comments. Motion made by Vice Chair Brown and seconded by Commissioner Secretary Koetting to a rove and file the Planning Commission meeting minutes of December 3, 2015, as amended. AYES: Brown, Hillgren, Koetting, Lawler, Weigand, Zak ABSTAIN: Kramer ABSENT: None VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS TROESH RESIDENCE (PA2015-122) ITEM N0.2 Site Location: 336 Catalina Drive and 333 La Jolla Drive Assistant Planner Jason Van Patten presented a brief overview of the request and addressed public comments received during the October 8, 2015, Planning Commission meeting. He addressed the variance requested, difficulties with topography, site elevation, setbacks, alternative designs, moving the house back twenty feet, access, parking, conditions of approval, requirement of a construction management plan, findings and recommendations. Page 1 of 10 1515 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/17/15 Secretary Koetting asked whether any alternatives were being presented. Assistant Planner Van Patten reported that staff and the applicant worked together to generate various options for the project but that no change was made to the project. Commissioner Hillgren asked whether it mattered which street access was taken from. Assistant Planner Van Patten reported that it does not matter where access is provided. Commissioner Hillgren then asked whether parking was restricted on one side of La Jolla Drive. Mr. Van Patten indicated that there are no parking restrictions on La Jolla Drive; although, the practice has been that people park only on one side. Commissioner Hillgren commented on the lack of guest parking and asked about possible impacts. City Traffic Engineer, Tony Brine stated that people generally park on the south side of La Jolla Drive and that residents self-police themselves. He stated that he does not think staff can control the number of cars the owner would have. He added that the street is a two-way street and there are no parking restrictions on either side of the street. Commissioner Lawler referenced a letter from a resident concerned about property values and whether the property can be "rental stock", Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that whether or not the property will be rental stock, is not within the Commission's purview. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Craig Smith, Project Architect, representing the applicant, reported that the driveway was determined in accordance with Public Works standards and used the maximum slopes from the curb to the garage. He addressed the need for a variance, the retaining wall and provided information regarding comparable properties. In response to an inquiry from the Commission, Mr. Smith reported that the property was purchased in 2013. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's question, Mr. Smith addressed the depth and width of the driveway and reported that the owners park their cars inside the garage. Chair Kramer asked if the applicant has had any meetings with the neighbors and Mr. Smith reported they have had none. Chair Kramer found that to be troubling. Discussion followed regarding the width of La Jolla Drive and typical widths of streets such as Balboa Avenue. John Ogburn, 309 La Jolla Drive, referenced an email sent by various residents and Chair Kramer confirmed that all Commissioners have a copy. He commented on a City mandate to maintain the character of the community and stated that their street should not be compared to "the broader Newport Beach" and specifically, not the broader Newport Heights. He added that even the alleys are narrower than a typical alley on Balboa. He commented on his attempt to request a variance on his home and reported that he was told by the Planning Department, "not to bother applying". When expressing concerns about the subject project, he was told not to bother appearing. He stated he wants to ensure that everyone in the community is being treated the same and fairly and reported that 90% of the people in the neighborhood are opposed to the project. Additionally, he expressed concern that approval of the project will set a bad precedent. Discussion followed regarding other lots zoned R-2 in the neighborhood, the issue of access on two streets, and other properties in the City that have access on two streets. Commissioner Hillgren asked Mr. Ogburn if he could suggest an acceptable solution. Mr. Ogburn stated that he and other residents in the area believe that everyone has the right to use their property, as they see fit. He noted that the subject property is on Catalina and that for them to affect their neighborhood, is not proper or right. He added that he believed that access should be from the other street and offered that as a solution. Additionally, he noted that presently, there is a safety issue on La Jolla, with traffic. Page 2 of 10 .50 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/17/15 Dana Anderson, 340 Catalina Drive, commented on the uniqueness of the area and expressed concerns regarding the possibility of the lot being divided in the future. She urged the Planning Commission to consider the neighborhood and act to maintain its uniqueness. She hoped that if she decides to build a large house on her property or sell it to a developer to do so, that she would be granted the same consideration. Reverend Joy Price and her husband, Gordon Sheldall, 337 Santa Ana Avenue, reported that their garage parking is directly off La Jolla and noted it is a difficult turn because of the topography of the driveway. If parking were to be added, across from her property, they would be unable to pull out of their parking lot without significant effort. Mr. Sheldall added concerns regarding safety and noted the need to maintain emergency access. Nathan Littrell, 345 La Jolla Drive, commented on his experience dealing with the City, when he remodeled his house. He expressed concerns regarding the proposed addition affecting his ocean view as well as on the City's treatment of the project in terms of conforming to the existing neighborhood. Jim Mosher referenced the proposed resolution and pointed out that Condition No. 10 looks similar to Condition No. 9. He noted that there is reference to a Condition No. 22, but there is no such condition on the report. Additionally, he opined that good arguments have been presented where the Commission may not want a project with a variance to be completed. He commented on the lack of parking and noted that people tend to fill up their garages with things other than cars. He suggested it would be appropriate to ensure that garages be used for parking. He pointed out inconsistencies in terms of allowing or not allowing parking in the driveway and made suggestions regarding setbacks. Greg Keeling, 325 La Jolla Drive, reported that the applicant has cut down City trees as part of their evaluation of the property. He noted that La Jolla Drive is a very narrow street and that getting out of his driveway and garage is very difficult. He opined that the subject project is not in keeping with the feel of the neighborhood. In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Keeling stated he has not met with the applicant. Discussion followed regarding existing condominiums and their ownership, the need to correct parking if the subject applicant were to turn his structures into condominiums with separate ownership. Gavin Sacks, 332 Catalina Drive, commented on the concerns raised by neighborhood residents and their opposition to the project. He addressed whether or not the proposed dwelling is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood noting that it would be 2.21 times larger than the average size of homes on La Jolla Drive and 2.1 times larger than the median home size. He questioned whether access can be granted off two different streets if the property cannot be subdivided or turned into condominiums. He opined that the applicant has no right to build a second dwelling because neither the existing residence nor the proposed residence is in conformance with the Code. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Zak confirmed there is no Homeowners Association within the subdivision area. He asked for clarification regarding the modification permit and non-conforming parking. Assistant Planner Van Patten provided clarification and reported that the house on the northerly half has a two-car garage which is currently sub-standard by nine inches. Secretary Koetting asked regarding a requirement to take access from Catalina Drive and Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski identified the specific finding. She explained that without the variance the applicant would not be able to construct a driveway off La Jolla Drive but would be required to take access from Catalina Drive, which is infeasible because there is an existing dwelling off Catalina Drive. