Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
20 - Resolution No. 2019-80: Appeal of Reed Residential Variance for 1113 Kings Road - Correspondence
Received After Agenda Printed September 4, 2019 Item No. 20 From: Lynn Lorenz <lynnierlo@aol.com> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2019 10:40 AM To: Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office Subject: King's Road Attention City Clerk's Office Please include this in packet for September 10th Meeting on Study Session for King's Road Residential Project Hearing Please acknowledge receipt of email, Thank you, Lynn Lorenz, Septmeber 6, 2019 Kings Road in Cliff Haven has suffered because of the absence of a mandatory HOA. It is struggling right now with trying to maintain the harmony of the neighborhood architecturally and emotionally. Views are being threatened and the size of the houses vary to the extent that a few houses are twice the size of the norm. The house being considered is 10,800 square feet, not including the garage, while the approximate average size of homes in the area is between 3,000 and 5,000 square feet. These large houses that have been built or are in the planning stages are also threatening to damage the site's natural topography -the bluffs. In so doing, they threaten to affect the public views from Pacific Coast Highwy, a designated coastal view road. One might think that the City would have become more directly involved in protecting views and the bluffs. Private views are not in their purview but public views are. And the City does have height standards. But what has been affecting the symmetry of King's Road and other Newport Beach neighborhoods the most is the City's granting of building variances to excess. Many of the variances they have been granting in recent years are "luxury" rather than "hardship" variances. And building standards due to variances are being challenged to the extent that HOA's no longer have the power they once had. It is not surprising that Cliff Haven and/or Kings Road do not have mandatory HOA's because of their age. This is true also in the Heights Area adjacent to Kings Road. During the era that these neighborhoods were first established, neighbors relied on the civility of the community. It would have been rare to find someone who would block the coastal view of an adjacent neighbor, and the city would have granted variances very sparingly. In our modern world most people do not often know their neighbors and community spirit is lacking. Individuals are more concerned about what they think are their personal property rights regardless of what that means to their neighbors. As a result, large houses are being built now that block neighbors' views and their light as well. And no one seems to be stopping them. Received After Agenda Printed September 10, 2019 a Item No. 20 Hermosa Beach Office Chatten-Brown, Carstens & Minteer LLP Michelle Black Phone: (310) 798-2400 Email Address: San Diego Office 2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318 mnb0cbcearthlaw.com Phone: (858) 999-0070 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Direct Dial: Phone: (619) 940-4522 www.cbcearthlaw.com 310-798-2400 Ext. 5 September 6, 2019 Via Email jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov Jaime Murillo, Principal Planner Seimone Jurjis, Community Development Director City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: September 10, 2019 City Council Agenda, Public Hearing Item # 20. Appeal of Variance No. VA2019-002 for 1113 Kings Road Honorable Councilmembers: Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) submits these comments in support of its appeal of the Planning Commission's May 23, 2019 decision to approve Variance No. VA2019-002 for the property located at 1113 Kings Road. The Applicant requested the variance to enable the demolition of the existing, 3,013 square foot residence and replacement of that home with a building nearly three times larger. Although touted as a single-family home, the new building would be 10,803 square feet with a 1,508 -square foot garage, itself the size of a 3 -bedroom home. The variance is specifically requested to enable the building to exceed the applicable 29 -foot height limit for sloped roofs and the 24 -foot height limit for flat roofs and decks. The Applicant could easily construct a large, luxurious home on the site, within the permitted building envelope, without the variance. The property is already in parity with others in the vicinity, despite its topographical challenges. Accordingly, the City cannot find that "the strict application of the [height limit] denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity" as required by Newport Beach Municipal Code section 20.52.090. Additionally, the proposed building is demonstrably incompatible with the neighborhood's other residences located on Kings Road and would eliminate treasured public views of the ocean. Finally, SPON is concerned about the precedent set by permitting unnecessary variances from the City's carefully -crafted planning standards. If the City permits the variance at 1113 Kings Road, where does it end? Honorable City Council City of Newport Beach September 6, 2019 Page 2 SPON respectfully requests that the City Council sustain its appeal and reverse the Planning Commission's approval. I. The City Cannot Make the Findings Required for a Variance. Newport Beach Municipal Code section 20.52.090 A provides that the purpose of a variance is to "waive or modify certain standards of the Zoning Code when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property ... 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." California Government Code section 65906, authorizing variances, is nearly identical and emphasizes that variances "shall not constitute a grant of special privileges." On the contrary, variances exist to ensure equity in an area, not to grant special privileges inconsistent with the limitations applicable to all properties in an area. (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 511 ["effort to achieve substantial parity"].) Pursuant to State law and the City's municipal code, the City must make six (6) findings to lawfully approve a variance: 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; 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; 3) Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant; 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; 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 Honorable City Council City of Newport Beach September 6, 2019 Page 3 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. (Newport Beach Municipal Code section 20.52.090 F.) The Staff Report relies on the site's steep topography and the presence of a gully at the eastern property line to determine that the site has "special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property... that do not apply generally to other properties." (Staff Report, p. 4.) While the property is topographically unique, the City's inquiry does not end with the first required finding. The City is required to find that the unique topography prevents the construction of a single-family home similar to others in the vicinity to the detriment of the Applicant. The City must support these findings with substantial evidence. (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-515; Cow Hollow Imp. Club v. DiBene (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 160, 171.) Yet, the evidence in this case does not support the required findings. Instead, it is clear that the property can (and does) support a single-family home without the variance, and that the Applicant seeks the variance to maximize the scale and future value of the proposed building. A. Strict Compliance with Zoning Code Requirements Would Not Deprive the Subject Property of Privilege Enjoyed by Other Properties in the Vicinity and Under an Identical Zoning Classification. Strict compliance with the Zoning Code requirements merely limits the Applicant to a building height of 29 feet and a deck height of 24 feet. It does not prevent construction of a single-family home on the site. This is illustrated by the existence of a 3,013 -square foot single-family home on the property today. Thus, a variance is not needed to bring parity when the property's potential uses are compared to others in the vicinity. Nor do the existing height limits prevent the construction of the largest residence in the neighborhood. (City Council Staff Report, p. 5 [indicating locations of planned height exceedence].) The Planning Commission Staff Report states that eliminating the variance requires: Modifying the proposed design to eliminate the height variance for enclosed living spaces would require eliminating an office on the main level... 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 ... and reducing the size of Honorable City Council City of Newport Beach September 6, 2019 Page 4 the upper level deck. (Planning Commission, May 2019 Staff Report, p. 11.) Other homes in the area average 4,500 square feet — less than half the size of what is proposed at 1113 Kings Road. Thus, the elimination of luxuries such as additional closets, larger bathrooms, and a teen room in a nearly 11,000 -square foot house, would not deprive the Applicant's property of privileges enjoyed by other identically -zoned properties in the vicinity. If anything, the denial would preserve neighborhood parity. The City proposes to find hardship in not having the "privilege of designing a two- level terraced design across the buildable width of the lot" and "the privilege of building a residence of uniform height." (Proposed Findings, p. 3.). Neither of these constraints prevents the construction of a fine and luxurious home. In Broadway, Laguna, Vallejo Assn. v. Board of Permit Appeals (1967), the California Supreme Court found that a difference between the sizes of buildings that can be built due to unique conditions is an insufficient ground for a variance. There, the applicant sought a variance from the applicable floor to area ratio due to challenging soil conditions that made construction more expensive. The Court found the city lacked authority to issue the variance, holding: If the "adversity" to which the board referred were such that enforcement of the floor area regulations would effectively deprive the developer of the ability to construct a reasonably profitable multi -unit structure in an area zoned for multi- unit construction, then the requisite disparity of treatment might be established. As we have seen, however, that is not this case. At most, the developer here has suggested that, unless code requirements are relaxed, multi -unit development will prove somewhat less profitable on his lot than on other lots in the same zone. The short answer to the developer's argument is that zoning variances were never meant to insure against financial disappointments. (Broadway, Laguna, Vallejo Assn v. Board of Permit Appeals of City and County of San Francisco (1967) 66 Cal.2d 767, 780-781, emphasis added.). No less than the Supreme Court of California would find a lack of substantial evidence supporting the City's finding that the existing height limits "deprive the homeowner privileges of a residence burdened by the cost, inconvenience, and loss of functionality enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity." (Proposed Findings, p. 3.) Here, the Applicant claims that the gully and steep topography will merely prevent it from constructing a larger office, teen room, bathroom, and covered deck than it could without a variance. The City could not, and should not, insure the Applicant against the mild financial disappointment of constructing "only" a large, ocean view luxury home, with a 4 -car garage, in Newport Beach. Honorable City Council City of Newport Beach September 6, 2019 Page 5 B. Granting of the Variance is Not Necessary for the Preservation and Enjoyment of Substantial Property Rights of the Applicant. The City cannot support the finding required by Municipal Code section 20.52.90 F(3). In fact, a single-family home currently occupies the site. While the Applicant desires to demolish the existing home, the demolition is the Applicant's choice. Thus, the City need not grant the variance to preserve the Applicant's property rights or their enjoyment of those rights. The Applicant's preferences for a larger home, an ocean view office, a large teen room, or a covered patio do not endanger the Applicant's preservation or enjoyment of substantial property rights. (Nollan v. California Coastal CoWn (1987) 483 U.S. 825, 834 ["We have long recognized that land -use regulation does not effect a taking if it `substantially advance[s] legitimate state interests' and does not `den[y] an owner economically viable use of his land'].) The Staff Report claims, "denial of the variance would significantly impact the functionality of the home design." (Staff Report, p. 9.) Again, it was the Applicant's choice to design a residence that requires a variance from the City's land use regulations in the first place. The need to redesign a luxury home to comply with existing and well- known regulations applicable to the Project site should not be considered a burden, much less a deprivation of property rights. The Supreme Court is clear: "[S]elf-imposed burdens cannot legally justify the granting of a variance." (Broadway, Laguna, Vallejo Ass'n v. Board of Permit Appeals of City and County of San Francisco (1967) 66 Cal.2d 767, 778.) The Staff Report further claims that modification to the design to build without a variance "would effectively reduce the buildable width from approximately 90 percent of the lot width to 72 percent of the lot width at those locations." (Staff Report, p. 9.) A regulation preventing development of a mere 28 percent of a lot hardly denies the Applicant an economically viable use of their land. The Applicant's lot is larger than most in the neighborhood, and they can build a very large home even using 72 percent of the frontage. Of the approximately 100 homes on Kings Road, four have been granted variances. Variances were granted for 1113 Kings Road to build the existing 3,013 - square foot home. Variances were also granted for homes of 3,767 square feet (1201 Kings Road) and 3,649 square feet (1101 Kings Road). With the exception of the home located at 1821 Kings Road (8,801 square feet), the variances were sought to construct residences that are compatible with neighborhood scale. The California Supreme Court has held that, so long as the property can be put to effective use consistent with the existing zoning without the variance sought, an agency's grant of a variance exceeds its authority. (Broadway, Laguna Assn. v. Board of Permit Honorable City Council City of Newport Beach September 6, 2019 Page 6 Appeals (1967) 66 Cal.2d 767, 775.) A variance cannot be granted just to increase the value of an Applicant's property or to relieve an applicant from undesired costs to comply with existing regulations. (Ibid.) As a community member asked, "how would not having an office on the main level... eliminating or significantly reducing the size of an upper level close, bathroom and teen room ... prevent the property from being put to effective use consistent with existing zoning without the variance sought?" The City cannot make this finding. C. Granting of the Variance Will Constitute a Grant of Special Privilege Inconsistent with the Limitations on Other Properties in the Vicinity. As described above, the purpose of a variance is to relieve a property owner of land use regulations that, due to the unique characteristics of that piece of property, prevent the landowner from using their property in the same manner as surrounding property owners. The goal is equity with surrounding landowners. (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Ca1.3d 506, 511.) Here, however, the variance is not needed to construct a comfortable single-family home. There is already one located on the property. Instead, the variance is required so that the Applicant need not undergo the inconvenience of eliminating an office, reducing the size of a closet, bathroom, or teen room, or reducing the shading over of an outdoor deck. (City Council Staff Report, p. 5.) The modified building would still be much, much larger than the average, 4,500 -square foot home on the bluff. Even if the entire upper floor needed removal to avoid a variance, which it does not, the building would still exceed 7,500 square feet (bottom two levels are 4,177 and 3,361 square feet). The garage, alone, would remain the size of a typical three-bedroom home. Instead of helping to achieve parity, granting a variance from the height requirement to enable larger closets, bathrooms, a teen room, and larger outdoor decks constitutes a grant of special privilege. Most single-family homes do not have teen rooms or multiple outdoor decks. Granting a variance on these grounds turns the purpose of a variance on its head and is unfair. As the Supreme Court found with the denial of another variance, where the land was already being used as the Applicant sought, "When the [city] denied petitioners' application for a variance it did not take away a property right, but merely refused to grant a favor." (Rubin v. Board of Directors of City of Pasadena (1940) 16 Cal.2d 119, 126.) It is the same here. The City cannot support the finding required by Municipal Code section 20.52.090 F(4). Honorable City Council City of Newport Beach September 6, 2019 Page 7 D. Granting of the Variance Will Be Detrimental to the Harmonious and Orderly Growth of the City and Constitute a Hazard to the Public Convenience, Interest, and General Welfare of Persons Residing and Working in the Neighborhood. Members of the community have presented evidence that the residence enabled