HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0_Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP_PA2017-179 04"O;"�"t
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
October 17, 2019
Agenda Item No. 3
SUBJECT: Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP (PA2017-179)
Coastal Development Permit No. CD2017-076
SITE LOCATION: 2495 Ocean Boulevard
APPELLANT: Joe and Lisa Vallejo
APPLICANT: Brandon Architects
OWNER: Brian Sheehy
PLANNER: Liane Schuller, Planning Consultant
949-644-3200, Ichuller@newportbeachca.gov
PROJECT UPDATE
This matter was initially scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing on September 19,
2019; however, the applicant and appellant mutually requested and were granted a
continuance to October 17, 2019, to allow additional time to discuss project modifications
and resolve their differences.
As of the preparation of this report, the applicant and the appellant have not come to an
agreement. Should an agreement be reached prior to the hearing date, staff will provide
an update to the Planning Commission either before or at the meeting. If an agreement
is not reached, the applicant may request review of the original project design.
PUBLIC NOTICE
This item was continued to a date certain from its initial scheduled hearing date of
September 19, 2019. As the matter is continued to a date certain, no additional public
notice is required.
Planning Commission-October 17,2019
Item No.3a Additional Materials Received
Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP(PA2017-179)
VOSS, COOK & THEL LLP
A LIMBED LIABR.RYPARTNEREHIP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
MICHAEL N.VOSS 2301 DUPONT DRIVE,SUITE 500 AL THEL
FORMER PARTARTN
BRUME V.COOK
IRVINE,CALIFORNIA 92612-7504 OICom d
TELEPHONE(949)435-0225
FAX(949)435-0226
Planning Commission—October I7,2019
Item No.2 Additional Materials Received
Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP(PA2017-179)
October 11, 2019
Via Electronic Mail and US Mail
Hon. Chair Peter Koetting and Planning Commissioners
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Re:Permit No. CD2017-076(P42017--179) (Sheelry Residence)
Dear Chair Koetting and Commissioners:
On July 11, 2019, the Zoning Administrator approved the Coastal Development Permit
for the Sheehy Residence located at 2495 Ocean Boulevard. Joe and Lisa Vallejo, owners of the
single-family residential home located above the Sheehy Residence at 2501 Ocean Boulevard in
Corona del Mar, have filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval. The Vallejo's
residence is located on the parcel directly adjacent to and above the Sheehy Residence.
The Vallejo's appeal contends that the Community Development Director's alternative
grade determination for the Sheehy Residence on December 5, 2014 pursuant to Zoning Code
section 20.30.050.0 was allegedly an improper ministerial act that purportedly violated the
Vallejo's due process rights. A copy of the Community Development Director's Action Letter,
Approval No. SA2014-022 (PA2014-152), is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." However, in
accordance with Newport Beach Municipal Code section 20.12.020(A): "The Director has the
authority to interpret the meaning of provisions of this Zoning Code, including maps, and to
apply and/or enforce the Zoning Code."
The Vallejos contend that the Director's decision was an adjudicatory act that allegedly
deprived the Vallejos of a significant property interest. The law does not support the Vallejo's
position. The Zoning Code does not recognize any view rights of adjoining lots for purposes of
any alleged detriment or purported injury to property. The Zoning Code at section 20.30.100(A)
specifically provides, in pertinent part: "It is not the intent of this Zoning Code to protect views
from private property." Such a zoning ordinance is a legislative act and is not an adjudicative act.
Amel Dev. Co. v. Costa Mesa (1980) 28 Cal.3d 511, 514, 517. Additionally, as noted by the
California Supreme Court in Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 612: "Due
process principles require reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard before government
Planning Commission-October 17,2019
Item No.3a Additional Materials Received
Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP(PA2017-179)
Hon. Chair Peter Koetting and Planning Commission—October 17,2019
Item No.2 Additional Materials Received
Planning Commissioners Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP(PA2017-179)
October 11, 2019
Page 2
deprivation of a significant property interest." (Citations omitted.) Appellants have failed to
identify any protected "significant property interest" affected by either the Community
Development Director's zoning determination approval on December 5, 2014 or the Zoning
Administrator's approval of the CDP on July 11, 2019. Accordingly, the Vallejos fail to identify
any protected rights which were allegedly infringed by the Director's grade determination.
