HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190910_ Resolution No. 2019-80 Appeal of Reed Residential Variance for 1113 KiPORT
CITY OF
O
i NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Staff ReportiFORN
September 10, 2019
Agenda Item No. 20
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Seimone Jurjis, Community Development Director - 949-644-3232,
sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov
PREPARED BY: Jaime Murillo, Principal Planner, jmurillo newportbeachca.gov
PHONE: 949-644-3209
TITLE: Resolution No. 2019-80: Appeal of Reed Residential Variance for
1113 Kings Road (PA2019-060)
ABSTRACT:
An appeal of the Planning Commission's May 23, 2019, decision to approve Variance No.
VA2019-002 related to the the construction of a new 10,803 -square -foot, single-family
residence and a 1,508 -square -foot, four -car garage located at 1113 Kings Road was filed.
The variance authorized portions of the upper level roof and deck, and portions of an
office and covered patio on the main level of the proposed home to exceed the allowed
height limit due to the steep topography of site. The appeal was filed by Stop Polluting
Our Newport (SPON). For City Council's consideration is to either deny the variance or
uphold Planning Commission's approval of the variance.
RECOMMENDATION:
a) Conduct a de novo public hearing;
b) Find this project categorically exempt under Section 15303, of the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines - Class 3 (New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures), California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6,
Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment;
and
c) Adopt Resolution No. 2019-20, A Resolution of the City Council of Newport Beach,
California, Upholding and Affirming the Planning Commission's Approval of Variance
No. VA2019-002 to Allow Portions of a New Single -Family Residence to Exceed the
Maximum Height Limit for Property Located at 1113 Kings Road (PA2019-060).
20-1
Resolution No. 2019-80: Appeal of Reed Residential Variance for
1113 Kings Road (PA2019-060)
September 10, 2019
Page 2
VICINITY MAP
W
j17
X kA. A;
V A A X.
Ai
A. 4
4
x &DOM W
GENERAL PLAN ZONING
CtU=F j3R
4p
rc
9 g
KZNGSul9 PZ
2: KIN,25 pp
7
CoA S?",
LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE
ON-SITE
Single -Unit Residential
Detached RS-D
Single -Unit Residential
R-1) Single-family residence
INORTH I RS -D —11 R-1 j Singlejamil residences
SOUTH
General Commercial
CG
Commercial General
CG Car wash and auto sales facility
I EAST F_ RS -D F_ R-1 —11 Single-family residences
I WEST RS -D ]F— R-1 ]F–Single-family residences
20-2
Resolution No. 2019-80: Appeal of Reed Residential Variance for
1113 Kings Road (PA2019-060)
September 10, 2019
Page 3
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
There is no fiscal or budget impact related to this item.
DISCUSSION:
Project Setting
The subject property is a hillside lot located along the south side of Kings Road in the
single-family residential neighborhood of Cliff Haven above and visible from Coast
Highway. Surrounding properties include single-family residences to the west, north, and
east. Commercial properties are located down slope south of the parcel in the Mariners'
Mile commercial corridor along West Coast Highway. Similar to other residences on the
south side of Kings Road, the property is developed with the front yard facing Kings Road
and the rear of the property abutting the commercial lots down slope.
Project Description / Variance Request
The applicant desires to demolish the existing structure and construct a new 10,803 -
square -foot, single-family residence and 1,508 -square -foot, four -car garage parking. The
residence would consist of three levels: a 4,177 -square -foot partially below -grade lower
level, a 3,361 -square -foot main level, and a 3,265 -square -foot upper level. From the
Kings Road street frontage, the residence would appear as two stories. The daylighting
basement level would generally only be visible from the property to the east and from
West Coast Highway to the south due to the topography of the site and adjacent lots.
The upper levels of the residence have been designed to step down to maintain a
structure height that follows the natural slope of the lot. However, due to the topographical
constraint of a gully feature (See Figure 1 below), the applicant is requesting a variance
to allow portions of the roof to exceed the 29 -foot height limit for sloped roofs and a portion
of a deck and associated railing to exceed the 24 -foot height limit applicable to decks and
flat roofs. The gully feature is located at the northeastern corner of the lot that extends to
the south generally along the eastern property line, and affects the siting and design of
the proposed construction. The deviations from height limits for the various components
of the structure are as follows:
Upper level roof eaves: 1.13 feet, 1.29 feet, and 1.85 feet above 29 -foot sloped
roof height limit
Upper level deck and rails: 4.47 feet and 2.32 feet above 24 -foot flat roof height
limit
Main level office eave: 1.74 feet above 29 -foot sloped height limit
Main level covered patio eave: 3.07 feet above 29 -foot sloped roof height limit
20-3
Resolution No. 2019-80: Appeal of Reed Residential Variance for
1113 Kings Road (PA2019-060)
September 10, 2019
Page 4
Figure 1— Topographical Constraint of the Gully Feature
a
tuly
A -
Figure 2 on the next page highlights the portions of roof and deck that exceed allowed
height limits.
Figure 3 includes three-dimensional renderings of the proposed residence illustrating the
portions of the structure that exceed the 29 -foot height limit plane.
The project plans (Attachment F) provide additional information on the site topography as
well as the location, height, and layout of the proposed structure.
Plannina Commission Meeti
On May 23, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing and,
following receipt of public comments and deliberation, voted 5-0 (2 abstentions) to adopt
Resolution No. PC2019-015 approving the project, which includes the written findings for
the action (Attachment B).
The May 23, 2019, Planning Commission staff report is included as Attachment C and
includes a detailed analysis of the request. The staff report includes written
correspondence submitted both in support and opposition, including a petition.
A total of 27 public comments were made at the hearing; 10 comments in support and 17
comments in opposition. Comments in support generally concluded that the design of the
project was compatible with the neighborhood, the lot is constrained, and the request is
reasonable given the constraint. Comments in opposition were generally related to the
loss of private views, lack of community outreach, large size of home, and method of
height measurement. The meeting minutes are included as Attachment D.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the Planning Commissioners in support of the project
concluded that the subject property was atypical with highly unusual conditions in
topography, and that the variance findings could be supported. The portion of the
residence subject to the variance is not visible from Kings Road and the detriment due to
private views being blocked expressed by neighbors is not created by the variance itself,
but rather the height -compliant two-story elements located closer to Kings Road.
20-4
Resolution No. 2019-80: Appeal of Reed Residential Variance for
1113 Kings Road (PA2019-060)
September 10, 2019
Page 5
Figure 2 – Roof Plan and Section Exhibit - Height Exceedances
8•.114
moo, — — — — — —
39.+91 iP8A97 11.74' I btl
1ps•'a "' ' DENOTES ROOF AREA (327 SO. FT.) ABOVE 29--D' HEIGHT LIMIT
oes
59 SCI. FT. ROOF! AREA OVER LOWER ENCLOSED SPACE
211 SO. FT. ROOF AREA OVER COVERED PATIO)
I 12j re 1A a1 j' a m{ a
TOTAL UPPER ROOF AREA 3,958 SG. FT. WITH 57 80. FT. (1-4$4) ABOVE HE LIMIT
DENOTES CECIGRA ILING AREA 126 SO. FT. ABOVE 24'-0' HEIGHT LIMIT
1
01 m sa]
I.t lllttl rri{liittiiin tntiiit tti ttiti ittii et li{{ {ril{{rrrit+P inti hitt ntt its.flit........ r r !
3. a +
i+.+ ++ ..n+..++u
les a3 x J.re
Ly I [
90.P01
88.36) imEw AE[H
n telm o
i _122
yT
i
ti t..ii.niii..iii..iii...iiinii..ti ttitiit.tittt ti ttti ttitii ttti tt.ti..ttiituii.ttit.itit.tti tt.tt t ttt tt tt tttti tt.it ttttttitit tti -
6
1] iufii.... .
L" iBd.E61 11 9. [
N.2fl1
512 f..lY. 101.85 5.53]
Riwe I 42.32 -
196284
cn41,19566) [d1.1B
at's 1 195381 1 Vt'EER EEp[
3'
56.5
I
las.u)
SyS _
L G
P
t 9a,e
I+u.en, :T7
QST" i'T"
11
1n 189.3fl
20-5
Resolution No. 2019-80: Appeal of Reed Residential Variance for
1113 Kings Road (PA2019-060)
September 10, 2019
Page 6
Figure 3 — 3D Rendering Illustration of Height Exceedances (Yellow Plane Represents 29 -Foot Height Limit)
Fa1j
6rM1L.
im!k
Rear Elevation
Right Side Elevation
a
W
Left Side Elevation
Looking Down)
Front Elevation (Kings Rd)
ilk
sp- 1 1
Left Side Elevation
Lett+Front Elevation
20-6
Resolution No. 2019-80: Appeal of Reed Residential Variance for
1113 Kings Road (PA2019-060)
September 10, 2019
Page 7
On June 5, 2019, an appeal was filed by Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) stating five
concerns: 1) opposition by neighboring homeowner associations; 2) inconsistency with the
General Plan; 3) cumulative environmental effects; 4) findings for approval not defensible; and
5) alternatives rejected. The complete appeal application is attached as Attachment E.
Pursuant to NBMC Section 20.64.030(C)(3) (Conduct of Hearing), a public hearing on an
appeal is conducted "de novo," meaning that it is a new hearing and the prior decision of the
Planning Commission to approve the application has no force or effect. The City Council is not
bound by the Planning Commission's prior decision or limited to the issues raised by the appeal.
Staff Reponses to Appeal
A summary of the appellant's primary concerns and staff responses are discussed below:
1) Representatives of two neighboring Homeowner Associations stated their opposition at
the hearing and their offers to conduct community meetings were ignored despite the
increasing desire by the City Council in preparing for the General Plan Update to seek
maximum public outreach.
Staff Response: The subject property is not located within a mandatory homeowners
association. The variance was processed in accordance with Chapter 20.62 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC), which includes public noticing requirements
and public hearing procedures. Staff encouraged the applicant to seek input from
neighbors and the community as a private matter and there is no requirement that the
applicant hold a separate meeting with the community. Outreach related to the General
Plan update process will occur over an extended period of time and the City must act
upon applications received in accordance with the Permit Streamlining Act.
2) The granting of the variance is inconsistent with the General Plan. Cumulative issues in
terms of heights and bluffs were not considered and the Natural Resources Element of
the General Plan was not discussed. The variance will encourage construction over the
ravine on the coastal bluff, where the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan
includes policies related to preservation of coastal bluffs and minimizing alteration of the
site's natural topography and preservation of such features as a visual resource.
Staff Response: Goal NR 23 of the Natural Resources Element includes a number of
policies intended to preserve natural visual resources such as coastal bluffs and
canyons. Most of these policies specifically apply to coastal bluffs subject to marine
erosion and coastal canyons, and therefore not applicable to this project site. The
following two policies would be applicable to this site:
20-7
Resolution No. 2019-80: Appeal of Reed Residential Variance for
1113 Kings Road (PA2019-060)
September 10, 2019
Page 8
NR23.1 Maintenance of Natural Topography
Preserve cliffs, canyons, bluffs, significant outcroppings, and site buildings to
minimize alteration of the site's natural topography and preserve the features as
a visual resource.
NR 23.7 New Development Design and Sitting
Design and site new development to minimize the removal of native vegetation,
preserve rock outcroppings, and protect coastal resources.
The Zoning Code implements Goal NR 23 of the Natural Resources Element through
Section 20.28.040 (Bluff Overlay District), which establishes additional development
standards regulating the placement and location of structures on certain bluff lots in the
City to protect the natural aesthetics of the bluffs. However, this particular segment of
bluff above West Coast Highway is not located within the Bluff Overlay District. Although
the project site was historically a coastal bluff, the hillside has been significantly altered
throughout the years with the development of West Coast Highway and commercial
developments below, and residential developments along the top of slopes. The lots are
no longer subject to marine erosion and void of any significant rock outcroppings. The
Zoning Code allows by -right, development down the entire slope of these lots, provided
compliance with development standards are met, such as setbacks and height. In this
case, the applicant proposes to develop a residence on the upper half of the lot, similar
to other homes along the hillside. A portion of the lower half of the lot would be improved
with a terraced retaining wall design and the lowest 25% of the lot will remain
undeveloped.
3) The project should not be categorically exempt under Section 15303 of California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines because it has the potential to have a
significant effect on the environment.
Staff Response: The appeal does not provide reasons to support the statement. The
Planning Commission determined the project was exempt from CEQA for the reasons
explained in the Environmental Review section of this report. Staff believes finding the
project exempt is appropriate unless substantial evidence of a significant environmental
effect were to be introduced. As of the drafting of this report, no such evidence exists.
4) The variance findings cannot be made and are not defensible.
Staff Response: The appeal does not provide reasons to support the statement.
Detailed facts in support of each required variance finding are included in both the
adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-015 (Attachment No. B) and the
Draft Resolution of Approval included as Attachment A of this staff report.
Resolution No. 2019-80: Appeal of Reed Residential Variance for
1113 Kings Road (PA2019-060)
September 10, 2019
Page 9
5) Alternatives to variance and options to minimize variance request presented in Planning
Commission staff report rejected.
Staff Response: Alternatives included in the Planning Commission staff report were
included to illustrate the changes in design needed to further minimize or eliminate the
need for the requested variance. However, these alternatives would not have the effect
of changing the appearance of residence as viewed from Kings Road, West Coast
Highway, or improve private views from nearby lots. Denial of the variance would
significantly impact the functionality of the home design. To avoid the topographic
constraint associated with the gully, the proposed teen room, decks, and covered patio
features of the proposed residence would need to be setback approximately an
additional 15 feet from the easterly side setback line (19 feet from easterly property line).
This modification to the design would effectively reduce the buildable width from
approximately 90 percent of the lot width to 72 percent of the lot width at those locations.
As noted, the resolution recommending denial of the appeal and upholding the Planning
Commission's decision to approve the project includes facts in support of each required
finding.
AItarnnfixiac
Should the City Council determine that there are insufficient facts to support the findings for
approval, staff recommends a continuance to allow staff to prepare a resolution reflecting the
Council's stated reasons for denial.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section
15303, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the State CEQA
Guidelines because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. This
exemption covers the construction of new small facilities or structures including up to three new
single-family residences in urbanized areas. The proposed project is the construction of a new
single-family residence, consistent with this exemption.
The exceptions to this categorical exemption under Section 15300.2 are not applicable. The
project location does not impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern,
does not result in cumulative impacts, does not have a significant effect on the environment
due to unusual circumstances, does not damage scenic resources within a state scenic
highway, is not a hazardous waste site, and is not identified as a historical resource.
NOTICING:
Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within
300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of-way and waterways)
including the applicant and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the
scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item
appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website.
O
Resolution No. 2019-80: Appeal of Reed Residential Variance for
1113 Kings Road (PA2019-060)
September 10, 2019
Page 10
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Resolution No. 2019-80
Attachment B — Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-015
Attachment C May 23, 2019, Planning Commission Staff Report
Attachment D May 23, 2019, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Attachment E — Appeal Application
Attachment F — Project Plans
Attachment G Correspondence
20-10
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2019- 80
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING AND
AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL
OF VARIANCE NO. VA2019-002 TO ALLOW PORTIONS OF
A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE TO EXCEED THE
MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
1113 KINGS ROAD (PA2019-060)
WHEREAS, an application was filed by Carolyn Reed ("Applicant"), with respect to
property located at 1113 Kings Road, and legally described as Lot 31, Block, E, of Tract
1219 in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as shown on a
map therof recorded in Book 38, Pages 26 and 27 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of
the County Recorder of said county ("Property") requesting approval of a variance from
Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Section 20.30.060 to allow portions of the upper
level roof deck, and portions of the office and covered patio on the main level of a new
single-family residence to exceed the maximum height limit ("Project");
WHEREAS, the Property is designated Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D) by
the General Plan Land Use Element and is located within the Single -Unit Residential (R-1)
Zoning District;
WHEREAS, the Property is not located within the coastal zone;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on May 23,
2019, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A
notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with
California Government Code Section 54950 et seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and Chapter
20.62 of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered
by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. At the conclusion of the public
hearing, the Planning Commission voted 5 ayes and 2 nays to adopt Resolution No.
PC2019-015, approving the Project;
WHEREAS, on June 5, 2019, Stop Polluting Our Newport ("SPON") filed an appeal
of the Planning Commission's decision to approve the Project to the City Council,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on August 13, 2019, in the City Council
Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and
purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and Chapter
20.62 of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered
by, the City Council at this public hearing; and
20-11
Resolution No. 2019 -
Page 2 of 10
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 20.64 (Appeals) of the NBMC, the City Council
public hearing was conducted "de novo," meaning that the City Council considered all
evidence and testimony anew.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as
follows:
Section 1: The City Council does hereby uphold the Planning Commission's
approval of Variance No. VA2019-002 subject to the conditions of approval attached as
Exhibit 'A" and incorporated herein by reference. The City Council's decision is made in
accordance with Section 20.52.090(F) (Variance — Findings and Decision) of the NBMC,
and is supported by the following findings and facts:
Finding:
A. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject
property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical
features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an
identical zoning classification.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The Property is a bluff top residential property that slopes north to south generally
consistent with other properties located along the south side of Kings Road;
however, this particular Property is unique in that a deep gully severely constrains
the northeastern corner of the lot. This gully is an unusual Property feature that
burdens the Property with multiple sloping angles and directions that does not
generally apply to the other properties along Kings Road.
2. The rear portion of the proposed residence measures approximately 100 feet back
from the front property line along Kings Road. The slope differential and change in
grade is significant along the western boundary line of the residence as compared
to the eastern property line where the gully feature is located. The change in
existing grade along the western boundary line is approximately five (5) feet (five
percent slope) along the proposed length of the residence, whereas the change in
existing grade along the eastern boundary line is approximately 25.5 feet (25.5
percent slope) due to the gully feature.
3. The most significant change in grade along the eastern boundary actually occurs
within the first 67 feet of the lot as measured from the front property line, where the
20-12
Resolution No. 2019 -
Page 3 of 10
gully at its deepest point (62.85 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 [NAVD
88]) is 26.5 feet below the elevation of the front property line (89.3 feet NAVD 88),
resulting in a steep slope of 40 percent.
4. The lot also slopes in various directions from east to west. At the front setback line,
the difference in grade between the east property line and west property line is
approximately 0.8 feet with a 1 percent slope up from west to east. However, at
the extreme depth of the gully on the easterly property line (62.85 feet NAVD 88),
the corresponding grade measurement on the westerly property line is 20 feet
higher (82.94 feet NAVD 88). At this location the lot slopes down 22 percent from
west to east.
5. This variation in topography is a result of the gully in the northeastern corner of the
lot and presents a unique circumstance in comparison to other properties in its
vicinity that warrant the requested variance.
Finding:
B. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an
identical zoning classification.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. Due to physical conditions of the Property including multiple slope grades and
angles, strict compliance with Title 20 of the NBMC ("Zoning Code") requirements
would deprive the homeowner privileges of a residence burdened by the cost,
inconvenience, and loss of functionality enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity
under the identical zoning classification.
2. The Zoning Code requires the height of structures to be measured from a grade
plane based on an approximation of the existing grade using several grade points.
On sloping lots, the height limit is intended to follow the slope of the established
grade plane. It is typical for properties on sloping lots to be designed with terracing
foundations and a roof that typically maintain a two-level appearance within the
allowed height envelope. Due to the topographical constraint that the gully creates
on this lot, including multiple slopes in differing directions, strict compliance with
the Zoning Code development standards precludes the Property owners from
20-13
Resolution No. 2019 -
Page 4 of 10
enjoying this same privilege of designing a two-level terraced design across the
buildable width of the lot.
3. The topography featuring multiples slope angles and a gully at a portion of the
northeastern property corner, combined with a residence that spans the buildable
width of the lot, presents a unique challenge. Strict compliance with the Zoning
Code would deprive the Applicant the privilege of building a residence of uniform
height across the subject Property which is a privilege enjoyed by other properties
in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification.
4. The entire front of the residence facing the street could be built to 29 feet in height
with sloping roofs without a variance. However, the front of the residence is
designed to a maximum height of 23.78 feet from existing grade at the front
elevation and is the tallest observed height as viewed from Kings Road. Due to the
sloped nature of the lot and corresponding maximum height envelope, the first
point of height exceedance occurs down-slope away from Kings Road and 22 feet
back from the front setback line (33 feet from the curb). The height encroachments
are not visually higher than any portion of the residence as viewed from Kings
Road because they are behind the complying roof elements at the front of the
building.
5. Modifying the proposed design to eliminate the height variance for the enclosed
living area would require eliminating an office on the main level, located behind a
compliant garage, and eliminating or significantly reducing the size of an upper
level closet, bathroom, and teen room. Modifying the design to eliminate the height
variance for the outdoor living areas would require eliminating the roof cover over
the deck behind the garage and office on the main level and reducing the size of
the upper level deck. The appearance of the structure as viewed from Kings Road
would not change, but the functionality of the home design would be impacted.
6. The granting of a variance provides relief from Zoning Code height calculations to
allow the residence to maintain comparable height across both the east and west
sides of the residence to improve and maintain functionality of the house design.
It is not intended nor does it in any way permit features or height increases beyond
what can be built by right elsewhere on the Property where physical hardships due
to topography are not present.
7. The adjacent single-family residence to the east (1101 Kings Rd.), which is also
impacted by the topographic gully feature, has been granted two variances in the
20-14
Resolution No. 2019 -
Page 5 of 10
past (VA1034 in 1973 and VA1150 in 1989). It provided relief from the topographic
constraint allowing the home to be constructed. As viewed from Kings Road, the
neighboring residence (100.72 foot ridge elevation) is 11 feet lower in overall roof
elevation than the proposed residence (111.92 foot ridge elevation) due to the
difference in existing grade from which these residences are measured from.
However, the neighboring property is more severely impacted by the gully and the
variances authorized a maximum structure height of 45 feet 6 inches and deck
height of 36 feet 6 inches as measured from existing grade. These height limit
exceedances are approximately 13.5 feet higher for the living area and 12 feet
higher for the deck than the proposed variance request.
Finding:
C. Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights of the applicant.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The granting of a variance for the preservation of the applicant's rights to enjoy a
residence similar in style and character to the surrounding residences is necessary
due to the physical conditions of the Property including varying topography with
multiple slope grades in differing directions and the steepness of the grade.
2. The eastern side of the proposed residence is considerably smaller than the
western side of the residence and the design extends a smaller distance away
from Kings Road on the western side of the residence due to the constraining
topographical features. However, the granting of the variance due to the property
slopes is necessary to maintain functionality of the house design and by allowing
the height increase for approximately 116 square feet of roof area over enclosed
living areas and 211 square feet of roof area over a covered patio area to exceed
the 29 foot height limit. It would also allow 26 square feet of deck and railing area
to exceed the 24 foot flat roof height limit. Strict compliance with the Zoning Code
would deprive the applicant the substantial property right of building a residence
of uniform height across the Property, a design that is enjoyed by other properties
in the vicinity of the variance request. The variance is intended to permit only what
can be built by right elsewhere on the Property where physical hardships due to
topography of the gully feature are not present.
20-15
Resolution No. 2019 -
Page 6 of 10
3. To avoid the topographic constraint associated with the gully, the teen room,
decks, and covered patio features of the proposed residence would need to be
setback approximately an additional 15 feet from the easterly side setback line (19
feet from easterly property line) to eliminate the need for the variance. This
modification to the design would effectively reduce the buildable width from
approximately 90 percent of the lot width to 72 percent of the lot width at those
locations
4. The over -height areas of the residence are located over a gully feature that slopes
significantly in both a north -south direction, as well as east -west direction that
creates a challenge to design a residence that is functional and architecturally
pleasing. The granting of this variance allows the applicant to preserve and benefit
from the development of a residence that utilizes the entire buildable width of the
lot similar in style, size, and character of surrounding homes.
5. See Facts in Support of Finding B above, which are also in support of Finding C.
Finding:
D. Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. Each segment of Kings Road presents various differing degrees of slope
topography and properties are developed with homes and yards reflecting their
specific topographic constraints. It is appropriate to evaluate each residence in the
immediate vicinity on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the Property is more
severely impacted than most other sloping lots on the south side of Kings Road
due to the unique gully feature that affects this lot with more drastic changes in
topography in multiple directions. Therefore, approval of the variance does not
constitute a grant of special privilege in this case.
2. The variance allows the Applicant to develop a single-family residence that
effectively utilizes the buildable width of the lot comparable to and compatible with
developments on other lots in the vicinity that are identically zoned. Other sloping
lots in the vicinity under the same zoning classification along the south side of
Kings Road are able to be developed with two-story structures and daylighting
basements across the entire width of their lots. The proposed height limit exception
20-16
Resolution No. 2019 -
Page 7 of 10
does not result in a special privilege as the variance allows the Applicant to
construct a residence that meets their needs while maintaining parity with
surrounding development.
3. The Applicant will not achieve additional height beyond what would be permissible
on a typical slope that is more representative of the slope on other properties along
Kings Road, which are not impacted by a gully feature. Furthermore, when viewed
from the street elevation, the residence will provide articulation and will be
approximately 5 feet lower than the 29 foot height limit as viewed from the Kings
Road and maintain heights consistent with other two-story homes constructed in
the vicinity.
4. The adjacent properties across Kings Road benefit from a naturally raised pad,
which results in structures that appear taller from the street elevation. The
proposed exception from the height limit will not result in a development that is out
of character with the neighborhood.
Finding:
E. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly
growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to
the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The granting of the variance will allow for an increase in the roof area of
approximately 353 square feet, which equates to approximately 5.7 percent of the
total roof area (6,199 square feet). The remaining roof area will be located under
the 24 foot flat roof and 29 foot sloping roof height limit
2. The design of the structure includes adequate articulation, modulation, and open
volume area consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Code.
