Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA2001-001 & MD2001-092 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH V 2 PO. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 gClF01FRk PLANNING DEPARTMENT (949) 644-3210 NOTICE OF FINAL APPROVAL FILE DATE: October 15, 2001 TO: Ed Lohrbach FROM: Planning Director SUBJECT: PA 2001-062 for VARIANCE NO. 2001-001 & MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2001-092 Please be advised that PA 2001-062 for Variance No. 2001-001 & Modification Permit No. 2001-092 was approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting of September 20, 2001, and became effective on October 4, 2001. The Resolution approving the project with the final findings and conditions of approval is attached. Any deviation from them or the application and plans on file in the Planning Department may require an amendment to the application(s) mentioned above for the project. Applicant: Ed Lohrbach Location: 3631 Ocean Boulevard Description Request to demolish an existing single family home (2,924 gross square feet) and replace it with a new single family home (6,044 gross square feet) including grading, paving, fencing lighting, landscaping and irrigation. The proposed project includes the changes to the existing driveway and front yard landscaping presently located within the public right-of-way. The project also includes a variance request to exceed established height limits of Zoning Code due to unique topographical circumstances. Lastly, the project includes a request to deviate from the required front yard setback of 10 feet providing a 0' to 4' front setback. Should you have aray questions, please contact our office. Very truly yours, PLANNING DEPARTMENT Patric' L.Temple, IDi�rector By V Gin r Varin Executive Secretary Planning Commission Enclosure: M Approved Planning Commission Resolution with Final Findings and Conditions of Approval ❑ Approved Council minutes with Final Findings and Conditions of Approval cc: Property Owner (if not applicant) 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach RESOLUTION NO. 1536 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2001-001 AND MODIFICATION NO. 2001-092 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3631 OCEAN BOULEVARD (PA2001-062) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by the applicant, Ed Lorbach on behalf of the property owners Mr. and Mrs. Jackson with respect to property located at 3631 Ocean Boulevard and legally described as Parcel 15 of Parcel Map 1257, requesting approval of a Variance and Modification Permit to construct a three level, 6,044 square foot residence that exceeds the 24/28-foot height limit. The residence would also encroach within the 10-foot front yard setback up to 10 feet in some places. The property is located within the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) zone district. Section 2. A public hearing was duly held on August 23, 2001 and September 20, 2001, at 6:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was duly given. Evidence, both written and oral, was duly presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the aforesaid meeting. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows: a) The proposed development, a detached single family home, is consistent with the General Plan, Land Use Element designation of the property which is Single-family Detached. b) An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. The contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. On the basis of the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. c) The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. The only easement that exits on the site is a sewer easement I 5 + Planning Wission Resolution No. 1536 Paae2of7 that will serve the proposed construction. The sewer easement will remain accessible with the implementation of the project provided that a sewer clean out is installed. d) Alteration of the more natural portion of the coastal bluff is minimized due to the siting of the proposed residence. The residence will occupy the required front yard setback which is presently developed rather than having the residence extend further upon the relatively undisturbed seaward portion of the bluff. Additionally, a majority of the project is does not extend beyond a "stringline" drawn between the two adjacent residences. The lowest extent of the development, including the at-grade deck is similar to the elevation of the lower portions of the two adjacent residences (approximately 5-6 feet lower than the residence to the west and approximately 5-6 feet higher than the residence to the east). e) The granting of the variance to allow portions of the residence to exceed permitted height limits is warranted in that there are special circumstances applicable to the property; approval is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant; approval is consistent with the purposes of this code; and will not be materially detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood for the following reasons: 1. The steeply sloping topography of the site restricts the ability to comply with the height limitations while constructing a residence comparable to newly constructed residences located in Corona Del Mar. 2. The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting variance applications, and the variance procedure is intended to resolve practical and unnecessary physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area and on this lot. I The entire residence will be constructed at a lower level than the existing residence which will improve public views from Ocean Boulevard. 4. Due to the siting of the proposed residence within a "stringline" drawn between the two adjacent residences, its footprint elevation being similar to the two adjacent residences and its location, which is relatively distant from Corona Del Mar Beach, the proposed project will not significantly impact the views of the coastal bluffs. f) The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of this code for the following reasons: Planning Wission Resolution No. 1536 Page 3 of 7 1) The proposed residence will be approximately 44 feet from the existing sidewalk. This increased distance sufficiently separates the building mass from the sidewalk especially due to the lower overall height of the residence as measured in relation to the curb and sidewalk. 2) The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting modification applications, and the variance procedure is intended to resolve practical and unnecessary physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area and on this lot. Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves Variance No. 2001-001 and Modification Permit No. 2001-092, subject to the Conditions set forth in Exhibit"A" attached. Section 5. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days aster the adoption of this Resolution, unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this action is call for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20`t'DAY OF SEPTEMBER,2001. AYES: McDaniel, Kiser, Agaianian,Tucker Kranzley, Selich NOES: None ABSENT: Gifford BY: 'D-e47-� Larry Tucker, Chairman BY&,�..J :` Z Z t Earl McDaniel, Secretary Planning 40 mission Resolution No. 1536 Page d of 7 EXHIBIT "A„ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VARIANCE NO. 2001-001 & MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2001-092 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the revised site plan, floor plan and elevations dated 09/13/2001 except as noted below. 2. All public improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to the completion of the public improvements. 4. The final design of the driveway shall have a maximum grade of 20% with minimum 5-foot tangents and maximum grade changes of 11% unless otherwise approved by the Traffic Engineer. The final driveway design shall be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. , 5. The existing 5-foot wide public sidewalk shall remain where it presently is constructed (S' to 12' back of curb) except at the proposed driveway approach where it shall be placed a minimum of 5 feet from the back of curb face. The driveway approach must have a minimum 6" hike-up in order to prevent Ocean Boulevard drainage from entering the property. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department, 6. A City Council approved encroachment permit and encroachment agreement shall be executed by the property owner to permit private improvement encroachments within the Ocean Boulevard right-of-way. 7. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of constructiorr-vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 8. The intersection of the private drive and Ocean Boulevard shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 30 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirement. Landscaping within sight line shall not exceed 24 inches in height. 9. Chimneys shall not exceed the minimum height required by the Uniform Building Code and any portion of the chimney which extends above applicable height limits of the Zoning Planning*mission Resolution No. 1536 Page 5 of 7 Code shall be no wider than 2 feet and no deeper than 4 feet. For the purpose of this condition,the smaller dimension of the chimney will be parallel to Ocean Blvd. 10. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be placed underground to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 11. A drainage study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Building Department showing all on-site drainage being directed to Ocean Boulevard. 12. Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of any building, grading or demolition permits. 13. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 14. Exiting from each level of the residence shall comply with applicable standards of the Building and Fire Code. The structure requires a fire suppression system (sprinklers) as the structure exceeds 5,000 square feet. 15. Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a shoring plan that shall be subject to the review and approval of the Building Department if it is determined that shoring is necessary for the construction of the proposed project. 16. A sewer main lateral and cleanout shall be installed behind and under the proposed residence subject to the standards and permit requirements of the Building Department and Utilities Department. The existing water meter shall be upgraded if determined necessary for the fire suppression system. 17. a) During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce nuisance due to odors from construction activities. (Mitigation Measure No. 1) b) During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the following measures are complied with to reduce short-term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: a)controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b)maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project- related emissions. (Mitigation Measure No. 1) c) To control dust, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Limit the disturbance area to the extent feasible. • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. � ' Planning*Mssion Resolution No. 1536 Page 6 of 7 • Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway. • Use street sweepers to clean and pick up trailing dust from roads in the vicinity of the project. • Cover or water twice daily any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 miles per hour. • Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain inactive for more that 96 hours after clearing is completed. (Mitigation Measure No. 1) d) To control emissions, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Require 90-day low-Nox tune-ups for off-road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. Mitigation Measure No. 1) e) To minimize off-site impacts, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Encourage car pooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off site. • Wash or sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non-peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. (Mitigation Measure No. 1) 18. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City that a qualified paleontologist/archaeologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalog cultural material or fossils as necessary. The paleontologist/archaeologist shall be present at the pre-grading conference, establish procedures for paleontological/ archaeological resource surveillance, and establish, in cooperation with the Applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the cultural material or fossils. If major paleontological/archaeological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting or grading, the paleontologist/ archaeologist shall report such findings to the Applicant and the City. The paleontologist/archaeologist shall deter-mine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the Applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City, or its designee, on a first-refusal basis. The Applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be 4 Planning Cission Resolution No. 1536 Page 7 of 7 donated to the City, or designee. These actions shall be subject to the approval of the City. (Mitigation Measure No. 2) 19. During construction activities, the project will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.10). (Mitigation Measure No. 3) 20. The recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Investigation (Petra Report No. J.N. 355-00) and any subsequent geotechnical or geologic report for the project shall be incorporated into the project. (Mitigation Measure No. 4) 21. The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department to determine compliance. (Mitigation Measure No. 5) 22. The applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code pertaining to noise restrictions. During construction activities, the hours of construction and excavation work are allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 5:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and holidays. (Mitigation Measure No. 6) 23. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a traffic control and construction access plan to address construction traffic, haul routes, truck hauling operations and parking in order to maintain safe access to the site during construction. The construction access plan shall include alternative pedestrian and bicycle path routes and an employee parking plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Traffic Department and the Planning Department. Additionally, the applicant shall obtain a haul route permit from the Revenue Division. No construction equipment shall be permitted to park overnight on Ocean Boulevard. (Mitigation Measure No. 7) 24. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. T• t CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearin ate: September 20, 2001 m PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: 2 • } �n 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell) r�troR'`* NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658 (949) 644-3210 (949)644-3200;FAX(949)644-3250 Appeal Period: 14 days REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Jackson Residence (PA2001-062) FILE COPY 3631 Ocean Boulevard SUMMARY: Request to demolish an existing single family home (2,924 gross square feet) and replace it with a new single family home (6,044 gross square feet) including grading, paving, fencing lighting, landscaping and irrigation. The proposed project includes the changes to the existing driveway and front yard landscaping presently located within the public right-of-way. The project also includes a variance request to exceed established height Iimits of Zoning Code due to unique topographical circumstances. Lastly, the project includes a request to deviate from the required front yard setback of 10 feet providing a 0' to 4' front setback. ACTION: Approve Variance No. 2001-001 and Modification No. 2001-092 and ADOPT Resolution No. entitled, "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach Approving Variance No. 2001-001 and Modification No. 2001-092 (PA2001-062)." OR Deny Variance No. 2001-001 and Modification No. 2001-092 by adopting the findings contained in Exhibit No. 2 APPLICANT: Ed Lohrbach 31681 Camino Capistrano, Suite# 106, San Juan Capistrano. LOCATION: Located at the intersection of Poinsettia Avenue and Ocean Boulevard in Corona Del Mar LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 15 of Tract 1257 GENERAL PLAN! LCP: Single Family Detached ZONING DISTRICT: R-1 (Single Family Detached) - -A 1 Discussion This project was continued from August 23, 2001. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to redesign the project to make it comply with the Ocean Blvd. Curb height limit. Additionally, the size of the lower level, at-grade deck on the ocean side of the proposed residence was questioned. The draft minutes from the previous meeting are attached for review. The applicant has redesigned the project so that the residence does not exceed the height of the curb. The plate height of each level remains at 10 feet, and therefore, the encroachment of the upper level above the 24-foot height limit remains. The interior height of the garage will be T-6" and the slope of the driveway will be no more than 20%. This slope is the maximum slope recommended by the Public Works Department. The applicant requests that the Commission consider increasing the slope of the driveway to afford increased height of the garage. The increased height of the garage would be accomplished by lowering the garage floor rather than increasing the height of the roof above the curb. Each 6-inch increase in garage height increases the slope of the driveway by 1.5%. Again, the Public Works Department recommends that the slope not exceed 20%. The revised plans are included in the agenda packet. There was discussion of decreasing the slope of the driveway by lengthening it through an "S" design. Although this would decrease the slope of the driveway, it would increase the amount of pavement in the public right-of-way. The area needed for an "S" driveway design would preclude the applicant's proposed use of the public right-of-way for private patios. The feasibility of such a design, in the context of vehicle maneuverability, has not been studied by staff. The applicant contends that it is not feasible and it would be aesthetically unpleasing to have the additional pavement. The applicant has reduced the size of the at-grade deck by approximately 8 feet in response to the Commission's concern of bluff alteration. The applicant's engineer will be present at the hearing to address the Conunission's questions about erosion. Recommendation Staff believes that the applicant has achieved most of the objectives set forth by the Commission at the last meeting. The Planning Commission has the option to approve the project as redesigned, approve the original design (or some variant thereof) or the Commission can deny the project. Submitted by: Prepared by: PATRICIA L.TEMPLE JAMES W. CAMPBELL Planning Director Senior Planner Jackson Residence (PA2001-062) September 20,2001 Page 2 of 3 I. + r e Exhibits 1. Excerpt of the Draft Minutes from August 23, 2001. 2. Revised Draft Resolution of approval. 3. Recycled staff report from August 23, 2001. 4. Revised Project Plans (elevation drawings and section drawings). F:1Users\PLNISharedlPA's1PA2001-0621VA2001-001 staff report 9-20.doc Jackson Residence (PA2001-062) September 20,2001 Page 3 of 3 Exhibit No. 1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 INDEX or flowers and not impact anybody whatsoever. Co 'ssioner Agajanian noted that the inspector has actually seen a project and no ' d on owner who, in this case, has filed for this variance. We are getting a t of miscommunication between individuals who are starting projects, con Ling our inspectors and the process is not stopping at that point. It is continuing an we are confronted with a variance in an 'ex post facto' sort of way. I don't like ecause I think this could have been avoided. It could have been modified ea on, at the time the inspector saw it. I would certainly approve a small variance i e could cut back the two bays on the right, but I can not support the variance it stands right now. Vice Chairman Kiser noted that varia es are difficult to give. In this case I have a different take on it as the structure ' elf as it stands, presents a minimal incursion into any kind of view and is a mini i part of the structure. I would be willing to support the motion in this case. Other considerations are, the applicant could take down the trellis and put to with large umbrellas on the some balcony that I believe would do about the so view wise to the extent that there is any obstruction. The applicant could also some light wires and have plants strung across. The residences on the other side d from Kings Road have no view blockage as I could determine. With the lack o mplaints other than the letter from Mr. Roman who addresses the problem a historically sensitive area and generally blocked vistas from the bluff side of Kin Road, is much broader based than something that would raise any real quests from me about this particufar minor structure. While I am hesitant to suppo y variances, in this case, 1 would support the motion. Ayes: Kiser, Gifford, Kranzley, Noes: McDaniel, Agajanian Absent: Tucker, Selich SUBJECT: Jackson Residence Item No.4 3631 Ocean Boulevard PA2001-062 • Variance No. 2001-001 and • Modification No. 2001-092 (PA2001-062) Request to demolish an existing single family home (2,924 gross square feet) and Continued to replace with a new single family home (6,044 gross square feet) including 09/20/2001 grading, paving, fencing lighting, landscaping and irrigation. The proposed project includes the changes to the existing driveway and front yard landscaping presently located within the public right-of-way. The project also includes a variance request to exceed established height limits of Zoning Code due to unique topographical circumstances. Lastly, the project includes a request to deviate from the required front yard setback of 10-feet providing a 0' to 4' front setback. 6 r City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 INDEX Mr. Campbell then made a slide presentation noting the following: • Demolition of existing home constructed in 1962 and construction of a new three-level residence. • A 1962 Variance allowed the home to encroach into the front yard setback and was conditioned that the house not exceed 3' above the top of the curb; this predated the curb height limit that was put into place later. • Proposed site plan depicting the area that would exceed the top of the curb by approximately 2' 6", which is approximately 6" lower than the residence today; portions shown that would comply with the curb height limit and those portions that exceed the curb height limit. • Elevations were explained showing the elevator, powder room, chimneys, three-levels from the ocean side and elevations showing the left and right sides of the house. Commissioner Kranzley asked where the string line was for the patio. Mr. Campbell answered that the building string line was put on the drawing for analysis purposes and has no regulatory framework related to it. The string line for the patio was indicated on the exhibit. Continuing with the slide presentation he noted: • Elevations on the right side of the residence along with the chimneys. • Lower level decks. • Section drawings that showed where the residence exceeds the 24-foot height limit. The drawing had green lines depicting outline of the existing residence, red lines depicting the top of the curb and a dark outline showing the portions of the garage. • Pictures were then presented taken from sides, top and across the existing residence. • The sidewalk is proposed to be relocated towards the curb. • Public Works Department is recommending that the sidewalk stay in its present location. • Garage will have a flat roof and will be 6" lower than the peak of the present sloping roof. The garage roof will be approximately 18" higher than the existing one at the face of the garage as the roof is flattened and extended towards the front of the property. The view shed will be brought closer to the front of the lot. • Slides showing the rear of the property showing the encroachment of the deck and areas of the proposed residence; views towards the east depicting the cemented portions in place to prevent soil erosion. • Adjacent neighbor's house that is currently being remodeled. • Slides depicting the bluff area and vegetation. In conclusion, he staffed that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve this variance due to the sloping topography, slight improvement of the view over the top of the residence and the applicant is building in an area that is already developed. The encroachment of the deck and other features do extend out over the bluff. The General Plan suggests that we minimize bluff 7 f City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 INDEX alteration, so the Commission has the option to cut back that deck if they feel it does encroach too far over the bluff. Staff believes that the front yard setback modification is warranted as it assists the applicant staying off the bluff by bringing the building closer to the street. Due to the deep parkway and lower elevation of the residence, staff does not believe that the project will create a negative impact to Ocean Boulevard. Commissioner Kranzley noted that on page 7, it refers to 1 D' ceilings that cause roughly one quarter of the seaward edge of the upper floor to exceed the 24-foot height limit. If we brought the ceilings down it would reduce the amount of the Variance. Referring to the slide elevation, Mr. Campbell explained the garage level. He agreed that if the ceilings were lowered, it would reduce the amount of the Variance by approximately 25%. Commissioner Gifford stated that the plate of the garage is 8'6". What is the dimension of the floor right now? Can the floor of the garage be brought any lower? Staff answered it was approximately T6". The floor could be lowered and would cause the slope of the driveway to increase. The other option would be to move the garage further away from the street as discussed in the staff report. If the garage stays in the same location, the slope would be approximately 21-22%. Commissioner Kranzley stated that the 8'6" as the shortest height of the garage that is recommended would be higher than the garage that currently exists there. The garage has a sloped roof, but you are flattening the roof and raising the front of the garage so the opening is actually going to be higher by a foot than the existing garage. Mr. Campbell stated the 8'6" was scaled off the drawings for the interior clear height to the bottom of the roof member. The door itself is about 7'6" based on the drawings. This dimension could be brought down and does not have to be 8'6". Mr. Edmonston stated that there is a minimum height for a garage height either 66" or 7',certainly less than the 8'6". Commissioner McDaniel noted that as long as the Code permits, we could make some adjustments on the garage. Don't lower the floor, but lower the ceiling to make it closer to what we are looking for. Mr. Edmonston added that another factor is as you are coming down the slope as you come into the garage the back end of the car comes down. The front end of the car if it were a box, the door may have to be taller than a door if you were coming in flat. 8 • 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 INDEX Commissioner Selich asked if rather than having the driveway come in perpendicular to the street, having it come in at a transverse angle or a zigzag driveway in order to take the driveway down to a lower level so you can get the garage floor lower and not exceed the 15% slope? He was answered no, staff does not know if the applicant studied that option or not. Commissioner Selich asked for information on the Variance that was approved for the house at the end of Poppy Street. Staff answered they had that file. Ms. Temple noted in relation to the project at the end of Poppy Street, that the original proposal was for the garage and elevator area to exceed the curb height limit. It was originally proposed to exceed the height limit by almost 8'6" feet. The Planning Commission reduced that to 4'6" by pressing the building further into the slope. The lot was much wider than this one. Commissioner Selich noted that the garage could be moved out towards the ocean and lowered so that a drive approach would not exceed the 15%. The reason for doing that is that they want to have a room on the other side of the garage that had an ocean view. Is that correct? Mr. Campbell answered, yes. If the garage was pushed away from the curb and lowered, you could get to 15%. That area is a kitchen now, and the applicant does not want to lose the ocean views. Mr. Edmonston noted that 15% is the standard maximum used for a driveway slope. In the hillside areas of the City, and this would certainly fall into that,we do look at projects on a case-by-case basis and allow typically up into the 17-18%p range, very rarely 20%. There are factors that can be allowed if that is your goal. The driveway is allowed to have different slopes at different points as there is a need to provide gradual changes so the cars do not bottom out as they go over a sharp angle. Vice Chairman Kiser asked about the other homes along that portion of Ocean Drive and how much they encroach into the front yard setbacks. Staff answered that there were nine encroachments permitted and range from 9 feet into the 10 feet setback to 10 feet into the 10 feet setback; there are several of them for the entire house but the majority are for portions of homes only. At Commission inquiry, staff added that the City does not use the concept of string line. Where it has gained its prominence is in the Coastal Zone,where the Coastal Commission staff uses it as analytical tool. Although once again, it is not a regulatory limit established by the Coastal Commission. It is just a way to look at a project for analysis purposes. Commissioner Gifford stated that if the stringline concept was to be taken into consideration, it would change the traditional view we have had on Variances not setting a precedent because if we give variances and then use a stringline on those variances,we are in a place of difficulty. 9 C City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 INDEX Ms. Temple added another thing to think about when you look at the relevance of the stringline is that in some cases, you might have extremely old houses on either side of a property, maybe even small homes. A stringline would then tend to compress the buildable footprint. Maybe in a location like this that would be a good thing; in other places it may work to the Commission's detriment in the sense they may be forced to approve more or greater variances because of the compressed building footprint areas. There are implications that can reverberate through a common application of that sort. Just as a way of information and understanding where the building is sited in relationship to the neighboring properties, it certainly is a relevant thing to consider. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Clauson noted that if the Commission wanted to use this as a fact or finding in support of the decision, then we would have a problem. However, if it is just part of conceptualization to analyze the project, there would be no problem. Vice Chairperson Kiser asked if the applicant was not requesting the setback and public right of way modification and variance, could they replace the home that is existing with one that is three feet over the curb line today? Staff answered that if they were going to remodel the existing, without tearing it down, yes as they would be able to maintain what they have. If they demolish the entire building, they would not be able to rebuild. The variance in 1962 was for the front yard setback encroachment of the house and not for building height. A condition was put on that variance to limit the curb height by three feet, which has pre-dated that standard that you see today in the Code. Public comment was opened. Ed Lohrbach, architect for the project, stated that the applicant has worked very hard to not have variances on this project. Referring to the site plan, he noted that having a flat roof lowers the house as much as possible from a practical stand point. With a pitched roof, they would have to go down farther to get any ceiling heights. Going below the 15% to get down to the garage is dangerous, because of the steeper slope,which is why I have kept the roof of the garage up. There is no code for garage heights; 7'6" is very low. We could drop it, but I am trying to keep some difference of elevations for the style. Looking at the curb you don't see the house from the street because if is so low. I use a stringline during my design process because I think it is a considerate way to design for the neighbors. I don't want to go beyond them even though I could, and yes, Coastal does look at it that way. The houses on either side are both remodeled and above the curb height. Comparing our elevations, we are lower. To accomplish the right grade we would have to bring the house back to the back of the garage to meet the 24foot height limit. It is a tough situation. At Commission inquiry,he noted the following: • Standard garage height is 7 feet. 10 r City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 INDEX The driveway from a safety standpoint as designed to pull in and turn around. If it is made steeper, it will be hard to pull around and back up and prefers not to push it down any farther If I make 9' plates, the house will be down below all the other houses, even below the curb heights. • 1 really don't believe the difference between the 9' or 10' will make a difference to the mass of the house. Commissioner Selich noted that he would like to get the elevation of the garage lower and maintain a 15% driveway by lengthening the distance from where you approach from the sidewalk to where you reach the garage. Did you look at angling it where you would be a greater distance from the street and what that would do? Did you look at zigzagging the driveway so you could run parallel to the property and then parallel back the other direction to make the grade? How much additional lowering could you achieve? Mr. Lohrbach answered that there would not be enough room to do that. I did analyze that. You would not achieve any more lowering of the garage because you are taking up the whole front yard with concrete or asphalt to do that. Robert Lockleigh, Corona del Mar noted his opposition of any construction that encroaches into the public view of the ocean, or expansion beyond legal curb height limits. He further requested that any encroachment whatever into the public right of way be disapproved. The public land that they propose to take for their front yard belongs to the people of Newport Beach. In relation to the sidewalk, the report shows 44 feet from the existing sidewalk is the front property line, that is 44 feet of public park space. Perhaps they need to place the garage some place else. At what point do we stop building 6,000+square foot houses on unbuildable lots with room for 2,000 square foot houses, it's a cliff. A lot has changed since 1962; we no longer have the public view and access to the beaches. This is one of the few places where we have access. The owners state they don't want to loose their views by modifying the house, but nobody seems to care about the public views. I ask that you deny anything beyond what is legally permissible. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Lockleigh noted that the sidewalk in the past was a curving greenbelt that went along that whole area. What he is proposing and would like to see is all public property returned to the public and used as a park for the people. It does not belong to just the nine people who live along that street,it belongs to all of us. There can be an aesthetic joint use of the land where everyone can work together. Bill Benz, 3625 Ocean adjacent owner next door noted his concerns of the potential for erosion and de-stabilization. He stated he has submitted plans for remedial treatments due to the dig going on the other side of him with a six-foot high retaining wall going into remedy existing erosion on that side. The additional prospect of erosion from this construction makes him a little nervous. He would have the same issue and concern with the excavation in general and the fact as City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 INDEX seen in one of the photos of the front of the houses is an 18' high retaining wall. He's nervous that this might de-stabilize and lead to more problems. At Commission inquiry, he stated he did not need a variance for his remodel. John Garcia, architect on the project at 3625 Ocean added that there was a modification for the front yard setback and a 12' section of the house to go 8" above the existing curb height. Some of the patio was cut back on the bluff side. Ms. Temple added that the Modification Committee, within certain limits, could approve certain types of architectural features. If it were not an architectural feature, the Planning Commission would see any variance. Christine Brooks stated she had submitted a letter on behalf of Mr. Benz stating his position. She noted that the stringline is not a regulation. During the slide presentation, a slide shows that the deck-to-deck stringline goes beyond 10'. There is a privacy wall that comes up there that will potentially block views. We request a continuance of this matter in order to work with the applicant to resolve some issues between the neighbors, or, a denial of the application. Commissioner Gifford asked if there have been any points of agreement in the discussions with the applicants? Ms. Brooks stated there has been no final resolution reached to date. Doug Jackson, applicant commented that he could not lower the garage floor. It is a very short run into the garage and we have difficulty now. We have to back out of the driveway and that causes a safety issues with on coming traffic. Ed Lohrback noted that we have stepped back on the top floor following discussions with Mr. Benz. By using the stringline, I am using the corner of their house as our privacy wall. The next floor,we are discussing landscaping, but have not committed to pulling the wall back. We are within our rights to match their wall. Because they put windows on their side, should not penalize us. We are looking straight out. He added that he would have sump pumps for the water from the site pumped back up to the street. Jean Bruton, Goldenrod Avenue noted her opposition to granting this variance. She presented her personal views and gave a brief history of the loss of public views and grasslands. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Gifford, referring to page 7 and the statement that the reduced setback does place the foundation of the proposed residence in a position where it will provide lateral support for the public right-of-way due to the extensive excavation proposed. I don't understand this sentence. Mr. Campbell explained that there is a foundation wall for the three level 12 � 1 1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 INDEX residence in this location, which is approximately 18 feet deep. All of the land in that area will be supported by that construction. If the construction were to be done using in less than adequate techniques or if there was a problem with the site, the area might be de-stabilized. The geotechnical report did not show any flaws with the geology of the site and adherence to the Uniformed Building Code Standards and Grading Standards should minimize those types of issues. I don't think this is an issue of concern. There is no evidence that there is inadequate support today. Commissioner Agajanian referring to the same page asked if the reduction of the front yard setback might be detrimental if the city were to attempt to reclaim the use of the public right-of-way fronting Ocean Boulevard for the use by the general public. This is unlikely as it is contrary to past policy. What do these statements mean? Mr. Campbell explained that if the structure was located in this proposed position, the proximity to general public use of the space here is kind of hypothetical to re- claim this space for general use and occupancy would have to be re-evaluated. It is not necessarily a significant concern, but a "what if" kind of question. Commissioner Agajanian noted his concern of the policy that it would never be reclaimed or that we don't care about claiming if now. Mr. Campbell noted that the Council has not come in and actually attempted to remove existing private improvements in the right of way. These approvals actually go to City Council for the encroachment, and we fill find out if these improvements are excessive or not. The City Council may suggest these improvements not go in and reclaim that space. The Modification deals with the front yard setback on private property. Commissioner Selich noted that this encroachment into the right of way is not within our purview, it is a matter for the City Council to approve or not. My concern is on the garage area exceeding the height limit in this structure. I think the other requests are within reason. To the degree that this building may have been pushed back to satisfy the views out of the windows of the Benz' property next door to the degree that affects the design of this and pushes the garage structure higher, I think the public view benefits for outweigh the benefits gained by pushing the structure back to enhance that view, which is already a pretty good view straight over the water. I think there is another solution here and I am not convinced from the answers I got to my questions tonight that there isn't a way that this house could be designed and the that the garage can be brought Within the height limit. Some Commissioners have mentioned modification of plate heights, I mentioned studying the slope at the driveway, and Mr. Edmonston mentioned modifying the slope. Maybe it's not anyone of those solutions but some combination somehow to make it work. Perhaps with that kind of direction, the applicant could go back and do some more work on it and bring the height down where it would not require a variance to the curb height limit. 13 1f City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 INDEX Commissioner Kranzley noted his agreement with the previous testimony. He added that it is important to have that curb height limit and 1 feel that more work can be done on this project on a number of different areas, including plate height and garage height. I would move for continuance of this item. Commissioner McDaniel stated that when a building of 6,000 square feet of new residence, it seems we ought to be able to cure as many of the problems we had before and bring this into compliance as close as we can. I wouldn't be able to approve this project the way it is tonight and agree with the previous statements. Vice Chairman Kiser stated he agrees with the previous statements as well. Dropping a large portion of the home by 3 feet creates a somewhat more public view even though the roof would be flat. The front yard setback matches other homes on this street and in the immediate area. However, on the height variance, I agree with what has been said. A 10-foot floor plate might be reduced as well as a lower garage, and these might get the structure to a point where it could fit within the curb height and without the variance. Then it is just a matter o solving the driveway problem; I agree with previous comments that there was not a whole lot of study about that. It seems to be a matter that needs a lot of time and attention applied to it. The other problem i have is the lower level at grade deck. The height variance is my primary concern. I would support continuing this item. Commissioner Gifford stated that she agrees with the previous comments adding that in our overall assessment, the public views are the primary concern rather than the private views. I too support a continuance. Vice Chairman Kiser asked the applicant what would be a reasonable amount of time for the architect to review the things that have been suggested by the Commission. Mr. Lohrbach answered he would study it and attempt to get the garage down. He answered that he could drop the floors and the garage a bit if that is what it takes. The mass of the building is hardly any bigger than what exists. He suggested that September 201"would be a good date. Commissioner Kranzley commented that at looking at the other houses on the street that have not been torn down. Many of them exceed the height of the curb. There was a very long and hard fought battle to get the new standards in regarding curb heights as the limit. Whatever the existing circumstances are there, I feel it is my job when new houses are being built there, to try to attain the new standards. You are building a new house here. Commissioner Gifford added that on occasion when we have granted a height variance, it has been a trade off often for some type of lateral shrinkage or some other factor that we felt in total created an overall benefit for the public views. Those of you who may take some type of policy implication that there have been height variances, you should not think of it as strictly a height variance with 14 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 INDEX nothing else having changed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to September 20}h. Ms. Temple noted that the most critical issue appears to be the curb height limit as opposed to the overall height limit. Commissioner Kranzley noted that the public view is most important but I am not ready to sacrifice private views for variances. If we reduce plate height we will improve the 24-foot variance. My primary concern is curb height. Commissioner Selich added his concern is curb height limit. The rest is reasonable giving the topography of the lot. Commissioner Agaianian noted he is interested in the curb height; lower level deck extension and particularly concerned about the erosion. Commissioner McDaniel noted his primary concerns are curb height and deck. Vice Chairman Kiser noted his primary concerns are curb height and deck. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser,Agajanian, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None Absent: Tucker ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Additional Business a) City Council Follow-up-no planning items at the last meeting. b) Oral re from Planning Commission's representative to the Economic Developme ommittee-no meeting this month. c) Matters that a Plannin mmissioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting-Com aner Agaianian noted his concern about tonight's variance. It bothers me t the inspectors go out to the sites, see the work being done, and in i case it was reported it was dangerous so they couldn't leave it so they to continue it. I would like to find out and have a report on what our is. Obviously we didn't bring a halt to this construction. Ms. Temple answered that when we find something going on wi t a building permit, we put a stop work order on it. What this applicant ca 15 • , * Exhibit NO. 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2001-001 AND MODIFICATION NO. 2001-092 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3631 OCEAN BOULEVARD (PA2001-062) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by the applicant, Ed Lorbach on behalf of the property owners Mr. and Mrs. Jackson with respect to property located at 3631 Ocean Boulevard and legally described as Parcel 15 of Parcel Map 1257, requesting approval of a Variance and Modification Permit to construct a three level, 6,044 square foot residence that exceeds the 24/28-foot height limit. The residence would also encroach within the 10-foot front yard setback up to 10 feet in some places. The property is located within the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) zone district. Section 2. A public hearing was duly held on August 23, 2001 and September 20, 2001, at 6:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was duly given. Evidence, both written and oral, was duly presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the aforesaid meeting. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows: a) The proposed development, a detached single family home, is consistent with the General Plan, Land Use Element designation of the property which is Single-family Detached. b) An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. The contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. On the basis of the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. c) The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. The only easement that exits on the site is a sewer easement Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 of 7 that will serve the proposed construction. The sewer easement will remain accessible with the implementation of the project provided that a sewer clean out is installed. d) Alteration of the more natural portion of the coastal bluff is minimized due to the siting of the proposed residence. The residence will occupy the required front yard setback which is presently developed rather than having the residence extend further upon the relatively undisturbed seaward portion of the bluff. Additionally, a majority of the project is does not extend beyond a "stringline" drawn between the two adjacent residences. The lowest extent of the development, including the at-grade deck is similar to the elevation of the Iower portions of the two adjacent residences (approximately 5-6 feet lower than the residence to the west and approximately 5-6 feet higher than the residence to the east). e) The granting of the variance to allow portions of the residence to exceed permitted height limits is warranted in that there are special circumstances applicable to the property; approval is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant; approval is consistent with the purposes of this code; and will not be materially detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood for the following reasons: 1. The steeply sloping topography of the site restricts the ability to comply with the height limitations while constructing a residence comparable to newly constructed residences located in Corona Del Mar. 2. The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting variance applications, and the variance procedure is intended to resolve practical and unnecessary physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area and on this lot. 3. The entire residence will be constructed at a lower level than the existing residence which will improve public views from Ocean Boulevard. 4. Due to the siting of the proposed residence within a "stringline" drawn between the two adjacent residences, its footprint elevation being similar to the two adjacent residences and its location, which is relatively distant from Corona Del Mar Beach, the proposed project will not significantly impact the views of the coastal bluffs. f) The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of this code for the following reasons: Planning Commix Resolution No. Page 3 of 7 1) The proposed residence will be approximately 44 feet from the existing sidewalk. This increased distance sufficiently separates the building mass from the sidewalk especially due to the lower overall height of the residence as measured in relation to the curb and sidewalk. 2) The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting modification applications, and the variance procedure is intended to resolve practical and unnecessary physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area and on this lot. Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves Variance No. 2001-001 and Modification Permit No. 2001-092, subject to the Conditions set forth in Exhibit"A" attached. Section 5. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this action is call for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20a'DAY OF SEPTEMBER,2001. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: BY: Larry Tucker, Chairman BY: Earl McDaniel, Secretary Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 4 of 7 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VARIANCE NO. 2001-001 & MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2001-092 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plan and elevations dated 2/13101 except as noted below. 2. All public improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desires to obtain a building permit prior to the completion of the public improvements. 4. The final design of the driveway shall have a maximum grade of 15% with minimum 5-foot tangents and maximum grade changes of 11% unless otherwise approved by the Traffic Engineer. The final driveway design shall be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 5. The existing 5-foot wide public sidewalk shall remain where it presently is constructed(8'to 12' back of curb) except at the proposed driveway approach where it shall be placed a minimum of 5 feet from the back of curb face. The driveway approach must have a minimum b" hike-up in order to prevent Ocean Boulevard drainage from entering the property. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. b. A City Council approved encroachment permit and encroachment agreement shall be executed by the property owner to permit private improvement encroachments within the Ocean Boulevard right-of-way. 7. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 8. The intersection of the private drive and Ocean Boulevard shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 30 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirement. Landscaping within sight line shall not exceed 24 inches in height. 9. Chimneys shall not exceed the minimum height required by the Uniform Building Code and any portion of the chimney which extends above applicable height limits of the Zoning Code shall be no wider than 2 feet and no deeper than 4 feet. For the purpose of this Planning COMMA Resolution No. Page 5 of 7 condition, the width or depth of the chimney will be the smaller dimension parallel to Ocean Blvd. 10. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be placed underground to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 11. A drainage study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Building Department showing on-site drainage being directed to Ocean Boulevard. 12. Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of any building, grading or demolition permits. 13. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 14. Exiting from each level of the residence shall comply with applicable standards of the Building and Fire Code. The structure requires a fire suppression system (sprinklers) as the structure exceeds 5,000 square feet. 15. Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a shoring plan that shall be subject to the review and approval of the Building Department if it is determined that shoring is necessary for the construction of the proposed project. 16. A sewer main lateral and cleanout shall be installed behind and under the proposed residence subject to the standards and permit requirements of the Building Department and Utilities Department. The existing water meter shall be upgraded if determined necessary for the fire suppression system. 17. a) During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce nuisance due to odors from construction activities. (Mitigation Measure No. 1) b) During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the following measures are complied with to reduce short-term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: a)controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b)maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project- related emissions. (Mitigation Measure No. 1) c) To control dust, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Limit the disturbance area to the extent feasible. • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. l� Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 6 of 7 • Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway. • Use street sweepers to clean and pick up trailing dust from raids in the vicinity of the project. • Cover or water twice daily any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 miles per hour. • Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain inactive for more that 96 hours after clearing is completed. (Mitigation Measure No. 1) d) To control emissions, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Require 90-day low-Nox tune-ups for off-road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. Mitigation Measure No. 1) e) To minimize off-site impacts, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Encourage car pooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off site. • Wash or sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non-peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. (Mitigation Measure No. 1) 18. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City that a qualified paleontologist/archaeologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalog cultural material or fossils as necessary. The paleontologist/archaeologist shall be present at the pre-grading conference, establish procedures for paleontological/ archaeological resource surveillance, and establish, in cooperation with the Applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the cultural material or fossils. If major paleontological/archaeological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting or grading, the paleontologist/ archaeologist shall report such findings to the Applicant and the City. The paleontologist/archaeologist shall deter-mine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the Applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City, or its designee, on a first-refusal basis. The Applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be Planning Commien Resolution No. Page 7 of 7 donated to the City, or designee. These actions shall be subject to the approval of the City. (Mitigation Measure No. 2) 19. During construction activities, the project will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NB MC Section 15.10). (Mitigation Measure No. 3) 20. The recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Investigation (Petra Report No. J.N. 359-00) and any subsequent geotechnical or geologic report for the project shall be incorporated into the project. (Mitigation Measure No. 4) 21. The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department to determine compliance. (Mitigation Measure No. 5) 22. The applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code pertaining to noise restrictions. During construction activities, the hours of construction and excavation work are allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and holidays. (Mitigation Measure No. 6) 23. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a traffic control and construction access plan to address construction traffic, haul routes, truck hauling operations and parking in order to maintain safe access to the site during construction. The construction access plan shall include alternative pedestrian and bicycle path routes and an employee parking plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Traffic Department and the Planning Department. Additionally, the applicant shall obtain a haul route permit from the Revenue Division. No construction equipment shall be permitted to park overnight on Ocean Boulevard. (Mitigation Measure No. 7) 24. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. • City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2001 INDEX M18_ JECT: La Salsa;Milestone Management Item No. 1 (Continued from 08-23-01) PA2001-086 4341 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite F + Use Permit No.2001-018(PA2001-086) A Use Permit requested fbr,gn eating and drinking establishment and a waiver of Continued to parking to expand the seating from 21 seats to 36 seats Without an increase in net 10/18/2001 public area. Ms. Temple noted that the applicant has' ,asked for another continuance to October 18, 2001. , Chairman Tucker noted that he would recuse himself frofti and will abstain from voting on the continuance. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser,Agajanian, Kranzley,Selich Abstains: Tucker Absent: Gifford SUBJECT: Jackson Residence Item No.2 3631 Ocean Boulevard PA2001-062 (Continued from August 23, 2001) • Variance No.2001-001 and • Modification No. 2001-092(PA2001-062) 4 Request to demolish an existing single family home (2,924 gross square feet) and Approved replace with a new single family home (6,044 gross square feet) including grading, paving, fencing lighting, landscaping and irrigation. The proposed project includes the changes to the existing driveway and front yard landscaping presently located within the public right-of-way. The project also includes a variance request to exceed established height limits of Zoning Code due to unique topographical circumstances. Lastly, the project includes a request to deviate from the required front yard setback of 10-feet providing a 0' to 4' front setback. Chairperson Tucker asked Vice Chairman Kiser to step in and conduct the hearing on this item, as the Chairman was not at the lost meeting when it was first heard. He added the Planning Department staff had received a call today concerning some people who wanted to testify on item 4 also wanted to hear the president's speech tonight. I indicated to staff that we would hear that item no earlier than 7:30 this evening. If we get to that item before 7.30 we will take a break and start the item at that time. Senior Planner, James Campbell noted the changes to the project as directed by the Commission at the last meeting. The project is to conform to the curb height limit as well as address concern of the size of the 'at grade' deck to the rear of the 2 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2001 INDEX residence above the bluff. The applicant has re-designed the project and there are new exhibits for consideration. The entire house is below the height of the curb; the project still exceeds 24 feet to the natural grade toward the seaward edge of the house; the other change to the project is the reduction of the rear deck by approximately 8 feet. The slope of the driveway as designed is 20%, which the Public Works states is the maximum they would like to see. Vice Chairman Kiser stated that the plans he received do not appear to have an update; only a sticky on the upper right-hand corner that says 'revised site plans of 09/13/01',First, I want to make sure that the Commission received the right plans and second, at such time we would approve this, for proper reference to the plans we need the right dates on the plan sheets. Mr. Campbell answered that all the Commissioners received the plans that have the sticker with the date of 09/13/01 and made a correction to condition one referencing the some date as on the sticker. Public comment was opened. Chairman Tucker noted that condition four should be changed to reflect a maximum grade of 201%. The front yard encroachment is not something that is within our authority. Effectively, whatever we approve that has anything to do with front yard issues is subject to an encroachment permit. Staff answered that there is a modification for the front yard and the encroachment referred to is within the public right of way and subject to an encroachment permit pursuant to the City Council's authority. Mr. Ed Lohrbach, spoke representing the Jacksons. He stated that they had met with the neighbor and are in accord. The garage has been lowered and the driveway is at a 207o grade; the building is at the curb height at this point and we have pulled the deck back and we are in conformance all the way around. He added that they did try a different driveway approach and it just does not work. The soils engineer from Petra is here to answer any questions on the stability of the property. At Commission inquiry, he stated that the applicant has read, understands and agrees to all the findings and conditions to the application. He stated he would like to see the garage a foot higher and that the framing of the garage is at 6 inches and the garage is at 7'6". The client is aware of what the impact is of having a 7'6" ceiling. He confirmed that the deck on the lower floor was brought back 6 to 8 feet, depending on the location of measurement. Bill Benz, 3625 Ocean Boulevard, noted that he had met with the Jacksons and they have come to an amicable agreement covering the objections he had raised at the last meeting. He supports the project as shown including the deck below. Public comment was closed. 3 i City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2001 INDEX Chairperson Tucker noted that 20% is fairly steep and 7'6" is low. They are bringing the roofline of the house down in compliance that he would support the additional foot requested by the applicant. I would like to see 6" of that dedicated to lessening the grade and 6" to the height of the garage to make it 8 feet so that the grade will be less than 20%. 