Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0_Dawson Residence Variance_PA2015-224 .CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT February 9, 2017 Meeting Agenda Item No. 4: SUBJECT: Dawson Residence Variance - (PA2015-224) 2741 Ocean Boulevard Variance No. VA2015-005 APPLICANT: Richard Krantz Architecture, Inc. OWNER: Craig and Raquel Dawson PLANNER: Makana Nova, AICP, Associate Planner (949) 644-3249, mnova(@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY A variance to allow portions of a new single-family residence to exceed the height limit and to allow retaining walls, a garage, and pool above to encroach into the 10-foot rear setback along Way Lane. The new residence would not exceed the top of curb height limit along Ocean Boulevard. Variance Nos. VA653 and VA1137 will be rescinded if the application request is granted. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Article 19, of Chapter 3, Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act) under Class 3, (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3) Adopt Resolution No. approving Variance No. VA2015-005 (Attachment No. PC 1), allowing portions of the proposed residence to exceed the height limit, allowing encroachments within the required rear yard setback, and modifying the residence so that the dining nook and sitting room below do not extend beyond the line of the existing balcony and limiting the extent of the fire pit tower at the upper level to the line of existing development. 1 V� QP �P Dawson Residence Variance Planning Commission, February 9, 2017 Page 2 VICINITY MAP Subject Property P" GENERAL PLAN ZONING LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON-SITE Single-Unit Residential Single-Unit Residential (R-1) Single-family home Detached RS-D NORTH RS-D R-1 Sin le-famil homes SOUTH Parks and PRRecreation Parks and Recreation (PR) Corona del Mar State Beach EAST J RS-D I R-1 Sin le-famil homes WEST J1 RS-D R-1 Single-family homes 3 Dawson Residence Variance Planning Commission, February 9, 2017 Page 3 INTRODUCTION Project Setting The subject property is located in Corona del Mar on a bluff within China Cove. The property is located immediately north of Lookout Point, a General Plan designated Public View Point, which overlooks Corona del Mar State Beach, the harbor entrance, the Balboa Peninsula, and the Pacific Ocean to the south and west beyond. The site is approximately 10,527 square feet in area and slopes from Ocean Boulevard down to Way Lane with approximately a 55-foot grade difference. The property is currently developed with a single-family residence with three, two-car garages constructed at the property line immediately adjacent to Way Lane. The existing structure maintains four levels from the Way Lane frontage with only one level visible from Ocean Boulevard above. Portions of the existing residence extend above the height of the Ocean Boulevard curb and exceed the 24-foot height limit from grade. Site photos of the subject property are provided as Attachment No. PC 3. Background On June 1, 1961, Variance No. 653 was approved to allow a reduction of the front yard setback from 10 feet to 0 feet along Ocean Boulevard. At the time, the lot was 4,971 square feet in area. The original house and detached 2-car garage were constructed in 1962 with several alterations and additions completed since. On November 6, 1986, the Planning Commission approved Variance No. 1137 allowing an addition to encroach into the front setback along Ocean Boulevard, to exceed the allowable floor area limit, and to exceed the height limit. At the time, the Zoning Code required a rear setback along Way Lane of 2 feet 6 inches. In 1989, the addition and a four-car garage on Way Lane were constructed creating a 5,264-square-foot residence (1.93 times the buildable area of the site at the time). Although the proposed addition was conditioned to comply with the top of curb height limit along Ocean Boulevard, portions of the structure currently extend above the curb. On October 12, 1998, Resolution No. 98-66 was adopted by City Council to abandon a portion of the Ocean Boulevard right-of-way adjacent to the subject property. The abandoned right-of-way (approximately, 5,556 square feet in area) was added to the subject lot. Currently, there are limited improvements within this area, including a low fence/wall and stairways leading to the home and yard from Ocean Boulevard. Project Description The applicant proposes to demolish the existing single-family residence and construct a new 10,216-square-foot single-family residence. The requested Variance would allow: 1) portions of the residence to exceed the 24-foot base height limit for a flat 4 Dawson Residence Variance Planning Commission, February 9, 2017 Page 4 roof/guardrail and 29-foot base height limit for sloping roofs by up to 18 feet. The development would not exceed the top of curb height from Ocean Boulevard; and 2) a 3-car garage with a pool above and associated retaining walls to encroach into the required 10-foot rear setback along Way Lane. The proposed retaining walls encroach to the property line and the proposed garage with pool above encroaches 9 feet 4 inches into the rear setback. The applicant's project description is provided as Attachment No. PC 4. The project plans (Attachment No. PC 7) include additional information on the site topography, location and height of the existing structures, and proposed layout of the multi-level house. Grading for the proposed residence includes 2,820 cubic yards of cut and 510 cubic yards of fill. Two main levels provide the majority of the living area, including kitchen, dining room, library, bedrooms, and great room, and the lower levels include the exercise room, media room, recreation room, a guest bedroom, garage foyer for access from Way Lane, and the three-car garage. DISCUSSION Analysis General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Zoning Code The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site as Single-Unit Residential Detached (RS-D), the certified Local Coastal Program designates this site as Single-Unit Residential Detached (RSD-B), and the Zoning Code and the Coastal Zone designates the site as Single-Unit Residential (R-1), which are all intended to provide for detached single-unit residential dwellings on a single lot. The proposed development is consistent with these designations and use of the property would not change. This project was deemed complete on August 17, 2016, and has been processed under the Coastal Commission guidelines in effect prior to the City's effective date of the Local Coastal Program on January 30, 2017. The property is located in the categorical exclusion area and the proposed residence will meet all conditions of the categorical exclusion order with approval of the subject application. Therefore, a Coastal Development Permit is not required and a categorical exclusion order was filed on January 26, 2017. Floor Area The maximum floor area is 1.5 times the buildable area of the site pursuant to Section 20.18.030 (Residential Zoning Districts General Development Standards). The buildable area is defined as the area of a site excluding the required setback areas. The buildable area of the subject property is 6,813 square feet and the maximum floor area is 5 Dawson Residence Variance Planning Commission, February 9, 2017 Page 5 10,219.5 square feet. Therefore, the proposed total floor area of approximately 10,216 square feet is below the maximum floor area limit. Parking Three enclosed parking spaces are required for the proposed project because the floor area of the house would be greater than 4,000 square feet, pursuant to Section 20.40.030 (Requirements for Off-Street Parking). The proposed project would provide a three-car garage accessed from Way Lane. Height Pursuant to Section 20.30.060 (Height), the base height limit for structures within the R- 1 Zoning District is 24 feet for a flat roof and 29 feet for a sloped roof. Pursuant to Section 20.30.050 (Grade), the building height is measured from a plane established by determining the elevation of the lot at five evenly spaced points along each of the two side property lines and connecting each of the points along a side property line with the corresponding point on the opposite side property line, as shown below. P1 Front Setback _ _ P2 Buildable Area 4-sided polygon that approximates PiP3 the building footprint `. PP4 2 P5 P3 ` Lot Line P4 Setback P5 Additionally, Ocean Boulevard is designated as a Coastal View Road within the General Plan and Local Coastal Program and public views are protected. Zoning Code Section 20.30.060(B) (Height Limits and Exceptions) restricts the height of structures to below the top of curb height of Ocean Boulevard. The existing residence exceeds the top of curb despite the fact it was not authorized to do so under Variance No. 1137. The proposed structure is designed to comply with the standard. Dawson Residence Variance Planning Commission, February 9, 2017 Page 6 Height Variance Portions of the proposed structure toward the Way Lane frontage would exceed the base height limit up to 18 feet depending on the location due to steep topography; however, the proposed structure would be lower than the majority of the existing structure (See Sheets T.3 and T.4 Ocean Boulevard Massing Study of Attachment No. PC 7). As proposed, over-height portions of the new residence occur at the westerly portion of the lot toward the rear along Way Lane; however, these portions of the structure would maintain the required 10-foot rear yard setback. Due to the topography of the lot, top of curb height limit, height and design of buildings on neighboring properties, and limited area that is feasible to develop on, staff believes a modified height variance is appropriate and compatible with the neighborhood. However, staff recommends changes to the proposed design to preserve public views and promote neighborhood compatibility and privacy; see the following section "Recommended Variance Modifications". Setbacks The required setbacks for the subject property are 10 feet along the front property line along Ocean Boulevard, 4 feet along the side property lines, and 10 feet along the rear property line along Way Lane. The front setback is established by Setback Map S-10B and the rear and side setbacks are established by Section 20.18.030 (Residential Zoning Districts General Development Standards). With the addition of the abandoned right-of-way along Ocean Boulevard, the existing home no longer encroaches into the front 10-foot setback. Way Lane is considered a street and is 20 feet in width. The existing garages encroach 7 feet 6 inches into the 10-foot rear setback along Way Lane with retaining walls up to the property line according to the survey. These encroachments are considered legal nonconforming because Way Lane was previously classified as an alley and the setback along this frontage was changed from 2 feet 6 inches to 10 feet under the Zoning Code development standards. Rear Setback Encroachments The steep slope of the lots and presence of street parking along Ocean Boulevard create challenges in providing garage access from this street. Due to the legal nonconforming condition of the rear setbacks, on-street parking needs along Ocean Boulevard, height limit, and topographical constraints on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard, all of the other properties in this block have similar walls and/or garages along Way Lane that encroach into the rear setback. The location of the proposed garage is consistent with the neighboring development pattern and reduces excavation of the coastal bluff compared to what would be necessary to construct the garage behind the 10-foot setback line. The garage doors are set back from 3 feet to 7 feet 6 inches where the existing garages are set back approximately 2 feet 6 inches. At the worst-case, the column structures 7 Dawson Residence Variance Planning Commission, February 9, 2017 Page 7 supporting the proposed garage would be 8 inches from the property line. The City's Public Works and Fire Departments have reviewed the ground level encroachments and are supportive given the encroachments are less compared to current conditions and vehicle maneuverability would increase on Way Lane. Therefore, staff believes the proposed garage locations are acceptable and justified due to the site constraints. A pool is proposed above the garage area and a 300-square-foot portion would project into the 10-foot rear setback. Pools are typically a permitted use in the rear setback area but a variance is necessary due to the height of the structure. The pool would not add significant bulk and scale to the structure, where only the 42-inch guardrail would be visible above the garage structure. Staff considered the potential impacts of activity within this area and does not believe activity in the pool area within the rear setback area is uncommon or will be detrimental to the surrounding community. Finally, retaining wall structures are proposed on either side of the garage to support the slope on the Property. Retaining walls under 6 feet in height are permitted in the rear setback under the Zoning Code, but the proposed walls are up to 13 feet 4 inches due to the steep grade of the site. The locations of the retaining walls do not extend beyond the line of existing development along Way Lane and are necessary to support the bluff that was altered when the existing home and garage were developed. Recommended Variance Modifications The proposed design provides a three-story vertical element at the northwesterly corner, which includes a dining nook on the uppermost floor (level one), a sitting area on level two, and a covered guest loggia on level three below. Although this element maintains the required setbacks, the dining nook and sitting area exceed the height limit measured from grade. Staff believes this three-story element near the Way Lane frontage adds bulk and mass beyond the existing single-family structure closer to Way Lane than the existing home. Additionally, this element is close to the abutting property. Although private views to the north would not be significantly affected, the distance between the buildings create privacy concerns to the adjacent neighbor from the deck and master bedroom. Staff recommends an alteration of the design to pull the nook and sitting area on the floor below to the position of existing development as it would not extend closer to Way Lane than the existing structure. This modification will reduce the overall mass of the home from Way Lane and help ensure compatibility with the scale of the neighborhood and promote privacy with the neighbor. See Figure 1, below, which demonstrates the proposed massing in comparison to the massing of the existing structure. 8 Dawson Residence Variance Planning Commission, February 9, 2017 Page 8 tiN..� 'Ull lip Figure 1 — Existing home overlay (shown in blue) with proposed home as viewed from Way Lane. Staff's suggested modifications are highlighted in red. Figure 2, on the following page, demonstrates that the proposed modification of the nook and sitting area below to the line of existing development will not obstruct private views for neighboring residents. 9 Dawson Residence Variance Planning Commission, February 9, 2017 Page 9 0 ,acv 000 �,wNoscMiA Al .e �•-.w:�+•-_•.•.. 6SSGtX6S Aio� ...xwwnws SGt✓J �� �i F1fI4PIL au4tpr> �� ,� EXYSTAv,(..ova '-� Figure 2 — Site plan overlay of the footprint of the existing home (shown shaded) with proposed home footprint (outline shown in brown). Staff's suggested area of modification is highlighted in red. Staff is also recommending the elimination or relocation of the fire pit tower (also highlighted in red on Figure 1) at the southwestern side of the proposed home. This element extends outward of the envelope of the existing single-family structure and presents an obstruction to public views from Ocean Boulevard and Lookout Point, both General Plan designated view opportunities. The following General Plan policies reinforce the need to preserve and enhance scenic view resources: Natural Resources Policy NR 20.1 Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points, as shown in Figure NR3 (See Attachment No. PC 5). Natural Resources Policy NR 20.2 Require new development to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas, where feasible, and provide view easements or corridors designed to protect public views or restore public views in developed areas, where appropriate. 10 Dawson Residence Variance Planning Commission, February 9, 2017 Page 10 Natural Resources Policy NR 20.3 Protect and enhance public view corridors from [Ocean Boulevard and] roadway segments (shown in Figure NR3), and other locations may be identified in the future. As can be seen in Figure 3 below, the proposed fire pit tower would create a new view obstruction to the public view from Ocean Boulevard outside of the current structure. Staff believes elimination or relocation of this element to a location in-line with the existing structure will maintain existing views as protected by the aforementioned General Plan policies. Existing house to be removed ; t Figure 3 — Existing home overlay (shown in blue) with proposed home as viewed from Ocean Boulevard. Staff's suggested area of modification is highlighted in red. The figure also shows the existing home above the top of curb height limit with the current proposal no higher than the curb. Staff's suggested modifications to the requested Variance allows the property owner to construct a single-family home while protecting and improving public views, consistent with General Plan policies. Required Findings A variance is a request to waive or modify certain standards when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical features, the strict application of the development standards otherwise applicable to the property denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. A variance should be granted to maintain parity between the variance site and nearby 11 Dawson Residence Variance Planning Commission, February 9, 2017 Page 11 properties in the same zoning district to avoid the granting of special privileges to one property. Pursuant to Section 20.52.090(F) (Variances — Findings and Decision) of the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission must make the following findings in order to 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 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. Staff believes sufficient facts exist to support the Variance request, as modified and demonstrated in the draft Resolution (Attachment No. PC 1). The proposed fire pit tower location would be detrimental to public views from Ocean Boulevard in accordance with General Plan policies NR20.1, 20.2, and 20.3. The proposed nook, with sitting room below, would be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City because the location of these structures at the northwest corner exceed the height limit and would interfere with neighborhood compatibility. The topography of the Property restricts the potential development area and makes it difficult to design a house with consistent floor area standards to other properties along Way Lane without exceeding the height limit. The top of curb height restriction further limits design possibilities for the site. The property has frontage on two streets; however, Way Lane functions similar to an alley and the encroachments into the rear 12 Dawson Residence Variance Planning Commission, February 9, 2017 Page 12 setback will reduce alteration of the bluff that will provide garage area and enhance access along Way Lane. Public Comments The applicant and their representatives have reached out to the surrounding neighborhood regarding the application. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting in July of 2016, and invited residents to listen to the architect introduce the project design. Representatives for the applicant also reached out to several homeowners in December of 2016 to open further discussions regarding the project design and neighbor concerns. To date, staff has received four letters from neighbors supporting the proposed project and twelve letters from property owners who are concerned or opposing the project (some individuals sent multiple letters) and a petition signed by 21 individuals from the neighborhood. These letters are provided as Attachment No. PC 5. Several comments have expressed concern about the bulk and mass of the structure, structural stability of the home and pool, the need for setback relief, and logistics of construction staging. It should be noted that the project is conditioned to require structural/grading analysis and a construction management plan to the satisfaction of the Building Division and Public Works Department, respectively, prior to the issuance of building permits. The closest resident across Way Lane has also expressed concerns regarding the pool and asks that this feature be set back further or removed. Additionally, several commenters have mentioned the presence of dense vegetation and rodents to the immediate south of the Property. The area in question consists of City trees and vegetation on an adjacent slope near Lookout Point. Staff has confirmed that the area undergoes regular City maintenance and the area was most recently maintained in late 2016/early 2017. The adjacent neighbor to the north, along with their legal representatives have submitted several letters to the legal representatives for the applicant, which are provided as Attachment No. PC 6. The neighbor's primary concern is the preservation of private views and privacy by limiting the extent of development at the north edge of the Property near Way Lane. Although the neighbors have suggested a further reduced design, staff believes the recommended modifications to maintain the line of existing development are appropriate to address their concerns. Alternatives Staff recommends approval of a modified project as discussed above ("Recommended Variance Modification") based on the required findings for approval of a variance. The adjacent neighbor to the north has requested a continuance of the application since they will be out of town on the date of the hearing. Due to Permit Streamlining Act time limitations, the Planning Commission may only continue the project with the consent of the applicant. The following alternative actions are available for the Commission: 13 Dawson Residence Variance Planning Commission, February 9, 2017 Page 13 1. The Planning Commission may approve the project as requested by the applicant if the Commission can make all the required findings. This would require some changes to the draft resolution for approval (Attachment No. PC 1). 2. Should the Planning Commission determine that there are insufficient facts to support the findings for approval, the Planning Commission must deny the application and provide facts in support of denial to be incorporated within the attached draft resolution for denial (Attachment No. PC 2). 3. The Planning Commission could approve other changes to the project design that would be necessary to alleviate concerns and make the required findings. Should the Planning Commission choose to do so, staff would return with a revised resolution incorporating new findings and/or conditions to reflect a modified design. Environmental Review Staff recommends that the Commission find that the project is categorically exempt under Section 15303 of the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines — Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Class 3 exempts the construction of limited numbers of new, small structures, including one single-family residence. The proposed project is a new single-family residence located within the Single-Unit Residential Zoning District. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of-way and waterways) including the applicant and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: Submitted by: r"'W'.t/ Maka& Nsva Br n a Wisnes i, ICP, Deputy Director Associate Planner 1-� Dawson Residence Variance Planning Commission, February 9, 2017 Page 14 ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution for Approval PC 2 Draft Resolution for Denial PC 3 Site Photos PC 4 Project Description and Justification PC 5 Public Comments PC 6 Correspondence Between Representatives for Dawson and Hamilton PC 7 Project plans :\Users\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2015\PA2015-224\PC\PA2015-224 PC Rpt.docx 03/03/16 15 V� QP �P 2� Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution for Approval (As Modified) 17 V� QP �P sg RESOLUTION NO. #### A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. VA2015-005 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH OVERHEIGHT STRUCTURES AND SETBACK ENCROACHMENTS, AND RESCINDING VARIANCE NOS. 653 AND 1137, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2741 OCEAN BOULEVARD (PA2015-224) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Richard Krantz Architecture, Inc. on behalf of Craig and Raquel Dawson (Applicant), the property owners, with respect to property located at 2741 Ocean Boulevard, and legally described as Parcel B of Resubdivision No. 082 together with the abandoned portion of Ocean Boulevard vacated under City Council Resolution No. 98-66, requesting approval of a variance. 2. The Applicant requests a variance to allow portions of a new single-family residence to exceed the height limit from grade and to allow retaining walls, a garage, and pool above to encroach into the 10-foot rear setback along Way Lane. The new residence would not exceed the top of curb height limit along Ocean Boulevard. Variance Nos. VA653 and VA1137 will be rescinded. 3. The subject property is designated Single-Unit Residential Detached (RS-D) by the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is within the Single-Unit Residential (R-1) Zoning District. 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is Single-Unit Residential Detached—(6.0—9.9 DU/AC) (RSD-B)and the Coastal Zone is Single-Unit Residential (R-1). The development of a single-family home is excluded from obtaining a Coastal Development permit in accordance with Categorical Exclusion Order No. E-77-5. 5. A public hearing was held on February 9, 2017, in the Civic Center Community Room located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. The project is categorically exempt pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (Section 15315, Article 19 of Chapter 3, Guidelines for Implementation of 19 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 2 of 12 the California Environmental Quality Act) under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). 2. Class 3 exempts the construction of limited numbers of new, small structures, including one single-family residence. The proposed project is a new single-family residence located within the R-1 (Single-Unit Residential) Zoning District. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. In accordance with Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 20.52.090(F) (Variances — Findings and Decision), the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: y A. There are special or unique circumstances or c_ itions applicable to the subject property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroun topography, or other physical features) that do not apply generally to other pro ertie the vicinity under an identical zoning classification. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The subject property is approximately 10,527 square feet in area. An abandoned City right-of-way is located between the existing residence to be demolished and the Ocean Boulevard curb line and the resulting depth of the lot is approximately 90 feet. 2. The property slopes down steeply from Ocean Boulevard to Way Lane with a grade change of approximately 55 feet. The buildable area of the lot is constrained by the steep sloping topography of the site. 3. The development on the site is also constrained by the Ocean Boulevard curb height limit, which further limits the location and height of structures on site. The location of the proposed garage within the rear setback would reduce excavation of the coastal bluff that would be necessary to construct the garage behind the 10-foot rear setback line. 4. The proposed retaining walls are necessary to hold back the sloping bluff condition from Way Lane. Finding: B. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification. 03-08-2016 20 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 3 of 12 Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The property is within the R-1 zone district. The strict and equal application of Zoning Code requirements for all R-1 lots within Corona del Mar provides property owners the privilege and right to construct and enjoy a residence with a gross floor area that can be 1.5 times the buildable area of the lot. R-1 zoned lots south of Ocean Boulevard are further limited in height as they are not permitted to exceed the elevation of the top of the abutting curb of Ocean Boulevard. Exceptions to the height limit and setback encroachments are necessary to allow a house consistent with the floor area limit of 1.5 times the buildable area of the lot. The site constraints create challenges to design a house of comparable height and position to other properties along Way Lane without providing relief from height and setback standards. 2. Six R-1 lots along this block, including the subject property, are located on a steep slope between Ocean Boulevard and Way Lane and are subject to the top of curb height limit. The height limit for the property is 24 feet for a flat roof structure and 29 feet for a sloping roof measured from grade. These lots along this block have been developed with residences that exceed the current height limit as measured from grade and have been granted a variance to exceed the height from grade lim ti jlFach of the six lots also has been developed with walls, garages, structural elements, and'portions of buildings within ten feet of the rear property line. 3. The Property has a 10-foot rear setback long Way Lane. Alley access is typical in Corona del Mar and most properties in the area have a 5-foot rear alley setback requirement, depending on the alley width. Way Lane essentially functions as an alley for the subject property, and if it were classified as an alley, the Zoning Code would allow for no rear setback because Way Lane is 20 feet wide. Finding: C. Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The granting of the Variance as modified is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights, as relief from the height and rear setback standards allows for development on a property constrained by steep slopes and a secondary height limit from the top of curb elevation along Ocean Boulevard. The Variance allows the property owner to construct a dwelling consistent with the floor area limit for the site, that provides the code-required parking, and is of comparable height to other properties along Way Lane. 2. Facts in support of Finding B support this finding and are incorporated herein by reference. 03-08-2016 21 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 4 of 12 Finding: D. Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Variance as modified does not constitute a grant of a special privilege as it allows the property owner to develop a residence that is comparable in terms of height and rear yard encroachments with other lots along Way Lane that are identically zoned. The single-family home will comply with the curb height limitation along Ocean Boulevard and maintains similar rear setbacks as other buildings and structures along Way Lane. 2. Facts in support of Finding B support this finding and are incorporated herein by reference. 3. See statements B-3 and B-4 in support of this finding. Finding: E. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. Facts in Support of Finding: 1 . The proposed dining nook with sitting room below would be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood because the location of these structures at the northwest corner exceed the height limit and would interfere with neighborhood compatibility, private views, and privacy with the neighboring and abutting properties. 2. The fire pit tower extends outward of the envelope of the existing single-family structure and presents an obstruction to public views from Ocean Boulevard and Lookout Point, both General Plan designated view opportunities. The project is inconsistent with General Plan policies NR20.1, NR20.2, and NR20.3 regarding the protection of public views. 3. As modified, the design of the structure includes articulation, modulation, open volume consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Code. As modified at the upper levels, the residence provides enhanced privacy for the abutting properties as compared to the applicant's proposed design and will not increase the bulk and scale beyond that of the existing residence because the design sets the residence further back from Way Lane compared to the existing structure. 4. The proposed structure as modified would exceed the height limit by approximately 18 feet at the worst case. The highest portion of the new structure, however, will be lower 03-08-2016 22 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 5 of 12 than the height of the existing structure and will improve public views from Ocean Boulevard. As modified, the proposed structure would not further impede views through the lot from abutting properties. 5. As modified, the granting of the Variance will not adversely impact public views from Ocean Boulevard because the proposed structure has been lowered to comply with the top of curb height restriction. 6. The proposed encroachment within the rear yard setback will not affect the flow of light or air to adjoining residential properties as adequate separation is provided. The existing garage setback encroachments have not proven detrimental. The structures within the rear setback will improve upon the existing condition as the majority of the encroachments will be pushed further away from Way Lane (e.g. fewer encroachments compared to existing conditions). 7. The proposed pool above the garage includes approximately 300 square feet of area within the 10-foot rear setback. Pools within the rear setback area are common and allowed in all R-1 zoned lots. Activity within the pool is typical, not expected to be utilized often, and will not be detrimental to the surrounding properties. The height of the 42- inch guardrail adds minimal additional bulk and scale above the garage within the setback. Mechanical equipment will be stored within the building and associated noise will not pose a nuisance to nearby properties. 8. Way Lane functions similar to an alley and is 20 feet in width, providing sufficient turning width for vehicles to access the garage and for other vehicles to pass. The City's Public Works and Fire Departments have reviewed the proposed development as it relates to the ground level encroachments and are supportive given the reduction of encroachments compared to current conditions and resulting increased vehicle maneuverability within Way Lane. Finding: F. Granting of the variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this section, this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The subject property is designated for single-unit residential use and the granting of the Variance would not increase the density beyond what is planned for the area, and will not result in additional traffic, parking, or demand for other services. 2. Setbacks required by the Zoning Code govern the location of structures on a lot and provide for open areas around structures for visibility and traffic safety, access to and around structures, access to natural light and ventilation, separation of incompatible land uses, space for landscaping and recreation, protection of natural resources, and safety from fire and geologic hazards. Variance approval provides appropriate setbacks for the property consistent with the existing development pattern along Way Lane. 03-08-2016 23 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 6 of 12 3. The proposed fire pit tower location would be detrimental to public views from Ocean Boulevard in accordance with General Plan policies NR20.1, 20.2, and 20.3. As modified, the project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan to preserve and where feasible, enhance public views from designated public vantage points and roadways. 4. The Zoning Code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations through the Variance review process. The Variance procedure is intended to resolve practical physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the City and on this property. Due to the site topography, top of curb height limit, design of surrounding residences, limited feasible area for development, and avoidance of impacts to public and private views based upon the project as modified, the height limit exceptions and setback encroachments are appropriate for this location. 5. The subject property is not located within a speci \narea. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Variance No. VA2015-005, as modified, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 2. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 3. This resolution supersedes Variance Nos. VA653 and VA1137, which upon vesting of the rights authorized by this Variance No. VA2015-005, shall become null and void. 03-08-2016 24 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 7 of 12 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Kory Kramer, Chairman BY: Peter Zak, Secretary 03-08-2016 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 8 of 12 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Project-specific conditions are in italics) 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval, except as modified by applicable conditions of approval. 2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 3. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Use Permit. 4. The project shall not exceed the top of curb height pursuant to Zoning Code Section 20.30.060(B)(4). 5. The project plans shall be modified such that: 1) the uppermost level (level one) dining nook and sitting room below shall not extend beyond the uppermost balcony of the existing development; and 2) the fire pit tower and covered breezeway structures shall be eliminated or modified so they do not extend beyond the position of the existing development at that level. See Exhibit "B" attached. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Division. 7. All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 8. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval (Exhibit "A") shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans prior to issuance of the building permits. 9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Division. 10. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the 03-08-2016 Planning Commission Resolution No. ##!## Page 9 of 12 current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent. 11. This approval shall expire and become void unless exercised within twenty-four (24) months from the actual date of review authority approval, except where an extension of time is approved in compliance with the provisions of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 12. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the Dawson Residence Variance including, but not limited to, Variance No. VA2015-005 (PA2015-224). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. Fire Department Conditions 13. The design of the Residential Fire Sprinkler System shall be in accordance with 13D. If the larger rooms are out of the scope of what is indicated in 13D, then the design of the system will be an alternative method by code and would result in the design of the system to be calculated beyond the two head calculation required by 13D. Engineering shall be provided prior to the issuance of building permits if construction details go beyond the current scope of 13D. 14. A minimum fire flow for this structure of 1,375 gallons per minute is required as per CFC Table B 105.1. A Fire Hydrant shall be required within 250 feet from the frontage of the property. Buildinq Division Conditions 15. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Building Division and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. 16. Prior to issuance of building permits, revise and resubmit the soils report to the satisfaction of the Grading Engineer. 03-08-2016 27 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 10 of 12 17. Prior to issuance of grading permitsthe applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of the Building Division and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. 18. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project design shall provide emergency escape and rescue openings in each sleeping room and basement in accordance with Section R310 of CRC 2013 and shall open directly into a public way, or to a yard or court that opens to a public way. 19. Prior to issuance of building permits, the proiect design shall provide stairs compliant with Section R311.7. 20. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project design shall provide grade plan calculations to verify that level three is a, "story above grade plane"and not "basement'. See Section R202 of CRC 2013 for definitions. 21. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project plans ` 1 include shoring plans and calculations. Public Works Conditions 22. City Council review and approval shall be required for non-standard improvements (i.e., retaining walls, railings, stairs, etc.) within the Ocean Boulevard public right-of-way if the proposed improvements are not consistent with City Council Policy L-6. If approved by City Council, the property owner shall be required to obtain an encroachment permit for construction of the non-standard improvements and obtain an Encroachment Agreement for non-standard improvements. 23. All portion so of the proposed project, including but not limited to foundation, walls, caissons, tie-backs, etc. shall be located entirely on private property. 24. Prior to issuance of building permits, the property lines shall be included on each of the building sections. 25. Prior to commencement of demolition and grading of the project, the applicant shall submit a construction management and delivery plan to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and Community Development Department. The plan shall include discussion of project phasing; parking arrangements for the site during construction; anticipated haul routes; and construction nuisance mitigation. Traffic control and truck route plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department before their implementation. Large construction vehicles shall not be permitted to travel narrow streets as determined by the Public Works Department. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and 03-08-2016 22 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 11 of 12 flagman. Upon approval of the plan, the applicant shall be responsible for implementing and complying with the provisions set forth in the approved plan. 26. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of any building permits. 03-08-2016 �9 Planning Commission Resolution No. ##!## Page 12 of 12 EXHIBIT `B" PROJECT DESIGN AS MODIFIED ii -- i— ; i " Modified line of fire pit tower/pergola Modified line of dining nook and sitting area below 03-08-2016 Attachment No. PC 2 Draft Resolution for Denial 31 V� QP �P RESOLUTION NO. #### A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING VARIANCE NO. VA2015-005 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH OVERHEIGHT STRUCTURES AND SETBACK ENCROACHMENTS LOCATED AT 2741 OCEAN BOULEVARD (PA2015-224) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Richard Krantz Architecture, Inc. on behalf of Craig and Raquel Dawson (Applicant), the property owners, with respect to property located at 2741 Ocean Boulevard, and legally described as Parcel B of Resubdivision No. 082 together with the abandoned portion of Ocean Boulevard vacated under City;99uncil Resolution No. 98-66, requesting approval of a variance. 2. The Applicant requests a variance to allow portions of a new single-family residence to exceed the height limit from grade and to allow retaining walls, a garage, and pool above to encroach into the 10-foot rear setback along Way Lane. The new residence would not exceed the top of curb height limit along Ocean Boulevard. 3. The subject property is designated Single-Unit Residential Detached (RS-D) by the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is within the Single-Unit Residential (R-1) Zoning District. 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is Single-Unit Residential Detached — (6.0 — 9.9 DU/AC) (RSD-B) and the Coastal Zone is Single-Unit Residential (R-1). The development of a single-family home is excluded from obtaining a Coastal Development permit in accordance with Categorical Exclusion Order No. E-77-5 provided the conditions of said order are satisfied. 5. A public hearing was held on February 9, 2017, in the Civic Center Community Room located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. 