by the variance would block public views of the ocean from Kings Road. The City is correct that it does not protect private views, but it does prioritize public views for the pedestrians, bikers and others on Kings Road. The variance's contributions to these lost public views are a hazard to the public convenience and interest of those in the neighborhood. The lost views further prevent the City from making the variance findings required by the Municipal Code. Moreover, it is clear that the controversy over this variance has rocked the neighborhood and damaged notions of neighborhood harmony. Given that a very large and luxurious home may be designed and constructed at the subject property without the variance, the grant of this variance is detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City. As discussed further below, the grant of this unnecessary variance sets up a situation where property owners will feel entitled to seek a variance from the City's height limits, setbacks, and other regulations imposed for neighborhood compatibility and harmony. Privacy will be lost. Conflicts about views will continue. The potential precedent the City is setting by finding a hardship when a mansion's extra bathrooms, teen room, closet, office, and deck must be downsized because an applicant chose to design outside the permissible building envelope jeopardizes future harmonious and orderly growth. The variance is also incompatible with policies of the General Plan and Zoning Code promoting orderly development and neighborhood compatibility. The City cannot make the finding required by 20.52.090 F(5). E. Granting of the Variance Conflicts with the Intent and Purpose of the Zoning Code and the General Plan. By enabling development of a gully in a coastal bluff, the variance conflicts with the General Plan. All projects approved in a city must be consistent with the general plan and its elements. "The general plan is atop the hierarchy of local government law regulating land use." (Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1183.) The General Plan has been described "the constitution for future development." (DeVita v. Napa (1995) 9 CalAth 763, 773, internal citations omitted.) Goal Natural Resources 23 of the General Plan's Natural Resources Element includes policies directed at preserving Newport Beach's natural coastal bluffs. Policy Natural Resources 23.1 directs the City to "Preserve cliffs, canyons, bluffs, and site buildings to minimize alteration of the site's natural topography." The City Council Staff Report acknowledges this policy applies to the site. (Staff Report p. 7.) However, the Honorable City Council City of Newport Beach September 6, 2019 Page 8 Staff Report claims, without evidence, that the Zoning Code allows "by -right, development down the entire slope" of the property because "the hillside has been significantly altered throughout the years." (Ibid.) The Staff Report cites nothing in the General Plan that exempts the entire neighborhood from the operation of the General Plan due to development of Pacific Coast Highway that occurred prior to the General Plan's adoption. Moreover, the coastal bluff gully on the property at issue has not been removed through years of development. Approval of the variance conflicts with the General Plan's intent and purpose of protecting coastal bluffs and canyons. The City cannot support the finding required by Municipal Code section 20.52.090 F(6). Additionally, the General Plan and Zoning Code were implemented to promote harmony and neighborhood compatibility through orderly development. The Project that would be authorized by the variance is incompatible with the neighborhood. Construction of the variance -enabled Project would conflict with the City's planning goals related to promoting land use compatibility. Land Use Element Policy 5. 1.1 requires the City to, "Establish property development regulations for residential projects to create compatible and high-quality development that contributes to neighborhood character." This use of the variance diminishes compatibility and does not promote it. Land Use Policy 5.1.5 specifically promotes "Compatibility with neighborhood development in density, scale, and street facing elevations." This residence is out of scale with the neighborhood. The variance should be denied. II. The Building Proposed for 1113 Kings Road is Incompatible with the Neighborhood. At nearly 11,000 square feet, excluding the 1,508 square foot garage, the proposed residence is significantly larger than surrounding homes, even when compared to other large homes on the bluff side of Kings Road. Currently, the largest home on the bluff side of Kings Road is approximately 8,800 square feet. The average home on the bluff is 4,500 square feet. By comparison, the proposed residence would include 10,803 square feet and an additional 1,508 -square foot, four -car garage. The residence would include three large levels: a 4,177 square foot lower level, a 3,361 square foot main level, and a 3,265 square foot upper level. The building is clearly incompatible with others in the neighborhood. The construction permissible on the lot without a variance could still produce one of the largest homes in the neighborhood. Community members analyzed the approximately 100 homes located on Kings Road and the City's history of granting variances. They determined that 96 percent of homes on Kings Road have been constructed within the allowable building envelope. Only 4 homes were granted a variance, and most of those homes maintained a low profile and articulated their design to preserve views and surrounding property values. Drone footage demonstrates that many of the homes on the bluffs have hills and gullies, yet few Honorable City Council City of Newport Beach September 6, 2019 Page 9 of those homes requested variances. Why? They were not necessary. Nor is the variance requested here necessary to build a house with the amenities or advantages of other homes on Kings Road. The City's grant of a variance to enable a home three times the size of neighboring homes to exceed height limits promotes neighborhood incompatibility in conflict with the City's zoning regulations and General Plan. (See LU Policy 5.1.5.) III. The City's Grant of this Unnecessary Variance Endangers the Integrity of Newport Beach's Planning Decisions. The City established height limits of 29 feet for sloped roofs and 24 feet for decks and flat roofs on Kings Road in order to promote neighborhood compatibility and harmony. This uniformity maintains community character and prevents the conflicts that invariably arise when a residence's excessive height invades a neighbor's privacy, blocks sunlight, or impedes views. For the most part, homes on the bluff side of Kings Road are low-rise to permit ocean views from homes on the inland side of Kings Road. The City's failure to grant SPON's appeal will set a precedent for other property owners that do not wish to comply with the City's land use controls. In the residential context, such a precedent could effectively result in the relaxation of height limits and prohibitions of oversized development throughout Newport Beach's treasured single-family neighborhoods. Variances exist to "minimize the acknowledged evils of `spot zoning' by amendment of the zoning ordinance." (Rubin v. Board of Directors of City of Pasadena (1940) 16 Cal.2d 119, 124.). But this variance promotes spot -zoning -like results and would negatively affect the quality of life of many Newport Beach residents. Additionally, oversized residences could result in significant new growth, mass, bulk and height inconsistent with surrounding neighborhoods that has never been analyzed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or in connection with the City's Land Use Element or other planning documents. The Project claims a CEQA Class 3 exemption for conversion of small structures, but a Class 3 exemption is unavailable for wholesale changes to Newport's residential neighborhoods. SPON urges the City to carefully consider the substantial likelihood that the Project's proposal to use a variance to enable an ocean view office and larger decks will set a precedent for ignoring the City's well -considered land use plans. Conclusion SPON respectfully requests that the City Council reverse the Planning Commission's grant of Variance No. VA2019-002 because it is not necessary to construct a single-family home at 1113 Kings Road with the privileges of other homes on the street. The City's grant of this variance would set an unwelcome precedent that Honorable City Council City of Newport Beach September 6, 2019 Page 10 undermines all past efforts to protect the City's single-family neighborhoods and the integrity of its long-range planning documents, standards, and regulations. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We look forward to Tuesday's hearing on the appeal. Sincerely, l Michelle N. Blac cc: Councilmember Diane B. Dixon, ddixonknewportbeachca.gov Councilmember Brad Avery, baverygnewportbeachca.gov Councilmember Duffy Duffield, dduffieldgnewportbeachca.gov Councilmember Kevin Muldoon, kmuldoonknewportbeachca.gov Councilmember Jeff Herdman, jherdman(knewportbeachca.gov Councilmember Joy Brenner, joy(cr�,newportbeachca.gov Councilmember Will O'Neill, woneill(knewportbeachca.gov Received After Agenda Printed September 10, 2019 Item no. 20 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: City Clerk's Office Friday, September 06, 2019 1:51 PM Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim FW: Reed Residence - 1113 Kings Road Scan 2019-9-6 10.10.08.pdf From: Peggy Palmer Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 1:51:20 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office Subject: Reed Residence - 1113 Kings Road Attention City Clerk's Office Please include this in packet for September 10th Meeting on Study Session for King's Road Residential Project Hearing Please acknowledge receipt of email, Thank you, Peggy V. Palmer The following is the City Staff's argument AGAINST the proposed Reed Project located at 1113 Kings Road. Staff's argument AGAINST the project is far stronger than their argument for the project. We are asking that the City Council send the application back to City Staff and review the four additional options for reconsideration by the Planning Commission. Thank you, Peggy V. Palmer Cliff Haven Board Member 1701 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 The truth is an absolute defense. It is arguable that the variance that was granted by the Planning Commissioners on May 23, 2019 should be appealed by the City Council on the basis and findings presented by the City Staff: PC2019-015 Section 3 as outlined by the City Staff under required findings states: Variance: The Planning Commission may approve a variance application only after making each of the required findings set -forth in NBMC section 20.52.090 (F), (Variance—Findings and Decisions). In this case, City Staff also recommended that if the Panning Commissioners were unable to make the required findings that would result in the following reasons: 1. The Panning Commission determined, in this case, that the proposed variance for the finding required by section 20.52.090 is not supported in this case and contradicts the fact in their statement that "The development may prove detrimental to the community". 2. City Staff also states, "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 residential properties. The above Staff findings gave sufficient facts to deny the application for the variances. In addition, City Staff recommended four viable resolutions that would enable the applicant to build within their "envelope". Mr. Jamie Murrillo, Senior Planner, stated that should the Planning Commission chose to do so, Staff would return with a revised resolution incorporating the new findings and/or conditions. Under these circumstances, we are recommending that the City Council make the motion to send the application (PA2019-80) back to the City Staff to consider the options and return to the Planning Commission to achieve community consensus. Furthermore, 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. The applicants proposed 10,800 square foot single-family residence with a new 1,500 square foot garage is not characteristic of the surrounding community. The average square foot home on Kings Road bluff -side is 4,452 square feet with an average 50 foot projection and not the applicant's proposed 100 -foot projection. The average square foot home on the north side of Kings Road is 4,058 square feet. See Attached Exhibit (A) There are approximately 50 homes along the bluff -side of 97% of the homes have been built below the height -limit; this includes new and existing single- family residential structures. The applicant's representative stated that the request was for three variances; however, according to the minutes from May 23, 2019, the applicant's consultant, Ms. Shawna Schaffner the request was actually or five variances: 1. Upper Level Eaves 2. The Upper Level Deck 3. Upper Level Railing 4. The Main Level Office 5. The Covered Patio Roof In addition, the applicant's consultant stated that this project would be characteristic of the surrounding homes in Cliff Haven. The data and facts do not support this claim. See Attached Exhibit (B) Also noted in the May 23, 2019 minutes: A. Granting the variance will affect the views for the neighbor to the east -of the property. B. Deputy Community Director, Jim Campbell indicated that the neighbor property would be subject to the same grade determination procedure used for the project site. Campbell stated, that the neighboring house would probably require a variance, if Staff utilized a similar procedure, By allowing these variances, Mr. Campbell is clearly stating that this would set a precedence in the Cliff Haven Community. The assertion by Staff that "Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City" denies the reality of the situation. The fact of the matter is that the variance is both unnecessary and inappropriate and that approving it will set a very bad precedence that will have a detrimental impact involving all future construction on the bluff -side of Kings Road. Topographic Constraints The bluff -side of Kings Road contains many natural valleys and gullies, in which most of the homes have complied with the topography and built within these restraints. The property located at 1113 Kings Road has already been granted a height variance in 1973. The additional variance that was requested was denied in 1976; thus, granting five more luxury variances will not be compliant with the `°scale" of the neighborhood. See Attached Exhibit (C) General Plan — Land Use Policies LU 5.6.4 Conformance with the Natural Environmental Setting Require that sites be planned and buildings designed in consideration of the property's topography, landforms, drainage patterns, natural vegetation, and relationship to the Bay and the coastline, maintaining the environmental character that distinguishes Newport Beach. (Imp 2. 1, 8.1). LU 6.19.12 Properties Abutting Bluff Faces Require that development projects and design building to maintain the visual quality and maintain the structural integrity of the bluff faces. amp 21.} The proposed variance will further degrade the natural topography of the bluffs, as viewed from the Harbor, as well as, infringing on the visual qualities and character of the surrounding communities. Summary A variance is a deviation from a specific regulation in a code. This particular variance should be considered a major variance that will involve significant neighborhood impacts, such as over -concentration, incompatible uses, and overpowering size. This proposed massive structure 12,300 square feet, to include a four -car garage, is seeking five additional luxury variances to the existing variances, will be out of character from scenic vistas. This will be the largest home in Cliff Haven, even without these additional height -variances. The following was outlined in the City Staffs May 23, 2019 meeting: "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 residential properties." In closing The applicant met with six members of the Cliff Haven community on June 1, 2019 at 2:00 PM at 1701 Kings Road. Mrs. Reed stated that she would for -go the variances IF the community paid for her Consultant fees and her Planning Commission fees. According to Mrs. Reed, a monetary request or refund at the expense of the neighbors would eliminate the need for these variances. This clearly indicated that these variances should be denied, as they are clearly not "hard -ship" variances, but rather "luxury" variances. We ask that the City Council send back the application for 1113 Kings Road Variance-VA2019-002 to the Planning Commission to review the four additional options that the City Staff had recommended to the applicant. I 0 Cu D 0 0 91 rD Fol blo 0 11. co D n rD v '. N Rings Rood Bluff Residences Kings Rand Nan -Bluff Residences Address Owner SEIFt 302 Kings Rd Irvine Company 2,624 320Kin sRd Vernala 6,681 402 Kings Rd DeCinces 2,182 410 Kin s Rd Weiner 2,077 420 Kings Rd Dru 4,496 502 Kings Rd Drayton 2.800 510 Kings Rd Finney 3,494 520 Kings Rd Krickl 4,173 530 Kings,Rd Bailey_6,436 602 Kings Rd Edmonds 4,637 610 Kings Rd Lichman 4,267 660 Kings Rd Amirie 4,861 700 Kings Rd Rowe 3,316 710 Kings Rd Stauber 4,334 800 Kings Rd Trotter 1,358 810 Kings Rd Elmore 5,337 900 Kings Rd Schuler 4,248 910 Kings Rd Steinmann/Soto 2,900 920 Kings Rd Se mour 7,127 1000 Kings Rd McIntosh 4,279 1010 Kings Rd D'Eliscu 6.331 1020 Kings Rd Schaison 4,341 11110 Kings Rd Mau 1,628 1110 Kings Rd Williams 3,275 1120 Kings Rd StedField 1,659 1200 Kings Rd Bush 2,439 1210 Kings Rd Hua. iyanan 4,411 1300 Kings Rd Sze 5,334 1310 Kings Rd Millen 31617 1400 Kings Rd Frum 4x379 1410 Kings Rd Robertson. 