1 am a little concerned with people trying to back out of the driveway. Commissioner Selich stated he did not agree with the previous comments. There are a number of design solutions and for the sake of preserving other aspects of the project, the applicant chose to go with the lower garage height and steeper driveway. The driveway is acceptable to our Public Works Department. Many years ago when this curb height regulation was adopted it was something that was near and dear to the hearts of a lot of people in Corona del Mar. This is one of the most spectacular views walking along that sidewalk than there is anywhere in Southern California. Continuing, he noted that the Planning Commission should adhere to the standard that was set and there are numerous solutions to the property. The applicant chose this one out of many solutions that they could have placed there and they are willing to live with it. We should adhere to the regulations that we imposed on this area many years ago and maintain that view. Commissioner McDaniel agreed with the previous comments. Commissioner Agajanian noted he would like to see the view maintained. However, he suggested moving the roof portion of the garage up by 1 foot or 6 inches. Commissioner Kranzley noted that the applicant made a choice to design this project the way they did. I would agree that they could have done things differently. I am not willing to compromise the curb height and it is important to understand that it was an important long and hard fought battle. I don't think it is necessary in this case to go away from that height limit. Vice Chairman Kiser, noted his agreement with the plans submitted. The architect was able to retain the 10-foot floor heights and given that, I don't think that the project is compromised by keeping the garage roof height where it is, particularly in view of the very important public purpose behind what we are doing. He applauded the bluff top preservation efforts. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to approve Variance No. 2001-001 and Modification No. 2001-092 with the findings and conditions in the staff report as amended by staff, adopting Resolution No. 1536. Following a brief discussion regarding the on-site drainage, the Public Works will be involved with the details as provided in the drainage study as required by condition 11. Vice Chairman Kiser noted the following additions: 4 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes September 20, 2001 INDEX • Change in condition 1 to 'revised site plans dated 09/13/2001'. • Condition 3, 'desired' instead of 'desires'. • Condition 4,20%instead of 15%for maximum grade. • Condition 9......For the purpose of this condition, the width or depth of the chimney will be the smaller dimension parallel to Ocean Boulevard.' It would be clearer to delete, the width or depth of the chimney will be the, and insert after the word dimension, ...'of the chimney will be..'. • Condition 11,insert the word,all. • Condition 17c, 61h bullet change 'raids' to 'roads'. Chairperson Tucker asked what happens to the variance and modification if the Council does not approve of the Encroachment Permit? Does the variance expire? Staff answered that the variance would not be affected; it would change what could be built in the front yard. The encroachments that would come under a lot of scrutiny would be the patios, etc. Commissioner Tucker noted he had listened to the tape of the public hearing of August 23, 2001. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser,Agajanian,Tucker, Kranziey,Selich Noes: None Absent: Gifford UB f:CT: Collins Residence Item No. 3 312 Buena Vista Blvd.& 604 W. Bay Avenue PA2001-146 • Off-Site Parking Agfeement No.2001-001 (PA2001-146) Off-site parking reement in conjunction with an addition to 312 Buena Vista. Continued to Two parking spa swill be provided across the alley at 604 West Bay Avenue. 10104/2001 Both properties are und'e�common ownership. Mr. Campbell noted that there"arq,some photographs of the site available for the Commission and that the Public rocs has suggested two additional conditions dealing with size of the parking spaces brLO site distances related to their location. The first condition would be, 'The parking spac6-hot is shown as 8 feet 9 inches, shall be 9 feet. The other space shown shall be 8' `- er City standard 805LA and LB'. The other condition is, 'the existing fence locations hQII be revised to provide site distance for the new parking spaces'. He then prb'(5Qeded with a slide demonstration noting the: present sites, parking spaces on site; site,gstance issues, closing in of a patio space that triggers the requirement for the addilb al parking. Commissioner McDaniel noted an area that had been enclosed and used,-qs a u patio area was supposed to have been for a parking area that was j9t C �'N City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23,2001 INDEX flowers and not impact anybody whatsoever. Com - sioner Agajanian noted that the inspector had actually seen a project and note d the owner who, in this case, has filed for this variance, We are getting a X�t of miscommunication between individuals who are starting projects, conff nting our inspectors and not stopping the building at that point. It is continuing a�Jikit e are confronted with a variance in an `ex post facto' sort of way. I don't because I think this could have been avoided. It could have been modified'\thetrellis at the time the inspector saw it. I would certainly approve a small varie could cut beck the two bays on the right, but I can not support the vs it stands right now. Vice Chairman Kiser nt Ounces are difficult to give. In this case I have a different take on str' Lure itself as it stands, presents a minimal incursion into any kin and is minimal part of the structure. I would be willing to support thn in this ase. Other considerations are, the applicant could takee trellis an ut tables with large umbrellas on the same balcony that I believe would do aboL the same view wise to the extent that there is any obstruction. The applicant c d also run some light wires and have plants strung across. The residences on the er side and from Kings Road have no view blockage as I could determine. With e lack of complaints other than the letter from Mr. Roman who addresses the oblem as a historically sensitive area and generally blocked vistas from the blu side of Kings Road, is much broader based than something that would raise an real question from me about this particular minor structure. While I am hesita to support any variances,in this case, I would support the motion. Ayes: Kiser, Gifford, Kranzley, Noes: McDaniel, Agajanian Absent: Tucker,Selich SUBJECT: Jackson Residence Item No.4 3631 Ocean Boulevard PA2001.062 • Variance No. 2001-001 and • Modification No. 2001-092 (PA2001-062) Request to demolish an existing single family home (2,924 gross square feet) and Continued to replace with a new single family home 16,044 gross square feet) including 09/20/2001 grading, paving, fencing lighting, landscaping and irrigation. The proposed project includes the changes to the existing driveway and front yard landscaping presently located within the public right-of-way. The project also includes a variance request to exceed established height limits of Zoning Code due to unique topographical circumstances. Lastly, the project includes a request to deviate from the required front yard setback of 10-feet providing a 0' to 4' front setback. 6 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 INDEX Mr. Campbell then made a slide presentation noting the following: • Demolition of existing home constructed in 1962 and construction of a new three-level residence. • A 1962 Variance allowed the home to encroach into the front yard setback and was conditioned that the house not exceed 3' above the top of the curb; this predated the curb height limit that was put into place later. • Proposed site plan depicting the area that would exceed the top of the curb by approximately 2' 6", which is approximately 6" lower than the residence today; portions shown that would comply with the curb height limit and those portions that exceed the curb height limit. • Elevations were explained showing the elevator, powder room, chimneys, three-levels from the ocean side and elevations showing the left and right sides of the house. Commissioner Kranzley asked where the string line was for the patio. Mr. Campbell answered that the building string line was put on the drawing for analysis purposes and has no regulatory framework related to it. The string line for the patio was indicated on the exhibit. Continuing with the slide presentation he noted: • Elevations on the right side of the residence along with the chimneys. • Lower level decks. • Section drawings that showed where the residence exceeds the 24-foot height limit. The drawing had green lines depicting outline of the existing residence, red lines depicting the top of the curb and a dark outline showing the portions of the garage. • Pictures were then presented taken from sides, top and across the existing residence. • The sidewalk is proposed to be relocated towards the curb. • Public Works Department is recommending that the sidewalk stay in its present location. • Garage will have a flat roof and will be 6" lower than the peak of the present sloping roof. The garage roof will be approximately 18" higher than the existing one at the face of the garage as the roof is flattened and extended towards the front of the property. The view shed will be brought closer to the front of the lot. • Slides showing the rear of the property showing the encroachment of the deck and areas of the proposed residence; views towards the east depicting the cemented portions in place to prevent soil erosion. • Adjacent neighbor's house that is currently being remodeled. • Slides depicting the bluff area and vegetation. In conclusion, he stated that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve this variance due to the sloping topography, slight improvement of the view over the top of the residence and the applicant is building in an area that is already developed. The encroachment of the deck and other features do extend out over the bluff. The General Plan suggests that we minimize bluff 7 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 INDEX alteration, so the Commission has the option to cut back that deck if they feel it does encroach too far over the bluff. Staff believes that the front yard setback modification is warranted as it assists the applicant staying off the bluff by bringing the building closer to the street. Due to the deep parkway and lower elevation of the residence, staff does not believe that the project will create a negative impact to Ocean Boulevard. Commissioner Kranzley noted that on page 7, it refers to 10' ceilings that cause roughly one quarter of the seaward edge of the upper floor to exceed the 24-foot height limit. If we brought the ceilings down it would reduce the amount of the Variance. Referring to the slide elevation, Mr. Campbell explained the garage level. He agreed that if the ceilings were lowered, it would reduce the amount of the Variance by approximately 25%. Commissioner Gifford stated that the plate of the garage is 8'6". What is the dimension of the floor right now? Can the floor of the garage be brought any lower? Staff answered it was approximately 7'6". The floor could be lowered and would cause the slope of the driveway to increase. The other option would be to move the garage further away from the street as discussed in the staff report. If the garage stays in the same location, the slope would be approximately 21-22%. Commissioner Kranzley stated that the 8'6" as the shortest height of the garage that is recommended would be higher than the garage that currently exists there. The garage has a sloped roof, but you are flattening the roof and raising the front of the garage so the opening is actually going to be higher by a foot than the existing garage. Mr. Campbell stated the 8'6" was scaled off the drawings for the interior clear height to the bottom of the roof member. The door itself is about 7'6" based on the drawings. This dimension could be brought down and does not have to be 8'6". Mr. Edmonston stated that there is a minimum height for a garage height either 6'6"or 7',certainly less than the 8'6". Commissioner McDaniel noted that as long as the Code permits, we could make some adjustments on the garage. Don't lower the floor, but lower the ceiling to make it closer to what we are looking for. Mr. Edmonston added that another factor is as you are coming down the slope as you come into the garage the back end of the car comes down. The front end of the car if it were a box, the door may have to be taller than a door if you were coming in flat. 8 , City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 INDEX Commissioner Selich asked if rather than having the driveway come in perpendicular to the street, having it come in at a transverse angle or a zigzag driveway in order to take the driveway down to a lower level so you can get the garage floor lower and not exceed the 15% slope? He was answered no, staff does not know if the applicant studied that option or not. Commissioner Selich asked for information on the Variance that was approved for the house at the end of Poppy Street. Staff answered they had that file. Ms. Temple noted in relation to the project at the end of Poppy Street, that the original proposal was for the garage and elevator area to exceed the curb height limit. It was originally proposed to exceed the height limit by almost 8'6" feet. The Planning Commission reduced that to 4'6" by pressing the building further into the slope. The lot was much wider than this one. Commissioner Selich noted that the garage could be moved out towards the ocean and lowered so that ❑ drive approach would not exceed the 15%. The reason for doing that is that they want to have a room on the other side of the garage that had an ocean view. Is that correct? Mr. Campbell answered, yes. If the garage was pushed away from the curb and lowered, you could get to 157o. That area is ❑ kitchen now, and the applicant does not want to lose the ocean views. Mr. Edmonston noted that 157o is the standard maximum used for a driveway slope. In the hillside areas of the City, and this would certainly fall into that,we do look at projects on a case-by-case basis and allow typically up into the 17-18% range, very rarely 20%. There are factors that can be allowed if that is your goal. The driveway is allowed to have different slopes at different points as there is a need to provide gradual changes so the cars do not bottom out as they go over a sharp angle. Vice Chairman Kiser asked about the other homes along that portion of Ocean Drive and how much they encroach into the front yard setbacks. Staff answered that there were nine encroachments permitted and range from 9 feet into the 10 feet setback to 10 feet into the 10 feet setback; there are several of them for the entire house but the majority are for portions of homes only. At Commission inquiry, staff added that the City does not use the concept of string line. Where it has gained its prominence is in the Coastal Zone,where the Coastal Commission staff uses it as analytical tool. Although once again, it is not a regulatory limit established by the Coastal Commission. It is just a way to look at a project for analysis purposes. Commissioner Gifford stated that if the stringline concept was to be taken into consideration, it would change the traditional view we have had on Variances not setting a precedent because if we give variances and then use a stringline on those variances,we are in a place of difficulty. 9 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 INDEX Ms. Temple added another thing to think about when you look at the relevance of the stringline is that in some cases, you might have extremely old houses on either side of a property, maybe even small homes. A stringline would then tend to compress the buildable footprint. Maybe in a location like this that would be a good thing;in other places it may work to the Commission's detriment in the sense they may be forced to approve more or greater variances because of the compressed building footprint areas. There are implications that can reverberate through a common application of that sort. Just as a way of information and understanding where the building is sited in relationship to the neighboring properties, it certainly is a relevant thing to consider. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Clauson noted that if the Commission wanted to use this as a fact or finding in support of the decision, then we would have a problem_ However, if it is just part of conceptualization to analyze the project, there would be no problem. Vice Chairperson Kiser asked if the applicant was not requesting the setback and public right of way modification and variance, could they replace the home that is existing with one that is three feet over the curb line today? Staff answered that if they were going to remodel the existing, without tearing it down, yes as they would be able to maintain what they have. If they demolish the entire building,they would not be able to rebuild. The variance in 1962 was for the front yard setback encroachment of the house and not for building height. A condition was put on that variance to limit the curb height by three feet, which has pre-dated that standard that you see today in the Code. Public comment was opened. Ed Lohrbach, architect for the project, stated that the applicant has worked very hard to not have variances on this project. Referring to the site plan, he noted that having a flat roof lowers the house as much as possible from a practical stand point. With a pitched roof, they would have to go down farther to get any ceiling heights. Going below the 15% to get down to the garage is dangerous, because of the steeper slope, which is why I have kept the roof of the garage up. There is no code for garage heights; 7'6" is very low. We could drop it, but I am trying to keep some difference of elevations for the style. Looking at the curb you don't see the house from the street because it is so low. I use a stringline during my design process because 1 think it is a considerate way to design for the neighbors. I don't want to go beyond them even though I could, and yes, Coastal does look at it that way. The houses on either side are both remodeled and above the curb height. Comparing our elevations, we are lower. To accomplish the right grade we would have to bring the house back to the back of the garage to meet the 24-foot height limit. It is a tough situation. At Commission inquiry, he noted the following: • Standard garage height is 7 feet. 10 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23,2041 INDEX • The driveway from a safety standpoint as designed to pull in and turn around. if it is made steeper, it will be hard to pull around and back up and prefers not to push it down any farther • If I make 9' plates, the house will be down below all the other houses,even below the curb heights. • 1 really don't believe the difference between the 9' or 10' will make a difference to the mass of the house. Commissioner 5elich noted that he would like to get the elevation of the garage lower and maintain a 1517o driveway by lengthening the distance from where you approach from the sidewalk to where you reach the garage. Did you look at angling it where you would be a greater distance from the street and what that would do? Did you look at zigzagging the driveway so you could run parallel to the property and then parallel back the other direction to make the grade? How much additional lowering could you achieve? Mr. Lohrbach answered that there would not be enough room to do that. I did analyze that. You would not achieve any more lowering of the garage because you are faking up the whole front yard with concrete or asphalt to do that. Robert Lockleigh, Corona del Mar noted his opposition of any construction that encroaches into the public view of the ocean, or expansion beyond legal curb height limits. He further requested that any encroachment whatever into the public right of way be disapproved. The public land that they propose to take for their front yard belongs to the people of Newport Beach. In relation to the sidewalk, the report shows 44 feet from the existing sidewalk is the front property line, that is 44 feet of public park space. Perhaps they need to place the garage some place else. At what point do we stop building 6,000+square foot houses on unbuildable lots with room for 2,000 square foot houses, it's a cliff. A lot has changed since 1962; we no longer have the public view and access to the beaches. This is one of the few places where we have access. The owners state they don't want to loose their views by modifying the house, but nobody seems to care about the public views. I ask that you deny anything beyond what is legally permissible. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Lockleigh noted that the sidewalk in the past was a curving greenbelt that went along that whole area. What he is proposing and would like to see is all public property returned to the public and used as a park for the people. It does not belong to just the nine people who live along that street, it belongs to all of us. There can be an aesthetic joint use of the land where everyone can work together. Bill Benz, 3625 Ocean adjacent owner next door noted his concerns of the potential for erosion and de-stabilization. He stated he has submitted plans for remedial treatments due to the dig going on the other side of him with a six-foot high retaining wall going into remedy existing erosion on that side. The additional prospect of erosion from this construction makes him a little nervous. He would have the some issue and concern with the excavation in general and the fact as 1! City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 INDEX seen in one of the photos of the front of the houses is an 18' high retaining wall. He's nervous that this might de-stabilize and lead to more problems. At Commission inquiry, he stated he did not need a variance for his remodel. John Garcia, architect on the project at 3625 Ocean added that there was a modification for the front yard setback and a 12' section of the house to go 8" above the existing curb height. Some of the patio was cut back on the bluff side. Ms. Temple added that the Modification Committee, within certain limits, could approve certain types of architectural features. If it were not an architectural feature, the Planning Commission would see any variance. Christine Brooks stated she had submitted a letter on behalf of Mr. Benz stating his position. She noted that the stringline is not a regulation. During the slide presentation, a slide shows that the deck-to-deck stringline goes beyond 10'. There is a privacy wall that comes up there that will potentially block views. We request a continuance of this matter in order to work with the applicant to resolve some issues between the neighbors, or,a denial of the application. Commissioner Gifford asked if there have been any points of agreement in the discussions with the applicants? Ms. Brooks stated there has been no final resolution reached to date. Doug Jackson,applicant commented that he could not lower the garage floor. It is a very short run into the garage and we have difficulty now. We have to back out of the driveway and that causes a safety issues with on coming traffic. . Ed Lohrback noted that we have stepped back on the top floor following discussions with Mr. Benz By using the stringline, I am using the comer of their house as our privacy wall. The next floor, we are discussing landscaping, but have not committed to pulling the wall back. We are within our rights to match their wall. Because they put windows on their side, should not penalize us. We are looking straight out. He added that he would have sump pumps for the water from the site pumped back up to the street. Jean Bruton, Goldenrod Avenue noted her opposition to granting this variance. She presented her personal views and gave a brief history of the loss of public views and grasslands. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Gifford, referring to page 7 and the statement that the reduced setback does place the foundation of the proposed residence in a position where it will provide lateral support for the public right-of-way due to the extensive excavation proposed. I don't understand this sentence. Mr. Campbell explained that there is a foundation wall for the three level 12 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 INDEX residence in this location, which is approximately 18 feet deep. All of the land in that area will be supported by that construction. If the construction were to be done using in less than adequate techniques or if there was a problem with the site, the area might be de-stabilized. The geotechnical report did not show any flaws with the geology of the site and adherence to the Uniformed Building Code Standards and Grading Standards should minimize those types of issues. I don't think this is an issue of concern. There is no evidence that there is inadequate support today. Commissioner Agajanian referring to the same page asked if the reduction of the front yard setback might be detrimental if the city were to attempt to reclaim the use of the public right-of-way fronting Ocean Boulevard for the use by the general public. This is unlikely as it is contrary to past policy. What do these statements mean? Mr. Campbell explained that if the structure was located in this proposed position, the proximity to general public use of the space here is kind of hypothetical to re- claim this space for general use and occupancy would have to be re-evaluated. It is not necessarily a significant concern, but a "what if' kind of question. Commissioner Agajanian noted his concern of the policy that it would never be reclaimed or that we don't care about claiming if now. Mr. Campbell noted that the Council has not come in and actually attempted to remove existing private improvements in the right of way. These approvals actually go to City Council for the encroachment, and we fill find out if these improvements are excessive or not. The City Council may suggest these improvements not go in and reclaim that space. The Modification deals with the front yard setback on private property. Commissioner Selich noted that this encroachment into the right of way is not within our purview, it is a matter for the City Council to approve or not. My concern is on the garage area exceeding the height limit in this structure. I think the other requests are within reason. To the degree that this building may have been pushed back to satisfy the views out of the windows of the Benz' property next door to the degree that affects the design of this and pushes the garage structure higher, I think the public view benefits far outweigh the benefits gained by pushing the structure back to enhance that view, which is already a pretty good view straight over the water. I think there is another solution here and I am not convinced from the answers I got to my questions tonight that there isn't a way that this house could be designed and the that the garage can be brought within the height limit. Some Commissioners have mentioned modification of plate heights, I mentioned studying the slope at the driveway, and Mr. Edmonston mentioned modifying the slope. Maybe it's not anyone of those solutions but some combination somehow to make it work. Perhaps with that kind of direction, the applicant could go back and do some more work on it and bring the height down where it would not require a variance to the curb height limit. 13 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 INDEX Commissioner Kranzley noted his agreement with the previous testimony. He added that it is important to have that curb height limit and I feel that more work can be done on this project on a number of different areas,including plate height and garage height. I would move for continuance of this item. Commissioner McDaniel stated that when a building of 6,000 square feet of new residence, it seems we ought to be able to cure as many of the problems we had before and bring this into compliance as close as we can. I wouldn't be able to approve this project the way it is tonight and agree with the previous statements. Vice Chairman Kiser stated he agrees with the previous statements as well. Dropping a large portion of the home by 3 feet creates a somewhat more public view even though the roof would be flat. The front yard setback matches other homes on this street and in the immediate area. However, on the height variance, I agree with what has been said. A 10-foot floor plate might be reduced as well as a lower garage, and these might get the structure to a point where it could fit within the curb height and without the variance. Then it is just a matter of solving the driveway problem; I agree with previous comments that there was not a whole lot of study about that. It seems to be a matter that needs a lot of time and attention applied to it. The other problem I have is the lower level at grade deck. The height variance is my primary concern. I would support continuing this item. Commissioner Gifford stated that she agrees with the previous comments adding that in our overall assessment, the public views are the primary concern rather than the private views. I too support a continuance. Vice Chairman Kiser asked the applicant what would be a reasonable amount of time for the architect to review the things that have been suggested by the Commission. Mr. Lohrbach answered he would study it and attempt to get the garage down. He answered that he could drop the floors and the garage a bit if that is what it takes. The mass of the building is hardly any bigger than what exists. He suggested that September 20t"would be a good date. Commissioner Kranzley commented that at looking at the other houses on the street that have not been torn down. Many of them exceed the height of the curb. There was a very long and hard fought battle to get the new standards in regarding curb heights as the limit. Whatever the existing circumstances are there, I feel it is my job when new houses are being built there, to try to attain the new standards. You are building a new house here. Commissioner Gifford added that on occasion when we have granted a height variance, it has been a trade off often for some type of lateral shrinkage or some other factor that we felt in total created an overall benefit for the public views. Those of you who may take some type of policy implication that there have been height variances, you should not think of it as strictly a height variance with 14 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2001 INDEX nothing else having changed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to September 20ih. Ms. Temple noted that the most critical issue appears to be the curb height limit as opposed to the overall height limit. Commissioner Kranzley noted that the public view is most important but I am not ready to sacrifice private views for variances. if we reduce plate height we will improve the 24-foot variance. My primary concern is curb height. Commissioner Selich added his concern is curb height limit. The rest is reasonable giving the topography of the lot. Commissioner Agajanian noted he is interested in the curb height; lower level deck extension and particularly concerned about the erosion. Commissioner McDaniel noted his primary concerns are curb height and deck. Vice Chairman Kiser noted his primary concerns are curb height and deck. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser,Agajanian, Gifford, Kranzley,Selich Noes: None Absent: Tucker A bQis1ONAL BUSINESS: W Additional Business a) City until Follow-up-no planning items at the last meeting. b) Oral report frame Planning Commissions representative to the Economic Development Corn�ittee-no meeting this month. `,R. c) Matters that a Planning Corry issioner would like staff to report on at a subsequent meeting-Commissi r Agajanian noted his concern about tonight's variance. It bothers me th he inspectors go out to the sites, see the work being done, and in this -cp,�e it was reported it was dangerous so they couldn't leave it so they hato continue it. I would like to find out and have a report on what our p°blur is. Obviously we didn't bring a halt to this construction. Ms. Temple answered that when we find something going on wattut a building permit, we put a stop work order on it. What this applicaq 15 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Jackson Residence VA 2001-001 (PA2001-062) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: James Campbell, Planning Department (949) 644-3210 4. Project Location: 3631 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Ed Lorbach 31681 Camino Capistrano,Suite 106 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Douglas & Sandra Jackson Property Owners 6. General Plan Designation: Single Family Detached 7, Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Section 20.65.040 -24128 Foot Height Limitation Zone 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Demolish and remove existing single family home (2,924 gross square feet) and replace with new single family home (5,934 gross square feet) including grading, paving, fencing lighting, landscaping and irrigation. The propsed project includes the changes to the existing driveway and front yard landscaping presently located within the public right-of-way. The project also includes a variance request to exceed established height limits of Zoning Code due to unique topographical circumstances. Lastly, the project includes a request to deviate from the required front yard setback of 10 feet providing no front setback. The project, as proposed, requires a variance to exceed the 24128 feet height limit, as well as, the requirement to ensure that roof heights on new construction do not exceed the top of the curb height at Ocean Boulevard per Sections 20.65.040 and 20.65.060 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. The garage, as proposed, exceeds height limit of the curb by 2' - 6". The rear portion of the upper level of proposed residence will exceed the 24 foot height limit by approximately 10'- 6". Environmental Checkliso 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Current Development: Single Family Residence To the north: Ocean Boulevard Single Family Residential To the east: Single Family Residence To the south: Pacific Ocean To the west: Single Family Residence 9. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) California Coastal Commission (Coastal Development Permit) ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use Planning 9k Transportation/ ❑ Public Services Circulation ❑ Population & Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities & Service Systems l Geological Problems ❑ Energy & Mineral I, Aesthetics Resources ❑ Water ❑ Hazards f Cultural Resources ❑ Air Quality Noise ❑ Recreation Mandatory Findings of 'Significance Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 2 r 4 `. Environmental Checklist DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ❑ Prepared & Submitted by: ames Campbell, enior Plann r Date Planning Department Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 3 rJ Environmental ChecklisO } CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect ❑ ❑ ❑ on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing ❑ ❑ Q ❑ visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ Q light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for ❑ ❑ ❑ Q agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the ❑ ❑ ❑ Q existing environment which, due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to non- agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct ❑ Q ❑ ❑ implementation of the applicable air quality Ian? Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 4 t Environmental Checklisfo Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively ❑ ❑ ❑ Q considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to ❑ ❑ Q ❑ substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ ❑ Q any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ ❑ Q federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 5 0 Environmental Checklip Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Interfere substantially with the ❑ ❑ ❑ Q movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an ❑ ❑ ❑ Q adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse ❑ ❑ ❑ Q change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse ❑ Q ❑ ❑ change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, ❑ ❑ ❑ C�1 including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 6 r•b� Environmental CheckliV Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated i) Rupture of a known earthquake ❑ �( ❑ ❑ fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground ❑ Q ❑ ❑ shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, ❑ Q ❑ ❑ including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ Q ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or ❑ Q ❑ ❑ the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil ❑ Q ❑ ❑ that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as ❑ ❑ ❑ Q defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately ❑ ❑ ❑ C✓j supporting the use septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the ❑ ❑ ❑ Q public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)+Page 7 n L Environmental Checkliffi Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Create a significant hazard to the ❑- ❑ ❑ public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or ❑ ❑ ❑ B handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is ❑ ❑ ❑ fl included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project within an airport land ❑ ❑ ❑ use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ ❑ ❑ L{ private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) mpair implementation of or ❑ ❑ ❑ H physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Jackson Residence:(PA 2001-062)•Page 8 Environmental Checklislo Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated Vllil. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards ❑ © ❑ ❑ or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ C1 drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water ❑ ❑ ❑ which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade ❑ ❑ ❑ Q water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year ❑ ❑ ❑ C�1 flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 9 L Environmental Checkli,sif Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard ❑ ❑ ❑ Q area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑ Q community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use ❑ ❑ Q ❑ plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan,specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? e) Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ Q conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan, or other land use plan? Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 10 Environmental Checklislp Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or ❑ Q [] ❑ generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic ❑ Q ❑ ❑ increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an ❑ ❑ ❑ Q airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q private airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population ❑ ❑ ❑ Q growth in an area, either directly(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly(for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 11 ,�i Environmental Checklip Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ [� people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in 13 substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ [� Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ p Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use ❑ ❑ ❑ Q of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include ❑ ❑ ❑ Q recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? opportunities? Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 12 Environmental Checklislo Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated XIV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is ❑ C�{ ❑ ❑ substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed either individually or ❑ ❑ ❑ C� cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic ❑ ❑ ❑ Q patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency ❑ ❑ ❑ C�J access? f) Result in inadequate parking ❑ ❑ ❑ C1 capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, ❑ ❑ ❑ C✓1 or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES &SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ❑ Q requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 13 I Environmental Checklip Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Require or result in the construction ❑ ❑ ❑ Q of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction ❑ ❑ ❑ Q of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the ❑ ❑ ❑ Q wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ❑ ❑ ❑ Q permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local ❑ ❑ ❑ Q statutes and regulation related to solid waste? Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 14 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ [J1 ❑ to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that ❑ ❑ ❑ B are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). in this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Environmental Checklip SOURCE LIST The following enumerated documents are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach,Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660. 1. Final Program EIR—City of Newport Beach General Plan 2. General Plan, including all its elements, City of Newport Beach. 3. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. City Excavation and Grading Code,Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. Plans for Single Family Residence at 3631 Ocean Boulevard, prepared by Ed Lorbach,dated . 6. Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Petra,Report No. 358-00, 6/5/2001. Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 16 �U, kt,r- v _ .. 'y " . f 00 site sz - a " „- ael lyd"a- Arc h. kc 42 \ t I •...why �y-.�. =�, ', ,l�� 'f� :�.+. t! ✓ s li "�...�t '!rJfJ-• -.,� `"•f�. � '::'�-',°- � �` ``-� �ra y ;:. .. Ic2l Pe iCaf wa_ 7 TN 1 2 1 MILE ` 1 ° 1pOO 0 now 1000 2006 3000 4000FEET Printed from TOP01 C1996 Wl dflower Productions (www.top a-com) LOCATION MAP Ref: Portion of U. S. G. S. Topographical Map LAGUNA BEACH QUADRANGLE 7.5 Minute Series, 1965, Photo Revised 1981 s PETRA GEOTECHNICAL INC. J.N. 358-00 June,,2001 FIGURE-1 CIRY OF NEWPORT BEA03 l9 3300 Newport Boulevard-F.O.Box 1768 %r Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (949) 644-3200 NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department Office of Planning and Research 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 X P.O.BOX 3044 Newport Beach,CA 92658-8915 Sacramento,CA 95812-3044 (Orange County) County Clerk,County of Orange X Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: Santa Ana,CA 92702 Public review period: July 23, 2001 to August 22, 2001 Name of Project: Jackson Residence (PA 200.1-062) Project Location: 3631 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar, California Project Description: Demolish existing single family home(2,924 gross square feet)and replace with new single family home(5,934 gross square feet) including grading,pavizig,fencing lighting, landscaping and irrigation. The propsed project includes the changes to the existing driveway and front yard landscaping presently located within the public right-of-way. The project also includes a variance request to exceed established r height limits of Zoning Code due to unique topographical circumstances. Lastly, the project includes a request to deviate from the required front yard setback of 10 feet providing no front setback. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is 0 attached ❑ on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s)prior to final action on the proposed project. A public hearing will be held to consider this project after the conclusion of the public comment period. A notice of the time and location will be published in accordance with applicable Municipal code requirements. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials,you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document,your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period, Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant,and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held,you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have any questions or would like further information,21case contact the undersigned at(949)644-3200. Date James Campbell,Senior Planner r THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Exhibit No. 3 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Exhibit No.2 Findings for Denial Variance No. 2001-001 and Modification No. 200I-062 1. The granting of a variance to allow portions of the proposed residence to exceed the top of curb and 24128-foot height limit is not warranted by special circumstances or for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, would be considered a grant of special privilege, and would be detrimental to surrounding properties because: a) The applicant has not demonstrated that a single family residence cannot be designed to fully comply with applicable height limits. The applicant can design a smaller residence and comply with applicable height limits. b) Intent of the height limits of the Zoning Code is to have each home on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard be. designed to not exceed the top of the curb in order to preserve and enhance public views. The project entails a complete redevelopment of the site and the replacement home blocks public views intended to be opened through strict compliance with height limits. 2. The alteration of the coastal bluff associated with the project does not constitute minimal alteration of the natural coastal bluff landform as it increases and extends the building envelope with the proposed lower level at-grade deck beyond the existing altered area. This increased alteration of the coastal bluff is inconsistent with Land Use Element Development Policy D and applicable Local Coastal Program policies that mandate proper siting of structures on coastal bluffs to minimize alteration of natural landforms 3. The granting of the reduction in the required front yard setback will be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood for the following reasons: a) The reduced setback of the residence in association with the extensive encroachments requested within the public right-of-way places structures and uses in close proximity to the sidewalk. Potential future use of the expanded parkway would be negatively be effected due to the reduced setback. b) The reduced setback places the foundation of the proposed residence in a position where it will provide lateral support for the public right-of-way due to the extensive excavation proposed.This is a potential liability for the city. c) The reduction of the front yard setback will be viewed by property owners and developers as establishing a precedent to support similar relief without similar site constraints. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK �z i Exhibit No. 2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Planning Commie Resolution No. Page 7 of 7 County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions shall be subject to the approval of the City. (Mitigation Measure No. 2) 19. During construction activities, the project will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code(NBMC Section 15.10). (Mitigation Measure No. 3) 20. The recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Investigation (Petra Report No. J.N. 358-00) and any subsequent geotechnical or geologic report for the project shall be incorporated into the project. (Mitigation Measure No. 4) 21. The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department to determine compliance. (Mitigation Measure No. 5) 22. The applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code pertaining to noise restrictions. During construction activities, the hours of construction and excavation work are allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and holidays. (Mitigation Measure No. 6) 23. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a traffic control and construction access plan to address construction traffic, haul routes, truck hauling operations and parking in order to maintain safe access to the site during construction. The construction access plan shall include alternative pedestrian and bicycle path routes and an employee parking plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Traffic Department and the Planning Department. Additionally, the applicant shall obtain a haul route permit from the Revenue Division. No construction equipment shall be permitted to park overnight on Ocean Boulevard. (Mitigation Measure No. 7) 24. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Planning Comon Resolution No. Page 6 of 7 • Apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway. • Use street sweepers to clean and pick up trailing dust from raids in the vicinity of the project. • Cover or water twice daily any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 miles per hour. • Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain inactive for more that 96 hours after clearing is completed. (Mitigation Measure No. 1) d) To control emissions, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Require 90-day low-Nox tune-ups for off-road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. Mitigation Measure No. 1) e) To minimize off-site impacts, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Encourage car pooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off site. • Wash or sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non-peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. (Mitigation Measure No. 1) 18. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City that a qualified paleontologist/archaeologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalog cultural material or fossils as necessary. The paleontologist/archaeologist shall be present at the pre-grading conference, establish procedures for paleontological/ archaeological resource surveillance, and establish, in cooperation with the Applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the cultural material or fossils. If major paleontological/archaeological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting or grading, the paleontologist/ archaeologist shall report such findings to the Applicant and the City. The paleontologist/archaeologist shall deter-mine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the Applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City, or its designee, on a first-refusal basis. The Applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange l Planning CommA Resolution No. Page 5 of 7 Code shall be no wider than 2 feet and no deeper than 4 feet. For the purpose of this condition,the width or depth of the chimney will be the smaller dimension parallel to Ocean Blvd. 10. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be placed underground to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 11. A drainage study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Building Department showing on-site drainage being directed to Ocean Boulevard. 12. Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of any building,grading or demolition permits. 13. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 14. Exiting from each level of the residence shall comply with applicable standards of the Building and Fire Code. The structure requires a fire suppression system (sprinklers) as the structure exceeds 5,000 square feet. 15. Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a shoring plan that shall be subject to the review and approval of the Building Department if it is determined that shoring is necessary for the construction of the proposed project. 16. A sewer main lateral and cleanout shall be installed behind and under the proposed residence subject to the standards and permit requirements of the Building Department and Utilities Department.The existing water meter shall be upgraded if determined necessary for the fire suppression system. 17. a) During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce nuisance due to odors from construction activities. (Mitigation Measure No. 1) b) During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the following measures are complied with to reduce short-term(construction) air quality impacts associated with the project. a)controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b)maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project-related emissions. (Mitigation Measure No. 1) c) To control dust, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Limit the disturbance area to the extent feasible. • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. Planning Commis Resolution No. Page 3 of 7 resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area and on this lot. Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Corn nission hereby approves Variance No. 2001-001 and Modification Permit No. 2001-092, subject to the Conditions set forth in Exhibit"A" attached. Section S. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this action is call for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23R0 DAY OF AUGUST,2001. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: BY: Larry Tucker,Chairman BY: Earl McDaniel, Secretary Planning Comman Resolution No. Page 4 of 7 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VARIANCE NO. 2001-001 & MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2001-092 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan,floor plan and elevations dated.2113/01 except as noted below. 2. All public improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desires to obtain a building permit prior to the completion of the public improvements. 4. The final design of the driveway shall have a maximum grade of 15% with minimum 5-foot tangents and maximum grade changes of I I% unless otherwise approved by the Traffic Engineer. The final driveway design shall be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 5. The existing 5-foot wide public sidewalk shall remain where it presently is constructed (8' to 12' back of curb) except at the proposed driveway approach where it shall be placed a minimum of 5 feet from the back of curb face. The driveway approach must have a minimum 6" hike-up in order to prevent Ocean Boulevard drainage from entering the property. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 6. A City Council approved encroachment permit and encroachment agreement shall be executed by the property owner to permit private improvement encroachments within the Ocean Boulevard right-of-way. 7. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 8. The intersection of the private drive and Ocean Boulevard shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 30 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirement. Landscaping within sight line shall not exceed 24 inches in height. 9. Chimneys shall not exceed the minimum height required by the Uniform Building Code and any portion of the chimney which extends above applicable height limits of the Zoning l,- Planning Common Resolution No. Page 2 of 7 d) Alteration of the more natural portion of the coastal bluff is minimized due to the siting of the proposed residence. The residence will occupy the required front yard setback which is presently developed rather than having the residence extend further upon the relatively undisturbed seaward portion of the bluff. Additionally, a majority of the project is does not extend beyond a "stringline" drawn between the two adjacent residences. The lowest extent of the development, including the at-grade deck is similar to the elevation of the lower portions of the two adjacent residences (approximately 5-6 feet lower than the residence to the west and approximately 5-6 feet higher than the residence to the east). e) The granting of the variance to allow portions of the residence to exceed permitted height limits is warranted in that there are special circumstances applicable to the property; approval is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant; approval is consistent with the purposes of this code; and will not be materially detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood for the following reasons: 1) The steeply sloping topography of the site restricts the ability to comply with the height limitations while constructing a residence comparable to newly constructed residences located in Corona Del Mar. 2) The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting variance applications, and the variance procedure is intended to resolve practical and unnecessary physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area and on this lot. 3) The entire residence will be constructed at a lower level than the existing residence which will improve public views from Ocean Boulevard. 4) Due to the siting of the proposed residence within a "stringline" drawn between the two adjacent residences, its footprint elevation being similar to the two adjacent residences and its location, which is relatively distant from Corona Del Mar Beach, the proposed project will not significantly impact the views of the coastal bluffs. f) The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of this code for the following reasons: 1) The proposed residence will be approximately 44 feet from the existing sidewalk. This increased distance sufficiently separates the building mass from the sidewalk especially due to the lower overall height of the residence as measured in relation to the curb and sidewalk. 2) The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting modification applications, and the variance procedure is intended to resolve practical and unnecessary physical hardships Exhibit No. I RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2001-001 AND MODIFICATION NO. 2001-092 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3631 OCEAN BOULEVARD (PA2001-062) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by the applicant, Ed Lorbach on behalf of the property owners Mr. and Mrs. Jackson with respect to property located at 3631 Ocean Boulevard and legally described as Parcel 15 of Parcel Map 1257, requesting approval of a Variance and Modification Permit to construct a three level, 6,044 square foot residence that exceeds the top of curb on Ocean Boulevard and the 24/28-foot height limit. The residence would also encroach within the 10-foot front yard setback up to 10 feet in some places. The property is located within the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) zone district. Section 2. A public hearing was duly held on August 23, 2001, at 6:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was duly given. Evidence, both written and oral, was duly presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the aforesaid meeting. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows: a) The proposed development, a detached single family home, is consistent with the General Plan, Land Use Element designation of the property which is Single-family Detached. b) An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. The contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. On the basis of the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. c) The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. The only easement that exits on the site is a sewer easement that will serve the proposed construction. The sewer easement will remain accessible with the implementation of the project provided that a sewer clean out is installed. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 'Z Exhibit No. I THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK i Exhibits l . Resolution for project approval with Conditions of approval 2. Findings for denial 3. Mitigated Negative Declaration & Mitigation Monitoring Report 4. Project Plans (site plan, floor plans, elevation drawings and section drawings) F:1Users\PLNlShared\PRs1PA2007-0621VA2001.001 rpt.doc Jackson Residence (PA2001.062) August 23,2001 Page 9 of 17 Public Right-of-Way Encroachments As noted in the project description, the applicant proposed to construct extensive improvements within the public right-of way. The encroachments will require the approval of an Encroachment Agreement by the City Council through a separate action. According to Public Works staff, the improvements requested are more extensive than previous encroachments permitted by the City Council along Ocean Boulevard. However, it should be noted that the Planning Commission has no review authority over these improvements. Environmental Review An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared and circulated for public review in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. In considering the proposed project and the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, 7 mitigation measures were identified that will mitigate any potential impact to the environment to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures address potential impacts related to the following issues: Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hydrology/Water Quality, Noise, Transportation/Traffic. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and its Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are attached for the Commission's consideration. Recommendation Based upon the discussion and analysis detailed above, staff believes that the findings for approval of the Variance and Modification Permit can be made. Adoption of the attached resolution containing draft findings and conditions of approval is in order if the Planning Commission believes project approval is warranted by the facts. However, the project can be modified to comply with the front yard setback and height limit if the Commission finds that the project does not meet the intent of the code to have new construction fully comply with applicable standards, if so, findings for denial are provided in Exhibit No. 2. Submitted by: Prepared by: PATRICIA L. TEMPLE .FAMES W. CAMPBELL Planning Director Senior Planner PL. VV Jackson Residence(PA2001-062) August 23, 2001 Page 8 of 17 The "downslope" height variance can also be supported by the severe topography when taken in context with the city policy to minimize alteration of the coastal bluff. However, the applicant is proposing 10-foot ceilings that cause roughly 1/4 of the seaward edge of the upper floor of the residence to exceed the 24-foot height limit. The downslope height issue effects the abutting properties more than it will impact an existing public view from Ocean Boulevard as the existing residence presently is higher and blocks a portion of the view. Finally, as stated previously, strictly enforcing the existing height limit regulations would eliminate any potential negative impacts to the public scenic vista. If, after receiving testimony and considering the facts of the request, the Planning Commission finds that mandatory findings cannot be made, staff has included Findings for Denial as Exhibit 2 to this staff report. Modification of Front Yard Setback Section 20.93.040(1) Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant relief to an applicant through a modification permit, the Planning Commission must find that the "establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of the property or building will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of this code. " The basic intent of the requiring a front yard setback is to separate private buildings from the street for aesthetic purposes. This separation also separates residential uses from street activity, which, from the residents point of view, can be a nuisance at times. in this case, the front property line is located approximately 44 feet from the existing sidewalk. This increased distance sufficiently separates the building mass from the sidewalk especially due to the lower overall height of the residence as measured in relation to the curb and sidewalk. The proposed patio areas add to the structures within the front yard, but these structures are below existing natural grade. Staff believes that the combination of the reduced setback and front yard amenities should not present a problematic massing or proximity to the sidewalk. The proposed reduction in setback also assists in avoiding further alteration of the lower portion of the coastal bluff that is a more sensitive resource by permitting the building closer to the street. The reduced setback does place the foundation of the proposed residence in a position where it will provide lateral support for the public right-of-way due to the extensive excavation proposed. This is a potential liability for the city. The reduction of the front yard setback might be detrimental if the city were to attempt to "reclaim" the use of the public right-of-way fronting Ocean Boulevard for the use by the general public. This is unlikely as it is contrary to past policy. lastly, the reduction of the front yard setback might be viewed by property owners and developers as establishing a precedent to support similar requests. Jackson Residence(PA2001-062) August 23, 2001 Page 7 of 17 0 f . 1 Reducing the size of the lower level at-grade deck is an option to reduce the amount of bluff ; alteration. Variance from Height Limits Section 20.91 .035(B) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any variance, the Planning Commission must find that the applicant has established the following grounds for a variance: 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. 3. That the granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. 4. