Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA2005-004RECEIVED BY PLANNING CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 0 7 2005 AM SE911011111211E2f3i4 516 April 7th, 2005 Greg Ramirez City Planner Newport Beach Dear Greg: Lohrbach In light of the staff report recommendation and the expectation of a negative response from the commission, we are withdrawing our variance application on 3631 Ocean Blvd. Greg, I want to thank you for your time and help with Bill Peters in the endeavor, but we realize we were fighting an uphill battle. Sincerely, Ed Lo ach 31681 Camino Capistrano Suite 106 San Juan Capistrano California 92675 Tel: 949.661.5068 Fax: 949.240.3851 Planning Commission Minutes 04/07/2005 Page 3 of 4 c comment was opened. Bill Edwards, .. •'tect of Planet Design, speaking for the applicant noted their acceptance of t - • nditions of approval. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to app • - Modification Permit No. 2005-014 subject to findings and conditions of appr• ; Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDanie = • •' Hawkins None None None *** SUBJECT: Jackson residence (PA2001-062) 3631 Ocean Boulevard Request for an amendment to a previously approved Variance and Modification Permit to allow an attached garage that encroaches into the front yard setback to exceed the Ocean Boulevard top -of -curb height limit where the previous approval required that the garage comply with the Ocean Boulevard height limit. Ms. Temple noted that this item will be removed from calendar as the applicant has withdrawn this application. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to remove Variance No. 2001- 001 (PA2001-062) from calendar. ITEM NO. 5 PA2001-062 Removed from Calendar Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins None None None *** A 6 ' TIONAL BUSINESS: a) City Coun ' ollow-up - Ms. Temple reported that at the last City Council meetine Council gave final approval and adopted the Ordinance for Civic ' . za including the name change and the modification to sign regu . ' • ns; the General Plan amendment regarding Housing Elements tha . s previously considered by the Planning Commission was continued to ' • it 12th; and, an initiation of a Code Amendment incorporating a new A o :. ble Housing Chapter to Title 20 establishing provisions for the impleme = 'on of the City's Housing program related to inclusionary zoning a : low and moderate housing within the Coastal Zone and possible ure amendments. She noted that the related code amendments will • - seen by the Planning Commission at a later date due to recent ADDITIONAL BUSINESS file://H:\Plancomm\2005\040705.htm 06/23/2005 • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FILE COPY TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner (949) 644-3219, gramirezc city.newport-beach.ca.us Agenda Item: 5 April 7, 2005 SUBJECT: Jackson Residence 3631 Ocean Boulevard Variance No. 2001-001 and Modification Permit No. 2001-092 Amendment No. 1 (PA2001-062) APPLICANT: Bill Peters of Lohrbach Associates, for Doug and Sandi Jackson, property owners REQUEST The applicant requests approval of an amendment to an approved Variance and Modification Permit that allowed a new single-family residence to exceed the 24-foot height limit and subterranean portions of two floors, including the garage, to encroach into the required 10-foot front yard setback. The applicant is requesting a change to the building design that would increase the height of the garage by 2 feet 6 inches resulting in a garage that would exceed the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limit, where the approved project requires that the entire building comply with that height limit. The applicant desires to raise the floor of the garage in order to reduce the slope of the driveway from an approximate 20% slope to an approximate slope of 13%. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and Deny the request by adopting the findings for denial included as Exhibit No. 1 DISCUSION Project Background The Planning Commission approved the Variance and Modification Permit request at their meeting of September 20, 2001. The approval allows the construction of a 6,044 square foot square foot single-family dwelling. The approval permits the height of the • • Jackson Residence April 7, 2005 Page 2 building to be approximately 34-feet 6-inches above the existing grade at the highest point on the bluff side. The approval requires the new construction to comply with the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limit. Additionally, the approval included a Modification Permit hatIon+s ne ab ve grade floor, which includes the garage, and two subterranean floofs Yt ° en ar h 0 feet into the required 10-foot setback. The residence is currently ur{ro The original design of the residence proposed in 2001 included a nearly identical garage design that exceeded the top of curb height by 2 feet 6 inches. The applicant requested that portion of the variance in order to provide a driveway with a gentler slope which was considered by the Planning Commission at their meeting of August 23, 2001. At that meeting the Planning Commission directed the applicant to come back with a design solution that would bring the project into conformance with the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limit. The Commission suggested several options including designing a zigzag driveway or pushing the garage farther away from the curb. The applicant redesigned the project by lowering the garage by 2 feet 6 inches with a driveway slope of approximately 20%. The revised project was presented to the Planning Commission at their meeting of September 20, 2001. Although the Commission considered the potential that the steep driveway may potentially create hazards associated with vehicle maneuvering, parking and potential pedestrian conflicts at the sidewalk, they concluded that a driveway slope of 20% was acceptable and approved the project. The approval included a condition of approval (No. 4) requiring that the final driveway design have a slope of not more than 20% unless otherwise approved by the Traffic Engineer. The final driveway design resulted in a driveway slope of approximately 20.5% which was approved by the Public Works Department during the building permit plan check process. A building permit issued for the project on March 2, 2004. The approved driveway, as shown on the building plans, is shown on Sheet A-7D (Section C Approved Driveway) of the proposed plans attached as Exhibit 10. The proposed driveway section is also shown on Sheet A-7D. Property Characteristics Lot size: 8,081 square feet Buildable area: 6,534 square feet Floor area limit (1.5): 13,066 square feet Zoning District R-1 General Plan and Local Coastal Plan Single Family Residential r ; • • • • Jackson Residence April 7, 2005 Page 3 Vicinity Map ^ 3b2s r 110, 210 ,223 't r f J �i`% f - ' 3612 /.;,-. ` • •,I 4144 220 a / • ,K��� .. 3620 . y. 1 • P . • ' • �. �•r � 'V61 'r •1‘P . 2I4 i 3601 - : t00t. ', ' 362 \a .1 .212 \, 3611- r , Tell 0 .lY\ �'M t• r �I' � 3700 219 ` 3619 t A s,' 3708*, 3625- �� . t 41/4 A ....v..r 3712 ...f... f 3716 3631 r �1 ' 4, • �_.. i 1 ,i, ` 215 1 \ Y ,' 3720 3709# '• 1 4 , "4141111" * , _ ti r3713 1 3728 .1 , 3719w li s j.}�' • ti, t'., • {' 200, - �. 3725 t - ti' J4, P r . *T �• • Q'L - 204 -SFD , ,r29 / REDS,- . W ,,�.R-1 -� 152ft Jackson Residence 3415 Ocean Boulevard Current Development: Single-Famil Residence — Under Construction To the north: Single Family Residences To the east: Single Family Residences To the south: Single Family Residences To the west: Pacific Ocean • • "if Residence April 7, 2005 Page 4 Height Limit Variance The Zoning Code defines the height of a structure as the vertical distance between the highest point of a structure and the grade directly below. The height limit in the R-1 zoning district is 24 feet as measured from existing/natural grade to the top of a flat roof or mid -point of a sloping roof with a maximum ridge height of 29 feet. The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program advocate the preservation of public views. In this particular case, public view preservation along Ocean Boulevard is specifically addressed within the Zoning Code. The Code limits the height of structures on the seaward side of Ocean Boulevard to the height of the top of the adjacent Ocean Boulevard curb. In this case, the adjacent top -of -curb elevations range from 98.5 to 97.6 as shown on the topographic survey dated March 18, 2003. The height of the proposed garage exceeds this limitation by approximately 2 feet 6 inches. Projects requesting to exceed this height limit require the approval of a variance. Section 20.91.035(B) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any variance, the Planning Commission must find that the applicant has established the following grounds for a variance: 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. The approved variance for the seaward side of the property provides the applicant with relief from the height limit for the purpose of constructing a new dwelling. The approved project does not exceed the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limit. The project plans, including the driveway design have been approved by the Public Works Department during plan check which demonstrates that a single family residence can be designed and constructed to adhere to the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limits and satisfactorily meet City design standards. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. The majority of the subject property is unimproved coastal bluff. The existing variance approval allows the property owner to construct a dwelling of similar floor area when compared to the size of homes on similar sized parcels without the need to exceed the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limit. • • 0 Jackson Residence ={ April 7, 2005 Page 5 3. That the granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. The Code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting variance applications. The variance procedure is intended to resolve practical physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area and on this lot. The existing approval of the height variance is consistent with the intent of the established height limitations to ensure that buildings are not out of scale with nearby buildings, since the height of this building is comparable to those on nearby properties with similar topography. This request to exceed the top of curb height is for new construction and plans have been submitted that demonstrate the new residence can be constructed without the need to exceed the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limit. 4. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. The subject property is designated for single family residential use and the granting of the variance would not increase the density beyond what is planned for the area, thereby avoiding additional traffic, parking, or demand for other services. However, staff believes that the intent of the top of curb height limit is to have each home on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard designed to preserve and enhance public views. The project involves a complete redevelopment of the site and the proposed residence includes a garage that exceeds the top of curb thereby obstructing public views of the Pacific Ocean. Although a driveway with a gentler slope is typically desirable to lessen the potential for vehicle and pedestrian conflicts, the plans have been reviewed by the Public Works Department who determined that an adequate design can be achieved without the need for the garage floor to be raised. Based on the above findings, staff believes that the mandatory findings to allow the garage to exceed the top of curb height limit can not be made due to the impact to public views. Additionally, the existing variance and modification permit approval allow the applicant to construct a new residence that is of comparable size to other single family dwellings in the area with a driveway design that has been approved by the Public Works Department. • Jackson Residence April 7, 2005 Page 6 Environmental Review A Mitigated Negative Declaration was certified with the existing variance and modification permit approval. There are no additional or altemative mitigation measures that should be considered in conjunction with said project since the project considered during the environmental review included a garage of basically the same size, location and height. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Alternatives 1. Approve Amendment No. 1 to Variance No. 2001-001 and Modification Permit No. 2001-092 by offering findings for approval. 2. The Commission may direct the applicant to redesign the project in order to consider a modified project that better conforms to the height limit or provides safer vehicular ingress and egress. This may be achieved by redesigning the driveway to provide a vehicle turn around so vehicles do not back up onto Ocean Boulevard or re -design the driveway in a manner to reduce the slope. Prepared by: Submitted by: Gregg B'Ramirez, Associate P • anner Patricia L. emple, anning Director Jackson Residence April 7, 2005 Page 7 Exhibits: 1. Findings for Denial 2. Variance Justification Submitted by Applicant 3. Resolution No. 1536 Approving Variance No. 2001-001 and Modification Permit No. 2001-092 4. Staff report from the August 23, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting 5. Minutes from the August 23, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting 6. Staff Report from the September 20, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting 7. Minutes form the September 20, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting 8. Letters Received in Opposition to the Proposed Project (4) 9. Approved Plans 10. Proposed Plans • • • • • EXHIBIT NO. 1 Findings for Denial • o ck • Findings for Denial 1. The approved variance for the seaward side of the property provides the applicant with relief from the height limit for the purpose of constructing a new dwelling. The approved project does not exceed the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limit. The project plans, including the driveway design have been approved by the Public Works Department during plan check which demonstrates that a single family residence can be designed to adhere to the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limits and satisfactorily meet City design standards. 2. The majority of the subject property is unimproved coastal bluff. The existing variance approval allows the property owner to construct a dwelling of similar floor area when compared to the size of homes on similar sized parcels without the need to exceed the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limit. 3. The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting variance applications. The variance procedure is intended to resolve practical physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area and on this lot. The existing approval of the height variance is consistent with the intent of the established height limitations to ensure that buildings are not out of scale with nearby buildings and the height of the approved building is comparable to those on nearby properties with similar topography. This request to exceed the top of curb height is for new construction and plans have been submitted that demonstrate the new residence can be constructed without the need to exceed the Ocean Boulevard top of curb height limit. 4. The subject property is designated for single family residential use and the granting of the variance would not increase the density beyond what is planned for the area, thereby avoiding additional traffic, parking, or demand for other services. The intent of the top of curb height limit is to have each home on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard designed to preserve and enhance public views. The project involves a complete redevelopment of the site and the proposed residence includes a garage that exceeds the top of curb thereby obstructing public views of the Pacific Ocean. • 16 • • f EXHIBIT NO. 2 Variance Justification Submitted by Applicant • • 1 1 • Variances: Required Findings: I. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. 3. That the granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and wilt not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. 4. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. To aid staff in determining that the finding can be made in this particular case please answer the following questions with regard to your request. (Please attach on separate sheet, if necessary.) 1. What exceptional circumstances apply to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings? igOef.erti$e bP T/-{e- & er'/ it) j- •77-b47r- go rSi 715 T> A ie,F 111.1e,iv 7/ 76o,- rfrs Arieeirm5T /0-7" 7 0 1,42✓4 vsU Y • 2. Why is a variance necessary to preserve property rights? 1.14 0e4E-5.5 7 f,) ezoend 7d 6.645.-TAOG-i- A atki✓ u-dry 77, r me 6 '. t H '-} 5 I E > i J etvoevi w ate L—D tiet-V 7o 5t) , -7-a%r 5r ore Wt-F + Mb0L-r%' 1:30riv6etthil.5 ro P-Q771 rme, bu3Nrgat ,4 &' 7rzl 5 old Z71E' ri,V wT 3. Why will the proposal not be detrimental to the neighborhood?DrosAL WELL, WV. #:>- '1Z.„t>vI IaNTik-C. tS> t.Jcrr o t,1 L- ( p- Horns © d • Ties •se-err-itpxJ a 04.UJ, JUST. .des ffio# T F - <'.�s�--�;r�1 I-bo o7-1 -7-`416- Ge51- WAS i 044 f k Hft Lo rr v U7 A-Nmiprof i To Thke • 8 EXHIBIT NO. 3 Resolution No. 1536 Approving Variance No. 2001-001 and Modification Permit No. 2001-092 • t3 RESOLUTION NO. 1536 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2001-001 AND MODIFICATION NO. 2001-092 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3631 OCEAN BOULEVARD (PA2001-062) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section L An application was duly filed by the applicant, Ed Lorbach on behalf of the property owners Mr. and Mrs. Jackson with respect to property located at 3631 Ocean Boulevard and legally described as Parcel 15 of Parcel Map 1257, requesting approval of a Variance and Modification Permit to construct a three level, 6,044 square foot residence that exceeds the 24/28-foot height limit. The residence would also encroach within the 10-foot front yard setback up to 10 feet in some places. The property is located within the R-1 (Single -Family Residential) zone district. Section 2. A public hearing was duly held on August 23, 2001 and September 20, 2001, at 6:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was duly given. Evidence, both written and oral, was duly presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the aforesaid meeting. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows: a) The proposed development, a detached single family home, is consistent with the General Plan, Land Use Element designation of the property which is Single-family Detached. b) An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. The contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. On the basis of the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. c) The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. The only easement that exits on the site is a sewer easement • • • li Planning t •ssion Resolution No. 1536 Page 2 of 7 that will serve the proposed construction. The sewer easement will remain accessible with the implementation of the project provided that a sewer clean out is installed. d} Alteration of the more natural portion of the coastal bluff is minimized due to the siting of the proposed residence. The residence will occupy the required front yard setback which is presently developed rather than having the residence extend further upon the relatively undisturbed seaward portion of the bluff. Additionally, a majority of the project is does not extend beyond a "stringline" drawn between the two adjacent residences. The lowest extent of the development, including the at -grade deck is similar to the elevation of the lower portions of the two adjacent residences (approximately 5-6 feet lower than the residence to the west and approximately 5-6 feet higher than the residence to the east). e) The granting of the variance to allow portions of the residence to exceed pen fitted height limits is warranted in that there are special circumstances applicable to the property; approval is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant; approval is consistent with the purposes of this code; and will not be materially detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood for the following reasons: 1. The steeply sloping topography of the site restricts the ability to comply with the height limitations while constructing a residence comparable to newly constructed residences located in Corona Del Mar. 2. The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting variance applications, and the variance procedure is intended to resolve practical and unnecessary physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area and on this lot. 3. The entire residence will be constructed at a lower level than the existing residence which will improve public views from Ocean Boulevard. 4. Due to the siting of the proposed residence within a "stringline" drawn between the two adjacent residences, its footprint elevation being similar to the two adjacent residences and its location, which is relatively distant from Corona Del Mar Beach, the proposed project will not significantly impact the views of the coastal bluffs. f) The proposed project will not be detrimental 'to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of this code for the following reasons: • 1) • Plannin imission Resolution No. 1536 tE 4 Page 3 of 7 The proposed residence will be approximately 44 feet from the existing sidewalk. This increased distance sufficiently separates the budding mass from the sidewalk especially due to the lower overall height of the residence as measured in relation to the curb and sidewalk. 2) The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting modification applications, and the variance procedure is intended to resolve practical and unnecessary physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area and on this lot. Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves Variance No. 2001-001 and Modification Permit No. 2001-092, subject to the Conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached. Section 5. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this action is call for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2001. AYES: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker NOES: ABSENT: BY: - —7( Tucker, Chairman BY�'. (17.zyf, Earl McDaniel , Secretary Kranzley, Selich None Gifford • • ItE • Planning ( fission Resolution No. 1536 Page 4 of 7 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VARIANCE NO. 2001-001 & MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2001-092 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the revised site plan, floor plan and elevations dated 09/13/2001 except as noted below. 2. All public improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to the completion of the public improvements. 4. The final design of the driveway shall have a maximum grade of 20% with minimum 5-foot tangents and maximum grade changes of 1.1 % unless otherwise approved by the Traffic Engineer. The final driveway design shall be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 5. The existing 5-foot wide public sidewalk shall remain where it presently is constructed (8' to 12' back of curb) except at the proposed driveway approach where it shall be placed a minimum of 5 feet from the back of curb face. The driveway approach must have a minimum 6" hike -up in order to prevent Ocean Boulevard drainage from entering the property. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 6. A City Council approved encroachment permit and encroachment agreement shall be executed by the property owner to permit private improvement encroachments within the Ocean Boulevard right-of-way. 7. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of constructionr -vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 8. The intersection of the private drive and Ocean Boulevard shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 30 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirement. Landscaping within sight line shall not exceed 24 inches in height. 9. Chimneys shall not exceed the minimum height required by the Uniform Building Code and any portion of the chimney which extends above applicable height limits of the Zoning Planning )mission Resolution No. 1536 Page5of7 Code shall be no wider than 2 feet and no deeper than 4 feet. For the purpose of this condition, the smaller dimension of the chimney will be parallel to Ocean Blvd. 10. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be placed underground to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 11. A drainage study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Building Department showing all on -site drainage being directed to Ocean Boulevard. 12. Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of any building, grading or demolition permits. 13. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 14. Exiting from each level of the residence shall comply with applicable standards of the Building and Fire Code. The structure requires a fire suppression system (sprinklers) as the structure exceeds 5,000 square feet. 15. Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a shoring plan that shall be subject to the review and approval of the Building Department if it is determined that shoring is necessary for the construction of the proposed project. 16. A sewer main lateral and cleanout shall be installed behind and under the proposed residence subject to the standards and permit requirements of the Building Department and Utilities Department. The existing water meter shall be upgraded if determined necessary for the fire suppression system. 17. a) During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce nuisance due to odors from construction activities. (Mitigation Measure No. 1) b) During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the following measures are complied with to reduce short-term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: a)controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b)maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project - related emissions. (Mitigation Measure No. 1) c) To control dust, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Limit the disturbance area to the extent feasible. • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • • • Planning C fission Resolution No_ 1536 Page 6 of 7 • Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway_ • Use street sweepers to clean and pick up trailing dust from roads in the vicinity of the project. • Cover or water twice daily any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 miles per hour. • Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain inactive for more that 96 hours after clearing is completed. (Mitigation Measure No. 1) d) To control emissions, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Require 90-day low-Nox tune-ups for off -road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. Mitigation Measure No. 1) e) To minimize off -site impacts, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Encourage car pooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off site. • Wash or sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non -peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. (Mitigation Measure No. 1) 18. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City that a qualified paleontologist/archaeologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalog cultural material or fossils as necessary. The paleontologist/archaeologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference,— establish procedures for paleontological/ archaeological resource surveillance, and establish, in cooperation with the Applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the cultural material or fossils. If major paleontological/archaeological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting or grading, the paleontologist/ archaeologist shall report such findings to the Applicant and the City. The paleontologist/archaeologist shall deter -mine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the Applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The Applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be • Planning. mission Resolution No. 1536 Page 7 of 7 donated to the City, or designee. These actions shall be subject to the approval of the City. (Mitigation Measure No. 2) 19. During construction activities, the project will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.10). (Mitigation Measure No. 3) 20. The recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Investigation (Petra Report No. J.N. 358-00) and any subsequent geotechnical or geologic report for the project shall be incorporated into the project. (Mitigation Measure No. 4) 21. The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department to determine compliance. (Mitigation Measure No. 5) 22. The applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code pertaining to noise restrictions. During construction activities, the hours of construction and excavation work are allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and holidays. (Mitigation Measure No. 6) 23. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a traffic control and construction access plan grading address construction traffic, haul routes, truck hauling operations and parking in order to maintain safe access to the site during construction. The construction access plan shall include alternative pedestrian and bicycle path routes and an employee parking plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Traffic Department and the Planning Department. Additionally, the applicant shall obtain a haul route permit from the Revenue Division. No construction equipment shall be permitted to park overnight on Ocean Boulevard. (Mitigation Measure No. 7) 24. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. • • • • • • o o EXHIBIT NO. 4 Staff report from the August 23, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting 93 CITY OF NECT RT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 33oo NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644-3200; FAX (940 644-325o HeariSate: August 23, 2001. Agenda Item: 4 Staff Person: James Campbell (949) 644-3210 Appeal Period: 14 days FILE COPY PROJECT: Jackson Residence(PA2001-062) 3631 Ocean Boulevard SUMMARY: ACTION: REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Request to demolish an existing single family home (2,924 gross square feet) and replace it with a new single family home (6,044 gross square feet) including grading, paving, fencing lighting, landscaping and irrigation. The proposed project includes the changes to the existing driveway and front yard landscaping presently located within the public right-of-way. The project also includes a variance request to exceed established height limits of Zoning Code due to unique topographical circumstances. Lastly, the project includes a request to deviate from the required front yard setback of 10 feet providing a 0' to 4' front setback. Approve Variance No. 2001-001 and Modification No. 2001-092 and ADOPT Resolution No. entitled, "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach Approving Variance No. 2001-001 and Modification No. 2001-092 (PA2001-062)." OR Deny Variance No. 2001-001 and Modification No. 2001-092 by adopting the findings contained in Exhibit No. 2 APPLICANT: Ed Lohrbach 31681 Camino Capistrano, Suite # 106, San Juan Capistrano. LOCATION: Located at the intersection of Poinsettia Avenue and Ocean Boulevard in Corona Del Mar LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 15 of Tract 1257 GENERAL PLAN/ LCP: Single Family Detached ZONING DISTRICT: R-1 (Single Family Detached) • r • • Vicinity Map Jackson Residence 3631 Ocean Blvd. PA2001-062 Current Development: Single Family Residence To the north: Across Ocean Boulevard - Single Family Residences. To the east: Single Family Residence To the south: Single Family Residence (under construction) To the west: Pacific Ocean Jackson Residence (f A20D1-062) August 23, 2001 Page 2 of 17 Background The subject property was developed with a single family residence in 1962. The two -level residence was permitted to partially encroach up to 8 feet within the required front yard setback( by the approval of Variance No. 645. Additionally, the height of the residence was limited to 3 feet above the average curb height of Ocean Boulevard by this approval. The residence was altered and expanded in 1981, which was authorized through Modification Permit No. 2647. Site Overview The proiect site is a coastal bluff that slopes steeply away from Ocean Boulevard to the Pacific Ocean. The upper third of the site is presently developed with the existing 2,924 square foot, two story home. The rear portion of the home is cantilevered over the slope with the earth directly below covered with gunnite. The existing front yard area, which is within the public right-of-way, is terraced and landscaped. Seaward of the existing residence is a relatively small sloping area with an average slope of approximately 1:1 above a near vertical cliff with an average slope of approximately 1:5. The property is zoned R-1 and has the following characteristics: Lot size: 8,081 square feet Buildable area: 6,534 square feet Floor area limit (1.5): 13,066 square feet Project Overview The contemporary designed residence has three levels with the following basic characteristics: Lower level: Middle level: Upper level: Subtotal (living area): Garage (at upper level): Gross floor area: Decks {at each level): Bedrooms: Bathrooms: 1,842 square feet 1,934 square feet 1,706 square feet 5,494 square feet 450 square feet, accommodates 2 cars 6,044 square feet 500 square feet total 4 4 1/2 Setbacks: Required Existing Proposed Front: 10 ft. 2 - 10 ft. 0 - 4 ft_ Rear: 10 ft. ±95 ft. ±95 ft. house (±88 ft. lower deck Side: 4 ft. 4 - 6 ft. 4 ft. Building height Required Existing Proposed limit: Top of Ocean Blvd. 3 ft. above top of 2-6" above curb for curb & 24/28 ft. curb garage only, Exceeds above natural grade 24 ft. up to 101-6" ft. Jackson Residence (PA2001-062) August 23, 2001 Page 3 of 17 • • ,),\[ The upper two levels of the proposed residence will occupy the same basic volume of space that is presently occupied by the existing residence. The lower level will be accommodated by excavating the existing building envelope from the front property line to a "stringline" between the adjacent two residences approximately 5-6 feet below the lower elevation of the residence to the west. The project also includes the renovation of the area between the residence and the street that is part of the public right-of-way. This renovation will include a new driveway with decorative paving. The driveway will also have a "hammerhead" that will permit either the ability to turn a car around or two guest parking spaces. A sunken patio with a dining/bar-b-q/bar area is also proposed. Terraced landscape planters and steps with gated access to the patio will complete the project within the public right-of-way. All the improvements suggested by the applicant will require the approval of an Encroachment Agreement and Encroachment Permit by the City Council. Analysis The proposed project, a detached single family residence, is consistent with the land use designations of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, which is "Single Family Detached." The proposed residence is also well within the floor area limit of 1.5 times the buildable area of the lot established by Chapter 20.10 of the Zoning Code. Public Views Both the Land Use Element (Policy D) and the Local Coastal Program promote the preservation and enhancement of public views. This policy is implemented through the height limitations of the zoning code, which in the case of properties on the ocean side of Ocean Boulevard, structures are limited to the top of the adjacent curb. The height of the existing structure exceeds the height of the top of the curb at Ocean Boulevard by approximately 3 feet, thereby blocking portions of the scenic vista from Ocean Boulevard toward the Pacific Ocean. The new structure will only exceed the height of the top of the curb at Ocean Boulevard by 2-6" for the garage. Additionally, a small portion of the upper level which houses the elevator and a 1/2 bath will exceed the curb by 2 feet. The remainder of the residence will be at the height of the curb. The garage portion is approximately 39% of the width building (23 feet); the elevator/bath portion is approximately 10% of the width of the building (6 feet) and the remainder of the residence is 51% of the width (29.5 feet). The rear portion of the upper level of proposed residence will exceed the 24-foot height limit by approximately 101-6". Due to the fact that the new residence will be lower than the existing residence, views from Ocean Boulevard will be improved to the horizon. A view to the surf zone is presently not afforded due to the existing residence, and compliance with the 24-foot height limit will not create this view due to the proximity of the surf zone and height differential between the street and the ocean. In other words, the view to the surf zone will be blocked with a complying Jackson Residence (PA2001-062) August 23, 2001 Page 4 of 17 residence anyway. However, enforcing the existing height limit regulations would reduce any potential negative impacts to the public scenic vista. The public view of the coastal bluff will be impacted, but the area to be altered will be located within a "stringline" drawn between the two adjacent residences at an elevation down the bluff comparable to the adjacent to residences. The area also has limited visibility from public spaces from a distance (CDM State Beach). The intent of these policies is to protect and improve ocean views, and therefore, project approval can be found consistent with view preservation policy in staffs opinion. Coastal Bluff Preservation Land Use Element Policy D and Local Coastal Program policies states that it is the City's policy to preserve valuable natural resources or environmentally sensitive habitats. The policies also indicate that development shall be properly sited to minimize the alteration of natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. A majority of the proposed residence will be located within existing disturbed areas. The footprint of the proposed residence will remain in the same approximate position, but an exterior at grade deck will be extended toward the ocean an approximately 18 feet beyond the existing residence. This area is approximately 575 square feet of sloping bluff with no exposed rock outcroppings visible. The level of alteration is also comparable to the alteration of the two adjacent properties in terms of location and elevation. The building wall that faces the ocean is within a stringline of the two adjacent residences. The at grade deck extends further than a stringline between ocean facing decks on the two adjacent residences between 2 to 10 feet. The lowest extent of the deck, or the elevation down the bluff, is near the same elevation as the lower portions of the two adjacent residences (approximately 5-6 feet lower than the residence to the west and approximately 5-6 feet higher than the residence to the east). The more severely sloping portion of the bluff below, which does have exposed rock outcroppings that are visible from the rocky beach below and CDM State Beach, will not be impacted with grading or construction. The reduction of the front yard setback helps to minimize greater development down the bluff by providing additional usable area to locate the dwelling away from the more natural portion of the bluff. This additional area does facilitate a larger residence which is the desire of the applicant at the expense of the front yard setback which is presently developed. Staff believes that the reduction of the front yard setback assists in the preservation of a significant portion of the bluff which is the intent of Land Use Element Policy D. Due to the location of the proposed construction, staff believes that the project can be found consistent with the policies that require minimization of coastal bluff alteration. If the Planning Commission believes that the proposed extent of alteration of the property is excessive, and therefore inconsistent with bluff alteration policies, project redesign or denial is warranted. Jackson Residence (PA2001-062) August 23, 2001 Page 5 of 17 Reducing the size of the lower level at -grade deck is an option to reduce the amount of bluff alteration. Variance from Height Limits Sedion 20.91.035(B) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any variance, the Planning Commission must find that the applicant has established the following grounds for a variance: 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this code deprives such properly of privileges enjoyed by other properly in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. 3. That the granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. 4. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. Staff believes that the mandatory findings can be made in this case due to the sloping topography; the improvement of public views and the preservation of a significant portion of the more natural coastal bluff discussed above. Allowing the garage to exceed the top of curb is considerable due to existing development standards of the Zoning Code and Public Works Department. Parking for two cars is required and access can only be taken from Ocean Boulevard. The maximum slope for the driveway that crosses the public right-of-way is 15%. Lowering the garage floor to make the roof comply with the curb height limit can be done, but it would result in two potentially undesirable consequences. First, the driveway slope would increase creating additional hazards associated with vehicle maneuvering, parking and potential pedestrian conflicts at the sidewalk. Second, lowering the garage floor while maintaining the driveway slope at 15% would require locating the garage further away from the street. This alternative would put the garage at the seaward edge of the building thereby reducing ocean views for habitable portions of the residence. This would give cause to the applicant to consider other design options to offset the loss of views. A likely option would include a larger residence to increase views from habitable rooms which could put greater pressure to possibly increase alteration of more of the coastal bluff. The interior height of the garage is approximately 8"-6" and when added to the roof structure, the overall height will be 2"-6" above the curb. This interior height of the garage cannot be reduced very much while maintaining effective vehicle storage. Jackson Residence (PA2001-062) August 23, 2001 Page 6 of 17 The "downslope" height variance can also be supported by the severe topography when taken in context with the city policy to minimize alteration of the coastal bluff. However, the applicant is proposing 10-foot ceilings that cause roughly 1/4 of the seaward edge of the upper floor of the residence to exceed the 24-foot height limit. The downslope height issue effects the abutting properties more than it will impact an existing public view from Ocean Boulevard as the existing residence presently is higher and blocks a portion of the view. Finally, as stated previously, strictly enforcing the existing height limit regulations would eliminate any potential negative impacts to the public scenic vista. If, after receiving testimony and considering the facts of the request, the Planning Commission finds that mandatory findings cannot be made, staff has included Findings for Denial as Exhibit 2 to this staff report. Modification of Front Yard Setback Section 20.93.040(1) Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant relief to an applicant through a modification permit, the Planning Commission must find that the "establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of this code. " The basic intent of the requiring a front yard setback is to separate private buildings from the street for aesthetic purposes. This separation also separates residential uses from street activity, which, from the residents point of view, can be a nuisance at times. In this case, the front property line is located approximately 44 feet from the existing sidewalk. This increased distance sufficiently separates the building mass from the sidewalk especially due to the lower overall height of the residence as measured in relation to the curb and sidewalk. The proposed patio areas add to the structures within the front yard, but these structures are below existing natural grade. Staff believes that the combination of the reduced setback and front yard amenities should not present a problematic massing or proximity to the sidewalk. The proposed reduction in setback also assists in avoiding further alteration of the lower portion of the coastal bluff that is a more sensitive resource by permitting the building closer to the street. The reduced setback does place the foundation of the proposed residence in a position where it will provide lateral support for the public right-of-way due to the extensive excavation proposed. This is a potential liability for the city. The reduction of the front yard setback might be detrimental if the city were to attempt to "reclaim" the use of the public right-of-way fronting Ocean Boulevard for the use by the general public. This is unlikely as it is contrary to past policy. Lastly, the reduction of the front yard setback might be viewed by property owners and developers as establishing a precedent to support similar requests. Jackson Residence (PA2001-062) August 23, 2001 Page 7of17 Public Right -of -Way Encroachments As noted in the project description, the applicant proposed to construct extensive improvements within the public right -of way. The encroachments will require the approval of an Encroachment Agreement by the City Council through a separate action. According to Public Works staff, the improvements requested are more extensive than previous encroachments permitted by the City Council along Ocean Boulevard. However, it should be noted that the Planning Commission has no review authority over these improvements. Environmental Review An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared and circulated for public review in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. In considering the proposed project and the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, 7 mitigation measures were identified that will mitigate any potential impact to the environment to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures address potential impacts related to the following issues: Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hydroiogy/Water Quality, Noise, Transportation/Traffic. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and its Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are attached for the Commission's consideration. Recommendation Based upon the discussion and analysis detailed above, staff believes that the findings for approval of the Variance and Modification Permit can be made. Adoption of the attached resolution containing draft findings and conditions of approval is in order if the Planning Commission believes project approval is warranted by the facts. However, the project can be modified to comply with the front yard setback and height limit if the Commission finds that the project does not meet the intent of the code to have new construction fully comply with applicable standards, if so, findings for denial are provided in Exhibit No. 2. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director P&-k(i ! iG -Layit Prepared by: JAMES W. CAMPBELL Senior Planner VV. Jackson Residence (PA2001-062) August 23, 2001 Page 8 of 17 Exhibits 2. Findings for denial 3. Mitigated Negative Declaration & Mitigation Monitoring Report 4. Prujed Plui lb (bile plan, fLer pleas elevation drawing3 and 3cction drawl s) P:\Users\PUN\Shared\PA's1PA2001-062\VA2001-001 rpt.doc Jackson Residence (PA2001-062) August 23, 2001 Page 9 0117 Exhibit No. 2 • Exhibit No. 2 Findings for Denial Variance No. 2001-001 and Modification No. 2001-062 1. The granting of a variance to allow portions of the proposed residence to exceed the top of curb and 24/28-foot height limit is not warranted by special circumstances or for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, would be considered a grant of special privilege, and would be detrimental to surrounding properties because: a) The applicant has not demonstrated that a single family residence cannot be designed to fully comply with applicable height limits. The applicant can design a smaller residence and comply with applicable height limits. b) Intent of the height limits of the Zoning Code is to have each home on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard be designed to not exceed the top of the curb in order to preserve and enhance public views. The project entails a complete redevelopment of the site and the replacement home blocks public views intended to be opened through strict compliance with height limits. 2. The alteration of the coastal bluff associated with the project does not constitute minimal alteration of the natural coastal bluff landform as it increases and extends the building envelope with the proposed lower level at -grade deck beyond the existing altered area. This increased alteration of the coastal bluff is inconsistent with Land Use Element Development Policy D and applicable Local Coastal Program policies that mandate proper siting of structures on coastal bluffs to minimize alteration of natural landforms 3. The granting of the reduction in the required front yard setback will be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood for the following reasons: a) The reduced setback of the residence in association with the extensive encroachments requested within the public right-of-way places structures and uses in close proximity to the sidewalk. Potential future use of the expanded parkway would be negatively be effected due to the reduced setback. b) The reduced setback places the foundation of the proposed residence in a position where it will provide lateral support for the public right-of-way due to the extensive excavation proposed. This is a potential liability for the city. c) The reduction of the front yard setback will be viewed by property owners and developers as establishing a precedent to support similar relief without similar site constraints. • • • s • Exhibit No. 3 CON OF NEWPORT BE* [H 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (949) 644-3200 NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: Office of Planning and Research P.O. BOX 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 County Clerk, County of Orange Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Public review period: From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (Orange County) Date received for filing at OPRJCounty Clerk: July 23, 2001 to August 22, 2001 Name of Project: Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) Project Location: 3631 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar, California Project Description: Demolish existing single family home (2,924 gross square feet) and replace with new single family home (5,934 gross square feet) including grading, paving, fencing lighting, landscaping and irrigation. The propsed project includes the changes to the existing driveway and front yard landscaping presently located within the public right-of-way. The project also includes a variance request to exceed established height limits of Zoning Code due to unique topographical circumstances. Lastly, the project includes a request to deviate from the required front yard setback of 10 feet providing no front setback. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. �r A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is 1x,1 attached ❑ on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. A public hearing will be held to consider this project after the conclusion of the public comment period. A notice of the time and location will be published in accordance with applicable Municipal code requirements. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644-3200. Cr(A) C ames Campbell, Senior Planner Date ?l loi -Corona del Alai • TN ••• •••,, ..,,c. ,„;,:,:•• --,,, 13 V2° Ar,ch R 0 .....•%.. ... ,•;,;‘,„„ _.,-.7.• ' ...,„:-= — ••••,, ;I. - ,••• •• r ••••••, ..."'' il .N..).. lik ' . i : 00;:::,‘ i;• 11 A., ..., -..:, ••-, • ;: `.'il.•••--2.1,1',-,..7,4-).•-:.:.......; 'N';‘•:,.:,/,' if i -- Il , / . . 'S'''• . ,I, • . : ,? '; .. ' . .17' . :. . -.: ..';:•.:- ' ' - -.7:•::=.:-•t . - ,'• • - •// '... .7"..,;..-";:' \ .- . •-'":,.... • • s-1-,:•-', - ' ....! f,.. tr „., , .... ..,. ' . .• i . IN 41...;•• , ,,. ...„....,).: ". .....} 1, :SI' '' ' ::7 '7- = '''' ,''' '''' . \ .. ''' •47:;. ..ctin _4714- MILE 4000 FEET 1 000 0 1000 2000 3000 Printed from TOPO I ©1996 Wildflower Productions (www.topo.com) LOCATION MAP Ref: Portion of U. S. G. S. Topographical Map LAGUNA BEACH QUADRANGLE 7,5 Minute Series, 1965, Photo Revised 1981 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC, J.N. 358-00 June, 2001 FIGURE 1 1. Project Title: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Jackson Residence VA 2001-001 (PA2001-062) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: James Campbell, Planning Department (949) 644-3210 4. Project Location: 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: 3631 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar Ed Lorbach 31681 Camino Capistrano, Suite 106 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Douglas & Sandra Jackson Property Owners 6_ General Plan Designation: Single Family Detached 7. Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Section 20.65.040 - 24/28 Foot Height Limitation Zone 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Demolish and remove existing single family home (2,924 gross square feet) and replace with new single family home (5,934 gross square feet) including grading, paving, fencing lighting, landscaping and irrigation. The propsed project includes the changes to the existing driveway and front yard landscaping presently located within the public right-of-way. The project also includes a variance request to exceed established height limits of Zoning Code due to unique topographical circumstances. Lastly, the project includes a request to deviate from the required front yard setback of 10 feet providing no front setback The project, as proposed, requires a variance to exceed the 24/28 feet height limit, as well as, the requirement to ensure that roof heights on new construction do not exceed the top of the curb height at Ocean Boulevard per Sections 20.65.040 and 20.65.060 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. The garage, as proposed, exceeds height limit of the curb by 2' - 6". The rear portion of the upper level of proposed residence will exceed the 24-foot height limit by approximately 10' - 6". 3� • Environmental Checklist • 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Current Development: Single Family Residence To the north: Ocean Boulevard, Single Family Residential To the east: Single Family Residence To the south: Pacific Ocean To the west: Single Family Residence 9. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) California Coastal Commission (Coastal Development Permit) ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use Planning i Transportation/ 0 Public Services Circulation Cl Population & Housing 0 Biological Resources ❑ Utilities & Service Systems Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral #Aesthetics Resources ❑ Water 0 Hazards Cultural Resources ❑ Air Quality Noise 0 Recreation 5cMandatory Findings of ignificance Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 2 Environmental Checkl DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Prepared & Submitted by: vJ 7/zD/1 ames Campbell, enior Mannr Date Planning Department 0 • Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 3 3<i • ' Environmental Checklis, • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect 0 0 Eg ❑ on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic ❑ ❑ Q 0 resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial 0 0 ❑ Q light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Ii. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique ❑ ❑ 0 Q Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for ❑ 0 0 Q agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the ❑ ❑ ❑ Q existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct ❑ Q ❑ ❑ implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 4 Environmental Checkl Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation incorporated b) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ 0 ❑ p contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively 0 0 0 B considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to ❑ ❑ 9 ❑ substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting 0 0 0 0 a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, 0 ❑ 0 0 either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ 0 0 any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on 0 ❑ 0 0 federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? • Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 5 Environmental Checklist • Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated Interfere substantially with the ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies or ❑ ❑ ❑ ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an ❑ ❑ 0 adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse ❑ 0 0 change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse ❑ 0 change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a 0 ❑ ❑ B unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Disturb any human remains, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of Toss, injury, or death involving: Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 6 Environmental Checkd'i Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated i) Rupture of a known earthquake ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or ❑ 0 0 ❑ the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as ❑ ❑ 0 El defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately ❑ ❑ ❑ l21 supporting the use septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the ❑ ❑ ❑ 121 public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? • Jackson Residence (PA 2001-Q62) • Page 7 • 1 Environmental Checklist • • Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Create a significant hazard to the ❑- 0 0 0 public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or 0 ❑ ❑ 0 handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is ❑ ❑ 0 0 included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project within an airport land 0 0 ❑ 0 use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ 0 0 private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) mpair implementation of or 0 ❑ ❑ 0 physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a 0 ❑ 0 significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildfand fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) + Page 8 "l� Environmental Checkli VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation incorporated ❑ Q ❑ ❑ O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ B ❑ ❑ ❑ Q • Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 9 Lk,k Environmental 'r ntal Checklist e • • • Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard 0 ❑ 0 area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? j) Expose people or structures to a ❑ 0 0 significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 0 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 0 0 0 d conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ 0 known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the Toss of availability of a ❑ 0 ❑ B locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 10 Environmental Checkltst LIF Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or ❑ 0 0 generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 0 ❑ ❑ 0 c) A substantial permanent increase in ❑ 0 ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑ 0 d) A substantial temporary or periodic ❑ 0 ❑ 0 increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an 0 ❑ 0 airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing orworking in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: ❑ ❑ 0 a) Induce substantial population 0 0 ❑ 0 growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? • • Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 11 • 411, Environmental Checklist ent a • potentially. Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact impact With Impact Mitigation incorporated b) Displace substantial numbers of 0 0 ❑ C1 existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of 0 ❑ ❑ B people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ 0 ❑ El Police protection? ❑ 0 ❑ El Schools? ❑ ❑ 0 I® Other public facilities? 0 ❑ 0 d XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use ❑ 0 ❑ of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include ❑ ❑ ❑ C recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? opportunities? Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 12 • Environmental Checklzst V0 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated XIV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is 0 substantial in relation to the existing traffic Toad and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed either individually or 0 0 ❑ El cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic 0 0 0 Er patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due ❑ 0 0 [ii to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency ❑ ❑ 0 d access? f) Result in inadequate parking 0 ❑ 0 p capacity? g} Conflict with adopted policies, plans, ❑ 0 ❑ E► or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment ❑ 0 ❑ requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 13 • • • ac( Environmental Checklist • Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Require or result in the construction ❑ 0 ❑ of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction ❑ 0 0 of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies 0 ❑ 0 available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the 0 0 ❑ wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Comply with federal, state, and Local ❑ 0 0 E) statutes and regulation related to solid waste? cA Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 14 •:I Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential ❑ 0 Q ❑ to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that ❑ ❑ ❑ are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have ❑ 0 0 environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. III Environmental Checklist • • • SOURCE LIST The following enumerated documents are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660. 1. Final Program EIR — City of Newport Beach General Plan 2. General Plan, including all its elements, City of Newport Beach. 3. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. Plans for Single Family Residence at 3631 Ocean Boulevard, prepared by Ed Lorbach, dated . 6. Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Petra, Report No. 358-00, 6/5/2001. Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 16 Environmental Checklit MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measure No. 1 (Air Quality) a) During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce nuisance due to odors from construction activities. b) During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the following measures are complied with to reduce short-term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: a) controlling fugitive dust by regular waterine watering, or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b) maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project -related emissions. c) To control dust, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Limit the disturbance area to the extent feasible. • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway. • Use street sweepers to clean and pick up trailing dust from raids in the vicinity of the project. • Cover or water twice daily any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 miles per hour. • Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain inactive for more thatn 96 hours after clraring is completed. d) To control emissions, the project proponent shall compy with the following measures: • Require 90-day low-Nox tune-ups for off -road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. e) To minimize off -site impacts, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Encourage car pooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt aauled off site. • Wash or sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non -peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 17 • • 6�' Environmental Checklist 411/ • • • Mitigation Measure No. 2 (Cultural Resources) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City that a qualified paleontologist/archaeologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalog cultural material or fossils as necessary. The paleontologist/archaeologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, establish procedures for paleontological/ archaeological resource surveillance, and establish, in cooperation with the Applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the cultural material or fossils. If major paleontological/archaeological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting or grading, the paleontologist/ archaeologist shall report such findings to the Applicant and the City. The paleontologist/archae-ologist shall deter -mine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the Applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The Applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions shall be subject to the approval of the City. Mitigation Measure No. 3 (Geology and Soils) During construction activities, the project will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.10) Mitigation Measure No. 4 The recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Investigation (Petra Report No. J.N. 358-00) and any subsequent geotechnical or geologic report for the project shall be incorporated into the project. Mitigation Measure No. 5 (Hydrology and Water Quality) The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department to determine compliance. Mitigation Measure No. 6 (Noise) The applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code pertaining to noise restrictions. During construction activities, the hours of construction and excavation work are allowd from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and holidays. Mitigation Measure No. 7 (Transportation/Traffic) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a traffic control and construction access plan to address construction traffic, haul routes, truck hauling operations and parking in order to maintain safe access to the site during construction. The construction access plan shall include alternative pedestrian and bicycle path routes and an employee parking plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Traffic Department and the Planning Department. Additionally, the applicant shall obtain a haul route permit from the Revenue Division. No construction equipment shall be permitted to park overnight on Ocean Boulevard. Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 18 53 -776 Environmental Analysis The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions contained in the Environmental Checklist regarding the proposed project's environmental impacts. i. Aesthetics a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant. City policy expressly addresses structures along Ocean Boulevard and dictates that the height of new structures be limited in order to preserve public scenic vistas from Ocean Boulevard, as well as, preserve the visual character of the bluff face. New structures built along Ocean Boulevard shall not exceed the height limit of the top of the curb at Ocean Boulevard. Furthermore, structures within the R-1 Zone along Ocean Boulevard are not to exceed height limits of twenty-four (24) feet from natural grade. The project proponent has requested a variance to exceed the height limits. The project proponent has cited extreme topographical constraints as cause for the variance. Specifically, the project proponent cites that the height variance is needed to accommodate the proposed garage which will take access from Ocean Boulevard. The existing two-story, single family structure on the site will be replaced by a new, three-story, single family residential structure. The height of the existing structure exceeds the height of the top of the curb at Ocean Boulevard by approximately 3 feet, thereby blocking portions of the scenic vista from Ocean Boulevard toward the Pacific Ocean. The new structure will only exceed the height of the top of the curb at Ocean Boulevard by 2" - 6" for the garage and the remainder of the residence will be at the height of the curb. The rear portion of the upper level of proposed residence will exceed the 24-foot height limit by approximately 10' - 6". Due to the fact that the new residence will be lower than the existing residence, views from Ocean Boulevard will be improved. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less than significant impact. A majority of the proposed residence will be located within existing disturbed areas. The footprint of the proposed residence and exterior at grade deck will be extended toward the ocean an average of 18 feet. This area is approximately 575 square feet of moderately sloping bluff with no exposed rock outcroppings visible. The area is not visible from public spaces. The building wall that faces the ocean is within a stringline of the two adjacent residences. The at grade deck extends further than a stringline between ocean facing decks on the two adjacent residences between 2 to 10 feet. The location of the residence and deck does not alter the steeper portion of the coastal bluff below that does have exposed outcroppings of rocks which are visible from the rocky beach below. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less than significant. See I (a) and (b) above. Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 19 Environmental Analysis • • • d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No impact. The site currently houses a single family home, including residential lighting. The proposed project will replace the existing single family home with a new single family home, including residential and landscape lighting. No significant impacts from light and glare are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. II. Agricultural Resources a) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The project site is not located within or near an area designated as farmland pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No impact. The site is zoned for residential use and is not a part of a Williamson Act contract. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use? No impact. See II (a) and (b) above. III. Air Quality a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Construction related emissions contribute to the non -attainment status of the southern area air basin. The following mitigation measures are necessary to reduce potential impacts to air quality to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure No. 1 a) During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce nuisance due to odors from construction activities. b) During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the following measures are complied with to reduce short-term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: a) controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 20 • Environmental Analysis Dust); b) maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project -related emissions. c) To control dust, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Limit the disturbance area to the extent feasible. • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway. • Use street sweepers to clean and pick up trailing dust from raids in the vicinity of the project. • Cover or water twice daily any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 miles per hour. • Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain inactive for more than 96 hours after clearing is completed. d) To control emissions, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Require 90-day low-Nox tune-ups for off -road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. e) To minimize off -site impacts, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Encourage car pooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off site. • Wash or sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non -peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. See III (a) above. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. See III (a) above. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 21 • 6'e °Environmental Analysis • • • No impact. The proposed project will not create substantial pollutant concentrations. No mitigation measures are necessary. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No impact. The proposed project will not create objectionable odors. No mitigation measures are necessary. IV. Biological Resources a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No impact. The site is presently developed with a single family home and is located in a developed, urbanized area. Existing landscaping includes non-native, ornamental vegetation. The non-native, ornamental vegetation will be graded and replaced with new, ornamental plant materials. The proposed project will not directly or indirectly have any impacts on sensitive biological resources. No mitigation measures are necessary_ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No impact. See IV (a) above_ The site does not contain riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No impact. See IV (a) above. The site does not include wetlands, nor is it in the vicinity of designated wetlands. No mitigation measures are necessary. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No impact. See IV (a) above. The site does not include or provide habitat for any migratory fish or wildlife species. No mitigation measures are necessary. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 22 Environmental Analysis No impact. No unique trees or vegetation exist on site. Existing non-native vegetation will be removed due to grading. The proposed project includes installation of new, ornamental, non- native landscaping. Removing the existing vegetation and the provision of non-native landscaping does not conflict with any established policies or ordinances. No mitigation measures are necessary. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No impact. The project site is not subject to any established conservation plan. No mitigation measures are necessary. V. Cultural Resources a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? No impact. No known historical resources are located within or in the vicinity of the proposed project. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No known archaeological resources are located within or in the vicinity of the proposed project. A standard condition of approval requiring that an archeologist be consulted during grading will be applied to the project in case of unknown artifacts being unearthed. See Mitigation Measure No. 2. • • Mitigation Measure No. 2 - Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City that a qualified paleontologist/archaeologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalog cultural material or fossils as necessary. The paleontologist/archaeologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, establish procedures for paleontological/ archaeological resource surveillance, and establish, in cooperation with the Applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the cultural material or fossils. If major paleontologicallarchaeological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting or grading, the paleontologist/ archaeologist shall report such findings to the Applicant and the City. The paleontologist/archaeologist shall deter -mine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the Applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The Applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions shall be subject to the approval of the City. 5111 Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 23 Environmental Analysis c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic 0 feature? • No impact. No known paleontological or geologic resources are located within or in the vicinity of the proposed project. See Mitigation Measure No. 2. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No impact. See V (b) and (c) above. VI. Geology and Soils a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less than significant impact. The geotechnical investigation (Petra Report No. J.N. 358- 00) prepared for the proposed project states that no known active faults or projections of faults transect the property. The report concludes that potential damage to the property due to surface rupturing along faults is considered remote. Adherence to geotechnical report recommendations, the City Grading Ordinance and standard conditions of approval will mitigate potential risks to a less than significant impact. See Mitigation Measures No. 3 and 4 below. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The geotechnical investigation prepared for the proposed project concludes that the site will be affected by seismic accelerations generated by earthquakes along active faults which are distant from the site. The Newport -Inglewood Structural Zone is located 2 or 3 miles southwesterly of the site. Hypothetical peak based accelerations were estimated and specific recommendations for design, construction and maintenance of the proposed project and site are included in the geotechnical report. Implementation of the recommendations will help to mitigate potential seismic ground shaking impacts. See Mitigation Measures No. 3 and 4 below. Mitigation Measure No. 3 - During construction activities, the project will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures - of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.10) Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 24 Environmental Analysis Mitigation Measure No. 4 - The recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Investigation (Petra Report No. J.N. 358-00) and any subsequent geotechnical or geologic report for the project shall be incorporated into the project. iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than significant impact. The Geotechnical Report did not note soil conditions that would be susceptible to However, measures recommended by the Geotechnical Report, including the use of a caisson and beam foundation embedded in bedrock, will serve to mitigate potential liquefaction risks. See Mitigation Measure No. 3 and 4. iv. Landslides? Less than significant impact. The project site is located on a bluff face within a zone of required investigation for earthquake induced landslides. The Geotechnical Report prepared for the proposed project concludes that investigation of geologic conditions which back the bluff slope indicate the bluff slope should not be affected by instability during an earthquake or otherwise. Implementation of the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Report for construction, drainage and maintenance will serve to minimize the risk of landslides. See Mitigation Measures No. 3 and 4 above. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than significant impact. The Geotechnical Report prepared for the proposed project recommends controlling drainage to avoid the introduction of water to the slope and filled areas which will serve to minimize the risk of soil erosion. Through implementation of the City's grading ordinance, potential erosion and siltation impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant impact. See Mitigation Measures No. 3 and 4 above. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less than significant impact. See VI (a) above. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No impact. Boring samples of the project site's soils were analyzed in the Geotechnical Report prepared for the proposed project. The report concludes that onsite soils have a very low expansive potential. No mitigation measures other than those listed in Mitigation Measure No. 3 and 4 are necessary. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 25 • • 'too *Environmental Analysis • No impact. The project site is served by a waste water and sewage disposal system. No mitigation measures are necessary. VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No impact. The proposed project does not involve the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No impact. See VII (a) above. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous material, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No impact. See VII (a) above. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No impact. The project site is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites. No mitigation measures are necessary. e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No impact. The project site is located over five (5) miles from the nearest airport (John Wayne Airport). No mitigation measures are necessary. f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No impact. See VII (e) above. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No impact. The project will not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No mitigation measures are necessary. Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 26 (pI • Environmental Analysis • h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area. The risk of wildland fires is insignificant. No mitigation measures are necessary. VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project will not substantially increase runoff or violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Existing site drainage is collected and transported to the base of the coastal bluff. On site runoff will be re- directed away from the bluff via the use of deck, building and site drains. The runoff will be collected and pumped to Ocean Boulevard that flows into the storm drain system and ultimately into the ocean. The runoff expected from the site can be described as residential in nature and less than significant amounts of contaminates are expected from a single family residence. With the incorporation of City standard conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures during grading, construction and ongoing site maintenance, no cumulative impacts associated with hydrologic conditions are anticipated as a result of the project. See Mitigation Measure No. 5. Mitigation Measure No. 5 - The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department to determine compliance. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing single family home. Although extensive grading of the slope is included in the project, no impacts to groundwater are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on -or of -site? No impact. See VIII (a) above. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on — off -site? Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 27 • Environmental Analysis • No impact. See VIII (a) above. The site does not presently direct its runoff to Ocean Boulevard, but due to relatively limited impervious area of the site, Public Works department staff does not believe that the small increase in drainage at Ocean Boulevard is significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No impact. See VIII (a) AND (d) above. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No impact. See VIII (a) above. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No impact. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone. No mitigation measures are necessary. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No impact. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone. No mitigation measures are necessary. i) Expose people of structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No impact. The project site is not located near a levee or dam. No mitigation measures are necessary. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No impact. Said risks to the City were evaluated in 1974 (A Preliminary Study of Flood Probability at Newport Beach". Potential risks from seiche, tsunami or mudflow are remote. No mitigation measures are necessary. IX. Land Use and Planning a) Physically divide an established community? No impact. The site is presently developed with a single family home in an urbanized, residential neighborhood. The proposed project consists of a new, larger single family home to replace the existing residence. No mitigation measures are necessary. Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 28 S { Environmental Analysis b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than significant impact. The project site is subject to the height limits imposed by the R-1 zone (Section 20.65.040 of the Municipal Code), the Shoreline Height Limitation Ordinance (Section 20.65.060 of the Municipal Code) and Coastal Element Policy pertaining to coastal views (page 28 of the City of Newport Beach Coastal Element). The applicable ordinance sections and policy are noted below. • City of Newport Beach Municipal Code 20.65.040 A. — 24/28 Foot Height Limitation Zone. In the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation Zone the height limit for any structure shall be twenty-four (24) feet; provided, however, that a structure may exceed twenty-four (24) feet up to a maximum of 28 feet through the adoption of a Planned Community District, or through the adoption of a Specific Plan, or through the approval of a use permit. This height limitation zone applies to all R-1, R-1.5, R-2, and OS Districts, which applies to the subject property. • City of Newport Beach Municipal Code 20.65.060 B — Structures on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar, which were in existence or under construction on the effective date of this chapter (October 11, 1972) may be changed; provided, such change does not result in a roof height above top of curb; and provided, further that the roof height does not exceed the height limit established by the 24/28 height limitation zone. For purposes of this chapter, the top of curb height limitation shall be established by a horizontal plane created by the extension of the top of curb line across each site located on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard. Where a question arises as to the interpretation of this code, the Planning Director shall review and render a decision. New structures may be constructed on vacant sites subject to the same criteria. • City of Newport Beach General Plan Local Coastal Program Land Use Element, January 9, 1990; Coastal Views — Where coastal views from existing roadways exist, any development on private property within the sight lines from the roadway shall be sited and designed to maximize protection of the coastal view. This policy is not intended to prohibit development on any site. Coastal View Area (a) — Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar. The existing two-story, single family structure on the site will be replaced by a new, three-story, single family residential structure. The height of the existing structure exceeds the height of the top of the curb at Ocean Boulevard by approximately 3 feet, thereby blocking portions of the scenic vista from Ocean Boulevard toward the Pacific Ocean. The project proponent has requested a variance to exceed the height limits. The project proponent has cited extreme topographical constraints as cause for the variance. The new structure will only exceed the height of the top of the curb at Ocean Boulevard by 2" - 6" for the garage and the remainder of the residence will be at the height of the curb. The rear portion of the upper level of proposed • Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 29 Environmental Analysis • • • residence will exceed the 24-foot height limit by approximately 10' - 6". Due to the fact that the new residence will be lower than the existing residence, views from Ocean Boulevard will be improved. However, enforcing the existing height limit regulations would eliminate any potential negative impacts to the public scenic vista. The intent of these policies is to protect and improve ocean views, and therefore, project approval will have a less than significant impact to land use to the environment in the area of land use policy. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No impact. The project site does not lie within a conservation plan habitat or natural community conservation plan. No mitigation measures are necessary. X. Mineral Resources a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing structure in an urbanized area. No loss of availability of any known mineral resource would occur as a result of the project. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No impact. See X (a) above. XL Noise a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project will include the demolition of an existing single family residential and the construction of a new, single family residential structure. Short term, construction related noise impacts would be mitigated through the application of the standard conditions of approval required by the City's Noise Ordinance, including limited hours of construction. No continuing noise impacts are anticipated. See Mitigation Measure No. 5. Mitigation Measure No. 6 - The applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code pertaining to noise restrictions. During construction activities, the hours of construction and excavation work are allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and holidays. Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 30 Environmental Analysis b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? No impact. See XI (a) above. The project will not be using a pile driven foundation system which could generate excessive ground borne vibration or noise. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No impact. See XI (a) above. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No impact. See XI (a) above. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working the project area to excessive noise levels? No impact. The project is not located within an airport land use plan. The nearest airport, John Wayne Airport, is located approximately 5 miles away. No airport related noise impacts are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No impact. The project is not located within an airport land use plan. The nearest airport is located 5 miles away. No airport related noise impacts are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. XII. Population and Housing a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing single family residence with a new residence. No increase in population growth is anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No impact. See XII (a) above. • • Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 31 • Environmental Analysis • c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No impact. See XII (a) above. XIII. Public Services a) Fire Protection? No impact. The site is presently served by the Newport Beach Fire Department. The proposed project will replace an existing single family residence with a new single family home. The proposed residence will have approximately 5,484 gross square feet and fire sprinklers are required for all new residences that exceed 5,000 square feet. No impact or change to fire protection is anticipated from the proposed project. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Police protection? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residential unit with a new residential unit_ The site is presently served by the Newport Beach Police Department. No impact or change to fire protection is anticipated from the proposed project. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Schools? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residence with a new single family residence. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. Applicable school fees will be required for the site prior to issuance of a building permit. No additional school impacts are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. d) Other public facilities? No impact. See XIII (a), (b) and (c) above. XIV. Recreation a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing single family residence with a new residence. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. No additional impacts to recreational facilities or services are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 32 r:. Environmental Analysis b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Opportunities? No impact. See XIV (a) above. XV. Transportation/Traffic a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (Le., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersection)? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project will replace an existing residential unit with a new residential unit. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. No increases in traffic are anticipated with the continued occupancy and use the project. However, during implementation of the project, construction traffic can create localized traffic disruption. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will ensure minimal traffic related impacts, Mitigation Measure No. 7 - Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a traffic control and construction access plan to address construction traffic, haul routes, truck hauling operations and parking in order to maintain safe access to the site during construction. The construction access plan shall include alternative pedestrian and bicycle path routes and an employee parking plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Traffic Department and the Planning Department. Additionally, the applicant shall obtain a haul route permit from the Revenue Division. No construction equipment shall be permitted to park overnight on Ocean Boulevard. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residential unit with a new residential unit. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. No increases in traffic are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residential unit with a new residential unit. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. No increase in traffic is anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 33 *Environmental Analysis • No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residential unit with a new residential unit. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. No changes in the circulation system would result from the project. No mitigation measures are necessary. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No impact. See XV (d) above. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residential unit with a new residential unit. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. Parking needs will be accommodated on site per City zoning requirements. No mitigation measures are necessary. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No impact. See XV above. XVI. Utilities and Service Systems a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residential unit with a new residential unit. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. Wastewater treatment impacts would not result from the project. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residential unit with a new residential unit. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. No new or expanded wastewater treatment drainage facilities would be needed as a result of the project. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No impact. See XVI (b) above. Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 34 Environmental Analysis d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No impact. Sufficient water supplies are available to serve the project. No mitigation measures are necessary. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No impact. Sufficient wastewater capacity exists to serve the proposed project. No mitigation measures are necessary. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? No impact. Sufficient landfill capacity exists to serve the proposed project. No mitigation measures are necessary. g) Comply with federal, state, and Local statues and regulations related to solid waste? No impact. The proposed project complies with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. No mitigation measures are necessary. Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 35 • Environmental Analysis • XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than Significant Impact. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. The project site is located in a developed urbanized area of the City. The new structure will replace and existing structure. No change in use is proposed. The proposed use is consistent with the zoning and general plan designations for the site, with the exception of the height limit regulations noted in Sections I and IX above. Development of the proposed project would not impact any special status species. No significant impacts would result from project development. No mitigation measures other than mitigation Measures 1 through 6 noted above, are necessary. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) No impact. See XVII (A) above. The proposed project would generate less than significant impacts or no impacts in the areas of noise, air quality, traffic, circulation and others. Any potential impact generated by the proposed project would be mitigated to a level of less than significant through the application of standard conditions of approval, City ordinances and site specific recommendations included in the Geotechnical Report prepared for the project and listed herein. No significant cumulative impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No impact. Any potential impact generated by the proposed project would be mitigated to a level of less than significant through the application of standard conditions of approval, City ordinances and site specific recommendations included in the Geotechnical Report prepared for the project and listed herein. No significant cumulative impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. No mitigation measures are necessary. Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) • Page 36 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Demolition and Reconstruction of Single Family Home at 3631 Ocean Boulevard - Variance No. 2001-001 & Modification No. 2001-062 No. Mitigation Measures:. implementation Action Method of :. Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Person Verification Date 1 a) During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce nuisance due to odors from construction activities. b) During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the following measures are complied with to reduce short-term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: a) controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b) maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project - related emissions. c) To control dust, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Limit the disturbance area to the extent feasible. • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway. • Use street sweepers to clean and pick up trailing dust from raids in the vicinity of the project. • Cover or water twice daily any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 miles per hour. • Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain inactive for more that 96 hours after clearing is Condition of approval Plan Check & Field inspection as necessary Prior to issuance of grading and building permits. Planning and Building Departments, III Mitigation Monitoring Program _- V iance No. 2001-001 & Modification No. 2001-062 • 1 4 No. Mitigation Measures Implementation Action Method of Venfu'ation Timing of` Veri u • tr Resso)tsrdl Person Verification Date completed, d) To control emissions, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Require 90-day low-Nox tune-ups for off -road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. e) To minimize off -site impacts, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Encourage car pooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off site. • Wash or sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non -peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites far erosion control. • 2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City that a qualified paleontologist/archaeologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalog cultural material or fossils as necessary. The paleontologist/archaeologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, establish procedures for paleontological/ archaeological resource surveillance, and establish, in cooperation with the Applicant, procedures far temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the cultural material or fossils. If major paleontological/archaeological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting or grading, the paleontologist/ archaeologist shall report such findings to the Applicant and the City. The paleontologist/archaeologist shall deter -mine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the Applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City, or its designee, on a first -refusal basis. The Applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, Condition of approval Plan Check & Field inspection as necessary During construction activities Planning and Building Departments. A& IP Mitigation Monitoring Program Variance No. 2001-001 & Modification No. 2001-062 2 No.. Mitigation Measures >Iinplementatttin Attott Method" of . Yer{ecatron notingof Veneatio Respo tstble Person:-. Ver frcation Date unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions shall be subject to the approval of the City. 3 During construction activities, the project will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.10) Condition of approval Plan Check & Field inspection as necessary Prior to issuance of a grading permit and during construction activities. Planning and Building Departments. 1110 4 The recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Investigation (Petra Report No. J.N. 358-00) and any subsequent geotechnical or geologic report for the project shall be incorporated into the project. Condition of approval Plan Check & Field Inspection as necessary Prior to issuance of a grading permit and during construction activities. Planning and Building Departments 5 The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge. Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department to determine compliance. Condition of approval Field inspection as necessary During construction activities Planning and Building Departments 6 The project will comply with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code pertaining to noise restrictions. During construction activities, the hours of construction and excavation work are allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8: 00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and holidays. Condition of approval Field inspection as necessary During construction activities Planning and Building DepartmentsIll _ 7 Prior to the start of construction activities (e.g. demolition of existing building), a construction traffic control plan shall be prepared which includes the haul route, truck hauling operations, construction traffic flagmen, and construction warning/directional signage. Condition of approval Plan Check & Field inspection as necessary Prior to issuance of a grading permit and during construction activities. Public Works Dept. Mitigation Monitoring Program arce No. 2001-001 & Modification No. 200 1 -062 • -3 • • • EXHIBIT NO. 5 Minutes from the August 23, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting • 15 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 ,r�flowers and not impact anybody whatsoever. INDEX Commissioner Agajanian noted that the inspector had actually seen a project and notif d the owner who, in this case, has filed for this variance. We are getting aft of miscommunication between individuals who are starting projects, confronting our inspectors and not stopping the building at that point. It is continuing aft we are confronted with a variance in an 'ex post facto' sort of way. I don't lik Nt because I think this could have been avoided. It could have been modified 'body on, at the tirne the inspector saw it. I would certainly approve a small varianC if we could cut back the two bays on the right, but I can not support the varian as it stands right now. Vice Chairman Kiser noted that riances are difficult to give. in this case I have a different take on it as the st Lure itself as it stands, presents a minimal incursion into any kind of view and is minimal part of the structure. I would be willing to support the motion in this ase. Other considerations are, the applicant could take down the trellis an ut tables with large umbrellas on the same balcony that I believe would do abo the same view wise to the extent that there is any obstruction. The applicant cd d also run some light wires and have plants strung across. The residences on the er side and from Kings Road have no view blockage as I could determine. With e lack of complaints other than the letter from Mr. Roman who addresses the oblem as a historically sensitive area and generally blocked vistas from the blu side of Kings Road, is much broader based than something that would raise an real question from me about this particular minor structure. While I am hesita to support any variances, in this case, I would support the motion. Ayes: Kiser, Gifford, Kranzley, Noes: McDaniel. Agajanian Absent: Tucker, Selich SUBJECT: Jackson Residence 3631 Ocean Boulevard • Variance No. 2001-001 and • Modification No. 2001-092 (PA2001-062) Request to demolish an existing single family home (2,924 gross square feet) and replace with a new single family home (6,044 gross square feet) including grading, paving, fencing lighting, landscaping and irrigation. The proposed project includes the changes to the existing driveway and front yard landscaping presently located within the public right-of-way. The project also includes a variance request to exceed established height limits of Zoning Code due to unique topographical circumstances. Lastly, the project includes a request to deviate from the required front yard setback of 10-feet providing a 0' to 4' front setback. 