Moreover, Newport Beach Municipal Code section 20.30.060(B)(4) sets the applicable
height limits: "New structures and additions/changes to existing structures on the bluff side of
Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar shall not be constructed to a height greater than the
elevation of the adjacent curb. The top of curb height limit shall be established by a plane created
by the extension of the top of curb line across each lot." NO PORTION OF THE
DEVELOPMENT APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE SHEEHY
CDP EXCEEDS THE "TOP OF CURB" HEIGHT LIMIT.
Sections 20.30.050 (Zoning Code) and 21.30.050 (Local Coastal Program
Implementation Plan) address grade establishment. Subsection (C) states: "If the Director finds
that the existing grade on the subject lot has been previously altered (e.g., contains retaining
structures, property line walls, planters, or excavation/fill), or other conditions are present to the
degree that the existing grade is not representative of the prevailing grades on adjoining lots
and/or the general area and, therefore, is not appropriate for the purpose of establishing the grade
of the subject lot, the Director may establish the grade that is reasonable and comparable with the
grades of adjoining lots and that will not be detrimental or injurious to property and
improvements on adjoining lots."
The Director was not required to use "a significant amount of discretion" to determine
that: the original topography of the site was reflected in records of the home built in 1986 as
confirmed by a licensed land surveyor, such that the existing grade was not representative of the
prevailing grades on adjoining lots and, therefore, was not appropriate for the purpose of
establishing the grade of the subject lot. Accordingly, the Director established the grade that was
reasonable and comparable with the grades of adjoining lots and not detrimental or injurious to
property and improvements on adjoining lots as defined by the Zoning Code. Since the
Director's decision did not require a significant amount of discretion, the decision constituted a
ministerial act. Amel Dev. Co. v. Costa Mesa, supra, 28 Cal.3d 511, 531. Additionally, the
height limit regulations do not apply to equipment and panels used for the production of solar
energy, pursuant to State law. Newport Beach Municipal Code section 21.30.060(1))(12).
The evidence in the record supports the foregoing conclusions. After the Vallejos
objected at the Zoning Administrator hearing, the Zoning Administrator entertained the Vallejo's
arguments yet approved the Sheehy CDP. The Newport Beach Zoning Administrator Minutes
reflect the thorough review of the Vallejos' arguments:
In response to the Zoning Administrator's inquiries, Senior Planner Murillo
reported grade can be established in a number of ways based on the Zoning Code
Planning Commission-October 17,2019
Item No.3a Additional Materials Received
Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP(PA2017-179)
Hon. Chair Peter Koetting and Planning Commission—October 17,2019
Item No.2 Additional Materials Received
Planning Commissioners Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP(PA2017-179)
October 11, 2019
Page 3
and Local Coastal Program (LCP). One way is through the approval of a new
subdivision map, which does not apply to this project. For properties that are less
than 5 percent in slope, staff typically averages four points taken from the
proposed footprint of a home and the existing grade elevations shown on a
topographic survey to establish a baseline height measurement. The project
slopes more than 5 percent; therefore, this method is not applicable to the project.
For properties that slope more than 5 percent, the Code provides a methodology to
create a grade plan based upon five equidistant points along the side property
lines. This methodology helps equalize the grade of the property by eliminating
high points and low points. This methodology is useful when neighboring
properties maintain a general slope as well. When the lot slopes more than 20
percent, the Community Development Director is allowed to establish additional
points for a grade evaluation. Staff evaluated the grade of the proposed site using
five points. Because the site is unique in shape and the majority of the side
property line and a portion of the rear property line are located in the bay,
evaluating the grade based on five points results in a grade significantly below the
natural topography of the bluff. The Code also allows the Community
Development Director to establish a grade on properties that have been previously
altered through excavation, construction of retaining walls, and other conditions
such that the grade is not representative of prevailing grades on adjoining lots or
the general area. In this case, staff determined the most accurate method of
measuring height was to establish a grade plane that matched the original
topography of the site based on records of the home built in 1986. Staff utilized
the topographical contours from the 1986 project to create a grade plane. A
licensed land surveyor reviewed the exhibit and confirmed that the points are
consistent with the topographical contours of 1986.