3. The granting of the variance will not create a visual impact to the community or
impact public or private views. Currently there are no public views from Kings Road
to the south due to the existing residence and garages. The over -height features
will not be visible from Kings Road or residence across the street since they would
20-17
Resolution No. 2019 -
Page 8 of 10
be located behind height -compliant portions of the structure as viewed from the
street. Additionally, the over -height features would not be readily noticeable as
viewed from West Coast Highway below due to the distance from the highway and
the limited size and height of the features proposed that would exceed the height
limit. Therefore, the variance will not create a visual impact on surrounding areas
or roadways.
4. Although the City does not have private view protection policies, the proposed
residence will not negatively impact the private views of the residences on the
north side of Kings Road or the public as a result of granting the variance. The
Zoning Code allows the residence to be built to the 29 foot height limit across the
entire front of the property along Kings Road, but the proposed structure is
approximately five feet lower than the allowed 29 foot height limit as viewed from
the street. The small portions of roofs requiring the variance will not be visible from
the street elevation of Kings Road and will not impact private views from the
northerly side of Kings Road any more than a conforming design.
5. The portions of the structure that exceed the height limit would be most visible from
the property to the east that is also impacted by the gully feature. To minimize the
bulk and mass of the structure as viewed from the neighboring property, the roof
planes have been designed to pitch down towards the easterly neighbor.
Furthermore, the portion of the upper level bathroom that appears as a third level
as viewed from the neighbor to the east has been setback an additional two feet
beyond the four -foot side setback to further minimize the bulk and mass of the
visibly tallest portion of the residence where the grades are lowest. The over -height
covered patio on the main level is open on the side, increasing building modulation
and further reducing the visual mass of the structure.
6. There are no public views over or adjacent to the Property.
Finding:
F. Granting of the variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this
section, this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The Zoning Code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development
regulations through the variance review process. The variance procedure is
20-18
Resolution No. 2019 -
Page 9 of 10
intended to resolve practical physical hardships resulting from the unique
topography and lot configurations that exist in the City and on this Property. Due
to the topography of the lot, height and design of buildings on neighboring
properties, the height limit exception can be approved by the City Council through
this variance request.
2. The Property is designated for single -unit residential use and the granting of the
variance does not increase the density or floor area beyond what is planned for
the area, and will not result in additional traffic, parking, or demand for other
services.
3. The Property is not located within a specific plan area.
Section 2: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are
incorporated into the operative part of this resolution.
Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution
is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the
validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council
hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection,
sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 4: The City Council finds the adoption of this resolution is exempt from
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant
to Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of
the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3,
because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. Class 3 exempts
the construction of new small facilities or structures including up to three new single-family
residences in urbanized areas. The Project is the construction of one new single-family
residence. The exceptions to this categorical exemption under Section 15300.2 are not
applicable. The Project location does not impact an environmental resource of hazardous
or critical concern, does not result in cumulative impacts, does not have a significant effect
on the environment due to unusual circumstances, does not damage scenic resources
within a state scenic highway, is not a hazardous waste site, and is not identified as a
historical resource.
20-19
Resolution No. 2019 -
Page 10 of 10
Section 5: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the
City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution.
ADOPTED this 10th day of September 2019.
Diane B. Dixon
Mayor
ATTEST:
Leilani I. Brown
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Aaron C. Harp
City Attorney
Attachment: Exhibit A — Conditions of Approval
20-20
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan,
floor plans and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval,
except as modified by applicable conditions of approval.
2. The Project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards,
unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
3. The Applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation
of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this
Variance.
4. This Variance may be modified or revoked by the Planning Commission should
they determine that the proposed use or conditions under which it is being
constructed or maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is constructed
or maintained so as to constitute a public nuisance.
5. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval (Exhibit "A") shall be
incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans prior to issuance of
the building permits.
6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall pay any unpaid
administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the
Planning Division.
7. Should the Property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any
future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by
either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent.
8. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise -generating construction activities
that produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise -generating
construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or Holidays.
9. This approval shall expire and become void unless exercised within twenty-four (24)
months from the actual date of review authority approval, except where an extension
of time is approved in compliance with the provisions of NBMC Title 20 (Planning and
Zoning).
20-21
10. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold
harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers,
employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations,
damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties,
liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees,
disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise
from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the Reed
Residential Variance (PA2019-060) including, but not limited to, Variance No.
VA2019-002. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages
awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses
incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding
whether incurred by Applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such
proceeding. The Applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys'
fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set
forth in this condition. The Applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount
owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this
condition.
20-22
Attachment B
Planning Commission Resolution No.
PC2019-015
20-23
RESOLUTION NO. PC2019-015
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE
NO. VA2019-002 TO ALLOW PORTIONS OF A NEW SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1113 KINGS ROAD (PA2019-060)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
An application was filed by Carolyn Reed ("Applicant"), with respect to property located at
1113 Kings Road, and legally described as Lot 31, Block, E, of Tract 1219 ("Property")
requesting approval of a variance.
2. The Applicant requests a variance to waive or modify Newport Beach Municipal Code
NBMC") Section 20.30.060 and allow portions of a new single-family residence to exceed
the maximum height limit ("Project").
3. The Property is designated Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D) by the General Plan
Land Use Element and is located within the Single -Unit Residential (R-1) Zoning District.
4. The Property is not located within the coastal zone.
5. A public hearing was held on May 23, 2019, in the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic
Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the hearing was
given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC"). Evidence, both
written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this
public hearing.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
This project is categorically exempt under Section 15303, of the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines - Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures), California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has
no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.
2. Class 3 exempts the construction of new small facilities or structures including up to
three new single-family residences in urbanized areas. The proposed project is the
construction of one new single-family residence.
3. The exceptions to this categorical exemption under Section 15300.2 are not applicable.
The project location does not impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical
concern, does not result in cumulative impacts, does not have a significant effect on the
environment due to unusual circumstances, does not damage scenic resources within
20-24
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-015
Paae 2 of 10
a state scenic highway, is not a hazardous waste site, and is not identified as a historical
resource.
SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS.
In accordance with NBMC Section 20.52.090(F) (Variances — Findings and Decision), the
following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth:
Finding:
A. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject
property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical
features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical
zoning classification.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The Property is a bluff top residential property that slopes north to south generally
consistent with other properties located along the south side of Kings Road; however,
this particular Property is unique in that a deep gully severely constrains the
northeastern corner of the lot. This gully is an unusual Property feature that burdens
the Property with multiple sloping angles and directions that does not generally apply to
the other properties along Kings Road.
2. The rear portion of the proposed residence measures approximately 100 feet back from
the front property line along Kings Road. The slope differential and change in grade is
significant along the western boundary line of the residence as compared to the eastern
property line where the gully feature is located. The change in existing grade along the
western boundary line is approximately five feet (five percent slope) along the proposed
length of the residence, whereas the change in existing grade along the eastern
boundary line is approximately 25.5 feet (25.5 percent slope) due to the gully feature.
3. The most significant change in grade along the eastern boundary actually occurs within
the first 67 feet of the lot as measured from the front property line, where the gully at its
deepest point (62.85 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 [NAVD 88]) is 26.5
feet below the elevation of the front property line (89.3 feet NAVD 88), resulting in a
steep slope of 40 percent.
4. The lot also slopes in various directions from east to west. At the front setback line, the
difference in grade between the east property line and west property line is
approximately 0.8 feet with a 1 percent slope up from west to east. However, at the
extreme depth of the gully on the easterly property line (62.85 feet NAVD 88), the
corresponding grade measurement on the westerly property line is 20 feet higher (82.94
feet NAVD 88). At this location the lot slopes down 22 percent from west to east.
20-25
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-015
Paae 3 of 10
5. This variation in topography is a result of the gully in the northeastern corner of the lot
and presents a unique circumstance in comparison to other properties in its vicinity that
warrant the requested variance.
Finding:
B. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning
classification.
Facts in Support of Finding:
Due to physical conditions of the Property including multiple slope grades and angles,
strict compliance with the Zoning Code requirements would deprive the homeowner
privileges of a residence burdened by the cost, inconvenience, and loss of functionality
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical zoning classification.
2. The Zoning Code requires the height of structures to be measured from a grade plane
based on an approximation of the existing grade using several grade points. On sloping
lots, the height limit is intended to follow the slope of the established grade plane. It is
typical for properties on sloping lots to be designed with terracing foundations and roof
that typically maintain a two-level appearance within the allowed height envelope. Due
to the topographical constraint that the gully creates on this lot, including multiple slopes
in differing directions, strict compliance with the Zoning Code development standards
precludes the Property owners from enjoying this same privilege of designing a two-
level terraced design across the buildable width of the lot.
3. The topography featuring multiples slope angles and a gully at a portion of the
northeastern property corner, combined with a residence that spans the buildable width
of the lot, presents a unique challenge. Strict compliance with the Zoning Code would
deprive the Applicant the privilege of building a residence of uniform height across the
subject Property which is a privilege enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under
an identical zoning classification.
4. The entire front of the residence facing the street could be built to 29 feet in height with
sloping roofs without a variance. However, the front of the residence is designed to a
maximum height of 23.78 feet from existing grade at the front elevation and is the tallest
observed height as viewed from Kings Road. Due to the sloped nature of the lot and
corresponding maximum height envelope, the first point of height exceedance occurs
down-slope away from Kings Road and 22 feet back from the front setback line (33 feet
from the curb). The height encroachments are not visually higher than any portion of the
residence as viewed from Kings Road because they are behind the complying roof
elements at the front of the building.
5. Modifying the proposed design to eliminate the height variance for the enclosed living
area would require eliminating an office on the main level, located behind a compliant
garage, and eliminating or significantly reducing the size of an upper level closet,
bathroom, and teen room. Modifying the design to eliminate the height variance for the
20-26
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-015
Paae 4 of 10
outdoor living areas would require eliminating the roof cover over the deck behind the
garage and office on the main level and reducing the size of the upper level deck. The
appearance of structure as viewed from Kings Road would not change, but the
functionality of the home design would be impacted.
6. The granting of a variance provides relief from Zoning Code height calculations to allow
the residence to maintain comparable height across the both the east and west sides of
the residence to improve and maintain functionality of the house design. It is not
intended nor does it in any way permit features or height increases beyond what can be
built by right elsewhere on the Property where physical hardships due to topography are
not present.
7. The adjacent single-family residence to the east (1101 Kings Rd.), which is also
impacted by the topographic gully feature, has been granted two variances in the past
VA1034 in 1973 and VA1150 in 1989). It provided relief from the topographic constraint
allowing the home to be constructed. As viewed from Kings Road, the neighboring
residence (100.72 -foot ridge elevation) is 11 feet lower in overall roof elevation than the
proposed residence (111.92 -foot ridge elevation) due to the difference in existing grade
from which these residences are measured from. However, the neighboring property is
more severely impacted by the gully and the variances authorized a maximum structure
height of 45 feet 6 inches and deck height of 36 feet 6 inches as measured from existing
grade. These height limit exceedances are approximately 13.5 feet higher for the living
area and 12 feet higher for the deck than the proposed variance request.
Finding:
C. Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights of the applicant.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The granting of a variance for the preservation of the applicant's rights to enjoy a
residence similar in style and character to the surrounding residences is necessary due
to the physical conditions of the Property including varying topography with multiple
slope grades in differing directions and the steepness of the grade.
2. The eastern side of the proposed residence is considerably smaller than the western
side of the residence and the design extends a smaller distance away from Kings Road
on that the western side of the residence due to the constraining topographical features.
However, the granting of the variance due to the property slopes is necessary to
maintain functionality of the house design and by allowing the height increase for
approximately 116 square feet of roof area over enclosed living areas and 211 square
feet of roof area over a covered patio area to exceed the 29 -foot height limit. It would
also allow 26 square feet of deck and railing area to exceed the 24 -foot flat roof height
limit. Strict compliance with the Zoning Code would deprive the applicant the substantial
property right of building a residence of uniform height across the Property, a design
that is enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity of the variance request. The variance
20-27
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-015
Paae 5 of 10
is intended to permit only what can be built by right elsewhere on the Property where
physical hardships due to topography of the gully feature are not present.
3. To avoid the topographic constraint associated with the gully, the teen room, decks, and
covered patio features of the proposed residence would need to be setback
approximately an additional 15 feet from the easterly side setback line (19 feet from
easterly property line) to eliminate the need for the variance. This modification to the
design would effectively reduce the buildable width from approximately 90 percent of
the lot width to 72 percent of the lot width at those locations
4. The over -height areas of the residence are located over a gully feature that slopes
significantly in both a north -south direction, as well as east -west direction that creates a
challenge to design a residence that is functional and architecturally pleasing. The
granting of this variance allows the applicant to preserve and benefit from the
development of a residence that utilizes the entire buildable width of the lot similar in
style, size, and character of surrounding homes.
5. See Facts in Support of Finding B above, which are also in support of Finding C.
Finding:
D. Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district.
Facts in Support of Finding:
Each segment of Kings Road presents various differing degrees of slope topography
and properties are developed with homes and yards reflecting their specific topographic
constraints. It is appropriate to evaluate each residence in the immediate vicinity on a
case-by-case basis. In this case, the subject lot is more severely impacted than most
other sloping lots on the south side of Kings Road due to the unique gully feature that
affects this lot with more drastic changes in topography in multiple directions. Therefore,
approval of the variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege in this case.
2. The variance allows the Applicant to develop a single-family residence that effectively
utilizes the buildable width of the lot comparable to and compatible with developments
on other lots in the vicinity that are identically zoned. Other sloping lots in the vicinity
under the same zoning classification along the south side of Kings Road are able to be
developed with two-story structures and daylighting basements across the entire width
of their lots. The proposed height limit exception does not result in a special privilege as
the variance allows the Applicant to construct a residence that meets their needs while
maintaining parity with surrounding development.
3. The Applicant will not achieve additional height beyond what would be permissible on a
typical slope that is more representative of the slope on other properties along Kings
Road, which are not impacted by a gully feature. Furthermore, when viewed from the
street elevation, the residence will provide articulation and will be approximately 5 feet
20-2s
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-015
Paae 6 of 10
lower than the 29 -foot height limit as viewed from the Kings Road and maintain heights
consistent with other two-story homes constructed in the vicinity.
4. The adjacent properties across Kings Road benefit from a naturally raised pad, which
results in structures that appear taller from the street elevation. The proposed exception
from the height limit will not result in a development that is out of character with the
neighborhood.
Finding-
E.
indin :
E. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of
the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public
convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working
in the neighborhood.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The granting of the variance will allow for a height increase of approximately 353 square
feet, which equates to approximately 5.7 percent of the total roof area (6,199 square
feet). The remaining roof area will be located under the 24 -foot flat roof and 29 -foot
sloping roof height limit
2. The design of the structure includes adequate articulation, modulation, and open volume
area consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Code.
3. The granting of the variance will not create a visual impact to the community or impact
public or private views. Currently there are no public views from Kings Road to the south
due to the existing residence and garages. The over -height features will not be visible
from Kings Road or residence across the street since they would be located behind
height -compliant portions of the structure as viewed from the street. Additionally, the
over -height features would not be readily noticeable as viewed from West Coast
Highway below due to the distance from the highway and the limited size and height of
the features proposed that would exceed the height limit. Therefore, the variance will
not create a visual impact on surrounding areas or roadways.
4. Although the City does not have private view protection policies, the proposed residence
will not negatively impact the private views of the residences on the north side of Kings
Road or the public as a result of granting the variance. The Zoning Code allows the
residence to be built to the 29 -foot height limit across the entire front of the property
along Kings Road, but the proposed structure is approximately five feet lower than the
allowed 29 -foot height limit as viewed from the street. The small portions of roofs
requiring the variance will not be visible from the street elevation of Kings Road and will
not impact private views from the northerly side of Kings Road any more than a
conforming design.
5. The portions of the structure that exceed the height limit would be most visible from the
property to the east that is also impacted by the gully feature. To minimize the bulk and
20-29
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-015
Paae 7 of 10
mass of the structure as viewed from the neighboring property, the roof planes have
been designed to pitch down towards the easterly neighbor. Furthermore, the portion of
the upper level bathroom that appears as a third level as viewed from the neighbor to
the east has been setback an additional two feet beyond the four -foot side setback to
further minimize the bulk and mass of the visibly tallest portion of the residence where
the grades are lowest. The over -height covered patio on the main level is open on the
side, increasing building modulation and further reducing the visual mass of the
structure.
6. There are no public views over or adjacent to the Property.
Finding:
F. Granting of the variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this section,
this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The Zoning Code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development
regulations through the variance review process. The variance procedure is intended to
resolve practical physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot
configurations that exist in the City and on this Property. Due to the topography of the
lot, height and design of buildings on neighboring properties, the height limit exception
can be approved by the Planning Commission through this variance request.
2. The Property is designated for single -unit residential use and the granting of the variance
does not increase the density or floor area beyond what is planned for the area, and will
not result in additional traffic, parking, or demand for other services.
3. The Property is not located within a specific plan area.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Variance No.
VA2019-002, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A," which is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference.
2. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution
was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance
with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code.
3. This resolution supersedes Variance No. VA1053, as approved by the City Council on
September 27, 1976, which upon vesting of the rights authorized by this Variance No.
VA2019-002, shall become null and void.
20-30
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-015
Paae 8 of 10
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2019.
AYES: Ellmore, Kleiman, Koetting, Kramer, and Zak
NOES:
ABSTAIN: Lowrey and Weigand
20-31
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-015
Page 9 of 10
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The Development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor
plans and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval, except as
modified by applicable conditions of approval.
2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless
specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
3. The Applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of
any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this
Variance.
4. This Variance may be modified or revoked by the Planning Commission should they
determine that the proposed use or conditions under which it is being constructed or
maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to property
or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is constructed or maintained so as to
constitute a public nuisance.
5. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval (Exhibit "A") shall be
incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans prior to issuance of the
building permits.
6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall pay any unpaid
administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning
Division.
7. Should the Property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future
owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the
current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent.
8. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise -generating construction activities that
produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday
and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise -generating construction activities are
not allowed on Sundays or Holidays.
9. This approval shall expire and become void unless exercised within twenty-four (24)
months from the actual date of review authority approval, except where an extension of
time is approved in compliance with the provisions of NBMC Title 20 (Planning and
Zoning).
10. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless
City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents
from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of
action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including
20-32
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-015
Page 10 of 10
without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature
whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's
approval of the Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060) including, but not limited to,
Variance No. VA2019-002. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to,
damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other
expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or
proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such
proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees,
and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this
condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City
pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition.
20-33
Attachment C
May 23, 2019, Planning Commission
Staff Report
20-34
F x'F'c'
kT10 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
7i L3i1"l~
SUBJECT: Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Variance No. VA2019-002
SITE LOCATION: 1113 Kings Road
APPLICANT: Carolyn Reed
OWNER: Carolyn Reed
PLANNER: Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner
949-644-3209, jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov
PROJECT SUMMARY
May 23, 2019
Agenda Item No. 4
Demolition of an existing single-family residence and the construction of a new 10,803 -
square -foot, single-family residence and a 1,508 -square -foot, four -car garage. The
applicant is requesting a variance to allow portions of the upper level roof and deck, and
portions of a an office and covered patio on the main level of the proposed home to
exceed the allowed height limit due to the steep topography of site.
RECOMMENDATION
1) Conduct a public hearing;
2) Find this project categorically exempt under Section 15303, of the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines - Class 3 (New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures), California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6,
Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment;
and
3) Adopt Resolution No. PC2019-015 approving Variance No. VA2019-002 (Attachment
No. PC 1).
1 20-35
2 20-36
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission, May 23, 2019
Page 2
VICINITY MAP
r
1
7-m
K.- Q
41
r
U :'
4'FA
f'
h fl' y '
r# . k ' -
IIS ~.. _...: f-. >j t •y
9Fi `-f. h. ... v —•
V—
epia
y,
GENERAL PLAN ZONING
Q CRiFF C7fk
rc
z t .
s Q CLIFF p/i ..
rc
of
rc rc
sr KINGS RD
r Q
s
KINGS RO
f
q £ 3<
a
f - r c
3< •
a
G .3
Fay R
a
F
G Fp
CU'4 S71f WY LN I . - COAST Fh yvr W
LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE
ON-SITE Single -Unit Residential
Detached (RS -D)
Single -Unit Residential
R-1) Single-family residence
NORTH RS -D R-1 Single-family residences
SOUTH 7 General Commercial
CG
Commercial General
CG Car wash and auto sales facility
EAST RS -D R-1 -F-si-n—gi-e-family residences
WEST RS -D =1 R-1 Sin le-famil residences
3 20-37
4 20-38
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission, May 23, 2019
Page 3
INTRODUCTION
Project Setting and Background
The subject property is a hillside lot located along the south side of Kings Road in the
single-family residential neighborhood of Cliff Haven above and visible from Coast
Highway. Surrounding properties include single-family residences to the west, north, and
east. Commercial properties are located down slope south of the parcel in the Mariners'
Mile commercial corridor along West Coast Highway. Similar to other residences on the
south side of Kings Road, the property is developed with the front yard facing Kings Road
and the rear of the property abutting the commercial lots down slope.
The property is currently developed with a two-level, 3,000 -square -foot, single-family
residence with attached, 1285 -square -foot, four -car garage parking. The residence and
a two -car garage were originally constructed in 1954. The structure is one story above
Kings Road and one level below the street. A second two -car garage for recreational -
vehicle (RV) storage was constructed in 1976 and it received the approval of a variance
Variance No. 1053) from the Planning Commission authorizing portions of the garage to
exceed the 24 -foot flat roof height limit. At the location of the RV garage, a gully exists
within the lot that slopes significantly from north to south and from east to west. The
garage appears as an approximately 13 -foot -high, one-story structure from Kings Road,
however, due to the slope of the gully under the garage, the garage measures
approximately 31.5 feet from existing grade at the southeast corner of the garage.
The adjacent single-family residence to the east at 1101 Kings Road is also
topographically impacted by the gully feature and has been granted two variances in the
past (VA1034 in 1973 and VA1150 in 1989). The variances authorized a maximum
structure height of 45 feet 6 inches and deck height of 36 feet 6 inches as measured from
the existing grade at the rear of the structures.
Project Description / Variance Request
The applicant desires to demolish the existing structure and construct a new 10,803 -
square -foot, single-family residence and 1,508 -square -foot, four -car garage parking. The
residence would consist of three levels: a 4,177 -square -foot daylighting basement level,
a 3,361 -square -foot main level, and a 3,265 -square -foot upper level. From the Kings
Road street frontage, the residence would appear as two stories. The daylighting
basement level would generally only be visible from the property to the east and from
West Coast Highway to the south.
The residence has been designed with multiple step backs at the upper levels to maintain
a structure height that follows the natural slope of the lot. However, due to the
topographical constraint of the gully feature at the northeastern corner of the lot that
15 20-39
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission, May 23, 2019
Page 4
extends to the south generally along the eastern property line that affects the siting and
design of the proposed construction, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow
portions of the roof to exceed the 29 -foot height limit for sloped roofs and a portion of a
deck and associated railing to exceed the 24 -foot height limit for decks and flat roofs. The
differences in height limits for the various components of the structure are as follows:
Upper level roof eaves: 1.13 feet, 1.29 feet, and 1.85 feet above 29 -foot sloped
roof height limit
Upper level deck and rails: 4.47 feet and 2.32 feet above 24 -foot flat roof height
limit
Main level office eave: 1.74 feet above 29 -foot sloped height limit
Main level covered patio eave: 3.07 feet above 29 -foot sloped roof height limit
Figure 1 below highlights the portions of roof and deck that exceed allowed height limits.
Figure 2 includes three-dimensional renderings of the proposed residence illustrating the
portions of the structure that exceed the 29 -foot height limit plane.
The applicant's project description and justification is included as Attachment No. PC 3.
The project plans (Attachment No. PC 4) provide additional information on the site
topography as well as the location, height, and layout of the proposed structure.
DISCUSSION
Anal
General Plan and Zoning Code
The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site as Single -Unit Residential
Detached (RS -D) and the Zoning Code designates the site as Single -Unit Residential (R-
1), which are intended to provide for areas appropriate for single-family residential
dwelling units on a single lot. The proposed development is consistent with these
designations and use of the property would not change. With the exception of the
requested variance for height, the proposed residence complies with all other applicable
development standards of the R-1 Zoning Districts as illustrated in Table 1 below -
0 20-40
6:fz
I
i
I
7.07
I
108.1
1
a7
6:1z
PAOGE
i
6:fz
7.07
x:12
108.1 A
a7
6:1z
PAOGE
n5t, 110.08
DENOTES ROOF AREA (327 SO. FT.)ABOVE 29'-O' HEIGHT LIMIT
p
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission, May 23, 2019
Page 5
e.,6 108.16
ROOF PLAN
7 20-41
7.07
DV
a7
DENOTES ROOF AREA (327 SO. FT.)ABOVE 29'-O' HEIGHT LIMIT
69 SO. FT. ROOF AREA OVER LOWER ENCLOSED SPACE
2111 SO. FT. ROOF AREAOVER COVERED PATIO)
TOTAL UPPER ROOF AREA 3.956 SR. FT WITH 57 SR. FT. (7.4%) ABOVE HEIGHT
s:t®DENOTES GECK;RAI LING AREA (26 30. FT.) ABOVE 24'-0' HEIGHT LIMIT
13.
nll ll4r
Irc ,
Dern
n, un,un,i,n,
ECN
sa
wuwuiRi.... unu un,un,un,i,nu,nu un,un,i,nu un,un,un,i,nu,nu un,nnu,nu un, un,
kor...
iuuiuuii,.,ii,w
nrt
Q.O.W. 101.85 5.53!
232
C 7.99' ii1.9f.
e,.ze
LES1taRn 7 TISNM pcK
a
cwrnr mr,cs [wtlsn cscr.
ssm„
sus
8sz
46
cu„K an Cnrc nmoi
3:12 R. atz
LONER OE[x
11ml
vp[R CCn
aaA1,
e.,6 108.16
ROOF PLAN
7 20-41
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission, May 23, 2019
Page 6
Figure 2 — 3D Rendering Illustration of Height Exceedances (Yellow Plane Represents 29 -Foot Height Limit)
IIIA E : _.