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. Staff believes that the mandatory findings can be made in this case due to the sloping topography; the improvement of public views and the preservation of a significant portion of the more natural coastal bluff discussed above. Allowing the garage to exceed the top of curb is considerable due to existing development standards of the Zoning Code and Public Works Department. Parking for two cars is required and access can only be taken from Ocean Boulevard. The maximum slope for the driveway that crosses the public right-of-way is 15%. Lowering the garage floor to make the roof comply with the curb height limit can be done, but it would result in two potentially undesirable consequences. First, the driveway slope would increase creating additional hazards associated with vehicle maneuvering, parking and potential pedestrian conflicts at the sidewalk. Second, lowering the garage floor while maintaining the driveway slope at 15% would require locating the garage further away from the street. This alternative would put the garage at the seaward edge of the building thereby reducing ocean views for habitable portions of the residence. This would give cause to the applicant to consider other design options to offset the loss of views. A likely option would include a larger residence to increase views from habitable rooms which could put greater pressure to possibly increase alteration of more of the coastal bluff. The interior height of the garage is approximately 8"-6" and when added to the roof structure, the overall height will be 2"-6" above the curb. This interior height of the garage cannot be reduced very much while maintaining effective vehicle storage. Jackson Residence(PA2001-062) August 23,2001 Page 6 of 17 r residence anyway. However, enforcing the existing height limit regulations would reduce any potential negative impacts to the public scenic vista. The public view of the coastal bluff will be impacted, but the area to be altered will be located within a "stringiine" drawn between the two adjacent residences at an elevation down the bluff comparable to the adjacent to residences. The area also has limited visibility from public spaces from a distance (CDM State Beach). The intent of these policies is to protect and improve ocean views, and therefore, project approval can be found consistent with view preservation policy in staff's opinion. Coastal Bluff Preservation Land Use Element Policy D and Local Coastal Program policies states that it is the City's policy to preserve valuable natural resources or environmentally sensitive habitats. The policies also indicate that development shall be properly sited to minimize the alteration of natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. A majority of the proposed residence will be located within existing disturbed areas. The footprint of the proposed residence will remain in the some approximate position, but an exterior at grade deck will be extended toward the ocean an approximately 18 feet beyond the existing residence. This area is approximately 575 square feet of sloping bluff with no exposed rock outcroppings visible. The level of alteration is also comparable to the alteration of the two adjacent properties in terms of location and elevation. The building wall that faces the ocean is within a stringline of the two adjacent residences. The at grade deck extends further than a stringiine between ocean facing decks on the two adjacent residences between 2 to 10 feet. The lowest extent of the deck, or the elevation down the bluff, is near the some elevation as the lower portions of the two adjacent residences (approximately 5-6 feet lower than the residence to the west and approximately 5-6 feet higher than the residence to the east). The more severely sloping portion of the bluff below, which does have exposed rock outcroppings that are visible from the rocky beach below and CDM State Beach, will not be impacted with grading or construction. The reduction of the front yard setback helps to minimize greater development down the bluff by providing additional usable area to locate the dwelling away from the more natural portion of the bluff. This additional area does facilitate a larger residence which is the desire of the applicant at the expense of the front yard setback which is presently developed. Staff believes that the reduction of the front yard setback assists in the preservation of a significant portion of the bluff which is the intent of Land Use Element Policy D. Due to the location of the proposed construction, staff believes that the project can be found consistent with the policies that require minimization of coastal bluff alteration. If the Planning Commission believes that the proposed extent of alteration of the property is excessive, and therefore inconsistent with bluff alteration policies, project redesign or denial is warranted. Jackson Residence(PA2001-062) August 23,2001 Page 5 of 17 S The upper two levels of the proposed residence will occupy the some basic volume of space that is presently occupied by the existing residence. The lower level will be accommodated by excavating the existing building envelope from the front property line to a "stringline" between the adjacent two residences approximately 5-6 feet below the lower elevation of the residence to the west. The project also includes the renovation of the area between the residence and the street that is port of the public right-of-way. This renovation will include a new driveway with decorative paving. The driveway will also have a "hammerhead" that will permit either the ability to turn a car around or two guest parking spaces. A sunken patio with a dining/bar-b-q/bar area is also proposed. Terraced landscape planters and steps with gated access to the patio will complete the project within the public right-of-way. All the improvements suggested by the applicant will require the approval of an Encroachment Agreement and Encroachment Permit by the City Council. Analysis The proposed project, a detached single family residence, is consistent with the land use designations of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan, which is "Single Family Detached." The proposed residence is also well within the floor area limit of 1 .5 times the buildable area of the lot established by Chapter 20.10 of the Zoning Code. Public Views Both the Land Use Element (Policy D) and the Local Coastal Program promote the preservation and enhancement of public views. This policy is implemented through the height limitations of the zoning code, which in the case of properties on the ocean side of Ocean Boulevard, structures are limited to the top of the adjacent curb. The height of the existing structure exceeds the height of the top of the curb at Ocean Boulevard by approximately 3 feet, thereby blocking portions of the scenic vista from Ocean Boulevard toward the Pacific Ocean. The new structure will only exceed the height of the top of the curb at Ocean Boulevard by 2'-6" for the garage. Additionally, a small portion of the upper level which houses the elevator and a 1/2 bath will exceed the curb by 2 feet. The remainder of the residence will be at the height of the curb. The garage portion is approximately 39% of the width building (23 feet); the elevator/bath portion is approximately 10% of the width of the building (6 feet) and the remainder of the residence is 51% of the width (29.5 feet). The rear portion of the upper level of proposed residence will exceed the 24-foot height limit by approximately 10-6". Due to the fact that the new residence will be lower than the existing residence, views from Ocean Boulevard will be improved to the horizon. A view to the surf zone is presently not afforded due to the existing residence, and compliance with the 24-foot height limit will not create this view due to the proximity of the surf zone and height differential between the street and the ocean. In other words, the view to the surf zone will be blocked with a complying Jackson Residence(PA2001-062) August 23, 2001 Page 4 of 17 r Background The subject property was developed with a single family residence in 1962. The two-level residence was permitted to partially encroach up to 8 feet within the required front yard setback( by the approval of Variance No. 645. Additionally, the height of the residence was limited to 3 feet above the average curb height of Ocean Boulevard by this approval. The residence was altered and expanded in 1981, which was authorized through Modification Permit No. 2647. Site Overview The project site is a coastal bluff that slopes steeply away from Ocean Boulevard to the Pacific Ocean. The upper third of the site is presently developed with the existing 2,924 square foot, two story home. The rear portion of the home is cantilevered over the slope with the earth directly below covered with gunnite. The existing front yard area, which is within the public right-of-way, is terraced and landscaped. Seaward of the existing residence is a relatively small sloping area with an average slope of approximately 1 :1 above a near vertical cliff with an average slope of approximately 1 :5. The property is zoned R-1 and has the following characteristics: Lot size: 8,081 square feet Buildable area: 6,534 square feet Floor area limit (1 .5): 13,066 square feet Project Overview The contemporary designed residence has three levels with the following basic characteristics: Lower level: 1,842 square feet Middle level: 1,934 square feet Upper level: 1,706 square feet Subtotal (living area): 5,494 square feet Garage (at upper level): 450 square feet, accommodates 2 cars Gross floor area: 6,044 square feet Decks (at each level): 500 square feet total Bedrooms: 4 Bathrooms: 4 1/2 Setbacks: Required Existing Proposed Front: 10 ft. 2 - 10 ft. 0 - 4 ft. Rear: 10 ft. ±95 ft. ±95 ft. house (±88 ft. lower deck Side: 4 ft. 4 - 6 ft. 4 ft. Building height Required Existing Proposed limit: Top of Ocean Blvd. 3 it. above top of 2-6" above curb for curb & 24/28 ft. curb garage only, Exceeds above natural grade 24 ft, up to 10'-6" ft. Jackson Residence(PA2001-062) August 23, 2001 Page 3 of 17 Vicinity Map �co� te I N d. a, e � Project S. 3 4:Y s v Jackson Residence 3631 Ocean Blvd. PA2001-062 Current Development: Single Family Residence To the north: Across Ocean Boulevard - Single Family Residences. To the east: Single Fomily Residence To the south: Single Family_Residence under construction To the west: Pacific Ocean Jackson Residence(PA2001-062) August 23, 2001 Page 2 of 17 Z AL , crx�r OF rr �a] BEACH FHeadnn75ate: August 23, 2001 Q m PLANNING DEPARTMENT dpa Item: 4 3WoNEWPOR�TBOULEVARD f Person: .lames Campbell c+4u Sk NEWPORT BEACH,CA 9�5$ (949) 644-3210 (9 9)644-52—;FAX(949)6.44-525a l Period: 14 days REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FILE COPY PROJECT: Jackson Residence (PA2001-062) 3631 Ocean Boulevard SUMMARY: Request to demolish an existing single family home (2,924 gross square feet) and replace it with a new single family home (6,044 gross square feet) including grading, paving, fencing lighting, landscaping and irrigation. The proposed project includes the changes to the existing driveway and front yard landscaping presently located within the public right-of-way. The project also includes a variance request to exceed established height limits of Zoning Code due to unique topographical circumstances. Lastly, the project includes a request to deviate from the required front yard setback of 10 feet providing a 0' to 4' front setback. ACTION: Approve Variance No. 2001-001 and Modification No. 2001-092 and ADOPT Resolution No. entitled, "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach Approving Variance No. 2001 -001 and Modification No. 2001-092 (PA2001 -062)." OR Deny Variance No. 2001 -001 and Modification No. 2001 -092 by adopting the findings contained in Exhibit No. 2 APPLICANT: Ed Lohrbach 31681 Camino Capistrano, Suite # 106, San Juan Capistrano. LOCATION: Located at the intersection of Poinsettia Avenue and Ocean Boulevard in Corona Del Mar LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 15 of Tract 1257 GENERAL PLAN/ LCP: Single Family Detached ZONING DISTRICT: R-1 (Single family Detached) Environmental Checklisol MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measure No. I (Air Quality) a) During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce nuisance due to odors from construction activities. b) During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the following measures are complied with to reduce short-term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: a) controlling fugitive dust by regular waterine watering, or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b) maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project-related emissions. c) To control dust, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Limit the disturbance area to the extent feasible. • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway. • Use street sweepers to clean and pick up trailing dust from raids in the vicinity of the project. • Cover or water twice daily any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 miles per hour. • Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain inactive for more thatn 96 hours after clraring is completed. d) To control emissions, the project proponent shall compy with the following measures: • Require 90-day low-Nox tune-ups for off-road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. e) To minimize off-site impacts, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Encourage car pooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt aauled off site. • Wash or sweep access paints daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non-pear traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 17 7" Environmental Checklip + Mitigation Measure No. 2 (Cultural Resources) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City that a qualified paleontologistlarchaeologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalog cultural material or fossils as necessary. The paleontologist/archaeologist shall be present at the pre-grading conference, establish procedures for paleontological/ archaeological resource surveillance, and establish, in cooperation with the Applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the cultural material or fossils. If major paleontological/archaeological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting or grading, the paleontologist/ archaeologist shall report such findings to the Applicant and the City. The paleontologist/archae-ologist shall deter-mine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the Applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City, or its designee, on a first-refusal basis. The Applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions shall be subject to the approval of the City. Mitigation Measure No.3 (Geology and Soils) During construction activities, the project will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code(NBMC Section 15.10) Mitigation Measure No. 4 The recommendations contained in the Geotechnical investigation (Petra Report No. J.N. 358-00) and any subsequent geotechnical or geologic report for the project shall be incorporated into the project. Mitigation Measure No. 5 (Hydrology and Water Quality) The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department to determine compliance. Mitigation Measure No. 6 (Noise) The applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code pertaining to noise restrictions. During construction activities, the hours of construction and excavation work are allowd from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and holidays. Mitigation Measure No. 7 (Transportation/Traffic) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a traffic control and construction access plan to address construction traffic, haul routes, truck hauling operations and parking in order to maintain safe access to the site during construction. The construction access plan shall include alternative pedestrian and bicycle path routes and an employee parking plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Traffic Department and the Planning Department. Additionally, the applicant shall obtain, a haul route permit from the Revenue Division. No construction equipment shall be permitted to park overnight on Ocean Boulevard. Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 18 � 5 Environmental Analysis 10 The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions contained in the Environmental Checklist regarding the proposed project's environmental impacts. I. Aesthetics a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant. City policy expressly addresses structures along Ocean Boulevard and dictates that the height of new structures be limited in order to preserve public scenic vistas from Ocean Boulevard, as well as, preserve the visual character of the bluff face. New structures built along Ocean Boulevard shall not exceed the height limit of the top of the curb at Ocean Boulevard. Furthermore, structures within the R-1 Zone along Ocean Boulevard are not to exceed height limits of twenty-four(24) feet from natural grade. The project proponent has requested a variance to exceed the height limits. The project proponent has cited extreme topographical constraints as cause for the variance. Specifically, the project proponent cites that the height variance is needed to accommodate the proposed garage which will take access from Ocean Boulevard. The existing two-story, single family structure on the site will be replaced by a new, three-story, single family residential structure. The height of the existing structure exceeds the height of the top of the curb at Ocean Boulevard by approximately 3 feet, thereby blocking portions of the scenic vista from Ocean Boulevard toward the Pacific Ocean. The new structure will only exceed the height of the top of the curb at Ocean Boulevard by 2" - 6" for the garage and the remainder of the residence will be at the height of the curb. The rear portion of the upper level of proposed residence will exceed the 24-foot height limit by approximately 10' - 6". Due to the fact that the new residence will be lower than the existing residence, views from Ocean Boulevard will be improved. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less than significant impact. A majority of the proposed residence will be located within existing disturbed areas. The footprint of the proposed residence and exterior at grade deck will be extended toward the ocean an average of 18 feet. This area is approximately 575 square feet of moderately sloping bluff with no exposed rock outcroppings visible. The area is not visible from public spaces. The building wall that faces the ocean is within a stringline of the two adjacent residences. The at grade deck extends further than a stringline between ocean facing decks on the two adjacent residences between 2 to 10 feet. The location of the residence and deck does not alter the steeper portion of the coastal bluff below that does have exposed outcroppings of rocks which are visible from the rocky beach below. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less than significant. See I (a) and (b) above. Jackson Residence(PA 2061-062).Page 19 16 Environmental Analysis d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No impact. The site currently houses a single family home, including residential lighting. The proposed project will replace the existing single family home with a new single family home, including residential and landscape lighting. No significant impacts from light and glare are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. II. Agricultural Resources a) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The project site is not located within or near an area designated as farmland pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract? No impact. The site is zoned for residential use and is not a part of a Williamson Act contract. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use? No impact. See II (a) and (b) above. III. Air Quality a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Construction related emissions contribute to the non-attainment status of the southern area air basin. The following mitigation measures are necessary to reduce potential impacts to air quality to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure No. 1 a) During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce nuisance due to odors from construction activities. b) During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the following measures are complied with to reduce short-term(construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: a) controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 20 Z r. Environmental Analysis Dust); b) maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project-related emissions. c) To control dust, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Limit the disturbance area to the extent feasible. • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway. • Use street sweepers to clean and pick up trailing dust from raids in the vicinity of the project. • Cover or water twice daily any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 miles per hour. • Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain inactive for more than 96 hours after clearing is completed. d) To control emissions, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Require 90-day low-Nox tune-ups for off-road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. e) To minimize off-site impacts, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Encourage car pooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off site. • Wash or sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non-peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. See III (a) above. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. See III (a) above. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 21 r C, l 10 Environmental Analysis No impact. The proposed project will not create substantial pollutant concentrations. No mitigation measures are necessary. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No impact. The proposed project will not create objectionable odors. No mitigation measures are necessary. IV. Biological Resources a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No impact. The site is presently developed with a single family home and is located in a developed, urbanized area. Existing landscaping includes non-native, ornamental vegetation. The non-native, ornamental vegetation will be graded and replaced with new, ornamental plant materials. The proposed project will not directly or indirectly have any impacts on sensitive biological resources. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No impact. See IV (a) above. The site does not contain riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,filling, hydrological interruption,or other means? No impact. See IV (a) above. The site does not include wetlands, nor is it in the vicinity of designated wetlands. No mitigation measures are necessary. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No impact. See IV (a) above. The site does not include or provide habitat for any migratory fish or wildlife species. No mitigation measures are necessary. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 22 i Environmental Analysis No impact. No unique trees or vegetation exist on site. Existing non-native vegetation will be removed due to grading. The proposed project includes installation of new, ornamental, non- native landscaping. Removing the existing vegetation and the provision of non-native landscaping does not conflict with any established policies or ordinances. No mitigation measures are necessary. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No impact. The project site is not subject to any established conservation plan. No mitigation measures are necessary. V. Cultural Resources a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? No impact. No known historical resources are located within or in the vicinity of the proposed project. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No known archaeological resources are located within or in the vicinity of the proposed project. A standard condition of approval requiring that an archeologist be consulted during grading will be applied to the project in case of unknown artifacts being unearthed. See Mitigation Measure No. 2. Mitigation Measure No. 2 - Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City that a qualified paleontologist/archaeologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalog cultural material or fossils as necessary. The paleontologist/archaeologist shall be present at the pre-grading conference, establish procedures for paleontological/ archaeological resource surveillance, and establish, in cooperation with the Applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the cultural material or fossils. If major paleontological/archaeological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting or grading, the paleontologist/ archaeologist shall report such findings to the Applicant and the City. The paleontologist/archaeologist shall deter-mine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the Applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City, or its designee, on a first-refusal basis. The Applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions shall be subject to the approval of the City. Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 23 f� Environmental Analysis c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No impact. No known paleontological or geologic resources are located within or in the vicinity of the proposed project. See Mitigation Measure No. 2. d)Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No impact. See V (b) and (c) above. VI. Geology and Soils a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less than significant impact. The geotechnical investigation (Petra Report No. J.N. 358- 00) prepared for the proposed project states that no known active faults or projections of faults transect the property. The report concludes that potential damage to the property due to surface rupturing along faults is considered remote. Adherence to geotechnical report recommendations,the City Grading Ordinance and standard conditions of approval will mitigate potential risks to a less than significant impact. See Mitigation Measures No. 3 and 4 below. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The geotechnical investigation prepared for the proposed project concludes that the site will be affected by seismic accelerations generated by earthquakes along active faults which are distant from the site. The Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone is located 2 or 3 miles southwesterly of the site. Hypothetical peals based accelerations were estimated and specific recommendations for design, construction and maintenance of the proposed project and site are included in the geotechnical report. Implementation of the recommendations will help to mitigate potential seismic ground shaking impacts. See Mitigation Measures No. 3 and 4 below. Mitigation Measure No. 3 - During construction activities, the project will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures' of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.10) Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 24 �i Environmental Analysis Mitt ation Measure No. 4 - The recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Investigation (Petra Report No. LN. 358-00) and any subsequent geotechnical or geologic report for the project shall be incorporated into the project. W. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than significant impact. The Geotechnical Report did not note soil conditions that would be susceptible to However, measures recommended by the Geotechnical Report, including the use of a caisson and beam foundation embedded in bedrock, will serve to mitigate potential liquefaction risks. See Mitigation Measure No. 3 and 4. iv. Landslides? Less than significant impact. The project site is located on a bluff face within a zone of required investigation for earthquake induced landslides. The Geotechnical Report prepared for the proposed project concludes that investigation of geologic conditions which back the bluff slope indicate the bluff slope should not be affected by instability during an earthquake or otherwise. Implementation of the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Report for construction, drainage and maintenance will serve to minimize the risk of landslides. See Mitigation Measures No. 3 and 4 above. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than significant impact. The Geotechnical Report prepared for the proposed project recommends controlling drainage to avoid the introduction of water to the slope and filled areas which will serve to minimize the risk of soil erosion. Through implementation of the City's grading ordinance, potential erosion and siltation impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant impact. See Mitigation Measures No. 3 and 4 above. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? Less than significant impact. See VI(a) above. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No impact. Boring samples of the project site's soils were analyzed in the Geotechnical Report prepared for the proposed project. The report concludes that onsite soils have a very low expansive potential. No mitigation measures other than those listed in Mitigation Measure No. 3 and 4 are necessary. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 25 E� f r Environmental Analysis No impact. The project site is served by a waste water and sewage disposal system. No mitigation measures are necessary. VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use,or disposal of hazardous materials? No impact. The proposed project does not involve the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No impact. See VII (a) above. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous material, substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No impact. See VII (a) above. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No impact. The project site is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites. No mitigation measures are necessary. e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No impact. The project site is located over five (5) miles from the nearest airport (John Wayne Airport). No mitigation measures are necessary. f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No impact. See VII(e) above. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No impact. The project will not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No mitigation measures are necessary. Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 26 %C Environmental Analysis 40 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area. The risk of wildland fires is insignificant. No mitigation measures are necessary. VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project will not substantially increase runoff or violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Existing site drainage is collected and transported to the base of the coastal bluff. On site runoff will be re- directed away from the bluff via the use of deck, building and site drains. The runoff will be collected and pumped to Ocean Boulevard that flows into the storm drain system and ultimately into the ocean. The runoff expected from the site can be described as residential in nature and _. less than significant amounts of contaminates are expected from a single family residence. With the incorporation of City standard conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures during grading, construction and ongoing site maintenance, no cumulative impacts associated with hydrologic conditions are anticipated as a result of the project. See Mitigation Measure No. 5. Mitigation Measure No. 5 - The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department to determine compliance. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge,such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing single family home. Although extensive grading of the slope is included in the project, no impacts to groundwater are anticipated, No mitigation measures are necessary. c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or of-site? No impact. See V1II (a) above. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on—off-site? Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 27 E ' L Environmental Analysis No impact. See VIII (a) above. The site does not presently direct its runoff to Ocean Boulevard, but due to relatively limited impervious area of the site, Public Works department staff does not believe that the small increase in drainage at Ocean Boulevard is significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems: or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No impact. See VIII (a) AND (d) above. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No impact. See VIII (a) above. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No impact. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone. No mitigation measures are necessary. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No impact. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone. No mitigation measures are necessary. i) Expose people of structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No impact. The project site is not located near a levee or dam. No mitigation measures are necessary. j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? No impact. Said risks to the City were evaluated in 1974 (A Preliminary Study of Flood Probability at Newport Beach". Potential risks from seiche, tsunami or mudflow are remote. No mitigation measures are necessary. IX. Land Use and Planning a) Physically divide an established community? No impact. The site is presently developed with a single family home in an urbanized, residential neighborhood. The proposed project consists of a new, larger single family home to replace the existing residence. No mitigation measures are necessary. Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 28 Environmental Analysis b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)_adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than significant impact. The project site is subject to the height limits imposed by the R-1 zone (Section 20.65.040 of the Municipal Code), the Shoreline Height Limitation Ordinance (Section 20.65.060 of the Municipal Code) and Coastal Element Policy pertaining to coastal views (page 28 of the City of Newport Beach Coastal Element). The applicable ordinance sections and policy are noted below. • City of NeMTort Beach Municipal Code 20.65.040 A. — 24/28 Foot Height Limitation Zone. In the 24128 Foot Height Limitation Zone the height limit for any structure shall be twenty-four(24) feet; provided, however, that a structure may exceed twenty-four (24) feet up to a maximum of 28 feet through the adoption of a Planned Community District, or through the adoption of a Specific Plan, or through the approval of a use permit. This height limitation zone applies to all R-1, R-1.5, R-2, and OS Districts, which applies to the subject property. • City of Newport Beach Municipal Code 20.65.060_ B -- Structures on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar, which were in existence or under construction on the effective date of this chapter (October 11, 1972) may be changed; provided, such change does not result in a roof height above top of curb; and provided, further that the roof height does not exceed the height limit established by the 24128 height limitation zone. For purposes of this chapter, the top of curb height limitation shall be established by a horizontal plane created by the extension of the top of curb line across each site located on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard. Where a question arises as to the interpretation of this code, the Planning Director shall review and render a decision. New structures may be constructed on vacant sites subject to the same criteria. • Cit of Newport Beach General Plan Local Coastal Program Land Use Element Januar 91.1990;_Coastal Views -- Where coastal views from existing roadways exist, any development on private property within the sight lines from the roadway shall be sited and designed to maximize protection of the coastal view. This policy is not intended to prohibit development on any site. Coastal View Area (a)— Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar. The existing two-story, single family structure on the site will be replaced by a new, three-story, single family residential structure. The height of the existing structure exceeds the height of the top of the curb at Ocean Boulevard by approximately 3 feet, thereby blocking portions of the scenic vista from Ocean Boulevard toward the Pacific Ocean. The project proponent has requested a variance to exceed the height limits. The project proponent has cited extreme topographical constraints as cause for the variance. The new structure will only exceed the height of the top of the curb at Ocean Boulevard by 2" - 6" for the garage and the remainder of the residence will be at the height of the curb. The rear portion of the upper level of proposed Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 29 f Rom. Environmental Analysis residence will exceed the 24-foot height limit by approximately 10' - 6". Due to the fact that the new residence will be lower than the existing residence, views from Ocean Boulevard will be improved. However, enforcing the existing height limit regulations would eliminate any potential negative impacts to the public scenic vista. The intent of these policies is to protect and improve ocean views, and therefore, project approval will have a less than significant impact to land use to the environment in the area of land use policy. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No impact. The project site does not lie within a conservation plan habitat or natural community conservation plan. No mitigation measures are necessary. X. Mineral Resources a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing structure in an urbanized area. No loss of availability of any known mineral resource would occur as a result of the project. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan? No impact. See X(a) above. XI. Noise a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project will include the demolition of an existing single family residential and the construction of a new, single family residential structure. Short term, construction related noise impacts would be mitigated through the application of the standard conditions of approval required by the City's Noise Ordinance, including limited hours of construction. No continuing noise impacts are anticipated. See Mitigation Measure No. 5. Mitigation Measure No. 6 - The applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code pertaining to noise restrictions. During construction activities, the hours of construction and excavation work are allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and holidays. Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 30 � :s Environmental Analysis b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? No impact. See XI (a) above. The project will not be using a pile driven foundation system which could generate excessive ground borne vibration or noise. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No impact. See XI(a) above. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No impact. Set;XI(a) above. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working the project area to excessive noise levels? No impact. The project is not located within an airport land use plan. The nearest airport, John Wayne Airport, is located approximately 5 miles away. No airport related noise impacts are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No impact. The project is not located within an airport land use plan. The nearest airport is located 5 miles away. No airport related noise impacts are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. XII. Population and Housing a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing single family residence with a new residence. No increase in population growth is anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No impact. See XII (a) above. Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 31 }.Y f Environmental Analysis c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No impact. See XU(a) above. XIII. Public Services a)Fire Protection? No impact. The site is presently served by the Newport Beach Fire Department. The proposed project will replace an existing single family residence with a new single family home. The proposed residence will have approximately 5,484 gross square feet and fire sprinklers are required for all new residences that exceed 5,000 square feet. No impact or change to fire protection is anticipated from the proposed project. No mitigation measures are necessary. b)Police protection? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residential unit with a new residential unit. The site is presently served by the Newport Beach Police Department. No impact or change to fire protection is anticipated from the proposed project. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Schools? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residence with a new single family residence. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. Applicable school fees will be required for the site prior to issuance of a building permit. No additional school impacts are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. d) Other public facilities? No impact. See XIII (a), (b) and (c) above. XIV. Recreation a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing single family residence with a new residence. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. No additional impacts to recreational facilities or services are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 32 Environmental Analysis b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Opportunities? No impact. See XIV(a) above. XV. Transportation/Traffic a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersection)? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project will replace an existing residential unit with a new residential unit. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. No increases in traffic are anticipated with the continued occupancy and use the project. However, during implementation of the project, construction traffic can create localized traffic disruption. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will ensure minimal traffic related impacts, Mitigation Measure No. 7 - Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a traffic control and construction access plan to address construction traffic, haul routes, truck hauling operations and parking in order to maintain safe access to the site during construction. The construction access plan shall include alternative pedestrian and bicycle path routes and an employee parking plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Traffic Department and the Planning Department. Additionally, the applicant shall obtain a haul route permit from the Revenue Division. No construction equipment shall be permitted to park overnight on Ocean Boulevard. b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residential unit with a new residential unit. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. No increases in traffic are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residential unit with a new residential unit. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. No increase in traffic is anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipment)? Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)+Page 33 ~Vl Environmental Analysis No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residential unit with a new residential unit. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. No changes in the circulation system would result from the project. No mitigation measures are necessary. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No impact. See XV (d) above. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residential unit with a new residential unit. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. Parking needs will be accommodated on site per City zoning requirements. No mitigation measures are necessary. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? No impact. See XV above. XVI. Utilities and Service Systems a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residential unit with a new residential unit. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. Wastewater treatment impacts would not result from the project. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residential unit with a new residential unit. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. No new or expanded wastewater treatment drainage facilities would be needed as a result of the project. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No impact. See XVI(b) above. Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 34 l�P Environmental Analysis d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No impact. Sufficient water supplies are available to serve the project. No mitigation measures are necessary. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No impact. Sufficient wastewater capacity exists to serve the proposed project. No mitigation measures are necessary. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? No impact. Sufficient landfill capacity exists to serve the proposed project. No mitigation measures are necessary. g) Comply with federal,state,and local statues and regulations related to solid waste? No impact. The proposed project complies with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. No mitigation measures are necessary. Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 35 Environmental Analysis XVIL Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than Significant Impact. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. The project site is located in a developed urbanized area of the City. The new structure will replace and existing structure. No change in use is proposed. The proposed use is consistent with the zoning and general plan designations for the site, with the exception of the height limit regulations noted in Sections I and IX above. Development of the proposed project would not impact any special status species. No significant impacts would result from project development. No mitigation measures other than mitigation Measures I through 6 noted above, are necessary. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects.) No impact. See XVII (A) above. The proposed project would generate less than significant impacts or no impacts in the areas of noise, air quality, traffic, circulation and others. Any potential impact generated by the proposed project would be mitigated to a level of less than significant through the application of standard conditions of approval, City ordinances and site specific recommendations included in the Geotechnical Report prepared for the project and listed herein. No significant cumulative impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? No impact. Any potential impact generated by the proposed project would be mitigated to a level of less than significant through the application of standard conditions of approval, City ordinances and site specific recommendations included in the Geotechnical Report prepared for the project and listed herein. No significant cumulative impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. No mitigation measures are necessary. Jackson Residence(PA 200I-062)+Page 36 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM SUMMARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Demolition and Reconstruction of Single Family Home at 3631 Ocean Boulevard -Variance No. 2001-001 & Modification No.2001-062 No. Mitiga&n Measures Implemeritadion Method of:• Tim$>g:bf. Respons le.Persara Verification Action Verification.:;: Verificahan Date I a) During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that Condition of Plan Check& Prior to issuance of Planning and the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to approval Field inspection grading and Building reduce nuisance due to odors from construction activities. as necessary building permits. Departments. b) During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the following measures are complied with to reduce short-term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: a) controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b) maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and c)phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project- related emissions. c) To control dust, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Limit the disturbance area to the extent feasible. • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway. • Use street sweepers to clean and pick up trailing dust from raids in the vicinity of the project. • Cover or water twice daily any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 miles per hour. • Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain inactive for more that 96 hours a er clearing is Mitigation Monitoring Program - 1 - Variance No. 2001-001 &Modification No. 2001-062 : No. Mitigation Measures Impleri entation Meth of T Wing of Res$onst�6�e Person Verification Action Verification Verstic bate completed. d) To control emissions, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Require 90-day low-Nox tune-ups for off-road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. e) To minimize off-site impacts, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Encourage car pooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off--peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off site. • Wash or sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non-peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. 2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant Condition of Plan Check& During construction Planning and shall provide written evidence to the City that a qualified approval Field inspection activities Building paleontologist/archaeologist has been retained to observe grading as necessary Departments. activities and salvage and catalog cultural material or fossils as necessary. The paleontologist/archaeologist shall be present at the pre-grading conference, establish procedures for paleontological) archaeological resource surveillance, and establish, in cooperation with the Applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the cultural material or fossils. If major paleontological/archaeological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting or grading, the paleontologist/ archaeologist shall report such findings to the Applicant and the City. The paleontologist/archaeologist shall deter-mine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the Applicant, which ensure proper exploration andlor salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City, or its designee, on a first-refusal basis. The Applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is , provided that they will be properly preserved in Oran a County, Mitigation Monitoring Program - 2 - Variance No. 2001-001 & Modification No. 2001-062 t No. Mitigation Measures Implementation Method of Timing of Responsible Person Verification Action Verification Verification Date unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or , designee. These actions shall be subject to the approval of the City. 3 During construction activities, the project will comply with the Condition of Plan Check& Prior to issuance of Planning and erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading approval Field inspection a grading permit Building ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes and as necessary and during Departments. seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and construction . Grading Code(NBMC Section 15.10) activities. 4 The recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Investigation Condition of Plan Check& Prior to issuance of Planning and (Petra Report No. J.N. 358-00) and any subsequent geotechnical approval Field Inspection a grading permit Building or geologic report for the project shall be incorporated into the as necessary and during Departments project. construction activities. 5 The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Condition of Field inspection During construction Planning and Pollution Discharge. Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be approval as necessary activities Building subject to the approval of the Public Works Department to Departments determine compliance. 6 The project will comply with the provisions of the City of Newport Condition of Field inspection During construction Planning and Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code approval as necessary activities Building pertaining to noise restrictions. During construction activities, the Departments hours of construction and excavation work are allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and holidays. 7 Prior to the start of construction activities (e.g. demolition of Condition of Plan Check& Prior to issuance of Public Works Dept. existing building), a construction traffic control plan shall be approval Field inspection a grading permit prepared which includes the haul route, truck hauling operations, as necessary and during construction traffic flagmen, and construction warning/directional construction signage. activities. Mitigation Monitoring Program - 3 - ;. Variance No. 2001-001 & Modification No. 2001-062 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Exhibit No. 4 Project Plans on file in Planning Department Yohn Minch and Associates, .Inc. NATURAL RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS - PLANNING - MANAGEMENT November 25, 2003 Mr. & Mrs. Douglas Jackson 97 Old Course Dr, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Archaeological and Paleontological Services for the Grading of 3631 Ocean Blvd. Newport Beach,CA Dear Mr. Jackson This certifies to the City of Newport Beach that John Minch and Associates, Inc. (JMA) has been retained by Mar. & Mrs. Douglas Jackson to oversee the grading operations and any mitigation of paleontological and archaeological resources required for 3631 Ocean Blvd, Newport Beach, CA. Fork will be conducted in a manner that conforms to accepted City paleontological and archaeological guidelines. JMA's archaeologist, Laura White has a Master of Arts degree from San Diego State University with specialization in anthropology and archaeology. She is SOPA certified and a qualified archaeologist. John Minch is a fully qualified paleontologist. He has a Doctor of Philosophy degree from the University of California, Riverside with a specialization in paleontology and stratigraphy. He is a registered geologist in the State of California, #3269, and certified as qualified to conduct paleontological investigations. Enclosed is a typical Scope of Investigation which JMA follows. This scope may need to be modified to adapt to the parcel in question. Respectfully submitted, a'A'4* John Minch and Associates, Inc. %Bn c A Otf/+ w� John Minch, Ph.D. 3269 RG, Principal rev. Ioi SS OPCZALIfo 28832 Via Buena "Vista., Suite 100, San Yuan Capistrano, CA 92 69 75-555 7 (949)489-0760 • F'aX(949)4963650 •jmainc@earth(ink,net s Preliminary Scope of Archaeological Services Archaeological Field Methodologies 1) Qualified Staff archaeological field monitors will conduct on-site monitoring under the supervision of JMA's Certified Archaeologist(Laurie White). 2) All brushed or surface areas are examined during the monitoring to ensure that no archaeological material is overlooked. 3) Site-specific archaeological surveys are undertaken to locate all artifacts and to define site boundaries for the artifact/features. All artifacts and ecofacts are then systematically collected and removed to the JMA laboratory for analysis. 4) Staff Archaeologists establish archaeological sites in order to document the occurrence of artifacts and/or archaeological features. Where appropriate, archaeological sites are delineated in the field by erecting temporary borders around the resource with orange safety fencing or with stakes and flagging tape. This served to protect the resource and personnel by diverting equipment around the area. 5 ) Where salvage/recovery operations are necessary to remove a specimen, a salvage/survey crew is organized and dispatched to the area to expedite this process by JMA. Such response minimizes delays in the grading schedule and allows construction to.continue in a timely manner. 6) When artifacts/ecofacts are encountered the staff archaeologist assigns a locality number and notes the mode of occurrence of the artifact on an archaeological locality data sheet. He/she then records the elevation and location with reference to the station numbers, provides a brief description of the nature of the artifact and any important notes. A site survey operation is then initiated to determine the nature and extent of the find. In the laboratory, additional information about the locality was documented( i.e. USGS quad, UTM coordinates,disposition, and other pertinent data). 7) The Archaeological Monitor(s) will keep daily logs during the course of the project. At the completion of the project, a detailed report will be compiled. The report will be prepared by the Project Archaeologist and will be based on information gathered by the field monitors. The report will discuss the excavation program and its results, any finds, and recommendations if necessary. ARCHAEOLOGICAL LABORATORY METHODOLOGIES Laboratory staff curate archaeological specimens to the point of identification only (not museum display). Curation involves examination, cleaning, describing, drawing, photodocumentation, and determining the provenience of the artifact. Laboratory personnel issue preliminary identification numbers to each specimen for cataloging and accession purposes. The site or isolated artifact is then incorporated into a site recordation form which is filed with the UCLA records center where it is given a number (i.e. ORA-1001) and incorporated into the permanent archaeological record. 03_114_nnP.rnM 1 IMA a ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINAL REPORT Without an adequate final report, much of the significance and value of archaeological sites would be lost. A final report will be completed by a qualified, county certified archaeologist and will include at least the following: Site location,boundaries and environmental setting Cultural setting Site description and/or characterization Investigative methodology: Testing and/or salvaging techniques Laboratory analysis Documentation that the monitoring program was conducted under the direct supervision of a county certified archaeologist. Description of the archaeological finds Procurement of a permanent site trinomial for each site from the South Central Coastal Information Center at UCLA Determinations of significance Proposed mitigative recommendations Disposition of the archaeological finds Preliminary Scope of Paleontological Services PALEONTOLOGICAL FIELD METHODOLOGIES I) Qualified Staff paleontological field monitors will conduct on-site monitoring under the supervision of JMA's County Certified Paleontologist(Dr. John A. Minch,RG#3269). 2) Earth-disturbing construction activities (i.e. locations of spreads of equipment) are monitored by a supervised staff paleontologist (field monitor). 3) All brushed or graded areas are examined during the monitoring to ensure that no paleontological material is overlooked. 4) Relatively small, isolated, and loosened fossils are collected by paleontologists during earth disturbing construction activities. 5) Salvage/quarry operations are conducted during grading if necessary to recover relatively large embedded fossils and/or concentrations of fossils that field monitors are unable to recover through normal mitigation monitoring. f) Staff paleontologists establish fossil localities in order to document the occurrence of fossil specimens. Where appropriate, fossil localities are delineated in the field by erecting temporary borders around the resource with orange safety fencing or with stakes 61A 74-MF-r.T)M 2 11MA and flagging tape. This serves to protect the resource and personnel by diverting equipment around the area. 7) Where salvage/recovery operations are necessary to remove a specimen, a salvage/survey crew is organized and dispatched to the area to expedite this process by JMA. Such response minimizes delays in the grading schedule and allows construction to continue in a timely manner. 8) Salvage specimens are excavated using picks, shovels, portable electric jackhammers, and other appropriate field equipment. As necessary, large specimens are stabilized in plaster jackets for transportation to JMA's Paleontological Laboratory. 9) When fossils are encountered the staff paleontologist assigns a locality number and notes the formation, lithology, stratigraphic position if available, and mode of occurrence of the fossil on a fossil locality data sheet. He/she then records the elevation and location with reference to the station numbers, provides a brief description of the nature of the fossil and any important notes. If the fossil is of a nature that it can not be removed quickly, a salvage operation is initiated. In the laboratory, additional information about the locality is documented(i.e. USGS quad,UTM coordinates, disposition, and other pertinent data). 