Senior Planner Murillo related that the LCP and the Zoning Code provide the
Community Development Director the authority to make grade determinations.
LCP standards are consistent with Zoning Code standard. Staff believes the 2014
grade determination is valid for determining structure height. A formal decision
is not required for a grade determination, and a staff report for the 2014
determination was prepared to provide clarity and explain the process. Sheet A-
3.1 in the plans clearly illustrates the structure's compliance with height
requirements. The Vallejos' property and the project site are adjacent to Ocean
Boulevard, which provides emergency access for the properties. The proposed
location of the garage is the only location for a compliant three-car garage and for
a driveway slope that complies with requirements. The survey represents an
accurate measurement of curb elevations. The project complies with bluff overlay
standards, which establish the limits of Development Areas A and C. The project
drawings clearly indicate the boundary between Development Area A and C.
Sheet A-3.1 illustrates fence heights and compliance with the front and side
setbacks.
Planning Commission-October 17,2019
Item No.3a Additional Materials Received
Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP(PA2017-179)
Hon. Chair Peter Koetting and Planning Commission—October 17,2019
Item No.2 Additional Materials Received
Planning Commissioners Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP(PA2017-179)
October 11, 2019
Page 4
The Zoning Administrator included conditions of approval for a
construction management plan and the Vallejos' request regarding height of
landscaping in the planters. A civil engineer will conduct height certification by
verifying and certifying the maximum height of framing in certain areas of the
new structure, and a City Building Inspector will review and approve the
certification. She then commented that this is standard practice; however, it will
be added as a condition of approval. The LCP and the Coastal Act do not protect
private views. The Zoning Administrator's scope of review is limited to public
views to and along the shoreline and the overall visual quality of the coastal zone.
A visual impact analysis has been prepared for the project evaluated existing and
proposed views toward the bay from Ocean Blvd, and from public viewpoints on
Peninsula Point across the harbor channel towards the project site. The proposed
development does not extend beyond the footprint of the existing house. The
proposed project will open and enhance the public view by removing the existing
garage and reconstructing new rooflines below the curb elevation of Ocean
Boulevard and rocky coastline. The new development occurs within the confines
of private property. The Zoning Administrator found no discrepancies between
Titles 20 and 21 and no additional review is necessary.
The Zoning Administrator's determination did not deprive the Vallejos of any significant
property interest since the Code does not protect views from private property. Additionally, the
alteration of the existing grade planes on the Sheehy property will result in a new driveway and
garage structure with roof lines that are lower in elevation than would otherwise be allowed
directly below and adjacent to the Vallejo property since construction is allowed to curb height.
Accordingly,the decision of the Zoning Administrator should be affirmed.
Sincerely,,
James G. Damon
cc: Brian L. Sheehy
H Tlient Folders Sheehy,Brim(54070)Tm pmdemeV Chair Kwting and Comms-1041-19.d
Planning Commission-October 17,2019
Item No.3a Additional Materials Received
r Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP(PA2017-179)
r•"'Pok. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
"` `•1 I� PLANNING DIVISION
100 Civic Center Drive. P.O. Box 1768,Newport Beach,CA 92658-8915
(949)644-3200 Fax: (949)644-3229
www.newportbeachea.go
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
ACTION LETTER
Application No. Staff Approval No. SA2014-022 (PA2014-152)
Applicant Brandon Architects
Site Address 2495 Ocean Boulevard
2495 Ocean Boulevard Grade Determination
Legal Description Parcel 2, Block C, PMB 36/3
On December 5, 2014, the Community Development Director approved Staff Approval
No. SA2014-022 to establish grade for the purpose of measuring heights using the original
grade of the site that existed prior to the 1986 development of the existing residence and
allow structure heights to be measured from the natural grade directly below. This
approval is based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions.
ZONING DISTRICT/GENERAL PLAN
o Zone: R-1 (Single-Unit Residential)
o General Plan: RS-D (Single-Unit Residential Detached)
DISCUSSION
The subject parcel is an irregularly-shaped lot on the coastal side of Ocean Boulevard.