NW
Rear Elevation
r-'
Right Side Elevation
a
r
Left Side Elevation
Looking Down)
F W-1 I B-111-1
Front Elevation (Kinga Rd)
Left Side Elevation
Milo
106, 4 MW6A
LAFront Elevation
2 20-42
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission, May 23, 2019
Page 7
Table 1: Zoning Development Standards
Development Required Existing Proposed
Standard
Setbacks (min.)
Front 10' 11' 10'
Rear 10' 98' 85.5'
Left Side (West) 4' 5' 5'
Right Side East 4' 4' 4'
Height (max.)
Flat 24' 31.5' (Variance 1053) 28.47' (deck rail) (')
Sloped 29' 29' 32.07' (2)
Open Space (min.) 2,177 sq. ft. Exceeded 18,130 sq. ft.
3rd Floor Area (max.) 2,177 sq. ft. No 3rd Floor 411 sq. ft. (3)
Floor Area Limit 29,024 sq. ft. 4,285 sq. ft. 12,311 sq. ft.
max.)
Parking (min.) 3 garage 4 garage spaces 4 garage spaces
spaces
1) Variance requested to allow 26 sq. ft. of deck and deck rail to exceed the 24 -foot flat roof height limit.
2) Variance requested to allow 327 sq. ft. of sloping roofs to exceed the 29 -foot height limit.
3) Per NBMC Section 20.48.180.A.3.a, on sloping lots the Director shall determine which story is the third floor for
implementing third floor limits. The upper level functions primarily as a two-story element as viewed from Kings Road
and the property to the west; however, where located above the gully feature, portions of the upper level bathrooms
and teen room function and appear as a third level to the property to the east and are calculated as such. These areas
have also been designed to comply with third floor step back of two additional feet from side setback.
Grade Establishment and Building Height
Pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 20.30.050 (Grade
Establishment), the building height on a lot that slopes more than five percent is measured
from a plane established by determining the elevation of the lot at five evenly spaced
points along each of the two side property lines and connecting each of the points along
a side property line with the corresponding point on the opposite side property line, as
shown in Figure 3. On lots that slope an average of twenty percent or greater, or on
irregularly shaped or sloping lots, the Director may require that additional points of
elevation be provided. Due to the significant slope variations of the lot due to the gully
feature of the lot, five additional points were added in locations to more closely follow the
existing grade profile of the hillside. Figure 4 below illustrates the established grade plane
from the site topographic survey provided in Sheets 2 and 3 of Attachment PC 4. These
additional points were included because the use of the Code described method does not
reflect the existing topographic profile of the site and further restricted the ability to design
a structure.
9 20-43
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission, May 23, 2019
Page 8
Figure 3 - Grade Establishment Example
P1
fton Setk ac _ . P7 Buildable Area 4• sided polygon
that approxirrwtes
pi'; " P3 the building lootpfint
P4
x art
h #tea
X
P4
Figure 4 - Grade Establishment for Subject Property
J waw arur
se _
ti+ AP"
N
LNk
Z
u `
r '
10 20-44
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission, May 23, 2019
Page 9
Required Variance Findings
A variance is a request to waive or modify certain standards when, because of special
circumstances applicable to the property, including location, shape, size, surroundings,
topography, or other physical features, the strict application of the development standards
otherwise applicable to the property denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other
property owners in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. A variance can only be
granted to maintain parity between the variance site and nearby properties in the same
zoning district to avoid the granting of special privileges to one property.
Pursuant to NBMC Section 20.52.090(F) (Variances — Findings and Decision), the
Planning Commission must make certain findings in order to approve a variance. Staff
believes sufficient facts exist to support the variance requests and they are set forth in
the draft resolution for project approval (Attachment No. PC 1). Below is a summary of
facts in support of the required findings:
1. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject
property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical
features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an
identical zoning classification;
The site is bluff top residential property that slopes north to south generally consistent
with other properties located along the south side of Kings Road; however, this particular
site is unique in that a deep gully severely constrains the northeastern corner of the lot.
This gully is an unusual site feature that burdens the property with multiple sloping angles
and directions that does not generally apply to the other properties along Kings Road.
The rear portion of the proposed residence measures approximately 100 feet back from
the front property line along Kings Road. The slope differential and change in grade is
significant along the western boundary line of the residence as compared to the eastern
11 20-45
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission, May 23, 2019
Page 10
property line where the gully feature is located. The change in existing grade along the
western boundary line is approximately five feet (five percent slope) along the proposed
length of the residence, whereas the change in existing grade along the eastern boundary
line is approximately 25.5 feet (25.5 percent slope) due to the gully feature.
The most significant change in grade along the eastern boundary actually occurs within
the first 67 feet of the lot as measured from the front property line, where the gully at its
deepest point (62.85 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 [NAVD 88]) is 26.5 feet
below the elevation of the front property line (89.3 feet NAVD 88), resulting in a steep
slope of 40 percent.
The lot also slopes in various directions from east to west. At the front setback line, the
difference in grade between the east property line and west property line is approximately
0.8 feet with a 1 percent slope up from west to east. However, at the extreme depth of
the gully on the easterly property line (62.85 feet NAVD 88), the corresponding grade
measurement on the westerly property line is 20 feet higher (82.94 feet NAVD 88). At this
location the lots slopes down 22 percent from west to east.
This variation in topography of the lot presents a unique circumstance in comparison to
other properties in its vicinity that warrant the requested variance.
2. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an
identical zoning classification;
The Zoning Code requires the height of structures to be measured from a grade plane
based on an approximation of the existing grade using several grade points. On sloping
lots, the height limit is intended to follow the slope of the established grade plane. It is
typical for properties on sloping lots to be designed with terracing foundations and roof
that typically maintain a two-level appearance within the allowed height envelope. Due to
the topographical constraint that the gully creates on this lot, including multiple slopes in
differing directions, strict compliance with the Zoning Code development standards
precludes the property owners from enjoying this same privilege of designing a two-level
terraced design across the buildable width of the lot.
12 20-46
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission, May 23, 2019
Page 11
The entire front of the residence facing the street could be built to 29 feet in height with
sloping roofs without a variance. However, the front of the residence is designed to a
maximum height of 23.78 feet from existing grade at the front elevation and is the tallest
observed height as viewed from Kings Road. Due to the sloped nature of the lot and
corresponding maximum height envelope, the first point of height exceedance occurs
down-slope away from Kings Road and 22 feet back from the front setback line (33 feet
from the curb). The height encroachments are not visually higher than any portion of the
residence as viewed from Kings Road because they are behind the complying roof
elements at the front of the building.
Modifying the proposed design to eliminate the height variance for enclosed living area
would require eliminating an office on the main level, located behind a compliant garage,
and eliminating or significantly reducing the size of an upper level closet, bathroom, and
teen room. Modifying the design to eliminate the height variance for the outdoor living
areas would require eliminating the roof cover over the deck behind the garage and office
on the main level and reducing the size of the upper level deck. The appearance of
structure as viewed from Kings Road would not change, but the functionality of the home
design would be impacted.
The granting of a variance provides relief from Zoning Code height calculations to allow
the residence to maintain comparable height across both the east and west sides of the
residence to improve and maintain functionality of the house design. It is not intended nor
does it in any way permit features or height increases beyond what can be built by right
elsewhere on the subject site where physical hardships due to topography are not
present.
The adjacent single-family residence to the east (1101 Kings Rd.), which is also impacted
by the topographic gully feature, has been granted two variances in the past (VA1034 in
1973 and VA1150 in 1989). It provided relief from the topographic constraint allowing the
home to be constructed. As viewed from Kings Road, the neighboring residence (100.72 -
foot ridge elevation) is 11 feet lower in overall roof elevation than the proposed residence
111.92 -foot ridge elevation) due to the difference in existing grade from which these
residences are measured from. However, the neighboring property is more severely
impacted by the gully and the variances authorized a maximum structure height of 45 feet
6 inches and deck height of 36 feet 6 inches as measured from existing grade. These
height limit exceedances are approximately 13.5 feet higher for the living area and 12 feet
higher for the deck than the proposed variance request.
3. Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights of the applicant;
The granting of a variance for the preservation of the applicant's rights to enjoy a
residence similar in style and character to the surrounding residences is necessary due
to the physical conditions of the subject property including varying topography with
i3 20-47
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission, May 23, 2019
Page 12
multiple slope grades in differing directions and the steepness of the grade. The eastern
side of the proposed residence extends a smaller distance away from Kings Road than
the western side of the residence due to of the constraining topographical features.
However, the granting of the variance due to the property slopes is necessary to maintain
functionality of the house design and by allowing the height increase for approximately
116 square feet of roof area over enclosed living areas and 211 square feet of roof area
over a covered patio area to exceed the 29 -foot height limit. It would also allow 26 square
feet of deck and railing area to exceed the 24 -foot flat roof height limit. Strict compliance
with the Zoning Code would deprive the applicant of the substantial property right of
building a residence of uniform height across the subject site, a design that is enjoyed by
other properties in the vicinity of the subject property. The variance is intended to permit
only what can be built by right elsewhere on the subject site where physical hardships
due to topography of the gully feature are not present.
To avoid the topographic constraint associated with the gully, the teen room, decks, and
covered patio features of the proposed residence would need to be setback
approximately an additional 15 feet from the easterly side setback line (19 feet from
easterly property line) to eliminate the need for the variance. This modification to the
design would effectively reduce the buildable width from approximately 90 percent of the
lot width to 72 percent of the lot width at those locations.
The over -height areas of the residence are located over a gully feature that slopes
significantly in both a north -south direction, as well as east -west direction that creates a
challenge to design a residence that is functional and architecturally pleasing. The
granting of this variance allows the applicant to preserve and benefit from the
development of a residence that utilizes the entire buildable width of the lot similar in style,
size, and character of surrounding multi-level homes in the vicinity.
4. Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same
zoning district;
Each segment of Kings Road presents various differing degrees of slope topography, and
most properties are developed with homes and yards reflecting their specific topographic
constraints. It is appropriate to evaluate each residence in the immediate vicinity on a
case-by-case basis. In this case, the subject lot is more severely impacted than most
other sloping lots on the south side of Kings Road due to the unique gully feature that
impacts this lot with more drastic changes in topography in multiple directions. Therefore,
approval of the variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege in this case.
The variance allows the property owner to develop a single-family residence that
effectively utilizes the buildable width of the lot comparable to and compatible with
developments on other lots in the vicinity that are identically zoned. Other sloping lots in
the vicinity under the same zoning classification along the south side of Kings Road are
14 20-48
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission, May 23, 2019
Page 13
able to be developed with two-story structures and daylighting basements across the
entire width of their lots. The proposed height limit exception does not result in a special
privilege as the variance allows the property owners to construct a residence that meets
their needs while maintaining parity with surrounding development.
The property owners will not achieve additional height or floor area beyond what would
be permissible on a typical slope that is more representative of the slope on other
properties along Kings Road that are not impacted by a gully feature. Furthermore, when
viewed from the street elevation, the residence will provide articulation and will be
approximately 5 feet lower than the 29 -foot height limit as viewed from Kings Road and
maintain heights consistent with other two-story homes constructed in the vicinity.
5. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly
growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to
the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood; and
The granting of the variance will not create a visual impact to the community or impact
public or private views. Currently there are no public views from Kings Road to the south
due to the existing residence and garages. The over -height features will not be visible
from Kings Road or residence across the street since they would be located behind
height -compliant portions of the structure as viewed from the street. Additionally, the over -
height features would not be readily noticeable as viewed from West Coast Highway
below due to the distance from the highway and the limited size and height of the features
proposed that would exceed the height limit. Therefore, the variance will not create a
visual impact on surrounding areas or roadways.
Although the City does not have private view protection policies, the proposed residence
will not negatively impact the private views of the residences on the north side of Kings
Road or the public as a result of granting the variance. The Zoning Code allows the
residence to be built to the 29 -foot height limit across the entire front of the property along
Kings Road, but the proposed structure is approximately 5 feet lower than the allowed
29 -foot height limit as viewed from the street. The small portions of roofs requiring the
variance will not be visible from the street elevation of Kings Road and will not impact
private views from the northerly side of Kings Road any more than a conforming design.
The portions of the structure that exceed the height limit would be most visible from the
property to the east that is also impacted by the gully feature. To minimize the bulk and
mass of the structure as viewed from the neighboring property, the roof planes have been
designed to pitch down towards the easterly neighbor. Furthermore, the portion of the
upper level bathroom that appears as a third level as viewed from the neighbor to the east
has been set back an additional 2 feet beyond the 4 -foot side setback to further minimize
the bulk and mass of the visibly tallest portion of the residence where the grades are
15 20-49
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission, May 23, 2019
Page 14
lowest. The over -height covered patio on the main level is open on the side, increasing
building modulation and further reducing the visual mass of the structure.
6. Granting of the variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this
section, this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan.
The Zoning Code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development
regulations through the variance review process. The variance procedure is intended to
resolve practical physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot
configurations that exist in the City and on this property. Due to the topography of the lot,
height and design of buildings on neighboring properties, the height limit exception can
be approved by the Planning Commission through this variance request.
The subject property is designated for single -unit residential use and the granting of the
variance does not increase the density or floor area beyond what is planned for the area,
and will not result in additional traffic, parking, or demand for other services.
Summary
Staff believes sufficient facts exist to support the Variance request as demonstrated in
the draft Resolution. The topographical constraint that the gully creates on the property,
with multiple slopes and angles, restricts the potential development on the site and makes
it difficult to design a structure that effectively utilizes the buildable width of the lot. The
proposed structure is approximately 5 feet lower than allowed 29 -foot height limit as
viewed from the street. The limited portions of roofs requiring the variance will not be
visible from the street elevation of Kings Road since they are located behind height -
compliant portions of the structure as viewed from the street. The project has been
designed such that it will be compatible with other properties in the vicinity, and will not
appear out of scale or character for the existing and allowed development in the
surrounding area.
Altarnntivac
Staff recommends approval based on the required findings for approval of a variance;
however, the following alternative actions are available for the Commission:
1. Should the Planning Commission determine that there are insufficient facts to
support one or more of the findings for approval, the Planning Commission must
deny the application and provide facts in support of denial to be included in the
attached draft resolution for denial (Attachment No. PC 2).
2. The Planning Commission may suggest specific changes to the project design that
are necessary to alleviate concerns. If any requested changes are substantial, the
item should be continued to a future meeting to allow a redesign or additional
10 20-50
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission, May 23, 2019
Page 15
analysis. Should the Planning Commission choose to do so, staff would return with
a revised resolution incorporating new findings and/or conditions.
Although staff worked with the applicant to minimize the variance requests,
alternative design options to further avoid or minimize the variance could include,
but are not limited to:
a. Eliminating the roof above the main level patio. Without the roof, the patio
could remain uncovered and would comply with the 24 -foot flat roof height
limit for that aspect of the request; however, the patio would be exposed to
a southerly solar direction.
b. Reducing the depth of the garage in front of the office by 8.5 feet would
maintain a code -compliant parking depth of 20 feet and allow for the office
on the main level to be moved closer to the front of the lot where the existing
grades are higher. Relocating the office would significantly reduce and
possibly eliminate the need for a height variance for that design feature.
c. Reducing the area of upper level deck above the gully feature to reduce or
eliminate the need for a variance for that component.
d. Reducing the size of the teen room or eliminating it altogether to
accommodate a redesign of Bedroom 2's bathroom and closet away from
the gully feature and within the 29 -foot building height envelope.
Environmental Review
This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15303, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the State
CEQA Guidelines because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.
This exemption covers the construction of new small facilities or structures including up to
three new single-family residences in urbanized areas. The proposed project is the
construction of a new single-family residence.
Piihlir. NnfirP
Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property
within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of-way and
waterways) including the applicant and posted on the subject property at least 10 days
before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code.
Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City
Hall and on the City website.
1-7 20-51
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Planning Commission, May 23, 2019
Page 16
Prepared by: Submitted by:
JaiKe Murillo, Senior Planner Jim Campbell
Deputy Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS
PC 1 Draft Resolution of Approval
PC 2 Draft Resolution of Denial
PC 3 Applicant's Project Description and Justification
PC 4 Project Plans
PC 5 Correspondence Received
FAUsers\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2019\PA2019-060\PC SR.docx
12 20-52
Attachment No. PC 1
Draft Resolution of Approval
20-53
Attachment No. PC 2
Draft Resolution of Denial
3I 20-54
Attachment No. PC 3
Applicant's Project Description and
Justification
3S 20-55
s o 20-56
CAA PLANNING
April 9, 2019 [Updated May 13, 2019]
Mr. Jaime Murillo
Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Subject: Variance Application, 1113 Kings Road
Dear Mr. Murillo:
On behalf of Carolyn and Greg Reed, the owners of the residence located at 1113 Kings Road,
CAA Planning, Inc. (CAA) submits the enclosed Variance application for the proposed
residential project. The existing residence is located in a row of homes fronting the bluffs along
Kings Road in the Newport Heights Community of Newport Beach. The lot slopes both from
west to east, and also more notably, from north to south as a large canyon feature is located along
the easterly property line.
Background
The residence was previously issued variance VA 1053 due to severe site topography. In 1973,
the Planning Commission granted a variance finding "[t]hat there are exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application,
which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, building and/or uses in the
same district." Planning Staff further noted, "[i]t is the feeling of the staff that there are unusual
circumstances which apply to this site which do not generally apply to other building sites in this
area."
The historical variance was necessary for the construction of the existing RV garage located on
the easterly side of the property due to the sloping of the property from west to east as well as the
obvious and more easily discernable north to south slope constraints. The circumstances and
conditions that caused the Planning Commission and City Staff to make the determination to
issue what today amounts to a historical variance, have not changed by any standard of measure.
The canyon along the easterly side of the property continues to preclude the development of the
site in a manner that does not generally occur.
Project Description
The proposed project would replace an existing single-family residence with a new single family
residence on a 17,745 square foot lot. The building coverage, including the eaves and decks, is
6,199 square foot, or 34.9% of the lot. The home would include a basement level, a main level
and an upper level with a total floor area of 10,803 square feet. The design is characterized by
30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 285 • San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 • (949) 581-2888 • Fax (949) 581-3599
20-57
Mr. Jaime Murillo
April 9, 2019 [Updated May 13, 20l 9]
Page 2 of 4
several outdoor patios and covered decks, consistent with the type of outdoor living that is
possible in Newport Beach. The proposed residence is of appropriate size and scale given the lot
site and as compared to the existing homes located in the surrounding neighborhood.
The City's Zoning Code specifies a height limit of 29 feet for sloped roofs. The proposed
building heights are 22'- 9" and 25'-8" as dimensioned above the existing front property line
profile. Careful consideration was paid to ensure that the building height was not "maxed out" at
the front of the property.
Variance
While Kings Road presents bluff top topography generally sloping in a north to south orientation
towards Pacific Coast Highway, the lot at 1113 Kings Road includes an added feature making
development significantly more challenging. There is a deep canyon which severely constrains
the site. The unique topography of 1113 Kings Road residences presents challenges to
development including:
Northerly Boundary: Kings Road (front) property line climbs from west to east by 3.28 feet (4%
slope). Although the property climbs as viewed from the street, the proposed Grade
Establishment along the existing westerly property grade profile would be applied at a level
elevation across the width of the lot.
Westerly Boundary: The property line shared with 1121 Kings Road falls from north to south by
45.67 feet (27.7% slope). The proposed grade establishment requests to follow this existing
property grade profile and apply the existing grades at a level elevation across the width of the
lot
Easterly Boundary: The property line shared with 1101 Kings Road line falls from north to south
by 66.09 feet (36.2% slope). Within the first 30 feet of the front setback, the existing grade falls
by approximately 20 feet.
Deviations are allowed through the Zoning Code with the processing of a Variance (Section
20.52.090). The City's Zoning Code states:
A variance provides a process for City consideration of requests to waive or modify certain
standards of this Zoning Code when, because of special circumstances applicable to the
property, including location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical
features, the strict application of the development standards otherwise applicable to the
property denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the
vicinity and in the same zoning district. (Section 20.52.090)
32 20-58
Mr. Jaime Murillo
April 9, 2019 [Updated May 13, 20l 9]
Page 3 of 4
Justification
Original variance — The requested variance would serve as a replacement for the existing
variance, as the areas considered as over -height for the proposed residence are the same
areas that required the issuance of a variance VA 1053 for the construction of the existing
RV garage. While the existing RV garage would be removed and replaced with the new
residence, the new residence requires the same issuance of a variance for the over -height
area as the RV garage did.
The variance is required to permit a limited height increase representing a small
percentage of the total residence. The requested height increase is approximately 327
square feet (5.3%) of roof area to exceed the 29 -foot height limit and 150 square feet
2.4%) of deck with railing to exceed the 24 -foot height limit.
The over height areas are limited to the portion of the residence affected by the canyon
area. While most bluff -top homes along Kings Road is presented with challenges, each
segment of Kings Road presents with differing degrees of slope topography and most
residences are in varying stages of home, backyard and/or slope stability improvements.
It is appropriate to evaluate each residence in the immediately vicinity on a case by case
basis.
The over -height features will not be visible from the street and will not, themselves,
cause interference with the coastal views of adjacent or neighboring properties. Although
the over -height features are calculated as such based on the City's zoning code, the
observed heights will not be noticeably taller than other area of the residence.
The proposed two-story residence will replace an existing one-story residence. The
portion of the residence that may cause limitations to coastal views for the across the
street neighbor would be the portion of the residence location on the Kings Road
frontage. This portion of the residence is within the 29 -foot height limit.
While certain lots along Kings Road are subject to private deed restrictions related to
view protection, there is no such deed restriction on 1113 Kings Road. In addition, there
are no view corridors within the project vicinity that would be impacted by the proposed
project.
Conclusion
As you are aware, the project applicants have made sizeable revisions to the project plans to
reduce the encroachments above the height limit. The variance is only requested along the
easterly property line where the canyon inordinately skews the calculation of grade and results in
very minor encroachments above the established height limit. As detailed above, 327square feet
of the roof area, or 5.3% of the total roof, would exceed the height limit. Furthermore, the area of
3 J 20-59
Mr. Jaime Murillo
April 9, 2019 [Updated May 13, 20l 9]
Page 4 of 4
roof which encroaches into the height limit cannot be seen from the street as it is located at a
lower elevation and blocked by the roof line at the northern elevation.
Findings in support of the variance are attached. If you have questions or concerns, please do not
hesitate to contact me or Pua Whitford at (949) 581-2888.
Sincerely,
CAA PLANNING, INC.
4•
Shawna L. Schaffner
Chief Executive Officer
Attachments: Findings of Fact
cc: Ms. Carolyn Reed
40 20-60
Attachment No. PC 4
Project Plans
41 20-61
Attachment No. PC 5
Correspondence Received
57 20-62
52 20-63
From: Lee, Amanda
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 3:15 PM
To: Murillo, Jaime
Subject: FW: 1113 Kings Road Height Variance
Original Message -----
From: Kathe Choate <choateoncliff@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 3:10 PM
To: Planning Commissioners<PlanningCommissioners@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 1113 Kings Road Height Variance
I strongly oppose the request for a height variance at the above mentioned address. EVERYONE should
abide by the well establish Newport Beach building codes which have been successfully adhered to for
years. Having built two homes, one on Lido and one in Newport Heights, we realized the importance of
respecting our neighbors and their properties. THERE SHOULD BE NO EXCEPTIONS.
Thank you,
Katherine Choate
Sent from my Whone
20-64
From: Lee, Amanda
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 4:00 PM
To: Murillo, Jaime
Subject: FW: 1113 Kings Road
Original Message -----
From: James & Nancy Turner <noturner@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 3:59 PM
To: Planning Commissioners<PlanningCommissioners@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 1113 Kings Road
I think the 1113 home should obey the existing height and set back laws ..No wavers for the 1113
home..Thank you Nancy Turner
00 20-65
From: Jeff Frum
To: Plannina Commissioners
Subject: 1113 Kings Road Variance Request
Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 7:15:43 PM
Dear Planning Commissioners:
My name is Jeff Frum and reside at 1400 Kings Road, NB CA 92663.
I hope that you will not grant the variance request for the proposed project at 1113 Kings
Road. I feel that the existing rules that we have lived by for years should continue to protect
our views and that the applicant should adapt their plans to the topography and build down the
slope.
Respectfully,
Jeff Frum
01 20-66
From: Carrie Slayback
To: Plannina Commissioners
Subject: Height Variance, King"s Road
Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 8:46:42 PM
Honorable Planning Commission Chairman and Commissioners,
Please do not allow the height variance 1113 Kings Road.
The new owner purchased the lot under the conditions of Newport's building codc.
Please continue to enforce existing code regulations.
Do not signal owners that they can change our codes to suit their wishes.
Best,
Carrie Luger Slayback
02 20-67
From: Janet Stemler
To: Plannina Commissioners
Subject: 1113 Kings Road
Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 8:48:32 PM
Commissioners
We strongly oppose granting any height variance in our neighborhood.
Thank you
Janet Stemler
212 Kings Place
Newport Beach, Ca. 92663
9496401623
Sent from my iPad
O3 20-68
From: brucru@sbcglobal.net
To: Plannina Commissioners
Subject: Height variance request 1113 Kings rd
Date: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 8:58:35 AM
This request strongly urges a denial for the height variance at 1113 Kings rd.
The owners need to stay within the same guidelines as all the neighbors. The tremendous size of the lot will
certainly accommodate a lovely home!!!
Please don't let these people ruin the quality of the neighbors' homes and views.
Sincerely,
Gary and Carolyn Brubaker
1710 Kings Rd.
Newport Beach
Sent from my iPhone
04 20-69
The City of Newport Beach
Community Development Department
Planning Division, 100 Civic Center Drive
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, California 92658-8915
CC: Doug Smith, Esq.