33 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 2 of 3 SECTION 3. FINDINGS. The Planning Commission may approve a Variance Application only after making each of the required findings set forth in Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 20.52.090(F) (Variances — Findings and Decision). In this case, the Planning Commission was unable to make the required findings for the following reasons: 1. The height and location of the proposed project are not compatible with the single-unit dwellings in the vicinity and would result in negative impacts to residents in the vicinity because of the added height, bulk and location of the structure. Portions of the structure that are above the 24-foot from grade height limit would be located closer to Way Lane when compared to the existing structure. 2. The height and location of the proposed project would affect views and decrease privacy from the abutting property to the north, and therefore, it would be detrimental to the abutting property. 3. The proposed project includes features (fire pit tower and terrace cover) that would exceed the 24-foot from grade height limit. These features if constructed would impede public views from Ocean Boulevard to Newport Harbor because they would be located outside the position of the existing structure. As a result, approval would be inconsistent with General Plan Policies NR20.1, NR20.2, and NR20.3 regarding the protection or enhancement of public views from designated public view points and roadways. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies Variance No. VA2015-005 (PA2015-224). 2. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 03-08-2016 3'4 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 3 of 3 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Kory Kramer, Chairman BY: Peter Zak, Secretary 03-08-2016 V� QP �P 3C Attachment No. PC 3 Site Photos 37 V� QP �P 3g t View from the subject property north toward the adjacent residence (2735 Ocean Boulevard) 1 V `c 1 r View from 2735 Ocean Boulevard toward the subject property with story poles at line of proposed development shown. 39 View from existing deck of the subject property. n . - R View from the Ocean Boulevard looking south toward the subject property and View from the Ocean Boulevard, looking west over the subject property toward out toward the harbor entrance. Newport Harbor. �OFF l View of the existing development facing south along Way Lane. View of the existing development facing north along Way Lane. Attachment No. PC 4 Project Description and Justification 41 V� QP �P PA2015-224 - Richard Krantz Architecture, Inc. 1500 Quail Street, Suite 520 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 752.6345 (949) 752.6235 fax December 15, 2015 Planning Division Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 To Whom It May Concern: Re: 2741 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar, CA This project consists of a single family residence in China Cove with a steep sloping lot which spans from Ocean Blvd. on the east side, down to Way Lane on the west side. No variances are being requested for this project which are not enjoyed by the surrounding residences with similar lots in China Cove, including the existing house on our client's lot. Given the hardships of building on these steep sloping lots, we are requesting the same allowance that the neighboring lots have been allowed for the lowest level be able to extend beyond the setback line to minimize required grading. Also, due to the steepness of the site, and in line with our neighbors, we are requesting a variance for the 24' flat/ 29' sloping roof height limits. There is a small portion of the structure at the upper courtyard located on the deeded over property of approximately 400 square feet(6% of the buildable area) that exceeds this height limit. In addition to being very small in area, this portion is shielded from public views at Ocean Blvd. or Way Lane. Please note that we are not exceeding 6'-0" above natural grade for walls located in the setbacks, and we are not exceeding the height of the curb at Ocean Blvd, (with the exception of chimneys which by code must rise above any adjacent ridge). We have reviewed the Justifications and Findings section(items 1.6) on the Variance Information Form and given the hardships of the steep sloping lot, we feel these variances,(which similar lots in China Cove have been granted.), are appropriate for the new single family, multi-level home with pool deck and attached garage design we are proposing. I am available to answer any questions you may have concerning this project by phone (949.752.6345), or e-mail (rkrantz@richardkrantz.com). Thank you, Richard Krantz. 1f 3 Richard Krantz Architecture, Inc. 1500 Quail Street, Suite 520 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 752-6345 (949) 752-6235 fax April 27, 2016 Community Development City of Newport Beach Regarding Variance for: Dawson Residence 2741 Ocean Boulevard Dear Planning Staff, The inspiration for the Dawson Residence is a Classical Villa common to the Mediterranean cliffside coastal of similar topography, composition and structure. The elevations and composition are derived from some of the Italian examples shown in the accompanying image pictures. This selection of architectural style resulted from recognizing the similarity of the locations clifftop to lower parking alley requirements and the timeless principals utilized in the Mediterranean villages and villas. We intend to utilize patina soft materials and landscaping to make the home appear as it had been there for many decades and a positive accompaniment to the harbor architectural fabric. The following exhibits were reviewed during my City Staff Planning Workshop and were incorporated into the design. To help make our review flow as smoothly as possible, we have prepared this booklet to review some of the content of our workshop meeting and to show some pictures that illustrate the Italian flavor we are striving to achieve. The image pictures submitted illustrate some of these concepts. Important items reviewed at workshop: The use of different architectural elements,roof massing and details were reviewed as a method to provide variety but continuity to the client requested outdoor family activities. These features serve timeless architectural principals of voids and solids, light and shadows represented in the images pictures. These elements intend to follow the one side open rule, (only using the minimal structure as determined by the structural engineer) and need not require any special privilege. The site is too steep for a code acceptable sideyard exit stair and the amount of grading required for a second stair further into the hill necessitated the exit stair architectural element as another feature giving the elevation the dimension, variety and interest that is often found in the historical images. Rather than creating over exposed deck terraces, the hillside is broken down in layers and landscaped terraces looking through trellises and loggia structures that layer the outdoor areas into a variety of elements. We feel the removal of these important architectural elements would adversely effect the composition of the home while reducing the visual benefits already enjoyed by the neighboring homes and existing home, all of which currently exceed the height limits. The client never would want to fill in these elements. 44 The use of reclaimed pitched roofs with a ridge 12" below the existing roof creates a much more pleasing aesthetic along with removing existing mass resulting from previous height and flat planes.. The surrounding home roofs on Ocean Boulevard utilize unattractive flat planes with peaked roof projecting above the curb height. In order to create this more attractive sloping roof the new floor level needed to be lowered significantly. This sacrifices and obscures existing views for the owner as the living spaces descend below the opposite 3-story Way Lane homes. The pitches less than 3:12 have little effect on that character and are far better a choice than an unattractive flat roof with view blocking raised edge eve lines. We believe that this roof composition will result in a significant improvement to the public presence of the home at the tradeoff off lowering the Dawson's valuable floor level in comparison the flat roofed and over curb neighboring Ocean Boulevard homes. The Floor Area Ratio methods were reviewed and approved in concept. The use of the rear deck and loggia areas over the garage area helps scale down the rear elevation. Image pictures were included to illustrate the use of architectural elements in similar composition to successfully address offsetting levels below grade. These levels are barely visible from anywhere beside Way Lane as the surrounding houses rise above and eclipse the walls from the harbor view points. This observation reaffirms why the upper levels of this home are important and are consistently acknowledged by the fact that all the other bluff side homes on Ocean Boulevard emphasize the upper levels and enjoy those views. No special privileges are required to adapt to the same topographical considerations and unique context of this site. Thank you for the opportunity to present our design. I plan to be available to work with the committee during the upcoming phases to insure a quality home to enhance the Corona Del Mar community. Overall we are committed to applying our best architectural efforts to replacing a very compromised and unattractive existing structure with a historically inspired elegant home integrated with the surrounding landscaping that intends to in the end look like it has always been there. Cordially, Richard J. Krantz, AIA Architect 45 RKRICHARD KRANTZ ARCHITECTURE , INC . 1500 QUAIL STREET SUITE 520 NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA , 92660 T 949 . 752 . 6345 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 2 7 4 1 OCEAN BLVD . DAWSON RESIDENCE CORONA DEL M A R 40 RKRICHARD KRANTZ ARCHITECTURE , INC . CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 2741 OCEAN BLVD . PROPOSED RESIDENCE WATER COLOR COMPOSITION DESIGNRK RICHARD KRANTZ ARCHITECTURE , INC . CONCEPTUAL 2741 • Y Proposed Residence - y$F will ..✓ � -. -..._-" '��r�A�1'"�:-'00;- lIY �1 f�Y- -�n'e®t�F--S• � 5' __ al $ � P l �1. I (. OCEAN BOULEVARD BLUFF HOME COMPARISON 42 RKRICHARD KRANTZ ARCHITECTURE , INC . CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 2741 OCEAN BLVD . OCEAN BOULEVARD ORIGINAL PHOTOGRAPH �q RKRICHARD KRANTZ ARCHITECTURE , INC . CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 2741 OCEAN BLVD . OCEAN BOULEVARD MERGED MODELS OCEAN BOULEVARD PROPOSED RESIDENCE RKRICHARD KRANTZ ARCHITECTURE , INC . CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 2741 OCEAN BLVD . e oil �Illli � 000� WAY LANE ORIGINAL PHOTOGRAPH �2 RKRICHARD KRANTZ ARCHITECTURE , INC . CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 2741 OCEAN BLVD . iu!I _ - - - JL--- WAY LANE MERGED MODELS J�� RKRICHARD KRANTZ ARCHITECTURE , INC . CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 2741 OCEAN BLVD . rr' - V I III WAY LANE PROPOSED RESIDENCE 53 RKRICHARD KRANTZ ARCHITECTURE , INC . CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 2741 OCEAN BLVD . 11111►�1 a {I�i u��tn,�, Illi I`ooZ�itlu I� nn AA BIRD ' S EYE MERGED MODELS Jr'4' RKRICHARD KRANTZ ARCHITECTURE , INC . CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 2741 OCEAN BLVD . FRONT ELEVATION PROPOSED RESIDENCE A* VT" FRONT WALL ELEVATION PROPOSED RESIDENCE RKRICHARD KRANTZ ARCHITECTURE , INC . CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 2741 OCEAN BLVD . SOON ! - .li! , Wall- lo*% � 1f1411�, LEFT ELEVATION PROPOSED RESIDENCE RKRICHARD KRANTZ ARCHITECTURE , INC . CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 2741 OCEAN BLVD . x IRS � ! ■ II 11111111, all i � Wumb Ig I itlftti Iltf ffti"?i , tttuf ftllitl Itittitl `"ifif tl�ti' tRl REAR ELEVATION PROPOSED RESIDENCE 5/ RKRICHARD KRANTZ ARCHITECTURE , INC . CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 2741 OCEAN BLVD . ------------- RIG RIGHT ELEVATION PROPOSED RESIDENCE �g RKRICHARD KRANTZ ARCHITECTURE , INC . CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 2741 OCEAN BLVD . ARCHITECTURAL THEME TRELLIS OUTDOOR SPACE ENHANCES ARCHITECTURAL COMPOSITION �9 DESIGNRK RICHARD KRANTZ ARCHITECTURE , INC . CONCEPTUAL 2741 • 1 ARCHITECTURAL THEME MEDITERRANEAN BLUFF MASSING ' b a T m7"1'ntvlr'�,,1 •..: . . •mow _ �f DESIGNRK RICHARD KRANTZ ARCHITECTURE , INC . CONCEPTUAL 2741 • pL t 1• ARCHITECTU RAL THEME TYPICAL MEDITERRANEAN VERTICAL s 'R TOPOGRAPHY RKRICHARD KRANTZ ARCHITECTURE , INC . CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 2741 OCEAN BLVD . r ARCHITECTURAL THEME STONE BASE BREAKS UP VISUAL MASS DESIGNRK RICHARD KRANTZ ARCHITECTURE , INC . CONCEPTUAL 2741 • �1 a' 3 ARCHITECTU "rYF •.� g���k k, L�o f- RAL COVERINGELEGANT ACCENT ELEMENT AT EDGE DESIGNRK RICHARD KRANTZ ARCHITECTURE , INC . CONCEPTUAL 2741 • N rr ARCHITECTU RAL THEME UPPER TERRACE EXIT STAIR f 711 � t OTWER ELEMENT RKRICHARD KRANTZ ARCHITECTURE , INC . CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 2741 OCEAN BLVD . .r t ,1 r� ARCHITECTURAL THEME RECLAIMED ROOFING CHARACTER VIEWED FROM OCEAN B O U L E V A R D DESIGNRK RICHARD KRANTZ ARCHITECTURE , INC . CONCEPTUAL • CAI 41 lye la ARCHITECTU RAL THEME FLOWERED ARCHES SOFTENING , �Y I t . iQ��JNh l y �I YARDS DESIGNRK RICHARD KRANTZ ARCHITECTURE , INC . CONCEPTUAL 2 741 • lz JV ARCHITECTU RAL THEME VI N E COVERED TRELLIS ELEMENT SOFTE NS OUTDOOR TERRACES L ' ffrr►�� 4y' i y wf �rT f y 1 3 s DESIGNRK RICHARD KRANTZ ARCHITECTURE , INC . CONCEPTUAL 2741 • ARCH ITECTU RAL THEME TERRACE LOOKS THROUGH • . TRELLIS TO THE RKRICHARD KRANTZ ARCHITECTURE , INC . CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 2741 OCEAN BLVD . Y^N d nA; b, w w. , . r r ,s r �, v vii dy ' 1-7 iy .la 4 � y JT Tj r1' fi,o{ ARCHITECTURAL THEME OUTDOOR TERRACES AT FAMILY ROOM �J RKRICHARD KRANTZ ARCHITECTURE , INC . CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 2741 OCEAN BLVD . r i ,y nr d i .,r ARCHITECTURAL THEME EXTERIOR LOGGIAS VERY OPEN WITH MINIMUM STRUCTURE 7o RKRICHARD KRANTZ ARCHITECTURE , INC . CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 2741 OCEAN BLVD . 3 t r.. I .�I �► �Am 1 . VL 4FAL 1 rs ARCHITECTURAL THEME EXTERIOR LOGGIA GUTTER COLUMNS TO BE MINIMAL , AND INNER COLUMNS OMITTED TO NOT COUNT IN FLOOR AREA 72 V� QP �P Attachment No. PC 5 Public Correspondence :51-3 V� QP �P Nova, Makana From: Norman Rodich <nrodich@ptwww.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 10:30 PM To: Nova, Makana Cc: Campbell, James; Richard Krantz;Aaron Easton (aeaston@richardkrantz.com); Steve Kawaratani Subject: Dawson Residence, 2741 Ocean Boulevard Follow Up Flag: Fallow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Ms. Nova, I am forwarding for your information and file the below email that was just received from Harold &Vicki Parker at 2700 Cove stating that they have no objections to the Dawson project going forward. Thank you for your assistance in connection with this matter. Norman J. Rodich ( Partner Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP 1900 Main Street, Suite 700 ( Irvine, CA 92614 Direct Dial (949) 851-7235 ( Fax (949) 825-5415 nrodich@ptwww.com j Biography ( vCard ( ptwww.com PALMIERI TYLER A T T p R N F Y S A T L A W ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <Haroldgparker(a-),aol.com> Date: Wednesday, 1 February 2017 Subject: Your Concerns To: Raauel.Dawson(a,chicaeobooth.edu Good Evening: What a terrific letter. Thank you for taking the time and effort to put forth such a complete summary. There are no objections from us, going forward. Harold &Vicki Parker(and Brixie) 2700 Cove PS Raquel, thank you for your assistance when I feel on the stairs near your home a few weeks ago. In a message dated 1/31/2017 4:23:18 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, Rag uel.Dawson Ca)chicagobooth.edu writes: 1 i This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm of Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP that may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. z 70 Nova, Makana From: Jon Kline <kline@clearviewhc.com> Sent: January 31, 2017 2:24 PM To: Nova, Makana Cc: Heather Kline Subject: 2741 Ocean Blvd Dear Makana - We are writing in regards to the Dawson's application for variances at 2741 Ocean Blvd. Their property is a few houses down from the property we own at 2711 Ocean Blvd. We have the reviewed the basics of their plans and we believe their variance requests are reasonable and consistent with the neighboring properties on Ocean Blvd. and China Cove. We also think that their project will add value to the neighborhood and beautify China Cove. We support their project and hope the City will approve their variances and plans. Thank you. Jon Kline Chief Executive Officer Clearview Hotel Capital, LLC 500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 www.clearviewhc.com W: 949.706.3400 C: 949.374.4429 i January 20, 2017 Dear Mr Campbell, We understand that the City Council meeting to review and approve the Dawson Project, Project File No: PA2015-224 will be held on 9 February 2017. It is not possible for us to be there so we request that you attach this letter to the "staff recommendations" on our behalf. We ask that the City Council and the Planning Commission strongly consider all variance requests and allow no variance to be granted from the existing code. The size of the structure and specifically the size and location of the pool seriously impact the privacy and noise level of all the neighbors and will effect us greatly on Shell Street. The size of the structure is almost twice that of any other house in the cove. Our privacy in general will be impacted with all the decks and other outdoor space, especially the pool. The noise level created from the pool and Jacuzzi as well as pool equipment will be heard by much of the neighborhood. This noise will be magnified because of the "Canyon Effect" here on Shell Street. Sound generated on the street echoes and everyone can hear it. This is greatly increased when the noise is coming from above which will be the case with the pool, Jacuzzi as well as the constant noise of the pool equipment. We also have a concern of what happens to the water in case of an earthquake or a malfunction of the pool equipment. Our garage would be potentially flooded due to the amount of water from such a large pool. No matter what earthquake standards are built into the space, any pool of this size and location is a serious issue. Finally, we are concerned about structural damage to our property due to the massive excavation required. We request that provisions are made to assure that all structural damage risks are managed, monitored and dealt with. The Dawson's have assured us that the construction process will be tightly managed and that they will make sure that no parking and other construction traffic will be allowed on Shell street. We take them at their word on this point. Sincerely, Brian and Kay Mulvaney 2719 Shell Street Corona del Mar, CA 92625 949.673.7703 kaymulvaney7@gmail.com 72 Nova, Makana From: judvare@cox.net Sent: January 29, 2017 12:44 PM To: Campbell,James Cc: Campbell, James Subject: dawson residence and variance application pa2015-224 hi jim,thanks for returning my call. i appreciate you attaching this follow up letter to the staff's recommendations for the city council meeting. i am asking the city council and the planning commission to reconsider the dawson's request for a variance. No. 1 no variance should be granted. for the following reasons. No. 2 our privacy will definitely be infringed upon.the pool area will look directly into our master bedroom,family room, and patios. mr. campbell was able to witness that from a previous meeting at our residence. No 3 the noise level that will be created from the pool,jacuzzi, and the pool equipment will be heard throughout all of shell st. and part of way lane. No 4 this is not going to be a normal size residence for china cove. it should be looked at a mega house in a very confined residential neighborhood. No 5 i hope that the city council agrees,that no variance is needed,to build a residence on their enlarge property and that meets all city codes. thank you again, i hope you will see that what the dawson's are asking for will have a huge impact on the homeowners in our area respectfully joe udvare 2718 shell st corona del mar. 949 723 0178 t �Q Dawson Project 2741 Ocean Blvd Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Project File No: PA2015-224 We the Neighbors have concerns and positions regarding the following aspects of the proposed home at 2741 Ocean Blvd: • Setbacks and Variances • Size and Scope • Structural Damage Risk to Surrounding Homes • Health and Safety • Construction Process • Assurances Setbacks and Variances: a) We understand several variances are being requested regarding height and setbacks from Way Lane. b) We acknowledge these requested variances are less than those enjoyed by the existing structure. c) Whiie we understand variances nave been granted to other residences to avoid excessive excavation of the bluff for garage space, we would ask the Planning Commission to carefully evaluate other aspects of the setback variance request from Way Lane to insure vehicle access and passage is in no way compromised from the existing state. This should include any proposed landscaping and plantings Size and Scope of Project a) It is the position of all represented in this document that we respect the right of the Dawson's to build their dream home on the site and we are all strong believers in property rights, b) The size and scope of the structure is well beyond that of any current residence in China Cove, but we acknowledge that it complies with City code. c) While the scope and size comply with City code, there are design elements that potentially impact the.privacy of some residents. These include some deck space and particularly the placement of the elevated swimming pool which will greatly impact several neighbors. We request that story poles be erected for a period of two weeks to allow neighbors to fairly evaluate any impact on their privacy. Structural Damage Risk to Surrounding Homes a) It is our understanding there will be approximately 30 pylons with drilling to a depth of 45 ft. This creates a high risk of foundation and structural issues for surrounding residences. b) The Dawson's should provide a personal bond for any structural damage that occurs as a result of the construction process. We propose a minimum scope of residences within a 300 ft. radius of the site. g0 c) The contractor should also have a sufficient bond in place to cover any damage to surrounding residenoes. We propose a minimurn scope of residences within a 301D ft. radius of the site. d) We request prior to construction that inspections are done on all properties within the 300 ft. radius of the site to document and existing structural issues and that residents are provided with reports. This will help resolve issues if any structural damage occurs to residents during the construction process. Health and Safety a) China Cove Neighbors have experienced rat and other rodent infestations and recently they have been on the rise. This summer the neighbors have killed over 20 rats. When the city excavated brush at Ocean and Fernleaf, China Cove experienced an infestation. The excavation of vacant lot associated with 2714 Ocean Blvd, which is currently covered in dense growth, will result in an even greater problem, The Dawson's have stated they intend to address this problem as it relates to their property prior to construction. However, the adjoining City property is overgrown and infested with rats, raccoons and potentially coyotes. The City owned property will be disrupted by the construction and rats and other animals will infest China Cove creating a health risk. We request that the City work with the Dawson's and the other residents of China Cove to address this issue and clean up the property prior to construction activities beginning. There must be a plan to effectively manage this issue. - b) Way Lane is a narrow passage lane of approximately 25 ft. and turns to and from Shell Street are particularly difficult. We are greatly concerned for the passage of all emergency vehicles during normal days. If any construction vehicle or equipment is staged on Way Lane in front of the site, passage will be virtually impossible. Provisions must be in place to insure safe passage and access for residents, pedestrians and emergency services Construction Process a) Before demolition and construction begins tight construction rules must be outlined and enforced to minimize congestion and frustration to residents. b) We request that the Dawson's provide staff to monitor activities on Way Lane and Ocean Blvd. c) All construction personnel parking should be off site and shuttle provided to and from the site. The MacDonald's on Shell Street used this approach during their construction and it made the process tolerable for all. d) Equipment and material staging plans must be in place to keep passage clear on Way Lane. e) Noise levels must be within the decibel limits specified in the City code and monitoring should be provided. f) Work hours must be strictly enforced. Assurances a) The planning commission must insure that once a plan is approved, no deviations from the original approved plan will be allowed. b) We reserve the right to appeal the final decision. g1 Respectfully submitted by the following neighbors and residents of China Cove: g2 T�O: The City of Newport Beach Public Hearing Date: RE: Dawson Project, Project File-No: PA2015-224 Thursday, November 3 2016 @ 6:30 PM Project Address: 2741 Ocean Blvd., Corona del Mar, CA 92626 Statement: We the neighbors agree and support the attached list of concerns regarding the following: Setpacks and Variances Size and Scope Structural Damage Risk Health &Safety Assurances Name Address Phone Date Signature f � 2dw L LoIVL�s �r, t v r C M V1-l_5 p ll aIc( Par,ker. 977 0 ode- S? �f e1 (L /��� c�+l��, �tjt�+ f / pp :s ' r1-3e2 3e q e21' q� AUDONAL 2`1 -53 '5km 17k-40l �-V'rt r.t Zoq b�� (� z r ; ?�tai c Ct7 0 1 T®: The City of Newport Beach Public blearing Date: EYED Dawson Project, Project Pile No: PA2015-224 Thursday, November 3 2015 @ 6:30 PM Project Address. 2741 Ocean Blvd., Corona del Mary CA 92525 Statement: We the neighbors agree and support the attached list of concerns regarding the followcing: Setpacks and Variances Size and Scope Structural Damage Risk Health & Safety Assurances {Name Address Phone Date S-ignawre LItAlooYal rts,.I� Zlo2'J ��tr� 5i� �� AA�Z 1 Z/ CA2t-`Z ��f a — 3� o u 'a 1V1 A —2k-0 q- C - � t 9' 7Q: f 2x14 a.%� ; rnca 5 G�" c1r'� bz� ✓�SfYe . gy9- g�f TO- The City of Newport Beach Public Hearing Date: RE- Dawson Project, Project Pile No: PA2035-224 Thursday, November 3 2636 @ 6:30 PM Project Address: 2743 Ocean Blvd., Corona del Mar, CA 62625 Statement. We the neighbors agree and support the attached list of concerns regarding the following: Setpacks and Variances Size and Scope Structural Damage Risk Health & Safety Assurances Name Address Phone Date gnature ,� From: Brandt. Kim 7o: Wisneski, Brenda; Campbell,James Subject: FW: 2741 ocean blvd Date: Thursday,October 20,2016 10:55:11 AM Kim -----Original Message----- From: judvare@cox.net [mailto;judvareacox.net] Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 10:54 AM To: Brandt, Kim Cc: johnw.hmilton@gmail.com Subject: 2741 ocean blvd hi ms brandt, my name is joe udvare and my residence is 2718 shell St. i would PLEASE like to request postponing the hearing til after dec 1. the notice is not mailed out as of yet and we will be lucky to receive it by the middle of next week. i definitely have some major concerns about the project. this can directly effect my house and property. i have been meeting with alot of the neighbors and they also have concerns. we would very much appreciate it if you could find a way to postpone the meeting. thanks again and look forward to meeting you joe 20 From: Brandt. Kim 7o: Wisneski, Brenda; Campbell,James Subject: FW: 2741 Ocean Date: Thursday,October 20,2016 8:06:58 AM Kim -----Original Message----- From: Brian Mulvaney [mai Ito:bgmulvaney(cbme.com] Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 7:35 AM To: Brandt, Kim Cc: Kay Mulvaney Subject: 2741 Ocean Hi Kimberly, We live at 2719 Shell Street in China Cove. We are aware of the plans for a proposed home at 2741 Ocean. It is our understanding that the owners are requesting a number of variances and that a meeting is planned for sometime in the next couple of weeks. There are many aspects to this project that will have a significant impact to us and others in the neighborhood including privacy, potential access of emergency vehicles, safety, etc. I feel strongly as do many of the residents in China Cove that we should have the opportunity to fully understand the scope of the project, the impact of any potential variances as well as a number of other issues. We have attempted to communicate with the owners of the site but to date they have been unresponsive. We will be out of town for the majority of November and I have been made aware that many of the neighbors will be traveling as well. We would like to respectfully request that the Planning Commission meeting regarding this project be rescheduled to early December so concerned residents of China Cove can attend and voice our concerns. We are aware that you often face challenging projects in your role and have great respect for the work that you do. Thanks for your efforts and for taking time to consider this request. Best Regards, Brian & Kay Mulvaney 27 From: Brandt. Kim To: Campbell.lames;Wisneski. Brenda Subject: FW: ***PRIORITY, Project at 2741 Ocean Blvd.,Corona del Mar Date: Thursday,October 20,2016 8:44:41 AM Importance: High , .v From: Harley Broviak [mailto:Harley4Title@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 8:30 AM To: Brandt, Kim Subject: ***PRIORITY, Project at 2741 Ocean Blvd., Corona del Mar Importance: High To whom it may concern, I own two homes in China Cove which are adjacent to the project at 2741 Ocean Blvd. Apparently, there is a meeting scheduled for November 3rd which I cannot attend. This project is so massive and out-of-scale to our small enclave that it is perplexing that it is even being considered. I literally dwarfs everything in the area and creates a new precedent for mass, structure, and encroachment never seen before, including lack of conformity to existing code. I would like to speak to the Planning Commission about my great concerns over this project with the goal of reducing its footprint. Please accept this request to postpone the meeting on November 3rd until all residents in China Cove may attend and be heard. Please kindly confirm receipt of this message and inform me of your decision. Thank you, Harley Broviak 2709 X2715 Cove Street Corona del Mar, CA 92625 949-433-3303 22 From: Brandt. Kim To: Campbell.lames;Wisnesla, Brenda Subject: FW: 2741 Ocean Blvd. Date: Thursday,October 20,2016 10:54:47 AM KEvvV From: Haroldgparker@aol.com [mailto:Haroldgparker@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 10:49 AM To: Brandt, Kim Cc: cocohl@icloud.com; susanmaher@cox.net; harleyjb@earthlink.net; kaymulvaney7@gmail.com; vickiprkr@aol.com Subject: 2741 Ocean Blvd. Good morning Ms. Brandt: We wife & I just learned that we will need to be out of town during much of November, including November 3rd, on an urgent family matter. We have deep concerns about the requested variances regarding the above referenced property and would very much like to speak to those concerns during the public forum of the Planning Commission meeting. Accordingly, we respectfully request the matter be postponed or continued until sometime in early December. Thank you for your consideration. gJ From: Brandt. Kim To: Campbell.lames;Wisneski. Brenda Subject: FW: 2741 Ocean Blvd.Corona del Mar,CA Date: Thursday,October 20,2016 8:44:16 AM K I,VV� From: Karen James [mailto:kjdelmar@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 8:34 AM To: Brandt, Kim Cc: Kathy Hamilton; Susan Maher; Harley J. Broviak; Kay Mulvaney; Harold &Vicki Parker Subject: 2741 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar,CA Dear Ms. Brandt, We understand the Planning Commission meeting to discuss this project is to be held on Nov. 3. As residents of China Cove,we are seriously concerned that the variances this project is asking for, are out of scale and dangerous. We are going to be out of town on Nov. 3 and we need to be able to speak at this meeting. There are questions and not enough answers. We feel this project is being rushed through and more serious attention needs to be paid before any permits are given. We are requesting a postponement until early December, in order to fully address this issue. Respectfully Karen and Warren James, 2627 Cove St. Corona del Mar,CA H. 949-675-4412 C 949-244-6471 9L) Craig& Raquel Dawson 2741 Ocean Blvd Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Dear Craig and Raquel, We apologize that we were unable to attend the meeting to discuss your plans for a new home. Having seen some of the renderings, it certainly will be an improvement from the current structure and will be a nice addition to the community. We do have serious concerns and questions that we would like to address with you and the city of Newport Beach. Those concerns and questions are as follows: Extensive Drilling Our understanding is that there will be significant, extended drilling work for the foundation. What steps will you take to monitor vibrations and prevent potential damage to the homes of us who live nearby?Will you have a geotechnical engineer monitoring the work? Staging of Construction Equipment Way Lane is a narrow road and the intersection with Shell Street presents challenges for access even in normal circumstances. The staging of any construction equipment or vehicles on Way Lane would result in a situation where emergency vehicles would be unable to or have great difficulty accessing Shell Street. Additionally it would create a significant and ongoing nuisance for residents of Shell Street as they come and go from their homes. Such situations would be unacceptable. Please share your plans to address this. Parking Obviously a project of this scale will involve very large work crews.As you are aware, there is no available parking in China Cove.Any attempt at parking along Way Lane and any attempt to park cars in front of residences on Shell Street would be unacceptable. Please share your plans to address the parking issue. Variance from Setback This is a concern relative to your project but addressed to the City of Newport Beach in general.Why under any circumstance would a variance be granted from required 91 setbacks for a residence that is approximately 10,000 sq.ft. with several thousand additional sq. ft. in deck space? Particularly when it involves a setback from a road that already presents challenges for passage. As to the argument that it represents less of a variance from the existing structure, our response is the existing variance should not have been granted. Pest Control The current undeveloped lot is home for a large population of rats. If you clear this lot to begin work without addressing this issue, the rats will be dispersed into the surrounding neighborhood creating a nuisance and health risk. Please explain the steps you will take to prevent this. Swimming Pool What is the planned water capacity for this pool?As the pool is above ground,what drainage safeguards will be in place in the event of a rupture due to an earthquake or other event? Project Management Our understanding is you will be living in London during most or all of the construction.Who will be responsible for addressing any concerns or problems that arise with neighbors? Raquel and Craig,we welcome you as neighbors and are sure you will love living in China Cove as we do.We look forward to your responses to our concerns and questions Sincerely, Brian & Kay Mulvaney CC: Makana Nova, City of Newport Beach 92 City of Newport Beach September 13, 2016 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attention: Makana Nova AICP Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Subject: 2741 Ocean Blvd. Dawson Residence Ms. Nova; We have received and reviewed a copy of the plans dated 6-9-16 for the subject residence. It is clearly a very large project that will make a big impact on the China Cove neighborhood. The Dawson home is right across Way Lane from our home at 2733 Shell Street. Since,the proposed project is directly across from our home we have concerns. Property Setbacks:: We believe the current City Code for all side,front and rear setbacks and height limits should be adhered too. The project needs to comply with all height and setback codes. The size of the existing site even with the setbacks, still allows plenty of land for a very spacious residence. China Cove is a small enclave of homes in a very limited space. Any setback encroachment will only increase the congestion in an already tightly packed neighborhood. Structure Overall height: The project is very impressive as it stands. Allowing height variances for such a large home is not warranted. We do believe the new home will replace a home that needs to be replaced. And we believe it can be successfully completed without the granting of property line setbacks and height variances. If you have any questions don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, n n Mike MacDonald 2733 Shell Street Corona del Mar, CA 92625 209.595.5798(M) 93 Clifford L Jones 2800 Ocean Blvd. Corona Del Mar CA 92625 August 15, 2016 To: Makana Nova (nova(cDnewportbeachca.gov) Subject: 3741 Ocean Blvd (CDM) I am writing this letter of support for the Dawson's new home on Ocean Blvd. I was surprised to receive an invite to attend a meeting to meet with their architect and builder for an advance viewing of their design for their new home. We have lived on Ocean Blvd. for 30 years and have never been invited by our neighbors to preview their building or re-modeling projects. In fact, in 1986 when we re-built our house I never invited our neighbors for a pre-showing. I had an occasion to speak to Mrs. Dawson and she said that one of her neighbors had written a letter to the city criticizing both the meeting and their building project. Since I was in attendance at the meeting, I feel I should write to share my thoughts on the meeting and show my support for their project. The Dawson architect and builder were well prepared and shared their designs, time schedule and other pertinent information, which had been submitted to the city. I am sure the critical letter was sent from the couple that lives directly behind the Dawson's residence at the corner of Shell and Way Lane. In the meeting, the lady complained about almost everything the Dawson's planned to build. She objected about the pool, the house looking down on her house, her privacy, the current narrow road etc. etc. It seemed to me that most all of the things she was objecting to were well within the city guidelines. Finally, her husband told her to back off and that they would take care of her concerns later. I applaud the Dawsons for having the informative meeting. We support the new construction that will replace the current "plain grey box" with a very attractive home both from Ocean Blvd. and the Bluff. If you have any questions or would like more information,please call. Regards, C. L Jones Clifford and Linda Jones 949-283-9054 9-� Nova, Makana From: Coleen Mugel <cmugel@me.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 10:11 AM To: Nova, Makana Cc: Craig & Raquel Dawson; Mike Mugel Subject: 2741 Ocean Blvd, Corona del Mar Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged To: Makana Nova Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Subject: 2701 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Dear Ms. Nova, My wife and I just wanted to drop you a brief note showing our support of the Dawson Project at the above referenced address. Since the Dawson project is basically directly across from our newly remodeled home at 2727 Shell Street we were very excited to attend the welcoming design meeting the Dawson's put on in their current home for all our China Cove neighbors to attend. At that meeting on July 20th, the Dawson's provided the necessary detailed drawings needed for my families questions regarding design and method of construction. This exciting new home project also generated many questions by our neighbors so the Dawson's also respectfully had their vendors (architects and builder) available at the meeting to answer any and all the neighbors questions not answerable by the proposed drawings. My families main concern is that the privacy created by all the current vegetation/landscaping to China Cove from the top of the bluff is replaced or maintained so that visibility from the top of the stairs on Ocean remains limited. Also, many animals live in those bluffs so in our opinion there needs to be a plan for this during demo and construction. Lastly,just a realistic observation, we believe it will be a huge mistake to implement a new 10' setback from the property line in front of the Dawson's home. Although we understand this is currently code, in the event that this 10'setback is implemented,the Dawson's visitors and vendors of their home will wind up parking head in or perpendicular to the new Dawson home. With most trucks and cars being 16' and longer,these vehicles will be hanging out into our tiny streets 6' or more (8'for trucks). This 10' setback will windup causing traffic jams and will actually windup REDUCING the width of our existing streets which would be an absolute disaster. Right now trucks and cars cannot park in the street because the street is so small (the vendors understand this so they automatically do not park there). With 10' more room they will all wind up parking there. Other than that we are in full support of the Dawson's new project which will bring much relief and beauty compared the "old apartment building look" that exists today. Warmly, Michael and Coleen Mugel 2727 Shell Street CDM 1 9� �cssvEp ey July 24, 2016 COMMUNITY JUL 2 7 2016 From: Joe Udvare Cs DEVELOPMENT 2718 Shell Street IPA OA, 1.0-11 Corona Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 To: Makana Nova AICP Associate Planner City Of Newport Beach Subject: 2701 Ocean Blvd. Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Dear Ms. Nova, Thank you for meeting with me on Wednesday,July 13, 2016 to discuss the Dawson's project. It was quite eye opening to see the size and scope of the projected new residence. Since their house is directly across the street from my house, I do have some real concerns about the size of the new house. The Dawson's with their architect and builder met with the neighbors on Wednesday July 20,2016. It was attended by many concerned neighbors. I have to say in my opinion the architect, his assistance and the builder were ill prepared for this meeting. They were mainly concerned about the aesthetics and the grandeur of this house and not concerned about the impact on all of the houses in China Cove. I have the following main issues that need to be addressed: First Issue: 1. The Parcel west of the Dawson's house,who owns it and how and when was it deeded from the City? 2. What are the required set backs on that parcel of land? 3. Who Is responsible for the up keep and maintenance on that parcel, now and in the future? 4. It is a fire hazard to all of our houses now because of all the dead and over grown foliage. 5. It has been a haven for rats and rodents that roam through out all of our properties. 6. This needs to be addressed and taken care of before any construction is started. We do not want the neighborhood to be infested with these rodents when the area is taken out. 9� Page 2 Second Issue: The Foundation of the New Residence I brought up a question on the shoring and foundation at the meeting,and the architect and builder said they could not discuss that portion because there are not that far along in the process yet. I would think that should be addressed first,since they are attempting to build a four story 10,208 square foot house and 4798 square feet of balconies,decks and garages. We the neighbors definitely need assurances from the City and the Dawson's that this project meets all the City's and Environmental Codes. Third Issue: The Set Backs for the Property I believe the current City Code calls for 4 foot set backs on each side and 10 foot set backs for the front and back and the height of house. not to exceed the Street level. I and many of the neighbors agree that the current set back codes,should be adhered to. The Dawson's projected residence plans currently do not meet all the set backs. Without adhering to the set backs,we believe the house will dwarf all of the homes in China Cove. I think everybody would like to see the Dawson's built a new house. It will increase the values of all our houses,and replace of house that needs to be replaced. The City and the Dawson's have to take into consideration that this will have an impact on all of the 35 homes in China Cove. Makana,thank you again for taking the time to meet with me. I look forward to working with the City .and the Dawson's on this project. Respectfully, Joe Ud CC: Mayor Michael F. Henn CC: Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Gartdfner CC:Assistant City Engineer Michael Sinacori CC: Planning Dept, Kim Brandt CC: All neighbors in China Cove 9� Nova, Makana From: Karen James <kjdelmar@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday,July 20, 2016 8:20 AM To: Nova, Makana Cc: Kathy Hamilton; Kay Rinas; Susan Maher; Harley J. Broviak; Linda &Richard Delaney; Jerry Thompson; Michael Mugel; Harold &Vicki Parker; Karen Carlson; Linda Schilling Subject: 2741 Ocean Blvd.Corona del Mar Follow Up Flag: Fallow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Makana, Thank you for taking the time to share with me the proposed project plan for 2741 Ocean Blvd., Corona del Mar. As I voiced in our meeting, I have two major concerns. First,the mass of this structure is over whelming. The proposed house will eclipse the existing homes in China Cove. A variance to permit a dominating structure,at the expense of the neighbors, should not be permitted. Second,the proposed impact on Way Lane is not clearly illustrated. The applicant should be required to provide an exhibit that accurately shows the existing condition(garages and retaining walls)together with the proposed structure. The City should not allow a variance that will exacerbate an existing marginal condition. Keep in mind,Way Lane is not an alley, it is the only access to nine residences. As is, I doubt if a full size fire truck could make the turn on to Shell Street. Thank you in advance for protecting the interest of the neighborhood. Warren James 2627 Cove St. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 949-244-6471 1 9g Attachment No. PC 6 Correspondence Between Representatives for Dawson and Hamilton V� QP �P soo January 31, 2017 Dear Neighbors, From the very beginning when we reached out to many of you,we did so because we cared about our neighbors and wanted to get your feedback on our project. In our neighbor meeting in July 2016,we tried to address issues and answer questions neighbors had. Nevertheless,we understand you still have concerns as expressed in the petition you signed and the calls made by neighbors following the neighbor meeting hosted by the Hamilton's. We also understand that at the time many of you requested the postponement of our November 2016 hearing.As a neighborly gesture,we opted to grant your request even though this implied a financial cost to us as well as having to wait months till our hearing could be rescheduled. We have been working on our home design with the City since we bought our property back in November of 2014. As we approach our hearing,we want to acknowledge we have heard your concerns and positions and hope after reading this letter,your concerns are gone and you will support our project. Setbacks and Variances The variances we are requesting are ones that are enjoyed by properties on Ocean Blvd, China Cove, and the village of Corona Del Mar. Furthermore, some of these variances are enjoyed by your property. Our new, proposed home is asking for a setback variance for a portion of the garage with a pool above. City code allows pools in setbacks. It is not for the complete garage area,just a portion. This setback intrusion is small in comparison to the intrusions that exist now and consistent with intrusions enjoyed by all the garages on Way Lane and many in China Cove. We are asking for a variance due to the steepness of the slope on our property. In order to get the garage out of the setback, a significant amount of more drilling and excavation would be required. Granting the variance, will reduce the environmental impact on the bluff. Less digging will take place which is one of your concerns. Our current house is very close to the property line with portions at zero setback. The new home, even with a variance,will be an improvement. The house is moved further back, creating a more open area. Because it would be inappropriate to drive onto our property,this variance can not have an impact on vehicle access for Way Lane and Shell Street. The public should not use our property (setback portion) to navigate Way Lane. Thus, having a corner portion of our garage in the setback should not be seen as impacting drivers on Way Lane. Way Lane and Shell Street would be easier to navigate if no parking zones were enforced. 101 Size and Scope of Project The size and scope of our proposed home is consistent and compatible with the six homes on our bluff and other new homes that have been built along Ocean Blvd over the past few years. You should not compare our current home nor our proposed home to homes in China Cove. Its like comparing apples with oranges -both fruits but different. We all own lots in China Cove but we own different kinds of lots - size,topography, shape, location differ. The average lot in China Cove is about 1800 square feet. Our property is over 10,700 square feet. Our proposed,new home complies with the 1.5 FAR code and has less massing than the current home. It is also further back into the bluff. Thus,it is a huge improvement. It is also compatible and consistent with the six homes on our bluff. Our proposed home's living space will not protrude farther out into Way Lane than the other homes along the bluff. In fact, our farthest living space area along Way Lane is within the buildable area and further back towards Ocean Blvd than our next door neighbor's (the Hamilton's) living space as well as their outdoor deck. All homes on the bluff have multiple levels and may have square footage above 1.5 FAR. For example,the Hamilton's at one point advertised their home for sale with approximately 8,600 square feet on a 6,708 square foot lot. Our proposed, new home will look less massive and softer than the existing house and will be less tall. People who choose to live in Corona Del Mar, particularly the village, choose to live in this area because of the lifestyle it offers and it's beauty. The homes in the area are architecturally diverse. If you want to avoid living with constant construction,living close to your neighbors, or being able to listen to activity all around you,you don't live in Corona Del Mar. There are constant construction projects since there are many aged homes that are either remodeled or rebuilt. There is also very little privacy in Corona Del Mar. Homes are built close to each other which makes it easy to hear activity in the vicinity. Since our home is on higher elevation than homes in China Cove,we have the ability to not only see amazing sunsets but also see down below onto neighbors' properties. Privacy is extremely limited. We can see into open spaces, decks, as well as through windows and doors. Our current home has decks at every level except for the ground level. We believe this project will increase privacy relative to our current home for neighbors in China Cove. The home is going from 4 levels of decks to 3 levels. We know some of you are concerned about children making noise in a pool. We understand how this can be a concern. In the neighbor meeting and with individual neighbors,we have explained that our children are older and will be even older by the time this property is built. Moreover, as residents of China Cove,we all know,we can hear children and adults at all the surrounding beaches all year especially in the summer; and while it can often be loud,this is the atmosphere that is common in a beach community. We do not believe the pool creates any more noise or issues than people sitting out on a deck talking,singing, laughing, drinking, eating, or watching television and enjoying outdoor life in Corona Del Mar. We also think it is important that we are all respectful of our neighbors. We all live very close to each other with 102 many rooftop decks, open terraces including neighbors with outdoor televisions. Again, we believe everyone's respect for each other is what allows us to all be able to enjoy our outdoor living. Structural Damage Risk to Surrounding Homes We have created a top-notch project team including top geological and engineer experts in the area. Our team has experience building homes on steep slopes. We have done geological testing which indicates our property meets City and State standards for redevelopment. Our project team, including the engineers,have met with the City and its engineers many times over the past two years to ensure codes and best practices are followed. In addition, we will be employing technology including vibration monitoring which is being used for example on the current Aeries Project over on the Carnation bluff. Health and Safety When we moved to 2741 Ocean Blvd., we contacted the City's Park and Recreation Department to clean up the land adjacent to us. It was overgrown and had signs of pest infestation. In the end,the City cleaned up a small portion - less than we were told.We kept insisting but were told budget cost was an issue. Therefore,we opted to pay for some of the clean up ourselves. Mr. Richard Lewis wondered how we got anyone to clean up the area since he had asked the City many times. We are interested in beautifying this area and eliminating pests just like you. We are committed on pest control on our property and committed to working with the city to mitigate pest issues on public property. We share your concerns about access on Way Lane and Shell Street. Many times we have had our garage access blocked and share concerns about access for emergency vehicles. It is not unusual to see cars parked illegally on Way Lane or Shell Street or see cars double parked because someone does not want to park up on Ocean Blvd and walk down to China Cove. Illegal parking on Way Lane often impacted our ability to get in and out of our garage. We want to make it clear that we will not have anyone related to our project park ILLEGALLY anywhere including China Cove. We have said this clearly at the neighbor meeting in July 2016 and to neighbors individually. It has always been our intent, out of respect as neighbors,to make this project run as smoothly as possible including not creating vehicle access issues. Construction Process Our project will follow all rules regarding construction in Newport Beach. Our project will be managed by a well-respected local contractor, Mike Reeves from Corbin and Reeves. Mike, along with us,will always be accessible to address any concerns or questions that arise. Even though we are in London,we will be accessible via email and phone. We will do our best to make this construction project a better experience than past ones you have experienced. We will have a manager on site. If there is ever an 103 issue,you will have someone you can talk to directly on the spot but you should also address the issue to us. We will make sure that it is resolved promptly. You will find that our contractor is very approachable . We expect everyone who works on our construction project to be respectful of our neighbors, the public, and to follow rules. We have consistently expressed to neighbors our desire to be good neighbors and make this project as run as smooth as possible. Respect In your petition you state: "It is the position of all represented in this document that we respect the right of the Dawson's to build their dream home on the site and we are all strong believers in property rights". We hope this letter addresses your concerns and you can support our project and variances. The variances we are asking for do not give us a special privilege. They are enjoyed by many in China Cove including some of you. Sincerely, Craig&Raquel Dawson 2741 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 104 PALMIERI TYLER A T T ANGELO PALMIERI (1928-1998) O R N E Y S A T L A W ROBERT F, WAL ORON (1927 1998) DENNIS W.GHAN' MELISA R.PERE2 P.O.BOX 19712 DAVID D.PARR' MICHAEL L KEHOE Wine,CA 9262 3-9 71 2 CHARLES H.KANTER' CHADWICK C.BUNCH PATRICK A..HENNESSEY ANISH J.BANKER January 31, 2017 DON FISHER RYAN M.PRAGER Norman J.Rodich WARREN A.WILLIAMS ERIN BALSARA NADERI JOHN R.LISTER ERICA M.SOROSKY Direct Dial (949)851-7235 MICHAEL H.LEIFER JOSHUA J,MARX Direct Fax (949)825-5415 RICHARD A, CALLS ERIN K.,OYAMA nrodich�ptwww.com NORMAN J.RODICH KATHERINE M.SHAW MICHAEL L.O'ANGELO BRIAN GLICKLIN STEPHEN A.SCHECK CAROLYN H.CLARK DONNA L.SNOW M.OMAR HASHIM Refer To File No.38617-000 RYAN M.EASTER NAZANI N.TEMOURIAN Document I.D.2003655.1 ELISE M.KERN MICHAEL C,CHO.OF COUNSEL RONALD M. COLE,OF COUNSEL MICHAEL J.GREENE• OF COUNSEL ROBERT C.IHRKE,OF COUNSEL GREGORY N.WEILER,OF COUNSEL ALAN H.WIENER',OF COUNSEL JAMES E.WILHELM,RETIRED DENNIS G.TYLER',RETIRED P PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION VIA E-MAIL Ms. Makana Nova Assistant Planner City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Dawson Residence 2741 Ocean Boulevard Application No. VA2015-005 (PA2015-224) Dear Ms. Nova: As you are aware, I represent the applicants, Raquel and Craig Dawson, in connection with the above-referenced application. I am responding to the letter of yesterday's date submitted by Laurence P. Nokes, counsel for John and Kathy Hamilton, in opposition to the application. My clients respectfully disagree with the Hamiltons' arguments as set forth in Mr. Nokes' letter for the reasons discussed below. DEVELOPMENT PATTERN/OCEAN BOULEVARD ABANDONMENT Mr.Nokes acknowledges that "every one of the homes in this block of Ocean Boulevard has received a variance to the development standards regarding their individual setbacks abbuting Way Lane . . . ." However, Mr. Nokes asserts that the Dawsons should be denied the same variance as their neighbors, including the Hamiltons, for three reasons, none of which withstands even minimal scrutiny. First,the Hamiltons assert that due to the City's 1998 abandonment of a portion of right away along Ocean Boulevard adjacent to the Hamilton lot and what is now the Dawson lot, the 1900 Main Street,Suite 700,Irvine,CA 92614-7328 1 T 949.851.9400 1 F 949.851.1554 1 ptwww.com 105 PALMIERI TYLER Ms. Makana Nova January 31, 2017 Page 2 Dawsons should somehow be subject to additional restrictions not provided by law and should be required to situate their proposed home on their property in a way that the Hamiltons deem to be "more beneficial" to their neighbors as the Hamiltons themselves allegedly did: While every residence on the block has enjoyed the benefit of a variance or modification to their rear yard setbacks, only the Hamilton and Dawson properties have enjoyed the benefit of the additional lot area due to the vacation of Ocean Boulevard. This creates an opportunity and advantage for the both of these properties to develop in a way more beneficial to themselves, their neighbors, and the public. In desiQniwz and developing their home. the Hamiltons took this into consideration, and vve ask that the Dawsons do the same. (Kokes Letter, p. 5, emphasis added.) Mr. Nokes provides no legal authority or reference to the Newport Beach Municipal Code in support of this novel assertion, as there is none. The fact that the property purchased by the Dawsons included a portion of the right of way abandoned by the City in 1998 is totaily irrelevani to their present variance application. The Dawsons own the land. They lawfully acquired it, paid for it, and pay taxes on it. They have a fundamental right to use and develop their property. Mr. Nokes provides no rationale for why the Dawsons should be restricted from using and enjoying their property in the same manner that the Hamiltons and all of the other neighbors have. Moreover, contrary to Mr. Nokes' assertion, the Hamiltons did not "take into consideration" the City's 1998 abandonment of the Ocean Boulevard right of way in designing and developing their home. There is no way they could have because the Hamiltons built their home in 1971, 27 Years before the abandonment occurred. Second, the Hamiltons assert that at approximately 10,000 square feet, the proposed Dawson residence is "nearly twice the size of any other development in China Cove . . . ." (Kokes Letter, p. 2.) Not true. While Mr. Nokes asserts that the Hamilton residence is a "6,500 square foot structure," the Hamiltons have previously listed it at 8,600 square feet. (See prior listing and current Zillow listing attached hereto as Exhibit A.) Either way, the proposed Dawson residence is nowhere near twice the size of the Hamilton residence as claimed in Mr. Nokes' letter. Furthermore, Mr. Nokes overlooks the fact that the Dawsons' lot is over 4,000 square feet larger than the Hamiltons' and, as a percentage of lot size, the proposed Dawson residence is actually smaller than the Hamilton residence. (See Exhibit B.) Mr. Nokes also omits to mention that the proposed new home will have lower height than the existing home thus resulting in substantially improved views from Ocean Bouldevard. Third, Mr. Nokes asserts that "the Dawsons' current Proposed Project is sited in such a way that it departs from the pattern of development in this area, where the adjacent houses are set back and forward from one another so that each has privacy." (Nokes Letter, p. 2.) Again, Mr. Nokes is incorrect. In fact, the homes along the bluff are not "set back and forward from one 2003655.1 1O0 PALMIERI TYLER Ms. Makana Nova January 31, 2017 Page 3 another." To the contrary, the homes along the bluff behind Way Lane are all aligned along a Predominant Line of Existing Development ("PLOED"). (See Exhibit C.) The existing Dawson residence is set well back from the PLOED and the proposed residence is situated slightly closer to it with only the southwest corner just touching that line and no portion of the proposed residence exceeding it. Privacy is not a General Plan policy or goal. Moreover, no one moves to Corona del Mar and in particular China Cove for privacy. They move to Corona del Mar for the views, beach and coastal amenities and the Village atmosphere. Close proximity to neighbors is a fact of life in the Village and an integral part of the experience. As Director Brandt, Jim Campbell and Ben Zdeba have seen from their site visits, there is no privacy whatsoever between the Dawson and Hamilton properties now. To the contrary, anyone standing in any of the Dawsons' main living areas or on one of their decks can see directly into the Hamilton residence and onto their deck, including the Hamiltons' barbecue area (see photo attached as Exhibit D) and, from the Dawsons' master bedroom deck, into the Hamiltons' master bedroom side window (see photo attached as Exhibit E). This utter vacuum of privacy results from the fact that the Hamiltons chose to project their home and deck out to the absolute maximum possible extent to improve their view. This exposed the entire side of the Hamilton residence and deck to direct views from the previously existing Dawson residence, thus resulting in the present situation (zero privacy). This was the Hamiltons' choice. They chose view over privacy. Now, the Hamiltons object on privacy grounds to the fact that one portion of the proposed Dawson residence is moved forward a fraction of the distance that the Hamiltons cantilevered their own home and deck forward. In short, after taking full advantage of applicable development standards, the Hamiltons now object to the Dawsons' attempt to do the same thing. The basis of the Dawsons' position that they should be granted the requested variances is the concept derived from the California and US Constitutions and incorporated both in the California Government Code and Newport Beach Zoning Code that similarly situated property owners should be treated in the same manner. Municipal Code section 20.52.090 reflects this equal protection of the laws concept proscribing special privileges to be enjoyed by one property owner in relationship to another but also providing relief from a strict application of Development Standards which would in fact deny a property owner privileges enjoyed by other similarly situated property owners in the vicinity. As demonstrated by the variances granted to the Dawsons' neighbors, the Dawsons' should be afforded the same privileges enjoyed by their neighbors with respect to height, setbacks and third-floor habitable space. Likewise, denial of the requested variances would in effect grant the Dawsons' neighbors the very special privilege proscribed by law. The Hamiltons want the City to impose restrictions on the Dawsons that would impair their fundamental right to use and enjoy their property in the same manner as all of the other 2003655.1 1O7 PALMIERI TYLER Ms. Makana Nova January 31, 2017 Page 4 residents of China Cove—based on an alleged lack of privacy that the Hamiltons themselves created. To do so would constitute a gross violation of established principals of fundamental fairness and equal protection under the law. THE NORTHWEST WING OF THE DAWSON RESIDENCE What Mr. Nokes dismissively describes as a "pop-out nook" and "just another interior living space" is in actuality the Northwest Wing of the Dawson residence, which is fundamental to the Dawsons' use and enjoyment of their property. It is the Dawsons' prime upper floor family living space. This is the area where the family will spend time together—where they will live. This is the area with prime views unobstructed by the homes below. This is where the value in the property lies. This is why the Dawsons purchased the property. The Dawsons' architect, Richard Krantz, designed the Dawson residence to avoid blocking the fenestration on the side of the Hamilton residence and also to include separation between the decks and main living areas of both properties to provide privacy where there is absolutely no privacy now. That separation is provided by the Northwest Wing. Mr. Krantz also purposely situated the Northwest Wing within setbacks greater than City requires. In short, contrary to Mr. Nokes' assertion, the Northwest Wing does not decrease privacy between the Dawson and Hamilton residences it enhances it. VARIANCE FINDINGS Mr. Nokes argues that Richard Krantz' January 10, 2017 letter supporting the request for variances was "somewhat misleading" because the Dawsons' property is not identical to neighboring properties and that he "copied and pasted" findings from other variances. Setting aside the fact that Mr. Krantz made it clear in his submission that he was quoting directly from the findings from the respective variances because the neighboring conditions are identical, the problem for Mr. Nokes is that the City's abandonment of a right of way only underscores the fact that the Dawsons have a substantial property right; they a have a larger buildable area and are entitled under the Code to build a bigger house. Mr. Nokes also fails to mention that a property owner owns the underlying fee and the City merely abandons the right of way over the fee interest. Importantly, the Dawsons acquired the Dawson property long after the abandonment took place and paid more as a result of the fact that the buildable area was much larger. Because the Dawsons own a lot unencumbered by the right of way, they have the right under the Code to build a bigger home. Thus, the fact that a portion of the Dawson Property benefits from the vacation and abandonment does not make it dissimilar from their neighbors. The topography and steepness are the same as the neighbors and justifies the need for the variances for the same reason. Each of the findings under Newport Beach Zoning Code section 20.52.090 are easily met. 2003655.1 208 PALMIERI TYLER Ms, Makana Nova January 31, 2017 Page 5 Finding l: 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 Without any evidentiary support, Mr. Nokes asserts that the abandonment allows the Dawsons to build on their lot without the requested variances. This is simply not true. The topography and steepness of the site necessitate the variances, for the same reasons that height and setback variances have been allowed on neighboring lots. The fact that a portion of the Dawson property is no longer encumbered by a right of way simply emphasizes the substantial property right the Dawsons have to build a larger home as permitted by the Code. !Finding 2: Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification Mr. Nokes cannot deny the fact that the neighbors enjoy the privilege of building larger homes as a result of the grant of height and set back variances. The fact that the City abandoned the right of way long before the Dawsons purchased their property does not confer a special privilege, but rather gave the Dawsons a larger buildable area. "Although the fact that another owner has been granted a variance is not by itself a special circumstance which justifies granting a similar variance, it is relevant in assessing the 'privileges enjoyed by other property. . . ."' (Miller v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 539, 547.) Finding 3: Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant The Dawsons have a substantial property right pursuant to the Code to build a 10,219 square-foot house on their property. The constraints of their site are identical to the neighbors as a result of the steepness and topography of the site. The height and set back variances are needed to allow them to enjoy this substantial property right conferred by the Code. Finding 4: Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district The Dawsons are not afforded a special privilege when the neighboring properties have been granted height and setback variances. "If a variance is granted it must be on conditions which give the applicant substantial parity with other owners in the zone rather than a special privilege better than that enjoyed by its neighbors." (Miller v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 122 Cal. App.3d 539, 548, quoting Hamilton v. Board of Supervisors (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d, 64, 66.) Mr. Nokes' argument that the Proposed Project maximizes setback encroachments is meritless. With respect to the garage setback, there is an improvement because only a small portion 2003655.1 log PALMIERI TYLER Ms. Makana Nova January 31, 2017 Page 6 remains in the setback. The project will also improve the setback on Way Lane because the location of the house is moved closer to Ocean. Findings: 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 ofpersons residing or working in the neighborhood Mr. Nokes argues that the Proposed Project is not harmonious because it is a"looming intrusion" and interferes with noise, privacy and proximity, without any evidentiary support. Contrary to Mr.Nokes argument, the proposed home does not loom over Way Lane,but in fact is pulled substantially back toward Ocean, greatly improving the existing condition to the benefit of all neighbors. Furthermore,there is nothing in the Newport Beach Municipal Code that requires the Commission to consider privacy of neighbors. Finding 6: Granting of the variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this section, this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan. The Dawsons project is not in conflict with the Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan. The Proposed Project improves existing conditions as it is below curb height, pulled back from Way Lane, and eliminates mass, thereby improving public views. OTHER ISSUES This application has been known to the Hamiltons for many, many months. Nevertheless, in his January 30 letter—one week before the hearing—Mr. Nokes raises for the first time a new concern about possible "noise impacts" from the pool filtration system. While it is unclear why the Hamiltons waited so long to raise this concern, as a condition of the building permit, all pool equipment will comply with applicable noise standards and be installed according to all applicable code requirements and industry standards. CONCLUSION The Dawsons sincerely thank you, Jim, Ben and all of the City staff for your time and consideration in connection with this application. Should you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Norman J.Wich---"', NJR Attachments 2003655.1 110 PALMIERI TYLER Ms. Makana Nova January 31, 2017 Page 7 cc: Lawrence P. Nokes, Esq. James Campbell, Principal Planner Craig Dawson Raquel Dawson Janet E. Humphrey, Esq. Steve Kawaratani 2003655.] �22 EXHIBIT A 0,0 �2� Home 20/01/17 15:09 HOME INFO GALLERY CONTACT 2735 Ocean Boulevard aw �.. - ,,• 1 • p' 1 2735 OCEAN BOULEVARD Corona Del Mar http://westernexposurebrochures.com/2735oceanblvd/ Page 1 of 6 225 20101/17 16:03 Home 6 BEDROOMS 6.5 BATHROOMS 8,600 SQ. FT. deally located along the coast of Orange County's most coveted addresses in.Corona del Mar is Ocean Blvd.The community of China Cove and its beaches are rich with history and is known mostly to local residents.This beautiful custom estate is built into the hillside and has unsurpassed views from every room of the entrance to NewportTile Wedge,Harbor,TWedge,Catalina and channel and F;los verdes in the distance.The views are absolutely mesmerizing and forever changing with sunsets,city lights and harbor activity.No expense was spared in this masterrully constructed 6 bedroom home that was nrigit sally brill in 1971 and had significant renovations in '948.Th apps oxim ate 8,600 square foot residence n lay replicable today vr.til current building restrictions. p rive helirooms are ensuite and the home also features se,araie maid's quarters,a 17 high natural ancient limestone wall with waterfall.and a spacious workout room or activity room The property criers a very private setting as the:cont exterior is hidden from the street.but the!andmari, copper roof and facias provide a.glimpse of the!:.Ta,-sous hnm:that awaits.The.Texas fossil lioiestone exterior wall and walkway takes you to a private courtyard with ,•.Du,ntain and enh,/ 9• .. .. •.... � .. . _ l'r - . . I. v •11 .66 x...11.1.5. .. http:Nwastemoxpasurebmchures c m/2735oceenbtvdl PP/age 2 of 3 22 i 20/01/17 15:09 Home 1 a o W 9 r I � \':i M ., ite?..it••.11 :r• t !•_ IJ"'a1 C'.:v r110+ CIA! �ill � - t4 F7' J �J r Y r?: t u(. Lt I,��.,II r- ''1L! tr '1 SlPrll r- ! C i ✓rig 1 Ii1C tJl' K des 1 13G I r Iu'ell 5 Stup";. Ims COW jort)OF s?:c III L.n. . .E_ x in 1 . +.a ? v, ".i.7`-. >i! lul:r6tr aMPT»z_'!CrS ` I http:llwesternexposurebrochures.com12735aceenb!vd/ page 3 of 6 1-15 John Hamilton,Newport Sports Museum founder,selling Corona del Mar home for$22.9 million-The Orange County Register 20101117 16:06 subscrlbe Today UseaTlonr(aubsctlbel Customer service Uhelp/) eflegtaterlMtp:pocreglswr.w.newsmemory.wmp Today's Paper Usatlom/headllnesn Knowledge Cafe(hkp://www.ocreglsrorsam/smtlona/NnowMdge-rafep Mugaxlnes(h[tp:/(www.a<reglafeacom/go/magaxloea) unidoa i http://www.unldossc.com) weather lefts/womber.osregistecwmp News(/sections/news/) I Sports(/sections/sports/) I Business(/sections/businessl) Entertainment(/sections/enteminment/) I Life(/sections/lifer I Opinion(/sections/opinion/) Obits(http://obits.megister.com/obituaries/onngecounty/) Register Rewards(http://rewards.mregister.com/) CARS U) (/GO/CBLS¢g (HTTP://NBY OUCTBFINDER.CO UGO/OCR PLACEf) (/GO/CLASSIFIEOSh Re.[Estote(/sections/business real-estate-newsQ Retail(/wmmon/archivesl?<atlD=18911) (htoalill Are you donating a car to O.C.Sheriff's Department sought Local Trump supporters to get 2 Orange Cou my armories to charity?Proceed with caution permission to destroyjailhouse close-u p view of'hlstorle offer 24-hour shelter over rainy (/articles/Charity-741687- snitch retards inauguration weekend TOP HEWS Luokino to BUY or Sell in Orcmge County? LoCdte YOUr Ar�a Specialist Now.. P eUSINESS(ICOMMONIAACHIVES/7CpTIO218910) John Hamilton, Newport Sports Museum founder, selling Corona del Mar home for $22.9 million Aug.19,1015 I UPd2ted5;l2p.m. The NEW Rul.,of Real Estate / LFaal,MODE MOST POPULAR 'Tears of Or'in crowd as Main Street Electrical Parade rolls through Disneyland once ag (http:(Jwww.ocrcglsteuom/argdes/parade- T41T 15-maltrstree[.htm8 Tustin man killed after Lake Elsinore standoff threatene4'massacre;restrei ning orders John Hamilton's 8,600aquararoot,Corona del Mar home is on the market. (htep:J/wwwncregister<am/artides)abausamra- T41T14-giNrlend-or4echtmp DAVID HEATH Here's wh at you should expect in the new 'Guardians of the sale,'ride (http.-JI...ocregisteccom/articles/ride- ByMARILYN John Hamilton,founder of the Newport Sports Museum,is selling his 741710-guardiammarvel.htmp KILLFUS 8,600-square-foot house overlooking China Cove in Corona del Mar for (/reporter- Buena Park auto repair busineu robbed at proflla/madlyn. $22.99 million. gunpolnt,suapectatlarge 10724alfus)1 (http://www.acregJsWr.mmiadicies)park- STAFF WRITER 741719-buena-businessAmil) http://www.ocregisteccom(articles/home-678281-newport-museum.html Page 1 of 7 110 rmw > — - it loo V 6r0rp, inc. C —I V SAVE O HIDE SHARE MORE - U EXPAND X CLOSE forona del Mar Is this your ii< ! tr • Add a free video walk!• ' �' ' three I,meS r'lOr= lyr rsM 3 SSM p��. >� _-- � ■_ CONTACT AGENT 2 units 2735 Ocean Blvd, FOR SALE 1 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 $19,995,000 i 6 beds • 7 baths • 8,600 sClft EST. MORTGAGE $76.073%mo ® - am nterested in 2735 Ocean Blvd, Welcome to 2735 Ocean Blvd, desianed by :I c Get pre-qualified Corona Dei Mar, CA 92625. renowned architect J. Herbert Brov.•nell Er;c ., an unparalleled luxury living style with panoramic : c.:s _r TELES the gorgeous Southern California coastline nclt,�i ('C; c c; dhIII ........ Wedge. Newport Beach Harbor. Catalina Island and Fa,,-s ,vant financing intonmation Verdes. The one of a kind estate is a masterpiece of design and craftsmanship featuring a floor to ceiling R Bean G.Johnson. 11� EXHIBIT B 0.0 Z_ 228 PROPERfi'Y YEAR IIVMiG •'LOT SIZE- iSQFOOTAGET...... ZE' BUILT SQFi00T_AGE SQ,FOOTAGE 2701 Ocean Blvd 1971 4260 4896 87% 2711 Ocean Blvd ** 1978 6090 5016 121% 6050 5016 121% Remodeling Plans Submitted For Approval 2 large mechanical &storage areas not counted in proposed sq footage 2723 Ocean Blvd * 2002 3492 7340 48% Originally built 1958 6189 7340 84% Approved Plans with Variance 2727 Ocean Blvd 1956 3684 6240 59% 2735 Ocean Blvd 1971 8600 6708 128% Official Listing/ News Article/Zillow 6500 6708 97% Current Listing/ Redfin 2741 Ocean Blvd 1963 4500 10766 42% 10216 10766 95% 2724 Ocean Blvd 2006 7000 8276 85% 2900 Ocean Blvd (a) 1988 11983 13566 88% 2920 Ocean Blvd 2005 7981 8398 95% 3128 Ocean Blvd 1988 6016 4655 129% 3222 Ocean Blvd 2006 11420 14374 79% 3300 Ocean Blvd 2012 11579 7800 148% 7579 7800 97% Minus basement 3408 Ocean Blvd 1 2013 4662 4621 101% 11J° Data from Zillow.com (a) Data from Redfin.com *Variance Staff Report 3/19/15 ** Submitted plans to City 120 EXHIBIT C -3- 0,0 121 rip State St Bank { o f J • ~ o � r. 16 �2T - ilk, s EXHIBIT D -4- 0.0 1��� c -�t 1961844.1 2�'4' EXHIBIT E -s- 0.0 125 I� , I r � rr I Cf Lr %imm a N_okes Quinn L A w Y E R s January 30, 2017 VIA ELECTRONIC AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Makana Nova, Associate Planner MNovarilineMortbeachca.gov James Campbell, Principal Planner JCampbelltainewportbeachea.s>ov CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: My Clients,John and Kathy Hamilton Dawson Project: 2741 Ocean Boulevard, Corona Del Mar Dear Ms. Nova and Mr. Campbell: My office met last week with Ms. Nova regarding the proposed project at 2741 Ocean Boulevard, Corona Del Mar(the "Proposed Project"). Ms. Nova stated that Staff would be recommending approval of application number VA2015-005 (PA2015-224)with the following condition: that the proposed pop-out nook be pulled back to match the existing structure's nonconforming deck railing. There is no denying that the proposed nook(which is just an interior living space that features a bay window that provides a direct view into the Hamiltons' bedroom) is much more impactful than the existing deck,not just because of the privacy it robs from the Hamiltons, but also in its mass, impact on private views, sunlight and airflow. These improvements serve to intensify and exacerbate existing nonconforming conditions, rather than bringing them into conformity (or at least closer to conformity), with the City's property development standards. Finally, there is a lack of substantial evidence provided by the Dawsons' architect to make Variance Finding Nos. 1 through 4. DEVELOPMENT PATTERN / OCEAN BOULEVARD ABANDONMENT The Hamiltons understand that every one of the homes in this block of Ocean Boulevard, at one time or another,has received a variance to the development standards regarding their individual setbacks abutting Way Lane (including themselves). However, of the six homes that occupy this block of Ocean Boulevard, only 2735 (the Hamilton property, which includes a 6,500 square foot structure, including a 1,500 square foot garage) and 2741 (the Dawson property, upon which is proposed a 10,400 square foot structure, including a 4,500 square foot deck and a two-car garage) were granted by way of vacation/abandonment a portion of Ocean Boulevard in 1999 (Resolution No. 98-66—Exhibit 1 . This allowed both homes additional lot Nokes & Quinn • A Professional Corporalion 410 Broadway, Suile 200, Laguna Beach. CA 92651 s Phone: 9491376-3500 • FAX: 9491376-3070 website: www.nokesqum com 22�� James Campbell, Makana Nova—City of Newport Beach Re: Dcn»son Prgjecr: 2741 Ocean Boulevard January 30, 2017 Page 2 of 6 square footage which, in turn, allowed for the ability not only to build larger homes, but to site those homes on their respective lots in a more appropriate way. Aside from the Proposed Project's being nearly twice the size of any other development in China Cove, the main difference of the development pattern of these two properties is that the massing of the Dawsons' current Proposed Project is sited in such a way that it departs from the pattern of development in this area, where the adjacent houses are set back and forward from one another so that each has privacy. Conversely, the Dawsons have sited their home towards the front of their lot with hardly any relief to offset the impacts to the neighbors up the street. An aerial view (Development Pattern - Exhibit 2) shows the distance between the Proposed Project and Ocean Boulevard. It also illustrates how the massing of the structure unnecessarily crowds Way Lane, compared to the other homes on this block. VARIANCE FINDINGS In Topango Associolion for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, the court held that the local zoning boards are required to make 'findings supported by substantial evidence when granting a variance. On January 10, 2017,the architect for the Proposed Project, Richard Krantz (the"Dawsons' architect"), submitted the Proposed Project's variance findings in a letter to City staff, articulating the various findings required for the Dawsons' requested variances. Specifically, the Dawsons' architect references the variances granted to the property at 2723 Ocean Boulevard (VA2014-005 (PA2014-131)) and states that it "reflects almost identical circumslances for this project' and our reasons for requesting variances listed above." Further, the Dawsons' architect literally "copied and pasted"much of this supposed "substantial evidence" required to satisfy the findings to justify the variance. This could be reasonable, if the circumstances were, in fact, "almost identical." Rather, the Dawsons' architect's statement is somewhat misleading, since 2741 Ocean Boulevard benefits from the abandomnent of a large portion of Ocean Boulevard, as mentioned above. The 1999 abandonment materially changed the 2741 Ocean Boulevard property in that after the granting of the abandonment, the property no longer had the same site constraints as it once did. This, in turn, materially changed the lot and subsequently gave it the size to accommodate a home that"stepped rip" the lot, in conformity with the height guideline, which, in turn, would have a reduced privacy and proximity impact on the surrounding neighbors. It would also follow the existing development pattern in the area, all while respecting the height of the curb at Ocean Boulevard. The Dawsons' architect consistently refers to site constraints in his variance findings and practically copies them verbatim from those findings made for 2723 Ocean Boulevard (2723 Ocean Boulevard Variance Findings—Exhibit 3), a property that has not benefitted from an abandonment of Ocean Boulevard. 12R James Campbell, Makana Nova—City of Newport Beech Re: Dawson Project: 279/ Ocean Boulevard January 30, 2017 Page 3 of 6 The findings necessary to issue a variance are set forth in the City of Newport Beach's Zoning Code at section 20.52.090. Those findings, all of which are required before a variance can be issued, are cited below. In this case, the proposed findings (lifted almost verbatim from prior findings relating to 2723 Ocean Boulevard) relate to site conditions that no longer exist and ignore the fact that the Proposed Project benefitted from a partial street abandonment, the nexus required to make Findings 1 through 4, all of which reference that a "constrained site" cannot be made. • Required Finding 1: "There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject properly (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. " Hamilton Argument that Finding 1 cannot be made: The Dawsons' architect produces little in the way of substantial evidence that "special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property..." exist, especially when compared to the other properties located on this block of Ocean Boulevard. Rather, the Proposed Project already enjoys a special privilege obtained through the 1999 Ocean Boulevard abandonment that is not enjoyed by most of the properties in its vicinity. This allows for the development of the lot without the need for the variances requested. • Required Finding 2: "Strict compliance tvith Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject properly ofprivileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under on identical zoning classjfication. " Hamilton Argument that Finding 2 cannot be made: In this case, the opposite is true. Privileges received from the abandonment portion of Ocean Boulevard, as well as previous variance approvals, grant the Proposed Project special privileges that other lots in the vicinity do not enjoy. Again, there is no substantial evidence to make this finding. • Required Finding 3: "Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substanlial property rights of the applicant. " Hamilton Argument that Finding 3 cannot be made: The Dawsons' architect again used the "constrained site" as substantial evidence for this finding. Additionally, the reasoning is just"copied and pasted" from 2723 Ocean Boulevard findings. The site is no longer constrained and, rather, the Proposed Project benefits from a non-constrained site compared to its neighbors. 129 James Campbell, Makana Nova—City of Newport Beach Re: Dawson Projecl: 2741 Ocean Boulevard January 30, 2017 Page 4 of 6 • Required Finding 4: "Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant ofspecial privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the some zoning district. " Hamilton Argument that Finding 4 cannot be made: Again, the Dawsons' architect copied this verbatim from 2723 Ocean Boulevard's variance 'findings. The granting of this variance would be inconsistent with the patter of development established for the row of houses on this block. In his findings, the Dawsons' architect states, "The proposed encroachments into the required setbacks and proposed height limit exception do not result in a special privilege as the variance allows the property owner to construct a dwelling that meets their needs while limiting setback encroachments and alteration of the coastal bluff." To the contrary, the Proposed Project appears to maximize setback encroachments and intensity the development of the lot, especially setback encroachments that impact neighboring properties. • Required Finding 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. ' Hamilton Argument that Finding 5 cannot be made: The Proposed Project is opposed by many China Cove property owners and, therefore, does not sustain an environment that is harmonious with existing and future development, and does not protect the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties. In addition to the looming intrusion caused by the sheer siting of this structure, noise, privacy, proximity to the surrounding homes and the neighborhood impacts render this Finding incapable of satisfaction by this application. • Required Finding 6: "Granting of the variance will not be in conflict with the intent and propose of this section, this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan. " Hamilton Argument that Finding 6 cannot be made: The Proposed Project appears to be in conflict with the Zoning Code and the General Plan. ISO James Campbell, Makana Nova—City of Newport Beach Re: Damson Project: 374! Ocean Boulevard January 30, 2017 Page 5 of 6 OTHER ISSUES OF CONCERN REGARDING THE PROPOSED PROJECT In addition to the issue before the City concerning the Proposed Project's nook, the Flamiltons would like to see the Proposed Project's drawings in sections, in order to see how the house sits on its massive lot. The L-Iamiltons have made this seemingly reasonable request three times, to no avail. The Proposed Project includes a swimming pool and jacuzzi, which should be able to be built without a request for variance. It is our understanding that the pool and jacuzzi will have two filtration and heating systems. The Ilamiltons are concerned about noise impacts, as noise from pool filtration systems is typically louder than from air conditioning units. Also, it's not clear where the pool water will be drained to: the sewer or the street. CONCLUSION The Hamiltons understand that the Newport Beach Planning and Zoning Code gives great latitude to developers 'for new projects; however, proponents must always bear in mind that this flexibility must always be read in the context of some of the very first words of the Code, which state: "The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that development is consistent with the General Plan, complies with the standards of this chapter, produces an environment that is harmonious with existing and future development, and protects the use and enjoyment of nen h¢ borine properties." The Hamiltons believe that the Code was written this way for a reason and specifically pertains to this issue: Harmony of the Proposed Project with existing development and protection of existing enjoyment. While every residence on the block has enjoyed the benefit of a variance or modification to their rear yard setbacks, only the Hamilton and Dawson properties have enjoyed the benefit of the additional lot area due to the vacation of Ocean Boulevard. This creates an opportunity and advantage for the both of these properties to develop in a way more beneficial to themselves, their neighbors, and the public. In designing and developing their home,the Hamiltons took this into consideration, and we ask that the Dawsons do the same. Additionally, the Dawsons' architect has failed to provide substantial evidence to grant the variance. The Hamiltons and the Dawsons, through counsel, are in agreement that the monitoring, screening, shoring, manometer surveys, parking management, construction staging, bonds and insurance will be addressed. 