The property is currently developed with a single-unit dwelling constructed in 1986 on a
steeply sloped bluff(Attachment CD 1).
Subsequent to the site's 1986 improvements, the original grade of the subject site has
been substantially altered with retaining walls resulting in extensive excavation and fill
areas (Attachment CD 2). The current existing grade elevations no longer represent the
natural topography of the bluff and therefore not appropriate for determining the grade
from which heights should be measured. The applicant has prepared a topographic grade
exhibit, based on the original topographic survey of the site conditions that existed prior to
1986, to be used as the grade for height measurement purposes (Attachment CD 3).
In addition, the applicant is requesting heights be measured from the grades directly below
the structure's roof and deck features rather than the grade plane method currently
specified in the Zoning Code.
Planning Commission-October 17,2019
Item No.3a Additional Materials Received
Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP(PA2017-179)
Sheehy Residence Grade Determination
December 5, 2014
Page 2
Pursuant to Section 20.30.050.13 (Establishment of Grade), on lots with slopes greater
than five percent, the established grade from which structure height is measured is
determined by placing five evenly spaced points along both side property lines and
connecting each point with the corresponding point on the opposite side property line to
establish an equidistant elevation grade along the width of the property. The intent of this
code is to simplify the measurements of height and save time for staff, property owners,
and builders. However, this current method of grade establishment does not work
because the rear property line and portions of the side property lines are located within the
Newport Bay resulting in interpolated elevations excessively below the actual grade
elevations of the property and is not representative of the prevailing grades in the area or
of the original topography(Attachment CD 4).
The purpose of this grade determination is to ensure development on-site is not artificially
lowered or raised by providing a more precise measurement using the vertical distance
between the highest points of the structure and the grades directly below using the original
grades that existed prior to the 1986 improvements.
FINDINGS
In accordance with Zoning Code Section 20.30.050.0 (Grade Establishment —
Establishment by Director) if the Community Development Director finds that the existing
grade on the subject lot has been previously altered (e.g., contains retaining structures,
property line walls, planters, or excavation/fill), or other conditions are present to the
degree that the existing grade is not representative of the prevailing grades on adjoining
lots and/or the general area and, therefore, is not appropriate for the purpose of
establishing the grade of the subject lot, the Community Development Director may
establish the grade that is reasonable and comparable with the grades of adjoining lots
and that will not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements on adjoining lots.
Finding:
A. The existing grade on the subject lot has been previously altered or other conditions
are present to the degree that the existing grade is not representative of the prevailing
grades on adjoining lots and/or the general area and, therefore, is not appropriate for
the purpose of establishing the grade of the subject lot.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The existing grades on the subject property have been altered with planters, significant
excavation/fill, and retaining walls artificially lowering and raising the current elevations
from the original topography. Utilizing the original topography of the site that existed
prior to the 1986 improvements is appropriate in this case and is representative of the
prevailing grades that naturally existed on the bluff.
2. The current methodology to establish the grade plane from which structure height is
measured is determined by measuring 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 . The rear property line and
Tmph:04/04/13
Planning Commission-October 17,2019
Item No.3a Additional Materials Received
Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP(PA2017-179)
Sheehy Residence Grade Determination
December 5, 2014
Page 3
segments of both side yard property lines are located within Newport Bay, thus
resulting in interpolated elevations excessively below the actual grade elevations of the
property and not representative of the prevailing grades in the area or of the original
topography.
Finding:
B. The grade is reasonable and comparable with the grades of adjoining lots and will not
be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements on adjoining lots.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The proposal will provide a grade plane that is representative of the original topography
of the bluff that existed prior to the 1986 improvements of the existing home and the
neighboring residences at the time of development.
2. The proposed grade establishes elevations consistent with natural topography of the
site and requires building heights to be measured from the grade directly below each
feature to ensure building height conforms to the original topography of the site as
accurately as possible.
3. The property will be required to comply with all applicable development standards of
the Zoning Code which are in place to prevent detriment or injury to the existing
property and neighboring properties and improvements on adjoining lots.
CONDITIONS
1. A copy of this action letter including the findings and conditions shall be copied onto the
building plans.