Re: 1113 Kings Road Height Variation Request
To: Jaime Murillo
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
May 15, 2019
ySCEIVEZ) &
y
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
MAY 16 2019
CITY OF
4
pORT BEPC'
I am writing to you in response to the height variation request submitted for the property located at
1113 Kings Road, Newport Beach, California 92663. As a resident of Kings Road, I would like to express
my opposition to this request. The height limit exists to prevent the entire cliff side of the street from
obstructing the ocean view of those located on the opposite side of the street. For granting the
homeowner's permission to exceed the allowed height limit would establish a new standard. This new
standard is problematic for a couple reasons: current and future residents with similar wishes will expect
the same treatment, and the controversial nature surrounding this matter will likely lead to hostility
among neighbors.
As one of the largest lots on the street, the 18,000 square feet of land should be utilized to build in
other directions other than upward. Please accept this letter as an official statement of my opposition to
the height variation request submitted for the property located at 1113 Kings Road, Newport Beach.
Sincerely,
Michael Alexander
1001 Kings Road
Newport Beach, California 92663
20-70
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: John Carlos Rowe
To: Plannina Commissioners
Subject: 1113 Kings Rd variance
Date: Friday, May 17, 2019 2:44:14 PM
We live at 700 Kings Rd and are out of the US at the time of the meeting to request 2 height variances for the
proposed construction at 1113 Kings Rd. We are totally opposed to this requested variance. The slope of the
property does not justify the request. Larger and larger homes on Kings Rd are lowering the quality of life for all of
the residents and serve no reasonable purpose. Preserving views and reasonable open space should be a priority of
the City. A new home at 1113 Kings Rd can be easily built without the height variances requested.
John and Kristin Rowe
700 Kings Rd
Sent from my iPhone
20-71
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Peggy Palmer
To: Plannina Commissioners
Cc: Murillo, Jaime; Campbell, Jim
Subject: 1113 Kings Road - Height Variance Request/ PA2019-060 / Activity VA2019-002
Date: Saturday, May 18, 2019 3:22:19 PM
Dear Honorable Planning Commissioners,
Recently the applicant for the property located at 1113 Kings Road applied for a
height variance. The variance is to allow for an increase in the height, due to the
steep topography; however, the applicant's architectural renderings illustrate that
they are already building up to the 29 foot height level in this so called "steep
topography". The height exception is for a patio -roof, which would equate to an
additional 3.07 feet for a total of 32 feet - seven inches, this is not a "hardship
variance", this is a luxury variance that should be denied.
Please note the following policy according to California State Law and the Newport
Beach Municipal Code:
The Staff Report demonstrates the absence of substantial hardship on the part of
the property owners and instead shows their desire to maximize the scale and
value of their proposed project. Thus, granting the above variance would
constitute a grant of special privileges in violation of state law and the Newport
Beach Municipal Code."
According to Jamie Murillo, Senior Planner, the proposed 12,303 foot home,
including the four car garage, will also have a 100 foot projection from the structure
to the bluff to include a 29 foot height and a four foot set -back on each side, a
height variance should not even be considered; yet, the City Staff is recommending
approval?
Mr. Murillo also stated that the City Staff recommended several options to the
applicant, but apparently the Reed's will not deviate from this unnecessary height
variance.
At this time, I am asking that the Planning Commissioners recommend an extension
of the project, in order to allow the applicant, the community and the City to review
these different options, (as suggested by City Staff). This will achieve a community
consensus.
The owner of the property fully understood the nature of the topography when they
purchased this lot in 2018. The parcel located at 1113 currently has expansive views
of the harbor, turning basin and ocean; allowing Lhis particular variance in addition
to the proposed 100 foot projection and the 29 foot height would be reckless
disregard to the residents of Cliff Haven.
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
I am requesting that the Planning Commissioners deny this variance. This variance
is not a hardship for the applicant, but it will be a hardship inherited by the
surrounding residents, if approved.
In closing, we need to all play by the rules and be respectful of our neighbors, now
and in the future.
Thank you for your consideration,
Peggy V. Palmer
Cliff Haven Community Association
Board Member
1701 Kings Road
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Lynn Lorenz <lynnierlo@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2019 2:31 PM
To: Planning Commissioners
Subject: 2019-060-ActivityVA2019-002
Please forgive me if you have received multiple copies of this email. My old Mac kept wanting to
add @aol to the end of the email addresses, particularly the copy to Jaime Murillo, which I finally
sent to your email address, to his attention. I think all of the others came back to me)
Honorable Planning Commissioners
It has been brought to my attention from numerous sources that there is a piece of property that
was recently purchased on 1113 King's Road whose owners are asking for a considerable height
variance from the City. If granted, this variance will result in the construction of a house that will
interfere with the views of neighbors who generally speaking, have lived on King's Road for years.
I cannot imagine making additions to my house that would interfere with my neighbors' views/rights
even if I didn't need a variance to do so. I don't think that individuals should expect favoritism from
the city whether a house is 2,000 square feet or 10,000 square feet.
Rules and codes were established for a reason and each time they are broken, it becomes easier
to justify this unfair behavior the next time. Also, when favoritism is shown to some at the expense
of others, respect is lost for the agency granting the favor. ALL of us in Newport Beach must work
together and play by the rules to maintain the beauty and collegial life style that we now enjoy.
Lynn Lorenz
434 Redlands Avenue
Newport Beach, 92663
949 646 2054
20-74
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Bobbi Robinson <bobiroboc@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2019 6:40 PM
To: Planning Commissioners
Subject: 1113 NO to height variance!
20-75
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: T3 Williams
To: Planning Commissioners
Subject: 1113 Kings Rd: Petitions 1-5 Opposing the Height Variance and New Construction
Date: Monday, May 20, 2019 9:17:35 PM
Attachments: Petitions 1-5.odf
TJ Williams
1110 Kings Rd
20-76
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Dings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Dame:
Street Address: y
Signature:
t L
ti YJ
Comments: 3 /TY l
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-77
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1.13 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and L
Street Add
Signature:
Comments:
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-78
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the sleight Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Dings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name: ( r
Street Ad
ignaturc
Commen,
L lfwd c1? Aj}'ty, I rSk 1Z`d
ftubte bw--z %, tae CAlj"l"o p l-j-
Gt, G4. r.t 0'4'[ (O&e ('1 C11 1 G(Y6 l 1 r(Gl( 46jd i'
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-79
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the € ewport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last fame: I a e
Street Add rens: J _. ] „ P-1.) v I n
Signature:
Comments:
1z )'C C
Thank you for your s u pport protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-80
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name: Sor M -51
Street Add
Signature:
Comments: a, . r ' [-1 k ,
Y
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-81
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name:y--
Street Add
Signature:
Comments:
Thank you for your support protecting the future of a r neighborhood
20-s2
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Dings Raga!
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last fame:
F ,
C\
Street Address: VW V I cj-
Signature-
z
Comments: 7V( t'-7 C-) t.,) C 4- c
4 U kYA6/id
c,) V,O\ #c
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-83
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Punning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name:
Street Address:
Signature:.
Comments:
5
5,glf v Y
Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings #fid by Ilam on Tuesday, May 1".
Tha n k you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-84
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name., /)-o M.--'
Street Add ress:
Signature:
Comment -
9
Thank u for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-85
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Rona!
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name: L U 1z, ,- W
Street Add
Signature:
Comments
Thank you for your support pratecting the future of our neighborhood
2_
20-86
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height arian rid
New Construction at 1113 Kings Rand
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
Fiat and Last Name: S c.r
Street Address: o ' `
T) , . .
ir b b%V- C'Cf
Signature: v"?"
Comments:
hank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-87
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition opposing the Leight Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Dings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Narne:
Street Add
Signature:
Comments
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-88
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Marne:
Street Address:
i—Lz Signature:
Comments: -
l e(I L bu 1 .
9
Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 21"*.
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-89
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Dings Roach
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name:
Street Addr
Signature: _
Comments:
czv UtD
oo 4
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our- neighborhood
20-90
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Leight Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name., ca
Street Address; [
signature: '
Comments. 6{
Thank frau far your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-91
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Cornmission and City Council
First and Last Nanne: /-/, ;
Street Acid rens: 7
Signature:
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-92
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Dings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name:Pe
Street Add rens:
Signature:
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our ne€gh borhood
20-93
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Freight Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name: -)
k (
1:e7o,-
Street Acid res s:
Signature,
f
Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings lid by 11am an Tuesday, May 1 1.
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-94
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Freight Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Rand
To the Newport Beach Planning Commissionion and City Council
First and Last fame:
1
F
Street Address- I z , lA k) b
Signature:
Comments:
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-95
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
Nr5t and Last Name:
Street Add
Signature:
Comments
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-96
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Warne: &Ir q A— ( -5 e r 0-t
Street Address:
Signature:
Comments
1111-.
I /
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
tArv-r" Ct t
20-97
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City CouncilI
First and Last Name: (-;m 4
Street Address: 6 K I -
SK'o k- kG
01
Signature:
omments:e 1 ,. o
Please return to the mailboxlbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Il am on Tuesday, May 21st.
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-98
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name:
Street Add
Signature:
Comments
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-99
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Might Variance and
New Construction at 1113 rings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name:
Street Add
Signature.
qq
Thank you for your support protecting the future of aur nei hborhood
20-100
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition opposing the Freight Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
Lirstnd Lit Narne: —";,ffLA A/ 0- f _v
Street Address: tL
Signature:.
omments-
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-101
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last fume: I--1i1-i
Street Address:
Signature:
Comments:
Thank you for your s pport protecting the future of our neigh borhood
20-102
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Rand
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and Cit} Council
First and Last Name: r'' a r
Street Address: C) ( 0 i x rv' , IL JJ'x [
Signature:
Thank you for your s pport protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-103
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
Newr n tru ton at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Punning Commission and City Council
First and U
Street Acid
Signature:
i i
Pfease return to the mailbox of 111O Kings ltd by 11 arra on Tuesday, May 1'.
Thank you for youkr support protecting the future of aur neighborhood
20-104
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Dings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name: -PAP
Street Address: 00 421
Signature:
Comments:
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-105
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Oppipsing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the N ewport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name:
Street Address: C e for
Signature:
Comments:
Thank you far your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-106
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 111 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name: /Jr -,/
Street Address: / 11 f- -
Signature:
r11rr#i1 ; '
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-107
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name:
Street Address: 00/
Signature:
Comments:
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neigh borhood
20-108
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name:
z
Street Address: 0 -lel
Signature:
I
Comments:
Thank you for }your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-109
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
Neter Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
Fire and Last Larne:
t rw—
Street Add rens: 15 F -F 0i2 -ti
Signature:
omments:
Thunk you for your Support protectirig the future of ou r neighborhood
20-110
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name:
Street Addres : WCI(F-FP-i b
Signature-
Comments:
ignature:
Comment : NO
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neigh borhood
20-111
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition opposing the Height Variance and
New Cons :ruction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Warne: i V4 r C -1
Street Address: U 4E
Signature:
y
Comments: ' rA -A G i
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-112
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Dings Road
To the Newport Beach Punning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name: 4(.
Street Address:
C! signature: icy
Comments: ' 1(,—
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-113
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Dings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Warne:
Street Add re ss: 3Z,
Signature:
Comments:
CT !
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-114
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Larne -
Street Address:
Signature-
Comments:
ignature:
Comment :
Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by 11am an Tuesday, May 2V.
Thank you for your Support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-115
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Freight Variance and
New Construction at 1113 flings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Marne: We4-,, 5
ca
Street Address: Ing -
Signature:
omment :
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-116
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name:
Street Address:
Signature. yy `` `
k
Comments.,
F
1Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-117
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name: 42— S`,-90
Street Address:
Signature:
ornments:
Thank you for your s pport protecting the future of our neighborhood
63
20-118
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name: ) a
0
Street Address:
Signature:
Comments:
Thank you for you r support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-119
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
Ernst and Last Name: -Yov-, L , Ubkr- `0/1-,
Street Ad d res s: .W r
signature:
Comments:
Thank you far your support protecting the future of oar neighborhood
20-120
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height rian and
New Constructionat 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name: r
Street Address- Lt 3 3
Signature:
Comments:
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-121
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition {apposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name: DC-o ))rlZr4
tret Addres .D
Signature:
tu tA , t rre,,k>v C a
Please return to the mailbox of 111O Kings Rd by 11a m on Tuesday, May 215t.
Thank you for your support protesting the future of our neighborhood
20-122
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Narne: 13L/c e —Iq J 7 T E_
Street Address: 9 uj ! raw .. Far ; ,f C04 q 2.
Signature: 4
Comments:,,
i Lori, r%e,.u,tc„ ,rc L ,, . r-.•
Thank you for your supp in protecting the future of our neighborhood
hCG 1 l - o+ /iI
7 2-#i II:-
e', q &,,
20-123
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Lost arne:
Street Add
Signature:
Comments
Please return to the mailbox of 1I 10 Kings Rd by Ilium an Tuesday, May 216*.
Thank you for your support protecting the neighborhood
1
20-124
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name: e rtk kri-i
Street Address:
Signature:
Comments: 1c?
Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings fid by Ilam an Tuesday, May 21st.
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-125
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name:
Street Address:
Signature:
Comments.
Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by 11 am on Tues doy, May 215 .
Thank Vou for your s pport protecting the future of aur neighborhood
20-126
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Dings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name=
Street Address: _
ignature:
Comments: a x , . A o
A id me _ I .sem Ae-p
Please return to the mailbox of 111O Kings Rd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 2V.
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-127
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Dings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name: R Iq 1
Street Address: ?c I -Il- -
Signature:
Comments:
Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by I1 am on Tuesday, Moy 215*
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-128
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and L
Street Add
Signature:
Comments
Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by 11 am on Tuesday, May 215*.
Th a n k you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-129
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First a
Street
Sign at
Comm
Please return to the mailbox of 1110 kings Rd by 11 urn an Tuesday, May 21`'.
Thank you for your s pport protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-130
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Icings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name: David
herbeck Street Address:
1210 West Oceanfront, Newport. Beach CA
92661
David E.
Sherbeck
Signature.
Comments: Height variances to residential projects have
been abused by developers and granted without public approval or
reason by tete City staff, Planning Commission and Council. Variances
are not intended to be used for purpose other than neccessity.The
proposed height and scale of this and other developments is not
consistent with the residential cornrnunity or the General Plan.
Thank you.
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-131
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last dame:
Street Address:
Signature•
Comments:
Pfease rL-rum to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by 11am on Tuesday, May 1'.
hank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-132
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Plan nin Commission and City Council
First and L
Street Add
Signature:
Comments
Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by 11am on Tuesday, May 1'
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-133
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name: E IP, 1W I-
Street Address: E Y V --e-
Signature:
Comments:hae(OI&YI of
A401 AI- co IM M #
Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by 11 am on Tuesday, May 211t.
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neigh borh ood'
20-134
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
Newr Construction at 1113 Dings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Larne:
treetAddress:.
Signature: -'
Comments. esi-rl
Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by 1Iam on Tuesday, May 2111
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our ne€g borhood
20-135
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition sinja the Height Variance r
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last fame: h r
Street Address:
Signature. _AA
Comments:
Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by 11am an Tuesday, May 1s`.
Thank you for your support Protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-136
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Leight Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and fat Name: fi L L j
Street Address: — ...:.h"I r l .1 FLV
Signature:
Comments:
Please return to the mailbox of 111O Kings Rd by 11 am an Tuesday, May 215.
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-137
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Marne: Nrnfljq q Vey
StreetAddress: Y' V C-1,....
Signature: i n4z- -Jez)
Comments:
Please return to the mailbox of 1110 KinV Rd 8y 11 am on Tuesday, May 1"*.
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-138
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Counic1l
First and Last Name: V,vIyLf\,
O ,
Street Address:, 'Lrtj\A
signature:
Comments:
Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by 11am an Tuesday, May 2151.
Thank you for your support protecting the future of o, r neighborhood
20-139
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Roach
7o the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and F
Street Add
Signature:
ast Name: E
res
Comments:
Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by 11 am an Tuesday. May 21$t.
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our nejgh barhood
20-140
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Inst flame:
I
Street Address: i
Signature:
Comments-
I
ktljj-,)
Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by 11am on Tuesday, May 21s*
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neigh borhoocl
20-141
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Roach
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name:
Street Addres :. Lf2
Signature:
Comments:
zoo Pwok,=-- ,
Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by 1Iam on Tuesday, May 210.
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-142
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Dings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last fame L L4 a4
r
Street Address: t 1)Y; A
Signature:
Comments:
IL"
Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam on 'Tuesday, May 215'.
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
r T3 cu- f--
20-143
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Freight Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and city Council
First and Last Name: C~74I I 70"-41
Street Address: 2 r jrFt-A -: - - _
Signature:
Comments:
Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 211.
Than k you for your support protecting the future of our- neighborhood
20-144
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Rand
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name:
Street Address:
Signature;
Comments -
Please return to the m u lbax of 1110 Kings Rd by 110m an Tuesday, May 21,
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-145
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
Neter Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Narne: ' 4. ['-
Street Addiress:
Signature:
Comments:
Please return to the mailbox of 11.10 Kings Rd by 11am on Tuesday, may 1
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhoodborhood
20-146
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last M
Street Address:
Signature:
Comments:+ u
Please return to the mailbox of I110 Kings Rd by Ilan" on Tuesday, May 2P.
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-147
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Roach
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last fame: 44bj A (.
Street Addres - 4
Signature -
Comments:
J
5 e4 X -r rA
Please return to the mailbox of gsR&hy -11am on Tuesdgy, May 21$x.
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-148
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Dings Rand
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name:
Street Address:
Signature:
s
orlim, ent ;
z«d-(iti Wu
Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by 11 am on Tuesday, May 215*
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-149
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Marne: j G:>A- wJ
qzt9 3
Street Addr S : - t Az rN-- _ C acyl
Signature:
Comments: -".N,Y
v e
Please return to the mailbox of 1110 669s Rd by 21am on Tbesday, May 1m
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-150
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed f2 ti/a rian¢e(PA2019-060)
eaw—
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name: 6 c
Street Address: -z-.
Signature:
Comments:
Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Ind by darn on Tuesday, May j*
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neigh borhow
20-151
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
Newr Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name: Lh 4•n z k -,(-
Street Address-.. ` i
Signature:
Comments:
Please return to the mailbox of 11,10 Kings Rd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 215*
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-152
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height arian rid
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Pla n n I ng Comm ission and City Council
First and Last Name:
Street Address:
Signature:
omments:
A0-+jJ
Plearse return to the mailbox of 1I10 Kings lid by IIam an Tuesday, May 21$x.
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-153
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction t 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last dame:
Street Address:
Signature: ..
Comments:
Please return to the muRbox of 1210 Kings Fid by 11am on Tuesday, May 211*
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-154
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name: r - AA --.L, F-4 ll,-. i!
Street Address: 7?'`
Signature:
Comments,
Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by 11am an Tuesday, May 1'
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-155
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height ri n nd
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Marne:
4t
6 1 1( -
St Add rens: 1 '
g ,
Signature:
Comments*
Z Y\eS
ad S,6ep 1N. e. 5'z6(,
Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 215
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-156
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Jerry Fink <jerryfink@earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 10:19 PM
To: Planning Commissioners
Cc: 'Jerry Fink'
Subject: PA2019-060 Reed Residence Variance Request
Attachments: City of Newport Beach - Reed Residence - Jerome Fink letter 5-20-19.pdf
Chair Zak and Members of the Planning Commission,
Please see the attached letter in support of the above referenced to be built residence. I am a resident
on Kings Road.
Sincerely,
Jerry
Jerome A. Fink
714) 293-0888
ierrvfink@earthlink.net
Please note new address:
1511 Kings Road
Newport Beach, CA 92663
20-157
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
May 20, 2019
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Subject: PA2019-060 Reed Residence Variance Request
Chair Zak and Members of the Planning Commission,
I reside at 1511 Kings Road and am writing to voice my support for the requested height variance for the
Reed residence. The staff report presented a great amount of information regarding the topographic
constraints of the Reed's property including renderings showing the location of the gully which is the
reason for the requested variance. The information provided in the staff report was helpful in
understanding the uniqueness of the property and that the gully is an unusual site feature that burdens the
property with multiple sloping angles and directions that does not generally apply to the other properties
in the neighborhood. I think that each variance should be carefully considered by the City on a case by
case basis, and this variance is appropriate.
The design of the home is tasteful and in character with our surrounding community. If the home were to
be built on a flat lot, or if there were not a gully on the property, there wouldn't be an issue with height so
it seems that the Reed's have adequately demonstrated that a variance is the appropriate discretionary
action.
Sincerely,
ft
tTY Fink
1511 Kings Road
Newport Beach, CA 92663
20-158
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Lee, Amanda
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 7:43 AM
To: Murillo, Jaime
Subject: FW: Support of Variance Request --Reed Residence
Attachments: Fullerton Ave.pdf
From: Evan Moore <evan@strattfordcapital.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 7:41 AM
To: Planning Commissioners<PlanningCommissioners@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Support of Variance Request --Reed Residence
To Whom it May Concern -
Please see my attached letter in support of the variance request for the Reed Residence on King's Road
in Newport Beach. I believe this to be Agenda Item #4.
Thank you for your consideration.
Evan Moore
Strattford Capital, LLC
18100 Von Karman Ave., Suite 850 • Irvine, CA 92612
T 949.381.3445 • C 650.380.3702
evan(cDstrattfordcapital.com
20-159
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
May 21, 2019
VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY:
planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov
Peter Zak, Chair, Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Subject: Variance Request — Reed Residence —Agenda Item #4
Dear Chair Zak,
I support the homeowner's request for a variance. I have reviewed the plans and the City's Staff Report,
and there is no doubt that the property has unique topographic challenges. Such challenges do not exist
at the vast majority of lots on Kings Road and, more generally, within the entire City of Newport Beach.
It appears from the exhibits provided in the report that a variance is warranted in this specific case,
especially in light of the fact that that the city has previously approved variances for this property and
the property adjacent to it.
For the homeowner to avoid an over -height determination due to the gully, he would have to build the
house with a 19 -foot setback from the eastern property line — such action would deprive them of
property rights enjoyed by the surrounding neighborhood. With an approved variance, the homeowner
would not be gaining any additional privileges, but instead will likely be building less square footage
than he otherwise would have if he were able to fully maximize the use of the eastern side of the
property, or if he were to step the property further down the slope towards Coast Highway.
The requested height increase is beyond reasonable given the slope of the gully. The variance will NOT
provide any additional square footage for the homeowner, nor will it give the homeowner any
additional building height, which provides benefit to residents on both sides of Kings Road. The
proposed residence is of quality design, with articulation to relieve massing along Kings Road, and will
be several feet lower than the 29 -foot height limit.
Newport Beach does not protect private views. To do so in this case would be contrary to the City's own
General Plan and Zoning regulations and would set bad precedent moving forward. I urge the Planning
Commission to approve the requested height variance.
Sincerely,
Evan Moore
Fullerton Ave
CC Members of the Planning Commission
Jaime Murillo
20-160
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Lee, Amanda
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 8:37 AM
To: Murillo, Jaime
Subject: FW: 1113 Kings Rd - Letter Opposing Height Variance and New Construction
Attachments: 1110 Kings Rd View.jpg
From: TJ Williams <twilliams@w-realtygroup.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 8:32 AM
To: Planning Commissioners<PlanningCommissioners@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 1113 Kings Rd - Letter Opposing Height Variance and New Construction
Jaime Murillo,
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I'm the owner of 1110 Kings Rd. We are located
directly across the street from the subject property, 1113 Kings Rd. The reason for my letter is
to express my grave concerns for the proposed new construction sitting across our street. This
new monstrosity of a property will not only affect my property but surrounding properties as
well. The impact on our neighborhood will be addressed at the variance hearing on Thursday,
May 23rd, therefore I would like to illustrate the direct impact on our property and the issues with
the overall project.
When this property was purchased it came with a lot of tricky slope points. When standing on
the street and looking at 1113 Kings Road the left (south) side garage is already at a maximum as
approve by a previous height variance from previous owners. The house directly to the left
demonstrates the true grade level. This a ravine (for lack of a better word) that drastically
drops. This area is a little grey on the city's proposal plotting. We argue the "grade level" is not
properly represented and have valid information to back that statement. We are arguing the
proposed plans be taken off and reviewed based on the proper grade heights of the property.
The present owners of 1113 Kings Road are proposing to build a massive home just under 11,000
square feet. As it may be their right they are completely ignoring the neighbors and their
concerns. They can build this size of home without obstructing and devaluing other neighbor's
property by simply building down the slope (like most on Kings Road do) and not up high to block
the ocean, sky and sunlight from multiple surrounding neighbors.
As you can see from the photo provided, we will lose our entire view directly in front of our
property. The view will be so severely impacted that we won't even be able to see the blue sky
from our lower level when calculating their proposed house height. The new construction will
not only obstruct our views but this obstruction will have a financial impact on our property as
20-161
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
well. If the owners, of 1113 Kings Rd are allowed to proceed with their proposed plans, our
neighborhood is in jeopardy of losing its charm and neighborly spirit, our view along with multiple
other neighbor's views will be impacted, the value of our properties will be impacted and our
privacy will be impacted. Our master bedroom is located in the front portion of our house on the
second level. If approved, 1113 Kings Rd will have a direct sight line into my master bedroom
impacting our privacy.
After meeting with staff and reviewing the plans, how staff came to decide on the five or six grade
points used to determine the "natural grade" is not only confusing but doesn't seem to comply
with the other sloping lots on our street. There doesn't seem to be a uniform formula
determining the grade point but rather than the influence of their architect which is unfair to all
our neighbors. There is a 20ft difference in sloping height from the north side of the lot to the
south side but the owners of 1113 Kings Rd are still proposing over 29ft roof heights, hence this
variance hearing. The impact to our property, their "neighbor" and the surrounding homes does
not warrant approval and their current plans should be reconfigured to be more in compliance
with the surrounding homes. I, along with many other neighbors, do not want this massive
property to be built as proposed and would like to see the planning commission deny this request
and make the owners of 1113 Kings Rd reconfigure their proposed plans to limit the impact this
property will have not only on my property but my neighbors as well.