10)Stratigraphic mapping of fossil locations for proper placement into the geologic column.. I I)The paleontological monitor(s) will keep daily logs during the course of the project. At the completion of the project, a detailed report will be compiled. The report will be prepared by the Project Paleontologist and will be based on information gathered by the field monitors. The report will discuss the excavation program and its results, any finds, and recommendations if necessary. Paleontological Salvaging Minor salvage (individual fossil items easily removed by the individual monitor) will normally be included in the monitoring time. If large, concentrated, or very significant fossil assemblages are uncovered during grading operations. The county will be informed and the work will be justified if any salvage operations or additional work is initiated beyond the normal monitoring. The paleontologist or grading monitor will be authorized to temporarily stop or divert the grading operations to enable the paleontologist to determine the significance of the fossils. The paleontologist will have the materials available to remove the specimens in a timely manner and will coordinate with the grading supervisor to minimize any impact on the grading operations. The speed of any salvage operation will depend on the size of the locality, condition of the fossils and the flexibility of the schedule of the contractor in that area. Salvage specimens are excavated using picks, shovels, portable electric jackhammers, and other appropriate field equipment. As necessary, large specimens are stabilized in plaster jackets for transportation to JMA's Paleontological Laboratory. PALEONTOLOGICAL LABORATORY METHODOLOGIES Laboratory staff curate fossil specimens to the point of identification only (not museum display). curation involves examination, cleaning, stabilization, matrix reduction to reduce bulk and 01-174-MF-MM I 7MA recovery of visible fossil specimens from all collected rock samples by removal of excess matrix to better expose the fossil. Laboratory personnel issue preliminary identification numbers to each specimen for cataloging and accession purposes. Preliminary identification and cataloging includes preparation of an Accession List. PALEONTOLOGICAL FINAL REPORT Without an adequate final report much of the significance and value of fossil specimens would be lost. A final report will be completed by a qualified, county certified, paleontologist and will include at least the following: Location of the site Description of the site Methodology What was included in the field and laboratory investigations. Documentation that the monitoring was completed under the direct field supervision of a county certified paleontologist. Salvage procedures for all fossil localities Biostratigraphy A general description of the types of fossils found on the site Fossil localities discovered and established on the site A recognized museum locality#for each locality . A general description of the fossils in each locality Mitigation of fossil localities discovered on the site Significance of fossil localities discovered on the site Disposition of fossil material discovered on the site A transcribed copy of significant field notes. Fossil Identification Procedures JMA references pertinent taxonomic literature during preliminary identification of the fossils. Where appropriate, JMA compares the fossil specimens collected on the site with paleontological reference collections available at Los Angeles County Museum (LRCM). As necessary, JMA consults various paleontologic specialists to confirm and/or aid in the identification of selected fossils. Artifacts and fossils collected will be stored by JMA, while awaiting accession to a designated archaeological or paleontologic resources repository. Paleontological and Archaeological Monitoring methods JMA will conduct field work side-by-side with the construction teams in order to coordinate activities so as to minimize interference with construction. At the onset of new projects JMA staff quickly establishes a rapport with on-site project managers, construction superintendents, foreman, surveyors, grade checkers, soils technicians, construction inspectors, equipment operators,etc. The primary purpose of paleontological monitoring is to insure that if paleontological resources are encountered during earthmoving operations that a qualified paleontologist has the opportunity to recover and determine the importance of the find(s). Generally, monitoring 01.04-M-P-MM 4 1MA begins in the surface layers and continues when in sensitive geologic units likely to produce fossil resources. The primary purpose of archaeological monitoring is to insure that if archaeological resources are encountered during earthmoving operations that a qualified archaeologist has the opportunity to recover and determine the importance of the finding(s). Generally, monitoring is restricted to the top 3 feet of the excavation operation. However, if there is a chance that archaeological ' resources might have become buried as the result of slopewash, landslides or flood events, monitoring would continue beyond the initial 3 feet until such a time that the excavation ends or sterile soil or bedrock is encountered. The physical act of monitoring comprises in part, watching the excavation procedure for any signs of paleontological and archaeological material in both the excavation and the spoils.pile. Of course, safety is always a concern when working around heavy equipment and it is mandatory that the monitor(s) are familiar with excavation protocols and safety guidelines. Recovery methods If fossils/artifacts are encountered during construction grading activities JMA's paleontologist/ archaeologist or their designated representative will have the authority to temporarily stop or redirect grading and/or construction in that area until an assessment of the archaeology/paleontology significance of the find can be assessed by JMA's paleontological and archaeological. If the significance, or the lack thereof, cannot be determined by cursory examination alone, a recovery program designed to achieve that goal may need to be implemented. If human remains are encountered during the excavation program, all work must stop in the area in which the finding(s)were made. State law dictates that the County Coroner be notified as well as the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento. If the remains are indeed positively identified as those of Indian origin, it is the responsibility of the "Most Likely Descendant" as designated by the IVAHC, to take charge of the finds. In some instances, grave remains that are the responsibility of the Most Likely Descendant may also include artifacts found in association with a burial. The procedure for dealing appropriately with resources encountered during construction will include but not be limited to the following: a. The extent of the area to be temporarily avoided by the contractor will be explained to the contractor's on-site representative and as appropriate, flagged off by JMA's on-site field staff person. b. JMA's paleontologist/ archaeologist and/or their designated representative, will determine the significance of encountered resources in a timely, cost efficient ;Wanner so as to minimize interference with others and minimize disruption or delay to construction activities and project deliverable schedules. C. If encountered fossils/artifacts are determined to be significant, JMA's paleontologist/, archaeologist or their designated representative will determine appropriate mitigation actions that ensure proper exploration and/or salvage pursuant to the JMA contract/Scope of Work. The Actions to be taken in the event that fossils are discovered during construction are discussed in detail below. If on-site representative or their designated representatives are unavailable and immediate action is necessary, JMA staff will take o�-��a-NrF-rnM 5 IMA r • action as appropriate and notify on-site representative within 48 hours of said action. e. As appropriate, mitigation actions required for exploration and/or recovery of encountered resources deemed significant may include temporary or long term redirecting or Baiting of construction activities and/or screen washing of sediment samples. These procedures are briefly outlined below. Temporary halting or redirecting construction activities Under normal circumstances it will not be necessary to halt construction activities during recovery of fossils. However, JMA's paleontologist/archaeologist and/or their designated representative, may require the on-site grading contractor to temporarily divert grading equipment away from the immediate area of the temporary recovery operations. The extent of the area to be temporarily avoided by the contractor will be explained to the contractor's on-site representative and/or flagged off by JMA field personnel (e.g., JMA's paleontologist ! archaeologist Project Manager,Field Director, on-site mitigation monitor,etc.). Any encountered fossil/artifact materials determined to be of significance will be "recovered". The recovery of fossils may be as simple as removing fossil(s) by hand or may involve more labor intensive, time consuming operations requiring mechanical equipment for excavation, and the plaster jacketing of delicate and/or larger fossils. JMA field personnel will only be able to "recover" lesser quantities of significant paleontological/archaeological resources during normal monitoring time. "Recovery" conducted during normal monitoring time will be completed in a timely manner in an effort to minimize disruption of construction activities and reduce impacts to construction production schedules. Long-term halting or redirecting of construction activities If major paleontological/archaeological resources (large specimens and/or major concentrations of fossils/artifacts) are discovered, which require long-term (more than 72 hours) halting or temporary redirecting of grading, JMA's paleontologist/archaeologist and/or their designated representative shall report such findings to on-site representative or their designated representative. JMA's paleontologist/archaeologist and/or their designated representative will determine appropriate mitigation actions, in cooperation with on-site representative or their designated representative, which ensure proper exploration and/or recovery of significant resources. 6 9MA Yohn Minch sand Associates, Inc. NATURAL RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENTAL. ASSESSMENTS - PLANNING - MANAGEMENT November 25, 2003 4 Mr. & Mrs. Douglas Jackson u 97 Old Course Dr. Newport Beach,CA 92660 Subject. Archaeological and Paleontological Services for the Grading of 3631 Ocean Blvd. Newport.Beach,CA Dear Mr. Jackson This certifies to the City of Newport Beach that John Minch and Associates, .Inc. (JMA) has been retained by Mr. & Mrs. Douglas Jackson to oversee the grading operations and any mitigation of paleontological and archaeological resources required for 3631 Ocean Blvd. Newport Beach, CA. Work will be conducted in a manner that conforms to accepted City paleontologicaj and archaeological guidelines. JMA's archaeologist, Laura White has a Master of Arts degree from San Diego State University with specialization in anthropology and archaeology. She is SOPA certified and a qualified archaeologist. John Minch is a fully qualified paleontologist. He has a Doctor of Philosophy degree from the University of California, Riverside with a specialization in paleontology and stratigraphy. He is a registered geologist in the State of California, #3269, and certified as qualified to conduct paleontological investigations. Enclosed is a typical Scope of Investigation which JMA follows. This scope may need to be modified to adapt to the parcel in question. Respectfully submitted, 44 John Minch and Associates, Inc. a s John Minch, Ph.D. No 9269 RG, Principal CAL1���1R'' .28932 `Lria Buena `!Vista, Suite 100,San Yuan Capistrano, CA 926975-5557 (949)489-0760 0 fax(949)496 3650 •jmainc@eartfxCinknefi Preliminary Scope of Archaeological Services Archaeological Field Methodologies 1) Qualified Staff archaeological field monitors will conduct on-site monitoring under the supervision of JMA's Certified Archaeologist (Laurie White). 2) All brushed or surface areas are examined during the monitoring to ensure that no archaeological material is overlooked. 3) Site-specific archaeological surveys are undertaken to locate all artifacts and to define site boundaries for the artifact/features. All artifacts and ecofaets are then systematically collected and removed to the JMA laboratory for analysis. 4) Staff Archaeologists establish archaeological sites in order to document the occurrence of artifacts and/or archaeological features. Where appropriate, archaeological sites are delineated in the field by erecting temporary borders around the resource with orange safety fencing or with stapes and flagging tape. This served to protect the resource and personnel by diverting equipment around the area. 5 ) Where salvage/recovery operations are necessary to remove a specimen, a salvage/survey crew is organized and dispatched to the area to expedite this process by JMA. Such response minimizes delays in the grading schedule and allows construction to continue in a timely manner. b) When artifacts/ecofacts are encountered the staff archaeologist assigns a locality number and notes the mode of occurrence of the artifact on an archaeological locality data sheet. He/she then records the elevation and location with reference to the station numbers, provides a grief description of the nature of the artifact and any important notes. A site survey operation is then initiated to determine the nature and extent of the find. In the laboratory, additional information about the locality was documented( i.e. USGS quad, UTM coordinates, disposition, and other pertinent data). 7) The Archaeological Monitor(s) will keep daily logs during the course of the project. At the completion of the project, a detailed report will be compiled. The report will be prepared by the Project Archaeologist and will be based on information gathered by the field monitors. The report will discuss the excavation program and its results, any finds, and recommendations if necessary. ARCHAEOLOGICAL LABORATORY METHODOLOGIES Laboratory staff curate archaeological specimens to the point of identification only (not museum display). Curation involves examination, cleaning, describing, drawing, photodocurnentation, and determining the provenience of the artifact. Laboratory personnel issue preliminary identification numbers to each specimen for cataloging and accession purposes. The site or isolated artifact is then incorporated into a site recordation form which is filed with the UCLA records center where it is given a number (i.e. ORA-1001) and incorporated into the permanent archaeological record. 9MA ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINAL REPORT Without an adequate final report, much of the significance and value of archaeological sites would be lost. A final report will be completed by a qualified, county certified archaeologist and will include at least the following: Site location, boundaries and environmental setting Cultural setting Site description and/or characterization Investigative methodology: Testing and/or salvaging techniques Laboratory analysis Documentation that the monitoring program was conducted under the direct supervision of a county certified archaeologist. Description of the archaeological finds Procurement of a permanent site trinomial for each site from the South Central Coastal Information Center at UCLA Determinations of significance Proposed mitigative recommendations Disposition of the archaeological finds Preliminary Scope of Paleontological Services PALEONTOLOGICAL FIELD METHODOLOGIES 1) Qualified Staff paleontological field monitors will conduct on-site monitoring under the supervision of JMA's County Certified Paleontologist(Dr. John A. Minch, RG#3269). 2) Earth-disturbing construction activities (i.e. locations of spreads of equipment) are monitored by a supervised staff paleontologist (field monitor). 3) All brushed or graded areas are examined during the monitoring to ensure that no paleontological material is overlooked. 4) Relatively small, isolated, and loosened fossils are collected by paleontologists during earth disturbing construction activities. 5) Salvage/quarry operations are conducted during grading if necessary to recover relatively large embedded fossils and/or concentrations of fossils that field monitors are unable to recover through normal mitigation monitoring, 6) Staff paleontologists establish fossil localities in order to document the occurrence of fossil specimens. Where appropriate, fossil localities are delineated in the field by erecting temporary borders around the resource with orange safety fencing or with stakes n�-��.a.nrtF-rnn�r 2 qMA and flagging tape. This serves to protect the resource and personnel by diverting equipment around the area. 7) Where salvage/recovery operations are necessary to remove a specimen, a salvage/survey crew is organized and dispatched to the area to expedite this process by JMA. Such response minimizes delays in the grading schedule and allows construction to continue in a timely manner. 8) Salvage specimens are excavated using picks, shovels, portable electric jackhammers, and other appropriate field equipment. As necessary, large specimens are stabilized in plaster jackets for transportation to JMA's Paleontological Laboratory. 9) When fossils are encountered the staff paleontologist assigns a locality number and notes the formation, lithology, stratigraphic position if available, and mode of occurrence of the fossil on a fossil locality data sheet. He/she then records the elevation and location with reference to the station numbers, provides a brief description of the nature of the fossil and any important notes. If the fossil is of a nature that it can not be removed quickly, a salvage operation is initiated. In the laboratory, additional information about the locality is documented(Le. USGS quad, UTM coordinates, disposition, and other pertinent data). 10)Stratigraphic mapping of fossil locations for proper placement into the geologic column. I I)The paleontological monitor(s) will keep daily logs during the course of the project. At the completion of the project, a detailed report will be compiled. The report will be prepared by the Project Paleontologist and will be based on information gathered by the field monitors. The report will discuss the excavation program and its results, any finds, and recommendations if necessary. Paleontological Salvaging Minor salvage (individual fossil items easily removed by the individual monitor) will normally be included in the monitoring time. If large, concentrated, or very significant fossil assemblages are uncovered during grading operations. The county will be informed and the work will be justified if any salvage operations or additional work is initiated beyond the normal monitoring. The paleontologist or grading monitor will be authorized to temporarily stop or divert the grading operations to enable the paleontologist to determine the significance of the fossils. The paleontologist will have the materials available to remove the specimens in a timely manner and will coordinate with the grading supervisor to minimize any impact on the grading operations. The speed of any salvage operation will depend on the size of the locality, condition of the fossils and the flexibility of the schedule of the contractor in that area. Salvage specimens are excavated using picks, shovels, portable electric jackhammers, and other appropriate field equipment. As necessary, large specimens are stabilized in plaster jackets for transportation to JMA's Paleontological Laboratory. PALEONTOLOGICAL LABORATORY METHODOLOGIES Laboratory staff curate fossil specimens to the point of identification only (not museum display). curation involves examination, cleaning, stabilization, matrix reduction to reduce bulk and recovery of visible fossil specimens from all collected rock samples by removal of excess matrix to better expose the fossil. Laboratory personnel issue preliminary identification numbers to each specimen for cataloging and accession purposes. Preliminary identification and cataloging includes preparation of an Accession List. PALEONTOLOGICAL FINAL REPORT Without an adequate final report much of the significance and value of fossil specimens would be lost. A final report will be completed by a qualified, county certified, paleontologist and will include at least the following: Location of the site Description of the site Methodology What was included in the field and laboratory investigations. Documentation that the monitoring was completed under the direct field supervision of a county certified paleontologist. Salvage procedures for all fossil localities Biostratigraphy A general description of the types of fossils found on the site Fossil localities discovered and established on the site A recognized museum locality#for each locality . A general description of the fossils in each locality Mitigation of fossil localities discovered on the site Significance of fossil localities discovered on the site Disposition of fossil material discovered on the site A transcribed copy of significant field notes. Fossil Identification Procedures JMA references pertinent taxonomic literature during preliminary identification of the fossils. Where appropriate, JMA compares the fossil specimens collected on the site with paleontological reference collections available at Los Angeles County Museum (LRCM). As necessary, JMA consults various paleontologic specialists to confirm and/or aid in the identification of selected fossils. Artifacts and fossils collected will be stored by JMA, while awaiting accession to a designated archaeological or paleontologic resources repository. Paleontological and Archaeological Monitoring methods JMA will conduct field work side-by-side with the construction teams in order to coordinate activities so as to minimize interference with construction. At the onset of new projects JMA staff quickly establishes a rapport with on-site project managers, construction superintendents, foreman, surveyors, grade checkers, soils technicians, construction inspectors, equipment operators, etc. The primary purpose of paleontological monitoring is to insure that if paleontological resources are encountered during earthmoving operations that a qualified paleontologist has the opportunity to recover and determine the importance of the find(s). Generally, monitoring 03-1*74-MF-r.T)M 4 IMA begins in the surface layers and continues when in sensitive geologic units likely to produce fossil resources. The primary purpose of archaeological monitoring is to insure that if archaeological resources are encountered during earthmoving operations that a qualified archaeologist has the opportunity to recover and determine the importance of the finding(s). Generally, monitoring is restricted to the top 3 feet of the excavation operation. However, if there is a chance that archaeological resources might have become buried as the result of slopewash, landslides or flood events, monitoring would continue beyond the initial 3 feet until such a time that the excavation ends or sterile soil or bedrock is encountered. The physical act of monitoring comprises in part, watching the excavation procedure for any signs of paleontological and archaeological material in both the excavation and the spoils pile. Of course, safety is always a concern when working around heavy equipment and it is mandatory that the monitor(s) are familiar with excavation protocols and safety guidelines. Recovery methods If fossils/artifacts are encountered during construction grading activities JMA's paleontologist/ archaeologist or their designated representative will have the authority to temporarily stop or redirect grading and/or construction in that area until an assessment of the archaeology/paleontology significance of the find can be assessed by JMA's paleontological and archaeological. If the significance, or the lack thereof, cannot be determined by cursory examination alone, a recovery program designed to achieve that goal may need to be implemented. If human remains are encountered during the excavation program, all work must stop in the area in which the finding(s) were made. State law dictates that the County Coroner be notified as well as the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento. If the remains are indeed positively identified as those of Indian origin, it is the responsibility of the "Most Likely Descendant" as designated by the IVAHC, to take charge of the finds. In some instances, grave remains that are the responsibility of the Most Likely Descendant may also include artifacts found in association with a burial. The procedure for dealing appropriately with resources encountered during construction will include but not be limited to the following: a. The extent of the area to be temporarily avoided by the contractor will be explained to the contractor's on-site representative and as appropriate, flagged off by JMA's on-site field staff person. b. JMA's paleontologist/ archaeologist and/or their designated representative, will determine the significance of encountered resources in a timely, cost efficient manner so as to minimize interference with others and minimize disruption or delay to construction activities and project deliverable schedules. C. If encountered fossils/artifacts are determined to be significant, JMA's paleontologist/, archaeologist or their designated representative will determine appropriate mitigation actions that ensure proper exploration and/or salvage pursuant to the JMA contract/Scope of Work. The Actions to be taken in the event that fossils are discovered during construction are discussed in detail below. If on-site representative or their designated representatives are unavailable and immediate action is necessary, JMA staff will take action as appropriate and notify on-site representative within 48 hours of said action. e. As appropriate, mitigation actions required for exploration and/or recovery of encountered resources deemed significant may include temporary or long term redirecting or halting of construction activities and/or screen washing of sediment samples. These procedures are briefly outlined below. Temporary halting or redirecting construction activities Under normal circumstances it will not be necessary to halt construction activities during recovery of fossils. However, JMA's paleontologist/archaeologist and/or their designated representative, may require the on-site grading contractor to temporarily divert grading equipment away from the immediate area of the temporary recovery operations. The extent of the area to be temporarily avoided by the contractor will be explained to the contractor's on-site representative and/or flagged off by JMA field personnel (e.g., JMA's paleontologist / archaeologist Project Manager,Field Director, on-site mitigation monitor, etc.). Any encountered fossil/artifact materials determined to be of significance will be "recovered". The recovery of fossils may be as simple as removing fossil(s) by hand or may involve more labor intensive, time consuming operations requiring mechanical equipment for excavation, and the plaster jacketing of delicate and/or larger fossils. JMA field personnel will only be able to "recover" lesser quantities of significant paleontological/archaeological resources during normal monitoring time. "Recovery" conducted during normal monitoring time will be completed in a timely manner in an effort to minimize disruption of construction activities and reduce impacts to construction production schedules. Long-term halting or redirecting of construction activities If major paleontological/archaeological resources (large specimens and/or major concentrations of fossils/artifacts) are discovered, which require long-term (more than 72 hours) halting or temporary redirecting of grading, JMA's paleontologist/archaeologist and/or their designated representative shall report such findings to on-site representative or their designated representative. JMA's paleontologist/archaeologist and/or their designated representative will determine appropriate mitigation actions, in cooperation with on-site representative or their designated representative, which ensure proper exploration and/or recovery of significant resources. 6 9MA agiong S.W1 OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOLMES AGENCY DEPAf7TtJf NT OF FISH AND.GAME iwFtVIROKli ENTAL FLUNG FEE,CASH RECEIPT Lead Court f State ,- tY Agee oi'FiHngi � [kourr+ t ldtt.: Pri"Tine:.-� y., Project Applit;ant Proft30 Applicant Mess: Prof ect AMU ant(check appropriate box): Local Public Agency. School District QltheO wiel'Distact Stag�jenCy r PTWate En .ty CHEM AeMMABU FEES: nvkanmeritai.itr►pact Report $050,00 $ !Nega0ve DooWratic i ( ),Application Fee Waterl:?iversion(State Water Re hoard arty) � $850.00 $ { -Projects Subject to Cer9fied Regulatory Programs ` $95U:fl0 $ &hty ASltt Mistrative Fee _ � ov $ ( j Rr is exempt from fees 4TAL RECErVEf1. '$ ftnatute and title of.person receiving paymentl .;�bpoRT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH .. = 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 0 Newport Beach,CA 92658-8915 � °gt�FORN�P (949)644-3210 GARY L. RA � E,clerk-AGcordo' GARY i G By ------°"OTICE OF DETERMINATION — �� C.° ar To: From: City of Newport Beach Office of Planning and Research Planning Department Fx� 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 Sacramento,CA 95814 Newport Beach,CA 92658 -- County of Orange County Clerk,County of Orange o ❑X Public Services Division 00 0 12 Civic Center Plaza Date received for filing at OPR: w N ME G� a Santa Ana,CA 92702 -- I eo 00 � 3 a Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 0 o = W' ' 21152 of the Public Resources Code. o o n o -- _ Name of Project: Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) o a; 0 o � Cn O Xi. 0 4 y State Clearinghouse Number: City Contact Person: Telephone No. o -� 2001071115 James Campbell, Senior Planner 949-644-3210 c == 0 0 0 Project Location: 3631 E. Ocean Blvd, Corona Del Mar, o Newport Beach, County of Orange Project Description: Demolish existing single family home(2,924 gross square feet)and replace with new single family home (6,044 gross square feet) including grading, paving,fencing lighting, landscaping and irrigation. The project includes the changes to the existing driveway and front yard landscaping presently located within the public right-of-way. The project also includes a variance request to exceed established height limits of Zoning Code due to unique topographical circumstances. Lastly, the project includes a request to deviate from the required front yard setback of 10 feet providing no front setback. This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has approved the above described project on September 20,2001 (Date) and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The City is Lead Agency Responsible Agency for the project. 2. The project will will not have a significant effect on the environment. 3. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 4. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 5. Mitigation measures were were not made a condition of the approval of the project. 6. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was was not adopted for this project. 7. Findings were were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The Negative Declaration and record of project approval is available for review at the Planning Depart- ment e City of Newport Beach,3300 Newport Boulevard,Newport Beach,CA 92658-8915; 949/644-3210. �t ) (,IIA44 W� ��, James Camp ell, SenA Planner Date CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME o , u CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION 0 cR<rfiox�'�r 7 De Minimis Impact Finding A� t� 6y �. A. Name and Address of Project Proponent: Douglas & Sandra Jackson 3631 Ocean Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92625 B. Project Description: Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062)Demolish existing single family home (2,924 gross square feet) and replace with new single family home (6,044 gross square feet) including grading, paving, fencing lighting, landscaping and irrigation. The project includes the changes to the existing driveway and front yard landscaping presently located within the public right-of-way. The project also includes a variance request to exceed established height limits of Zoning Code due to unique topographical circumstances. ! stly, the project includes a request to deviate from the required front yard setback of 10 feet p, rvi n no front setback. C. Project Location: 3631 Ocean Blvd, Corona Del Mar, Newport Beach, County of Orange C4�9 D. Findings: The City of Newport Beach has conducted an Initial Study to evaluate the project's potential for adverse environmental impact, and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations(CCR)has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c) of Title 14, CCR. E. Certification: I hereby certify that the lead agency has made the above findings of fact and that based upon the initial study and hearing record the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. ych el/m 'I/A)r�24,;Ilk4V Date James Camp ell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach G t 7 HI 1CAL INV8- d fib{ , . 1�R��'Q�fD`SlJ�G`I�fAh�l]�.Y Rf�fDElVCk, 361 'EAN Rat f'LF1�AR 7, �CDf��' A t��L MAl�,.�ALIFO�NfA h%fft L?CC7G j CKS'ON35,0-6 r r l t PETRA COSTA MESA ■ SAN DIEGO TEMECULA LOS ANGELES June 5, 2001 J.N. 358-00 MR. DOG JACKSON c/o E.D. Lohrbach & Associates 31866 Camino Capistrano San Juan. Capistrano, CA 92675 Attention: Mr. E.D. Lohrbach Subject: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Single-Family Residence, 3631 Ocean Boulevard, Corona Del Mar, California. Dear Mr. Jackson: We are pleased to submit herewith our geotechnical investigation report for the subject property. This work was performed in accordance with the scope of services outlined in our Proposal dated March 8, 2001. This report presents the results of our field investigation, laboratory testing,and our engineering judgement,opinions,conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical design aspects of the proposed development. It has been a pleasure to be of service to you on this project. Should you have any questions regarding the contents of this report, or should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, RECEIVED BY PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF KJP:'.�110nc]7 PEACF- AM PM 0 7 2001 P1 Darrel Roberts Senior Associate Geologist 7I$1911011111Z111213141516 4 DR/meg PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 3185-A Airway Avenue ■ Costa Mesa ■ CA 92626 ■ TeI: (714) 549-8921 ■ Fax: (714) 549-1436 ■ petracmQibm,net TABLE_QF!CQDNjENTS Page INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 SITE INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . .3 Investigative Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Aerial Photograph Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Site Reconnaissance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Subsurface Exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 FTNDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Regional Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Local Geology and Subsurface Soil Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 6 Groundwater and Seepage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Faulting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 9 Positive Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Potentially Adverse Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Grading Plan Review 12 Site and Sea Bluff Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . .. . . . . 12 Geotechnical Concerns and Remedial Recommendations . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Earthwork . . . . . . 14 General Earthwork and Grading Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 SiteClearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Excavation Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Disposal of Oversize Rock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Stability of Temporary Excavation Sidewalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Shoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Monitoring of Shoring System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Processing of Existing Ground - Yard Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Processing of Exposed Ground - Building Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Fill Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Shrinkage and Subsidence . 22 Geotechnical Observations and Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . 1 . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Post-Grading Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Site Drainage . 23 Utility Trenches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 _ 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS P, age Seismic Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Ground Motions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Foundation Design Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Minimum Footing Depths and Foundation. Setbacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Conventional Footings and Floor Slabs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Allowable Bearing Values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Settlement . 28 Lateral Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Minimum Footing and Floor Slab Recommendations . . . . 29 Soluble Sulfates And Corrosivzty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Retaining Wall Design Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Construction on Level Ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Construction Along Top of the Rear Yard Descending Bluff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Active and At-Rest Earth Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Geotechnical Observation and Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Waterproofing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Backfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Masonry Block Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Spa Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Proposed Setback From Retaining Wall on Descending Slope . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Lateral Earth Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Temporary Access Ramps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Spa Bottom . • 38 SpaDecking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Plumbing Fixtures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Exterior Concrete Flatwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Thickness and Joint Spacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 39 Subgrade Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 LITERATURE REVIEWED APPENDIX A EXPLORATION LOG APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES LABORATORY TEST DATA MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 J.N. 358-00 Page 1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION, PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, 3631 OCEAN BOULEVARD, CORONA DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION Petra l present the results of our geotechnical inves- tigation of the subject property. The purposes of this investigation were to determine the nature of subsurface soil conditions, to evaluate their in-place characteristics, and to then provide geotechnical recommendations with respect to site grading, and for design and construction of building foundations. This investigation also included a review of published and unpublished literature and geotechnical maps with respect to active faults located in proximity to the site which may have an impact on the seismic design of the proposed structure. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The subject site is located at 3631 Ocean Boulevard in the city of Corona Del Mar, California, and consists of a roughly rectangular residential lot occupied by a multi- levelsingle-familyresidence with an attached garage and associated site improvements g g p (Figure 1). The northeastern 52- to 60-feet of the site is designated as city right-of- way. For ease of description, the site will be discussed as a whole, from the southwesterly curb of Ocean Boulevard to the ocean. The northeast portion of the site rests on an elevated marine platform while the southwestern portion of the site consists of a sea bluff that descends to the Pacific Ocean. The site is bordered on the northeast by a residence currently under construction, on the southeast by an existing single-family residence, on the northeast by Ocean Boulevard, and on the southwest by the Pacific Ocean. The northeast r� r ��•,�-: ,�� .• ,,,,err - t * y � iPP .,�i l � ... '4 ALA ., J d ..-h.'e - fig.■b �T" ;i,.' 3 _ Nk AW ELF `'�•.•`V�+` '*H, K ��"` � � - �? �f �" � k• ..� '_.„` r t p ° & 3 Nil: t y r `q lz T 0 12 >= 1.MILE MN 1 20 i TO 1000 2000 3000 4000 FEET Printed from TOPOI @1996 WAaflower Productions (Www.topo"corn) LOCATION MAP Ref; Portion of U. S. G. S, Topographical Map LAGUNA BEACH QUADRANGLE 7.5 Minute Series, 1965, Photo Revised 1981 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL INC. J.N. 358-00 June, 2001 FIGURE 1 ' MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 J.N. 358-00 Page 2 portion of the subject site gently slopes from the street at an elevation of approximately p J g Y p pp Y 98 feet above mean sea level down to the front of the existing residence at 91 feet above mean sea level. Beyond the multi-level residence, the site consists of a natural sea bluff that descends steeply 50 to 60 feet to an approximately 30-foot-wide gravel and cobble beach. Within and beyond the beach, numerous bedrock outcrops are present protruding thru the surf. Maximum topographic relief across the site is approx- imately 98 feet from the curb to the ocean below. Drainage is by sheet flow within the pad area towards the southwesterly descending sea bluff. As mentioned previously, an approximately 50-to 60-foot-high sea bluff exists within the southwestern portion of the property. This bluff exhibits an overall slope ratio of approximately 0.6:1 (horizontal to vertical) and descends to a beach and the ocean r below. The upper 20 to 30 feet of the bluff descends at a slope ratio of 1.5.1,while the lower portion descends at a slope ratio of 0.3:1. The front yard area of the property is landscaped with small shrubs, trees and turf areas. The upper portion of the sea bluff is covered by a thick growth of ice plant, weeds,grasses, and occasional trees. The lower steep portion of the bluff is essentially bare. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT It is proposed to demolish the existing structure and clear the site for construction of a new single-family residence. Definitive grading plans were not available for our review as of the date of this report,however, preliminary architectural plans prepared by E.D. Lohrbach and Associates indicate a three-level, single family residence is proposed within the subject site. It is our understanding that the proposed residence and attached garage will be of combined woodframe and masonry block construction MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 J.N. 358-00 Page 3 with the lowermost floor slabs constructed on-grade. It is proposed to support the ' residence on a foundation system consisting of a combination of retaining walls and conventional footings. Retaining walls varying up to an estimated 35 feet in height will be required. Other improvements within the site are expected to consist of several retaining walls, masonry block walls, stairways, and exterior concrete flatwork con- sisting of sidewalks and patios. It is anticipated that the entire site will be excavated to grade with excavations varying up to a maximum of approximately 36 feet below existing grade to achieve the planned finish grades within the lowermost level of the residence. Following construction of the retaining walls, backfill will be placed behind the walls. Excess materials derived during grading will be exported from the site. Minor cuts and fills are also anticipated within the yard areas to achieve finish grades and to provide proper site drainage. Recommendations for site grading are given in the "Conclusions and Recommen- dations" section of this report. SITE INVESTIGATION Investigative Methods The methods of investigation employed during this study included: (1) a review of available aerial photographs for the years 1952 through 1997; (2)a site reconnaissance and subsurface exploration consisting of field mapping, the drilling of 1 exploratory boring, and the collection of relatively undisturbed and bulk earth materials; and(3) laboratory testing of collected samples. MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 J.N. 358-00 Page 4 Aerial Photograph Review Stereoscopic aerial photographs for the years 1952 through 1997, made available from Continental Aerial Photograph, were reviewed by our Engineering Geologist. They were reviewed to determine if any significant event has altered the bluff during the recent past and to determine an approximate rate of bluff top recession. Site Reconnaissance A site reconnaissance was performed by a representative of this firm on March 30, 2001 on the same day that we performed our subsurface exploration. Additional geologic mapping of the bluff face was performed by an engineering geologist of this firm on May 1, 2001. Our reconnaissance and field mapping consisted of the visual evaluation of the existing surface conditions within the site and surrounding areas, and the geologic mapping the sea bluff and beach area to obtain information regarding the nature and structure of the exposed bedrock. Existing surface conditions within the site and surrounding areas, as observed during our site reconnaissance, were described previously in the "Location and Site Description" section of this report. Subsurface Exploration Our subsurface exploration was performed on March 30, 2001, and involved the drilling of one 24-inch-diameter exploratory boring to a depth of 50 feet below the existing ground surface using a bucket-auger drilling rig. Earth materials encountered were classified and logged in accordance with the visual-manual procedures of the Unified Soil Classification System. The approximate location of the exploratory boring is shown on the enclosed geologic map, Plate 1, and the "Exploration Log" is presented in Appendix A. IV MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 J.N. 358-00 Page 5 Associated with the subsurface exploration was the collection of bulk samples and relatively undisturbed samples of soil and bedrock for laboratory testing. Bulk samples consisted of selected soil and bedrock materials obtained at various depth intervals from the exploratory boring. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained using a 3- inch,outside diameter,modified California split-spoon soil sampler lined with 1-inch- high brass ring liners. The soil sampler was driven with successive 12-inch drops of the drill rigs'Kelly bar. The weight of the Kelly bar at various depth intervals, as well as the number of blows to advance the sampler to a depth of 12 inches were recorded in the "Exploration Logs," Appendix A. The central portions of the driven core samples were placed in sealed containers and transported to our laboratory for testing. Laboratory Testing To further evaluate the engineering properties of the onsite soils and bedrock materials, several laboratory tests were performed on selected samples considered representative of those encountered. Laboratory tests included the determination of maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, expansion potential, soluble sulfate content, measurements of electrical resistivity, chloride content and pH, and shear strength characteristics. Moisture content and unit dry density were also determined for the in- place soils and bedrock in representative strata. A description of laboratory test procedures and summaries of the test data are presented in Appendix B. Moisture content and unit dry density of the in situ materials are included in the "Exploration Log," Appendix A. An evaluation of the test data is reflected throughout the "Conclusions and Recommendations" section of this report. MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 J.N. 358-00 Page 6 FYNDIN_S Regional Geology The subject site is located on an elevated coastal marine terrace near the western flank of the San Joaquin Hills within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. This elevated terrace extends from Corona del Mar to Laguna Beach and is characterized ' by an upper surface that slopes very gently from the base of the San Joaquin Hills southwest to the sea cliffs along the Pacific Coast. The regional geology is char- acterized by terrace deposits overlying bedrock materials of the Tertiary-age Monterey Formation. Local Geology and Subsurface Soil Conditions The site is underlain by terrace deposits overlying bedrock materials of the Monterey Formation. The southwesterly facing descending sea bluff was observed to be mantled by a thin accumulation of slopewash. Fill deposits (Afu) occur locally and were observed in the upper 3 feet of exploratory boring B-1. The fill materials consist of slightly moist, dense, fine grained silty sand with numerous concrete pieces. An estimated 1 to 2 feet of slopewash mantles the upper portion of the bluff. These materials consist of dry,medium dense, fine grained sand to silty sand with abundant roots. Terrace deposits (Qt) underlie the surficial soil materials (fill and slopewash) on site. These materials consist of pale-brown, yellow-brown and red-brown, slightly moist to moist, dense, fine grained sand. Horizontal and cross-bedding was observed. The terrace deposits were noted to be friable and subject to a moderate degree of caving, especially within the cross-bedded sequence. MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 J.N. 358-00 Page 7 Bedrock belonging to the Monterey Formation (Tm) underlies the terrace deposits. The bedrock materials were encountered at a depth of 44 feet below the existing ground surface within boring B-1. The bedrock materials encountered within the boring consisted of yellowish- brown, moist, moderately hard, massive, fine-grained sandstone. At approximately 5 feet of depth into bedrock, the materials became very hard and cemented and the boring was terminated due to refusal at a total depth of 50 feet (6 feet into bedrock). Bedrock materials exposed on the southwest-facing bluff face generally consist of sandstone with interbedded layers of siltstone. The sandstone materials were observed to be slightly moist to moist, moderately hard to hard, slightly weathered and thinly to thickly bedded. The siltstone materials were noted to be moist, moderately hard to very hard/cemented, slightly weathered and thinly bedded. Structurally, the bedrock materials are highly folded and faulted; however,the bedding has a predominant strike to the northwest and dips to the northeast at varying angles (12 to 55 degrees). Changes in strike direction and reversals in dip angle were observed due to the small scale folding in the vicinity. A topographic survey produced by Toal Engineering was utilized as a base map for preparing a geologic map, Plate 1. Our interpretation of the subsurface geology for the subject property is presented in geologic cross section A-A' (Plate 2). Groundwater and Seepage Seepage or groundwater was not encountered during our field investigation to the maximum depth explored (50 feet). Additionally, no seepage was observed on the bluff face. Groundwater is expected to exist at the same level as the adjacent ocean. �% l MR. DOUG JACKSON .Lune 5, 2001 J.N. 358-00 Page 8 Aerial Photograph Review Steroscopic aerial photographs, made available for our review from Continental Aerial Photographs, spanned a 46-year period from 1952 through 1997. The following is a summary of pertinent information obtained from our review. The general configuration of the coast area adjacent to the property has changed little in the 46 years covered by the photographs reviewed. The existing residence and associated improvements can be identified in the photos and is apparently unchanged since 1962. Between 1952 and 1997, the photos, although small scale, indicate no significant erosion of the beach or bluff areas below the subject site. Faulting Based on our review of published and unpublished geotechnical maps and literature pertaining to site and regional geology, the site is located approximately 1.7 miles or 2.7 kilometers to the southwest of the offshore segment of the Newport-Inglewood fault. The Newport-Inglewood fault consists of a series of parallel and en-echelon, northwest-trending faults and folds extending from the southern edge of the Santa Monica Mountains southeast to the offshore area of Newport Beach. This zone has a history of moderate to high seismic activity and has generated numerous earthquakes greater than magnitude 4.0, including the March 11, 1933 magnitude 6.3 Long Beach earthquake which was centered offshore of Newport Beach. At the time of the 1933 earthquake, secondary effects of strong ground shaking were noted in the Long Beach and Huntington Beach areas (i.e., sand boils, ground cracking and liquefaction). In addition, subsurface fault displacement of several inches was associated with the MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 J.N. 358-00 Page 9 October 21, 1941 (magnitude earthquake 4.9), and with the June 18, 1944 earthquake q (magnitude 4.5), both of which occurred along the onshore segment of the Newport- Inglewood fault in the Dominguez Hills area (Barrows, 1974). Based on our review of the referenced geologic maps and literature, no active or potentially active faults are known to project through the property. Furthermore, the site does not lie within the boundaries of an"Earthquake Fault Zone" as defined by the State of California in the Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Sea Bluff Stability As previously mentioned, the rear portion of the lot consists of an approximately 50- to 60-foot-high,slope that descends to the southwest to an approximately 30 foot-wide gravel and cobble beach along the Pacific Ocean. This slope has an overall slope ratio of approximately 0.6:1, (horizontal to vertical) within the subject site. t 1947 Lee Pinckney and Bemis 1976 and Kuhn and A study by Shepard and Grant, y , Shepard, 1979 list numerous factors as being involved in sea bluff recession,including the following: 1. Saturation of sediments from rainfall and irrigation. 2. Removal of sea bluff support at the base. 3. Pedestrian traffic and burrowing activities of various animals. 4. Solubility of rocks and rock cements. 5. Height of bluffs. 6. Direct attack of the bluff by wave action {i.e., the absence of an adequate buffering beach). It MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 T.N. 358-00 Page 10 7. Wave action wideningof bedrock faults and joints--preferential removal of J p incompetent material by wave action. S. Development and collapse of sea caves. 9. Seepage of irrigation and groundwater. 10. Irrigation along the top of bluff. 11. Degree of bedrock fracturing and degree of induration of exposed bedrock. 12. Wedging action of tree roots along joints in the bedrock. 13. Severe ground shaking as a result of earthquake activity. Sea bluff recession of various areas along the California coast can occur as a result of one or a combination of any of the above processes. Rates of erosion vary widely from a fraction of an inch per year to several feet per year. With respect to the above mentioned factors that are typically involved with sea bluff recession, the following information is provided: Positive Factors 1. Positive drainage devices such as sloping concrete flatwork, graded swales and area drains are recommended herein to be provided around the residence to collect and direct all surface runoff away from the slope face. 2. Erosion along the top of the bluff has been minimal due to the thick growth of vegetation on the upper portions of the sea bluff. 3. The adjacent neighboring lots have already been developed and positive drainage has been established away from the respective slope face. 4. There are no pedestrian paths along the bluff due to its steep nature. Therefore, erosion due to pedestrian traffic should be negligible. 1 MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5,2001 J.N. 358-00 Page 11 5. Much of the underlying bedrock is very hard and resistant to weathering. 6. The bedding generally strikes to the northwest and dips into slope at varying angles (12 to 55 degrees). In addition,the bedrock is locally folded and faulted, which effectively disrupts any continuous planar feature. 7. The site is protected from westerly swells by the Newport Harbor jetties. ' 8. No evidence of significant mass movement within the property or descending slope was noted. 9. No seepage was observed on the bluff face or within our boring. 10. Burrowing activities of various animals appears to have been minimal. 11. Sea caves have not developed. Potentially Adverse Factors i. The terrace deposits and the non-siliceous layers of siltstone and sandstone bedrock of the Monterey Formation underlying the subject site are susceptible to varying degrees of erosion. 2. The slope is relatively steep (ranging from 1.5.1 to 0.3:1.). 3. Due to the local folds in the bedrock, localized out-of-slope bedding conditions exist which may result in minor block failures and rock toppling. 4. The base of the bluff is exposed to the direct action of wave erosion, however, wave action is dissipated due to the protection from the Newport Harbor jetties and the resistant bedrock which extends into the ocean. 5. The site lies relatively close to the offshore segment of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone(1.7 miles). This fault is an active fault capable of moderate to severe ground shaking at the site. MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 J.N. 358-00 Page 12 -QQNCL N A D RECOMMENDATIONS General From a soils engineering and engineering geologic point of view, the subject property is considered suitable for the proposed development provided the following ' recommendations are incorporated into the design criteria and project specifications. It is also our opinion that proposed grading and construction will not adversely affect the stability of adjoining properties provided grading and construction are performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report. There are several geologic conditions inherent to the roe that may adversely g $ property rtY Y Y impact the gross stability of the building site and the adjacent bluff if not corrected during grading. These potentially adverse geologic conditions are discussed in the following sections of this report. Grading Plan Review This report has been prepared without the aid of a precise grading plan depicting proposed cut and/or fill grading, onsite drainage facilities, or construction. Therefore, after the finalized grading plan has been prepared, a copy of the plan should be submitted to our office for review with respect to the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development. Depending on the results of this grading plan review, additional recommendations and/or modification of the recommendations presented herein may be necessary. Site and Sea Bluff Stabilily Based on information obtained during our review of available literature and on our geotechnical investigation,the coastal sea bluff comprising the southwesterly portion 1 1 MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 ' J.N. 358-00 Page 13 of the property is considered to be grossly stable and free from mass movement and p P Y �' Y excessive erosion. This conclusion is based on the favorable structure of the Monterey Formation bedrock and terrace deposits and on the thick growth of protective vegetation that covers the upper portion of the slope. Minor erosion and spalling of the slope face may occur locally due to weathering of the bedrock, the relative steepness of the bluff face, and to the effects of rain and irrigation water. Small block failures may also occur due to localized out-of-slope bedding resulting from the intense folding of the bedrock. Minor erosion of the base of the slope may occur during significant storms by wave action, should high tides encroach beyond the beach buffering zone. However,the site is protected from westerly facing swells by the Newport Harbor jetties and the base of the bluff is partially protected from wave erosion by very hard and resistant bedrock that extends from the base of the bluff into the ocean. This acts as a buffering zone which dissipates the erosional energy of the waves. The severity of these processes over the next 50 years should not be any greater than in the past and should actually decrease with the implementation of the recom- mendations presented herein. A conservative estimate of 10 feet of bluff erosion over the next 50 years may be anticipated. No additional measures for mitigation of erosion are recommended provided the existing slope protection and proper landscaping are maintained. w MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 J.N. 358-00 Page 14 Geotechnical Concerns and Remedial Rec mmen ation In order to provide proper lateral support of adjacent properties,it is recommended that soldier piles and lagging be used for shoring of the temporary cuts necessary to construct the northeasterly, northwesterly and southeasterly building retaining walls. The southwesterly-descending sea bluff within the subject site has an overall slope ratio of approximately 0.6.1, horizontal to vertical. The upper surfaces of over- steepened slopes are known to experience varying degrees of progressive outward and downward movement due to seasonal variations in the moisture content of the slope soils with the passage of time. In addition, Section 1806.5.3 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) recommends that where footings are proposed adjacent to a slope that is steeper than 1:1, horizontal to vertical, the required setback shall be measured from an imaginary plane projected at 45 degrees upward from the toe of the slope. Therefore, the foundations for the lowermost rear yard retaining wall should be deepened, as necessary, such that they extend below this structural setback plane. This may be accomplished with caissons and grade beams (See Plate 2). Recommendations for the above geotechnical concerns are presented in the "Earth- work" and "Foundation Design Recommendations" sections of this report. ' Earthwork General Earthwork a d Cirading Specifications All earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with all applicable �" g requirements of the Grading Code of the City of Newport Beach, California, in addition to the recommendations presented below. MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 J.N. 358-00 Page 15 Site Clearing All structural materials associated with the existing building, including footings and floor slabs, should be removed from the site. Clearing operations should also include the removal of similar structural features such as concrete sidewalks and patios, retaining walls and block walls, and all landscape vegetation existing within areas of proposed construction. Should any unusual conditions or subsurface structures be encountered during grading operations that are not described herein, these conditions should be brought to the immediate attention of the project geotechnical consultant for corrective recom- mendations. Excavation Characteristics Based on the results of our exploratory boring, and on our experience in the area, the artificial fill and terrace deposits will be readily excavatable with conventional earthrnoving equipment. However, recommendations provided in this report require the southwesternmost retaining wall foundations to be founded beyond a structural setback plane. This will require the retaining wall foundations being founded into bedrock utilizing cast-in-place concrete caissons and grade beams. Additionally, shoring must be provided for the lateral stability of the adjacent properties,which may ' require embedments into bedrock (see "Shoring" section later in this report). Based on our exploratory boring and on our observations of the bedrock materials exposed ion the bluff face, the bedrock contains localized very hard, siliceous layers. During our drilling, the bedrock was drillable to a depth of approximately 5 feet, below this depth the boring was advanced approximately 6 inches in one hour utilizing a core MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 J.N. 358-00 Page 16 bucket. Based on these conditions, any borings into bedrock may require coring, a rock auger,jack-hammering, or other specialized drilling equipment. Disposal of Oversize Rock Oversize rock (rock greater than 12 inches in maximum dimension)may be generated during site excavation within localized layers of the terrace deposits and during drilling of the caissons into bedrock. The anticipated grading within the site cannot accom- modate disposal of oversize rock. Therefore, all oversize rock should be removed from the site. ' Stability of Temporary Excavation Sidewalls During grading of the site, a temporary excavation with sidewalls varying up to approximately 36 feet high will be necessary to accommodate construction of the basement walls and their foundations. The excavation sidewalls will expose native terrace deposits consisting of granular and relatively non-cohesive sands. Although no seepage was observed during our subsurface investigation., groundwater seepage could occur within these sidewalls. ' As indicated on the architectural plans, the northwesterly and southeasterly walls of the residence will be constructed within 4 feet of the adjacent property lines. ' Therefore, in order to create the temporary excavation without removing the lateral support of the adjacent properties, shoring will be required. Additionally, shoring ' should be provided for the northeasterly building retaining wall in order to minimize grading within the city right-of-way. Recommendations for shoring are provided in the following section of this report. MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 J.N. 358-00 Page 17 Within portions of the building area beyond the proposed residence, temporary slopes ' exposing native terrace deposits should be Iaid back at a maximum slope ratio of 1:1, horizontal to vertical,in order to maintain temporary stability. Temporary unsupported ' sidewalls constructed at the recommended maximum slope ratio are expected to remain stable during construction of the retaining walls; however, all temporary slopes should be observed by a representative of the project geotechnical consultant for any evidence of potential instability. Depending on the results of these observations, revised temporary slope configurations may be necessary. Other factors which should be considered with respect to the stability of temporary slopes include construction traffic and storage of materials on or near the tops of the tslopes, construction scheduling, presence of nearby walls or structures, and weather conditions at the time of construction. All applicable requirements of the California Construction and General Industry Safety Orders,the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, and the Construction Safety Act should also be followed. Shores It is recommended that soldier piles and wood or steel laggingbe used to shore the p ' sidewalls of the temporary excavation. The soldier piles may consist of steel "H"beam piles installed within pre-drilled holes. The soldier piles should not be driven or vibrated into place due to the possible damage that could occur to nearby structures. It is expected that slight caving may occur within the pre-drilled holes due to the granular and non-cohesive nature of the onsite terrace deposits. If the amount of caving becomes significant, casing may be required to create a suitable pre-drilled hole. Once a soldier pile boring is advanced to its recommended depth, a steel soldier pile should he placed within the boring and the boring backfilled. If the shoring elements are to be permanent, the boring should be backfilled with concrete up to the MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 J.N. 358-00 Page 18 elevation of the excavation bottom. Above the excavation bottom, the boring may be filled with 2-sack slurry. The drill holes for the steel "H" piles should be sufficiently large to allow concrete backfilling around piles to be performed as effectively as possible. Any voids left between the "H" pile and the sides of the hale are expected to reduce the lateral capacity of the soldier pile. In order to provide an adequate space ' for concrete backfilling, we recommend that the web height of the steel "H" pile be at least 10 inches less than the diameter of the hole. The concrete and slurry should be ' poured into the soldier pile excavation from the bottom up using a pump and tremie pipe. The concrete should be thoroughly vibrated to remove any entrapped air. If the shoring elements are to be temporary and removed after construction of the basement walls, the soldier pile borings may be backfilled with gravel or sand. All soldier pile installations should be observed by the project geotechnical consultant ito verify that they are cast against the anticipated geotechnical conditions, that the pile excavations are properly prepared and cleaned out, that the proper dimensions are achieved, and that the proper installation procedures are followed. After the soldier piles have been placed and backf lled, excavation of the site may ' begin. if concrete and slurry is used for backfill,these materials should be allowed to cure prior to excavation. Care should be taken to ensure that the lagging drops down as the excavation advances. Any gaps in the lagging could cause undermining of the adjacent structures. Due to the granular and non-cohesive nature of the on-site sands, wood lagging may not be feasible behind the soldier piles as the loose sands may clog the spaces between the soldier piles and lagging and prevent the downward ' advancement of the wood lagging as the excavation is advanced. Therefore, thin steel lagging sheets may be more feasible. MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 J.N. 358-00 Page 19 Soldier piles mobilize their lateral eotechnical capacity by movie outwardly in the p g p tY g ' passive zone located below the excavation grade. With the outward movement of the soldier pile, the retained soil is also anticipated to move laterally towards the ' excavation. However, the lateral movement of the retaining structure maybe reduced by minimizing lateral loads on the piles and by using sufficiently embedded, properly ' designed soldier piles with adequate sectional moments. Due to the height of the proposed shoring system (approximately 35 feet), the shoring elements may need to be braced with wales and struts in order to minimize lateral movement of the shoring elements during basement construction. 