8,235 1420 Kings Rd Kuma i 1933 1500 Kings Rd Hochwald 31400 1510 Kings Rd Reynolds 3,824 1520 Kings Rd EPC Holdin , LLC 2.991 1600 Kings Rd Gyulay 319GS 1610 Kings Rd Guluzyan 1,981 1620 Klniu Rd Foroutan/Soltanl 3,708 1700 Kin Rd Hernandez 6,753 1710 King, Rd Brubaker 3019 1720 Kings Rd Werner. 11904 18W Kings Rd Adams 5,377 1810 Kings Rd Carson 4,542 2000 Kings Rd Ba r 5,428 (Currently under construction) (torn downy largest -two lots) lCurrently, under mnstruchon) 4,058 Ave spit Non -Bluff iovn�3 Permits Oniine - Permit Information 7126]19, 12:10 PM Requested permit number: VA1033 VL �/��Permit Number VA1033 C._.. Status APPROVED J Work Description APPROVED WITH CONDMONS � Occupancy Class Code Sub Type No. of Bldgs. 0 Insp. Area Entered Date 7/23/2008 Validated by Date Applied Inspection Area Date Approved 7/13/1973 Assigned Inspector Date Final Inspector Phone Date Activity Expires https://apps.nevvportbeachca.golpermitsJpermbuildO9/V30Daddr_info...20%20%20&street_no=1113&street_direction=&street name=KINGS%20R© Page 1 of 1 Permits Online - Permit Information 7/26/19, 11:57 AM Requested permit number: VA1053 A Permit Number VA1053 Veq1w UPP Status DENIED tgv+ Work Description PC APROVED WITH CONDITIONS 12!411375 REHEARING - PC DENIED 5/20/1976 •■�r� occupancy woo~ Class Code Sub Type No. of Bldgs. Insp. Area Validated by Inspection Area Assigned Inspector Inspector Phone N Entered Date 7/2512008 Date Applied Date Approved Date Final Date Activity Expires https:liapps.newportbeachea.gov/permits/pormbuildO9N300addr-into...20%20%20&street_no=1113&street_direction=&street_name=KINGS%20RD Page 1 of 1 r 0`• r�i wtpj 4"Mc'TC107q vv ,ri Jlt� `tel► r � � r ! •- y�y rr ^ (h 'fl •e`f.•.!�.• ;`fr- � I:yll , - f-+�� r - r :,�. � �- '� • rs � •Sr,� 6i =;'.rim} "�,,, n � � i xu � $I I $I I I LLI i g� i LL.i From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Friday, September 06, 2019 2:11 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Video of Cliff Haven - 1113 Reed Residence Application From: Peggy Palmer Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 2:11:58 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office Subject: Video of Cliff Haven - 1113 Reed Residence Application Good Afternoon Mayor Dixon and Honorable City Council Members: Please see the attached drone footage that was taken this past week. (As you can see, we had a beautiful day in Newport Beach). At the beginning of the footage, you will see the homes on the inland side of Kings Road; most are consistent in height that allow for these properties to see a portion of the bay, (if not obstructed by the Balboa Bay Club), but most of these homes do have a view of the ocean. In the second sequence, you will note that the homes on the bluff -side have maintained through- out the years, a low profile when building, as seen in the video. There are approximately 100 homes on Kings Road and there have been about four homes that were granted variances, the Reed residence had been granted previous height exceptions and is now requesting for an additional five "hardship" height variances. PROPERTY HOME SFT. LOT SFT. COMMENTS: 1821 Kings Road* 8,801 9,296 1201 Kings Road 3,767 9,396 1101 Kings Road 3,649 10,500 1113 Kings Road 3,013 17,848 12,300 - with additional five variances *Largest square -foot home on Kings Road This means that 96% of the homes have built within their envelope; the homes that were Peggy V. Palmer granted a height variance have mostly maintained a low profile and have articulated their property as a courtesy to the surrounding neighbors; thus, allowing their neighbors to keep their views and property values. The third sequence, you will note the drone footage of both the homes on the bluff and the homes on the inland portion of Kings Road and you will see the symmetry of the homes in relation to the bluffs. You will note that many of these properties have unique topography and valleys and hills and that many of the owners have built within their constraints and have not requested for "hardship" variances. In the fourth and final footage, illustrates that the homes along Kings Road are consistent in relationship to the bay and the bluffs. The applicants home will be clearly out of proportion for the neighborhood. It appears that the Reeds are taking full advantage of the so- called "hardship" height variances. Please let me know your thoughts and comments, as I believe that we can make a reasonable argument to have the City Council move this back to both the City Staff and the Planning Commission to further review the four recommendations as previously requested. Click to Download Reeds 1.mp4 336.9 MB Received After Agenda Printed September 10, 2019 Item No. 20 Christopher Kralick 1031 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 378-6878 September 6, 2019 Councilmember Diane B. Dixon Councilmember Brad Avery Councilmember Duffy Duffield Councilmember Kevin Muldoon Councilmember Jeff Herdman Councilmember Joy Brenner Councilmember Will O'Neill City Clerk Leilani I. Brown RE: Variance for "Reed" Residence at 1113 Kings Road Dear Councilmembers and City Clerk, I have read the letter in opposition to the granting of a variance for the proposed mansion at 1113 Kings Road provided by Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON). I can appreciate the many legal arguments made by that association. I also have read some of the documentation pertaining to the geological surveys conducted on the above referenced property. My opposition to the proposed project is not based on either established legal precedent nor on sophisticated soil sampling calculations. Nor am I arguing to save my ocean view, a portion of which this project will eliminate. My opposition is a very practical and pragmatic one. A few years ago when we had our last significant EI Nino season, I personally saw a portion of the east facing hillside supporting the Reed residence calve off, much like a glacier would, and slide into the backyard of the residence located at 1101 Kings Road. My concern is that if a 12,300 square foot mansion is constructed in place of the current 3,013 square foot residence, a weather related event similar to what occurred a few years ago, will potentially result in a catastrophic collapse of the proposed residence and may quite possibly take my house and the house at 1101 Kings Road with it. And who knows how many other properties on the ocean side of Kings Road it could destabilize. It would seem that allowing the construction of the proposed residence, and ignoring the warning signs from previous years, is a welcome invitation to disaster. Very truly yours, Christopher Kralick Received After Agenda Printed September 10, 2019 Item No. 20 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: City Clerk's Office Sunday, September 08, 2019 11:48 PM Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim FW: Reed Residence at 1113 Kings Roa Scan 2019-7-26 12.14.32.pdf From: mshalieh33@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, September 8, 2019 11:49:26 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office Subject: Reed Residence at 1113 Kings Roa Councilmember Diane B. Dixon Councilmember Brad Avery Councilmember Duffy Duffield Councilmember Kevin Muldoon Councilmember Jeff Herdma Councilmember Joy Brenner Councilmember Will O'Neill City Clerk Leilani I. Brown RE: Reed Residence at 1113 Kings Road Good Evening Mayor Dixon and Honorable City Council Members and City Clerk, My name is Manizheh Yomtoubian and I am the owner of 1101 Kings which is the home right next-door to the applicants home, known as the Reed residence. My home shares a portion of the adjacent gully and we built our home without any variances, nor did we cause harm to the surrounding neighbors. We respected all of our neighbors to the east, west and north of our property. The structure being considered will significantly impact our home and should be considered a public nuisance. It's mass and density will eliminate light, privacy and has the potential to compromise both my home and the home located at 1121 Kings. The engineering Geologic Inspection dated July 25, 1973 for the property located at 1113 Kings, suggests that the topography has a downhill creep area and describes "passive soils". Passive Soils are further described as, "Active earth pressure is the earth pressure when the wall retaining the soil moves away from backfill. ... Passive earth pressure is the earth pressure exerted when the wall moves towards the backfill. Coefficient of earth pressure is the ratio of vertical compressive stress and horizontal stress". The study further suggests that there is fill dirt up to 12 feet in depth in some locations. Hypothetically speaking if a 12,300 square -foot structure is erected at this site that both 1101 and 1121 Kings could be in jeopardy. The report states that footings on the slope will be subject to horizontal loads due to the downhill creep. We really need to ask the question IF this is the real reason that the applicant is NOT terracing down the bluff, like all of the other larger homes along Kings Road. As a retaining wall costs on the bluff are between 1.5 - 2 million dollars. At this time, please deny the Reed application, until further professional analysis can be provided. Thank you for your time, Manizheh Yomtoubian 1101 Kinas Road Newport Beach, Ca 92663 949-903-5599 1101 Kings Road - Front of my home Rear of of my home - Bayside Existing with Proposed Overlay LZ O 0 Sent from my Whone F! S I I N G A N 0 i N 5 R f r f 1 0 N F N G 1 N E c 1! July 25, 1973 i.t rA Ii lL. 4 1 Mr. J. D. Walling 1113 Kings Road Gewlport Leath, California subject. Erlriinc Bring Geologic Inspection Site of Propcsed Garage r s rR 1113 Kings Road Newport Beach, California Dear Sir: H. V. LAWMASTER. plrfilolNv 4- a. GtaICOV WILLIAM T. CORUM. u pAfa. R C f. HO 5201 JOHN K EARNEST. y PFtrS a S ""LOGY 4A V E[:AS-rMAN N F G P40 4 13 file No. 73 - 183G Pursuant to your request, we have reviewed the site Conditions and plans for ti+.^ proposed garage as reflected anthe drawings prepared by C. M. Thomson dated June 21, 1973, to identify geology and foundation factors pertinent thereto. SITE AND GECL❑GY CONDITIONS The site Features and topography Grey shown on the accompanying Plat Pian and Sections taken from the aforementioned drawings dated June 21, 1973. Field inspection reveals that the garage site is underlain by existing fill of 4 to 12 feet in estimated depth, then bedrock comprised of firm Terrace Deposit and the Caniotrano formation. �M Cil KA tf5TONS AND RMIMMEMBATION'., Exi-,tinn corldi`iotr:, and slnnr••i appear grossly stable within the site. It in understoud that the bulk of f>Kisting fill was placed some 30 yt:ars ago anti, thunlJ, —3uld r.qt meet present day standards for comoacted fill. Therefore, it is r• t_ ,snrnerc e�r:a? £DUr,clatiLMS be established in the firm th^ ! , " } . A- vrtlu,, of 1,500 pounds per square f;,ot is consid eyed a;ipl it .,tile for fcntings of 12 inches in minimum width and dep`Ch, and at a htininu:_,1 hcrixf}r�tal setbccK of 5 feet, from the alone face. FootVvis constructed on thn elope will, be subject to horizontal loads clue to ��Hrrhil.1 creta +'• the materials above ttsr, bedrucl:. It is recommended that such f;atjn%-S be .- desigtrr., far an assumed horizon Lal force of 1000 pounds per lineal foot for the fu11 I .length of penetration through thea soil. This force may be resisted by passive soil bearing a•►d friction provided by the $3edrock and the beams at grade. j Laterel bearing for foundations as above +pair be designed for kpp poiInds per Square font per foot of depth into bedrock. A corresponding friction coefficient bi -i9.4 is applicable for determination of the friction value between foundations and underlying material. These values may be combined provided that the lateral bearino does not exceed 2/3 of the total allowable lateral bearing Please do not hesitate of contact us if you have any questions concerning this report. Respectfully Submitted, H. V. befwfmastez Co., Inc. H. V. Lawmaster R Eastman R.E.G. No. 423 �j Don P. arr2 gts:: R.C.E. %o. MW H. V. LAWMASTRR A SCALE: 2"' Si{EET Plot Pian FILE Na. 73-183G DATE: Y / z5 T;f 1 of PROJECT: Prop, Garage Add'n. AWMASTER & CO. ORM M • DZ'7 - SCALE" 5"EET e I v v. r', i -. ris,1W I I FILE NO. 71-1 P35 of � PrOJr-(-T: Ciat-onc Arid'ii. t 1MtLDVV1%1 ASTER & CO. OATE 1. 1 � 11H ORM M - 027 Li 4 ji 3, SCALE" 5"EET e I v v. r', i -. ris,1W I I FILE NO. 71-1 P35 of � PrOJr-(-T: Ciat-onc Arid'ii. t 1MtLDVV1%1 ASTER & CO. OATE 1. 1 � 11H ORM M - 027 �' %%R,'; f;� trry' .1(/i•' -z rs Lr�y i3 (.� -v�sl% ~ 4 � - y - (, /. - - - i %M: -3 77A A -5 01 A 1111 p�liLL9fi.A �•lorlL"Ritf•JL..OI� iCa[lUii ''ism``i.SJTAUT ^a'+`._. z—i CA /6,5011V ��^•-�h� � AfQM4CAI T D1Ay pAA4p AdCA4:tllit Y 650 !N {Y dL.C. ' F f:1114. /.',"-1 ""Zi PY S4V4 i i1/ .4f!vg,-es Car �C'E•diLd'1.dB[E �1I�` � :%.l1d1� Cl tzl:r-' 1. '/•ori r'U t".Y I�"i�; s,�?r'� ACTIOAt fill. 5Lb'JEY7 To CRer, AGILOP.rL B+R7Gs1lG -- +: f•. Qlvltl ,rT�V4r t !#L ,ua�sr�a r ,v1A�,c,s+ rRICTIOVO.1 PL/E F0077 145 - AOR"UP &SIO !rj ra[ Or _s T£ arp;A, ni cRT CAST QF f:XlTy pt F!ijrrAg V A'LE UAN a JUSrf"ra @y TAff- i0rO.lC,rASV AV Sit£ 0�- FF•aA•r f rFui•£ iS ,,► G�..�.+!JILL C,?MZP .ZZ-5/.-i`4J VKA9 I.XACi1ON RUS FIA6 FOLE AC77OJV rid •. • .•.' • . • +' M. w,rrcw,u , 6powa It • '410MEAI7- -171AC-WAM QaD�'�'IlNItL Cj?,rFP R.PS'ISMA9 VY A"MO—rfAN A"AL4L[ r (15f O /M LYrP A411C Wgt rrf &ff Or fi7A,Nf /S 1,WtC WM/t aL. H, V. LAWMASTER & CO, I Permits Online - Permit Information Requested permit number: 82017-1178 Permit Number 82017-1178 1 Status DECLINED Work Description SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Occupancy R31U Class Code Sub Type GTH No, of Bldgs. 1 Insp. Area 12 Entered Date 11/8/2017 Validated by JI Date Applied 11!812017 Inspection Area 12 Date Approved Assigned Inspector Brian Contino Date Final Inspector Phone Date Activity Expires 11/8/2018 7125/19, 4:25 PM https:llapps.rnewportbeachca.govlpermits/permbuildflglV300addr_into..._2017-1178&street_no=1113&street_directionT&street_name=KINGS%20RD Page 1 of 1 Permits Online - Permit Information 7126119, 11:57 AM Requested permit number: VA1053 Todc Permit Number VA1053 Status DENIED ovt Work Description PC APROVED WITH CONDITIONS 12/4/1975 REHEARING - PC DENIED 5/20/1976 Occupancy OftO000'o Class Code Sub Type No. of Bldgs. 0 Insp. Area Validated by Inspection Area Assigned Inspector Inspector Phone Entered Date 7/25/2008 Date Applied Date Approved Date Final Date Activity Expires https:tlapps,newportheachca.gov/permitstpermbLiildOSIV30Oaddr_info.._20%20%20&street-no=1113&street_direction=&street name=KINGS%20RD Page 1 of 1 Permits Online - Permit Information Requested permit number: VA1033 .10L V1/1, Ll Permit Number VA1033 Status APPROVED Work Description APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS Occupancy Class Code Sub Type No. of Bldgs. 0 Insp. Area Entered Date 7/23/2008 Validated by Date Applied Inspection Area Date Approved 7/13/1973 Assigned Inspector Date Final Inspector Phone Date Activity Expires 7126119,12:10 PM https:/Iapps.newportbeachca.gov/permits/pormbuiid0g/V300addr_info.._20%20%20&street-no=1113&street-direction=&street name=KINGS%20RD Page i of 1 Received After Agenda Printed September 10, 2019 Item No. 20 From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2019 9:37 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Public Comments: September 10 City Council Agenda Item(s) From: Tom Moulson Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2019 9:38:28 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office; SPON Subject: Public Comments: September 10 City Council Agenda Item(s) I absolutely object to the King's Road variances which, though they don't affect me directly, are yet another step in the creeping mansionizing of this residential city. Tom Moulson 66*104D Virus -free. www.avast.com Received After Agenda Printed September 10, 2019 Item no. 20 From: Harp, Aaron Sent: Monday, September 09, 2019 7:07 AM To: Brown, Leilani Subject: FW: Common Sense From: Peggy Palmer <pvpalmer@icloud.com> Sent: Friday, September 6, 2019 9:54 PM To: pvpalmer@icloud.com Subject: Common Sense Folks... Here is the neighbor's home next to the applicant's proposed structure. As you may know, our home has been compromised and the City has continuously issued permits to unauthorized and unlicensed contractors. In fact, the City just issued a continuance to 1721 Kings Road WITHOUT any resolve to our property. This is reckless disregard and has caused us continuous harm. I have heard from a reliable source that 30 homes have been destroyed from new construction. If this continues ... a class action law suit will ensue against the City. HERE IS A PICTURE OF 1121 Kings Road - What is going to happen when a 12,300 square foot home is built next to this property? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to find out... 1 ,V..�{. \ .06 . .