I appreciate you taking the time to read this letter and hope you will see all the negatively
impacting factors this new construction will have on our neighborhood.
TJ Williams
1110 Kings Rd
20-162
L ..
f" V!
5
LT
AmiL
e.
r' i• Y•f.
t
r '5
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Cordoves, Giovanni <gcordoves@kbs.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 8:52 AM
To: Planning Commissioners
Subject: Reed Residence (1113 Kings Road) Variance Application — Planning
Commission Agenda Item 4, 5/23/2019
Attachments: REED Variance Letter 5-21-2019.pdf
To whom it may concern:
Please refer to the attached letter of support for the granting of the requested variance noted in the
subject line above.
Regards,
Giovanni Cordoves
KRS
Giovanni Cordoves I SVP, Acquisitions/Co-Director, Asset Management
800 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700 1 Newport Beach, CA 92660
Office: (949) 797-0324 1 Website: www.kbs.com
20-164
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
KBS
May 21, 2019
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Re: Reed Residence (1113 Kings Road) Variance Application — Agenda Item 4, 5/23/2019
Dear Chair Zak and Members of the Planning Commission:
The Reed residence design is compatible with the surrounding community and has my support for
a height variance due to the unique and large gully on the property. I have reviewed the plans and
the detailed explanations and conclusions within staff report and which clearly notes the variance
in question to be for a very modest area. I further support the variance because the over -height
features will not be visible from Kings Road or from the residences across the street as those
portions of the Reed residence would be located behind the height -compliant portions of the home.
In my opinion, this is a reasonable request for what is an extremely slight variance to accommodate
a uniquely burdened site and I urge the Planning Commission to approve the variance on May 23,
2019.
Sincerely,
Giovanni Cordoves
Senior Vice President, Acquisitions & Co -Director, Asset Management
KISS Realty Advisors
800 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700, Newport Beach, CA 92660 1 Tel 949.417.6500 I Fax 949.417.6SO1
20-165
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Evan Slavik <eslavik@markiv.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 9:02 AM
To: Planning Commissioners
Subject: Reed Residence Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Attachments: Reed Residence Residential Variance Support Letter - 721 St James
Road.pdf
Chair Zak and Planning Commissioners,
Please find the attached letter in support of the Reed Residence Residential Variance (PA2019-
060). If you have any questions related to my position on this matter, please don't hesitate to call.
Thank you,
Evan Slavik
President of Real Estate
Mark IV Capital, Inc.
4450 MacArthur Blvd. 12nd Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92660
T 949.509.1444
F 949.509.1104
www.markiv.com
20-166
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
May 21, 2019
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Subject: Reed Residence Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Chair Zak and Planning Commissioners,
I reside that 721 St. James Road and I support the Reed residence application for a
variance. I have read the staff report and understand that the issuance of a variance to
be the correct course of action to preserve the homeowner's right to enjoy their
property. If the variance were not granted a large portion of the property would be
unbuildable, which would deprive the Reeds of a substantial property right.
The staff report describes, in great detail, the unique topographical constraint that the
homeowner had to contend with when designing the home. It looks to me that much
time and consideration has been given on all accounts by City staff and the homeowner
to ensure that the height encroachments are truly a result of the gully and would not be
visually higher than an portion of the residence as viewed from Kings Road because
they are located behind the front of the structure, which does not need a variance.
It's clear that granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of substantial property rights of the homeowner.
Sincerely,
Evan Slavik
721 St. James Rd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Gretchen Krebs <gretchen@promogiant.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 9:42 AM
To: Planning Commissioners
Subject: 1113 Kings Road
Attachments: 245 Kings krebs .docx
Dear Planning Commission,
I hope this letter finds you well. I've attached a letter in support of the new build project at 1113 Kings Road.
Thank you,
Brian and Gretchen Krebs
20-168
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
May 20, 2019
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Subject: Reed Residence Residential Variance Request (PA2019-060)
Dear Chair Zak:
I reside at 245 Kings and am in support a height variance for the residence at 1113 Kings Road. I was
really surprised to read in the City's Staff Report that the homeowner, as a matter of right, could build the
entire frontage of the home up to 29 feet and a maximum of 29,000 square feet. Instead, the home is being
built to a maximum frontage height of 25.8 feet and is substantially less square footage, which is
completely contrary to the idea that the homeowner is attempting to "max out" the coverage as it relates
to building height or to square footage.
The homeowner's lot is large and topographically challenged with multiple sloping angles, plain and
simple, and this shouldn't deprive them from the rights that every other homeowner enjoys. They are not
requesting a variance for the setbacks or the square footage, and the height at the front of the house is
respectful considering they could build to 29 feet. The illustrations provided on page 8 of the staff report
presents a great visual for how minimal the areas of height encroachment are from Kings Road.
The homeowner rights should be upheld and a variance issued for the homeowner to be able to enjoy their
property in the same capacity as everyone else in the area.
Sincerely,
Brian Krebs
20-169
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Jeanne Fobes <jeannefobes@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 10:06 AM
To: Planning Commissioners
Subject: Height Variance Request: Property located at 1113 Kings Road
I write to request that you deny the request for a height variance on the subject property. This is
already one of the largest lots on Kings Road and its view of the harbor and the ocean is
remarkable. Surely this is enough!!! The purchasers knew what type of parcel it was when they
purchased 1113 Kings Road and should therefore, build to the current codes that apply and not
deviate from them in any manner.
Please ensure that the plans for this home comply with the existing set -backs and heights in
Cliff -Haven.
Thank you.
A constituent,
Jeanne Fobes (Newport Heights)
20-170
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Elizabeth N. Gruber <dizzielizzie76@yahoo.com>
Tuesday, May 21, 2019 10:14 AM
Planning Commissioners
Fwd: Gruber 2.docx
Gruber 2.docx
20-171
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
May 21, 2019
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Re: Reed Residence Residential Variance Item #4
Chair Zak and Planning Commissioners,
I live in Newport Heights and I fully support the requested height variance for 1113 Kings Road due to
the gully located on the property that slopes significantly in both a north -south direction, as well as east -
west direction. There are very few lots that possess such challenging topography in Newport Beach, and
the requested variance seems very reasonable.
The Reeds have designed a home that is compatible with our community despite the challenge created by
the topography. It is my belief that the new home with add value to my home and the surrounding neigh-
bors. I strongly urge you to support this variance.
Sincerely,
Liz Gruber
cc. James Campbell
20-172
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: TJ Williams <twilliams@w-realtygroup.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 10:32 AM
To: Planning Commissioners
Subject: 1113 Kings Rd - Opposition Letter from Setsuko Krickl (520 Kings Rd)
Attachments: Krickl Opposition Letter.pdf
20-173
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
To whom it may concern -
Re: 1113 Icings Road height variation request
Mir husband and I have lived on 520 Kings Road since 1986 and have seen the
manor changes_ When this street was developed early 50's, the houses
were meant to be beach cottages and all the houses were one story.
Unfortunately nobody at that time thought of having a home owner's association
which would have Dept the cliff side homes with one story high from the street
level with allowance of going down the cliff to the maximus height, which would
let the houses an the north side have as much view as the cliff side. Most of us on
the north side have lost the view due to building of Targe hornes on the cliff side,
The new owners of 11.3 Icings were obviously aware of the topographer of the
property before their purchase, A 18,000 square feet lot is one of the largest on
Icings load. There are plenty of room to build a home within the current height
limit. There are many homes in Emerald Baer, Laguna Miguel, Irvine Terrace in
Corona del Mar that are built on very steep property, which are kept within
15 or 16 feet high from the street level
My husband and I OPPOSE the height variance at 1113 Kings Road
Sincerely,
5et.suko Krickl
S)O Zings Road
20-174
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Portia <portiaweiss@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 12:24 PM
To: Planning Commissioners
Cc: jaimeMurillo@aol.com; CityofNewportPlanningDepartment@aol.com
Subject: PA2019/060, Activity VA2019-002 Variance Request for 1113 Kings
Road
Honorable Planning Commissioners,
Please do not grant the significant height variance to the applicants of 1113 Kings Road. One
variance leads to a chain of additional variances. Unnecessary variances break down the integrity
of our neighborhoods and creates detrimental division in our community. Building codes are
established to provide guidelines for all members of the community to follow and to maintain
social and architecturally aesthetic harmony.
Appreciatively,
Portia Weiss
421 San Bernardino Avenue
20-175
The City of Newport Beach
Community Development Department
Planning Division, 100 Civic Center Drive
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, California 92658-8915
Re: 1113 Kings Road Height Variation Request
To: J. Murillo
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
XSCEIVED &),
COMMUNITY
3E'VELOPME^a a
MAY 2 p 2019
CITY OF
RT BF
May 17, 2019
As a longtime resident of Kings Road and business owner in Newport, I am opposed to this height
variance request. With my home in very close proximity to 1113 Kings Road, my view to the South
West would be diminished if this deviation were to be approved. This would not be fair to me or
the other neighbors.
Please DO NOT approve this height variation request for 1113 Kings Road, Newport Beach. 92663.
Sincerely,
Jack Mau
1100 Kings Road
Newport Beach, California. 92663
20-176
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Hello Chair Zak,
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
ghassem azadian <gazadian@gmail.com>
Tuesday, May 21, 2019 4:25 PM
Planning Commissioners
Reed Residence, Variance Request - Agenda Item #4
1121 Kings Road - Azadian and Reed.docx
Attached please find my support letter for the variance request related to the Reed Residence.
Thank you
Gus Azadian
1121 Kings Road
Newport Beach, CA 92663
20-177
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
May 21, 2019
City of Newport Beach
Attention: Newport Beach Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Subject: Reed Residence, Variance Request — Agenda Item #4
Dear Chair Zak,
The Reed residence has my full support. As our immediate next-door neighbor, the Reeds have
been open and honest about their plans for their home. I have had the opportunity to see the
architectural model and understand the complexity of the slopes that form the gully for which the
variance is needed. I appreciate the outreach that the Reeds have done and I support their
variance application.
I also understand that the area where the variance is requested will not be visible from the street
and, in fact, the front of the home is being built to a height lower than the 29 feet maximum. I am
a strong supporter of property rights and the facts supporting a variance are quite clear.
There is an existing variance for the property.
The height variance is only requested for small areas that directly correspond to the gully
and these areas are not visible from the street.
The Reeds could build higher at the street level and have chosen to build several feet
lower than the 29' height limit out of respect for the neighbors.
Even without the variance the house could be built to 29' at the street.
Without the variance the house would need to be setback 19' from the easterly property
line — a 19' setback would be inconsistent with the pattern of existing development in the
neighborhood.
There is no deed restriction limiting the height of the residence and the City does not
provide view protection for private views.
Please vote to approve the variance at your meeting on May 23, 2019. The Reed family should
be granted the variance and the afforded the right to build their home.
Sincerely,
Gus Azadian
1121 Kings Road
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Capital One Public
20-178
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Portia Weiss
To: Plannina Commissioners
Subject: PA2019/060, Activity VA2019-002 Variance Request for 1113 Kings Road
Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 6:03:33 PM
Honorable Planning Commissioners,
Please do not grant the significant height variance to the applicant of 1113 Kings Road. One
variance leads to a chain of additional variances. Unnecessary variances break down the
integrity of our neighborhoods and creates detrimental division in our community. Building
codes are established to provide guidelines for all members of the community to follow and to
maintain social and architecturally aesthetic harmony.
Appreciatively,
Portia Weiss
421 San Bernardino Avenue
20-179
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Jon Fosheim <jfosheim33@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 8:27 PM
To: Planning Commissioners
Subject: Fwd:
Attachments: Foshiem.docx
Please see the attached letter below for my full support of the variance proposed at 1113 Kings
Road.
20-180
May 22, 2019
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Subject: Reed Residence Variance VA2019-002
Dear Chair Zak and Planning Commissioners:
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Until recently my wife and I lived immediately next door to the Reeds at 1101
Kings Rd. We now own a house just down the street from them (1501 Kings Rd).
We are in support of the requested height variance. The gully that is located
between the two homes is incredibly steep. There are already variances for the two
residences because of the gully.
As pointed out in the staff report, the portions of the home that exceed the height
limit will not cause a visual impact for the homes located across Kings Road or in
the greater community. These areas will not even be visible from Kings Road or
from across the street. However, these
over height areas would visible from my prior residence and it's my opinion that
the Reeds have done a good job to minimize the massing in this area. They have
utilized additional setbacks at the upper level, down pitched the roof planes,
minimized the development on the eastern side of the property, and created several
patio areas which provide relief from a large structure.
The proposed home is designed on one of the biggest lots in the Newport Heights -
Cliff Haven community and it could be substantially larger than what they are
proposing. The new residence will be in character with the other homes in the
community. We are sorry that we could not attend the meeting in person as we will
be out of town. Please consider our strong support for the project and approve the
requested variance at your meeting on May 23.
Sincerely,
Jon and Penny Foshiem
1501 Kings Road
Newport Beach, CA 92630
c. Jaime Murillo, Planner
20-181
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Gary Sokolich <Gary_Sokolich@dslextreme.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 10:35 AM
To: Planning Commissioners
Subject: 1113 Kings Road Variance VA2019-002
Honorable Planning Commissioners
As a resident of Newport Beach, who has lived at 801 Kings Road for the past thirty years, I am
writing to ask you to deny the requested height variance VA2019-002 pertaining to the proposed
construction of a 10800 sq ft residence at 1113 Kings Road.
There are may reasons why the requested variance should be denied. However, in this
communication I want to address the handful of emphasized bullet points in the section of the
Staff Report entitled "Required Variance Findings" .
1) The assertion by Staff that "There are special or unique circumstances or conditions
applicable to the subject property... that do not apply generally to other properties in the
vicinity..... " is grossly misleading because it fails to paint a complete picture of the actual
situation. Specifically, it fails to point out the fact that the lot is considerably wider than adjacent
lots in order to compensate for the existence of the gully and to provide comparable buildable
area. So when viewed in terms of buildable area, the circumstances of the subject property are
not unique.
2) The assertion by Staff that "Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive
the subject property ofprivileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity" is preposterous,
absurd and demonstrably false. Aside from the presence and location of the gully, which is
compensated for by the extra width of the lot, the subject property has as much if not more
buildable area as any of the adjacent properties.
3) The assertion by Staff that "Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant" is the exact opposite of the reality of
the situation. What is appropriate and necessary is the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights of the nearby neighbors, and the only way to do that is to deny the requested
variance. .
4) The assertion by Staff that "Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege..... " could not be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is that granting the
requested variance is a perfect example of what constitutes special privilege.
5) The assertion by Staff that "Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
harmonious and orderly growth of the City" is naive, short sighted and denies the reality of the
situation. The fact of the matter is that the requested variance is both unnecessary and
inappropriate , and that approving it will set a very bad precedent that will have a detrimental
impact involving all future constructions on the south side of Kings Road for decades to come.
20-182
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
In addition to the comments above, I would like to also express my displeasure with and concern
about the blatant lack of objectivity that the Staff Report represents. The so-called "Findings"
are not findings at all. In reality, they are nothing other than a compilation of unsubstantiated
assertions and misrepresentations that reflect a clear bias in favor of the applicant and against the
impact of the proposed construction on nearby neighbors. In that regard, the Staff Report is a
disgrace, and those who prepared it and who approved it should be ashamed.
Lastly, whether the requested variance is granted or not, the construction of a new residence at
1113 Kings Road is going to have a detrimental impact on nearby neighbors. So the only choice
before the Planning Commission at this time is how detrimental the inevitable impact is going to
be.
W. Gary Sokolich, Ph.D.
Scientific & Technical Consultant
WGS & ASSOCIATES
801 Kings Road
Newport Beach CA 92663
20-183
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Murillo, Jaime
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 12:29 PM
To: Lee, Amanda
Subject: FW: 1113 Kings Road I Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Josh Steinmann <iosh.steinmann@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 12:29 PM
To: Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 1113 Kings Road I Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Mr. Murillo,
I own the property located at 910 Kings Road. I urge the Planning Commission to deny Resolution
PC2019-015 rejecting Variance No. VA2019-002 (Attachment No. PC 1).
The City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Staff Report references two variances that the Planning
Commission has granted (i.e., VA1034 in 1973 and VA1150 in 1989) in order to support the required
findings to support the Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060). Specifically, the Staff Report states that
the prior granted variances support "2. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive
the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical
zoning classification."
But, the prior variances do not support this finding for the proposed variance for 1113 Kings Road. In
fact, the Staff Report states that the front of the residence is designed to a maximum height of 23.78
feet from existing grade at the front elevation. This design complies with the existing height
requirement. As such, the applicant and subject property is not deprived of the privileges enjoyed by
other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification.
Staff worked with the applicant to minimize the variance request. Those alternative options are
included on page 15 of the Staff Report. Arguably, requiring the applicant to reduce the depth of the
attached 1,295 square foot four -car garage, eliminate a main level patio roof and reduce the size of a
teen room in a 3,000 square foot, single family residence does not constitute deprivation of the
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification.
Further, the Staff Report states that these prior granted variances benefitting 1101 Kings Road permit a
maximum structure height of 45 feet 6 inches and a deck height of 36 feet 6 inches as measured from
existing grade. By granting the proposed variance, the Planning Commission would expand the number
of variances along Kings Road and would create precedence for other properties to seek height
variances (up to 45 feet 6 inches) in order to enjoy the privileges of other properties in the vicinity under
an identical zoning classification.
We urge the Planning Commission to deny the requested variance and require the subject property to
comply with the existing height restriction.
Best Regards,
Josh Steinmann
910 Kings Road
415) 518-9004
20-184
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Murillo, Jaime
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 1:55 PM
To: Lee, Amanda
Subject: FW: 1113 Kings Road
Attachments: Planning Commission Letter Re 1113 Kings Road 5-22-19.pdf
From: Edward Selich <edselich@road runner.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 1:34 PM
To: Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey,
Lee <Ilowrey@newportbeachca.gov>; Ellmore, Curtis <CElImore@newportbeachca.gov>; Kleiman,
Lauren <Ikleiman@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer,
Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Jurjis, Seimone <siuriis@newportbeachca.gov>; Campbell, Jim <JCampbell@newportbeachca.gov>;
Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: 1113 Kings Road
Dear Commissioners:
Please review the attached letter regarding 1113 Kings Road.
Edward Selich
20-185
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Edward D Selich
627 Bayside Drive
Newport Beach Ca 92660
Planning Commission
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach Ca 92660
May 22, 2019
Re: 1113 Kings Road
Dear Commissioners:
As chair of the zoning code rewrite committee in 2010 1 have been requested by the owners of 1113
Kings Road to elaborate on the intent of the establishment of grade procedures outlined in section
20.30.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
It was recognized during the 2010 code rewrite that establishment of grade on sloped lots would be
difficult due to the numerous topographical configurations that could occur.
A basic procedure was developed for lots with slopes greater than 5%.
There was also a procedure for using additional points of elevation to establish grade on lots with slopes
greater than 20%.
However, it was recognized that there would be lots with slopes in varying conditions where strict
application of these procedures would not work.
Since it was impossible to predict all these future circumstances Section C, Establishment of Grade by
the Director was added to the code to allow for establishment of grade for situations that neither of
these techniques work:
C. Establishment of Grade by Director. If the Director finds that the existing grade on the subject lot
has been previously altered (e.g., contains retaining structures, property line walls, planters, or
excavation/fill), or other conditions are present to the degree that the existing grade is not
representative of the prevailing grades on adjoining lots and/or the general area and, therefore, is not
appropriate for the purpose of establishing the grade of the subject lot, the Director may establish the
grade that is reasonable and comparable with the grades of adjoining lots and that will not be
detrimental or injurious to property and improvements on adjoining lots."
This particular lot falls into a gray area between the "Greater Than 20% Technique" and the
Establishment of Grade by Director".
20-186
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Arguably either technique could be used. The staff has taken the conservative approach of using the
Greater than 20% Technique" along with a Variance which, in this situation, is entirely appropriate and
what was intended in the Zoning Code rewrite.
This lot, with its unusual topography, is a textbook example of what this section of the zoning code was
written for.
Edward D Selich
Cc: Jaime Murillo
Jim Campbell
Seimone Jurjis
2
20-187
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Garciamay, Ruby
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 3:26 PM
To: Lee, Amanda; Juarez, Karla
Subject: FW: Project at 1113 Kings Road
From: luke@thedrufamily.com <luke@thedrufamily.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 2:57 PM
To: Biddle, Jennifer <1Biddle@newportbeachca.gov>; Garciamay, Ruby
RGarciamay@newportbeachca.gov>; Mackinen, Traci <tmackinen@newportbeachca.gov>; Zak, Peter
pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee
Ilowrey@newportbeachca.gov>; Ellmore, Curtis <CElImore@newportbeachca.gov>; Kleiman, Lauren
Ikleiman@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory
kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Campbell, Jim <JCampbell@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Project at 1113 Kings Road
I am opposed the variance for the house at 1113 Kings Road. They are asking for a variance because of
the steep slope on the property. There are several reasons why this is now a valid reason for a variance;
1. All of the lots on the south side of Kings Road are on a similar slope
They had to know that there was a slope when they bought the Property.
There are many houses that are bigger that are under the height limit. They can go down to
bet more space.
The real question here is, why does the city have zoning rules and a general plan, when almost every
two weeks, there are projects before the planning commission for variances. Why do the residents of
Newport Beach continually having to go before the city with objections to variances.
Regards
Luke Dru
Cliff Haven
20-188
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
May 22, 2019
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission
100 Civic Center Drive
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Jason Finney <jasonsfinney@yahoo.com>
Wednesday, May 22, 2019 3:58 PM
Planning Commissioners
Reed Residence - Variance Application
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Subject: Reed Residence Variance Application — Agenda Item 4
Dear Chair Zak and Members of the Planning Commission:
I support the granting of the requested variance for the Reed residence for the following reasons:
There residence has been thoughtfully designed and fits the character of the
newer homes that are being redeveloped in the community.
The Reeds have been open and transparent with neighbors over the course of
the design of the home.
The gully hardship is the reason for the variance. If the home were being
built on a flat lot or a consistent slope there would be no question that the design
would be permitted by right.
Depriving the Reeds of the ability to build their home to the width of their
property in order to avoid building over the gully would be depriving them of
their property rights.
20-189
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
The portion of the roof that requires the variance is located in an area that will
not be seen from Kings Road or from the houses across the street. It is also not the
tallest part of the house so eliminating it won't make the home any smaller.
Homes in that area on the bluffs of Kings Road have deed restrictions
limiting development heights to one-story. The Reeds do not, and they should
not be penalized for being a bluff top owner that can build up to two stories.
It's clear from reading the Staff Report and reviewing the plans that the Reeds' property possesses
unique and challenging topography. The granting of a variance will ensure that they are able to
continue to rightfully enjoy their property.
Sincerely,
Jason Finney
510 Kings Road
Newport Beach, CA 92663
20-190
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Jim Mosher <jimmosher@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2019 5:00 PM
To: Planning Commissioners
Cc: Murillo, Jaime
Subject: Comment on PC Item 4 (Reed Residential Variance)
Attachments: 2019May23_PC_Agendaltem_4_Comments_JimMosher.pdf
Please find attached a brief comment on Item 4 on tomorrow's Planning Commission
agenda (the Reed Residential Variance, PA2019-060) -- as much as I could complete
by the 5:00 p.m. deadline.
Yours sincerely,
Jim Mosher
20-191
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
May 23, 2019, Planning Commission Item 4 Comments
These comments on a Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda item are submitted by:
Jim Mosher (iimmosher(a-)-yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229).
Item No. 4. REED RESIDENTIAL VARIANCE (PA2019-060)
I am concerned that this proposal is being considered without any meaningful simulations of
what the completed project would look like from either Kings Road or Coast Highway.
In particular, Goal NR 23 of our General Plan is that "Development respects natural landforms
such as coastal bluffs," to which end Policy NR 23.1 ("Maintenance of Natural Topography")
was adopted to "Preserve cliffs, canyons, bluffs, significant rock outcroppings, and site
buildings to minimize alteration of the site's natural topography and preserve the
features as a visual resource."
Nothing in the present proposal appears to further either that goal or its supporting policy.
As to whether the proposed development would actually be occurring on a coastal bluff, in
addition to the reference to the property as "bluff top" in Section 3.A.1 of the proposed
Resolution of Approval, it might be noted that the Land Use Element (see City Council
Resolution No. 1988-100) previous to the present one noted on page 8: "Natural coastal bluffs
represent a significant scenic and environmental resource. As used in this Section, "coastal
bluff' is any natural landform having an average slope of 26.6 degrees (50 %) or greater, with a
vertical rise of 25 feet or greater." And as to whether there is an inherent right to develop slope
faces, it did not regard steeply sloping parts of lots as being developable at all: "Buildable Lot
Area. The buildable lot area is the net parcel area less any slope areas greater the Two to
One and less any submerged lot area." (page 18)
Although it is an enduring mystery why Kings Road and the slopes below it are not in the
Coastal Zone, our City's Coastal Land Use Plan (page 4-77) supports the notion they are
indeed coastal bluffs, and therefore a visual resource worthy of protection under the Natural
Resources Element our broader current General Plan:
Coastal bluffs are a prominent landform in Newport Beach. There are ocean facing coastal
bluffs along the shoreline of Corona del Mar, Shorecliffs, and Cameo Shores. There are also
coastal bluffs facing the wetlands of Upper Newport Bay, Semeniuk Slough, and the degraded
wetlands of the Banning Ranch property. Finally, there are coastal bluffs surrounding Lower
Newport Bay. These can be seen along Coast Highway from the Semeniuk Slough to
Dover Drive and in Corona del Mar above the Harbor Entrance. These bluffs faced the open
ocean before the Balboa Peninsula formed and are now generally separated from the shoreline.
Coastal bluffs are considered significant scenic and environmental resources and are to be
protected."
In short, it is difficult to understand how the Planning Commission can be expected to evaluate
this proposal without a clearer exposition of how it impacts significant resources protected by
City policies not cited in the staff report.
