Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Appeal_MD2007-060_418 Redlands Ave (PA2007-152)
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT October 18, 2007 Meeting Agenda Item No.3 SUBJECT: Appeal of Modification Permit No. 2007 -060 (PA2007 -152) 418 Redlands Avenue APPELLANT: Will Higman APPLICANT: Joyce LCM RedWillow PLANNER: Janet Johnson Brown, Assistant Planner (949) 644 -3236, ibrown citv.newoort- beach.ca.us PROJECT SUMMARY An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve Modification Permit No. 2007 -060 on property located in the R -1 District at 418 Redlands Avenue, which would permit the minor interior remodel of and a 1,203 square -foot addition to a nonconforming single - family dwelling unit that encroaches 13 feet, 8 inches into the 20 -foot required front yard setback. The Planning Commission must conduct a de novo hearing and, after considering all of the evidence presented, either approve, modify, or disapprove, in whole or in part, Modification Permit No. 2007 -060. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a de novo hearing and reverse the decision of the Zoning Administrator and deny Modification Permit No. 2007 -060 by adopting the draft resolution attached as Exhibit 1. Should the Planning Commission choose to approve the project in whole or in part, staff has prepared a draft resolution to approve Modification Permit No. 2007 -060, which is attached as Exhibit 2. Appeal of Modification Permit No. 2007-060 October 18, 2007 Page 2 Appellant's Property Subject Property ZONING IV Ilk, _11 RS-D VIP. ON-SITE Q[11W1W-U111L "001UMIL101 Detached Single-Family Residential Residential Dwelling NORTH Single-Unit Residential Single-Family Residential Residential Dwelling Detached SOUTH Single-Unit Residential Single-Family Residential Residential Dwelling Detached EAST Single-Unit Residential Single-Family Residential Residential Dwelling Detached WEST Single-Unit Residential I single-Family Residential Residential Dwelling I I Appeal of Modification Permit No. 2007 -060 October 18, 2007 Page 3 INTRODUCTION Project Settin The subject property is located in the residential neighborhood known as Newport Heights. The subject property is located on a single - loaded street with a 12- foot -wide city parkway at the front and an alley at the rear. The subject property consists of 6,375 square feet of lot area, which is typical of lots in this subdivision. Properties in this neighborhood and in the immediate vicinity of the subject property are zoned R -1 (Single - Family Residential) and are developed with single - family dwellings. Proiect Description The property is currently developed with two separate structures. At the front one -half of the lot facing Redlands Avenue is a 2,089 square -foot two -story building consisting of a dwelling and garage. The garage takes access from Redlands Avenue. The structure at the rear of the property consists of an 813 square -foot building comprised of a garage with loft area. On the plans submitted by the applicant, the structure located at the front one -half of the lot is identified as encroaching 13 feet, 8 inches into the 20 -foot required front yard setback. The extent of the encroachment will be discussed later in this report. The property owner requested a Modification Permit to permit a minor interior remodel and a 1,203 square -foot addition (or approximately 41 percent of the existing gross square footage on site) to connect the existing structures located on the property. The proposed addition includes a single -car garage and an art studio with vaulted ceiling on the first floor, and an art studio loft area and full bathroom on the second floor. Pursuant to Chapter 20.62 (Nonconforming Structures and Uses) of the Zoning Code, a modification permit is required when additions of between 25 percent and 50 percent of the existing gross square footage are proposed to an existing nonconforming structure. Background The subject property was developed in September, 1946, when a building permit was issued for a "dwelling and garage below." In March, 1950, a building permit was issued for a "20 X 20" addition. While there are no plans on file for these building permits, the "20 X 20" addition matches the existing structure at the rear of the property. The permitted uses in the R -1 District at that time included single - family dwellings and detached accessory buildings. This is consistent with the structures on the property, and with the current development and land use regulations in effect today. The zoning at the time the property was developed in 1946 and 1950 was R -1 and the required front yard setback was 20 feet. There is no record in the Planning Commission Appeal of Modification Permit No. 2007 -060 October 18, 2007 Page 4 meeting minutes from the years of 1945 to 1947 or in the Planning Department archives that would indicate a variance or other discretionary approval was granted to allow the structure located on the front one -half of the lot to encroach into the required 20 -foot front yard setback; however, due to the passage of time, staff believes the property owner has the right to retain the structure in its present location. The Modifications Committee approved Modification Permit No. 2467 on October 16, 1979, to allow alterations and a 904 square -foot addition to the rear of the residence. The modification permit was exercised in August, 1981, when a building permit was issued for an addition to the rear of the building. Substantial reliance on the previous approvals of building permits and a modification permit grants the property owner the right to make normal repairs and maintain the structure in good order; however, this does not render the structure a legal structure and it is still deemed nonconforming. A complete inventory and copy of the permits issued for the property are attached as Exhibit 6. In October, 2006, the property owner submitted plans to obtain a building permit for the proposed minor interior remodel and addition. Planning Department staff approved the plans in June, 2007, based on the determination of the nonconforming status of the property in response to the approval of Modification Permit No. 2467; however, that approval only made reference to the front yard encroachment and did not grant approval of the location of the structure. Because the front yard encroachment was not approved by any action of the Modification Committee or the Zoning Administrator, the structure remains nonconforming. The property owner was advised that because the structure located on the front one -half of the lot was nonconforming due to the encroachment into the front yard setback, the proposed project would be subject to the provisions of Chapter 20.62 of the Zoning Code and a modification permit would be required for an addition of up to 50 percent of the existing gross square footage on site. On July 31, 2007, the property owner /applicant submitted an application for a modification permit to allow the minor interior remodel of and a 1,203 square -foot addition to the existing nonconforming structure. On August 20, 2007, the Zoning Administrator considered the application and granted approval of Modification Permit No. 2007 -060. On August 30, 2007, an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve Modification Permit No. 2007 -060 was filed by the appellant. Code Violations In response to information provided by neighbors, Code Enforcement inspected the property and found that the loft area above the garage at the rear of the property had been converted to a second dwelling unit. The property owner was notified this use is in violation of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and the loft area is required to be cleared of the kitchen facilities. A follow -up inspection was conducted on October 3, 2007, and a notice of violation and correction letter was issued to address outstanding items. 6 Appeal of Modification Permit No. 2007 -060 October 18, 2007 Page 5 In addition to the above code violations, there is a record of Code Enforcement action on the property that occurred from March, 1989, through January, 1990, regarding the existence of three separate dwelling units. The inspection conducted in December, 1989, indicates the cooking facilities were removed from the lower front unit and the unit above the garage in the rear, and the property was returned to a single - family use to the satisfaction of Code Enforcement and the City Attorney's Office. Attached as Exhibit 7 are copies of the Code Enforcement correspondence. Extent of Encroachment The 20 -foot front setback is measured from the front property line, which is located 12- feet from the face of curb. As indicated previously in this report, the structure located at the front one -half of the lot encroaches 13 feet, 8 inches into the front setback and is depicted on the plans as being 6 feet, 4 inches from the front property line. To confirm the information provided on the plans, the City Surveyor conducted a survey of the site. While the dimension depicted on the plans of 6 -feet, 4- inches measured from the north corner of the building to the front property line is correct, the City Surveyor found that the building is slightly skewed and not parallel to the front property line. In addition, not depicted on the plans are two vertical columns that support a solid roof overhang located above the first floor plate line across the front of the building. The vertical columns are located 1 foot from the front property line on the north side and even with the property line on the south side. The roof overhang projects 8 -to -10 inches beyond the vertical columns and encroaches into the parkway of the public right -of -way on the south comer of the building. A schematic of the survey depicting the existing condition is attached as Exhibit 8. It should be noted that the omission of structural encroachments into the 20 -foot front yard setback on the plans was discovered by the Zoning Administrator during a field investigation of the subject property prior to the modification hearing of August 20, 2007. At the modification hearing of August 20, 2007, the Zoning Administrator brought this to the attention of the property owner. The Zoning Administrator stated that the roof overhang and vertical columns would be required to be removed as part of the construction and could be replaced with a roof brow element only. DISCUSSION Appeal The appellant requests that the Planning Commission reconsider the Zoning Administrator's decision to grant approval of Modification Permit No. 2007 -060. A copy of the appellant's written statement in support of the appeal is attached to this report as Exhibit 9, and summarized below: 1 Appeal of Modification Permit No. 2007 -060 October 18, 2007 Page 6 Two of the three required findings to approve a modification permit cannot be made because: The structure is not compatible with existing development in the neighborhood because it "is built 13 feet 6 inches" into the front setback, and; b. The existing building blocks light and airflow to his front yard. By allowing the front and back buildings to be connected with additional footage, his family would be permanently blacked out by this additional footage and his property and the neighborhood would be permanently damaged. 2. The nonconforming status should be terminated pursuant to Section 20.62.080 A.2 and A.3 (Termination of Nonconforming Status) of the Zoning Code, because the property is being converted from a multi -unit rental property to a single- family residence. The granting of the modification permit to allow alterations and an addition to the existing structures does not conform to City Council Policy L -2, Driveway Approaches, which establishes policies and guidelines regarding street curb openings and prohibits such openings for residential properties which abut an alley. Chapter 20.95 of the Zoning Code establishes the procedures for the appeal process. Pursuant to Section 2D.95.060 C, a public hearing on an appeal is conducted "de novo," meaning that it is a new hearing and the decision being appealed has no force or effect as of the date the appeal was filed. The appellate body is not bound by the decision being appealed or limited to the issues raised on appeal. Analysis Chapter 20.62 (Nonconforming Structures and Uses) of the Zoning Code establishes procedures for the continuance or abatement of existing structures and uses that do not conform to the provisions of the Zoning Code and goals and policies of the General Plan. The intent of this chapter is to limit the expansion of nonconforming structures and uses to the maximum extent feasible, and to bring the structures and uses into conformity in an equitable, reasonable and timely manner without infringing upon the constitutional rights of property owners. The chapter also establishes criteria under which nonconforming structures and uses may be continued or expanded. Pursuant to Section 20.62.040 D (Nonconforming Structures - Additions), structures that are nonconforming due to setback encroachments may be increased up to 50 percent of the gross floor area within any 12 -month period upon the approval of a modification permit. a Appeal of Modification Permit No. 2007 -060 October 18, 2007 Page 7 Chapter 20.93 (Modification Permits) of the Zoning Code provides administrative relief through a Modification Permit for certain development proposals where there is a practical difficulty or physical hardship including minor modifications and improvements to nonconforming buildings. The following three findings must be made in order to approve a Modification Permit: A. The granting of this application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. B. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. C. The granting of this Modification Permit will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. Practical Difficulties Finding A. The granting of this application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. To make this finding, it must be shown that the property has some practical difficulty or constraint that when combined with the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the code. In this particular case, the constraining factor is that the existing structure located on the front one -half of the lot has been in its present location since 1946. In October, 1979, Modification Permit No. 2467 was granted to allow two -story alterations and additions and was exercised in August, 1981, when a building permit was issued for an addition at the rear of the structure. Therefore, a strict enforcement of the 20 -foot front yard setback would result in the demolition of some or all of the existing structure. Practically speaking, it would be structurally difficult to retain a portion of the structure and the entire building would need to be demolished in order to conform to the 20 -foot front yard setback. As stated above, the purpose and intent of Chapter 20.62 (Nonconforming Structures and Uses) of the Zoning Code is to establish procedures for the continuance or abatement of existing structures that do not conform to the provisions of the Zoning Code and the goals and policies of the General Plan, and to limit the expansion of W, Appeal of Modification Permit No. 2007 -060 October 18, 2007 Page 8 nonconforming structures. The Land Use Element of the General Plan includes Policy LU 6.2.2 for Residential Neighborhoods, which states: "Legal nonconforming residential structures shall be brought into conformity in an equitable, reasonable, and timely manner as rebuilding occurs. Limited renovations that improve the physical quality and character of the buildings may be allowed." Although Section 20.62.040 D (Nonconforming Structures — Additions) provides criteria under which a nonconforming structure may be expanded, staff does not believe the proposed minor interior remodel and addition meet the intent or purpose of Chapter 20.62 or Policy LU 6.2.2 of the General Plan. For this reason, staff does not believe this finding can be made. Neighborhood Compatibility Finding B. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. The purpose of this finding is to ensure that the granting of the modification will not result in development that is out of character with the existing development in the neighborhood. A field investigation of the neighborhood reveals that there are no other structures that project into the front yard setback to the extent this building does. Even though the additional square footage to connect the structures would conform to the required development regulations with respect to height, gross floor area and side yard setbacks, the resulting structure would not be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood due to the extent of the encroachment into the 20 -foot front yard setback. For this reason, staff does not believe this finding can be made. Health and Safety Finding C. The granting of this Modification Permit will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. Portions of the existing structure located on the front one -half of the lot encroach up to 20 feet into the 20 -foot required front yard setback. The appellant states that the existing structure blocks light and air from his front yard. Residential development regulations, including the establishment of required setbacks, are intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling unit. Although the proposed additional square footage to connect the two structures would maintain the required setbacks, height and gross floor area, the granting of Modification Permit No. 2007 -060 would perpetuate and extend the life of the encroaching structure, thereby Ia Appeal of Modification Permit No. 2007 -060 October 18, 2007 Page 9 blocking the adjoining property from adequate light and air. For this reason, staff does not believe this finding can be made. For the reasons stated above, staff recommends the Planning Commission reverse the decision of the Zoning Administrator and deny Modification Permit No. 2007 -060. A draft resolution for this action is attached as Exhibit 1. Response to Points of Appeal Staff has prepared the following in response to the second two points raised by the appellant. The appellant believes that the property should be terminated of its nonconforming status "because it is being converted from multi unit rental property to a single family residence," pursuant to Section 20.62.080 A.2 and A.3 (Termination of Nonconforming Status) of the Zoning Code. This section states: A. A nonconforming structure or use must be modified to conform to the regulations of the district in which such property is located when one or more of the following events occur- Unless otherwise provided for in this chapter, a nonconforming use which remains inactive for 180 consecutive days, shall be deemed have to ceased, and shall not thereafter be reestablished, except as provided in Subsection B, below. 2. A nonconforming use is converted to a conforming use. 3. If a nonconforming use or structural nonconformity is enlarged, extended, expanded or in any other manner changed to increase its inconsistency with the regulations of the Zoning Code. 4. Expiration of the period of time provided in the resolution establishing the conditions of abatement and the abatement period. The appellant's assertion that the property is "being converted from a multi unit rental property" is not accurate because the land use regulations do not allow for multi - family residential uses in an R -1 District. Therefore, provision A.2 does not apply. The property is in violation of the land use regulations due to the existence of a second dwelling unit on the site. As indicated earlier in this report, Code Enforcement issued a notice of violation regarding the illegal use of the rear upstairs building. In addition, staff required that a Covenant and Agreement be recorded to hold the property as a single - family dwelling site. A copy of the recorded document is attached as Exhibit 10. Appeal of Modification Permit No. 2007 -060 October 18, 2007 Page 10 Staff believes that provision A.3 could be applied to require the nonconforming structure be modified to conform to the regulations of the R -1 District, because if the modification permit were granted, the life of the structural nonconformity would be extended and the structural nonconformity would be changed to increase it's inconsistency with the regulations of the Zoning Code. 2. The appellant asserts that the "redevelopment does not conform to City Council Policy L -2" as relates to the item C of the "Residential Zones and Residential Uses — Special Requirements" policy section. A copy of City Council Policy L -2 attached as Exhibit 11. Item C states that "street curb openings shall not be permitted to residential property which abuts an alley," which this property does. The Public Works Department administers Council Policy L -2 and made the determination upon review of the proposed project that because the project did not constitute a major remodel, removal of the Redlands Avenue driveway approach could not be required. Should the structure located on the front one -half of the lot be substantially remodeled or demolished, then the driveway approach would be required to be removed. Alternatives Should the Planning Commission concur with the Zoning Administrator's findings for approval of Modification Permit No. 2007 -060, the Planning Commission should deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval. An additional condition of approval has been added that was inadvertently omitted from the original approval letter regarding the removal of the roof overhang and vertical support columns located at the front of the structure. This feature may be replaced with roof brow element. Staff has concerns about some aspects of the proposed addition and the apparent violation of the use of the property for more than one dwelling unit. Of primary concern are the existing exterior staircases providing independent access to the second floor living areas to both the front and rear structures. Staff believes that retention of the exterior staircases could lead to the use of the property for more than one dwelling unit, as has occurred in the past. A new condition of approval has been included to require the exterior staircases be eliminated. Staff is also concerned about the lack of internal flow within the floor plans from the front of the dwelling to the rear. Staff will work with the property owner /applicant to revise the floor plans to require that access from the front to the rear of the dwelling be made internally. Also of concern is the potential use of the art studio and art studio loft areas for commercial uses such as art classes and art showings. Staff will provide the property owner /applicant with a copy of the regulations in Section 20.60.100 (Home Occupations in Residential Districts) and require compliance with these regulations. 1a" Appeal of Modification Permit No. 2007 -060 October 18, 2007 Page 11 A draft resolution has been prepared, including additional conditions of approval, and is attached as Exhibit 2. Environmental Review This project has been reviewed and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). This exemption permits interior and exterior alterations and additions to existing single family dwellings. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: Submitted by: Ja et Irl on Brown, Assistant Planner David Lepo, Planning Director EXHIBITS 1. Draft Resolution for Denial of Modification Permit No. 2007 -060 2. Draft Resolution for Approval of Modification Permit No. 2007 -060 3. Project Plans 4. Site Photographs 5. Modification Permit No. 2007 -060 Approval Letter 6. Inventory of Permit History 7. Code Enforcement Correspondence 8. Survey of Existing Conditions 9. Appeal Letter 10. Recorded Covenant and Agreement 11. Council Policy L -2 12. Correspondence 13.Additional Correspondence and Photographs from Appellant F: \Users\PLN\Shared \PA's \PAs - 200- APA2007- 152\PC\MD2007 -060 PC Staff Rpt.doc is Exhibit No. 1 �5 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND DENYING MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2007 -060 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 418 REDLANDS AVENUE (PA2007 -152) WHEREAS, an application was filed by Joyce LCM RedWillow with respect to property located at 418 Redlands Avenue, and legally described as Lot 7, Block 24, First Addition to Newport Heights, requesting approval of Modification Permit No. 2007 -060 to permit the minor interior remodel of and a 1,203 square -foot addition to a nonconforming single -family dwelling unit that encroaches 13 feet, 8 inches into the 20 -foot required front yard setback; and WHEREAS, at a noticed public hearing held on August 20, 2007, the Zoning Administrator considered the application, plans, and written and oral evidence presented at this meeting, and approved Modification Permit No. 2007 -060 to allow the minor interior remodel and a 1,203 square -foot addition to a nonconforming single -family dwelling unit that encroaches 13 feet, 8 inches into the 20 -foot required front yard setback; and WHEREAS, on August 30, 2007, an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve Modification Permit No. 2007 -060 was filed on the grounds that the proposed modification does not meet the necessary findings to grant approval of the request; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20.95.060 C, a public hearing on an appeal is conducted "de novo," meaning that it is a new hearing and the decision being appealed has no force or effect as of the date the appeal was filed. The appellate body is not bound by the decision being appealed or limited to the issues raised on appeal; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve Modification Permit No. 2007 -060 was held on October 18, 2007, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting; and WHEREAS, the property is designated Single Unit Residential Detached by the General Plan Land Use Element and is zoned R -1 (Single - Family Residential), and the existing residential structure is consistent with these designations; and WHEREAS, Section 20.93.030 (Modification Permits) of the Zoning Code requires findings and facts in support of such findings to grant approval of a modification permit to allow the minor interior remodel and a 1,203 square -foot addition to a nonconforming single - family dwelling unit that encroaches 13 feet, 8 inches into the 20 -foot required front yard setback. The findings and facts supporting such findings cannot be made to grant approval of Modification Permit No. 2007 -060 for the following reasons: \A Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 of 3 1. Finding: The granting of this application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. Fact in Opposition of Finding: The proposed minor alterations and addition to the existing nonconforming structure does not meet the purpose and intent of Chapter 20.62 (Nonconforming Structures and Uses) of the Zoning Code, which is intended to limit the expansion of nonconforming structures, and bring these structures into conformity in an equitable, reasonable and timely manner. In addition, the proposed project is not consistent with the goal of Policy LU 6.2.2 of the General Plan which is to bring nonconforming residential structures into conformity as rebuilding occurs. 2. Finding: The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. Fact in Opposition of Finding: There are no other structures in the neighborhood that project into the front yard setback to the extent of the existing structure located on the front one -half of the subject property. Although the additional square footage to connect the structures would conform to the required development regulations with respect to height, gross floor area and side yard setbacks, the resulting structure would not be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. 3. Finding: The granting of this Modification Permit will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. Fact in Opposition of Finding: Residential development regulations, including the establishment of required setbacks, are intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling unit. The granting of the Modification Permit to allow the proposed additional square footage to connect the two structures would perpetuate and extend the life of the encroaching structure, thereby blocking the adjoining property from adequate light and air. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED Section 1. Based upon the aforementioned facts, the Planning Commission hereby reverses the decision of the Zoning Administrator, and denies Modification Permit No. 2007 -060. ki Planning Commission Resolution No. 3of3 Section 2. 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 called 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 18th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2007. BY: Robert Hawkins, Chairman Bradley Hillgren, Secretary AYES: NOS: ABSENT: ft Exhibit No. 2 �b RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND APPROVING MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2007 -060 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 418 REDLANDS AVENUE (PA2007 -152) WHEREAS, an application was filed by Joyce LCM RedWillow with respect to property located at 418 Redlands Avenue, and legally described as Lot 7, Block 24, First Addition to Newport Heights, requesting approval of Modification Permit No. 2007 -060 to permit the minor interior remodel of and a 1,203 square -foot addition to a nonconforming single - family dwelling unit that encroaches 13 feet, 8 inches into the 20 -foot required front yard setback; and WHEREAS, at a noticed public hearing held on August 20, 2007, the Zoning Administrator considered the application, plans, and written and oral evidence presented at this meeting, and approved Modification Permit No. 2007 -060 to allow the minor interior remodel of and a 1,203 square -foot addition to a nonconforming single - family dwelling unit that encroaches 13 feet, 8 inches into the 20 -foot required front yard setback; and WHEREAS, on August 30, 2007, an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve Modification Permit No. 2007 -060 was filed on the grounds that the proposed modification does not meet the necessary findings to grant approval of the request; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 20.95.060 C, a public hearing on an appeal is conducted "de novo," meaning that it is a new hearing and the decision being appealed has no force or effect as of the date the appeal was filed. The appellate body is not bound by the decision being appealed or limited to the issues raised on appeal; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve Modification Permit No. 2007 -060 was held on October 18, 2007, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting; and WHEREAS, the property is designated Single Unit Residential Detached by the General Plan Land Use Element and is zoned R -1 (Single - Family Residential), and the existing residential structure is consistent with these designations; and WHEREAS, Section 20.93.030 (Modification Permits) of the Zoning Code requires findings and facts in support of such findings for approval of a modification permit to allow the minor interior remodel of and a 1,203 square -foot addition to a nonconforming structure that encroaches 13 feet, 8 inches into the required 20 -foot front yard setback. The findings and facts supporting such findings are as follows: 1. Finding: The granting of this application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. Dlk Planning Commission Resolution No. Paqe 2 of 5 Fact in Support of Finding: The subject property is constrained by the fact that the existing structure located on the front one -half of the lot was constructed in its present location in 1946. In October, 1979, Modification Permit No. 2467 was approved to permit two -story alterations and additions to the structure, and was exercised in August, 1981, when a permit was issued for an addition to the rear of the structure. Strict application of the required 20 -foot front yard setback would result in the demolition of some or all of the existing structure. The cost of removing and reconstructing the existing non - conforming structure to meet the required front yard setback would be financially prohibitive. 2. Finding: The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. Fact in Support of Finding: The additional square footage to connect the front structure to the rear structure will comply with the required development regulations with respect to height, gross floor area and side yard setbacks. In addition, the proposed addition to the non - conforming structure is similar to and consistent with modified and conditioned approvals granted by the Zoning Administrator, Modifications Committee and the Planning Commission on appeal for addition to nonconforming structures in this neighborhood and City -wide. 3. Finding: The granting of this Modification Permit will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. Fact in Support of Finding: The proposed addition will conform to the height, gross floor area, setback requirements and other development requirements of the R -1 District in which the subject property is located. Minor alterations to the interior of the garage of the structure located on the front one -half of the lot adjacent to Redlands Avenue will provide the minimum standard dimensions required by the Zoning Code for a two -car garage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED Section 1. Based upon the aforementioned facts, the Planning Commission hereby upholds the decision of the Zoning Administrator and approves Modification Permit No. 2007- 060. N Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 3 of 5 Section 2. 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 called 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 18th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2007. M MT Robert Hawkins, Chairman Bradley Hillgren, Secretary AYES: NOS: ABSENT: a3 Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 4 of 5 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2007-060 The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. The proposed addition to the existing nonconforming single - family structure shall not encroach into any required setback and shall comply with all requirements of the R -1 District of the Zoning Code regarding height and gross square footage allowed on the property. 3. The existing roof overhang and vertical support columns located on the nonconforming structure shall be removed. This feature may be replaced with a roof brow element that projects 6 inches maximum from the face of the structure. 4. The exterior staircases that lead from the ground to the second floor of both structures shall be removed. Access to the second floor of the dwelling shall be taken from internal staircases. 5. The floor plans shall be amended to provide internal flow throughout the dwelling in a manner consistent with a single - family dwelling to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 6. The proposed addition shall not exceed the square footage shown on the Modification Permit No. 2007 -060 plans without further review by the Zoning Administrator, and in no case be more than 50 percent of the existing gross floor area of the on -site structures. 7. The existing guy wire and utility pole in the alley shall be relocated so as not to interfere with garage access. Proof of pole and guy wire relocation shall be provided to the Public Works Department prior to issuance of revised plans for release of building permits, unless approved by the Public Works Department. 8. Anything not specifically approved by this Modification Permit is prohibited and must be addressed in a separate and subsequent Modification Permit review. 9. If any of the existing public improvements surrounding the site are damaged by private work, new concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter, street pavement, and other public improvements will be required by the City at the time of private construction completion. Said determination and the extent of the repair work shall be made at the discretion of the Public Works inspector. 10. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not, in and of itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide, constitute a precedent for future approvals or decisions. A Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 5 of 5 11. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department an additional copy of the approved architectural plans for inclusion in the Modification Permit file. The plans shall be identical to those approved by all City departments for building permit issuance. The approved copy shall include architectural sheets only and shall be reduced in size to 11- inches by 17- inches. The plans shall accurately depict the elements approved by this Modification Permit and shall highlight the approved elements such that they are readily discernible from other elements of the plans. 12. A building permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of the construction 13. A copy of this approval letter shall be incorporated into the Building Department and field sets of plans prior to issuance of the building permits. 14. All work performed within the public right -of -way shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department under an encroachment permittagreement, if required. 15. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the approval date, as specified in Section 20.93.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Prior to the expiration date of this approval, an extension may be approved in accordance with Section 20.93.055 (B) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Requests for an extension must be in writing. g5 Exhibit No. 3 �l LEI]mss? 3AV 9CNYlCBW A3��Stl 'flO�O 100M� � � oa�.o.asnwiw..r+aawe �eHS��pye��ry�I��r O doW A uB ® �� �IIFiiP iWV/I S W 11 iii t �ionrs e¢ a 0 jig �r �n 9 o � 2 $3 tl YY 5 $ $. 9 v 'z !� O W � N C Z n M 8 pDm e 6k K ag x 3 U OQU k y � 3 .4 &N Own N Y $ r W n 5sR 6a oil M 8 pDm e 6k K ag x r N O N w 4 m v o icy fa3 n LL rwop o¢F aeo k y 8 &N Own N Y 5sR 6a oil 1, ,1 ! Ag1$ ! r N O N w 4 m v o icy fa3 n LL rwop o¢F aeo X9 k y 8 &N Own N Y 6a oil 1, ,1 ! Ag1$ ! X9 NO■ §. \.. � B� §� §" | ao _e f!!! $�� | | | ■ � | ! ,| §eeeeeeee tee! � B� §� §" | ao _e f!!! $�� | | | ■ � � � 000000000 00 M, Q fill p, log IF PRI Ot 31 NVW %*" ONOM am Ma � � 000000000 00 M, Q fill p, log IF PRI Ot 31 i ii i i ii • I ii k t Exhibit No. 4 �3 u I AI -V� --ITT 1I y 14 G *vJ fir 1 — —. � �� _- r � � • 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ic 1 1 1 �;. .�'�'Win. q;,,,1 �� ��?� / P �� y�_ !�X i Y _. �� ® pi " _. �� �� a �;� �.o -' —,— 1� .�,,ul "� I� --� -,rte ~ �: - . irr r � u J. � . . ? ° Th A A� E ✓JrV op �G' • ar,t ,.,s ,� a44�� r „ i n i' t �J e B S t REDLIIINDS AVE Y II p . a V n � w r , r° d I R � l � r A 11 ii st e .\ A t.: 2 r' i.' ate• %9P �? y. y^ ., ` pia •• � .. __ f - - .��Y any � _ _ ° n♦ � � a - v i i�e• tiY FA .✓ r a Lr 4 qs. ,I ,�, t. „ d ; 1 1D • _ 4 Y ,a ZH�v..� f], �n9 n� "S A t � ➢�By� R� 8 .. , @ ° tiY FA .✓ r a Lr 4 qs. ,I ,�, 4i I 44n— `.. r� ✓lr'. 4 Pi 'ro . « , 40 ... / q�'. — _ — ^Ord^ ✓ r'Y t, `� i far . I II r �.•, ,., !g 8 \ IIII nJi!. 4 , eW It iz y:;'i v � ^�� �.. • 7 .a > '0 J ! �•a «;C' Ik 9 w• a' � 1 1 Ce r 1� a 1��Y ry'1•• ♦ .V t:, -. '.e.� :I'.• /�I � . eN.. CA Y !!, ELA l-n , e Aft •✓� r 4 't \ `• `�1� ` Jnlc \l vr:� � � 1 ,n 'I �S. a `� � i,, l ♦t ^Fj ._ N e :� Exhibit No. 5 51 August 20, 2007 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 (949) 644 -3200 FAX (949) 644 -3229 NOTICE OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION Joyce LCM RedWillow 418 Redlands Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 Approved Modification Permit No. MD2007 -060 Application No. (PA2007 -152) Site Address 418 Redlands Avenue On August 20, 2007, the Zoning Administrator approved the above referenced application based on the findings and conditions in the attached action letter. By: � Zoning Abm nis r�vier S. Garcia, AICP JSG:ks APPEAL: The Zoning Administrator's decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 14 days of the action date. A $600.00 filing fee shall accompany any appeal filed. No building permits may be issued until the appeal period has expired. 5� Application No. Applicant Site Address Legal Description MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. MD2007 -060 (PA2007 -152) PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 (949) 644 -3200 FAX (949) 644 -3229 Modification Permit No. MD2007 -060 (PA2007 -152) Joyce LCM RedWillow 418 Redlands Avenue Lot 7, Block 24, Tract 256, First Addition to Newport Heights On August 20, 2007, the Zoning Administrator approved the application request to permit the minor interior remodel and addition of between 25% and 50% of the existing gross square footage of an existing non - conforming single - family dwelling unit. The addition will conform to all required setbacks and will connect the existing two -story single family structure and garage located at the front of the property facing Redlands Avenue, and the existing two -story garage and loft structure located at the rear of the property. The single - family and garage structure at the front of the property facing Redlands Avenue is non- conforming since it encroaches into the required front yard setback. The property is located in the R -1 District. The Zoning Administrator's approval is based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions. FINDINGS 1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan designate the site for "Single -Unit Residential Detached" use. The existing single - family residence and proposed addition to the structure is consistent with this designation. 2. This project has been reviewed, and it has been determined that it is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1 (Existing Facilities). 3. The modification to the Zoning Code, as proposed, is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. It is a logical use of the property that would be precluded by strict application of the zoning requirements for this District for the following reasons: E • The property consists of an existing two -story single family structure and garage located at the front of the property facing Redlands Avenue, and an existing two -story garage and loft structure located at the rear of the property. The single - family and garage structure at the front of the property is non - conforming since it encroaches into the required front yard setback. • The Zoning Code allows additions to existing nonconforming structures between 25% and 50% of the existing gross square footage with approval of a Modification Permit. The proposed addition will comply with all current setback standards and will connect the existing structures to form a single - family dwelling unit. 4. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.93, the granting of this application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property. The strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code for the following reasons: • According to the permit history, the original, single - family dwelling and garage structure was constructed in its present location in 1946, and a Modification Permit was issued in 1979 to permit two -story alterations and additions to the structure. In 1950, a permit was issued for the garage and loft structure located at the rear of the property. • The cost of removing and reconstructing the existing non - conforming structure to meet the required front yard setbacks would be financially prohibitive. 5. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.93, the requested modification will be compatible with existing development(s) in the neighborhood for the following reasons: • The proposed addition to the non - conforming structure is similar to and consistent with modified and conditioned approvals granted by the Zoning Administrator, Modifications Committee and the Planning Commission on appeal for addition to non - conforming structures in this neighborhood and Citywide. • The structure will remain a single - family dwelling and the construction of the new addition will comply with the current Zoning Code requirements of height, gross floor area and setbacks. 6. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.93, the granting of this Modification Permit will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood based on the following: August20,2007 F: \Users \PLN \Shared \PA's \PAs - 2007 \PA2007 - 152 \MD2007 -060 appr.doc Page 2 1 • The proposed addition will conform to the height, gross floor area, setback requirements and other development requirements of the R -1 District of the Zoning Code. • Minor alterations to the interior of the garage located in the original structure adjacent to Redlands Avenue will provide the minimum standard dimensions required by the Zoning Code for a two -car garage. 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted in the following conditions. 2. The proposed addition to the existing non - conforming single - family structure shall not encroach into any required setback and shall comply with all requirements of the R -1 District of the Zoning Code regarding height and gross square footage allowed on the property. 3. The proposed addition shall not exceed the square footage shown on the Modification Permit plans without further review by the Zoning Administrator, and in no case be more than 50% of the existing gross floor area of the on -site structures. 4. The existing guy wire and utility pole in the alley shall be relocated so as not to interfere with garage access. Proof of pole and guy wire relocation shall be provided to the Public Works Department prior to issuance of revised plans for release of building permits, unless approved by the Public Works Department. . 5. Anything not specifically approved by this Modification Permit is prohibited and must be addressed in a separate and subsequent Modification Permit review. 6. If any of the existing public improvements surrounding the site is damaged by private work, new concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter, street pavement, and other public improvements will be required by the City at the time of private construction completion. Said determination and the extent of the repair work shall be made at the discretion of the Public Works inspector. 7. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not, in and of itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide, constitute a precedent for future approvals or decisions. 8. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department an additional copy of the approved architectural plans for inclusion in the Modification Permit file. The plans shall be identical to those approved by all City departments for building permit issuance. The approved copy shall include architectural sheets only and shall be reduced in size to 11- inches by 17- August 20, 2007 F:1Users\PLN\Shared\PA's1PAs - 20071PA2007- 1521MD2007 -060 appr.doc Page 3 �� inches. The plans shall accurately depict the elements approved by this Modification Permit and shall highlight the approved elements such that they are readily discernible from other elements of the plans. 