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's question regarding restricting parking in the driveway, Assistant Planner Van Patten reported there is a section in the Zoning Code that stipulates that a vehicle is only permitted to park in a front setback in a driveway that is twenty feet deep. He added that the property line for the subject property starts fifteen feet back off the paved street. Page -3tof 10 "/ NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12/17/15 City Traffic Engineer Brine added that the plan that was shown with two cars parked in the driveway shows that fifteen feet of that is in the public right-of-way. Typically, the City does not allow parking within the public right-of-way. In this case, there is no sidewalk on that side of the roadway so staff does not have a concern with that. Assistant Planner Van Patten reported there were no design options that looked at access from the other street. Chair Kramer stated the Commission is being placed into a corner and noted that the applicant has other options which are not being considered. The Commission must consider what is being proposed. Commissioner Lawler referenced Finding A relative to consistency with the neighborhood, noted the project is not consistent, as the applicant is asking for two entry points and no one else has that in the neighborhood. Chair Kramer stated that he cannot make Finding A, either, and therefore, cannot be in favor of approval. Commissioner Zak noted there are two public access ways, which is allowed, irrespective of whether others have that or not. Additionally, he stated that the residents have not spoken to the variance being requested. He stated he is leaning towards supporting staffs recommendation. Vice Chair Brown agreed with Commissioner Zak and stated he is leaning towards approval, as well. Commissioner Zak commented on adding specific conditions, if there is interest in approving the project such as ensuring the garage is not used for storage or having an enforcement policy. He expressed concern regarding making sure that what is being designed is structurally correct and will not impact existing neighbors' homes. Commissioner Hillgren stated that Finding A is a challenge and reported he cannot make Findings D and E. He stated that the project is inconsistent in scale with what is existing, felt there were alternatives that could be evaluated, and felt the street was a real challenge without addressing off-street parking for the proposed home. Commissioner Kramer indicated he agreed with Commissioner Hillgren. Secretary Koetting opined that the applicant did not do enough homework to resolve the issues of concern. He stated they could move the house back or make it smaller. In response to Commissioner Weigand's inquiry as to whether the items can be bifurcated, Assistant City Attorney Torres reported that the decision needs to be as a "packaged deal" to accomplish what the applicant desires. Both components would need to be approved. Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Secretary Koetting to deny Modification No. MD2015- 008 and Variance No.VA2015-003. AYES: Hillgren, Koetting, Kramer, Lawler, Weigand NOES: Brown,Zak tTEM-NQ. ALBOA MARINA WEST RESTAURANT(PA2015-113) anon: 201 E. Coast Highway Planning Program Manager Patrick Alford pro ' owerPoint presentation addressing location, applicant withdrawal of the portion of the application allowing dancing, ect site, adjacent land uses, existing conditions, previous review of Mitigated Negative Declaration for this projec lanning Commission, parking, outdoor dining, issues related to the design and operational elements, project-specs ons of Approval, concerns relative to noise, service and loading areas, restrooms, valet parking, results of acoustica Page 4 of 10 52 Attachment No. PC 6 Resolution No. 2005 159 V� QP �P �o RESOLUTION NO. 2005 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. MD2015-008 AND VARIANCE NO. VA2015-003 TO ADD A 4,451-SQUARE-FOOT DWELLING ON PROPERTY WITH NONCONFORMING PARKING AND TO ALLOW A RETAINING WALL AND GUARDRAIL TO EXCEED 42 INCHES IN HEIGHT WITHIN A FRONT SETBACK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 336 CATALINA DRIVE AND 333 LA JOLLA DRIVE (PA2015-122) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Jon and Elsa Troesh, property owners, with respect to property located at 336 Catalina Drive and 333 La Jolla Drive, legally described as Lot 4 of Tract No. 444 in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 19, Page 29 of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said county requesting approval of a modification permit and variance. 2. The applicant proposes the addition of a detached, 4,451-square-foot dwelling fronting La Jolla Drive and requests a modification permit and variance. The modification permit allows an addition on property with nonconforming parking that exceeds 10 percent of the existing floor area developed on site. A separate detached dwelling fronts Catalina Drive and is nonconforming in parking due to the interior dimension of the garage. The existing dwelling would remain unchanged. The variance allows a retaining wall and guardrail to exceed 42 inches in height within the 5-foot front setback adjacent to La Jolla Drive. The overall height of the retaining wall and guardrail ranges between 6 feet 9 inches and 8 feet 11 inches when measured from existing grade. 3. The subject property is located within the Two-Unit Residential (R-2) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Two-Unit Residential (RT). 4. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone. 5. A public hearing was held on October 8, 2015, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. 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. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to November 5, 2015. 6. On November 5, 2015, the public hearing was continued at the request of the applicant to December 17, 2015. 01 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005 Page 2 of 5 7. A public hearing was held on December 17, 2015, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing 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 public hearing. 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 modification permit and variance only after making each of the required findings set forth in Section 20.52.050 (Modification Permits) and 20.52.090 (Variances). In this case, based upon the oral and written evidence provided at the public hearing, the Planning Commission was unable to make the following findings: Modification Permit Finding: A. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. Facts Opposed to Finding: 1. The proposed project is inconsistent in scale with existing properties nearby that generally contain less floor area. 2. The proposed project will result in vehicular access from two points of entry, La Jolla Drive, and Catalina Drive, and is inconsistent with existing development in the neighborhood that provide vehicular access from a single point of entry. Therefore, this finding for approval cannot be made. Finding: B. There are no alternatives to the modification permit that could provide similar benefits to the applicant with less potential detriment to surrounding owners and occupants, the neighborhood, or to the general public. Facts Opposed to Finding: 1. Alternatives do exist that could provide similar benefits to the applicant with less detriment to surrounding owners and the neighborhood. The scope of the project could be altered to provide additional off-street parking. The proposed garage could be setback further from the La Jolla Drive property line to provide additional parking in 10-15-2013 02 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005 Page 3 of 5 front of the garage, off the street. A greater setback off La Jolla Drive, a reduction in square footage, or a lower dwelling could reduce impacts from the street and to neighboring properties. Therefore, this finding for approval cannot be made. Finding: C. The granting of the modification would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, to the occupants of the property, nearby properties, the neighborhood, or the City, or result in a change in density or intensity that would be inconsistent with the provisions of this Zoning Code. Facts Opposed to Finding: 1. Granting of the modification results in a dwelling that provides vehicular access from La Jolla Drive, which is a narrow right-of-way that allows for parking on both sides of the street. The proposed development will impact on-street parking and traffic through La Jolla Drive and will be detrimental to nearby properties and the neighborhood that travel through the street. Therefore, this finding for approval cannot be made. Variance Finding: D. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification. Facts Opposed to Finding: 1. Strict compliance with the Zoning Code would not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under the same zoning district. A second dwelling could be built with modifications to the existing dwelling that fronts Catalina Drive. Therefore, this finding for approval cannot be made. Findin : E. Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. Facts Opposed to Finding: 1. The variance is only necessary to provide vehicular access from La Jolla Drive and is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the applicant. The applicant is not deprived of substantial property rights without the variance because alternatives do exist that could provide similar benefits to the applicant. Therefore, this finding for approval cannot be made. 10-15-2013 Os Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005 Page 4 of 5 Finding: F. Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. Facts Opposed to Finding: 1. Granting of the variance will constitute a special privilege by allowing the subject property to maintain vehicular access from two streets, La Jolla Drive and Catalina Drive, which is inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district that take access from one street. Therefore, this finding for approval cannot be made. Finding: G. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood Facts Opposed to Finding: 1. Granting of the variance will allow vehicular access from La Jolla Drive. The additional vehicles attributed to residents of the dwelling or guests of the dwelling will add to parking on the street, which will be detrimental to persons residing in the neighborhood due to the already narrow width of the right-of-way. Therefore, this finding for approval cannot be made. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies Modification Permit No. MD2015-008 and Variance No. VA2015-003. 2. This action shall become final and effective 14 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. 