20-192
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4e Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: TOMLU BAKER
To: Planning Commissioners; jaimeMurillo(ilaol.com; CityofNewportPlanningDepartmentCcbaol.com
Cc: TOMLU BAKER
Subject: Variance ---1113 Kings Road
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2019 12:26:02 AM
Planning Commissioners,
Please do not approve the variance of the project at 1113 Kings Road. The variance is not consistent or compatible
with the Cliffhaven/Newport Heights neighborhood. The height variance will negatively impact the view from
surrounding properties. It is difficult to imagine that the current proposed residential design (requiring variance) is
the only design that this site will accommodate. My understanding is that the Staff has offered multiple options to
the applicant who is not receptive and who persists on presenting the variance required design. The applicant should
be asked to refine the design such as no variance is necessary. It is suggested that this project be continued so that
variance eliminating design refinements may be accomplished by the applicant or the Planning Commission should
deny at this time the current proposed project at 1113 Kings Road.
Thanks you,
Tom Baker
Newport Heights
20-193
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4e Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: TJ Williams <twilliams@w-realtygroup.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 10:49 AM
To: Planning Commissioners
Subject: 1113 Kings Rd: Petitions 81-85 Opposing the Height Variance and New
Construction
Attachments: Petitions 81-85.pdf
TJ Williams
1110 Kings Rd
20-194
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4e Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name: -(t4te
Street Address: I C 0 '; g C
Signature:
Comments,
A
Please return to the mailbox of 1510 Kings Rd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 1'.
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-195
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4e Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last flame: -TC)v .rl,0 g
Street Address:
Signature-
Comments- '
ignature:
oimment :.T)L foe- cel. e
V% CC e, r- LIE,ni . } '
T V1
Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by I lona on Tuesday, May 21'x_
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-196
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4e Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Councd
First and Last Name:
street Address: i
Signature:
Comments- rc,
t
Please return to the mailbox of 1I10 Kings fid by IIam on Tuesday, May 211x.
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-197
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4e Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition osis the Heigh tariat-ice arid
New Construction at 1.113 Kings Road
11
To the epart Beach planning
orntitio a 3t u
s
9
Fir -,,t and Last Name:
tre t Addre :
Signature-
Comments'—
cwt t o o r -c
Pteose return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by 21arn on Tuesday, May 2
Q CL t 1-VTJV* fi
Thank you for your support proteding thefuture of our neighborhood
20-198
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4e Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
JVon 0 o pos i ng the He*ght Va rf,' a n ce and
N ew r:or,--+Tuction at ii -,, r -
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Marne: C
StreetAddress:-
Signature: Ailiyt ..
Comments:&—U-1i leo
Ob rf&L4 b Iry
f-ke rz od oyi 44 J(-PFAhLc fo a, ", -F van,"Cc, rtLt
Pi se return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings fid bar I lam on Tuesday, Nay 1'.
a2 vv-; or your su poo rr p€ oter-tj ng the future of our neiglhborOce
20-199
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4e Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Oletition Ot)posing the Height Variance 6A
New Co r -u ct on I 13 KI ngs Rom
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name:
Street Add res : WI.C. Kt i- Lc, S f 6 -
Signature:
t -YL -
Comments. Ld be- q
e'sVia'PeIC4It.
I V
Vj Oureml -f- V1 C4LE -(0AAJ 6L- awt, a -r, &AeAL li- A6VILe'd
f S*,
Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by I lam on Tuesday, May 21' .
Fhank ve u for ,our s u Doo tt -ot- i ng the fut u re of o u r n e or6
XLL.
20-200
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4e Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
gi Oig the Height Variance and
New Construction A -,t -
11.
10 Kings Roar
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name: 1 4
Street Address: IM K -i pi g
Signature: }
tzj C
6z "
Please r m to the mailbox of 111O Kings Rd by ,13am on Tuesday, May 2I .
hanr, you for your Supp prote-tin. - e futiure f our g:
20-201
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4e Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council
First and Last Name:
Street Add
Signature:
Comments:
Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 2V.
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neigh borhood
20-202
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4e Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing
gad
t 1113 Kings
New
Construction
d
h
planningOtYrr ksion
and4t
dour+
TC) the tjeWPOrt
v-tirst and Last Nasse:
trppt Address:
Signature- ignature:
k. I%—
Comments- Coremeats-
Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Pd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 21s%
I hank Vou for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-203
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4e Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Petition Opposing the Height Variance and
New Construction at 1113 Kings Road
To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Councill
First and Just Name:
Street Address:
Signature:
Comments-
Please
oinmems:
Please return to the mailbox of 1110 kings Rd by 11am on Tuesday, May 2,Zs%
Thank you for your support protecting the future of our neighborhood
20-204
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4f Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Gordon A
To: Plannina Commissioners
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2019 12:14:35 PM
ear Newport Beach City Planning Commission Members,
My name is Gordon Adams. I was born and raised in Newport Beach. My wife and
I own 1800 Kings Rd. My mother and dad first moved to Kings Rd in 1977. My
purpose in writing to you all of you today, quite simply, is to solicit your support to
deny the variance exception being requested for 1113 Kings Rd. I'm not able to
attend tonight's meeting to present these points in person so putting my thoughts in
writing are the next best option.
Please consider the following points when making your decision. I'm sure some of
the points will be one's you've heard before but I hope you'll strongly consider the
much less obvious points that have very negative ramifications on our Kings Rd
community and the city at large.
The obvious:
1. Why should one homeowner be granted a variance when it will negatively affects
significantly more than one other homeowner. In this case the exception will
impact the views of significantly more than just the homeowner across the street.
So in this case one person gets the benefit and 6-8 homeowners will be permanently
negatively affected ... and possibly their home values with it.
2. The slippery slope: Once we grant one exception it just keeps opening the
floodgates for more exceptions until eventually we don't have any controls. At the
current pace, it won't be long before the entire cliff side wipes out the views from
the street side. See the less so obvious impact of this below.
3. The homeowner requesting the variance has lived there for years so they had an
obligation to know what they could and could not build without a variance. How
big does a house need to be? I'm all for property owners being able to build their
dream home but not where they need a variance that comes at the expense of others.
The home we rebuilt did not have a single exception request.
The not so obvious:
1. These exceptions continue to pit neighbor against neighbor. In this case the
family requesting the variance intentionally hid the request from his "so called"
neighbor and tried to hide the notice for the meeting tonight in order to avoid the
obvious concern it would cause. Just think how you would feel if your "neighbor"
did the same thing to you. If we stop giving out these unnecessary variances people
will stop asking for them and neighbors won't be hiding from each other. Just
imagine how those neighbors are going to get along in the future. Obviously it's
20-205
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4f Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
going to permanently impact their relationship. Rather than building a community
these exceptions turn neighbors against each other. You all have the authority and
the responsibility to stop this from happening.
2. Why do Cameo Shores and Irvine Terrace have height restrictions that are
maintained. Obviously they did not want one neighbor from being able to
permanently negatively impact another neighbor and create the chaos that follows.
That's the chaos we have on Kings Rd. As a result, there is nothing close to a
neighborhood community on Kings Rd. We've been living here for two years and
you can feel the tension between the two sides of the street. We moved here from
Laguna Niguel and are amazed at how little community feel there is compared to
other Newport Beach communities. I guarantee the home height and variance
exception issue is a big reason. Every time a new homeowner tears down a home
on the cliff side the homeowners on the street side are in a panic that their views
and their home values are going take a hit.
Your job is to improve the lives of the people that live in Newport Beach. These
sorts of variances don't accomplish that and, in fact, they hurt our city. I hope you'll
take all of this in consideration when you vote on the issue before you tonight.
Please don't hesitate to email me back or call me to discuss any of these points.
Respectfully,
Gordon Adams
949 233 6936
20-206
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4g Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Murillo, Jaime
To: Lee, Amanda
Subject: FW: Reed Residence PA2019-060/VA2019-002 - Planning Commission Agenda Item #4 - Steinmann Response
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2019 3:59:36 PM
From: Pua Whitford <PWhitford@caaplanning.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 3:57 PM
To: Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Shawna Schaffner <sschaffner@caaplanning.com>
Subject: Reed Residence PA2019-060/VA2019-002 - Planning Commission Agenda Item #4 -
Steinmann Response
Hi Jaime,
We are providing this correspondence in response to a letter of opposition provided by Mr. Josh
Steinmann, dated May 22, 2019. Mr. Steinman raised issue with granting of the variance due to it
not meeting the finding that without it the property owner would be deprived of property privileges
enjoyed by other properties and that the issuance of the variance would expand the number of
variances along Kings Road.
The previous variance for the subject site was granted under the same condition and for the same
reason as the current variance is being requested. There are several multi -directional slopes on the
site that create a gully on the eastern edge of the subject site. The gully is pre-existing on the subject
site; and therefore, the previous variance was approved for the existing structure to allow the
structure to be built to what we observe as a uniform height, even at the point where the gully dips
down.
The frontage of the home along Kings Road has been designed as thoughtfully as possible so as not
to "max out" either the height or massing and does not require a variance for its features. The home
is terraced down the slope and the area that requires the variance will not be visible from Kings Road
or from the residences on the inland side of Kings Road.
A variance would not be necessary were it not for the topographic anomaly of the gully. Again, the
variance will not permit any roof features to be higher than any other part of the roof. In fact, the
area for which the variance is required is for the outer portion of eaves of the roof and at an
elevation much lower than the ridgeline of the roof. The requested variance accounts for the
mathematical calculation between grade of a parcel and the depth of the gully.
An aerial survey of the homes on Kings Road and in the surrounding community shows that the
development for nearly every property is completely up to the minimum setback which in most
cases is 4 feet. In order to avoid the gully the homeowner would need to set their home back 19 feet
from the property line. The existing structure was granted a variance due to the gully in order for the
homeowner to be able to build to the width of the property. The issuance of a variance would allow
the home to be built the width of the lot and afford the homeowner the same privilege as enjoyed
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4g Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
by the rest of the community.
The property at 1101 Kings Road is the immediate next-door neighbor to the subject property. As
identified in the Staff Report, this property shares the same topographic anomaly features as the
subject property. The explicit purpose for the variance request is to allow the main level and a small
portion of the upper eaves and deck the home to be built the width of the property by accounting
for depth created by the gully at the eastern boundary of the subject site.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Pua
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4g Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Murillo, Jaime
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 4:42 PM
To: Lee, Amanda
Subject: FW: Reed Residence PA2019-060/VA2019-002 - Planning Commission Agenda
Item #4 - Sokolich Response
From: Pua Whitford <PWhitford@caaplanning.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 4:04 PM
To: Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Shawna Schaffner <sschaffner@caaplanning.com>
Subject: Reed Residence PA2019-060/VA2019-002 - Planning Commission Agenda Item #4 - Sokolich
Response
Hi Jaime,
This correspondence is provided in response to a letter of opposition provided by Mr. Gary Sokolich,
dated May 22, 2019. Mr. Sokolich raised several concerns and assertions. Our responses are
concentrated on the issues he raised as numbered 1 through 5 in his letter.
1. There are several lots in the area that would be considered "considerably wider than adjacent
lots." For example:
The subject property 1113 Kings Road is 17,745 sq.ft. and 84 feet wide.
1201/1121 Kings Rd (next to subject property) was originally 21,471 sq.ft. prior to the
lot split in 1973 (122 feet wide)
1021 Kings Road is 19,013 sq.ft. (92 feet wide)
1211 Kings Road is 14,925 sq.ft. (75 feet wide)
1421 Kings Road is 14,080 sq.ft. (80 feet wide)
615 Kings Road is 18,247 sq.ft. (121 feet wide)
801 Kings Road is 11,667 sq.ft. (70 feet wide)
Contrary to the commenter's assertion that the subject lot was purposefully subdivided as a
larger lot to account for the gully, the adjoining neighbor to the east at 1101 Kings Road does
not have a wider or larger than average lot and is also challenged topographically by the gully
and requires a variance for main level development, just as the subject property. There is no
statistical for historical data to support the commenters assertions that the reason for the width
or size of the subject property is to compensate for the gully.
There is no statistical or historical data to support the commenters assertions regarding the
reason for the width or size of the subject property or the widths or sizes of any of the other
larger properties on the blufftop on Kings Road.
A survey of aerial mapping shows that the prevailing development in the community is for
homes to be built the entire width of the property. A variance was granted for the existing
structure on the subject site due to the constraints of the gully. The issuance of a variance would
allow the home to be built the width of the lot and afford the homeowner the same privilege as
20-209
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4g Additional Materials Received
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
enjoyed by the adjoining neighbor who also shares the gully and requires a variance for
development, and the rest of the community.
3. The frontage of the home along Kings Road will be built to a maximum height of 25-8 feet when
a maximum of 29 feet is permitted, and has been designed as thoughtfully as possible so as not
to "max out" either the height or massing, and does not require a variance for its features. The
home is terraced down the slope and the area which requires the variance is on the main level
and small portion of the back corner of the upper level and upper deck which will not be visible
from Kings Road or from the residences inland of Kings Road.
A variance would not be necessary were it not for the topographic anomaly of the gully. Again,
the variance will not permit any roof features to be higher than any other part of the roof. In
fact, the area for which the variance is required is for the eaves for the roof and is located at an
elevation lower than the ridgeline of the roof.
The hardship related to the limitation of buildable area is due to the presence of the gully
adjacent to the east property line. The existing slope of the eastern property line is 40%
whereas the existing slope adjacent to the west property line is 5%. Avoiding the existing gully
would reduce the buildable width of the structure from 80 ft. wide to 55 ft. wide (32%
reduction), which would be a hardship. The requested variance only accounts for the
mathematical calculation between how the City determines the overall grade of a parcel and the
actual grade.
4. There is no evidentiary data to support this assertion. The requested variance is for an existing
condition. A variance was issued for the existing structure at the exact location and due to the
same topographical constraints.
The over -height features will be located on the main level and small portion of the back corner
of the upper level which will not be visible from the street. They will not, themselves, cause
interference with the coastal views of adjacent or neighboring properties. Although the over -
height features are calculated as such based on the City's zoning code, the observed heights will
not be taller than other area of the residence.
The proposed two-story residence will replace an existing one-story residence. The portion of
the residence that may cause limitations to coastal views for the across the street neighbor
would be the portion of the residence on the Kings Road frontage. This portion of the residence
will be 25-8 feet in height and is well within the 29 -foot height limit.
While certain lots along Kings Road are subject to private deed restrictions related to view
protection, there is no such deed restriction on 1113 Kings Road. In addition, there are no view
corridors within the project vicinity that would be impacted by the proposed project.
If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Pua
20-210
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4h Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Murillo, Jaime
To: Lee, Amanda
Subject: FW: 1800 Kings Road - Adams.docx
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2019 6:09:53 PM
From: Carolyn <clynn131@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 6:09 PM
To: Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: 1800 Kings Road - Adams.docx
See below
Carolyn Reed
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Anne Adams <annymac I 7(ogmail.com>
Date: May 23, 2019 at 5:40:42 PM PDT
To: Carolyn <clynn131&gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 1800 Kings Road - Adams.docx
Hi Carolyn,
I just spoke with my husband Gordon (very quick call as he is playing in a
tournament at the moment) and he said he had sent a letter earlier today largely
based on the information he'd been given and the overall desire to stop neighbors
from fighting with each other. He was suggesting a solution to stop the neighbor
vs neighbor situation from happening again by suggesting a no variance policy for
the entire area as other neighborhoods have done. I explained to him that the
information we were given was wrong, that we had been mislead.
We didn't get to keep talking but I forwarded the email you sent me so if he has a
break he can read it.
I was confused when the letter you penned mentioned "a letter " that had been
sent earlier today .... now I understand. I did not know one had been sent.
I have no problem writing a letter that explains I was misinformed and that my
signature on the petition was only in support because of the lies I had been told.
I am sorry that you are having to deal with this.
Blessings,
Annie
20-211
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4h Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
Sent from my iPhone
On May 23, 2019, at 3:47 PM, Carolyn <clvnn131(c gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi- it was so nice chatting with you today. I hope to chat again under
different circumstances in the future. Thank you again for taking the
time to listen and understand what we are asking for. Below is the
letter you can email to the city at
planningcommissionersgnewportbeachca.gov. Please free to modify
as you see fit.
Carolyn Reed
1800 Kings Road - Adams.docx>
Carolyn Reed
Sent from my iPhone
20-212
Planning Commission - May 23, 2019
Item No. 4h Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Reed Residential Variance (PA2019-060)
From: Anne Adams <annymacl7@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 6:25 PM
To: Planning Commissioners
Subject: New information regarding property on Kings Rd
Hi,
I recently signed a petition stating I was against the property at 1113 Kings Rd getting a height
variance. My signing of that petition was based on information that I have found out to be
incorrect. My understanding was that the height variance would be from street level and would
block many views from neighbors across the street. The misunderstanding is my fault as I failed
to do my homework and clearly grasp what was being proposed. I had a visit from the
homeowner today that explained what I had misunderstood.
I now understand that the variance is not for street level height adjustment and wish to resend
my petition support.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Annie Adams
Sent from my Phone
20-213
Attachment D
May 23, 2019, Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes
20-214
Planning Commission Minutes
May 23, 2019
AYES: Zak, Weigand, Lowrey, Kleiman, Koetting, Kramer
NOES:
RECUSED: Ellmore
ABSENT:
ITEM NO. 4 REED RESIDENTIAL VARIANCE (PA2019-060)
Site Location: 1113 Kings Road
Summary:
A variance request to allow portions of a new single-family residence to exceed the allowed height limit
due to the steep topography of the property.
Recommended Action:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Find this project categorically exempt under Section 15303, of the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines - Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures),
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have
a significant effect on the environment; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2019-060 approving Variance No. VA2019-002.
Senior Planner Jaime Murillo reported the project proposes the demolition of an existing single-family residence
and the construction of a new approximately 10,800 -square -foot single-family residence and new 1,500 -square -
foot, four -car garage. Due to unique topographic constraints on the property, the applicant is requesting a variance
for portions of the dwelling to exceed the height limit for the property. The property is located on the south side of
Kings Road. Properties along the south side of Kings Road are typically developed with one- and two-story
dwellings that step down the slope towards Coast Highway. Properties on the north side of Kings Road are
typically two- and three-story single-family homes. The subject property is constrained by a gully, which causes
the property to slope west -to -east as well as north -to -south. The existing home has one story when viewed from
the street and two stories when viewed from the cliff side. The existing garage is approximately 13 feet tall
measured from the curb. In 1976, a variance was granted for the height of the rear portion of the garage, which
measures 31.5 feet from the flat roof to the gully below. The adjacent property to the east, which is more severely
impacted by the gully than the subject property, was granted variances in 1973 for the home to exceed the
maximum height limit and in 1989 for the patio to exceed the height limit. The new proposed residence will have
three levels, but it will appear as two levels from the street. The height of the structure will measure approximately
24 feet from the front ridge elevations to grade, and the highest ridge elevation behind the front ridges will measure
approximately 25 feet to grade. When viewed from Kings Road, the structure will appear as a Code -compliant,
two-story home. The maximum height limit for sloping roofs in a single-family residential zoning district is 29 feet
measured from the existing grade. Because of the gully, the proposed new home will appear as three stories to
the adjacent property to the east, and portions of the new home will exceed the maximum height limit of 29 feet.
The four key findings to grant a variance are special or unique circumstances of the property, preservation and
enjoyment of property rights, no special privilege for the property, and no detrimental impact to the community or
surrounding properties. Along the west boundary line, the slope of the lot is 5 percent for the length of the proposed
structure. Along the east boundary line, the slope of the lot is 25.5 percent for the length of the proposed structure
and approximately 40 percent from the front property line to the deepest point of the gully, which is approximately
26 feet below the front property line. Because of the gully, elements along the east side of the proposed structure
will exceed the 29 -foot height limit. The elements could be pulled back 19 feet from the east property line, but that
would reduce the buildable width of the property from 90 percent to 72 percent of the lot. The Zoning Code allows
by -right single-family dwellings to reach a height of 29 feet from the existing grade. Without a variance, the private
view impacts from Kings Road would continue to exist with a fully compliant project. To minimize the impact on
the adjacent property to the east, the applicant has stepped back the third -floor elements and sloped the roofs
adjacent to the east property line.
In response to Chair Zak's inquiries, Senior Planner Murillo advised that the applicant has revised the design
multiple times to reduce roof and deck elements on the eastern side as much as possible. The revisions reduce
the massing of the structure when viewed from the property to the east but has no effect on the view from the
street. A fully compliant structure would block some private views from Kings Road. Deputy Community
Development Director Campbell added that no special construction -related conditions of approval have been
6of11
20-215
Planning Commission Minutes
May 23, 2019
proposed for the project because the plan check process will ensure the project complies with all provisions of the
Building Code.
Commissioners Kramer and Kleiman disclosed a communication with the applicant's consultant. Chair Zak
disclosed communications with the applicant's consultant and the applicants. Commissioner Koetting disclosed a
phone call from the applicant's consultant. Commissioner Ellmore disclosed a meeting with the applicant's
consultant. Commissioner Lowrey disclosed a conversation with the applicant's consultant. Vice Chair Weigand
disclosed conversations with the applicant's consultant and members of the public.
Chair Zak opened the public hearing
Shawna Schaffner, applicant's representative, advised that a 26 -foot -deep gully on the lot results in a steeply
sloping surface, which severely limits the allowable building height on the eastern portion of the site. The areas
for which a variance is requested are located below the height -compliant areas of the front of the house. The
applicant requests a variance for the upper-level eaves, the upper-level deck and railing, and the main -level office
and covered patio roof. The largest encroachment above the height limit is located at the main level of the house.
The property owners have reached out to their neighbors. The applicants have revised plans by removing exterior
decks and covered patios, removing enclosed rooms at the rear of the house, redesigning the upper level, reducing
the footprint of the upper level, changing the a central roof ridge, and reducing the height of the eastern roof ridge.
The proposed house will increase the footprint of the western side of the existing house by 12 feet. The footprint
for the eastern side of the existing house will be stepped back. If the variance is granted, the structure will be
approximately a half foot taller than the existing garage, for which a variance was granted. The chimney is allowed
to exceed the height limit and is not part of the variance request. The areas of the house that require a variance
are not visible from the street and are located behind the height -compliant sections of the house. If the applicant
proposed a single -story structure, the main level would still require a variance. The applicant agrees with the
conditions of approval.
In reply to Vice Chair Weigand's queries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that the
applicant will be required to comply substantially with the plans presented to the Planning Commission. Senior
Planner Murillo clarified that the existing garage measures 13 to 15 feet tall from Kings Road. Ms. Schaffner
provided street view depictions of the existing structure, the proposed structure, and a structure at the height limit.
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell explained that there are no restrictions protecting private
views from Kings Road. Private deed restrictions have been placed on some properties along the south side of
Kings Road, but they are not subject to City enforcement. Granting the variance will affect the views for the
neighbor to the east of the property. Other designs that are below the height limit could push the house further
away from the street, but that is not the proposed project.
Vice Chair Weigand wished to ensure the public is aware of other designs the applicant could propose that would
not require Commission approval.
In answer to Commissioner Ellmore's inquiries, Ms. Schaffner indicated the maximum buildable square footage
for the lot is approximately 29,000 square feet. The proposed square footage is approximately 10,800 with a
1,500 -square -foot garage. Ms. Schaffner was not aware of a study of a 29,000 -square -foot house that determined
whether a variance would be needed. Based on buildable area, many of the lots in the neighborhood are
developed more intensely than the project site. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell explained
that staff utilized a technique contained in the Municipal Code to determine the grade for the purposes of measuring
height. The grade determination is accurate and reflects the existing topography of the lot. He would not
recommend any changes to the grade plane that staff identified in the report. To determine a grade that would not
require a variance for the proposed project, staff would have to use grades in the gully that are approximately 13
feet higher than they actually are. Staff did not feel those grades would reflect the existing topography, and those
grades could be detrimental to the neighboring property. Staff looks at the grades and identified the points
necessary to achieve and create a plane that closely reflects the existing topography. If an applicant feels the
points are inappropriate, the determination can be appealed to the Planning Commission. Staff does not
recommend the Planning Commission change the technique utilized to determine the grade.
In response to Commissioner Kleiman's questions, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated
the neighboring property would be subject to the same grade determination procedure used for the project site,
7of11
20-216
Planning Commission Minutes
May 23, 2019
but staff would probably utilize more grade points. The neighboring house would probably continue to require a
variance if staff utilized a similar procedure.
In reply to Commissioner Lowrey's query, Ms. Schaffner advised that the property owners contacted the neighbors
across Kings Road when they first developed plans and have continued outreach over the past six months with
neighbors. The neighbors to each side of the subject property have submitted correspondence in support of the
project.
Jeff Wingler remarked that the project improves the neighborhood. The property is unique in comparison to other
properties in the vicinity. The applicant should be granted a variance.
Peggy Palmer related that the applicant worked with the neighbors and offered four options for the project. The
Cliff Haven Community Association is willing to host an event for the applicant to explain the project to neighbors.
Charles Klobe, Newport Heights Improvement Association Board Member, commented that variances should be
the exception rather than the rule. Variances should be granted when there is an overwhelming hardship to the
builder or a public benefit for the change in policy. The project meets neither condition.
Jim Mosher did not understand the reasons for staff recommending a variance instead of a site development
review. Section 20.52.090.G of the Municipal Code clearly states the granting of prior variances is not relevant or
admissible evidence for the granting of a new variance. The applicant did not provide any simulations of how the
project will affect the public views from Coast Highway, a designated coastal view road, or minimize alteration to
a site's natural topography as stated in the General Plan Natural Resources Element.
John Pomer indicated his family is comfortable with the project.
Bruce Trotter opposed a variance for the project.
Mike Robertson related that the project will impact every homes' views to some degree and will impact the values
of all neighboring homes.
T.J. Williams advised that the project will block the entire view from his home and the views from most homes
along the street. He wanted a second opinion regarding staffs determination of the grade points for the subject
property.