9. A building permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of the construction. 10. A copy of this approval letter shall be incorporated into the Building Department and field sets of plans prior to issuance of the building permits. 11. All work performed within the public right -of -way shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department under an encroachment permit /agreement, if required. 12. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the approval date, as specified in Section 20.93.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Prior to the expiration date of this approval, an extension may be approved in accordance with Section 20.93.055 (B) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Requests for an extension must be in writing. APPEAL PERIOD The Zoning Administrator's decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 14 days of the action date. A $ 600.00 filing fee shall accompany any appeal filed. No building permits may be issued until the appeal period has expired. A copy of the approval letter shall be incorporated into the Building Department set of plans prior to issuance of the building permits or issuance of revised plans. By: Zoning AdminiYrator Javier S. Garcia, AICP JSG:ks Attachments: Vicinity Map Four Letters of Opposition: On file in the Planning Department Appeared in Opposition: W. Higman and K Higman, Redlands Avenue Appeared in Support: E. Hart, Balboa Coves C. Christine, Cliff Drive August 20, 2007 F:1Users\PLN\Shared\PA's1PAs - 20071PA2007- 1521MD2007 -060 appr.doc Page 4 VICINITY MAP ' r: - , . 623 439 :' 446 ::.. 30001 ; " 454460'/'. r 6114 308 "'� .619 619// 435 ;•' ¢ 442 " . 445 .` "' i 450 ::' %'f/ 449 is ..,. 600 ,,., /� 505 .... 320 ` 431 G1. 438 443 r'• �..� +..,��'. :3Is 2912 .... 455 �i-,.� 'f �. 503 ;' hQ 434 .441 _ � 2908 .., j. ; .' 450 '•,.. "'. 901 ` 532 b¢ 430 . .435 2904 r 446 440 ... 491 ': /., C .; :!: 5� ' 426 431 F .. 442 2915 ..... r'ry :, 2801 '`'900 420 2909_ ©y i43R�i�:' 481.. 511 a4p 414. 427 i P . 434 - 2905 '. 2816. ./507 " � ..; .445 \. 2912 <. e7 430 .'.. 445' `'...: `: 415' 428 2808 .• /; 443.. .'r ''.`' ` 424 435 .. . �'. �. .. aza 2804 439 413 .. 433 .' 2817 ,, ...` 441 ;' 434 418 _r // 438 427 w' 2815 414 423 ' 9' 424 .;, 2809 -.♦ r;. 430 /.'' .431 424 % 410 421 . ,,��P4.. ,.. . 2806 : �' ' 424 418 .... .....;-`� 408415 . 400 _ -'�../ - ' ". 411 %'- .435,.1 ,a4. 422._ J, rGi'` 423 / 2617 ?0 414 `•" �� 418 • 425 `�....1, l yY• a 408 r': $`4;' 412 r 421 2904 +. +... 408 .. 423 j`. . @F, 2906 2900 -� � ' \.' -' 419 + `:! �. 431 /', 1'` �, " _.. .. . . / 442. ; 2016 ' , ., ! _.. 2915'._ ,S >, 415. J. `'... 2812. �'.�'.411 (1400 2704. `i 27122708 * •... _ 438 \. .. i'Y ... ..... .... 2700,.,,' �4 � ' 43 430 ;46I '..:~� . 2914 g 2804 �/ 426 .. X437 2938 I, 2800 422 - 43 3 ., 436 301 429 N 414 / .' 414 ' i i ' ` 1425 J 2920 '. 301 " _ ,/r 410 z 421. i ( 408 417 4i4 "... r g 421 dk- % __..� .�.. dQ \��•... 807 .._ `.410 2915 E907 239 243 247: 261 259 \2600 "' -. i 1 �'. 406 2919 2911 , . •'. ,: : 233 _ J fl'� 18f..k,.- --.• e 4001 , W, Modification Permit No. MD2007 -060 PA2007 -152 418 Redlands Avenue August 20, 2007 F: \Users \PAN \Shared \PA's \PAs - 2007 \PA2007 - 152 \MD2007 -060 appr.doc Page 5 `� Public Hearing Monday August, 20th 2008 My name is Will Higman and I live at 422 Redlands ave Newport Beach, CA 92663. I am here to represent my family that includes my wife Kristin and two young children ages 9 and 10. The reason I am here today is to dispute and ask that the modification permit for 418 Redlands Ave be denied. The reason that I am in opposition is because the property and proposed addition do not conform to the existing City of Newport Beach guidelines of Planning, Zoning, Public Works and the current Building codes. Also the property has been utilized as a multi unit rental property for many years and we live in an R -1 district. On top of all this the existing structure is dilapidated run down and an eyesore to the neighborhood. The buildings on the property appear to have been pieced together over the years by many remodels and my understanding is that many of the additions were done without building permits. I have had this confirmed to me by City officials and by one of the prior owners. I will address each one of these items separately. First of all I will address some zoning and planning issues. The biggest concern I have hexe is that the structure is built 13'6" into the currAV81ty setback. This is the only house in the immediate Newport Heights area that protrudes and blocks the views of all of the homes up the street. 0 The current building specifically affects me because it blocks the light and airflow to my front yard. Also Redlands is one of the only streets in the Heights that have an ocean view as you drive down the street. This beautiful picture is obscured by an unusual house sticking out 13 feet. Above and beyond the sun and airflow issues is the fact that the house is "not compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood". (Page 20.93 -5 Modification Permits) If the modification and addition are approved my family and property will be burdened with an additional 13' of building structure above and beyond any other adjacent property in the Newport Heights Area. Because the existing property is built out 13' into the current setback and by connecting the front and back with the proposed addition, my family will be permanently blacked out by this additional footage. If this is allowed to happen my property and neighborhood will be permanently damaged. I have reviewed the plans that have been submitted to the City and the proposed additional square footage calculations are misleading. Because it is very unusual and unheard of in our neighborhood to build an open ceiling "art studio" I am asking for the calculations to be figured as a normal two story single "family" home. The fact is that the proposed addition is two stories in height and therefore is affecting me the same as a true and conforming two story family home on the exterior. With that said we need to add an additional 441 square feet of "volume" to the calculations which put the total addition at 1664 square feet. I only care what is on the outside of the proposed building which is 19' 9" of solid stucco. Staying with my point this makes the total addition ratio at +58% and totally unacceptable and nonconforming. On top of all this there will be no stopping future interior additions once the extra footprint is granted. te(0 On a side note I have to tell you about my troubles with the City that occurred in 1999 regarding the design of my new home which we completed in 2000. My original design and plans that included a front facing garage and driveway made it through Planning, Building, multiple plan checks and building permits. When I went to the public works desk to pay for my curb cut permit it was discovered at that moment that building and planning should have directed me to Public Works prior to designing the house with a new "front facing driveway ". During my negotiations with the City which included meetings with City Council members along with a special group meeting that included the City Manager, City Attorney, along with the heads of Planning, Building and Public Works. During this exact meeting I used my neighbor's house at 418 Redlands as an example of why the City should allow me to have a front facing driveway. After all the reason I designed my house with the front facing garage was to be neighborly and to try to match the property at 418 Redlands all possible. During this meeting the group came back to me with the fact that the house at 418 was built many years ago before new set back and design regulations. They went on to tell me that "if" the owner of 418 were to ever apply for a permit that changes any interior walls or exterior foot print that it would not be allowed! The City officials also told me during the meeting that the only way that my neighbor could add on was if they changed the design of their house to conform to the new set back regulations. They did say however that they would have to grant permits for maintenance issues. In the end it was decided by all parties that it was in the best interest of the neighborhood for me to redesign my home which we did. 0 I do have to say however that now that the issue has come up again I am expecting the City to follow through with their "formal position" from 1999 and prevent any further change in footprint to 418 Redlands! The other zoning issue I have is the fact that the property has been used for many years as a multi unit rental property. I am aware that the code allows for a "granny unit" however the person that has been living in the detached rear unit for many years is young and is of no relation to the homeowner. Also the front unit is actually a two unit structure making the property a three (3) unit in total. It appears on paper that Mrs. Redwillow is making an attempt to "redevelop" and convert the current buildings into a single family home however the new home must fit in with the neighborhood to preserve value for all of us. I am also concerned that the new rear addition will be bootlegged through the system and will continue to be offered as a rental unit. In regards to Public Works the property as I mentioned has a front driveway approach with a curb cut. City Council Policy Ir2 requires property owners that redevelop their property to remove any driveway access from the adjacent street and to close off the curb cut. Also because the property is built forward 13' it does not allow the homeowner enough space to properly park a car up off the street and into the property. In basic if a future owner were to attempt to park a large vehicle or pickup truck in the driveway it would stick out into the street. (picture) This is a big problem also because the driveway is "within the intersection" of Broad and Redlands in which there are no stop signs. I have witnessed many near misses over the years as Mrs. Redwillow backs out into the intersection. Also the existing driveway that provides the only "pedestrian access" to the main house does not conform to the maximum slope requirement of 8 %. I am not an engineer but the slope of the existing front driveway appears to be at about 15 % -20% slope. (picture) �V I also believe that City Council Policy L -2 was adopted to help preserve and upgrade the neighborhood of Newport Heights. With the combination of the protruding structure and the front facing driveway this property certainly does not conform to the "spirit" of the policy. Also I do not see how allowing another afterthought addition is going to add value and curb appeal to the neighborhood. Regarding building code issues there are many problems that exist. My main concern is the fact that for many years now the buildings on the property have not been properly maintained and seem to be deteriorating. All of the structures are termite infested and all of the wood windows are dry rotted. The only access to the main living areas for both the front and back units are by exterior wood stairs and decking. The large decking system is supported by skinny 4x4 posts that are connected with in adequate thin gauge hardware to the seemingly small footings. Also the decking is completely rotten and an eyesore. (Picture) On a personal note I find it very odd that the new proposed addition adds two (2) additional sets of stair cases for a total of four (4). Mrs. Redwillow is a very active person, but I do know that she has recently had knee replacement surgery and adding more stairs to climb doesn't make sense to me? In closing I would like to say that we are in favor of letting the property exist in its current configuration as long as the owner maintains the property. Also we have never had a problem with Mrs. Redwillow's tenant throughout last seven (7) years that she has lived next door. N, We are however in total opposition of any addition that would change the footprint of any of the structures on the property. If any change in footprint is to take place we respectfully ask that the City require the property be updated to the current zoning and planning set backs along with full compliance of the City Council Policy L-2. We feel that this is is the best interest of all the homeowners in Newport Heights. Sincerely, Will Higmaa /� 422 Redlands Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 16 August 16, 2007 City of Newport Beach Zoning Administrator 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Modification Permit No. MD2007 -060 (PA2007 -152) 418 Redlands Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 My name is Michelle Phillips and I reside at 412 Redlands Avenue in Newport Beach. I respectfully request that the Zoning/ Planning Department deny the above Modification Permit. The current structures at 418 Redlands are in complete disrepair. Both structures are not only eyesores — they do not conform to the current City Codes or Regulations. Both structures are in major disrepair, they have visible termite damage, dry rot and structural issues. To add on to either one of these structures would be ridiculous. The garage that faces Redlands in the front structure is a safety concern We were told when we purchased our home that if any improvements were made to 418 Redlands - that the owner would have to, by law, move her home back to meet current set back restrictions. If any redevelopment is to take place — it is only right that the property be upgraded to the City Council Policy L -2 and to the current set back regulations. The spirit of this policy is in the best interest of all and the homeowners of Newport Heights and was put in place to preserve and upgrade the quality of our neighborhood. If the homeowner were to cut back the structure footprint to the 20' front set back requirement, along with closing of the curb cut — I would be in favor of the redevelopment — as long as the current structures were also improved. I would also like to point out that the property is being used as an income rental property in an R -1 District! I am aware that the code allows for a "granny unit" however the person that has been living in the detached rear unit for many years is young and is of no relation to the homeowner. Furthermore the front facing structure is a two (2) unit building and is not connected by an interior staircase. This makes the property a three - (3) unit structure in total. In fact — it was brought to my attention that during the period of 1999 -2000 that all three units were occupied by renters during the owner's absence. What assurance do we have as neighbors that this will not happen again? This property is clearly out of place in Newport Heights and I respectfully request that the Zoning Administrator deny thg-Muest for the Modification Permit. Sincerely Michelle it August 14, 2007 City of Newport Beach Zoning Administrator 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Modification Permit No.MD2007 -060 (PA2007 -152) 418 Redlands Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 My name is Bob Malanga and I reside at 2804 Broad Street Newport Beach, CA 92663. I respectfully request that the Zoning /Planning Department deny the above Modification Permit. The current structure at 418 Redlands is in disrepair, an eyesore and does not conform to the current City setback regulations. Also the front facing garage and driveway are in a very dangerous location within the intersection of Broad and Redlands in which there is no stop sign. The structure appears to have been pieced together over the years with many remodels and I am afraid that another addition will not add any value or curb appeal to the property. If any redevelopment is to take place I would respectfully ask that the property be upgraded to the City Council Policy L-2 and to the current set back regulations. The spirit of this policy is in the best interest of all the homeowners of Newport Heights and was put in place to preserve and upgrade the quality of our neighborhood. If the homeowner were to cut back the structure footprint to the 20' front set back requirement, along with the closing of the curb cut, 1 would be in favor of redevelopment. I would also like to point out that the property is being used as an income rental property in an R -1 District! I am aware that the code allows for a "granny unit" however the person that has been living in the detached rear unit for many years is young and is of no relation to the homeowner. Furthermore the front facing structure is a two (2) unit building that is not connected by an interior staircase. This makes the property a three (3) unit structure in total. As a matter of fact during the period of 1999 -2000 all three units were occupied by renters during the owner's absence. What assurance do we have as neighbors that this will not happen again? This property is clearly out of place in Newport Heights and I respectfully request that the Zoning Administrator deny the request for the Modification Permit. S ccer ala ga Newport Heights Homeowner August 14, 2007 City of Newport Beach Zoning Administrator 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Modification Permit No.MD2007 -060 (PA2007 -152) 418 Redlands Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 My name is Tracy Rath and I reside at 441 Redlands Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663. 1 respectfully request that the Zoning /Planning Department deny the above Modification Permit. The current structure at 418 Redlands is in disrepair, an eyesore and does not conform to the current City setback regulations. Also the front facing garage and driveway are in a very dangerous location within the intersection of Broad and Redlands in which there is no stop sign. The structure appears to have been pieced together over the years with many remodels and I am afraid that another addition will not add any value or curb appeal to the property. If any redevelopment is to take place I would respectfully ask that the property be upgraded to the City Council Policy L -2 and to the current set back regulations. The spirit of this policy is in the best interest of all the homeowners of Newport Heights and was put in place to preserve and upgrade the quality of our neighborhood. If the homeowner were to cut back the structure footprint to the 20' front set back requirement, along with the closing of the curb cut, I would be in favor of redevelopment. I would also like to point out that the property is being used as an income rental property in an R -1 District! I am aware that the code allows for a "granny unit" however the person that has been living in the detached rear unit for many years is young and is of no relation to the homeowner. Furthermore the front facing structure is a two (2) unit building that is not connected by an interior staircase. This makes the property a three (3) unit structure in total. As a matter of fact during the period of 1999 -2000 all three units were occupied by renters during the owner's absence. What assurance do we have as neighbors that this will not happen again? This property is clearly out of place in Newport Heights and I respectfully request that the Zoning Administrator deny the request for the Modification Permit. iomeowner 1� Exhibit No. 6 -)I 418 Redlands Avenue Inventory of Permit History Attached are copies of the following permits: 9- 10-46: Building permit for "dwelling & garage below" 3 -30-50: Building permit for "20 X 20 ADN." 10- 16 -79: Modification Permit No. 2467 "to permit 2 -story alterations and additions to an existing single family dwelling nonconforming in a 13'6" encroachment into the required 20' front yard setback" 10 -1 -80: Electrical permit 8- 27 -81: Building permit for 385 sq.ft. addition "Addition of Master Bedroom and Playroom" and electrical permit 2 -2 -83: Report of Residential Building Records 12 -5 -05: Building permit for reroof 15 Owner. ADA- -KUSEUS' : - yY >'•� Date 10 %�YSE46' Location 4ig REDIyANDS- Legal DescriptionLOT '� bii 2 Ast- ADDITION' TO NEWPO -RTC HEIGHTS Building DWELLING & GARAGE BELOW . .:Ui.urauwr ur nuuaer 'V Y114 L'rC - rEe_a `iVi VV O. K. Dates:: Trenches Frame ' " Final ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION .- Contractor .M —H Type of Work .. _. _. Wirier— Permit No. 55+3 Date lo/9/46 193 . O. K. 193 No. Lts. Sw. Rec. Range Power Sign Fixtures— Permit No. 2171 No. Fix . Date 193 O. K. to Edison Co. 193 . O. K. No. j f i LINDSLEL JAOK Date Owner -- % Location "g RED AN'AS' Legal Description LOT 7 BLK 24 is +' A')N NEWPORT EiGHT ._' rr Building 20 X 20 ADN Fee $ . Contractor or Builder ED. ROGERS . . . %- Q Frame Final g 0. K.' Dates: Tr en ches � -1. c ELEOTRICAL'INSTALLATION .. 1 Contractor - Type of Work j Wiring — Permit No: ra 2.3 Date J' a 194 . O. K. 194 No. Lts. Sw. Rec. Range Power Sign. " No. Fix. Date 194 Fixtures Permit No O. K. to Edison Co. 194 O. K. No. n CALIFORNIA Hasa c�erro n�"e oily llall 3300 Ncwporl lilvd. 640-P 138 Mod if Ica Lions Committee Findings and Action Application No. 2467 Applicant Linda Hart Address of Property Involved!_418 Redlands Ae NewRoorJJReach Legal Description Modification Requested to p rmit 2 -storl alterations and additions to an existing sinnie family dwel,ino nnnrnn nrmi nn in a 73 6 "r nnr in icimanf into ihu ram,inod 9n' The Modifications Committee on.--October 16, 1979 _approved the application subject to the following conditions: The Modifications Committee determined in this case that the proposal would not -be detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood and that the modification as approved would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and made the following findings: 1. That all additions to the rear of the front building conform to the required NOTE: This approval shall extend for a period of In months from the end of the appeal period, and cannot be extended. The decision of the Committee may he appealed to the Planning Commission withinl4 days of the date of the decision. Any appeal filed shall be accompanied by a filing fee of $100.00. No building permits may be issued until the appeal period has expired. MODIFICATIONS COMMITTEE. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR ' / p ' uL I lam R. aycoc 7 Senior Planner NOTE: The above application number must be affixed to Lhe plans when being submitted for plan check and building permi LS. 11 tious Modifications, Use Permits, Variances, ett. cription of Property Involved (if too OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT attach separate sheet) ()' (We) �` V)('j G't_i�'Q- n �i depose id'ti'say thrt 4 am we are the owner s) of the.property es nvo ved in rVs!i.ipplication. (I) (We) further certify, under penalty ,of perjury, that e;?foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information @w'i'th submitted are in all respe true and c rr ect to 'the best of (my) 'Ur) knowledge and belief. . Si9natu re(s)L Hart Li�a liar fT;E'': An agent may sign for the owner if wr tten authorization from the record owner is filed with the application. DO NOT COMPLETE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LINE :e Filed // -/e' Fee Pd. I// �h Receipt No. ring Oe _Posting DDa�te. -20 Mail Date./ I,i'fication Committee Action u.- C. 