6 Item No. 4 PA2001-062 Continued to 09/20/2001 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23,2001 Mr. Campbell then made a slide presentation noting the following: • Demolition of existing home constructed in 1962 and construction of a new three -level residence. • A 1962 Variance allowed the home to encroach into the front yard setback and was conditioned that the house not exceed 3' above the top of the curb; this predated the curb height limit that was put into place later. • Proposed site plan depicting the area that would exceed the top of the curb by approximately 2' 6", which is approximately 6" lower than the residence today; portions shown that would comply with the curb height limit and those portions that exceed the curb height limit. • Elevations were explained showing the elevator, powder room, chimneys, three -levels from the ocean side and elevations showing the left and right sides of the house. Commissioner Kranzley asked where the string line was for the patio. Mr. Campbell answered that the building string line was put on the drawing for analysis purposes and has no regulatory framework related to it. The string line for the patio was indicated on the exhibit. Continuing with the slide presentation he noted: • Elevations on the right side of the residence along with the chimneys. • Lower level decks. • Section drawings that showed where the residence exceeds the 24-foot height limit. The drawing had green lines depicting outline of the existing residence, red lines depicting the top of the curb and a dark outline showing the portions of the garage. • Pictures were then presented taken from sides, top and across the existing residence. • The sidewalk is proposed to be relocated towards the curb. • Public Works Department is recommending that the sidewalk stay in its present location. • Garage will have a flat roof and will be 6" lower than the peak of the present sloping roof. The garage roof will be approximately 18" higher than the existing one at the face of the garage as the roof is flattened and extended towards the front of the property. The view shed will be brought closer to the front of the lot. • Slides showing the rear of the property showing the encroachment of the deck and areas of the proposed residence; views towards the east depicting the cemented portions in place to prevent soil erosion. • Adjacent neighbor's house that is currently being remodeled. • Slides depicting the bluff area and vegetation. In conclusion, he stated that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve this variance due to the sloping topography, slight improvement of the view over the top of the residence and the applicant is building in an area that is already developed. The encroachment of the deck and other features do extend out over the bluff. The General Plan suggests that we minimize bluff 7 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 alteration, so the Commission has the option to cut back that deck if they feel it does encroach too far over the bluff. Staff believes that the front yard setback modification is warranted as it assists the applicant staying off the bluff by bringing the building closer to the street. Due to the deep parkway and lower elevation of the residence, staff does not believe that the project will create a negative impact to Ocean Boulevard. Commissioner Kranzley noted that an page 7, it refers to 10' ceilings that cause roughly one quarter of the seaward edge of the upper floor to exceed the 24-foot height limit. If we brought the ceilings down it would reduce the amount of the Variance. Referring to the slide elevation, Mr. Campbell explained the garage level. He agreed that if the ceilings were lowered, it would reduce the amount of the Variance by approximately 25%. Commissioner Gifford stated that the plate of the garage is 8'6". What is the dimension of the floor right now? Can the floor of the garage be brought any lower? Staff answered it was approximately 7'6". The floor could be lowered and would cause the slope of the driveway to increase. The other option would be to move the garage further away from the street as discussed in the staff report. If the garage stays in the same location, the slope would be approximately 21-22%. Commissioner Kranziey stated that the 8'6" as the shortest height of the garage that is recommended would be higher than the garage that currently exists there. The garage has a sloped roof, but you are flattening the roof and raising the front of the garage so the opening is actually going to be higher by a foot than the existing garage. Mr. Campbell stated the 8'6" was scaled off the drawings for the interior clear height to the bottom of the roof member. The door itself is about 7'6" based on the drawings. This dimension could be brought down and does not have to be 8'6". Mr. Edmonston stated that there is a minimum height for a garage height either 6'6" or 7', certainly less than the 8'6". Commissioner McDaniel noted that as long as the Code permits, we could make some adjustments on the garage. Don't lower the floor, but lower the ceiling to make it closer to what we are looking for. Mr. Edmonston added that another factor is as you are coming down the slope as you come into the garage the back end of the car comes down. The front end of the car if it were a box, the door may have to be taller than a door if you were coming in flat. 8 INDEX • • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 Commissioner Selich asked if rather than having the driveway come in perpendicular to the street, having it come in at a transverse angle or a zigzag driveway in order to take the driveway down to a lower level so you can get the garage floor lower and not exceed the 15% slope? He was answered no, staff does not know if the applicant studied that option or not. Commissioner Selich asked for information on the Variance that was approved for the house at the end of Poppy Street. Staff answered they had that file. Ms. Temple noted in relation to the project at the end of Poppy Street, that the original proposal was for the garage and elevator area to exceed the curb height limit. It was originally proposed to exceed the height limit by almost 8'6" feet. The Planning Commission reduced that to 4'6" by pressing the building further into the slope. The lot was much wider than this one. Commissioner Selich noted that the garage could be moved out towards the ocean and lowered so that a drive approach would not exceed the 15%. The reason for doing that is that they want to have a room on the other side of the garage that had an ocean view. Is that correct? Mr. Campbell answered, yes. If the garage was pushed away from the curb and lowered, you could get to 15%. That area is a kitchen now, and the applicant does not want to lose the ocean views. Mr. Edmonston noted that 15% is the standard maximum used for a driveway slope. In the hillside areas of the City, and this would certainly fall into that, we do look at projects on a case -by -case basis and allow typically up into the 17-18% range, very rarely 20%. There are factors that can be allowed if that is your goal. The driveway is allowed to have different slopes at different points as there is a need to provide gradual changes so the cars do not bottom out as they go over a sharp angle. Vice Chairman Kiser asked about the other homes along that portion of Ocean Drive and how much they encroach into the front yard setbacks. Staff answered that there were nine encroachments permitted and range from 9 feet into the 10 feet setback to 10 feet into the 10 feet setback; there are several of them for the entire house but the majority are for portions of homes only. At Commission inquiry, staff added that the City does not use the concept of string line. Where it has gained its prominence is in the Coastal Zone, where the Coastal Commission staff uses it as analytical tool. Although once again, it is not a regulatory limit established by the Coastal Commission. It is just a way to look at a project for analysis purposes. Commissioner Gifford stated that if the stringline concept was to be taken into consideration, it would change the traditional view we have had on Variances not setting a precedent because if we give variances and then use a stringline on those variances, we are in a place of difficulty. 9 INDEX 1 411 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 INDEX Ms. Temple added another thing to think about when you look at the relevance of the stringline is that in some cases, you might have extremely old houses on either side of a property, maybe even small homes. A stringline would then tend to compress the buildable footprint. Maybe in a location like this that would be a good thing; in other places it may work to the Commission's detriment in the sense they may be forced to approve more or greater variances because of the compressed building footprint areas. There are implications that can reverberate through a common application of that sort. Just as a way of information and understanding where the building is sited in relationship to the neighboring properties, it certainly is a relevant thing to consider. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Clauson noted that if the Commission wanted to use this as a fact or finding in support of the decision, then we would have a problem. However, if it is just part of conceptualization to analyze the project, there would be no problem. Vice Chairperson Kiser asked if the applicant was not requesting the setback and public right of way modification and variance, could they replace the home that is existing with one that is three feet over the curb line today? Staff answered that if they were going to remodel the existing, without tearing it down, yes as they would be able to maintain what they have. If they demolish the entire building, they would not be able to rebuild. The variance in 1962 was for the front yard setback encroachment of the house and not for building height. A condition was put on that variance to limit the curb height by three feet, which has pre -dated that standard that you see today in the Code. Public comment was opened. Ed Lohrbach, architect for the project, stated that the applicant has worked very hard to not have variances on this project. Referring to the site plan, he noted that having a flat roof lowers the house as much as possible from a practical stand point. With a pitched roof, they would have to go down farther to get any ceiling heights. Going below the 15% to get down to the garage is dangerous, because of the steeper slope, which is why I have kept the roof of the garage up. There is no code for garage heights; 7'6" is very low. We could drop it, but I am trying to keep some difference of elevations for the style. Looking at the curb you don't see the house from the street because it is so low. I use a stringline during my design process because I think it is a considerate way to design for the neighbors. I don't want to go beyond them even though 1 could, and yes, Coastal does look at it that way. The houses on either side are both remodeled and above the curb height. Comparing our elevations, we are lower. To accomplish the right grade we would have to bring the house back to the back of the garage to meet the 24-foot height limit. It is a tough situation. At Commission inquiry, he noted the following: • Standard garage height is 7 feet. 10 • • (5b • • • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 • The driveway from a safety standpoint as designed to pull in and turn around. If it is made steeper, it will be hard to pull around and back up and prefers not to push it down any farther • If I make 9' plates, the house will be down below all the other houses, even below the curb heights. • l really don't believe the difference between the 9' or 10' will make a difference to the mass of the house. Commissioner Selich noted that he would like to get the elevation of the garage lower and maintain a 15% driveway by lengthening the distance from where you approach from the sidewalk to where you reach the garage. Did you look at angling it where you would be a greater distance from the street and what that would do? Did you look at zigzagging the driveway so you could run parallel to the properly and then parallel back the other direction to make the grade? How much additional lowering could you achieve? Mr. Lohrbach answered that there would not be enough room to do that. I did analyze that. You would not achieve any more lowering of the garage because you are taking up the whole front yard with concrete or asphalt to do that. Robert Lockleigh, Corona del Mar noted his opposition of any construction that encroaches into the public view of the ocean, or expansion beyond legal curb height limits. He further requested that any encroachment whatever into the public right of way be disapproved. The public land that they propose to take for their front yard belongs to the people of Newport Beach. In relation to the sidewalk, the report shows 44 feet from the existing sidewalk is the front property line, that is 44 feet of public park space. Perhaps they need to place the garage some place else. At what point do we stop building 6,000+ square foot houses on unbuildable lots with room for 2,000 square foot houses, it's a cliff. A lot has changed since 1962; we no longer have the public view and access to the beaches. This is one of the few places where we have access. The owners state they don't want to loose their views by modifying the house, but nobody seems to care about the public views. I ask that you deny anything beyond what is legally permissible, At Commission inquiry, Mr. Lockleigh noted that the sidewalk in the past was a curving greenbelt that went along that whole area. What he is proposing and would like to see is all public property returned to the public and used as a park for the people. 1t does not belong to just the nine people who live along that street, it belongs to all of us_ There can be an aesthetic joint use of the land where everyone can work together. Bill Benz, 3625 Ocean adjacent owner next door noted his concerns of the potential for erosion and de -stabilization. He stated he has submitted plans for remedial treatments due to the dig going on the other side of him with a six-foot high retaining wall going into remedy existing erosion on that side. The additional prospect of erosion from this construction makes him a little nervous. He would have the same issue and concern with the excavation in general and the fact as 11 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 seen in one of the photos of the front of the houses is an 18' high retaining wall. He's nervous that this might de -stabilize and lead to more problems. At Commission inquiry, he stated he did not need a variance for his remodel. John Garcia, architect on the project at 3625 Ocean added that there was a modification for the front yard setback and a 12' section of the house to go 8" above the existing curb height. Some of the patio was cut back on the bluff side. Ms. Temple added that the Modification Committee, within certain limits, could approve certain types of architectural features. If it were not an architectural feature, the Planning Commission would see any variance. Christine Brooks stated she had submitted a letter on behalf of Mr. Benz stating his position. She noted that the stringline is not a regulation. During the slide presentation, a slide shows that the deck -to -deck stringline goes beyond 10'. There is a privacy wall that comes up there that will potentially block views. We request a continuance of this matter in order to work with the applicant to resolve some issues between the neighbors, or, a denial of the application. Commissioner Gifford asked if there have been any points of agreement in the discussions with the applicants? Ms. Brooks stated there has been no final resolution reached to date. Doug Jackson, applicant commented that he could not lower the garage floor. It is a very short run into the garage and we have difficulty now. We have to back out of the driveway and that causes a safety issues with on coming traffic. Ed Lohrback noted that we have stepped back on the top floor following discussions with Mr. Benz. By using the stringline, I am using the corner of their house as our privacy wall. The next floor, we are discussing landscaping, but have not committed to pulling the wall back. We are within our rights to match their wall. Because they put windows on their side, should not penalize us. We are looking straight out. He added that he would have sump pumps for the water from the site pumped back up to the street. Jean Bruton, Goldenrod Avenue noted her opposition to granting this variance. She presented her personal views and gave a brief history of the loss of public views and grasslands. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Gifford, referring to page 7 and the statement that the reduced setback does place the foundation of the proposed residence in a position where it will provide lateral support for the public right-of-way due to the extensive excavation proposed. I don't understand this sentence. Mr. Campbell explained that there is -a foundation wall for the three level 12 INDEX • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 residence in this location, which is approximately 18 feet deep. All of the land in that area will be supported by that construction. If the construction were to be done using in less than adequate techniques or if there was a problem with the site, the area might be de -stabilized. The geotechnical report did not show any flaws with the geology of the site and adherence to the Uniformed Building Code Standards and Grading Standards should minimize those types of issues. I don't think this is an issue of concern. There is no evidence that there is inadequate support today. Commissioner Agajanian referring to the same page asked if the reduction of the front yard setback might be detrimental if the city were to attempt to reclaim the use of the public right-of-way fronting Ocean Boulevard for the use by the general public. This is unlikely as it is contrary to past policy. What do these statements mean? Mr. Campbell explained that if the structure was located in this proposed position, the proximity to general public use of the space here is kind of hypothetical to re- claim this space for general use and occupancy would have to be re-evaluated. It is not necessarily a significant concern, but a "what if" kind of question. Commissioner Agajanian noted his concern of the policy that it would never be reclaimed or that we don't care about claiming if now. Mr. Campbell noted that the Council has not come in and actually attempted to remove existing private improvements in the right of way. These approvals actually go to City Council for the encroachment, and we fill find out if these improvements are excessive or not. The City Council may suggest these improvements not go in and reclaim that space. The Modification deals with the front yard setback on private properly. Commissioner Selich noted that this encroachment into the right of way is not within our purview, it is a matter for the City Council to approve or not. My concern is on the garage area exceeding the height limit in this structure. I think the other requests are within reason. To the degree that this building may have been pushed back to satisfy the views out of the windows of the Benz' property next door to the degree that affects the design of this and pushes the garage structure higher, ! think the public view benefits far outweigh the benefits gained by pushing the structure back to enhance that view, which is already a pretty good view straight over the water. I think there is another solution here and I am not convinced from the answers I got to my questions tonight that there isn't a way that this house could be designed and the that the garage can be brought within the height limit. Some Commissioners have mentioned modification of plate heights, I mentioned studying the slope at the driveway. and Mr. Edmonston mentioned modifying the slope. Maybe it's not anyone of those solutions but some combination somehow to make it work. Perhaps with that kind of direction, the applicant could go back and do some more work on it and bring the height down where it would not require a variance to the curb height limit. 13 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 INDEX • Commissioner Kranzley noted his agreement with the previous testimony. He added that it is important to have that curb height limit and I feel that more work can be done on this project on a number of different areas, including plate height and garage height. I would move for continuance of this item. Commissioner McDaniel stated that when a building of 6,000 square feet of new residence, it seems we ought to be able to cure as many of the problems we had before and bring this into compliance as close as we can. I wouldn't be able to approve this project the way it is tonight and agree with the previous statements. Vice Chairman Kiser stated he agrees with the previous statements as well. Dropping a large portion of the home by 3 feet creates a somewhat more public view even though the roof would be flat. The front yard setback matches other homes on this street and in the immediate area. However, on the height variance, I agree with what has been said. A 10-foot floor plate might be reduced as well as a lower garage, and these might get the structure to a point where it could fit within the curb height and without the variance. Then it is just a matter of solving the driveway problem; I agree with previous comments that there was not a whole lot of study about that. It seems to be a matter that needs a lot of time and attention applied to it. The other problem I have is the lower level at grade deck. The height variance is my primary concern. I would support continuing this item. Commissioner Gifford stated that she agrees with the previous comments adding that in our overall assessment, the public views are the primary concern rather than the private views. 1 too support a continuance. Vice Chairman Kiser asked the applicant what would be a reasonable amount of time for the architect to review the things that have been suggested by the Commission. Mr. Lohrbach answered he would study it and attempt to get the garage down. He answered that he could drop the floors and the garage a bit if that is what it takes. The mass of the building is hardly any bigger than what exists. He suggested that September 20th would be a good date. Commissioner Kranzley commented that at looking at the other houses on the street that have not been torn down. Many of them exceed the height of the curb. There was a very long and hard fought battle to get the new standards in regarding curb heights as the Iimit. Whatever the existing circumstances are there, I feel it is my job when new houses are being built there, to try to attain the new standards. You are building a new house here. Commissioner Gifford added that on occasion when we have granted a height variance, it has been a trade off often for some type of lateral shrinkage or some other factor that we felt in total created an overall benefit for the public views. Those of you who may take some type of policy implication that there hove been height variances, you should not think of it as strictly a height variance with 14 • • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 nothing else having changed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to September 201h. Ms. Temple noted that the most critical issue appears to be the curb height limit as opposed to the overall height limit. Commissioner Kranzley noted that the public view is most important but 1 am not ready to sacrifice private views for variances. If we reduce plate height we will improve the 24-foot variance. My primary concern is curb height. Commissioner Selich added his concern is curb height limit. The rest is reasonable giving the topography of the lot. Commissioner Agajanian noted he is interested in the curb height: lower level deck extension and particularly concerned about the erosion. Commissioner McDaniel noted his primary concerns are curb height and deck. Vice Chairman Kiser noted his primary concerns are curb height and deck. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None Absent: Tucker * * * ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: a) City uncil Follow-up - no planning items at the last meeting. b} Oral report fryPlanning Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - no meeting this month. c) Matters that a Planning Corn iissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting - Commissitl r Agajanian noted his concern about tonight's variance. it bothers me thbhtte inspectors go out to the sites, see the work being done, and in th•cpse it was reported it was dangerous so they couldn't leave it so they halo continue it. I would like to find out and have a report on what our 'Doggy is. Obviously we didn't bring a halt to this construction."°,� Ms. Temple answered that when we find something going on Wit ut a building permit, we put a stop work order on it. What this applica4. 15 INDEX Additional Business • EXHIBIT NO. 6 Staff Report from the September 20, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting • • c66 CITY OF NEWPOF BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644-3200; FAX (949) 644-3250 Hearing e: Agenda Item: Staff Person: Appeal Period: September 20, 2001 2 James Campbell) (949) 644-3210 14 days PROJECT: SUMMARY: ACTION: APPLICANT: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: GENERAL PLAN/ LCP: ZONING DISTRICT: REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Jackson Residence (PA2001-062) 3631 Ocean Boulevard FILE COPY Request to demolish an existing single family home (2,924 gross square feet) and replace it with a new single family home (6,044 gross square feet) including grading, paving, fencing lighting, landscaping and irrigation. The proposed project includes the changes to the existing driveway and front yard landscaping presently Iocated within the public right-of-way. The project also includes a variance request to exceed established height limits of Zoning Code due to unique topographical circumstances. Lastly, the project includes a request to deviate from the required front yard setback of 10 feet providing a 0' to 4' front setback. Approve Variance No. 2001-001 and Modification No. 2001-092 and ADOPT Resolution No. entitled, "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach Approving Variance No. 2001-001 and Modification No. 2001-092 (PA2001-062)." OR Deny Variance No. 2001-001 and Modification No. 2001-092 by adopting the findings contained in Exhibit No. 2 Ed Lohrbach 31681 Camino Capistrano, Suite # 106, San Juan Capistrano. Located at the intersection of Poinsettia Avenue and Ocean Boulevard in Corona Del Mar Lot 15 of Tract 1257 Single Family Detached R-1 (Single Family Detached) �1 • Discussion This project was continued from August 23, 200I. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to redesign the project to make it comply with the Ocean Blvd. Curb height limit. Additionally, the size of the lower level, at -grade deck on the ocean side of the proposed residence was questioned. The draft minutes from the previous meeting are attached for review. The -applicant had redesigned the project so that the residence does not exceed the height of the curb. The plate height of each level remains at 10 feet, and therefore, the encroachment of the upper level above the 24-foot height limit remains. The interior height of the garage will be 7'-6" and the slope of the driveway will be no more than 20%. This slope is the maximum slope recommended by the Public Works Department. The applicant requests that the Commission consider increasing the slope of the driveway to afford increased height of the garage. The increased height of the garage would be accomplished by lowering the garage floor rather than increasing the height of the roof above the curb. Each 6-inch increase in garage height increases the slope of the driveway by 1.5%. Again, the Public Works Department recommends that the slope not exceed 20%. The revised plans are included in the agenda packet. There was discussion of decreasing the slope of the driveway by lengthening it through an "S" design. Although this would decrease the slope of the driveway, it would increase the amount of pavement in the public right-of-way. The area needed for an "S" driveway design would preclude the applicant's proposed use of the public right-of-way for private patios. The feasibility of such a design, in the context of vehicle maneuverability, has not been studied by staff. The applicant contends that it is not feasible and it would be aesthetically unpleasing to have the additional pavement. The applicant has reduced the size of the at -grade deck by approximately 8 feet in response to the Commission's concern of bluff alteration. The applicant's engineer will be present at the hearing to address the Commission's questions about erosion. Recommendation Staff believes that the applicant has achieved most of the objectives set forth by the Commission at the last meeting. The Planning Commission has the option to approve the project as redesigned, approve the original design (or some variant thereof) or the Commission can deny the project. Submitted by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE Planning Director Prepared by: JAMES W. CAMPBELL Senior Planner 1 )9-C iq Jackson Residence (PA2001.062) September 20, 2001 Page 2of3 Exhibits 2. Rcviscd Draft R-csolution of approval. ��y�l�irstali I'eport rhozn August i, LUUI. sed Projcct Plans {cicvation drawings F:\UsersWPLN\Shared\PA's1PA2001-0621VA2001-Q03 staff report 9-20.doc • • Jackson Residence (PA2001-062) September 20, 2001 Page 3 of 3 0 EXHIBIT NO. 7 Minutes form the September 20, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2001 SUBJECT: La Salsa; Milestone Management (Continued from 08-23-01) °4341 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite F • Use Permit No. 2001-018 (PA2001-086) A Use Permit requested far:.an eating and drinking establishment and a waiver of parking to expand the seating from 21 seats to 36 seats without an increase in net public area. Ms. Temple noted that the applicant hd , ked for another continuance to October 18, 2001. Chairman Tucker noted that he would recuse himself frorri...gnd will abstain from voting on the continuance. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Kranzley, Selich Abstains: Tucker Absent: Gifford SUBJECT: * * * Jackson Residence 3631 Ocean Boulevard (Continued from August 23, 2001) • Variance No. 2001-001 and • Modification No. 2001-092 (PA2001-062) Request to demolish an existing single family home (2,924 gross square feet) and replace with a new single family home (6,044 gross square feet) including grading, paving, fencing lighting, landscaping and irrigation. The proposed project includes the changes to the existing driveway and front yard landscaping presently located within the public right-of-way. The project also includes a variance request to exceed established height limits of Zoning Code due to unique topographical circumstances. Lastly, the project includes a request to deviate from the required front yard setback of 10-feet providing a 0' to 4' front setback. Chairperson Tucker asked Vice Chairman Kiser to step in and conduct the hearing on this item, as the Chairman was riot at the last meeting when it was first heard. He added the Planning Department staff had received a call today concerning some people who wanted to testify on item 4 also wanted to hear the president's speech tonight. I indicated to staff that we would hear that item no earlier than 7:30 this evening. If we get to that item before 7:30 we will take a break and start the item at that time. Senior Planner, James Campbell noted the changes to the project as directed by the Commission at the last meeting. The project is to conform to the curb height limit as wet cis address concern of the size of the 'at grade' deck to the rear of the 2 INDEX item No. 1 PA2001-086 Continued to 10/18/2001 Item No. 2 PA2001-062 Approved • • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2001 residence above the bluff. The applicant has re -designed the project and there are new exhibits for consideration. The entire house is below the height of the curb; the project still exceeds 24 feet to the natural grade toward the seaward edge of the house; the other change to the project is the reduction of the rear deck by approximately 8 feet. The slope of the driveway as designed is 20%, which the Public Works states is the maximum they would like to see. Vice Chairman Kiser stated that the plans he received do not appear to have an update; only a sticky on the upper right-hand corner that says 'revised site plans of 09/13/01'.First, I want to make sure that the Commission received the right plans and second, at such time we would approve this, for proper reference to the plans we need the right dates on the plan sheets. Mr. Campbell answered that all the Commissioners received the plans that have the sticker with the date of 09/13/O1 and made a correction to condition one referencing the same date as on the sticker. Public comment was opened. Chairman Tucker noted that condition four should be changed to reflect a maximum grade of 20%. The front yard encroachment is not something that is within our authority. Effectively, whatever we approve that has anything to do with front yard issues is subject to an encroachment permit. Staff answered that there is a modification for the front yard and the encroachment referred to is within the public right of way and subject to an encroachment permit pursuant to the City Council's authority. Mr. Ed Lohrbach, spoke representing the Jacksons. He stated that they had met with the neighbor and are in accord. The garage has been lowered and the driveway is at a 20% grade; the building is at the curb height at this point and we have pulled the deck back and we are in conformance all the way around. He added that they did try a different driveway approach and it just does not work. The soils engineer from Petra is here to answer any questions on the stability of the properly. At Commission inquiry, he stated that the applicant has read, understands and agrees to all the findings and conditions to the application. He stated he would like to see the garage a foot higher and that the framing of the garage is at 6 inches and the garage is at 7'6". The client is aware of what the impact is of having a 7'6" ceiling. He confirmed that the deck on the lower floor was brought back 6 to 8 feet, depending on the location of measurement. Bill Benz, 3625 Ocean Boulevard, noted that he had met with the Jacksons and they have come to an amicable agreement covering the objections he had raised at the last meeting. He supports the project as shown including the deck below. Public comment was closed. 3 INDEX • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2001 Chairperson Tucker noted that 20% is fairly steep and 7'6" is low. They are bringing the roofline of the house down in compliance that he would support the additional foot requested by the applicant. I would like to see 6" of that dedicated to lessening the grade and 6" to the height of the garage to make it 8 feet so that the grade will be Tess than 20%. I am a little concerned with people trying to back out of the driveway. Commissioner Selich stated he did not agree with the previous comments. There are a number of design solutions and for the sake of preserving other aspects of the project, the applicant chose to go with the lower garage height and steeper driveway. The driveway is acceptable to our Public Works Department. Many years ago when this curb height regulation was adopted it was something that was near and dear to the hearts of a lot of people in Corona del Mar. This is one of the most spectacular views walking along that sidewalk than there is anywhere in Southern California. Continuing, he noted that the Planning Commission should adhere to the standard that was set and there are numerous solutions to the property. The applicant chose this one out of many solutions that they could have placed there and they are willing to live with it. We should adhere to the regulations that we imposed on this area many years ago and maintain that view_ Commissioner McDaniel agreed with the previous comments. Commissioner Agajanian noted he would like to see the view maintained. However, he suggested moving the roof portion of the garage up by 1 foot or 6 inches. Commissioner Kranzley noted that the applicant made a choice to design this project the way they did. I would agree that they could have done things differently. I am not willing to compromise the curb height and it is important to understand that it was an important long and hard fought battle. I don't think it is necessary in this case to go away from that height limit. Vice Chairman Kiser, noted his agreement with the plans submitted. The architect was able to retain the 10-foot floor heights and given that, I don't think that the project is compromised by keeping the garage roof height where it is, particularly in view of the very important public purpose behind what we are doing. He applauded the bluff top preservation efforts. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to approve Variance No. 2001-001 and Modification No. 2001-092 with the findings and conditions in the staff report as amended by staff, adopting Resolution No. 1536. Following a brief discussion regarding the on -site drainage, the Public Works will be involved with the details as provided in the drainage study as required by condition 11. Vice Chairman Kiser noted the following additions: 4 INDEX a3 • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2001 • Change in condition 1 to 'revised site plans dated 09/13/2001'. • Condition 3, 'desired' instead of 'desires'. • Condition 4. 20% instead of 15% for maximum grade. • Condition 9,'....For the purpose of this condition, the width or depth of the chimney will be the smaller dimension parallel to Ocean Boulevard.' It would be clearer to delete, the width or depth of the chimney will be the, and insert after the word dimension, ...'of the chimney will be..'. • Condition 11, insert the word, all. • Condition 17c, 6th bullet, change 'raids' to 'roads'. INDEX Chairperson Tucker asked what happens to the variance and modification if the Council does not approve of the Encroachment Permit? Does the variance expire? Staff answered that the variance would not be affected; it would change what could be built in the front yard. The encroachments that would come under a lot of scrutiny would be the patios, etc. Commissioner Tucker noted he had listened to the tape of the public hearing of August 23, 2001. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None Absent: Gifford ViBJECT: * * * Collins Residence item No. 3 312 Buena Vista Blvd. & 604 W. Bay Avenue PA2001-146 • Off -Site Parking Agreement No. 2001-001 (PA2001-146) Off -site parkir ca reement in conjunction with an addition to 312 Buena Vista. Continued to Two parking spacu5,ll be provided across the alley at 604 West Bay Avenue. 10/04/2001 Both properties are unde common ownership_ Mr, Campbell noted that there ar some photographs of the site available for the Commission and that the Public cs has suggested two additional conditions dealing with size of the parking spaces ,b site distances related to their location. The first condition would be. 'The parking sp cbthat is shown as 8 feet 9 inches, shall be 9 feet. The other space shown shall be 8'er City standard 805LA and LB'. The other condition is, 'the existing fence location II be revised to provide site distance for the new parking spaces'. He then pr tided with a slide demonstration noting the: present sites, parking spaces on site; siteddistance issues, closing in of a patio space that triggers the requirement for the addif k al parking. Commissioner McDaniel noted an area that had been enclosed and usecNk a patio area was supposed to have been for a parking area that was just 5 • 9y i EXHIBIT NO, 8 Letters Received in Opposition to the Proposed Project • • q5 • • 28 March 2005 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MAR 2 9 2005 AM PM Variance No. 2001-00I 7181911011 2 11213141516 I Modification Permit No. 2001-092 Dear Sirs, I live across the street from the Jackson residence that is asking for this variance and modification. I am against the Planning Commission granting the encroachment that Lohrback Associates is asking for. I believe that a LAW IS A LAW!!! The City of Newport Beach has a law in effect that states the top -of -curb limit and I am sure all of the above parties were aware of what the law read at the time the home was being planned. I believe if the Planning Commission would not grant so many variances and modifications to the many homes under construction there would be less asked for. Is bigger really better?!? Sincerely, Doris Stoughton 3708 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar 92625 949-760-1724 • 9 to • • • C(SLL iluAc Qv� elkeGeL fix\ WAAL+ Ann Spencer _371Ocean-Blvd; Comna DI Mar, CA 92625 vx_,L 47 a-i-L, �du7tt`� 1144-610-J" ,C)& ct-g q)d, eracciac leD DT (,g) 7-0 CEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF-NEWPOR-T-B ACI- M-AR 3-0 2005 AM PM Dorothy Barry 3712 Ocean Boulevard Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 March 31, 2005 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MAR 3 1 2005 PMy7 819119111112111213141516 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Planning Department, City of Newport Beach Re: Proposal for Variance at 3631 Ocean Boulevard, Corona Del Mar The purpose of this letter is to request that Variance 2001-001 and Modification Perrnit No. 2001-092 be denied. I have lived at 3712 Ocean Boulevard, Corona Del Mar, for 40 years — across the street from the new construction. It was previously approved, at the last public hearing, and agreed by all, that this garage could be built to comply with the Ocean Boulevard height limit law! The other new homes on the same bluff side and same block have conformed to Ocean Boulevard ordinance height limits_ I believe that a LAW is a LAW!! Why have these policies and development rules if we do not have to comply with them?? It is important that this garage not exceed top of curb elevation to help preserve the public view. Lesley and Ronald Clear 3700 Ocean Boulevard Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 (949) 644-7100 lclear@lclear.com March 31, 2005 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Planning Department, City of Newport Beach RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MAR 31 2005 PM 718191100f12 1121314156 Re: Proposal for Variance at 3631 Ocean Boulevard, Corona Del Mar We are writing to express our concerns regarding the application of Lohrbach Associates for an amendment to Variance No. 2001-001 and Modification Permit No. 2001-092 on the property located at 3631 Ocean Boulevard. We live directly across the street from the subject property and, while we want to be good and supportive neighbors to the new property owners, we feel a larger responsibility to be good neighbors to others on the block and to act in the best interest of the community at large. In exceeding the height limit law, views will be partially blocked for our neighbors and the public view will be impeded for those who enjoy walking along Ocean Boulevard and for those visiting our beaches. We feel that it is in the best interest of all that the top -of - curb height limit law be maintained. As it was determined at the last public hearing on this matter that the garage could in fact be built in a way to ensure the safety and well being of the property owners and others, we respectfully request that this most recent application for amendment be denied. q9 • i EXHIBIT NO. 9 Approved Plans • lo • • A3 APPROVED BM b FL IWO DIRECTOR ON ONO: Aa As locudiriad, Mae kr. 3 DIFICATIONS COMMITTER ON teleto3: 0 he dulleolued 0 As Modified. Xs+ ds ANNINO COldAtiddfiNS ON ONO: 0 As Modified, ndse kr: TY COUNCIL ON Wee): 0 Al 0 Aa Modified, Wes. ill111.1148:11E2 OCEAN TELLEVARIN SITE ?LAN and ROOF PLAN v-or, IDISDATA BRI,Dassucs 4.101./IMIRIPP, .1.▪ 111i▪ 0OZY 111414.04.1711,11%.11.0, RIELINNGOATA Site Keynotes WI* •Inw/a =1.11.1•10b0,14 ow. mac ara*•••••••••was nim Site General Note, •„, •77:71====.2 I III NOM 00.1,1. ...mammon...Am Al WOO* • W.I. Lohrbach REulatDELAN8 SICIPIIIIIIM1/011 caws &Nedra= PA,Id01-062 0, 3443601,4101 301 Nies Boulevard VATS OF INEITESO e Amos 32,306s THE TACICSON RESDENCIEL 3631 OCEAN BLVD NEWPORT BEACH CALIBORMA FILE COPY Do Not Remove Mis.D.t,e1.1•1 r • r emiguidelesse s1Thp ROOF PLAN MIMMIMMF/110111.I. "CI • • • / r f i L �PAACA. OAP JP SITE / BUILDING CROSS SECTION n.5wwowm, Lohrbach ROBINSON & ASSOCIATES THE JACKSON RESIDENCE WO OCEAN BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH CALLMAN1.A ealolk Na Woo SITE SECTION �r� • INESIMMUIPINZ Wri 1-11' _add. ig p Aillmasismommium Aft .r -IrMANNITeldWil I =I= 4 111121111111111111111111111111las r • lama Pti LOWER LEVEL PLAN Placa Plan Ka pantos Mower.-- 1...:411•0•44, .•••••.....01•1m.l. .„..,............ mw ...Emma • emorrommomm•mm m.tronoam. Reownm .1•••••••••ITMWOOMMYIN ial••••••••••••••••••••11. 13,32WPIMINWIIMIMare.............. CI tiu•••••••••••.•••••.111........ tal.••••••ftm....-.1•.4.1.,••••...1 enerwn...ra •AWIA I* r1•1•1•A•nr. law. m,mmm .•••••••••••• m.irwom .14.11•1.01.1fOrl romr ak• Roam ne maw= na• Mmt..1.1.1.06•••••111••••••••4•Mal• 10.74.•111............p.N. 1=1,*1..•.11,..011.4.1. Ma Mee r•••••••••• WIAIN•111.1101•Yel......411.441W1.4.1,./.... CI trarrzxr.zmr-------- E.......... ..... ...r..n.,. RI SIBLISIa".‘m • .."...*''"''''''''''' EWXY.11/../.10...................,•• & E.U1511FIELISJIMIM"*."....• ........ El :343E4r131..1 piv••••-ormen Imm 'W'r".:1•••imoramffIlreLls: 1.••••••*•.1•Anaesm..6nr4.11...1.1.401R NAMMIR.ONVONI.O. nmu•••6 Nam , mmvamemmanne.r••••••••••1.m. siViiiirshatiArMEMESP:=2=" BUISINIMMIarlIZILWM MIS Elwxexonmetregszrunci---- p.r...""":••=.44.=•7' em.4•••• Nom . moan= num is*••••••••• • ro.•••••.* Wall Nara' =1111.111,===aarra=•"'"'"'"'"' Lohrbach Crarr....T11. ,1•711.:6•1 .11.•••••• /11.= THE JACKSON RESIDENCE 3631 OCIAN RIND. NEwPoRTREAcil CALIFORNIA 4.1.1 *b. OX41/•• ilatrilM1Mtz, yuu 11..11=1•1= LOWER LEVEL PLAN am. - • • • • -------- - 4/7 „ _ r' '41 .r. 7 •-' .. ---- --D7 4,/ ..i . I 4 IP ''v/ / i• 1 i I Ode. t 4, liwkowil 2 i 4 ) ) / .. --'1-• Ill . .. . 1 ...- • i 1 0..,..-F ,.1-.3. Vic i .>, _.... ., . . , „ ,4 —Le MID LEVEL PLAN 1/4^.1,17 Lohrbach Floor PI66 Kayaotet INW Cild910•3WW.A.M11 IN Ea ggattr.I.WWINAWA,L*111•41,14.0.• awinumouswm, wow, i a& no. Ws .Wowl• ,,......., ...slaws...Wm MOM .....W.11....11. w6.avamwawwm• m.... =rm. woe maw= wonow•newok wow.... 1.14 W.WWWWINWAII.14....W WM.". !Wi""•••••=41=n== U.= MALI. MS WSW= llid ! 111I. EMAT41:111111=3116416=6"."...— m.,....—.......................................... blAN1111=10Z........,•......... E=AMIISILVJe• *"........“.". 10,11,14•1•41111,.......• .1-1•DWI,V11.101.1•411.141. Man.. norm •••••• wwwwwspeawftwumawwwwouawwwimumwewas Smasr 114 zrzarse===sar..,••-,-.4-.-.---- 9k425111KWildiZW- • 1.4•www.waws• BORSORSMOIRMEZriftmr Llamm,======ussr-,r rina."7.:=wwwwww - [4' Will Note' • L'Er".....%====4.."""=""""`•""'"" THE JACKSON RESIDENCE 3631 OCEANBLVA NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA AammIdiftbiloilkk • •,...X.I.,...1•••nr....1•1,11.11.1.........11.16..11 sum. SAWN: tOrlta.1.1 *Mr MTh LEVEL PLAN A - 2 ham • PPP Mimi II MUIR .V.----.711111111112 6 el icor r ", 1;i m"w .II 1 M1Il li Il. 1 asap Ifli_1111141 P N...1.1 _ — ME 01 1 1 L _ il flT UPPER LEVEL PLAN .1,a• Floor Plan Kayietai asa Carsansaametwanavaseennam." ••..mrson...ustre lua....m. • Pm. -P.m. mIagi• .....,.......... me* ••-a•maa IN. am.. roact-,Inal• ••••••••a•ema ++,..roaeval,nn•lw Oirmumarnem• dwin • mm, Triam•kwar..“ exs,.—,—•=zasztvestaaru-- E amarar THE JACKSON 3b1"-HIMMP 1RASIDENCIE 363! OCEAN BLVD. w=.• • so as ow NEWPORT BRACE CALIFORNIA aVridiersietallatfratealir"MW Es, na-47`9=1:==alanar— — 11111111111MMIMM,111M. Lohrboch 3111/1 0001100101:1211.1.110,14011. 1...1111.110041111111.1. 0,191171 .0411-1111 Wall Nola! tira.rultrit .5=a=trA.41Wrivarsr"..."."."' =IVAITIMLio•••..........ra an= "...1741:11,T=Ter.......—PgrelFattrwr" 1.44P4144 lilm.1•1•••••••••• LITYM 1.1.01•0111.... M4•1Mile Mao Ummalmiliom /Mora, UPPER. FLOOR PLAN wohormm.maity A - 3 laSidamoommamm• • • • REAR ELEVATION LJ - 0 -e- ..PrAjr". r FRONT ELEVATION IA”- Floor Phu Keynotes e•=1,zma..pmpe • PM. P.. • IPPPAPPIPP mod PPIPP PP. PP.. ......11,Pt11.1.1p....114.4.0 Elimacommammarammssr." EITome=a1=''"' =;:s= teftar44119=1111!=......'...' '6771017NOVIalm7' ......p......... ............ pup.... pop,.}........,.. 'N26161519eraliteStaiteErzr2=r gkAr•,..sir..vosmmvurgofr.x-- Wail Note. • :es—L.- Lohrbach >PP 10411.1 PAN PePPIIII da.11.3.11.11. =P.M THE JACKSON RESIDENCE OCEAN BLVI) NEWPORT BEACH CALIFQRNIA °Wilt JACKSON $3$ WEST 871,.SEI- SOUTII LACUNA. CA.92629 949-05,403i bow 1101300, PON ELEVATIONS • • o LEFT SIDE ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION IN" -1'-0" • Floor Plan Keynotes Lohrbach OW M.Q.-„,eaasa•._ ::swr:.._.._._... THE 01tzwie atirrm -- •- JACKSON IIRESIDENCE OCEAN BLVD. i.r m��w.. N%WPORT MACH r Y." ar •-.,..iww......... CALIFORNIA CS' ALSn.'dB1.1i1f�iR11RS�-- OWEIL wall Notes 3ACRSDN rI 59.6 W857617.f r 901)TE{LAMNA,CA93629 Pkic 1111,49 11•Inlam Alfa. Us SI. ELEVATIONS a A - 5 APR.10.2f1D1 • • • • SECTION C • ik 014P WIZ 110. ;.ate0 Lohrbach Robinson �,- THE JACKSON RESIDENCE 3631 OCEAN BLvp. NBWPORTBIACK CALRYOR34 6 Cos 110 rw: Ma. 4a6ECTIONS I • • • EXHIBIT NO. 10 Proposed Plans .16A Pr PROPOSED RESEDENCEunwana ---- Wig LLA1. .e _....._.,,_ -Iu 1 C..i r swim tiiiiWriiiiiiiir-ixam Nem vii MA : MS 1ei'1�1 oa ,==l'JfIiIIN IIIIIIIHNllll'il, „� lam_ _Li* 0ll ' ! I . ionWaili nri. �iil sm SITE PLAN ROOF PLAN PA2001-062 for VA2001-001A1 3831 Ocean Boulevard DATE OF MEETING: - April 7, 2005 Site Keynotes vac° MN Site General Notes. • po =maw man Tao sin Site Utility Notes Lohrbach 1;6 I am.a-0401I011110. 51014.'06 $1.1 Punh....wWw . C r.,. 06,5 �u sy.eu .r , 5I...a,: THE JACKSON RESIDENCE 3631 OCEAN BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH CAUFORNIA DRIVEWAY DRAWINGS He NM IlowIliev n Ak AtiCalleal RI{. 01. 31 Mw emr.m.co hoc 6rak 517E PLAN ROOF PLAN 11.411. ASP - 1D .may,.-_a� ti• -r • Lohrbach 'II A A 'S x u/r�li � . - -ram ______--____,--4I iimm L . 1=0_, .. m.,-.....0.1q-.. ..wilm. it i G,.� in%:'7il OM iiiir MiGZi��niall1'u7 lo we... pl' �.L }. o:lr Px.bn P. S"° .�rFamlly Rom ,Guest Foom a r ea V Map- w� i :I `01 "4- am„ 4 4l •:: / Sitting Room - . ' .t9 'Work Roomi-, _ V' Ill �p ywpit pt, nowt w. rcewaaemw.,• 0.014.4 LOWER LEVEL PLAN Dryer Vent Notes: Legend Notes GRAPHIC SCALE ]Ibel C pno Upi•�o, 5W 936'r] Te1:9.Mp1.Smpbp wPu: ssFG•tr]pJl Seal/ Sipo. = THE JACKSON RESIDEN 3631 OCEAN B NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA DRIVEWAY DRAWINGS R.ra omro Rt..n Pot: len No. to e ap. OW. sorrow: Bid Iwo. Comm•llot low: snrn:x LLO�WER LEVEL p,m:HP: A - 1 Prelim .4P,p..v .,,.o. La h rbacti p 0 II .111 welossigaimromairgi lei en esa JNIN 1 METE Make, 6,1room !a m11111!-- ail" ,� 1: iIQ •�rMarter Rosek l�Meda � :Bedroom 2 ., 0 4/ 9 'v 0,1151. ewe ea xiwr4e,We ""'.n MID LEVEL PLAN Dryer Vent Notes: *exam wpi. INN er Feep Me INN SeNe Legend OWN M.N. NC elee1e11 sem ME VIM ,11.4k, weenie. oeeeeennce Notes Nee. N,L,Nez,Nr.„...emease Dome Nee., TelneeNel• Nen Nee el *Nee Neer. Ne11. I, tNer 1 AMMO leen en Nue Neer .11. need, e Nee. re me P 3.S n-- xs ERARHIC SCALE est a� �. SUN Ie1 Se �.. ay.R34„ Td, 110'411.10611 PIN 0 . 2.1111 THE ADJACKSO RESIDENCE 3631 OCEAN BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA Pelee MID LEVEL PLAN promppoi Awl t 1 immrn RommiiIii i_ NMir� ■ ii■ Ill 9 111111110 I111111111111111 - WIMOW - 1 i— IIPIRIEMMMINIIIIIIINE I■■iU■I■I II■■■ ■SIME3L'1111■� 11111REI UPPER LEVEL PLAN 0 0 1_ Legend . , UMMA Notes �. „ay . Ora1.5 Loh rbach Ash s. tumfb* Oap4s.w. S.. 106 �wn Gp061"" Chi g16s�eo 9w.Po1.1061 Pw�P w WI holm TH E JACKSON RESIDEN 3631 OCEANmor NEWPORT BEACH CAL[FCRNIA DRIVEWAY DRAWINGS ,n10.0 A 10 25 .mw nW.MP— ON rum sxm*iNs LIPPPPEER LEVEL RAN.. SLrti sm. ND,: A - 3 Lohrbach 4 0.11 1 REAR ELEVATION {1� titer FRONT ELEVATION 1 $ „ — Joao foot*, THE JACKSON RESIDENCE 3631 OCEAN BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA DRIVEWAY DRAWINGS W u.. e«v.. A oo ew Dora w. Panama Dom ELEVATIONS A-4D Lonroacn —41' It — r- --- LEFT SIDE ELEVATION o o =_, TM:7.7 RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION ' .r`171. ok ea ',I. • 1- • • 0 11411 Cu.. n. Sao tool Caobtrome, 03617 711 Ma.1111,1014 1.1.1.1111 4.1 14444.4. TH E JACKSON RESIDENr- 3631 OCEAN e). NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA DRIVEWAY DRAWINGS 11•40.44104 1444 Deo 11•••••• A A Dor 141•Op Mb. moo wooaabak Sol*. fay 1.0. SARNO 4.44..4 Conant.. 1•1••• ELEVATIONS A - 5D Mo. Oala .10111 JIIGIC 141 1Wug' off= =911 W I- _. oiros Ui- C7f=1^o 1 1RBg- .••a __ 11--_..u� =11—u - ; W- 1 =ff=Iloh 1-141 II-11-1_ 1 iuT .P •.g III- - =ff- ilI 1 :Er fl I = IL—_II1 L 7es� ..... $40PE.nnx SECTION C 14. -tin 11 GUEST 11 1 MC OOM; re:... ....yM _II LL IL=1�.-mi— 1_��, ,��u u� u_� 11 1C au 1� gff = �.l�Rlsi6x=iL LL=n u -..11= �R�JI I�Ir'L=1 i2 - B_ °fir—u n-n�Ieu,11— 11 ...ii= lk-. n^'�1-1 a�i n=L1 �1,V u-.111.. •• 1 ,..• ••• _I 71, 11 J1=11=41 U•L III.�II 11- I1!L Ililp i�l�I REVISED DRIVEWAY J M. AATM 0 18 SECTION C APPROVED DRIVEWAY 641 Cameo Cern, Sum n1. M.a1aa. 1e: r..1•0 THE JACKSON RESIDENC,L. 3631 OCEAN BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA DRIVEWAY DRAWINGS w. ow ...+... Oenw ».