Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Emerald Bay Planning Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies appeal and upholds planning commission on Emerald Bay home; debate centers on historic-resource nomination
Summary
The board denied a neighbor's appeal and sustained the planning commission's categorical-exemption and variance approvals for a demolition and new residence at 211 Emerald Bay, after residents argued the house may be a historic resource; supervisors ruled the record supported the commission and staff determinations.
The Orange County Board of Supervisors on Dec. 17 denied an appeal by an adjacent property owner and upheld a planning commission approval that allows demolition of existing structures at 211 Emerald Bay and construction of a new two-level single-family home.
Neighbors and an appellant lawyer argued the house is emblematic of 1930s coastal California architecture and urged the board to defer action pending a determination from the State Office of Historic Preservation. "We would just ask that this be deferred until the State Office of Historic Preservation acts upon the application, which will be in February," said neighbor counsel Larry Noakes.
The applicant’s representative, Anne Fox of MIG Inc., and the applicant’s counsel said the county’s historic-resource assessment and staff review found the property ineligible for the California Register and that none of the CEQA exceptions applied. Fox said the planning commission’s categorical-exemption finding and the requested variances are supported by the record.
Applicant representatives and homeowners said the lot’s unusual shape, easement burdens and prior local approvals justified the setback variances requested. The county planning staff recommended upholding the planning commission’s decision.
After hearing testimony from neighbors, applicant representatives and staff, the board voted to deny the appeal and sustain the planning commission’s approval (motion carried 4–0).
What’s next: The appellant’s State Office of Historic Preservation nomination remains pending; the board’s decision upholds the planning commission and allows the applicant to proceed subject to the planning decision and conditions.