132 James Campbell,Makana Nova—City of Newport Beach Re: Dawson Project:274/ Ocean Boulevard January 30,2017 Page 6 of 6 The Hamiltons respectfully request that the City hold the Dawsons to the reasonable expectation that they live within Coded height and setback limitations and abide by the law. More specifically, the Hamiltons urge the City to reconsider its modification to the proposed height variance related to the nook and consider elimination of the nook encroachment. Alternatively, they request that the nook be pulled back to the rear building line of the existing structure, as opposed to the line of the deck rail. The Proposed Project would still be tens of feet above the established Code height limit but would at least keep the privacy and view impacts to a level no worse than it is today. And, finally, the Hamiltons would appreciate the City's consideration of the noise impacts that may be realized as a result of the Proposed Project's swimming pool and jacuzzi plans. In light of the excessive amount of land area available to the Dawsons for their home, we feel that these are very reasonable requests. We sincerely hope that the City will consider our points and arguments, as, to date, the Dawsons have demonstrated no willingness or effort to work with the China Cove neighbors to allay their concerns. Very truly yours, Lau nce . Nokes LPN/dkc cc: Clients Norman J. Rodich, Esq. Richard J. Krantz, AIA Steve Kawaratani 132 Recorded in the County of Orange, California Oar L. Granville, Clerk/Recorder 11fiI(; I11 No Fee ' RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND �� �861 4:21pm 88/04/99 005 25 36 WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: R28 6 6.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.60 'go AIM t , AS .cZ City Clerk City of Newport Beach P. O.Boz 1768 :.c" C17Y M cR.:: Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 THIS SPACE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY. Exempt Recording Request per Government Code ao TITLE OF DOCUMENT: Resolution No. 98-66 CIN 1.33 RESOLUTION NO. 98-66 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ORDERING THE SUMMARY VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OCEN BOULEVARD LOCATED ADJACENT TO 2735 AND 2741 OCEAN BOULEVARD IN CORONA DEL MAR; AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO RECORD SAME WITH THE COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, pursuant to the provisions of the Street Vacation Act (Section 8300 at seq. of the Streets 8, Highways Code) is authorized to vacate a portion of a public easement;and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach desires to vacate the portion of Ocean Boulevard, legally described in Exhibit W and depicted on the map in Exhibit "B, the vacation to be processed pursuant to the provisions of the Street Vacation Act. WHEREAS, the easement above-described has not been used for five years by the City of Newport Beach or public utilities for the purpose for which it was dedicated or acquired and has remained continuously unused by the City of Newport Beach or public utility for any public purpose for a period of five consecutive years; and WHEREAS, no money has been expended for the maintenance of the easement during that period of time; and WHEREAS, there are no public utility facilities in place that would be affected by the vacation and abandonment of this easement; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has reviewed and considered the various elements of the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach prior to declaring a summary vacation of easement and has determined that the proposed vacation is consistent with the General Plan, and WHEREAS, the easement is unnecessary for present or prospective public use, and it is the desire of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach to vacate the easement legally described in Exhibit W and depicted on Exhibit "B", the vacation and abandonment to be processed pursuant to the provisions of the Street Vacation Act, and 1.34 WHEREAS, the City Council has considered and approved the attached Restrictive Covenant and Agreement to Maintain Property. NOW,THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that the portion of street easement legally described in Exhibit"A", and depicted on the map attached as Exhibit "B" is hereby ordered to be summarily vacated and abandoned. Provided however, that abandonment shall not become effective until the Restrictive Covenant and Agreement to Maintain Property, approved by City Council concurrently with this Resolution, has been recorded. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to have this Resolution of Vacation be recorded in the Orange County Recorder. Adopted this /, fA day of Qc.+cke, - ,1998 fi//,/ Z� Y ATTEST: CITY CLERK V CALIFO'7 135 EXHIBIT "A" That certain portion of street right of way within Ocean Boulevard in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California lying easterly of and adjoining Block 033 of the Corona Del Mar Tract as shown on map thereof filed in Book 3, Pages 41 and 42 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said County. Said certain portion being bound on the west by the easterly boundary of said Block 033, bound on the east by a line parallel and 55.00 feet westerly, measured at right angles, from the easterly line of said Ocean Boulevard and its northerly and southerly prolongation, bound on the north by the southeasterly prolongation of the northeasterly line of Parcel A as shown on a map of City of Newport Beach Resubdivision No. 82 recorded August 3,1959 as Document No. 124759 and filed in Book 4825, Pages 125 through 127 inclusive of Official Records in the office of said County Recorder and bound on the south by the southeasterly prolongation of the southwesterly line of Shell Street (formerly A Street) as shown on said map of Corona Del Mar Tract. F Acat%Shared%daW g\Han0ton\ExhbitA.doc IS 13\ EXHIBIT 11131 1 NORTH all Of 13 L a VICINITY MAP Ax Mm' 10'. 74 I El I ni i .......... .......... p r AT PL a tea. '052--(*1-15 In. 5 i a6l III.�K.;E tt PIN i 41 F A1111A "M U12 IlArATon KRA f"LAIiJk AV AJAIo STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } as. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, LAVONNE M. HARKLESS, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 98.66, was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 12th day of October, 1998, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: Ayes: Thomson, Debay, O'Neil, Hedges, Glover, Noyes, Mayor Edwards Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 13th day of October, 1998. _ '/ / �J ✓��'UJ- LXt 7 City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California PoRT® (Seal) 4 O caul° 13g ' • f ..1 �Y DI N \� . N fowl J . ., � Y � MW y l N 1.�9 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1975 Page 2 of 8 under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). 2. Class 1 exempts minor alterations to existing facilities involving negligible expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. Class 3 exempts the construction of limited numbers of new, small structures, including one single-family residence. The proposed project is an addition to an existing single-family residence located within the Single-Unit Residential Zoning District. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. In accordance with Section 20.52.090 (Variances) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The subject property is approximately 7,340 square feet in area. A City right-of-way is located between the eastern property line and Ocean Boulevard curb line that varies in width between 35 feet and 45 feet. The depth of the lot varies between 75 and 85 feet. The property slopes down from Ocean Boulevard to Way Lane with a grade change of approximately 60 feet. The buildable area of the lot is constrained by the steep sloping topography of the site. The development on the site is also constrained by the Ocean Boulevard curb height limit, which further limits the location and height of structures on site. The location of the proposed garage within the rear setback would reduce excavation of the coastal bluff that would be required to construct the garage behind the 10-foot rear setback line. Finding: B. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification. Facts in Support of Finding: 1 . The exception to the height limit and setback encroachments are necessary to allow a house to be built close to the maximum floor area limit of 1.5 times the buildable area of the lot. The buildable area of the subject property is 4,553.6 square feet, the maximum floor area is 6,830.4 square feet, and the proposed total floor area is approximately 6,190 square feet. The site constraints create challenges to designing a house of comparable 07-22-2014 140 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1975 Page 3 of 8 size to other properties in the area without encroaching into setbacks and exceeding the height limit. 2. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights, as the proposed addition is of comparable size and height to other buildings on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard. 3. Due to topographical constraints located on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard, several other properties have access from Way Lane and have garages which encroach into the rear setbacks, and the proposed encroachment into the rear setback is consistent with the setbacks maintained by structures on adjacent properties. Several other nearby properties have encroachments into the side setbacks and front setback at Ocean Boulevard. 4. Alley access is typical in Corona del Mar and most properties in the area have a 5-foot rear alley setback requirement, depending on the alley width. Way Lane essentially functions as an alley for the subject property, and if it were an alley, the Zoning Code would allow for no rear setback because Way Lane is 20 feet wide. Finding: C. Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights, as the proposed project allows for development on the constrained site. The Variance allows the property owner to construct a dwelling that meets their needs, is close to the maximum floor area limit for the site, and provides the code-required parking. Finding: D. Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Variance does not constitute a grant of a special privilege as it allows the property owner to develop a residence that is comparable to and compatible with other lots in the vicinity that are identically zoned. The proposed encroachments into the required setbacks and proposed height-limit exception do not result in a special privilege as the Variance allows the property owner to construct a dwelling that meets their needs while limiting setback encroachments and alteration of the coastal bluff. The proposed addition is of comparable height and maintains similar setbacks as compared to other buildings on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard. 07-22-2014 1-41 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1975 Page 4 of 8 2. See statements B-3 and B-4 in support of this finding. Finding: E. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed encroachment will not affect the flow of light or air to adjoining residential properties as adequate separation is provided and no additional above grade encroachments are proposed into the side setbacks. 2. The design of the structure includes adequate articulation, modulation, open volume consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Code, and privacy for the abutting properties. 3. Way Lane functions similar to an alley and is 20 feet in width, providing sufficient turning area for vehicles to utilize the proposed garage and for other vehicles to pass. 4. The proposed addition would exceed the height limit by approximately 19 feet and the highest portion of the addition would match the height of the existing structure. The over- height portion of the addition would not project any further towards the rear of the lot than the existing structure; therefore, the addition would not further impede views through the lot from abutting properties. 5. The granting of the Variance will not adversely impact public views from Ocean Boulevard because the proposed addition is below the top of curb height restriction and the front setback encroachment will not be visible from the street as they would be below grade with the finished floor at approximately 20 feet below the adjacent curb elevation. 6. The existing garage setback encroachments have not proven detrimental. Finding: F. Granting of the variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this section, this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Zoning Code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations through the Variance review process. The Variance procedure is intended to resolve practical physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the City and on this property. Due to the topography of the lot, location and design of the existing structure, top of curb height limit, height and design of 07-22-2014 142 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1975 Page 5 of S buildings on neighboring properties, lack of negative impact to public and private views, and limited area that is feasible to develop on, the height limit exception and setback encroachments can be approved by the Planning Commission through the Variance request. 2. The subject property is designated for single-unit residential use and the granting of the Variance would not increase the density beyond what is planned for the area, and will not result in additional traffic, parking, or demand for other services. 3. Setbacks required by the Zoning Code govern the location of structures on a lot and provide for open areas around structures for visibility and traffic safety, access to and around structures, access to natural light and ventilation, separation of incompatible land uses, space for landscaping and recreation, protection of natural resources, and safety from fire and geologic hazards. The variance maintains appropriate setbacks for the property consistent with the existing development pattern along Way Lane. 4. The driveway at the Ocean Boulevard right-of-way is existing; therefore, the retention of the garage and driveway is consistent with General Plan Policies CE 7.1.11 and CE 7.1.12. 5. The subject property is not located within a specific plan area. 07-22-2014 243 PALMIERI TYLER AT TO R N E Y S AT L A W ANGELO J. PALMIERI (1928-1996) ROBERT F. WALDRON (1927 1998) DENNIS W.CHAN' MELISA R.PEREZ P.D.Box 19712 DAVID D.PARR' MICHAEL I.KEHOE Irvine,CA 92623-9712 CHARLES H.KANTER' CHADWICK C.BUNCH PATRICK A.HENNESSEY ANISH J.BANKER CON FISHER RYAN M.PRAGER January 26 , 2017 1 Norman J.Rodich WARREN A.WILLIAMS ERIN BALSARA NADERI JOHN R.LISTER ERICA M.SOROSKY Direct Dial (949)851-7235 MICHAEL H.LEIFER JOSHUA J.MARX Direct Fax (949)825-5415 RICHARD A. SALUS ERIN K.OYAMA nrotlich@ptwww.crom NORMAN J.RODICH KATHERINE M.SHAW MICHAEL L.D'ANGELO BRIAN GLICKLIN STEPHEN A.SCHECK CAROLYN H.CLARK DONNA L.SNOW M.OMAR HASHIM Refer To File No.38617-000 RYAN M.EASTER NAZANI N.TEMOURIAN Document I.D.2000294.1 ELISE M.KERN MICHAEL C.CHO,OF COUNSEL RONALD M. COLE,OF COUNSEL MICHAEL J.GREENE'.OF COUNSEL ROBERT C.IHRKE,OF COUNSEL GREGORY N.WEILER,OF COUNSEL ALAN H.WIENER',OF COUNSEL JAMES E.WILHELM,RETIRED DENNIS G.TYLER',RETIRED 'A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION VIA HAND DELIVERY Makana Nova Assistant Planner City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Dawson Residence 2741 Ocean Boulevard Application No. VA2015-005 (P,12015-224) Dear Ms. Nova: I am transmitting herewith the following photographs for your information and file: 1. Aerial view of Ocean Boulevard showing Predominant Line of Existing Development (PLOED) 2. Views of Hamilton residence and upper deck from main level (top floor) of existing Dawson residence 3. Views of Hamilton residence and decks from second level (from top) of existing Dawson residence 4. Views of Hamilton master bedroom window from third level (from top) of existing Dawson residence 5. Views of Hamilton master bedroom and decks from third level (from top) of existing Dawson residence 1900 Main Street,Suite 700,Irvine,CA 92614-7328 1 T 949.851.9400 1 F 949.851.1554 1 ptww -corn 144 PALMIERI TYLER Makana Nova January 26, 2017 Page 2 6. Views of existing Dawson residence and landscaped areas from Ocean Boulevard 7. Views of Dawson landscaped area adjacent to public park 8. Views of existing Dawson residence and Hamilton residence from Way Lane 9. Views of existing Dawson residence from Hamilton residence 10. Project underway at Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions. Thank you for your assistance in connection with this matter. Very truly yours, Z-�V Norman J. Rodich NJR Attachments cc: Craig Dawson Raquel Dawson Janet E. Humphrey, Esq. Steve Kawaratani 2000294.1 1� 21 ATTACHMENT 1 AERIAL VIEW OF OCEAN BOULEVARD SHOWING PREDOMINANT LINE OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT (PLOED) 140 0.0 L State St Bank � M 00 y, r "tel . R I t' •. a i -s c-� ATTACHMENT 2 VIEWS OF HAMILTON RESIDENCE AND UPPER DECK FROM MAIN LEVEL (TOP FLOOR) OF EXISTING DAWSON RESIDENCE 2- 142 0.0 f s. 1 I -- , 4 � '� ,� .. � � �. :; ,. ,� .F � .� � �. �� ��� ,� ., �., �. � ) �: � k : �„ ,�. � m ,%+ L� G � ► a � w '�1}� n � , - �I. '� —. __ _ _- � s r ,.,� .,� �, !� ` . .1}, S, o t ��� ti �,��� — nY wxr � � r r .Maw,. ATTACHMENT 3 VIEWS OF HAMILTON RESIDENCE AND DECKS FROM SECOND LEVEL (FROM TOP) OF EXISTING DAWSON RESIDENCE 3- 153 0.0 Y -fir a PA n 1 4P i r i r n x IL L r -W IpHii 46 ' L im 04 J y ..� � . �, � _ _ .. � � � z � � 1 ti � 7 � � �. i..�,+� M�- . �+ii Y - ii ' ■ 1 k _N �. ATTACHMENT 4 VIEWS OF HAMILTON MASTER BEDROOM WINDOW FROM THIRD LEVEL (FROM TOP) OF EXISTING DAWSON RESIDENCE 0.0 i 7 i. a ri i C rte` ;�, •� .,lY .� i ���� •.�y ,in.. .. -.�_ � il„lt�cV � Y+ ��J t w.� I h �� .fev�'��A � ., �. F, i . y'a. cam'- ~ �y a A�,.- �-r .-' �' � may+7 r " �„ Y •. z� ATTACHMENT 5 VIEWS OF HAMILTON MASTER BEDROOM AND DECKS FROM THIRD LEVEL (FROM TOP) OF EXISTING DAWSON RESIDENCE s 102 0.0 M mad a dim .w '.,-. `, ,,;. �,N; � - N I I V Y _,itM e f .t ry.t. '� �� �1 'j F' �" F 4Y I Iy 0 4 fk L 0 V �I t P � f 4 a 1 t 4� y � 1 r t� d 1 P �1 ' 1 �I � � U � * d � � ; � .. ;;�+ 'may_ �. ,:... - ' ,.� i =q � . _ 7 'y � i � . � { �� �' �I ti I' t'. !* �_.. i � �� 7 t �'... �:S k o_ ..Ammlw ' •i 1 1 r i 4 a 4k L s ', u Pr' Is 0 r � Ir I IM T�� %owl ,e r � ir P' di .4F dL : r Ie r r 1c • • J • ,�� � - 4 LFA t -� R i JL .,� oil _ - it Ir re wo LL: ti 4, b am I " " r" r n ATTACHMENT 6 VIEWS OF EXISTING DAWSON RESIDENCE AND LANDSCAPED AREAS FROM OCEAN BOULEVARD 0.0 J k � .6 1 Tk ;- w � 1 yyY e e _ i , F � e q t 1 �1 JL w ,' �• .. .i• P ' i* '� lam' 1 7 F. �. 7 yydr � eL ■L r��e •� .r p In A4 IL A .. t •� 4 •f N. or s .OI- _ ti Re 16 In Y ti v v. r' 1 T 1 0 1 �• ' tl r 1 w„•5 e + - y e .� po Noe IL 16, I . 1 4 ti � � 1 •�� �1 � i !F.. .�� • .� it ' � 1 r'iy t ] Iy ! ''Lti gyp'. � :4v �''� � ° .'J4�1� ..+ A ,i . ,�—• NEWT 1 y I Iry AMM 'M h • A A or 1 d , ar r A. �4L � ■ �� 1 OA sF 41 it 16, A i ' 1• s R , , y•• 1 i 1 777 'fir I R '� 41 1 ti � 41 16 'r., 1 r e it or -- r `` • r . .r ,.r r• t �(lot . 460 r� 4 4- ! t Y A 'Mk. .• zo �. .r 9L p s AL 4 *16 � • �.�' 4 r- � + SII �R`� � �'_ ' !I. 'lt�, a �, •i E r B16 F a Ar 46 YA �w %Y. 3 IF A. F t .mod l IL Y.. . � rM1 1 ire ir - r 7-- d r - •41. ..J V w Jla i - • .y �' ' ~rte , 1 1p row - 04 i i 4 •_ N7 .J l J 7 � a . OF M y a ti •an M6 lq r' IL Ptr lop vp a _ y ye _ ■ ti , LE JF Lw 4: A 6A rlow � a a - r w 84 !� —�— p -t eL lop alp— r■ ATTACHMENT 7 VIEWS OF DAWSON LANDSCAPED AREA ADJACENT TO PUBLIC PARK 224 0.0 7 16 ^-M fN f �a 1IP ` 4. .7 • pr • .4 L�, 1Y ir IL 7 7 . Y i. rti ti � r r � w rti Y � F L ti ° r Von "ivilu A A Ir ° 7 � 1 • r i d M +. 4 ` e • d i. 4 ATTACHMENT 8 VIEWS OF EXISTING DAWSON RESIDENCE AND HAMILTON RESIDENCE FROM WAY LANE s 122 0.0 , Vt: =N Y I _ P = I fop 3 � �,E` W �a1 \MtiY i� . k J Y �J yf4 1 �� � ! � may. �i:N r i` �'�; � 1) � � ' _ � ��"►"� i � Pmm 14 i 4 ����+ � �p�I li, M1 �, f jay /� r F ` �' :._ "_ � _ _ � ---� ,.� .�. � � (� � � R ���.I R� . r,o. _ ,,`{ u^+` �.a;. �, f ,.� i 1.- �,� � I 1 k l �, �l � � � � �- _. _ p �� I r' N .��- ' ,y�Y' " 1 � r s� ,.r+M �� _ � + B ATTACHMENT 9 VIEWS OF EXISTING DAWSON RESIDENCE FROM HAMILTON RESIDENCE 00 9 29� a — i 04, 1 , I 15 i VVV ,r' 1 ~ J 1 E J� I t I d� J i - I { r i i i I � TI SWI I LN �i� q• y r } .d � ra f oma__ ATTACHMENT 10 PROJECT UNDERWAY AT OCEAN BOULEVARD AND CARNATION io- 200 0.0 pid 16. =s w Aw i mw t .....,, ,�� _� 1 . w � . E . 7 � ' -- - 96 r J d" L �, lop ' AM P �! !M p ' ! p _ 1 _ 1 ' r 1 � ~ 1 � Y » := M _ KAWARATANI CONSULTING LAND USE • DESIGN • PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1279 GLENNEYRE STREET. #49 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 C: 949.290.0210 0: 949.494.5141 F. 949.613.7346 EMAIL:STEVENAWARATANIOME.COM 24 January 2017 Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Thompson 2701 Shell Street Corona del Mar, CA 92625 RE: Neighbors' meeting for the Dawson Residence Dear Mr. and Mrs. Thompson, I mailed a correspondence to you in December, on behalf of Craig and Raquel Dawson. I understand that you may have concerns regarding their project, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Please contact me and we can schedule at your convenience. Best, Steve Kawaratani c. 949.290.0210 e. plantman2@mac.com KAWARATANI CONSULTING LAND USE • DESIGN • PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1279 GLENNEYRE STREET. #49 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 C: 949.290.0210 0: 949.494.5141 F. 949.613.7346 EMAIL:STEVENAWARATANIOME.COM 24 January 2017 Ms. Helga Pralle 2727 Ocean Boulevard Corona del Mar, CA 92625 RE: Neighbors' meeting for the Dawson Residence Dear Ms. Pralle, I mailed a correspondence to you in December, on behalf of Craig and Raquel Dawson. I understand that you may have concerns regarding their project, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Please contact me at your convenience. Best, L4VL� Steve Kawaratani c. 949.290.0210 e.plantman2@mac.com 200 KAWARATANI CONSULTING LAND USE • DESIGN • PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1279 GLENNEYRE STREET. #49 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 C: 949.290.0210 0: 949.494.5141 F. 949.613.7346 EMAIL:STEVENAWARATANIOME.COM 24 January 2017 Mr.Joseph Udvare 2718 Shell Street Corona del Mar, CA 92625 RE: Neighbors' meeting for the Dawson Residence Dear Mr. Udvare, I mailed a correspondence to you in December, on behalf of Craig and Raquel Dawson. I understand that you may have concerns regarding their project, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Please contact me and we can schedule at your convenience. Best, —700T� Steve Kawaratani c. 949.290.0210 e. plantman2@mac.com 20� KAWARATANI CONSULTING LAND USE • DESIGN • PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1279 GLENNEYRE STREET. #49 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 C: 949.290.0210 0: 949.494.5141 F. 949.613.7346 EMAIL:STEVENAWARATANIOME.COM 24 January 2017 Mr. and Mrs. Harold Parker 2700 Cove Street Corona del Mar, CA 92625 RE: Neighbors' meeting for the Dawson Residence Dear Mr. and Mrs. Parker, I mailed a correspondence to you in December, on behalf of Craig and Raquel Dawson. I understand that you may have concerns regarding their project, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Please contact me and we can schedule at your convenience. Best, Steve Kawaratani c. 949.290.0210 e. plantman2@mac.com 2D8 KAWARATANI CONSULTING LAND USE • DESIGN • PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1279 GLENNEYRE STREET. #49 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 C: 949.290.0210 0: 949.494.5141 F. 949.613.7346 EMAIL:STEVENAWARATANIOME.COM 24 January 2017 Ms. Catherine Callender 2620 WayLane Corona del Mar, CA 92625 RE: Neighbors' meeting for the Dawson Residence Dear Ms. Callender, I mailed a correspondence to you in December, on behalf of Craig and Raquel Dawson. I understand that you may have concerns regarding their project, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Please contact me and we can schedule at your convenience. Best, Steve Kawaratani c. 949.290.0210 e. plantman2@mac.com 2D9 KAWARATANI CONSULTING LAND USE • DESIGN • PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1279 GLENNEYRE STREET. #49 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 C: 949.290.0210 0: 949.494.5141 F. 949.613.7346 EMAIL:STEVENAWARATANIOME.COM 24 January 2017 Mr. and Mrs. Brian Mulvaney 2719 Shell Street Corona del Mar, CA 92625 RE: Neighbors' meeting for the Dawson Residence Dear Mr. and Mrs. Mulvaney, I mailed a correspondence to you in December, on behalf of Craig and Raquel Dawson. I understand that you may have concerns regarding their project, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Please contact me and we can schedule at your convenience. Best, Steve Kawaratani c. 949.290.0210 e. plantman2@mac.com 210 KAWARATANI CONSULTING LAND USE • DESIGN • PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1279 GLENNEYRE STREET. #49 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 C: 949.290.0210 0: 949.494.5141 F. 949.613.7346 EMAIL:STEVENAWARATANIOME.COM 24 January 2017 Ms. Susan Maher 2718 Shell Street Corona del Mar, CA 92625 RE: Neighbors' meeting for the Dawson Residence Dear Ms. Susan Maher, I mailed a correspondence to you in December, on behalf of Craig and Raquel Dawson. I understand that you may have concerns regarding their project, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Please contact me and we can schedule at your convenience. Best, Steve Kawaratani c. 949.290.0210 e. plantman2@mac.com 211 KAWARATANI CONSULTING LAND USE • DESIGN • PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1279 GLENNEYRE STREET. #49 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 C: 949.290.0210 0: 949.494.5141 F. 949.613.7346 EMAIL:STEVENAWARATANIOME.COM 24 January 2017 Mr. and Mrs. Harley Broviak 2709 Cove Street Corona del Mar, CA 92625 RE: Neighbors' meeting for the Dawson Residence Dear Mr. and Mrs. Broviak, I mailed a correspondence to you in December, on behalf of Craig and Raquel Dawson. I understand that you may have concerns regarding their project, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Please contact me at your convenience. Best, L4VL� Steve Kawaratani c. 949.290.0210 e.plantman2@mac.com 212 KAWARATANI CONSULTING LAND USE • DESIGN • PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1279 GLENNEYRE STREET. #49 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 C: 949.290.0210 0: 949.494.5141 F. 949.613.7346 EMAIL:STEVENAWARATANIOME.COM 24 January 2017 Mr. and Mrs. Harley Broviak 2709 Cove Street Corona del Mar, CA 92625 RE: Neighbors' meeting for the Dawson Residence Dear Mr. and Mrs. Broviak, I mailed a correspondence to you in December, on behalf of Craig and Raquel Dawson. I understand that you may have concerns regarding their project, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Please contact me at your convenience. Best, L4VL� Steve Kawaratani c. 949.290.0210 e.plantman2@mac.com 213 KAWARATANI CONSULTING LAND USE • DESIGN • PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1279 GLENNEYRE STREET. #49 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 C: 949.290.0210 0: 949.494.5141 F. 949.613.7346 EMAIL:STEVENAWARATANIOME.COM 24 January 2017 Mr. Richard Debrey 2712 Shell Street Corona del Mar, CA 92625 RE: Neighbors' meeting for the Dawson Residence Dear Mr. Debrey, I mailed a correspondence to you in December, on behalf of Craig and Raquel Dawson. I understand that you may have concerns regarding their project, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Please contact me and we can schedule at your convenience. Best, —700T� Steve Kawaratani c. 949.290.0210 e. plantman2@mac.com 22.4 KAWARATANI CONSULTING LAND USE • DESIGN • PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1279 GLENNEYRE STREET. #49 LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 C: 949.290.0210 0: 949.494.5141 F. 949.613.7346 EMAIL:STEVENAWARATANIOME.COM 24 January 2017 Ms. Linda Delaney 2712 Shell Street Corona del Mar, CA 92625 RE: Neighbors' meeting for the Dawson Residence Dear Ms. Delaney, I mailed a correspondence to you in December, on behalf of Craig and Raquel Dawson. I understand that you may have concerns regarding their project, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Please contact me and we can schedule at your convenience. Best, Steve Kawaratani c. 949.290.0210 e. plantman2@mac.com 21.E KAWARATANI CONSULTING LAND USE • DESIGN • PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1276 GLENNEYRE STREET #49 LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 C 949.290.0210 0: 949.494.5141 F. 949.613.7346 EMAIL: STEVEKAWARATANIOME.COM 24 January 2017 Ms. Linda Schilling 2626 Cove Street Corona del Mar, CA 92625 RE: Neighbors' meeting for the Dawson Residence Dear Ms. Schilling, On behalf of Craig and Raquel Dawson, I wish to extend an invitation to review the architectural plans for their residence. I understand that you may have concerns regarding their project, and I would be pleased to answer questions you may have. Please contact me at your convenience. Best, Steve Kawaratani c. 949.290.0210 e. plantman2@mac.com 21C KAWARATANI CONSULTING LAND USE • DESIGN • PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1276 GLENNEYRE STREET #49 LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 C 949.290.0210 0: 949.494.5141 F. 949.613.7346 EMAIL: STEVEKAWARATANIOME.COM 24 January 2017 Mr. Robert C. Ganiere 2609 Cove Street Corona del Mar, CA 92625 RE: Neighbors' meeting for the Dawson Residence Dear Mr. Ganiere, On behalf of Craig and Raquel Dawson, I wish to extend an invitation to review the architectural plans for their residence. I understand that you may have concerns regarding their project, and I would be pleased to answer questions you may have. Please contact me at your convenience. Best, Steve Kawaratani c. 949.290.0210 e. plantman2@mac.com 21j KAWARATANI CONSULTING LAND USE • DESIGN • PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1276 GLENNEYRE STREET #49 LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 C 949.290.0210 0: 949.494.5141 F. 949.613.7346 EMAIL: STEVEKAWARATANIOME.COM 24 January 2017 Ms. Karen Carlson 2616 Cove Street Corona del Mar, CA 92625 RE: Neighbors' meeting for the Dawson Residence Dear Ms. Carlson, On behalf of Craig and Raquel Dawson, I wish to extend an invitation to review the architectural plans for their residence. I understand that you may have concerns regarding their project, and I would be pleased to answer questions you may have. Please contact me at your convenience. Best, Steve Kawaratani c. 949.290.0210 e. plantman2@mac.com 218 KAWARATANI CONSULTING LAND USE • DESIGN • PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1276 GLENNEYRE STREET #49 LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 C 949.290.0210 0: 949.494.5141 F. 949.613.7346 EMAIL: STEVEKAWARATANIOME.COM 24 January 2017 Mr. and Mrs. Warren James 2627 Cove Street Corona del Mar, CA 92625 RE: Neighbors' meeting for the Dawson Residence Dear Mr. and Mrs. James, On behalf of Craig and Raquel Dawson, I wish to extend an invitation to review the architectural plans for their residence. I understand that you may have concerns regarding their project, and I would be pleased to answer questions you may have. Please contact me at your convenience. Best, Steve Kawaratani c. 949.290.0210 e. plantman2@mac.com 21J° PALMIERI TYLER AN� A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W ROBERT J. PAL (19 -19fi) ROBERT F. WALDRORON (1832 1-19998) DENNIS W.GHAN' MELISA R.PEREZ P.O.BOK 19712 DAVID D.PARR' MICHAEL I.KEHOE Irvine,CA 92623-9712 CHARLES H.KANTER' CHADWICK C.BUNCH PATRICK A,HENNESSEY ANISH J.BANKER January 20, 2017 DON FISHER RYAN M.PRAGER WARREN A.WILLIAMS ERIN BALSARA NADERI Norman J.Rodich JOHN R.LISTER ERICA M.SOROSKY Direct Dial (949)851-7235 MICHAEL H.LEIFER JOSHUA J.MARK Direct Fax (949)825-5415 RICHARD A.SALES ERIN K.OYAMA NORMAN J.RODICH KATHERINE M.SHAW nrodich(rllptwww.com MICHAEL L.D'ANGELO BRIAN GLICKLIN STEPHEN A.$CHECK CAROLYN H.CLARK DONNA L.SNOW M.OMAR HASHIM Refer To File No.38617-000 RYAN M.EASTER NAZANI N.TEMOURIAN Document I.D.1993682.1 ELISE M.KERN MICHAEL C.CHO.OF COUNSEL RONALD M.COLE,OF COUNSEL MICHAEL J.GREENE',OF COUNSEL ROBERT C. HRKE,OF COUNSEL GREGORY N.WEILER,OF COUNSEL ALAN H.WIENER',OF GOUNSEL JAMES E.WILHELM.RETIRED DENNIS G.TYLER',RETIRED 'A PROFESSIONAL CORPORRTION VIA U.S. MAIL AND E-MAIL lPZak(a�newpBrtbeachca.govl I Peter Zak, Secretary Newport Beach Planning Commission 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Dawson Residence; 2741 Ocean Blvd. Application No. VA2015-005 (PA2015-224) Dear Commissioner Zak: I am writing in support of the above-referenced variance application submitted on behalf of my clients, Craig and Raquel Dawson. Introduction Mr. Dawson is a managing director of PIMCO in the London office and head of PIMCO Europe, Middle East and Africa. Mrs. Dawson is a stay-home mother. The Dawsons have three school-aged children. The Dawsons decided to purchase their home at 2741 Ocean Boulevard after falling in love with the stunning location and charming China Cove neighborhood. They knew this was the place where they would make their home and raise their family. Before purchasing the property, the Dawsons hired Brion Jeanette, a well-known Newport Beach architect, to meet with City staff. Makana Nova from the City Planning Department described to Brion and his staff what could be built and what restrictions could apply. 1900 Main Street.Suite 700,Irvine,CA 92614-7328 1 T 949.851.9400 1 F 949.851.1554 1 ptwww,com 220 PALMIERI TYLER Peter Zak, Secretary January 20, 2017 Page 2 After purchasing the property in November 2014, the Dawsons began the design process for their new home and have built a top-notch design team. During the design process, the design team met many times with City staff including the engineering department and incorporated staffs recommendations. (See Attachment A.) The result is a softly sculpted and sensitively articulated Mediterranean villa that blends harmoniously with the harbor architecture and neighboring homes. (See Attachment B.) Designed by noted local architect Richard J. Krantz, the proposed residence realizes the Dawsons' vision of a functional, warm and beautiful home that will enhance the China Cove neighborhood of which it is an integral part. The Project The project consist of a single-family residence on the bluff in China Cove with a steep, sloping lot that spans from Ocean Boulevard on the east down to Way Lane on the west. No variances are requested for this project that are not enjoyed by surrounding residences with similar lots in China Cove, including the existing house on the Dawsons' lot. The inspiration for the Dawson residence is a classical villa common to Mediterranean cliff-side coastal regions. The elevations and composition are derived from Italian examples. (See Attachment C.) Different architectural elements, roof massing and details are utilized to provide both variety and continuity. Rather than creating over-exposed terraces, the harbor-facing elevation is articulated in horizontal and vertical components and landscaped terraces looking through trellises and loggia structures that layer the outdoor areas into a variety of elements. (See Attachment B.) Patina-soft materials and landscaping are utilized to make the home appear that it has been part of the neighborhood and harbor architectural fabric for many years. The Ezistine Structure The existing residence is a gray monolithic structure and presents an unattractive fapade when viewed from the harbor and neighborhood below. (See Attachment D.) Similar to other homes on the bluff facing China Cove, the home is currently above curb height and blocks some public views. Variances Requested Given the hardships of building on their steeply sloped lot, the Dawsons are requesting the same allowance that neighboring lots have received permitting the lowest level to extend beyond the setback line to minimize required grading and excavation by approximately 150 cubic yards. 1993682.1 221 PALMIERI TYLER Peter Zak, Secretary January 20, 2017 Page 3 Also due to the steepness of the site and consistent with variances that have been allowed on neighboring lots, the Dawsons are requesting a variance for the 24' flat/29' sloping roof height limits as well as the 15%third-floor limitation. It is important to note that the Dawsons are not exceeding 6-0" above natural grade for walls located in the setbacks. Nor are they exceeding the height of the curb at Ocean Boulevard (with the exception of chimneys, which by code must rise above any adjacent ridge). The proposed findings and justifications for the requested variances are set forth in Richard Krantz's correspondence dated January 10, 2017. (See Attachment E.) Neighbor Outreach The Dawsons have engaged in substantial neighbor-outreach. Initially, they reached out to neighbors with a letter in May 2016, informing the neighbors that they had submitted plans to the City and were asking for two variances. Prior to their move to London, the Dawsons passed out a second letter in which they took the extraordinary step of inviting all of the neighbors to a meeting at their home on July 20, 2016, so that the neighbors could meet the Dawsons and their design team and discuss any questions or concerns they may have had regarding the project. (See Attachment F.) Many neighbors attended the meeting, including the Dawsons' next-door neighbors, John and Kathy Hamilton. The Hamiltons came to the meeting with a friend who was an attorney. The Dawsons have since engaged in extensive further discussions with the Hamiltons in a good faith effort to answer their questions and address their concerns. These efforts were summarized in my letter to Principal Planner James Campbell dated December 3, 2016. (See Attachment G.) In addition, Mrs. Dawson has spoken telephonically and corresponded with Brian and Kay Mulvaney, who were unable to attend the July 20 neighbor meeting, regarding questions and comments the Mulvaneys had concerning the project. (See Attachment H.) Through their consultant, Steve Kawaratani, the Dawsons have also sent letters to neighbors who have written to the City with questions or concerns regarding the project. (See Attachment 1.) To date, Mr. Kawaratani has received no response to those letters. A number of the Dawsons' neighbors have written letters expressing their strong support for the project. (See Attachment J.) 1993682.1 222 PALMIERI TYLER Peter Zak, Secretary January 20, 2017 Page 4 Improved Public Views Study views at Ocean Boulevard demonstrate vastly improved views (85' wide) and new open structure (8' wide, with no walls). (See Attachment B, Sheets T.3-T.4.) Compared to the solid and monolithic fagade of the existing residence, the proposed design has lower plates, sloping roofs and an open-air loggia that replaces a walled mass with open columns and an overhead trellis. These elements combine to provide significantly improved views along Ocean Boulevard. Reduced Massing and Scale The Dawsons' design team has provided significant evidence of reduction of mass and scale relative to the current home, including significantly pulled-back massing from Way Lane. (See Attachment B, Sheet T.2.) In addition, the rear deck and loggia over the garage area help to scale down the rear elevation and address offsetting levels below grade. These levels are barely visible from anywhere besides Way Lane as the surrounding houses rise above and eclipse the walls from the harbor view points. Neighborhood Compatibility The Dawsons and their design team have put a lot of thought and effort into the design of the proposed residence with the aim of ensuring compatibility with the adjacent Ocean Boulevard bluff-side homes and surrounding neighborhood. Richard Krantz's beautiful and elegant design achieves that goal. From the vastly improved public views from Ocean Boulevard to the layered composition and substantially reduced massing and scale of the harbor- facing elevation, the proposed home is consistent with the neighborhood in design, height, and scale to lot size. Pre-hearing Meeting The Dawsons will be flying to Orange County from London for the hearing. They would be grateful for the opportunity to meet with you to introduce themselves and show you the property. Mr. Krantz and other members of the design team will also be available to attend the meeting and answer any questions you may have regarding the site or the proposed residence. Mr. Krantz's associate, Aaron Easton, will be contacting you in the near future regarding your availability. 1993682.1 223 PALMIERI TYLER Peter Zak, Secretary January 20, 2017 Page 5 Conclusion The Dawsons sincerely thank you, the other Planning Commissioners, and City staff for your time and consideration. Should you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, lA Norman J. Rodich NJR Attachments cc: Craig and Raquel Dawson Richard J. Krantz Steve Kawaratani 1993682.1 224 ATTACHMENT A 1993523.1 Richard Krantz Architecture, Inc. 1500 Quail Street, Suite 520 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949)752.6345 (949)752-6235 fax July 26, 2016 Hi Jim/Makana, We have made the requested revisions to our plans for the Dawson Residence following our meeting with staff on June 28th. These revisions included removal of the pool feature at Level One and removal of the loggia at the Bedroom 3 Way Lane facing window for emergency exit purposes. We have updated the study sheets to show this new design, as well as included some additional study sheets to demonstrate views that were requested by Jim. Please see the following updated sheets in our set for these studies: Sheet T.1: Neighborhood context study among homes along the bluff side of Ocean Blvd. Sheet T.2: Study views at Way Lane. Includes imagery showing the architectural feel of the house we anticipate, including the importance of the open pavilion at Level One for the sake of completing the architectural integrity of the stair element. Sheet T.3: Study views at Ocean Boulevard. Demonstrates improved view (85' wide) and new open structure (8'wide, with no walls). The existing house being replaced with our proposed design which has lower plates, pulled back massing from Way Lane, sloping roofs and the trellis/pavilion portion which replaces a walled mass with open columns and overhead trellis...all combined these provide improved views along Ocean Blvd. Imagery shows the quality of a reclaimed roof and the open-airy articulation that the pavilion and trellis would provide. Sheet TA: Continuation of Ocean Boulevard studies. Includes a photo comparison demonstrating an improved harbor waterway view whereas existing house separates the harbor waterway view. Imagery shows.the beauty that can be achieved with the character of reclaimed roofs and artistic chimney caps. Sheet T.S: Neighbor view study demonstrating that the deck views from the neighbor's house are principally an unimpeded sweeping harbor panorama which are minimally affected by the proposed house. 1. View: In our study, when looking back towards our proposed home,we found the majority of their view appears to be improved with the new house as it steps away from Way Lane comparative to the existing house.The view from the neighbor's window appears to be very similar to what is currently seen at the existing house. 