� SECTIONS A - 7D 6- i as —m- t .sue 1 �f- -w—.ter_ 2 r ji ---��� ' % , -- �--� mil— _ —16 OCEAN 80U1VAR° t n TOAL ENC EERING, INC. Oak (aOrne. Am. L. Rowan la nannla Nagne San 00..a.C.axle M (65`,467-8586 ran (949)463-8625 c-ea •aAoa,-....nsl:xl• ann am nay.. Iola TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 3631 OCEAN BOULEVARD CORONA DO. We. CALJFORIDA IaevT gStY)OU r.,w a DOUG JACKSON • 1'AZUU5-U114 tor VAZUU5-11TI-- 36311 Ocean Boulevard Lohrbach Ass (Bill Peters, applicant) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 ��� s- b� tlr (949) 644-3200; FAX (949) 644-3250 PART L: Cover Page Roos-04" O Planning Director's Use Permit No. O G.P.A./Amendment No. Variance No. 0�/� e)" DV(A+- Project Common Name (if applicable): .iACfe-So1J IRESJr3014 cE FEES: APPLICANT (Print): Lori e , �• Mailing Address: e2 P-L coot1)40 REAL da"14 JU40) e-Aels reot j0 C 4 R2675 Phone: VI 4,4 j.So4,6 Fax 66) 2140 3B5/ CONTACT PERSON (if different): ILL f a✓TE- v&S Mailing Address: Phone: M9 11/2 • I 25 Fax ( ) Property Owner (if different from above): Pei 1) 6 4. r w to I ...AC-k-N5c0.1 Mailing Address: 17 0 L b coo 2 9 6 IZ P t.tetAIrDe.r $rrC44 CA q7.4' Phone: (11(1 713b • 47727 Fax ( ) PROJECT ADDRESS: dG 4i 3LVx] Project Description (If applying for a variance, also complete attached form for required findings.): M b o, P Y P 14 v NI--y• , 64#4.e 61. SSA-T/NJ AA!: f To £Eser t7, /v"wA-ti 57. . )5.y isms7A1� 77 fi-eattar Ft-e:0i2 0e- T-Ha. apititArse 1.ie U 774. dale ' Xr rQ is% Cc4.v,,7 oVege, PROPERTY OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT (I) (We) DO v I L& , `t 3 „* d `j G e . S an depose and say that (I am) (we are) the owner(s) of the property(ies) involved in this application. (I) (We) further certify, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of (my) (our) knowledge and belief. Signature(s) CL-ne// A- (;) •�GQ,s_1 NOTE: An agent may sign for the owner if written authorization from the record owner is filed with the application. • �r - DO NOT COMPLETE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LINE FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE ONLY: Indicate Previous Modifications, Use Permits, Specialty Food Service Permits, etc. General Plan pwation: Zoning District: Coastal Zone: YES or NO cilY A�ge *****:************************************************* Date Filed C 22 2004 Fee Pd: c, SC O •00 w �. -- ? - a as Date �---r `^r- earing ate: Receipt No: C) i ' 33s aQe�, aac.Y• oa9- Q 07a Posting Date: Mailing Date: Planning Director Action Date Appeal P.C. Hearing P.C. Action Date Appeal C.C. Hearing C.C. Action FIUSERSIPLMSHAREDI I FORMS IUSE-APP.DOC CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 49) 644-3200; FAX (949) 644-3250 PART I: Cover Pa Application: ❑ Use Permit No. ❑ Planning Director's Use Permit No. ❑ G.P.A./Amendment No. ❑ Variance No. Project Common Name (i applicable): FEES: APPLICANT (Print): Mailing Address: Phone: ( ) Fax ( Property Owner (if different from above): CONTACT PERSON (if different): Mailing Address: Phone: ( ) Fax ( ) Mailing Address: Phone: ( ) PROJECT ADDRESS: Project Description (If applying for a variance, also complete attach-d form for required findings.): PROPERTY OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT (I) (We) depose and say that (I am we are) the owner(s) of the property(ies) involved in this application. (I) (We) further certify, under penalty of perjury, that t - foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correc o the best of (my) (our) knowledge and belief. Signature(s) NOTE: An agent may sign for the owner if written authorization from the record owner is filed with the application. PART II: Project Data APIP Project Common Name: JA cite-5 o,% Res/pegc€ Application Number(s): Project Address/Location: 3c.. t oc.,afrcni ef.'iP - Assessors Parcel Number(s): D 52- - !So ^ !l Legal Description (Attach on separate sheet, if necessary): Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use: Zoning District: Land Use Designation: Existing Development Proposed Development Zoning Code Requirement Lot Area (sf) $ O B 1 Lot Width (ft) l Lot Depth (ft) Setback Yards Front (ft). 0 • t 1 Side (ft) "�l T 1 J Side (ft) T f 1i ✓ Rear (ft) 5rfaj116t 11L%o t% Gross Floor Area (sf) Floor Area Ratio Building Coverage (%) Building Height (ft) C° G alAhhc 2' Atiorvis cunt p ,G" a/43 n+ r Landscaping (%) Paving (%) N/A Parking Number of Employees Hours of Operation Number of seats Dwelling Units 3 PART III: Plans Each application shall be accompanied by 20 sets of plot plans, floor plans, and elevations; 8 sets shall be drawn to scale on 24 inch by 36 inch sheets with margins not less than 1/2 inch and 12 sets shall reduced to 11 inches by 17 inches. The required number of plans to be submitted for a Planning Director's Use Permit application is 12 sets; 4 sets drawn to scale and 8 sets reduced. All plans shall be collated, stapled and folded to a size of 8'/2" by 14", maximum. The Planning Director may modify or waive submission requirements if deemed unnecessary to support the application. A. Plot Plan Plot plans shall be fully dimensioned and show the following information on the subject property and to a minimum of 20 feet on contiguous properties: • Vicinity Map. • North arrow. • Scale of the plan. • Existing and proposed property lines • Required and proposed yard setback lines. • Locations, names, dimensions, and descriptions of all existing and proposed right of way lines, dedications and easements. • Locations of existing and proposed structures, additions, utilities, driveways, walks, and open spaces. • Any structures to be relocated, removed or demolished. • Locations, heights, and materials of existing and proposed walls and fences. • Locations, dimensions and descriptions of parking areas. • Location, heights, size and materials of signs. • Existing and proposed grade elevations and any significant natural features. • An Information block containing the name and telephone, number of the contact person and calculations in tabular form showing compliance with applicable property development regulations (i.e., density, floor area limits, height, parking, etc.) 4 • • Variances: Required Findings: 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. 3. That the granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. 4. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. To aid staff in determining that the finding can be made in this particular case please answer the following questions with regard to your request. (Please attach on separate sheet, if necessary.) 1. What exceptional circumstances apply to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings? OgeoczfAe bF• 7/ e' j, 15,t 7 .774berir g 7/271rs 7-77051E 72, rW ?OAP a, I?A / 1,U$Iysr _ 2. Why is a variance necessary to preserve property rights? T VA-T2 A -Al E 1 144v.,s5 7 6 F tAr1-11G,4 15 0 t V z lA44'y Lu ou L-D I- w� rb Aclie6Vgiz., et pro sf apE GOritc+4- »etL-L t�71}]{' ►d 45 roy�f /7i ou A)f f -sT, 4'i5 o,1 x. 3. Why will the proposal not be detrimental to the neighborhood? VIE neorosfra, \A lti- ttrT -erra-»1mr-txrArt, 1)50- NOT a 14 L-`( ArtiA T } is Yo ©N . rms s - #J a a4 .4.0 :), j1-)s7" ¢ 1'1 '1 '�N6 1-1e,o o$ 7-4Lecr Wilt5 tm-n- V7 Afor !Mrs 7o y /vai6 + t , 8 • • Environmental Information Form: The Environmental Information Form is intended to provide the basis information necessary for the evaluation of your project to determine its potential environmental effects. This review provides the basisfor determining whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment, as required by state' law. After this information has been evaluated by the Planning Department, a determination will be made regarding the appropriate environmental documentation for your project. 04/0 /2005 12:19 FAX 949 219 0795 PIMC❑ I1002 • RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 0 7 2005 17 AM PM 1112131415 6 April 7, 2005 Members and Chairman of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Re: Variance # 2001-001, Permit # 2001-092 (Jackson Residence, 3631 Ocean Blvd) Dear Members and Chairman of the Newport Beach Planning Commission: As the neighbor to the north of this project (3625 Ocean Blvd), I writing this letter to express support for the above project and requested variance. My understanding is that the requested height of the garage is to be the same height as the original structure but, frankly, in what should be a much nicer looking version than the home that was there previously. While I understand that public views are important, it seems to me that the public is no worse off than before the project began. Sincerely, William R B 3625 Ocean Blv 04/W/2005 12:19 FAX 949 219 0795 PIMCO IIo01 Gregg Ramirez Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Fax 949/644-3229 Re: Variance #2001-001, Permit # 2001-092 Dear Gregg — I'm submitting this letter to the Members and Chairman of the Newport Beach Planning Commission for their meeting tonight regarding the above variance request. • Page 1 of 1 Ramirez, Gregg From: Florence Feldman [florfeldman@adelphia.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 11:40 AM To: Ramirez, Gregg Subject: Doug Jackson request for variance at 3631 Ocean Blvd This e-mail is to support the Jackson's request for a variance regarding the height of their garage in order to give them a reasonably sloped driveway. We live next door, at 3709 Ocean Blvd and are therefore well aware of the care one must take to back out of a sloped driveway onto Ocean Blvd, particularly since both the foot traffic and car traffic along the street is usually considerable. Since the garage height the Jacksons are asking for is still lower than the original roof line, it seems to us that there should be no question that the safety of passersby is the prime consideration, not to mention the extreme inconvenience to the homeowners trying to traverse an excessively steep driveway. Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on this matter. Florence and Gary Feldman 04/22/2005 Kevin O'Grady & Nella Webs er 31 Ocean Heights, Newport Beach, CA 92657 (949) 715-6815 • Fax: (949) 715-6816 April 1, 2005 Ms. Patricia Temple Director City of Newport Beach Planning Department P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8950 Dear Ms. Temple: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 0 5 2005 AM PM 718I9r 10I11112 11 I2r3I4I5i6 It has come to our attention that the Planning Department is reviewing certain elements of the plans for the home being constructed at 3631 Ocean Blvd. which will determine the angle at which the driveway for this home meets the sidewalk. While we do not live in that neighborhood any longer and really have no stake in this project, we do have certain views concerning the driveway grade as a result of having lived in the house that formerly occupied this site. In short, the steep angle at which the former driveway met the sidewalk was a major safety hazard. While coming out of the driveway, the driver's vision was blocked by the elevated portion of the vehicle until the vehicle's wheels were on the sidewalk, at which point the end of the car was four to five feet into the sidewalk. For a pedestrian less than about four feet tall approaching from the passenger's side of the vehicle, you would never see them until you had hit them. We are sure that members of the planning department are aware that pedestrian traffic on this sidewalk can be heavy at times, and that many of the pedestrians are children heading to or from the beach who are not necessarily watching for a vehicle exiting a driveway. Essentially we had to do was hope that the pedestrians would see or hear our car, because we couldn't see them. The planning department would be highly advised to do whatever it can to reduce the grade from what it formerly was, because otherwise it is just a matter of time before someone gets hurt. We would be happy to provide additional input if it would be helpful. We can be reached at the phone numbers above or by email at kfog@cox.net. Sincerely, eft.71-1-1 91( Kevin O'Grady cc: Jim Campbell • Kevin O'Grady & Nella Webster 31 Ocean Heights, Newport Beach, CA 92657 (949) 715-6815 • Fax: (949) 715-6816 April 1, 2005 Ms. Patricia Temple Director City of Newport Beach Planning Department P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8950 Dear Ms. Temple: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 0 5 2005 AM PM 7819110L11l12111213i4156 6"4 yw$-05 �J It has come to our attention that the Planning Department is reviewing certain elements of the plans for the home being constructed at 3631 Ocean Blvd. which will determine the angle at which the driveway for this home meets the sidewalk. While we do not live in that neighborhood any longer and really have no stake in this project, we do have certain views concerning the driveway grade as a result of having lived in the house that formerly occupied this site. In short, the steep angle at which the former driveway met the sidewalk was a major safety hazard. While corning out of the driveway, the driver's vision was blocked by the elevated portion of the vehicle until the vehicle's wheels were on the sidewalk, at which point the end of the car was four to five feet into the sidewalk. For a pedestrian less than about four feet tall approaching from the passenger's side of the vehicle, you would never see them until you had hit them. We are sure that members of the planning department are aware that pedestrian traffic on this sidewalk can be heavy at times, and that many of the pedestrians are children heading to or from the beach who are not necessarily watching for a vehicle exiting a driveway. Essentially we had to do was hope that the pedestrians would see or hear our car, because we couldn't see them. The planning department would be highly advised to do whatever it can to reduce the grade from what it formerly was, because otherwise it is just a matter of time before someone gets hurt. We would be happy to provide additional input if it would be helpful. We can be reached at the phone numbers above or by email at kfog@cox.net. Sincerely, Kevin O'Grady cc: Jim Campbell 4-A‘ ella Webster Lesley and Ronald Clear 3700 Ocean Boulevard Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 (949) 644-7100 Iclear@lclear.com March 31, 2005 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Planning Department, City of Newport Beach RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MAR 3 1 2005 7819110 �11112111213141516 Re: Proposal for Variance at 3631 Ocean Boulevard, Corona Del Mar We are writing to express our concerns regarding the application of Lohrbach Associates for an amendment to Variance No. 2001-001 and Modification Permit No. 2001-092 on the property located at 3631 Ocean Boulevard. We live directly across the street from the subject property and, while we want to be good and supportive neighbors to the new property owners, we feel a larger responsibility to be good neighbors to others on the block and to act in the best interest of the community at large. In exceeding the height limit law, views will be partially blocked for our neighbors and the public view will be impeded for those who enjoy walking along Ocean Boulevard and for those visiting our beaches. We feel that it is in the best interest of all that the top -of - curb height limit law be maintained. As it was determined at the last public hearing on this matter that the garage could in fact be built in a way to ensure the safety and well being of the property owners and others, we respectfully request that this most recent application for amendment be denied. Sincerel fear Lesley ar Dorothy Barry 3712 Ocean Boulevard Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 March 31, 2005 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Planning Department, City of Newport Beach RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MAR 31 Z005 PM 71819110 1111121112y3I41516 Re: Proposal for Variance at 3631 Ocean Boulevard, Corona Del Mar The purpose of this letter is to request that Variance 2001-001 and Modification Permit No. 2001-092 be denied. I have lived at 3712 Ocean Boulevard, Corona Del Mar, for 40 years — across the street from the new construction. It was previously approved, at the last public hearing, and agreed by all, that this garage could be built to comply with the Ocean Boulevard height limit law! The other new homes on the same bluff side and same block have conformed to Ocean Boulevard ordinance height limits. I believe that a LAW is a LAW!! Why have these policies and development rules if we do not have to comply with them?? It is important that this garage not exceed top of curb elevation to help preserve the public view. Sincerely, �U/Uv Dorothy Barry • 4ae, 0.h �rylrKcra�in� � N ,� e‘ 2(4 (rn_ eadlia4, ilLak q3-G <D-L- 1'-+LEtwi F 1--- / �4 U6te. oualtioc,a4-: Qrn- eC un,/A. Q. (a Ca 1od, C)vtett DeP h'izt4 C rJ, Ao ' MOT uvA,.`f- � ate- --�0 ~�.e_ 1e_0:.vs . AL/3 ntieL2_ —IL 42_, --Thp 04L 694Lik, ,e1 luui IA,+wiceie_J& 1,3 u_vtei re:L6-e4- c.-4z) rc coo N o i todAti,) -(4-L a-)LJ er) (A0 lt) a lot IN) Vt4g) (AO Ann Spencer 3716 Ocean Blvd Corona DI Mar, CA 92625 PLANNING BY PDEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT REACH MAR 3 0 2005 AM PM 7 8 9j1a111 I12111a13r-41516 28 March 2005 Variance No. 2001-001 Modification Permit No. 2001-092 Dear Sirs, RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MAR 2 9 2005 AM PM 718191192111213141516 I live across the street from the Jackson residence that is asking for this variance and modification. I am against the Planning Commission granting the encroachment that Lohrback Associates is asking for. I believe that a LAW IS A LAW! ! ! The City of Newport Beach has a law in effect that states the top -of -curb limit and I am sure all of the above parties were aware of what the law read at the time the home was being planned. I believe if the Planning Commission would not grant so many variances and modifications to the many homes under construction there would be less asked for. Is bigger really better?!? Sincerely, Doris Stoughton 3708 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar 92625 949-760-1724 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT Patricia L. Temple, Director January 20, 2005 Bill Peters Lohrbach Associates 31382 El Camino Real San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 RE: Jackson Residence (PA2001-062), 3631 Ocean Boulevard This letter serves as notification that the Planning Department is in receipt of your application submittal regarding the proposed amendment to the previously approved variance and modification permit for the construction of a new single-family residence. After reviewing your submitted application, documents and exhibits, the application has been deemed incomplete. Please provide the following: 1. Provide a wet stamped and signed topographic survey. The must include the Ocean Boulevard top of curb heights. Copies of this survey are required to be included within all the required plan sets. 2. Provide mid and lower floor plans and a revised site section. 3. Show the actual, not average, top of Ocean Boulevard curb height. Include spot elevations from the topographic survey on top of curb line. Clearly dimension and identify the height of the proposed garage and any other features that exceed the top of curb height limit. Show the top of proposed roof height. The preceding must be shown on all elevations and sections. 4. The Section C located at the bottom of Sheet A-7D appears to be the project design as approved. If this is correct please label that section accordingly. 5. The application states that the project as approved would have a slope in excess of 20%. Please provide most accurate actual slope percentage possible. Indicate this number on the appropriate section on sheet A-7D. 6. On the revised section C on sheet A-7D clearly indicate the actual proposed slope. It appears to be 13%. Please verify if this is correct. Please submit revised plans/information at your earliest convenience in order to continue processing your application. Additional questions/corrections/comments may arise after a review of these requested materials. if you should have any questions feel free to contact me at (949) 644-3219 regarding your application. Gregg B. Ramirez, Associate Planner 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768 . Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Telephone: (949) 644-3200 • Fax: (949) 644-3229 • www.city.newport-beach.ca.us • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH A;,}.►' PLANNING DEPARTMENT .° ot PROJECT REVIEW REQUEST }t .�04.06ate: January 19, 2005 Staff Planner: G. Ramirez 644-3219 X PUBLIC WORKS & TRAFFIC ENGINEER X PLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RETURN) UTILITIES DEPARTMENT X FIRE DEPARTMENT PLANS ON FILE IN PLANNING DEPT. X BUILDING/GRADING DEPARTMENT RECREATION & SENIOR SERVICES POLICE DEPARTMENTNICE & INTELLIGENCE HARBOR DEPARTMENT REVENUE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (Commercial Development Only) APPLICATION OF: FOR: The Jackson Residence Lohrbach Associates CONTACT: re Bill Peters, (949) 661- 5068 Variance No. 2001-001 and Modification Permit No. 2001-092 (Amended) PA2001-062 DESCRIPTION: Request to amend a previously approved Variance to allow an attached garage to exceed the Ocean Boulevard top -of -curb height limit where the previous approval required that the garage comply with the Ocean Boulevard height limit. LOCATION: 3631 Ocean Boulevard REPORT REQUESTED BY: February 2, 2005 COMMISSION REVIEW (Tentative): Feb/March 2005 Check all that apply: k/ No comments on the project as ❑ Recommended conditions of approval are presented. attached. ❑ Application of Standard Code ❑ Application of Standard Code requirements or requirements are not expected to alter the attached conditions of approval will the project design. substantially impact or alter the design of the project. ❑ I contacted the applicant on to: Li schedule an appointment for Code review, r, discuss the following (attach separate sheet if necessary): ADDITIONAL COMMENTS (❑ see attached): Signature: Ext. 3 k 1 Date: al a-(oC-- Please indicate the approximate time spent on reviewing this project: • i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROJECT REVIEW REQUEST Date: January 19, 2005 Staff Planner: G. Ramirez 644-3219 X PUBLIC WORKS & TRAFFIC ENGINEER X PLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RETURN) UTILITIES DEPARTMENT X FIRE DEPARTMENT PLANS ON FILE IN PLANNING DEPT. X BUILDING/GRADING DEPARTMENT RECREATION & SENIOR SERVICES POLICE DEPARTMENTNICE & INTELLIGENCE HARBOR DEPARTMENT REVENUE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (Commercial Development Only) APPLICATION OF: FOR: The Jackson Residence Lohrbach Associates CONTACT: Bill Peters, (949) 661- 5068 Variance No. 2001-001 and Modification Permit No. 2001-092 (Amended) PA 2009-062 DESCRIPTION: Request to amend a previously approved Variance to allow an attached garage to exceed the Ocean Boulevard top -of -curb height limit where the previous approval required that the garage comply with the Ocean Boulevard height limit. LOCATION: 3631 Ocean Boulevard REPORT REQUESTED BY: February 2, 2005 COMMISSION REVIEW (Tentative): Check all that apply: 1O No comments 1 the project as ❑ Recommended conditions of approval are presented. attached. i Application of Standard Code ❑ Application of Standard Code requirements or requirements are not expected to alter the attached conditions of approval will the project design. substantially impact or alter the design of the project. ❑ I contacted the applicant on to: schedule an appointment for Code review, ❑ Feb/March 2005 discuss the following (attach separate sheet if necessary): ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ( u see attached): Signature:Ext. Date: OP/6--- VIV/46- Please indica a pproximate time spent on reviewing this project: it, fit • • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4404 PROJECT REVIEW REQUEST • :)414 #'4 X PUBLIC WORKS &Ifat lC ENGINEER _ UTILITIES DEPARTMENT X FIRE DEPARTMENT X BUILDING/GRADING DEPARTMENT RECREATION & SENIOR SERVICES POLICE DEPARTMENTNICE & INTELLIGENCE HARBOR DEPARTMENT REVENUE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (Commercial Development Only) APPLICATION OF: FOR: The Jackson Residence Lohrbach Associates CONTACT: Date: January 19, 2005 Staff Planner: G. Ramirez 644-3219 X PLANS ATTACHED (PLEASE RETURN) PLANS ON FILE IN PLANNING DEPT. Bill Peters, (949) 664- 5068 Variance No. 2001-001 and Modification Permit No. 2001-092 (Amended) PA2001-062 DESCRIPTION: Request to amend a previously approved Variance to allow an attached garage to exceed the Ocean Boulevard top -of -curb height limit where the previous approval required that the garage comply with the Ocean Boulevard height limit. LOCATION: 3631 Ocean Boulevard REPORT REQUESTED BY: February 2, 2005 COMMISSION REVIEW (Tentative): Check all that apply: o No comments on the project as presented. ❑ Application of Standard Code requirements are not expected to alter the project design. - contacted the applicant on Feb/March 2005 ❑ Recommended conditions of approval are attached. o Application of Standard Code requirements or the attached conditions of approval will substantially impact or alter the design of the project. to: schedule an appointment for Code review, ❑ discuss the following (attach separate sheet if necessary): ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ( u see attached): Signature: Ext. Date: ..313 4 5 Please indicate the approx to time spent on reviewing this project: Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, Califecnia_ Number A-6214, September 29, 1961, and A-24831 June 11, 1963. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) } ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. 1 am a principal cleric of the NEWPORT BEACH - COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following dates: MARCH 26,2005 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on MARCH 26, 2005 at Costa Mesa, California. Signature PUBIIC NOIICE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Ccrmddll Challbers of the City of Newport Beath 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport 6eadl PLANNING COMMISSION • AGENDA Regul rMeeting - April 7, 2005 at 6:30 p.i1L 1. SUBJECT:Lohrbach Associates (Bilk Peters, applicant) Jackson Res- ` idence 3631 Ocean Boulevard • SUMMARY: Request for an amendment to a previously approved Variance and Modifica- tion Permit to allow an attached garage that encroaches into the front yard setback to exceed the Ocean Bou- levard top -of -curb height limit where the previous approval required that the garage comply with the Ocean Boulevard height limit. APPLICATION: Amend- ment •to Variance Vari- ance No. 2001-001 and Modification Permit No. 2001-092 (PA 2001-062). CEQA COMPLIANCE: Alf significant environmental concerns tor the pro- posed project have been addressed in a previ- ously certified environ- mental document, and that the City of Newport Beach intends to use Said document for the above noted project, and further that there are no additional reasonable alternative or mitigation Measures that should be considered in.conjunc- tion with said project. 2. SUBJECT: • Code Amendment No. 2005= 003 (PA 2005-047) Elevation Datum Refer- ence SUMMARY: A proposed Zoning Code Amendment that would change several elevation datum references •within the Zoning Ordinance from the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) to the North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) to be consistent with the vertical datum used in the revised Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study (EIS), retated'Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FERMs) for Orange County and other Municipal Code sections. This amendment would potentially be applicable to all law lying proper- ties within the City and the proposed amend- ment does not change the actual flood eleva- tion established by the FEMA. CEQA COMPLIANCE: The proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure -making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). 