10-15-2013 04 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005 Page 5 of 5 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015. AYES: Hillgren, Koetting, Kramer, Lawler, Weigand NOES: Brown, Zak ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None BY: A hairm n BY: PSecretary 10-15-2013 05 V� QP �P Attachment No. PC 7 Public Correspondence 07 V� QP �P �g Van Patten, Jason From: gk keeling <grkeell@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 6:29 PM To: Van Patten, Jason Subject: Fwd: Project File#PA2015-122 Attachments: img-Z16125551-0001.pdf ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ogburn, John <John.Oeburn(&,,colliers.com> Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 Subject: Project File#PA2015-122 To: "kkramernnewportbeachca.gov" <kkramer ,newportbeachca.gov>, "tbrown(u,newportbeachca.gov" <tbrownA,,newportbeachca.gov>, "pkoetting(a,newportbeachca.goy" <pkoetting_(&newportbeachca.goov "bhillpren(d,,newportbeachca.eov" <bhilleren(iDnewportbeachca.gov>, "rlawler(dnewportbeachca.gov" <rlawler(d,,newportbeachca.eov>, "eweigand(a)newportbeachca.gov" <eweigand(d)newportbeachca.eov>, "pzakknewportbeachca.gov" <pzak&newportbeachca.gov> Co "mllearkaol.com" <mllearkaol.com>, "iimy9katt.net" <iimy9(a att.net>, "neliaggmail.com" <n lg itt(c�,gnaiI.com>, "Bill Anderson (bill.anderson(a),coldwellbanker.com)" <bill.anderson(a,coldwellbanker.com>, "danabelinda(a,yahoo.com" <danabelinda(a�,yahoo.com>, "gavinsacks(ayahoo.com" <gavinsacks(a),vahoo.com>, "mbooth760( ,yahoo.com" <mbooth760vahoo.com>, "bensonmike70( gmail.com" <bensonmike70Agmail.com>, "iasonsfinney(a,vahoo.com" <iasonsfinneykyahoo.com>, "Grkeellkgmail.com" <Grkeellggrnail.com>, "scottngarreughotmail.com" <scottn ag rrettghotmail.com>, "dungsbcglobal.net" <dunksbcglobal.net>, "Ogburn, John" <Tohn.O bg um ,colliers.com>, Amy Ogburn<ogburnarny earthlink.net> Dear Planning Commission Members, Attached please find our communities thoughts, concerns, objections, and documentations regarding the above referenced project. Please note and take into the highest level of consideration, that while we are technically a portion of the Newport Heights community, this particular street and neighborhood is by no means the same as the rest of the defined area known as such. La Jolla Dr, and Catalina Dr. do not enjoy the flat lots,wide alleys and broad streets of the rest of the area. We do not have homes anywhere near the size of the one proposed. We do not have garage access to many homes in the area. We do not have many of the character traits typically found in a CDM or Peninsula R2 property. And we do not illegally cut down city owned trees just so we can expand our property(can't help but wonder what some Environmental Groups would think of that?). i What we do have is a tight knit neighborhood who have worked out our parking issues, our traffic issues, and many other issues that come with our unique little slice of Newport Beach. We do have each other's backs and stand united against this project which would not only set precedence for many other expansions but also permanently destroy the "CHARACTER" of our neighborhood. A number of us will be at the meeting tomorrow but the very suspicious move of the meeting to the first night of the Christmas Boat Parade prevents some from doing so. With all due respect please vote NO on this variance. Regards, John O. John J. Ogburn Senior Vice President Investor Services I USA Dir+1 949 724 5584 1 Mob+1 949 887 8484 Main +1 949 724 5500 1 Fax+1 949 724 5684 John.O bg urrigcolliers.com I Click to Download V-Card Colliers International 3 Park Plaza I Suite 1200 1 Irvine, CA 92614 1 USA www.colliers.com i View the current issue of Knowledge Leader. 2 7L) December 14,2015 To:Members of the Planning Commission From: Concerned Residents of La Jolla Drive and lower Catalina Drive RE:Project File #PA2015-122 (Troesh Residence) Sent via email Dear Members of the Planning Commission: Thank you for your impartial adjudication of the above-referenced case. The October 81' Planning Commission hearing raised several questions and concerns that were not addressed by the applicant and do not appear to be clearly explained in the Municipal Code. Given the significant impacts of the proposed project on parking, traffic, public safety, and the character of the neighborhood, we wish to reiterate them here for your consideration in advance of the December 171h continuation hearing. I. Title 20 Considerations Title 20 of the Zoning Code states that the "Zoning Code is intended to...promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare; protect the character, social, and economic vitality of neighborhoods; and to ensure the beneficial development of the City" (emphasis added). Several public-safety related concerns regarding the narrowness of La Jolla Drive were voiced during the October 81h hearing, including the difficulty for emergency vehicles to navigate the street and the fact that automobile traffic has to pass right by existing property boundaries with no sidewalks or other buffers to protect pedestrians. The area in front of the proposed new residence is one of the narrowest bottlenecks on an already tight street. Moreover, the proposed residence is completely out of keeping with the character of one of Newport Beach's quaintest and most unique neighborhoods. As a Commission member stated himself on October 8th, presumably referring to the neighborhood's mature trees, terraced gardens, quaint homes, narrow streets, open views and lush 71 landscaping, the area feels more "like Laguna Beach or Hollywood Hills" than it does a typical Newport Beach neighborhood. According to Zillow.com, the average house size on La Jolla Drive is 2,056 SF. The median home size is 2,167 SF (see Attachment A for detail). The proposed residence, at 4,551 square feet, would be 2.21x larger than the average home on La Jolla Drive, and 2.1x larger than the median. It would be nearly 17%larger than largest existing house in the neighborhood, and the density on its lot would be completely out of scale with that of the surrounding homes. There are only three houses on the entire street that exceed 3,000 square feet (3,120 SF, 3,647 SF, and 3,900 SF), and those homes have an average lot size of 7,166 square feet. The largest homes therefore have an average FAR of 0.5x lot area, ensuring ample setbacks and lots of open space. When combined with the 2,400 SF existing home at 336 Catalina, the total built-out square footage (existing+proposed) on the subject lot would be 6,951. The lot size for 336 Catalina is 6,185 SF,equating to an FAR for the existing and proposed residences of 1.12x. That is 2.23x more dense than the other large homes on the street, and would allow only minimal open space that, per the submitted plans, would mostly be covered by decks and balconies. II. R2 Zoning and Subdivision Considerations It was noted on October 81h that there are several existing homes with driveways on the north side of La Jolla Drive proximate to the subject property. The question was therefore raised on October 81h: why not allow another one? In response, it should be noted that in all these other instances, the original R2 lots appear to have been either subdivided into two distinct lots (one with access from Catalina Dr. and the other from La Jolla), or condominiumized. In effect, two unique structures were built to cater to two entirely separate ownerships. Per the City, subdivision is not an option for the subject property. Furthermore, given the non-conforming parking of the existing structure at 336 Catalina, condominiumization of the subject lot is not permissible either. Other R2 zoned neighborhoods in Newport Beach (eg, Corona del Mar Village and the Balboa Peninsula) feature alleyway access to the second structure or shared ingress/egress from a single driveway to service both structures. We are not aware of any other neighborhood in the City where R2 zoning allows for two primary, front entrances on two separate streets. 72 To allow this would be a back-door route to approving a subdivision when none is permissible per current code. The proposed second driveway is not compliant with the Code given the nonconforming parking at the existing structure. Thus the question: Why should the Commission grant a zoning variance that would create a de facto subdivision where none is allowed — especially given the traffic and parking problems noted on La Jolla Drive, the Title 20 concerns about preserving the character of this unique neighborhood, and all the other complicating and negative impacts of the proposed dwelling? And if subdivision is not allowed, why should the applicant, who already has a valid primary route of ingress and egress at 336 Catalina Drive, be granted another (nonconforming) one? When asked, planning staff stated that a second route of egress is required for fire safety of the new structure. The neighbors would in turn ask: why approve a non-conforming driveway when doing so could impact emergency vehicle access to the whole neighborhood? Why not enforce the Code as it stands? Isn't the City's mandate to serve the needs of the community over that of the individual? III. Property Values and Quality of Life Considerations In the October 81h hearing, it was stated clearly and on record by both the Planning staff- member and the applicant's representative that an intent of the proposed development is to convert the existing house on Catalina Drive to rental housing. Is the R2 zoning designation intended to allow for the deliberate addition of new rental housing to the neighborhood? Newport Heights is a luxury neighborhood and it would seem that an application for new rental or multifamily housing would be frowned upon. The subject property does not have a multifamily(RM or RMD) zoning. Adding to the rental housing stock will detract from the value of neighboring properties. Moreover, some neighboring homes will suffer specific and material value decline as the proposed structure will directly impact their views (including, in some cases, ocean views), and their privacy. It should be noted that the applicants have already done significant damage to the character of the neighborhood by illegally removing several mature trees from the City's right-of-way along La Jolla Drive. These include a eucalyptus tree estimated