2. Grades for the purpose of measuring heights for the principal and accessory structures
shall be measured from the topographic map stamped with the date of this approval
and identified as Attachment CD 3 (Restored Topographic Map (GD-2).
3. 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
Sheehy Residence Grade Determination including, but not limited to, the SA2014-
022 (PA2014-152). 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
l'mph:04/04/13
Planning Commission-October 17,2019
Item No.3a Additional Materials Received
Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP(PA2017-179)
Sheehy Residence Grade Determination
December 5, 2014
Page 4
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.
APPEAL PERIOD
An appeal may be filed with the Director of Community Development or City Clerk, as
applicable, within fourteen (14) days following the date the action or decision was
rendered. For additional information on filing an appeal, contact the Planning Division at
(949) 644-3200.
On behalf of Kimberly Brandt, AICP, Community Development Director
By:
Debbie Drasler, Contract Planner
JM/dad
Attachments: CD 1 Vicinity Map
CD 2 Current Topographic Survey
CD 3 Restored Topographic Map (GD-2.0)
1986 Topographic Map (GD-2.1)
CD 4 Grade Plane Exhibit (GD-1.0)
Grade Plane Sections (GD-1.3)
Tmph 04;04'13
Planning Commission-October 17,2019
Item No.3a Additional Materials Received
Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP(PA2017-179)
Attachment No. CD 1
Vicinity Map
Planning Commission-October 17,2019
Item No.3a Additional Materials Received
Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP(PA2017-179)
Sheehy Residence Grade Determination
December 5, 2014
Page 2
VICINITY MAP
Subject Property
' ..# ../ ►7 �\may
4
Staff Approval No. SA2014-022
PA2014-152
2495 Ocean Boulevard
I mpll:04 04 13
Planning Commission-October 17,2019
Item No.3a Additional Materials Received
Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP(PA2017-179)
Attachment No. CD 2
Current Topographic Survey
Planning Commission-October 17,2019
Item No.3a Additional Materials Received
Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP(PA2017-179)
.I'
i�
3
1 _
' • Ali,
`i
; r tad
I' a
1-:
.1.
1TY.l E]JC]V=£.i1NGi,INC. -.$U9VEl
Planning Commission-October 17,2019
Item No.3a Additional Materials Received
Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP(PA2017-179)
Attachment No. CD 3
Restored Topographic Map (GD-2.0)
1986 Topographic Map (GD-2.1)
Planning Commission-October 17,2019
Item No.3a Additional Materials Received
Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP(PA2017-179)
f—
i
i' a)
m
97
i
i
2
l
E I
41
fY t
I /
00 J i"
F €
�O ,I� wi-«uw•,.—_ i SHEENY RESIDENCE
GRADE PLANE
_ tn�uv e.w
Planning Commission-October 17,2019
Item No.3a Additional Materials Received
Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP(PA2017-179)
,
4 41eP
SHEEHY RESIDENCE G� a"^N_�"'•_"�"'r�"'� '� fl
GRADE PLANE
__ z f 1 ow'sa wnnw
Planning Commission-October 17,2019
Item No.3a Additional Materials Received
Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP(PA2017-179)
Attachment No. CD 4
Grade Plane Exhibit (GD-1.0)
Grade Plane Sections (GD-1.3)
Planning Commission-October 17,2019
Item No.3a Additional Materials Received
Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP(PA2017-179)
% Z171
\
% 1
2 / I
co
O i•
• i•
i
/ i
=o
It
a
i •, Is .
i,
y, 1 ' 4 W.Cr AAV rA.9' BI4NIQN RPCNIIfC1[ TJC
— SHEENY RESIDENCE _ ,_ _ ,W t•ti
GRADE PLANE '•.`�. _ _ 1- E
Planning Commission-October 17,2019
Item No.3a Additional Materials Received
Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP(PA2017-179)
r--
r
i
ilk j/
�J
e a
♦ i r
♦ "r r e i i + i i � ♦ r r r r r r r ♦ � i i i r i i i + ` `r i t
!7 n K vows E es.Noa .xc„mns r:
SHEEHY RESIDENCE
GRADE PLANE
Planning Commission-October 17,2019
Item No.3b Additional Materials Received
Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP(PA2017-179)
From: Lee,Amanda
To: Rodriguez,Clarivel
Subject: FW:Additional Materials-Sheehy
Date: Tuesday,October 15,2019 9:53:53 AM
From: Patti Taketa [ma iIto,pattitaketa(d)gmail.coml
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 4:45 PM
To: Schuller, Liane<Schuller @newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Notice of Public Hearing- 2495 Ocean Blvd
To: City of Newport Beach,
I would like to express my support of the proposed building plans for 2495 Ocean Blvd.