���. - � ■ Received After Agenda Printed September 10, 2019 Item No. 20 From: TJ Williams <twilliams@w-realtygroup.com> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2019 4:58 PM To: Dept - City Council Subject: Signed Petitions Opposing the New Construction at 1113 Kings Rd (1 of 4) Attachments: Petitions 1-5.pdf, Petitions 6-10.pdf; Petitions 11-15.pdf; Petitions 16-20.pdf, Petitions 21-25.pdf City Council Members, My name is TJ Williams and I live directly across the street from 1113 Kings Rd. I'm going to be sending you four separate email with 90 signed petitions from our neighbors opposing the new construction at 1113 Kings Rd. I'm sending separate emails to keep the file sizes down. Attached are petitions 1 - 25. Thank You! TJ Williams (949) 903-1349 V C, To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: Street Address: Signature: Comments: 6 To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: Street Add Signature: comments: To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: Street Address: 2 am= I 'A Comments: '? f NJ` To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: C"IJ Street Add Signature: Petition osing the Height Variance and New Constructio-in at -1-113 Kings Rocad To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: Street Add Signature: Comments: ,6x A?, �Jrj:'you T'O r VO I" I C) irt ec nE t h c, t L' t i re of -) t i -,- n i h b o -h o o I 1 1 41 Petition Opposing the Height Variance anci, NewConstruction at 1-113 Kincrs Road �D To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: -Y( -I C- 6 StreetAddress:- Signature: Comments: 'T t' f2 I C., 4- 6 41 6--)C A2 Thank vo!U for vcmr support protectir a thu' I I LI .1,, L i -e i'L"Uire cT our Petition Opposing the Height Va,riance C -Ind New ConstruCtion at 111"Q., Kings Road To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: 441 - \ I '� A /1� _ �'(Itj-XVL Street Add Signature: Comments Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by 11am on Tuesday, May 21st. nank vc;u; ?OF SU[,)�D,')rt prctecl,-�rg. the- rulure of -)Lj,-u-h -,6- r 00d lir L . 1, " ll' -41 e'r-rtionv UPPOSInggg the Height Variance aru �',vlew Construction at 1.113 Kings Road To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: A' A—,�-- Street Address: Signature: Comment: J- h'I"IK Ior yolir prol-ectint- the f;jture r --,f c);ir nF�"ghborlh.) P ke-� t i t i o n 0 p p o s i n g h ez- H e i g h t V da., r i a nkc- te 341 r) CI N e w IC- J' n a It I 121-3-5 Ki n CJ11 2 C. To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: i. I z, C Street Address: Z ' 11 —1� �--9-�y 0 f->'. /�- y 2- 6 Signature: Comments: a D-O',2C 1-1�2 fl 'Ll FE Of .-I v -,,Li for yL)lir '-,ipport k ` Petition Opposing the Height Variance- ano,, New Con-trUction at I' lKiril -T", Road To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: C_ -A' -V,-)� e\1- I � -\c 5 2 C- r- r,; Cjc�s Street Address: '5 c 7 Signature: Comments: Thank YOU fM- YC)LP- StIPPOrt protecting. the fi,lture of o11r LA -e' Petite Opposing -the Height Vat iance 2, To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: Street Address: Signature: Comments: hal" Kvou fol your Sup,-Iort protecting the full re Of OUI- ,Pet on Opposing the Height Varicance anc, N King- s Ri P\.'e-v-vi Construction� at IIIIj .21 CA 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 11am on Tuesday, May 211. K "Ayt.� T*()?' v 0i_. C;,LJ P Petition pposing the Height Variance and ,f'i N e w C- on S -fl r u! c tf, o n a t I'll 1 K i n g s R o a L4"* To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: / 4f(!,1 6 L,( r �`'(?t Street Addr I Signature: _ Comments: , TZ I i Thank You fo,� your suc�-- ,pporl c)rcteI'ng the T 'uture of c',dr reigh.'Iborhood, Petition Opposing the Height Vda r i a n cce__ air To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: f7 �1,--L Le - i Street Address: li Signature: � �;6 Comments: Ail - T _j'K VOU 70" VoiPro--eco V e re 'y'OU � I U SiSUPPOI 1 - 1 '5 i i I re o i -1 . I �J F Petition Opposing the Height Ufa! jamce ancl New Construction at 1-113, Kings RoOd t._; To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: Street Address: 71,& Signature: 5 Comments: /7 Y-&:2 V Thank you foir V--�-Iij our pport rjx.ILect;ng the 'Ifuture c.J o, - rleigH)orl hoo,c., Petition Opposing the Height Variance and To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: Street Address: P // Signature: Comments: 7 vo,j for yowl' SLIP Or protecting the fiin-i,rc, of our n Opposing the Height Var,iance and New Construiction at 1113 Kings o d -I To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: ::�! t,), I (;adnc Street Address: Signature: Comments: y ,�e Uc1r, Please return to the mailbox of 1114 Kings Rd by 11am on Tuesday, May 21St You(ilk L �jP C. L:I{^s7� Ip I ut,u (Y r -)(j! —21" i.� Petition Opposing the Height Variance ar-1,C] N e w n, s t 1ru c t i. o n a t _la_ 113 K i"41 srr, Ss To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: Street Address: I 1,Zo 'K, Signature: Comments: U, i 1-1-1,-Inik -volk,, 110" Vol P C,."-, S I "i- �3JID . L t e f u t r e o +1 To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and L Street Add Signature: Comments T I - ( � ;" � , -� L I "I - I i I � Lil, - � 1� I n a L, ill r y ou, - s,( I �,op Ot C t 1 'UtUrc C;7 7)� Potion Opposing .the Height Variance and rte, _; �._ ry a-•' 'j - i i j `S {"q (_ 1 -.e�•� $w, ° F"' �" �, j .v"' ,� J To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: -- Street Address: Signature: Comments /a - � h nk you fo- ;;our szuppai r rotecfiing the t ture Of c;Lir C-5 IPnOor- I 010 LAS /i/t t Z. 61? Pet"ition Opposing the Height Variance arG' !`�ew Construction at 1113 Kings Road To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: G � 1<,o 1,1 C H Street Add ress: S 1 K 10 G -S; 0 Signature: IN Comments: Letter-il-,- � ?Icknnlod ( Mm Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 21". Thank for your sLllpport proLed_ 'i),g UnIc, `u' I r ri e; g h, b,� cm Opposing the Height Variance and !Nlew ('ons�ruction at 1113 J' infys Road L < To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: Street Ad Signature Commeni dres • G f Aj • s: OjCE- i T I l,) nk ym-i for youS; ippoir protecting thc- fut 1 I-,-. of r!i( ne'g;lb ari,-K,,or FDS I[ I 1E0 r -� Oju-, p cj s , n g7 -I,-- h e H e ha h t- V a r i a n c e a n C"i C) 1,,J'-Ew o n s t ri.. i o n a -L 3 Ki r, g s To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: Street Add Signature: "940 RAL sl 1 ;�+Di,a c):, v c L, ,iI., p p c) �-c (D L e', 1 n F, t h G L i U-1 f- e 0 c-) u r i h b New,} ; �� �\-� �.�, F $,-.-f ' fes-.., {-�j� art i '"� `� , � e � Ufa y�.. � 1 3 s � i -:: c i � --.-; i :1 a - t 1 � � 1 ^u l X To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: Street Address: ! `t } t 1'V,'Iiz Q l -d Signature: Comments: I Ih 'ifik ` c,ij r �/;)t. `iip' 7;t p r o e c ng i(iC'''utur( Fetid Opposing the Height Variance an(01 New ConstruCtion at- 1113 K'Ings Road I -, To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: liq Yi 6-J z 6 6 7 Street Address: J Signature: Comments: hborh ood Thank you, fO- "OUr SLIPOFF pro the future of o,Ur ripig- Y e -I Ug -1 -ht M, z HIM I TIA ff" 1; d --w CI-onstruction at 1113 Kings Road To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: (`J 6 MY R ( U -,� A � 4- C )Z Street Address: 1-) 4 0 k- t r -v' C, S J-�- Signature: 1' support V` Z II g Z y Y %� f1r� 1K� =cr you!-�U(J7J1l vlL'�Ii(i� �`lE iJCUfC ofour it�l,!'(i-_1�%. ri7;rt Petllclon Opposing the Height- Varianca� ant NPI -w Construction at 1113 Kim:rs Rov-10 Z: 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 11am, on Tuesday, May 21'. 7'o I 1_'1 ¢_ futl-i Fe U11- 'I �Z- n?" V 0U 1, Ij 0 U " S U r Petition Opposing the Height VC -1, is nce and f t-- I '"' 3 Kings Roac-11 Nevti (--Ions-,Druction at 11-1 9 To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: Street Address: — a;-)00 OKI. Signature: Comments: YOU or your supporl- p-o-ectinc; the 'Uture NJ 011 L L i ol our neighborh-oc-i! PetMop Opposing the Height Variance and; New Construction at 1113 Kirgzs) ZD To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: Street Address: A-,,-' Signature: Comments: Tha -1k, + TYOU fOt- VOU-t SL I PPOI-� prntec�ting the "Atui e, Of -1cl i Petition Opposing the Height Vdariance am` New, n s t r u tion a t I 113 K i In tg S R o a To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: Street Address: Signature: Comments: Aj Thanik-, you -1for your suppori Protecting the flut-urn- of: c -Jr i-,I�;g[-`,�,c,,t-il".-)c,--, rpsntitbi-j Opposing the Height Variance and. -g a C -J' NF --,w Constr7LAction at 11-11-3 in s Rrj To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council 0 First and Last Name: Street Address: Signature: Comments: !iaI/, yo)u tor ycit]r suppc3rt �t-()-LU-Ctlf-18 the futulre of oui- -ie:ghblor"ood-' Petition Opposing the Height Variance - New Const-truction at Ili -< 3 kings Roaal ' ' To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and L Street Adc Signature: Comment! f f Thardk \/O(A ';'Of- Yc"Ur 5UPPCIrt, protecting the 111-1.1fl-2 01 1 r e i g h b n r h o, Opposing V-iHeight Varia n,,. ---e and C+ - N To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: L—�—F Street Address: �7 e= I-- , 0 i2-1 Signature: Comments: T in, a Fi < you for ^t I i,,j p,, o rt p r (D -c-t-ng '-he tuture of rju! P, "P th ha i1 Petition Opposing the Height Varae aincl New "Constru , C -tion at 11` -*�-. Kings ROIIaLd' To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: RIA–vZ(A— Street Address: �b q Signature: Comments: -'- i , a 1-,� I< p p r t -jrj i � I I- r -,e re ,' o, I 0 (2 C: cl- ?i.<Il �- e; Peltition 0 pposing the He ight, VC -31 r0c-14 nce a nd, New ra�t -l'ill E"; K,ngs To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last C Street Address: iL- Signature: Comments: CJUT-L) Th:.--ir-1k vc),,i ful- your s! ipporf ,rDtecfI I ng I I � P . +..14 -111-t 0i c',;1- ,P tvaon Opposing the Height VarjanC& namd 7 '@ .� 4 �i e 7 9� §. iR u ct5 at 1113 R & I I � es R, !1 � U' To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: M CII\1i ( b 4 Y--)(� Street Add ress: -> Signature: y .,` fL-)CU(IC_ Comments: 1 ��-" ,f"\C, I k,'z ;r H t. - T _ Y Fir _ r , ;,hti;r Pe"Lition epposing the Height. Varianc,-,e and To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: Street Address: 4 Signature: -�z Comments: Tharfl( yc�ju, for sLAppoi-, �jrotec-, g fl,e L c) _JC h H- ,,- t. c F;e`h'J,t.on Opposing the HeIght Va,rj' 0 a L I IU i To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: Street Address: C k,— c Signature: Comments: Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 21". 1 C7 r Ya nc -, '] 1 " ; C i n � • � � , � f � e r -i q �^ z �is tL�'j;Y 1 - �r f 4t s' u � a,+v' � 1 � '+..G � A,h � � a a ..'¢ ren .✓. To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: y .Ir Street Address:f� Signature: Comments: L -- _LST: Petition Upposi rill the Height Variance and Ne'v,v Construction alL I 1''J.3 Road To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: I - _7 Street Address: ( ") Signature: MONIMMIM Nc, Thank you for your support 'NOWANg the WAIre of our neigh borhoot1b; To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: Street Address: Signature: Comments: n To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: Street Address: Signatu Comments: ' - - C P e t it i c-) r) 0 p p o s n g t h e H e g h t V a a n c en, L' -'o n 5 t I-- IU Ct C-) �.n a i To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: Street Address: 51 Signature: Comments: 0� 1h, T, T h r! � o'i c-. c 11J. c-, 0ii' Ac�s;n—,T '11-he� Height V,-�- r C4 3 L t 'v tic To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: LAN/' - 7 Street Address: I 2 Signature: Comments: n To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: (-IC., Street Address: Signature: Comments: Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 21 -It. �L, Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 21 -It. �L, P To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: ,n'? U(: (-1- -rr,7 0 T TE,,2- �j Street Address: oj K / lu 6-'s i /1'/2:,-.; 6v Signature: Comments: 4r Tk 4 4 VC 2 1 r 4- 1 o r-,, C) p p os i n h e H e i h t V c4_ 9 N e C o n s It, irU'I ctti o n Ca a To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: dj,--A-. 'i �- StreetAddress: �// Signature: Comments, Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 215'. I ri L a a n c e E--l- P I ) I - I -,.� �,j To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council - f -C First and Last Name: S6 s;uke A'i,,1- / -� Street Address: Signature: Comments: Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam an Tuesday, May 21,51. r To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: i Street Address: Signature: Comments: Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by 11arn on Tuesday, May 215'. f.DonOS" L a P e can, Z-t,rf% pt t I On C ng the e i a h I c 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 Ilam on Tuesday, May 21". Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 21". 4- P.-Litic')-n Uppos Jn.gy the Height Variance - e -or-1-truction at 33 Ki gR a w I('--- . I -S L I 1 1 s , 1 - E 0 o --V� To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: I's ( C-�� L— Street Address: 5�Cq Signature: Comments: Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 21". -e CIUI-,-� If,,!jIJj-,,.,I�i i Jrf- ycur �-,Ijppot 'pr-otecting fll-e fid"!1-1-1! illor., Oppcos:ng the Height Var' E L di To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and U Street Add Signature: Comments Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam, on Tuesday, May 215-1. - V 4 L L d rD To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First a Street Signat Comm Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by 11om on Tuesday, May 21st tit i o n 0 p p osin gshe H e i g ht °� P-4 riaJnr,:t'an ! �� � j e �4�3 '� 'a,.. '��'' , � s !_ ? i a,. t $ %.,r� : vtl l 'J ? .; To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: David Sherbeck 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 the 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 community or the General Plan. Thank you. Petition Opposing the Height Variance and New Construction at 1113 Kings oac: To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: Street Address: T Signature Comments: Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by 11am on Tuesday, May 21'. lank vou, rot- your support protecting the ru�ure of f�ttr ��eigi �e,-f af� 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 Ilam on Tuesday, May 211. �L.�aS y''.' � 4r.,. .� �,�, `� g i p-,• ,7�r� y4 � .r' p �"� re `^ �.+r #,_,t p o s i n g �. 1 n e a� e d �� 3 h t ��a� 5., I PB iu) j( �,, �F'"' a, q }' =L `,` y� jig .fW ,�Y` ?� at i� To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: r� �� � 55 Street Address: ( S 17"nQ.f d),Vl0 �5 Signature: Comments: 2 u 8no, C0d-eS ` 54roll,w comm�cnl'�/, Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 211. To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name:. Street Address: Signature: Comments: - ? --t- e �� tI j; -, Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 21s` To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: Street Address: �� f Signature: ,Cli Comments: Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by 11am on Tuesday, May 211, N e w o s It- Ir upi c t if o n a I '-"'L 3 F. Cei To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name W Street Address: Signature: Comments: Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 2V. To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: J Street Address: � t -)A,11 Signature: Comments: -e rr) a Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 211`. To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: V�.('Vi Street Address: O�A r� Signature: Comments: _ ��t ��`� ���"1 4! (�,�`��1. Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by 11am on Tuesday, May 21". 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 liam on Tuesday, May 2151. I To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: Street Address: i Signature: Comments: Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Marn on Tuesday, May 21s . To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: Street Address:. �Izl Signature: Comments: k � ul-rc*� Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 2111. e Jio n 0 p p o S'ng t h e H e ht Vari C f-2 ID L I o n a t st-ruc--' To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: L � � a/F Street Address: t-4 t 5 HOi rv�. u,, Signature: Comments: A) Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by 11am an Tuesday, May 215. ci j i-� r, e--; -c� r h '9 �; 4 4 Lt e -L' , T J� C 7.1 To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: L -IV -is Street Address: /-j 2Fa S,-tn-VA )A -ye Signature: Comments: Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 21s . 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 Ilam on Tuesday, May 21". 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 11am on Tuesday, May 211. To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last N; Street Address: Signature - z Comments: �1l''I,_,e /1" t4r Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 21" To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: jyf44g-S W rKC) Street Address: 4Z-4 5A-&J-rA /4-10 Pr t4 VE Signature: Comments Please return to the mailbox of 11am on Tuesday, May 21s . To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: Street Address: 9)- -1 Signature: 4�6-' CoMments: -Z- Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 2V. .... .. ... . r :W To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: �,M\joG -, c c A�- 7, C"i , I Street Addr (� SS: V Signature: Comments: c3 4\ - Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by 11am on Tuesday, May 21s. To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: �o Street Address: Signature: Comments: Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilom on Tuesday, May 21-51. To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: Avyl Street Address: Signature: Comments: Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 2151. �g the Heip-ht Va' To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: L Street Address: Signature:' q Comments: Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 21". e C. t P IJ I �, S j 1 To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: Dz- Street Address: -- Signature: Comments: Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 21st. To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: A 11 -F-1a J,-, e S Street Address: a -11 - Signature: Comments: Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 21';t. To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council �A First and Last Name: i �INCV\e Street Address: Signature: Comments: Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 215t. �I C Petition Opposing the H efight Vaarjanc.'