to have been nearly 50 feet high, that the City diligently maintained using taxpayer dollars each year. 7S Please see Attachment B for before and after photos referencing the illegal removal. You will note that the tree stumps sit firmly on City property,which extends fifteen feet back from La Jolla Drive. This type of disregard for the neighbors and City regulations should not be rewarded with a discretionary approval of the proposed project. IV. Setting A Precedent There are at least four R2 lots fronting both La Jolla Drive and Catalina Drive that lay out similarly to the subject property (ie, with ample land to add a second structure with primary frontage on La Jolla Drive). The neighbors have voiced significant and well reasoned concerns regarding the ability of La Jolla Drive to handle the traffic, parking and density impacts from just this one project. By approving PA2015-122, the Planning Commission will be setting a precedent for other opportunistic owners or developers to pursue similar projects on the remaining R2 parcels. The result would be to overwhelm the unique balance of aesthetics and functionality that defines the neighborhood. This would be a great loss not just to the local residents, but to the City of Newport Beach itself. The street is called La Jolla ("the Jewel") for a reason. V. Summary The neighborhood opposition to the proposed development is not a simple NIMBY response to an unwelcome development. Instead, it reflects a firm resolve to defend the unique character of our neighborhood while protecting the safety, privacy, property values and convenience of our residents. The applicant does not have a "by right' ability to build the project — rather they need you, the Planning Commission, to grant them the required permit and variance at your discretion. The project is poorly conceived, and the applicant has already acted in ways that show a basic disregard for what makes our neighborhood special. By allowing this project to move forward, you would be setting a precedent that could lead to substantial further harm. Planning Commission should exercise its Title 20 mandate and deny the application. Sincerely, Concerned Residents of La Jolla Drive and lower Catalina Drive (Signatures Attached) 74 ATTACHMENT A Property Size and Density La Jolla Drive,Newport Beach,CA SOURCE:Zillow.com House Address House SF Lot size FAR 202 La Jolla 2,481 206 La Jolla 2,603 210 La Jolla 1,280 214 La Jolla 2,702 218 La Jolla 1,290 222 La Jolla 1,375 225 La Jolla 2,400 226 La Jolla 1,022 229 La Jolla 1,534 230 La Jolla 1,325 233 La Jolla 2,083 237 La Jolla 1,534 241 La Jolla 2,655 245 La Jolla 2,251 249 La Jolla 1,475 301 La Jolla 2,304 303 La Jolla 3,647 8,300 0.44 305 La Jolla 2,397 308 La Jolla 1,800 309 La Jolla 2,358 314 La Jolla 3,900 6,229 0.63 316 La Jolla 938 318 La Jolla 1,141 330 La Jolla 3,120 6,969 0.45 341 La Jolla 1,300 345 La Jolla 2,550 AVERAGE SF: 2,056 Proposed house SF: 4,551 Size relative to La Jolla avg. 2.21x 300 block avg SF: 2,314 Avg FAR for houses>3000 SF 0.50 336 Catalina lot 6,185 existing house 2,400 existing+proposed 6,951 potential FAR 1.12 FAR relative to>30005F avg. 2.23x Y S�+ "A• 1 1 • S rs T `y l ' f _ _ j I c� s v ; yyr t'rJ S\faF � u � 11 TL. d Y \• Ill!® �'�f,auaT�1 I n � r x\�� I •lf �t�� r I♦u��s � �; j Attachment B: Before/After Pictures of Illegal Tree Removal,336 Catalina Drive. May 2011 vs. Present. Source:Google Street View. ` Omni...e.,.•..n-, .uvn...o-.....�.... o�x c..�..o. a.cM. YaaIE 4 S sur•` ':,�' !. �1 T f 336 Catalina Dr. Newport Beach,CA-Amazing Backyard Tour. "Thenwhy ses :�..::; Ar l+ a - 1 n.__ v . t �� Y 4'f.:YppR IBI I + V G Y M Y f m o N A 0 v qp1 c tct BL BNF Btt W �''OR�BlVO �1 L yGt Y yft tRt m Y a O a L t a 0 4� _4 CGt 4t 4 y m O LL Y .ft RotL Hoc 10 q1 q4 Bp0 s v1 +� ♦Rt py1 fpG !9' py1 yqt L 4Rt p0< p4 yL tpt 0 Rpt fpt y oiu, 4pG 4 L4, w� GL Jp fOG BOG ft \•' d G y�G 4 GOG qtG C p $ fGL � t4t t JBf G� tt ft 1 0 J4'i 3 —cz) ✓� (�L � �yf �Y i� '/A Btf V` JOBB y4 G qfC K\ V` 1911 � tf �! rl £ y 4,G ORC A SSG 4Y v LGC '� yRt 2949 �G Bot q LCt 2948 „LG "t p11 .Q ��• tyt L \ ry LL �-n y � 2914� royc( 0,04, OOV 2940 1 `" a G LC Ly - 2936 O �yG R09 qL4' JBO O 3 29,2 JJO 2928 < 4p [� w1 2924 OJ 4fR d a 2928 m > c O� y` 4 62 Z)W� ( D�gu Print Name Si ature 3m L or Address Print Name SI re Address 6L yLvl 1�' wr Print Name Signature r Address Print Natie �LL _ Sign e � y9 -r9/1� I)r ,yby,�rtt�Pacn Address Printf Name / Signature Address //;� /�/ C 6 I 'C4 N l AGf� 1 / 7/(X�� Print Name Signature 'l0 / Sahli QhaQ✓e. k-e&04d� ¢ Loch 92.yj�, 3 Address Print Name LLSi a� Address 4. Print Name Signature Address 20 Print Name Signature 303 ( r, I)(la Dk /U . 9. h4 Address Print Name Sig r f 11 —� Address x,22 Print Name _ Signa e D Address E D Pa t r I c tz Print Name Signature 3so Address SCOTTC- tAQR Print Name SigSig an�turV 3 �J3 s �_ Address ► s ( _� � Print Name C Signature j 3 A-u „ , 9 7--66 Address Print Name Signature Address g1 Z)telxlfl El. (7 Prin ame /� tSigatu inre L�- l +,l Address Print Name Signature 34 O (�' ATA l /nl A L7 R. Address Print N a Signature 3-32 12 kooij-436r—1 &04 Address JLt Ki G ��'vL Print Name // ig re Address ( n Print Name Signature -�W, Address d4(v f j<) C(c Print Name ure Address Print Name Signature Address 82 Print Name Si a re Address 1 � , P IAflo(� jxz"�-- Print Name Si atu la Address Print Name Signature Address � Print Name Signature Q / '�d S LSC Address -� G�y Print Name Signature Address l- Print Name Name Signatu 3 31 5 � Address Print Name Signature 337 C Com. A � � a ,4q���3 Address g3 Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 Item No. 3b: Additional Materials Received Troesh Residence (PA2015-122) Subject: ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED - 10/08/2015 PC Meeting Attachments: Objection to Project File No.docx From: "Jim young" <jimy9(cr > Subject: PA2015-122 Date: October 6, 2015 at 9:03:08 AM PDT To: <kkramer(c),pacifichospitali .com>, <tim-brown(c�,sbcglobal.net>, <pkR1encagles(4jnnai1.com>, <BHi11gren(&HighRhodes.com>, <ray.lawler(c hines.com>, <eweigand(a,newportbeachca.gov>, <pzakknewportb eachca.gov> Dear members of the Planning Commission: The property owners on La Jolla Drive are united against passage of PA2015-122. We are addressing you directly because the Planning Department has a deaf ear to our objections which we believe to be valid and in line with zoning laws in effect for sixty years. We bought our property thinking that the zoning laws would protect everyone's property rights rather than a privileged few. We have attached our objections. Thank you for your consideration, James Young 318 La Jolla Drive i 24 Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 Item No. 3b: Additional Materials Received Troesh Residence (PA2015-122) Objection to Project File No: PA2015-122 Argument against access to La Jolla Drive from Catalina Drive lots. 1. The original planners never envisioned such an encroachment. a. They only provided for a 5' setback which is appropriate for the rear of a structure that abuts an alley. In contrast, the R-1 lots on La Jolla that face the street have a 5' right of way plus a 10' setback. b. The street is only 20' wide which is one half of a regular street due to the topography. If the original planners had thought that there would be driveways in the middle of the 300 block of La Jolla, they would have provided a proper street for guest parking and a proper setback for facing the street. There is only parking on one side of the street and only one traffic lane so if two cars meet, someone must backup. c. The lots in question are R-2 lots on Catalina Drive and it was assumed that all structures would face and have access to Catalina which is a full sized street. Why didn't the property owners who purchased these properties plan for such access when they built the original structures? 2. The consequences of the approval of the application. a. Wouldn't this be a problem for zoning? Would this be a lot split with R-1 status or would it be a condo like 325 La Jolla? There seems to be no application concerning a zone change. The Planning Department has told us that the lots on Catalina have a right to access on La Jolla Drive. Who made this determination? How is this adhering to an R-2 designation? This is in effect saying that these property owners have two lots with the new structure facing La Jolla rather than Catalina. If the new structure faces La Jolla Drive, why does it not have to have the same right of way and setbacks as all the other houses on La Jolla? It appears the Planning Department has rezoned these lots on their own authority. b. Why wouldn't the other four property owners on Catalina want to do the same thing? That would result in five new driveways in the middle of the 300 block. Since street parking is already a problem, how can such traffic be justified? People even park here and walk to the beach and under those conditions where would guests park? Trying to have a small party would be bedlam. c. One of the assets of La Jolla Drive is that it's quiet and that is a property value. We value this and if this proposal is passed it will be detrimental to our property and the enjoyment thereof. 8.5 Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 Item No. 3b: Additional Materials Received Troesh Residence (PA2015-122) Conclusion: This would produce a great change in the neighborhood and destroy its unique character. We the property owners respectfully request that you reject this application and ban further such encroachments. This request does no damage to the property owners on Catalina and we don't seek to prohibit them from enjoying the property they bought. However, they did not buy property on La Jolla Drive. 