220 2. Privacy: The new house is designed to improve privacy for the neighboring home. Instead of the existing house's main living space and terrace deck looking down on the neighboring deck, our proposal has a less used Nook with small decorative balcony.This element serves to shield the main living space and deck around the corner. We hope these study sheets prove useful to you and the Newport Beach planning staff in understanding,or even relieving concerns regarding the comparison of our proposed house vs. the existing house at this beautiful site. Please feel free to contact us with any questions. Thank you, Richard Krantz,AIA. TA �w Dawson Residence S all w 2741 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar,CA 92627 NOTES ^==^- a --"="T"` VICINITY MAP PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT DATA ' t CONSULTANTS am 1 �a mss. REVISION LOG W T 228 �..s 'Li i$ u�`� v'iE ., '`7i'A°•v�5 .,+tee -�f'q �` � p 'M,b__ �„� `1 _ - � s�+... V”`y vi:ghe � � �kTia1 �"5�-4,ter _•a �9�� a., —n Si;• z - �`y't> ,v✓ 4110 ^�I- �I r „al 4F' �, _ �� ` an Y �Fse� tl�� � — L .tIE Itis r w n. � „n�orO k h i �r �anicl Ir r oil, + I .. wo I 6 � �1. I �f a 7X 71::F G d r n-' fl�),I®0 ilwi l ice, It lit 8 'V�� �tn, OA j dmf lel � 1{,i:�yi�`� +�t• � ' ,: n a Proposed Residence TA Exiedea home m he=and IT A mA - Bird's Eye Merged Models Way Lace Original Photograph Eek*gham benmoved • I Pill go � - ullpll 1311 ,r11QP' ,.•. • - ,.nmmee Way Lane Merged Models ZZ 00'� ail u a fn �111�. B R Way Lane Proposed Residence ewe.em 1' 2 0.101aa hn bhe moved 0 -mal— a f Edooihooeemheaenovol S Par Left Ocean Blvd.Both Houses Massing Ratio Study Both Houses NeasOpmSaa+_ impow view erVly NdObohV limmse NMI Far Left Ocem Blvd.Proposed Massing Ratio Shady Proposed An J �U 2 sl1��i 'R r .�_ _ On f T.3 232 Ocean Blvd.Original Photograph(Right) Occan Blvd.Original Photograph(Left) -rOcem Ooean Blvd.Both HousesMerged Occan Blvd.Proposed Ocean'Blvd.Proposed Residence T 4 T / �m � (trlu-d pmq,.ed 6oum) i Neighbor Side Window View ` ,fit , �1 3918 Proposed Neighbor Deck View Neighbor Deck Photograph W�N i. _ �rlr Hsieveg6weero 6emmN From Public Stairway ` ArUr[ WAV Neighbor View Study T.5 2.33 ATTACHMENT B 1993523.1 231f A Dawson Residence ;� •_,.. .. :-"—C[ � – ,,� �C �.. _ rte I •k 2741 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar, CA 92627 ��s ATTACHMENT C 1993523.1 F 111M111 � _ _ p n.h h• ��>� -� '. 1 ,�_. .. - K � � � � n „ „ r �� .,,, � i G . TMie �, � . ' �L T^ �-__ , . `�_ -¢'4..�J�. - 1 '� ••�� .� '�q,�;�1k•. .��fir'. r� j��,.,y, ,: d.Z. , �,� �.� � � . ,'1�. 'i � r� �� �s1 , , �d ,,. y ,, ��.� i"r �, � '� ,, ,�,� r� � i, � �, , N - _ -r } a:` ��� �i �- .,� 4� J _ �, � -+ -- ��' _ _ s� .• �.R,� . :3.- -! ',�,,�, ` al r - - -�� ��.:�� ATTACHMENT D 1993523.1 240 • n !/r t � • � ' Vii+: l �� r,.. ATTACHMENT E 1993523.1 J/ �J Richard Krantz Architecture, Inc. 1500 (wail Street,Suite 520 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949)752,6345 (949)752-6235 fax January 10, 2017 Planning Division CommunityDevelopment Department City of Newpnr Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newpon Beach, CA 92660 Re: 2741 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar,CA Variance Requests: • Over 24' Height Limit • Garage Encroachment(with pool above) • 15%Third Floor Limitation This project consists of a single family residence in China Cove with a steep sloping lot which spans from Ocean Blvd. on the east side, down to Way Lane on the west side. No variances are being requested for this project which are not enjoyed by the surrounding residences with similar lots in China Cove, including the existing house on our client's lot. Given the hardships of building on these steep sloping lots,we are requesting the same allowance that the neighboring lots have been allowed for the lowest level to be able to extend beyond the setback line to minimize required grading by approximately 150 cubic yards. Also, due to the steepness of the site, and in line with our neighbors,we are requesting a variance for the 24' flat/ 29' sloping roof height limits, as well as the 1.5% third floor limitation. Please note that we are not exceeding 6'-0"above natural grade for walls located in the setbacks, and we are not exceeding the height of the curb at Ocean Blvd, (with the exception of chimneys which by code must rise above any adjacent ridge). The following comments made by the Planning Commission on findings for variance VA2014.005 at neighboring Ocean Boulevard bluff side property 2723 Ocean Blvd. three houses down, reflect almost identical circumstances for this project and our reasons for requesting the variances listed above: Findings 1. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (e.g., location,shape, size, surroundings,topography, or other physical features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification[ Planning Commission comments from VA2014AW5i The buildable area of the la is constrained by the steep sloping topography of the site.The development on the site is also constrained by the Ocean Boulevard curb height bimit, which further limits the location and height of structures on site. The location of the proposed garage within the rear 243 setback would reduce excavation of the coastal bluff that would be required to construct the garage behind the l0�oct rear setback line. 2. Stria compliance with Toning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification; Planning Commission comments from VA2014-CVS: The exception to the height limit and setback encroachments are necessary to allow a house to be built close to the maximum floor area limit of 1.5 times the buildable area of the lot. The site constraint create challenges to designing a house of comparable size to other properties in the area without encroaching into setbacks and exceeding the height limit. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights, as the proposed addition is of comparable si ze and height to other building on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard. Due to topographical constraints located on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard, several other properties have access from Way Lane and hate garages which enctnach into the rear setbacks, and the proposed encroachment into the rear setback is consistent with the setbacks maintained by structures on adjacent properties. Alley access is typical in Corona del May and most properties in the area hate a 5 foot roar alley setback requirement, depending on the alley width. Way Lane essentially functions as an alley for the subject property,and if it were an alley, the Zoning Code would allow for no rear setback because Way Lane is 20 feet wide. 3. Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant; Harming Commimioncomments from VA2014-W5r The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights, as the proposed project allows for development on the constrained site. The variance allows the property owner to construct a dwelling that meets their needs, is close to the maximum floor area limit for the site, and provides the code-required parking 4. Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district; Planning ammission comments from VA2014-W5r The variance does not constitute a grant of a special privilege as it allows the property owner to develop a residence that is comparable to and compatible with other las in the vicinity that are identically zoned. The proposed encroachments into the required setbacks and proposed height limit exception do not result in a special privilege as the variance allows the property owner to construct a duelling that meets their needs while limiting setback encroachments and alteration of the coastal bluff. The proposed addition is of comparable height and maintains similar setbacks as compared to other buildings on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard. 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 244 Planning Gommik on comment.v front VA2014."s The proposed encroachment will not affect the flow of lighter air to adjoining residential properties as adequate separation is provided and m additional above grade encroachments are proposed into the side setbacks. Way lane fiotations similar to an alley and is 20 feet in width, providing sufficient turning area for vehicles to utilize the proposed garage and for other vehicles to pass. The over height portion of the addition would not project any Anther towards the rear of the lot than the existing structure; therefore, the addition would not fiother impede views through the lot front abutting properties. The granting of the variance will not adversely impact public tdews from Oran Bouhxard because the proposed addition is below the top of curb height restriction 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. Planning Commission comments from VA2014-CM The Zoning Code provides the flexibility in application of lard use and development regulations through the variance review process. The variance procedure is intended to resolve practical physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the city and on this property. Are to the topography of the lot, location and design of'the top of garb height limit, height and design of buildings on neighboring properties, lack of negative impact to public and private views, and limited area that is feasible to develop on, the height limit exception and setback encroachments can be approval by the Plontning Commission through the variance request. The variance maintains appropriate setbacks for the property consistent with the existing development pattern along Way Lane. The subject property is not located within a specific plan arca. We would like to note that the new roof ridge heights at this project will be both lower than the existing roof height ac well as sloping even lower with the roof pitch as opposed to the flat roofs which span the entire top of the existing house). In addition, to the findings above that provide strong support for the requested variances, this project will provide benefits 1) improve public and private views and 2) beautification of the area. I am available to answer any questions you may have concerning this project by phone (949.752.6345), or e-mail(rkrantzCo)richardkrantz.ccnn). Thank you, Richard Krantz Architect 2-4.r� ATTACHMENT F 1993523.1 / �"T _ JUT 10,2016 Dean Cxma Cope/Ocean 3171)1101mmoR, We manten to Fo1Low up vrtx YOU Beaano= ova xome PRoJect at Z741 Ocean. We aRe nannma a nelMORxoOD meetING at OUR xome on JMY Zr at 4:30 Fm. We VOW Lute to INplte YOU to JOIN US anD DISCUSS OUR BmLDmG PROJect. We 11110 peRY INteROSteD to Get YOUR Feenaacx UD DISCUSS xom me can maze tins PRoject as SmoO1x as POSSIBLe FOR au OUR neIGRBolls. We xave asm on aRCRltect RlcxanD Me= m OUR BmDm Mm Reeves to join me Discussion no Be PRePaReD t0 usmeR any 2llestlons YOU may me. We xave PRePane more Detam PIctURes to xeLP plsuume OUR new xome m Mellon 10 OUR eBIStmG PROPexty anD OFFER mORe BaCRGROM On txe Yamance Repalest me xave suamltteD to txe civ PLalnleRS. IF MS Date Does 1101 mORB FOR YOU We MOULD Be xaM 90 meet VItx YOU at a time txat Is convenient xOmepeR Ile txOUGxt R WOULD 30 xeLPFUL t0 BRING as ma11Y OF OUR 11eIMORS Met= M One XMIRG SO MIIY011e COULD BeneM PROM xeanmG eacx mex's palenions. Swum, he Damsons r C11aIG& Ragalel, Damson Z741 Ocean BLVD CoRona Du Man, CR 92625 Rapacea.Damson@cmcaGosootx.enu (949) 723-3421 Home 24� ATTACHMENT G 1993523.1 �"T g PALMIERI TYLER A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W ANGELO J.PALMIERI (1920.1096) ROBERT F WALDRON (1927-1906) MICHAELJ GREENE` ELISE M.KERN P.O.Box 19 , DENNIS W.CHAN' MELISA R,PERPERUIrvine,GA 922662 23-9712 DAVID PARR' MICHAEL KEHOE CHARLES H KANTER- CHADWICK C.BUNCH December 3, 2016 PATRICK A HENNESSEY ANISH J.BANKER Norman J.Rotlich CON FISHER RYAN M.PRAGER WARREN A WILLIAMS ERIN BALSARA NAOERI Direct DISI (949)851-7235 JOHN R.LISTER ERICA M.SOROSKY Direct Fax (949)625-5415 MICHAEL LEIFER JERAO BELTZ nrodichQptwww.com RICHARD A. SALUS JOSHUA J.MARX NORMAN J.ROGICH ERIN K,OYAMA RONALD M.COLE KATHERINE M.SHAW MICHAEL L D'ANGELO BRIAN GLICKLIN Refer To File No.38617.900 STEPHEN A SCHECK CAROLYN H.CLARK Document I.D.1963078.1 DONNA L.SHOW M OMAR HASHIM RYAN M EASTER NAZANIN TEMOURIAN ALAN H.WIENER',OF COUNSEL ROBERT 0,IHRKE,OF COUNSEL GREGORY N WEILER.OF COUNSEL MICHAEL C.OHO,OF COUNSEL JAMES E WILHELM.RETIRED DENNIS D TYLER',RETIRED • ♦PROPl9elOx>L CORPOP4TION VIA E-MAIL& U.S. MAIL Mr, James Campbell Principal Planner City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Dawson Residence 7741 Ocean Boulevard Dear Mr- Campbell: Thank you for forwarding a copy of the correspondence you received yesterday from the Hamiltons' attorney, Lawrence Nokes. I appreciate it as we were unaware that Mr.Nokes had sent the letter. As Mr.Nokes provided you with copies of his November 18 and 23 correspondence, I am surprised that he did not mention or include a copy of my December 1 response, a copy of which is enclosed. Mr.Nokes has not responded to that letter. Instead,he chose to write privately to you, and his letter creates an impression that is directly contrary to the actual facts. Mr. Nokes asserts that"Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton have attempted on several occasions to engage the Dawsons in productive discussions but,by their complete unresponsiveness to the Hamiltons, the Dawsons have seemingly refused to engage in a neighborly way." I am unsure how Mr. Nokes could make such an assertion as it is from my perspective exactly opposite to what has actually transpired. As noted in my December 1 letter, Mr. Nokes and I have spoken multiple times about a possible compromise that would involve pulling back the nook to some degree. Mr.Nokes and the Dawsons' consultant, Steve Kawaratani, have also had numerous conversations. 1900 Main Street,Suite 700.Irvine,CA 92614-7328 1 T 949.851.9400 1 F 949.851.1554 1 ptwww.com T9 PALMIERI TYLER Mr. James Campbell December 3, 2016 Page 2 We asked Mr.Nokes to provide us with a drawing showing a proposed outer limit of the nook that would be acceptable to the Hamiltons. He agreed and, per his request,we provided him with a plan view of the nook and the Hamiltons' deck that he could use to prepare the drawing. Weeks passed and we did not receive the drawing. Mr. Kawaratani followed up with Mr.Nokes telephonically and in writing and I also followed up with him in a voice message expressing my concern about the long,unexplained delay. I noted that the Hamiltons seemed to be raising new issues and moving backward,not forward,which was creating a perception on our side that the Hamiltons are not interested in reaching a negotiated resolution. When we finally received Mr. Nokes' drawing on November 23 (the day before Thanksgiving), it was not based on the plan that we provided to him per his request. Nor did it propose to pull the nook back to some degree in accordance with our prior discussions. To the contrary, it proposed a total redesign of the Dawson residence that not only eliminates the nook in its entirety but pulls the entire house well back from the limits of the existing structure. That is not what we discussed and not a compromise. No one could reasonably expect the Dawsons or anyone else to tear down an existing home and replace it with a much smaller and less functional one. With respect to Mr.Nokes' comments on massing and scale,my clients' project is not seeking any variance that is not enjoyed by an overwhelming majority of properties on the bluff in China Cove. The design team has provided significant evidence of reduction of mass and scale relative to the current home,especially the height reduction to curb height that no other property on the China Cove bluff complies with. Before purchasing the property,the Dawsons met with city staff to determine what could be built on the site. During the design process,the design team met many times with city staff and incorporated staff s recommendations. The Dawsons' architect, Richard Krantz, designed the Dawson residence to avoid blocking the fenestration on the side of the Hamilton residence and also to include separation between the decks and main living areas of both properties to provide privacy where there is absolutely no privacy now. That separation is provided by the nook. Moreover,the Dawsons took the extraordinary step of inviting all of the neighbors, including the Hamiltons,to a meeting at their home so that the neighbors could meet the Dawsons and their design team and discuss any questions or concerns they may have had regarding the project. The Hamiltons attended the meeting with their friend, former Newport Beach City Attorney Bob Burnham, who asked many questions about the project. 1963078.1 PALMIERI TYLER Mr. James Campbell December 3,2016 Page 3 The Dawsons also attempted to set up a private meeting with the Hamiltons before the Dawsons moved to London but the Hamiltons never responded with a date despite the Dawsons' multiple requests. In addition to the neighbor meeting and the Dawsons' attempts to meet privately with the Hamiltons before the Dawsons left for London, Mr. Dawson,Mr. Krantz and I met with Mr. Nokes and the Hamiltons at the Hamilton residence on September 13 while Mr.Dawson was back in town on business. Mr. Hamilton raised a number of construction and insurance-related issues as well as view and privacy concerns. Subject to and as part of a proposed agreement to resolve all outstanding issues,Mr.Dawson agreed in principle to all of Mr.Hamilton's construction and insurance-related demands. Mr.Hamilton then requested that the Dawsons erect story poles so that Mr. Hamilton could visualize the dimensions of the nook. Mr.Hamilton also expressed a privacy concern regarding the two side windows in the nook. As an accommodation to the Hamiltons,the Dawsons agreed to install story poles although they were under no obligation to do so. Mr.Nokes and I agreed in advance that the poles would be erected for his clients to view on September 28 and then taken down that afternoon. Mr. Nokes had no problem with this proposed schedule. The Dawsons also offered to make the side windows opaque and to replace the proposed functioning balcony on the nook with a narrow,decorative pot shelf to address Mr. Hamilton's privacy concerns. Mr.Nokes,Mr.Hamilton and I thereafter met again at the Hamilton residence on September 28 to view the story poles along with Richard Krantz's associate,Aaron Easton. In addition, Steve Kawaratani and I met with Mr.Nokes and Mr.Hamilton a third time at the Hamilton residence on November 2,2016. At the September 28 meeting,for the first time,Mr.Hamilton stated that he is less concerned about separation of the decks and main living areas afforded by the nook and more concerned about the proximity of the nook to his deck. Specifically,he expressed a concern that the harbor-facing window on the nook could allow someone standing inside the nook directly next to the window and looking sideways toward the Hamilton residence to see the Hamiltons' deck and barbecue area. As you and Director Brandt have seen from your own site visits,there is no privacy whatsoever between the two properties now. To the contrary, anyone standing in any of the Dawsons' main living areas or on one of their decks can see directly into the Hamilton residence and onto their deck, including the Hamiltons' barbecue area(see enclosed photo)and,from the Dawsons' master bedroom deck,into the Hamiltons'master bedroom side window. This utter vacuum of privacy results from the fact that the Hamiltons chose to project their home and deck out to the absolute maximum possible extent to improve their view. This exposed the entire side of the Hamilton residence and deck to view intrusion from the previously existing Dawson residence,thus resulting in the present situation(zero privacy). This was the Hamiltons' choice. They chose view over privacy. Now,the Hamiltons vehemently object on privacy grounds to the 1963078.1 251 PALMIERI TYLER Mr. James Campbell December 3,2016 Page 4 fact that one portion of the proposed Dawson residence is moved forward a fraction of the distance that the Hamiltons cantilevered their own home and deck forward. That said,the Dawsons wanted to work with the Hamiltons and were willing to consider moving the nook back to some extent to address the Hamiltons' proximity concern. That is why, weeks ago,we asked Mr.Nokes for a proposal from his clients. After all of the weeks of waiting,to discover that the Hamiltons' "proposal"is a complete redesign of the Dawson residence that eliminates the nook entirely and moves the Dawsons' house back farther than the current structure was extremely demoralizing and upsetting to my clients and reinforced their perception that the Hamiltons are not in fact interested in a good-faith compromise. The fact that the Hamiltons chose not to respond to my December 1 letter and instead to have Mr.Nokes send you a private letter asserting that the Dawsons have been"unresponsive"and"refused to engage"with the Hamiltons when that plainly is not the case only confirms that perception. As I advised Mr.Nokes in my attached letter,the Dawsons remain open to further discussions if the Hamiltons are in fact interested in a fair compromise and good-faith negotiated resolution. Thank you again for sending me a copy of Mr.Nokes' correspondence. As always, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions or require any additional information. Very truly yours, Norman J. Rodich NJR Enclosures cc: Ms. Kimberly Brandt Ms. Makana Nova Lawrence Nokes,Esq. Mr. Steve Kawaratani 1963078.1 252 PALMIERI TYLER Mr.James Campbell December 3,2016 Page 6 ENCLOSUREI LETTER FROM NORMAN J.RODICH TO LAWRENCE P.NOKES DATED DECEMBER 1,2016) 1963078.1 2�3 PALMIERI TYLER A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W ANOELO J.PALMIERI(1420-1994) ROBERT F WALDRON(1931.1998) 712 MICHAEL J.ORMENE' SUES M.KERN PA.BC 2523-8712 DENNIS W.OMAN' MELIBA R,PERE2 YNne,CA 02523-9712 9262 DAVID D.PARR' MICHAEL I MEMOS CHARLe9 M.KANTER' CHADWIOM C MUNCH December 1,2016 PATRICK A.HENNESSEY AMISH J.BANKER Norman J.Rodich DON FISHER RYAN M PRAOER WARREN A.WILLIAMS ERIN BALSARA NAOSRI Meet WEI (049)691.7236 JOHN R LISTER ERICA M.SOROSKY DheCI F6M (949)825.6415 MICHAEL LEIFER JERAD MELTS wdich®pMWW.com RICHARD A SALLE JOSHUA MARK NORMAN J.RODIDH ERIN M.OYAMA RONALD M.COLO KATHERINE M.SHAW MICHAEL L WAMBELD BRIAN OLICKLIN Refer To File NO,38817.000 STEPHEN A BCH90K OMAR MAGNIN DOCurtenI I.C.1061724.1 COMMA L SNOW MAZANI N TEMOURIAN RYAN M MATTER ALAN H WIENER',OF COUNSEL ROBERT O IHRKE,of COUNSEL OR99CRY N.WELLER,OF COUNSEL MICHAEL C.CHO.OF COUNSEL 1AMf6 E.WILMELIA•RETIRED 09NMIO B TYLER',RETIRED v F99n9nexw cavMon.u9n VIA E-MAIL&U.S.MAIL Laurence P.Nokes NOKES&QUINN A Professional Corporation 410 Broadway, Suite 200 Laguna Beach,CA 92651 Re: Dawson Residence 2741 Ocean Blvd, Corona del Mar, CA Dear Larry: I was disappointed to say the least to read your November 18 letter. Nevertheless, I still held some small hope that we might yet reach what I understood to be our mutual goal of a negotiated resolution on the nook issue. That hope was all but dashed upon receipt of your November 23 letter and enclosure. The Dawsons are beyond disappointed as your"proposal"only reinforces their perception that your clients are not interested in a good-faith compromise. Your November 18 letter is premised entirely on the assertion that you were waiting for us to provide a proposal on the nook,which is not the case. You and I have spoken multiple times about a possible compromise that would involve pulling back the nook to some degree. You and Steve Kawaratani have also had numerous conversations. We asked you to provide us with a drawing showing a proposed outer limit of the nook that would be acceptable to your clients. You agreed and, per your request, we provided you with a windowed-in plan view of the nook and your clients'deck that you could use to prepare the drawing. Weeks passed and we did not receive the drawing. Steve followed up with you telephonically and in writing and I also followed up with a voice message expressing my concem 1900 Main Street,Suite 700,1"ina CA92614-7326 I T 949,851,9400 1 F 949.851.15541 Ft"W.CUr11 254 PALMIERI TYLER Laurence P.Nokes December 1,2016 Page 2 about the delay. I noted that the Hamiltons seemed to be raising new issues and moving backward,not forward,which was creating a perception on our side that the Hamiltons are not interested in reaching a negotiated resolution. We were not asking for an elaborate drawing just a line on the plan that we provided to you for that purpose. There is no reason that it should have taken you weeks to do that and there is certainly no basis for you to complain about my clients allegedly dragging their feet when we were waiting to hear from you. Now that we have finally received your long-awaited drawing,we see that it is not based on the plan that we provided to you per your request. Nor does it propose to pull the nook back to some degree. To the contrary,it is a total redesign of the Dawson residence that nor only eliminates the nook in its entirety but pulls the entire building well back from the limits of the existing structure. That is not what we discussed and not a compromise. No one could reasonably expect the Dawsons or anyone else to tear down an existing home and replace it with a much smaller and less functional one. Your proposal is not reasonable and your message is clear: your clients are not interested in compromise. With respect to your comments on massing and scale,my clients'project is not seeking any variance that is not enjoyed by an overwhelming majority of properties on the bluff in China Cove. The design team has provided significant evidence of reduction of mass and scale relative to the current home,especially the height reduction to curb height that no other property on the China Cove Bluff complies with. Your comments do not provide a basis for compromise and are not consistent with the facts. Your assertion that the Dawsons have made no effort to reach out to your clients and have ignored their concerns is likewise incorrect. Before purchasing the property,the Dawsons met with city staff to determine what could be built on the site. During the design process,the design team met many times with city staff and incorporated staffs recommendations. The Dawsons'architect,Richard Krantz,designed the Dawson residence to avoid blocking the fenestration on the side of your clients'property and also to include separation between the decks and main living areas of both properties to provide privacy where there is absolutely no privacy now. That separation is provided by the nook. Moreover,as you know,the Dawsons took the extraordinary step of inviting all of the neighbors,including your clients,to a meeting at their home so that the neighbors could meet the ! Dawsons and their design team and discuss any questions or concerns they may have had regarding the project. Your clients attended the meeting with a friend,former Newport Beach City Attorney Bob Burnham,who asked many questions about the project. i I � 1961724.1 ! 255 PALMIERI TYLER Laurence P.Nokes December 1,2016 Page 3 As you may not know,the Dawsons also attempted to set up a private meeting with your clients before the Dawsons moved to London but your clients never responded with a date despite the Dawsons'multiple requests. In addition to the neighbor meeting and the Dawsons'attempts to meet privately with the Hamiltons before the Dawsons left for London,Mr. Dawson,Mr,Krantz and I met with you and the Hamiltons at the Hamilton residence on September 13 while Mr. Dawson was back in town on business. Mr.Hamilton raised a number of construction and insurance-related issues as well as view and privacy concerns. Subject to and as part of a proposed agreement to resolve all outstanding issues,Mr. Dawson agreed in principle to all of Mr, Hamilton's construction and insurance-related demands. Mr.Hamilton then requested that the Dawsons erect story poles so that Mr, Hamilton could visualize the dimensions of the nook. Mr.Hamilton also expressed a privacy concern regarding the two side windows in the nook. As an accommodation to the Hamiltons,the Dawsons agreed to install story poles although they were under no obligation to do so. You and I agreed in advance that the poles would be erected for your clients to view on September 28 and then taken down the same afternoon. You had no problem with this proposed schedule. The Dawsons also offered to make the side windows opaque and to replace the proposed functioning balcony on the nook with a narrow,decorative pot shelf to address Mr, Hamilton's privacy concerns. You,Mr.Hamilton and I thereafter met again at the Hamilton residence on September 28 to view the story poles along with Richard Krantz's associate,Aaron Easton. In addition,Steve Kawaratani and I met with you and Mr.Hamilton a third time at the Hamilton residence on November 2,2016. At the September 28 meeting,for the first time,Mr.Hamilton stated that he is less concerned about separation of the decks and main living areas afforded by the nook and more concerned about the proximity of the nook to his deck. Specifically,he expressed a concern that the harbor-facing window on the nook could allow someone standing inside the nook directly next to the window and looking sideways toward the Hamilton residence to see the Hamiltons' deck and barbecue area. As you know,there is no privacy whatsoever between the two properties now. To the contrary, anyone standing in any of the Dawsons' main living areas or on one of their decks can see directly into the Hamilton residence and onto their deck,including the Hamiltons'barbecue area and,from the Dawson's master bedroom deck,into the Hamiltons'master bedroom side window. See photo enclosed. This utter vacuum of privacy results from the fact that the Hamiltons chose to proj ect their home and deck out to the absolute maximum possible extent to improve their view. This 1961724,1 250 PALMIERI TYLER Laurence P.Nokes December 1,2016 Page 4 exposed the entire side of the Hamilton residence and deck to view intrusion from the previously existing Dawson residence,thus resulting in the present situation(zero privacy). This was the Hamiltons'choice. They chose view over privacy. Now, the Hamiltons vehemently object on privacy grounds to the fact that one portion of the proposed Dawson residence is moved forward a fraction of the distance that the Hamiltons cantilevered their own home and deck forward. That said,as we have discussed,the Dawsons wanted to work with the Hamiltons and were willing to consider moving the nook back to some extent to address the Hamiltons' proximity concern. That is why,weeks ago,we asked you for a proposal from your clients. After all of the weeks of waiting,to discover that your clients' "proposal" is a complete redesign of the Dawson residence that eliminates the nook entirely and moves the Dawsons' house back farther than the current structure is extremely demoralizing and upsetting to my clients and reinforces their perception that the Hamiltons are not in fact interested in a good-faith compromise. Perceptions matter. There is a huge gulf of mistrust between our respective clients, which is very sad as they will be neighbors for a very long time. My clients'goal has been to build a bridge over that gulf that will form the basis of a good-faith compromise and amicable resolution that both of our clients can live with. The Dawsons remain open as always to further discussions if the Hamiltons are in fact interested in a good-faith negotiated resolution. Very trulyyou s, Norman J. Rodich NJR:Iar Enclosure cc: Craig and Raquel Dawson Steve Kawaratani 1961724.1 25:51- •r �� y ,^ ,� .,, : : ■- 1 �� .,.. -+�� a.o �5g PALMIERI TYLER Mr. James Campbell December 3,2016 Page 7 ENCLOSURE 2 (VIEW OF HAMILTON RESIDENCE AND DECK FROM DAWSON RESIDENCE) 1963078.1 _ . 5T � � 1 w ATTACHMENT H 1993523.1 ��2 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Raquel Dawson <12aguel.Dawson tr chicaeobooth.edu> Date: Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 11:46 PM Subject: Re: We'd like to talk to you To: Brian Mulvaney <bamulvaney a,me.com> Ce: Craig Dawson<craig.dawson@pimco.com>, Kay Mulvaney<kaymulvaney7@gmail.eom>, mod ich@ptww.coin, James Campbell <jcampbell(ct�,newportbeachca.eov>, bwisneski ci,newportbeachea.gov, bzdebaa;newhortbeachca.ttov, rkrantz a.richardluantz.com, acastod cr;richardkrantz.com Dear Brian and Kay, We appreciate your comments and agree with you that this project will truly be a substantial improvement to our current home and will significantly benefit the neighborhood. We appreciate that you are willing to work with us and help us resolve general issues you point out with the other neighbors.We understand that emails can be confusing and can be misunderstood. This is why we want to talk to you on the phone to make our points clear. That said,we would like to provide you some additional information in the interest of time which may help respond to your concerns and help you voice support for our project. The issues you mention have been brought up at the neighbor meeting we hosted and with neighbors directly. We have been consistent with expressing our desire to make this project run as smoothly as possible. DRILLING We assure you that we are following every city and state code for this project. Our project team,including the engineers have met with the city engineers many times over the past year and a half to ensure codes and best practices are followed. In addition,we will be employing technology including vibration monitoring which has been used for example on the current Aerie Project over on Carnation's bluff. SCOPE AND SCALE We appreciate our neighbors'concern with respect to this issue. That said,it is worth reiterating,there are many large houses on the bluff including for example the Hamiltons which we understand has been listed for sale at over 8,000 sq feet on a lot substantially smaller than ours. As we discussed in the neighbor meeting in July,with individual neighbors,and the city,the proposed new home will look less massive and softer than the existing house and will be less tall. With respect to decks and privacy,our current home has decks at every level except for the ground level. We believe this project will increase privacy relative to our current home for the neighbors in China Cove. The home is going from 4 levels of decks to 3 levels which will reduce the impact of privacy issues. We have heard from some neighbors concerns about children making noise in a pool. We understand how this can be a concern. In the neighbor meeting and with individual neighbors, we have explained that our children are older and will be even older by the time this property is built. Moreover,as residents of China Cove we all know, we can hear children and adults at all the surrounding beaches all year especially in the summer; and while it can often be loud,this is the atmosphere that is common in a beach community. We do not believe the pool creates any more noise or issues than people sitting out on a deck talking,singing, laughing or watching television and enjoying outdoor life in Corona Del Mar. We also think it is important that we are all respectful of our neighbors. We all live very close to each other in China Cove with many rooftop decks, open terraces including neighbors with outdoor televisions. Again, we believe everyone's respect for each other is what allows us to all be able to enjoy our outdoor living. 1 PEST CONTROL We will be proactively addressing all pests on our property and look forward to the opportunity to work with other neighbors and the city to improve conditions on public property. PARKING AND STAGING We share your concerns about access on Way Lane and Shell Street. Many times we have had our garage access blocked and share concerns about access for emergency vehicles. It is not unusual to see cars parked illegally on Way Lane and Shell Street even though city"no parking"signs are posted or to see cars double parked because someone does not want to park up on Ocean and walk down to China Cove. For example,right in front of the Udvare's home there is a"no parking"sign. When cars park in that corner,they impact the ability of drivers to turn onto or out of Shell Street. Illegal parking on Way Lane often impacted our ability to get in and out of our garage. The trash collection driver often was challenged in navigating the trash truck because people park illegally on Way Lane and Shell Street. We want to make it clear that we will not have anyone related to our project park ILLEGALLY anywhere including China Cove. We have said this clearly at the neighbor meeting in July and to neighbors individually. There is nothing contingent and there never has been anything contingent on us following the legal parking rules and making sure that this project does not create a problem with respect to vehicle access. With regard to staging and workers,again we have indicated that we will work with our project manager to limit any impact from staging. Craig has even directly told Mr. Hamilton that we understand their concerns about parking and we are prepared to address this. We understand how important this issue is and have personally been impacted by it when we lived at Ocean. We will do our best to make this a much better experience than in the past. We will have a manager on site as you suggest. If there is ever an issue,you will have someone you can talk to directly on the spot but you should also address the issue to us. We will make sure that it is resolved promptly. You will find that our contractor is very approachable. We expect everyone who works on our construction project to be respectful of our neighbors,the public, and to follow rules. We agree with your statement on how construction issues can be minimized with good communication. We strongly believe this and this is why we reached out to neighbors multiple times and held a neighbor meeting at our home before we left for London. We have ALWAYS been open to sharing our plans and discussing them as well as addressing neighbor questions and concerns. Our Ocean house will be our family home for generations. We understand there was a meeting with some neighbors at the Hamilton's home on Wednesday,October 19th. We think it will be helpful to speak on the phone as soon as possible while these issues are still fresh in people's minds. We would like to do the call this week. We can make ourselves available any day at anytime time. Sincerely, Craig and Raquel On Oct 22, 2016, at 9:31 PM, Brian Mulvaney <hgmulvaney�me.cotn> wrote: Hi Raquel and Craig, Thanks for your note and making the effort to reach out. I know London well and certainly appreciate the challenge you must be facing to get settled. While certainly one of the world's exciting cities, the growth in recent years has created a new level of complexity. Best wishes as you navigate your way! I appreciate your comments regarding the variances which is very helpful to understanding the issues and what you are trying to accomplish. You should know that we are strong believers in property rights and supportive of your desire to build a home that will no doubt be a substantial improvement over the existing structure. As Kay and I have engaged in conversations with neighbors, I think it is safe to say the concerns fall into a few general areas which I am happy to share in the hope you,the neighbors and the City are willing to work together to resolve them. z 203 Drilling I appreciate that you will have a strong team working on this project. However, it is understandable that neighbors are very concerned about how this could potentially impact us and our homes as it is a sensitive, complex process. I would encourage you and the team you have selected to provide as much information as possible and provide assurances to the neighbors regarding the process. Scope and Scale While the size of your proposed residence dwarfs anything else in China Cove, I do now understand that the sq ft complies with code and is not significantly altered by the requested variances. However, certain elements of the design such as deck areas and particularly the pool, are of significant concern to several neighbors from a privacy and noise standpoint. I would encourage you to proactively address these issues with neighbors and attempt to understand their concerns on a case by case basis. Pest Control I appreciate your willingness to address the issue proactively as it relates to your property and glad to hear that you have a plan for that. Totally agree that we should all work together to encourage the City to clean up an area that has become a public nuisance. Hopefully those who are cc'd on this will take note and get the ball rolling. Parking and Staging It is important to clear up a misconception that you have. The general public does not park on Shell Street nor have they at any time since we have owned our home which dates to 2001. The cars belong to residents who are parking in front of their homes. The request being made of you regarding parking and staging of equipment is quite simple but emotional for the neighbors due to the last five years of activity. In one instance,the MacDonald's arranged for offsite parking and shuttled workers in and it worked beautifully with minimum disruption. In another instance the owner and his construction manager did not supervise parking and vehicles were often double and sometimes triple parked and accesses frequently difficult for residents. Personally, on one occasion I asked for a vehicle blocking the street to be moved and the worker became belligerent and threatening. Later, when I went to leave my home I noticed nails had been placed under my tires. On three separate occasions, emergency vehicles were delayed due to construction and worker vehicles.None of us intend to relive that. My point is that the issue is one of access. We simply want to insure that we are able to come and go from our residences and that Way Lane is not blocked with construction equipment and workers parking cars on Way Lane or Shell Street. My suggestion is that you arrange for parking and shuttle people in as the MacDonald's did and also insure that there is someone present to supervise the staging of any equipment. If you communicated to neighbors that this was your plan it would alleviate a key point of concern. Being very candid, I would encourage you to abandon the position that you addressing the construction parking issue is contingent upon Shell Street residents being restricted from parking in front of their own homes.Nothing positive will result from that tactic. Craig and Raquel, we are genuinely excited for you and welcome you to China Cove. It is our hope that these issues will be addressed in a way that everyone can live with. As you say, construction is a nuisance and we are all keenly aware of that. However, it can be minimized if the issues are proactively managed and there are good communication channels with all involved. And if not, it can spin out of control and be miserable for everybody. Regarding a phone call, we are happy to talk anytime. I will be in Hampshire, England for a board meeting in a couple of weeks and Kay will be with me. Perhaps we can arrange a call then as we will be in the same time zone. 3 20 Best regards, Brian & Kay On Oct 21, 2016, at 4:23 PM, Raquel Dawson <Raquel.Dawson@a,ChicagoBooth.edu> wrote: Begin forwarded message: From: Raquel Dawson <Raguel.Dawson(a)ChicagoBooth.edu> Subject: We'd like to talk to you Date: October 21, 2016 at 11:53:24 PM GMT+1 To: Brian Mulvaney <bamulvaney(cDatt.net> Cc: Craig Dawson <Craig.Dawson(cDpimco.com>, Norman Rodich <nrodich(c)ptwww.com>, "Campbell, James" <JCampbell(a)newportbeachca.gov>, bwisneski(a_newportbeachca.gov, bzdeba(a)newportbeachca.gov, Richard Krantz <rkrantzna,richardkrantz.com>, Aaron Easton <aeaston(c)_richardkrantz.com> Hello Brian and Kay, It has come to our attention that the concerns and questions you had in a letter you sent to us, have not been addressed. We apologize. We thought someone had addressed it. As you may know, we moved to London a few months ago and we have been dealing with settling in- unpacking boxes, buying household items, establishing the kids at their new school, and dealing with the nuisances of London such as the long wait to get broadband and a landline. Given our move to London, we reached out to neighbors to ensure that we would be able to address any questions or concerns while we were still around. We also held a neighbor meeting which unfortunately you were not able to attend. But as I (Raquel)mentioned to Kay, I would have been happy to meet with you any other time before I departed to London. We would have liked to have been able to address your questions in person. Given,where we are now, we would like to set-up a call with you to discuss any remaining questions or concerns you may have. In the letter you emailed to us, your questions and concerns were: • EXTENSIVE DRILLING - Our project will meet all city requirements for drilling and excavation. On our project team, we have one the best geotechnical engineers in the area. We will also be using vibration monitoring. • STAGING OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT - We have discussed with many neighbors, including you (Raquel with Kay),how construction is a nuisance but it is a fact of life in Corona Del Mar. As good neighbors, we want to work with you to make it 4 205 as pleasant as possible. We will make sure staging does not inappropriately impede emergency vehicles or violate any rules. e PARKING -As you well know, Shell Street acts more like a parking lot than a street. There are "No Parking" signs on this street but neighbors and the public park illegally. We will work with you and the city to enforce the no parking zones which also exists along Way Lane so that