1 Based on the engineering characteristics of the onsite terrace deposits, the shoring system should be designed by the project structural engineer utilizing the active earth pressure diagrams shown schematically on Figures 2 and 3. Figure 2 shows a triangular earth pressure distribution for a cantilevered shoring system while Figure 3 shows a uniform earth pressure distribution for a shoring system braced with walers ' and struts. Indicated lateral pressures are for a unit length of wall. Appropriate tributary areas should be considered in evaluating the total active earth,pressures on ' the lagging and soldier piles. The project structural engineer should design the shoring system using suitable factors of safety for both static and seismic conditions and for temporary and permanent conditions, as applicable. The shoring system should also ' be designed to withstand any surcharge pressures from nearby structures, in addition to the earth pressures of the on-site soil materials as shown on Figures 2 and 3. The recommended active earth pressures do not include hydrostatic pressures that could act on the retaining structure if proper drainage is not provided. Therefore, if a permanent shoring system is proposed,the retaining structure should be provided with a proper subdrain system to mitigate the potential for hydrostatic pressure build-up ' LATERAL PRESSURE DIAGRAMS OF FORCES ACTING ON LAGGING (CANTILEVERED CONDITION) 1 1 1 1 H + 1 1 1 35H 0.5q 1 ' H = Height of excavation q = Surcharge load (psf) 1 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL INC. JN 358-00 JUNE 2001 ' FIGURE 2 ' LATERAL PRESSURE DIAGRAMS OF FORCES ACTING ON LAGGING (BRACED CONDITION) do 1 1 N + do 35H a-5a H = Height of excavation q = Surcharge load (psf) PETRA GEOTECHNICAL�INC. JN 358-00 JUNE 2001 FIGURE 3 t MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 ' J.N. 358-00 Page 20 behind the wall. Recommendations for retaining wall subdrains are provided in a ' subsequent section of this report. For passive resistance, a passive earth pressure of 750 pounds per foot of soldier pile width per foot of depth, to a maximum value of 6000 pounds per square foot, may be ' used to determine soldier pile depth and spacing. Since the soldier piles may be considered to be isolated piles, this passive resistance is considered to be acting over an effective area equivalent to three pile diameters. For permanent soldier piles that are embedded in concrete, the pile diameter may be assumed to be equivalent to the ' diameter of the concrete column. For temporary soldier piles that are embedded in gravel or sand, the pile diameter should be assumed to be equivalent to the width of the steel "H" beam. Monitoring of Shoring System ' The excavation within the site should be conducted with continuous monitoring of the retained soil and all the structures in the adjacent lots for any signs of potential lateral ' and vertical movement. If any movement is observed, it should be brought to the immediate attention of the project geotechnical engineer and the excavation suspended ' until appropriate corrective measures are taken. ' Processing of Existing Ground - Yard Areas The northeasterly portion of the subject site is underlain by uncertified fill materials that are considered to be unsuitable for support of site improvements. Therefore, in order to mitigate distress to the proposed structure due to future settlement of these unsuitable materials, it is recommended that all of the existing uncertified fill materials 1 MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 J.N. 358-00 Page 21 be removed down to competent native materials and then replaced as properly P P P P Y compacted fill. Approximately 3 feet of artificial fill materials were encountered in our exploratory boring, however, actual removal depths will have to be determined during grading on the basis of in-grading observations and testing performed by the project geotechnical consultant. Following removal of the uncertified fill materials, the exposed bottom surface should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, watered or air-dried as necessary to achieve near optimum moisture conditions, and then recompacted in place to a ' minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Wherever possible, horizontal limits of overexcavation and recompaction should extend to a distance of at least 1 to 2 feet beyond areas to be covered with new concrete flatwork(driveways, sidewalks,patios, etc.). However,consideration should be given to the protection of adjacent offsite structures. Processing f x o d r uEnd - Building Areas Based on our exploratory investigation and our review of the architectural plans, it is expected that competent terrace deposits will be exposed throughout the entire building area. Therefore, no remedial work will be required within these areas. Fill Placement All fills should be placed in 6-inch-thick maximum lifts, watered or air dried as necessary to achieve near optimum moisture conditions, and then compacted in place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 J.N. 358-00 Page 22 Shrinka a and. Subsidence Volumetric changes in earth quantities will occur when excavated on-site soils are replaced as properly compacted fill. Following is an estimate of shrinkage factors for the various geologic units expected to be encountered during grading. These estimates are based on in-place densities of the various materials and on the estimated average degree of relative compaction achieved during grading. Existing Fill Deposits (Afu) g. . . . . . . . . Shrinkage of 15%to 20% Terrace Deposits (Qt) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shrinkage of 0%to 5% Subsidence from scarification and recompaction of exposed natural ground surfaces in removal areas is expected to range from 0.05 to 0.10 feet. The above estimates of shrinkage and subsidence are intended as an aid for project planners in determining earthwork quantities. However, these estimates should be used with some caution since they are not absolute values. Contingencies should be made for balancing earthwork quantities based on actual shrinkage, bulking and ' subsidence determined during grading. Geotechnical Observations and Testing Observation and testing services should be provided by a representative of the project geotechnical consultant during scarification and recompaction of existing ground sur- faces to verify adequate compaction, as well as verify adequate compaction of all fills, wall backfills, and general grading procedures. MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 J.N. 358-00 Page 23 The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for each change in soil type encountered during grading and during placement of wall backfill should be determined in accordance with Test Method AS TM D 1557-91. Post-Grading Considerations Site Drainage A surface drainage system consisting of a combination of sloped concrete flatwork, earth swales and sheet flow gradients in landscape areas,top-of-slope earth berms, a surface yard drain system, and roof gutters and downspouts, should be designed for the site to collect and direct all water away from the residence and sea bluff Water collected in the drainage system should be either to the curb and gutter of the adjacent street or to the bottom of the adjacent sea bluff. The roof gutters and downspouts should be tied directly into the proposed drainage system. The purpose of this drainage system will be to reduce water infiltration into the subgrade soils and to direct surface waters away from building foundations, walls and slope areas. The following additional recommendations should be implemented during construction. 1. Isolated planters that are located within 5 feet of basement walls should be provided with sealed bottoms and bottom drains to prevent infiltration of water ' into backfill soils. The sealed planter bottoms should consist of either reinforced concrete having a minimum thickness of 31/2 inches, or a polyvinyl chloride membrane of sufficient thickness to prevent puncturing by plant roots. If concrete is used to line the planters, minimum reinforcement should consist of either No. 3 bars spaced 24 inches on centers,both ways,or 6-inch by 6-inch,No. 6 by No. 6 welded wire mesh. If a polyvinyl chloride membrane is used, a minimum thickness of 30-mils is recommended. Furthermore,the bottoms of the planters should be sloped to direct subsurface water to collector drains connected to the outlet pipes of the proposed surface drainage system. MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 J.N. 358-00 Page 24 2. Sealed bottoms are not required in other planter areas; however, area drains should be extended into all planters and landscape areas that are located within 5 feet of building foundations, retaining walls, and masonry block walls to mitigate excessive infiltration of water into the foundation soils. The ground surface within these areas should also be sloped at a minimum gradient of 2 percent away from the walls and foundations and to the area drains. 3. Concrete flatwork surfaces and sloped ground surfaces should be inclined at a minimum gradient of 1 percent away from building foundation and similar structures. A minimum 12-inch- high berm should be maintained along the top of the bluff to prevent any water from flowing over the slope. The subdrains behind the proposed basement walls and retaining walls should be routed to a sump pump system. 4. A watering program should be implemented for the landscape areas that maintains a uniform, near optimum moisture condition in the soils. Over- watering and subsequent saturation of the soils will cause excessive soil expansion and heave and, therefore, should be avoided. On the other hand, allowing the soils to dry out will cause excessive soil shrinkage. As an alter- native to a conventional irrigation system, drip irrigation is strongly recom- mended for all planter areas. The owner is advised that all drainage devices should be properly maintained throughout the lifetime of the development. fluty Trenches All utilitytrench backfill should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of p p 90 percent. Considering the granular and generally free-draining nature of the onsite soils, backfill placed in shallow trenches may be j etted or flooded in place, followed by wheel-rolling the tops of the backfills with rubber-tired equipment or vibratory rollers. For deep,wide trenches,backfill materials should be placed in approximately 2- to 3-foot-thick lifts, thoroughly wetted, and then compacted by wheel-rolling with rubber-tired equipment or vibratory rollers capable of achieving a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. The project geotechnical consultant should probe and test the backf lls to verify adequate compaction. �f i MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 J.N. 358-00 Page 25 To avoid point loads imposed by cobbles and boulders and mitigate potential distress to utility lines, imported clean sand or excavated trench materials that are void of rock exceeding a maximum dimension of 3 inches should be used for bedding placed below and above of all utility lines. The select bedding should be extend to at least 1 foot above the tops of the utility lines. Where utility trenches parallel a building footing,the bottoms of these trenches should extend below a 1:1 plane projected downward from the outside bottom edge of the adjacent footing. Where this condition exists,the adjacent footing should be deepened or the trench backfilled and compacted prior to constructing the footing. An alternative recommendation includes backfilling the trench with sand-cement slurry. Seismic De i n Considers ions Ground Motions ' Structures within the site should be designed and constructed to resist the effects of seismic ground motions as provided in Sections 1626 through 1633 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. The method of design will be dependent on the seismic zoning, site characteristics, occupancy category, building configuration, type of structural system, and on the building height. For structural design in accordance with the 1997 Uniform Building Code, a computer program developed by Thomas F. Blake (UBCSEIS, 1998) was utilized that auto- matically compiles fault information for a particular site using a modified version of a data file of approximately 183 California faults that were digitized by the California Department of Mines and Geology and the U.S. Geological Survey. This program computes various data for a particular site including the distance of the site from each MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 1 J.N. 358-00 Page 26 of the faults in the data file, the estimated slip-rate for each fault, and the "maximum moment magnitude" of each fault. The program then selects the closest Type A, Type B, and Type C faults from the site and computes the seismic design coefficients for ' each of the fault types. The program then selects the largest of the computed seismic design coefficients and designates these as the design coefficients for the subject site. i Based on our evaluation, the offshore segment of the Newport-Inglewood fault (approximately 2.7 kilometers to the southwest of the site) would probably generate the most severe site ground motions with an anticipated maximum moment magnitude (Mw) of 6.9 and an anticipated slip rate of 1.5 mm/year. The UBC (1997) seismic design coefficients presented in Table 1 should be used for the proposed structure. These criteria are based on soil profile type, on the proximity of the site with respect to the principal nearby fault, and on the maximum moment magnitude and slip rate that have been assigned to the principal fault. TABLE 1 Seismic Design Coefficients Per UBC 1997 �`? C•1997 TABLE ; , ?3 .eFj�3,FA.-1,V �?,. 16-I Seismic Zone Factor Z 0.40 ' 16-J Soil Profile Type Sn 16-Q Seismic Coefficient Ca 0.54 16-R Seismic Coefficient C 0.96 16-S Near-Source Factor Na 1.20 16-T Near-Source Factor N, 1.50 16-U Seismic Source Type B MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 J.N. 358-00 Page 27 ' n ati n Design Re o mundations ' Minimum Footing Depths d foundation Setbacks Based on the results of our geotechnical investigation, the foundations for the outermost retaining wall proposed along the southwest side of the rear yard should be deepened, as necessary, such that they extend at least 10 feet below a structural foundation setback}Mane projected from the toe of the coastal bluff (from the surface of the bedrock and exclusive of any overlying talus) up through the Monterey Formation bedrock at a slope ratio of 1:1, horizontal to vertical). This structural foundation setback plane is shown in profile on cross section A-A' (Plate 2). it should be noted that deepening the footings for the outer retaining wall in accordance with the above criteria takes into consideration the future anticipated bluff retreat within the site and will provide adequate long term lateral support of the proposed development. ' Furthermore, this recommended setback also meets the setback requirements of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. Drilled, cast-in-place concrete caissons may be used in lieu of deep continuous footings to achieve the required footing setbacks of the outer retaining wall. Foundation design recommendations for both conventional footings and cast-in-place concrete caissons are provided in subsequent sections of this report. Conventional Footings and Fl or Slabs ' Allowable Bearigg Vale s For conventional building footings founded in competent terrace deposits,an allowable bearing value of 1500 pounds per square foot is recommended for design of 24-inch- square pad footings and 12-inch-wide continuous footings founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. This value may be increased \.f MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 ' J.N. 358-00 Page 28 by 20 percent for each additional one foot of width and/or depth,to a maximum value p , ' of 2500 pounds per square foot. Recommended allowable bearing values include both dead and live loads, and may be increased by one-third when designing for short duration wind and seismic forces. Additional recommendations for design of footings based on the expansivity of the onsite soils are provided in the"Minimum Footing and Floor Slab Recommendations" section of this report. Settlement Under the above recommended allowable bearing capacities, total footing settlements are expected to be less than'/4 of an inch, and differential settlement between adjacent footings is expected to be less than '/4 inch over a span of 40 feet. It is expected that ' the majority of the footing settlements will occur during construction or shortly ' thereafter as building loads are applied. Lateral Resistance A passive earth pressure increasing at a rate of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth,to a maximum value of 2500 pounds per square foot,maybe used to determine lateral bearing resistance for footings. In addition, a coefficient of friction of 0.40 times the dead load forces may be used between concrete and the supporting soils to determine lateral sliding resistance. Lateral bearing and lateral sliding resistance may be combined without reduction. In addition, an increase of one-third of the above values may be used when designing for short duration wind and seismic forces. The above values are based on footings placed directly against compacted fill. In the case where footing sides are formed, all backfill placed against the footings should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density. MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 ' J.N. 358-00 Page 29 ' Minimum Footing and Floor Slab Recommendations ' Results of our laboratory tests indicate onsite soil exhibits a VERY LOW expansion potential as classified in accordance with Table 18-I-B of the 1997 Uniform Building ' Code (UBC). Since the onsite soils exhibit expansion indices of less than 20, the design of slab-on-ground foundations is exempt from the procedures outlined in UBC ' Section 1815. Based on the existing soil conditions, it is recommended that footings and floors be constructed and reinforced in accordance with the following minimum criteria. However, additional slab thickness, footing sizes and/or reinforcement should be provided as required by the project architect or structural engineer. 1. Footings ' a. Exterior continuous footings may be founded at the minimum depths indicated in UBC Table 18--1-C (i.e. 12-inch minimum depth for one-story ' construction, 18-inch minimum depth for two-story construction, and 24-- inch for three-story construction ). Interior continuous footings for one- story,two-story and three-story construction may be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the bottoms of the adjacent floor slabs. All continuous footings should have a minimum width of 12, 15, and 18 inches, for one-story, two-story, and three-story buildings, respectively, ' and should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom. b. Interior isolated pad footings should be a minimum of 24 inches square and founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the bottoms of the adjacent floor slabs. The pad footings should be reinforced with No. 4 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on centers, both ways,near the bottoms of the footings. C. Exterior isolated pad footings intended for support of roof overhangs such as second-story decks, patio covers and similar construction should be a minimum of 24 inches square and founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. The pad footings should be reinforced with No. 4 bars spaced a maximum of 18 inches on centers,both ways, near the bottoms of the footings. MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 ' J.N. 358-00 Page 30 t2. Building Floor Slabs ta. Living area concrete floor slabs should be 4 inches thick, and reinforced with No. 3 bars spaced a maximum of 24 inches on centers,both ways. All slab reinforcement should be supported on concrete chairs or brick to ensure the desired placement near mid depth. b. Living area concrete floors should be underlain with a moisture vapor barrier consisting of a polyvinyl chloride membrane such as 6-mil Visqueen, or equivalent. All laps within the membrane should be sealed, ' and at least 2 inches of clean sand should be placed over the membrane to promote uniform curing of the concrete. To reduce the potential for punctures, the membrane should be placed on a pad surface that has been ' graded smooth without any sharp protrusions. If a smooth surface cannot be achieved by grading, consideration should be given to placing a 1-inch- thick leveling coarse of sand across the pad surface prior to the placement ' of the membrane. C. Garage floor slabs should be 4 inches thick and reinforced in a similar manner as living area floor slabs. Garage floor slabs should also be poured separately from adjacent wall footings with a positive separation maintained with 3/B-inch-minimum felt expansion joint materials, and quartered with weakened plane joints. A 124nch wide grade beam founded at the same depth as adjacent footings should be provided across garage entrances. The grade beam should be reinforced with two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom. ' d. Presaturation of the subgrade soils below floor slabs will not be required; however,prior to placing concrete, the subgrade soils should be prewatered to promote uniform curing of the concrete and minimize the development of shrinkage cracks. Soluble Sulfates And Corrosivi#y Results of the laboratory tests performed in accordance with California Test Method No. 417 indicate on-site soils contain water soluble sulfate contents of approximately 0.15 percent. Therefore, according to Table 19-A-4 of the 1997 Uniform Building MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 ' J.N. 358-00 Page 31 ' Code(UBC), a MODERATE exposure to sulfate can be expected for concrete placed in contact with the onsite earth materials. The structural integrity of concrete can deteriorate with time when exposed to sulfate containing solutions or soils. To mitigate such deterioration, sulfate resistant cements ' should be used in all concrete that may be in contact with the on-site soils. Careful control of the maximum water-cement ratio and the minimum concrete compressive strength is also necessary in order to provide property resistance against deterioration due to sulfates. We recommend that the procedures provided in 1997 UBC Section ' 1904.3 and Table 19-A-4 be followed. For concrete that is expected to have a MODERATE exposure to sulfates,Table 19-A-4 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code indicates that Type V cement should be used. In addition, the table indicates that the maximum water-cement ratio should not exceed 0.50 and the minimum concrete ' compressive strength should not be less than 4,000 pounds per square inch. The results of limited in-house testing of soil pH and resistivity indicate that onsite soils are slightly alkaline with respect to pH (pH=8.4); however, soil resistivity was ' found to be low(3,000 ohm-cm). This indicates that onsite soils may be corrosive to ferrous metals and copper. As such, it is recommended that additional sampling and analysis be conducted during the final stages of site grading to provide a complete assessment of soil corrosivity. Petra does not practice corrosion engineering;therefore, we recommend that onsite soils be tested and analyzed near or at the completion of precise grading by a qualified corrosion engineer to evaluate the general corrosion potential of the onsite soils and any impact on the proposed construction. MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 ' J.N. 358-00 Page 32 ' Retaining Wall Design Recommendations ' Construction on Level Qround Footings for retaining walls proposed on level ground and away from the top of the adjacent southwesterly descending bluff may be designed using the allowable soil bearing capacity and lateral resistance values presented in the preceding section for residential footings; however,when calculating lateral bearing resistance, the upper 5 ' inches of the footings should be ignored in areas where the footings are not covered with concrete flatwork. Construction Along Top of the Rear Yg rd Descending Bluff As described previously, the outermost retaining wall proposed along the top of the southwesterly-descending bluff should be supported on either deepened footings or caissons that extend at least 10 feet below the recommended structural setback plan (see Plate 2). Recommendations for deepened footings and caissons are provided below. ' 1. Deepened Footings:Footings for the retaining wall proposed along the top of the southwesterly-descending bluff should be founded at least 10 feet below a 1:1 setback plane project up towards the site from the toe of the adjacent bluff. It should be noted that additional footing depths may be required to resist the potential creep forces and to achieve the necessary passive resistance against lateral movement as determined by the project structural engineer based on the ' soiI parameters provided below. Footings for retaining walls at the above recommended minimum setbacks may ibe designed using the allowable bearing values recommended previously for footings proposed on level ground;however,when calculating passive resistance, the passive earth pressure should he reduced to 150 pounds per square foot,per foot of depth, to a maximum value of 1500 pounds per square foot. In addition, the lateral resistance should be ignored for the upper portions of the retaining wall footings located within slopewash materials. MR. DOUG 3ACKSON .Tune 5, 2001 ' J.N. 358-00 Page 33 ' 2. Cast-In-Place Caissons: In lieu of deepened conventional footings, cast-in- place concrete caissons and grade beams may be used to support the wall proposed along the top of the southwesterly-descending bluff. Specific design recommendations for the caissons and grade beams are provided below. ii. Grade Beam Embedment: The tops of the grade beams may be located near the ground surface. No specific setback will be required between the ' outside bottom edges of the grade beams and slope face. H. Lateral Resistance for Grade Begins: Due to the downward and outward movement of the surf cial soils between the caissons, lateral resistance and bearing capacity should be ignored in design of grade beams. W. Caisson Canaeity: End bearing capacity and skin friction may be combined to determine allowable caisson capacities provided the minimum caisson diameter is 18 inches. An allowable end bearing capacity of 6000 pounds 1 per square foot may be used for design of caissons having a minimurn depth of at least two caisson diameters into bedrock. A value of 400 pounds per square foot may be used to determine the skin friction between the concrete ' and the surrounding soils and bedrock; however, when calculating skin friction, the upper portions of caissons located within slopewash materials should be ignored. ay. Passive i tance for Caissons: A passive earth pressure of 450 pounds per foot of caisson width per foot of depth, to a maximum value of 3,000 pounds per square foot may be used to determine lateral resistance for those portions of the caissons founded in terrace deposits while a passive earth ' pressure of 1200 pounds per foot of caisson width per foot of depth, to a maximum value of 6,000 pounds per square foot may be used to determine lateral resistance for those portions of the caissons founded in bedrock-, however, lateral resistance should be ignored for the upper portions of the caissons located within the slopewash materials. V. Lateral Loading: To compensate for potential creep forces, the caissons should be designed to resist a lateral load imposed by creep affected slopewash. This lateral load should be assumed to be equal to 1,000 pounds per foot of embedment in the slopewash zone. The reason that the creep force provided is independent of caisson width is that we compensate for this effect by limiting the caisson spacing to a maximum of six caisson diameters, center to center (see item viii). In other words, if 18-inch MR. DOUG JACKSON Tune 5, 2001 ' J.N. 358-00 Page 34 ' caissons were used, the maximum spacing would be 9 feet, center to center, while 24-inch caissons would have a maximum spacing of 12 feet, center to ' center. The creep forces acting on 18-inch caissons spaced 9 feet are considered to be equivalent to the creep forces acting on 24-inch caissons spaced 12 feet. If the grade beams are constructed below grade and within ' the slopewash zone, an active earth pressure equivalent to a fluid having a density of 35 pounds per cubic foot should be assumed to be acting on these ' grade beams. However, retaining walls and other structural elements constructed on top of the caissons and above the slopewash materials will not be subject to creep forces. vi. Point of Fixity: The point of fixity for the caissons should be determined by the project structural engineer. However, as an approximation, the point of fixity may be assumed to be located at the contact between bedrock and the overlying terrace deposits. vii. Uplift: Caissons may be considered to resist uplift forces equal to the skin friction between the concrete caisson and the surrounding earth materials as described above. Allowable uplift capacity should not exceed 55 percent of the allowable downward capacity. viii. Caisson Depth and Spacing: Caisson depth and spacing should be deter- mined by the project structural engineer based on total wall loads and lateral loading. However, minimum clear spacing between caissons should be two caisson diameters, sidewall to sidewall. In addition, maximum spacing ' between caissons should not exceed six caisson diameters, center to center. Further, the caissons should have a minimum depth of at 10 feet below the recommended setback plane. ix. Caisson Locations Relative to Wall: To prevent eccentric loading, the 1 centerlines of the caissons should correspond to the centerline of the wall. x. Reinforcement: Reinforcement for caissons should be determined by the project structural engineer with regard to strengthening the concrete to resist lateral forces. MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 ' 3.N. 358-00 Page 35 ' A. Geotechnical Observations: All caisson excavations should be observed by a representative of the project geotechnical consultant to verify minimum embedments determined by the project structural engineer. The drilled holes should also be cleared of loose materials and any construction debris prior to pouring concrete. should be laced b rnie method and xis. Concrete Placen�errt: Concrete P Y the tre not allowed to free fall to prevent segregation of the concrete, as well as scouring or erosion of the sidewalls of drilled holes. The lower end of the tremie pipe should be continually immersed in fresh concrete and slowly withdrawn as the concrete is deposited. Active and At-Rest Earth Pj[gssures On-site earth materials have a very low expansion potential. Therefore, for this con- dition, active earth pressures equivalent to fluids having densities of 35 and 52 pounds per cubic foot should be used for design of cantilevered walls retaining a level backfill and ascending 2:1 backfill,respectively. For walls that are restrained at the top, at-rest earth pressures of 53 and 78 pounds per cubic foot(equivalent fluid pressures) should be used. The above values are for retaining walls that have been supplied with a proper subdrain system (see Figure RW-1). All walls should be designed to support any adjacent structural surcharge loads imposed by other nearby walls or footings in addition to the active and at-rest earth pressures. Geotechnical Observation_and_Testing All grading and construction phases associated with retaining wall construction, including backcut excavations, observation of the footing trenches, installation of the subdrainage systems, and placement of backfill should be provided by a representative of the project geotechnical consultant. NATIVE SOIL BACKFILL -� Sloped or level ground surface Compacted on-site sail • *, '� Recommended backcut* Water proofing compound(optional) a0� sao °g oao o a I Install subdrain system 1 o�:osye �* ti pogoo° o 0 0 oo H!3 Minimum 12-inch-wide column of 314"-1 1/2" o 'e�6a open graded gravel wrapped in filter fabric. ao.0 e4o Filter fabric(should consist of o'wao°oa Mirafi 14QIV or equivalent) 4 inch perforated ape. Perforated [ should a q otia consist of 4"diameter ABS SIR-35 or PVC Schedule 40 or approved equivalent with the perforations laid down. Pipe should be laid on at least 2 inches of open graded gravel. Vertical height(h)and slope angle of backcut per soils report. Based on geologic conditions, configuration of backcut may require revisions (i.e. reduced vertical height, revised slope angle,etc.) PETRA RETAINING WALL BACKFILL FIGURE RW-1 AND SUBDRAIN DETAILS MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 J.N. 358-00 Page 36 Drainage Perforated pipe and gravel subdrains should be installed behind the retaining walls to prevent entrapment of water in the backfill(see Figure RW-1). Perforated pipe should consist of 4-inch minimum diameter PVC Schedule 40, or ABS SDK-35, with the perforations laid down. The pipe should be encased in a 1-foot-wide column of/4-inch to 1 Yz-inch open-graded gravel extending above the wall footing to a minimum height equal to one-third the wall height, or to a minimum height of 1.5 feet above the footing,whichever is greater. The gravel should be completely wrapped in filter fabric consisting of Miraft 140N, or equivalent. Solid outlet pipes should be connected to the subdrains and then routed to a suitable area for discharge of accumulated water. Waterproofing The portions of retaining walls supporting backfill should be coated with an approved waterproofing compound or covered with a similar material to inhibit infiltration of moisture through the walls. Backfill Onsite soils may be used as backfill behind the proposed retaining walls. The backfill materials should be placed in approximately 6-to 8-inch-thick maximum lifts,watered as necessary to achieve near optimum moisture conditions, and then mechanically compacted in place to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Flooding or jetting of the backfill materials should be avoided. A representative of the project geotechnical consultant should observe. the backfill procedures and test the wall backfill to verify adequate compaction. MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 J.N. 358-00 Page 37 Masonry Block Walls Footings for masonry block walls should be embedded at a minimum depth of 12 inches into competent bearing soils. All footings should also be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom. In order to mitigate the potential for unsightly cracking related to the possible effects of differential settlement,positive separations (construction joints) should also be provided in the block walls at each corner and at horizontal intervals of approximately 20 to 25 feet. The separations should be provided in the blocks and not extend through the footings. The footings should be poured monolithically with continuous rebars to serve as effective "grade beams" below the walls. All footing trenches for masonry block walls should be observed by a representative of the project geotechnical consultant to verify that they have been excavated into rcompetent bearing soils. These observations should be performed prior to placing forms and reinforcing steel. Spa Construction Proposed Setback From Retaining Wall on Descending Slope The southwesterly walls of the spa are proposed within 8 feet of the retaining wall proposed along the top of the adjacent descending bluff and may impose a surcharge on this retaining wall. Therefore, the southwesterly wall of the spa should be sup- ported by a continuous footing founded at a depth that will eliminate surcharge loads on the adjacent retaining wall. As an alternative, the adjacent retaining wall should be ' designed by the structural engineer to include any additional surcharge loads imposed by the spa. MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 J.N. 358-00 Page 38 Lateral Earth-Pressures ' Spa walls bordered by concrete decking should be designed using an active earth pressure equivalent to a fluid having a density of 35 pounds per cubic foot. Where spa walls are bordered by landscaping,these walls should be designed using a lateral earth pressure of 62AH pounds per square foot(where "H" equals the vertical depth in feet below the ground surface). Spa walls should also be designed to resist lateral surcharge pressures imposed by any adjacent footings or structures in addition to the above lateral earth pressures. fTemporary Access Ramps It is also essential that all backfill placed within temporary access ramps extending into the spa excavation be properly compacted and tested. This will mitigate excessive settlement of the backfill and subsequent damage to spa decking or other structures placed on the backfill. Spa Bottom The spa bottom should rest entirely on competent native soils to minimize the detrimental effects of differential settlement. Therefore, if a cut to fill transition exists within the spa bottom, this transition should be eliminated by deepening all spa footings through any fill and into competent terrace deposits. $pg Decking Spa decking should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the following "Exterior Concrete Flatwork" section of this report. i f MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 J.N. 358-00 Page 39 Plumbing Fixtures Leakage from the spa or from any of the appurtenant plumbing could create adverse saturated conditions of the surrounding subgrade soils. Localized areas of over- saturation can lead to differential settlement of the subgrade soils and subsequent shifting of concrete flatwork. Therefore, it is essential that all plumbing and spa fixtures be absolutely leak-free. For similar reasons, drainage from spa deck areas should be directed to local area drains designed to carry runoff water to the adjacent street. Exterior Concrete flatwork Thickness and Join Sac' To reduce the potential of unsightly cracking,concrete sidewalks,patio-type slabs, spa decking and concrete subslabs to be covered with decorative pavers should be at least 31/z inches thick and provided with construction joints or expansion joints every b feet or less. All open construction joints in spa decking should be sealed with an approved resilient waterproofing sealant. Concrete driveway slabs should be at least 4 inches fthick and provided with construction joints or expansion joints every 10 feet or less. Subgrade Preparation As a further measure to minimize cracking of concrete flatwork, the subgrade soils below concrete flatwork areas should first be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent and then thoroughly wetted to achieve a moisture content that is at least equal to or slightly greater than optimum moisture content. This moisture should penetrate to a depth of 12 inches into the subgrade and maintained in the soils during placement of concrete. Pre-watering of the soils will promote uniform curing of the concrete and minimize the development of shrinkage cracks. A MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 J.N. 358-00 Page 40 representative of the project geotechnical consultant should observe and verify the density and moisture content of the soils, and the depth of moisture penetration prior to pouring concrete. INVESTIGATION LIMITATIONS This report is based on the proposed project and geotechnical data as described.herein. The materials encountered on the project site, described in other literature, and utilized in our laboratory investigation are believed representative of the total project area, and the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are presented on that basis. However, soils can vary in characteristics between points of exploration, both laterally and vertically, and those variations could affect the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. As such, observation and testing by a representa- tive of this firm during the construction phase of the project are essential to confirming the basis of this report. This report has been prepared consistent with the level of care being provided by other professionals providing similar services at the same locale and in the same time period. This report provides our professional opinions and as such, they are not to be considered a guaranty or warranty. This report should be reviewed and updated after a period of one year or if the site conditions, ownership or project concept changes from that described herein. This report has not been prepared for use by parties or projects other than those named or described herein. This report may not contain sufficient information for other parties or other purposes. MR. DOUG JACKSON June 5, 2001 J.N. 358-00 Page 41 This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. Please call if you have any questions pertaining to this report. Respectfully submitted, PETRA GEOTECHNiCAL,INC. ' "'Michael L.Putt Senior Staff Geologist c� vvDarrel Roberts David Hans Senior Associate Geologist Senior Project Engineer CEG 1972 }B�X.56591 ;�•''. 4gpFEsSI MP/DR/DH/meg Distribution: (5)Addressee Co v No,C 56591 ce 2001%3O 58-WAn P M * Exp.6/30105 DpC1�11F REFERENCES 1. Protection of Adjacent Properties,Proposed Single-Family Residence at 3631 Ocean Boulevard,Corona del Mar, California; letter by Petra Geotechnical,Inc., dated March 5,2001. 2. Cursory Geotechnical Evaluation,Proposed Single-Family Residence at 3631 Ocean Boulevard,Corona del Mar, California; letter by Petra Geotechnical, Inc.,dated October 3,2000. 3. Response to Geotechnical Report Review Checklist,3625 Ocean.Boulevard,Corona del Mar,California; report by Geofirm dated January 13,2000. 4. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Remodel and Additions to an Existing Residence, 3625 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar, California;report by Geofirm dated October 5, 1999. 5. Response to "Soil Report Review" dated 5-25-84;report by Kenneth G. Osborne &Associates dated July 31, 1984. 6. Geotechnicat Evaluation for Remodel of 3625 Ocean Boulevard,City of Newport Beach,California;report by Kenneth G. Osborne&Associates dated February 16, 1984. PETRA GEGTECHNICAL, INC. J.N. 358-00 LITERATURE REVIEWED ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERING GEOLOGISTS, 1989,"Engineering Geology Along Coastal Orange County,": Association of Engineering Geologists. BARROWS, A.G., 1974, "A Review of the Geology and Earthquake History of the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone,Southern California":California Division of Mines and Geology,Special Report 114. BLAKE,T.F., 1998, "UBCSEIS,"A Computer Program for the Estimation of Uniform Building Code Coefficients Using 3-D Fault Sources."BRYANT, W.A_, 1988, "Recently Active Traces of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, Los Angeles and Orange Counties, California":Division of Mines and Geology,Open File Report 88-14. CAMPBELL, K.W. and BOZORGNIA,Y., 1994, "Near-Source Attenuation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration From Worldwide Accelerograms Recorded From 1957 to 1993"; Proceedings, Fifth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. II1, Earthquake Engineering Institute,pp. 283-292 JOYNER,W.B.,and FUMAL,T.E., 1985, "Predictive Mapping of Earthquake Ground Motion":in Ziony,J.I.,(ed.), Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region-An Earth-Science Perspective: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360. KUHN,G.G.,and F.P. SHEPARD, 1979, "Accelerated Beach-cliff Erosion Related To Unusual Storms In Southern California," California Geology,v.32,no. 3,p. 58-59. LEE, L., C. PICKNEY, and C. BEMIS, 1976, "Sea Cliff Base Erosion, San Diego, California", Amer. Soc. Civil Engineers,National Water Resources and Ocean Engineering Convention,April 5-8, 1976.Reprint 2708. MORTON,P.K.,MILLER,R.V.,and EVANS,J.A., 1976, "Environmental Geology of Orange County,California": California Division of Mines and Geology,Open-File Report 79-9-LA. MORTON,P.K.and MILLER,R.V., I98I, "Geologic Map of Orange County,California Showing Mines and Mineral Deposits": Scale I"=4000',California Division of Mines and Geology,Bulletin 204,Plate 1. SHEPARD, F.P., and U.S. GRANT, IV, 1947 "Wave Erosion Along The Southern California Coast": Geol. Soc. Amer.Bull.,v. 58,p. 919-926. SPROTTE, E.C.,FULLER, D.R., GREENWOOD, R.B.,MUMM,H.A.,REAL, C.R., SHERBURNE,R.W., 1980, "Classification and Mapping of Quaternary Sedimentary Deposits for Purposes of Seismic Zonation, South Coastal Los Angeles Basin,Orange County,California":California Division of Mines and Geology,Open-File Report 80-19 LA. PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. J.N. 358-00 LJTERATiJRE REVIEWED (cont'd) TAN, S.S. AND EDGINGTON, W.J., 1976, "Geology and Engineering Geologic Aspects of the Laguna Beach Quadrangle, Orange County,CaIifomia": California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 127. TOPPOZADA,T.R., BENNETT, J.H.,BORCHARDT,G., SAUL,R., and DAVIS, J.F., 1988, "Planning Scenario for a Major Earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone": California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 99. ZIONY,J.I.(ed.), 1995, "Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region-An Earth Science Perspective": U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360, 505 p. a PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. J.N. 358-00 � APPENDIX A ' EXPLORATION LOG 1 1 i 1 1 PETRA M f EXPLORATION LOG Project: Proposed Residence Boring No.: B-1 Location: 3631 Ocean Blvd., Corona Del Mar Elevation: 96 job No.: 358-00 Client: JACKSON Date: 3/30/01 Drill Method:Bucket Auger Driving Weight: See Notes Logged By: MP Samples Laboratory Tests Material Descriptiont Blows oC B Moisture Dry other Depth Lith- e Per r 1 Content Density Lab (Feet) oiogy r Foot e k (%) (pcf) Tests CONCRETE 5 inches of concrete. ARTIFICIAL FILL (Af) Silty Sand (,SMJ: Dark brown; slightly moist; dense; fine- ained sand; numerous concrete pieces. TERRACE DEPOSITS fOtl ' : Pale brown; slightly moist; dense; fine-grained 5 sand; orizontally bedded; friable. 1 3.6 101.1 MAX EXP S 04 pH RES CHL 10 @ 10.0 feet: Becomes reddish-brown locally. 5 5.2 101.9 15 2 6.8 94.7 DSU (c� 17 feet. Caving on northwest side of boring; becomes very line-grained;moist; dense; friable; cross bedded. 20 2 3.1 92.7 a a a 2S @ 25 feet: No caving. a 4 m N 7 C% a a a 0 PLATE A-1 o Petra Geotechnlcal, Inc. EXPLORATION LOG Project: Proposed Residence Boring No.: B-1 Location: 3631 Ocean Blvd., Corona Del Mar Elevation: 96 Job No.: 358-00 Client: JACKSON Date: 3130101 Drill Method:Bucket Auger Driving Weight: See Notes Logged By: MP W Samples Laboratory Tests ' Material Description t 7Footex Moisture Dry Other Depth Lith- eContent Density Lab (Feet) ology r (%) (pef) Tests 9 4.2 98.0 35 ' 40 BEDROCK,-Monterey Formation(Tm) 45 Sandstone: Yellowish-brown; moist;moderately hard; IS 42.i 77.4 DSU fine-grained sand; massive; moderately weathered; with nodules of pale gray to light reddish-brown claystone; contact -N50W, 19NE. 50 @ 49.5: Becomes cemented and very hard; cored for _�a2proxirnatqjy 1 hour,boring advanced only 6 inches. Boring Terminated @ 50 feet. 4 Moderate caving from 17 to 25 feet. No groundwater. ' o c� w a a co0 co M N 7 t7 O 2 2 PLATE A-2 a. Petra Geotechnical, Inc. W � APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES LABORATORY TEST DATA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i ' It PETRA 1 1 LABORATORY TEST PRQCEDURES Soil Classification Soils encountered within the exploratory borings were classified and described utilizing the visual-manual procedures of the Unified Soil Classification System and in general accordance with Test Method ASTM D 2488-84. The assigned group symbols are presented in the "Exploration Logs," Appendix A. Laboratory Maximum Dry Density Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of on-site soils were determined for a selected sample in accordance with Method A of ASTM D 1557-91. Pertinent test values are given on Plate B-1. Expansion_Potential i An expansion index test was performed on a selected sample in accordance with Uniform Building Code Test +s No. 18-2. The expansion potential classification was determined from UBC Table 18-1-B on the basis of the expansion index value. The test results and expansion potential are presented on Plate B-1. Soluble Sulfate Analysis A soluble sulfate analysis was performed on a selected sample to determine its water soluble sulfate content. This test was performed in accordance with Test Method No. California 417. The test results are included on Plate B-1. pH and Resistivity pH and resistivity tests were performed on a selected sample of native soils to provide a preliminary evaluation of the potential for these onsite soils to be corrosive to concrete and metal construction materials. These tests were performed in accordance with California Test Method Nos. 747 and 643. The results of ' these tests are included on Plate B-1. Chloride Content ' A chloride analysis was performed on a selected sample to determine chloride content. This test was performed in accordance with Test Method No. California 422. The test results are included on Plate B-1. ' Direct Shear The Coulomb shear strength parameters, angle of internal friction and cohesion, were determined for undisturbed samples of native soil and bedrock. These test were performed in general accordance with Test Method No. ASTM: D 3080-72. Three specimens were prepared for each test. The test specimens were artificially saturated,and then sheared under varying normal loads at a maximum constant rate of strain of 0.05 inches per minute. Results are graphically presented on Plates B-2 and B-3. PETM GEQTECHNICAL, INC J.N. 358-0O LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY' SOr[ng Flepth r O�l11TC11J13 (1s ;'r, MdXI1TIY1111 D N.um�er� (ft 7: - Soi!T pe.. :€ure(°�o :,.€�. . .,,:.;i> vens�t�rpcf . B-1 5 A-Sand (SP) 11.0 115.0 EXPANSION INDEX TEST DATA S61FT Pe, _.; Expansi�oo Index„ xpaoslon,PQt�n��atFs A- Sand (SP) 4 Very Low SOLUBLE SULFATES° to KvUll3T 418f1L. t Eg• '`, c A-Sand (SP) 0.152 pH AND RESISTIVITY' .2 - 203­t O �C`rq ,.,,.' A-Qt. Silty Sand (SM) 8.4 3000 ' CHLORIDE CONTENTS Su��TYPe'_.. Chlorid € c►nE t�l \_ � 'f•F . r y{E A Sand (SP) 95 (1) PER TEST METHOD ASTM D1557-91 (2) PER UNIFORM BUILDING CODE STANDARD 18-2 (3) PER UBC TABLE 18-1-B, "CLASSIFICATION OF EXPANSIVE SOIL" (4) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 417 (5) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHODS NOS.747 AND 643 (6) PER CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD NO. 422 PLATE B-1 ' PETRA GEOTECHNICA[, INC. J.N. 358-00 11,000 10,000 ' 00a s 000 7,00n 7z 6,000 5,000 a 4,000 3,000 ' 2,000 1,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 NORMAL STRESS-pounds per square foot SAMPLE FRICTION COHESION LOCATION DESCRIPTION ANGLE {°) (PSF) •B-1 @ 15.0 Poorly Graded Sand(SP)-Peak 33 230 Q M B-1 @ 15.0 Poorly Graded Sand(SP)-Ultimate 31 160 r � NOTES: C7 Undisturbed Test Samples All Samples Were Inundated Prior to Shearing W J.N.358-00 DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA .Tune,2001 W PETRA GEOTECHNICAL,INC. UNDISTURBED TEST SAMPLES PLATE B-2 0 I 11,000 ' 10 000 I 9,00 8,a00 � 7,aoa L 6,000 I � 5,000 I � 4,000 i 3,000 I 2,000 I 1,000 ' 00 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 NORMAL STRESS-pounds per square foot I SAMPLE DESCRIPTION FRICTION COHESION LOCATION ANGLE(°) (PSF) •B-1 @ 45.0 Bedrock-Peak 42 1225 M B-1 @ 45.0 Bedrock-Ultimate 38 930 a NOTES: Undisturbed Test Samples All Samples Were Inundated Prior to Shearing IN,311-00 DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA June,2001 N PETRA GEOTECHNICAL,INC. UNDISTURBED TEST SAMPLES PLATE B-3 s Planning Commission Minutes 04/07/2005 Page 3 of 4 PM)ItVMQent was closed. Motion was made by1+.hnirpe,�son Tucker to approve Modification Permit No. 2005-014 subject to findings and coh1 ditionsof approval. 11". Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich,McDani,el and Hawkins Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None SUBJECT: Jackson residence (PA2001-062) ITEM NO. 5 3631 Ocean Boulevard FILE COPY PA2(*t4D62>; Request for an amendment to a previously approved Variance and Modification Removed from Permit to allow an attached garage that encroaches into the front yard setback Calendar o exceed the Ocean Boulevard top-of-curb height limit where the previous approval required that the garage comply with the Ocean Boulevard height limit. Ms. Temple noted that this item will be removed from calendar as the applicant as withdrawn this application. Motion was made by Chairperson Tucker to remove Variance No. 2001-001 PA2001-062 from calendar. Ayes: Eaton, Cole, Toerge, Tucker, Selich, McDaniel and Hawkins Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None TIONAL BUSINESS: ADDITIONAL BUSINESS City Co nQR Follow-up - Ms. Temple reported that at the last City Council meeting the Oe4pcil gave final approval and adopted the Ordinance for Civic Plaza including fhame change and the modification to sign regulations; the General Plan dtytendment regarding Housing Elements that was previously considered by Planning Commission was continued to April 12th; and, an initiation of a Code,,kkmendment incorporating a new Affordable Housing Chapter to Title 20 establ`ihiq provisions for the implementation o the City's Housing program related ,,ioTclusionary zoning and low and moderate housing within the Coastal one and possible future amendments. She noted that the related code ar epdments will be seen b the Planning Commission at a later date due to re&eM,4itigation that staff is studying in relation to inclusionary housing requirements. ` b) Report from Planning Commission's representative to the tcomi Development Committee - Commissioner Selich reported that there way meeting. c) Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the General Plank°° . Update Committee -- Commissioner Eaton reported that there was nor. . file://H:IPlancomm120051040705.htm 04/22/2005 STATE aFcAuFoRtu►-THE meouams Air . DEPARTMENT OF nsH Aw QAIYE FU CAM ABCWT Pi►. a c�oupr�SWe a FNn� �,- a PIOWA~l PMJ9d Agpbaairt Ca*algoropfats bo* Local PabNa ApaW WW DW M[] Cow oWW fiLLMM• stiw•�ncy � Pule , Rx, { ]En*onmwM knped Report ' $850 oo i I )App biftn Fem W*W Diw"eion!MMb WWw >= ` . ; - r• � �•., GM�fY1 �0.00 i PraleaN 8ubJW b d Reauhbry Pro"ms>: µ.; `^ M-00 i S VOW }Protect Ihat le aoaerapt b+oin iNs �� -� . S61skm and We of9weon reomwiip Aj&- 2ntNM1c i ORANGE COUNTY REORDER GARY L. GIILLE Finalization 20010000309250 10/19/2001 04:17pm 17'0 52 Item +it:e Amount Z01 43.00 EIR Afministrative Fee D004 200105001163 Time Recorded 04:17 pa ___ ..._—__—-------_-- Total 4100 Payment Tm Aunt Check tendered 43.00 Amount True 0.OD THANK .YOU P ease Retain This ReCeipt For Your' Rec rde, ; ,. sG Fc'Ra TY OF NEWPORT BE H ° LE0W 3300 Newport Boulevard-F.Q.Box 1768 l! v i qy ;?�j�j` Newport Beach,CA 92658-8915 °44, ��� - (949)644-3210 iARY L.4AILE=.CIBrK•(iflC01tlQ" A L --- "NOTICE OF DETERMINATIC3N---� �� To: From: City of Newport Beach Office of Planning and Research Planning Department 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O. Box 1768 EX] Sacramento,CA 95814 Newport Beach,CA 9265Y ate,c County of Orange County Clerk,County of Orange X Public Services Division a Q 12 Civic Center Plaza Date received for filing at OPR: Z" o Santa Ana,CA 92702 w NM 0 a a $at ass Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 P c' 21152 of the Public Resources Code. S "� Q �n Name of Project: Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) $ � o 0 o p �a a State Clearinghouse Number. City Contact Person: Telephone No. 0 2001071115 James Campbell, Senior Planner 949-644-3210 v � E Project Location: 3631 E. Ocean Blvd, Corona Del Mar, Q ° Newport Beach, County of Orange Project Description: Demolish existing single family home(2,924 gross square feet)and replace with new single family home (6,044 gross square feet) including grading,paving,fencing lighting, landscaping and irrigation. The project includes the changes to the existing driveway and front yard landscaping presently located within the public right-of-way. The project also includes a variance request to exceed established height limits of zoning Code due to unique topographical circumstances, Lastly, the project includes a request to deviate from the required front yard setback of IO feet providing no front setback This is to advise that the City of Newporr Beach has approved the above described project on_Scn mbsr.22,2001 (Date) and has made the following determinations regarding the above described.project: 1. The City isS:Lead Agency Responsible Agency for the project. 2. The project will(3y will not have a significant effect on the environment. 3. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 4.(%JA Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 5. Mitigation measures S)were were not made a condition of the approval of the project. 6. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was 0was not adopted for this project. 7. Findings 9)were were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The Negative Declaration and record of project approval is available for review at the Planning Depart- ment e City of Newport each, MO Newport Boulevard,Newport Beach,CA 92658-8915; 949/644-3210, 01 pll.ql0 James Camp li, Seni Planner Date ��WPO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 's CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION De Minimis Impact Finding A. Name and Address of Project Proponent: Douglas &Sandra Jackson 3631 Ocean Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92625 B. Project Description: Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062)Demolish existing single family home (2,924 gross square feet) and replace with new single family home (6,044 gross square feet) including grading, paving, fencing lighting, landscaping and irrigation. The project includes the changes to the existing driveway and front yard landscaping presently located within the public right-of-way. The project also includes a variance request to exceed established height limits of Zoning Code due to unique topographical circumstances. stly, the project includes a request to deviate from the required front yard setback of 10 feet pvi 'n no front setback. C. Project Location: 3631 Ocean Blvd, Corona Del Mar, Newport Beach, County of Orange 9 -r D. Findings: OEc�o°�oy, The City of Newport Beach has conducted an Initial Study to evaluate the project's potential for adverse environmental impact, and considering the record as a whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR)has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c) of Title 14,CCR. E. Certification: I hereby certify that the lead agency has made the above findings of fact and that based upon the initial study and hearing record the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. Joh q16) Date James Camp6ell, Se for Planner City of Newport Beach L f W CITY Ole~ i�,a. :� uii .� ,n: `e Ve, it No. I r COMMUNITY dICDEVELOPMENF�y � p ,��CIN� �PlanningDirector's � r .r PLANNING AEPARh\ PNNr �PC•1r.-� Use Permit No. 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD `^� y n * � ❑ G.P.AJAmendmerltNo. NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658 (949)644-3200;FAX(949)644-3250 PART I: Caner Page , /110 dZ%Dl Emect Common Name(if applicable): Jackson Residence FEES: APPLICANT(Print): CONTACT PERSON cif different): Ed Lohrbach Mailing Address: 31681 Camino Mailing Address: i Capistrano, Suite 106 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Phone: (9 4 9) Fax (9 4 9) Phone: ( } Fax ( ) 661 -5068 240-3851 Property Owner (if different from above): Douglas Jackson !god► t- T , Mailing Address: 3631 Ocean Blvd,- Corona del Mar, CA_ _92625 Phone: Fax ( PROJECT ADDRESS; 3631 ocean Blvd. Project Description(If applying for a variance, also complete attached form for required„findings.): . 1 A request for a variance to allow the"garage to exceed the "top of curb" height limit by two feet. PROPERTY OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT (I)(We) du a a - ksa depose and say that(I am)(we are)the owner(s) of the property jes)involved in this application. (I)(We)further certify,under penalty of perjury,that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of(my)(oar) knowledge and belief. Signature(s) NOTE:An agent may sign,for the owner if written authorization from the record owner is filed with the application. DO NOT COMPLETE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LINE FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE ONLY: Indicate Previous Modifications, Use Permits, Specialty Food Service Permits, etc. General Plan Designation: fE>4 Zoning District: Coastal Zone: YES-or, ND Date Filed: Fee Pd4 Receipt No: evio Date Deemed Complete: Hearing Date: Posting Date: Mailing Date: Planning Director Action Date _ Appeal P.C. Hearin P.C. Action Date�aLi;hAu d 1. . 74, ed o Appeal -'-� C.C. Hearing C.C. Action FtiUSERSTLMSHAREDA FORMWSE-APP.DOC A PART H. Project Data et Project Common Name: Application Namber(s): Jackson Residence variance No. Project Addre 4Axadou:. Assessors Parcel Namber(s): 3631 Ocean Blvd. 052-150-11 Legs!Description(Attub on separate sheet,K neoessary): ' Lot 15, Tract 1257 Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use+ Single Family Residence Single Family Residence Zoning Db&kd Land Use Dedgentlon: R-1 * Sin le Family Existing Proposed Development Zoning Code Deve"out R"airement Lot Area(so $CKo� �S•� � Sw Lot Width(ft) Lot (ft) !'3.4. Setback Yards Front 00 89 Side(ft) 4' Side(ft) 41 Rear(ft) 0'UlC. L Gross Floor Area(st) 5,484 if y Floor Area RxWw /s , Building Covmp Building Heigh(ft) A�w'E s=+U .vor aFcmz W.11br LmWwVing Paving N ' N/A Parking 2—car garage 2—car garage Dwelling Units ' ?, 3 PART II: Project Data , Project Common Name: Application Number(s): Jackson Residence Variance No. Project Address/Location: Assessors Parcel Number(s): 3631 Ocean Blvd. 052-150-11 Legal Description(Attach on separate sheet,if necessary): Lot 15, Tract 1257 Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use: Single -Family- Residence Single. Family Residence Zoning District: Land Use Designation: R-1 Single Family Existing Proposed Development Zoning Code Development Requirement Lot Area(st) $OCoF i3•!: 8 CaCoS'S 1F Lot Width(ft) Lot Depth(ft) Setback Yards Front(ft) 8 Side(ft) 4' , Side(ft) 4'. 1 Rear(ft) St rinCL Line Gross Floor Area(sf) 5,4 8 4 Floor Area Ratio Building Coverage(%) Building Height(ft) ,'TOP tw GU2b AN.'tbrbR Landscaping(%) Paving(%) N/A Parking 2—car garage 2—car garage Number of Employees Hours of Operation Number of seats Dwelling Units 3 PART III: Plans Each application shall be accompanied by 20 sets of plot plans, floor plans, and elevations; 8 sets shall be drawn to scale on 24 inch by 36 inch sheets with margins not less than 1/2 inch and 12 sets shall reduced to 11 inches by 17 inches. The required number-of plans to be submitted for a Planning Director's Use Permit application is 12 sets; 4 sets drawn to scale and 8 sets reduced. All plans shall be collated, stapled and folded to a size of 8%"by 14", maximum. The Planning Director may modify or waive submission requirements if deemed unnecessary to support the gpplication. A. Plot Plan Plot plans shall be fully dimensioned and show the following information on the subject property and to a minimum of 20 feet on contiguous properties: • Vicinity Map. North arrow. • Scale of the plan. • Existing and proposed property lines • Required and proposed yard setback lines. • Locations, names, dimensions, and descriptions of all existing and proposed right of way, lines, dedications and easements. • Locations of existing and proposed structures, additions, utilities, driveways, walks, and open spaces. • Any structures to be relocated, removed or demolished. • Locations, heights, and materials of existing and proposed walls and fences. • Locations,dimensions and descriptions of parking areas. • Location, heights, size and materials of signs. • Existing and proposed grade elevations and any significant natural features. • An Information block containing the name and telephone number of the contact person and calculations in tabular form showing compliance with applicable property development regulations (i.e., density, floor area limits,height,parking, etc.) 4 Joe Environmental Information Form: The Environmental Information Form is intended to provide the basis information necessary for the evaluation of your project to determine its potential environmental effects. This review provides the basis for determining whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment, as required by state law. After this information has been evaluated by the Planning Department, a determination will be made regarding the appropriate environmental documentation for your project. Please see attached 7 Variances: Required Findings: 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. 2. That the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. 3. That the granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. 4. That the granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. To aid staff in determining that the finding can be made in this particular case please answer the following questions with regard to your request. (Please attach on separate sheet, if necessary.) 