'Hea ri 1. C., Heart C. Action 1V .6 DD1fI Ci,T IOR APPLICATION 9 46 7 • 'D ommunity Development Dep,rtment AppI cat on ec y - .'City of Newport Beach 640 -2138 PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE. F Jt4Y,'9 Fee: & •MBU :F °7icantr rwnA HART Phone_ 645 -7307 , m ... YpA`dilress of Property Involved 418 Redlands Newport Beach, California , Madling Address_ Same party Owner Same x... Phone Same - . ,. Address Same ,a'04ng _ '11r`6'Ri:tect Brion 5 Jeannette A Associates Phone_ 645 -B854 .a Pk :to be done Addition of 904 square feet to rear of existing residence. fir' c. ' w5 t:i:n'g, nonconformities r_�p le4r11 44 - jla i. W u r Ao 12 rne� rdapp se`d nonconformi ties Sent Use Single gamily Residencd? roposed Use Single Family Residence Zone � -1 ' Code Re ui rement Existing Proposed _ t set aCk RO t.:s a setback it `s a Setback t �' Ir setback ' I Ing area e. "-a rea - jEwn 's ace trig, s aces y in Nei ht G tious Modifications, Use Permits, Variances, ett. cription of Property Involved (if too OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT attach separate sheet) ()' (We) �` V)('j G't_i�'Q- n �i depose id'ti'say thrt 4 am we are the owner s) of the.property es nvo ved in rVs!i.ipplication. (I) (We) further certify, under penalty ,of perjury, that e;?foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information @w'i'th submitted are in all respe true and c rr ect to 'the best of (my) 'Ur) knowledge and belief. . Si9natu re(s)L Hart Li�a liar fT;E'': An agent may sign for the owner if wr tten authorization from the record owner is filed with the application. DO NOT COMPLETE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LINE :e Filed // -/e' Fee Pd. I// �h Receipt No. ring Oe _Posting DDa�te. -20 Mail Date./ I,i'fication Committee Action u.- C. 'Hea ri 1. C., Heart C. Action 1V PUBLIC 110TICE Modification No. 2467 f Plotice is hereby given that IindaHart — is requesting a Modification of the Zoning Ordinance to percait 2-story alterations and additions to an existing single family dwe1Tin9 nonconforming__ i in a 13'6" encroachment into the required 20' front yard setback. s i Property located at 418 Redlands Avenue Newport Beach _ A public hearing will be held by the T'lodifications Co.amittee at i:nn P•M. on Tuesday October 16 1979 in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 3300 newport Boulevard, All interested persons will be heart and all correspondence read at that time, for further information contact vile i:eupart Beach department of Comnuni.ty development, Current Plans. ?n-' Projects Di;v'isio.n, >.,.b Q �� 11 rl 12300W. Newport Blyc APPLICANT TO Fl .AREA - WITHIN J' - a - N%�.;'l - eut'r 'HEAVY ILI INES -'6NLY. AO.kR .6 ^ .... r.".. "4 11Y 111 -V-t�T. W CONSTRUCTION �Pyl , Ill 4 Fill SQ. FT. Q�.4 PER SO: FT. (GARAGE) -MAl -�11, nj ,REGULAR FEES ),FOR OTHER 7116j 14EW RESIDENTIAL AND FOR' ALL AL'IERATIONS 'Aff ADDRESS- i Ysuse id "TItNO RECEl ,,,'TOTAl 1772 EACH A �Fl iA DG.Ln, EC C -STA LICENIjf,,.,,, oL�, ij R 20 .'3'0 g� T C_ NO. .. '-NO. TOTAL ,.-%;i X PROCESSED :,:.W FIl .416 — l ., .-v 'ADD :OVER 20 '._.30 -vai; Fl L'115 INSPECTION JECO COOKING AND.HOME APPLIANCES 2.50 4 im ZC)/ C n MOTORS -.0 A ft FW� wwv. Wk. 0;, 6 5, 7 15 VI i4 . 11.TRAl 7.." w�' ff;t L...'. SERVICE 0-600V-tJOT,OVEnl 2.9 4.00 V4. ' SERVICE16 200 �W ,,O-OOV-OVER 'S1 R W 7-00. ROUGH WIRING i � C`GMP'! ER S E COMPLETE FEE SCHIll OTHER MP.;.POWLW T U4R! '04, 41 1 F!T% TI 1TY -C 0 1 I'll ER I P ,t ISS61 Ml .3 IFINAL 1 r/. re I hereby -;ihlI 'l this VA. acknowledge read lippliclI information given is correct: and that I am the owner, Or the duly' r SIG . U�� • authorized agent of.the owner. I agree to co ml with city stale Olf�. PERM an .;,. : I � : r '.." 'd are _ laws regulating construction: and. In doing the work authorized h b f�. 1 no person will be employed in violation of the Labor,Code of the Z State of California relating to -Workmen's Compensation "Insurance: AODRESI I" re 3300 W, Newport Blvd. 02139 Phone: Permits 84 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLAN HECK NO. inspections 640 -2161 BUILDING-DEPARTMENT �� APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT QUILOING LOA. LITT ADORES - OqP TYPE ti- PROCEBSCO OT I• CONSLVj OF - -- �� ST- TI.T.0 -L CL w S61i1 Cw TION CT. I' CLASS • DWELL V NITS ❑T86 OWN (�/�1•y \�'C5 rri 80L. V 3620ry 9PEC. - ON -S: ]corn :.t ej^ ';I i1RE20NE 3300 W, Newport Blvd. 02139 Phone: Permits 84 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLAN HECK NO. inspections 640 -2161 BUILDING-DEPARTMENT �� APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT QUILOING LOA. LITT ADORES - OqP TYPE ti- PROCEBSCO OT LOT.0 B , TSYRAT�AR¢A CONSLVj OF - -- �� ST- TI.T.0 -L CL w S61i1 Cw TION CT. I' CLASS • DWELL V NITS ❑T86 OWN (�/�1•y \�'C5 rri 80L. V 3620ry 9PEC. - ON -S: ]corn :.t ej^ ';I i1RE20NE ADDRESS � _ ,AN CITY SIP �'p .9 GPwci9 ye•� CONTRACTOR inen.iwe %.Ixiei- :Z-e -"' S �� .4.5 LICENSE ADDRE ISIS • .__ .._.. TE M D GI R9cuT..._ _ ..,6Tp CITY .. ... TEL. NO. 1 LICw TORT w.. ROYAL OrsT.p - ... _ -. wR CT -_... ..... ..._ .. ... ._ rvuLOTTry .,. _ OR ENGR. � C.N.. A L R."., wwTeR C T ' ADDRE55 `�/�• '•- LIE. PLAN DR. AD 1[�U[L CITY 0 -.J NO. DESCRIPTION OF WORK : _ ATION' WORKERS COMPENSATION DEC_LA I .. ...._.._. �. NT .: 1 ryFRCOT MFPIRM .Y NAT I NATO p CERTIFICATE Of CONSENT TO SELF -INSV RED OR NCERTICICATE OF WORKRRB' COMPENSATION INSURANCE. R A CRYR1..D P T ..... F IS... ]600. LAW...).' POLICY NO. COMPpNT ❑.Is IN. Is. COPT 18..R¢QT PuRNISNED.:I•JJai.; :.. •,��. .�.. ._. _ _._. ._.... .. .__.._ �y NEW wOO LTER ❑ gEPpIR ❑ DEMbLI3H U eT.. a0'P 9Le 16S JO•MILISf I WORK TO BE OONQ j i EIGNAT OF i�� APPLICANT "C OFT '15 FILQO WITH THE VUJ=INO'DEPARTMENT. O%.PE wPPLlcp Nr LICENSED CONTRACTORS DECLARATION. 1 NHR¢DT AFFIRM THAT I AM LICCNS¢D V A... .pp OTIS10NS .OF'' . '' ":' '' .. • -,- HAPT¢R -9 (COMMENCING WITH Sec 1..N 7099) OF..I ... ON It OF TNe' -I' Y' CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM WORKERS' ' DV Slrve99 w D PR.R...,SN5 GoDe. w LIC¢HSH wi Iry PULL HD MT L 'I COMPErySATION INSURANCE - POPE! ANO HFi ECT. H6C NEED O( HH COMPLETED IF THe PERMIT Ic FOR ONC LICENSfi CLpii' LIC. NO: .. NUr DOLLARS •HU NeR ¢D DOLLARS (5100) OR L639.I i ❑. O. TRACTOR OATH I C¢RTIRT THAT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF TNE WORK FOR WHICH "OWNER THIS PERMIT IS ISGUED; 1 DNA DY ANT PIPSON IN ANT u__1D - - BUILDER DECLARATION HHER SO AS PO vEDO. TOT o r mP¢HCw- 1 HGREET APFIRM THAT 1 AM EXEMPT PROM TNC CONTp ACTOR -1 CAL TION LAWS F CALIFORNIA. ' LIC CN SE LAW FOR INC FOLLOWING REASON IEaC.p'NEI.B. B¢VSINCSS. D ATH ppLICANT AND PROFC55ION5 CODE: ANT CITY OR COUNTY IAN REQUIRED O IR. ART6R MAKING TN C6RTIFWCATE OF A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT, ALTER• IMPROTE. OEM. LIEN. OR REPAIR ANY 9TR VGIU... PRIOR TO ITS ISSUANCE. ALSO REQUIRES THE pLICANT FOR SUCH PERMIT TOp FILE A SIGNED STATEMENT THAT HGTI0IS APPLICANT : TS SUVJ EXHMpT10N. TOV SHOULD BECOME SUBJHCT. O TN6 ....... N. Y NCISLIC6N3¢OPVR5U.NTTOTN¢ R.I.5.ON5 OF TNB ONTRAETOR'S' DOMPENG PROSHOUL S OP THE L CDOC, TOV MUST PONTN- LICENSE LAW ICNAPTCR 9 (COMMENCIN4 WITH SUCTION 7000) OF WITH COMPLY WITH BVCN F1IN.OL. OR TNIE PERMIT SHALL QC WIT OIT I.. ON ] OF THE BVSINH33 AND PROFE6CION3 GOOD) OR THAT NC O CMCO flPT ,, ' ISEXEMPYTN6gEFROM ANDYHE BA315 FOp THE ALL GUD ¢X eM PTJO N. AN TIO LAYiON Oi SECTION 70]1.3 Bj ANY pPPL'1C �JT roA p PC ASA IT j 1', CONSTRUCTION LEN DIN G AGENCY 'j,J -� 'I •' SV BJECTB'<RG' APPLICPII6T�TO.'R C11%L ASINALTV OF NOT MORC IRAN " '• `J' - _191r•p� '•'" "'A ry'^� �A VCPION LENDING EBT AiiIRM TN T ERE75AISQ. i 1TH yYN DR6D DOLLARS (66O0).): j jl/ \\�� 1 FHHR . PERFORMANCE F MIT Is OF THE WORK FOR WNICN THIS PERMIT IB I A5 OW NH�1100P I6NE PROPERTY. OR MT EMPLOYEES WITN WAGES 136VE0 CIY Ce) AS THEIR SOLE COMPENSATION. WILL DO INS OR K. ANO TNC STRVC- TV RE NOT INT.... D OR OFPERED VON 6ALIS ILS!CA ]066. B V SING 93 LENOEq'6 NAME AND PROFESSIONS CODE I THE CONTRACTOR'S ICHNSC LA. DOHS NOT APPL TO AN OWNER OP PROPERTY W BVILOS OR IMPROT95 q CON?AND WHO DOES SUCH WORK HIMSELF OR THROUGH HIS LCN.a R'6 ADDRESS CEq TIFT THAT i.NpTC READ THIS APPLICATION A THAT OWN EM PLOTEEH. 'ROTIDED THAT SUCH IMPROTEMENTi ADS NOT ,"TV D60 OR OIF Cq QO PDR ..LE, IP. NOWETCR. INC DVILDIND ; ApOP6PINPOgM INFORMATION CORq ECT. 1 AGgCE TO COMPLY WITN OR IMPR OT EM ¢NT IS WITHIN ONE TEAR; F COMO LQT'ONCP E OIB ALL NTY OP INAN AND STAID LAWS RELATING TO HATE OWNER- OVILDCR WILL P ¢ BVROQN OF RSYIH* NA N DIO CS DING CPION. A y TNOHM. R[FRC'CNTA- HE OPDVILOOwIMPgOPE FOR TNEPVgPO3 E OF BALC.1. ;ryNi OF 13 N'Y. (l' 6R .1e AA TNQ.00TQ - NIONHD ❑ 1, pi OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. AN 9XCLU51VULT CONTRA TIT6B ROP ERTT FDq QW81! Pose9. IT. CONTRACTORS O CONSTRUCT THE PROJECT )SEC. - ^ ]0 V~LICENSED RVSINE ii pNO PROFESSIONS CODC. THE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE l j 1z; DOGS NOP APPLY TO AN OWNER ON PROPCRTT WHO BUILDS ON SIG IATV RE OR pCgMITT6I AT6 A OTE5 THERCOH. AND WHO G..INACTS FOR SUCH FN.J¢CTS WITH CONTRA.Y.RIS) LICENSE. PV R5UAHT TO THE CONTRACTOR'S AICEHi. ESTIMATED 6(/ FINAL Lw W.I. ❑ VALUATIONS VALUATION PLAN THER PERMIT �T 1 AM ¢X¢MPY UNDCR SEC. .9. &P.C. FOR THIS Hfiweon ' Ic VF ..77 CHK. FEE S J p EES $ 6rj n FEE $ ADJUSTED TOTAL I3 jjI "M1: III I 1 1• ' I MQ' ATE gWNE .FEE $ CRLRn CE PU6 g S WORK MUST URE STARTED WITHIN t PERIOD OF 120 DAVE FROM THE DATE OF VALIDATION OR THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID. PLAN CHECK VALIDATION GH. M.G. 'GASH PERMIT VALIDATION GR. M.G. GAP. .._ ..._ >�? •_r 2732 532 6 L,..: J;fi1 :a1.3. TDi- qi �i .0 y •f oti s ice} `6 All t y I ,a tl E' PdYY `k 54:gs•i`t °r+�Z..r irjl �lfRt'�OtLORREGifO1J�SeAA LO)FLETEp,��PLEASE t10TtFY COC>E FI °FORCEaEgp 4T 660 � f'.OYi COfGtFCT10tiS SkAll dt ,s a t �TEO'NlDilti -.PAYS FR090 THE DATA- }IEREOH' - °� y�� °wS °,lf �-e ' Cl ty(Qfrttexport iSeacft' Foes not= crSno ilwi Nis s ep o �nceate� ati i ufTdio <`;t nd° y ,,�g°violpaltjo s9 zany?otTo ps�gsWndBtdSaoopttfata�wh' of y rpts "c t oZgtAe y r' I[erdP'�e t),, xS ,n rope ties AVC lasyf f°ed'a tje ted ' r, r er- rL, �� 9a yloat�anlor�° `¢ue?tQypOSS(Dlo ctencSCS +ffjfiN xere legaa) t St(re o co ttr4uctto�" Ffµa���77 yyW�a&ges prSaddjtjo�rs< , ', mntotcglated,�og)Y(� t1°ercZai` v bas -gipo rdin a nco ora�ngRsta,tus�? the'tta s y'a', c to adrlsed "pto eo,�tact tlte, laTnn n- 0e{to' tsegtjio}r'st de requf'Mregfs�q -vxe{ x if 1�iA4'.V t 1.�aeit t uc �^g�f 'fi _+� e 2 { N�u,�'T. fi0< ," a/t CE CdGy to Ffe �,1�N,loa to °$c1,1arP0.fRlytp° diryor c VIA, <'_ Vd V q 0 r 5 .w N Yi N Q Q O N e LG �' d O o. Z � Y F N L d N a LL 4 LL. Vl q c N v i w v W C Y L a H d i � U d r a C a m m W W R C O U U t m Co d t z O Q. Z O w a O U (0) a N J U w z J C W m H J W cc LU 3� LL � C C r 0 0 a I V I D J Vl u 00 r $ a � a1 i W 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a rn O J at H N (n m m Z U W U' y U QJJ J i x U 2 W C) Z �aUa U C W ro O C C o- c o cc df CL o0 w a a a 0. 0 m v U L V) N N o ? m maEucTU bb 2) N Y C z N v 0 '9 'S O 0 d N O w o. L mmSLL L U � 1 i U C E2 . a a ¢w =LL S' f ui 333a C rn x O V$ 0 D Iz L d D O W N c W11 F-U L.L. _ rU c O Z W a LL �CNj oo moo c�.. cwt 5i vi d d d cc'n�� Ip N N O a N O m C J U Cli CN0 J �n �Tpfn N X W � y yy F NOW �i N ZT I�3mO dW o 0000 o O Ij a @ 0 0 0 0 0 0 wwwwww m o � z y. o N C NWJW c Lu zi Uaw m C�¢ a U7m� w H W LL E O N N F p N Y J < C X @u C W dN NtiJ H .) Q =; a rn O J at H N (n m m Z U W U' y U QJJ J i x U 2 W U) y O W Z �aUa U C W Op N In O C O O O O J4' NOO Ot9 t9 f9 f9 f9 t9 H Os7 J LL�� M N �j z r ml J 0 W J T U .9 j N 3VZ� Ni�Zw ovi 8 Z Z$ C w 0 WOnaay�X0 a a co o na o aac'O "D O1 O1c O¢ a aaa a c0i 0 as ¢z °z °mmLL it } N m U Or W U U z a CL a y' J U x j H y W Q z oQ 'a y 0 � f^ to h 4 J c O U N LL a > U c LL .. `a uj vnw ro O C C o- c o cc df CL o0 w a a a 0. 0 m v U L V) a C9 G o ? m maEucTU bb 2) w z z o v 0 '9 'S O Z O w o. L mmSLL NU Exhibit No. 7 %G CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Code & Water Quality Enforcement Division October 5, 2007 Notice o f Violation Joyce Redwillow 418 Redlands Avenue Newport Beach, Ca 92663 Dear Ms. Redwillow: This letter is a follow -up to the inspection conducted at your property on October 3, 2007. The following conditions were present constituting violations of the Newport Beach Municipal Code: • Gas line in upper rear unit is not permitted. Line must be removed and capped off inside the wall. UAC 301.1 Work without permits • Sink in upper rear unit is not permitted. Return sink without disposal to original 12'x12' dimensions. NBMC 20.03.030 Definitions, NBMC 20.10.020 Residential Districts: Land Use Regulations • Remove un- permitted shower in upper rear unit. UAC 301.1 Work without permits • Any roommates or renters will share access to all living areas of the property and no separate food preparation facilities such as a stove or microwave, or refrigerator are added to create a separate and independent living area. NBMC 20.85.020 Accessory Dwelling Units • The conditions above are to be included in any agreements Ms. Redwillow has with any roommates and /or tenants. • Walls installed inside front garage are not permitted. Remove walls and return garage to originally permitted dimensions. NBMC 20.66.040 Parking Standards for Residential Districts, UAC 301.1 Work without permits • Front garage is not clear and accessible for parking. Remove accumulated items to allow for parking of at least one vehicle. NBMC 20.66.040 Parking Standards for Residential Districts You are hereby required to submit to a re- inspection of your property two (2) weeks from the date of this letter. This letter serves a written Notice of Violation. Should these conditions persist then further administrative action may be taken. To arrange for an inspection of your property please contact me at 949 -644 -3213. Regards, Shannon Ilevin Code & Water Quality Enforcement Officer Cc: Janet Johnson Brown, Assistant Planner 3300 Newport Boulevard - Post Office Box 1768 - Newport Beach. California 92658 -8915 Telephone: (949) 644 -3215 Fax: (9491 718 -1840 - www.city.newport- beach.ca.us ..a,n •ra •. � ...a a..r... SALT, & 'VALK LAt1U V.\ IIILr.K. l; Al.l Yt)liXfA [11H:]:1 December 1, 1909 Robin Flory, Esq. Assistant City Attorney City of Newport Beach 1'. O. Box 1766 Ilewport Beach, CA 92659 -1763 Re: 4:18 Redlands Avenue ,Toyce Redwillow Dear Ms. Flory: CJg1 v' tr>nr989 AIV r This will confirm our telephone eonversat:ian ol• December 1, 1989. In reply to your letter of November 10, '1 v6'� I informed you that Ms. Rodwillow will agree to the,removal Of''h•:;;toves from the lower front living area and from tho back unit •.nli• -h is built over the garage. The stove has already been removed Irnm the lower front living area. Ms. Redwillow d01es not wish to rr•mov': the stove from tho back. unit until after:' Christmas, and will p %nrmit' an inspection by Mr. Sinasek during/the first week in .1:,nuary. Please have Mr. Sinasek contact my of.fic': to arrange an early morning inspection dur,fng thr_ first week. in J:�nusry. This will further confirm your statement th;o, the .removal of the two stoves will satisfy your current complaint. You have also adviced us that in the event that stoves or co<.Y.iny I..u:il it ie❑ %Ire added to the units in the future, and thcrr• i ;i further complaint, that will. result in a violation +Ind ::uh!;cqucnt reinnpectlon. 'Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, SALL L VAI,K l•� (1�11tjj Itfrrn•ED Roi)c rL' K. .:all Irr,r(n(.n. 8 cc: Joyce Rcdwill )w /• ",'j' } / rl' / ..• ! Ili /'r'y, � F.'iN / r S1 o4a�w°°a >mrt CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH F Y OFFICE oFTNif CITY ATTORNLY V . P-O BOX 1768. NEW PORT HEACN, r. A W'059J i(ri e�4FO RM\' (714) 644-1131 November 10, l9w, Robert K, Sall, Esquire Sall and Vallk 25211 Pasco de Alicia t;uite 100 Laguna lulls, Ca 92553 Re; .43, nug.'- ayq�-ESgikili7_CV! Dear Mr. Sall: This letter will confirm our prior discusuloru: raga rdIng violation:: of the Newport Beach Municipal Code a1 the above - referenced address. As we discussed on October b, l9lie, prior inspection of the property at 416 Redlands Avenue hna revealed three dwelling units on property zoned for one. YOU Were informed that both the living area on the front lower level :ind b,tck unit would require removal of the stove and other loon proparation facilities to bring the property In conformance with the Itr:wpor.t beach Municipal Code. In subsequent discussions you were informed that I:f,Q City would require M:;, kedwillow to agree to the fotloring uctlon:,: 1. To remove the stoves from the lower front living area and from the back unit which is built over the garage Ly December lb, 1969. 2. Any roommates or renters will share acce:n: to all living areas of the property and no separate food preparation I,urilities; such as a hoe plate or micrownve, or refrigerator :,r„ added to create a separat,: and independent living area. 3. The conditions in No, 2 above be .included iu ,en/ ;"lreoment that Ms, Redwillow has with any roommates and /or ten•,nt::. If Ms. Redwillow agrees to the above, ploa:o c,uit.. u;t Jim Sinasek-, Code Enl`orcoment at (-114) 644-32.15 prior Le beccanbcr. 1, 1989 to make arrangements for inspection of the pruparty once the stover are removed. lr we do not hear from you by UecemLCr 10 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach C16 O��gWPpR 6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEAC'H a OFFICE OF THE CITY A17ORNLY 'A U = P -O. HOX 1768, NEW PORI' BE ACI(, CA 91659 -1768 i �',r 3 c r (714)644 -3131 r t r +r,rO SEp1419Qy ► 1�' - frftYiT)p74Y r September 14, 1989 •,tiy y.�.�(ry+/ Me. acyce Redwillow 41.0 Redlands Avcnue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: 418 Redl<ind:s -Ay -¢nlg. +]P1L24?�221 =1 Z.i..i3�7. Nc11.C>4St B�sSh._.�a�4rn.l it Dear Ms. Redwillow: Our office has been advi--ed by the Newport lluolh Planning Department that previous attempts to contact you 0-cpsiding the oxistenne of throe wgorate and independent- .living I;tcIIltles on your R -1 lot have not been root with cooperat.i.on. TWI m.nttor itn;; boon referred to our office for further action. It is our underL;tanding that a prior .inapect:ton of your property has revealed the property contains two independent: living areas in addition to the main living area on the second floor of the front unit of your property and that thin con:;tituteu a violation of flowport fieaCh Municipal. Code sect.iow; 20,13.015(a) and 20.87.140. In order to resolve this matter without the as: %i sC.uice of the courts, we have i:chr-•duled a meeting in our offices for uctobor 9, 1989, at 2:00 p.m.. if the dato and /or time arc: isurnvonient, please contact the under'spgnod to roscheaule, we will expect your attendance at the meuting. Vail.ure to appear will ra: ;alt in further action by this office. Very tr`wly your'!:, uebin Pl.ory ii Ar.::i ;;tart City Atto-w -Y 141 /ml l xc: Jim :;innccl:, Corfu F.nlorcement Officer 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach (1)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P-0 PDX 1766. NEW PORT Bt'ACH, CIA 9,•58 i w 5 PIANNINC DEPARTMENT (714) 641 -3200 .lunc 16, 1989 Joyce Rollwillow 1,18 Redlands Avenue Newport beach, CA '19660 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 419 Redlands Avenue (A.P. 0049. 031.17; DA 7, Pirnl Addition Newport ilatghls) Newport Reach, GA Dear MS. Rod•eillow: On April 11., 1989, lblr. Office addresood a lnuar to you which drinit with two I ridependent, I I v I Ills, Areen, one of which war: ualior the me 111 IIYing area of Lill: front houec. '1110 r.r¢nnd indnpcedonl. living, ar+vl wan Inralcd In a dctachnd building, aver Lho garngn area adjacent Ln the ails -y. In that 1e1.Ler, yen were Riven nurneroux option and yuu were forl.her rt:ryuest nq to contact the underpli;ned for a rcinSparCion alt or before May 11, 1989. Since you have apparently chosen cc ignore ear requital, and ,loco you have rcqucstrd nit axtenslens of time. ChiN matter, unless revolved within the next Celt (10) day. will he roferred to Iho Office of Ibr• C1LY ALLorney for approprthis To di Ncul:a Lh I:; letter, you may contnr.L Jim Slnascp. hetwr•,•n !'l0 and 8:30 a.m. or A;DO rind Ic 3b p.m. et I'ho above Phone nlanbor, PIANNINt: UEI'Nt'1'MGll7 JAMES U. IIEWICKE.P, bir +•ctor 11 y- /t�ij n /):n(orr. +.lw n1 nlf icnr JS:llr xr.: buiiditin 0,-parna"m 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Brach 93 're; City Attorney's Office Date: From: Extension;_ Re: Address-. 29 PROPRIM ADDRESS: DMI'MIS NAME AND J)PSCRIPTiON oil CURREW VIOLATIONS (Ile sure to Include 0 copy of all records and photos on file that establish vinIntions arid copies of pertinent documents and correspondence): MUNICIPAI, ODDS SIX LI S (Attach copy); cz 13ACKCIURIND INPORMATION: ,I A. Prior ins 1) e e I. 10 n s, 11. ,h rnnnlnl,y; -37 1189 SPE.QlAl, PROM&M., Oil ---------- a ��wPORT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH � r y P.O.IJOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -N')15 �N /end. PWNItiG DEPARTMENT (714) 644 -3213 April 12, 1989 Joyce Radwiliow 418 Redlands Avenue NewporL Ranch, CA 92663 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 418 Redlands Avenue (A.P. u049- 031-17; Ins 1, First Addition Nawport lleighul) Newport: 8cach, CA Dour Hs, Itedwi llow: I'hnnk you for the opportunl Cy Lo inspect- your property ou April 11, 1989. An we discussed, that fnspae-Llun revealed Cho exlnLuun- or Or". completely separ N and l.ndopc ndenL living facllitla9 on your R 1 lot. Thou„ Independent- living, Laell Ltles, In addiLLon Lo Cho oml" IlvJng area on Lhe ml„and floor of Lim froth unit: would COM:Citulc a vlelatiml aC Newport Bunch Huulrlpal Gedo Secs lnus 20.13,015(d) mill 20,87,140. 'These saaClom. respectively p••rnll only nIngle tastily dwellings In an R -1 Zone and they describe the definition of dwell0p,, unit. Therefore. based on the previously mnnLioned nods seCi,ioun, witbin thirty (30) days from the data of Lhic laMer, you are In Ink. Cho 1.1 Lrwi ug, ......I Iva aCLlan: 1. Remove the anLira kitchen lur.ludlllg eahJnatn. r,lnk, ::Love and any refrigeration In Lhe upper rear and In Lhe lower front pert.lons of the property. Should you care- Lo malnLnlu some tn. of OW In hunt areas, you would be pormlLLed to bavr. 11 12" r. I2" wet. her Oak wt. UlouL n dlsponal: 2. Waco rho upper rear occupant. who, an you have Indirnl rA, Ilve:. there- separately and Independc MA from yourself; 1. LUAIIr.a Lhe entl.ro propra'I.y an a single family Ilving area ::urh CI : :rI Lhc upsl.alr: tear and the fewer from sucl ion of the front bnur :e n.e simply ex Lenvinns of the eels uprnalls trust Ilvio), area, std 4. ConLnct the undersigned :o an Io qt. t.ml;4• IoI' Ir lu•.pr•'I Jna of the pyresInen on of In-lore Hny 11, 1914'1, Should you bu dusi.. s of applying for a "granny sill. ", Ih, appl ir: :p inn tae•., as we '11scnrsred, era 486000 wfl.h no guaranlaas of "I" Lnl nl np, Y.en' "p•,ra any uni L ", "To ohl:nlo the nppllcal lon for Lhc "granny and r ", Yoe should ,(n Lar,t en:: of the pt. annc rs In /Jn r run P anti ug, diSCUSC Lim al l oat inn wl Lh Ih4.m no obi aiu :m npp)JcaLl(n far the propel' proca .,:sing, uT your one penal L. 3300 Newport Boulevard, New(x)a Beach qS (6)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEW PORT BEACH, CA 92658 8915 PIANNINC DEPARTMENT - (714) 644.3215 March 29. 1989 .Joyce Willow I. ',r-;•, • "„ 418 Redlands Avenue Ilewport Bench, CA 97.667 SUBJECT PROPFIVFYi 418 Redlands Avm:ua (A.P. a0 /,9.031 -17; f,,l /, First Addition Newport lloighLn) Mewport. Beach, GA Dear Ms. Willow: !t has ,.x:aa to the nt.tcution of this department: 0111L your pvunrty any be in tile, proonr;a of hx,ing Utilized either all a triplex or px, ly a fourplex apartment bul.ldlo{; which, should tilts he I.he cnna, WC conatl Lut:c a violation of Newpori Barmh Municipal. Code Secl.lon Therefore, within Ilvo ('i) dnyn from that do Le of thlr, lellel, you are. to contact: the underr,igned so ns arrange for an tnapactAUI1 of your enLire premiso, mad to answer like preceding of lrgeci oa. Shnuld n problem oxlot, we will make every ef:feri. on our part to rooch nn nadcal,la solnt.fon. 9n the other hmul, should you choose to ignore our requesc, then WI L110,11; any nddlUonal delay, Lhir: matter will. he reforrad to till, 6f'ff<:o of the City ALLorlu•y for approp, talc nr.tlon. 