cars can come in and out easily. By enforcing the parking restriction, vehicles can easily pass each other on the road. • VARIANCE FOR SETBACK-Although you have asked this question to the city, we want you to understand our arguments. First of all, we have addressed the issues you and neighbors have brought up in detail with the city. There are important points we want to make you aware of. We are not asking for a variance due to the size of our house or the decks you mention. We are asking for a variance due to the steepness of the slope on our property. In order to get the garage out of the setback, a significant amount of more drilling and excavation would be required. Granting the variance, will reduce the environmental impact on the bluff. Less digging will take place. Additionally, all the homes on the bluff have this variance due to the need to avoid excessive excavation. The setback variance for the garage is one that has been granted to many homes in China Cove and the bluff. We are not asking for a special privilege. We are asking for a variance to have a small portion of our garage to be within the setback of our private property. The current house is very close to the property line with portions at zero setback. The new home, even with a variance, will be an improvement. Because it would be inappropriate to drive onto our property, this variance can not have an impact on vehicle access for Way Lane and Shell street. The public should not use our property (setback portion)to navigate on Way Lane. Thus having a corner portion of our garage in the setback should not be seen as impacting drivers on Way Lane. Way Lane and Shell Street would be easier to navigate if the "no parking" zones were enforced. • PEST CONTROL -The bulk of the area where pests live is on city property. The area of our property that we are building out will have pest control work. When we moved to Ocean in 2015, we asked the city to clean up the bluff and deal with the pests that live on the bluff. Initially,they cleaned up a portion of the bluff. We volunteered to pay for additional clean up. We were told the clean up would be in stages including cleaning up the palm trees. However, in the end, we were told the cost was being evaluated by city management. It would be great if neighbors pushed the city to clean up their land. We are happy to cooperate and would love to make the bluff more beautiful for everyone. • SWIMMING POOL - Our pool will meet all regulations and standards required by the city. The pool water is about 56 cubic yards. The pool would be built with a fail-safe trough drain line. In the case of an emergency, the water drains into the storm drain system. s 200 PROJECT MANAGEMENT -Yes, we are now living in London. Ocean will always be home and we look forward to returning someday. Our project will be managed by our contractor, Mike Reeves from Corbin and Reeves. Mike along with us will always be accessible to address any concerns or questions that arise. Even though we are far away, we will be accessible via email and phone. We have consistently expressed to neighbors our desire to be good neighbors and make this project as smooth as possible. Many neighbors have remarked how they appreciate our willingness to discuss our project with them. In the 14 years, we have owned a home in the Corona Del Mar village, we have never had a neighbor approach us or invite us to their home to discuss their new home or remodeling project. As you know there are negatives to construction but there are also neighborhood benefits. As you mentioned in your first email to us,this will be a beautiful home. It will beautify the bluff and increase our neighborhoods' home values. Once again, our sincere apologies for not answering your questions earlier. We would like to setup a call with you. Just let us know what works for you even if it's midnight. London is 8 hours ahead of Newport Beach. We look forward to speaking to you on the phone and addressing any remaining questions or concerns you may still have. Sincerely, Craig &Raquel London, England +44-20-3304-1383 Home +44-75-3885-3034 Raquel Mobile +44 -20-7872-1300 Craig Work 6 ATTACHMENT I 1993523.1 KAWARATANI CONSULTING LAND USE • DESIGN • PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1278 GLENNEYRE STREEF 909 LAGUNABEACH CA92651 C_949.290..0210 0: 949AE 4,5141 F. 949 613.7346 ENTAIL: STEVEKA'NARATANIGNIE.001A 2 December 2016 Mr.and Mrs. Harley Broviak 2709 Cove Street Corona del Mar, CA 92625 RE: Neighbors' meeting for the Dawson Residence Dear Mr. and Mrs. Broviak, On behalf of Craig and Raquel Dawson, I wish to extend an invitation to review the architectural plans for their residence. I understand that you may have concerns regarding their project, and I would be pleased to answer questions you may have. Please contact me and we can schedule a meeting at your convenience. Best, J�� v"' � Steve Kawaratani c. 949.290.0210 e.plantman2@mac.com KAWARATANI CONSULTING LAND USE • DESIGN . PROJECT MANAGEMENT 12;8 GLFNNEYRE STREET 169 LAGLINA BEACH CA 92651 C: 949.290.0210 0.949.994.5161 F: 919 613.7346 EMAIL'. STEVEKAWARATANI®ME.COFI 2 December 2016 Ms. Catherine Callender 2708 Shell Street Corona del Mar, CA 92625 RE: Neighbors' meeting for the Dawson Residence Dear Ms. Callender, On behalf of Craig and Raquel Dawson, I wish to extend an invitation to review the architectural plans for their residence. I understand that you may have concerns regarding their project, and I would be pleased to answer questions you may have. Please contact me and we can schedule a meeting at your convenience. Best, J�� v.," Steve Kawaratani c. 949.290.0210 e. plantman2@mac.com 270 KAWARATANI CONSULTING LAND USE • DESIGN • PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1279 GLENNEVVE STrt EET_049.LACUNA BEACH CA 9'451 C: 949."90 021C 0: 949.x94.5141 F 949.613.7346 EMAIL STEVEY.AWARATA141GMF COM 2 December 2016 Mr. Richard Debrey 2712 Shell Street Corona del Mar, CA 92625 RE: Neighbors' meeting for the Dawson Residence Dear Mr. Debrey, On behalf of Craig and Raquel Dawson, I wish to extend an invitation to review the architectural plans for their residence. I understand that you may have concerns regarding their project, and I would be pleased to answer questions you may have. Please contact me and we can schedule a meeting at your convenience. Best, jt�� �WVL - Steve Kawaratani c. 949.290.0210 e. plantman2@mac.com 271 KAWARATANI CONSULTING LAND USE • DESIGN • PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1279 GLENNEYRE STREET 149, LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 C 949 290 0210 Or 949.4V4,S141 F. 949 613 7346 EMAIL SrEVEKAWARATANIPME.COM 2 December 2016 Ms. Linda Delaney 2712 Shell Street Corona del Mar, CA 92625 RE: Neighbors' meeting for the Dawson Residence Dear Ms. Delaney, On behalf of Craig and Raquel Dawson, I wish to extend an invitation to review the architectural plans for their residence. I understand that you may have concerns regarding their project, and I would be pleased to answer questions you may have. Please contact me and we can schedule a meeting at your convenience. Best, jt�� �44IL4� Steve Kawaratani c. 949.290.0210 e.plantman2@mac.com 272 KAWARATANI CONSULTING LAND USE • DESIGN • PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1278 GLENNEYRE STREET.a49 LA6NNA BEACH CA 92651 C: 942298 0210 0: 949.494 5141 F:949.613.7346 E M A I I: 5 T E V E K A NA R ATA N I g M E..COPA 2 December 2016 Mr. and Mrs. Mike MacDonald 2733 Shell Street Corona del Mar, CA 92625 RE: Neighbors' meeting for the Dawson Residence Dear Mr. and Mrs. MacDonald, On behalf of Craig and Raquel Dawson, I wish to extend an invitation to review the architectural plans for their residence. I understand that you may have concerns regarding their project, and I would be pleased to answer questions you may have. Please contact me and we can schedule a meeting at your convenience. Best, jt;�e �d44IL4 � Steve Kawaratani c. 949.290.0210 e. plantman2@mac.com 27S KAWARATANI CONSULTING LAND USE • DESIGN • PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1279 GLENNEYRE STREET .949 LAGVNA BEACH CA 92651 C 949390 0210 O: 949.4965141 F 9i9 613.1346 ENIA11: STEVEKANARATANIOME.COM 2 December 2016 Mr, and Mrs. Brian Mulvaney 2719 Shell Street Corona del Mar, CA 92625 RE: Neighbors' meeting for the Dawson Residence Dear Mr. and Mrs. Mulvaney, On behalf of Craig and Raquel Dawson, I wish to extend an invitation to review the architectural plans for their residence. I understand that you may have concerns regarding their project, and I would be pleased to answer questions you may have. Please contact me and we can schedule a meeting at your convenience. Best, J;�� Q)L� Steve Kawaratani c. 949.290.0210 e. plantman2@mac.com .a 2j-�F KAWARATANI CONSULTING LAND USE • DESIGN • PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1^76 GLENNEYRE STREET 949 LAGVNA REACH CA 92651 C.949.2917.0210 0: 942494.5141 F. 949 613.7346 EMAIL:51 EVEKAWARATANIUME.COM 2 December 2016 Mr. and Mrs. Harold Parker 2700 Cove Street Corona del Mar, CA 92625 RE: Neighbors' meeting for the Dawson Residence Dear Mr. and Mrs. Parker, On behalf of Craig and Raquel Dawson, I wish to extend an invitation to review the architectural plans for their residence. I understand that you may have concerns regarding their project, and I would be pleased to answer questions you may have. Please contact me and we can schedule a meeting at your convenience. Best, jt�� �4VL4 _ Steve Kawaratani c. 949.290.0210 e.plantman2@mac.com 2715 KAWARATANI CONSULTING LAND USE • DESIGN • PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1279 GLENNEYRE STREET 949 LAGUNA REACH CA 92651 C. 9e9.290AC10 0: 949.4945161 F.949 613.734, EMAIL: STEVEKAWAPATANIUME COM 2 December 2016 Ms. Helga Pralle 2727 Ocean Boulevard Corona del Mar, CA 92625 RE: Neighbors' meeting for the Dawson Residence Dear Ms. Pralle, On behalf of Craig and Raquel Dawson, I wish to extend an invitation to review the architectural plans for their residence. I understand that you may have concerns regarding their project, and I would be pleased to answer questions you may have. Please contact me and we can schedule a meeting at your convenience. Best, Steve Kawaratani c. 949.290.0210 e. plantman2@mac.com 2j C KAWARATANI CONSULTING LAND USE • DESIGN • PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1276 GLENNEVRE:TREFT. 049 LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 C: 949.290.0210 0: 949.494.5141 F: 9J9.613J]46 EMAIL- STEVE Y.AWAB ATAN I®LI F.0 OM 2 December 2016 Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Thompson 2701 Shell Street Corona del Mar, CA 92625 RE: Neighbors' meeting for the Dawson Residence Dear Mr. and Mrs. Thompson, On behalf of Craig and Raquel Dawson, I wish to extend an invitation to review the architectural plans for their residence. I understand that you may have concerns regarding their project, and I would be pleased to answer questions you may have. Please contact me and we can schedule a meeting at your convenience. Best, jt�� ,aX4- = Steve Kawaratani c. 949.290.0210 e.plantman2@mac.com 27 KAWARATANI CONSULTING LAND USE • DESIGN • PROJECT MANAGEMENT 12]P GLENNETRE STREET 109,LAGUN4 BEACH CA 92651 C 949 290.0210 0:949.49..5141 F; 949,613.]306 E1.1AIL1 STEVEKAWARATANI®ME.00M 2 December 2016 Mr.Joseph Udvare 2718 Shell Street Corona del Mar, CA 92625 RE: Neighbors' meeting for the Dawson Residence Dear Mr. Udvare, On behalf of Craig and Raquel Dawson, I wish to extend an invitation to review the architectural plans for their residence. I understand that you may have concerns regarding their project, and I would be pleased to answer questions you may have. Please contact me and we can schedule a meeting at your convenience. Best, jt�� V - Steve Kawaratani c. 949.290.0210 e.plantman2@mac.com 2j 8 ATTACHMENTJ 1993523.1 Clifford L Jones 2800 Ocean Blvd, Corona Del Mar CA 92625 August 15,2016 To: Makana Nova (nova(a-Mewpo rtbeachca.gov) Subject: 3741 Ocean Blvd (CDM) I am writing this letter of support for the Dawson's new home on Ocean Blvd. I was surprised to receive an invite to attend a meeting to meet with their architect and builder for an advance viewing of their design for their new home. We have lived on Ocean Blvd. for 30 years and have never been invited by our neighbors to preview their building or re-modeling projects. In fact, in 1986 when we re-built our house I never invited our neighbors for a pre-showing. I had an occasion to speak to Mrs. Dawson and she said that one of her neighbors had written a letter to the city criticizing both the meeting and their building project. Since I was in attendance at the meeting, I feel I should write to share my thoughts on the meeting and show my support for their project. The Dawson architect and builder were well prepared and shared their designs, time schedule and other pertinent information,which had been submitted to the city. I am sure the critical letter was sent from the couple that lives directly behind the Dawson's residence at the corner of Shell and Way Lane. In the meeting, the lady complained about almost everything the Dawson's planned to build. She objected about the pool, the house looking down on her house, her privacy,the current narrow road etc. etc. It seemed to me that most all of the things she was objecting to were well within the city guidelines. Finally, her husband told her to back off and that they would take care of her concerns later. I applaud the Dawsons for having the informative meeting. We support the new construction that will replace the current "plain grey box"with a very attractive home both from Ocean Blvd. and the Bluff. If you have any questions or would like more information,please call. Regards, C. L Jones Clifford and Linda Jones 949-283-9054 2gO Subject: 2741 Ocean Blvd, Corona del Mar Makana Nova Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Subject: 2701 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Dear Ms.Nova, My wife and I just wanted to drop you a brief note showing our support of the Dawson Project at the above referenced address. Since the Dawson project is basically directly across from our newly remodeled home at 2727 Shell Street we were very excited to attend the welcoming design meeting the Dawson"s put on in their current home for all our China Cove neighbors to attend. At that meeting on July 20th,the Dawson's provided the necessary detailed drawings needed for my families questions regarding design and method of construction. This exciting new home project also generated many questions by our neighbors so the Dawson's also respectfully had their vendors (architects and builder) available at the meeting to answer any and all the neighbors questions not answerable by the proposed drawings. My families main concern is that the privacy created by all the current vegetation/landscaping to China Cove from the top of the bluff is replaced or maintained so that visibility from the top of the stairs on Ocean remains limited. Also,many animals live in those bluffs so in our opinion there needs to be a plan for this during demo and construction. stly,just a realistic observation, we believe it will be a huge mistake to implement a new 10' setback from the ;property line in front of the Dawson's home. Although we understand this is currently code,in the event that this l0' setback is implemented, the Dawson's visitors and vendors of their home will wind up parking head in or perpendicular to the new Dawson home. With most trucks and cars being 16' and longer, these vehicles will be hanging out into our tiny streets 6' or more (8' for trucks). This 10' setback will windup causing traffic jams and will actually windup REDUCING the width of our existing streets which would be an absolute disaster. Right now trucks and cars cannot park in the street because the street is so small (the vendors understand this so they automatically do not park there). With 10' more room they will all windup parking there. Other than that we are in full support of the Dawson's new project which will bring much relief and beauty compared the "old apartment building look" that exists today. Warmly, Michael and Coleen Mugel 2727 Shell Street CDM 2 221 From:Don Watson<nrnnrir'1+_,�mail.com> Date:Tue..Sul 12,2016 at 9.14 PM Subject:2741 Ocean To:raguel.dawson,cchicagobooth.edu Dear Raquel I can't make it over,but I assure you that anything that you'd want to build on your lot would be o1with me. i Good Luck i Don'Watsou I r2704 Cove) 2g2 Nokes Quinn L A W Y E R S December 21, 2016 VIA ELECTRONIC AND FIRST CLASS MAIL James Campbell, Principal Planner Makana Nova,Associate Planner CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: My Clients,John and Kathy Hamilton Dawson Project.2741 Ocean Boulevard, Corona Del Mar Dear Mr. Campbell and Ms. Nova: As you know, I represent John and Kathy Hamilton with regard to the project proposed by the Dawsons at 2741 Ocean Boulevard, Corona Del Mar(the"Project"). The Project is currently scheduled to be heard on February 9, 2017. However, the Hamiltons will be on vacation, on a previously planned cruise during that time. They are not in a position to change their arrangements since the reservations cannot be cancelled and are nonrefundable. I have communicated this request to the applicant team, but now I am formally requesting that this matter,currently scheduled for February 9, 2017,be continued to the next available Planning Commission date, subject to the availability of the parties. We are working through issues with the applicant team, and it is our hope that we will be able to reach a resolution. We have proposed changes that we believe will not only satisfy the Zoning Code but will also insure that the Hamiltons maintain their privacy. It is important for the Hamiltons to be present at the meeting. If this slight continuance may be arranged, they would very much appreciate it. This will allow the Hamiltons to go on their planned cruise, and spend time with John Hamilton's mother,who is turning 88 years old, and then return to participate in the process. Nokes & Quinn • A Professional Corporation 410 Broadway, Suite 200. Laguna Beach, CA 92651 • Phone: 949/376-3500 - FAX: 949/376-3070 wehsite. www nokesquinn com 2R3 James Campbell/Makana Nova, City of Newport Beach Re: Dawson Project, 2741 Ocean Boulevard December 21,2016 Page 2 In advance, thank you for your accommodation. Very truly yours, Laurence P. Nokes LPN/dkc cc: Clients Kim Brandt Steve Kawaratani Norm Rodich, Esq. 224 PALMIERI TYLER A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W ANGELO J. PALM IERI 0928-1998) ROBERT F, WALDRON (1927-1998) MICHAEL J.GREENE' ELISE M.KERN P.O.Box 19712 DENNIS W.CHAN' MELISA R.PEREZ Wine,CA 92623-9712 DAVID O.PARR' MICHAEL I.KEHOE CHARLES H.KANTER' CHADWICK C.BUNCH December 3 2016 PATRICK A.HENNESSEY ANISH J.BANKER DON FISHER RYAN M.PRAGER Norman J.Rodich WARREN A.WILLIAMS ERIN BALSARA NADERI Direct Dial (949)851-7235 JOHN R.LISTER ERICA M.SOROSKY Direct Fax (949)825-5415 MICHAEL H.LEIFER JERAD BELTZ RICHARD A. SALUS JOSHUAJ.MAR% nrodich�ptwww.com NORMAN J.RODICH ERIN K.OYAMA RONALD M. COLE KATHERINE M.SHAW MICHAEL L.D'ANGELO BRIAN GLICKLIN Refer To File No.38617-000 STEPHEN A.SCHECK CAROLYN H.CLARK Document I.D.1963078.1 DONNA L.SNOW M.OMAR HASHIM RYAN M.EASTER NAZANI N.TEMOURIAN ALAN H.WIENER',OF COUNSEL ROBERT C.IHRKE,OF COUNSEL GREGORY N.WEILER.OF COUNSEL MICHAEL C.CHO,OF COUNSEL JAMES E.WILHELM,RETIRED DENNIS G.TYLER',RETIRED 'A PPOf E5.I.A1 CORPORATION VIA E-MAIL & U.S. MAIL Mr. James Campbell Principal Planner City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Dawson Residence 2741 Ocean Boulevard Dear Mr. Campbell: Thank you for forwarding a copy of the correspondence you received yesterday from the Hamiltons' attorney, Lawrence Nokes. I appreciate it as we were unaware that Mr. Nokes had sent the letter. As Mr. Nokes provided you with copies of his November 18 and 23 correspondence, I am surprised that he did not mention or include a copy of my December 1 response, a copy of which is enclosed. Mr. Nokes has not responded to that letter. Instead, he chose to write privately to you, and his letter creates an impression that is directly contrary to the actual facts. Mr. Nokes asserts that "Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton have attempted on several occasions to engage the Dawsons in productive discussions but, by their complete unresponsiveness to the Hamiltons, the Dawsons have seemingly refused to engage in a neighborly way." I am unsure how Mr.Nokes could make such an assertion as it is from my perspective exactly opposite to what has actually transpired. As noted in my December 1 letter, Mr. Nokes and I have spoken multiple times about a possible compromise that would involve pulling back the nook to some degree. Mr. Nokes and the Dawsons' consultant, Steve Kawaratani, have also had numerous conversations. 1900 Main Street,Suite 700,Irvine,CA 9 2614-7 32 8 I T 949.851.9400 1 F 949.851.1554 1 ptwww,com 225 PALMIERI TYLER Mr. James Campbell December 3, 2016 Page 2 We asked Mr. Nokes to provide us with a drawing showing a proposed outer limit of the nook that would be acceptable to the Hamiltons. He agreed and, per his request, we provided him with a plan view of the nook and the Hamiltons' deck that he could use to prepare the drawing. Weeks passed and we did not receive the drawing. Mr. Kawaratani followed up with Mr. Nokes telephonically and in writing and I also followed up with him in a voice message expressing my concern about the long, unexplained delay. I noted that the Hamiltons seemed to be raising new issues and moving backward, not forward, which was creating a perception on our side that the Hamiltons are not interested in reaching a negotiated resolution. When we finally received Mr. Nokes' drawing on November 23 (the day before Thanksgiving), it was not based on the plan that we provided to him per his request. Nor did it propose to pull the nook back to some degree in accordance with our prior discussions. To the contrary, it proposed a total redesign of the Dawson residence that not only eliminates the nook in its entirety but pulls the entire house well back from the limits of the existing structure. That is not what we discussed and not a compromise. No one could reasonably expect the Dawsons or anyone else to tear down an existing home and replace it with a much smaller and less functional one. With respect to Mr. Nokes' comments on massing and scale, my clients' project is not seeking any variance that is not enjoyed by an overwhelming majority of properties on the bluff in China Cove. The design team has provided significant evidence of reduction of mass and scale relative to the current home, especially the height reduction to curb height that no other property on the China Cove bluff complies with. Before purchasing the property, the Dawsons met with city staff to determine what could be built on the site. During the design process, the design team met many times with city staff and incorporated staff's recommendations. The Dawsons' architect, Richard Krantz, designed the Dawson residence to avoid blocking the fenestration on the side of the Hamilton residence and also to include separation between the decks and main living areas of both properties to provide privacy where there is absolutely no privacy now. That separation is provided by the nook. Moreover, the Dawsons took the extraordinary step of inviting all of the neighbors, including the Hamiltons, to a meeting at their home so that the neighbors could meet the Dawsons and their design team and discuss any questions or concerns they may have had regarding the project. The Hamiltons attended the meeting with their friend, former Newport Beach City Attorney Bob Burnham, who asked many questions about the project. 1963078.1 220 PALMIERI TYLER Mr. James Campbell December 3, 2016 Page 3 The Dawsons also attempted to set up a private meeting with the Hamiltons before the Dawsons moved to London but the Hamiltons never responded with a date despite the Dawsons' multiple requests. In addition to the neighbor meeting and the Dawsons' attempts to meet privately with the Hamiltons before the Dawsons left for London, Mr. Dawson, Mr. Krantz and I met with Mr. Nokes and the Hamiltons at the Hamilton residence on September 13 while Mr. Dawson was back in town on business. Mr. Hamilton raised a number of construction and insurance-related issues as well as view and privacy concerns. Subject to and as part of a proposed agreement to resolve all outstanding issues, Mr. Dawson agreed in principle to all of Mr. Hamilton's construction and insurance-related demands. Mr. Hamilton then requested that the Dawsons erect story poles so that Mr. Hamilton could visualize the dimensions of the nook. Mr. Hamilton also expressed a privacy concern regarding the two side windows in the nook. As an accommodation to the Hamiltons, the Dawsons agreed to install story poles although they were under no obligation to do so. Mr.Nokes and I agreed in advance that the poles would be erected for his clients to view on September 28 and then taken down that afternoon. Mr. Nokes had no problem with this proposed schedule. The Dawsons also offered to make the side windows opaque and to replace the proposed functioning balcony on the nook with a narrow, decorative pot shelf to address Mr. Hamilton's privacy concerns. Mr.Nokes, Mr. Hamilton and I thereafter met again at the Hamilton residence on September 28 to view the story poles along with Richard Krantz's associate, Aaron Easton. In addition, Steve Kawaratani and I met with Mr. Nokes and Mr. Hamilton a third time at the Hamilton residence on November 2, 2016. At the September 28 meeting, for the first time, Mr. Hamilton stated that he is less concerned about separation of the decks and main living areas afforded by the nook and more concerned about the proximity of the nook to his deck. Specifically, he expressed a concern that the harbor-facing window on the nook could allow someone standing inside the nook directly next to the window and looking sideways toward the Hamilton residence to see the Hamiltons' deck and barbecue area. As you and Director Brandt have seen from your own site visits, there is no privacy whatsoever between the two properties now. To the contrary, anyone standing in any of the Dawsons' main living areas or on one of their decks can see directly into the Hamilton residence and onto their deck, including the Hamiltons' barbecue area(see enclosed photo)and, from the Dawsons' master bedroom deck, into the Hamiltons' master bedroom side window. This utter vacuum of privacy results from the fact that the Hamiltons chose to project their home and deck out to the absolute maximum possible extent to improve their view. This exposed the entire side of the Hamilton residence and deck to view intrusion from the previously existing Dawson residence, thus resulting in the present situation (zero privacy). This was the Hamiltons' choice. They chose view over privacy. Now,the Hamiltons vehemently object on privacy grounds to the 1963078.1 22 PALMIERI TYLER Mr. James Campbell December 3, 2016 Page 4 fact that one portion of the proposed Dawson residence is moved forward a fraction of the distance that the Hamiltons cantilevered their own home and deck forward. That said, the Dawsons wanted to work with the Hamiltons and were willing to consider moving the nook back to some extent to address the Hamiltons' proximity concern. That is why, weeks ago, we asked Mr. Nokes for a proposal from his clients. After all of the weeks of waiting, to discover that the Hamiltons' "proposal" is a complete redesign of the Dawson residence that eliminates the nook entirely and moves the Dawsons' house back farther than the current structure was extremely demoralizing and upsetting to my clients and reinforced their perception that the Hamiltons are not in fact interested in a good-faith compromise. The fact that the Hamiltons chose not to respond to my December 1 letter and instead to have Mr. Nokes send you a private letter asserting that the Dawsons have been "unresponsive" and"refused to engage" with the Hamiltons when that plainly is not the case only confirms that perception. As I advised Mr. Nokes in my attached letter, the Dawsons remain open to further discussions if the Hamiltons are in fact interested in a fair compromise and good-faith negotiated resolution. Thank you again for sending me a copy of Mr.Nokes' correspondence. As always, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions or require any additional information. Very truly yours, Norman J. Rodich NJR Enclosures cc: Ms. Kimberly Brandt Ms. Makana Nova Lawrence Nokes, Esq. Mr. Steve Kawaratani 1963078.1 222 PALMIERI TYLER Mr. James Campbell December 3, 2016 Page 6 ENCLOSURE LETTER FROM NORMAN J. RODICH TO LAWRENCE P.NOKES DATED DECEMBER 1,2016) 1963078.1 �g9 PALMIERI TYLER A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W ANGELO J. PALMIERI 11020.1000) ROBERT F.WALDRON (1027.1008) MICHAEL J.GREENE' ELISE M.KERN P.O.BOK 19712 DENNIS W.CHAN' MELIBA R.PEREZ Irvine,CA 82623-9712 DAVID O,PARR' MICHAELI.KEHOE CHARLES H.KANTER' CHADWICK C BUNCH December 1,2016 PATRICK A.HENNESSEY ANIBH J.BANKER Norman J.Rodich DON FISHER RYAN PRAGER WARREN A.WILLIAMS ERIN BALSARA NADERI Direct Dial (949)851-7236 JOHN R.LISTER ERICA M.SOROSKY Direct Fax (949)825-5415 MICHAEL LEIFER JERAD BELTi RICHARD A.BALLS JOSHUA J.MARK nrodkh®piwww.com NORMAN J.RODICH ERIN K.OYAMA RONALD M. COLE KATHERINE M.SHAW MICHAEL L.D'ANGELO BRIAN OLICKLIN Refer To File No.38617.000 STEPHEN A.SCHECK OMAR HASHIM Document I.D.1981724.1 DONNA L.SNOW NAZANIN TEMOURIAN RYAN M EASTER ALAN H WIENER',OF COUNSEL ROBERT C IHRKE,OF COUNSEL GREGORY N.WEILER,OF COUNSEL MICHAEL C.CMO,OF COUNSEL JAMES E,WILHELM.RETIRED DENNIS G.TYLER-,RETIRED •A ProrESCIONAICORPOI1LI1.11 VIA E-MAIL & U.S. MAIL Laurence P.Nokes NOKES & QU1NN A Professional Corporation 410 Broadway, Suite 200 Laguna Beach,CA 92651 Re: Dawson Residence 2741 Ocean Blvd., Corona del Mar, CA Dear Larry: I was disappointed to say the least to read your November 18 letter. Nevertheless,I still held some small hope that we might yet reach what I understood to be our mutual goal of a negotiated resolution on the nook issue. That hope was all but dashed upon receipt of your November 23 letter and enclosure. The Dawsons are beyond disappointed as your "proposal" only reinforces their perception that your clients are not interested in a good-faith compromise. Your November 18 letter is premised entirely on the assertion that you were waiting for us to provide a proposal on the nook, which is not the case. You and I have spoken multiple times about a possible compromise that would involve pulling back the nook to some degree. You and Steve Kawaratani have also had numerous conversations. We asked you to provide us with a drawing showing a proposed outer limit of the nook that would be acceptable to your clients. You agreed and,per your request, we provided you with a windowed-in plan view of the nook and your clients' deck that you could use to prepare the drawing. Weeks passed and we did not receive the drawing. Steve followed up with you telephonically and in writing and I also followed up with a voice message expressing my concern 1900 Main Street,Suite 700,Irvine,CA 92614-7328 1 T 949.851.9400 1 F 949.851.1554 1 Ptwww.com �9 PALMIERI TYLER Laurence P.Nokes December 1, 2016 Page 2 about the delay. I noted that the Hamiltons seemed to be raising new issues and moving backward, not forward, which was creating a perception on our side that the Hamiltons are not interested in reaching a negotiated resolution, We were not asking for an elaborate drawing just a line on the plan that we provided to you for that purpose. There is no reason that it should have taken you weeks to do that and there is certainly no basis for you to complain about my clients allegedly dragging their feet when we were waiting to hear from you, Now that we have finally received your long-awaited drawing, we see that it is not based on the plan that we provided to you per your request. Nor does it propose to pull the nook back to some degree. To the contrary, it is a total redesign of the Dawson residence that not only eliminates the nook in its entirety but pulls the entire building well backfrom the limits of the existing structure. That is not what we discussed and not a compromise. No one could reasonably expect the Dawsons or anyone else to tear down an existing home and replace it with a much smaller and less functional one. Your proposal is not reasonable and your message is clear: your clients are not interested in compromise. With respect to your comments on massing and scale,my clients'project is not seeking any variance that is not enjoyed by an overwhelming majority of properties on the bluff in China Cove. The design team has provided significant evidence of reduction of mass and scale relative to the current home, especially the height reduction to curb height that no other property on the China Cove Bluff complies with. Your comments do not provide a basis for compromise and are not consistent with the facts. Your assertion that the Dawsons have made no effort to reach out to your clients and have ignored their concerns is likewise incorrect. Before purchasing the property,the Dawsons met with city staff to determine what could be built on the site. During the design process,the design team met many times with city staff and incorporated staffs recommendations. The Dawsons' architect, Richard Krantz, designed the Dawson residence to avoid blocking the fenestration on the side of your clients'property and also to include separation between the decks and main living areas of both properties to provide privacy where there is absolutely no privacy now. That separation is provided by the nook. Moreover, as you know, the Dawsons took the extraordinary step of inviting all of the neighbors,including your clients,to a meeting at their home so that the neighbors could meet the Dawsons and their design team and discuss any questions or concerns they may have had regarding the project. Your clients attended the meeting with a friend,former Newport Beach City Attorney Bob Burnham, who asked many questions about the project. 1961724.1 �92 PALMIERI TYLER Laurence P.Nokes December 1, 2016 Page 3 As you may not know, the Dawsons also attempted to set up a private meeting with your clients before the Dawsons moved to London but your clients never responded with a date despite the Dawsons' multiple requests. In addition to the neighbor meeting and the Dawsons' attempts to meet privately with the Hamiltons before the Dawsons left for London, Mr. Dawson,Mr, Krantz and I met with you and the Hamiltons at the Hamilton residence on September 13 while Mr. Dawson was back in town on business. Mr. Hamilton raised a number of construction and insurance-related issues as well as view and privacy concerns. Subject to and as part of a proposed agreement to resolve all outstanding issues, Mr. Dawson agreed in principle to all of Mr, Hamilton's construction and insurance-related demands. Mr. Hamilton then requested that the Dawsons erect story poles so that Mr. Hamilton could visualize the dimensions of the nook. Mr, Hamilton also expressed a privacy concern regarding the two side windows in the nook. As an accommodation to the Hamiltons,the Dawsons agreed to install story poles although they were under no obligation to do so. You and I agreed in advance that the poles would be erected for your clients to view on September 28 and then taken down the same afternoon. You had no problem with this proposed schedule. The Dawsons also offered to make the side windows opaque and to replace the proposed functioning balcony on the nook with a narrow, decorative pot shelf to address Mr. Hamilton's privacy concerns. You,Mr. Hamilton and I thereafter met again at the Hamilton residence on September 28 to view the story poles along with Richard Krantz's associate, Aaron Easton. In addition, Steve Kawaratani and I met with you and Mr. Hamilton a third time at the Hamilton residence on November 2, 2016. At the September 28 meeting, for the first time, Mr, Hamilton stated that he is less concerned about separation of the decks and main living areas afforded by the nook and more concerned about the proximity of the nook to his deck. Specifically, he expressed a concern that the harbor-facing window on the nook could allow someone standing inside the nook directly next to the window and looking sideways toward the Hamilton residence to see the Hamiltons' deck and barbecue area. As you know,there is no privacy whatsoever between the two properties now. To the contrary, anyone standing in any of the Dawsons' main living areas or on one of their decks can see directly into the Hamilton residence and onto their deck,including the Hamiltons'barbecue area and, from the Dawson's master bedroom deck,into the Hamiltons'master bedroom side window. See photo enclosed. This utter vacuum of privacy results from the fact that the Hamiltons chose to project their home and deck out to the absolute maximum possible extent to improve their view. This 1961724.1 9 PALMIER] TYLER Laurence P.Nokes December 1, 2016 Page 4 exposed the entire side of the Hamilton residence and deck to view intrusion from the previously existing Dawson residence,thus resulting in the present situation(zero privacy). This was the Hamiltons'choice. They chose view over privacy. Now,the Hamiltons vehemently object on privacy grounds to the fact that one portion of the proposed Dawson residence is moved forward a fraction of the distance that the Hamiltons cantilevered their own home and deck forward. That said, as we have discussed,the Dawsons wanted to work with the Hamiltons and were willing to consider moving the nook back to some extent to address the Hamiltons' proximity concern. That is why,weeks ago, we asked you for a proposal from your clients. After all of the weeks of waiting,to discover that your clients' "proposal" is a complete redesign of the Dawson residence that eliminates the nook entirely and moves the Dawsons'house back farther than the current structure is extremely demoralizing and upsetting to my clients and reinforces their perception that the Hamiltons are not in fact interested in a good-faith compromise. Perceptions matter. There is a huge gulf of mistrust between our respective clients, which is very sad as they will be neighbors for a very long time. My clients'goal has been to build a bridge over that gulf that will form the basis of a good-faith compromise and amicable resolution that both of our clients can live with. The Dawsons remain open as always to further discussions if the Hamiltons are in fact interested in a good-faith negotiated resolution. AVery /y�ouLrs Norman J. Rodich NJR:Iar Enclosure cc: Craig and Raquel Dawson Steve Kawaratani 1961724.1 �9 X 0.0 PALMIERI TYLER Mr. James Campbell December 3, 2016 Page 7 ENCLOSURE (VIEW OF HAMILTON RESIDENCE AND DECK FROM DAWSON RESIDENCE) 1963078.1 295 1961844.1 �/ N_okes Quinn L A W Y E R S December 2, 2016 VIA ELECTRONIC AND FIRST CLASS MAIL James Campbellicampbell(d�newoortbeachca.gov Principal Planner CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Dawson,2741 Ocean Boulevard Dear Mr. Campbell: I represent John and Kathy Hamilton,the owners of 2735 Ocean Boulevard—the property next door to the applicant, Mr. and Mrs. Dawson. While there has been a great deal of communication between your office and the applicant team, I wanted to make sure that you and your staff have a full appreciation of the concerns on the part of the neighbors who will be required to live with this project. The Hamiltons appreciate the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Dawson wish to develop their property to the maximum feasible extent. Unfortunately, the plan they have in mind eliminates privacy from the Hamiltons' deck areas and from their bedroom. For the most part, the privacy invasion is occasioned by the Dawsons' insistence on maintaining the nook and the area below it on the side of the property closest to the Hamiltons. This nook not only creates vistas from the upper floor onto 100% of the Hamiltons' upper deck, but the pop out window on the third floor allows for views directly into the Hamiltons' master bedroom and, indeed, of the bed itself. How anyone could ever be expected to accept such a condition is not understandable. I am attaching copies of two letters that I sent to Mr. Norm Rodich, counsel for the Dawsons. In these letters, I point out the Dawsons' area of intrusion and the scope of the loss of privacy that their project, as proposed, will cause—both to the Hamilton property and to Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton. At the request of the applicant team, I had the elevation nearest the Hamilton home redrawn so that it conforms to the height limitations imposed by the City of Newport Beach. The stated purpose of your Planning Code is to "... Ensure that development is consistent with the General Plan,complies with the standards of[Chapter 20.30], produces an environment that is harmonious with existing and future development, and protects the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties." Nokes & Quinn • A Professional Corporalion 410 Broadway, Suile 200. Laguna Beach, CA 92651 • Phone: 9491376-3500 • FAX: 9491376-3070 welesile: www.nokesquinn corn 297 James Campbell Re: Dowson Projecl, 27=41 Ocean Boulevard December 2,2016 Page 2 In my recent letter to the applicant team, I pointed out how this particular project is out of harmony with the immediate neighborhood, and how the proposed design actually harms the use and enjoyment by the Hamiltons of their property. This is a huge house, significantly larger than any other home in China Cove. Surely there are options available to Mr. and Mrs. Dawson that enable them to design a home that fits their needs in terms of size, .while meeting the requirements stated in the property development standards of the Zoning Code, and while protecting the use and enjoyment of the neighboring properties. And, quite frankly, we are astounded that anybody would want to move into their new neighborhood with a design that would clearly offend the established property owners. Please know that Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton have attempted on several occasions to engage the Dawsons in productive discussions but, by their complete unresponsiveness to the Hamiltons, the Dawsons have seemingly refused to engage in a neighborly way. This is a blank slate as far as the Dawsons are concerned and the Hamiltons are confident that the Dawsons' design team can produce a structure that meets the requirements of the Code and does not destroy the privacy or view of the Hamiltons. Best regards, I Laurence P. Nokes LPN/dkc Attachments cc: Clients 2J°g r � rr� Ir --fir: f q� X99 N_okes Quinn L A w Y E N S November 23, 2016 VIA ELECTRONIC AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Norman J. Rodich, Esq. PALMIER[TYLER P. 0. Box 19712 Irvine, CA 92623-9712 Re: Your Clients, Craig and Raquel Dawson 2741 Ocean Boulevard, Newport Beach Dear Norm: In preparing the letter I sent to you last Friday, I neglected to mention one additional, major privacy intrusion based on the existing design. The design team placed a large, pop-out window with a bench seat that has a direct view of the Hamiltons' bed through the Hamiltons' ocean facing window. A more intrusive design with greater privacy impacts would not have been achievable. As promised, I am enclosing a copy of a revised drawing that represents the outer theoretical limit of development of the project on the elevation nearest the Hamiltons. Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to completing this process. e regards, aurenD2okes cc: Clients Nokes d Quinn • A Prolessionat Corporation 410 Broadway, Suite 200. Laguna Beach, CA 92651 • Phone: 949/376-3500 • FAX: 9491376-3070 website: www.nokesquinn.com 300 Nukes Quinn L A w r E R S November 18, 2016 VIA ELECTRONIC AND li CLASS MAIL Norman J. Rodich, Esq. PALMIERI TYLER P. O. Box 19712 Irvine, CA 92623-9712 Re: Your Clients, Craig and Raquel Dawson 2741 Ocean Boulevard, Newport Beach Dear Norm: I listened to your voicemail message this morning and had an opportunity to speak with Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton regarding your position. I was somewhat disappointed in your perception that the Hamiltons, the neighbors, and I are hindering the Dawson project. We are not. On the other hand, Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton are extremely dismayed by the fact that they have worked patiently with the Dawsons and their design team since August 2015, and have yet to see a single modification to this building by the Dawsons. While the Hamiltons made it very clear to Mr. and Mrs. Dawson that they wanted to be able to support the project, they also made it clear that they wanted to retain their views and their privacy. The impacts of the project on the Hamiltons' privacy and views are too significant. The story poles illustrated that the program deprives the Hamiltons of views from parts of their home. Worse, however, is the fact that the upper level of the nook creates a situation where there is no private area anywhere on the Hamiltons' living room deck. They made it clear to the Dawsons and to the design team that they could not tolerate such an invasion, and that they would not support the project as it is currently designed. In response, the Dawsons and their design team did nothing. They proposed no adjustments to mitigate the loss of privacy or view. The building plan remains as it was in August 2015, and the Hamiltons are out of patience. Another suggestion that has been made is that the Hamiltons have whipped up the neighbors in opposition to the project. In truth, the neighbors are extremely concerned by what they view as an unnecessarily massive structure that will have a substantial, adverse impact on the neighborhood. Let's be clear— neither the Hamiltons nor the neighbors took any position in opposition to this project in an effort to vex the Dawsons. Rather, the valid concerns arise out of the proposal of a construction project that disregards Code height and setback limitations. While the Newport Beach Planning and Zoning Code gives great latitude to developers for new projects, proponents must always bear in mind that this flexibility must always be read in the context of some of the very first words of that Code, which state: Nukes & Quinn o A Professional Corporation 410 Broadway, Suite 200, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 o Phone: 949/376-3500 o FAX: 9491376-3070 website: www.nokesquinn.com 3O2 Norman J. Rodich, Esq. Re: Dawson Project November 18,2016 Page 2 "The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that development is consistent with the General Plan, complies with the standards of this chapter, produces an environment that is harmonious with existing and future development, and protects the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties." The applicant team must appreciate that there is a problem with neighborhood harmony when the neighbors overwhelmingly regard a project as dissonant with the existing development. The proposed project fails to protect the use and enjoyment of the neighboring properties as required by the Code's stated purpose, because the scale and the massing far exceed the limits imposed by the Code. When you objectively look at the starting point for design concept presented by the Dawsons and their design team, you must realize that they started this venture well outside of theoretical design standards set forth in the Code. For example, a variance is sought to allow encroachment into the rear yard setback to accommodate a swimming pool. The nook, which is the bane of Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton and which literally had Mrs. Hamilton in tears, violates the established Code height limit by literally tens of feet. We had hoped that the project architect, having had a chance to view the clear impacts demonstrated by the story poles, would have redesigned the nook area of the project. It is severely out of compliance with the height limit restrictions applicable to the site. Also, it was apparent to all that the nook structure would be an intolerable invasion of the Hamiltons' privacy, and an unnecessary and unwelcome interference with their views. It was within the design team's power to have started with a conforming design. But they elected not to. Even so, the design team had an opportunity to correct the problem by re-designing a conforming structure adjacent to the Hamilton deck area and bedroom after viewing the impacts. Again, they elected not to. The Hamiltons are paying me to be a lawyer, not an architect. But to move this along, I will use the plan elevation nearest the Hamilton house and superimpose a building line consistent with the height limitations for the zone. I think the design team already knows what that looks like because they must have looked at it while they were in concept. The Hamiltons would be receptive to a neighborly gesture by Mr. and Mrs. Dawson to have their own architect prepare a revised design that will not require a variance for the nook area. Such an effort would solve some privacy and view concerns and eliminate some of the rancor which has arisen out of those concerns. The Hamiltons will not agree to a height variance to accommodate any portion of a structure that will have negative privacy and view impacts. They are interested in seeing a thoughtfully revised design. Story poles should be used to show the new proposed dimensions and to establish that there will be no negative impacts. We request that this occur by no later than December 9, 2016. This would give everyone a chance to digest the impacts and, if necessary, adjust the design further. 302 Norman J. Rodich, Esq. Re: Dawson Project November 18,2016 Page 3 To avoid wasting time, please let me know if the Dawsons intend to retain the program as it is now. If that is the case, there is nothing to discuss and the Hamiltons are prepared to vigorously oppose the project. I believe we have agreement that the monitoring, screening, shoring, manometer surveys, parking management, construction staging, and insurance are all going to be handled as we previously discussed. B ega ds, Lau nce P. Nokes cc: Clients 303 V� QP �P �o� Attachment No. PC 7 Project Plans 305 V� QP �P �o� PA2015-224 Attachment No. PC 7 - Project Plans MEX Dawson Residence All All AII .lei .c.a.,...a..v n VIS ' Y 2741 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar,CA 92627 NOTES =^ ^ ^-• '" VICINITY MAP PROJECT DESCRIMON PROJECPDATA g' A. —- AA CONSULTANTS�� � o� LIQ SHE ' nAA �' 2 .�« .�.»a \ ween 6 • i�.'e' '".o°f� 7ss` wn".� `S �ra.cY.ixen �"�uaw, .« nw mw..• � !E iW¢noX �N�uaea M fLY Mrvem e.earz o¢.wm ix 1nL2 MK CINI¢T Pl LBiN CEf'.RWMN Nk.��®e M—N ;-1 a Al ,rE,we�'°3'mti� �.roa.,o,r i�.nx w,� �� C^ ...•e �P"��.. w a gg wm.�. p�....e..... 0= Al War E K119 e ma"�"ll�maw ...•.•.. 14 REVISION LOG ,...v.. 30� PA2015-224 Attachment No. PC 7 - Project Plans *x r .,.� � u, .� - ter- �, •_. �, � � R . �� / , � .•.W .,Y�n ley � � �l i ' 1�a"1 a�■a �:' y� w�t .�j .int - �4- _� . - i, `,�h +i1�' - r �i •. ` -� '� Y 4 MAN as . II �� •� 1 • . cam J ' � -� .�rl(il, _ � I ,�'9' '— R���I"; � BS ' 'G,y" Twit y, @�'1 tl f0 '(1?U� v_ y. (, .� F➢rv�,,.,.4 1 I .111 '! ti u11i19D ,r u '1R ,�_ - B j..- -. w•'iw Proposed Residence T.1 3�g PA2015-224 Attachment No. PC 7 - Project Plans , Existing huoee m be removed e a 111 11 i ! a ------------- Way Lane Original Photograph Bud's Eye Merged Models Etis-g house m be moved �J ° �4 Iii 1tIR. _. In. • WIN Way Lane Merged Models 7irm". _ r 8loll1nttlW PPP I11 ; i 1 al 1 I Way Lane Proposed Residence T.2 309 PA2015-224 Attachment No. PC 7 - Project Plans Existing house b be'emo.W Ex�eting hou.ew be muoved IH IT �771 !T _ Li gill, Par Left ocean Blvd.Both Houses Massing Ratio Study Both Houses New OP.ghuchne hnpm View Existing Naighbmieg _ New op- // 9mimm Impaved Yuvr I .-! rL i r . -- -- �Em 8 Far Left Ocean Blvd.Proposed Massing Ratio Study Proposed iii? it T.3 azo PA2015-224 Attachment No. PC 7 - Project Plans Nair. s Ocean Blvd.Original Photograph(Right) Ocean Blvd.Original Photograph(Left) Existing house b be removed p r a Fxinling hoax b be=cmovW 11 ' rYr iii - n � ' Ocean Blvd.Both Houses Ocean Blvd.Merged Models " Existivg hoax b he remavtld Ocean Blvd.Proposed Ocean Blvd.Proposed Residence T.4 311 PA2015-224 Attachment No. PC 7 - Project Plans Upper Existing Deck 3 to Neighbor Upper Existing Deck 2 to Neighbor Upper Existing Deck t to Neighbor f9 Lower Proposed Deck to Neighbor Lower Proposed Window to Neighbor Lower Existing to Neighbor 7ego l - IF'M Upper Proposed Deck 3 to Neighbor Upper Proposed Deck 2 to Neighbor Upper Proposed Deck 1 to Neighbor Upper Proposed Balcony to Neighbor a Upper Neighbor Window to Proposed Upper Neighbor Window to Existing Upper Neighbor Deck to Proposed Upper Neighbor Deck to Existing ma ��Iyyyyyy A R Lower Neighbor Window to Proposed Lower Neighbor Window to Existing Lower Neighbor Deck to Proposed Lower Neighbor Deck to Existing T G 312 J PA2015-224 Attachment No. PC 7 - Project Plans I..s.calculation* RON `eye g \��I� ���\��� roe ��0 ����•�\�\\ A � - - — e,a FAR�A w �x to v, 2 Level One Level TWO .0 C ------------------- ------------ ------------- s p m \\ \\ O xx AR� Level Three Level Pour Asq.1 �2� PA2015-224 Attachment No. PC 7 - Project Plans pdae ofha[ch (m avdd ovedappivg) j' / ��F �.a���` /'B 5 /'B fall 7.5'below?Q'a lmax. = heiaMm (27 G.) � 11.9 v rl II - - - _ III11 _.)d 7.5'beWwl Amax:- i' F / v S' I / / a level One Ales=1,823 azl.ft. J // � hwgm S Level Two Awa=102 sq. Level One La=' Level Two ¢ € ; f Opeo Vohtmn Area Requirem®ts: i Calculation:(sq.R) o ig p 1.M®mumof15%of BuOdabk Lm Area. Buildable Ates:6,813 ' 275'wder llte�7A'-max.h,!&Bmil(dhowab Min.(15%): 1,022 ' ....... 3.5'miv.fmm adjoining walls. Level One: 1,823 _� 4.Opmondlouloneaide. Level Two: 102 i i LevelTh= 1,520 / ffi e of hateT.a ve / Level F.; 77 �aii (m avoid overlapp-9) Toteh(comptiee)3.522 i shove i _____________ 1 / / Level Thee Area=1,520 sq.R I / Level Pour Area=77 aq.R / $ � Level Throe Level soar q• �2� PA2015-224 Attachment No. PC 7 - Project Plans all �, e•1�yy, }sx _� •rte tt A1.1 .315 PA2015-224 Attachment No. PC 7 - Project Plans y i / y fg8 \ m�MAN _ � wLR1YAFv // is / �n. ////%W// // j X ��� �j/j�/ rveamni u�"vx'sw r¢ '"'•,o< A2.1 m PA2015-224 Attachment No. PC 7 - Project Plans / i I fig / I .% ��, ger+• 4r+' i 3 / 9 y _ a `t ; iG r I � m eDN — � 11 H s yy / / /// /� i i, //i, /—%/ - / - --- -, ; -- fir MH ps J 3 %O/O//// . X A2.2 i PA2015-224 Attachment No. PC 7 - Project Plans / 1 / U K.il,a€ i r q t o j/t.,✓/ii "'�����������%%%/////t%%t� � �� _ 1 ' 14 o ma I w A2.3 PA2015-224 Attachment No. PC 7 - Project Plans i i I I I a -- — �I _ b w I s� I I z�. --- ------ fig_g J � - tlOtl p I I a8� A r A2.4 319 PA2015-224 Attachment No. PC 7 - Project Plans `'s� `i 2l`i `� 'v �m.>'•�'i � L—wee) — —V '�' �i—� � ;'/ a v f ✓, ylL+ It9zfi \ \"'s � t/ .�\�\�,��—Crw�N s i ��` \, — —all 6 1.51 ,/f S m � \ ` / �, 'j +✓t :.t t o(t4�� t ,¢ Ir f6o`to�� ft''a w! k k—;-_. . __) — E / ) /ate//N/%�R' J✓' / � L / �i��"'�,�Ej j� �%i // — //� ) //5 / / ti Q` e / ✓: ` /f, � /�f t E>)t I tr t tt.t trtt t t)I tt.ID B i � � , , P±` —�—u (t�%)! �el l`5r,-- •. /Oi9'e a r t i 'R�_% e sore D Hi'b�'iIER°r�iilary"za �y�,�s � � P8J`/E ESTABLISHED 6ftPDE(E.bJ g ti ii nr aE sw °oFrFlrvIsN"C,°�iour°s� A r d A2.5 uml:. i i o 320 PA2015-224 Attachment No. PC 7 - Project Plans r� Ad'RSISZ&R€' ---------------- ✓ V � c �ara�rwn ®ar :means R - � a�0 all z : IL Ilk Section A•A ma:9gg AM 3�2 PA2015-224 Attachment No. PC 7 - Project Plans r� r� ------------------- KILE FFM I I I r 4 ! 9 3 „s qq �zre m— —--- -------------------—-------- --- ---- --- — A �., -- -- - -- - ------- � _ flu Section B-B p € 5' - r r I f m I I I I I I I y r--- ff - sa Aa ..In �d M 0O anm. wm a anm. .ani _ ,v___ m,4 _____ • c cPEnnox Pao - I. u v9 _ __ Pm Is.s F-I on M ----------- m a p - •.1 iJ �� P t.i z= i x a F --------------------------------------------------------, A3.2 m"" Section D-D "� Section C-C PA2015-224 Attachment No. PC 7 - Project Plans t� - C mzzu r'm J J� e p� I, 1 yp d .d a Front Elevation It ME 13 p Front Yard Retaining Wall Elevation �M�a@ G1Nc7 .1...tW nW.. IlnY . .x.^-;a. .va�. ..:r ..�^..�x�^�^ :r �:.,�^tir.��,.• ' msµ" z�xa � .�,..., ....... A4.1 323 PA2015-224 Attachment No. PC 7 - Project Plans E LL - F m 9 �£ _ -------------__--------_--------_------------------ --------_mmarv.w. un'S 3. LBH CIBYBLOL � � g .1...B.n nW.. Ilnp . f7 2t "' ,.m ^ : sem® arAA ^ ,. mma, A4.2 .� n .■■. ■■■ o rr �ti • _ uon�' ■■■ 1501! �r:■I �I nnu I � II0 in; mi NONNI III uLIIV lI!IlII11111lIIII� u �lilllllllllllllllllllll�lI:;III .111!1 MEMO WIS. non NONE NONE �yfl, i� n ■NNONE ON■ ■��■ �1 I�r•�••� ����■ � ,I�I,111I.1111�I 1111111 Illlil� =o �'n1 1 1111 I_III .II�1I,11' ell:�n i 1g■ �1�I��77F�Ijl'������ �I�!I�!i�1Plb��nli��.9�1�gN�e� hVdulyl�i�,tll hhnt� '1a��6�tnivR'If1 . . . I`Ii —.7■■■I m o �a��i�L4 N1���1 �� IAAIIIII PA2015-224 Attachment No. PC 7 - Project Plans k� - C 1 �F)dmes �d \ 1 8$ \ F r�V ME ---- — �_.�,---- ----- - - ------------ a� f \ WAS a \ s R- m e _------_____ ___ ___--------___ ,ate .... RigkFIMaim Rif �M�a@ G1Nc7 .1...tW nW.. IlnYll.. b '�^ ."im••'m9•'ffi. v""-•�za17 •.m«"`"^` 'S&•4YR9e"'.'Ri",.�4�n:�"•� •A4dtUkCaThi'}'.&mow:"�w.,K,.�.,...a.K,A.,s. -.-..e.• ..m.i. .rvw '.5"'CSE'�J'..^.`..'•1L:vdi>.K�'.�.5'd" '.y".•°":"Q aTw -2 '.K°'X�. ..a .'Rar�wn �� �.R"w '•.•` ^^' �v.M ..... ' UM " mu"e•-m`a"u'F"an.a"'auv"mwu'""a'mm`�aTe" A4.4 32� PA2015-224 Attachment No. PC 7 - Project Plans 14 9 5 _ aumm. S � S emrcrw rnmvexwrcmav zmv mwnmmnmxmm rw.wwwmnwrav epi wie.vrm�u�,wnrtmu¢ ' .��a' �� m w�mew m.xo,re rcvoxnm o• m RIO6E/HIP 2 S c Q 15 10 a a z• k �� VPLLEY ..� 16 11 J� A �E� \\ jig w iYPICAI.SAVE w��w NPICAL EA1 7 3 cRICI:Er 17 12 i ROOF TO WALL RASHINS GHIH EY LAPS¢ D CHIMNEY LAPpK 18 13 8 4 m^a AR� AD3 327 PA2015-224 Attachment No. PC 7 - Project Plans WK A-M .w ------------ 4 ___________________ J pl 31 v • • y�q pFIY. _ ___ - K m Q WAYLANE �+ lot AU& �ciavoemaameus " ---------------- --'�N-Y* �tltfaYgXAQ3R — - -4vAma➢oyu9.ofoas - �"ry�,y�y V "'i•�•••�i•.i o� "lam w _ _9TffiYS9li9 - am,Z n w CE"eoucevwea m g 328 PA2015-224 Attachment No. PC 7 - Project Plans 01{ , PFELIMINAW CCNMUpCTIICN NOTES4^®®m PN o-r TOA_L � rew neH®lily • 4 r •° v f%/ [¢auw w.mo mm.m m.x wr © Qq- COO �. ADDIMONAL NOTES ° . • r 46) j6' $ CIN CF�Nm®CRr BEACH NOTES . ° .� � ��'°• � .. � ter, r .° _ r,�? M a�°.�:��,� �;�,.��r "'�� p ` NOIE i�O CDMF1GT- �[laova ryFU 7wov—®.mrtmxorow nWmrB - EASEMENTNOTESeae :MOM 33 PFELIMIN4FVE4FTiWCflK WANTITIES _ e 4 �on- 't: .,.� -., --_^ I IIr�J$u✓' T - .emmi rr� - i �d j1_______. mu wm ®n � - A: Fr..Dim °°.�� -I /<i' FF I I � �~ � �+� 5 < .P r. �� y -• o y�jyY '? - _ - - � _ Ilei' c. aR.. -7 -s u C pjl�S'"` •1 LEGEND ------------------------------------ Nwmn - i I 1 F m U a =a� E - i _...— 2 158]) 1 3 PA2015-224 Attachment No. PC 7 - Project Plans w m ...I... TML =m` °�A; e CEiAILrm�'reF" , '[ uu�a,•a.na 44 r� u 1 � ah. � 1 ® s i � vuvam m.. � •• a mmxrt ww•euxr um°Amaue 'Y�e14 1p ____—______——_____ x —� DUAIL mm.ma . PR UMINAM CCNSLRUCPCN NQI S ,n L oer o �'y u C-02 iun z i PA2015-224 Attachment No. PC 7 - Project Plans reannaixoeMrneLunnem , TOQAL w xn mnoJ euu m rmem no vnim. _ SEpMLMCOifWtmµ ®®O mnNmm mine. wwt aE.Ou.eum'mu mwanl.w�n,wm Yo mavimm Oi COMAC®® w.' - em u v.m.mmmn mem I. xmmN�wmxm� rinrinfir 111 K.mmmu.ein _ mm�mvvgryL m n.vE •-•••r..�n— �_. wxa mn®Curnnr[NW,�cvutl (� wm nm. w�® �r^m WC@1 D111NpMIiEPM(Oun'RWm u mn�i[xm,UTmn¢im®wawam�a um ewu.v v��a,.IR.. — - mmm�,L a MU +asp ------------ L sp0 , o / _ mmain Bn. _0 O O ma�,aaa O Ohm mom,a+L 0609.iJ4E O __________________._____ _------------------ ----------- --------- -------------_ _ o-� O ! rd 0 0 O L EN0 u.o.e a C-03 iun s i PA2015-224 Attachment No. PC 7 - Project Plans toUZmak` tll r° 9 9 IS 4 flu • f t i h %R I � V � • senor • � 332 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) Nokes Quinn L A w Y E R s February 1,2017 VIA ELECTRONIC AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Makana Nova, Associate Planner James Campbell, Principal Planner CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: My Clients,John and Kathy Hamilton Dawson Project: 2741 Ocean Boulevard, Corona Del Mar Dear Ms. Nova and Mr. Campbell: I felt it necessary to promptly respond to the most recent correspondence from the Dawsons' lawyer, Mr. Rodich. Over the course of the last year, it is becoming increasingly apparent to my clients that the Dawsons have absolutely no sincere interest in working with the neighbors to create a project that takes into account concerns expressed by this fragile neighborhood. Mr. Rodich consistently challenges every request made by the Hamiltons related to the structure itself, as he attempts to justify a structure that is simply too big, too invasive,too intrusive and too impactful for the neighborhood. ISSUES RELATING TO ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF THE STREET Mr. Rodich states, "First, the Hamiltons assert that due to the city's 1998 abandonment of a portion of the right-of-way along Ocean Boulevard adjacent to the Hamilton lot and what is now the Dawson lot, the Dawsons should somehow be subject to additional restrictions not provided by law and should be required to situate their proposed home on their property in a way that the Hamiltons deem to be, "more beneficial" to their neighbors as the Hamiltons themselves allegedly did." The Hamiltons absolutely do not think that the Dawsons should be subject to additional restrictions. All the neighbors have requested is that the Dawsons pull back the nook to the point of their existing rear building line (the house, not the deck and rail structure). Instead, the proposed Dawson residence has managed to exacerbate an already non-confirming condition. Nokes & Quinn • A Professional Corporalion 410 Broadway, Suite 200, Laguna Beach CA 92651 • Phone: 949/376-3500 9 FAX: 9491376-3070 websile:www.nokesquinn corn Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Makana Nova/James Campbell—City of Newport Beach Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) Re: Dawson Project, 274/ Ocean Boulevard, Corona Del Mar February 1,2017 Page 2 of 4 The Hamiltons' concession would still require a variance from the development standards set forth in the Newport Beach Municipal Code, but the Hamiltons feel that the variant condition would provide adequate privacy. That concession still does not in any way relieve the Dawsons of their obligations under the Zoning Ordinance, the Government Code or the City of Topanga case to provide substantial evidence to satisfy each of the variance findings. In his letter, Mr. Rodich goes on to clarify that my clients, the Hamiltons, did not take the City's 1998 abandonment of the Ocean Boulevard right-of-way into consideration when they built their home in 1971. Mr. Rodich is correct; the Hamiltons did not take the abandonment into consideration when they built their house in 1971. Of course they didn't—because the abandonment occurred 27 years later, in 1998! However, if the Hamiltons, or any future owner, were to decide to make a major modification to the existing structure, the variance findings could not be made because the lot is no longer comparable to the others along the bluff behind Way Lane. To continue to use the term"constrained site" as substantial evidence in comparing it to adjacent neighbors (except 2735 Ocean Boulevard) ignores history and is not a comparison of "like for like." ISSUES RELATING TO PRIVACY Mr. Rodich states that privacy is not a General Plan policy or goal. Please reference the very first words in the Newport Beach Municipal Code which states: "The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that development is consistent with the General Plan, complies with the standards of this chapter, produces an environment that is harmonious with existing and future development, and protects the use and enioyment of neighboring properties." When the drafters of the Newport Beach Municipal Code put pen to paper, it is clear that they obviously intended their words to mean something. "Privacy" is one of the "protections"under the Code, as it is required to safeguard the enjoyment of neighboring properties. Mr. Rodich continues to pick and choose what things benefit his clients the most. As proposed,you can practically pass a cup of sugar between the two homes. Moreover, referencing Exhibit C of Mr. Rodich's letter (Predominant Line of Existing Development), by pushing out the nook as far as they can,they have managed to insulate themselves and have blocked any ability to have a view to the southwest for the neighbors up street from them. THE NEWLY DUBBED "NORTHWEST WING" Later in his letter, Mr. Rodich refers to "The Northwest Wing of the Dawson Residence," as if he's referencing a castle. This northwest wing of the Dawson residence is really at the core of the Hamiltons' concerns; it does not line up with the so-called "PLOED," an acronym developed by the Dawsons to reference the outer theoretical limit of the structure. Rather, it sticks out like an unwanted appendage. This "wing"truly sticks out from the pattern of Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Makana Nova/James Campbell—City of Newport Beach Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) Re: Dawson Project, 2741 Ocean Boulevard, Corona Del Mar February 1,2017 Page 3 of 4 development and is extremely impactful to the Hamiltons' enjoyment of their property. There is no need for it as sited, in that there is plenty of lot area (as stated numerous times by Mr. Rodich as justification for the size of the home) for the Dawsons to achieve this Ritz-Carlton-like residence, while still respecting the Hamiltons' need for privacy. CONTRADICTION: IS THIS A LIGHTLY-USED NOOK OR A MAIN LIVING AREA? The Dawsons' architect, Richard Krantz, asserted in his July 26, 2016 letter to City Staff (Exhibit 1 —Richard Krantz letter to City Staff: "The new home is designed to improve privacy for the neighboring home. Instead of the existing house's main living space and terrace deck looking down on the neighboring deck, our proposal has a less used Nook with small decorative balcony. This element serves to shield the main living space and deck around the corner." However, in Mr. Rodich's latest letter, this area is described as follows: "What Mr. Nokes dismissively describes as a"pop-out nook" and "just another interior living space" is in actuality the Northwest Wing of the Dawson residence, which is fundamental to the Dawsons' use and enjoyment of their property. It is the Dawsons' prime upper floor family living space. This is the area where the family will spend time together---where they will live." Mr. Rodich cannot blame the Hamiltons for feeling as though they are being misled, when the Applicants' own documents are internally inconsistent. Additionally, Mr. Rodich asserts that we came up with the term "nook" for this area when, in fact, it was the Dawsons' architect who described it so. This is just one example of the Dawsons, or the Dawsons' consultants,misleading the Hamiltons and the neighborhood. In this case, who should the Hamiltons believe, the architect or the lawyer? If the nook truly is a"less used Nook with small decorative balcony" it seems entirely plausible that the Dawsons can ameliorate this vestigial amenity by pulling the nook back to the existing line of development (the house, not the deck and rail structure), as we have respectfully requested a number of times. [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Makana Nova/James Campbell—City of Newport Beach Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) Re:Dawson Project, 2741 Ocean Boulevard, Corona Del Mar February 1,2017 Page 4 of 4 CONCLUSION It is important to repeat that the Newport Beach Municipal Code is very clear in that it asks that new development, "produces an environment that is harmonious with existing and future development, and protects the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties." This is obviously not the case with the Dawsons' submittal. Again, the Hamiltons respectfully ask that City Staff reconsider the Dawsons' modification to the proposed height variance related to the nook and consider pulling back the nook in line with at least the current development (the house, not the deck and rail structure). The Dawsons' project would still be tens of feet above the established Code height limit, but would at least keep the privacy and view impacts to a level no worse than it is today. We feel this is an extremely fair request in light of the excessive amount of land area available to the Dawsons for their home. Ve trul yours, Laurence R okes LPN/dkc cc: Clients Norman J. Rodich, Esq. Richard J. Krantz, AIA Steve Kawaratani Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) From: Karen Carlson <kkc2616@AOL.COM> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 8:49 AM To: Kramer, Kory; Dunlap, Bill; Koetting, Peter, Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray;Weigand, Erik; Zak, Peter, Biddle,Jennifer,Campagnolo, Daniel Subject: Dawson project Ocean Blvd. CDM Dear Planning Commission: I am very distressed at the current proposal for building the new residence at 2741 Ocean Blvd. I hope you will vote against granting the two variances. As you know this property goes from Ocean Blvd. down to Way Lane in China Cove. Way Lane is an extremely narrow and congested area with not only cars and trucks, but literally hundreds of walkers, runners and visitors daily using the stairs up to Lookout point. The one variance allowing the swimming pool over the garages facing Way Lane would create a very dangerous and noisy situation. The foundation for the pool would require massive reinforcement and still make it vulnerable to an earthquake. There is plenty of land to the south of the existing home to put a pool that would not impact the community with noise or require any change of existing rules. The second variance would allow the builders to push out the decks to intrude on their neighbors privacy. Not only would they be too close but could literally look in the bedrooms and other private spaces. I was told the "story poles" were up for only 3 hours and they would not either leave them up for a reasonable time or replace them at a later date for the neighbors to see. There has been very little if any cooperation from the builders. As you well know, Newport Beach and Corona del Mar are going through a building boom. Our general plan and zoning restrictions have been put in place for vital reasons to maintain the health and the desirability of our community. The citizens have repeatedly told the City that they want builders to follow the existing regulations....NO VARIANCES. By allowing these variances you are altering the very essence of where we live. Yes...the Dawsons have a right to build their dream home, but not with special exceptions and at the expense of the rest of us. Just Follow the Rules that keep it fair for all. Thank You Karen Carlson 2616 Cove St. CDM i Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) To: Wisneski, Brenda; Nova, Makana Subject: RE: Dawson Residence - Corona del Mar From:Jason Krotts [mailto:lkrotts@redallc.comj Sent:Thursday, February 02, 2017 10:32 PM To: plantman2@mac.com Cc: Helga Pralle (hpralle@icloud.com) <hpralle@icloud.com>;Wisneski, Brenda <BWisneski@newportbeachca.eov>; Campbell,James <JCampbell@newportbeachca.eov> Subject: Dawson Residence- Corona del Mar Steve, My name is Jason Krotts and I am the son-in-law of Helga Pralle who lives at 2727 Ocean Boulevard near your clients proposed new home. I have been asked by Helga to discuss her concerns regarding the redevelopment of the proposed Dawson home with you. Your January 24`h letter(attached) referenced correspondence sent in December; however, neither Helga nor her neighbors the Hamilton's received anything from you or the Dawson's. I am sure given their objections and concerns to the proposed redevelopment any such correspondence would have been immediately responded to. Helga has lived in her home on Ocean Boulevard for in excess of 33 years. She not only has concerns about the size and scope of the project, but also the construction traffic and potential instability and integrity of the hillside due to large scale construction or seismic activities. While most or all of her concerns can be mitigated, she does formally object to the project and has not seen much of an attempt by your client to work with the neighbors other than sending the attached letter two weeks before the hearing date. I have copied members of the City's planning department on this e- mail to formally log Helga's object to the proposed development. We both plan to attend the hearing next Thursday as does the attorney for the Hamilton's to voice our concerns and objections about the project. That being said, I would like to discuss your clients proposed project and the concerns of Helga in greater detail. You may reach me directly at 949.743.1463 or via my mobile at 949.636.1187. Thank you and I look forward to discussing this matter in greater detail with you. Regards, Jason Jason Krotts Principal 11RE0A . E 4100 MacArthur Blvd.,Suite 120 Newport Beach,California 92660 p:949.743.1463 1 m:949.636.1187 www.REDALLC.com 1 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) KAWARATANI CONSULTING LAND VSE • DESIGN • Pap JECT MANAGEMENT T i, E 1:I1 24 January 2017 Ms.Helga Pralle 2727 Ocean Boulevard Corona del Mar,CA 92625 RE: Neighbors'meeting for the Dawson Residence - Dear Ms.Pralle, I mailed a correspondence to you in December, on behalf of Craig and Raquel Dawson. I understand that you may have concerns regarding their project,and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Please contact me at your convenience. Best, jt�� Q,4-� Steve Kawaratani c.949.290.0210 e.plantman2@mac.com Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) From: Laurie Rivera <LRivera@ptwww.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 3:00 PM To: Kramer, Kory; Dunlap, Bill; Koetting, Peter, Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray;Weigand, Erik; Zak, Peter, Biddle,Jennifer,Campagnolo, Daniel Cc: Nova, Makana;Wisneski, Brenda; 'JHumphrey@SR-Firm.com'; 'stevekawaratani@icloud.com'; 'plantman2@mac.com'; Norman Rodich Subject: Dawson Residence - 2741 Ocean Boulevard -Application No.VA2015-005 (PA2015-224) Attachments: NJR Itr to NB Planning Commission 02 07 17.pdf Pursuant to the request of Mr. Rodich, attached please find correspondence of today's date, with attachments, in PDF format. Laurie A. Rivera I Assistant to Norman J. Rodich, Anish J. Banker and Joshua J. Marx Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP 1900 Main Street, Suite 700 1 Irvine, CA 92614 Direct Dial (949) 851-7281 1 Fax (949) 851-1554 Irivera@ptwww.com I ptwww.com FALMIERI TYLER A T T Q R N E Y 5 A T L A W This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm of Palmieri, Tyler,Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP that may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. 1 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received PALM I E R I TYLson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) ANGELO J PALMIERI (1828.1996) p' T T O R N E V 5 A T L A W ROBERT F. WALDRON (1927.1998) DENNIS W.SHAM MELISA R PEREZ P.D.BOX 19712 DAVID D.PARR' MICHAEL I.KEHOE Irvine,CA 92623-9712 CHARLES H.KANTER' CHADWICK C.BUNCH PATRICK A.HENNESSEY ANISH J.BANKER February 7, 2017 DON FISHER RYAN M-PRAGER February Ql�' G / Norman J.Rodich WARREN A WILLIAMS ERIN BALSARA NADERI JOHN R.LISTER ERICA M.SOROSKY Direct Dial (949)851-7235 MICHAEL H LEIFER JOSHUA J.MARX Direct Fax (949)825-5415 RICHARD A GALLS ERIN K.OYAMA nrodichQptwww.wm NORMAN J.RODICH KATHERINE M.SHAW MICHAEL L.D'ANGELO BRIAN GLICKLIN STEPHEN A.SCHECK CAROLYN H.CLARK DONNA L.SNOW M.OMAR HASHES Refer To File No.38617-000 RYAN M.EASTER. NAZANI N.TEMOURIAN Document I.D,2010166.1 ELISE M.KERN MICHAEL C.CHO,OF COUNSEL RONALD M. COLE.OF COUNSEL MICHAEL J.GREENE-,OF COUNSEL ROBERT C.IHRKE.OF COUNSEL GREGORY N.WEILER.OF COUNSEL ALAN H.WIENER'.OF COUNSEL JAMES E.WILHELM,RETIRED DENNIS G.TYLER- RETIRED P PROFESe IONAL CORPORATION VIA E-MAIL AND HAND DELIVERY Newport Beach Planning Commission 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Dawson Residence 2741 Ocean Boulevard Application No. VA2015-005 (PA2015-224) Dear Commissioners: As you are aware from my prior correspondence, l represent the applicants, Raquel and Craig Dawson,in connection with the above-referenced application. The purpose of this letter is to respond to the Staff Report recommending that you approve the requested variances (Variance No. VA2015-005) subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit A to the Draft Resolution for Approval. The Dawsons do not object to Conditions 1 through 4 and 6 through 26. However, for the reasons discussed below, the Dawsons do object to Condition 5 (hereinafter "Condition 5"), which reads as follows: The project plans shall be modified such that: 1)the uppermost level (level one) dining nook and sitting room below shall not extend beyond the uppermost balcony of the existing development; and 2)the fire pit tower and covered breezeway structures shall be eliminated or modified so they do not extend beyond the position of the existing development at that level. See Exhibit 11B11 attached. The Dawsons respectfully disagree with and object to the proposed modifications set forth in Condition 5 for the following reasons: 1900 Main Street,Suite 700,Irvine,CA 92614-7328 1 T 949.851.9400 1 F 949.851.1554 1 ptwww.com Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received PALMIERI TYLER Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) Newport Beach Planning Commission February 7, 2017 Page 2 • The Northwest Wing does not interfere with neighborhood compatibility or create view or privacy issues because it(1) is entirely within the bluff-top string line and pattern of development; (2) complies with all zoning standards except height; (3) is set back farther from the neighboring property than the existing Dawson residence; and (4)provides separation between the decks and main living areas of both properties,thereby enhancing privacy where there is none now. • The pergola is not detrimental to public views from Ocean Boulevard as it is an open structure located below curb height that extends a mere 4'8"beyond the existing structure and therefore complies with NR 20.1, 20.2 and 20.3. For these reasons, the Dawsons respectfully urge this Commission to approve the requested variances as submitted. OBJECTIONS TO CONDITION 5 The Dawsons respectfully disagree with and object to the two proposed modifications to their variance request set forth in Condition 5 on the following grounds. 1. The Northwest Wine of the Proposed Residence Does Not Interfere with Neighborhood Compatibility or Create View or PrivacyIssue ssues. The first of the staffs two recommended modifications relates to the Northwest Wing of the proposed residence, which staff describes as "a three-story vertical element at the northwesterly comer, which includes a dining nook on the uppermost floor(level one), a sitting area on level two, and a covered guest loggia on level three below." (Staff Report,p. 8.)1 Staff notes that this element "maintains the required setbacks." However, staff"believes" this element "adds bulk and mass beyond the existing single-family structure closer to Way Lane than the existing home." Additionally, staff concludes that "although private views to the north would not be signircantly affected,the distance between the buildings create[s] privacy concerns to the adjacent neighbor from the deck and master bedroom." (Ibid., emphasis added.) Staff therefore recommends that you find that the "proposed dining nook with sitting room below would be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood because the location of these structures at the northwest comer exceed[s] the height limit and would interfere with neighborhood compatibility, private views, and privacy with the neighboring and abutting properties." (Draft Resolution for Approval, p. 22,9 El.) Such a proposed finding is supported neither by the facts in the record nor applicable law. 1 All page references are to the consecutive page numbers located at the lower right corner of each page of the referenced document. 2010166.1 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received PALMIERI TYLER Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) Newport Beach Planning Commission February 7, 2017 Page 3 Neighborhood Compatibility The Staff Report does not specifically explain how the Northwest Wing of the proposed residence would "interfere with neighborhood compatibility." Rather than offering any specific facts in support of this conclusion, the Staff Report merely states that staff"believes" this element "adds bulk and mass beyond the existing single-family structure closer to Way Lane than the existing home." (Staff Report,p. 8.) The facts in the record to not support this conclusion. Bluff-top String Line and Pattern of Development. The Northwest Wing is entirely consistent with the pattern of development. The homes along the bluff behind Way Lane are all aligned along a bluff-top string line ("String Line"). (See Exhibit A.) The existing Dawson residence is set well back from the String Line and the proposed residence is situated slightly closer to it with only the southwest corner just touching that line and no portion of the proposed residence exceeding it. While the Northwest Wing may be slightly closer to Way Lane, as noted in the Staff Report, it is situated within and in tact well back from the required setbacks. Moreover, as discussed below, the vast majority of the proposed residence is actually pulled back from Way Lane relative to the existing structure. Reduction In Mass. The Dawsons' design team has provided significant evidence of reduction of mass and scale relative to the current home, including significantly pulled-back massing from Way Lane. (See Exhibit B.) In addition, the rear deck and loggia over the garage area help to scale down the rear elevation and address offsetting levels below grade. These levels are barely visible from anywhere besides Way Lane as the surrounding houses rise above and eclipse the walls from the harbor view points. Neighborhood Compatibility. The existing residence is a gray monolithic structure that presents an unattractive facade when viewed from the harbor and neighborhood below. (See Exhibit C.) In contrast, the proposed home designed by noted local architect Richard J. Krantz complements the harbor architecture and neighboring homes. Different architectural elements, roof massing and details are utilized to provide both variety and continuity. Patina-soft materials and landscaping are utilized to make the home appear that it has been part of the neighborhood and harbor architectural fabric for many years. Rather than creating over-exposed terraces, the harbor-facing elevation is articulated in horizontal and vertical components and landscaped terraces looking through trellises and loggia structures that layer the outdoor areas into a variety of elements. (See Exhibit D.) The Dawsons and their design team have put great thought and effort into the design of the proposed residence for over two years at substantial expense with the aim of ensuring compatibility with the adjacent Ocean Boulevard bluff-side homes and surrounding 2010166.1 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received PALMIERI TYLER Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) Newport Beach Planning Commission February 7, 2017 Page 4 neighborhood. Richard Krantz's beautiful and elegant design achieves that goal. From the vastly improved public views from Ocean Boulevard to the layered composition and substantially reduced massing and scale of the harbor-facing elevation, the proposed home is compatible with the neighborhood in design, height, and scale to lot size. Private Views Although proposed finding El of the Draft Resolution for Approval includes a statement that the Northwest Wing would "interfere . . . with private views," no facts are cited whatsoever to support such a finding. To the contrary,the Staff Report specifically states that "private views to the north would not be significantly affected. . . ." (Staff Report,p. 8.) Moreover, while protection of public views is a goal of the Newport Beach Zoning Code, protection ofrp ivate views is not. (Newport Beach Municipal Code, § 20.30.100A.)2 For each of these reasons, although alleged interference with private views is mentioned in proposed finding El,there is no factual or legal basis for this statement and it provides no support for the proposed finding. Privacy The Staff Report concludes that "[a]lthough private views to the north would not be significantly affected, the distance between the buildings create/s7 privacy concerns to the adiacent neighbor from the deck and master bedroom." (Staff Report,p. 8, emphasis added.) This is the central rationale for staffs recommendation to "pull the nook and sitting area on the floor below to the position of existing development . . . ." (Ibid.) None of this was ever an issue with staff until the "adjacent neighbor," John Hamilton, complained that the proposed project interfered with his privacy. Mr. Hamilton and his wife, Kathy reside next-door to the Dawsons at 2735 Ocean Boulevard. Ironically,the Hamiltons have created the very problem for which they now complain. The Hamiltons cantilevered their home and deck out as far as possible on their lot to improve their view at the expense of their own privacy (See Exhibit E) and now object to the proposed Dawson residence on privacy grounds even though the proposed Northwest Wing is positioned within required setbacks as noted in the Staff Report and well back from the point that the Hamiltons themselves proiected their own hone and deck forward. As noted above, staff s recommendation to pull the Northwest Wing back to the existing building line is predicated on staffs conclusion that "the distance between the buildings create[s] privacy concerns to the adjacent neighbor from the deck and master bedroom." (Staff Report,p. 2 Newport Beach Municipal Code section 20.30.100A provides as follows: "This Section provides regulations to preserve significant visual resources (public views) from public view points and corridors. It is not the intent ofthis Zoning Code to protect views from private proper , to deny property owners a substantial property right or to deny the right to develop property in accordance with the other provisions of this Zoning Code. (Emphasis added.) 2010166.1 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received PALMIERI TYLER Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) Newport Beach Planning Commission February 7, 2017 Page 5 8.) However, "the distance between the buildings"is actually greater in the case ofthe proposed Dawson residence than in the case of the existing Dawson residence. This is because the side setback is increased with the result that the proposed Dawson residence is farther away from the Hamilton residence than the existing Dawson residence. Further, while the Northwest Wing of the proposed Dawson residence is moved slightly forward, the distance is lust 7%2 feet. Moreover, the distance from the Dawsons'proposed balcony to the side window of the Hamiltons'living room is the same as the distance from that window to the Dawsons'closest existing deck. In addition, there is no privacy whatsoever between the Dawson and Hamilton properties now. To the contrary, anyone standing in any of the Dawsons' main living areas or on one of their decks can see directly into the Hamilton residence and onto their deck, including the Hamiltons' barbecue area (see photo attached as Exhibit F) and living room and master bedroom side windows (see photo attached as Exhibit G). This utter vacuum of privacy results from the fact that, as previously noted, the Hamiltons chose to project their home and deck out to the absolute maximum possible extent to improve their view. This exposed the entire side of the Hamilton residence and deck to direct views from the previously existing Dawson residence,thus resulting in the present situation (zero privacy).3 This was the Hamiltons' choice. They chose view over privacy. Now, the Hamiltons object on privacy grounds to the fact that one portion of the proposed Dawson residence is moved forward from its existing building line a fraction of the distance that the Hamiltons cantilevered their own home and deck forward. In short, after taking full advantage of applicable development standards, the Hamiltons now object to the Dawsons' attempt to do the same thing. 2. The Pergola Is Not Detrimental to Public Views from Ocean Boulevard. Staff is recommending that the pergola be eliminated or relocated to a location in line with the existing structure based on staff s belief that the proposed location would "create a new view obstruction to the public view from Ocean Boulevard outside of the current structure" and that the proposed modification is needed to "maintain existing views as protected by the aforementioned General Plan policies." (Staff Report,p. 11.) In reaching this conclusion, staff relies on an existing home overlay shown as Figure 3 on page 11 of the Staff Report that has 3 The Dawsons' architect, Richard Krantz, designed the proposed Dawson residence to avoid blocking the fenestration on the side of the Hamilton residence and also to include separation between the decks and main living areas of both properties to provide privacy where there is absolutely no privacy now. That separation is provided by the Northwest Wing. Thus, the Northwest Wing does not decrease privacy between the Dawson and Hamilton residences—it increases it. 2010166.1 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received PALMIERI TYLER Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) Newport Beach Planning Commission February 7, 2017 Page 6 been updated and replaced in the final architectural plans submitted by the Dawsons. (See p. 310 of attachment PC 7 to the Staff Report.) Figure 3 was included in an early draft of the architectural plans,but was recently updated after the location of the existing structure was more precisely determined. The final plans reflect a significantly reduced impact on public views. Specifically, as you will see reflected on Exhibit H, the pergola is located a mere 4' 8"outside of the existing structure, and is below curb height. Figure 3 on page 11 of the Staff Report does not accurately show the limited nature of the view impact. Importantly,the Pergola is an open, unenclosed structure, and only the left columns and roof structure minimally impact the view. As recognized by the Commission in connection with the variances granted to neighboring property owners,there is no shortage of public views on Ocean Boulevard and in fact where the impact is minor, approval is warranted. At the hearing on a variance application submitted in connection with the Ingram residence located at 2723 Ocean Boulevard, Commissioner Koetting observed that "there's no shortage of being able to see the Ocean from the whole area. I mean it's not like it's taking away a public view that's a precious public view, because there isn't any other public view. But there's actually better public views just a few feet." (See Excerpt of Transcript attached as Exhibit I.) Similarly, in this case, the minimal amount of public view affected is not a precious public view and, compared to the "better public views"just a few feet away, the view impact is de minimis. Moreover, the proposed design is consistent with Natural Resource Policies NR 20.1 (to "enhance significant scenic and visual resources"),NR 20.2 (requiring new development to "enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas,),4 and NR 20.3 (to "enhance public view corridors from roadway segments (shown in Figure NR3).i5 These policies are met by virtue of the requirement of the Newport Beach Zoning Code,which requires that the entirety of the structure be located below curb height. Here,there is no dispute that the entire structure including the pergola is located below curb height,providing substantially improved and enhanced public views for the entire width of the Dawsons'property. Moreover, a significant portion of what is now solid above-curb structure will be replaced in the proposed residence with below-curb open structure. Thus the proposed project significantly enhances and improves the existing condition. Under these circumstances, the Dawsons respectfully submit that their proposed below-curb development is reasonable and respectful to the public view. °This policy may not even apply as Ocean Boulevard is not a"visually degraded area," but rather already has substantial ocean views and the existence of a public park with open views adjacent to the Dawson property. 