20 Date: September 13,2015 To City of Newport Beach From: Neighbors on and around La Jolla Dr,Newport Beach CA 92663 Referencing: Project# PA2015-122 Location:336 Catalina Drive We,the undersigned,are in receipt of a certain Notice of Public Hearing mailed on September 5, 2015,indicating that owners Jon and Elsa Troesh have applied for a Modification Permit and Variance with the City of Newport Beach to benefit their property on 336 Catalina Drive.We understand this matter will be heard during a public hearing on September 17,2015. Let it be known that we are completely against amending the current city planning rules by approving the Modification Agreement and Variance to allow the referenced property owners to add non-conforming floor area and driveway that will have an serious impact on traffic,safety and parking conditions on an already overburdened La Jolla Drive. As you may know,La Jolla Dr is a very narrow street(only 19'10"feet wide)which only allows for parking on one side of the street and only one lane is accessible to drive in going both directions. Its parking capacity already exceeds its maximum with some residents forced to park off La Jolla Dr.For the City to allow a new dwelling by expanding a home on a completely different street that results in a significant negative impact on a second street(which doesn't currently hold an address on La Jolla Dr),is unacceptable. We would not be adverse for them to add additional square footage on their existing property,which has access from their street(Catalina),but it is the added burden to La Jolla Dr that we are against Sincerely, Q n� 1. -56W�4 DG Ju'�IY Print Name 4SiatuireZ 3DB L Ar TOU.A- Address Print Name Sig ure Address 3. 6f, KL1 1V vn Print Name Signature 3 v Address ?%4h -e '7'\1AA- Z�Oay - 4. Print Na[he Sign e �� U 9 /l l Jr Address g� 5. b l YL Esoj Print Name Signature 303 J,11c, Dr, . N .K. . te h4 Address Print Name Si r Address 7.6a L Print Name _ Signat e Address 6. ED pa I c '4AA�j PrintName Signature a _�SG Address/ g, J SLOTT �AiZRCr� �-�� Print Name Sig�rY 3 `t3 shlviA /iz o Ave. Address / / n / Print Name Signature 3y� Si1Nia �i✓A .4u� j 7 Address Print Name Signature Address gg Date:September 13,2015 To City of Newport Beach From:Neighbors on and around La Jolla Dr,Newport Beach CA 92663 Referencing:Project g PA2015-122 Location:336 Catalina Drive We,the undersigned,are in receipt of a certain Notice of Public Hearing mailed on September S, 2015,indicating that owners Jon and Elsa Troesh have applied for a Modification Permitand Variance with the City of Newport Beach to benefit their property on 336 Catalina Drive.We understand this matter will be heard during a public hearing on September 17,2015. Let itbe known that we are completely aagalnst amending the current city planning rules by approving the Modification Agreement and Variance to allow the referenced property owners to add tion-conforining Door area and driveway that will have an serious impact On fraffic,safety and parking conditions on an already overburdened La Jolla Drive. As you may know,La Jolla Dr is a very narrow street(only 19'10"feet wide)which only allows for parking on one side of the sheet and only one lane is accessible to drive in going both directions. Its parking capacity already exceeds its maximum with some residents forced to park off La Jolla Dr.For the City to allow a new dwelling by expanding a home on a completely different street that results in a significant negative impact on a second street(which doesn't currently hold an address on La Jolla Dr),is unacceptable. We would not be adverse for them to add additional square footage on their existing property,which has access from their street(Catalina),but it is the added burden to La Jolla Dr that we are against. Sincerely, Print Name Signature Address /� 2. Oare\ 4J6Y let P1 Print Name Signature y0( Sanfa afiAQ✓e. Ivlw1eA&IC11 92.4o& Address 3. Print Name Signature Address 4. Print Name Signature Address gJ -�� Woodcc nvestment Company, Inc. www.woodeoinv.com \,SCE1VED 6y COMMUNITY SEPTEMBER 9TH, 2015 SEP 11 2015 JASON VAN PATTEN , ASST. PLANNER DEVELOPMENT GT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH yoPNEwPoa� e�P P. O. Box 1768 FILE PA 2015 122 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF . 92658 8915 RE: 336 CATALINA AND 333 LA JOLLA TROESH I ' M NOT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A LARGE RESIDENCE ON THE PROPERTY BEHIND 336 CATALINA IN THAT IT APPEARS THAT WE'VE HAD DEVELOPMENT ALREADY AND THE PARKING DOES NOT SEEM TO BE IN CONFORMITY OR ADEQUATE , LA JOLLA AT THAT AREA IS 14ARROWER THAN MOST ALLEYS AND IS BARELY A SINGLE LANE CAR STREET, A HUGE RESIDENCE THAT WILL NEED PARKING ON A NARROW 'ALLEYWAY' SEEMS FOOLISH. WE OWN ABOUT 3 PROPERTIES ON CATALINA. I FEEL THAT ONCE THE PARKING PROBLEM IS SOLVED ON THE CATALINA SIDE IT THEN COULD BE PETITIONED FOR . SET OUR VOTE AS TO A "No" , T LY YOURS , W& ROW LEWIS 3740 Campus Drive • Suite #100 • Newport Beach, CA 92660-2639 • TEL: (949) 756-8557 • FAX: (9833-0153 Attachment No. PC 8 Appellant's Appeal Application 9� V� QP �P 9� 1yEWptoAppeal Application Clerk's Date&Time Stamp H v City Clerk's Office 100 Civic Center Drive/P.O. Box 1768 16 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 C`grpows" T(949)644-3005 Appeal the Decision of: Applicable Appeal Fees Pursuant to Master Fee Schedule ado ted 10-22-13: ❑ Hearing Officer-NBMC§20.64 Hearing Officer- $4,289.00 ❑ Operator License- NBMC§5.25.060 Operator License- $692.00 Attention: City Manager) Planning Commission - NBMC§20.64 Planning Commission - $400 See ❑ Zoning Administrator(Development Zoning Administrator- $4,289.00 U�dCI -Agreements)-NBMC 15.45.080 , ❑ Other Other-$ /I Appellant Information: /l4(G Name(s): /,�; Address: /O¢/ M/_ 46':, 9� 57E y- tog City/State/Zip: m6 4 GLl 926z Phone: 949- 76`f-oo/D Fax: Email:6rgig@GS.�if�i�a/ch•ccyrr Appealing Application Regarding: Name of Applicant(s):F`',,e=Ja t/¢ELSq 7e0E5�l� Date of Decision: /2 •/7. 2�'/S Project No.: P420/3-/22 Activity No.: I/�12o/S OnaMD�/5-ooB Site Address: 5:6,i GA ✓ozj!�A /336 G ;zAL1'1f/A Description of application: .+9D7�iC/GCIT/oma+/. LF���Non/coiY6oei�//�6gf�`ea�/To�}TiYJ ON 5i7�j A�� «'i. - vsL�/+.✓c�:>n Attoui.�6>.aiivi.U� ovq�c c3 v�9.as,�i3/G oT//o d �oP �APi/N®F,'ff�9iPo eason(s)for Appeal attach a separate sheet if necessary): a/-- ✓�fQ/Ar/G�(✓A 2%5-�5) cvw9�/�OD/y/Gf1T/DNLA-122 2c/5 9 V Tf{E PZAA1,///!/6 Signature of Appellant: Date: _,�t• 2n/� FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: ,to Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: , I G 20 1 /,9 . I"�1p /IU Alp Cify-Clerk cc: Department Director,Deputy Director,Staff F:IUserslClerklShamcAFor L4ppea/Application File e. G<rFORN�F 93 V� QP �P 9� Attachment No. PC 9 Comparison of Floor Area 95 V� QP �P 9� Floor Area Comparison Use Zone Lot Area Floor Area FAR 202 La Jolla SFR R-1 5,118 2,802 0.55 206 La Jolla SFR R-1 5,315 3,113 0.59 210 La Jolla 5FR R-1 5,323 2,696 0.51 214 La Jolla SFR R-1 5,336 No Record Found - 218 La Jolla 5FR R-1 4,336 2,367 0.55 222 La Jolla SFR R-1 4,336 2,888 0.67 225 La Jolla 5FR R-1 3,071 2,603 0.85 226 La Jolla SFR R-1 4,336 No Record Found - 229 La Jolla 5FR R-1 3,511 No Record Found - 230 La Jolla SFR R-1 4,336 No Record Found - 233 La Jolla 5FR R-1 3,808 2,523 0.66 237 La Jolla SFR R-1 3,930 2,154 0.55 241 La Jolla 5FR R-1 4,053 3,052 0.75 245 La Jolla SFR R-1 4,175 3,114 0.75 249 La Jolla 5FR R-1 4,298 2,570 0.60 301 La Jolla SFR R-1 4,430 3,535 0.80 303 La Jolla 5FR R-1 4,392 4,120 0.94 305 La Jolla SFR R-1 4,139 No Record Found - 308 La Jolla 5FR R-1 6,264 2,037 0.33 309/313 La Jolla Two-unit R-2 5,900 2,887 0.49 314 La Jolla 5FR R-1 6,248 4,650 0.74 316 La Jolla SFR R-1 6,682 No Record Found - 318 La Jolla 5FR R-1 4,520 2,022 0.45 330 La Jolla SFR R-1 6,760 3,722 0.55 341 La Jolla 5FR R-1 4,937 3,100 0.63 345 La Jolla SFR R-1 3,815 3,100 0.81 236/238/240 Catalina Three-unit R-2 4,221 No Record Found - 242/244 Catalina Two-unit R-2 4,243 No Record Found - 246/248 Catalina Two-unit R-2 4,243 No Record Found - 250/252 Catalina Two-unit R-2 4,243 No Record Found - 254/256 Catalina Two-unit R-2 4,243 No Record Found - 258/260 Catalina Two-unit R-2 4,243 No Record Found - 300/302 Catalina Two-unit R-2 4,243 4,089 0.96 304/306 Catalina Two-unit R-2 4,243 No Record Found - 308/310 Catalina Two-unit R-2 4,222 No Record Found - 312 Catalina SFR R-2 4,072 No Record Found - 316 Catalina 5FR R-2 4,250 2,551 0.60 320 Catalina Two-unit R-2 5,887 3,262 0.55 324 Catalina 5FR R-2 5,466 1,952 0.36 328 Catalina/325 La Jolla Two-unit R-2 5,489 4,240 0.77 332 Catalina 5FR R-2 5,930 4,845 0.82 336 Catalina/333 La Jolla Two-unit R-2 6,156 7,201 1.17 340 Catalina 5FR R-2 6,285 2,415 0.38 346/348 Catalina Two-unit R-1 4,034 No Record Found - 350/352 Catalina Two-unit R-1 4,719 No Record Found - 400 Catalina SFR R-1 9,310 3,750 0.40 3000 Beacon SFR R-1 4,366 2,719 0.62 3000 Cliff SFR R-1 6,497 No Record Found - 3004 Cliff 5FR R-1 6,632 No Record Found - 3008Cliff SFR R-1 6,632 5,696 0.86 3011 Cliff 5FR R-1 4,336 3,188 0.74 3012 Cliff SFR R-1 6,632 No Record Found - 3015 Cliff 5FR R-1 4,336 3,750 0.86 3016 Cliff SFR R-1 6,497 5,227 0.80 311/313 Santa Ana 5FR R-1 6,246 No Record Found - 315 Santa Ana SFR R-1 6,246 1,761 0.28 317 Santa Ana 5FR R-1 6,246 No Record Found - 321 Santa Ana SFR R-1 6,246 5,357 0.86 325 Santa Ana 5FR R-1 6,246 2,890 0.46 329 Santa Ana SFR R-1 6,246 5,050 0.81 333 Santa Ana 5FR R-1 5,621 No Record Found - 337 Santa Ana SFR R-1 5,389 No Record Found - 343 Santa Ana SFR R-1 4,472 3,527 0.79 401 Santa Ana 5FR R-1 3,126 2,564 0.82 9� HOSPITAL RO i05eg i6i )sY °b K a 6 I �O F m )m )n pQ' 30 r O O i:r 0 o & P R _ CpSP�\N 6 s p O )]4 ly O.i 'g 2 )p)uz irs � o iOe - l qb IR- J, , /f 9cO�sr S�$'S PJB paa _ - P2�PP 'a xte a a ,aa m ba 7 Y Slo zra a CLIFF DR zrs .� zh no o MailCllfl °r1V@Park )W i a 7�- / 7 Newport Beach Disclaimer: Every reasonable effort has been made to assure the accuracy of the data provided,however,The City of GIS Newport Beach and its employees and agents disclaim any and all responsibility from or relating to �� 'Pogr any results obtained in its use. ° m 0 200 400 _ Imagery: 2009-2013 photos provided by Eagle Feet Imaging www.eagieaerial.com C�<IFOP�s' 7/1112016 92 Attachment No. PC 10 Project Plans 99 V� QP �P soo PA2015-122 ANT.