'Thank yoo for yaw' nntlelpntQd r.00poreLLlou in het yl ng u:: t„ r000l va tills matter. To discus,, I.inir: Ial LCr or to nrrnnl;a for your inrpacl ion nppo l el.mcnc, you should eonin,:l . 1110 Sin.mok becwaon Lho hours of 7:10 and B 11) a.m. or 4;00 and 4:30 p.m. nt. Lila above phone mmmhor PIANNING D1-:11A1('1'IiJ:III' .LAMES N. II1:WIt:r.i:R, Dl reel „r Ily..._. .._. 1..11 �_ ..'f,/..•yiCL_4 :l_!_. Jfp ::in:.!.I f(, t• L:nlorr, r•meu. 011 k" I. Js ,r 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport BLacli q1 Exhibit No. 8 �q -T ITT I TT LINE OF (E) ROOF rO RE ONS TO I RATED. M rA fl m 10 IS U t� U- STAIR S (WALKW A Y I EXISTING 1 1 RPINGE N VERIFY 11 I 1 I lJ 1 � � 1 1 r 1 F t � I�G V ,0. v L n 0. d o l` 1 -T ITT I TT LINE OF (E) ROOF rO RE ONS TO I RATED. M rA fl m 10 IS U t� U- 4- OK miC ,� 6'-4" 12' -O" LU 18' -4" (E) • H A Ij ID d F� r n t- 3 ° Z �,n F Z d F J , W la Z V W Z 0 T CD O O 0 w Z STAIR S (WALKW A Y I EXISTING 1 1 RPINGE N VERIFY 11 I 1 I lJ 1 (EI DRIVEWAY 2 1 r 1 F t � I�G V ,0. v L n 0. d o l` 1 J o. e EXISTING DAD ORAINE L 0 I 2x MIN VERIFY I V � ' _j 1 1 4- OK miC ,� 6'-4" 12' -O" LU 18' -4" (E) • H A Ij ID d F� r n t- 3 ° Z �,n F Z d F J , W la Z V W Z 0 T CD O O 0 w Z \I . �� fo° aq l; J Z If J \I . �� fo° aq Exhibit No. 9 166 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Project No. PA ZU� ) 7 — I( 15 Z Application No. 'Z-0 b 7 ^ 0 � 0 (/V NameofAppellant 111 0ICIWtAjj PhoW y) 714-648-£32-2-2- ej,e-1 -. 2zj Site Address `{I� RedlandS pvcnV2 Date of Zoning Administrator's decision AV � y S+ 2-0 20 00-7 Name of Applicant Ke W d low %flMe LCheduiP-khe Pulakc *rphq P002 6e pt (Description of application filed with Zoning Administrator) -!`hrn u.?h CU for Reasons for Appeal Th IS r-edin le lam vi } da&P; nbt eon acw 4-� of ato a) cep, r,4 The Pr !0,&2,4e0 Signature of Appellant Received by Ui� �. °t�fti+�ar�cl�l vFIJOn FOR OFFICE USE ONLY WILY %-z Fee received el+y g -dq a Date S -3v -off Date ,2ecr.�pf * ieO'Z - I z 4/7 7 Hearing Date An appeal shall be scheduled for a hearing before the Planning Commission within thirty (30) days of the filing of the appeal unless both applicant and appellant or reviewing body consent to a later date (NBMC Sec. 20.95.050). NOTE: Please submit: • 1 1x1 7 set of plans —12 each • One set of mailing labels (Avery 5960) for property owners within 300 ft. radius of subject property APPEALS: Municipal . 600.00 ursuant t Appeal Fe .. 600.00 ursuant to City Council Resolution 2006 -4. (Deposit funds with Cashier in Account #2700 -5000) F:1Users\PLN\Shared\Forms\New Forms\MISC FORMSIappealZA.doc �61 Revised 07 -21 -06 jcr August, 29 2007 To all distinguished planning commissioners. My name is Will Higman and I live at 422 Redlands ave Newport Beach, CA 92663. I am appealing the decision of the zoning administrator regarding the granting of a modification permit for 418 Redlands Ave. The reason that I am in opposition is because the property and proposed addition do not conform to the existing City of Newport Beach guidelines of Planning, Zoning, Public Works and the current Building codes. To be more technical my findings are as follows: 1. This redevelopment does not conform to two (2) out of three (3) required findings of the title 20 zoning code for modification permits chapter 20.93.030 B86C. 2. The property should be terminated of its Nonconforming Status per chapter 20.62.080 A -2863 because it is being converted from multi unit rental property to a single family residence. 3. The redevelopment does not conform to City Council Policy L -2 On top of all this the existing structure is dilapidated run down and an eyesore to the neighborhood. The buildings on the property appear to have been pieced together over the years by many remodels and my understanding- is that many of the additions were done without building permits. I have had this confirmed to me by City officials and by one of the prior owners. I will address each one of these items separately. Page 1 jba First of all I will address some zoning and planning issues. The biggest concern I have here is that the structure is built 13'6" into the current City setback. The current building specifically affects me because it blocks the light and airflow to my front yard. Also Redlands is one of the only streets in the Heights that have an ocean view as you drive down the street. This beautiful picture is obscured by an unusual house sticking out 13 feet. Above and beyond the sun and airflow issues is the fact that the house is "not compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood ". (Page 20.93 -5 Modification Permits) If the modification and addition are approved my family and property will be burdened with an additional 13' of building structure above and beyond any other adjacent property in the Newport Heights Area. Because the existing property is built out 13' into the current setback and by connecting the front and back with the proposed addition, my family will be permanently blacked out by this additional footage. If this is allowed to happen my property and neighborhood will be permanently damaged. I have reviewed the plans that have been submitted to the City and the proposed additional square footage calculations are misleading. Because it is very unusual and unheard of in our neighborhood to build an open ceiling "art studio" I am asking for the calculations to be figured as a normal two story single "family" home. The fact is that the proposed addition is two stories in height and therefore is affecting me the same as a true and conforming two story family home on the exterior. With that said we need to add an additional 441 square feet of "volume" to the calculations which put the total addition at 1664 square feet. I only care what is on the outside of the proposed building which is 19' 9" of solid stucco. Staying with my point this makes the total addition ratio at +58% and totally unacceptable and nonconforming. On top of all this there will be no stopping future interior additions once the extra footprint is granted. Page 2 X 6 On a side note I have to tell you about my troubles with the City that occurred in 1999 regarding the design of my new home which we completed in 2000. My original design and plans that included a front facing garage and driveway made it through Planning, Building, multiple plan checks and building permits. When I went to the public works desk to pay for my curb cut permit it was discovered at that moment that building and planning should have directed me to Public Works prior to designing the house with a new "front facing driveway ". My negotiations with the City which included meetings with City Council members along with a special group meeting that included the City Manager, City Attorney, along with the heads of Planning, Building and Public Works. During this exact meeting I used my neighbor's house at 418 Redlands as an example of why the City should allow me to have a front facing driveway. After all the reason I designed my house with the front facing garage was to be neighborly and to try to match the property at 418 Redlands all possible. During this meeting the group came back to me with the fact that the house at 418 was built many years ago before new set back and design regulations. They went on to tell me that "if" the owner of 418 were to ever apply for a permit that changes any Interior walls or exterior foot print that it would not be allowed! The City officials also told me during the meeting that the only way that my neighbor could add on was if they changed the design of their house to conform to the new set back regulations. They did say however that they would have to grant permits for maintenance issues. In the end it was decided by all parties that it was in the best interest of the neighborhood for me to redesign my home which we did. Page 3 `0 q In regards to Public Works the property as I mentioned has a front driveway approach with a curb cut. City Council Policy L -2 requires property owners that redevelop their property to remove any driveway access from the adjacent street and to close off the curb cut. (City Council Policy L -2 C page 31 Also because the property is built forward 13' it does not allow the homeowner enough space to properly park a car up off the street and into the property. In basic if a future owner were to attempt to park a large vehicle or pickup truck in the driveway it would stick out into the street. This is a big problem also because the driveway is "within the intersection" of Broad and Redlands in which there are no stop signs. I have witnessed many near misses over the years as Mrs. Redwillow backs out into the intersection. Also the existing driveway that provides the only "pedestrian access" to the main house does not conform to the maximum slope requirement of 8 %. (City Council Policy L-2 D page 31 I am not an engineer but the slope of the existing front driveway appears to be at about 15 % -20% slope. I also believe that City Council Policy L-2 was adopted to help preserve and upgrade the neighborhood of Newport Heights. With the combination of the protruding structure and the front facing driveway this property certainly does not conform to the "spirit" of the policy. Also I do not see how allowing another afterthought addition is going to add value and curb appeal to the neighborhood. Regarding building code issues there are many problems that exist. My main concern is the fact that for many years now the buildings on the property have not been properly maintained and seem to be deteriorating. All of the structures are termite infested and all of the wood windows are dry rotted. Page S 5 16 The only access to the main living areas for both the front and back units are by exterior wood stairs and decking. The large decking system is supported by skinny 4x4 posts that are connected with in adequate thin gauge hardware to the seemingly small footings. Also the decking is completely rotten and an eyesore. On a personal note I find it very odd that the new proposed addition adds two (2) additional sets of stair cases for a total of four (4). Mrs. Redwillow is a very active person, but I do know that she has recently had knee replacement surgery and adding more stairs to climb doesn't make sense to me? In closing I would like to say that we are in favor of letting the property exist in its current configuration as long as the owner maintains the property. We are however in total opposition of any addition that would change the footprint of any of the structures on the property. If any change in footprint is to take place we respectfully ask that the City require the property be updated to the current zoning and planning set backs along with full compliance of the City Council Policy L-2. We feel that this is in the best interest of all the homeowners in Newport Heights. Sincerely, F Will Higman 422 Redlands Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 Page 6 to (P Exhibit No. 10 161 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED PLEASE RETURN TO: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 16 Recorded in Official Records, Orange County Tom Daly, Clerk- Recorder 1111111111111111111 IF 1 18.00 2007000442526 09:24am 07116/07 203 186 C38 Al2 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 S1t The undersigned hereby certify(ies) that (I am) (we are) the owner(s) of the real property located in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, described as follows: JOB ADDRESS r As regulated by Chapter 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the City currently permits only one dwelling unit on the site. (1) (we) do hereby covenant and agree with said City that the above legally described land shall only be used as a site for the construction, erection, and maintenance of a single family dwelling. This Covenant and Agreement shall run with the land, and shall be binding upon (myself) (ourselves), and future owners, encumbrancers, their successors, heirs, assignees and shall continue in effect until such time that the Newport Beach Municipal Code WELcippally permits the use of the property for another purpose. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JUL 23 1007 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH `b� Owner agrees that this Covenant shall always be prior and superior to and shall be recorded prior to any mortgage, deed of trust or any other hypothecation for security hereafter placed on the Property. Owner agrees to execute and deliver to City any instrument that may be deemed necessary to effect subordination to this Covenant of any mortgage or deed of trust or other hypothecation already recorded against the Property, such that the covenants, conditions, and restrictions in this Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against any owner whose title is derived through foreclosure or trustee's sale or otherwise. Signature Print or Type Name APPROVED FOR RECORDING: M e PLANNING DIF City of Newport F:%USERS%PLMSharedlForms \Old FormsTormsZOVAGfDOC '2' ti61 CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California �� } County of ss. � l.J�'► J On before me, Z4 Cete -r� Nerve d'1kd CHI. .g••4eiw personally appeared (7lJ[� t� t L y/le ��a r rt�yy!r�� 0 personally known to me proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person) whose namO(Q is4le, subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that QRshe/jy executed the same in Wher/tok authorized capacit and that by 7oQher /gWflk signatureM on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person( acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my I a official seal. St neNle of Nnmry PUd'c OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may arm valuable to persona relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of [ Document Date: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: _ Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: • Individual Top of Numb here • Corporate Officer — Title(s): 0 Partner — 0 Limited O General 0 Attomey -in -Fact 0 Trustee • Guardian or Conservator • Other: Signer Is Representing: 01999 N8110nal Nuhuy Aee afon • 9350 CB a Avg, P.O. Bax 2401 • ChelBav,th. CA 91 3132402 • WYM1VOBfienal4Malyef9 9400 No. SIM Reads: Cd Td .44PA8leLeel 1 jV Exhibit No. 11 ►\ 0• 2 11 1 1 GENERAL Lr2 A. A permit will be required prior to any driveway construction within the street right -of -way. All construction shall conform with the Standard Fans and Specifications of the City of Newport Beach. Brick, textured concrete or flat stone surfacing may be used subject to Public Works Department approval. Such brick, textured concrete or flat stone surfacing may not be used on Bayside Drive. B. The number of driveway openings shall be kept to a minimum so as to preserve on- street parking and to reduce the points of traffic conflict. C. The terms "Curb Opening" shall mean the total width of the approach including the slope distances on the curb. The term "Approach Bottom" shall mean the total width of the approach less the slope distances on the curbs. D. Curb openings shall not be constructed closer than 5 feet to the beginning of the curvature of a curb return, fire hydrant, traffic signal /pedestrian street light, utility pole /anchor /pedestal, trees or vent pipe, unless approved by the Public Works Department. E. The entire curb opening shall be within the prolongation of the property lines except when cross easements provide for a common driveway along the mutual property line. F. No permit shall be issued for driveways on Clubhouse Drive, Glen Drive, Balboa Island or on the ocean side of Ocean Boulevard without City Council approval. No curb openings will be permitted on Ocean Boulevard when access is available from an existing alley, street or improved private roadway. G. No permit shall be issued if the driveway construction requires the removal of a street tree until such removal has been approved by the General Services Director. H. No permit shall be issued if the driveway encroaches on a crosswalk area. I. No permit shall be issued if the driveway construction requires the relocation of any public facility such as fire hydrants utility pole /anchor /pedestal, tree, vault, vent pipes, or street lights until approved by the Public Works Department and a 1Ix U2 deposit has been made to cover the cost of relocation Property owner shall pay all costs for the relocation of any public facilities. J. No permit shall be issued unless the applicant agrees that at no cost to the City he will remove any driveway opening that is or will be abandoned, and reconstruct curb, gutter and sidewalk (if applicable) to City Standards. K. Where practical, difficulties or hardships may result from the strict application of this policy, minor dimensional variances may be granted with written approval of the Public Works Director. L. Nothing herein shall be construed as preventing any person from appealing to the City Council for relief from the applications of this policy. M. No building permit shall be issued on a parcel whose access requires City Council review for an encroachment permit on public property, until said encroachment permit has been issued. RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND RESIDENTIAL USES - SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS A. The width of the driveway approach bottom shall not exceed 20 feet except when the driveway is to serve an enclosed three or four car garage, in which case the driveway approach bottom may be increased to 25 feet or 32 feet, respectively. B. One additional curb opening will be permitted to a single parcel subject to the following conditions: 1. The total width for all openings shall not exceed 50% of the total frontage of the parcel. 2. The openings shall be separated by at least 20 feet to retain maximum street parking. 2 lr2 C. Street curb openings shall not be permitted to residential property which abuts an alley. An exception may be made in the case of comer lots where the street on which the curb cut is proposed is not an arterial street and street frontage is available for the full depth of the lot, subject to the following conditions: 1. Access from the street will be permitted where existing structures prevent full alley access, or additional covered off -street parking is being provided. 2. The width of the curb opening shall be limited to one -half of the lot depth. 3. In the case of duplexes, condominiums and condominium conversions, an additional driveway curb cut shall be permitted if the units are separated by a continuous vertical plane, from the ground to the rooftop, with one common wall and /or physically separated by open space. The resultant building product shall have the appearance of two distinct and separate units with a rear unit that has vehicle access from the alley and the front unit with vehicle access from the side street. No overlapping of between the front unit and rear unit floorplans shall be permitted. D. Driveway grades must not exceed the listed applicable maximum slope depending on application. Driveways to lowered or subterranean parking must rise above the flood level or a minimum of six inches above the flow line of the street or alley, whichever is greater, before transitioning to a downward slope. Slope transitions shall be a minimum of five feet in length and the change of slope cannot exceed eleven percent Driveways Providing only pwkin access ccess - Fifteen - percent maximum slope. Must have access directly from garage into residence. Driveways Providing vehicle and Pedestrian access - Eight - percent maximum slope. Driveways Providing required Parking spaces on the driveway itself - Five - percent maximum slope. Minor variations from the listed maximum slopes and slope changes may be granted by the Traffic Engineer when unusual site conditions are encountered. 3 L-2 PRIVATE STREETS - SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS A. A grading permit will be required prior to the construction of any driveway apron, sidewalk, curb, gutter or wall within the private street rights -of -way. The design parameters shall be in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Design Criteria and Standards for Public Works Construction. Also, the Public Works Department shall perform a brief review of plans prior to permit issuance. B. A Public Works encroachment permit will be required if improvements are to be constructed within 5 feet of a fire hydrant, street light or other public utility system appurtenance (i.e., valve boxes or manholes). C. A Public Works encroachment permit will be required when connecting to or relocating public utilities. COMMERCIAL USES A. The width of the driveway approach bottom shall not exceed 35 feet. B. The total width of all driveways shall not exceed 50% of the frontage of the parcel. C. Commercial driveway approaches may use a curb return design with a maximum curb radius of 25 feet and a driveway approach bottom of greater than 35 feet if the following conditions are satisfied: 1. The driveway serves as an entrance to a parking area or structure for 200 or more vehicles. 2. The number of driveways serving the parcel are at a minimum. D. The curb return commercial driveway approach may incorporate a divided exit and entrance if the separation structure (median island) is continued on -site in such a manner as to provide proper traffic design. 4 L-2 CLOSURE OF ABANDONED DRIVEWAY APPROACHES BY CfrY The City may close abandoned driveway approaches at high priority locations where two or more of the following criteria may exist: A. The abandoned driveway approach is adjacent to a parcel of property where redevelopment and possible subsequent closure of the approach is not believed imminent; B. The driveway approach is at a location where there is a shortage of available on- street parking; C. The removal of the driveway approach is needed for safe pedestrian and /or bicycle passage; D. The closure of the abandoned driveway approach benefits not so much to the property owner as pedestrian and vehicular traffic in the area. When in the opinion of the General Services Department and /or the Public Works Department, a curb cut or abandoned driveway approach should be closed, and the adjoining property owner protests the closing, the protester shall be notified that he will have two weeks to appeal the staff decision to the City Council. That appeal must be in writing and may be filed through the mail. if an appeal is not made, the City shall proceed with the closure. If an appeal is made, a hearing shall be held by the City Council, and the decision of the Council shall be final. Nothing in this section shall be construed as relieving adjoining property owners from the responsibility for closure of abandoned curb cuts as a condition of permit approval for new construction or for obtaining a curb cut permit for an alternative driveway location on the same parcel. Adopted - January 24,1966 Amended - February 26,1968 Amended - July 24,1972 Amended - November 14, 1977 Amended - October 25,1982 Amended - July 13,1987 Amended - November 27,1989 Amended - December 14,1992 Reaffirmed - January 24,1994 Amended - February 26,1996 Amended - May 8, 2001 Amended - October 10, 2006 61 Exhibit No. 92 III July 16, 2007 3300 Newport Boulevard, Building C, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 644 -3200 Fax: (949) 644 -3229 website: www.city.newoort- beach.ca.us Joyce Redwillow 418 Redlands Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: 418 Redlands Avenue Dear Ms. Redwillow: This letter is regarding the proposed addition to your existing structures located at 418 Redlands Avenue. As you are aware, the plans for plan check # 2526 -2006 were approved and permits issued on June 28, 2007. Soon after the permits were issued, the City was contacted by neighbors concerned with unsafe conditions and potential unauthorized additional dwelling units on the site. In response to the neighbors' inquiries, the Planning Department reviewed the new plans against previous plans on file dating from 1979 and 1981. There were some inconsistencies found on the floor plans for the existing as -built conditions and the building inspector for this area was requested to conduct a site walk- through. The inspection confirmed that work had been done without the benefit of building permits, and a Stop -Work Order was issued on July 11, 2007, requiring that plans be submitted and permits obtained for the as -built work. When approving the plans for the addition to the existing structures, the Planning Department staff incorrectly applied an interpretation of the Nonconforming Chapter of the Zoning Code for this project. The existing front building encroaches 13 feet 6 inches into the required 20 -foot yard setback, and even though a Modification Permit to allow an addition to the structure was approved in 1979, the Planning Director has determined that the building is considered a nonconforming structure. Therefore, the project is subject to the provisions of Chapter 20.62 ( "Nonconforming Uses and Structures ") of the Zoning Code. A copy of this section of the code is attached. The proposed 1,354 addition to the existing structures is equivalent to 46% of the existing 2,899 gross square footage on site. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 20.62.040 D of the Zoning Code, the proposed addition is subject to the prior approval of a Modification Permit. The building permits issued for the proposed addition are not valid until a Modification Permit is obtained. 11` Your property is zoned R -1 which allows for single - family use only. The creation or use of a second dwelling unit on the site is prohibited. An inspection of your property conducted by Code Enforcement Officer Charles Spence reveals that the rear structure is being used as an independent dwelling unit, which is in violation of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. As part of the proposed addition, this area must be cleared of the kitchen facilities and the two structures connected by the addition with access from one room to another through internal doorways (not by an external breezeway). I would like to schedule a meeting with you at your earliest convenience so that we may discuss your project and reach a solution for these outstanding issues. Please call or email me at (949) 644 -3236 or ibrownecity.newoort- beach.ca.us. Sincerely, JJB: Attachment (Chapter 20.62) cc: D. Lepo, Planning Director C. Spence, Code Enforcement Officer S. Hook, Chief Building Inspector F:\ Users \PLN\Shared\2LETTERS\Zoning Compliance \418 Redlands Avenue.doc 6 i 1 August 16, 2007 City of Newport Beach Zoning Administrator 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Modification Permit No. MD2007 -060 (PA2007 -152) 418 Redlands Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 My name is Michelle Phillips and I reside at 412 Redlands Avenue in Newport Beach. I respectfully request that the Zoning/ Planning Department deny the above Modification Permit. The current structures at 418 Redlands are in complete disrepair. Both structures are not only eyesores — they do not conform to the current City Codes or Regulations. Both structures are in major disrepair, they have visible termite damage, dry rot and structural issues. To add on to either one of these structures would be ridiculous. The garage that faces Redlands in the front structure is a safety concern. We were told when we purchased our home that if any improvements were made to 418 Redlands - that the owner would have to, by law, move her home back to meet current set back restrictions. If any redevelopment is to take place — it is only right that the property be upgraded to the City Council Policy L-2 and to the current set back regulations. The spirit of this policy is in the best interest of all and the homeowners of Newport Heights and was put in place to preserve and upgrade the quality of our neighborhood. If the homeowner were to cut back the structure footprint to the 20' front set back requirement, along with closing of the curb cut — I would be in favor of the redevelopment — as long as the current structures were also improved. I would also like to point out that the property is being used as an income rental property in an R -1 District! I am aware that the code allows for a "granny unit" however the person that has been living in the detached rear unit for many years is young and is of no relation to the homeowner. Furthermore the front facing structure is a two (2) unit building and is not connected by an interior staircase. This makes the property a three - (3) unit structure in total. In fact — it was brought to my attention that during the period of 1999 -2000 that all three units were occupied by renters during the owner's absence. What assurance do we have as neighbors that this will not happen again? This property is clearly out of place in Newport Heights and I respectfully request that the Zoning Administrator deny thg.Xequest for the Modification Permit. lab August 14, 2007 City of Newport Beach Zoning Administrator 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Modification Permit No.MD2007 -060 (PA2007 -152) 418 Redlands Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 My name is Bob Malanga and I reside at 2804 Broad Street Newport Beach, CA 92663. I respectfully request that the Zoning /Planning Department deny the above Modification Permit. The current structure at 418 Redlands is in disrepair, an eyesore and does not conform to the current City setback regulations. Also the front facing garage and driveway are in a very dangerous location within the intersection of Broad and Redlands in which there is no stop sign. The structure appears to have been pieced together over the years with many remodels and I am afraid that another addition will not add any value or curb appeal to the property. If any redevelopment is to take place I would respectfully ask that the property be upgraded to the City Council Policy L -2 and to the current set back regulations. The spirit of this policy is in the best interest of all the homeowners of Newport Heights and was put in place to preserve and upgrade the quality of our neighborhood. If the homeowner were to cut back the structure footprint to the 20' front set back requirement, along with the closing of the curb cut, I would be in favor of redevelopment. I would also like to point out that the property is being used as an income rental property in an R -1 District! I am aware that the code allows for a "granny unit" however the person that has been living in the detached rear unit for many years is young and is of no relation to the homeowner. Furthermore the front facing structure is a two (2) unit building that is not connected by an interior staircase. This makes the property a three (3) unit structure in total. As a matter of fact during the period of 1999 -2000 all three units were occupied by renters during the owner's absence. What assurance do we have as neighbors that this will not happen again? This property is clearly out of place in Newport Heights and I respectfully request that the Zoning Administrator deny the request for the Modification Permit. a al, a ga Newport Heights Homeowner a August 14, 2007 City of Newport Beach Zoning Administrator 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Modification Permit No.MD2007 -060 (PA2007 -152) 418 Redlands Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 My name is Tracy Rath and I reside at 441 Redlands Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663. 1 respectfully request that the Zoning /Planning Department deny the above Modification Permit. The current structure at 418 Redlands is in disrepair, an eyesore and does not conform to the current City setback regulations. Also the front facing garage and driveway are in a very dangerous location within the intersection of Broad and Redlands in which there is no stop sign. The structure appears to have been pieced together over the years with many remodels and I am afraid that another addition will not add any value or curb appeal to the property. If any redevelopment is to take place I would respectfully ask that the property be upgraded to the City Council Policy L -2 and to the current set back regulations. The spirit of this policy is in the best interest of all the homeowners of Newport Heights and was put in place to preserve and upgrade the quality of our neighborhood. If the homeowner were to cut back the structure footprint to the 20' front set back requirement, along with the closing of the curb cut, I would be in favor of redevelopment. 1 would also like to point out that the property is being used as an income rental property in an R -1 District! 1 am aware that the code allows for a "granny unit' however the person that has been living in the detached rear unit for many years is young and is of no relation to the homeowner. Furthermore the front facing structure is a two (2) unit building that is not connected by an interior staircase. This makes the property a three (3) unit structure in total. As a matter of fact during the period of 1999 -2000 all three units were occupied by renters during the owner's absence. What assurance do we have as neighbors that this will not happen again? This property is clearly out of place in Newport Heights and I respectfully request that the Zoning Administrator deny the request for the Modification Permit. iomeowner �a � KANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 Newport Boulevard, Building C, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 644 -3200 Fax: (949) 644 -3229 website: www.city.newoort- beach.ca.us September 10, 2007 Joyce Red Willow 418 Redlands Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: 418 Redlands Avenue Dear Ms. Red Willow: Per our conversation this morning, please find enclosed a copy of the 11" x 17" plans for your proposed project, and a copy of the Application to Appeal Decision of the Zoning Administrator filed by Mr. Will Higman. Kindly provide 12 copies of the 11" x 17" plans to my attention no later than September 21, 2007. Could you also please provide me with one set of the structural drawings prepared by the architect, as I need these for review by the Building Department for their comments on the plans prior to the Planning Commission hearing. The project is tentatively scheduled to be heard at the October 18, 2007, Planning Commission meeting, and I will confirm the date with you once I received verification. Secondly, as we discussed, use of the space above the garage at the rear of the lot as a separate dwelling unit is in violation of the R -1 land use regulations. Please remove the kitchen facilities (any cooking appliance, refrigerator) by Monday, September 17, 2007, and call Code Enforcement at (949) 644 -3212 to schedule an inspection to confirm removal of all food preparations /kitchen facilities. Failure to comply with the R -1 land use regulations will result in Code Enforcement action. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions at (949) 644 -3236 or by e-mail at jbrown @city.newport- beach.ca.us. Sincerely, Jan t J hn on Brown As stan P anner Enclosures cc: C. Spence, Code Enforcement Officer FAUsers\PLNVShared\PA'SVPAS - 2007VPA2007- 152VMD2007 -060 Ltr to Prop Ownr.doc Ia3 Brown, Janet From: JOYCE REDWILLOW [oyceredwillow @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 11:26 AM To: Brown, Janet Cc: Richard Sontag Subject: Appeal details Hello Janet .... here's a summary of items to date per your 9/10 letter: Stove removal: The stove will be removed by Monday, September 17th. I've called Cas to schedule an inspection appointment on/after September 18th. Copies and labels for appeal: Both my attorney and myself agree that Will should provide the materials required for his appeal as stated on the appeal application. That said, I made the 12 copies prior to noticing the requirement. Rather than waste the materials, I'll give these copies to you. $25.00 is a small cost compared to damage he has already caused: removal of 13 mature trees in my absence, destruction of my sprinkler system, 3 -day flooding of side yard due to his failed repair of system, fence removal and gunite sprayed on garden elements, to name a few, during the construction of his pool. I do ask that he provide his own set of mailing lables in the event I need to use my second copy. Request: I would like to obtain copies of the written materials and pictures Will presented at the MOD hearing. Please advise when that would be convenient for you. As mentioned earlier, I'll be in Denver 9/21 -9/28 for presentation/discussion re the restoration of the Castlerock train depot we owned/moved, now on the national register of historic buildings. I can be reached via e-mail during that time. Please let me know if there is anything else you might need, thanks. Joyce RW 09/18/2007 jai Brown, Janet From: Brown, Janet Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 12:26 PM To: 'JOYCE REDWILLOW Cc: Levin, Shannon Subject: RE: code enforcement at 418 redlands ave Joyce, One further point of clarification. The construction drawings that were prepared by your designer include plans of the existing floor plans for both buildings. On these plans, there is no shower in the rear, upper building. Janet From: Levin, Shannon Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:14 AM To: 'JOYCE REDWILLOW'; Brown, Janet Subject: code enforcement at 418 redlands ave Hi. Joyce Thank you for getting back to us regarding the corrections letter. I understand the time crunch and the working without permits situation. The original date of reinspection, was chosen so we can move forward based on the outcome of the Mod hearing. I will be out of town until Oct.23rd so when I return I will get together with Janet and I can catch up on the case and Mod outcome. Thanks for the responses. Shannon Levin Code & Water Quality Enforcement City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca 92663 please note name and email change shannon@city.newport- beach.ca.us From: JOYCE REDWILLOW [ mailto :joyceredwillow @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 6:17 AM To: Brown, Janet; Levin, Shannon Subject: RE: Shower Thanks for clarification. The new plans are correct. The shower will be removed during the course of construction because it is old and small. It will be replaced with a storage closet. Additionally, the water 10/11/2007 a 5 heater will be replaced with a tankless heater which is a much better technology; this will also require replacing old active pipes with new. Please let me know if any other questions arise during your review and reconciliation process. I can also come down if necesssary. Thanks, Joyce 'Brown, Janet" G 7Brown @city.newport- beach.ca.us> wrote: Good afternoon, Joyce. Thank you for response by e-mail to the notice of violation and letter of corrections sent to you by the Code Enforcement Division. Regarding item number 3 below, this correction is based on the as -built and demolition plans provided to the City as part of the construction drawings. Per these plans, there is no shower in the upper rear building. I am forwarding a copy of your response to Officer Shannon Levin by way of this e-mail. Again, thank you for your response. Janet Johnson Brown Assistant Planner City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3236 ca. us From: JOYCE REDWILLOW [maifto:joyceredwillow @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 10:02 AM To: Brown, Janet Subject: RE: Inspection letter Hello Janet, Following are my comments and requests re inspection follow -up letter received yesterday: The gas line will be capped off inside the wall as required. 2. Understood. 3. The shower is original to the house and built concurrent with original construction. The original plumbing pipes are there, in use, and confirm this. The only improvement has been to tile it because the walls were painted and susceptible to peeling and mildew. A repair was made for leak in shower pan. These would seem to fall within general maintenance. 4. Understood. 5. We have agreed to and provided for restoration of garage walls. These changes are reflected in the plans submitted for both the first hearing and appeal. Work will be completed when the permit is reinstated. Another stop work notice was posted in the alley by a city worker yesterday. 10/11/2007 ab Paul is precluded from working on this because of the work stop order. To do so could result in a complaint to the contractors board. Further, of equal importance, I want to avoid any additional conflict with Will which would most certainly result if any pre - permit construction were to begin. Will has instant anger issues. Twice I have been physically threatened by Will. The last time (when I showed him leakage from his new water system) was serious enough for him to call twice to apologize and then send a certified mail apology letter. You can have a copy if documentation is needed. For these reasons, I request an extension of the re- inspection time frame to occur after the permit is reinstated and work can legally be completed. 6. Understood. I appreciate your assistance with these matters. Please let me know if you need any additional information. Thanks, Joyce 10/11/2007 Ial Brown, Janet From: Brown, Janet Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 3:49 PM To: 'JOYCE REDWILLOW Subject: RE: Appeal details Joyce, Thank you for dropping off the plans. Sorry I missed you when you came in. I did want to let you know that I looked into the matter of you asked about relative to changing out the windows and making repairs to the deck. It is okay to proceed with submitting plans and obtaining permits to do that scope of work. Have you had the Code Enforcement Inspector out to the property to inspect the rear living area or have the inspection scheduled? Also, I wanted to check with you regarding the new garage area proposed at the rear of the lot. According to the Public Works Department, there is currently a utility pole and guy wire that would prevent the garage from being accessed and used for the parking of vehicles. Do you intend to move the utility pole and guy wire? If not, what are your plans for use of the space since it can't be used as a garage? Thanks again for the bringing in the copies of plans. Have a good trip to Colorado. Janet Johnson Brown Assistant Planner City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3236 jbrown @city.newport- beach. ca. us From: JOYCE REDWILLOW [ mailto :joyceredwillow @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 3:39 PM To: Brown, Janet Subject: RE: Appeal details Hello Janet ... I dropped the copies by. Thanks for copies you had made. Am still waiting for the architect's structural plans, will now request that he drop them by for you since I'm gone for the week. If you need to look at property before I return, please feel free to do so. There is only the cat. The yard next to Will is being treated to eliminate grass and has to have enough stems/leaves left to absorb preventative ... so it looks untidy. Please let me know if you need anything else. l was surprised to see the photo where Will actually parked his truck in my driveway. Oh well. 10/11 /2007 pq Thanks again, Joyce "Brown, Janet" <( Brown@city.newport- beach.ca.us> wrote: Good afternoon, Joyce. I will make you a copy of the letters of opposition received, including the one prepared and presented by Will Higman at the hearing. I can also make you black and white copies of the color photographs provided by Mr. Higman, and/or you can make arrangements with C & R Reprographics to pick up the color photos and reproduce them in color for you. The letters and black and white copies of the photos are being held for you to pick up at the upstairs Planning Department Counter. Janet Johnson Brown Assistant Planner City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3236 ca. us From: JOYCE REDWILLOW [ mailto :joyceredwillow @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 11:26 AM To: Brown, Janet Cc: Richard Sontag Subject: Appeal details Hello Janet .... here's a summary of items to date per your 9/10 letter: Stove removal: The stove will be removed by Monday, September 17th. I've called Cas to schedule an inspection appointment on/after September 18th. Copies and labels for appeal: Both my attorney and myself agree that Will should provide the materials required for his appeal as stated on the appeal application. That said, I made the 12 copies prior to noticing the requirement. Rather than waste the materials, I'll give these copies to you. $25.00 is a small cost compared to damage he has already caused: removal of 13 mature trees in my absence, destruction of my sprinkler system, 3 -day flooding of side yard due to his failed repair of system, fence removal and gunite sprayed on garden elements, to name a few, during the construction of his pool. I do ask that he provide his own set of mailing lables in the event I need to use my second copy. Request: I would like to obtain copies of the written materials and pictures Will presented at the MOD 10/11/2007 1 A hearing. Please advise when that would be convenient for you. As mentioned earlier, I'll be in Denver 9/21 -9/28 for presentation/discussion re the restoration of the Castlerock train depot we owned/moved, now on the national register of historic buildings. I can be reached via e-mail during that time. Please let me know if there is anything else you might need, thanks. Joyce RW 10/11/2007 136 Brown, Janet From: Wittmeyer, Wes Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 8:01 AM To: Brown, Janet Subject: RE: 418 Redlands Jobsite Activity Janet: I saw the STOP WORK notice by the front door. The owner took me in the back yard and alley to explain her issues. There was a trench and a string line for the new footing, however there were no construction materials. The owner mentioned the dry rot and termite issues with the patio cover / deck. Perhaps the lumber that Will Higman is referring to is for the deck replacement work. Wes From: Brown, Janet Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 2:29 PM To: Wittmeyer, Wes Subject: FW: 418 Redlands Jobsite Activity Wes, Did you see any construction activity when you were at the site? Janet From: Will Higman [mailto:Whigman @rwli.net] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 11:53 AM To:- Br.Qwn, Janet Cc: Lepo, vid Subject: 418-ReWands Jobsite Activity Good Morning I wanted to let you know that re has been som site activity next door. The contractor has been coming over fr ently today they delivered a load of lumber! The lumber is mostly post and er material which leads me to believe that they are "structural members." I was under the impression t there is a stop Uitermark this morningYK phone. job so I alerted Jim Could you plea et me know if the City has approved some work tTT&Q am not aware of. 9peg she not need to get her modification permit before startin ork When ya,6 read through the code it sure sounds like she should. let me know if I am incorrect. Also could you please let me know if the PC date 10/11/2007 1 �1 Brown, Janet From: Brown, Janet Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 5:00 PM To: 'Will Higman' Cc: Hook, Steve; Lepo, David Subject: RE: 418 Redlands Jobsite Activity Mr. Higman, When I drove by the site today on my lunch hour, I did not observe any construction activity asked the City Surveyor to let me know if he observed anything when he at the site, but I have not heard back from him. Yes, you are correct that there is a Stop Work Order issued for this job site. I do not see any record of any permits that have been approved for any new work at the property. I have copied the Chief Building Inspector to remind the inspector that no work can be done. You are also correct that no work for the proposed addition and remodel can commence until and unless the Modification Permit, which is under appeal and pending public hearing with Planning Commission on October 18, is approved. Janet Johnson Brown Assistant Planner City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3236 jbrown@city.newport-beach.ca.us From: Will Higman [mailto:Whigman @rwli.net] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 2:43 PM To: Will Higman; Brown, Janet Subject: RE: 418 Redlands Jobsite Activity Have you looked into this one yet? From: Will Higman Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 11:53 AM To: Brown, Janet Cc: 'Lepo, David' Subject: 418 Redlands Jobsite Activity Good Morning Janet I wanted to let you know that there has been some jobsite activity next door. The contractor has been coming over frequently and today they delivered a load of lumber! The lumber is mostly post and header material which leads me to believe 10/11/2007 30), that they are "structural members." I was under the impression that there is a stop notice on the job so I alerted Jim Uitermark this morning via phone. Could you please let me know if the City has approved some work that I am not aware of Does she not need to get her modification permit before starting work? When you read through the code it sure sounds like she should. Please let me know if I am incorrect. Also could you please let me know if the PC date has been confirmed? Thank you, Will Higman Reliable Wholesale Lumber, Inc. WHi¢manCa rwli.net Phone (714) 848 -8222 Fax (714) 848 -9r 10/11/2007 133 Brown, Janet From: Brown, Janet Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:22 PM To: 'Will Higman' Subject: RE: Planning commission date? The staff report will be delivered to the Planning Commissioners on the evening of October 5, and I will be preparing the staff report. 