. 0 r, cti on a - New la To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council i First and Last Name: I i ClStreet Address: I C 0 Signature: Comments: Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 21s. - 1, I'D 11 1, � 11 1 c ( , j 0 0d To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: -TOve Street Address: Fa Signature: Comments: �47 66 Cj C- V- C �Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by 11am on Tuesday, May 21-vl. pposing -ianre i t oii , ; � ie Height Val 'All, n r, ti c a t 13 K g o To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: Lc, rt -c,0 -1( - Street Address: v,& S. 4``C Signature: Comments: L ett c r v, te S i C, t" V ctq, '1 1 Please return 10the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 21st. "\/o c r e a v n t h e H e .,D ftion OPPO", el. Ki n gs RO ew Construction alt Ort Beach Planning COMM'SSion and City Councl To the NeWP Fir,.-;t and Last Name' Street Address: Signature* Y -A f- tC Comments: L.kY v (1L-.l�-2 C� 'A- . "eca L4 j -A, N k JI ��� -,- Ptease return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam On Tuesday, May 210. 0 Wc, L V T h k v u f o r o Li r s u pp o rit protectl n o t h p fuft re. of, 3 u r n e i 9111, b 0 r -,ni o �c, To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: bei V\ Street Address: vk� ,Rc\, Signature: %L%`vfz Comments: Eu")- ul1: It' 6,L'A' CXR ffC'n G',�P,G �j i q l.Zc' fj `1,c ��, L �i:Cc..{` t G'lti G O d OV1 4f" OA, � .jtc �o tom- hi, - ,v i f �, t I-/ & i i Q.Guru.lc� ncv-6-1, G � p vt �,�ti�'it , kic ),Ui LT Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 21'. To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: Street Address: Signature: Comments: -re ua,ri a-ioej LZ Lt. lu L� 46 Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by 11am on Tuesday, May 21s. To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: Street Address: N�I() -K-LA�-j J& J v Signature: Comments: t6i 11-kvz tp -)-UL da-,U-Cek -C, al Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by 11am on Tuesday, May 21'`. 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 21-11. a OPPOS11-1g. the Heigh' 311 �Petit;0'11 Rio New t-,onstLruct-Ion a K;ng- 4 port Beach planning Commission and City Council To the New % X% - First%- FirsL and Last Name: Street Address: signature: Comments: Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam on Tuesday, May 21R. vou for your suppartt protecting the future of oul, neighborhood To the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council First and Last Name: I I -.. Q Street Address: eir r�ar� " A.A 11 L A, V - Signature: Comments: Please return to the mailbox of 1110 Kings Rd by Ilam, on Tuesday, May 21'. Received After Agenda Printed September 10. 2019 Item No. 20 September 5, 2019 VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY: citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov City of Newport Beach Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Reed Residence Residential Height Variance Mayor Dixon and Councilmembers, I live in Cliff Haven and 1 support the approved 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 reasonable. The Reeds have designed a home that is compatible with our community despite the challenge created by the topography. I agree with the decision that the planning commission made and urge you to uphold their decision. Sincerely, Lauren Countess cc: Jaime Murillo Received After Agenda Printed September 10. 2019 Item No. 20 September 5, 2019 VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY: citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov City of Newport Beach Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Reed Residence Residential Variance (VA2019-002) Dear Mayor Dixon and Councilmembers: I live in Cliff Haven and am in full support the height variance for the residence at 1113 Kings Road that was approved by Planning Commission. As a matter of right, the homeowner could build up to 29,000 square feet and 29 feet in height. However, the home will be lower in height and substantially smaller in size which does not "max out" the coverage of the property. 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. The home complies with setbacks and square footage, and the height at the front of the house is respectful considering they could build to 29 feet and are not doing so. The illustrations provided for the Planning Commission meeting provided an excellent visual for how minimal the areas of height encroachment are from Kings Road. The homeowner rights and Planning Commission decision should be upheld for the homeowner to be able to enjoy their property in the same capacity as everyone else in the area. Sncer� ct4,�, Scott A. Cannon 519 Signal Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 Received After Agenda Printed September 10. 2019 Item No. 20 September 9, 2019 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov City of Newport Beach Honorable Mayor and City Council 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Reed Residence Variance VA2019-002 Mayor Dixon and Councilmembers: 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, detailed explanations, and conclusions within staff report 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 City Council to uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve the variance for the home. Sincerely, Giovanni Cordoves Senior Vice President, Acquisitions & Co -Director, Asset Management KBS Realty Advisors :_C.1,Et DrOve. S -04e .700, (dC' :: 1. �. -. ;.:':.E.., Tel `t• zs.•il?.E::.;F:`,J Fax "41i., ... Received After Agenda Printed September 10, 2019 Item No. 20 September 10, 2019, Council Item 20 Comments The following comments on an item on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(a)-yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 20. Appeal of Reed Residential Variance for 1113 Kings Road (PA2019-060) Since variances condone what would otherwise be violations of the generally applicable laws, they are supposed to be much harder to approve than to deny. That asymmetry is reflected in the Zoning Code, pursuant to which to grant this variance the Planning Commission had to make each of the six findings outlined in the May 23 staff report (starting on page 20-45 of the present agenda packet). Failing any one was supposed to require denial. The same standard applies to the City Council, so the decision should be obvious: the proposal clearly fails at least two of the required findings. The proposed height variances fail required Finding 5 (page 20-49), because the granting of them would be detrimental to neighbors. Staff cites construction on slopes as a reason for relaxing standards. On the contrary, these slopes are being built on because of the views from them, which means every owner has a right to expect their neighbors to stay within the code - allowed height envelope. While there are large areas of the city in which minor exceedances of the height limits would have little consequence, here doing less than strictly enforcing the limits means the neighbors (and future neighbors if the current ones don't object) will lose the opportunity to enjoy views they thought they could rely on the code to protect — and this will initiate a race between neighbors to see if they can outdo each other with even larger variances. In addition, as some letter writers have suggested, the added bulk the variances allow to be built over the slopes might destabilize them. In short, the proposed variances are "detrimental' to neighbors and contrary to "the harmonious and orderly growth of the City." They may even increase a "safety hazard." For all those reasons, the variances fail required Finding 5 and must be denied. Even if the variances had not failed required Finding 5, they would still have to be denied because they fail required Finding 6 (page 20-51): granting them would be inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the City's General Plan. In considering this finding, it must be understood we live in an imperfect world, and not every intent and purpose of the General Plan is enforced by the Zoning Code. The denial of variances is part of the safety valve to ensure those other policies are not totally forgotten. For example, General Plan Policy LU 5.1.5 ("Character and Quality of Single -Family Residential Dwellings") promises "Compatibility with neighborhood development in density, scale, and street facing elevations." But in the Zoning Code, the analysis of compatibility comes only in the "site development review" (NBMC Sec. 20.52.080.C.2.c.iii) of major projects, from which single family residential construction is exempt. Yet in considering a variance for a single family home, the Planning Commission would be expected to consult Sept. 10, 2019, City Council Item 20 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3 General Plan Policy LU 5.1.5 and to deny the variance if the result would be incompatible with the neighborhood "in density, scale, and street facing elevations" (as many argue the present proposal is) — for that would make it inconsistent with the intent of the General Plan. In the present case, staff acknowledges General Plan Policy NR 23.1 ("Maintenance of Natural Topography") 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," but fails to remind the Council of one of the most fundamental "Who We Are" policies of the Land Use Element - Policy LU 1.3 ("Natural Resources"): "Protect the natural setting that contributes to the character and identity of Newport Beach and the sense of place it provides for its residents and visitors. Preserve open space resources, beaches, harbor, parks, bluffs, preserves, and estuaries as visual, recreational and habitat resources." And it observes that this particular segment of bluffs is not protected by the Zoning Code and the owner could (in staff's opinion) build down the full extent of the bluff "by right." But that is a failure of the Zoning Code, not of the General Plan and it fails to acknowledge that all the bluffs from the Semeniuk Slough to Dover Drive are recognized as coastal bluffs and the portion of Pacific Coast Highway below this segment is recognized as a coastal view road. Marine erosion has nothing to do with this. In short, whether it was implemented in the Zoning Code, or not, it is clearly the intent of the General Plan to preserve the natural setting. Granting variances to make it easier to build over and obliterate designated scenic natural topographic features "that contribute to the character and identity of Newport Beach" is totally contrary to this intent and purpose of the General Plan. For that reason, the granting of these variances fails required Finding 6. They must be denied. Support of other findings questionable Although a variance must be denied if any of the required findings cannot be made, and staff's arguments in support of Findings 5 and 6 are clearly erroneous, its arguments in favor of some of the other findings seem doubtful. For example, in support of Finding 3 ("Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant"), staff asserts that the existence of the gully feature "effectively reduce[s] the buildable width from approximately 90 percent of the lot width to 72 percent of the lot width at those locations." First, when one buys a property it is not with an expectation, let alone a "right," that every piece of it will be buildable (parts, for example, might be underwater, or, as here, steeply sloped), and it is not the government's obligation to make them so. Second, when Cliff Haven was subdivided in 1947 (see Tract No. 1219 map) this lot (#31), like some others with topographic challenges, was given an extra 15 to 20 feet of width (a street frontage of 85 feet compared to the more typical 65 to 70 feet), quite possibly to compensate for the part that could not easily be developed. Lot 30, the one next to it on the east, most impacted by the gully, was made unusually narrow, at 50 feet, perhaps with a thought that it could not be sold and would be left as open space. Sept. 10, 2019, City Council Item 20 Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3 Third, staff's description of the "problem" greatly exaggerates its magnitude. The gully feature impacts only a small part of Lot 31. According to the topographic maps, it does not affect the buildable width directly along Kings Road nor does it affect the buildable width along the lower portion of the lot — all of which staff says the owner has an absolute right to develop. At most it affects what looks like about 10% of the lot, and even in that part it appears no steeper than the lower parts of the lot, which are considered "normal" for the area. Staff's assertion that the gully portion of the property could not be developed in compliance with the code's height regulations is inconsistent with its claim that the remainder of the property (with similar slopes, but just in a different direction) could be. Bigger issues Sadly, as the staff report notes, denial of the requested variances will not prevent the applicant from returning to the City with plans for even larger home that many will feel is even more incompatible with the neighborhood, but which can (according to staff) be approved without any discretionary review. As indicated above, the purported "right" to build structures incompatible with the neighborhood in "in density, scale, and street facing elevations" is a failure of the Zoning Code to adequately implement the promises made in the General Plan. In the Code as currently constituted, for a "normal" (no variances) single-family home application, the analysis of consistency with the General Plan (presumably including compatibility with the neighborhood) is supposed to come during the Director's approval of what is called a "Zoning Clearance" (see NBMC Sec. 20.16.030.A.1). That decision can, in turn, be referred or appealed (for a 14 -day window) to the Planning Commission. However, only the Director and the applicant are aware a decision has been made. By the time the neighbors become of aware of the project (when construction starts) the time to appeal the determination of neighborhood compatibility has long expired, and the applicant can by then argue they have made a substantial investment based on approval by the City. There is something fundamentally wrong with this. Bringing this application to the Council also highlights the City's byzantine system of measuring heights and expressing the limits attached to them. The almost completely arbitrary "grade planes" drawn over this property (see page 20-40) in some cases exaggerate the heights relative to the actual ground level and in other cases significantly underestimates them. The staff report also cites the height of some of the eaves of the sloping roofs as requiring variances, but a close reading of the code indicates we have no limits on the eaves of sloping roofs. The only thing we regulate is "the highest peak of the roof' (see NBMC Sec. 20.30.060.B.2). The Council should be aware that there is no universally -accepted system of measuring building heights. Many cities measure structure heights from the lowest point on the exterior of the building to the highest point on the roof, with some small extra allowance on steep slopes. That is a lot simpler and worth considering. Alternatively, Newport Beach, for many years, went by an average of the heights at the corners of the building to the highest point. Received After Agenda Printed September 10, 2019 Item No. 20 From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Monday, September 09, 2019 2:06 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Comments on Council Item 20 -- Appeal of Reed Residential Variance for 1113 Kings Road (PA2019-060) From: Bruce Bartram Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 2:07:09 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office; Dept - City Council; Murillo, Jaime Cc: jimmosher@yahoo.com; jwatt4@aol.com; pvpalmer@icloud.com Subject: Comments on Council Item 20 -- Appeal of Reed Residential Variance for 1113 Kings Road (PA2019-060) Honorable Councilmembers: Below is an email exchange between myself and Jaime Murillo Principal Planner at the Community Development Department of the City of Newport Beach. As you can see, it concerns the appeal of the Planning Commission's May 23, 2019 decision to approve Variance No. VA2019-002 for the property located at 1113 Kings Road. The project itself 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 variance(s) approved described below were as follows: "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" I asked Mr. Murillo the following: "Can you provide the sum total of the variances -"deviations from height limits for the components of the structure"- described above in square feet?" His response was as follows in pertinent part: "Hi Mr. Bartram, The total area of roof that exceeds the 29 -foot height limit is 327 square feet, plus an additional 26 square feet of deck and rails that exceed the 24 -foot flat roof height limit." Thus, the total square footage of the variances; i.e., additional structure of the proposed home, is 353 sq. ft. This out of a total of 10,803 -square -feet proposed for the single-family residence. This represents roughly 3.3% of the structure. Thus, should the variance be denied the property owners would still be left with 96.7% (10,450 sq. ft.) of their proposed new home to construct, On Page 11 of the May 23, 2019 Report for the Planning Commission City Staff stated the following as the results of not granting the variance in pertinent part: "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." It is submitted that the loss of 353 sq. ft. of structure from a total of 10,803 -square -feet cannot appreciably impact the "functionality" of the proposed single-family home. As a result, there is no practical reason to grant the variance. Thus, the City Council should reverse the Planning Commission's grant of Variance No. VA2019-002 because it is not necessary to construct the proposed single-family home at 1113 Kings Road. The remaining 10,450 sq. ft is certainly enough to provide an ample single-family home. Very truly yours, Bruce Bartram 2 Seaside Circle Newport Beach, CA 92663 -----Original Message ----- From: Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov> To: 'Bruce Bartram' <b.bartram@verizon.net> Sent: Mon, Sep 9, 2019 9:26 am Subject: RE: 1113 Kings Road Variance Appeal Question Hi Mr. Bartram, The total area of roof that exceeds the 29 -foot height limit is 327 square feet, plus an additional 26 square feet of deck and rails that exceed the 24 -foot flat roof height limit. See notes from plans below: DENOTES ROOF AREA (327 SQ. Fr.)ABOVE 29-V HEIGHT LIMIT �(59 SQ- FT. ROOF AREA OVER LCV ER ENCLOSED SRACE) (711 $0. FT. ROOF AREA OVER COVEREU PATIO) TOTAL UPPER ROOF AREA 3,358 SQ. FT WITH 57 SQ. Fr. (1 A%) ABOVE HEIGHT DENOTES DECKIRAILINGAREA (26 $SI_ FT-) ABOVE 24'-V HEIGHT LIMIT From: Bruce Bartram <b.bartram@verizon.net> Sent: Monday, September 09, 2019 7:22 AM To: Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 1113 Kings Road Variance Appeal Question Dear Mr. Murillo: Attached is the Staff Report for the City Council September 10, 2019 Meeting concerning the Appeal of the Variance granted by the Planning Commission to the property located at 1113 Kings Road. From the Staff Report: "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. Page 3 of the Staff Report describes the project and variance sought as follows in pertinent part: "The applicant desires to demolish the existing structure and construct a new 10,803square-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" Can you provide the sum total of the variances -"deviations from height limits for the components of the structure"- described above in square feet? Thank you for your expected cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, Bruce Bartram 2 Seaside Circle Newport Beach, CA 92663 Received After Agenda Printed September 10. 