Amy Williams stated there are different techniques to determine the grade of the property. Many aspects of the
project should be discussed and reviewed.
Chris Gruber supported the project.
Brian Krebs supported the Planning Commission granting a variance for the project. The project is consistent with
the character of the neighborhood.
Lee Goodin understood the project designer has minimized the potential visual impacts of the project, especially
considering the landscape of the lot. The small portion of the home that exceeds the height limit is minimally visible
from West Coast Highway. He supported a variance for the project.
Matt Wooley supported the project.
John Stedfield indicated the project will affect his views and property value. Earlier in the day, the applicant
approached him for the first time to discuss the project. He opposed the variance.
Carol Anne Dru advised that the neighbors would contest approval of the project without a community meeting.
She did not understand the calculation of the existing grade in order to determine the height limit. She requested
the Planning Commission continue the project so that neighbors can reach a congenial resolution.
8of11
20-217
Planning Commission Minutes
May 23, 2019
Nancy Barfield expressed frustration with people being allowed to build tall homes and in the setbacks. The project
will impact her views.
DJ Countess believed the requested variance is reasonable and supported a granting of the variance. The large
lot has substantial land constraints.
Doug DeCinces suggested the applicant excavate the site in order to build the maximum square footage for the
house without exceeding the height limit. The massing of the house is an eyesore.
Lynn Lorenz concurred with the comments of Michael Alexander. Granting the variance will set a precedent for
future projects in the neighborhood. The project should comply with the standards and rules.
Jeff Frum indicated the project will impact neighbors' views.
Tom Baker requested the Planning Commission not approve the variance request as the building height will not
be compatible with the neighborhood. The applicant should revise the design so that a variance is not needed.
Robert Brauchli supported the project as it conforms to the Building Code. The applicant has attempted to lessen
the project's impact on neighbors.
Carolyn Brubaker remarked that the project appears to be overwhelming and overbearing. She requested the
project be reduced in size.
Doris Perry supported the project because the applicant should be allowed to develop the property as they wish.
Max Johnson supported a continuance of the item to allow a community discussion of the project.
Josh Beyer did not understand the community outrage because the project complies with the Code. He supported
the project.
Sandra Ayers indicated the project is not fully compliant with the Code. The granting of a previous variance is not
justification for granting another variance. The project does affect the views from the bluffs. A variance is not
necessary to build a house on the lot.
Ms. Schaffner reported the alternative to a variance is to terrace the property further to Coast Highway, which
would cause more prominent views throughout the community. The project will block the view from the main level
of Mr. Williams' home but not from the upper level of his home. The adjacent property is subject to a height
restriction via a private deed restriction. Ed Selich, a member of the committee that wrote the grade language,
has indicated the grade determination is appropriate. Wide lots prevail in the neighborhood. Excavating to
construct the home will not eliminate the need for a variance. The public has not presented facts that dispute the
findings contained in the staff report.
Commissioner Kleiman wondered whether the applicant felt the few elements that require the variance are worth
the contentious nature of the variance.
In reply to Commissioners' questions, Ms. Schaffner indicated the applicant conducted three studies regarding
adjusting the grade determination. In all scenarios, the structure could have a height of 29 feet for a length of 20
feet into the lot before the grade would have to be adjusted. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell
reiterated that the determination is appropriate and reflects the existing topography. Lowering the grade
determination would not change the front of the house. The grade could be viewed differently, but in staffs
judgment the chosen points are appropriate. The height limit in Newport Beach has changed over the years. The
current procedure for determining the grade of a lot was developed in 2008. For many years, structures were not
built to the maximum height limit.
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell remarked that staff pushes back quite hard on projects that
exceed the height limit and counsels applicants to comply with Code requirements. The Code provides a process
9of11
20-218
Planning Commission Minutes
May 23, 2019
for the applicant to seek relief from standards, a variance application. The encroachments are small and not visible
from the street.
Commissioner Koetting commented that the portions of the roof that encroach comprise perhaps 3 to 4 percent of
the total roof area. The house could be taller than proposed. He could not understand the outcry over loss of
views when the houses are so close together that there are no views. Deputy Community Development Director
Campbell added that the two-story front of the home does block private views, but the height at the front of the
house is allowed. Therefore, the portion of the residence subject to the variance is not visible. The detriment due
to views being blocked expressed by neighbors is not created by the variance. The Planning Commission's
discretion lies with the project exceeding the height limit, not the grade determination.
Commissioner Lowrey understood the pros and cons of granting the variance. The applicant's outreach has been
unsatisfactory.
Vice Chair Weigand felt a lot of the contentiousness could be alleviated with more information about the project.
He hoped the community at large could discuss the project further.
Commissioner Ellmore noted the Planning Commission works within confined parameters. The lot is atypical in
nature, and a variance for an atypical lot is justified. Based upon a technical review of the project, he could support
it.
Commissioner Kramer advised that the Planning Commission's role is to adjudicate matters based on rules
outlined in the General Plan and Municipal Code. In certain situation, the Code allows as normative variances for
unusual conditions. The Planning Commission is charged with reviewing and granting variances. Those who
oppose the project either don't understand the project or are basing their comments on false information. The City
and by extension the Planning Commission have no obligation whatsoever to protect private views or financial
impacts associated with such. The application has highly unusual conditions in the topography of the lot that are
textbook examples of circumstances foreseen in the Code for which a variance is reasonable. The variance
request is for a minor height encroachment. The public hearing before the Planning Commission is the public
process.
Motion made by Commissioner Kramer and seconded by Commissioner Ellmore to find this project
categorically exempt under Section 15303, of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines - Class
3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6,
Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and to adopt Resolution
No. PC2019-060 approving Variance No. VA2019-002.
AYES: Zak, Ellmore, Kleiman, Koetting, Kramer
NOES:
ABSTAIN: Weigand, Lowrey
ABSENT:
VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS
ITEM NO. 5 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
None
ITEM NO. 6 REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR MATTERS
WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE
AGENDA.
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported the General Plan Update Steering Committee will
meet on May 29. Staff will recommend the Steering Committee evaluate a scope of work and cost of services and
make a recommendation to the City Council to hire Kearns & West.
10 of 11
20-219
Attachment E
Appeal Application
20-220
Appeal Application
City Clerk's Office
100 Civic Center Drive / P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
949-644-3005
Clerk's Date & Time Stamp
RECEIVED
2919 JM -S 1M 10, 14
Appeals are time sensitive and must be received by the City Clerk specified time period f n or final
action by a decision -maker. It is advisable to consult with the Department managing t i
question with regards to appealing an action. This is an appeal of the:
CDD222)Community Development Director Action to the Planning Commission - $1,637
CDD222)Zoning Administrator Action to the Planning Commission - $1,637
1FL (CD D222)Planning Commission Action to the City Council - $1,637
CDD222)Hearing Officer Action to the City Council - $1,637
CDD223)Building Official/Fire Marshal Action to the Building/Fire Board of Appeals - $1,637
CDD224)Chief of Police Action on an Operator License to the City Manager - $757
RSS073)City Manager Action on a Special Events Permit to the City Council - $1,747
HBR001)Harbormaster Action on a Lease/Permit to the Harbor Commission - $100
HBR001)Harbormaster Action to the Harbor Commission - Hourly Cost
HBR001)Harbor Commission Action to the City Council - Hourly Cost
PBW018)Public Works Director Action Harbor Development Permits to Harbor Commission - Hourly Cost
PBW018)Public Works Director Action on a Lease/Permit to the Harbor Commission - $100
Other - Specify decision -maker, appellate body, Municipal Code authority and fee:
Appellant Information:
Name(s): S P08- 5-W OLt, V % f 6- 60k ow APla m€mAaA
Address: -D. 60x 102, 4 14/4 Q1402• =s&,,pN,0
City/State/Zip:/UE-I*#bAT' R E -,A -L * , c l*+ 91(. io2 W l uiPB,2T 96 4cl* C
Phone: Email: _7—LU0,fT7- `7/ 0-• Go'yJ
Appealing Application Regarding
Name of Applicant(s): c'/9it0<yN' /Q L F p Date of Final Decision: -J:w ' 14-y .2 g
10
Project No.: C)/ 9 `- d b Activity No.: VRA)4 N!.'.e 4) 0, A 7_ul9 —
Application Site Address: M3 h0 I 6-6 A00 D N,= W Am 't/J' /g1/}Gf 81+ 9 z G wz
Description of application: P L X iSTI "G- .=Y4'fr - A/r1/`/ 1} d ''1
fiW O
Reason(s) for Appeal (attach a separate sheet if necessary):
I. 0P/001-6ir/ow !3Y IV 91r, 4 AdA/A4-- h0A9r-OWAIJ-52- 4ss6dwVriVA4C
Cy nV u 4 A i / d,' `—ti 'i R2vVh /% N?,4 L C—.;-s
o,vsisr15N ey wi 3't't g:'_ P n/f/s& 10A i;
V/JO/,V 6-$ i1V D T
Mr -r7 -dc -7
4 F & HJ A, OZ,4
s`. 09 A r,-- A.4 , R -T i v i S lam- '-,8c-T &,0,
v7—lJUgSignatureofAppellant: "*IV,, •V& a— Date: i CJ
pro A_ 0 POWC*7v Rdo"'UTiW6--- G7 VAI rY wP0A7---)
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: 6L , 201.
City lerk .
cc: Department Director, Deputy Director, Staff, File F: IUserslClerklSharedlFormslAppeal Application
Updated 3/7/2019
20-221
SPON, Stop Polluting Our Newport
P.O. Bog 102, Balboa Island, CA 926609.
June 4, 2019
Subject: Reed Residential Variance PA 2019-060
Reasons for appeal (continued from application form):
Especially in light of the upcoming General Plan Update (GPU) and concerns about
mansionization, loss of neighborhood character, and impacts on views, we believe this Project
Application should be reconsidered and denied by the City Council
1. Representatives of two neighboring Homeowner Associations stated their opposition at
the Planning Commission hearing. They offered to conduct a community meeting but the
offer was ignored despite the increasing desire by the City Council, in preparing for the
GPU, to seek maximum public outreach.
2. The granting of this Variance is inconsistent with the General Plan. Cumulative issues in
terms of heights and bluffs were not considered and the Natural Resources Element of the
General Plan was not discussed. The variance will encourage construction over the
ravine on the coastal bluff. But variances are only supposed to be granted (NBMC Sec.
20.52.090(F)(6), (see below) if the result would not conflict with the General Plan. One
of the stated goals of the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan (all elements
supposedly having equal standing) is Goal "NR 23 - Development respects natural
landforms such as coastal bluffs." This is supported by policy "NR 23.1 - Preserve cliffs,
canyons, bluffs, significant rock outcroppings, and site buildings to minimize alteration
of the site's natural topography and preserve the features as a visual resource."
3. The Project should not be considered categorically exempt under Section 15303 of the
CA CEQA Guidelines because it has potential to have significant effect on the
environment.
4. NBMC Section 20.52.090(F) (Variances — Findings and Decisions). We believe the
following findings cannot be made:
Finding (2): Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical
zoning classification.
Finding (3): Granting the variance is necessary for the preservation of enjoyment of
substantial property rights of the applicant.
Finding (4): Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning
district.
Finding (5): Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and
orderly growth of the City.
Finding (6): Granting of the variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose
of this section, the Zoning code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan.
SPON, infona,spon-newportbeach.org
Contact: Jean Watt, jwatt4 ,aol.com 949-673-8164
20-222
Attachment F
Project Plans
20-223
Q
W
U)
z
V
rn,FRI
PROJECT INFORMATION
26. o) CUSTOM RESIDENCE FOR
ID
P5
Greg & Carolyn Reed
1 SITE PLAN
1113 Kings Road
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
3
Newport Beach, CA 92663
4 BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
949) 698-2091
MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
6
JOB ADDRESS
7 ROOF PLAN
1113 Kings Road
ROOF PLAN WITH TOPO SURVEY
Newport Beach, CA 92663
SITE SECTIONS A& B
LEGAL
SITE SECTIONS C & D
Lot 31
SITE SECTION E & ENLARGED DRIVEWAY PLAN
c
10 Block E
FRONT & RIGHT ELEVATION
Tract 1219
LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
0 Zoning R-1
REAR ELEVATION
APN: 049-212-03
SITE
I Lot Area 17,745 sq. ft.
M
Buildable Lot Area 14,512 sq. ft.
B Max Allowed Buildable Area (2x) 29,024 sq. ft. I 9
Project Buildable Area (0.85x) 12,311 sq. ft.
E Min. Open Volume Area (15%) 2,177 sq. ft.
I Project Open Volume Area (125%) 18,130 sq. ft.
Max Third Floor Area (15%) 2,177 sq. ft.
C?
o Project Third Floor Area (2.8%) 411 sq. ft.
R, w
I
RESIDENCE
Fx
oBasement Level Floor Area 4,177 sq. ft.
Main Level Floor Area 3,361 sq. ft.
O
I Upper Level Floor Area 3,265 sq. ft.
Total Floor Area 10,803 sq. ft.
Garage Area 1,508 sq. ft.
Lower Level Covered Patio 933 sq. ft.
Main Level Covered Deck 354 sq. ft.
I Main Level Deck 661 sq. ft.
Upper Level Covered Deck 318 sq. ft.
Upper Level Deck 682 sq. ft.
A
9
y
y y
F y y y y y y y
y Ji
i yy
rri
ry/
i
r%' ryr %y y ' r yy / rr
y
y y i yy i/ ir y --_ y
r
y
yrry yry r ryyyyy
y y y y
y r
r r
y
cirriii yyy i ''y" y
yyy 'yyy . -
r ir, , y r y'y„
yy
y
y
y
y y" y —- -
r r r y y
y
y
i y y y y y y y y'y y, y y„ y„ yyy y'y y ''
y ' r y y '' y y r y y y y y y y y
r y y
y y y y y y y y y y r y y
y r „ y y
y y" y y , r ' y j' y
yam' y'r
irr
OCCUPANCY: R-3, U
TYPE: V -B fire -sprinkled per NFPA 13D
SHEET INDEX
ID Name
1 SITE PLAN
2 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
3 NBZC GRADE DETERMINATION (MODIFIED POINTS METHODOLOGY)
4 BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
5 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
6 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
7 ROOF PLAN
8 ROOF PLAN WITH TOPO SURVEY
9 SITE SECTIONS A& B
10 SITE SECTIONS C & D
11 SITE SECTION E & ENLARGED DRIVEWAY PLAN
12 FRONT & RIGHT ELEVATION
13 LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
14 REAR ELEVATION
NEWPORT BEACH ZONING CODE GRADE ESTABLISHMENT
EAST PROPERTY LINE
86.48-26.00= 60.48 DIVIDE BY 182.33 = 33.2% SLOPE
WEST PROPERTY LINE
85.67-40.00= 45.67 DIVIDE BY 160.00 = 28.5% SLOPE
VICINITY MAP
20-224
M
w
U 0
z
dOQ
w
R, w
Fx 0 o
O 2cr' o
GO O
a
V J c4
U
F
ci 67 ` g
Z O by0
z z U
U w
w
Q o
LO
ml 4
W
C
j
V
z
0
W
Q
W
UW
F_ z
U) Q
MM.
Y.
V
z
z
z
J
0.
0
N
00
O1
O
U
x
U
W
W
Z A U
z
4 U
w W
O
O
IYfi
zaV
Date: 5/8/19
Scale: 1" = 10'-0"
Drawn: CSH
Job: 1113 KINGS ROAD
SHEET
1
OF 14 SHEETS
20-224
102.63
top window first
102.70
top window first
102.73
window first
102.71
window first
103.80
top window first
103.78
top window first
LEGEND
DESCRIPTI N
TW I TOP WALL
BRICK
DECK
WALL
BUILDING
DATE: 11/28/2017
PROPERTY LINE
11/02/2018
FENCE
roof elevation ove garage
N. 0. NATURAL GRADE
P. P. POWER POLE
WM WATER METER
F. F. FINISH FLOOR
G. F. GARAGE FLOOR
CONC. CONCRETE
F. S. FINISH SURFACE
M. H, MAN -HOLE
P PLANTER
A. C. ASPHALT
T. G, TOP -GRATE
RdM SURVEYING INC.
R N MIEDEMA L.S. 4653
23016 LAKE FOREST DR. #409
LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653
949) 858-2924 OFFICE
949) 858-3438 FAX
RDMSURVEYING@C X,NET
T 91.14
sw
90.23
Is
IP
73
fs
1'
r
M
06
oo I
N • 88.44
0 5
co
00
z
1
811
1
41 87.40
f
86.81
86.47
s
C
M
M
0
O
W
1 2.0' ROLLED
c- e
T P GRAPHIC SURVEY
JOB:(68-20) DATE: 11/28/2017
DATE: 11/02/2018 added roof elevation ove garage
SU -be
I n9
95.59 • 67.05 • 58.63
edge ng ng
OWNER LEGAL DESCRIPTI N BENCH MARK:
GREG AND CAR LYN REED LOT 31, TRACT NO, 1219 BM#: 3K-23-68
460 SANTA ANA AVENUE
ELEVATION: 10,40
AREA OF LOT:
DATUM: NAVD88
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
17,745 SQ. FT.
NORTH
0' 10' 2 0'
SCALE: 1"=10'
INEER SHALL PERMANENTLY
Y CORNERS OR OFFSETS
GRADING.
18.102 • 14.38
fs
ray
20.34
13.48
fs
r
20.13
tw
SAND SUS\
R N
MIEDEMA A
N NO. 4653
EXP. 9/30/19 Q
SHEET
z
W
V
Q
rz
V
U)
W
a
ii
W
U
z
rMM.
V
z
z
z
iJ
OF 14 SHEETS
ADDRESS OF PROJECT:
1113 KINGS ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH
20-225
Q
NN
102.63
top window first
102.70
top window first
102.73
window first
102.71
window first
103.80
top window first
103.78
top window first
LEGEND
DESCRIPTION
TW TOP WALL
BRICK
DECK
WALL
BUILDING
PROPERTY LINE
FENCE
N. G. NATURAL GRADE
P. P. POWER POLE
WM WATER METER
F. F. FINISH FLOOR
G. F. GARAGE FLOOR
CONC. CONCRETE
F. S. FINISH SURFACE
M. H. MAN -HOLE
P PLANTER
A. C. ASPHALT
T. G. TOP -GRATE
RdM SURVEYING INC.
R N MIEDEMA L,S, 4653
23016 LAKE FOREST DR. #409
LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653
949) 858-2924 OFFICE
949) 858-3438 FAX
RDMSURVEYING@C X.NET
st
91.14
V
90.23
Is
1 1
W..73
Fs
IP
IP
1
41 87.40
f
86.81
86.47
s
1'
1W
2.0' ROLLED
T P GRAPHIC SURVEY
JOB:(68-20) DATE: 11/28/2017
OWNER:
GREG AND CAR LYN REED
460 SANTA ANA AVENUE
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
1050.6211950.62n9
95.59 • 67.05 • 58.63
edge ng ng
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT 31, TRACT NO, 1219
NORTH
0' 10' 20'
SCALE: 1"=10'
INFER SHALL PERMANENTLY
Y CORNERS OR OFFSETS
GRADING.
18.1020 14.38
I
20.13
tw
20.34
13.48
fs
Kc, LAND SGS\
R N
MIEDEMA
NO. 4653
EXP. 9/30/19
9
F R
CA l/
SHEET
3
Wi'
V
x
z
0
n
W
s
W
rW
V
z
MMr
V
z
z
z
0.
NBZC GRADE DETERMINATION (MODIFIED POINTS METHODOLOGY) of 14 SHEETS
BENCH MARK: ADDRESS OF PROJECT:
BM#: 3K-23-68
ELEVATION: 10.40
DATUM: NAVD88 1113 KINGS ROAD
NEWPORT BEACH
20-226
86.48) (64.40) (6/3-.86)
P 1 P2 1 I';i )
D
D
BUNK BEDROOM
p CLG. 106
D
86.36)
11
Lu I
p d
CLOSE
du CLG. 96
L-
SHELF & POLE
D
SHOWER
D
BATH 7
CLG. 106
J
D
p D D
D D
D
D D
J
aLLII
a
w
II
p II
U)
II
D II
UP
WINE
CLG. 96
D
III
10'-4" 6'-10"
I- ------- - - - - -- - - --
i
II
II
II
BAR I I
CLG. 106
II
II
IICOVERED
PATIO
CLG. 106
I
II
II
II
II
II
LOUNGE W--------- ---
CLG. 106
I
II
II
POCKET
50" F.P. 13
I
II
II
II
II
I II
II
II
12 I I I
COVERED II
85.50) PATIO I I
CLG. 106
II
GAME ROOM
CLG. 106
F.F. 74.83
II
II
II
II
II
D
D p
D D
D D
D D
D p
D
D p
D
4'-0" 86'-8"
P6 P7 P8
85.67) (84.13) (82.00)
BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
80.00)
66.00)
II
II
II
I
I
I
I
II
II
I
I
D
POWDER
POCKET
CLG. 106
ELEVATOR
LAV I
COVERED
m
m
PATIO
CLG. 106
w
U
z
UP UP UP UP
II
q
D
UP UP
F, Q w
GAMEROOM
UP CLG. 106
I
p I
I
D
THEATRE w
Y
UPp
c?
w
mmmD
W
o
o
W
In
O
2
a
of I
l
J
Lu
D
U)
III
i
BEDROOM
Q
UP
i
CLG. 106
Z
EXERCISE
UP UP BATH 6
O
CLG. 10
Un
0
CLG. 106
LL D
W
U
J
UP UP UP up
I -
D ° D Im 1
Lu
Qv
m z
0-1 I
W/D
z
I I LL -J
D
D p
D D
D D
D D
D p
D
D p
D
4'-0" 86'-8"
P6 P7 P8
85.67) (84.13) (82.00)
BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
80.00)
66.00)
SHEETS
20-227
m
m
w
U
z
O
x
q
F, Q w
c?
w
W
q
o
o
In
l a
W
i
Q
i Z0-
O Un
0 W
LL D
W
U
J z
I -
Z
W
Lu
Qv
m z
z
z
J
I.1.
0*11
O
N
00
O
I
U
x
U
W
Q N
Z W
cr
Date: 5/8/19
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"
Drawn: CSH
Job: 1113 KINGS ROAD
SHEET
4
OF 14 SHEETS
20-227
20-228
86.48) 64.40) 63.86)
P1q P2 P3
Cp
10'-1"
6
M
90' 31,
w
U 0
F z
2'-1" 50'-11" 14'-4" 10'4" 13,_0"
28'-5" 6'4"
t
4'-0" 6'4" 4'-0"
M
w 00 o oa,
i
22'-7"
p
6'-10"
67
O Z
3 •.00
a
LJ
Z
v
z U
U z a'
v
w
I
wo
rn
N I I I
W
C
i
z z
J
I
V1
W
op
O
I
I I
W
Wa
Lu z
Lu
I I A/V
M
z
C G
CLG. 96
z
z
z
nJ
1.1..E
C*11
O
N
00
C
n
G
U
x
U
W
V
A u
OFFICE
4 C)
I CLG. 106
Date: 5/8/19
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"
Drawn: CSH
Job: 1113 KINGS ROAD
SHEET
II
5
OF 14 SHEETS
3:12 SLOPE i 3:12 SLOPE I o
SHOWER
I I = I
I I m
GARAGE j / COVERED \ \ I
816 SF DECK \ \ I
00 J SLOPED CLG. \ \ I
86.36) i— — CLG. 9°
I I o \
in
M I I Tt
1 BATH 8
I
CLG. 96
POCKET
J I
I
SHELF & POLE - I 1 13
I 42" F.P.
UP
II
II
N
I II 1
II
I
I
I o
85.50) i 1 DECK N
4'-0,
LIVING
O P E N
CLG. 106 I I N
I II
UP F.F. 86.67
II
I
o I PORCH
II
1
I
II
1
II
II
66.00)
ENTRY „
ED CLG.
I I
1
I
L-------- ---
L------------
4'-0„ 13'-8„ I 5'-2"
I
4._6" I I I
I II
I
II
BUILT-IN
ow
POCKET II
ELEVATOR
II
I I
II
SHELVES DECK
POWDER
CLG. 106 II
I PANTRY DINING
1 CLG. 96 w CLG. 106
I
II IIbo
I II
I
SHELF & POLE
I II
I GARAGE I
1 692 SF II
CLG. 10°
c0—
N L——
I-- I I
I 1 UP II II I I
I 6" I I I I o D a
I I 1 I
I w w l
23'-8" I o I I KNEE SPACE
CRAFT ROOMI L -- — — — — — — — — J
6'-6" 17'_2' 24" CLG. 106 IIII
25'-8" I KITCHEN I a I I a I I
CLG.106 I —J L— F---1 F---1
11
I 11 d II
b> I I DW MICRO 1 1 0
I
a a
SINK I I NOOK
I I CLG. 106
I
L
I
II
KITCHEN
II
N
I
I I
11 II
CLG. 10 I I
II
L
J
RANGE
aL
N
1-6 1
L
D
D D
D p
D p
D p
D
D p
D D
D D
D p
p D
19'_8" 2'-6" 9'-0" 24,_6" D
6'-0" 22'_2' 14'_6" 48'_0"
10'-1" 90'_8"
P6 P7 P8
85.67) 84.13) 82.00) P9
MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN (80.00)
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
20-228
Cp
6
M
w
U 0
F z
d
O
t
E-
M
w 00 o oa,
ipU
E-
67
O Z
3 •.00
a
LJ
Z z U
U z a'
w
wo
rn
W
C
i
z z
J
V1
W
O
O
W
LLV
Lu z
Lu
J M
z
C G
z
z
z
nJ
1.1..E
C*11
O
N
00
C
n
G
U
x
U
W
V
A u
U
4 C)
Date: 5/8/19
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"
Drawn: CSH
Job: 1113 KINGS ROAD
SHEET
5
OF 14 SHEETS
20-228
86.48) (64.40) (63.86)
n n n
r -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Lua0
04
M
BEDR--
SLOPED CLG.