1 did check with the City Attorney's Office, and it is okay if you contact the Commissioners ahead of the staff report delivery date. However, they will not be very familiar with the case you will be discussing with them, so it might be helpful for them to wait until the reports are delivered. Have a good evening. Janet From: Will Higman [mailto:Whigman@rwli.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 2:12 PM To: Brown, Janet Subject: RE: Planning commission date? Thank you! I do have a couple more questions... If the final date stays the 18th when will the planning commissioners receive the staff report? Also who actually prepares the staff report? Thanks for your time. Will From: Brown, Janet [mailto: ]Brown @city.newport- beach.ca.us] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 2:07 PM To: Will Higman Subject: RE: Planning commission date? Mr. Higman, Yes, this item is still tentatively scheduled for Planning Commission hearing of October 18. Public notices will be mailed on October 5. I'll keep you posted if anything should change. I'm not sure why the project was removed from the case log and will look into it. Thank you. Janet Johnson Brown Assistant Planner 10/11/2007 y 3 11 City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3236 jbrown@city.newport-beach-ca.us From: Will Higman [mailto:Whigman @rwli.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 12:59 PM To: Will Higman; Brown, Janet Subject: RE: Planning commission date? Janet I also noticed that the project got removed from the Case Log and planning Activities (PA). Is this normal? Please advise, Will From: Will Hlgman Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 10:25 AM To: Brown, Janet Subject: Planning commission date? Hello Janet Could you please let me know if we are still tentatively scheduled for October 18th? Thank you, Will Higman Reliable Wholesale Lumber, Inc. WHigman @rwli.net Phone (714) 848 -8222 Fax (714) 848 -9t 10/11/2007 ) 3 5 Brown, Janet From: Brown, Janet Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 10:51 AM To: 'Will Higman' Subject: RE: 418 Redlands Pictures /Staff Report Yes, that would be fine. Thank you. From: Will Higman [mailto:Whigman @rwli.net] Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 10:35 AM To: Brown, Janet Subject: RE: 418 Redlands Pictures /Staff Report Janet Can I make 12 copies of everything for you? Please advise, Will From: Brown, Janet [mailto :]Brown @city.newport- beach.ca.us] Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 9:59 AM To: Will Higman Cc: Bludau, Homer; Clauson, Robin; Wood, Sharon; Lepo, David; Badum, Steve; Kristin Higman Subject: RE: 418 Redlands Pictures /Staff Report Good morning, Mr. Higman. In your e-mail dated Saturday, October 6, you stated you had additional information you wanted distributed to the Planning Commissioners. Please provide that information along with 12 copies of any color photos or exhibits you wish to have distributed to the Commissioners at your earliest convenience to allow adequate time to assemble the staff report. Thank you for the information regarding the roof overhang at the front of the building, of which I was aware. However, the requirement to remove this structure was not included in the Modification Permit conditions of approval. Therefore, I will include this information in the staff report. Janet Johnson Brown Assistant Planner City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3236 jbrown@city.newport-beach.ca.us From: Will Higman [mailto:Whigman @rwli.net] Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 9:27 AM To: Brown, Janet 10/11/2007 13� Cc: Bludau, Homer; Clauson, Robin; Wood, Sharon; Lepo, David; Badum, Steve; Kristin Higman; Whigman @rwli.net Subject: 418 Redlands Pictures /Staff Report Good morning Janet Could you please add these pictures to the Staff Report for me? I will be referring to them in my final written presentation to the Planning Commission. Also you need to add another item to the report if Mr. Garcia has not already done so. During the Modification meeting with the zoning administrator it was discovered while looking at the plans that there has been another oversight. If you look at the pictures you will see a front "eyebrow overhang" along the front of the house. This overhang is above the garage and held up by structural posts. What Mr. Garcia discovered is that this part of the existing structure is not included in the proposed plansl He told Mrs. Redwillow that this will need to be "removed" during construction. I am not including this in my final presentation because I just assumed that it would be added to the file on your end. Anyway... I just thought I needed to bring this to your attention incase it was just a verbal. Also for the record this low roof structure adds another few feet building structure protruding into the front set back. Thank you, Will Mr. Higman, There are no transcripts from the Modification Meeting hearings, but there is a recording. You can schedule an appointment a time to come in and listen to the tape and we'll have it set up and ready to go. Please let me know when you would like to come in. Janet 10/11/2007 1 3 I Brown, Janet From: Brown, Janet Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 2:36 PM To: 'Will Higman' Subject: RE: Planning commission date? I apologize - I looked at the wrong date on the calendar. Staff reports are delivered the Friday preceding the Planning Commission meetings. From: Will Higman [mailto:Whlgman @rwli.net] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 2:33 PM To: Brown, Janet Subject: RE: Planning commission date? Janet This was the last information you sent regarding the delivery date of the staff report. Has something changed? Please advise, Will From: Brown, Janet [ mailto:]Brown @city.newport- beach.ca.us] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:22 PM To: Will Higman Subject: RE: Planning commission date? The staff report will be delivered to the Planning Commissioners on the evening of October 5, and I will be preparing the staff report. I did check with the City Attorney's Office, and it is okay if you contact the Commissioners ahead of the staff report delivery date. However, they will not be very familiar with the case you will be discussing with them, so it might be helpful for them to wait until the reports are delivered. Have a good evening. Janet From: Will Higman [mailto:Whigman @rwli.net] Sent. Wednesday, September 26, 2007 2:12 PM To: Brown, Janet Subject: RE: Planning commission date? Thank youl I do have a couple more questions... If the final date stays the 18th when will the planning commissioners receive the staff report? Also who actually prepares the staff report? 10/11/2007 J 3 Y Thanks for your time. Will From: Brown, Janet [ mailto :JBrown @city.newport- beach.ca.us] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 2:07 PM To: Will Higman Subject: RE: Planning commission date? Mr. Higman, Yes, this item is still tentatively scheduled for Planning Commission hearing of October 18. Public notices will be mailed on October 5. I'll keep you posted if anything should change. I'm not sure why the project was removed from the case log and will look into it. Thank you. Janet Johnson Brown Assistant Planner City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3236 jbrown@city.newport-beach.ca.us From: Will Higman [mailto:Whigman @rwli.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 12:59 PM To: Will Higman; Brown, Janet Subject: RE: Planning commission date? Janet I also noticed that the project got removed from the Case Log and planning Activities (PA). Is this normal? Please advise, Will From: Will Higman Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 10:25 AM To: Brown, Janet Subject: Planning commission date? Hello Janet Could you please let me know if we are still tentatively scheduled for October 18th? Thank ,you, 10/11/2007 ) 39 Brown, Janet From: Will Higman [Whigman @rwli.net] Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 8:41 AM To: Brown, Janet Cc: Bludau, Homer, Clauson, Robin; Wood, Sharon; Lepo, David; Badum, Steve; Kristin Higman Subject: RE: 418 Redlands Ave Janet Thank you for the information, it's comforting to know that these recordings are available if needed in the future. I do not need to listen to them at this time because I remember exactly what was said. For now I have enough information regarding the Modification Meeting to get me through the Planning Commission hearing. I have started to contact the individual planning commissioners and most of them say that they are willing to come see me and the project after they receive the staff report. With that said I am starting to think that I need to submit my final batch of information along with the staff report. Can you please let me know what the best way is to get this done? Should I submit everything to you or to the planning commissioners directly? Thank you and please advise. Will From: Brown, Janet [mailto :]Brown @city.newport- beach.ca.us] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 4:33 PM To: Will Higman Cc: Bludau, Homer; Clauson, Robin; Wood, Sharon; Lepo, David; Badum, Steve; Kristin Higman Subject: RE: 418 Redlands Ave Mr. Higman, There are no transcripts from the Modification Meeting hearings, but there is a recording. You can schedule an appointment a time to come in and listen to the tape and we'll have it set up and ready to go. Please let me know when you would like to come in. Janet From: Will Higman [mailto:Whigman @rwli.net] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 3:00 PM To: Brown, Janet Cc: Bludau, Homer; Clauson, Robin; Wood, Sharon; Lepo, David; Badum, Steve; Kristin Higman Subject: RE: 418 Redlands Ave Janet 10/11/2007 146 Thanks for letting me know how things are interpreted, I can only hope that the City tree bends in both directions. Could you please let me know if there are transcripts available from the modification permit hearing? Basically I am wondering if this is available as public record. There were a few things said at this meeting by Mrs. Redwillow and her friends that I want to make sure I am clear about. I am going to be quoting them but I just want to make sure I am 100% correct. Please let me know at your earliest convenience. Thank you, Will From: Brown, Janet [mailto:JBrown @city.newport- beach.ca.us] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 2:27 PM To: Will Higman Cc: Bludau, Homer; Clauson, Robin; Wood, Sharon; Lepo, David; Badum, Steve; Kristin Higman Subject: RE: 418 Redlands Ave Good afternoon, Mr. Higman. You are correct that in Chapter 20.05 (Use Classifications) that Artists' Studios is described in the "Commercial Use Classification" section of this chapter. However, if an individual wished to designate a room in their home as an "art studio" or "crafts room" for area to work on their arts and/or crafts, there is nothing in the Code that would prohibit one from doing so. The Planning Commission hearing for this project is scheduled for Thursday, October 18, and the public notices are being mailed today. You should receive your notice within the next couple of days. The staff report will be delivered to the Planning Commissioners next Friday, October 12, and will also be posted on our website that same day. You can download a copy of the report from our website, or you can come in to City Hall and pick up a copy and /or we can mail you a copy if you wish. If you'd like a copy mailed to you, please let me know. Janet Johnson Brown Assistant Planner City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3236 jbrown @city. newport- beach. ca. us From: Will Higman [mailto:Whigman @rwli.net] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 8:04 PM To: Will Higman; Brown, Janet Cc: Bludau, Homer; Clauson, Robin; Wood, Sharon; Lepo, David; Badum, Steve; Kristin Higman Subject: RE: 418 Redlands Ave Hello All 10/11/2007 I ql I know it's the eve of the staff report unveiling but I thought I would shoot you guys a quick email with "one" of the new discoveries I have made. It falls under the title 20 zoning code 20.05 use classifications page 20.05 -5. It appears that Art Studios fall under "Commercial Use Classifications." I hope that the staff report will be backed by many facts from the City Handbook. Sincerely, Will Higman From: Will Higman Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 6:05 PM To: Will Higman; 'Brown, Janet' Cc: 'Bludau, Homer; 'Clauson, Robin'; 'Wood, Sharon'; 'Lepo, David'; 'Badum, Steve'; Kristin Higman Subject: RE: 418 Redlands Ave Thanks for working with me regarding the timing of the date for the planning commission hearing. I have been told that it's tentatively scheduled for the October 18th meeting and this will allow me plenty of time to prepare. I spoke to Janet on the phone briefly last week and I asked her to please update me when things get confirmed. I need to let everyone know that I have changed my tune in regards to perusing this matter past the City Council level. I truly believe that my household is going to be permanently damaged by the lack of light and airflow to my property with the extra 13'6" of windward and south facing darkness. Also the more I read over the City's own General Plan, Zoning Codes and Policies I find more and more evidence and contradictions against this project. There are at least 3 -4 separate major issues where the City could hang their hat to legitimately stop this project at anytime, if they so chose. I am in the Lumber business and I have many good connections within the Building Industry including a good friend who is in house council for a major home builder. When I bounce these findings off them they just shake their head in disbelief. It is these reactions of building professionals along with my own findings that now have me thinking differently. Also the thought that there are some politics in play that involves the prior owner has my competitive juices flowing. I think she has way bigger fish to fry and I would hate to see her slip on a banana peel! Sorry for the change in direction but I now can't fathom the thought of losing property value over something that is clearly wrong. Sincerely, Will Higman 10/11/2007 1 q,Z Page 1 of 1 Brown, Janet From: Will Higman [Whigman @rwli.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 11:54 AM To: Brown, Janet Subject: Planning Commission Appeal 418 Redlands Ave Janet Thanks for taking the time with me on the phone. I thought I would shoot you an email to remind you to please update me with any information that you can provide about the process. Please save this email and respond when you can. I have October 18th blocked out on my calendar at this point. Thanks again, Will Higman Reliable Wholesale Lumber, Inc. WHigman@rwli.net Phone (714) 848 -8222 Fax (714) 848 -91 10/11/2007 ) q' From: Will Higman Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 11:34 AM To: Will Higman; 'Brown, Janet' Cc: 'Bludau, Homer'; 'Clauson, Robin'; 'Wood, Sharon'; 'Lepo, David'; 'Badum, Steve'; Kristin Higman Subject: RE: 418 Redlands Ave Good morning I wanted to let everyone know that I filed an appeal to to Planning Commission this morning. As a favor to me could you please see if we can schedule the public hearing for the September 20th meeting date no sooner? I am going to be out of town between the dates of 9 -5 through 9 -7 and will not be able to attend a public hearing if it were to be scheduled for the September 6th meeting. Also with the up coming holiday I am speculating that it will be very difficult for me to schedule meetings with the individual commissioners on short notice. Thank you! Attached is my revised appeal document that I submitted with the $600.00 fee this morning. Please read through it because many new things have come to light since the first public hearing. Also with the addition of Evelyn Hart into the mix it will make for a very interesting debate if we go to the City Council. Have a great three day holiday! Sincerely, Will Higman From: Will Higman Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 6:13 PM To: 'Brown, Janet' Cc: 'Bludau, Homer; 'Clauson, Robin'; 'Wood, Sharon'; 'Lepo, David'; 'Badum, Steve'; Kristin Higman; Will Higman Subject: RE: 418 Redlands Ave To All You may or may not know but my neighborhood has been granted the modification permit. I will be appealing the decision to the Planning Commission and have researched that it is only going to cost me another $340.00 to appeal their decision to the City Council. If I felt in any way that I was just being selfish I would not be forging ahead. I will not be pursuing this issue past the City Council! You have my word on that and I am a man who lives by that rule. I have said it more than once that the intentions of my communications with all of you are in the hopes that this issue could get resolved "somehow" without me having to spend the energy. I just want to go back to watching my kids play club soccer! The problem is that I am the type of person that either has a conviction or I can just let things go and not think twice about it. However I really feel that this 10/11/2007 1 qV Brown, Janet From: Brown, Janet Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 5:34 PM To: Will Higman' Cc: Bludau, Homer, Clauson, Robin; Wood, Sharon; Lepo, David; Badum, Steve Subject: RE: 418 Redlands Ave I don't know if Mrs. Hart will be attending the public hearing or not. Perhaps you could check with Mrs. Redwillow. Have a nice evening. Janet From: will Higman [mailto:whigman @rwli.net] Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 4:58 PM To: Brown, Janet Cc: Bludau, Homer; Clauson, Robin; wood, Sharon; Lepo, David; Badum, Steve Subject: RE: 418 Redlands Ave Janet Thanks for the information, I guess we are going to have to debate what is considered "redevelopment" hopefully not in a public form! This is the City's opportunity to help our neighborhood conform to the wishes of the City Council Policy L -2 and I really hope it happens for us. Will Evelyn Hart be attending the public hearing? I know she is the prior owner and is assisting Mrs.Redwillow. Thanks again, Will Higman FrOrk,Brown, Janet [mai @o :]Brown @city.newport- beach.ca.us] Sent: August 16, 2007 4:21 PM To: will Higman Cc: Bludau, Homer; Clauso , in; wood, Sharon; Lepo, David; Badum, Steve Subject: RE: 418 Redlands Ave / Good afternoon, Mr. Higman Thank you for your e-mail. PIeas5eWle<me to provide you wi a information regarding the project at 418 Redlands ue. First a brief his According to the permit history we have on file, a "dwelling and ga below" constructed in 1946. In 1950, a permit was issued for a "20 X 20 ADN," which 10/11/2007 1 ti5 redevelopment project should have never got to first base and I am going to go down swinging. I am willing to take any recommendations from any of you at any time. I am a really good person that would love to work with you and have this whole thing go away, in my favor of course! This strategy of mine may hurt me but in order to feel good about everything I feel that I would like to communicate my thoughts and next direction. In the end I can see things getting ugly and that is what I want to avoid. I will be filing the first appeal early next week. For now I have attached my opposition letter to the modification permit. Also I have looked up the City's own definition of the word "Redevelop" and it goes as follows: City of Newport Beach Planning Department General Plan Adopted July 25, 2006 Chapter 14 - Glossary Redevelop —To demolish existing buildings; or to increase the overall floor area existing on a property; or both; irrespective of whether a change occurs in land use. I hope I can be guided in a different direction. Sincerely, Will Higman From: Brown, Janet [ mailto :JBrown @city.newport- beach.ca.us) Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 4:21 PM To: Will Higman Cc: Bludau, Homer; Clauson, Robin; Wood, Sharon; Lepo, David; Badum, Steve Subject: RE: 418 Redlands Ave Good afternoon, Mr. Higman. Thank you for your e-mail. Please allow me to provide you with some information regarding the project at 418 Redlands Avenue. First a brief history. According to the permit history we have on file, a "dwelling and garage below" were constructed in 1946. In 1950, a permit was issued for a "20 X 20 ADN," which closely matches the footprint of the rear building on the lot. There are no plans on file the construction for either of these projects. In 1979, a Modification Permit was approved by the Modifications Committee to "permit 2 -story alterations and additions to an existing single family dwelling nonconforming in a 13 -foot 6 -inch encroachment into the required 20 foot front yard setback." Subsequently, in 1981, permits were issued to allow the construction of "addition of master bedroom and playroom" to the front structure. There are plans on file that depict the existing configuration of the structures at 10/11/2007 14(P that time. As I mentioned in my August 7, 2007, e-mail to you, the property owner has submitted a Modification Permit requesting to allow additions to the existing nonconforming structure, per the provisions of Chapter 20.62 (Nonconforming Structures and Uses) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. I have attached a copy of that Chapter to this e-mail. The property owner is proposing to add new floor area that would attach the front structure to the rear structure. The approximate 1,350 square foot addition is equal to approximately 46% of the existing 2,899 square feet of floor area on site. Per Section 20.62.040 D (Nonconforming Structures - Additions), an increase of up to 50% of the existing gross floor area may be permitted upon the approval of a Modification Permit. I have also attached Chapter 20.93 of the Zoning Code (Modification Permits). Please refer to Section 20.93.030 for a list of the required findings that must be made in order for the Zoning Administrator to approve a Modification Permit. Also attached is a copy of Council Policy L -2, which is administered by the Public Works Department. Item C in the section entitled "Residential Zones and Residential Uses - Special Requirements" states that "Street curb openings shall not be permitted to residential property which abuts an alley." In the case of 418 Redlands Avenue, the driveway and street curb opening are existing. The property is not being redeveloped (demolished and reconstructed), but rather an addition is proposed to attach and join the existing buildings. The garage at the front is proposed to remain with minor alterations that would provide the minimum standard dimensions required for a 2 -car garage. The plans for the proposed project have been reviewed by the Public Works Department as well as the Building Department. No requirements to abandon the driveway and curb opening were issued by the Public Works Department for the scope of work proposed. If you wish to review the plans on file, you may do so between the hours of 7:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. Monday- Thursday, and 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. on Friday. Sincerely, Janet Johnson Brown Assistant Planner City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3236 jbrown@city.newport-beach.ca.us From: Will Higman [mailto:Whigman @ rwli.