1. What exceptional circumstances apply to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings? Please see attached 2. Why is a variance necessary to preserve property rights? Please see attached 3. Why will the proposal not be detrimental to the neighborhood? Please see attached 8 i r + 1 RESOLUTION NO. 1536 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2001-001 AND MODIFICATION NO. 2001-092 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3631 OCEAN BOULEVARD (PA2001-062) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. An application was duly filed by the applicant, Ed Lorbach on behalf of the property owners Mr. and Mrs. Jackson with respect to property located at 3631 Ocean Boulevard and legally described as Parcel 15 of Parcel Map 1257, requesting approval of a Variance and Modification Permit to construct a three level, 6,044 square foot residence that exceeds the 24/28-foot height limit. The residence would also encroach within the 10-foot front yard setback up to 10 feet in some places. The property is located within the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) zone district. Section 22. A public hearing was duly held on August 23, 2001 and September 20, 2001, at 6:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was duly given. Evidence, both written and oral, was duly presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the aforesaid meeting. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows: a) The proposed development, a detached single family home, is consistent with the General Plan, Land Use Element designation of the property which is Single-family Detached. b) An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. The contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. On the basis of the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. There are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. c) The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. The only easement that exits on the site is a sewer easement Planning Comrivssion Resolution No. 1536 Page 2 of 7 that will serve the proposed construction. The sewer easement will remain accessible with the implementation of the project provided that a sewer clean out is installed. d) Alteration of the more natural portion of the coastal bluff is minimized due to the siting of the proposed residence. The residence will occupy the required front yard setback which is presently developed rather than having the residence extend further upon the relatively undisturbed seaward portion of the bluff. Additionally, a majority of the project is does not extend beyond a "stringline" drawn between the two adjacent residences. The lowest extent of the development, including the at-grade deck is similar to the elevation of the lower portions of the two adjacent residences (approximately 5-6 feet lower than the residence to the west and approximately 5-6 feet higher than the residence to the east). e) The granting of the variance to allow portions of the residence to exceed permitted height limits is warranted in that there are special circumstances applicable to the property; approval is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant; approval is consistent with the purposes of this code; and will not be materially detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood for the following reasons: 1. The steeply sloping topography of the site restricts the ability to comply with the height limitations while constructing a residence comparable to newly constructed residences located in Corona Del Mar. 2. The code provides the flexibility in application of land use and development regulations by way of permitting variance applications, and the variance procedure is intended to resolve practical and unnecessary physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area and on this Iot. 3. The entire residence will be constructed at a lower level than the existing residence which will improve public views from Ocean Boulevard. 4. Due to the siting of the proposed residence within a "stringiine" drawn between the two adjacent residences, its footprint elevation being similar to the two adjacent residences and its location, which is relatively distant from Corona Del Mar Beach, the proposed project will not significantly impact the views of the coastal bluffs. f) The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of this code for the following reasons: . r Planning Commission Resolution No. 1536 Page 3 of 7 r 1) The proposed residence will be approximately 44 feet from the existing sidewalk. This increased distance sufficiently separates the building mass from the sidewalk especially due to the lower overall height of the residence as measured in relation to the curb and sidewalk. 2) The code provides the flexibility in application of Iand use and development regulations by way of permitting modification applications, and the variance procedure is intended to resolve practical and unnecessary physical hardships resulting from the unique topography and lot configurations that exist in the area and on this lot. Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves Variance No. 2001-001 and Modification Permit No. 2001-092, subject to the Conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached. Section 5. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this action is call for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20'h DAY OF SEPTEMBER,2001. AYES: McDaniel, Kiser, Agaianian,Tucker . Kxanzley,Selich --- NOES: None ABSENT: Gifford BY: Tucker, Chairman BY j atlt-z' Earl McDaniel, Secretary Planning Commission Resolution No. 1536 Page 4 of 7 r EXHIBIT"A„ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VARIANCE NO. 2001-001 & MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2001-092 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the revised site plan, floor plan and elevations dated 09/13/2001 except as noted below. 2. All public improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to the completion of the public improvements. 4. The final design of the driveway shall have a maximum grade of 20% with minimum 5-foot tangents and maximum grade changes of 11% unless otherwise approved by the Traffic Engineer. The final driveway design shall be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 5. The existing 5-foot wide public sidewalk shall remain where it presently is constructed (8' to 12' back of curb) except at the proposed driveway approach where it shall be placed a minimum of 5 feet from the back of curb face. The driveway approach must have a minimum 6" hike-up in order to prevent Ocean Boulevard drainage from entering the property. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 6. A City Council approved encroachment permit and encroachment agreement shall be executed by the property owner to permit private improvement encroachments within the Ocean Boulevard right-of-way. 7. That disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 8. The intersection of the private drive and Ocean Boulevard shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 30 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirement. Landscaping within sight line shall not exceed 24 inches in height. 9. Chimneys shall not exceed the minimum height required by the Uniform Building Code and any portion of the chimney which extends above applicable height limits of the Zoning Planning Commission Resolution No. 1536 Page 5 of 7 Y Code shall be no wider than 2 feet and no deeper than 4 feet. For the purpose of this condition,the smaller dimension of the chimney will be parallel to Ocean Blvd. 10. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be placed underground to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 11. A drainage study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Building Department showing all on-site drainage being directed to Ocean Boulevard. 12. Coastal Commission approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of any building, grading or demolition permits. 13. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 14. Exiting from each level of the residence shall comply with applicable standards of the Building and Fire Code_ The structure requires a fire suppression system (sprinklers) as the structure exceeds 5,000 square feet. 15. Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, the applicant shall prepare a shoring plan that shall be subject to the review and approval of the Building Department if it is determined that shoring is necessary for the construction of the proposed project. 16. A sewer main lateral and cleanout shall be installed behind and under the proposed residence subject to the standards and permit requirements of the Building Department and Utilities Department. The existing water meter shall be upgraded if determined necessary for the fire suppression system, 17. a) During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce nuisance due to odors from construction activities. (Mitigation Measure No. 1) b) During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the following measures are complied with to reduce short-term (construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: a)controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b)maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project- related emissions. (Mitigation Measure No. 1) c) To control dust, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Limit the disturbance area to the extent feasible. • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. n Planning Co•sion Resolution No. 1536 Page 6 of 7 • Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway. • Use street sweepers to clean and pick up trailing dust from roads in the vicinity of the project. • Cover or water twice daily any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 miles per hour. • Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain inactive for more that 96 hours after clearing is completed. (Mitigation Measure No. 1) d) To control emissions, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Require 90-day low-Nox tune-ups for off-road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. Mitigation Measure No. 1) e) To minimize off-site impacts, the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Encourage car pooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off site. • Wash or sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non-peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. (Mitigation Measure No. 1) 18. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City that a qualified paleontologist/archaeologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalog cultural material or fossils as necessary. The paleontologist/archaeologist shall be present at the pre-grading conference, establish procedures for paleontological/ archaeological resource surveillance, and establish, in cooperation with the Applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the cultural material or fossils. If major paleontological/archaeological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting or grading, the paleontologist/ archaeologist shall report such findings to the Applicant and the ,City. The paleontologist/archaeologist shall deter-mine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the Applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City, or its designee, on a first-refusal basis. The Applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be PIanning Con mission Resolution No. 1536 Page 7 of 7 donated to the City, or designee. These actions shall be subject to the approval of the City. (Mitigation Measure No. 2) 19. During construction activities, the project will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.10). (Mitigation Measure No. 3) 20. The recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Investigation (Petra Report No. J.N. 358-00) and any subsequent geotechnical or geologic report for the project shall be incorporated into the project. (Mitigation Measure No. 4) 21. The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department to determine compliance. (Mitigation Measure No. 5) 22. The applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code pertaining to noise restrictions. During construction activities, the hours of construction and excavation work are allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and holidays. (Mitigation Measure No. 6) 23. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a traffic control and construction access plan to address construction traffic, haul routes, truck hauling operations and parking in order to maintain safe access to the site during construction. The construction access plan shall include alternative pedestrian and bicycle path routes and an employee parking plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Traffic Department and the Planning Department. Additionally, the applicant shall obtain a haul route permit from the Revenue Division. No construction equipment shall be permitted to park overnight on Ocean Boulevard. (Mitigation Measure No. 7) 24. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.80.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 410 Lohrbach—Jackson Res nce City of Newport Beach Variance Request Variance Findings: 1. The developable building pad is limited due to coastal bluff conditions. A rear yard string line setback area as well as a front yard open space easement further limit the developable area. 2. This application seeks to be granted the same privileges as the existing house as well as other homes in the vicinity which have been granted variance to permit the garage to exceed the height limit. Having to conform to the height limit would cause the garage to be placed further back on the property thereby severely limiting the amount of available habitable space. If the garage were to maintain the height limit, it would have to be placed at the coastal bluff edge. 3. This proposal will be not be detrimental to the area since it will not cause further impacts than what currently exist. It proposes no additional view blockage; in fact view corridors will be maintained because the proposed structure will be lower than the existing. Additionally, the proposed structure will maintain the required 1 p-foot front yard setback instead of projecting into it by eight feet as it presently does. 0 4510 Lohrbach—Jackson Restce City of Newport Beach Variance Request B. Project Description and Justification The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the garage to exceed the curb top height limit by two (2') feet. This variance is needed in order to provide for habitable space behind the garage toward the ocean. This variance is also needed to minimize impacts on the bluff This is a bluff-top property subject to a rear string-line setback, a constraint that further limits the amount of development area. The developable building pad is very steep due to coastal bluff conditions. The property slopes quickly downward from the street toward the ocean. If the garage were to maintain the required curb-top height limit, it would have to be set further back on the property because of the difference in grade. Setting the garage further back on the property would severely limit the amount of developable area, as it would render the entire easterly side of the lot for garage Use. This would result in a number of unacceptable impacts: 1. At street level, the habitable space would be limited to_ only the westerly side of the property, 2. The garage would end up with valuable ocean view, 3. The bluff would be further impacted to accommodate the additional square footage lost by having to push. the garage back onto the properly toward the bluff in order to maintain the height limit. Presently, the property is developed with a singte family home which encroaches eight feet (8') into the ten-foot (10') required front yard setback, as well as exceeds the curb-top height limit by three feet. (3'). This was allowed under a variance approved in 1961. On October 11, 1972, the zoning ordinance established the height limit in this area as being"Top of Curb'. This rendered the property legal non-conforming causing any remodel to do-away with this variance approval. The home is now over 40 years old and in need of renovation. The property has also become increasingly valuable —too valuable for the home that presently exists. As a result, the applicant is proposing to teardown the existing house and build a new one. The new home proposed will be within the building envelope permitted. It will total almost 5500 square feet, less than 50% below the 13,000 allowable square footage permitted. It will only exceed the height limit by two feet instead of three as it presently does. It will maintain all required setbacks including the ten-foot front yard setback, which is presently encroached upon by eight feet. And, it will maintain the required rear string-line setback thereby ensuring minimal impacts onto the bluff in keeping with existing properties. r 40 10 Lohrbach—Jackson Res*ce0 City of Newport Beach Variance Request C. Environmental Setting 1. The subject site is located at 3631 Ocean Blvd. and is currently occupied by a multi-level, single family residence with an attached garage and associated site improvements including several low- height retaining walls, a concrete driveway, concrete flatwork and landscaping. The lot gently slopes southwesterly from Ocean Blvd. to a wave cut sea bluff. The approximately 50-foot high sea bluff descends steeply to a rocky beach below. 2. This property is surrounded by other existing bluff-top single family homes, many of which are undergoing major renovation. There is concern in this area over the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural resources and minimization of the alteration of natural land forms along the bluffs. A request made recently for a height variance was denied (Evanson Residence — Variance No. 1230) not due to height impacts but the resulting impacts on the bluff. The variance discretionary process allowed the City to review the design proposed and denied the request due to bluff impacts. D. Potential Environmental Effects I. AESTHETICS The variance request is for the height limit. If granted, the height impact currently created by the existing residence will be reduced by one foot_ This will allow for the garage to be built further up on the lot and closer to the street instead of being built on the bluff edge. The end result will be the creation of a residence which maximizes its habitable living areas while preserving the bluff by retaining a rear-yard string line setback and limiting its square footage increase to below 50% of the allowable square footage permitted. 11. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES None Ill. AIR QUALITY None IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES None V. CULTURAL RESOURCES None f Lohrbach—d acicspn Re ce City of Newport Beach Variance Request VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Please see attached Cursory Geotechnical Evaluation dated March 5, 2001 and October 3, 2000. Vil. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS None VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Please see attached Cursory Geotechnical Evaluation dated March 5, 2001 and October 3, 2000. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING a. There is an existing single-family residence with an attached garage and associated site improvements including several low-height retaining wails, a concrete driveway, concrete flatwork and landscaping. This is an in-fill lot surrounded by other single family residences, several of which have been granted height variances allowing garages to exceed the height limit. Many of the existing homes in the area are being renovated or being rebuilt in order to maximize views and habitable living space. b. The existing residence was granted a variance in 1961 to encroach into the required ten foot front yard setback by eight feet and allow the garage to exceed the height limit by three feet. The proposed home will conform to all land use standards with the exception of the garage; a variance to exceed the height limit by two feet is being requested. C. The proposed structure is compatible with existing homes in the area and is compatible with its bluff-top location. The project has been designed to have minimal impacts upon the bluff face; it maintains the rear yard string-line setback and maintains a total square footage that is well below 50% of the total allowable square footage. The home is proposed to have under 5,500 square feet. The total allowable square footage is just over 13,000. X. MINERAL RESOURCES None W Lohrbach—Jackson Res , City P of Newport Beach Variance Request XI. NOISE Noise impacts will be those typically associated with construction and as such will be subject to following the City's Noise Ordinance regulating hours of operation. Xli. POPULATION AND HOUSING Not Applicable XII1. PUBLIC SERVICES Not Applicable XIV. RECREATION None XV. TRANSPORTIONITRAFFIC Required parking will be provided on-site. The project will have no impact on the area's circulation system. XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS The project is currently being serviced and existing services will be retained. r Commonwealth Land Me Company 350 Commerce Road, Suite 150 Irvine, California 92602 (jig)$35-$511 TITLE DEPARTMENT FAX NO. (714)368-3254 Issuing Policies Of Cmumnweafth LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Freedom Escrow 2 Civic Plaza Newport Beach, California Attn: Judy Teat Your Ref: 34709-T Our No: 2003954-1 Title Officer: CAROL BUTLER PREL 41NARY REPORT Dated as of August 28, 2000 at 7:30 A.M. In response to the above referenced application for a policy of title insurance, Commonwealth Land Title Company hereby reports that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof, a Policy or Policies of Title Insurance describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth, insuring against loss which may be sustained by reason of any defect, lien or encumbrance not shown or referred to as an Exception below or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Conditions and Stipulations of said policy forms. The printed Exceptions and Exclusions from the coverage of said Policy or Policies are set forth in Exhibit A attached. Copies of the Policy forms should be read. They are available from the office which issued this report. This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is issued solely for the purpose of facilitating the issuance of a policy of title insurance and no liability is assumed hereby. If it is desired that liability fie assumed prior to the issuance of a policy of title insurance, a Binder or Commitment should be requested. Please read the exceptions shown or referred to Below and the exceptions and exclusions set forth in Exhibit A of this report carefully. The exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you with notice of matters which are not covered under the terms of the title insurance policy and should be carefully considered. It is important to note that this preliminary report is not a written representation as to the condition of title and may not list all liens, defects, and encumbrances affecting title to the land. 2003954 Page 2 SCHEDULE A The form of policy of title insurance contemplated by this report is: An ALTA Loan Policy CLTA Homeowners Policy (Reference Last Note) The estate or interest in the land hereinafter described or referred to covered by this report is: A FEE Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in: Beverly Anne Clark, an umnarried woman The land referred to in this Report is situated in the State of California, County of Orange, and is described as follows: That portion of Block "A" of Corona Del Mar, in the City of Newport Beach, as per map recorded in book 3, pages 41 and 42 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the County Recorder- of said County, described as follows.- Beginning at the most Easterly corner of Lot 15 of Tract No. 1257, as per map recorded in book 38, page 25 of said Miscellaneous'Maps;}thence South 39° 23' 25" East 68.00 feet along Ocean Boulevard, as shown on said map of Tract No. 1257, to the true point of beginning; thence South 39° 23' 25" East 67.56 feet along said Ocean Boulevard; thence South 62° 19' 38" West to the Southwesterly line of said Block "A"; thence Northerly along said Southwesterly line to a line that bears South 5611 31' 49" West from the true point of beginning; thence North 560 31' 49" East to the true point of beginning. EXCEPT therefrom those portions, if any, of said Block "A" heretofore or now lying below or seaward of the line of mean high tide of the Pacific Ocean. 2003954 Page 3 SCHEDULE B At the date hereof Exceptions to coverage in addition to the printed exceptions and exclusions in said policy farm would be as follows: A. Property taxes, including general and special taxes, personal property taxes, if any, and any assessments collected with taxes, to be levied for the fiscal year 2000 - 2001 which are a lien not yet payable. 13. Property taxes, including general and special taxes, personal property taxes, if any, and any assessments collected with taxes, for the fiscal year shown below, are maid_. For proration purposes the amounts are: Fiscal year 1999 - 2000 First Installment: $6,259.84 Second Installment: $6,259.94 Ladd Value: $973,707.00 Improvement Value: $257,205.00 Exemption; $0 Code Area: 07-001 Assessment No.: 052-150-11 C. Supplemental or escaped assessments of property taxes, if any, assessed pursuant to the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California. 1. Any adverse claim based upon the assertion that some portion of said land is tide or submerged lands, or has been created by artificial means or has accreted to such portion so created. 2. Any rights in favor of the public which may exist on said land if said land or portions thereof are or were at any time used by the public. PAYOFF INFORMATION Dote No. 1: AS OF JANUARY 1, 1990, CHAPTER 598, CALIFORNIA STATUTES OF 1989, (AB 512; INSURANCE CODE SECTION 12413.1) BECOMES EFFECTIVE. THE LAW REQUIRES THAT ALL FUNDS BE DEPOSITED AND AVAILABLE FOR WITHDRAWAL BY THE TITLE ENTITY'S ESCROW OR SUBESCROW ACCOUNT PRIOR TO DISBTJRSE14ENT OF ANY FUNDS. ONLY CASH OR WIRED FUNDS CAN BE GIVEN WIMEDIATE AVAILABILITY UPON DEPOSIT. 2003954 Page 4 CASHIER'S CHECKS, TELLER'S CHECKS AND CERTIFIED CHECKS MAY BE . AVAILABLE ONE BUSINESS DAY AFTER DEPOSIT. ALL OTHER FUNDS SUCH AS PERSONAL,, CORPORATE OR PARTNERSHIP CHECKS AND DRAFTS MAY CAUSE MATERIAL DELAYS IN DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS ON THIS ORDER. IN ORDER TO AVOID DELAYS, ALL FUNDING SHOULD BE WIRE TRANSFERRED. OUTGOING WIRE TRANSFERS RWILLINOT BE AUTHORIZED UNTIL CONFIRMATION OF THE RESPECTIVE INC6M�i46 WIRE TRANSFER OR AVAILABILITY OF DEPOSITED CHECKS. WIRING INFORMATION FOR TMS OFFICE IS AS FOLLOWS: Union Bank 500 South Main Street Orange, California 92668 ABA No. 122000496 Account No. 9120008290 PLEASE REFERENCE TITLE ORDER NUMBER AND TI'I'LE OFFICER DISREGARD ABOVE INFORMATION IF COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE COMPANY IS YOUR ESCROW SETTLEMENT AGENT CONTACT ESCROW OFFICER FOR WIRING INSTRUCTIONS Note No. 2: THIS COMPANY DOES REQUIRE CURRENT BENEFICIARY DEMANDS PRIOR TO CLOSING. If the demand is expired and a current demand cannot be obtained, our requirements will be as follows: (a) If this Company accepts a verbal update on the demand, we may hold an amount equal to one monthly mortgage payment. This hold will be in addition to the verbal hold the lender may have stipulated. (b) If this Company cannot obtain a verbal update on the demand, we will either pay off the expired demand, or wait for the amended demand, at our discretion. Note No. 3: This report is incomplete as to the effect of documents, proceedings, liens, decrees, or other matters which do not specifically describe said land, but which, if any do exist, may affect the title or impose liens or encumbrances thereon. This Company will require statement(s) of information from buyer, seller, and/or borrower, in order to complete this report. i 2003954 Page 5 Note No. 4: None of the items shown in this report will cause the Company to decline to attach CLTA Endorsement Form 100 to the ALTA Loan Policy, when issued. Note No. 5: The ALTA Lender's policy, when issued will include CLTA Endorsements 100 and 116. The following information will be included in said CLTA Endorsement 116. There located on said land: a single family residence known as: 3631 Ocean Boulevard, Newport Beach, California Note No. 6: The only conveyances affecting said land recorded within six (6) months of the date of this report are as follows: None. Note No. 7: The premium for a policy of title insurance, if issued, will be based on 110%. Note No. 8: An ALTA/CLTA Homeowner's Policy of Title Insurance will be issued in connection with the sale of the land covered by this Preliminary Report unless the proposed insured advises the Company that another form of owners paticy is desired. The premium for an ALTA/CLTA Homeowner's Policy of Title insurance is 10% more than the premium for either a CLTA Standard Coverage Policy or an ALTA Residential Title Insurance Policy. cb/ma cc: Coast Newport Properties plat 15 for your dio In focsting your land wlfn rrlerolscs to s{-als and other parcels. ttis note survey.Whk Otis PMI to be correct. the GarnpanY assumes no USURY .or a-,,r h, 't vCCUring by reDsnn Of +nl3ancv the#w.nrt:" (If1riMON4 EALTM LANp TITLE COMPANY mmp 52- 15 INE LM !4 !7 st QCFat, U 4.1 rR T 1 ® r �O� br I M NO /2S ® 1 'pa ui o ry Ln MOrE" vim.oN rs.w/wsr and" / r Q cauvrr 'T �{�l c�Kr 3 r/L fS Q to 0% M/L 4 a N d C MARCH 1949 rk MO. 1257 M.M, 38-P? NOTE' - ASSESSSOR'S BLOCK 9 ASSESSOR'S MAP ` COR30dMA GEt MAR At.M. 5-42 PARCEL AAlOMAS BOOK SP PAC'e/5 4 SHOWN/N CIRCLES COUNrY Oi ORANGE Q N O { Exhibit A(Rev.612/98) CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATIOP STANDARD COVERAGE POLICY-1990 EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The ioflowxng matters are expressly excluded from the coverage Of this policy and the Company will not pay lost or damage,costs,anorneys'teas Or expenses which arise by reason al: I. (a) Any iaw,ordnance or governmentat regulation(iriduding Out not timed to budding or zoning laws,ordinances,or relations)restricting,regulating,"hitting or relating(i)the occupancy.use, orentoyment of the land;(A)the character,dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land;(iii)a separation in ownership or a Change in the dimensions or area Of the land or any parcel of which the land iS or was a hart;or(iv)environmantal protection,or the effect of any violation of these laws,ordinances or governmental regulations,except to Ina extent that a notice of the entorcement thereof or a notice of a defect,lien,or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Potiey. (b) Any govemi'mMat police power not excluded by(a)above.except fo It is extant that a notice of the exercise thereof or notice of a delecl,lien or encumbrance resulting(ro m a violation or alleged violation affacGng the land has been recorded in the pudic records al Date of Policy. 2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thersol has been recorded in the public records at Dale of Policy.but no excluding from coverage any taking which has aecurrad pdor to Data of Policy which would be bwKhng on the nghts of a purichater for value without krwwledge. 3 Defects,liens,WICurrtbrances,adverse claims or other matters: (a) whether or not recorded in the public records at Dale of Policy,but created,suttenK assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant: (b) not known to the Company,not recorded in the public records al Date of Policy,but known to the insured claimant and not disposed in wntrng to the Company by the insured ceirnant prior to the date Ste insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the in$urad daimxn: (d) attaching or Created subsequent to Data of Policy;or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage or tarn*estate or imerett Insured by this policy. 4- Unentorceabitity of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or falure of hta insured at Date of Policy,or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness,to corr>ply wiln the applicable doing business laws of the state in which the tend is situated. 5. invalidity or unenforceabilify 0 the lien of the insured mortgage.or claim thereof,which antes out of the transaction ew*W-ed by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in fending law. Any claim,which 417$e9 out dt the fran$at:tidn vesting in the insured the awata or interest insured by this policy or the transaction creating the interest of the insured fender,by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy,State insolvency of sanrlerrndilors'rights 1ewa. EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE-SCHEDULE B, PART I This policy does not insure against loss Or damage(and the Company will not pay casts,adomeys'teas or expenses)which arise by reason of. 1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies IMS Or assessments on real property or by the public records. Proceedings by a Public agency which may reSutt in taxies or assesenrnfs.or notices of such proceedings,whether or not shown by the record,o1 5udt agency or by the ptrblle rtreordS. 7. Any facts.rights,interests.Or claims which tiro not strewn by the pudic records but which could be Warta by an inspection of the land which may be atraerted by persons is possession thereof. 3. Easements,leans Or encumbrances,or Claims thereof,which am rid shown by the public records 4_ Discrepancies,Conflicts in boundary lines.shortage in area,encioachmarvis.or any 011m!acts which a correct surrey weld disclose,and which are not shown by the puttke records. 5. {a)Unlaatented rnirhirtg claims;(b)reservations or exrCepadn8 in patents a in Acta authorizing the issuance[hereof:(c)water rights,claims or title tot water.whether or not the matters excepted under (a),(b)or(c)are shown by the pudic records. CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE(6&18) AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION(10117/98) EXCLUSIONS In addition to the Exceptions in Schedule B,You are not insured against lose,costs,aftomxeys'toes,and stgxens"resulting from: 1 Governmental police power,and the existence or violation of any law or government regulation. This includes ordinances,laws and regulations concerning: a. building b. 20nrng C. Land use d. improvements On the Land e. Land division _ t. environmental protection This Exclusion does not apply to violations or true enforcement of these maeert rf notice of the v➢afason or enforcement appears in the Public Records at the Policy Data. This Exclusion does not linnt the coverage described in Covered Risk 14,15,16,17 or 24. 2. Tait failure of Your existing structures.or any pan of them,to be oonstrucred in accofdancs wit,applicable building codas. This Exclusion dogs not apply to violations of building codes if noticis of the violation appears in the Public Records at tiro Policy Dale. 3. The rght to take the Land by condemning it.unless: a. a notice or exercising the right appears in the Public Records at the Policy Date:or o- the taking happened before the Policy Cafe and is binding on You if You bought the Land without Knowing of the taking. 4_ Risks: a. that are created,allowed,Of agreed to by You,whether Oe not they appear in the Public Records: b. that are Known to You at the Polity Data,but not to L1s,urHase they appear in the public Records at the Policy Oafs; C. mat result in no loss to You;or d- that first occur after the Po6Cy Date-this does not limit the coverage described m Covered Risk 7,S.d,22.23,24 or 25. 5, Failure to pay value for Your Tiae. 6. Lack of aright: a. to any Land otutrde the area specifically described and referred to in paragraph 3 of Scnedute A;and b. in streets.allays,or waterways that touch the Land_ This Exctusron does not 6niit the coverage described in Covered Risk 11 or 10. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION RESIDENTIAL TITLE INSURANCE POLICY(6-1-87) EXCLUSIONS 1n add"On lo the Excepliats rn Schedule B.you are not insured against foss.coats,attOrneys'toes,and expenses resulting from: 1 Govemmef iti police power,and the ettrstance sx vidtatidn of any law Or government regulation. They includes bteildirg and zoning ordinances and also laws and regulations concerning: • land use • improvements on the land • land division • environmental protection This extlrrsion does not apply to wdlations or the enforcement of these msfMrs which appear in the pudic records at Policy Date. This excettfsion do"not limit the zoning coverage described in name 12 and 113 of Covered Title Risks. 2. Tne right to take the iand by condemning it,unia": • a notice of exercising the right appears in the public records an the Policy Data • the taking happened prior to the Policy Dafe and is binding on you d you bought tea land wl hW knowing of via taking 3. Title Risks: • that are created,allowed,or agreed to by you • that are known to you.but not to us,on the Polity Date-unless trey ttppsarad in the public record$ • teat recut in no loss lot you • that firsr aftedt your fide attar the Policy Date-this does not limit the labor and matanal lien coverage in Item 8 of Covered Tide Risks 4 Failure to pay value for your ate- 5. Lack of a right: • to any tend Outside the area specikcallY 00SCritie0 and referred to in Item 3 of Schedxrte A in streert,alleys,or waterways that touch your land 011 This exclusion does not lint the access coverage in Item 5 of Covered Till,Risks. L_ r AM *1TH N LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LOAN PO (10-17-92) ALTA ENDORSEMENT-FORM 1 COVE GE and AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LEASEHOLD LOAN POLICY(10-17-92) WITH ALTA ENDORSEMENT-FORM 1 COVERAGE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this Policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage.teats,attorneys'fees tx expenses which arise by reason of 1. (a) Any law.ordinamPe or governmental regulation(including but not tinseled to ourldrttq and zoning Taws.ordin ances,or regtulations)retstricpng,fa gaawq Prohibitirtp or relating 10(1)the Occupancy, use,or enjoyment of the told:(it)the character,dimsrtsions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land:(ii)a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a pan;or(w)armronmentat protection,or the effect of any violation of these laws,ordinances s or owernrrlental regulations,except to the Indent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a(WOO.lien or encurmbranca resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any govemmerital police power not excluded by(a)above,except to the extent that a nofice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a defect,Gen of encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation aflacdng the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of policy. 2. Rights of erhineril domain unless notice or the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy,but rho!excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on Ste nghts of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3. Defects,lions.enCuMbrarices,adverse claims or other maaers: (a) Created,suffered.assurrlW ar agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company,not recorded in the public records an Dais of Policy,but known to the insured claimer"and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured Claimano prior to the liars the inswed claimant became an insured under this Policy. (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insures claimant: (d) attaching Or created subsequent to Date of Policy to iPW to the extent that this policy insures the priority Of the lien of me insured mortgage over any statutory hen for SWCOS.labor or material of to the extent insurance is aflorded herein as to assessments for street improvements under constn,ctlon or completed at Date of Policy):or is) resulting in Im or damage which would not have been sustained it fh@ insured claifnant had paid value for the insured mortgage. 4. Unenforeeabiliy of Me lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Data of Policy,or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the indebteditess,to comply with applicable doing business laws of the state in which the land is situated. 5. Invalidity or uneritordeabiMy of the lien of the insured mortgage,or claim thereof,which arises Out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law. 6. Any statutory liars for services.tabor or materials(or the claim ol priority of any statutory lien for services,labor or rnaWrtals over the lien Of the insured mortgage)arising from an improvement or work related ro the land whtcn is contracted for and commenced subsequent to Date of Policy and is nor financed in whole or in part by Proceeds Of the ind8bledness Secured by the insured mortgage which at Date of Policy the insured has advanced or is obligated to advert@. 7. Any claim,which arises out of the transaction creating the interest of the mortgagee insured by this policy,by reason of the operation of IOU"banttnrptCy,state insolvency.w sirr filar craditorw A" laws.Met is based on: (i) the transaction treating the interest of the insured nve gifeW being doemad a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer,or (rt) the suFtwenation of the interest or the insured mortgagee as a"Milit of the application Of the doctrine of equitable subordnation;or fhe transaction Cfaating the interest of the insured mortgages being deemed a pretefent of transfer except where the preferantiat transfer results lrom the lailure: (a) to timely record the instrument of transfer,or (b) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a Prdrprtarx or .lien creditor. The above policy farms may bs issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In adtlition to the above Exclusions from Coverage,the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the lohowing General Exceptions: EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE Tlxs policy does nol insure against loss or damage(and the Company will nix Pay costs,attorneys'fees or expanses)which arise by reason of: t. Tatoee or assessments which are not shown as exisling liens by the records at any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by IRO Public records. Proceedings by a Public agency which may result in takes or assessments,or notices of such proceedings,whether or not shown by the records or such agency or by the public records. 2. Any facts.tights,intomM or claims which ate net shown by the pudic records bul which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land Of by risking Inquiry of persons in possession thereof- 3- Easements.liens or encumbrances,or claims tharew,which are not shawh by the Public records. 4. Discrepancies,conthas in boundary lines.shortage in area,encroachments,or any other tam which a correct survey would disclose.and which ate not shown by the public records. 5. (a)Unpetefdsd minima claims;lb)reservations or exceptions in palems or in Acts authoezing the issuance thef0d;(c)water rghts,claims or till@ to water,whether or not the matters excepted under (A).(b)of(c)are shown by the public records. AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION OWNER'S POLICY 00-•17-92) and AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LEASEHOLD OWNER'S POLICY(10-17-92) EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this poicy and me Company wilt rot pay loss or damage,costa.aft*rfte B lees of expenses which arise by reason of- t. fa) Any law,ordnance or govemmernat regulation tinduding but trot limited to building and zoning laws,crdmancss,or regulations)restrict!%regulating,prohibiting or relating to ti)the Occupancy. use.or entjoyment of the land,(ii)the character,dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereatter erected on the tend:(hi)a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions Of area Of the land or any parcel of Which the land is or was a part.or(iv)ermformenta!Protection.or the effect o1 any violation of these laws,ordinances Of governmental regulations.except to the extent that a ntice of the enforcement t"reot or a notice of a defect,lien or encumbrance resulting from a vtela'tOr Or alleged viOlstibn affecting ute land has been recorded in the public records at Dale of Policy. (b) Any govemanertal police power not excluded by(a)above.except to use axiom titat a notice of the exercise thereat or a notice of a detect.Gen or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged Nblation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Data of poticy. 2. Ri"of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the Public records at Date of Policy but roar excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be bOvding an the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge, 3- Defects,liens.encumbrances,adverse claims or other matters; (A) created,suffered,assumed or agreed to by the insured ciaimam; (b) not known tp the Cdrigmy,not recorded in Use public records at Date of Policy,out known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the Insured claimant became an insured urtow this policy; (c) resulting in no loss of damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy;or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained it the insured Claimant had paid value for the estate or mlemst insured by Mis policy. 4. Any ctainti which arises out OF the transaction vesting In the insured the astate,or interest insured by this policy,by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy,state insolvency,or similar creditors' rights laws,that is based On: (I) the transaction creating the estate o interest insured by IRis Policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer.or (a) the rransactipn creating ere estate or interest insured oy this policy being demvxed a Pfaterentiat trareterexcept where The preferential transfer results from the Failure: (a) to timely record the Insinlmxent of transfer.M fb) of such recordation to Impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien credtrx. The above policy force may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Exferided Coverage- In addition to the atime Exclusions from Coverage,the ExCepliOns from Coverage it a Slandaed Coverage Policy will also include the following General Exceptions- EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE This policy does not insure against loss of damage(and the Company will not pay costs,attorneys'fees Or expenses)which arise by reason of. t. Taxes or assrtssmerxs which are not shown as emsurg'tons by the records of any[axing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. Proceedings by a pudic agency which may result in taxes or assessments.or notices or such proceedings,whether ornot mown by the records of suctt agertcy or by mud•public records, p 2. Any facts,Danis,interests or Gains which are not shown by the Public records but.throb c>n,io be ascertained by an inspection of the larW tx by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements.liefrs or erxurr�6rances.or clams thereer.whir are not shower by me putxrc reC ids. 4, Discrepancies.conflicts in boundary lines.shortage in area.snactachmelnh.or any osier facts wnich a correct survey would discose,and which are not shown by the pubic records. 5 fa)Unpatented inning claims;(b)reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts aumonzing the issuance thereof:Ic)water rights.claims or title to water,whether or not the matters emwied under tat.(4)Or 10 Otte weer by thg public retards 1 -----�. _... - __.. �� .. :� "�� I :�. � } � _�-. r i .,...- i L/ �r ____- 1�j�,� -1 i l �__� 4-18-2001 A:d5PM FROM JOHN M GARCIA ARCHIT 949474974.9 P. 2 AVWlei .C�,S•SCf.S a,7 4�E - � . fqy�, oga 4o i .s�o• aJ� xra zr• A.", 14 10 Wa ba � a � a� � .za• •�iq. .zaa.-ztB• •: t o raDINS 077/f SNI JL W r ` �, •sue •TV ,tot- •Z83- sue• �,y� a�r�'� $ 4C' �40 •sr�• ,zo• •saz. .�6• •7�0• •z�a •ras• •� b 4 0`i P 6 sum4e! D7` H.4Z�`� � so. 104 TOTON ZD: ZZ 10 , 61 Jdd• 6� �_btr9 -6tr II JNI1NH�d/HhJ m-258f FAGM6 , QUT "M DEW 66399 1 The City of Newport Beach, a municipal corporation of the 2 sixth class, does hereby release, remise and forever quitclaim S unto CHARLES C.FIPPS and EQKCE B." FIPPS, husband and wife, 4 all of its right, title and interest in and to the following 6 described property situated in the County of Orange, State of 6 California, and more particularly described as followsr 7 A construction easement and right of way for the construction of sanitary . sewers and appurtenant 8 work in connection therewith in, under and over 9 that certain parcel of land In the City of Newport Beach County of Orange State of California, des- 10 cribeA as follows, to Orange All that portion of Block A, as shown upon a map 11 of Corona del Mar, recorded in Miscellaneous Mapsp 12 Book 3, Pages 41 and 42,. records of Orange County! California, lying Southeasterly of the Southeast- erly line of Lot 15 'as shown upon a map of Tract No. 1257, recorded In Miscellaneous Maps, Book 38, Page 25, records of said Orange County t and a :line 14 two hundred feet (2001) Southeasterly of and par- allel. to said Southeasterly line of Lot .15.: 18 The purpose of this instrument is to, transfer unto the 16 17 quitclaimees all of the interest of the quitclaiwor:,acquired under and .by ,virtue of the Construction Easement granted to the 18 quitelaimor therein, as recorded on the 26th-.day of;September., 19 ., 19529.YAat-Book „2388, Page 530, Official Records ,of Orange County, 20 n fkftls o2dayof ���,,,/// C�K.�9 , 95322 a'� �.r .� i'!fi/f :k_, rwrr.rrr� �r�`S� ' ,'-, .,.yr 1 f ski 24 ..26 e•^y STA78 OF CAUMOM A,, ' county of-- "� OH TWS X �d ; 'af A.D.,Imo,before me, ,w a Notary Pubhc to and for siefid 6" and State, pMWnA appeared c, known to 'me, to be the personz.—whose names-- ''• 'Lk— subscribed to the within Instrument,and acknowledged to me that___r_he)L_ executed the some. Iza Wrrr= W=MCoF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my ,o�JicW seat s the day and year in this cerafccate first ooe un itten. ` N Pubita M • fa C090ty and Sty. 1b Canrnission Expires Aug.28,I956 °� M I►CKNdWLCDOMENT — QRdfRAL — WOLCOTTs FOpM 233 aZaaa RESOLUTION NO. 4;' m2586 PAGE227 AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF VIM iAIM D= 1 SAS, there has been presented to the City Council of the 2 3 City of Newport Beach a certain deed wherein and whereby the City of Newport Beach deeds to CHARLES C. FIPPS and EUNICE B. FIPPS, 4 6 husband and wife, all of its right, title and interest in and to the real property described therein, being a portion of Block A, 6 7 Corona del Mar; and SAS, the City of Newport Beach is receiving by and 8 other deeds a definitely located easement across said property; anL 9 j 10 it appears for the best interests of the citizens it of the City of Newport Beach and of the above mentioned qultalaiae s • 12 that said Quit Claim Deed be executed; ' NOW, TMWORS, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk 13 14 of the City of Newport Beach be, and they are hereby, directed, instructed and authorised to execute said Quit Claim Deed in the 15 name of and on behalf of the City of Newport Beach., 16 I hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution 17 18 No. 4135 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City 19 Council of the City of Newport Beach at a regular meeting thereof 20 held on the .21A day of S-1ETE�BER �,. 1953, by the fol- lowing lowing roll call vote, to-wits AYES, COUNCILMENz Smith$ Finch, Isbell. 2223 ,- 1fi44r . 1_���.aa'���'��'� �,''� '• Bennett. Miller. NOW COUNCIUM:24 >, ..=s. , A. ABSENT COUNCILMEN: 25 '� �4.�y"��rt.is� s:i1.' y " 26 � Y 7 2 ., !J Manor 28 ATTESTs 29 .4E00RDED AT REQMQ& 3 City Clerk 31 OCT 63 I 19 BMK2586 PAGE226 32 Qffi(I1L RBXM ATLAS SHT. NO. C=TtYCd10Mh PLOTTED BY_--&I-� CHECKED BY R'4-� �� • �� 'u ; � ENVI'RONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM . � rw, City of Newport Beach Planning Department �,. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 644-3200 A. General Information 1. Applicant/Agent: Ed Lohrbach Phone: 949/661 -5068 Address: 31 681 Camino Capistrano, Suite 106, SJC, CA 92675 2. Property Owner: Douglas Jackson -� a nPhone: Address: 3631 Ocean Blvd. , Corona del Mar, CA 92625 B. Project Description Please attach the following materials for the project: •Vicinity map •Plans drawn to scale •Proposed revisions to zoning map • At least 3 different site photos mounted and text using underline and on 8 1/2 X 11 cardboard with a ley map stfikee notation, if applicable showing the photo locations and direction of view 1. Project name: Jackson Residence 2. Project location: 3631 Ocean Blvd. 3. Assessor's parcel#:0 5 2_L5 n_1 1 _ 4, Permit application#: _Wa. 5a. Proposed use: To allow the garage to exceed the height limit by 2 ' 5b. Project size(dwelling units, gross floor area,etc.) : 5, 484 square feet 5c. Site size: _ _ 8. 087 s guara foot 5d.Building height: 6. Existing land use designations: General Plan: Zoning: _ R-1 Specific Plan: LCP: 7. Previous governmental approvals: Variance granted in 1 961 . S. Other governmental approvals required: Federal: State:Coastal Commission Regional: Local: 9. Begin construction: Estimated occupancy: (date) (date) 1 00 C. Environmental Setting 1. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe and existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. 2. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development(height, frontage, set-backs, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of vicinity. D. Potential Environmental Effects On a separate page, please provide the following information. If the question is not applicable, indicate "Not applicable" or"None". I. AESTHETICS Describe whether the project could potentially obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the public, or create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. Could the project block any private views? Describe exterior lighting that is proposed for the project and means that will be utilized to reduce light and glare impacts on surrounding properties. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES Describe any agricultural resources presently located at the project site. Describe any changes to this resource as a result of the implementation of the proposed project. III. AIR QUALITY Describe any air emissions or odors that could result from the project, including emissions during construction, and any measures that are proposed to reduce these emissions. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Describe the existing vegetation on the site, and any trees or large shrubs that are to be removed. Identify any fish or wildlife that inhabit the site. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Please indicate whether any archaeological or paleontological surveys have been done on the site. Could the project result in any adverse physical or aesthetic effects to any building, structure, or object having historical, cultural, or religious significance? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Please describe the earthwork that will be required for the project. Include grading quantities, and the location of borrow or stockpile sites, and haul routes, if applicable. Describe any geotechnical or soils investigations that have been conducted. Include cxhibits showing existing and proposed topography, retaining walls, and erosion control devices. 2 • 0 • 0 VIL HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Identify any aspects of the project that could present a risk to public health due to normal operations,or due to an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including,but not limited to. oil,pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or spill. Is there any possibility that the site could be contaminated due to previous uses or dumping? If so,what measures are proposed to eliminate the hazard or contamination?Is the project located in a flood hazard zone? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Describe existing and proposed site drainage, and measures that will be employed to reduce erosion and prevent contaminated runoff from entering the storm drain system, groundwater or surface water. Describe any changes that could occur in groundwater or surface water. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING Describe. a)the existing land uses and structures on the project site and on adjacent parcels; b)the project's conformance with existing land use plans and regulations for the property; and c) its compatibility with surrounding land uses. X. MINERAL RESOURCES Describe the affect on any adopted energy conservation plan, use of nonrenewable resources and whether the project will result in the loss of any known mineral resource of future value to the region and residents of the State. XI. NOISE Describe any sources of noise that impact the site, and any noise-generating equipment that will be.utilized on the property, either during construction or after occupancy. What means to reduce noise impacts on surrounding properties or building occupants are proposed? XH. POPULATION AND HOUSING If the project is residential,please explain how the project will comply with the affordable housing policies contained in the Housing Element of the General Plan. Identify the number of bedroms per unit and the expected average household size? What is the projected sales price or rent of the units?.If the project is commercial, industrial, or institutional, please identify the tenants and/or uses and the estimated number of employees. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Please identify whether adequate capacity currently exists for the following public services and utilities. If expansion is needed, explain how it will be accomplished: Please attach any written confirmation of capacity you have received from service providers. • Fire protection • Police protection • Schools • Maintenance of Public facilities, including roadways • Other Government Services 3 • XIV. RECREATION Describe the impact of the project on the demand for neighborhood regional parks or other recreational facilities and any affect on existing recreational opportunities. XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC Please describe hoWthe project will comply with parking regulations, and identify any changes or improvements to the circulation system that are proposed as part of the project. XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Please identify whether adequate capacity currently exists for the following public services and utilities. If expansion is needed, explain how it will be accomplished. Please attach any written confirmation of capacity you have received from service providers. • Natural gas • Communications Systems • Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities • Sewer systems or septic tanks • Storm water drainage systems • Solid waste and disposal Police protection • Local or regional water supplies Certification I certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits are correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. I am the legal owner of the property that is the subject of this application or have been authorized by the owner to act on his behalf regarding this application. I further acknowledge that any false statements or information presented herein may result in the revocation of any approval or permit granted on the basis of this information.. v�d r4 a ch Date L3 rn )00 rumt name of owner or representative and Title igmmature For Office Use Date filed: Fee: Receipt No: By: J:1Forms 200MEQMenvironmental information form.doc Rev. 7-25-00 4 Wo M ILla r r aw } .., :y a ac ,R � L ■ l.iU11!1 - -- ^ �� -I A � _ c 1 n , f d } t'yYi,L:+�Cii�� S •L ?Y ni�l flY: d I 6 . .tl _ 1 1 � } .. '�r�; � s ly - .. .. �. i �' )?�� � J'.. . . �� p^. r` ♦�1 � `a - �- i .-:� , — �„fir {1 tis:, � ' �, � , � � ., y : �.. Z , �ur���-- �- - i� ' � ' _. .,� . ?�Pokt. PLANNING pEPARTYENT 9 CRY NN.I. DAD N P.P 0.BOX v. ox l xEW M MACN, `'4.oa^•• cwwnxu emaeals ftx 7e1 RrbAon AnaeS JMWCanpbd.Sab Pbma smm Ghee. Pee 914J11.901e 2 e11eM1 OctlM91.2tD1 Rw 20DIW117$-fIW C Weae ❑P,mme, O—luvb 0Plane NeWde e Comments: Thank you for pointing out the missing eheckboxes on the rebranced NO that has been filed and processed by your office. Thank you for updating your records Pursuant to my message. Attached you will find a copy of the NO confirming the determinations previously Indicated in my sake message. Please retain this Ior your records. Call me N you have any questions at(949)fid4.3210.James Campbell. TX RESULT REPORT NAME:PUNNING DEPARTMENT TEL :949 644 3229 DATE:OCT.3112001 04:35 SESSION FUNCTION NO. DESTINATION STATION DATE I TIME I PAGE I DUUTION MODE RESULT 0393 TX 01 979763233078 OCT.31 I D4:34 1 002 OON00-36e ECM OK Wp°a *TY OF NEWPORT BEVH = 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach,CA 92658.8915 A �ctsoaNse (949)644.3210 a c NOTICE OF DETERMINATION B0401. Oct �y «oc d To: From: City of Newport Base �/ k• Bi Office of Planning and Research Planning Department ❑X 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 3300 Newport Boulevard.P.O.Box i Sacramento,CA 95814 Newport Beach,CA 92658-8915 County Clerk,County of Orange County of Orange X Public Services Division 12 Civic Center Plaza Date received for filing at OPR: Santa Ana,CA 92702 Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Name of Project: Jackson Residence (PA 2001-062) State Clearinghouse Number: City Contact Person: Telephone No.: 2001071115 lames Campbell, Senior Planner 949.644.3210 Project Location: 3631 E. Ocean Blvd, Corona Del Mar, Newport Beach, County of Orange Project Description: Demolish existing single family home(2,924 gross square feet)and replace with new single family home(6,044 gross square feet) including grading,paving,fencing lighting, landscaping I and irrigation. The project includes the changes to the existing driveway and front yard landscaping presently located within the public right-of-way. The project also includes a variance request to exceed established height limits ofZuming Code due to unique topographical circumstances. lastly, the project includes a request to deviate from the required front yard setback of 10 feet providing no front setback. This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has approved the above described project on September 20 2001 (Date) and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The City is4DUad Agency Responsible Agency for the project. 2. The project will(will not have a significant effect on the environment. 3. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 4.dp A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 5. Mitigation nteasures(Sawere were not made a condition of the approval of the project. 6. A Ststemel!n,tof Overriding Considerations was$>was not adopted for this project. 7. Findingsci�''were were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The Negative Declaration and record of project approval is available for review at the Planning Depart- ment R City of Newport leach, 300 Newport Boulevard,Newport Beach,CA 92658-8915; 949/644-3210. James Camp ell,Seni •Planner Date Form A Notice of Completion & Er ronmental Document Tramunitta: Mail to:State Clearinghouse,PO Box 3044,Sacramento,CA 95812-3044 9161445-0613 SCH k Project Title: Jackson Residence Lead Agency: CiN of Newport Beach Contact Person: James Campbel Senior Planned Street Address: 3300 Newport Boulevard Phone: 949-644-3210 City: Newport Beach Zip: 92663 County: Orange ------------------- - - ______________ Project Location: County: Orange City/Nearest Community: Newport Beach,Corona Del Mar Cross Streers: Ocean Avenue/Poinsettia Zip Code: 92625 Total Acres: 0.185 Assessoes Parcel No. 052,150.11 Section: Twp. Range: Base: Within 2 Miles: Sum,Hwy#: 1 Waterways: Newport Harbor Airports: None Railways: None Schools: none ----------------------------------------- Document Type: CEOA: ❑NOP Supplemem/Subsequent EIR NEPA: ONO] Other: ❑Joint Document ❑Early Corm (Prior SCH No.) ❑EA ❑Final Document N Neg Dec ❑Other ❑Draft HIS ❑Other ❑Draft EIR ❑PONSI _________________________________________ Local Action Type: ❑General Plan Update O Specific Plan ❑Rezone ❑Annexation ❑General Plan Amendment ❑Master Plan 0pouxm ❑Redevelopment ❑General Plan Element 0 Planned Unit Development ❑Use Permit ❑Coastal Permit ❑Community Plan 0 Site Plan 0Land Division(Subdivision, am.) 9Othor Variance Application ----------------------------------------- Development Type: ®Residential: Uniisl Acres Water Facilities: Tyye MGD_ ❑Office: Sq.Jr._ Acres_ Employees_ 0 Transportation: Type ❑Commercial: Sq fr._Acres_ Employees_ ❑Mining: mmera! Industrial: Sgfr._ Acres_ Employees_ 0Power: Type Watts_ ❑Educational ❑Waste Treamsene Type - 0 Recreational ❑Hazardous Waste: Type Q other: ----------------------------------------- Funding(approx.): Federal $ 0 State $ 0 Total $ 0 ----------------------------------------- Project Issues Discussed in Document; ®Aesthetic/Visual 0 Flood PlairMooding QSchooh/Universities ®Water Quality ❑Agricultural Land 0 Forest Land/Firc Hazard O Septic Systems ❑Water Supply/Groundwater ®Air Quality ®Grologic/Seismic ❑Sewer Capacity ❑Wedand/Riparian ®Ambrologic"istorical 0 Minerals ❑Soil Brosion/CompanionlGmding ❑Wildlife ❑Coastal Zone ❑Noise Q Solid Waste ❑Growth Inducing ❑Drainage/Absorption 0 PopulatioNHoming Balance ❑ToxicMazardous 0Landuse ❑Economidlobs 0 Public Services/Facfli ies ®Traf ic/Circulmion ❑Cumulative Effects ❑Fiscal ❑Recremion/Parks Q Vegetation 0 Other ----------------------------------------- Present Land Use/Zoning/Gem ral Plan Designation: Single Family ResidentialtR-1/Single Family Residential ----------------------------------------- Project Description: Demolish existing single family home(2,924 gross square feet)and replace with new single family home(5,934 gross square feet) including grading,paving,fencing lighting,landscaping and irrigation.The project also includes a variance request to exceed established height limits of Zoning Code and a request to reduce the required front yard setback of 10 feet providing ncAfhJ t4 Na'&. 