—No PC 10 NN I^a Fl.- 4 5 TROESH RESIDENCE 333 LA J0«A DRIVE NEWPORT BEACh , CA. . .. ABBREVIATIONS TYPICAL SYSMBOLS SMOKE DETECTOR VOTES CENErAL NOTES VICINITYMAP 5HEETINDEX Ill"'lIZ IN""I" s DA"I s Lf Il, III IIIIIEFFIETI-1.1,11TELIFF1111— n m • NI _ 8 .tea. ELL .. ' „,..,- .N v E l .x , ® r.�.._= IND—e Iss I IF Ill 1-1 �...�. Q � W a I NETas NaTE ADDIDED 11 —1.l TD IF .r.w...ul y. GAR3ON MONOXIDE ALARM NOTES CODES OEl F11, -I N LF-DIET UITs TIT FILE ELIFFEED El-11 FIFTEENTEFILDNED W •sew.nw y,^ ,v�.� ,� _.^,.,, ,... fw4�xi ..,..,...��ms�> IT, 11 FTFINTE DID'TN Tl FEDI ETE�IDDTFD DE.Is,'.'IF LN'EFFIENDW ^^ T. WINDOW NOBS: _ .;.u..w" x Es CITY GENERAL NOTES 11 ELL, ED 115 IDLINIFEITNIFINTI—IIIIE—FLEFFILL Tr_.NNE­NNs111sD,_11D1IF_1__N,,_p­ 1-1.1 N-—D-15 1 Ll „u srei.LLw.s+s Z N :id' z ss _ - u cc.�..Ee.:N;Kass.s•. ... +s. „ "I"""' car ITT s- ., -- a - W ELECTRICAL NOTES CONTACTS C " .'s-^ ,G„,„..-_� Y .Mce —Ts, ADDITIONAL GENERAL NOTES „�„� s+P-r..—Es z= rETNM.<.. ~ ? r,.,r.."Asn<o ".-,•` s,res",».mss-E.Erza�o- vs1ls I'll- osv Isv�som � I iFFELFIDAL NE111 ..rosi�..,w..�za... a�srsnn�ytt msim�s,. ,,,,usss_ tirz� :...,, wE.mSD sl � DEFERRED SUBN`1I S: SENERAL INFORMATION LNE 1 .o 51 i. .111 .5 .s s.., E I —x- w��..�.� �� .r.w.°IN »., .v�a.3ss. ENTINELI 1 .IA-1 _ - '`.".".,">a s, n.E._ „u.._w. IT,FNET s > NE. ,., TI Es FIRE SPRINKLERS; sj_lF 11 IF NDITTLE, 1. 11 IN IN NFL, �..� +.x _ 1 FITLE.ozacu Rx.. IV,<.,.,^!^,W.»x.T } ! as F,5—NE-5 I—AIDDIFIDT—ID—NDEL I'lls II 9 -11 _ s.s a lS4EP. SC ..NERK NOBS sxl:s�a T PA2015-122 AllaNmunlN�PC 10 Pm^N Plamv FLOOR AREA LIMIT GENERAL INFORMATION a" <s vA CATALINA DR. F T6dr eeloo-oo-voo-oo--vo-eoo-eo--oo=I==ro ,�-..._ m. n.u.,o,.. R __ _ 0. I � e � I 1-01 -- i BUILMNG SUMMARY(55) IS —lim EE 82 0OOOOoc F , S -. I W a evesvae Ie usn sas. ...3.� _____ - 0 0 0�0 0 0 'f ro g T Ails Z `5. W ? B2 a2 Bt _z^n_ �zr _ LLJ I LL 412 E I Y1.1 71 nw. s. Y �•• I D.,�.uN.w 3Ea > .ne. a a mr 4r'k / _ Z GROUND ELEVATION TOAB STRUCTURE W --_ - cr e e d x s. m,.m " -- 4z. . IS, 1,_ .,., f GROUND ELEVATION TO aRUCTURE.ABOVE W O .e=nn _ cereaN.uwv -- - - - -- — - -- —� LA JOLLA DR. -_ TENTS m ROOF OVERLAY FOR BUILDING TO E GROUND ELEVATIONS _ SITEPLAN sine.l4_' TM 9LVE:va^.1d' - MULE✓^".V4 _ L a €=�. ;��]eee e�.cod a�c�ceale i s IJl�lo mar � s - as aoaa a- - sas = eeeeq�•c^—^�e��rara,'— • e pm M ACTU.AL RID3E5.ANP HIGH POINTS. .07 SEE A3.1 ANDA3.2 FOR FLOOR HPICHT -V _ _—: 3s � i PA2015-122 AIIaNmunlN�PC 10 Pm^N Plamv ll 11 114' 1 HnBRA- HA E 5P.A2 A � - SPACE E R el 194 EC 25.16 OOIt706 �i 39' 69.8 ,...,,.. O 350 i � OE "e3 iE �,•w,,.v E O = T0E92 ® TCT. 1g6JGJ TOT, G^6 2S E pv" I O2 P iGT E O va �Ll w SECOND FLOOR PLAN LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLN /1 € t YABITA52 4AEIiABLE EPALE _ OO DEC, O O cG'E Z a051 - 9a0J � W p YI 6953 J2.G1 u - - TOT, 103.06 �i 712.S � a w c a rn 103 m'am � 19033 OELK r- _ �j i3&i6 Oj, JEL< a n 3 B OY 1J.72 T? 1,313,36 :G. _ ZO 117,Wt„In Y DECK U AA 20EEE Q GAPASE R-io nia' a: TOT, 639.91 e © 29.J5 00. 8m OOELK A 660 OG>R4(iE1 1. 16 1 O e9796 T0. 3`5.c3 } 3 50, DEC, e11E I.e OT. 6330 50 _ _ 54 F r �_ _ _ _ _ _ - - iWm.. .=...m THIRD FLOOR PLAN /1 FIRST FLOOR?LAN �I - 1 - A � 4 SLALE!1/6"_1'O' - 4 SGALE:I/a'_IZ'' 41 PA2015-122 AllaNmunlN�PC 10 Pm^N Plamv PLAN LEGEND ® ra37.. a.. rATALINA DRIVE 9 � s:[pri.anu a-ism w�nwu��vrvnw vmewmmv CC S yd - v.anrrz..rz�vy[ ia. wm � 0 - uJ .- ha Ceu u.vjaw s. a i_� 4l - C W ; W z — _ lwso - ---- - - �'= c DRIV WAY®EASTERLY SIDE �z1 e LA JOLLA DRIVE SITE PLAN /i\ AM PA2015-122 AllaNmunlN�PC 10 Pm^N Plamv FLOOR PLAN LEGEND 51-10 uV BUILDING SUMMARY�) «., q1, V ri _ O LUz LU 7 LUL S z` - LU LU Oa H 3 - Q�N Oil3 e e g�n e a � 0 nrR�W 9%% m m ,.rm EXIS TING-5ECOND FLOOR PLAN /1 EXISTING-FIRST FLOOR PLAN n A1.2 SLS.✓6"_1'.0" ,L9ix i'L' PA2015-122 AllaNmunlN�PC 10 Pm^N Plamv FLOOR PLAN KEY NOTES FLOOR PLAN LEGEND ❑ . ,«c _.,. Rwc., ❑.. >R�. .ten...,rb•.. _ . ol ❑,� o o ❑„ � eaa.a�N,.°n All. O ❑.ass.v µais..wnE0 ❑ -w,�. ❑ ,�,na..c ❑..0 _. G E�:..,. pp .. v .,ren<.cn O .�.,.,v v„ : v....v ❑ ❑ ❑ 3:,n -u- - - - NOTES: 4 ul , iA�• - �aw,.�..•..N.,.A,.n.-...,_ v- s au• ira vd• 1377 1 LE j I j TI 21 �1 O ^ j LLJ El LLJ Ell M'n w El o I = � ie s o ® 2M 9m El d - , - m I� Ao❑c LU _ a _ 11 a .,., — x e d TM I '-- ———— OI- ry m .- LF_ - - ? -- --- ----- of `,� j p GUARORNLS GENERAL NOTES } .. ^' �' P " 3lu a,2 nw FIRST FLOOR PLAN LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PIAN ^21 SCALE-1U a1-0 -�9xi SGL_Va'=i-O' PA2015-122 AIIaNmunlN�PC 10 Pm^N Plamv ATTIC VENTILATION CALCULATIONS GUARDRAILS GENERAL NOTES ❑O...= O 4*�=mss=s-E=�M-4.+_ _ FLOOR PLAN KEY NOTES FLOOR PLAN LEGEND 1Ai III Al DH IH I.E.,4 >a o ❑ �o��. �.rt,..„aN�,. o �..- _A, y s�,><, . .... Ei ------ ❑ ❑ ROOFING SPECIFICATION: ❑ °'� ❑ ,E, - rvnwsni 'a"� ❑ .-.c. _ ❑ A NOTES: 31 1 5 7 VA 7w t"I cI LLJ z E� E � TIE I Ell n u ,., y , I ;� " 9 �• � un n5.5 a N 9 P EF iIN v s.a ' G d 5 vr .— a l AL �— m ATTIC VENTILATION NOTES $ Ell P mN ® ® roearn x u %. ' _ _ _ -I- _— , SLAI6'I -o uAi vn o ROOFFLOOR PLAN �1 SECOND F_ 3�,s� µ.._>mw�w4.m�.- rA.�E.,:: sC«5 Va_,.o. �:,,A_l.a r � .,,a., .„� A.44. A2.2 PA2015-122 AIIaNmunlN"PC 10 Pm^N Plamv EXT'cWOR WALL FIRISH LGEND `FY. EA ❑ a ' s ❑ I r � ❑ 1 _c nu N.:OL _ I .AilOa wcoo: - / _ALI N< . -oma - - _- -- - -- w ' NORTH ELEVATION(PRONT) /1 - "`-4J°'`*'-"""^ € .. 5GLE:1/4"-1'-0 - "" V w o � S z —1 w YY ME ❑ _sn,.a c. ° �/ ,'"kms ' ¢ 8 tat c3 - �❑ ❑ "` I� IIT-- �I 7 - - - s w WEST ELEVATION(5IDE) A3,1 2 < s —x9 PA2015-122 AllaNmunlN�PC 10 Pm^N Plamv EXTERI02 WALL FINISH LzHN0 �sol Is I� ,OD 0O I ❑ « � 0 00 ❑ ---- k� o 03 s --------------- --- __ N000 wcA re: L---------- --------1-----J :Ts, - - _ PAin-�>:cwumN:oa wccc: ra==zes:k, w _ w SOUTH ELEVATION(REAR) w�•.a• _ SGLE:1/d"_1'/J' 121 S z xi LLJ ij MW El rs j I,J - EAST ELEVATION(51OE) _ xa._ii< . -o• n 1�va'_IO �x L PA2015-122 P'.,Plamv 9 �s e' -- a� ------ 9 u 1 112 <51 I ri IL f 'u . k 10— - 0 , u 9 uj w SECTION /1 SECTION n € t S� na -a' X3.3 scams:va^-ra y3.3 �_ w _ L✓ _ �.�..�. - .-.-.-.-.-.-. -----.-- w IF- -��.z.. 7 ���. � .��., ,• I DI - � '6,aE. w.rcv a a� i»-. — 3 IS— IT TII 12 —. we r; i i SECTION SECTION �.o n A p p SG>LE:1/d"_1'/J' - SLALE Va'_1b' rya rLJJ PA2015-122 P'.,Plamv pa 1 ✓.stn <5 I lu V �—— —� rrnrny.Tr a vm, v i ........... �. w SEC�ON xAl_E.1:4IJ /1 SECTION "'IL, V1.- -I' n € LL SCALE:I/a'-1-0' Jna.< 5L1E:✓a' W _ S z _ w RI ,R I s F i v:xcc s,Cµu WIN It „ It r 11 12 SECTION-i-0 n SECTION xa�e.va - -IL' n A3.4 ALE I/e' Planning Commission - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received -� WOODDOW LE' h Residence Appeal (PA2015-122) PO.BOX 2286 NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92659-1286 a,CE1VED BY JULY 12TH, 2016 COMMUNITY JUL 14 2016 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING D I V I S I ONDEVELOPMENT ,Z,100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE C15Y PU P. O. Box 1768 OPNEWPOa' NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF, 92658 8915 RE: PROJECT FILE PA 2015-122 ACTIVITY MD 2015-008 VA 2015 003 I RECEIVED THIS MORNING THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IN BLUE. I DID RECEIVE ONE IN YELLOW ON JUNE 8TH, THAT ONE HAD A SIGNATURE OF THE CITY CLERK. OTHER THAN THAT THEY BOTH SEEM TO HAVE THE SAME IDENTICAL WORDING. I DON' T KNOW AS TO WHAT AMENDMENTS OR CHANGES OR VARIANCES HAVE TAKEN PLACE BUT REMEMBER WRITING TO YOU ON DECEMBER 7TH, 2015. THIS CURRENT ' BLUE' NOTICE HAS THE SAME WORDING AS TO NONCONFORMING PARKING AND OF A GARAGE THAT IS NARROWER THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT, SHOULDN'T THIS ALL BE " . . . BROUGHT UP TO CODE . " PRIOR TO AUGMENTING? I SOMETIMES WONDER IF THESE "MAKE-OVERS" OR 'ADDITIONS" ARE FEASABLE IN THAT WE ARE WORKING WITH PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL AND FOUNDATIONS THAT MAY BE FORTY YEARS OLD. WOULDN'T A " . , . SCRAPE AND START FRESH. " BE A MORE PRACTICAL APPROACH? VERY R LY YOURS W02R W LEWIS PHONE(949) 756-8557 • FAX(949) 833-0153 - woodie@woodcoinvcom Planning Commission - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Troesh Residence Appeal (PA2015-122) July 21,2016 To: Members of the Planning Commission From: Concerned Residents of La Jolla Drive and lower Catalina Drive RE:Project File #PA2015-122 (Troesh Residence Appeal) Sent via email Dear Members of the Planning Commission: On December 17th, 2015, you rejected the applicants' submittal for a variance and modification permit for the above-referenced project by a vote of 5-2. The denial was predicated on a number of factors, including the project's negative impacts related to traffic, life safety, neighborhood character, and parking. The project was deemed to be of a scale and scope that were inconsistent with and even detrimental to the surrounding community. Moreover, your Resolution #2005 to deny the project determined that granting the requested variance was not necessary for preserving the substantial property rights of the applicants, and in fact would have constituted an undue and special privilege for the applicants. Since the denial, the applicants have made some changes to the project design. The new plans materially attempt to address only one of the many causes for denial —namely, parking. They do almost nothing to address the other impacts cited in your Resolution to Deny. Moreover, the new plans make several of the original design's problems markedly worse, as discussed herein: 1. Scale and Density: No Change in Size from Denied Application, resulting in 80% Higher Density than Surrounding Properties and a New Structure that is 2.2% Larger than the Average House on La Jolla Drive The revised plans call for a 4,443 square foot house, a decrease of only eight square feet (0.18%) from the prior design. In addition to the 2,758 square-foot existing structure at 336 Catalina Drive, the total built-out floor area of the lot would be 7,201 square feet. As noted on page 7 of the Staff Report, properties in the vicinity (including those featuring two units) have FARs ranging from 0.28 to 0.96. The proposed project would result in an FAR of 1.17. This is 80% more dense than the average and median FARs in the neighborhood (.65, as calculated from attachment PC-9 in the Staff Report). 