5 Ocean Boulevard is not listed in Figure NR3. 2010166.1 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received PALMIERI TYLER Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) Newport Beach Planning Commission February 7, 2017 Page 7 AMPLE FACTS EXIST TO SUPPORT THE VARIANCE WITHOUT MODIFICATION The Dawsons urge the Commission to consider the following as additional support for the requested height and setback variances without modification, all of which are more specifically reflected in the Dawsons' Proposed Resolution for Approval that will be submitted separately. Finding E. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger,jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare ofpersons residing or working in the neighborhood. The two variances requested are enjoyed by four of the six homes on the China Cove bluff including the Dawsons' existing home (and the remaining two may possess existing non- conformities). These variances have not proven to be detrimental to the area and have been enjoyed for many years. The Dawsons'proposed residence is lower in height than the existing structure because it is dropped to curb height, thereby improving public views, is within the String Line, is set back farther from the neighboring property owner, thereby enhancing privacy and proximity concerns, is pulled back from Way Lane and is closer to Ocean,thereby improving the condition, and overall greatly reduces mass and scale of the existing residence. Finding F: Granting of the variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this section, this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan. The Dawsons' project is not in conflict with the Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan. The Zoning Code permits the approval of variances to resolve physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and location constraints that exist with a lot. Granting the height and setback variances are necessary to build a residence that is comparable to the neighboring properties,which have the very similar conditions and have been granted height and setback variances. The Proposed Project improves existing conditions as it is below curb height, within the String Line, pulled back from Way Lane, set back farther from the neighboring property, and eliminates existing mass and scale. The proposed home will enhance the bluff compared to the existing development. CONCLUSION The basis of the Dawsons'position that they should be granted the requested variances is a concept derived from the California and U.S. Constitutions and incorporated both in the California Government Code and Newport Beach Zoning Code—that similarly situated property owners should be treated in the same manner. Municipal Code section 20.52.090 reflects this equal protection of the laws concept proscribing special privileges to be enjoyed by one property owner in relationship to another but also providing relief from a strict application of 2010166.1 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received PALMIERI TYLER Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) Newport Beach Planning Commission February 7, 2017 Page 8 Development Standards which would in fact deny a property owner privileges enjoyed by other similarly situated property owners in the vicinity. As demonstrated by the variances granted to the Dawsons' neighbors,the Dawsons' should be afforded the same privileges enjoyed by their neighbors with respect to height and setbacks. Likewise, denial of the requested variances would in effect grant the Dawsons' neighbors the very special privilege proscribed by law. The modifications proposed by staff would deprive the Dawsons of their fundamental right to use and enjoy their property in the same manner as all of the other residents of China Cove and therefore constitute a gross violation of established principals of fundamental fairness and equal protection under the law. Very truly yours, Norman J. Rodtch NJR Attachments cc: Makana Nova, AICP, Associate Planner Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Director, Community Development Craig Dawson Raquel Dawson Janet E. Humphrey, Esq. Steve Kawaratani 2010166.1 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) EXHIBIT A ��? ' •. (i J eA O' �D to State St Bank � a �1 s . .11W y' a b I � • / l ' • y K Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) EXHIBIT B Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 al Materials Received Daws 'Resid rice (PA2015-224) � O 1I CV Ono 1 � AMIJ M yo i Io N 1 i J1 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) EXHIBIT C Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) �JIJI1 Way Lane Original Photograph Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) EXHIBIT D Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) ell Dawson Residence k 4p JW 2741 ocean Blvd. _n- Corona del Mar, CA 92627 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) EXHIBIT E _ PlanningCommissi 7 m No. 4d Additional on Residence Varia ) /i 4t1 n � r N l ♦l. � awl , r, Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) EXHIBIT F Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) 1 1961844.1 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) EXHIBIT G Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) �t Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) EXHIBIT H Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) '-811 ±27-411 Open/ Open Trellis Pergob 1 t ` Improved Ocean Blvd. Views Exhibit Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) EXHIBIT I Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received Dawson Residence Variance PA2015-224) 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 2 3 4 IN RE : INGRAM VARIANCE HEARING 5 March 19 , 2015 6 7 8 REPORTER' S TRANSCRIPT OF AUDIO PROCEEDINGS 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Pages : 1 - 52 16 Job No . 148212 17 18 Transcribed by CHERE L . DAVIS , CSR No . 13910 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 California Deposition Reporters Page: I Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received Dawson Residence Variance PA2015-224) 1 So if you ' re standing here - - this is existing 2 on the left - - the garages - - and then this is the 3 existing house on the right . 4 MR. KOETTING : Right . 5 MS . NUENO : So this would be the elevator over 6 height , and this would be the deck and the floor below. 7 MR . KOETTING : So all that new construction 8 there would be blocking - - is blocking view that 9 currently exists? 10 MS . NUENO : Correct . Well , it would be 11 additional floor area through a space that is currently 12 visible down to Way Lane . 13 MR. KOETTING : Is it blocking a view of the 14 water, or is it blocking a view of Way Lane? What ' s it 15 blocking a view of? 16 MS . NUENO : I ' m trying to look at the perspective 17 from the aerial and see where the home is in relation to, 18 like you say, the water . And the basis of the home is 19 the subject project labeled, kind of , blocking it . 20 But I would think that there might be enough 21 distance between that area that there might not be any 22 blockage of the water itself . 23 Inaudible . ** 24 MS . NUENO : Here ' s a driveway picture . It might 25 help . California Deposition Reporters Page: 44 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4d Additional Materials Received D - 24) 1 So this would be looking towards where the 2 addition would be . To the left is where the existing is , 3 and you can' t the see it over that plant , but this is the 4 existing two single-car garages . And the addition would 5 be lower and behind that , except for maybe the elevator. 6 But this is on the driveway. So standing a 7 little bit further back at Ocean Boulevard, which is a 8 little bit higher, it would be a very similar view. 9 MR . KOETTING: It ' s kind of - - there ' s no to shortage of being able to see the Ocean from the whole 11 area . I mean it ' s not like it ' s taking away a public 12 view that ' s a precious public view, because there isn' t 13 any other public view. 14 But there ' s actually better public views just a 15 few feet . 16 Inaudible ** 17 MR. KOETTING: Yeah. No, I mean it ' s a fair 18 question. I think in the overall context of things , one 19 has to wonder whether it ' s , you know, significant enough 20 to be of concern. 21 MR . TUCKER: Mr . Kramer, did you say something? 22 MR. KRAMER: I ' m going to make a motion to 23 approve the variance *204-005 as modified by the 24 following to allow for a narrowing of the driveway, 25 allowing for a one car garage, for the applicant to work California Deposition Reporters Page: 45 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Received Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) Nokes jgGEIVED el, —& COMMUNITY Quinn L A w v E R s February 1, 2017 FEB 07 2017 DEVELOPMENT �Z VIA ELECTRONIC AND FIRST CLASS MAIL �OP NEWPORT 0� Makana Nova, Associate Planner James Campbell, Principal Planner CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: My Clients, John and Kathy Hamilton Dawson Project: 1741 Ocean Boulevard, Corona Del Mar Dear Ms. Nova and Mr. Campbell: I felt it necessary to promptly respond to the most recent correspondence from the Dawsons' lawyer, Mr. Rodich. Over the course of the last year, it is becoming increasingly apparent to my clients that the Dawsons have absolutely no sincere interest in working with the neighbors to create a project that takes into account concerns expressed by this fragile neighborhood. Mr. Rodich consistently challenges every request made by the Hamiltons related to the structure itself, as he attempts to justify a structure that is simply too big, too invasive, too intrusive and too impactful for the neighborhood. ISSUES RELATING TO ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF THE STREET Mr. Rodich states, "First, the Hamiltons assert that due to the city's 1998 abandonment of a portion of the right-of-way along Ocean Boulevard adjacent to the Hamilton lot and what is now the Dawson lot, the Dawsons should somehow be subject to additional restrictions not provided by law and should be required to situate their proposed home on their property in a way that the Hamiltons deem to be, "more beneficial" to their neighbors as the Hamiltons themselves allegedly did." The Hamiltons absolutely do not think that the-Dawsons should be subject to additional restrictions. All the neighbors.have requested is that the Dawsonspull.back the nook to the point of their existing rear building line (the house, not the deck and rail structure). Inste4d,the proposed Dawson residence has managed to exacerbate an Alrpady non-con�rrming condition. Nukes & Ouinn • A Professional Corporation 410 Broadway, Suite 200, Laguna Beach. CA 92551 • Phone: 949/376-3500 • FAX 949/376-3070 websile: www.00kesquinn.com Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Makanallova/JamesCampbell—CityofNewportBeach Item No. 4e Additional Materials Received Re:Dawson Project, 2741 Ocean Boulevard, Corona bel Mar Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) February 1,2017 Page 2 of 4 The Hamiltons' concession would still require a variance from the development standards set forth in the Newport Beach Municipal Code,but the Hamiltons feel that the variant condition would provide adequate privacy. That concession still does not in any way relieve the Dawsons of their obligations under the Zoning Ordinance,the Government Code or the City of Topanga case to provide substantial evidence to satisfy each of the variance findings. In his letter, Mr. Rodich goes on to clarify that my clients, the Hamiltons, did not take the City's 1998 abandonment of the Ocean Boulevard right-of-way into consideration when they built their home in 1971. Mr. Rodich is correct;the Hamiltons did not take the abandonment into consideration when they built their house in 1971. Of course they didn't—because the abandonment occurred 27 years later, in 1998! However,if the Hamiltons, or any future owner, were to decide to make a major modification to the existing structure, the variance findings could not be made because the lot is no longer comparable to the others along the bluff behind Way Lane. To continue to use the term"constrained site" as substantial evidence in comparing it to adjacent neighbors (except 2735 Ocean Boulevard) ignores history and is not a comparison of "like for like." ISSUES RELATING TO PRIVACY Mr. Rodich states that privacy is not a General Plan policy or goal. Please reference the very first words in the Newport Beach Municipal Code which states: The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that development is consistent with the General Plan, complies with the standards of this chapter, produces an environment that is harmonious with existing and future development and protects the use and enioyment_of neighboring properties." When the drafters of the Newport Beach Municipal Code put pen to paper, it is clear that they obviously intended their words to mean something. "Privacy" is one of the "protections"under the Code, as it is required to safeguard the enjoyment of neighboring properties. Mr. Rodich continues to pick and choose what things benefit his clients the most. As proposed,you can practically pass a cup of sugar between the two homes. Moreover, referencing Exhibit C of Mr. Rodich's letter(Predominant Line of Existing Development),by pushing out the nook as far as they can, they have managed to insulate themselves and have blocked any ability to have a view to the southwest for the neighbors up street from them. THE NEWLY DUBBED "NORTHWEST WING" Later in his letter, Mr. Rodich refers to "fie Northwest Wing of the Dawson Residence," as if he's referencing a castle. This northwest wing of the Dawson residence is really at the core of the Hamiltons' concerns; it does not line up with the so-called "PLOED," an acronym developed by the Dawsons to reference the outer theoretical limit of the structure. Rather, it sticks out like an unwanted appendage. This "wing"truly sticks out from the pattern of Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Makanallova/JamesCampbell—CityofNewportBeach Item No. 4e Additional Materials Received Re:Dawson Project, 2741 Ocean Boulevard, Corona Del Mar Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) February 1,2017 Page 3 of 4 development and is extremely impactful to the Hamiltons' enjoyment of their property. There is no need for it as sited, in that there is plenty of lot area (as stated numerous times by Mr. Rodich as justification for the size of the home) for the Dawsons to achieve this Ritz-Carlton-like residence,while still respecting the Hamiltons' need for privacy. CONTRADICTION: IS THIS A LIGHTLY-USED NOOK OR A MAIN LIVING AREA? The Dawsons' architect, Richard Krantz, asserted in his July 26,2016 letter to City Staff (Exhibit I —Richard Krantz letter to City StafJ): "The new home is designed to improve.privacy for the neighboring home. Instead of the existing house's main living space and terrace deck looking down on the neighboring deck, our proposal has a less used Nook with small decorative balcony. This element serves to shield the main living space and deck around the comer." However, in Mr. Rodich's latest letter, this area is described as follows: "What Mr. Nokes dismissively describes as a"pop-out nook" and"just another interior living space" is in actuality the Northwest Wing of the Dawson residence, which is fundamental to the Dawsons' use and enjoyment of their property. It is r, the Dawsons' prime upper floor family living space. This is the area where the family will spend time together---where they will live." Mr. Rodich cannot blame the Hamiltons for feeling as though they are being misled, when the Applicants' own documents are internally inconsistent, Additionally,Mr. Rodich asserts that we came up with the term"nook" for this area when, in fact,it was the Dawsons' architect who described it so. This is just one example of the Dawsons, or the Dawsons' consultants, misleading the Hamiltons and the neighborhood. In this case, who should the Hamiltons believe, the architect or the lawyer? If the nook truly is a"less used Nook with small decorative balcony"it seems entirely plausible that the Dawsons can ameliorate this vestigial amenity by pulling the nook back to the existing line of development (the house, not the deck and rail structure), as we have respectfully requested a number of times. [Remainder ofpage intentionally left blank] Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Received Re: Da sNova/JamesProject, Campbell—City evof Newport Beach Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) Re: Dawson Project, 274! Ocean Boulevard, Corona Del Mar February I,2017 Page 4 of 4 CONCLUSION It is important to repeat that the Newport Beach Municipal Code is very clear in that it asks that new development, "produces an environment that is harmonious with existing and future development, and protects the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties." This is obviously not the case with the Dawsons' submittal. Again, the Hamiltons respectfully ask that City Staff reconsider the Dawsons' modification to the proposed height variance related to the nook and consider pulling back the nook in line with at least the current development (the house, not the deck and rail structure). The Dawsons' project would still be tens of feet above the established Code height limit, but would at least keep the privacy and view impacts to a level no worse than it is today. We feel this is an extremely fair request in light of the excessive amount of land area available to the Dawsons for their home. ve trut yours, Laurence P. okes LPN/dkc cc: Clients Norman J. Rodich, Esq. Richard J. Krantz, AIA Steve Kawaratani Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4f Additional Materials Received Dawson Residence Variande (PA2015-224) Richard Krantz Architecture, Inc. 1500 Quail Street, Suite 520 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Hi Makana, Per your discussions with Steve Kawaratani earlier today, we are writing to confirm that Craig has met with several of the Planning Commissioners and considered their comments as well as those of neighboring property owners. Although we feel strongly that sufficient grounds exist to approve the application as submitted and have already made significant compromises during the course of the application process, the Dawsons are willing to consider the following additional compromises if they would be acceptable to the Commissioners: • Remove wrought iron balcony at upper level of Northwest Wing • Although proposed massing at Northwest Wing is designed to provide privacy to the adjacent neighbor, arched glass door at upper level of Northwest Wing to be replaced with three- arched deep-recessed windows and columns to eliminate any remaining privacy concerns • Replace bay window at level two with a deep-recessed window to eliminate adjacent neighbor privacy concern • Obscured glass to be used at upper level side windows to eliminate adjacent neighbor privacy concern • Glass to be installed between 42" high pool balusters to provide a sound barrier • Pool equipment to be enclosed in sound-attenuating equipment vault Please see the attached exhibits reflecting the items referenced above and let me know if you have questions. Thank you. Aaron Easton Richard Krantz Architecture, Inc. 1 ,. .b Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 EVTLER5 1 Item No. 4f Additional Materials Received PANTRY T Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) 0 GREAT ROOM I• ^ R soli'TOP?R, . L or I < H ��TGHEk u'rn '* y I ♦ / '1YYrt��Y.z- W'H i AT / yK V-w ` % Fw..r �cL�'rld1 - - J00000 n R ,/f 00, i T-6• -WlQ• W-2- L7• r • , s-D • , -Or, Is- p= , 9-0* , A n-n V7 AMZ 100'-6 VY Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4f Additional Materials Received Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) R 1 L.. i p r , Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4f Additional Materials Received Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) w Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4f Additional Materials Received Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) 1 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4f Additional Materials Received Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) r fanning ussion - February 9, 2017 •' item No. 4f Additional Materials Received Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) I I II I Planning Commission - February • 2017 Item • 4f Additional Materials Receive•—%- DawsonResidence 101111, o r . .bi:r'rrrtrhe4rrhaYtA 'W�gll YY OF II �� GREEN ■��1 r I 1+ e v ONE low I " :.r.r.r...r .. ..1..,. .��. . .. •rrrlY r. '•cru.rrrerrrc -lip m IIIloon gh� �l�iii ii9 � RI�RR�IIpR loon MEMO loon MMEM MID ■■■ MEMO �■ 1■1 yi. F Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 ting 224) Dawson Variance Y i`{{; ti f•q .� 7w• �� St �rfiu - r • of via mr Planning Commission Public Hearing 'ass Februaryg, 2017 VA2Fi • • • • • `C9G1Fp�• Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 ting 224) Introduction Variance No . VA2015 -005 ( PA2015 - 224) to allow portions of a new single-family residence to exceed the height limit and to allow retaining walls, a garage, and pool above to encroach into the 10-foot rear setback along Way Lane. If approved, rescind Variance Nos. VA653 and VA1137 ■ Project Location Corona del Mar, China Cove 2741 Ocean Boulevard 07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division 2 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 ting 224) b $ Ji a "N q t F 9 aJ� �' ,Jp . •.� 2 Subject r 0 Property s� ppp J ° ; ` 3p / utt 4N n',, 4 C 'ona I Mar;[a to '••A +�/!� Planning Commission - February i GP Exhibit NR3 : Public View Points and Coastal View Roads ^►SII♦I � Su 'ect �iII I � II •II♦ I♦ ♦II II �� II II III ` IIIII ., ♦ �jIII ♦ !♦ `i ♦II II ��, ��♦♦I♦♦IIS , Property ���♦♦III IE . 1 � CORONA �I Development07/13/2012 Community .• .. . . I i Site Photo : Front Entrance from Ocean Boulevard r..r . 1 � � i ..vin' � ti r fs. o—r_• . ,w MrA r� V� Planning Commission - February • , 2017 224) Site Photo : Ocean Boulevard w I R Y 46 Age a a i Site Photo : View from Ocean Boulevard 0'..j 77 n+ low 'N 14 1 k a '"' AI17 y� Y i` t` �:,i � � yam : _ •. Site Photo : Way Lane ( north ) r d ' I lz a t.r Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 ting 224) 4 r I R i i - 07/13 nity Development Department - Planning Divi ion g •�_ Site Photo : Way Lane (south) s { 07/13/2012 10 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 ting 224) Background ■ 1961 - Variance No. VA653 , single-family residence with 2-car garage in the 10-ft front setback along Ocean Blvd . ■ 1986 - Variance No. VA1137 , addition up to 5 , 264 sq . ft. of gross floor area , limited to curb height limit 1998 - Abandoned right-of-way, adjacent to Ocean Boulevard , lot area increased to 10 , 527 sq . ft. 07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division 11 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Itpm Mn 4n Additional Ni2teriak PrpzPntpri qt ting 224) IL LL T -, R t 5 3 i -A -- F JI �Y �✓ g c r 07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division 12 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 If ting 224) Proposed Single - Family Residence Complies with 10-ft front and 4-ft side setback requirements ■ floor area limit (1o, 219 . 5 sq . ft. maximum) top of curb elevation from Ocean Boulevard open space requirements (15% of buildable area) 07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 13 Rear Setback Encroachments ' . , . , . . . • ■ . . . . . .. . ,, . . . . , . _ . . -----�-- -�'-='-- ---------\ Floor Piano. Level F % d y : : y . . . m • , : a - \ _ \ . - - ( : « Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 lip-m Nn 4n Additinpal Materials, Presented at ting 224) Floor Piano. Level Three i i i 1I i .r t 2 E222 z ' 2 2 22222 2 �2� w 2 : : : 2z z7 2z2z2z2z2z�s I 222�2� r "—fir— � e 11 16 1 Planning Commission - February • , 2017 Item No 4a Additional Matpdal--, Preseenatted at NARpting Dawson Residence (PA2015-224) E STAIR - - as II �� I iiilpll I,I�III;Ilii POOL LOS&A ION ROC [FMC-711 II II •; _ 1, iil ililililllllpllllllll�, • Section --------------- EI ■ ■■ ■ III IIIIIIII ■■ ■■ ■� 1 MEMO III VNE ■■ ■■ �■ ■E■ ■ III ! Illik ii ■■ I lillliiiiiiiii 1■ _■■■ ■ iii �iiiiii� �li�l� ii II II ■ soon i Project Height Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 I No. 4g Ad ' 'on Materials Presented at Meeting yts Ft ide'ice\ ' ce (PA2015-224) \' i - �' Z—_ r ` r x r1 \ •+�G �V t5 \ __1 �kC M1 _ hV ar 5 r by remit ra\ .R . ..,�-'9 a /`� �:h �v,` x ♦ �J �� iy M1 ,rte a-- NM. L - - xsn«�acATn roRnar♦ MdM AT ICGE RN W G/LI.dV\p odea om \ J 07/13/201 C nn y Devel nt D rtment- Planning Division i Project Superimposed with Existing Building Envelope Floor Plans. Level One ��MIN � �. I��11 Y 1 A-1 r. . • S - Y� �c mm -- P� �� � 1111116 Floor Plan : Level Two A � � 's Ips ■ �l 1 �� �■���■epi 1��p� Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4g Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) Existing Building Line ---- _ �� Top of Curb am Glib __ _ -1-.W M"' _ .. ............................ �YTya 4a1R WiN.I. CIK/tsl �mw Lr G _________________________ _\``____________________ __________ __ _____ __________________ CT Ga R1Y0 4A' _______________�Mn ____________________________ ?yaw conn %*--.,24' Height Limit _ __ _ _ _ _______________________ __ ____ _______________________________ 01PR�IV ___________________ Tn O]�Y1 MOIIID � G �1at GM E.G----------------------------------------------------------------- .w o•.w vi Right Elevation 1 111111 I i Site Photo : Existing Development at Northwest Corner i a • • �. • 725 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 lip-m Nn 4n Additinpal Material-, Presented at ting 224) View Impact ._ i LM.0 d� �vSriv.( HoutC �i�pE� �y..c.� 77KT L]Ei�dS a w/EfNY �1 NF/�NBoe Vi6v /,4pxa►s7zapy OxisrW4 AMAD/moo " 26 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 ting 224) Project Superimposed with Existing Building • • Existing house to be removed I 11 11'1 _ 1 07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 27 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 p Item NQ. 4g Additl nal Nkaterial ting DawSortsid ce 224) MD0351-garage 5'2"setback, no height relief ` r VA884,VA1055, ti and VAI 126- garage 2'6" setback, height 3' below top of curb r` P �.� ♦ }� A' CO Q VA2014-005-garage 0' setback, height at xe' • ✓a 1 top of curb MD970-8' retaining 8n v1G� wall 0' setback, ' existing home 2 ;t.` exceeds top of curb VA876-garage setback 2'6", height limited to top of curb (although existing exceeds this height) VA653-garage setback 2'2", height 12"above top of curb VA1137-height of addition limited to top of curb 07113120 ,I -tom e' '4. 28 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 If ting 224) Public Comments 18 public comments (3 in support, 15* expressing concern or opposition including a petition) Concerns raised : Structural integrity of home and need for a construction management plan ■ Bulk/scale of home from Way Lane ■ Access through Way Lane ■ Privacy and private views ■ Nuisance and structural integrity of pool • Maintenance of City trees and vegetation *several commenters submitted multiple letters of concern or opposition 07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division 29 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 ting 224) Recommendation - ':� Conduct a public hearing ■ Approve variance with modifications : Eliminate or relocate the firepit tower/pergola to the limit of existing development and preserve public views Eliminate or relocate northwest wing (nook/sitting area below) to the limit of existing development for neighborhood compatibility 07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division 30 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 ting 224) CEQA/Coastal _ CEQA The project is categorically exempt under Section 15303, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) . Class 3 exempts the construction of limited numbers of new, small structures, including one single-family residence . Coastal A 10-day categorical exclusion order was filed to the California Coastal Commission on January 26, 2017, contingent on the approval of the Variance . The 10-day notice period ended on February 5, 2017. 07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division 31 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 ting 224) Next Steps n s ar r ■ If final action is taken, appeal period expires February 23, 2017. ■ If no appeal, proceed to final design, permitting and construction . 07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division 32 r *i a ti 4 M I _ For more information contact: - Makana Nova,Associate Planner 949-644-3249 mnova@newportbeachca.gov www.newportbeachca.gov Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 eeting Dawson Residence Variance (PA20 -224) Dawson Ocean Project -!it Rq.W a m fi lau. i x. Newport Beach Planning Commission 02/09/17 S L I D �m �. 4h Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) rinjOW e .. SLID Planning Commission February 9, 2017 4h m Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) a s 01 SLIDPlanning Commission - February 9, 2017 m . 4h Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) n 001 a�ll�i 4 , Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 S I D . 4h Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) a �t rt'-}I'. ,,4 1. •e�'. It 11 i i� i4 • 8th t ` / is„ Planning Commission - February • 2017 . A• • • Dawson Residence (PA2015-224) 177 7 . v ,1 SLIDPlanning Commission - February 9, 2017 m 4h Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) ;�WAOANW t Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 S L I D �em . 4h Additional Materials Presented at Meeting L Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) New Open Stmctme Improved View (App=Il' (Apprm 839 Exietmg house to be removed IMO Massing Ratio Study Both Houses Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 -� - 4 em N dditional Materials Presented at M wson Residen 0 ) ---------- Gti.Ge". n �. , I t OU � Dewe. '• .awo �'lc�_s 9EtJROOM 4 MTt,RAe— L _ — RECREATICN �. PCL LO6CalA YP ti b,� MTa YC• �l r ' f SA¢iZE ±27-4" Item Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4h Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Op Tems Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) 17 e7f JS 14 - i i Tmr►,rntr�rl I�rr�.ar� l�lirr� J�a�i - . s t ' a zz- Y CD (j) h r f �C Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4h Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) ftv .. ,} .„ml y s OPIN �•.�- L..4/VOSG.41�J� J4��C 41AAff Q, aQ47J.J5 Ha"j! �UCnoN r 7W7' AFA*4U e-coeMStr . .•. / YAEW df AMU u IY N1 pY/I Ip 1!!1}I[ V m.r - '` ` ' / ��• ��/HIh J+I/VG �� _. wwll.ram �YO IN pxM b .-f641 IY.11M1 a�w Mi M4 1110 Y/IRA 1 0 u ars warns . rmx nr.a mlr - .,arl.mwOwn wlwn -rlMa tfe-a.oea - I 01141 IR NO Rd10 Ilppf YIIYI .aubon.on nrn n wwlr.�rm ux vwm I -taa r w.nwu MLL o �' ..�r lawny srxl RIR)n.+n.ars a nmr. o-uma.v a a.n Lwl wn bbr axwu i a I�.Rrl1®u ncaa b awn wm r b[.c b we ADOmONPI NOTES y .art vrXs�b nwr nw.a atom ro wbc.sic+«.nr +lu s9t+ moo wo mwwn 9ru . '� w 1\ ►i L°i:'.a°Iv�.'�o�.br�n n�wvmm .�im�i nlabn®eiu�A� x. �o�r�b��� En ru.x Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4h Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) •.ti 4 F Wt IMMII ®9xIfY3 pip OCrp- ga -4 l / .MucrloNr - LAMG' CF t]VS7.r�5 MouS� .x..ems.xuln ol.v 7WT AE S GcK�t6r/T .+.lal nc„w Is.lmrn• YASW "^4r sem./—� �.- 1• YILU Ixltl ON1111YW. NE16h0f• r/OI l� Ift/ ;—ww.r.m ewm rev/nm.x • y xnxv AFy)(''��I ..xu IK nnx v Nr•AY4 A4VQ PA60ft�WO �ax MFleI II/t[4 •6Wl OYIrI.pM —w11.R IR xm clmYtl!1RNM wN �' _"_ _ Iltaupexlll nlril r.RWIF.I RP HI.fie 1 pi f N{nr FW. i Ira vwl.i.ola.xanx ..w.nnxxrxn.uxucln lannen aw.:vl v.an ADDMIT1pNAI.NOTNOTES ✓ :�. a m lu+wrn woe v loxnl u>ticr vm rn aau v exc w.n uxwla nou v nxo 91N1 a emrtrtn m ILaPx.comma rwu � /u tlYf• NIYB YO OEI.�41R llWa :0 I.MEWM MW[Tnl — ` f\ � !! �-Ml:xtn.T11f11 N OMP[x1(11 x M M[oRJIIK-Yn iMll R 0.RbWD G 1Q LYIP. /G III�IY.OIOp r aM® _. .ava xwa walrrnm oa�wtcu�ar<r iwcmlo wo�ieno�wio Iwai ne�ia�pl t��m'n Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 PANS i Item No. 4h Additional Materials Presented at Meeting s Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) I _ V i 1 1 &f?ZAT :±R { yR h ^ ROOM t, ut 7500'f f ` R s+re'Tp.Or'L+ G AT G n I �a,je. � •I I � � � q . SX7rrAlitC•IW�y F �,... V��I/ �-rte ._� -�... ..�-. ♦ f -�� N•'p c m-, i s��� a,, t .�4r n'-11 V7' G`ae`r.�wea. yrs✓ b, 23 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4h Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) R i i a _ i 'ice 1� Planninq Commission - February 9, 2017 Wierials nals -- Item No. 4h Addition matPresented at Meeting ` Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) r' i �I 1 '' 4 —Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item'Mo.4'A 16,nalMafena s resented at Meeting Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) w� ;-'.-1�•euNS'GRs¢1� . .. .. �.:�3A�-V_wS:aV'�`1TT _�•]X�R.,:- i—e - i II i, I � t t c '� ��> t moi. ;`�� .`: � • I / I RA . � � a k1�' 3 31� (_ rk "ryrYl$My r' y I� F f'+'C. ...y f 1 i .�,�.x . �lWN@ an w 4( I �« Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 • �� Item No. 4h Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) K wa 0 lttlt .� 0 OL��vpRf7 ,� Oc*� •> t I < -MUCTION P �- I L.6MC OF ExiSTir`rS Mogt'� _ ..I.i..�afm4 mn . .. .+a� T111 tT l�F�S G eK.T6NT � +.s as Yr✓.w w Ym•O r -- iY as-.:...w -«wu ifYY rworl.mn NYYO•may � � C �-�—/•-p.„� 7iT - a rw•nom orn ma NL��/7pt�lc V���� S'1ll'/y • wur�v.I.awManac+e«i.na.. ...o M a Mewt 6 0®[Yaw a Mf a./1171•w „„ / F tw.sTA1� �Q ,na a'�ia oss . •amu�r.er nw a rn•rfe v/w�a 4 / 4 Ol�i•l��w�V . .+n•oaln . was mYa.mw ^_+'`�1� ..•w.:irMo.wrt • ra.•la boimnn �.r«[ana af�•aa.Yw Ya« -" �lM][MY•w[R.aYn n awwa m x•ewn • —mom r AR nom,fY� u aaaua.r•¢ocean ww wu oaM.YTiW w•Il WOld11a Yla1lM Iaa1V11r UNt M OTS pp01716NAI NOTES ..- .m a�u.mrn em s Ioiuo w fawn.la M Yacr.a M 'uun ufNaU nmu a aw fuu�lwmm ro•uac•BYLMx aalY v w OIOS� NNEE fo min vw. b 1]ItiWaX MY[[TOI rl ff a6--M�_Mw•O• roNmR atN.M aYl[IY>Ifd-Mr 9•LL S vpfm�L^ 2 V6i PNA rCl uRfi w.a6•[wlMly _• p1NIY19G tll A LLOY9 4VIfY.bY[Dlm � ,p�yww%ry�•j M tlIW�IEOY Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4h Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) I it 4 i Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4h Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) �t41 l v' +r•'� "" ^� . . ice �:' r ' � 116 a, for li.a I off, �- r { •. J .JLi y F r ' 1 � ♦ 7r��1 v11 �r J . Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4h Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 tem Materials Presented at Meeting iderffftmff%e (PA2015-224) d .T4 , CSF Cyti' q ,'y o p - ti J w m �v gxe z ti� ti 8 i Lookout Point Newport gBdCtiDisclaimer. Every reasanaals¢owl has been maga to ass urs the acaaacy of Um data pmrlded.however,The City of GIS Nuwporl Beach and IS emPloyees and agents discal m any aad at rea omiblRy from or relating to Cz-Om- ' any reaihs ebUred in its use. 0 100 200 Imagery: 2COO.2013 photas provided by F2& Feet 12arzota • r it k•7 ... ,i, w � PV t_ L p i Y- a LL r l 7" ,.1 q a f i 1 r w q' 1 _I '1 I } r r • • - � • 1 �, • •- � �i ,� i � - � _ _ ? � � 1 .,. .. � i ri! �..�' � � 1 i � �1 .. ii1�.4 I ✓ - � � i �S� _ I � f � � r: , i -:ter , .. .�r � ��� • � • - • • 1 �� � • ��. i ..... _ . .,,.; ,, , :.y - . . -� '' - _ �� � �� _ + a_ 7r � � � i ..� � ' { ' "�..._ ��;. '. r 3 F _.i ,r' ff,I i f . / �'( //J f � �� � � ��, Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4h Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) r- r � 1 I f- Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4h Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) IWW� >ue ®a}wrr RD � �4Esp- � <. . l t. x i'� J~ L,.4NOSGr11K0 N��. .NUCTION P Cid EXJSTMv C HC4SC' ..v sm raw a.•a 7U4'r tVAw4ffS 444WO fr .ww io euw m to Im•®f Y4FI✓ 4/^4cr ��(�/ ��}� 1 bYl IOIY ONN}w�l NtL IA%P i,: • MMI Y iY OW O rw M w/N4 a r p��,y� --.(i M r •�11 Y OBN tew�ref}o w/llr..w FWw7Iw* � i 'r4Vt%*O B rno" .-tmf.it wr Rw iu me is v/tv.r / MIRY srnv • •s•wa onlxO.•va ..rw.arrec.st[ rarxa w-411w1Yr i .a+.[r rwf na vrioau rrfow awn .uow.o+aM�nFn n ens ry ui wwx t -aww Y wf nay wd� (i+�-imw u�v a.n am ev aru nm., \\` a.Fol IOrJ111.Yw..wM Ad1R,t m11Q bl arr,aa noomaNaI NOTES � � �� .- -•v n n[•mww wmo v xmo a urar nw M nrr:f ar:xr xwar rlMn nma a AMl M}4�arwnrvt m wco.c w4YGiar n}a . ti Os f Yf100 as•arwl.YlR N1a pe i s :``_ui ww Rlfnl m mwsx wn.w M nae xLI��J-w.zw S Krrslln f' Yw AM Nq gioMw a n�u mo•.9�aw -.. n .� LLD ML(MItnRN tll/.LL1MIf.0 4Wla 1LfIrt1Mm 1tl6M T.•IW�MY M MM'�P�.21Y IUY Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4h Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) 1f W awl @ WIN E y0, ' ,y ao ala. * #! / r * ' n I ' .i-� ,:� >-:�,.•.� L,.4N©sc.�,.75� Nuc - .. HUCTION D - I _ L.� Cry' ESVS'TM/S M04C� �r TJ�{tT j��$ G4fI�a!'f ree la ouw m la Imm _ `' ` ��_ a.... �_.- .� -.a .�-�.«. •�-^-� _ -rv:wllror aml�ll ion xavm oixv S 7�� DENS rAY � a MWI r.Nn oWrls ein nr/wl@r � rr � - ~ •..�+s nx r a0ai f ONt ew•las rnf o @/�@ KI p��� or• o rtan.I,.ne@I caw lu ma.ao @,xn@. � ,Vyp / ^��D� �:een xnarol a aaaw.oaxxo.WM ..ol-n.nls nnll 14 xNni W-artasl �. 11 nAR�Mm aIOIIO lw)bglial IlwaMre bin ry mTJ rtM wa wax , -Nx r.w nM,Mel /�MApsi�/wf� ri�Ni�j ..a-wx. �116'aLL,f Mw Pawl gr Mw a4 wSRw i '\. :/ `a, in .- fY.Nlfflrlr p.aa 11NaIT O1Ue W ar5px ,tJ0440A4 aooMoNni NOTES �'... {1. o n nc a mrw am a ncag a vwr.ml M alerJc s nc .aain nrMa naa@rs u no fnu�sullwml m elanac.seas nes I na emrs elelO6 go elwasaln slw >` n uoxe.Aw a@raw. - '�\ 't; `a�-NI.NM Nl[li N aNaiC«na M n<IV[nMl l-nv 9n1 R xOleap ! eOR OIQ. Jn1t Mad/@MP.rn MOW «.e_u�Mur ralsiaal s n unnta aver comes esaa roar K eslW a nB nmas aM. rtl¢1O 011aer vaO1 M a01ew fBO.A mPn Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4h Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) 11 , 10 is c�ua!i I 1! y _ I 1'Z iix. - Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4h Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) r -• Y r �f k A V 1 11 Y S Y r' F Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item o i d�o�af tez�raiser en e if Meeting Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) i I � I I it i I i i I i 14 Y rz I fir I IFtIFty '"�R$ftYC lf` � Y hx fyr> S^rs.+�r Ras j zg 4F' ii x Jaz J • c3�t``� b I Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4h Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) - IIIIIIII '., -w r' rnrrr.ngr:. nar.r.vr. vn I�Ilpllillll 111111�11®II®iii�I'' 16RI�IIpe�� Ih. n my v' n , , . I�IIIIIIILI�� Illlllllll�iflln m.4W w•ma fpyI x 0 II' �i d I�III Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4h Additional Materials Presented at Meeting •I•• '" t �� Dawson Reside ce Variance (PA2015-224) lMM Jr/ ♦ r , v0p . . J e J i , I N � i r I _—_—_ / i J I I I 1 , 07 - r / fY r / 1]lt Q 1�•O I � 1 4 p1FOt Y Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 'Pn Item No. 4h Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) r Wti 'x K� N 80%)`Evl� f •,,gyp,�rf, .1'P � r. � �'y�` IRS Ya"•- i - m.. 6dSGuefS N reucnoNP �+ L� dFE3vS7en1S hbYiQ ,.�:.m.ra,PmMr _ 7JIKTtIEAVSS aa4f6N! /��\ ...,�,�...H�rxo.rmr�. �r � ��•� � YiEE/✓ wHCI \\ .. �i'M!rr.o Kf xrH / �._..-_, �--. - - •.-�...-�. •��'Y/J/y/ .. . .. -xuw iYnf ruaan mon w[xMn uim • •RLL OOW6 HIHL V�lAs%cr.a i wy • .uw,r•rear pWW O rw[H W/eRP.. XWAmo � r• SrAv I/{�1� T �o Y• qac H -NR4f I.`-.IIhY TW ME MS IYO W/MQA 1 N • YPN: dlWl IflM .. rOr-lrorw r1iR M X: OD-Tlulu. '" r amr rWf Mo moyv Wpor PrM .. o�u.•ano•m rum n rune Rn w ore , -mr r wW no WYL . � ` uaua rY Kl am#orl Pa�SIOY ye•1y � �� .•wtll I\IIYKN�r WOIM[M NERMr�•Q.M GT+Or ADOmONAL NATES /' S. .u,•i Itl•OH/Ir QOrWp MM Pi H bwAIR.M■tPzr�H LMY MM M ' [PRE urr bWHTr MIQ P R •U rlOr t ftem '.NIOFC.K KIMPIR lube S NnWmlr rYltllba - � 14 ti. YR (�-NI.M•I.HHRp IO WMT,C A1fA M M(M[aolr 1-sr YNL R�Am • MAIC M1Pr.• •prwr P ti@ IIW6 9M _. rneK,w4rW mnpros a• o.w^0.MM�wvnrc wpb®pWHIIW wW RL OICX[ta H wOM Planning Commission - February • 2017 Item • 4h Additional . .i l pht b. 11t1i � , iii - d • al Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 09 , Item No. 4h Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) 5 1 1 t r ti fl4 ..- I , x,'3..,0 _, I m r" - • _ n r I i >C61A slpL 11��',TILP/E 11YC MOOM /1LWL -- � 1 1A5611i i_ I --------- -- -------------- ---- _� ! IAC/A'�PI'l0. �yY� 1 �8f1 50CLY011 Pool Privacy Exhi-L Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 iIke �-INo 4h A terials Presented at Meeting -; e idence V ri ce (PA2015 224) I w` I `- 1 ter+/ 00000 i 1 ! 5 ! wl " a Proxi ]Cnity E.Ydiibit Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4i Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) Newport Beach Municipal Code "The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that development is consistent with the General Plan, complies with the standards of this chapter, produces an environment that is harmonious with existing and future development, and protects the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties . " Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4i Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) 2741 Ocean Blvd Neighborhood Opposition d J >$ M1b q M1by JJ' P ry• �/ J/y P M1 w • � • 1� _ l 6 1b J JIJ d' M1 � A M1a 3 '1� JJ M1� A0 J Y 1 40 0 S = J M1 s �4 JO ,1,4b • .- JU/ ,`,� M1M1 • +� J� J'JJ O' M1M1 •.[? JO'/ Jn 'OM1 M1\� Proposed '' • M1,�'� Project .� o e a :e ti Lookout polht ly ]9: M.0 SLrtr A r..aM1 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4i Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Slide 2 Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) ATI Aaron Talarico,02/09/2017 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4i Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) 2741 Ocean Blvd Neighborhood Support - 's �S `- ti i e, •aoo •r. Ce 'a r M1, J M1,� Proposed M1,p•>� Project M1 tet` 2741 i� Ocean Blvd M1` e a :e M1e Lookout P.011 t lMyl i,11L)lr Ar..aM1 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4i Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) 2741 Ocean Blvd Neighborhood Opposition/Support ry• l' !� P ~ d tie r +io d• • �`�� tiA B� •= fJ� Y 1 1 1� �4 �O M11 M1\� � Proposed ' • ,� Project .� o e a :e ti Lookout Polht ly ]9: M.0 SLrtr A r..aM1 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4i Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Slide 4 Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) AT [4]1 Aaron Talarico,02/09/2017 Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4i Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) i d i o I Ail A2.1 F..� 5s ~ + .Jw►.��r'P.yr.."�`'I 7y1 I L I L. im rfs` Planning Commission - February • , 2017 Item No. Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Dawson • i JJ { 7 R - -;�����I � �` .•-y®,`i�l 1'�1�,1 ifJr 4i�� � y .•St•^,. -__ ^e ��`�_ 1 a,_ • air ti M41 wp� �i e Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4i Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) 110)' - L pill MlMl IIIIN ' _�.y T 'p•. - � f I I I _ r e � .2741 Ocean ` lvd ' ; fti � � r - ` • Z `= y L: � i a\ n � � 4r o c an Blvd Planning Commission - February 9, 2017 Item No. 4i Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Dawson Residence Variance (PA2015-224) r � - a. f f ' . r i