23 Reviewing Agencies Chesist Form A,continues KEY _Resources Agency S=Document sent by lead agency _Boating&Waterways X=Document sent by SCH _Coastal Commission V=Suggested distribution _Coastal Conservancy _Colorado River Board Environmental Protection Agency Conservation fir Resources Board _Fish&Game _California Waste Management Board _Forestry&Fire Protection _S WRCB:Clean Water Grants _Office of Historic Preservation _SWRCB:Delta Unit —Parks&Recreation _SWAGS:Water Quality Reclamation Board — _SWAGS:Water Rights —S.F.Bay Conservation&Development Commission _ Y Water Resources Youth WQCB#h ( 1 outh &Adult Corrections Business,Transportation & Housing _Corrections _Aeronautics _California Highway Patrol Independent Commissions&Offices _CALTRANS District# —Energy Commission _Department of Transportation Planning(headquarters) —Native American Heritage Commission _Housing&Community Development —Public Utilities Commission _Food&Agriculture —Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy _State Lands Commission Health&Welfare _Tahoe Regional Planning Agency _Health Services State&Consumer Services _Other _General Services OLA(Schools) ----------------------------------------- Public Review Parried(to be filled in by lead agency) Sliming Date July 23, 2001 Ending Date August 22, 2001 Signature 6 ""C�'✓ Date ________________________ Lead Agency(Complete if applicable): For SCH Use Only: Consulting Finn: WA Date Received at SCH Address: City/State/Zip: Date Review Starts Contact: Date to Agencies Phone:(_) Date to SCH Clearance Date Nores: Applioant, Ed Lorbach Address: 31681 Camino Capistrano City/Statemp: San Juan Capistrano,CA 92675 Phony (949 1 681-5068 o��Ewr�R 0 0 u CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH d, P.O.BOX 1768,NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658.8915 C,C�FOPH`P CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: County Clerk Public Services Division _ P.O.Box 238 Santa Ana,CA 92702 FROM: Planning Department, City of Newport Beach(949)644-3200 SUBJECT: Public Notice of Negative Declaration Filing Enclosed are two copies of a Negative Declaration for posting along with the$43 filing fee. Please stamp one cony "Posted/Ned" and return with the fee receipt to the undersigned at the address shown on the Public Notice of Negative Declaration. If you have any questions,please contact the undersigned at(949)644-3200. L 4so /01 J" es Campbell,Senior Planner Date: — JAV 2WUNew F;,.\CERAWD POWM9 ro Aw Project:Jackson Residence(PA2001-062) Fo,c 0( A- key- Cha. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach A ' • 0 099� Gary L. Granville V T Orange County Clerk-Recorder P. O. Box 238 (+ �P Santa Ana, CA 92702 {9��<IFORtd AT.I_1 O—t� I1011 /7VC�i't'1 Office of the Orange County Clerk-Recorder Memorandum SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Reports Amendment of"Public Resources Code, Section 21092.3" The attached notice was received, filed and a copy was posted on It remained posted for 20 (twenty) days. Gary L. Granville County Clerk-Recorder of the State of California in and for the County of Orange By:----`' 'G A Deputy Public Resource Code 21092.3 The notices required pursuant to Sections 21080.4 and 21092 for an environmental impa report shall be posted in the office of the County Clerk of each county*** in which the project will be located and shall remain posted for a period of 30 days. The notice recllirgd pursuant to Section 21092 for a negative a negative declaration shall be so posted for a period of 20 days. unless otherwise required by law to be posted for 30 days The r'gunty Clerk shall post notices within 24 hours of receipt. Public Resources Code 21152 All notices filed pursuant to this section shall be available for public inspection, and shall be posted***within 24 hours of receipt in the office of the County Clerk. Each notice shall remain posted for a period of 30 days. 'Thereafter, the clerk shall return the notice to the local lead agency'within a notation of the period it was posted. The local lead agency shall retain the notice for not less than nine months. Additions or changes by underline; deletions by'** f *Y OF NEWPORT BE*H p p $ T E D o Q, F n 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 JUL 23 2001 0 �= Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 LIE,Clelk•Peeeldef '^w (949)644.3200 GAMY L.G C9ll FOw�`P PUBLIC NOTICE OF NEGATIVE DECLARA�' ON DEPUTY To: From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department Office of Planning and Research 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 X P.O.BOX 3044 Newport Beach,CA 92658-8915 Sacramento.CA 95812-3044 (Orange County) County Clerk,County of Orange X Public Services Division P.O.Box 238 Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: Sans Ana,CA 92702 Public review period: July 23, 2001 to August 22, 2001 Name of Project: Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062) Project Location: 3631 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar, California Project Description: Demolish existing single family home(2,924 gross square feet)and replace with new single family home(5,934 gross square feet) including grading,paving,fencing lighting, landscaping and irrigation. The propsed project includes the changes to the existing driveway and front yard landscaping presently located within the public right-of--way. The project also includes a variance request to exceed established height limits of Zoning Code due to unique topographical circumstances.Lastly, the project includes a request to deviate from the required front yard setback of l0 feet providing no front setback. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines in implement the California Environmental Quality Act,the Environmental Affairs Comminee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is ❑ attached ® on file at the planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-makers)prior to final action on the proposed project.A public hearing will be held to consider this project after the conclusion of the public comment period. A notice of the time and location will be published in accordance with applicable Municipal code requirements. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials,you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document,your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project,why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held,you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. If you have my questions or would like further information lease contact the undersigned at 949 644-3200. �vJ C L — Date 2v v James Campbell,SerArPlanner o�1EwPOR m AY OF NEWPORT BE*H > y 3300 Newport Boulevard -P.O.Box 1768 Newport Beach,CA 92658-8915 w:x. (949) 6443200 C9</F00.��P NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO: From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department Office of Planning and Research 3300 Newport Boulevard-P.O.Box 1768 X P.O.BOX 3044 Newport Beach,CA 92658-8915 Sacramento,CA 95812-3044 (Orange County) X❑ County Clerk,County of Orange Public Services Division P.O.Box 238 Date received for filing in OPRIComay Clerk: Santa Ana,CA 92702 Public review period. July 23, 2001 to August 22, 2001 Name of Project: Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062) Project Location: 3631 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar, California Project Description: Demolish existing single family home(2,924 gross square feet)and replace with new single family home(5,934 gross square feet) including grading,paving,fencing lighting, landscaping and irrigation. The propsed project includes the changes to the existing driveway and from yard landscaping presently located within the public right-of-way. The project also includes a variance request to exceed established height limits of Zoning Code due to unique topographical circumstances.Lastly, the project includes a request to deviate from the required front yard setback of l0 feet providing no front setback. Finding: Pursuant in the provisions of City Council K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act,the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and detemdned that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. tre�rr A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this funding is 0 attached ❑ on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental imparts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s)prior to final action on the proposed project.A public hearing will be held ro consider this project after the conclusion of the public comment period. A notice of the time and location will be published in accordance with applicable Municipal code requirements. Additional plans,studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials,you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document,your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project,why they are significant,and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held,you are also invited to intend and testify as in the appropriateness of this document. If I you have m questions or would like further information lease contact the undersigned at 94`9 644-3200. V V C Data / v James Campbell,Senior Planner ! � Hu boslVlewu : y 260 �/ �<, r,n��JJ n � l 7 � TOilar yg ` 42 � �`Jc. �rl+ \ N- 60 � N, S� 4 !E. ���... �.. P{1can .Point ]{ TN'�!�rrMN . -`U �2 1 MILE 7 I f 13% 1000 0 1000 2000 _ 3000 4000 FEET 777 U Printed from TOPO! ©1996 Wildflower Productions (www.topo.com) LOCATION MAP Ref: Portion of U. S.G.S.Topogrophkal Map LAGUNA BEACH QUADRANGLE 7.5 Minute Series, 1965, Photo Revised 1981 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. J N. 3 -00 June, 2001 FIGURE l CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Jackson Residence VA 2001-001 (PA2001-062) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach,CA 92658-8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: James Campbell,Planning Department (949)644.3210 4. Project Location: 3631 Ocean Boulevard,Corona del Mar 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Ed Lorbach 31681 Camino Capistrano,Suite 106 San Juan Capistrano,CA 92675 Douglas &Sandra Jackson Property Owners 6. General Plan Designation: Single Family Detached 7. Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Section 20.65.040.24/28 Foot Height Limitation Zone 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Demolish and remove existing single family home (2,924 gross square feet)and replace with new single family home (5,934 gross square feet) including grading, paving, fencing lighting, landscaping and irrigation. The propsed project includes the changes to the existing driveway and front yard landscaping presently located within the public right-of-way. The project also includes a variance request to exceed established height limits of Zoning Code due to unique topographical circumstances. Lastly, the project includes a request to deviate from the required front yard setback of 10 feet providing no front setback The project, as proposed, requires a variance to exceed the 2428 feet height limit, as well as, the requirement to ensure that roof heights on new construction do not exceed the top of the curb height at Ocean Boulevard per Sections 20.65.040 and 20.65.060 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. The garage, as proposed, exceeds height limit of the curb by 2'- 6". The rear portion of the upper level of proposed residence will exceed the 24 foot height limit by approximately 10'- 6". Environmental Check1ft 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Current Devel ment: Single Fairdly Residence To the north: Ocean Boulevard,Single Family Residential To the east: Single Family Residence To the south: Pacific Ocean To the west: Sing3e Family Residence 9. Other public agencies whose approval is required(e.g.,permits,financing approval, or participation agreement.) California Coastal Commission(Coastal Development Permit) ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use Planning Transportation/ ❑ Public Services Circulation ❑ Population &Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities &Service Systems Geological Problems ❑ Energy&Mineral *Aesthetics Resources ❑ Water ❑Hazards Cultural Resources ❑ Air Quality P( Noise ❑ Recreation Mandatory Findings of 'Significance Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 2 l _ • Environmental Checkht DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 13 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s)on the environment,but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a"potentially significant impact" or"potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ❑ Prepared&Submitted by:A� /i ,/ mes Campbell,laenior Planrkr Dat Planning Department Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 3 Environmental Check10 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLLST Potentially Leta Than Less than No Significant Significant significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect Cl ❑ ® ❑ on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ resources, including,but not limited to,trees, rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing ❑ ❑ a ❑ visual character or quality of the she and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for ❑ ❑ ❑ El agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the ❑ ❑ ❑ existing environment which,due to their location or nature,couid result in conversion of Farmland,to non- agricultural use? III. AIR OUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ implementation of the applicable air quality Ian? Jackson Residmn (PA 2001-062)•Page 4 • Environmental Checklist Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ Cl H contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to ❑ ❑ B ❑ substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 either directly or through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,coastal, etc.) through direct removal,filling, hydrological interruption,or other means? Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 5 Environmental CheckIN Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Interfere substantially with the ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any locaf policies or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ordinances protecting biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local, regional,or stale habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,or death involvin : Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 6 • Environmental Checkht Potentially Lsa®Than Leas than No significant significant significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporates! 1 Rupture of a known earthquake ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ fault,as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ shaking? iii)Seismic-related ground failure, ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ that is unstable,or that Would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-she landslide,lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 defined in Table 18. 1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994), creating substantial risks to Ilte or property, e) Have soils incapable of adequately ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 supporting the use septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VIL HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 7 Environmental Checklf Potentially less Than lass than No SfgnHiwnt Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Create a significant hazard to the ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is ❑ ❑ ❑ E1 included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project within an airport land ❑ ❑ ❑ a use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,Would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ ❑ ❑ private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) mpair implementation of or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)0 Page 8 i Environmental Checklist Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any Water quality standards ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ or Waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 9 Environmental Check# Potentially Less Than Lessthan No significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 significant risk of loss,injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ plan,policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to the general plan,specific plan, local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 conservation plan or natural communityconservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan, or other land use plan? Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 10 • Environmental Checklil Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ambient noise levels in the project Vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 private airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 growth in an area, either directly(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page I I l_ Environmental Check* Potentially Less man Less Man lie Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 existing housing,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ people,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically shared government facilities,need for new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use ❑ ❑ ❑ H of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?opportunities? Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 12 • Environmental Checkht Potentially Less Than Lessthan No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated XIV. TRANSPORTATION/rRAFFIC Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed either individually or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 cumulatively,a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 to a design feature(e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 access? f) Result in inadequate parking ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 capacity g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 or programs supporting altemative transportation(e.g.,bus tumours, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES&SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 13 I. Environmental ChecklO Potentially Less Than Less than No significant significant significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Require or result in the construction ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 of new storm Water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the ❑ ❑ ❑ B wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state,and local ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 statutes and regulation related to solid waste? Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 14 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 environmental effects which Will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly9 XVIL EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEGA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Environmental Checklt SOURCE LIST The following enumerated documents are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach,Planning Department,3300 Newport Boulevard,Newport Beach,California 92660. 1. Final Program EIR—City of Newport Beach General Plan 2. General Plan,including all its elements,City of Newport Beach. 3. Title 20,Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. City Excavation and Grading Code,Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. Plans for Single Family Residence at 3631 Ocean Boulevard,prepared by Ed Lorbach,dated . 6. Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Petra,Report No. 358-00,615/2001, Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 16 • Environmental Checklist MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measure No. 1 (Air Quality) a) During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402(Nuisance),to reduce nuisance due to odors from construction activities. b) During construction activities,the applicant shall ensure that the following measures are complied with to reduce short-term(construction)air quality impacts associated with the project: a)controlling fugitive dust by regular waterne watering,or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust);b) maintaining equipment engines in proper tune;and c)phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project-related emissions. c) To control dust,the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Limit the disturbance area to the extent feasible. • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway. • Use street sweepers to clean and pick up trailing dust from raids in the vicinity of the project. • Cover or water twice daily any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 miles per hour. • Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain inactive for more tham 96 hours after clraring is completed. d) To control emissions,the project proponent shall compy with the following measures: • Require 90-day low-Nox tune-ups for off-road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. e) To minimize off-site impacts,the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Encourage car pooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt aauled off site. • Wash or sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non-peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)0 Page 17 Environmental Check* Mitigation Measure No.2 (Cultural Resources) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City that a qualified paleontologistlarchaeologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalog cultural material or fossils as necessary. The paleontologistlarchaeologist shall be present at the pre-grading conference, establish procedures for paleontological/ archaeological resource surveillance, and establish, in cooperation with the Applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the cultural material or fossils. If major paleontological/archaeological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting or grading, the paleontologist/ archaeologist shall report such findings to the Applicant and the City. The paleontologist/archae-ologist shall deter-mine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the Applicant,which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City, or its designee, on a first-refusal basis. The Applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions shall be subject to the approval of the City. Mlfi¢ation Measure No.3(Geology and Soils) During construction activities, the project will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code(NBMC Section 15.10) Mitigation Measure No.4 The recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Investigation (Petra Report No. J.N. 358-00) and any subsequent geotechnical or geologic report for the project shall be incorporated into the project. Mitigation Measure No.5 (Hydrology and Water Quality) The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department to determine compliance. Mitigation Measure No.6 (Noise) The applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code pertaining to noise restrictions. During construction activities, the hours of construction and excavation work are allowd from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and holidays. Mitigation Measure No.7 (Transportadon)Traffic) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a traffic control and construction access plan to address construction traffic, haul routes, truck hauling operations and parking in order to maintain safe access to the site during construction. The construction access plan shall include alternative pedestrian and bicycle path routes and an employee panting plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Traffic Department and the Planning Department. Additionally, the applicant shall obtain a haul route permit from the Revenue Division. No construction equipment shall be permitted to park overnight on Ocean Boulevard. Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)0 Page 18 • Environmental Analysis • The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions contained in the Environmental Checklist regarding the proposed project's environmental impacts. I. Aesthetics a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant. City policy expressly addresses structures along Ocean Boulevard and dictates that the height of new structures be limited in order to preserve public scenic vistas from Ocean Boulevard,as well as,preserve the visual character of the bluff face. New structures built along Ocean Boulevard shall not exceed the height limit of the top of the curb at Ocean Boulevard. Furthermore, structures within the R-1 Zone along Ocean Boulevard are not to exceed height limits of twenty-four(24) feet from natural grade. The project proponent has requested a variance to exceed the height limits. The project proponent has cited extreme topographical constraints as cause for the variance. Specifically, the project proponent cites that the height variance is needed to accommodate the proposed garage which will take access from Ocean Boulevard. The existing two-story, single family structure on the site will be replaced by a new, three-story, single family residential structure. The height of the existing structure exceeds the height of the top of the curb at Ocean Boulevard by approximately 3 feet, thereby blocking portions of the scenic vista from Ocean Boulevard toward the Pacific Ocean. The new structure will only exceed the height of the top of the curb at Ocean Boulevard by 2" - 6" for the garage and the remainder of the residence will be at the height of the curb. The rear portion of the upper level of proposed residence will exceed the 24-foot height limit by approximately 10' - 6". Due to the fact that the new residence will be lower than the existing residence, views from Ocean Boulevard will be improved. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less than significant impact. A majority of the proposed residence will be located within existing disturbed areas. The footprint of the proposed residence and exterior at grade deck will be extended toward the ocean an average of 18 feet. This area is approximately 575 square feet of moderately sloping bluff with no exposed rock outcroppings visible. The area is not visible from public spaces. The building wall that faces the ocean is within a stringline of the two adjacent residences. The at grade deck extends further than a stringline between ocean facing decks on the two adjacent residences between 2 to 10 feet. The location of the residence and deck does not alter the steeper portion of the coastal bluff below that does have exposed outcroppings of rocks which are visible from the rocky beach below. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less than significant. See I(a) and(b) above. Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page.19 Environmental Analysis d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No impact. The site currently houses a single family home, including residential lighting. The proposed project will replace the existing single family home with a new single family home, including residential and landscape lighting. No significant impacts from light and glare are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. H. Agricultural Resources a) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The project site is not located within or near an area designated as farmland pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract? No impact. The site is zoned for residential use and is not a part of a Williamson Act contract. No mitigation measures are necessary. c)Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland,to non-agricultural use? No impact. See II(a) and(b) above. Ili. Air Quality a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Construction related emissions contribute to the non-attainment status of the southern area air basin. The following mitigation measures are necessary to reduce potential impacts to air quality to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure No. I a) During construction activities,the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402(Nuisance),to reduce nuisance due to odors from construction activities. b) During construction activities,the applicant shall ensure that the following measures are complied with to reduce short-term(construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: a)controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)Rule 403(Fugitive Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 20 • Environmental Analysis • Dust); b)maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and c)phasing and scheduling construction activities to minimize project-related emissions. c) To control dust,the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Limit the disturbance area to the extent feasible. • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway. • Use street sweepers to clean and pick up trailing dust from raids in the vicinity of the project. • Cover or water twice daily any on-site stockpiles of debris,dirt or other dusty material. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed.25 miles per hour. • Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain inactive for more than 96 hours after clearing is completed. d) To control emissions,the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Require 90-day low-Nox tune-ups for off-road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. e) To minimize off-site impacts,the project proponent shall comply with the following measures: • Encourage car pooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off site. • Wash or sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non-peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. See III(a)above. c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. See III (a) above. d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 21 Environmental Analysis * No impact. The proposed project will not create substantial pollutant concentrations. No mitigation measures are necessary. e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No impact. The proposed project will not create objectionable odors. No mitigation measures are necessary. IV. Biological Resources a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No impact. The site is presently developed with a single family home and is located in a developed, urbanized area. Existing landscaping includes non-native, orrtamental vegetation. The non-native, ornamental vegetation will be graded and replaced with new, ornamental plant materials. The proposed project will not directly or indirectly have any impacts on sensitive biological resources. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? No impact. See IV (a) above. The site does not contain riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to, marsh,vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,filling, hydrological interruption,or other means? No impact. See IV (a) above. The site does not include wetlands, nor is it in the vicinity of designated wetlands. No mitigation measures are necessary. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No impact. See IV (a) above. The site does not include or provide habitat for any migratory fish or wildlife species. No mitigation measures are necessary. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Jackson Residence(PA 2001 062)•Page22 • Environmental Analysis • No impact. No unique trees or vegetation exist on site. Existing non-native vegetation will be removed due to grading. The proposed project includes installation of new, ornamental, non- native landscaping. Removing the existing vegetation and the provision of non-native landscaping does not conflict with any established policies or ordinances. No mitigation measures are necessary. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No impact. The project site is not subject to any established conservation plan. No mitigation measures are necessary. V. Cultural Resources a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? No impact. No known historical resources are located within or in the vicinity of the proposed project. No mitigation treasures are necessary. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 150645? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No known archaeological resources are located within or in the vicinity of the proposed project. A standard condition of approval requiring that an archeologist be consulted during grading will be applied to the project in case of unknown artifacts being unearthed. See Mitigation Measure No. 2. Mftiaafion Measure No. 2-Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City that a qualified paleontologist/archaeologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalog cultural material or fossils as necessary. The paleontologist/archaeologist shall be present at the pre-grading conference, establish procedures for paleontological/ archaeological resource surveillance, and establish, in cooperation with the Applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the cultural material or fossils. If major paleontological/archaeological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting or grading, the paleontologist/ archaeologist shall report such findings to the Applicant and the City. The paleontologistlarchaeologist shall deter-mine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the Applicant,which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage.Excavated finds shall be offered to the City, or its designee,on a first-refusal basis. The Applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions shall be subject to the approval of the City. ]ackwn Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 23 Environmental Analysis • c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No impact. No known paleontological or geologic resources are located within or in the vicinity of the proposed project. See Mitigation Measure No. 2. d)Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No impact. See V(b)and(c)above. VI. Geology and Soils a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less than significant impact. The geotechnical investigation (Petra Report No. J.N. 358- 00) prepared for the proposed project states that no known active faults or projections of faults transect the property. The report concludes that potential damage to the property due to surface rupturing along faults is considered remote. Adherence to geotechnical report recommendations,the City Grading Ordinance and standard conditions of approval will mitigate potential risks to a less than significant impact. See Mitigation Measures No. 3 and 4 below. it. Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The geotechnical investigation prepared for the proposed project concludes that the site will be affected by seismic accelerations generated by earthquakes along active faults which are distant from the site. The Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone is located 2 or 3 miles southwesterly of the site. Hypothetical peak based accelerations were estimated and specific recommendations for design, construction and maintenance of the proposed project and site are included in the geotechnical report. Implementation of the recommendations will help to mitigate potential seismic ground shaking impacts. See Mitigation Measures No. 3 and 4 below. Mitigation Measure No.3 - During construction activities, the project will comply with the erosion and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code(NBMC Section 15.10) Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 24 • Environmental Analysis • Mitigation Measure No. 4 - The recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Investigation (Petra Report No.J.N. 358-00) and any subsequent geotechnical or geologic report for the project shall be incorporated into the project. iti. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? Less than significant impact. The Geotechnical Report did not note soil conditions that would be susceptible to However, measures recommended by the Geotechnical Report, including the use of a caisson and beam foundation embedded in bedrock, will serve to mitigate potential liquefaction risks. See Mitigation Measure No. 3 and 4. iv. Landslides? Less than significant impact. The project site is located on a bluff face within a zone of required investigation for earthquake induced landslides. The Geotechnical Report prepared for the proposed project concludes that investigation of geologic conditions which back the bluff slope indicate the bluff slope should not be affected by instability during an earthquake or otherwise. Implementation of the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Report for construction, drainage and maintenance will serve to minimize the risk of landslides. See Mitigation Measures No. 3 and 4 above. b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than significant impact. The Geotechnical Report prepared for the proposed project recommends controlling drainage to avoid the introduction of water to the slope and filled areas which will serve to minimize the risk of soil erosion. Through implementation of the City's grading ordinance, potential erosion and siltation impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant impact. See Mitigation Measures No. 3 and 4 above. c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? Less than significant impact. See VI(a)above. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? No impact. Boring samples of the project site's soils were analyzed in the Geotechnical Report prepared for the proposed project. The report concludes that onsite soils have a very low expansive potential. No mitigation measures other than those listed in Mitigation Measure No. 3 and 4 are necessary. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Jackson Residence TA 2001-062)•Page 25 Environmental Analysis No impact. The project site is served by a waste water and sewage disposal system. No mitigation measures are necessary. VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use,or disposal of hazardous materials? No impact. The proposed project does not involve the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No impact. See VII(a)above. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous material, substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No impact. See VII (a) above. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65%25 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No impact. The project site is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites. No mitigation measures are necessary. e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No impact. The project site is located over five (5) miles from the nearest airport (John Wayne Airport). No mitigation measures are necessary. f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No impact. See VII(e)above. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No impact. The project will not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No mitigation measures are necessary. Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Pzgc.26 • Environmental Analysis • b) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fines, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area The risk of wildland fires is insignificant. No mitigation measures are necessary. VM. Hydrology and Water Quality a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project will not substantially increase runoff or violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Existing site drainage is collected and transported to the base of the coastal bluff. On site runoff will be re- directed away from the bluff via the use of deck, building and site drains. The runoff will be collected and pumped to Ocean Boulevard that flows into the storm drain system and ultimately into the ocean. The mnoff expected from the site can be described as residential in nature and less than significant amounts of contaminates are expected from a single family residence. With the incorporation of City standard conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures during grading, construction and ongoing site maintenance, no cumulative impacts associated with hydrologic conditions are anticipated as a result of the project. See Mitigation Measure No. 5. Mitigation Measure No. 5 - The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public Works Department to determine compliance. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge,such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing single family home. Although extensive grading of the slope is included in the project, no impacts to groundwater are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or of-site? No impact. See VIII(a)above. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on—of-site? Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 27 0 Environmental Analysis 0 No impact. See VIII (a) above. The site does not presently direct its runoff to Ocean Boulevard, but due to relatively limited impervious area of the site, Public Works department staff does not believe that the small increase in drainage at Ocean Boulevard is significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoW. No impact. See VIIf(a) AND(d) above. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No impact. See VIII(a) above. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No impact. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone. No mitigation measures are necessary. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No impact. The project site is not located within a I00-year flood zone. No mitigation measures are necessary. i) Expose people of structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No impact. The project site is not located near a levee or dam. No mitigation measures are necessary. j)Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? No impact. Said risks to the City were evaluated in 1974 (A Preliminary Study of Flood Probability at Newport Beach". Potential risks from seiche, tsunami or mudflow, are remote. No mitigation measures are necessary. IX. Land Use and Planning a)Physically divide an established community? No impact. The site is presently developed with a single family home in an urbanized, residential neighborhood. The proposed project consists of a new, larger single family home to replace the existing residence. No mitigation measures are necessary. Jackson Rcs,&c a(PA 2001-062)•P.p 28 • Environmental Analysis • b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or . mitigating an environmental effect? Less than significant impact. The project site is subject to the height limits imposed by the R-1 zone (Section 20.65.040 of the Municipal Code), the Shoreline Height Limitation Ordinance (Section 20.65.060 of the Municipal Code) and Coastal Element Policy pertaining to coastal views (page 28 of the City of Newport Beach Coastal Element). The applicable ordinance sections and policy are noted below. • City of Newport Beach Municipal Code 20.65.040 A. — 24/28 Foot Height Limitation Zone. In the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation Zone the height limit for any structure shall be twenty-four(24)feet;provided,however, that a structure may exceed twenty-four(24) feet up to a maximum of 28 feet through the adoption of a Planned Community District, or through the adoption of a Specific Plan, or through the approval of a use permit. This height limitation zone applies to all R-1, R-1.5, R-2, and OS Districts, which applies to the subject property. • City of Newport Beach Municipal Code 20.65.060 B — Structures on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar, which were in existence or under construction on the effective date of this chapter (October 11, 1972) may be changed; provided, such change does not result in a roof height above top of curb; and provided, further that the roof height does not exceed the height limit established by the 24/28 height limitation zone. For purposes of this chapter, the top of curb height limitation shall be established by a horizontal plane created by the extension of the top of curb line across each site located on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard. Where a question arises as to the interpretation of this code,the Planning Director shall review and render a decision. New structures may be constructed on vacant sites subject to the same criteria. • City of Newport Beach General Plan Local Coastal Program Land Use Element, January 9, 19ft Coastal Views — Where coastal views from existing roadways exist, any development on private property within the sight lines from the roadway shall be sited and designed to maximize protection of the coastal view. This policy is not intended to prohibit development on any site. Coastal View Area(a)—Ocean Boulevard,Corona del Mar. The existing two-story, single family structure on the site will be replaced by a new, tbree-story, single family residential structure. The height of the existing structure exceeds the height of the top of the curb at Ocean Boulevard by approximately 3 feet, thereby blocking portions of the scenic vista from Ocean Boulevard toward the Pacific Ocean. The project proponent has requested a variance to exceed the height limits. The project proponent has cited extreme topographical constraints as cause for the variance. The new structure will only exceed the height of the top of the curb at Ocean Boulevard by 2" - 6" for the garage and the remainder of the residence will be at the height of the curb. The rear portion of the upper level of proposed Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 29 Environmental Analysis residence will exceed the 24-foot height limit by approximately 10' - 6". Due to the fact that the new residence will be lower than the existing residence, views from Ocean Boulevard will be improved. However,enforcing the existing height limit regulations would eliminate any potential negative impacts to the public scenic vista. The intent of these policies is to protect and improve . ocean views, and therefore, project approval will have a less than significant impact to land use to the environment in the area of land use policy. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No impact. The project site does not lie within a conservation plan habitat or natural community conservation plan. No mitigation measures are necessary. X. Mineral Resources a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing structure in an urbanized area No loss of availability of any known mineral resource would occur as a result of the project. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan? No impact. See X (a)above. XI. Noise a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project will include the demolition of an existing single family residential and the construction of a new, single family residential structure. Short term, construction related noise impacts would be mitigated through the application of the standard conditions of approval required by the City's Noise Ordinance, including limited hours of construction. No continuing noise impacts are anticipated. See Mitigation Measure No.5. Mitigation Measure No. 6 - The applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code pertaining to noise restrictions. During construction activities, the hours of construction and excavation work are allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and holidays. Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page.30 Environmental Analysis b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? No impact. See XI (a) above. The project will not be using a pile driven foundation system . which could generate excessive ground home vibration or noise. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No impact. See XI(a) above. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No impact. See XI(a) above. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working the project area to excessive noise levels? No impact. The project is not located within an airport land use plan. The nearest airport, John Wayne Airport, is located approximately 5 miles away. No airport related noise impacts are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No impact. The project is not located within an airport land use plan. The nearest airport is located 5 miles away. No airport related noise impacts are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. XII. Population and Housing a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing single family residence with a new residence. No increase in population growth is anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No impact. See XII (a) above. Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Pagc 31 Environmental Analysis c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No impact. See XD (a) above. XIII. Public Services a)Fire Protection? No impact. The site is presently served by the NewportBeach Fire Department. The proposed project will replace an existing single family residence with a new single family home. The proposed residence will have approximately 5,484 gross square feet and fire sprinklers are required for all new residences that exceed 5,000 square feet. No impact or change to fire protection is anticipated from the proposed project. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Police protection? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residential unit with a new residential unit. The site is presently served by the Newport Beach Police Department. No impact or change to fire protection is anticipated from the proposed project. No mitigation measures me necessary. c)Schools? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residence with a new single family residence. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. Applicable school fees will be required for the site prior to issuance of a building permit. No additional school impacts are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. d) Other public facilities? No impact. See X1I1(a), (b) and(c) above. XIV. Recreation a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing single family residence with a new residence. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. No additional impacts to recreational facilities or services are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page32 • Environmental Analysis • b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Opportunities? No impact. See XIV(a) above. XV. Transportation/Traffic a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersection)? Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project will replace an existing residential unit with a new residential unit. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. No increases in traffic are anticipated with the continued occupancy and use the project. However, during implementation of the project, construction traffic can create localized traffic disruption. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will ensure minimal traffic related impacts, Mitigation Measure No.7 - Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a traffic control and construction access plan to address construction traffic, haul routes, truck hauling operations and parking in order to maintain safe access to the site during construction. The construction access plan shall include alternative pedestrian and bicycle path routes and an employee parking plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Traffic Department and the Planning Department. Additionally, the applicant shall obtain a haul route permit from the Revenue Division. No construction equipment shall be permitted to park overnight on Ocean Boulevard. b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residential unit with a new residential unit. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. No increases in traffic are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residential unit with a new residential unit. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. No increase in traffic is anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipment)? Jackson Residence(PA 2001- 62)•Page 33 Environmental Analysis No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residential unit with a new residential unit. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. No changes in the circulation system would result from the project. No mitigation measures are necessary. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No impact. See XV(d)above. f)Result in inadequate parking capacity? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residential unit with a new residential unit. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. Parking needs will be accommodated on site per City zoning requirements. No mitigation measures are necessary. g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? No impact. See XV above. XVI. Utilities and Service Systems a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residential unit with a new residential unit. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. Wastewater treatment impacts would not result from the project. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No impact. The proposed project will replace an existing residential unit with a new residential unit. The use is consistent with the zoning and General Plan designations for the site. No new or expanded wastewater treatment drainage facilities would be needed as a result of the project. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No impact. See XVI(b) above. Jackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page.34 Environmental Analysis d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No impact. Sufficient water supplies are available to serve the project. No mitigation measures are necessary. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No impact. Sufficient wastewater capacity exists to serve the proposed project. No mitigation measures are necessary. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? No impact. Sufficient landfill capacity exists to serve the proposed project. No mitigation measures are necessary. g) Comply with federal,state,and local statues and regulations related to solid waste? No impact. The proposed project complies with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. No mitigation measures are necessary. Jackson Resldeme(PA 2001*62)•Page 35 Environmental Analysis XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife . population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than Significant Impact. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. The project site is located in a developed urbanized area of the City. The new structure will replace and existing structure. No change in use is proposed. The proposed use is consistent with the zoning and general plan designations for the site, with the exception of the height limit regulations noted in Sections I and IX above. Development of the proposed project would not impact any special status species. No significant impacts would result from project development. No mitigation measures other than mitigation Measures I through 6 noted above, are necessary. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects.) No impact. See XVII (A) above. The proposed project would generate less than significant impacts or no impacts in the areas of noise, air quality, traffic, circulation and others. Any potential impact generated by the proposed project would be mitigated to a level of less than significant through the application of standard conditions of approval, City ordinances and site specific recommendations included in the Geotechnical Report prepared for the project and listed herein. No significant cumulative impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? No impact. Any potential impact generated by the proposed project would be mitigated to a level of less than significant through the application of standard conditions of approval, City ordinances and site specific recommendations included in the Geotechnical Report prepared for the project and listed herein. No significant cumulative impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. No mitigation measures are necessary. lackson Residence(PA 2001-062)•Page 36 08/23/2801 15:53 949631W BURNSSTAINLESS PAGE01/01 Vincent P. Roman 810 Kings Road Newrwrt Basch,CA 92683 (949)-631-8758, (949)-631Q380 FAX email: vrdnenl3@home corn August23,2001 VIA FAX—949.644-3229 Planning Commissioners City of Newport Beach Newport Beaob,CA SUBJECT Variance Hearing,Smith Residence, 1021 Kings Road Dear Planning Commissioners: Please accept these written comments regarding the above referenced item as I am unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting in person. I live at Itl0 Kings Road, only a few feet from the subject property. I, and several of my neighbors, are concerned by recent construction of houses on Kings Road that we consider too tall for the bluff-side of Kings Road. I am opposed to granting any height-related variances for the bluff side of Kings Road Though the topography of Kings Road meets one of the criteria for the granting of a variance,this is an historically sensitive area with regards to height restrictions. Many of the houses recently built on the bluff have blocked public vistas from Kings Road. Also, marry people, including planning department employees find these tall structures imposing and unattractive from Pacific Coast Highway. It is my opinion that the Planting Commission should meet with the local residents to develop a workable plan for dealing with the unique characteristics of Kings Road. I am willing to work with the Commission on this task. Please feel free to call we at the number listed above if I can be of any assistance in this matter. Sincerely, 1t Vincent P. Roman . S'I'.\ 1. 1. OF CALIFORNIA . - °f'�Yk,� 0 Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse °CFFO Gray Davis Steve Nissen GOVERNOR DIR Dlt Auguat22,2001 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY of PEACH James campbel AUG 2 7 2001 PM City of Newport Beach AM 3300 Newport Boulevard 71819i1011111211121S141816 Newport Beach,CA 92663 -� Subject: Jackson Residence SCH#: 2001071115 Dear James Campbel: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on August 21,2001,and no state agencies submitted comments by that data. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Please call the State Clearinghouse at(916)445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project,please refer to the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely, 4DD1� Terry Roberts Senior Planner,State Clearinghouse 1400 TTNTH STREET Ito. IuA 1044 SACBAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95512-3044 916-445-0613 FAS916-M-3018 WWW.OPR.CA.GOVICLEARINGHOUSE.HTML to Document Details Report • State Clearinghouse Data Bas SCH# 2001071115 Project Title Jackson Residence Lead Agency Newport Beach,City of Type Neg Negative Declaration Description Demolish existing single family home(2,924 gsf)and replace with new single family home(5,934 gsf) including grading,paving,fencing,lighting.landscaping and irrigation, The project also includes a variance request to exceed established height limits of the Zoning Code and a request to reduce the required front yard setback of 10 feet providing no from setback. Lead Agency Contact Name James Campbell Agency City of Newport Beach Phone 949/644-3210 Fax email Address 3300 Newport Boulevard City Newport Beach State CA Zip 92663 Project Location County Orange City Corona,Del Mar,Newport Beach Region Cross Streets Ocean Avenue/Poinsettia Parcel No. 052-150-11 Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways 1 Airports Railways Waterways Newport Harbor Schools Land Use Single Family Residential/R-1/Single Family Residential ProjectIssues AestheficNisual;Air Quality;Archaeologic-Historic;Geologic/Seismic;Traffic/Cirmiallon;Water Quality Reviewing Resources Agency;California Coastal Commission;Department of Conservation;Department of Fish Agencies and Game,Region 5;Office of Historic Preservation;Department of Parks and Recreation;California Highway Patrol;Caltrans, District 12;Regional Water Quality Control Board,Region 8; Native American Heritage Commission;State Lands Commission Date Received 07/23/2001 Start of Review 07/23/2001 End of Review 08/21/2001 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY(" AM AUG 2 7 2001 PM 7)8)911011111w11121314'IBIS P Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. RECEVE3 5Y PLANMNG D=PART ' NIT 15 ,2001 Ahi AUG 22 'UOI (� P19 11` � �� �T� a �,n / --/_ W i iN✓J.� j, CQ Clell„Mn.� Ca. Ajr&-A �.a�C..¢. 0V- r�`/nb2Q�Wa 6 sl d � Ji3.P j, ( �� K d�(> >✓1�, c� 1cuVe� JU mo,,,, f� &k. 4j, �i,.Qq..�,p.,,,..-d- ,v-t1���1C •�JII.:v.u. �.C�,.Q�iJ'�d' w.Q.� �-, pV 4,.. -L•Y.� Lf-'� y U[q $,.a-.-/,-� A- ,.Jul.l.6-r.LR �D��"/,,�-� �(J �^'�- -b( AJDR+V (D{{--�/l y/A M-{.L,M,, IC.LA �l�.XnO eMA lm .V-lMw�(q.� /.Iw•�tA.Gu+rv��� �-^�'� $eTtc �� -- zt .� n� �(� �cc-, O�m at" i James Campbell, Sr. Planner August 15, 2001 3300 Newport Blvd., P.O. Box, 1768 Newport Beach, Ca 92658-8915 PLANNING RECEIVED By CITY n= rNti DEPARTMENT n�c,e,c„or , From: Stan & Patt Troutman, CH 3701 SeaviewAve., AUG 21 2001 PM Corona del Mar, CA 92625 AM Re: Variance#2001-001 (PA 2002-0620 ?1819110ii111E1I12111618 At: 3631 Ocean Blvd., CdM, 92625 Dear Mr. Campbell: Since we have lived in Corona del Mar since 1962, with children graduating from Corona del Mar High School, I have witness many changes. Our community has been constantly effected by growth. Fortunately, due to our competent Police Force this remains a safe community. And with the care and pride that the City of Newport Beach takes in keeping the beach and community clean, CdM remains a desirable Community. We are truly blessed that, through caring people, the charm and desirability have been preserved over the years. Having said that, the past 40 years have given us complete confidence that the Planning Commission has the best intentions of safe-guarding and preserving the joy's that we have found here. We truly pray future generations will continue to preserve, and thus enjoy all that this Beach Community has to offer. IT IS MOST IMPORTANT that anyone, drawn to this very special community for whatever their reasons, NOT be allowed to disregard standing codes which will destroy not only ocean views, but set dangerous trends. One house, built to one owner's desires without concern for neighbors (including all of Newport Beach, and many Orange County visitors), will set in motion the destruction Corona del Mar. Now, we are a community that cares for one another and through our community network and neighborhood watch programs we are able to keep Ole Corona del Mar friendly and desirable while accepting it's rapid growth. Sincerely, and respectfully submitted for you consideration, STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESSO TRANSPORTATION AGENCY . GRAY DAVIS,Gow DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 3347 Michelson Dmre Suite 100 10 Irvine,CA.92612-%61 R CEMED EV PLANNINC D-PAR I UEN7 CITY nF r\i- ,. o,•,•-. .. : ^, July 31, 2001 A(1 AUG 1 5 2001 PY1 71 Big 1101 "11"1� Z13I=1510 James Campbell, Senior Planner File: IGR/CEQA City of Newport Beach SCHM 20001071115 3300 Newport Blvd. Log #: 949 Newport Beach, CA 92663 SR-1 Subject: Jackson Residence Dear Mr. Campbell, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Negative Declaration for the demolition and reconstruction of the Jackson Residence. The project site is located on 3631 Ocean Boulevard, in the City of Corona Del Mar. Caltrans District 12 status is a reviewing agency on this project and has no comments at this time. However, in the event of any activity in Caltrans right way an encroachment permit is required. Applicants are required to plan for sufficient permit processing time, which may include engineering studies and environmental documentation. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and other future developments, which could potentially impact our Transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724-2267. Sincerely, A A& �r Robert F. Joseph, Chief Advanced Planning Branch cc: Terry Roberts, OPR Ron Helgeson, HDQRTRS Planning SPECTRUM P LAN NINDED-P,4RTMEPIT CITY OF NFwanar rtrACN 12 June 2001 AM JUN 13 2001 PM 71Bi9 3011111211121314Is16 Mr. James W. Campbell Senior Planner, Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Re: Property Located at 3631 Ocean Blvd., Corona Del Mar PA 2001-062 (VA2001-001) Dear Mr. Campbell: I just wanted to send a letter thanking you for taking the time to walk through the file and plans for the above referenced project. Your insight and explanations were extremely helpful to both my client and myself. As you already know, my clients, the property owners at 3625 Ocean Blvd., are an interested party in this matter as the structure at 3631, if constructed as currently proposed, may materially affect their property. As we discussed, the latest set of elevation drawings submitted by Mr. Lohrbach, fail to set forth the natural grade, which would in effect establish if the structure, as proposed, exceeds the 24' height limitation as mandated in the local zoning ordinances. In addition, my clients have expressed concern over the variance that has been applied for in regards to the extension of the structure's deck beyond what seems to be the "string-line" limitation, and potentially within the Coastal Zone boundaries. Due to these concerns we are currently attempting to contact both Mr. Lohrbach and the property owners to determine if an amicable resolution regarding the use of both properties can be achieved. In the meantime, any and all updates to the project, including the arrival of the new drawings when submitted and the scheduling of any hearings regarding the applied for variances, would be greatly appreciated. SPECTRUM LAW GROUP. LLP w 1900 MAIN STREET w SUITE 125 • IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92614-7321 TELEPHONE: 949-851-4300 • FACSIMILE: 949 851-5940 w INTERNET: www.spectrumlawgroup.com If you have any questions, or if I can be of any assistance to you in this matter, please do not hesitate to call me at (949) 851-4300, or contact me by e- mail at kristine@spectrumlawgroup.com. Once again, thank you for your assistance both on this last Wednesday as well as going forward. Very truly yours, SPECTRUM LAW GROUP, LLP rist a L. Brooks Partner KLB:bos cc: Mr. Bill Benz SEW PORT _°� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH � / fit . > U � - 2 P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658-8915 C -- �P NC/PORN April 19,2001 Ed L mbach 31681 Camino Capistrano, Suite 106 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92625 Re: PA 2001-062 (VA2001-001) Jackson Residence Dear Ed: I have had an opportunity to further review the referenced application and several additional items need to be addressed. 