Wn- o
co
M
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
L - - - -
LuJ
OI
II CLOSET
1 CLG. 9°
uiJ10
l
HALL I I
W
C
W
I C
L-q =
I v=i
L V
BATH 2 I I
CLG. 90 I I
LQv VANITY
I
1 0 BENCH
F.F. 98.51
TEEN ROOM
CLG. 9°
UX' zWm
SHOWER
O P E N
T O
B E L O W
FAU
DECK
36"F.P.
HALL I I
W CLG. 90 I I
aO
L V
LL I
I
II
II
II
DECK
II
NN_
85.50)
M
W
I
W
BEDROOM 3 o
1
II o
I
a CLOSET a
SLOPED CLG.
CLG. 96
o
T
W
w
M
10
a
IiW
W
SHELF & POLESmooF
T I
aO
w
U
W
I
N BATH 3 \/
I I SKYLIGHT
I CLOSET
CLG. 9° ABOVE
0
FVAN p36"
1
I
Y
a
I
F.F. 98.51
TEEN ROOM
CLG. 9°
UX' zWm
SHOWER
O P E N
T O
B E L O W
FAU
DECK
v
85.67)
P7
84.13)
II
MB THR
SL O ED
dL(t. U,/, II
II
II II
II II
I I :132SLOPEII3:12 S
II II
6m 1 -- - - - - - I L- ,
36" F.P. SHOWER
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
MASTER
BEibkoom
3:12 SLOPE SLOgEP CLG. 3:123:12 S
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
i
II
II
II
II
0OzW DECK
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
COVERED II
DECK
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
DECK
P8
82.00) P9
UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN (80.00)
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
66.00)
36"F.P.
II
II
VANITY L V
LL I
I
II
II
II
DECK
II
85.50)
COVERED PATIO
I
CLG. 9°
1
II
II
II
I
SHELF & POLE
II
I
o
0CL
CLG. 9° 1 / \ I ABOVE
W
M
10
a
SHELF & POLESmooF
u.
T I
w
U
W
I
I
z
I
I CLOSET I
0 CLG. 90 I1
I
BEURDOIVI - - - a
I
v
85.67)
P7
84.13)
II
MB THR
SL O ED
dL(t. U,/, II
II
II II
II II
I I :132SLOPEII3:12 S
II II
6m 1 -- - - - - - I L- ,
36" F.P. SHOWER
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
MASTER
BEibkoom
3:12 SLOPE SLOgEP CLG. 3:123:12 S
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
i
II
II
II
II
0OzW DECK
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
COVERED II
DECK
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
DECK
P8
82.00) P9
UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN (80.00)
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
66.00)
a
VANITY L V
LL I
I
I 36"
ELEVATOR 1
I a BATH 4 \ / SKYLIGHT I
I o CLG. 9° 1 / \ I ABOVE
M
SHELF & POLESmooF
w
U 0
J
I
z
SHELF & POLE Dm
w
SII FAU
I BEURDOIVI - - - a
CLOSET7T.
w-
o-
I SLOPED CLG. CLG. 9 s
zw
o
O
t
Ji U) w CLOSET
W
n cf)WLINEN CLG. 90
I I
I
0
o zz z
3 •.00
a
U)
QU
Z
I I r7 7117 7F
I I
U
I I I I SHELF & POLE
I
w
q
O
O
Ili \Ili—-------
Ln
rn
HALL
mZ--4
SLOPED CLG. \
24LL/ IL/ IL/
I SKYLIGHT
rW
V
WW ABOVE
zQ
i
0-
LL-
tin
I
Lit
CLOSET I' z
Ca
w
J II CLG. 96J W o z
1
W w m
BEDRDGM- ill C
M
SLOPED CLG.
I
I a BATH 5
II
a CLG. 90
z
I 36., LAUNDRY
j
CLG. 9°
W/C
VANITY 1
N
J
W/D I W/D
I II I
1
1
I
L
L - -JI, - J
VENT VENT
L ----
v
85.67)
P7
84.13)
II
MB THR
SL O ED
dL(t. U,/, II
II
II II
II II
I I :132SLOPEII3:12 S
II II
6m1 -- - - - - - I L- ,
36" F.P. SHOWER
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
MASTER
BEibkoom
3:12 SLOPE SLOgEP CLG. 3:123:12 S
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
i
II
II
II
II
0OzW DECK
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
COVERED II
DECK
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
DECK
P8
82.00) P9
UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN (80.00)
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
66.00)
M
w
U 0
z
d
w
O
t
M o OW
w U o zz z
3 •.00
a
4
LJ
QU
Z
U z
2w
v
w
q
O
O
Ln
rn
mZ--4
rW
V
zQ
i
0-
LL-
tin
O Lit
O Ca
w
J
Lu z
Lu
j
Lu
M
Lu
0-
z
z
z
j
0*11O
N
U
U
W
WCIA
W u
UC)
z
Date: 5/8/19
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"
Drawn: CSH
Job: 1113 KINGS ROAD
SHEET
6
OF 14 SHEETS
I
C
10
JE
86.36)
11
4 9
86.48) 64.40) 6/3.86) 44.50)
np, P 1 I';i) nP4
108.18
N
M
86.39)
RIDGE
110.06
J
5:12 I Ly
I
5:12
I RIDGE
86.28)
I
cYi
I 1
108.18
DENOTES ROOF AREA (327 SQ. FT.) ABOVE 29'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT
59 SQ. FT. ROOF AREA OVER LOWER ENCLOSED SPACE)
211 SQ. FT. ROOF AREA OVER COVERED PATIO)
TOTAL UPPER ROOF AREA 3,958 SQ. FT. WITH 57 SQ. FT. (1.4%) ABOVE HEIGHT LIMIT ---
C, _C,
DENOTES DECK/RAILING AREA (26 SQ. FT.) ABOVE 24'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT
78.36)
79.18) (78.05) (71.46) (68.68)
108.18
I
I
I
N
I M
I
1(85.85) RIDGE
108.18 - - - - -- - -- 108
1
110.06
5:12 1 N
108.18
79.90) - - - (77.89)77
N
I
I
20 sq ft 74.70)
M
a
JP
108.18
m
m
N 59 sq o
I
I
80.72)
1 (79.18)
M
w
U
z
L yA co
5:12
Q
3:12
RIDGE
85.61) 110.06
N_
1 JP 211 sq ft
77.33)
81.45) • T.O. .101.8 ch
j••j E-
08.T8 - 79.18)
3. 8
3''Z f 100.09
3:12 (69.83) 3:12
37 sq ft
c
o\Q
N (
80.74) M
y%
oW
JP\,' .\
Q UPPER DECK o N 1
o (79.18) C>
til 4
O 2% SLOPE_
0 y 3:12
W
RIDGE Q
84.26) Q (
84.65) 110.76
r -o° X a' -o°
IMNEYC P75.53
z
0
Vl
T.O.W. 101.85
W
N
0- W
O zO
108.18 77.99) 77.07)
N
V
Cl) (85.66)
z
81.28)
z
z
J
0*11O
N
I
LO
Cq
JQ cYi Q UPPER DECK
I 85.38)
O
3:12
85.5
x
108.18
85.39)
3:12
19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r'
I
L- - - - - -
I
I
I
I
I
I
N_
m
RIDGE
3:12
85.07)
3:12
W LO0 I
1
JQy
N
M
si A rd
84.98) 3:12
Lu o
D
C) N
N_
M
R1(
84.68)IDGE
i[li-AR
64.11)
65.61)
97.68
LOWEIR DECK
I
I
I
I
y%
I O
3:12 R. 3:12
I a
I
I
I 1
2% SLOPE
I
I
UPPER DECKI
84.08) I
107.68
3:12
3:12
79.36)
N
83.50)
M\Q
JQ'
RIDGE
82.94) 3:12
W co
F M
X3:12 3:12
107.68
108.18 108.18
ROOF PLAN
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
P6) P7) U8
85.67) (84.13) (82.00)
66.00)
108.18
I
I
I
N
I M
I
1(85.85) RIDGE
1
110.06
5:12 1 N
I M
I
I
1
I
JP
108.18
m
m
I
I
N
w
U
z
O
x
5:12
Q
RIDGE
85.61) 110.06
N_
co
108.18
85.39)
3:12
19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r'
I
L- - - - - -
I
I
I
I
I
I
N_
m
RIDGE
3:12
85.07)
3:12
W LO0 I
1
JQy
N
M
si A rd
84.98) 3:12
Lu o
D
C) N
N_
M
R1(
84.68)IDGE
i[li-AR
64.11)
65.61)
97.68
LOWEIR DECK
I
I
I
I
y%
I O
3:12 R. 3:12
I a
I
I
I 1
2% SLOPE
I
I
UPPER DECKI
84.08) I
107.68
3:12
3:12
79.36)
N
83.50)
M\Q
JQ'
RIDGE
82.94) 3:12
W co
F M
X3:12 3:12
107.68
108.18 108.18
ROOF PLAN
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
P6) P7) U8
85.67) (84.13) (82.00)
66.00)
SHEETS
20-230
m
m
w
U
z
O
x
Q
j••j E- w o0 O
c
w
w
q
a
o
M
In
til 4
W
Q
0.
z
0
Vl
z W
0- W
O zO
V
z
z
z
J
0*11O
N
I
00
O
r V
x
w
W
Q N
Z w
Date: 5/8/19
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"
Drawn: CSH
Job: 1113 KINGS ROAD
SHEET
7
OF 14 SHEETS
20-230
F)23
1.40
89.46FL (86.48) (64.40) (63.86)
P1 P2 P3
RESIDENCE
1A\
M
V) S M Cu
v) LL- DENOTS OOF AREA (327 SQ. FT.) ABOVE 29'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT
59 SQ. F .ROOF AREA OVER LOWER ENCLOSED SPACE)
Qj 2' (211 SQ. F-'. ROOF AREA OVER COVERED PATIO)
j Tbb
co
ER A 3,T. WI FT. (1.4° AB VE HEI MIT g 61.4
CABLE T V ' N3033'00"E 2
C
E O ES DE IChNG AREA (6 C T.) ABOV 24'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT
0 64-88
8 9.41 T C 78.36 6 41W 7 6 3.8 8
64.
88.96FL C 8
X
is
6- enc
Ek-
e n c
e6.9 8 srTr
PALM 31 8 .12 T W (79.1 (7.0 (71.46) (68.68) (
97.68)
Q • 8 9.41 9 • 8.
I 9 - -
8 - - - 8
palm pal 6 ng • 77.37(7 90 _ 08.89) QC>
88.40TW
1 o ng n
4.
20sgft P co
hh (
74.70) a
3 N N 59 sq oN
o
89.00TC
Ln 1 , 89.48 0p (80.72) z 87 MI
Q •
7
88.59FL 88.7 C O CU \0 1 6.39)RIDGE c+ \
Q 3:12_ \
N 211 sq ft n
3
conc 10 , co 00 Q 68.68
00i 110.06
JP
y NQ V) (T .r.
5)
0$.$ 73. 8
CONIC.i '-' (
32
3:12 (69.83
100.09 175.87 •
pa
E C 1.. C> n
37 sq ft C P
CONC. I
y'
1ti (80.74) • Lr)
4 0 Q75-52
M
86.36)
1 -
I
Pco
5 "' Q UPPER Kn 'g N Ylg 1 • 63.
7Z (
79 (79. 8
I
g
Lix,
1
P I
I \1 ! 13 y '( 1 b 2% SLOPE_ 1 z
C I 0 i
RID
6
P `
3:12 8 _
88.16TC CONIC.
e ` (84.26)
C1 n
84.65) 110.76 COncI ( •85)
88.04FL 6' - cont
conc C 1 RIDGE N 13
end tvV8778 (8 28)1 1 IufD 77.87 y% CONC. ^
Q COB
99.47T.. 1 M _ SHED
ze- -
T os. 8 (77.99) (77.0 Oh
CONC. 9 P (
8.
99 (
81.
I C
7
C nc ' • 96.75 1
Q
98.93 ' I
conc J J CONIC. ridge N r Age I LOW E
z
41 8-1 79
1 --- J coQ
87.99TC
C
CONIC.
108 8 I I (85.38) 12 \
e UPPER DECK
3:12 I
IO
87.62FL CONC. i i y, (85.5
CONIC.1 I • ' c nc •
49 1`•
CONC. I fs i 2 wk
85.07) i C A
NG
CONC. 3: 1zoconcCO
85.82 1 • 85.27 , 12 • 7 .44
1 2 t • 5 •
73.i
2 wk
c nc
i
s
i
3:12 gyp' Q o
B5.78 ,y C\j 1
f ag pole i - - - - Z 1os.1s i CQ
c85.33 CONC. 1 CONC. 2 U (84.54)
1 - - - -
cc n
E36. 8 RESIDENCE j
P
I1o8.
85.34 CONC.
t (
844.
98) 3:12 ' V, y
N
conc
I w o 1
0 85 9 1
N • 85.70 CONIC. o 1 39
Ff .12
MAIL BOX (o c nc M I o 3:12
T310
II \
QM A •
00 l1 LOWER D CKP8.93 ft Wk
1(85.85) 74.88z85.46 RIDGE ridge ;
ng86.98TC CIO 110.06
86.57FL
CO C. 5.1 CONIC. 2% SLOPE
7 6
M 85. k
I
conc ng CO C
6
I
tG-
y%
M CONC.
ZLi
6.67 I
UPPER K 1I y o I
P
CONIC.'
P CONC. " Q (
84.08) I
3:12 RI (84. 107.68
98.1 011 '8,28 111.92
M ------- 3: 2
CONIC. r' 3'18 ridge ridgy M y% _ 1 •
76.80
Lyl` \
Q M1 `' 3:12 (
79.36) Z 1 Ing
CONIC.
N ' N
CONC. 5:1
RIDGE (
83.50) 1
Q
4 O
j` P6 1 110.06 Q' co
A 9 1
N
RIDGE (
82.94) 3126)
6p
9
CONC I
M
wSCONIC. It
o * 98.9 2
co t 79.34
y
48.34
Ing
55.74
Ing
63.26
a(m
c
2 wk 2.
ng
72.6
2 t k
79 P
72.61
t k
72.6
ft wk
7 .94 ,/f68.35N
v
M
0
X4.
21
7 G
72.4NG
70
WM
ri,uge << M 10' E SEWER EAS E
g
nc ------ --------- C86.13TC
j 2 •
6.40 LnQ' • 85. 6
Cnnc 3
85.68FL lm • 85. 7 85.57 :
12 3:12
palm U -) CP• 85.43 Q j
CABLE TV co RDW BUSHES
984.
82 ----------- ---- ---- ------ 107.68 75.6N
S 108.18 t 82.94 - - 108.18 ,5R0 BUSHES ng ang co ANS Q m
8•
6- 47 ROW BUSHES CON
N4006 8 .58 • 0.30scRP9 COr1,.9
z20"E RAD. 0 ul, o- N7 52 40 P C NC. ' ,. Q/
E 18 .05v • 84.59 3jq
P • 8 .31 fs an
n9 85.53
o o r S
84.87 • 84.8@ 81.92
00 stepstep Fs (
b~ S 1ti
85.59TC
85.11FL P6 RESIDENCE P7 P8
t
82.51
85.67) I (84.13) (82.00) P9
Tam --i1, 0 (80.00)
2.0' Rni I Fn r
ON 74.3
nd
N
O
IN
C
3 Q)
Ln
O 0
Q aj
64.1
n
44.50)
nP4 \
0\4 8.3 2
Ing
55.
61.97
palm 11
C • 3.16
palm
SHEETS
20-231
m M
w
U
z
O
O Q
w
o
F• w o0 O
CJS
z u3
W
ow
q o
M
M
ml C_
W
W d
0.
z
U)
O W
O Ca
W
F- U
z
z
Q
LL
O z
z
z
J
0
N
z
x
0
v
U
O
M
v
Date: 5/8/19
Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"
Drawn: CSH
Job: 1113 KINGS ROAD
SHEET
8
OF 14 SHEETS
20-231
SHEETS
20-232
d
t?
Z9 T. t -t>= i GH T l.tr tt7 Lri,
EbRaoM
O
x
MAS'r6t2 _ aEDIROO l
q
C Qi
i
GAta-Aci, cpAr-T pm K1Tcl4EN t400K
T
j••j E-
J
I
l
TH EAS c 0p00H
YAIRO
c?
w
W
qAR
In
1
W
t
O
a
z
m
Q
SITES SECTIONEN "A" O
z
O W
I- u
zLU
U)
LU
Q
I=
U)
0
z
z
z
Q
J
0.
0*11
O
N
00
O
0
v
Wx
Z
w
W N
zW
o
Date: 5/8/19
Scale: 1/8" = V-0"
Drawn:
T
SHEET
9
OF 14
bR or-t PAT 10 btr c K
rn
i
s
C9"iM 1 IPA"ilp_
o YAR r->
At
11111 .,
SITE SECTION "B"
O
z
0
SHEETS
20-232
w
U
z
O
x
q
C Q
j••j E- w o0 O
c?
w
W
q
o
o
In
W
t
x
a
z
m
Q
U)
z
O W
I- u
zLU
U)
LU
Q
I=
U)
0
z
z
z
Q
J
0.
0*11
O
N
00
0
v
Wx
w
W N
zW
Date: 5/8/19
Scale: 1/8" = V-0"
Drawn: CSH
Job: 1113 KINGS ROAD
SHEET
9
OF 14 SHEETS
20-232
SHEETS
20-233
9-9 FT. HG -r, UHcT Lri.
Pj bRcx3 R, V4 'L- _
i
i mn
m
CL
F
W
U
z
O
x
al^ (cE -PA710
q
SUNK RM
F, Q w
Io
Nit
SITE SECTION "C"
c?
w
T5L0FZ f'kOFILE AT EAS- [=Ron. i3O.
o
o
In
rw
V
z
O
U lit
Z
O W
F- U
C) z
N
Lu
2q F NT L M T
U)
0
z
z
z
J
a
0*11
LAUNPtZY CL05ET CLOSET PAT Io gm 7L
N
00
0
w
U
W {Yi
uS
0 1
Q
1,1TC HEN
Z
OFFICE
1Z 1
6
cr
C'7
Date: 5/8/19
Scale: 1/8" = V-0"
Drawn: CSH
Job: 1113 KINGS ROAD
SHEET
J fNl~ATi
10
CAME gM SAS
f
Air .
SITE SECTION "D"
SHEETS
20-233
mn
m
F
W
U
z
O
x
q
F, Q w
c?
w
W
q
o
o
In
rw
V
z
O
U lit
Z
O W
F- U
C) z
U
Lu
U)
0
z
z
z
J
a
0*11
0
N
00
0
w
U
W {Yi
W
Q N
Z w
cr
C'7
Date: 5/8/19
Scale: 1/8" = V-0"
Drawn: CSH
Job: 1113 KINGS ROAD
SHEET
10
OF 14 SHEETS
20-233
20-234
2°l FT RG -T, L 4 H I -T
N
P>EDKZOC>M 2 ''; TEEN {act ECK -- DECK-
s
Q:
04 2 4 Fr. H T.
LImrT
a
BRAG C3 (I:G.E COVERED "' C _
DUNK Izm
1
bAR PATIO(f` P,t:>
w
U
z
O
x
q
F, Q w
cn w op q•.,
SITE SECTION "E"
10
3
c?
w
Pi
w
q
o
o
RESIDEI
19'-0" 11'-0"
89
88' AjT
89 O
8866 O
Q5
W
Z
J
a
a8. 53 6' 2 /° 0
0.
6% 2%
o . 0 o
z
Of..
0
U
Luw 10'- '
M W
a BL G.
6.36)
W
i --- I
Z
0
aa
V
z z
96
46%
Lu
46%
2% 868A
d
W
0 3% TS
O
883 86
68
S
g
FS
N
O
LL
3
X82
C) zW
y
V) 19.-0.111'-0"
Zz
F—
V 87.99 TOC
U) U
z 87.62 FL
J^
C*11
CO
O
N
00
N
Cr
u
CD
0
N
0
co
x
00
W W
e Z
cp6'O
W
I --I
N
NA
A
W
A
ih
6%
53%
r 2%.
0
cr
Ho o
U
KW
5/8/19
Scale: 1/8" = V-0"
Q B DG.
CSH
Job: 1113 KINGS ROAD
SHEET
0
I I
a
a
SHEETS
86 2 >_ o6/°
2%
o
6686
S4%
86A 8
a6
3g O (D
S
a5' N
86.13 TOC cO
85.68 FL wM O
II II M
0
ENLARGED DRIVEWAY PLAN
SCALE: 1/8"=V-0"
20-234
m
w
U
z
O
x
q
F, Q w
cn w op q•.,
10
3
c?
w
w
q
o
o
W
Z
J x
V
0.
W z
Of..
0 VJ^
M W
Lu(
D
W
Q V
z z
W d
W
W
Z
O
C) zW
Lu
Zz
F—
U) U
J^
C*11
O
N
00
Cr
u
U
x
W W
W
I --I
N
Z W
A
z/1
cr
Date: 5/8/19
Scale: 1/8" = V-0"
Drawn: CSH
Job: 1113 KINGS ROAD
SHEET
I I
OF 14 SHEETS
20-234
20-235
co
M
U 0
z
w
2 U O
w
O o0 p
a
V J c4
U
F
i 67
Z O
by0x"
Z z U
U z a'
w
wo
m 4
W
C
U
Od.
O z
Li W
i CaLU
W
U
z
0
do
L
z
z
z
J
0
N
0
w
u
x
U
W Fl-I
Q
Z W
Z A U
CO U
CS U-
Date: 5/8/19
Scale: 1/4" = V-0"
Drawn: CSH
Job: 1113 KINGS ROAD
SHEET
12
OF 14 SHEETS
20-235
63.86 "
11.1-t"
20-236
co
M
U 0
z
w
2 U O
w
O o0 p
ia
V J c4
U
F
67
Z O
by0x"
Z z U
U z a'
w
wo
m 4
W
C
U
Od.
z
O
Q W
w
WLU
uw
M z
U
LU d
0
z
z
z
J
0
N
0
w
u
x
U
W Fl-I
Q
Z W
Z A U
CO U
CS U-
Date: 5/8/19
Scale: 1/4" = V-0"
Drawn: CSH
Job: 1113 KINGS ROAD
SHEET
13
OF 14 SHEETS
20-236
F.F. 98.51
F.F. 86.67
F.F.. 74.83
i•
F. 98.51
F. 86.67
F. 74.83
20-237
co
M
U 0
z
w
2 U O
w
O o0 p
ia
V J c4
U
F
67
Z O
by0x"
Z z U
U z a'
w
wo
m 4
W
C
U
Od.
z
C
O W
Q Ca
w W
U
w z
Q
V
z
z
z
J
O
N
00
d
O
w
U
x
U
W Fl -I
ZQ
W
Z A U
CO U
CS U -
Date: 5/8/19
Scale: 1/4" = V-0"
Drawn: CSH
Job: 1113 KINGS ROAD
SHEET
14
OF 14 SHEETS
20-237
Attachment G
Correspondence
20-238
From: ghassem azadian <gazadian@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 1:27 PM
To: Dixon, Diane
Cc: Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Kleiman,
Lauren; Kramer, Kory; Ghosn, Samir; Murillo, Jaime; Planning
Commissioners; Jurjis, Seimone
Subject: Reed Residents - 1113 Kings Road - Project No. PA 2019-060
Dear Mayor Dixon and Honorable City Council Members,
Our family has lived on Kings Road for 11 years and we have always enjoyed a
peaceful and quiet quality of life in our community of Cliff Haven, until recently. We live
at 1121 Kings Road and our home is West of 1113 Kings Road.
The applicant, Carolyn Reed has applied for an application to build a 10,803 square -
foot home with a 1,500 attached garage with a 100 -foot projection; this 12,300 square
foot project is completely out of character for the south, (bluff -side) of Kings Road. This
is a perfect example of the continued "mansionization" that is destroying the charm of
our community. The design, location, size and characteristics are not compatible with
the single-family residences in the vicinity and would not be compatible with the
enjoyment of nearby properties. In addition to this proposed monstrosity, the Planning
Commission has granted five additional height variances. This decision is currently
being appealed by SPON and both the Cliff Haven and Newport Heights Associations
support this appeal. The fact is that this development is detrimental to the community.
In comparison, the average square -foot home on the bluff -side is 4,452 square -feet
with an average projection of 50 to 70 feet, depending on the natural topography of the
bluff.
The Reeds entered into "bad -faith" when they wrote and then asked our family to
submit a letter to the City asking for our recommendation of approval for their project.
We trusted the Reeds that this project would not have any impacts; however, after fully
reviewing the project, this massive structure would destroy the harmony of our
neighborhood and will have a detrimental impact to the bluffs, vistas and from scenic
view corridor that exists along the bay.
At this time, we are retracting our previous letter that was submitted to the City on May
21, 2019 and for the record, we do not support PA 2019-060.
The neighbor to the East, 1101 Kings Road, Mrs. Manizheh Yomtoubian is the owner
and is also opposed to this out of character project. This project is inconsistent with
the City's General Plan and will have cumulative environmental impacts to the bluffs,
which could potentially compromise the surrounding homes. There was already a
small land -slide in the area about five to seven years ago.
20-239
Further documentation from the engineering company, H.V. Lawmaster & Co., Inc.,
identified the geology and foundation factors pertinent to the property located at 1113
Kings Road. Their conclusions dated July 25, 1973, describes the property as having a
down -hill creep"; thus, recommending caisson footings.
It is our belief that there are no caissons footings located at 1113 Kings Road and that
the bluff may not support such enormous project without jeopardizing the surrounding
homes.
In closing, we oppose this project as it relates to the safety and the quality of life to the
surrounding residents residing on Kings Road. Under these circumstances, we ask that
the City Council make a motion to send the application PA -2019-80, back to City Staff
and to return to the Planning Commission for further review.
Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this matter,
Sincerely,
Mr. & Mrs. Gus and Fawzia Azadian
1121 Kings Road
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Email; gazadian(aD-gmail.com
714)290-3208
20-240