2019 Item No. 20 September 6, 2019 VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY: citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov City of Newport Beach Honorable Mayor and City Council 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Reed Residence Residential Variance Mayor Dixon and Councilmembers, I live in Newport Heights and I fully support the height variance for 1113 Kings Road that was approved by the Planning Commission. The variance is 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 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 will add value to my home and the surrounding neighbors. I strongly urge you to support this variance. Sincerely, Liz Gruber cc. James Campbell Received After Agenda Printed September 10. 2019 Item No. 20 September 5, 2019 VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY: citycouncilCanewportbeaclica.gov City of Newport Beach Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject. Reed Residence - 1113 Kings Road Dear Mayor Dixon and Councilmembers: 1 support the Reed residence variance. Through the planning process the Reeds: • Thought -fully designed a home that fits the character of the newer ponies that are being redeveloped in the community. • Have been open and transparent with neighbors. • Have done the best with the hardship of a gully. I respectfully ask you to uphold and affirm the Planning Commission's decision to approve a variance. 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. Sincerely, Nick Charles 2508 Holly Lane Newport Beach, CA 92663 /� l Received After Agenda Printed September 10. 2019 Item No. 20 From: Nick Charles <nick.charles.nrc@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 09, 2019 2:05 PM To: Dept - City Council Subject: Subject - Reed Residence Variance - 1113 Kings Road Attachments: Reed Residence Variance - 1113 Kings Road.pdf September 5, 2019 City of Newport Beach Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Reed Residence — 1113 Kings Road Dear Mayor Dixon and Councilmembers: I support the Reed residence variance. Through the planning process the Reeds: -Thoughtfully designed a home that fits the character of the newer homes that are being redeveloped in the community. -Have been open and transparent with neighbors. -Have done the best with the hardship of a gully. I respectfully ask you to uphold and affirm the Planning Commission's decision to approve a variance. 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. Sincerely, Nick Charles 2508 Holly Lane Newport Beach, CA 92663 nick. charles.nrc cr,gmai1.com Received After Agenda Printed September 10. 2019 Item No. 20 September 9, 2019 VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY: citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov City of Newport Beach Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Reed Residence — 1113 Kings Road Dear Mayor Dixon and Councilmembers: I support a variance for the Reed residence that is required for a small gully area. The variance would not allow for larger home that would not otherwise be permitted without the variance. The home has been designed tastefully and in harmony with the neighborhood. I respectfully ask the City Council to uphold and affirm the Planning Commission's decision to approve a variance for the Reed residence. Sincerely, Courtney Goodin 1756 Skylark Newport Beach, CA 92663 Received After Agenda Printed September 10. 2019 Item No. 20 September 9. ''019 VIA 1111.0 TIMNIC D1:1.IVI RY: citycounciFu liewportheachca.gov City of Newport Beach Honorable Mayor and Councilmemhers 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: heed 1tcsidence -- 1 11 I Kings Read Dear Mayor Dixon and Counc►l►llenibers: I support the variance for Reed residence. The flonic pati heen thoughtfully designed and is compatible with our conllnunit\'. The Planning Commission went throuL!h in-ew Ie1 -fliS to understand all aspects ol'the variance request before approvin4, the variance. I respectfully urge the Cite Council to uphold and al'firnl the PIan11111U CQ1111111SSiO11*S CICCiSI011 and Support this yar►tilice.. Sincerely. VJ6 .1 ff l-'urtwangler 715 St. James Newport Bcach, CA 9266; Received After Agenda Printed September 10. 2019 Item No. 20 September 9, 2019 VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY: citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov City of Newport Beach Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Reed Residence — 1113 Kings Road Dear Mayor Dixon and Councilmembers: I support the variance for the Reed residence. The home is designed in harmony with the neighborhood. The request is reasonable given that there is a known topographic constraint on the property and the variance will not allow the home size to increase beyond what would otherwise be allowable. I respectfully ask the City Council to uphold and affirm the Planning Commission's decision to approve a variance for the Reed residence. Sincerely, Stephen Bello 1945 Port Chelsea Place Newport Beach, CA 92663 Received After Agenda Printed September 10. 2019 Item No. 20 September 5, 2019 VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY: citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov City of Newport Beach Honorable Mayor and City Council 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Reed Residence Residential Variance (VA2019-002) Mayor Dixon and Councilmembers, I reside that 721 St. James Road and I support the Reed residence height variance. The issuance of a variance by the Planning Commission was the correct course of action to preserve the homeowner's right to enjoy their property. Due to the presence of a gully, there is a unique topographical constraint that the homeowner had to contend with when designing the home. If the variance was not granted that portion of the property would be unbuildable, which would deprive the homeowner of a substantial property right. Much time and consideration has been given on all accounts by City staff and the homeowner to ensure that the minimal height encroachments are truly a result of the gully. The height encroachments would not be visually higher than a 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. Granting of the variance was necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the homeowner and the Planning Commission's decisions should be upheld by the City Council. Sincerely, Evan Slavik 721 St. James Road, Cliff Haven, Newport Beach Capital One Confidential Received After Agenda Printed September 10. 2019 Item No. 20 September 5, 2019 VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY: citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov City of Newport Beach Honorable Mayor and Council members 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Reed Residence Variance VA2019-002 Dear Mayor Dixon and Council members: 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). I am in full support of the approved 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 at Planning Commission, 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 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 Planning Commission made the right decision to approve a height variance for the residence and it should be upheld at City Council. The new residence will be in character with the other homes in the community. The property is one of the biggest lots in the Newport Heights -Cliff Haven community and the home could be substantially larger than what they are proposing. Sincerely, Jon and Penny Foshiem 1501 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 c. Jaime Murillo, Planner Received After Agenda Printed September 10. 2019 Item No. 20 September 5, 2019 VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY: citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov City of Newport Beach Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: VA2019-002 Reed Residence Variance Dear Mayor Dixon and Councilmembers, I reside at 1511 Kings Road and am writing to voice my support for the Planning Commission's decision to approve a height variance for the Reed residence. The staff report for the Planning Commission 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 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. Each variance should be carefully considered by the City on a case by case basis, as was done by the Planning Commission for this variance. 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. The Reed's have adequately demonstrated that the variance approved by the Planning Commission is appropriate and the City Council should uphold the decision. Sincerely, w Jerome A. Fink 1511 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 Received After Agenda Printed September 10, 2019 Item No. 20 From: Denys Oberman <dho@obermanassociates.com> Sent: Monday, September 09, 2019 2:49 PM To: Dept - City Council; Brown, Leilani Cc: Denys Oberman; Peggy Palmer, JWatt4@aol.com; Fred Levine; Laura Curran Subject: Comment- for the Public Record -Proposed Amendments to Residential Development Standards PLEASE ENTER MY COMMENTS INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD IN CONNECTION WITH THE CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION RE. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Mayor and Council Members: We appreciate that the City Council has initiated ,and City staff has prepared, certain amendments to the City's Residential Development Standards. The amendments are focused on third floor massing, "beach cottage" preservation, and control of intensification of the current RM zone. We appreciate the amendments, as they begin to address some of the slippage that has occurred with perpetual variances granted relative to residential building height and envelope, which has been to the detriment of the character and integrity of our residential neighborhoods. Control of excess height and mass is important to maintaining the core of the residential Zoning scheme. Building envelopes, heights and densities on residential lots have been carefully crafted to preserve many elements of the high quality community inherent in Newport Beach's attractiveness and value : light, air, aesthetics, safety, soil/slope stability, and blending with views and surrounding natural environment. Newport Beach, in its efforts to allow individuals to "maximize their property value", has become confused that this inherently means, No Limits. This type of thinking has caused a compounding, and damaging impact on surrounding properties, many of our most charming and already -valuable neighborhoods, and the unique natural environmental surroundings that exist in Newport Beach. We encourage the City Council to uphold clear, responsible standards, and to actively discourage the egregious abuse of Variances that are inconsistent with the true intent of a legitimate variance, and detrimental to many neighbors/neighborhoods. A Classic example of Abuse of Variances without legitimate rationale is the Reed property and residence, scheduled for public hearing at Sept 10 City Council session. In addition to consideration of the proposed code amendments, we also request that the Council specify that authorities and permissions under the LCP NOT include blanket approval of projects whose proposed designs violate the policies in the General Plan and the Municipal Codes. Projects in the Coastal Zone should be subject to the same review and approval where they propose variations/deviations that any other project would be subject to. We assume that additional review of Residential Development Standards, and active efforts to control their erosion and variance abuse, will also include Setbacks around residential properties. These are critical for the same reasons as stated in my comments,above. Please also enter this comment into the Public Record in connection with the Appeal of the Reed Residential Variance for 1113 Kings Road, scheduled for Council Session of Sept . 10. Thank you for your consideration. Denys H. Oberman Resident and Community stakeholder ( NOTE- please disregard the printed signature and confidentiality notice, below, as these do not relate to our comments. Thank you.) Regards, Denys H. Oberman, CEO NOBERMAN rot and �inonciaj A*isef OBERMAN Strategy and Financial Advisors 2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel (949) 476-0790 Cell (949) 230-5868 Fax (949) 752-8935 Email: dho(cDobermanassociates.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately at 949/476-0790 or the electronic address above, to arrange for the return of the document(s) to us. Received After Agenda Printed September 10, 2019 Item No. 20 September 5, 2019 VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY: citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov City of Newport Beach Honorable Mayor and Council members 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Reed Residence Variance VA2019-002 Dear Mayor Dixon and Council members: 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). I am in full support of the approved 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 at Planning Commission, 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 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 Planning Commission made the right decision to approve a height variance for the residence and it should be upheld at City Council. The new residence will be in character with the other homes in the community. The property is one of the biggest lots in the Newport Heights -Cliff Haven community and the home could be substantially larger than what they are proposing. Sincerely, Jon and Penny Foshiem 1501 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92660 c. Jaime Murillo, Planner Brown, Leilani Received After Agenda Printed September 10, 2019 Item No. 20 From: Bruce Bartram <b.bartram@verizon.net> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 4:15 PM To: City Clerk's Office; Dept - City Council; Murillo, Jaime Cc: jimmosher@yahoo.com;jwatt4@aol.com; pvpalmer@icloud.com Subject: Further Comments on Council Item 20 -- Appeal of Reed Residential Variance for 1113 Kings Road (PA2019-060) Honorable Councilmembers: From the Staff Report and supporting documents prepared for tomorrow's appeal of Reed Residential Variance for 1113 Kings Road it appears the Planning Commission at its May 23, 2019 meeting was presented with much live testimony and written correspondence. Much of it concerned the proposed 10,803 -square -foot, single-family residence and a 1,508 -square -foot, four -car garage's incompatibility with the Kings Road neighborhood character. It should be noted that in Guinnane v. San Francisco City Planning Com (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 732 the court upheld the local agency which a denied permit on basis of finding that the large size of the house was "not in character" with surrounding neighborhood even though in technical compliance with zoning and building codes. Similarly, in Harris v. City of Costa Mesa (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 963 it was held that there was substantial evidence to justify the denial of a CUP to build a second unit for a residence where neighbors objected that the unit would invade their privacy and was incompatible with the neighborhood's character. A determination of a project's aesthetic incompatibility with the neighborhood does not require expert testimony. The opinions and objections of neighbors can provide substantial evidence to support rejection of a proposed development. Id. In light of the above court decisions, the City Council should give due legal and political weight to the opinions of Kings Road neighbors concerning the incompatibility of the proposed residence with the character of their existing neighborhood. Very truly yours, Bruce Bartram 2 Seaside Circle Newport Beach, CA 92663 consultants CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Community Development Dept. 