1. The survey previously requested must be stamped by a licensed surveyor. 2. The decks are not on the all the plans. They must be shown on the floor plans, elevations and sections. 3. Show the sewer easement on the plan. 4. Submit a copy of a recent title report. 5. On the elevation drawings, please identify all features on the plans that exceed the top of curb elevation. Please respond to each of the issues above, at your earliest convenience, in writing or by making appropriate revisions to the plans as necessary. If you have questions regarding this project, please contact me at(949) 664444-3210 or via e-mail at Campbell@city.newoort-beach.ca.us. Sincerely, W(_� James Campbell Senior Planner 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach An H i PM"949 47"97u W W?-g4.9I49 FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION Date: April 18, 2001 From. John M.Garcia Fax Number. (949) 644-3250 Attention: Mr. James W. Campbell, Planning Dept city of N.B. project. 3631 Ocean Boulevard, variance submittal V20001-001 No. of Sheets: 2. Return Fax., - (949) 474-9749 If there are any problems with this transmission.please contact sender at(949) 949-9749. Comments: Per our discussion this afternoon I am faxing over the sewer layout plan that 1 received from Gilbert Wong of the Public Works Department. I would also like to reiterate our concerns with the initial submittal for Variance review. The deck as shown on the site plan at the bottom floor projects beyond the string►ine as projected from the neighboring residences at 3625 Ocean Blvd. to the west and 3709 Ocean Blvd. to the east of the subject property 3631 Ocean Blvd. The same deck is not shown at thelowest floor plan or side exterior elevation. The submittal as shown would require extensive grading and export of soil as the existing residence is currently two floors. The proposed residence is shown as three floors with the additional floor being constructed at a level below the existing levels. We also have concerns with disruption/erosion of the bluff similar to loss of bluff we are experiencing due to the construction at 3619 Ocean Blvd. Also as illustrated by the attached fax the sewer easement has not been addressed in the variance submittal. Thank You, John I 6VL6VL176V6 IIHQdV VlDdVO H NHOF HOP1d Hdvv;v 10OZ-91-V 4- 8-2001 4:45PM FROM M GARCIA ARCHIT 9494749749 P. 2 vnEvrr pF .va. �- �M/iYd BER NfJ/b6 I?l y .� //Rp• p .. .• l! •za aJz. •ara• In I I 4•L �t �•V t� is 1 •gl ro�O v. b� v. gyp• ,p OASCN/O Ar a o '6 / •ya CW %/ `, z/o- ZI[:'R z ,yc m/ qt �m A ,all r ^• ______ _____ I)sd\ i Qo AAA II d / a� yrA. �yNm �I �� \ as B' 30' 'yJe •YIV. .Yz] -1zS •i / � PO/NSETT/f _I' qi/j yp6 JZ7.0' y ,ta. •t •z7p. Y10. -zEL -F ide 7 NY 7 R V J Y •S9' . � •' .t/9 .nf •tt3. .YtS. PPT S]I S]r. SiL'• 4d O6D a6 N POPPY A 0. 513'(AAQp .p1G• zao. YYt• -TJb •YSP -PSa z". dapr a aazs. aT I ARLT —, H4ZEL ?YY 5a 39 o "'11 . �� e Su mom. ./v' I •ilo-': aze. �a;'3- a45' ape• �EWPORr • � (�mel o(y��.,�,P,� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH `fi1?'101 OC U = P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92658,8915 a.. P q<iFORN April 12, 2001 Ed Lorbach 31681 Camino Capistrano, Suite 106 San Juan Capistrano,CA 92625 Re: PA 2001-006(VA2001-001) Jackson Residence Dear Ed: I have had an opportunity to review the referenced application to construct a new residence at 3631 Ocean Boulevard. The application is incomplete at this time. Please address the following items in order to make the application complete. 1. The third page of the application(project data sheet) was not completed thoroughly. I have attached a copy of it and eliminated the items that are not applicable. Please complete this form. 2. The cursory geotechnical evaluation does not address the issue of slope stability and hazards and does not include any subsurface soils testing. It simply suggests further study which should include soils testing. Please complete and submit a proper preliminary soils report that includes minimum of soils testing. The study needs to establish that the project can be accomplished safely using typical construction techniques without significantly impacting the environment or surrounding properties. It should also include safeguards to be followed by the designers and contractors that ensure compliance with applicable requirements and minimal impacts to the bluff and abutting properties. 3. The site plan notes three section drawings which were not included. Please provide them. The 24-foot height limit and the top of curb elevation must be noted on each section drawing. Natural grade must be clearly identified. 4. The site plan does not have include the topography of the entire site as requested during the preliminary discussion on this project. Please amend the site plan accordingly. Also include the elevation of the curb at the east, center and west property line rather than the average. 5. Please submit two copies of the topographic survey for the property. 6. Please note the slope of the driveway on the drawing. 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach I PA2001-062-status letter • • April 12,2001 Page 2 of 2 7. Is the niche in bedroom 3 a fireplace?Please label what it is on the floor plan. 8. The elevator does not appear to have an extension through the roof. Please explain the what type of elevator you plan to use and why there is no roof extension. 9. What is the estimate of grading in cubic yards proposed? Will their be any export of soil?Please note the limits of any earthwork on the site plan. 10. What type of foundation system are you planning? Please provide further detail on the foundation system. 11. Please describe how site drainage will be accomplished? Drainage over the bluff will not be permitted. 12. The elevation drawings need to have the 24-foot height limit shown. Please identify natural grade clearly on the elevations. Please respond to each of the issues above, at your earliest convenience, in writing or by making appropriate revisions to the plans as necessary. If you have questions regarding this project, please contact me at (949) 644-3210 or via e-mail at icamnrbell@city.newoort-beach.ca.us. Sincerely, James Campbell Senior Planner PETA COSTA MESA•SAN DIEGO•TEMECULA•LOS ANGELES March 5,2001 J.N. 358-00 MR. DOUG JACKSON c/o E.D. Lohrbach& Associates 31866 Camino Capistrano San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Subject:. Protection of Adjacent Properties, Proposed Single-Family Resi- dence at 3631 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar, California Reference: Cursory Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Single-Family Residence at 3631 Ocean Boulevard, Corona del Mar, California;report by Petra Geotechnical,Inc.,dated October 3, 2000. Dear Mr. Jackson: Based on our telephone conversation with Mr. Ed Lohrbach,it is our understanding that the City of Newport Beach and/or the Coastal Commission require a letter for the subject site indicating that grading and construction of the subject property will not adversely affect adjacent properties. To date, we have performed a cursory geotechnical evaluation of the property that included research of pertinent geotechnical literature and plans within the general area of the site and performed a site reconnaissance (Reference). To date, we have.not performed a subsurface investigation of the subject property nor have we reviewed. . grading, architectural or conceptual plans for development of the site..Therefore, little. specific information is known with regard to the geotechnical concerns of the property and how they will affect the proposed development. It was recommended within the reference report that a comprehensive geotechnical investigation be performed for the subject site when construction plans are.finalized. It is our understanding that Petra Geotechnical,Inc.,will be contracted to perform this PEiRA GEOMCHNICAL INC. 3185-A Airway Avenue Cwfc Mesa CA 92626 Tel:(714)549.8921 F .:(714)5,1 -1438 pehacm®Ibm.nef Joe MR. DOUG JACKSON March 5,2001 J.N. 358-00 Page 2 investigation. The geotechnical report of the investigation performed by Petra will include the following: 1)address the geotechnical concerns for the site with respect to the proposed development,2)provide recommendations for development of the site that will include protection of the site and adjacent properties during grading (i.e., permanent and temporary excavations) and foundation excavation and drilling of caissons, and 3) meet the requirements of the City of Newport Beach and current, Uniform Building Code requirements. - We hope the information provided herein meets your needs at this time. Please do not hesitate to call should you have any questions regarding these findings. Respectfully submitted, PETRA GEOTECHNICAL,INC. Darrel Roberts QPOFEs�ON David H Senior Associate Geologist ¢`�� pN•Hq y Senior Project Engineer CEG 1972 q Q� sR �s RCE 56591 ,Ic3 o tao.c seasm ; �', DR/DH/nls .* EXP.WMI * _ � CIV1� 3 a:w:�xoo��oo�saow.�ra 9�, pQ� Of CALIF PEWJ COSTA MESA•SAN DIEGO•TEMECULA•LOS ANGELES October 3,2000 J.N. 358-00 MR.DOUG JACKSON c/o E.D. Lohrbach&Associates 31866 Camino Capistrano San Juan Capistrano,CA 92675 Subject: Cursory Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Single-Family Res- idence at 3631 Ocean Boulevard,Corona del Mar,California. References: See Attached List. Dear Mr. Jackson: Per your request, Petra Geotechnical, Inc. has completed a cursory geotechnical evaluation of the site located at 3631 Ocean Boulevard in the city of Corona del Mar. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES The purposes of this cursory evaluation were to assess the overall stability of the subject site and to determine what, if any, geologic conditions exist on or in the vicinity of the property that could adversely affect development of the site. In order. to accomplish this,we have performed the following services: • Onsite reconnaissance to assess site conditions and existing geologic conditions. Observations were not performed within the rear yard area of the subject lot as access to this area was not available due to locked gates. However,our evaluation of the property did include a site reconnaissance of the rear yard bluff from the beach below. • Review of previous geotechnical investigations we have performed in the general area, as well as other pertinent published and unpublished literature concerning local geologic conditions. • Review of geotechnical reports at the City of Newport Beach for the subject.site and the adjacent property to the north at 3625 Ocean Boulevard that is currently under construction. MRA GEOTECHMCAL INC. 3185-A AIn Qy Aenw Cosh Mesa CA 92626 Tel:(714)549-8921 Fax:(714)649.1433 pehacm�lbm.nef MR. DOUG JACKSON October 3, 2000 J.N. 358-00 Page 2 • Preparation of this letter summarizing the findings of the above tasks,including our preliminary conclusions with respect to the overall stability of the subject site and our general evaluation of foundation construction parameters that may be applicable to the subject property. It should be noted that this is a cursory evaluation that presents a summary of the geotechnical concerns for the subject lot. Our work did not include the following: 1. Onsite subsurface exploration or laboratory testing of any soil samples. 2. Performing stability analysis of the adjacent slope. 3. Performing settlement analysis of subsurface soils. 4. Detailed study of the effects of the site on the environment and any investigation or treatment of hazardous or toxic materials/wastes which may exist on or beneath the site. The limitations of the scope of services are disclosed such that the Client is not misled as to the results of this study. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Our assessment of site conditions,based upon our observations in the field, as well as review of pertinent geotechnical literature is as follows: • The subject site is located at 3631 Ocean Boulevard and is currently occupied by a multi-level,single-family residence with an attached garage and associated site improvements including several low-height retaining walls, a concrete driveway, concrete flatwork and landscaping. The lot gently slopes southwesterly from Ocean Boulevard to a wave cut sea bluff. The approximately 50-foot-high sea bluff descends steeply to a rocky beach below. • Based on our review of the referenced reports, geologic literature, and on our observations made of the bluff face, the site is underlain by marine terrace MR.DOUG JACKSON October 3,2000 J.N. 358-00 Page 3 deposits overlying sedimentary bedrock belonging to the Monterey Formation. The terrace deposits are anticipated to consist of sands and silty sands that have an estimated maximum thickness of 25 to 35 feet. The bedrock materials underlying these marine terrace deposits consist predominantly of sandstone with interbedded siltstone. Bedrock materials exposed on the sea bluff within the site and nearby vicinity were generally noted to strike in a northwest direction and dip moderately to steeply to the northeast favorably into slope. This bedding orientation generally corresponds to regional mapping of the area (Tan and Edgington, 1976). However,the bedrock materials were observed to be highly folded, fractured and faulted with localized out-of-slope dips. Groundwater was not observed on the slope face. However,within the surrounding area and based on the time of the year, groundwater commonly seeps out of the bluff face near the terrace deposit/bedrock contact. • Based on our experience and on the information provided in the referenced reports, it is anticipated that onsite soils will exhibit a Very Low expansion potential and that a Negligible exposure to sulfate can be expected for concrete placed in contact with onsite soils. • The site lies approximately 1.7 miles to the northeast of the offshore segment of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. No other active or potentially active faults project through or toward the site. In addition, the site does not lie within the bounds of an"Earthquake Fault Zone" as defined by the State of California in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. However,the rear yard sea bluff is within the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone map (CDMG, 1998) requiring investigation for earthquake-induced landslides. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the initial findings of our site visit and on our review of previous reports and literature, it is the opinion of this firm that the subject site is suitable for residential construction. However,there are several geotechnical concerns which may impact the proposed development. The following conclusions and recommendations do not address any building setback requirements required by the City of Newport Beach or the California Coastal Commission. Therefore, any restrictions imposed by these agencies should be evaluated as to their effect on the planned construction. • 0 MR. DOUG JACKSON October 3, 2000 J.N. 358-00 Page 4 Site/Sea Bluff Stabili[v As stated previously,bedrock materials within the site and nearby vicinity generally dip favorably into the slope; therefore, the site is anticipated to be grossly stable. However,local folding, fracturing and faulting has resulted in localized out-of-slope bedding and fractured bedrock conditions. These localized out-of-slope beds and fractures may potentially result in small, surficial block failures of the bedrock materials exposed on the slope face,especially during siguificam seismic events. Due the steepness of the bluff, wave action, erosion and the sandy nature of the terrace deposits,bluff top retreat should be expected throughout the lifetime of the residence. Foundation Setback from Sea Bluff Due to the potential for bluff top retreat discussed in the preceding paragraph, it is recommended that a system of deep foundations be utilized to provide a minimum setback between the building foundations and the bluff face. It is anticipated that cast- in-place concrete caissons will be required in order to provide an adequate structural setback for the portions of the building closest to the descending bluff. These deep foundations will likely extend through the marine terrace deposits and be embedded into the underlying bedrock. It should be noted that the marine terrace deposits generally consist of sands and silty sands that may be susceptible to caving during excavation;therefore,casing of the caisson borehole should be anticipated. Transitions from Terrace Deposits to Bedrock Since deep foundations consisting of cast-in-place concrete caissons will be required for the rear of the residence to provide an adequate structural setback between the building foundations and the sea bluff,a transition between marine terrace deposits and bedrock may be created beneath the proposed residence depending on the proposed MR. DOUG JACKSON October 3,2000 J.N. 358-00 Page 5 grading. This condition can cause distress to the building as a result of the potential adverse effects of differential settlement. If future grading does not eliminate this transition, it may be necessary to extend all building footings through the marine terrace deposits and found them into the underlying competent bedrock. It should be noted that this evaluation of the subject site is based on our observations made at the time of our site reconnaissance and on our review of pertinent geo- technical literature. This evaluation should not be considered as a substitute for a detailed geotechnical investigation based on subsurface exploration and laboratory analysis. It is recommended that a comprehensive geotechnical investigation be performed when construction plans are finalized. At that time, specific grading and construction recommendations for the site should be.prepared to meet the requirements of the City of Newport Beach and current Uniform Building Code requirements. We hope the information provided herein meets your needs at this time. Please do not hesitate to call should you have any questions regarding these findings. Respectfully submitted, PETRA GEOTECHNICAL,INC. Michael Putt Senior Staff/Geologist Darrel Roberts David Hansen Associate Geologist 4oePW.H 1p�1 Senior Project Engineer CEG 1972 ,��e�� A1m�;k RCE 56591 u, Na C W591 Z m MP/DR/DH/ag ' x Exp&Ki0/p7 # «:w:uwwaysemn.ira `�T Clvl\� �TFOFC_AUFO?'; r REFERENCES 1) Geotechnical Evaluation for Remodel of 3625 Ocean Boulevard,City of Newport Beach,California;report by Kenneth G.Osborne&Associates,dated February 16, 1984. 2) Response to"Soil Report Review"dated 5-25-84;letter by Kenneth G.Osborne&Associates,dated July 31, 1984. 3) Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Remodel and Additions to an Existing Residence,3625 Ocean Boulevard,Corona del Mar,California;report by Geofum,dated October 5, 1999. 4) Response to Geotechnical Report Review Checklist,3625 Ocean Boulevard,Corona del Mar,California;letter by Geofum dated January 13,2000. PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. J.N. 358-00 LITERATURE REVIEWED BARROWS, A.G., 1974, "A Review of the Geology and Earthquake History of the Newport-Inglewood Structural Zone,Southern California":California Division of Mines and Geology,Special Report 114. BLAKE, T.F., 1989,A Computer Program for the Detarninistic Prediction of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults. BRYANT, W.A., 1988, "Recently Active Traces of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, Los Angeles and Orange Counties,California":Division of Mines and Geology,Open File Report 88-14. CAMPBELL,K.W. and BOZORGNIA,Y., 1994,"Near-Source Attenuation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Worldwide Accelerograms Recorded from 1957 to 1993": Proceedings, Fifth U.S. National Conference an Earthquake Engineering,Vol.HI,Earthquake Engineering Institute,pp.283-292. JOYNER,W.B.,and FUMAL,T.E., 1985,"Predictive Mapping of Earthquake Ground Motion":in Ziony,J.I.,(ed.), Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region-An Earth-Science Perspective:U.S.Geological Survey Professional Papa 1360. MORTON,P.K.,MILLER,RV,and EVANS,J.R, 1976, "Env¢omneotal Geology of Orange County,California': California Division of Mines and Geology,Open-File Report 79-9-LA. MORTON,PK and MILLER,RV,1981,"Geologic Map of Orange County,California Showing Mines and Mineral Deposits":Scale 1"=40001,California Division of Mines and Geology,Bulletin 204,Plate 1. SPROTTE, E.C., FULLER D.R.,GREENWOOD,R.B., MUMM,H.A.,REAL,C.R., SHERBURNE,R.W, 1980, "Classification and Mapping of Quaternary Sedimentary Deposits for Purposes of Seismic Zonation, South Coastal Los Angeles Basin,Orange County,California":California Division of Mines and Geology,Open-File Report 80-19 LA. TAN, S.S., AND EDGINGTON, W.J., 1976, "Geology and Engineering Geologic Aspects of the Laguna Beach Quadrange,Orange County,California":California Division of Mines and Geology,Special Report 127. TOPPOZADA,T.R.,BENNETT,J.H.,BORCHARDT,G.,SAUL,R,and DAVIS,J.F., 1988,"Planning Scenario for a Major Earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone':California Division of Mines and Geology,Special Publication 99. ZIONY,LI.(ed.), 1985,"Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region-An Earth Science Perspective": U.S.Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360,505 p. PETRA GEOTECHNICAC, INC. J.N. 358-00 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROJECT RYI�W REQUEST Date:July 25,2001 P Staff Planner: Jim Campbell.644-3210 X PUBLIC WORKS11RAFFIC ENGINEER X PLANS ATTACHED(PLEASE RETURN) X UTRJTJES X FIRE DEPARTMENT _PLANS ON FILE IN PLANNING DEPT. X BUILDINGIGRADING DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY SERVICES POLICE DEPARTMENTNICE&.INTELLIGENCE MARINE SAFETY REVENUE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT(Commercial Development Only) APPLICATION OF: Ed Lohrback for CONTACT: I Ed Lohrback, Mr.&Mrs.Jackson 949-661-5068 FOR: PA2001-062(VA2001-001)(Building height variance,Modification of front yard setback) DESCRIPTION: Request to demolish an existing single family home (2,924 gross square feet) and replace with a new single family home(5,934 gross square feet)including grading,paving,fencing lighting,landscaping and irrigation. The proposed project includes the changes to the existing driveway and front yard landscaping presently located within the public right-of-way. The project also includes a variance request to exceed established height limits of Zoning Code due to unique topographical circumstances.Lastly,the project includes a request to deviate from the required front yard setback of 10 feet providing no front setback. LOCATION: 3631 Ocean Boulevard REPORT REQUESTED BY: August 8, 2001 COMMISSION REVIEW: August 23,2001 Check all that apply: ❑ No comments on the project as presented. Recommended conditions of approval are attached. ❑ Application of Standard Code requirements ❑ Application of Standard Code requirements or the are got expected to alter the project design. attached conditions of approval will substantially impact or alter the design of the project. ❑ I contacted the applicant on to: ❑ schedule an appointment for Code review, ❑ discuss the following(attach separate sheet if necessary): ADDITIONAL COMMENTS(❑ See attached): Signature: UJMMft . Ext. a30$ Date: 7A)ki July 26,2001 • r TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: Variance VA2001-001 FINDINGS&CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FINDINGS: 1. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 2. That public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.91.040 of the Municipal Code, CONDITIONS: 1. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 2. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 3. The final design of the driveway shall have a maximum grade of 15% with minimum 5 foot tangents and maximum grade changes of 11% unless otherwise approved by the Traffic Engineer. The final driveway design shall be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 4. The existing 5 foot wide public sidewalk shall remain where it presently is constructed (8' to 12' back of curb)except at the proposed drive approach where it shall be placed a minimum of 5 feet from back of curb face. The drive approach must have a minimum 6 inch hike-up in order to prevent Ocean Boulevard drainage from entering the property. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department 5. A City Council approved encroachment permit and encroachment agreement shall be executed by the property owner to permit private improvement encroachments into the Ocean Boulevard right- of-way. 6. All on-site drainage pumped into Ocean Boulevard shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. 7. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. vaa i0 n CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • PLANNING DEF%RTMENT PROJECT R`VIEW REQUEST Date:July 25, 1 Sfag-Planner: Jim Campbell,644-32144-3210 X PUBLIC WORKSIIRfiF( EDiGINEER X PLANS ATTACHED(PLEASE RETURN) X unLITIFS X FIRE DEPARTMENT _PLANS ON FILE IN PLANNING DEFT. X BUILDING(GRADING DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY SERVICES POLICE DEPARTMENTIVICE&INTELLIGENCE MARINE SAFETY REVENUE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT(Commercial Development Only) APPLICATION OF: Ed Lohrback for CONTACT: Pd Lohrback Mr.&Mrs.Jackson 949-661-50M FOR: PA2001-062(VA2001-001)(Building height variance,Modification of front yard setback) DESCRIPTION: Request to demolish an existing single family home (2,924 gross square feet) and replace with a new single family home(5,934 gross square feet)including grading,paving,fencing lighting,landscaping and irrigation. The proposed project includes the changes to the existing driveway and front yard landscaping presently located within the public nghtof-way. The project also includes a variance request to exceed established height limits of Zoning Code due to unique topographical circumstances.Lastly,the project includes a request to deviate from the required front yard setback of 10 feet providing no front setback. LOCATION: 3631 Ocean Boulevard REPORT REQUESTED BY: August 8, 2001 COMMISSION REVIEW: August 23,2001 Check all that apply. _ ❑ No comments on the project as presented. .Recommended conditions of approval are attached. ❑ Application of Standard Code requirements ❑ Application of Standard Code requirements or the are p9t expected to alter the project design. attached conditions of approval will substantisBy impact or alter the design of the project. ❑ 1 contacted the applicant on to: ❑ schedule an appointment for Code review, ❑ discuss the following(attach separate sheet if necessary): tGsr��� , L ADDrnoNAL COMMENTS(0 See anached):;ru* Ib1Y1 lY1 tiF1 nw-,dUd cted IOJt 1A7 weA {Y _Ly 104&1 l UIIA W - (An.)sr- V�y • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROJECT REVIEW REQUEST Date:July 25,2001 Staff Planner; .lLUCREfipbetL 644 3210 k, X PUBLIC WORKSfIRAFFIC ENGINEER X PLANS ATTACHED(PLEASE RETURN) X UTILITIES X FIRE DEPARTMENT _PLANS ON FILE IN PLANNING DEPT. X BUILDING/GRADING DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY SERVICES POLICE DEPARTMENT/VICE&INTELLIGENCE MARINE SAFETY REVENUE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT(Commercial Development Only) APPLICATION OF: Ed Lohfiack for CONTACT: Ed Lohrback, M, &Mrs.Jackson 949.6615068 FOR: PA2001-062(VA2001.001)(Building height variance,Modification of front yard setback) DESCRIPTION: Request to demolish an existing single family home (2,924 gross square feet) and replace with a new single family home(5,934 gross square feet)including grading,paving,fencing lighting,landscaping and irrigation. The proposed project includes the changes to the existing driveway and front yard landscaping presently located within the public right-of-way. The project also includes a variance request to exceed established height limits of Zoning Code due to unique topographical circumstances.Lastly,the project includes a request to deviate from the required front yard setback of 10 feet providing no front setback. LOCATION: 3631 Ocean Boulevard REPORT REQUESTED BY: August 8, 2001 COMMISSION REVIEW: August 23,2001 Check all that apply: ❑ No comments on the project as presented. ❑ Recommended conditions of approval are attached. ❑ Application of Standard Code requirements ❑ Application of Standard Code requirements or the are pot expected to alter the project design. attached conditions of approval will substantially impact or alter the design of the project. ❑ I contacted the applicant on to: ❑ schedule an appointment for Code review, ❑ discuss the following(attach separate sheet if necessary): ADDITIONAL COMMENTS(❑ See attached): Si ntre: -- .e. �' Ext. Date: • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH • PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROJECT REVIEW REQUEST / / Date:July 25,2001 r�,lCt Statl'Planner: Jim Campbell, 644-3210 X PUBLIC WORKSlpRAFPI EN `)) �- I{ PLANS ATTACHED(PLEASE RETURN) yC UTILITIES J{ FIRE DEPARTMENT _PLANS ON FILE IN PLANNING DEPT, X BUILDING/GRADING DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY SERVICES POLICE DEPARTMENT/VICE&INTELLIGENCE MARINE SAFETY REVENUE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT(Commercial Development Only) APPLICATION OF: Ed Lohrback for CONTACT: Ed Lohrback, Mc&Mrs.Jackson 949-661-5068 FOR: PA2001-062(VA2001-001)(Building height variance,Modification of front yard setback) DESCRIPTION: Request to demolish an existing single family home (2,924 gross square feet) and replace with a new single family home(5,934 gross square feet)including grading,paving,fencing lighting,landscaping and irrigation. The proposed project includes the changes to the existing driveway and front yard landscaping presently located within the public right-of-way. The project also includes a variance request to exceed established height limits of Zoning Code due to unique topographical circumstances.Lastly,the project includes a request to deviate from the required front yard setback of 10 feet providing no front setback. LOCATION: 3631 Ocean Boulevard REPORT'REQUESTED BY: August 8, 2001 COMMISSION REVIEW: August 23,2001 Check all that apply: ❑ No comrrents on the project as presented. ❑ Recommended conditions of approval are attached. ❑ Application of Standard Code requirements ❑ Application of Standard Code requirements or the are not expected to alter the project design. attached conditions of approval will substantially impact or alter the design of the project. X-I contacted the applicant on to: ❑ schedule an appointment for Code review, Ay discuss the chMp df� - following(attach paste sheet if neces n� ADDITIONAL COMMENTS(❑ See attached): �[ Signature, Ext. Daze: In pill Authorized to Pubgrh AdwrRi menls of aB kinds Including pl natieee by • ,� Call of the superior Cou rt of Orange County, Call(arnia. Nuber m A•d214, s9P,,,i 29, 1961.and A•24631 June 11, 1963. PROOF OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE' ieMsie ,novel lighting, CITY OF ping, and tmga- NEWPORT BEACH lion. The. proposed Council project includes the City STATE OF CALIFORNIA) Changes t0 to aidedy Chambers of the orl eeay and facts y 1N ss. City of landscaping presently Newport Beach located within the public County of Orange ) 3300 Newport rkMafod Thvariand Boulevard, "J ndudes a variant, New art Beach 1isted ro exceed a Of P ., listed height limits to PLANNING Zoning Code due e, 1 am a CICIZEn Of Cne.UnlCed States and a COMMISSION onlaid topographical me AGENDA cumstances. Lastry. Me resident of the County aforesaid; I am over Regular Meeting (Project includes a w August 23, 2001 -West tofinal from to the age of.eighteen year, and not a party to 6:30 p.m. required front yard' 1. SUBJECT: 4341 setback of 1040.11 or interested in the below entitled matter. I MacArthur Boulevard, pmv kmgf no front Suite F. La Salsa: setback. Milestone Management APPLICATION: Vad- am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BDMMARY: Uee Per- once No. 2001401 and t0 expand the seat- (PA2001-062) BEACH-COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a in Of sit wd tin spa CEOA COMPLIANCE: 9 9 A Negative Declaration newspaper of general circulation, printed and Polty food establishment R3Fs so) from 21 seats thehas been Prepared by to 36 seats with no Bea City of Newport published in the City.of Costa Mesa County crease hat public Beach In pplication m Meapplication. ea. the is the use noted above. The of Orange, State of California, and that cassia changes OP.- Mesa Declaration d oassihcaoon from spe� states that, the subject attache Notice is a true and complete copy deity food to WII mrvim, development will at rb high t.....Or. This class- suh in a v9nAdent elect as was printed and published on the sification change n- on he emniverent. It is creases. the required the present mention of mrpng between T In1T the City I. accept Me following dates. =rig Agencies depo^d'. Negative Declaration re oupo shotNo�sOtr antl supPoning dOm- holic is used. are a'enls. This is anal 0 to present, served and no cdnslmad as Ms, W ABC limns¢ is sought CCity a mee subject l by eP APPLICATION: Use Permit No 2001-m8 0 Nation The City (PA2001-086) aremurages members of CEOA COMPLIANCE: The general plilkc b rs This proiact has been. view and comment on viewed, and h has been this documontatlon. ,formes, Nam, a car' Copies of the Nsgativa AUJUSt 11, 2001 ;egancat, exempt under Coraabon and support- - i the repulr...me of Me in,ddmmente are.ayail- California Environmental able car public review Ouallty Act. and inspection at the 2. SUBJECT. Mr. 6 Planning Department, Mrs. R T. Smith City of Newport Beach, 1021 ii,gs Road 3300 Newport Bout. SUMMARY: Request v.rd, Newport Beach, to approve a variance to Calitomia, B265B41915, Permit of sending dark and (949) 6,14a210. trollis on act eaieang sac- Published Newport fermi, residence of Beach-Costa Mesa -Ohlla a emzcelatlsct @e..2001 Pilot August 1.1. Vel 1 declare under penalty of perjury, that the 244mt bright limit by Soots eppacaimately 5 feet. m. foregoing is true and correct. peel`i pill APPLICA ON: Van- ,nee No. 2001.003 , (PA2001.117) CEOA COMPLIANCE: August 11 2001 -This Pat nee been hi, Executed on H viewed, a itIt has been determined Met'd is el at Costa Mesa, California. elMdcal, ecrapt under '. Me requirements .f Me Celiromia EmiacnmeMel Cush Act. 3. SUBJECT: Ed Lomback Residence.1 Ocean BOAkveN SUMMARY Reeving to demorenmoltsn an evening Signature singple family home (z,92a gross shares read am reolem w" a Inew single iemlly noma 15,934 grass square leac) inGW .9 grading.) p091S 1asel slalwSaJPpv ,AURAV OU 052 143 08 052 143 09 052 143 10 Philip H McNamee William R Hays Steve Lyten 2400 Main St#201 PO Box 7354 3620 Ocean Blvd Irvine,CA 92614 Newport Beach,CA 92658 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 052 143 it 052 143 12 052143 13 Shannon Cynthia.Moan Richard Burns Gary B Eckles 3629 Ocean Blvd 215 Poinsettia Ave 219 Poinsettia Ave Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 052 143 17 052 143 18 052 143 19 Richard Masaichi&Patricia An Taken, Walter Burgess Jeffery Boyd&Eve E Christensen 225 Poinsettia Ave ' 223 Poinsettia Ave 200 Orchid Ave Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Corona DelMar,CA 92625 052 143 20 052 143 22 052 143 24 Sammi A Nelsen Michael Mugel George W Wesley 3600 Ocean Blvd 227 Poinsettia Ave 233 Poinsettia Ave Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Comm Del Mar,CA 92625 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 052 150 04 05215009 052 150 11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA PARK William R Benz H Douglas W Jackson 3900 S.El Camino Real 222 his Ave - 3631 Ocean Blvd San Clemente,CA Corom Del Mar,CA 92625 Comm Del Mar,CA 92625 05215014 05215015 05215016 Gary E Feldman Desmond L Fischer Charles B&Barbara V Slack 8685 Merced Cir 910150 3725 Ocean Blvd 175 Pepperwood Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Comm Del Mar,CA 92625 Indian Wells,CA 92210 05215017 . 05215019 05215020 Peter&Dorothy Spataro Augustine L&Lynne BNieto D Diane Anderson 3185 Aaway6 Ave#E 3601 Ocean Blvd PO Box 1489 Costa Mesa,CA 92626 Comm Del Mar,CA 92625 Riverside,CA 92502 05215021 05215022 05217101 David L Williams Mark E Hurwitz Leroy&Ida M Brettin 3713 Ocean Blvd 3719 Ocean Blvd 215 Poppy Ave Comm Del Mar,CA 92625 Comm Del Mar,CA 92625 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 05217103 052171 05 052171 06 Paul T&Patricia A Keohme Donald F Stoughton Ronald&Lesley.Clear 3720 Ocean Blvd 3708 Ocean Blvd 3700 Ocean Blvd Comm Del Mar,CA 92625 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625. Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 - 05217107 05217108 05217109 Gregory,&Deama Repose Ann L Spencer John P Barry 3728 Ocean Blvd 3716 Ocean Blvd 3712 Ocean Blvd Comm Del Mar,CA 92625 Comm Del Mar,CA 92625 Comm Del Mar,CA 92625 p091S lo;aleldwal as0 was4aa4S Paai 440OWS g,09is Jasul • sla*sa3ppV �AU3AV 93 05217201 052 172 27 052172 31 Sanford L Greenberg Robert E Laroche Robert C Parks 210 Poinsettia Ave 251 Jeanell Dr R3 PO Box 865 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Carson City,NV$9703 Glendale,CA 91209 052180 01 Michael Luna&Associates Ed Lobrbach State of California Park 31681 Camino Capistrano, Ste. 105 36182 Camino Capistrano,Ste. 106 3900 S.El Camino Real San Juan Capistrano,CA 92675 San Juan Capistrano,CA 92675 San Clemente,CA n09L51oJ aleldwal asn wislaays paaj 11100ws pQ9i5 Jasel . slaVsaJPPV - ®AV3AVG`.. 052 143 08 - 052 143 09 052 143 10 Philip H McNamee William R Hays Steve Lyteu 2400 Main St#201 PO Box 7354 3620 Ocean Blvd Irvine,CA 92614 Newport Beach,CA 92658 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 052143 11T - 052 143 12 052 143 13 Shannon.Cynthia Aikman Richard Bums - Gary B Eckles 3628 Ocean Blvd 215 Poinsettia Ave 219 Poinsettia Ave Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 052.143 17 052 143 18 052143 19 Richard Masaichi&Patricia An Takem Walter Burgess Jeffery Boyd&Eve E Christensen 225 Poinsettia Ave 223 Poinsettia Ave 200 Orchid Ave Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 052 143 20 052 143 22 052 143 24 Sammi A Nielsen Michael Mugel George W Wesley 3600 Ocean Blvd 227 Poinsettia Ave 233 Poinsettia Ave Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 052 150 04 052 150 09 052 150 11 - STATE OF CALIFORNIA PARK William R Benz H Douglas W Jackson 3900 S.El Camino Real 222Iris Ave - 3631 Ocean Blvd San Clemente,CA Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 052150 14 ' 052 150 15 052150 16 Gary Feldman - Desmond L Fischer Charles 8&Barbara V Stack 8685 Merced Cir#10150 3725 Ocean Blvd 175 Peppu%vood Or Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Comm Del Mar,CA 92625 Indian Wells,CA 92210 052 15017 - 052 150 19 052 150 20 Peter&Dorothy Spataro Augustine L&Lynne B Nieto D Diane Anderson 3185 Airway6 Ave#E 3601 Ocean Blvd - PO Box 1489 Costa Mesa,CA 92626 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Riverside,CA 92502 052 150 21 052 150 22 052 17101 David L Williams Mark E Hurwitz Leroy&Ida M Brettin 3713 Ocean Blvd 3719 Ocean Blvd 215 Poppy Ave Comm Del Mar,CA 92625 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 ' Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 052171 03 052171 05 052171 06 Paul.T&Patricia A Keohane Donald F Stoughton Ronald&Lesley Clear 3720 Ocean Blvd 3708 Ocean Blvd 3700 Coast Blvd Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Coronapel Mar,CA 92625 05217107 05217108 05217109 Gregory&Deanna Repass, Ann Spencer John Barry 3728 Ocean Blvd - 3716 Ocean Blvd 3712 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 p091S Jol aleldwal asn waslaatis Paari 4}oows p,09ts Jasel • slaIWSaAppv (,)AN3AH Qp 05217201 05217227 05217231 Sanford L Greenberg Robert E Laroche Robert C Parks 210 Poinsettia Ave 251 Jeanell Dr#3 PO Box 865 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Carson City,NV$9703 Glendale,CA 91209 052180 01 Michael Luna&Associates Ed Lohrbach State of California Park 31681 Carman Capistrano, Ste. 105 36182 Cannon Capistrano,Ste. 106 3900 S.El Camino Real San Juan Capistrano,CA 92675 San Juan Capistrano,CA 92675 San Clemente,CA 00915 301 aleldwal asn was11a45 Paai 410ow5 052 143 08 052 14309 052 143 10 Philip H McNamee William R Hays Steve Lytell 2400 Main St#201 PO Box 7354 3620 Ocean Blvd Irvine, CA 92614 Newport Beach,CA 92658 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 052 143 11 052 143 12 052 143 13 Shannon Cynthia Aikman Richard Bums Gary B Eckles 3628 Ocean Blvd 215 Poinsettia Ave 219 Poinsettia Ave Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 052 143 17 052 143 18 052 143 19 Richard Mmaichi&Patricia An Takem Walter Burgess Jeffery Boyd&Eve E Christensen 225 Poinsettia Ave 223 Poinsettia Ave 200 Orchid Ave Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 052 143 20 052 143 22 052 143 24 Sammi A Nielsen Michael Mugel George W Wesley 3600 Ocean Blvd 227 Poinsettia Ave 233 Poinsettia Ave Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 052 150 04 052 150 09 052 150 11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA PARK William R Benz B Douglas W Jackson 3900 S.El Camino Real 222 Iris Ave 3631 Ocean Blvd San Clemente,CA Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 052 15014 052 150 15 052 150 16 Gary E Feldman Desmond L Fischer Charles B&Barbara V Slack 8685 Merced Cir#10150 3725 Ocean Blvd 175 Pepperwood Or Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Indian Wells,CA 92210 052 15017 052 150 19 052 150 20 Peter&Dorothy Spoleto Augustine L&Lyme B Nieto D Diane Anderson 3195 Airway6 Ave 4E 3601 Ocean Blvd PO Box 1489 Costa Mesa,CA 92626 Comm Del Mar,CA 92625 Riverside,CA 92502 052 150 21 052 15022 052 171 01 David L Williams Mark E Hurwitz Leroy&Ida M BretOn 3713 Ocean Blvd 3719 Ocean Blvd 215 Poppy Ave Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Comm Del Mar,CA 92625 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 052171 03 052 17105 052 171 06 Paul T&Patricia A Keohane Donald F Stoughton Ronald&Lesley Clear 3720 Go=Blvd 3708 Ocean Blvd 3700 Ocean,Blvd Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Comm Del Mar,CA 92625 052 171 07 052 171 08 052 171 09 Gregory&Deanna Repose Am L Spencer John P Barry 3728 Ocean Blvd 3716 Ocean Blvd 3712 Ocean Blvd Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 052 17201 052 172 27 052172 31 Sanford L Greenberg Robert E Laroche Robert C Parks 210 Poinsettia Ave 251 Jesnell Dr#3 PO Box 865 Corona Del Mar,CA 92625 Carson City,NV 89703 Glendale,CA 91209 052180 01 Michael Luna&Associates Ed Lohrbach State of California Park 31681 Carman Capistrano, Ste. 105 36182 Camino Capistrano,Ste. 106 3900 S.El Camino Real San Juan Capistrno,CA 92675 San Joan Capistrano,CA 92675 San Clemente,CA D 8 S Dependable Business Services CERTIFICATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS THE ATTACHED LIST REPRESENTS THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PROPERTY OWNERS LOCATED WITHIN FEET OF THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 363t OCWLA Atv& APN9 _ 552 - L 50 - L l THIS INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM METROSCAN,A DATA SOURCE, UTILIZING THE COUNTY ASSESSMENT ROLLS AND OTHER DATA SOURCES. THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS GENERALLY DEEMED RELIABLE,BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED. DATE: L DEN13i TOUT ENDABLE BUSINESS SERVICES,INC. 871 N Maplewood St. Orange, CA 92867 (714) 744-2845 Pcn((714) 744-5123 Pager (714) 804-2097 Email: dstout@socal.rr.com Web Site: dbsinc.org D,B.S.,ine, Invoice 871 N.Maplewood St Orange,CA 92867 DATE INVOICE NO. (714)744-2845 3/12DO01 57M BILL TO Ed lahbdt 36182 Cm®o Capimmv,Ste 106 Sm Jam Cepimmo,CA W75 949.661-5062 JOB NO. TERMS DUE DATE PROJECT Dw m mcpt 3/02001 Ooem DESCRIPTNIN OTY RATE AMOUNT &mile 300.St uifim; Wmdoauad4Jebdefor: 365J10. 10.00. 3631 Ox Blvd Newport Beady CA - 052.150.11 T0dc5aaar)urbusmen. TQta, $165.00 k _ O / w t -4R4 3 v Q a i oioeo : ' "` ® O •O 19 si ;OL IMA A b Q " � O , O ' U R n. ` rRA T ° O 1 O bs B • C d° OoIEZ • D N mM o a ro NO. 1257 /r /s COR to /z A 15 / NOTE= O/M. ON rR.NO 257, rO ORDWARr HIGH I E L/NF QC MA,9/ ig M s3'a+ M M' COOHrr LINE 5 MI(£S MARCH 1949 rR. NO. 1257 M M. 38 -25 NOTE - ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 8 ASSESSOR'S MAP CORONA DEL MAR M. M. 3-42 PARCEL NUNBERS . BOOK 52 PAGE 15 O SHOWN /N CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE . J ' d a i m ____®____ p ® o O n O N _y_____ _ ____ ___�_ 3 ~ O n W mm ocl- IV ` TRA T • , `af 2 OI `.�� vs n /4 3 '•i O 1 i 1' m ' B .i o ' .Y � 1 20 -.- �. OU • j a h O �' •P C� i• i � •w a a m u / NO. 1257 ,r 14 COR 4EL i5 �q NOTE c D/M. ON rR.ND 157. O ro ORD/NARr N16N r LINE M� MAC'' 18 63 comvrr LINE S Mq ES MARCH 1949 rR. NO. 1257 M.M. 38 -25 NOrE — ASSESSORS BLOCKS ASSESSORS MAP CORONA DEL MAR M M. 3- 42 PARCEL NUMBERS . BOOK 52 PACE/5 O SHOWN /N CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE 0 c Q v O ! 1 i O x. ____ o _.__y a o u 'c : 777 o is i ADI zi MA : I I 1 • 3 0 00 C a N N TRA T a x a Io �� r NO /257 Q t 11 a /. COR to / .4 / / ~ NOTE= OIN. ON TR NO. 157r TO avDhvARr N16N T E LINE MCID MA# couNrr LINE N/LES l /L f , MARCH 1949 TR. NO. 1257 M.M. 38 -25 NOTE - ASSESSOR'S BLOCK S ASSESSOR'S MAP CORONA DEL MAR M. M. 3-42 PARCEL NUMBERS . BOOK 52 PAGE/5 O SHOWN IN GIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE Fg�:) - / IJJ' � ��O MA •11 1 i II , ^I j � � s N rRA T a J o rcli n 3 I � N � O ' I ' 'i 4 '• r o O l j O ra J. I .,i o • Z s rn a NO. 1257 rr r• COR < A Q a i'f'8 I 21 % lk4 F O NOTE O/M. ON JR NO 137• O 9/ TO ;O/MANY N/6N J E L/NF MET MA/j Ig 57 COVMJY C/NE J MQES /C • v I MARCH /949 TR. NO. /257 At. 38 -25 NOTE — ASSESSOR'S BLOCK B ASSESSOR'S MAP CORONA DEL MAR M.N. 3-42 PARCEL NUMBERS . BOOK 52 PAGE/5 O e SHOWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE Lohrbcch AS APPROVED BY, REVISEDPLANS i - p PL Nl LING DIRECTOR ON (dace): As Submitted O As Modified,refer to: sisal ct Ocne¢rnAdo,sane IN 801maucAP3arRwo, c M7 ❑ M DIFICATIONS COMMITTEE ON (date): 9 14131 rAx Naaaxsl ❑ As Submitted ❑ As Modified, Itfer 0, t P ANNING COMMISSION ON(date): 9�ZdA©I l s� ppprrr _1 BIANW 9/f As Submitted ❑ As Modified,rtfer 30: -P ❑ ITY COUNCIL ON (date): eA+aloe olaee A2001-062 for VA2001-001 ❑ As Submitted ❑ As Modified,refer to PA IFIC COAST HIGHWAY 3631 Ocean Boulevard DATE OF MEETING-August 23,2001 VICINITY MAP SITE DATA i an,,ICP G a AaA a / `•\�� �� 18B In9a9/�U.Y.C�Ra�llP�RLA'6rIffi:.Atm � ��•�r�5 '� � 1'eP Wl1H'RLII-MPBWIGIMS �r�, 5 OSm / / ®I-B5 N� IYPBv-xIX4M'IWI 11 IMIIfY - — ACYA1: DpI OCGNBLi'Q LLe�vv1�1R��1C+�}���q/yryv�1[�: vrwuay. ImawarlG ins Ir,syluLylG:u1�Y�4./1G JACKSON wons� dmwuna � mLmwmeuumn I i utepaam BUDDING DATA 3631 OCEAN BLVD. i /I j `� aunw3e�up aa.� as N1EWPOIRT B EACH ..a. •• V. CAILIFORNU _ _____3 3csa wac �L. -1 PROPOMRBSIDBN warNa wm _L It "' I rnwLPnrxe. wV. I / �O �aP YaralO0111N! _ O�v a iam •1 m a� � Off! � I P$ NIAMa ROCS Y1V. FILE COPY P GARAGE� ;' ' M Site Keynotes m Do Not Reove �"------`-- ------ ------ a� 1 . - oea .wxc«mm I - . -- - "s 'E� PATIO aim M 1 PATIO- " ' roPwroacn I..-. O we,.n oacere ram rcrc...va.LrJ+wtt xleLo rl � 0 O zu,eree..ru.oucrLw,rcecrm Q ye aIx r/a/w Site General Notes >oazA: ----- e.PL'aamaam� _ _ \ �, IGnuL LL4L tlO MlLLO��.I�rBI.N X�O�i�1W�TLL aW&al)>r.9dmdft1: •/6/09 . '.\iC�910 01wCMN OFNNY Kc/.LL MrE i@ru�.0 YN1 CltYI.A �� � i \IRT,OCML MYMI6L WA L{L M[CWYfI.FW adGfO.rJMr+fAlcrld _ _ 0wen 0.vWFl�O,OpVMeK f,6RrteW LCG,✓lMOlMCKt Cif®IX i i Cri@rLWr6 W1mW4CM.FTIFNW aYCee ___..---_._. - __, _ c�CVM1 u0 LMPoUR CRYatl1. — M lose a viwe sm ®w111aa: OCEAN BOULEVARD „�L..�,ol,ain.nea...rar��a.. ME PLAN Mwmw w. n c au.r . o c r K . ROOF PLAN rree v».w rye rn,eexwicr+n.u„�w.amxnecwa.alc iunlaan. �� GAYNII..tlIT'.,O HaY„W:N,..Y PYFa.G.n.atL RORfI,M.I.LN» ll SFTE PLAN and ROOF PLAN Lohrbach ROBINSON & ASSOCIATES 31651 CM9NO GPISIAANO,SUITE IN 2 SANNANOAPIETF.ANO, CA W675 A19f61A131 FAX%MA 3851 ��yCCC�m A E F Swl/Sigmeyc 4c aF 1 �Ptr 3 gal: x N- THE- - - - - - : .- - - -- --- -- - - - -- - - - —__� JAC s I i KSON \ - -- -- - -- - -- - .- ---- — -------- I --- --� RESIDENCE - - - - - � - I 3631 OCEAN BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH s CALIFORNIA e� m mF t *` c' �' L I[Nr fir. I a � �, 4 F SF EL OM __-.-._._.._..._- t / lob No. F B Deq SubwmL Bid Bs SITE / BUILDING CROSS SECTION (LOOEINO NORM) jj 3/32" . 1'0" —_ $ � itT,, T, h Shen Tills SITE SECTION Shea No.: 4 1 r Floor Flan Keynotes Lohrbach ❑FlW61�1Ttw.4Y1o011O4i Yl u,W<Y04iM<,M Wpl Yd7 o �aLLw- o„eP�a �S twoR M,eex cwwe 31WIGt.OHOGPI&iR $fll'IE 75 Nbe ilRMwrtu'm eteva,on SW NANGPI9]RWO, GY16]5 ❑] � .v arecevwmaxe 94A661AU1 PA%91R21(H851 - .�mewnnd...rn.w,ec.K„�w.a.a.owa,omue,. 2'-01P-6' S'-II' --. .__ p'-O' 4'-5' R'-4' .ni oroeaw um nwPxcme3n YecPea,xae 15'-4' ---------- - ❑�"M�...im,.en.,�e„ro�we�».w..K,�w.e��.lu,�e I µ e �M 41v1i�MIC,W W'iuhF4TURwKR C[NS,ER I I ❑Y �e WM6R,R.%'M19xXTN1lWJRCEHWa L zT/7 ©YYT hpn,YTl]p 4£MKK Yx2 Mib,,,Y0,f YIS N,MrtINUiE - OA/LCINY »❑wwnm uxew on no euwawm,wer¢+one xeurarworro V'IMUe TNCl mt1RMY„AKcItlIN InCIY! �� ' I I i ' / ❑ IC�C.OMFACRuznnae�OPn,%•YC.n Mtl4 Mlbl HOUSE �ereerr�. JACKSON i0 � � _ � I � /. m �%� ❑N M.Mm�W��HNDId W NMN WND� cmmulsorUww,- i i RESIDENCE 3631 OCEAN BLVD. '�i ®�" - // / NEWPORT CH CALIFORNIA - _' m}—�Tp. ;_ I _ ___ ._._.______ _.___.____� r =_ ❑ r _ __-._ ._..__ _._._ ❑ �waiuo+e e`�"o i'�r re°'4i w`.n'e""o °. ee mxee mm '��. / i/ /� I I. �I I I •. '/ I � �.HIP e6 YO[mK.A?.tt a / /p 1 � I I III -.1 I ( ❑rtw��Rrowxwwew"�'oe� au.e w,aro Haan ay.,�M 1 �// �' � �,o KNouo oMp'Yies io v�ro vu%euec� El� p I I III I n.me rowunarw (((� �jt I 1 111 I I Q �ea,a% unu,weny�wwnnueacroxenw weu mnn,eo rFauec III �roraeeewcwnn / HOUSE I ,.( j, I I w,w nlaaieYv.Po uxrorwu.roi..euP,. 7 1 QYOBO® Q .gtD ❑o V�I I �. Bato5m3 e � I®d1y% � I m ''� Na yr vaY1m } .. I 0 11 , I I i I 7: I I % pp o r 1 Z�jL I Wall Notes L • I f tlT# 4L artRwKU M.] .TM6 buLL0 VatM3,tl�M,HN�Y �µ Llfi 3/IH/OI i I '0 —r— I ��-� — _ _ — '.. 'i �wm%'®owm�.0 ,�.m awlm,mne vrxoeax.•o%masumw.0 —_ — ' I eM ,MC,M,u!!Ma„(s,IPYAM6LLExa ,1�( ' 'I NtlYw 4D T!-blCu0a 0,a�s2 CRa4N M2,. 2T-I' �'_ 4we Mlen,aironxw vuw ,Kw.mmb rxwrin>a euP� 8��. /a/0A 61 e.uu2eaune uo ae>areor,u,vaE,ea vurPe.sary nuu ucewrRl vu,u BgLm: k —_.____. __—___. _-._ _—__ ` _ a.uos�nuwue",•, lsi.e,ww,re e,aw.weuawa,mmne _ 05-4' ..-. ' arRlcaxwrlau�s,sroaroe wnmPe,uaao ucm.x,eracP,eann,nna,e, ----- .— 6besi90x LOWER LEVEL FLAN LOWER LEVEL PLAN 0 1 ] 8 4 5 10 TS JL./RY VV 1L:,Y6 1Lell:/1Y 1L+lle 1C1Lefil1V — awn5csru A e 1 van=r-0n Pmtlm I h Lohrbach I � ]Floor Plan Keynotes ❑m. >T `. ❑i x�e me xo.nW xvaw axauiuuoeweLumo acw- 31681GMDiOGPfSIAAIiO,gxzral IN SANN4NGP191RAN0, G91675I5 `�f! �, ❑i f.svwv eM iwiw wu 999�E61A131 I'A%9I9- 3851 ❑1 faeuCVJeM uuu x gL , o�Lixoixfmxa.-�.vix.pxx,wM1.x..nWexe,reue.,m � �;.� ,�� ❑�i� �i,xxfi.�LW,~.niK�. i..�w.�x R•v" 4" t � { ._ ❑w euLi xuea-enmaiwmraronwixaeem cavuu+eeene saa we+wme �•L k�h<V Ra:F1 Y-O'I-i' 6-11' 1&-4' 38'-9• 2-4' x.s+'vea.e�o.i'u^"wasac^+awerea^r.'^^w^ 7 � `,' I ,r � --- ____.__ __ -i—._-_ _ --- ❑e o-w.xoweia ov+..,mre.sewswm M1uwunaie e.ecnciwa +'33 al I ¢c� "�"����� i —�— _—�— �` �— — —I—_ — w�r%i� ❑�i m�rmmme ieex mm�iaeuw.nwa smr.cariw �� i i I j _t_n-----I II _--- 8�ro ,u,,.�i>.»•�.,ea..i.xi�ivie�. �ffl�s � ?- v n emi xeoxxnxm :m - T" - v i� . uxe � 4 I ;q. a,{/ � Owmee�em uw» u.rw M1xx.Le xow�»ov r.fz xrwn,inmee � ., �' BNLg1Y I � nueew F � F � � � ❑ /�/./ / I III — — O O "I xs 9wea® _nn ew uxwunfxOKrmuTe iva vuMeorM j e � :/ I _,��� (��— _ i! �"'�o'te mOiL'»ewe+.w`�''' ^»•soae L.w atmx. I�¶]E T - __.__.. _ ____—�. _-__ _ ❑Y xurinv ew.+e .va.ro xrwcweeva,wi THE JACKSON om� ❑ o� � ,e o �» o 1E81ES1)�IERT(ClE _ � ; / / �� ❑ - --- -- - -;- ©xxmm eammne wnv®uauoewe wuw.wee Y L?lild r[dY ��COaRI.0 PlNW1x JI �eYi M Q�.wxxWw . ®.� W max 3631 �EADI1�]L�. t4iq:Hdoam 6eama162 NEWP®fl2TBEACH J . / I KR.COniPNLIfa1R`B(1f. 01lGYifl LK r61fG WI,iO urttlGG CALIFORNIA ,i / I » - ,. '. . . .. i0 ', ❑„ rer.+aw.L o..» im roiru.xrx iLww icmrxAisoraeiw , J ______ /. I ' � ' ❑» �,cweui'iaae""ca w°'me;.�e�OLogae'iaO1..xa ao`aLmO1°`eeN�'''°Ero '%/ I ^ �j i»uw'roi .au rv.M1»f..cmaeewiunaa // I ,..� jl � ii � I J ; �i�in�wbrre»r o.2nuvtcwvxvsue 0.eR,emru.ov. J � / -' r , - 4l i 1lo,o NINCRGeewOfeRre.icwxY2weL y `, � �e r�»•wxm m�,• .w.cM1,e.eecax Yo naxie,i�ee ' I / �' I u � I I ex1.} uuw.•esewe»� it iwu ioeuee � � �:' G ❑roro»•Ya�wiwnwn,rwx«ee-refry vau Ya+nm ea.uee ' I �� I / � II � I � O �ewow:L wra.nare ei�nxvr.o.um uvw ei.na —_ - Mesta Heth MYOR Y I li I x III I t c eo_ - ill �f I I LI I e -- 1 ]]' ll' '. 5'-10' I Q'-®' IS'-3' ;]-4" Wall Notes �. a'LLii onia10'r'.uwia�1°ero nWeen Jxu Ae x.ewnw.xe eme».x vwwers OJJ / I uE x.srtum uvue WLeMwn®on>vw[c ..eMx.r,Y...oi»xY.ro..f.f..r.»J Y=acwu✓ua 3,y�, nme vrxa4M ut ww+q x axr uvu :o xw�e�a aewi+nse..ufe�Mwnrn ea¢a Meunn e»myflmSamly; cwex.iiwJ.fvfiw».vuwxrme nferiw o-vav-m adi�Wf.S�: / I m M9L'6fLKM1M1p V4VM YMNJ<t®0.YNIPLIR V/iKfiM.[YM.L Y!!MI-.OI iWXY mLOR' leiL4WlOTM Yf FYdI NG,vALi O,YOd1O0 Mnel2 e4i1l3�e CCEE.YC1iM ntlIMJ. Cmiiaglmhs �k35�R MD LEVEL VM LEVEL PRM i 1 s a 4 s to PLAN 1/4x=1'-0" ai�»fK swr: errx: A - 2 rwrm ]'-0'I'-i' 6'-II' IL'-4' R'-®• K'-3' - 3'_4' --- ----- n- -------- ---- _ Floor Plan Keynotes L o h r b a c h I _ � IW.IC!>,.•,,,5,6..M40...LL W41>.«L CIhNn.,M WpF"..cC _ ems J -- _5 3I681(:AN CAM ISiRAN0.8 '^ 0,[/ / �wx NreecwflLuancw MIM -9131 N TRAN CA FAX SX- 0. 31 ---�—' - — � �'�' I ,NeaaaaeR .ae.D>EVWlD WMntlM4T4M McG1G,pD _ R / B' ,. � i JXy// �" u•wawf wsrrw.nu:,•a®eav mewaexeweRertesiunwe -� I 1 �n l e ' n�i ttwr mD.uaz Den�a«ero luae«w ecttcvmi vu. _ �' �" - croavnavlK,ua'ro"2cnwancwsw>,rewcwwwq m . sALCONY I I� �O � O m��i I E]wh�,.N ou ter>rssiaciu�"w'W>'�"recira°na�"D uumm�D«.w�a.ER eI,y p , � Qv wsnNomie ore,..es.elBINCW M«I'W>FGcm6b McCPIc4TM _— —_— — Dewr...N,wm�cascra> ,alr o!®Drw wi«nawlanw�.Mrcmu.wD m I p FUSE I :.❑ 0 �Y �U»ON,°��Gip.Y NRW4D�N�ggeq>p14 �>,y� I W .•>Wf uftR. j a Nwe.e.mem.w"mroNRWa u. VM/ m I � � � I � ll"" • • a n u �� '1' i El '. - M eeen�D>rowece>er L __ __{ 0 §. =I Q>a>a meerwr«»•ueuna Maa Naov aro Y•Maa NnW.c eD>co�e ----- -- --- 0 » - '� � ' ® ter•>.inme'R"e"'cW:.u.,"e�,nco.a.>..W.waeTLe w.>wa,a a .cew�. ee ro .aH., /' ' I . Y011d❑> '- _-. � ❑ ; � » Dwcev ,m,croeue arw!>evero ! N ®lCfJiIW 4M It>twcµ GWiRK!A JACK ��y�\ry\ ���yy �d I��1JIlll6Y®1 V .P.,�L� RESEDENCE . K 0 a QrocvevRwDe«rw«lu,ww �D>,DTTF,.�ta.�,..� lmDe ew D Nm w xwe 3631 OCEAN l$II v� I .s• II eels.»�ne RR»N ew crNav<are Lo unw T,s ve,m®Da EWPORT BEACH*i0 CALIFORNIA a !eR 5�— pY•roY «Dw.,M YpR M1a ,• N �R e D »® oY «.�..,ai«,N.cYRe«cvn aeu ----- pro i' 90 ♦ ''-�' 4 Ororroi RaL ai«na¢re raxo roue aucun.•cu>nc�e i I W n.roR �>roNRWeRaD,.,�a I '�., a ✓eu eRn.me va..io.m«axR R,Lm _ —� 4 YN-Ca WibeMY�N �6fleM MOua R>wi Mice M GaM m.cFM6YM1R o. it 0 0 - o _ P Walt Notes 0 TIMMMI HT •••.•• ••,.•.•••••••• m.oMeT.r.Tw oWaDm rc"xLe.e eewnero ewRuaLu. xux>: A,4L OCGM•OL40 D14GMM YD YYCNO N!M LL4L unnie>.aoe Meertm eecexMalaa«> A�od>tlm8oEd1YL IEN iWN w nmv¢n*e x9M pI6K(.RP[9N PY,. "Yuew cu'CW,xM.veMl.v/1K01'4>2e a1F1Y1664tlIGiD BNLDRl nC aiOYW: 6/i/� Pt MMYt,. nl%W'vKMT _ uYRR4cM,e�1N%aRD KVWTl�W,vtU"e,l LV,.NYLL YY rtl M1R TiMY ��!' M2.'�lMM•.. MRYbA6e e>i4Yl%lpTM MECMI WTPNL liY01R.lW fLee.KRMAl Iw,4Yb1 UPPER FLOOR PLAY 014845 li 8 jjPP�.'R IIe1L'/ A - 3 eWl® Lohrbach �, oar lol.r Floor Plan Keynotes T.o.M.aooE i`—. - - - = 97.9' �xwnlx xsme xe�ron eouo ei.,. e..4e.twlearoeumY- $ - - - - - - - 2„eme AVERAGE �tl..may enpR��yyy T.O.0 p_ 316S1CAMM0"MTEANO,SMTE104 SANIOA c"iSTRANO, G9675 949fi6L9131 FA%9494MF3651 T -IllRro xRFAe6lrniKW _ �Iw'.rotccue yea mu" ~ f__' 9 �eun,.xelwuxer..xwi o.mnxw uml rnaeacnmfelecFraiwn SmIIS�: '�� �' �,ue•xavie.wvr.vxeacnalemv xrtwcw cear.elearcncanwe ❑I � � �Atl11.MxxxilirwAY-�R,o plxual PltvNlaD 0 CLCCJJII..�y ,o x2�¢evecw� ab 'amur e.xrtwpemwa u a _ bllDLEVEG aw eaaeilm cwe�ee ran NIO.<M!1'.H-,lRP ip�lalEglrm EEvnlKWniiam I NGSYe.l�ero xRFAt6F'eigro '�`� �n•n uwneM au�lmn�im'x�ice�iee uu�rrorro Prolal' Grp^ly�'��•"_�,�•, @mre to mmvNaut,s si r•mO s. xwierava "As, _. G'exweo xr.e-1zeela io xrenae¢tvairw THE •rm a�o wvnwmwe- wixamo JACKSON RESIDENCE pawe xw a »•x w a. - ...ron A,.A a .�.ia» OCEAN BLVD. 6 REAR ELEVATION NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA 1/4"= 114" `�1p.eun�so.:.u"`i r'°°u iw��e''"�.acwm.w•w mmemwe. �'"2.rwr.�:;°`41me a.me'a""wa. 'w°�me,uro oww ei�.• - �}9.•ro �«xwr�.Yw,x.•.Nn.aa..�m�N.YW.�,"..I�x P".ue� YIMN&1� f�gRhfxE �r�a.alswa.wMsmrevn®�rn,e suwa.nuen�a Y 9C859>GUeP+HE16N( 101.2' — — — _ — __ ._. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — s — T o Ps Roof _ ew.,. �e.,o.�nuexeevnw OWNER: � dIt.44e.Y �•e m�r.e ea�.rm.ca.�m.Y.co 9].9' — — — — JACKSON AVERAGE 31536 WEST STREET SOUTH LAGUNA,CA 92629 T.o.cuaE 949499-0031 STAIR i 1 L �I 'L-__ y- 86.65 N. dle Revuion ..UPPER LEVEL Wall Notes Q D. ]]19/OI ro,K cue* .x wum raeaux..eeaeu uo xauuuua lab No.: u we4n n,uL w'we.naro mcLGK.e uo wcw!x urt uuu A Mzaw�aeronwnewmnnla.woe ne mrtcn ememne"uxcn Auttietion Sobmiml: ueenow eo'aa'ne♦oimow xasux aernex wan. neusemwp.wmc.vxre ro,ee nzaeaa va6u� EWS.Ogx.SYbnu1W: we MrtmiAro.nxw vxw waRR4ttAe ao M%einifD RW"iT@�vKKY.run.bwl u[ewewc iuYlLL Bidluoe: IH,RNMwlet mew4ms teiJY�b'®ei 1M u1aY.d•wiuut eigearoe Mn1Y1E eiLeaw amrJ.x r•�LCE eteMw mxunx Caveeurao"luue: Shot Thk: FRONT ELEVATION ELEVATIONS 1/4"_ 1,-0„ Str Na.: A - 4 Prelim. =w'M++q+'-��R � P Floor Plan Keynotes Lohrbach cVR>3161cGH'r � "" 101E hh ..v"'v"rY�Y'"�•--_.Y � y V__ __ —T.0. ESC.ROOP 9 r.w a x°�ie+•n x AVERAGE AVENGE Q,.euecm mm rtuaenuuu i.O.CURB / r.O.CURB ❑' '••"�°1m 31681 CAMRJOCAFlSIAANG,SUIrE 104 � i_J II f �Lwaep meero,nDeaemvanaa "�1-9131 PAX 9C¢3 3851 ji ❑�r"i ❑i yT- v4M maaa �aw.,.N - oeewweumrvavacvam etetnca,Kw m __ — � / � �e w•.axve-.eee.waeenree.wn NreAan oeewa.ms�:ea,rae m1p1B' 11 _ l/' / Qramaeuo .,aexaa-e�rvmleo.neu uo oxn cnexa vir. 86.69 = I nuvac*wroerecrrs,ew erm Nvauceaase rwunrn,cxuv rz¢etm can wnrtrtmrercw r>7,artev �,anvr Brewer UPPER LEVEL '. ,wweecvcw wecrrs,ww l 'I 'i a .a / 0i ❑1 ❑ ❑ ILip illI�.J; � I uu ❑ ❑rL ji�Jl Olma is NE�mcwn[nN ivwJ�nicP.ee•N,ela4 C,mrtWGRCGEWEV i5A' _ __`' 4 �❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑i❑ ❑ o.r>'.�wrw.a .are w we wePa�rw•a ❑L�❑ �J❑ ,.Nwe ewmnpam-r®wn,o miwoae�eva,raq I ❑ i ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ N,wewn�,.ea. OWG4 M,uMY 6l RM YNYMm uO a.•YMFMA , 9CO ! I. I 69.15' ❑ �� Qexcvcv"iwe ,vnroemww euva,ww -- -- ------------ ----------- __________ ___ __-, - ---------------- -- - ----------- - -------- _ _ LoweRLEVEL �r�1-. xec.r.,rw THE JACKSON I ti--r .ws.wv aw- / � I I I ❑O Lacae�urneea�avui�ia'walmw nrewrt. �aa "•w�"m� �"°"" m" a". RESIDENCE o�I ul[WI,WMxtLI MTcw, .®eR,O nhe].rVCMIb.Twffi OCEAN BLVD. .ww waw .� ro � www »MNea�ww. LEFT SIDE ELEVATION � NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA 1/4"= 1'-0e .,✓ '.v �?Ccv,h�I5AN H61G5+'r �E:EO Oro nun wrowxnw v -"' "� avnrw rrwxro xscm rerro.uw c.wa es�ere 1 nnas7e �ro enwwnm,.nrw.w _ ._ T.o EX Rope.-_ OWNER, u rwumm eanaio cnlwsre raim 9iv ..._..,_.�.._ .�_.�.... ,.!�.... : ® 975 JACKSON -_ _ c_ - _ _ —. -_ _ — 31536 WEST STREET i o CM ___. __ *o mm� SOUTH LAGUNA,CA 92629 \.' 949-499A031 F T- CfY Revieo"e: in r /t _ 86.65'� Nw Dme Aeviriaa I I I r I I a Q Wall Noes Q - \ _____—J.. � � E.tIDLEVEL � ui avrwmnuroiLe arm wmnn.,..0 x�.erwwlewmw.-mean cwarwa». ' \, _i uute sv,..,wdc oW.ewme rmm O,�ENIee pb: ]/19/ml veaern,e vm emcnwx owauern ran ai,.e eemnaxvewrevuus Jab No.: I � I I wuro m�•le�ava�.e,arvn�w��,u,m.NunR,re�me�ro[o,e .xm w Aaucuuon SWpoi1W: Neeawa aoee.aweeacaenunaa.cartwx vxru w,x raea. waxes RIdR D�Submibl: EidJ : �'� ____— w"oroa+iimrs,rgsa�°�`er.rrs�xv°eaouw nne:wm a„re u ii \ xaerww,laun e,axvame w,eure muaao av,w.w.eawc esnw m,wre. JS ca"ameRonuem: Levn aneei rue: RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION ELEVATIONS 1/4"=1'-n' SE No.: A - 5 Pwiim. L.refl PAi�pa APR in 9nn1 Lohrbach T - -. O.-E-x. RO- -OF- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F 4 $� kY AVERAGE xL` `' T. O, CURB '� 31WICAI.IDJOGPISI3 O91T W SpH NANCAP181 o, GM75 ® 9 � � 519E31A131 PA%9H210.3851 ° �s�4z 86b5' n UPPER LEVEL - 4 i i 15A' •rms.,.::.. MID LEVEL s � c � 64.15' ' * 2 LOWER LEVEL .. .ilt• '. p�p��'c�y�(v �y �(v�p �m q,T q d��L71�17�LvlpL 7il�6y®�ly�lgy7� U'lli�IlJl®11 L"9 �nR�r'41�1LJ1J�E1VCE 3631 OCEAN BLVD. NEWPO T EEACH 1 CALIFORNIA +' _ — _ _ - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - __ - - - -- - - - - _ - - - 101.2' - - - - - \��Cv T. O. Ex. ROOF ___-_- _ AVERAGE e $ r �,. T. O. CURB U �'�, - i _ . 4 _ e6b5' ',. - UPPER LEVEL swYbs \ � l5A' MID LEVEL 64.15' ... .. LOWER LEVEL Cmn"odoei�s Ystirix SECTION B S1A nONS 1/4^=1'A" A - 6 ice. Lohrbach - — - Robinson FLq.'LtD, 913I mm T.O.F.R.ROOF _e L__ _ ________ i _ ________ __ `�\ ___ VV4 8 mSWlt m/ N0 Ty. IM31 FA. W. 381051 T � P. Biv%A1' A 1 b ri I 1 I 'II'IEIDE 61.14 JACKS ON r = T REM ENCIE ,I 3631 OCEAN BLVD. NEWPORTBEACH CALIFORNIA SECTION C us^v ir-a, _ i i I R.Himn Fro. D! R.wm 0 0 0 ' DYVt< F/D/m1 ' rasxo.: e.aeLtlo.BaemtlYt - M*DI n/a/" W Ym ' ' OammtlmRv MMONS p L�1 — 7 P�eDa SOUTHWEST //— �` NORTHEAST 100 I PROPOSED RESIDENCE I ` EXISTING GROUND B-1 100 PROPOSED GRADE —�.►�' , Afu 90 .r—_- -- —`— 90 EXISTING RETAINING WALL A - ----- PROPOSED 80 I 7 BUILDING 80 / I' RETAINING WALL - - I� ----- RECOMMENDED •aa���Jl SHORING 70 EXISTING p� 70 PROPOSED GRADE GUNITE - AREA ;'"� PROPOSED GRADE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL------ �---- —�_ Qf 60 I Qt 60 Qsw BENCH INTO COMPETENT -. TERRACE DEPOSITS DEPTH TO BE DETERMINED By STRUCTURAL ENGINEER BASED ON PARAMETERS OF \ / ------- SOILS REPORT 50 �\ / 50 \� TM TM W ` � TD=50' LL z EXISTING GROUND \ ---- 40 > LLI 30 - \� ` " 30 EXTEND OUTERMOST ROW Of FOUNDATIONS A PER SOMEOF 10 REPORT BELOW I] SETBACK PLANE PER SOILS REPOflT 20 � �\ � ` \ 20 Tm 10 GRAVEL AND COBBLE BEACH \ \ SECTION A - A' R (Qb) \ approxhnate bedding 10 Looking Northwest \ \ \ Scale: 1" = 8' \ \\\ 0 TM \ \ -5 -5 0 DISTANCE (FEET) 50 100 150 200 ItPETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. JN 368-00 JUNE, Ml PLATE 2 EXPLANATION GEOLOGIC UNITS AN Undocumented Fill QSW Slopewash LLJ Qb Beach Deposits > a O � Qt Terrace Deposits D Q O TM Bedrock - Monterey Formation SCALE: 1/S"=1 ' (Circled Where Buried) N V V 0 m II GEOLOGIC_SYMBOLS B'1 Approximate Location of Exploratory Boring �- W _j O Q IU W fA 46, Strike and Dip of Bedding iW O e Y ram_ Strike and Dip of Fault 00 CE F F Fault Trace p0 3 t�\et I Q- M O p .'��-� Approximate Geolo is Contact � � � (R 005 0\r O V O 9 } / & 8, dr A A' Geologic Cross Section � Exisflng residence I I 1 I 1 �9E �of �;5� - ,be 9�5 � I PROPOSED I 0 _ - \e N I ` ` _ 11 I I I I I RETAINING WALL Q',, ° 0 142 4 �9s � Shz j1 I1 � Ij I t I __ ytpOd 5}OI/6 19. 1 / 9 i. I}I I II I 11 4 I I 2 69.%-e69� O j5 19 1 _� _` o q0. 1 ( x 19j5 / 949 7 I %7-a- 15 9�/� \ \ \ \ /84 1 I I I I I %1 si 1 '9 \ \\ v\ \ V A \ I P III I I I 1 1 I /hi. Inya/orn o o g \ \ I I I I 51 o r �' I \ \\ \\ \ \\ \ \ \ I Tm I /IIII/ I 11�\ i AN I do \\ \\ ae \\ \ \\\ \ \\ \\ �i //' Qt i I 950 X \ Qb ` \ \ I 1 Qt I 9 dS t` \ \\ \\ \ \ \\ \ \ 1 \ \ \ \ Tm \\ \ \ \\ \ III I \ \ O V A V A 1 I I I I I .� PORTION OF MAR TRACT °T '� '�9r,' TM \ \ \ \ 33 \ I\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ I ` 11 11 I I 4�q CORONA DEL 90 1 ��_ \ \\ \\ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ 55 \ c I \ \\\ \ \\ \ \ \ \ II II I I �10�1 •�.A 9C F inq I 9�t q5 5Z,OPOSE NG \ ° 91; ° F.F.. = . ,PROPOSED BUILDI REAR PATIO \ 14 I I J 5 m \ \\ \\\ z \ \ \ \\\ \ \ \ Extsttng 9 9 9)s n Z o� \ \\ \\ \ \\ \\ \ F 70 \ \ \ \ \ \\ \I \\\\ \ \ \ \\\ \ residence 11 90' / J6zo 952 P5 1 I 1? o 91 e e 9 9fl. I \ 91 V i \ 1 Qsw k. \ p I \ I \ I \ \ \ \ \\\ \\\ \ dmr l Qt Qt / 50 g5 s 95 1� p1 B �1 I I z I I \ \ \ 9 \0„ G0\ 5 "° m�, " 9 9S4 941 95% 091,E z I I I I Qb I \ 24` TM \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ ,. O O / I A I I I ' I I I� ,\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Tm t Tm \ l ° 9,. - \; I o 915 91�916 \�l.CJ—w 150 9\ F. - ° °, It° �:_a" 9s I n.a.'a a a III _<°` 95° °.. , •/99�.,5' ° �g.-.. I 011\ /1t5o' 1 Qt °91 TM 97 TM PC,,� 1 45 5' 44 12 e�eb t\g t wma z I I 40 I I I I I �fiVA \ \ \ \ � �.- •- 1 a .° n �e ^ �,< � _ ° I a ` S. - aA �� n e", 91� ° \ \ I VGA 1p FF' �� ^ V�.d'a• V I I I I \ \ 0 I I I \ \ \ I p R001 J 9 - ° °° • ° 11<a.. I°.< ° ° � .� B-1 ' G \ �: • °• n ° . S - � 5 )9 ° ` 4 °' <\ 0* - q0. \ - n D �\ L Uio�� oo! \� °g5�_ � ° °- . ° �-O - �. . ° °r , � 0 e.� � • c TM910 ,C AN 5611 n < `e:. . \ '�t 6 I 1 \ Qb \ \ / I I I I I I I I I I I I s b 51. \ tl Tz Qt9Ca ° ►--+ \ 1 \ III -a►Us 1 I I e% W. , I o* o* 1 I a3 \ \ \ \ \ I I I I I I i I I I I I III Rs Tm ° / 9 S o 91 z I TM 1 t \\ \\ \ I I i I I I I I I Ik l . T '..°t.r>• t 10' 19.< y14 1 9 i \ \ \ \ • o t h N N III Extsttng r\e 1154 \ I / . V e \ 07, I 11 \ \ \ h residence dr0m 93 t1• o ' 1 / ' ) s 91:5 a' O E I I W I o= Z ° w C U 10 O � N rCy-t d c O a E W 01 m c � C \y [�] W �p LMIG ffA ^ - ro i. > 00 O .Um U Co NFUN I txamm * lu 01 N PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC �? t a JN 358-00 JUNE. 2001 010v S. Meum LS 4384 .__.___ SHEET 1 OP 1 PLATE 1 10039 w.e M. is �o:x:4�moi