1 Planning Commission - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Troesh Residence Appeal (PA2015-122) According to Zillow.com, the average house size on La Jolla Drive is 2,056 SF. The median home size is 2,167 SF (see Attachment A for detail). Even as a stand-alone structure, the proposed second residence would be 2.2x larger than the average home on La Jolla Drive, and 2.1x larger than the median. The new house itself would be nearly 14% larger than largest existing house on La Jolla Drive. Both the members of the Planning Commission and several neighbors have asked whether the applicants have considered reducing the size of the new house to something more appropriate for the lot and the neighborhood. By their own admission they have not - hence their resubmittal of a project that is essentially of the same size and impact as the denied project. 2. Massing and Open Space: Revised Plans Reduce Separation between the Structures to less than Acceptable Standard for Like Structures and Open Space The new plans propose to move the garage back 5 additional feet from La Jolla Drive to allow for driveway parking. This solution is problematic. In its report for the 12/17/15 hearing, Planning Staff noted that: "shifting the garage would result in the [new] dwelling being located closer to the existing dwelling on the northerly half of the property. This would reduce the separation between the structures and increase the visual bulk and scale of development on the property." (See Attachment B). Given the steep topography, pushing the new structure down the hill to a lower starting point results in overall higher vertical massing (39 feet) than in the previous plans. Reducing the area of the third floor by 72 square feet, as proposed in the revised plans, does not adequately mitigate the project's visual impacts and massing issues. As cautioned in the 12/17/15 Staff Report, the new plans reduce the separation between the two dwellings from a previously narrow 26'10.25" to a now miniscule 19'11.25". This 26% reduction in linear spacing would cause an unacceptable loss of open space between the structures. It would seem unlikely that the Planning Commission would approve of two primary structures of any sort having adjacent rear setbacks totaling less than 20 feet (10 feet per structure). Why allow it for a nonconforming project that is already inappropriately sized for its location? 3. Green Space: The Project Would Forever Alter the Character of La Jolla Drive and Remove a Public Benefit La Jolla Drive is a unique slice of the City marked by mature trees, terraced gardens, quaint homes, narrow streets, open views and lush landscaping. Its character is in large part defined and protected by the undeveloped green space within the City's right of way. This green space extends back 10 feet from the northern curb and is preserved among five of the six steep "through lots" stretching along the narrowest portion of La Jolla. The undersigned all agree 2 Planning Commission - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Troesh Residence Appeal (PA2015-122) that the aesthetic benefits of this green space comprise a significant "public good" for any City resident who enjoys taking advantage of one of the best walking streets in town. As was noted at the last hearing, the applicants have already compromised this public good by making an unauthorized clearcutting of several mature trees on City property, including decades-old eucalyptus and maple trees that are now irreplaceable. Paving over the right of way would add insult to injury, and would require a variance that should not be granted. 4. Site-specific Characteristics: The Project is Poorly Suited to the Site's Topography, and Requires a Retaining Wall and Guardrail over 2.5 Times Higher than Code Allows As noted in the current Staff Report and associated correspondence, the subject site is unusual given its steep topography and rapid grade change. The proposed project takes advantage of these natural conditions to "push the envelope"in its pursuit of maximum size and scale. The applicants are asking for a variance to build a retaining wall and guardrail up to 8'10" high through the setback adjacent to La Jolla Drive. This is over two and one half times higher than the 42" height allowed per the zoning code—a major variance in both scale and impact. Moreover, the retaining wall is designed not just to shore up the existing grade. It also is intended to reclaim additional land to accommodate the new structure. Pursuant to Zoning Code sections 20.40.070 and 20.40.090, vehicles may only park in front of a garage if the garage is set back a minimum of 20 feet from the street property line and slopes five percent or less. The natural grade of the subject site drops off precipitously within the City's right of way, well south of the property line. Complying with the driveway slope requirement will require a tremendous amount of fill be added behind the retaining wall to bring the grade to 5% (See Attachment C). This is the reason for the unacceptably severe wall-height variance through the setback area, and would add an untold number of cubic feet of built-up fill to the applicant's private property—all so that they can park cars on City land. 5. Precedent and Alternatives: Granting the Requested Variance Would Constitute a Special Privilege for the Applicant when Less Impactful Alternatives Exist The applicants make much of the fact that one of the six through lots between La Jolla Drive and Catalina Drive (specifically 325 La Jolla and 328 Catalina Drive) already features access from both streets, and that approval of the project therefore does not constitute a special privilege for the applicants. We reject this assertion as follows: a) The house at 325 La Jolla was built in 1981, under a different zoning regimen. What is "grandfathered iri" from 35 years ago should have no bearing on current zoning 3 Planning Commission - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Troesh Residence Appeal (PA2015-122) considerations. Indeed, the house at 325 La Jolla likely would likely not be permissible today given its nonconformance with current slope requirements for driveways. The proposed project does not conform to today's zoning code —historical improvements, good or bad, do not alter that reality. As such, granting the variance and modification permit would indeed constitute a special privilege for the applicants. b) 325 La Jolla and 328 Catalina are condominiums. Each structure has a separate ownership. The underlying R2 lot is "de facto" split according to dual ownership, as is ingress and egress to each structure. The subject property, on the contrary, can neither be split off from the existing property at 336 Catalina, nor can it be condominiumized. The ownership of both structures must remain the same, which makes providing access to both from Catalina Drive a functional and attractive alternative. c) The neighbors would welcome a smaller development that would avoid access through the La Jolla right of way. The lot already features four existing parking spaces at 336 Catalina Drive (two garage, two driveway) that could service both the existing house and a second structure behind. The revised plans themselves attest to the fact that the new structure can be serviced by parking on Catalina Drive—as stated on page 7 of the current Staff Report: "The revised proposal includes a gated pedestrian path (east side) leading from Catalina Drive up to the rear of the proposed dwelling. The opportunity for guests to park on Catalina Drive and access the dwelling is an alternative to accessing the property from La Jolla Drive." The 12/17/15 Staff Report for the original application likewise noted that "Pedestrian access from Catalina Drive to the rear of the proposed dwelling via a private walkway down the side of the property may prove to be the most feasible" design alternative to mitigate parking impacts. (See Attachment B) Suitable alternatives to the proposed project exist, if only the applicants would consider them. d) The combined FAR of 325 La Jolla and 328 Catalina is .77 (only 66% as dense as the proposed subject FAR of 1.17). The uphill structure is 2,613 square feet, which is much closer to the median neighborhood home size than the proposed 4,443 square feet on the subject lot. These projects are not comparable in scale, density, or compatibility with neighborhood character. e) The undersigned will all attest that the curb cut at 325 La Jolla negatively impacts traffic and exacerbates the bottleneck along the narrowest part of La Jolla Drive. The subject 4 Planning Commission - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Troesh Residence Appeal (PA2015-122) application, if approved, would dramatically compound these problems. 325 La Jolla / 328 Catalina should be viewed as an aberration,not a precedent. 