As a 25 year resident of CdM, who enjoys walking on Ocean Blvd., taking in the beautiful
coastal scenery, I am grateful that this building plan is lowering the entire structure below curb
level, creating a new view corridor looking out over Newport Harbor.
It is rare to come across plans that improve views for the entire community!
Sincerely,
Patti Taketa
320 Evening Canyon Road
Planning Commission-October 17,2019
Item No.3b Additional Materials Received
Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP(PA2017-179)
From: Schuller, Liane
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 2:23 PM
To: Lee,Amanda; Rodriguez, Clarivel
Subject: FW: Additional Materials for 2495 Ocean Blvd. PA2018-179
From: Rob Williams [mailto:robthediver2001@gmail.comI
Sent:Tuesday, October 15, 2019 2:18 PM
To: Schuller, Liane<Ischuller(cDnewoortbeachca.gov>
Subject: 2495 Ocean Blvd. CDM
TO: Mr. L. Schuller:
I'm a frequent traveler on the Newport Harbor. Passing through the channel for over 40 year in
my different vessels I notice the landscape and architecture and find most of it very impressive
However as homes age and become arctitecturely obsolete they will become an eyesore . The
property at 2495 will be greatly enhanced with permits granted to build a new and appealing
structure that fits in with the other new construction on Carnation Cove, i.e. the large condo
project which dwarfs the existing house at 2495 Ocean. This will benefit the neighborhood
with a beautiful new house compliant with all new and current building codes.
from
RobWilliams
714 785 5735
From: Gwen Cruttenden <gwencrutt@yahoo.com> Planning Commission-October 17,2019
Sent: Thursday,October 03,201911:14 AM Item No.3b Additional Materials Received
To: Schuller, Liane Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP(PA2017-179)
Cc: J Damon
Subject: Addendum:Sheehy 2495 Ocean Blvd
Good afternoon,
I wanted to add an additional note to my previous emailed letter in support of Brian Sheehy's construction at 2495
Ocean Blvd.
I understand that there will be a meeting to discuss the neighbor's appeal of the approval that Brian received from the
city for his construction project.As much as I would love to attend the meeting to support Brian and the beautiful home
he is proposing, I will be out of town receiving radiation treatments. I mention this just to let you know that I am not
casually sending an email to defend Brian. I certainly have a lot of other things going on in my life.And an improvement
project such as the one that Brian is proposing is something that would certainly enhance my quality of life as well as
many others in the community.
So please accept my written support as if I was standing there myself at the meeting coming up. I trust you will uphold
your approval of his project so that he can get to work on making his home a beautiful place.
Sincerely
Gwen Cruttenden
Sent from my iPhone
>On Oct 3, 2019,at 10:58 AM,Gwen Cruttenden<gwencrutt@yahoo.com>wrote:
>Dear Ms.Schuller,
>As I am driving though this paradise we call home, I wanted to briefly add my voice to a list of supporters for Brian
Sheehy's proposed home improvement project.
>
> Brian was raised in Newport Beach and was pleased when he was able to buy a home here.While we were happy for
Brian that he was able to secure such an incredible place in Carnation Cove, it was evident that the old home needed
some work done-to say the least.
>I have seen renderings of the proposed changes that he would like to make to improve the property.The first notable
change is the improved footprint of the home from the street,Ocean Boulevard. Currently there is an outdated mailbox
and a generally unattractive curb appeal.The new plans show a much more updated and understated street view. In
fact, it seems that the neighbor would not even notice that there was a house there.Seems like a big plus.
>The remaining views of the house clearly indicate that much of the higher levels of the house will be removed.The
house looks much more streamlined giving the neighbors house even MORE view of the bay and ocean than he had
before.Yay. Good for him.What a lucky neighbor.