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Received After Agenda Printed September 10, 2019 engineering Item No. 20 geotecbnical applications September 9, 2019 Project No. BL076.1 Attention: Mr. Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner Subject: MEMORANDUM: Review of Archived Document, Slope Creep — PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED at 1113 KINGS ROAD, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA City Project No.: PA2019-060 Associated Documents: 1. "Engineering Geologic Inspection Site of Proposed Garage, 1113 Kings Road, Newport Beach, California, by H.V. Lawmaster & Co., Inc., dated July 25, 1973. 2 "Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Residential Development Located at 1113 Kings Road, Newport Beach, California," by EGA Consultants, Inc., dated January 22, 2018. To City Planning Officials: First, regarding the potential for on-site slope creep. Many factors can contribute to a creep condition, such as animal burrows due to rodent activity, inadequate landscaping, and poor on-site surface drainage. Based on the laboratory results published in our above -referenced soils report, the site soils are not highly expansive. Therefore, a 3 -ft. thick creep zone can be used for design of caissons and on -slope structures with the condition that surface drainage at the site must be properly provided and the slope must be properly landscaped (such as non-homogeneous, drought -tolerant, deep- rooted plants) and maintained. On the basis of these anticipated conditions, any structure proposed on or near the tops of descending slopes should be supported on deepened foundations or caissons that extend below the creep zone in order to mitigate the potential long-term adverse effects of slope creep. Secondly, per the request of the client/homeowners, we have reviewed the archived document (reference 1, above), dated July 25, 1973. Though the `73 report is based on a site walk-through inspection (no subsurface data was collected), we are in general concurrence with the statements regarding slope creep and stability. In fact, the creep load soil values published in both of the above -referenced soils report present precisely the exact same value. The `73 report allows for a creep load force of 1,000 lbs per foot within the creep zone. Whereas, per the Executive Summary in our report (reference 2): 375-C Monte Vista Avenue - Costa Mesa, CA 92627 - (949) 642-9309 - FAX (949) 642-1290 On -slope structures/caissons should be designed for creep loads of 1, 000 lbs. per foot of depth for the upper three feet. Additionally, the `73 report states: Existing conditions and slopes appear grossly stable within the site (page 2, reference 1). Meanwhile, our soils report dated January 22, 2018 states, in general concurrence (page 8): Based on the extrapolation of data and geologic, the geologic structure of the bedrock (bedding) dips at gentle angles (horizontal to 10 degrees) to the north. This structural orientation is considered to be favorable with respect to the gross stability of the rear and surrounding slopes underlain with bedrock. Based on the findings of our geotechnical investigation and our professional experience working on similar sites in the area, the proposed construction (including deepened foundations to be supported on caissons and grade beams) will not adversely impact the geologic stability/safety of the subject or adjoining properties. All recommendations and soils values presented in the soils report dated January 22, 2018 (reference 2) are in accordance with the 2016 CBC, and remain valid. This opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, EGA Consultants, Inc. DAVID A. WORTHINGTON CEG 2124 Principal Engineering Geologist Copies. (1) Greg & Carolyn Reed (1) Craig Hampton, AIA (1) Shawna Schaffner, CAA Planning 1113 Kings Rd., Newport Beach, CA Reed Residence - Letter to Community Development Dept. Project No. BL076.1 September 9, 2019 n udVld A. gyp' Q worthl,_t_ G No' CEG2124 � A FCERT►FjFOII/Zp N6INFF �RiN p � � rEGtOG►S e4' Q. r C CA UF ....,e. Page 2 of 2 Received After Agenda Printed September 10, 2019 Item No. 20 From: Jason Finney <jasonsfinney@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, September 09, 2019 3:00 PM To: Dept - City Council; Murillo, Jaime; Dept - City Council Subject: Reed Residence — 1113 Kings Road September 5, 2019 City of Newport Beach Honorable Mayor and Council members 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Reed Residence — 1113 Kings Road Dear Mayor Dixon and Council members: I support the Reed residence variance for the following reasons: • Their 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. 9 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. • 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. The Planning Commission made the correct decision in granting a variance to ensure that the homeowner is able to continue to rightfully enjoy their property. Sincerely, Jason Finney 510 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 Received After Agenda Printed September 10, 2019 Item No. 20 September 5, 2019 VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY: citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov City of Newport Beach Honorable Mayor and City Council 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Variance VA2019-002 -- Reed Residence Dear Mayor Dixon and Councilmembers, 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 Jaime Murillo Received After Agenda Printed September 10, 2019 Item No. 20 September 5, 2019 VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY: citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov City of Newport Beach Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Reed Residence Residential Height Variance Mayor Dixon and Councilmembers, I reside at 245 Kings PI. not far from the property in question and am in full support of the height variance granted for the residence at 1113 Kings Road. I was surprised to find out that a group like SPON had appealed this project and were going after an individual family, which doesn't seem to fit their model. I am also surprised with them opposed to this project given that they could have gone to the full height limit and a build a much larger home based on code. 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 square footage. The homeowner's lot is topographically challenged with multiple sloping angles, plain and sim- ple, and this shouldn't deprive them of 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 by the staff report presents a great visual for how minimal the areas of height encroachment are from Kings Road. The homeowner rights should be protected and the approved variance upheld. The homeowner should be able to enjoy their property in the same capacity as everyone else in the area. Sincerely, Brian Krebs 245 Kings PI. Received After Agenda Printed September 10, 2019 Item No. 20 September 9, 2019 VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY: citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov City of Newport Beach Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Reed Residence — 1113 Kings Road Dear Mayor Dixon and Councilmembers: This correspondence is provided in support of the variance for the Reed residence. The home has been tastefully designed in harmony with the neighborhood and the small area of the home that requires a variance would not increase the size of the home. I respectfully request the City Council uphold and affirm the Planning Commission's approval of a variance for the Reed residence. Sincerely, John Pomer 1211 Cliff Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Received After Agenda Printed September 10, 2019 Item No. 20 From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 11:01 AM To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Comments on Council Item 20 -- Appeal of Reed Residential Variance for 1113 Kings Road (PA2019-060) Attachments: FLOOR AREA LOSS -1113 KINGS ROAD_REED.pdf From: Murillo, Jaime Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 11:00:57 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office Subject: FW: Comments on Council Item 20 -- Appeal of Reed Residential Variance for 1113 Kings Road (PA2019-060) Additional correspondence for Reed Variance. From: Shawna Schaffner <sschaffner@caaplanning.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 10:48 AM To: Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: FW: Comments on Council Item 20 -- Appeal of Reed Residential Variance for 1113 Kings Road (PA2019-060) Jaime — This is in response to Bruce Bartram's email below. Mr. Bartram has incorrectly drawn conclusions based on the square footages for the areas of roof that are over -height. Those areas do not directly correspond to floor area as detailed below. Please also see the attached exhibits detailing the loss of square footage depicted in red cross -hatch. The 29 ft. height limit follows the gully topography which is at steep angles. As that 29 ft. height limit "plane" penetrates the building it slices through the 327 sq.ft. of total floor area loss at angles that cut diagonally through the corners. The loss of these diagonal corners results in the elimination of nearly double the loss of net useable floor area in order to create square cornered rooms. The net result is a loss of 220 sq.ft. of Living Flor Area on the Main Level Floor and 200 sq.ft. on the Upper Level Floor for a total loss of 420 sq.ft. The net result is also the loss of 240 sq.ft. of Covered Deck on the Main Level Floor and the loss of 100 sq.ft.of Deck on the Upper Level Floor. While the direct square footage lost would be 760 square feet, the layout would be affected, providing no point of entry to bedroom 2. In order to relocate the square footage elsewhere within height compliant portions of the property, the bulk and massing as viewed from the street and from the western property line would likely be substantially altered. Shawna Schaffner From: Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 3:08 PM To: Shawna Schaffner <sschaffner@caaplanning.com> Subject: FW: Comments on Council Item 20 -- Appeal of Reed Residential Variance for 1113 Kings Road (PA2019-060) FYI From: Bruce Bartram <b.bartram@verizon.net> Sent: Monday, September 09, 2019 2:07 PM To: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov>; Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: iimmosher@yahoo.com; Iwatt4@aol.com; pvpalmer@icloud.com Subject: Comments on Council Item 20 -- Appeal of Reed Residential Variance for 1113 Kings Road (PA2019-060) Honorable Councilmembers Below is an email exchange between myself and Jaime Murillo Principal Planner at the Community Development Department of the City of Newport Beach. As you can see, it concerns the appeal of the Planning Commission's May 23, 2019 decision to approve Variance No. VA2019-002 for the property located at 1113 Kings Road. The project itself 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 variance(s) approved described below were as follows: "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" I asked Mr. Murillo the following: "Can you provide the sum total of the variances -"deviations from height limits for the components of the structure"- described above in square feet?" His response was as follows in pertinent part: "Hi Mr. Bartram, The total area of roof that exceeds the 29 -foot height limit is 327 square feet, plus an additional 26 square feet of deck and rails that exceed the 24 -foot flat roof height limit." Thus, the total square footage of the variances; i.e., additional structure of the proposed home, is 353 sq. ft. This out of a total of 10,803 -square -feet proposed for the single-family residence. This represents roughly 3.3% of the structure. Thus, should the variance be denied the property owners would still be left with 96.7% (10,450 sq. ft.) of their proposed new home to construct, On Page 11 of the May 23, 2019 Report for the Planning Commission City Staff stated the following as the results of not granting the variance in pertinent part: "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." It is submitted that the loss of 353 sq. ft. of structure from a total of 10,803 -square -feet cannot appreciably impact the "functionality" of the proposed single-family home. As a result, there is no practical reason to grant the variance. Thus, the City Council should reverse the Planning Commission's grant of Variance No. VA2019-002 because it is not necessary to construct the proposed single-family home at 1113 Kings Road. The remaining 10,450 sq. ft is certainly enough to provide an ample single-family home. Very truly yours, Bruce Bartram 2 Seaside Circle Newport Beach, CA 92663 -----Original Message ----- From: Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo-newportbeachca.gov> To: 'Bruce Bartram' <b.bartram(cDverizon.net> Sent: Mon, Sep 9, 2019 9:26 am Subject: RE: 1113 Kings Road Variance Appeal Question Hi Mr. Bartram, The total area of roof that exceeds the 29 -foot height limit is 327 square feet, plus an additional 26 square feet of deck and rails that exceed the 24 -foot flat roof height limit. See notes from plans below: DENOTES ROOF AREA(327 SQ. Fr.) 29'-0' HEIGHT LIMIT 0(59 SQ- FT. ROOF AREA OVER LCV ER ENCLOSED SPACE) (211 $Q. FT. ROOF AREA OVER COVERED PATIO) TOTAL UPPER ROOF AREA 3,358 SQ. FT WITH 57 SQ. FT. (1-496)AEOVE HEIGHT LIMIT DENOTES DECKIRAILING AREA (26 $Q- FT-) ABOtiJE 24--V HEIGHT LIMIT a (7f}-) # — v 5; A)GE 10.46 l .o 0° RIDGE 184 65) 114 7d (71 r77.33 (74.70) } k Ij {A5-66) _. .4 UPPER DECK o 4 .7 From: Bruce Bartram <b.bartram(cDverizon.net> Sent: Monday, September 09, 2019 7:22 AM To: Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 1113 Kings Road Variance Appeal Question Dear Mr. Murillo: Attached is the Staff Report for the City Council September 10, 2019 Meeting concerning the Appeal of the Variance granted by the Planning Commission to the property located at 1113 Kings Road . From the Staff Report: 3 "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. Page 3 of the Staff Report describes the project and variance sought as follows in pertinent part: "The applicant desires to demolish the existing structure and construct a new 10,803square-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" Can you provide the sum total of the variances -"deviations from height limits for the components of the structure"- described above in square feet? Thank you for your expected cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, Bruce Bartram 2 Seaside Circle Newport Beach, CA 92663 I /!32 W , -I 1 • -------------II a------ 1, ,I II II II II ll II II II CCff II Igl I I qrn iiCC-�� I I II T II fl I I 1 1 p II i gl - 'I II II If. 1 1 I 11 III II � II II II II II ,I jl ! I 1 I I I I I O ` I, Co AV A_ --- ----- ---------- --- ,._.._---- _� uwca 1 II r____ __ - pp jT AA I Ij 1 U r ;r 1 _ 1 II 1 I II I I II I 1 I I a II os o� i • I 4A II I 11 1 11 II Orn III N 1 4 m __________------- < II m O g a r— r � , D Z W Cf o� o� 0 I I �S I m e a m 1113 KINGS ROAD, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA CUSTOM RESIDENCE FOR MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN `/ q CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O I f o l^ T C D A f f N GREG & CAROLYN REED 4� Id l DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM IIOAI[5 SINCE IUTJ N E (j -2KI 1113 NGS ROAD� 5500 E. QUACrEESAWN STCEET - POISE, IDMIO 53716 IJ49121TJ-65X3 m x m NEWFOR'r BEACII, CA 92663 (949) 698-2091 J R�.•�a�yl A^„Xo^mn N 6 PLANNING VARIANCE DESIGN PACKAGE^sly^^ ^a^^ , I I _" 11 • 11 11 11 II It II " II " " Pllm II 11 co 11 I I I Ibn are pI I LOaa.� I I I PI I F , 1'_ gull INan. morF Ilgu oIIN 0�1 "WI L- "_ I II I 11 _ pI ImvAlala II Pi II gQPQ— Y II +Ai g I I 'ice' Y t_y 11-S II •n G1 i Iwnl _yII L® 1 I zpFF-y ` T I II 1 II II I I 1+ ______________ I i + I II �� mnaaame ,acral _ ~- 1 �I I � ` P fc [ fl a 1 I N A ---------JP. cn -- 0(') _ 1 1 1 j1 1 ----------- ----------o==------ - - o 1 I - 1 1 1 >> ; 1 T I II m V eY 11 ' o " ' m' xNp 1 II R 1 1 b r " , m ; m r 1 -n --- --------------------- r - - o X Z - - o � o 0 g I Om a§ x m ,' b m1113 6 Kiw,ROAD, NWPORBEACH, CALIFORNIA CUSTOM RESIDENCE FOR GREG & CAROLYN REED 1 1 13 KINGS ROAD NEWPORT BEACII, CA 92663 (949)698-2091 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN PLANNING VARIANCE DESIGN PACKAGE CRAIG S. HAMPTON N E 1 I n a A T E U U[SIGNING QUALITY c'USR,AI HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 G QL'A—,,.'l N•N 51111T - P.-, IIIAIIO 837 16 — vA ••a.y n,m,wmma . AON.mpm.cm Received After Agenda Printed September 10, 2019 Item No. 20 September 9, 2019 VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY: citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov City of Newport Beach Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Reed Residence — 1113 Kings Road Dear Mayor Dixon and Councilmembers: This correspondence is provided in support of the variance for the Reed residence. The Reeds have designed a home that is in harmony with the neighboring community. The variance is required due to topographical constraints on the property and approving the variance will not increase the home size or allow the home to be taller along Kings Road. As a long-time resident of Newport Beach, I don't see any reason that would warrant a motion for delay or applied constraints blocking their project from moving forward. Please uphold and affirm the Planning Commission's approval of a variance for the Reed residence. Sincerely, Chris Maderino 705 1/2 N Bay Front Newport Beach, CA 92663 CAA PLANNING September 10, 2019 Mr. Jaime Murillo, AICP City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Received After Agenda Printed September 10, 2019 Item No. 20 Subject: Response to Chatten-Brown Carstens & Minteer LLP Letter dated September 6, 2019, Appeal of Variance No. VA2019-002 Dear Mr. Murillo: This correspondence is provided in response to the above -referenced letter from Chatten-Brown Carstens & Minteer LLP Letter ("the Chatten-Brown letter") dated September 6, 2019, Appeal of Variance No. VA2019-002. CAA Planning represents the applicants, Greg and Carolyn Reed, in their request for a variance, which was approved by the Planning Commission on May 23, 2019. Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) appealed the Planning Commission approval on June 5, 2019. I would like to respectfully point out that the Chatten-Brown letter makes assertions that are unsupported by fact, or are misleading. Those assertions are noted and corrected throughout this response. The Chatten-Brown letter raises three general areas of concern, including that the City is unable to make the required variance findings, that the proposed residence would be incompatible with the neighborhood, and that the integrity of the City's planning process is endangered by upholding the Planning Commission's approval of the variance. A response to those three issues is below. I. Variance Findings The Chatten-Brown letter ignores the hardship that the existing gully creates when applying the Zoning Code height limit to the site. While many sites along Kings Road slope north to south down the bluff, there is a 40% slope from the street to the bottom of gully (north to south), and a 22% slope from west to east. These separately sloping surfaces create a distinct hardship. The City has approved three separate variances for this precise gully. The gully continues to preclude the development of the site in a manner that does not generally occur. The Chatten-Brown letter asserts, "it is clear that the property can (and does) support a single- family home without the variance, and that the Applicant seeks the variance to maximize the scale and future value of the proposed building" (page 3). This is factually incorrect. The property does not currently support a single-family home without a variance. A variance for the existing garage was approved in 1973. It is not possible to build on the eastern portion of the property affected by 30900 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 285 • San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 • (949) 581-2888 • Fax (949) 581-3599 Mr. Jaime Murillo September 10, 2019 Page 2 of 5 the gully without exceeding the City's height limit. Page 5 of the Chatten-Brown letter acknowledges that "Variances were granted for 1113 Kings Road to build the existing 3,013- suqare foot home." Chatten-Brown appears to argue both sides of this argument in attempting to discredit the City's findings of fact in support of the variance. The Chatten-Brown letter claims that the variance is not required for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. However, the largest area of roof and covered patio that exceeds the height limit is on the first floor, totaling 59 square feet of roof and 211 square feet of covered patio. Even a single -story residence requires a variance in this location. The second -story roof equals 57 square feet, and the railing is 26 square feet. These are minor encroachments given the dramatic topography of the site. Where the City's Zoning Code requires a 4 -foot setback from the side yard, a 19 -foot setback (4 feet plus an additional 15 feet) would be required to build a single -story residence in compliance with the height limit. The Planning Commission has justified the topographic hardship of this gully three separate times in approving variance VA1033 for the subject property, and variances VA 1034 and VAI 150 for the immediate adjacent property, which shares the gully. Related to the issue of whether the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege, the question framed on page 6 of the Chatten-Brown letter is whether the landowner will be prevented from using their property in the same manner as surrounding property owners, and the letter further specifies that the goal is equality with surrounding landowners. As detailed above and below, the answer to that questions is yes, the landowner will be prevented from using their property in the same manner as surrounding property owners, because even a single -story residence would require a variance. Nearly every residence on Kings Road is built from side yard to side yard, across the frontage of the site, maximizing the site coverage closest to the street. The first 20 feet of the residence could be built side to side, but once the topography becomes over -steep 19 -foot setback would be required where the City's Zoning Code standard is a 4 -foot side yard setback. While the house is designed to substantially step back from west to east in order to following the natural topography, requiring a further setback would eliminate the functional use of the home on the eastern side of the property. As such, the variance is necessary to allow for development of the lot in the same manner as the surrounding property owners. The front of the proposed residence has a height of 22 feet 9 inches on the eastern side of the property, which is substantially below the 29 -foot height limit. Of the approximately 50 homes on Kings Road located on the bluff above Coast Highway, 36% of the homes are two stories. The proposed project is compatible with those homes. It is well under the height limit as viewed from the street, and the adjacent property owner has a residence that is 48 feet in height, where the proposed project seeks a maximum height of 32.07 feet at the rear of the residence. This further Mr. Jaime Murillo September 10, 2019 Page 3 of 5 demonstrates that the property owners would be prevented from using their property in the same manner as surrounding property owners. On the topic of whether the variance will be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City and constitute a hazard to the community, the answer is clearly no. The Chatten-Brown letter asserts that variance would block public views of the ocean from Kings Road. This is unsupported by facts. The attached photograph taken from Google Maps shows that there is no public view of the ocean from Kings Road through this property (Attachment 1). The variance is required for the rear of the house and is blocked from view by the front of the house that is well under the height limit. Therefore, the claim that the "variance's contribution to these lost public views are a hazard to the public convenience and interest to those in the neighborhood" is unfounded. Finally, on the topic of conformance to the City's General Plan, the Chatten-Brown letter contends that the project is inconsistent with General Plan Policies NR23.1 and LU5.1.5. Policy NR23.1 relates to minimizing alteration of a site's natural topography and preserving the features as a visual resource. While the variance has no bearing on the issue of terracing down the bluff, the variance will provide certainty as to the location of the house relative to the bluff. General Plan Policy LU5.1.5 is related to compatibility with neighborhood density, scale, and street -facing elevation. As detailed above, the variance does not affect the density, scale, or street -facing elevation of the house, and there is no conflict with this policy. Rather, without the requested relief, a house that is larger and with a more imposing street -facing elevation could be built by right. Upholding the Planning Commission approval of the variance will provide certainty related to compliance with these General Plan policies. II. Incompatible with Neighborhood The size of the residence is not germane to the variance. The roof and railing elements that are over -height are not visible from the front of the house and are behind height -compliant sections of roof. However, if the Planning Commission's approval of the variance were not upheld, the form and function of the residence would be impacted. It is not possible to simply "cut off' these section of roof and railing without adjusting both the interior layout and the exterior roof lines of the house. Approximately 760 square feet would have to be removed from the plan, as depicted on Attachment 2. While the direct square footage lost would be 760 square feet, the layout would be affected, providing no point of entry to bedroom 2. In order to relocate the square footage elsewhere within height compliant portions of the property, the bulk and massing as viewed from the street and from the western property line would likely be substantially altered. More intensity could be developed in the front of the house, where the design currently depicts a deeply recessed entry approximately set back more than 32 feet from the street. Additional square footage could also be moved to the west of the property, pushing the footprint well south of the Mr. Jaime Murillo September 10, 2019 Page 4 of 5 current location. In addition, the easterly roof line could be dramatically steepened, creating a very long and angular roof line. Each of these alternatives, while potentially avoiding the variance, would decrease the compatibility of the design with the neighborhood. Where the current design provides articulation and many areas of relief well under the height limit at the street, a fully height - compliant design would be more monolithic at the street, and would provide a "wing" that would severely protrude on the west. The variance allows a more uniform design across the width of the property, which is the prevailing style of development in the neighborhood. The Chatten-Brown letter presents misleading and incorrect information in making the point that the design is not compatible with the neighborhood. On page 8, the Chatten-Brown letter claims that the City has granted a variance for four homes on Kings Road. The attached Kings Road variance summary table shows that the City has in fact granted nine distinct variances for six different properties on Kings Road (Attachment 3). Also, on page 8 of the Chatten-Brown letter, a statement is made that "Currently, the largest home on the bluff side of Kings Road is approximately 8,800 square feet. The average home on the bluff is 4,500 square feet." These statements are both unsupported by facts, and are misleading. In researching the size of existing residences, City Staff provided a list of the majority of residences built since the 1992, which are provided on Attachment 4. The largest residences are 9,505 square feet, 9,308 square feet, 8,259 square feet (plus a 1,035 -square -foot garage = 8,754 square feet) and 7,895 square feet (plus a 859 - square -foot garage = 8,754 square feet). At least four separate homes on Kings Road are the same approximate size as the Chatten-Brown letter claims is the single largest. With respect to the claim that the average size of the homes on the bluff is 4,500 square feet, while there is no supporting documentation for this claim, if it were true, it is likely because of homes originally constructed in the 1950's. Homes constructed in the 1950's were considerably smaller compared to houses within the past 30 years. With the exception of two or three lots, this neighborhood was fully built out by 1963, as shown on the attached aerial photograph (Attachment 5). In reviewing homes built in the past 30 years, the attached table demonstrates that the average size of homes constructed on the bluff side of Kings Road is over 7,000 square feet (Attachment 4). The size of the proposed house is not derived from the variance, and the lack of accuracy or context related to the claims presented in the Chatten-Brown letter is troubling because the letter attempts to paint a picture of neighborhood compatibility that is incorrect. III. Integrity of Planning Decision Related to the topic of the integrity of Newport Beach's planning decisions, the City's Planning Commission weighed this topic and carefully deliberated on the merits of this particular property before voting 5-0 with 2 abstentions, in support of the variance. Each variance request is considered on its own merits and is independent of whether other variances have been granted in the City. While three separate variances have been approved by the City for this particular gully, the City has provided a distinct analysis related to the specific facts set forth by the proposed Mr. Jaime Murillo September 10, 2019 Page 5 of 5 project. This careful analysis is set forth in the City Staff Report and detailed findings of fact. There is nothing contained within the Chatten-Brown letter disproving the facts set forth by the City. Sincerely, CAA PLANNING, INC. Shawna L. Schaffner Chief Executive Officer Attachments 1 — Photograph of Kings Rd. 2 — Area Requiring Relocation (760 sf) 3 — Kings Rd. Variance Summary Table 4 — Table of Average Home Sizes on the Bluff Side of Kings Rd. 5 — Aerial Photograph from 1963 ME o I g 4 9 1112 Kuvs Mno.Ncwrortr eeweu, Cni.rcaunn CRAIG S. HAMPTON cwta scIDx mE Fon MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PIAN 17^7875 , 9 y 1117 KINGS Rona ss.o..�.......... ..... m NtwroarB—I.CA92663 l4 9)69&2091 FJf ,�mw PLANNING VARIANCE DESIGN PACKAGE ---------- --- ---------------- ------- ! ----------------- ---------- - ----- 4-41i: - --- - ---------- g! c?> owL A VZ c: IT -------- -------- - ;moa m < m -n -------------"I. O 0 0 z- --------- J; (All X j 1 1 9 1113 . [I1, CAueawlA q CUSTOAl RRMIDENC MIDENCK FOR UPPER LEVELCRAIG S HAMPTONFLOOR PLAN oN e 1.1111.1 -.1 ... 1113 . .... . N-0-1,CA92663 -V= PLANNING VARIANCE DESIGN PACKAGE -X=='= m m ao 0 o eo n n n r o o m rn�� o 0 o m m rn rn rn o o rn a\o ti m ao �o a m A m o .� m rn ao Q N N V N N N n0 1� V1 l0 N Z Z 3 3 x x ¢ z z z E _ _m L v m L d W L L O "O O n) v N x nl O O « W T v E o T X � t L On w V do t6 U d N v E z s u w L X 3 M > O OU o n u m E � v _O — v E o ry n u s o N o ^ v . oo E t O v m E c 0 v m m N � � °i v v � E £ v v a o x m s v - E li m u v 3 0 0 L « 0 u Q-0 �N b0 W N Li o N n1 n1y L s� E E— o m m v o o v p X X N 1p o y0 N v "O O C OO N O E m« O T T L T a C .£ N "' On a+ U o E E .N E E C on o E v n O — — m _0 L s s E t 0 0 tf '6 15�O Y, E O s �E C ` : 0 0 m 0 bD C +' n2 O Q0 K N N L N Y d N H C N N t N v N N N W v v Ou N a N v 'o a u u u u o u E a o u E V x�v v v v w m O. w n io v v D a FO- 10- 0 0 FO- H H H H F 0 FO - w O E z o 0 0 0 v o 0 0 0 m-- 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 o ` a a a a a a a a a a a a a a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > v v m 0 0 0 o -O m m m 0 0 0 0 u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m c c c c c c c c c c a tD h r1 N r -I N a -I c -I N AVERAGE FLOOR AREA (BLUFF ONLY) Kings Road Address Year Built Bluff ? House (s� Garage (sQ Total 615 1997 Y 5225 1093 6318 603 2007 Y 7980 -- 7980 607 2004 Y 5351 -- 5351 311 2000 Y 6511 771 7282 303 1992 Y 4370 652 5022 100 2013 Y 6733 856 7589 104 2013 Y 7895 859 8754 1301 2015 Y 5242 827 6069 1311 2005 Y 6182 817 6999 1401 2010 Y 5080 400 5480 1511 2014 Y 8259 1035 9294 1611 2005 Y 5227 582 5809 1721 2005 Y 5406 -- 5406 1821 1998 Y 9308 -- 9308 1831 1990 Y 5432 685 6117 112 2011 Y 9505 -- 9505 Average w/o Garage 6482 Average w/Garage 7018 Not Listed -- eNOR 04 rix -. � .r �l , � � � �; � - 1 � �-. � u �g .. by �•,' - 4t p 71T.om - t 74 V' r } 4— 1 k 1 ^f cl Vii► �E+h.'"fl`//dpi,, � "; INQUIRY #: 5653920.2 YEAR: 1963 ■.�� ��,"'', From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: To whom it may concern, Rob Brauchli <rob@genesiscapital.com> Tuesday, September 10, 2019 10:19 PM Dept - City Council Murillo, Jaime Letter of support - reed residence Brauchli city.pdf Received After Agenda Printed September 10, 2019 Item No. 20 Please see attached letter in lieu of my appearance at the city council meeting this evening. I am in Support of the development plan laid out by the Reed's. Feel free to contact me anytime if you'd like to discuss further. Regards, Rob S. Brauchli Director of Market Expansion S.V.P. of Sales CalBRE Salesperson License ID No. 01407683 NMLS #: 367249 15303 Ventura Blvd., Suite 700 Sherman Oaks. CA 91403 c: 858-349-6770 rob@genesiscapital.com www.genesiscapital.coni This email message is intended only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may contain information that is confidential or proprietary to the sender and/or the recipient(s) named above, and its use and/or retention by any unintended recipient is strictly prohibited by applicable law. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email and delete the original message. This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is legally privileged 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 192810A4-9CD7-4DB9-BA19-B24F74F78794 September 9, 2019 VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY: citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov City of Newport Beach Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Reed Residence — 1113 Kings Road Dear Mayor Dixon and Councilmembers: I support the requested variance for the Reed residence. The homeowners have worked hard to design a home that fits within the community. The variance is necessary due to the constraints in site topography and will not increase the home size. I respectfully ask the City Council to uphold and affirm the Planning Commission's decision to approve a variance for the Reed residence. Sincerely, �A6�`DocuSigned by: �/I D6263199F93E423... Rob Brauchli 1733 Tradewinds Lane Newport Beach, CA 92663