6. Summary In denying the initial application for PA 2015-122, the Planning Commission rightly exercised its Title 20 mandate under the Zoning Code to "promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare; protect the character, social, and economic vitality of neighborhoods; and to ensure the beneficial development of the City." The initial project simply would have caused too many negative impacts on neighborhood character, parking, traffic, and life safety, while less detrimental alternatives existed but were not properly explored. The revised project application fails to correct the many critical failings of the initial application. Its one main effort to address parking exacerbates a range of other shortcomings, including reducing open space and increasing the overall bulkiness of the combined project. The applicants seem not to have seriously considered any other feedback from you, the commissioners, nor we, the neighbors, when submitting for an equally large and impactful project. It is clear that other development alternatives to the proposed project still exist, and that denying this application does not unfairly impact the applicants' property rights. We, the neighbors, are supportive of an appropriately scaled development that would not require access from La Jolla Drive. As the revised application and Staff Reports demonstrate, parking for a second structure CAN be provided off of Catalina Drive, and would be appropriate considering that the property is destined to remain under single ownership. We respect our neighbors' property rights and right to build, but we favor "smart" development in keeping with the character and challenges of our unique neighborhood. In our minds, PA 2015- 122 is the antithesis of a smart or reasonable project. Its approval would set a precedent for further ill-conceived development that would make La Jolla Drive unparkable, un-navigable, less special and less safe. The applicants do not have a "by right" ability to build this project—rather they need you, the Planning Commission, to grant them the required permit and variance at your discretion. For all the reasons cited during the last hearing and above, we urge you to exercise your Title 20 mandate and deny the application. Sincerely, Concerned Residents of La Jolla Drive and lower Catalina Drive (Signatures Attached) 5 Planning Commission - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Troesh Residence Appeal (PA2O15-122) ATTACHMENT A Property Size Comparison La Jolla Drive, Newport Beach, CA SOURCE:Zillow.com House Address House SF 202 La Jolla 2,481 206 La Jolla 2,603 210 La Jolla 1,280 214 La Jolla 2,702 218 La Jolla 1,290 222 La Jolla 1,375 225 La Jolla 2,400 226 La Jolla 1,022 229 La Jolla 1,534 230 La Jolla 1,325 233 La Jolla 2,083 237 La Jolla 1,534 241 La Jolla 2,655 245 La Jolla 2,251 249 La Jolla 1,475 301 La Jolla 2,304 303 La Jolla 3,647 305 La Jolla 2,397 308 La Jolla 1,800 309 La Jolla 2,358 314 La Jolla 3,900 316 La Jolla 938 318 La Jolla 1,141 330 La Jolla 3,120 341 La Jolla 1,300 345 La Jolla 2,550 AVERAGE SF: 2,056 Proposed house SF: 4,443 Size relative to La Jolla avg. 2.2x Median SF: 2,167 Size relative to La Jolla median 2.1x Planning Commission - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received TroeT Residence Appeal (PA2015-122) CeON l o��l ��/5 �jTN rF �Po9-t Troesh Residence flot t(A i Planning Commission - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Troesh Residence Appeal (PA2015-122) Troesh Residence Planning Commission, December 17, 2015 Page 3 northerly half of the property. This would reduce the separation between structures and ihcrease the visual bulk and scale of development on the property. Other options included a three-car garage on La Jolla Drive or pedestrian access to the dwelling from Catalina Drive via a private walkway and rear entry. A third side-by-side garage space on La Jolla Drive would result in a wider curb cut and driveway, which may be contrary to concerns raised by the public. Pedestrian access from Catalina Drive to the rear of the proposed dwelling via a private wa way n e si a of the prope a a Ina rive may provide i ors wit an a erns rve par mg op ion and would create additional access during construction. However, there is no mechanism to enforce or require use of the walkway. The steep topography and distance to the proposed dwelling from Catalina Drive may deter its use. The walkway may also serve as a detriment to the privacy of residents residing within the existing dwelling fronting Catalina Drive. Traffic Vehicle trips generated by the dwelling are minimal when spread throughout the day (approximately 10 average daily trips) and will have limited effect on traffic through the street. Several properties along La Jolla Drive between Cliff Drive and Beacon Street rely on an alley for vehicular access. The alleys are accessible from multiple points of entry. Routes of travel for dwellings within the vicinity of the subject property currently vary and these alternatives for traffic will remain. Safety Residents inquired about impacts to emergency vehicle access as well as access to nearby homes during construction. Access provided to emergency vehicles will not change with the proposed dwelling and driveway. Staff confirmed with both the Police Department and Fire Department that there is no indication of any recorded access issues. In fact, the Police Department found no indication of any issue among the variety of calls for service during the calendar year. A review of records also indicates that there are no active violations or complaints from the public regarding access, parking, or traffic along La Jolla Drive. Construction may create an impact to nearby residents without appropriate measures. A construction management plan is a means to addressing safety as well as to preserve access during construction. This plan would be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to permit issuance for any demolition and grading and would include a discussion of project phasing, parking arrangements during construction, anticipated haul routes, and construction measures to minimize disruptions to residents and the right-of-way. A condition of approval (Condition of Approval No. 9) requiring the applicant to submit a construction management plan is incorporated in the draft resolution. Upon approval of the plan, the applicant would be responsible for implementing and complying with the stipulations set forth in the approved plan. J Planning Commission - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Troesh Residence Appeal (PA2015-122) Attachment C Driveway Cross Section and Grading 20'- 0 1/2- 5'-0" 5-0, 124M FS �pv 71dvEA'A" 3 +25.03 FS SAV6E • � _ ___ � CA AGE' �I .. .. �� •_/ ice=-' ___ '^ ' Z 12259- . a T55W ry • ___________________ _9 NS t _ _ ________ _S " -a ___________- 112.54' --------------- -- DRI WAY @ EASTERLY Sl r2� SCALE:1/6'=147 �QR9 � �' � e1 ✓��..�AY �2�i.Tj� s o o ® a ��PZ-O K 1 M A-F6 Ski b AC o1�f�D�e�� (� � PT t I DF F-1 ��� Planning Commission - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Troesh Residence Appeal (PA2015-122) Z)W� ( D�gu Print Name Si ature 3m L or �j Address Print Name SI re Address 6L yLvl 1�' wr Print Name Signature r Address . 151�jjh -f LL Na a Sign4kdfe Address Printf Name / Signature Address //;� Ca re lAGf� 1 4 Print Name Signature 'l0 / Sahli QhaQ✓e. �(/�w�,� ¢ ,deach 92.yj�, 3 Address o - Print Name 5i atur Address 4. Print Name Signature Address Planning Commission - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Troesh Residence Appeal (PA2015-122) Print Name Signature 303 (.e, 1)(la Dr. . N . 9. h4 9QLL3 Address Print Name Sigftieury 11 —� Address ,A/16 Print Name _ Signa e D Address Print Name Signature 3so Address SCOTT Print Name SigSig an�tur�� 3 �t3 s Address ► s ( _� � Print Name C Signature j 3 ;h 4-u „ , 9 7--66 Address Print Name Signature Address Planning Commission - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Troesh Residence Appeal (PA2015-122) (7 Prin ame Signature Address Print Name Signature 34 o ( ' ATA I //► A 17 R• , of�.r�Rt ��4� g 2 �� Address Print N a Signature Address Print Name // ig re Address ( n �'aJiGG� Print Name Signature -�W, Address d4(j f j<) C(C Print Name ure Address Print Name Signature Address Planning Commission - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 2b Additional Materials Received Troesh Residence Appeal (PA2015-122) J( wt _e3 VU CA tet$ 2�M e- Print Name Si a re / CYjg (,. A �jU )I,, D Address 1 /5 0 4,n fw(� Print Name Si atu Id Address Print Name Signature Addlrre�ss� ��p . 1 Vim- IJ -liT L rl�ifiV ~ l� Print Name Signature Q / '�d S LSC Address -� Print Name Signature Address l- Print Name Name Signatu 3 31 5 � Address Print Name Signature 337 Address Planning Commission - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 2c Additional Materials Received Troesh Residence Appeal (PA2015-122) DRAFT July 20. 2016 lair- Kory Kramer. Chairman Newport Beach Planning Commission 100 Civic Center Drive ewport Beach, CA 92660 RE- Troesh Residence Appeal, ltern No. 2 'A►. 2015- 122) Dear Chai mY an Kramer, We 'would like to voice our support for the updated plan for the Troesh Residence at 333 La Jolla L3rive_ The updated plan addresses several of our prior concerns related to parking along La Jolla Drive and the mass of the structure. We ,appreciate the Troesh's willingness to snake changes to the proposed residence and acknowledge their right to build a second residence on their R2 lat. We live at 341 La Jolla Dr_ and have a unique perspective given that we are the nearest neighbors to the east along La Jolla- Adding one driveway to La Jolla where there are already 9 driveways between Cliff and Beacon is not a big deal and may even discourage vehicles from parking along the north side of La Jolla, The massing of the residence is well thought out from our vantage paint taking advantage of the steep slope down towards Catalina and we appreciate that the house xNill not be a huge box, Most importantly, it has come to our attention that our signature was duplicated from a September 13, 2015 letter signed by many of our neighbors and submitted to the City with a new letter dated July 21, 20 1 +fit 'e were not approached to si u the u dated letter and do not aggree with the sentiments exi2ressed. We urge the Planning Commission to approve the updated project. Thank you± Ed Estrada Shannon 341 La Jolla Lir, Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 2d Additional Materials Received Troesh Residence Appeal (PA2015-122) Subject: FW:Troesh From: Shawna Schaffner rmailto:sschafrnerCcacaaolanning.com] Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 3:41 PM To: Murillo, Jaime Subject: RE: Troesh Jaime— I am disappointed to say that we need to request a continuance for the Troesh Residence. We request a continuance to a date certain—August 18. Please give me a ring when you have a chance. Thanks, Shawna 949-581-2888 1