3. SUBJECT: Espinoza Condominium Conver- sion 329 Marguerite Avenue SUMMARY: The appli- cant requests to add various architectural improvements to an existing apartment .building approved to be converted to condomin- iums. The enhancements include stone clad wall projections; window and door trim, window boxes, etc. and they are proposed to encroach within the minimum required setbacks. APPLICATION: Modifi- cation Permit No. 2005- 014 CEQA COMPLIANCE: This project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facili- ties) of the implement- ing Guidelines of the California Environmental. Quality • Act. This ex- emption allows the alteration of existing facilities including inte- rior and exterior alter- ations and utility con- veyances provided there is no expansion of the use. Published Newport Beach/Costa Mesa Daily Pilot March 26, 2005 Sa806 PO PA2005-004 • Applicant: Lohrbach Associates (Bill Peters, applicant) Jackson Residence Address: 3631 Ocean Boulevard Planner: Date Description of task Approx. Time Spent Initial application review Second application review PRR Site Visit Background research Consultation with: Consultation with: Consultation with: Consultation with: Meetings CEQA Analysis Notice preparation Staff Report Preparation Hearing(s) Post hearing follow-up Attach additional sheets as necessary. Each application will not require all steps indicated above. Additional steps may be included at the discretion of the staff planner. Last Revised 01/04/2005 F:\UserslPlnlShared\PA's1PA 2001 labels (20).doc Checklist for Categorizing 0 Development and Significant Redevelopment Projects as Priority or Non -Priority Project File No.: VA2005-001 for PA2005-004 Project Name: Lohrbach Associates (Bill Peters, applicant) Jackson Residence Project Location: 3631 Ocean Boulevard Project Description: Modify driveway, garage elevation. PART A - Qualifying: Yes No 1. Is this project a NEW Development? 2. Is this project a SIGNIFICANT Redevelopment? If you answered "NO" to both questions, STOP HERE. You do NOT need to fill out PART B. If you answered "YES" to either question, please continue with PART B. PART B - Proposed Project Includes: Yes No 1. Residential development of 10 units or more 2. Commercial and industrial development greater than 100,000 square feet including parking areas 3. Automotive repair shop (SIC codes 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532-7534, and 7536-7539) 4. Restaurant where the land area of development is 5,000 square feet or more including parking areas ( SIC code 5812) 5. Hillside development on 10,000 square feet or more, which is located on areas with known erosive soil conditions or where natural slope is 25 percent or more 6. Impervious surface of 2,500 square feet or more located within, directly adjacent to (within 200 feet), or discharging directly to receiving water within Environmentally Sensitive Areas'. 7. Parking lot area of 5,000 square feet or more, or with 15 or more parking spaces, and potentially exposed to urban runoff 8. Is this a Priority Project? Determination: If ANY of the above are answered yes, it is priority ' Environmentally Sensitive Areas include, but are not limited to, all Clean Water Act Section 303(d) impaired water bodies, areas designated as Areas of Special Biological Significance by the State Water Resources Control Board, water bodies designated with the RARE beneficial use by the State Water Resources Control Board, areas designated as preserves or equivalent under the Natural Community Conservation Planning Program, and any areas designated as Critical Aquatic Resources (CARS). Staff Member Completing this Form: Date Form Completed: Last Revised 01/04/2005 F:lUsers\Pln\Shared\PA's1PA 2001 labels (20).doc • SUSAN W. CASE, INC. 1 OWNERSHIP LISTING SERVICE 194.4 00S-tra� i24-d oa -0 61 JACKSON FILE#1004975 2631 OCEAN BLVD CORONA DEL MAR CA 300' LISTING 052 150 11 DECEMBER 13 2004 052 142 24 Gordon Anderson 3528 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar CA 92625 052 143 06 Mark Carroll Coleman 210 Orchid Ave Corona Del Mar CA 92625 052 143 10 Robert Warmington 567 San Nicolas Dr #180 Newport Beach CA 92660 052 143 13 Gary Eckles 219 Poinsettia Ave Corona Del Mar CA 92625 052 143 20 Sammi Nielsen 3600 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar CA 92625 052 150 11 Douglas Jackson 97 Old Course Dr Newport Beach CA 92660 052 150 16 Charles Slack 3729 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar CA 92625 052 150 20 D Diane Anderson 3611 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar CA 92625 917 Glenneyre Street, Suite 7 • Laguna Beach, CA 92651 PHONE (949) 494-6105 • FAX (949) 494-7418 052 143 04 Dokich 216 Orchid Ave Corona Del Mar CA 92625 052 143 08 Philip McNamee 2400 Main St #201 Irvine CA 92614 052 143 11 Aikman 3628 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar CA 92625 052 143 18 Walter Burgess 223 Poinsettia Ave Corona Del Mar CA 92625 052 150 04 STATE OF C 1 • RNIA PARK No A• ' ess Found 052 150 14 Gary Feldman 3709 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar CA 92625 052 150 17 Peter & Dorothy Spataro 3619 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar CA 92625 052 150 21 David Williams 3713 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar CA 92625 052 143 05 Harold Benson 214 Orchid Ave Corona Del Mar CA 92626 052 143 09 William Ross Hays PO Box 7354 Newport Beach CA 92658 052 143 12 Richard Burns 215 Poinsettia Ave Corona Del Mar CA 92625 052 143 19 Jeffery Boyd Christensen 200 Orchid Ave Corona Del Mar CA 92625 052 150 09 Benz 3625 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar CA 92625 052 150 15 Desmond Lawrence Fischer 1301 Mccallie Ave Chattanooga TN 37404 052 150 19 Augustine Nieto 3601 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar CA 92625 052 150 22 Mark Hurwitz 3719 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar CA 92625 052 171 01 Lehr Welkin 215Poppy Ave Corona Del Mar CA 92625 052 171 06 Ronald Clear 3700 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar CA 92625 052 171 09 Barry 3712 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar CA 92625 052 172 21 David Riley 223 Poppy Ave Corona Del Mar CA 92625 052 172 28 David Riley 223 Poppy Ave Corona Del Mar CA 92625 052 172 31 Robert Parks 212 Poinsettia Ave Corona Del Mar CA 92625 052 181 29 Richard Lutzky 216 Poppy Ave Corona Del Mar CA 92625 'Lohrbach Associates Attn: Bill Peters 31382 El Camino Real San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Doug & Sandi Jackson 97 Old Course Road .Newport Beach, CA 92640 Corona del Mar Association Dick Nichols :519 Iris Avenue Corona del Mar, CA 92625 052 171 03 Keohane 3720 Oman Blvd Corona Del Mar CA 92625 052 171 07 Greg & Deanna Reposa 3728 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar CA 92625 052 172 01 Sanford Greenberg 210 Poinsettia Ave Corona Del Mar CA 92625 052 172 22 Ronald Agins 225 Poppy Ave Corona Del Mar CA 92625 052 172 29 ITF LTD 220 Poinsettia Ave Corona Del Mar CA 92625 052 180 01 STATE OF CALIFORNIA PARK No Addresa-Found 052 181 30 John Milazzo 214 Poppy Ave Corona Del Mar CA 92625 Lohrbach Associates Attn: Bill Peters 31382 El Camino Real San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Doug & Sandi Jackson 97 Old Course Road Newport Beach, CA 92640 052 171 05 Donald Stoughton 3708 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar CA 92625 052 171 08 Ann Spencer 3716 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar CA 92625 052 172 19 MELIN PARTNERS 75110 Saint Charles PI Palm Desert CA 92211 052 172 27 Robert Laroche 251 Jeanell Dr #3 Carson City NV 89703 052 172 30 Scott McDonald 8508 S Willow Dr Tempe AZ 85284 052 181 02 Dan Neyenhuis 220 Poppy Ave Corona Del Mar CA 92625 052 182 01 William & Jo Barnes 200 Patterson Ave #604 San Antonio TX 78209 Lohrbach Associates Attn: Bill Peters 31382 El Camino Real San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Doug & Sandi Jackson 97 Old Course Road Newport Beach, CA 92640 13 Sp' 7N TR_M2 /257 Y HIGH TIDE LIME r 1 AVENUE • 26 a 4 Q N I OIM Mir/ 4 IMiliffiii mg PL OCK . NO. 14 LINE 14 --o-- 3WN3Av Jq' 23 Al � -- EOM M MI c ASSESSOR'S MAP auair 052 PAGE 14 ry OF ORANGE 3 MILES S f 3Drd AS /•) .i/ 443fAN35 - — ® v w Nll o $ c O b O w :f•p ith ler N 411 .r •SUSAN W. CASE, INC. di OWNERSHIP LISTING SERVICE MOr 917 Glenneyr-e Street, Suite 7 • Laguna Beach, CA 92651 PHONE (949) 494-6105 • FAX (949) 494-7418 CERTIFICATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS LIST THE ATTACHED LIS/T��R}EPRRSENTS THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PROPERTY OWNERS LOCATED WITHIN3 O FEET OF THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT -303/ d c-A, 6/t(ct° Co ro.t-ct.. &e /fie- 6 THIS INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED THROUGH FIRST AMERICAN REAL ESTATES SOLUTIONS, A DATA SOURCE UTILIZING THE COUNTY ASSESSMENT ROLLS AND OTHER AVAILABLE DATA SOURCES. THIS INFORMATION IS GENERALLY DEEMED RELIABLE, BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED. RETURN OF SOME PROPERTY ADDRESSES THAT ARE DEEMED UNDELIVERABLE BY THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE IS A POSSIBILITY. SUSAN W. CASE, INC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF SAID LABELS. ACCEPTANCE OF THE PACKAGE ACKNOWLEDGES THIS FACT. SUSAN W. CASE, INC. • l PROPOSED RESIDENCE 6TSNED FL00a ELEVATONS: U LBEI. Ei.65: WML w�is OCEAN BOULEVARD SITE PLAN EL. kW TOLWI•n:E: EL. bNDS. PROPERTY LINE UPPER LE Loma LEVEL L SSA' EL. VOA. EL. TOW. L. W1Y OUITER-TYPICAL ROOF PLAN EL. I3FA' D04 EL. WASP EL ROOF PLAN PA2001-062 for VA2001-001 Al 3631 Ocean Boulevard DATE OF MEETING: - April 7, 2005 UP • I'-0. SPOLASORTSS BLOCK ERTL W/ PRECAST CCNC. AND FIT TEPERIMISM DRAIN PER PAW TIAER'S APPIROMD EY OIMER ESOP •EMIAMS -VEPY PICAL PET`t*TER - - MANE4CTURER Ti1FPRRFD 51P. mob B f M WHOP MIN 1/A•PPR w>'6T.TYP1a1 CLASS C FIRE RETARDANT ROOF 6YNTNETIC•L4TEx WEATNERPROCF nameR LAYERED COATING ---. - -. lames' ER•EY SKYLIGHT Site Keynstes Q---IIILINETD R 111-tlNT YARD MEAD@ REOWtgo LINE GO REAR TARO BUILDING SMNDLNp]E ^^^^3----IIII LE OF REAR BALCONY 9TRNGLINE aA LINE OF A'-B• SIDE YARD SETBACK LNE g TRAIN M DATUM MY'OOD 64TE NARDICAPE DRIVEWAY EXISTS. EDGE OF P.M. EL. 11414$ EL S156 El. Sag TO4NREY EMSTNO OCPESTIC WATER PETER • vETFT LOCATION INFIELD OAS METE! - WREN. EXACT LOCATIGN M FIELD SPA . PR0NIDE ORAYVME SYSTEM EELCYI SPA TO COLLECT ANY WATER SNICK MIGNT RESULT MGM RITMO LEMCS. THIS WATER WOULD SE COMIEOTED TO THE MOM 1115RING SYSTEM AND 14TIM4TELT DISPWEED INTO THE CITY SEWER SYSTEM 044745E SEWER LATERAL !ND INSTALL CLEAN -OUT At PROPERTY LINE. SEE DETAIL (CITY STANDARD( Site Gener'y Notes L REFER TO LANDSCAPE OR4WM00 POW MOM... ON LAND AREAS. ALL SITE YVPOMINNON (NE. SITE W4LL5. STEPM, TRELL ONL, FOR ACTUAL WALL AND SITE MPOWNATION REFER TO L `PROPERTY 1ME APE u0 N4RD60APE ETC.I IS FOR ILLUSTRATION APE AND CIVIL DR REFER TO STRUCTURAL DRAMNGS FOR ALL SITE RETANN4 WALL DETAILS. REFER 10 CAUL OR.W WLSS FOR ALL SITE OR4M46E. RIM OR4OM0. PONT CF CONNEC.. OF R0.T DOUNOPOUTS TO DRAM. SYSTEM AT, LOCATION OF RESIDENCE. ALL OCNTPIRS SNOW NDIC*TE EXISTS. OR4DE5. FOR PNISU GRADES �""'^• REEFER TO TM CIv1L ANp LNp1C4PE DR6Waq& MUSE ADDRESS IS TO SE LOCATED SO TN4T THE Nu16ER IS NOBLE AND LEOMLE FROM DIE STREET. NNW 7_-OCR ELEv4T10NE ARE FOR MOONS DEPARTMENT REFERENCE ONLY. REFER TO THE OR4ON0 PLMI MR ALL PAD ELEVATION, REFER TO DM AR0NTE0TURAL PLOOR PLAIN R. ALL FMISN}LOOR ELEv4T10NE. ALL EXTRANEOUS CONCRETE MUST BE RETp4ED FROM THE SITE TIMM PLANS AND OW OWER MALL CO`0LY W TR ALL OR4N0E COUNTY FIRE 4NTI0RTY COI -MINTY SAFETY AND EDUCATION BUREAU OUIDELMES FOR FURL MOOIR04TION PLANS AND volmEN4NCO REF. TO TIN L4ND0C4PE DRAWY4 POR ALL GATES. euenonAILS..AND HANDRAILS ALL DO4NSPCOT (DSO LOC*TICN5 TO OE vERRED UN EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS / ELEv4110N5 TAKE PRECIOENT. ANY AND ALL EXPORT OF SOIL OR DEBTS SHALL OE TO AN APPROVED FILL elm COMM T1E Comte. LOVE u1.ESS APPROVED W WTTMO Br TM COASTAL 0OMSSp4. Site Utility Notes Lohrbach 31681 Camino Capistrano, Suite 106 San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 Tel: 949.66E-5068 Fax: 949-240-3851 Seal / Signature' Project: THE JACKSON IDENCE 3631 O L NEWPORT CALIFORNI DRIVEWAY DRAWING. No. Date Revision N BLVD. EACH A A 0 Date: 1 / 26 / 02 Job No.: 200E Association Submittal: Bldg. Dept Submittal: Bid Issue: Construction Issue: Sheet Title: SITE PLAN ROOF PLAN Sheet No.: ASP-1D EDISW COMPANY APPROVAL IS MODRED FOR IMIER LOCATION PRIOR TO INSTALLATION FIELD INSPECTORS TO REVIEW AND APPROVE D(DEROROWID SERVICE REWRITTEN, PRIOR TO CONCRETE PLACEMENT Prelim Plot Date 0428.04 I 1, Lohrbach • • • CONCRETE WALK ( <- pow RAVEL .RCM UMW, FADE Oe 115454.40E RRE1R0RCED CONCRETE WALL hy1, carARD 2,44. r.pTr.S• 4..5. RESCUE WMDOUI •5 .1 TLAx 444 GAIL I I O01_ POLE 53- GLIDINQ TEMPERED GLASS WALL PANELS ae1Y.ER 0 _. — )Work Room NIL SSA 4W8ER DNA eV GAGA COi.N 8A0NER DIP NORO Y THICK CPONG WALL )Family Room GAP DMA n•-a. r- // /�I,/ .i J/ BALCONY' 4-0 .FY D SETB SLSVATOR ♦HART. L 1.14044• APE IE1ST•4E CGNSR61G1I0( 2 UPPER LEVEL. 1.S STUDS M 42"ea. WTH NY GYPSUM BOARD BOTH FACES 40ekk 11E22 LevEL. 6' CONCRETa 4. ODORS AND PRAMS 1 HR ARE RATED ASSEMBLY SELF CLOS U LOWER LEVEL PLAN 8• Tu102 RENJORC CCMCRE i r- i 1 I 1 1 1 Dryer Vent Notes: vekx CLEAN OUTS 0:SOARED AT DRYER EXN4UST VETS Ex0EacA45 fA'-0" LE42A24S 2 MAPIMR1 VFW? DUCT LENGTW W0Np4T VENT CLEAN OUTS We TO E110EED 22,-6, 3 PROVIDE VENT GLEAN PITS AT MAx, S4AOM 4 OCCUPANT 10 PERIODICALLY GN'_GR AND REMOVE Lv4T PNI! D•C0 * POMO,. Ca OWCT TO BE T-D' 40 MIN. e VENT DUCT TO BE ECNSDWLE A4 PLASTIC PIPE Y CLEAN OUT TO NAVE CORROSICR RE54SrENT CAP Legend MBE nv41ED SND papnvow.LL BEEBE CCHCETE WALL mop., suLL NEW B.A. OWon ...MEADak.a AGOG, ra nimP1TRNo ARMSGGPAS! r OD PET44 ML wRa EET PAGER },a-facnw RalLR WEFT LAMER 49] 4LSva104 PeranAck Notes L rRAM", EC 013 IA ARE 4.4 STUD WALLS aES71ROMAP O11RRasa. ALL 1wa1150 110.0Ie4110 WALLS ARE TN S7ID W4LL6 Waa56 PAW OT46RRe. T. RD6R T01NE S1R10NRAl DR.44M :0 FoR ALL MD onus. AN. WEAR WALLS P. wool. ALASS IS RSOS4SD AT ALL GOAL GLASS FAWN. ARP ewo0M k ANT WALL EW_LOe445 OR ADJACENT TO GAM. PR 5un1414tl1, GARS T,! MOTOR SAG 04 54E 64.AIne LE65 TR4A NT ABOYF A 7rbp]TW NABACE GR DRAIN .MET. A IN 4144FJAS 4W2 TIS,54 GAre ian5wAGGPS 004700L vAlv5S MIST SE P54504 ! GALA... PR11S5'b8TA11G TI60115 vALVPo. 5. WATiN GLOATS AND A65GCt4T4D PLWUC.ETER v3LVR4 R 4T1, S41AL4 OS PS M AE T.1A. 4. G4LL6ms I'E5 R Nu A*c'54.ALL mutt RI11AyRL410E 51ANG41L78 E61AFL154ED 51 T15 ARRF84414AMb7AL 1 044i05 MST4140 STANDARD ATM N 1' G OE, 900004 R.A. 5. SA LM.* GOGRSTa WALL 4440* FADES TPALL Rq.40 a.s plet1 . *WA • 1R' AA am+ R-B 0GID S1YA.Anol BOARD.. ATM, W b7Sah BOARD GN 45GGA3 AAA. REo4R512 FTA4APSr TANG SNAL6 GI CAP., GP 550v10P1G S 414 04101005 PER 14'AR 0 1 2 5 4 5 10 25 GRAPHIC SCALE 31681 Camino Capistrano, Suite 306 San Ivan Capistrano, California 92675 Tel; 949461-5068 544: 949-240.5851 Beef ! Signature: Project: THE JACKSON RESIDENCE 3631 OCEAN BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA DRIVEWAY DRAWINGS Rev1WM1e No. D)ere RMRGe -L� L 3at NG.: ID erael ED A 44.2tio. Submittal: Bldg. Dept. Sabmilbl: Bid issue: CwWmo ton J4615e: Sheet Title: LOWER LEVEL Meal No.: A-1 Praline. 5bt Ddla 45420*A Lohrbach • N4. 510e rD AEIy4^ T•N In' A; MN. c*eemote ARDve OTOR44E CAPNET6. OPEN 49OVE Master Bath E'.0' IO'•6 IR' MID LEVEL PLAN B -A• 1'-11 IS• Master Bedroom FIREPLACE FT EPLAC[ X'-1• la'-4" LOWER LEVEL DECK 2 Office RAIL 4T .51 TO 66• DM HION•TTP oBath T'-1I•�! 5 AI REITO c osee 6Naaelu um GNAT ER- aEEIer..1' ENCLOSURE SV .: i •'•L 11.1 DRYER L W4S R p.4 2 FAO la` reP ELEVATOR 4WAFT, I, l-N9EEPIM9 MEWTIVE CCMSTRICTICM 2. UPPER LEVEL Tab STUDS A Woe. W1N Sri• 6TPNJM EO4*0 EON FACES 9. LOWER a MID LEVEL 6• CONCRETE 4. DOORS AND PRAME6 1 NR FIRE RATED 4a6EN9.0' 6ELP GLO6N9 8• FOXE. conceere WALL ER.* VENT VU DEFLECTORJYA M' OF DUG RLMI \t‘A Dryer Vent Notes: VENT CLEAN OUTS REOBIRED AT DRYER E1H40ST VENTS 0,4E-ED.. 14.01 LEN1TNE 1 MANRDM',ENT DOGS LEMQ.TH UNCUT VENT GLEAN G.T6 NO1 TO ENCCED 12'•0• 3 PROVIDE VENT GLEAN RUre aT 25-0' FAN. 6PAc6 5 4 IX`CLIPANT TO PERf0D1OALLY OHEOL AHD 00*101E LET EU1.DHIP S 00T10M OF p41C1 TO BE THE" ALS MIN. S VENT DUG, e0 Me SCHEDULE AO PLASTIC PIPE 1 055GN LT1n TO HAVE CONK05idi PE515TEN1 CAP Legend EEEM FRAMED 61411 P4RTITI0I4IULL Go,I;RE1E WALL 1.60NRT' W.LL TOO. NEa REP. E....,—,TeTePEREIF WET. Daum, eoTPE r"*ENR 6, 2 caTAa PET Er l 1-KIER n TLETaeAII INSCMTN THIXBER SEC Ia1 RIF RENCE P4 014LTTEAE AILEVATION R@CRMLR Notes L ALL 7 4nE0.1W6 ARE T.A STUD DNA. L.L166 NOTED 0TNERXP10. ALL Rl4RED PUMPS WILLS ma T. MD WALL. OEM 10010 OTNERY/C. T 5555 To TM 6rATCTLMAL DICIAPPAS Fen ALL STUD WARN. AND 61E4R WALL.., A TEMPERED SLANTS REQUIRED 4T ALL DOOM S1.446 ENCLO4Ertl ANp 6R0OW61N 4NY WALL DRAMs* OR A1Jn0 01 TO E O6ER6 OR 6A.11.0.6L5RE THE 6O1re., WAR P rw a.m. Ea%THAN 6a' ARO.! A 6TANDB1 %MACE OR DRAIN N AEU, • N N.A. AND TV6.6Nd1ER OONETHATON6. CONTR0. val.v161'D3T 13 FFLE641NE 5ALAN0ED a TNENEASTATRCTIPa1O vm.VRA T. rnw 4NOa6ET6 A4560C1A1ED PLUOIIOIETCl1 VALVE'✓. s ANY, SHALL ued NO neRE THAN 10 TALON! PER RENT ANO 51-1R.1. FRET PENWFT•N ,1ra 6.0.614 AL EATABLIE ED 6v THE Amex.. 6T4NDAR06 WIVE! 6TALDAPD AE161.14 1 6 CODE N ono.ITHuv1. EN1t1Ro6 = ART]T WALL MIR FACES 6.41. REceNE 1.4 Mx.. WW1 P N.• AA MIH A R. PINED WRA ATOH *041gs APPLT en-1TF'an 60aRS CT1 RPATFIS STUDS 1. REGIERED 68N4ueT Pda EN.LL NE ca t DT FekevIervO 5 AIR DALIDE5 PER HD0R 0 i 2 3 4 5 40 25 GRAPHIC SCALE 31651 Camino Capistrano, Slain. 106 San loan Cepiatrane, California 92675 Yob 949.661-5068 P1101 949-240-3853 Seal / Sig1B1Te: Project THE JACKSON RESIDENCE 3631 OCEAN BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA Revisions: No. Doe 11gnialaa A 0 Dale: lodeeAr Job No.: to Aocci.bl5 SYb,1LTla1. 331dg. Dept. S11Ian2L61: Bld Issue C66s1rv0fimL 16a11r S1um0Titla MID PLAN LEVEL Sheet No.: A-2 Prolim. BA HOU5 • F E OF FEFPLACe p!41r r Panty 1 3 Garage f!WSEp 21 flD 1L• REIN D DPRDRexe FLoaR E*E5R5111 Aao"E KIt. en 1 2 Dining 2 Living Room 3 TEMP. 0i. . ARDRWIL 3A LUG FP 6 Ae P Foyer .FIbI. FIB Sisroes eOnl it P We. 0, LORIER 'EL Eert OYp11M1 1 ARID BOT 510 Le 11, F M 4Gi •�.� 4..�-- a F CLEW''''. 11eAnE 3 I WR 1 RwI . 1 r v omr•Ign- UPPER LEVEL PLAN 0 5LCEIRPA F•!1. SIIO 14L L5, L ERTEPo. EP SNP WALLS ARE PAa 51005 • A E NOTE 1. A \, \ • L . Legend FRAMED 5713 PA ritteR ALL 1 , • 1 EONERETE WALL Notes ALL Dann WALLA AR@ iM END 11,ALL6 W.i•S None 0111BRS6E. ALL FRAM., ALUM.. WALLS ARC 2.4 STI0 u4.1104l132+63I10 OTMERYIAE. P. RP. to 1NE 5l121.0nAA1 PRRARNI FM ALL MO BEARMG a127 PEAR RALF* 11 1B1ppFLP GLACE R R50101 LO Al ALL O001115.6LA1*EM_'LPGERS RFD LEWD S N WI' UALL OR apl,A0p11 ro AIRRRri on GADO-LOC DOER( DC ,P11PR 1106E Ls 116 &AL+fe LEAS TAM 00. a57.8 A 41AR0513 MMiFACB OR DRAM 31240 M E.ieYIERS Asp 0 p.smau05 wrest A110r1 GCNIICL VALNR RAFT me w056NFi OAL. OSP A A 11441325YALIG FMAMG vALve6, eanRAP.oSDARO AWpAaaR1a01 o FLRRR r4Lr56. F ANY. 'PALL LIEW more LRAM rs ni1 I OAFS FRR ODRA AND SM LL MEET PERAPPARCE A0AFuuba6 167ASLB14e0 er LW r.Fm4AR RA1100.1. 9IANDARD3 MAIM! ERROR. AI12153. N . S CODE pearl.. RUM. 0. ALL OOaG PROM WOE 10 POOL YARD FRAY RL 20412PED VTR AL4P1 I I lac i/P1 - exr0NwR ROmED WALLS wALI RE t.e AT10A • to RA. RT+ R.n Roo muLaik. ■OA1a S. APPLY 5/12. G AR.r. RDAS. 01iR 31103 R FCPAR1D EN+A[5T ruq 1NAL1. Re 0A.A1EL6 Of RRWIDMS 5 AN 37/3110e5 P[R RNR 0 1 2 3 4 5 10 25 — GRAPHIC SCALE Loh rbach 31682 Crm:aa Cepiaaseo, SWro 106 Ben MOM Cepis4a11o, Califim s 41675 T.1: 949.161-5069 Fox! 949-2443851 Seal 1 Sisn@nw: Proles: THE JACKSON RESIDENCE 3631 OCEAN BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA DRIVEWAY DRAWINGS Revilioos: No' Bede Revlsloo d A A I31IG Sob1NP: MLR AasociAliCal 31.5121111211: Bldg, Dept Submittal: Bid Issue: Cens11TG11GW 1ffi@C Shea/Tide: R��R LEVEL Sheet No.: A-3 PL61en. Plot od1r pt2SO4 I • Lohrbach • O P4TI0 LEVEL EXIaTNG GRADE 4T ROOLL .t LINE ti, sa< I®nr' T, Ex, ROOF NEW RETspep TA. GAP TA, PaR4PEr SOBS' rPru. LEVEL b ,n V i'[IDLEVCL HEW e ▪ Awc EMT EXIT DECK SYR— Rrr GUARC RAIL 133P' • REAR ELEVATION VI• . I•.O FRONT ELEVATION LCWER LEVEL 31681 Ca[nifio Cysistreno, Suite 106 Son Juan Capistrano. Cadif ie 92675 Tst: 949-661-3868 Fax1 949.740-3661 Seal 7 Signature: Project: THE JACKSON . . RESIDENCE 3631 OCEAN BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA DRIVEWAY DRAWINGS Revisions: Revision A A Dele: JoS Na.: RPM ASSociation Submittal: Bldg. Dept. SchssieM- Biel Ise.: Cwatrudioa Issuer. Shen Title( ELEVATIONS Sheet No, A-4D t+lslim. Prcr Ds. 4991.6.e. 1 Loh rbach 41.2. T. 0. Ex ROC. TO.0_ — T.O.PARARAPET .65. UPPER LEVEL 15.4' MID LEVEL 64I5 LOWER LEVEL TOP OF NEW WALL nipa tL19TNG GRADE LIFE 24' ABOVE AN PARALLEL TO NA GRADE A MORE trAIAL GRADE A STEPS AND WALK- LANDSCAPE DRAW 0' •. L 400.,5/ 1,4 I - X• WIDE 0A LEFT SIDE ELEVATION I r � RESCUE WINDOW Tt6'idT"! ��--���( nWEW LRETANING FNIBN FLOOR l81TTNG/ LINE 26' ABOVE AND GRADPARALLELT - TO STING E A ® ATPRLINE 9TE w�L R� O. SI1E OP SITE —__ LOWER PLOOR -t PRIvATE ST41R8 AND WALLS CN SITE UDDER SEPARATE PERMIT NUMBER 1631•1003 RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION V4" • 1'4e 1011 T NAIEUR4XISL PLASTER PNI N7,1I4STNG GRADE - PACE � ExISTadG_.� IREMO ED1IALL SIN — T. O. PARAPET EXISTING NATURAL GRAD S15. T. O. CUM T. O. PARAPET PLASTERED 9NEL. METAL TOP RAIL TEMPERED 6L455 GUARDRAIL a465' TOP OF f41 UPPER LEVEL MID LEVEL a+valL NA. E xI9TpJG GRADE 3168E Camino Capistrano, Suite 106 San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 Tel: 949-661-5068 Fax: 949-240-3851 Seel / Signature: Project: THE JACKSON RESIDENCE 3631 OCEAN BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA DRIVEWAY DRAWINGS Revisions: No. Date Revision Daze: I00101 Job No.: 2001 Association Submittal: Bldg. Dept Submittal: Bid Issue: Construction Issue: Sheet Title: ELEVATIONS Sheet No.: A- 5D 1/4• • I'-0" Prelim. Plot Dale 090804 Loh roach • •a :. • • • A tsi 0. Tr. 51.4- PLW I.RC , 51m•> - `-. - - _. — — •^ . 0. GCBs 11=!11 =1 l= f l lr3� szor 11E45______ • �RA6E !1=�=ill�ll�lll-;TT,11;=111=i11=]ll�lli1;:ilh=li- �='DEL' -, I 111III=t1 =hill lil 1 1= I lil I!I Ili III `'�I-rl i II " r 1= 1ii ,171 =1L=III-1!] Ili 1!=il!EI'!�.1==,-I-�-ill -I€=T I - 1L-I[1 I I,iTi_fr -111-ti.,[iitol--I' fG J31-11t_III=k}�i' lf III 1i'IIL=-lIl-11i it I_: -- 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I s' ! I 11 Ill-i l l-111-I_ l l I I 1 - -1 I I 1 l l .- I U 11 111=111=r-I 1 1 E 1_I ]+-11 L7-111— --III 711 -- 11--11-I1=y=, 1 l I Tr.II Il- MOP r i "A'nt1 I =1 i —1 L,• "-m• II -III 11 -II oRA�lwS-� LEH j-1 rr, 9116' I�YAB IIiE 1 *r. =1=l —f 1I_1I-i�1i!'�llil...i; 0. 5 S ! =l=-! h=1=111=Ili=1 I! =11 Fll?=I_r_. ----------- 1a k. :ill I'-i= 1111-IF 1!-Illrytl"-aVil-1''l��- -.--'�-11 11� _ -_=i-lf;�l -L;�Il=llr iIf Ij _i {=11 I1___ -,7111 I-of- 1- ! iii II'I-kf !h=1I 111- 1-!1I_l,{ III III 1 _II! =111=III 11!-i1 it L II, III I' ll' ' 11 11�111 1f 1 III 11' III I -1I I11 I k1111111111111- 11- '1 i= iI111 =-LIII k.s a•e �-C�pLA55 11 �,g .pep 9aC65'� L1-TYICAL .n.aLAT;CH.Tirlca iee'¢ S""Zg =TTGAL SA• 6TP•Ux IOaO OWL.. GARAGE a .proC GECK.SEE . :::e•.•.: r.:n 4f �1•11::.•:::a v:1MW SECTION C aW Lc.n•ue xreeraAL eOM e6marE !Imo.an6.661 esFeen.PAL Ieooa uvweo air, ° M. BATH c--lALee CARTER IfAYYP^1G11 Sat 4 ' METAL LL,N —c27�'ACCMg, 1.0. EX. ROa flmE T. R. calm _e- {IpPERLEVEL 15.k np LEVai Lauer LeveL e!l DS�ICFJRAL -111 1'I_;IlI lil �II—III�!!Tlll!=li!��-TI-1 T=1I 111-1131 I I 1-1 ' 1= IT. __ III- lLI-1 i11 1-1 1-III-- -=1I . =JL^,III'++1-?-Ili=lil-lel-nl�=111-III-f11111 �I1 111=1 ' 11E-I!{ ,li_I I_ 1L=1!1;�-1 I-�T1��11�11-1!-if.kIII--�I�1lil�lEl�llE�4lI �IIII�iEIIII�IIII k11i11iI�iJl;.-Ili:- a - "=+1 �H'I I 11111=LL lilfli'T III ,,,. >11=T{ Ili III TT Ili III € I fI- Il-lil µIll-li 11-1I1III 1, Il=fl-i�l j7f=In-lir Ei=?T-1!' IT -I I-111- 11--iI!=111-IIII-III= I=Tf 1-1i1=TI 11=T=lii=T=TfI=1T=I' WAY --I �>iJT-1 rTll_,I I-11 t 11-RT._ p 7 V R.•S•.SATMtC:d,:iW �555571 �MhY::?:::!•W:i eII�E�ra��' REVISED DRIVE II ..1 �SLdee°e -CLA66 G. - 'E,TOJCTu °a,.1rpl'cu Raffia -vale SECTION C aYNYFle1 &WE V ^ RF BEDROOM 3 R-pi ,Jf41. A11cN-TYPICAL • q aa. snake' traa- aas. CM.* a GARAGE a.b'T aAwAcIe 'm� �re IM.T yEOC.l .. pcL� ° °Ecac.xE e enal ,pels•e. ,la •-... commonage ell. ea.Y•e.ete tin etfl OOY Y19LI1bN Wume-.411L' M. BATH '"n:n'I wL'anoN=ir.aca."'� ,T• om sal eases-r1.7.4. 'ii KITCHEN 1 M. BEDROOM GUEST BEDROOM y uppcgqM6SEC. camera eae .1Lmae 6'aex r Axe ego veaHM ORM a.YMaL M.,8881818 LF C�NNGPaSa 6uT1E3 itglpe OPI FETAL Lc:AI1I 1" iAR.a1KR ON FETAL TM.'rr1GAL "rrerL II I =1-=1I1 =L.-� tF 1�� I- �! I I -I � �t L= 11=! 1 i-i 11_ _ 11 ITI- i I -1�H I I-fTf-I I_ ICI E� i i�V! ��-i�� I I-- i-={}1-=4 { I-11-1 I I-L -11I I I-pll-E I 111111 II-f-T1=1l111III-I i-11IH11-1II _� II- II -I _ I1-11I�iII- it{-1-! I I I-III-TTI Ii i 1�111Tf I I i I I i II 11-11 -111 I TIE111- I II I I11 =M 111=1 E11 _ -I - =--1111=111=1 h-i I I -I f I=I 1I I I I-- =1 I--- 8 im=1 1= I —I I III III I I� I I=i �] I I-1 11= t-Ili€ i I I I 11=€�1- I-�Tf=1I I-1 I i -i I I '�1�T�jl.=III-kkl-ll� 11[=11_1�111=I' APPROVED DRIVEWAY —11 I!�IT i11111�f1� w• . r-m NATURAL OR"DE ▪ �.DE•'�C LAWBF.,1F W U• 1. O. E%. Rp*P 4,444,3' IP•F*R LEVEL 168 FIO LEVEL '` � LGaatR LeVeL aeY +TnJc11R4L NATIa+a M"°e ANP OfVL•T 0&4. NABGa4 31681 Cataln Capistrano, Suite 106 San Juan Capi4traao, Caltfbrais 92675 7N; 949-661-5068 13sm 949440-3651 3.11 Sigaewra PmJev: THE JACKSON RESIDENCE 3631 OCEAN BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA DRIVEWAY DRAWINGS Revsionx No. Dew 8nvi.inn A A Data lmmlml Job No.: sea Asaae1Eiwl Saimdeat: lldg. Dale. Submittal: B d issuo Cpgetluclion Ioue: Seal Tite SECTIONS 111111111.11111111111111111111111111111 Sheaf No.: A- 7D w10L DI1s 032004 I T 'j 0 / 4+//it iiiir / 1 e./ ii1 p / l/ °!II /r! i \ \ \ \ \°' I f' I �'I 1 \ \\ \\\ 1 r +frf I �A1 I ;. 1 1 1'I 1 j r 1 \\ \\ \\ \\ \ \ 1\ �f ll 1k'' ' j 11 1 } 3 1 I tl �,�' 1 ` \ \ \\ \ \ \ `\0 IN 1I1 \\ \ \ �\\\\\ 1t��1 t 11 1 1 t f 1 I' \ 1 \` \ \ \\ \ t 1 1 I It ,` w l It 1 1 k 1 \ � � � \\\ 1 `11 \ 1 1\\„ 6s°k`\ \ �1 ` � \\ \\ \ 11�' � 1�1\1\ttt�ti i� \ \ \ 4 ,y1t 1 pelmay_ 1\ \\ \ ;\\\ `';" ?#.. 1i 1It It l tl•1\\\\11;\\\ 1\ \\ �\\�?\ ,� 1111 1 111�,111\11 \� \ 11 \ \\ 1 \I \\ \ ': '1� 11 \I 1 111 \ 11 \1\ o-1 1 \\ 1 1 11 1 \,Aj\ 1 } 11 1 ,1\ \11\ \\` 1 1 11 1 \ j`\\111�1�\,\4\ 1 11 1 1 1 �\\ 1 1\ \\\1 11 111, `' j 111j1i 1\\\\1\\\\\\\\\k\\\\\\\4\\\\\''\\\:\ \\\v 1 111f1't 11 y 1I i j \+ \�,`\\l 3 I t 1 i j i ' \ \\ \ \fit' _1 1 I 1 \\ 1j11111, ` -� lS \ 1 ,� i i t S \ 1,f \a \. \�" 1 1 1 1 4` l pr jp l 4 t \ 1� 14 \ 1 jrlrrf yl III \`\\y\. j 1 11 y 1 \ r j\/111 bI}}}li `tt fill 17 1 °a f 1 1' �t f '•! J i f f f 1 1 1 I 1 I Af f I\L/j7/f f fr/ i t ! j r i/ /i;'/IJ,/fr' / 1 1 i 1 ;'/If ' ///i i'�! I 1/'i/ 7I��f r I /l?J r1!1lrl f 1 /I I l 111/1 ,11l 1l iI`! ii! ,Ir. rII 1 ill I1 !rl'1 I r. !r`tl�/ 1 !r r 1/e $ N R '' 1 kill! 1 � EASEMENT NOM THE MOW FOR MS SUM' WS PREPARED ATIHOUT A TILE REPUTE, tRPLOTOD EASEMENTS NAY MT ON THE SUBJECT PROPORtt. SCALE: ,/e^_r, 8 plan pQE Ffi liar 21 085166 2003 0 5a 5 AnN0. 10039