>We often boat past Brian's house and the upgrades he plans to make will be even more of an improvement to the view
as we pass by. I can clearly see from the exhibits he sent me that the changes he proposed will be a great improvement
_,..--..
to the street view,the neighbor's view,the water view,and the general public enjoyment and quality of life herein
Newport Beach.
>Thank goodness for terrific citizens such as Brian Sheehy whose commitment to improving the community is greatly
appreciated.
>Sincerely
>Gwen Cruttenden
Planning Commission-October 17,2019
Item No.3c Additional Materials Received
Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP(PA2017-179)
From: Schuller,Lane
To: Lee,Amanda;Rodriguez,Clarivel
Subject: RN: 2495 Ocean Blvd,CdM
Date: Thursday,October 17,2019 10:20:57 AM
Please include as ADDITIONAL MATERIALS—thank you.
From:taketacdm@roadrunner.com [mailto:taketacdm@roadrunner.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 4:00 PM
To: Schuller, Liane <Ischuller@newportbeachca.gov>; 'taketacdm@roadrunner.com'
<taketacdm@road runner.com>
Subject: 2495 Ocean Blvd, CdM
To whom it may concern,
As a resident of Corona del Mar since 1975, and present Shorecliffs resident,my wife and I
have enjoyed walking in the village for over 20 years.
At a prior Planning Commission hearing, I shared my opinion that the online building plans
for 2495 Ocean Blvd., CdM would create a welcome break in the silhouettes of houses and
condominiums, which are presently blocking the view of Newport Bay from the sidewalk. At
this meeting, it became apparent that the property's owners and architect made a conscientious
effort to provide this relief, for those of us restricted to the sidewalk.
Rarely do owners or architects take into consideration the pleasure of even this fleeting
opportunity to enjoy the beauty of Newport Bay and it's boating activities.
I applaud the owner's attention to this detail and give my full support to the approval of the
plans for 2495 Ocean Blvd., CdM.
Sincerely,
Richard Taketa
Richard Taketa MD: taketacdmac roadrunner.com
Planning Commission-October 17,2019
Item No.3d Additional Materials Received
Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP(PA2017-179)
From: Murillo.Jaime
To: Lee,Amanda;Rodriguez,Clarivel
Cc: Schuller.Lane
Subject: FW: 10.17.19 Request for Continuance of Agenda#3 Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP(PA2017-179)
Date: Thursday,October 17,2019 12:14:54 PM
From:James G. Damon <J Damon @vctlaw.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 17, 2019 12:13 PM
To: Murillo, Jaime<JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov>; Chandra Slaven <chandraslaven@gmail.com>
Cc:Arie Spangler<arie@joncornlaw.com>; Philip Merten <phil@mertenarchitect.com>; Christopher
Brandon <chris@ bra ndonarchitects.com>;Justin Johnston <justin@brandonarchitects.com>
Subject: RE: 10.17.19 Request for Continuance of Agenda#3 Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP
(PA2017-179)
Good afternoon,
This will confirm that Mr. Sheehy is in agreement to continue the Planning Commission
hearing from tonight to November 21. Please let me know as well if I should appear at the hearing
tonight.Thanks,Jim
James G. Damon
Voss, Cook&Thel LLP
2301 Dupont Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92612-7504
Direct Line: (949) 435-4325
From: Chandra Slaven [mailto:chandraslaven(a)gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 12:00 PM
To: Murillo, Jaime
Cc: James G. Damon; Arie Spangler; Philip Merten; Christopher Brandon; Justin Johnston
Subject: 10.17.19 Request for Continuance of Agenda #3 Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP (PA2017-
179)
Good afternoon Jaime,
Per our discussion, both the Sheehy and Vallejo representatives are in agreement to continue
our agenda item from this evening's Planning Commission meeting to November 21 st. We
understand that the Sheehy team will be submitted updated plans for your review following
our agreement. Please kindly confirm receipt of this email. Lastly, please let me know if I
should be in attendance this evening if necessary. Thank you Jaime for your time.
Best regards,
Chandra Slaven
619-316-7645
chandraslaven(ngmail.com