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 6:22 PM To: Brown, Janet Cc: Clauson, Robin; Bludau, Homer; khigman @rwli.net 10/11/2007 141 Subject: RE: 418 Redlands Ave Hello Janet I am starting to go through all my notes and I came across something very interesting that I will share with you in an attachment. I want you to know that I am not out to make the City look bad in anyway and again I promise to conduct myself very professionally at the public hearing. I think my arguments are going to be very strong and my wish is that this whole issue will not continue past this Modification Permit process. Like I have said from the beginning, "I can't believe I am back in the City"! This is not fun and exciting for me and I am a very busy person. The reason I am giving you a heads up is so I can soft pedal all of my findings but let them be heard loud and clear behind the scenes. As you can see from the November 8, 1999 City Council Agenda Item #20, the City spells out in it's own words.. "City Council Policy L -2 requires property owners that redevelop their property to provide vehicular access from the adjacent alley and remove any driveway accessfrQm-the adjacent street' I would definitely call the activity at 418 Redlands "redevelopment ". Because the property at 418 Redlands has the front facing driveway and curb cut my case should be a slam dunk? I would also bet that the City Council Policy L -2 states somewhere about having to comply with the current set back regulations which the property at 418 does not conform to. Again 418 Redlands is the only house in Newport Heights that is built 15' into the front set back. I hope you find this information useful I know I certainly will. Sincerely, Will Higman From: Brown, Janet [mailto :]Brown @city.newport- beach.ca.us] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 8:18 AM To: Will Higman Subject: RE: 418 Redlands Ave Good morning, Mr. Higman. At the public hearing, the Zoning Administrator will invite any interested person to speak regarding the subject matter described in the public notice and on the agenda. He will request that all comments and questions be directed to him (not the applicant) and he will answer questions regarding the matter at hand. Again, if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Janet Johnson Brown Assistant Planner City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3236 10/11/2007 1 j o ibrown@city.newport-beach.ca.us From: Will Higman [mailto:Whigman @rwli.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:08 AM To: Brown, Janet Subject: RE: 418 Redlands Ave Janet Thank you for the update I really appreciate it. During the public hearing will the neighbors within the 300 foot radius be able to voice their opinions and ask questions? I am not planning on going to all the neighbors in the area but I do know that a couple of us would like to be there... Please let me know what the rules of engagement are at the public hearing. I look forward to hearing back from you. Thank you, Will Higman From: Brown, Janet [mailto:JBrown @city.newport- beach.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 9:59 AM To: Will Higman Subject: RE: 418 Redlands Ave Good morning, Mr. Higman. The property owner, Joyce Redwillow, has submitted an application requesting a Modification Permit to allow for additions to an existing nonconforming structure, per the provisions of Chapter 20.62 (Nonconforming Structures and Uses) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. This chapter of the municipal code can be viewed on -line at the city's website: www.city.newport-beach.ca.us The public hearing is tentatively scheduled for August 20, 2007, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. The notice of public hearing will be mailed this week to property owners within a 300 foot radius of the subject property. If you wish to review the plans prior to the public hearing, you may do so by coming into the Planning Department located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Building C, second floor. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you. Janet Johnson Brown Assistant Planner City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3236 jbrown @city.newport- beach. ca.us From: Will Higman [mailto:Whigman @ rwli.net] 10/11/2007 10 1 Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 3:22 PM To: Brown, Janet Subject: RE: 418 Redlands Ave Mrs.. Brown I hope all is well with you.... Could you please shoot me an email or give me a call and update me on what is happening with 418 Redlands? The contractor was on the job today kicking dirt around and I would really appreciate being kept in the loop. Thank you and please let me know! Will Higman Wk 714- 848 -8222 ext.221 Hm 949 - 646 -7162 whigm n-Qrwli ,net wh 10/11/2007 1 �� Brown, Janet From: Brown, Janet Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 5:30 PM To: 'Will Higman' Cc: 'khigman @rwli.nef Subject: RE: 418 Redlands Ave (oversight problem) Mr. Higman, Please call me Tuesday morning so that I may explain the project to you (I left a message for you at your office at approximately 4:15, but have not heard back from you). Thank you. Janet Johnson Brown Assistant Planner City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3236 jbrown @city.newport- beach.ca. us From: Will Higman [maitto:Whigman @rwli.net] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 3:23 PM To: Brown, Janet Cc: khigman @rwli.net; Alford, Patrick; Campbell, James; Garcia, Jay; Lepo, David; Elbettar, Jay; Goodwin, Monika; Jurdi, Faisal; Uitermark, Jim; Bludau, Homer; Wood, Sharon; Kiff, Dave; Clauson, Robin; Harp, Aaron; Badum, Steve Subject: 418 Redlands Ave (oversight problem) City of Newport Beach Planning/ Building Attention: Janet Johnson Brown Regarding Permit# 2526 -2006 418 Redlands Ave My name is Will Higman and I live at 422 Redlands Ave. I am writing to you today because I was just informed of a building project that is getting ready to take place next door at 418 Redlands Ave. To get directly to the point quickly I wanted to let you know that there has been a potential oversight in the Planning/ Building department regarding this project. The problem is that the existing house at 418 Redlands does not conform to the "current" property set backs. The house at 418 was built many years ago and is the only house on our street that is built into the current set back regulations. The set back on our street is twenty feet (20) from the property line which is twelve feet (12) from the curb for a total of thirty two feet (32) from the curb. The house at 10/11/2007 ).51 418 is built approximately fifteen feet f 1 — eithin the- setback and it als has a Front Facing Curb Cut that_is_also_not allowed in the new building reeulations.for Newport Heights. I know all of this stuff because I built a brand new house in 2000 and had trouble with my plans being approved. At that time it was a big learning experience and the City actually ended up paying for my house to be redesigned! During this-process Lwas-told by the City that if my neighbor at 418 Redlands were to ever try to-pull_a. uildin permit for an edition or change-of-foot-print that they would be required to build the house back to the current set backs and possibly have to close off the front curb cut. I think there has been an oversight somewhere and wanted to bring it to your attention as soon as possible. Please respond to me as soon as possible so I can understand what is going on and so I do not feel like I have to take any further action. Thank you! Will Higman 422 Redlands Ave Newport Beach CA 92663 Wk 714- 848 -8222 ext.221 Hm 949 - 646 -7162 whigman@rwli.net 10/11/2007 15 a Brown, Janet From: Will Higman [VNhigman @rwli.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 6:22 PM To: Brown, Janet Cc: Clauson, Robin; Bludau, Homer, khigman @rwli.net Subject: RE: 418 Redlands Ave Attachments: 20070814175308. pdf Hello Janet I am starting to go through all my notes and I came across something very interesting that I will share with you in an attachment. I want you to know that I am not out to make the City look bad in anyway and again I promise to conduct myself very professionally at the public hearing. I think my arguments are going to be very strong and my wish is that this whole issue will not continue past this Modification Permit process. Like I have said from the beginning, "I can't believe I am back in the City"! This is not fun and exciting for me and I am a very busy person. The reason I am giving you a heads up is so I can soft pedal all of my findings but let them be heard loud and clear behind the scenes. As you can see from the November 8, 1999 City Council Agenda Item #20, the City spells out in it's own words.. "City Council Policy L -2 requires property owners that redevelop their property to provide vehicular access from the adjacent alley and remove any driveways -from the -adiacent street I would definitely call the activity at 418 Redlands "redevelopment ". Because the property at 418 Redlands has the front facing driveway and curb cut my case should be a slam dunk? I would also bet that the City Council Policy L -2 states somewhere about having to comply with the current set back regulations which the property at 418 does not conform to. Again 418 Redlands is the only house in Newport Heights that is built 15' into the front set back. I hope you find this information useful I know I certainly will. Sincerely, Will Higman From: Brown, Janet [ mailto: JBrown @city.newport- beach.ca.us] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 8:18 AM To: Will Higman Subject: RE: 418 Redlands Ave Good morning, Mr. Higman. At the public hearing, the Zoning Administrator will invite any interested person to speak regarding the subject matter described in the public notice and on the agenda. He will request 08/15/2007 ) 53 that all comments and questions be directed to him (not the applicant) and he will answer questions regarding the matter at hand. Again, if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Janet Johnson Brown Assistant Planner City of Newport Beach (949) 644 -3236 jbrown@ city. n ewport- beach. ca. us From: Will Higman [mailto:Whigman @rwli.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:08 AM To: Brown, Janet Subject: RE: 418 Redlands Ave Janet Thank you for the update I really appreciate it. During the public hearing will the neighbors within the 300 foot radius be able to voice their opinions and ask questions? I am not planning on going to all the neighbors in the area but I do know that a couple of us would like to be there... Please let me know what the rules of engagement are at the public hearing. I look forward to hearing back from you. Thank you, Will Higman From: Brown, Janet [malto:]Brown @city.newport- beach.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 9:59 AM To: Will Higman Subject: RE: 418 Redlands Ave Good morning, Mr. Higman. The property owner, Joyce Redwillow, has submitted an application requesting a Modification Permit to allow for additions to an existing nonconforming structure, per the provisions of Chapter 20.62 (Nonconforming Structures and Uses) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. This chapter of the municipal code can be viewed on -line at the city's website: www.ciiy.newport-beach.ca.us The public hearing is tentatively scheduled for August 20, 2007, at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. The notice of public hearing will be mailed this week to property owners within a 300 foot radius of the subject property. If you wish to review the plans prior to the public hearing, you may do so by coming into the Planning Department located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Building C, second floor. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you. 08/15/2007 M 5�� Janet Johnson Brown Assistant Planner City of !Newport Beach (949) 644 -3236 jbrown@cily.newport-beach.ca.us From: Will Higman [mailto:Whigman @nvli.net] Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 3:22 PM To: Brown, Janet Subject: RE: 418 Redlands Ave Mrs.. Brown I hope all is well with you.... Could you please shoot me an email or give me a call and update me on what is happening with 418 Redlands? The contractor was on the job today kicking dirt around and I would really appreciate being kept in the loop. Thank you and please let me know! Will Higman Wk 714- 848 -8222 ext.221 Hm 949 -646 -7162 whigman@n li.net wh 08/15/2007 155 Exhibit No. 13 )5(P RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT October, 12 2007 OCT 10 2007 To all distinguished planning commissioners. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH My name is Will Higman and I live at 422 Redlands ave Newport Beach, CA 92663. I am appealing the decision of the zoning administrator regarding the granting of a modification permit for 418 Redlands Ave. The reason that I am in opposition is because the property and proposed addition do not conform to the existing City of Newport Beach guidelines of Planning, Zoning, Public Works and the current Building codes. To be more technical my findings are as follows: 1. The property should be terminated of its Nonconforming Status per chapter 20.62.080 A -28x3 because it is being converted from multi unit rental property to a single family residence. Also an Art Studio is inconsistent with the regulations of the zoning code. 2. This redevelopment does not conform to two (2) out of three (3) required findings of the title 20 zoning code for modification permits chapter 20.93.030 B&C. 3. The redevelopment does not conform to City Council Policy L -2. On top of all this the buildings on the property appear to have been pieced together over the years by many remodels and my understanding is that many of the additions were done without building permits. I have had this confirmed to me by City officials and by one of the prior owners. I will address each one of these items separately. Page 1 i 5l First of all I will address some zoning and planning issues. The biggest concern I have here is that the structure is built 13'6" into the current City setback. The current building specifically affects me because it blocks the light and airflow to my front yard. Also Redlands is one of the only streets in the Heights that have an ocean view as you drive down the street. This beautiful picture is obscured by an unusual house sticking out 13' 6 ". Above and beyond the sun and airflow issues is the fact that the house is "not compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood ". (Page 20.93 -5 Modification Permits) If the modification and addition are approved my family and property will be burdened with an additional 13' 6" of building structure above and beyond any other adjacent property in the Newport Heights Area. Because the existing property is built out 13' 6" into the current setback and by connecting the front and back with the proposed addition, my family will be permanently blacked out by this additional footage. If this is allowed to happen my property and neighborhood will be permanently damaged. Allowing an extra 13' 6" in a City that usually disputes inches or maybe a foot or two seems outrageous! I have reviewed the plans that have been submitted to the City and the proposed additional square footage calculations are misleading. Because it is very unusual and unheard of in our neighborhood to build a two story "open ceiling art studio" I am asking for the square footage calculations to be figured as a normal two story single family home. The fact is that the proposed addition is two stories "in height" and therefore is affecting me the same as a normal two story home on the exterior. With that said we need to add an additional 441 square feet of "volume" to the calculations which put the total addition at 1664 square feet. Staying with my point this makes the total addition ratio at +58% and totally unacceptable and nonconforming. Also per the City title 20 zoning code 20.05 use classifications page 20.05 -5 Art Studio's are classified under "Commercial Use ". This is not expectable in an R -1 District. Page 2 j5� The other zoning issue I have is the fact that the property has been used for many years as a multi unit rental property. I am aware that the code allows for a granny unit however the person that has been living in the detached rear unit for the last seven years is young and is of no relation to the homeowner. Also the front unit is actually a two (2) unit structure making the property a three (3) unit in total. The front structure is not connected with an interior staircase and both front units are accessed by a separate front door entrance. During the period of 1999 through 2000 while Mrs. Redwillow was working on the East Coast all three (3) units were occupied by renters during this two year absence by the owner. (See definition of multi unit property) During the public hearing with the zoning administrator Mrs. Redwillow verbally acknowledges that the property is being used as detached multi unit rental property and has been for many years. This was also confirmed by Mrs. Evelyn Hart for the Public Record. Mrs. Hart attended the meeting and represented herself as the prior owner and said she was there for historical purposes. She did verbally confirm that the property has always been a rental property going back and including when she owned it. It appears on paper that Mrs. Redwillow is making an attempt to "redevelop" and convert the current buildings into a single family home however the new home must fit in with the neighborhood to preserve value for all of us. I am also concerned that the new rear addition will be bootlegged through the system and will continue to be offered as a rental unit. (See redevelop definition per city general plan) Because Mrs. Redwillow is attempting to "convert" the property to a "Single Unit Residential Detached" home, the property should be terminated of its nonconforming status. With that said, Title 20 now states that the property must be modified to conform to the regulations of the district. (Title 20 Zoning Code chapter 20.62.080 A- 2 &3) Page 3 59 In regards to Public Works the property as I mentioned has a front driveway approach with a curb cut. City Council Policy L -2 requires property owners that redevelop their property to remove any driveway access from the adjacent street and to close off the curb cut. (City Council Policy L -2 C page 3) Also because the property is built forward 13' 6" it does not allow the homeowner enough space to properly park a car up off the street and into the property. During the Modification hearing the Zoning Administrator reminded Mrs. Redwillow that it is actually illegal to park in her own driveway! The other problem is the fact that the driveway is "within the intersection" of Broad and Redlands in which there are no stop signs. I have witnessed many near misses over the years as Mrs. Redwillow backs out from her garage and into the intersection. Also the existing driveway that provides the only "pedestrian access" to the front two units does not conform to the maximum slope requirement of 8 %. (City Council Policy L -2 D page 3) I am not an engineer but the slope of the existing front driveway appears to be at about 15 % -20% slope. (See picture) I also believe that City Council Policy L -2 was adopted to help preserve and "upgrade" the neighborhood of Newport Heights when "an opportunity" such as this presents itself. With the combination of the protruding structure and the front facing driveway this property certainly does not conform to the spirit of the policy. Also I do not see how allowing another "afterthought addition" is going to add value and curb appeal to the neighborhood. Regarding building code issues there are many problems that exist. My main concern is the fact that for many years now the buildings on the property have not been properly maintained and seem to be deteriorating. All of the structures are termite infested and all of the wood windows are dry rotted. I have recently had my house fumigated and the exterminator told me that my bugs were coming from next door. (See pictures) Page 4 ��0 Another unusual aspect of this property is the fact that the only access to the main living areas for both the front and back upper units are by exterior wood stairs and decking. The large decking system is supported by skinny 4x4 posts that are connected with in adequate thin gauge hardware to the seemingly small footings? Also the decking is completely rotten. With all the decking and exterior staircase systems the current and proposed design is more similar to a tree house than a single family home. (See picture) On a personal note I find it very odd that the new proposed addition adds two (2) additional sets of stair cases for a total of five (5). Mrs. Redwillow is a very active person, but I do know that she has recently had knee replacement surgery and adding more stairs to climb doesn't make sense to me? Also it's very odd that the proposed addition adds another garage space for a grand total of five (5). What other existing property in the R -1 Newport Heights area has five (5) garages? On another side note I have to tell you about my troubles with the City that occurred in 1999 regarding the design of my new home which we completed in 2000. My original design and plans that included a front facing garage and driveway made it through Planning, Building, multiple plan checks and building permits. After my plans were approved I came down to the City and paid for my building permits. I then proceeded to the public works desk to pay for my curb cut permit and not until this moment was it discovered that building and planning should have directed me to Public Works during the predesign stages of my new house that included a new "front facing driveway ". Obviously I was in shock and disbelief when the City told me that I couldn't build my house. This didn't sit to well with me and I decided to dispute the issue. Looking back now the most interesting thing about the whole situation is the fact that one of my plan corrections during plan check was to "correct the slope of my new driveway." Page 5 (DI My negotiations with the City which included meetings with City Council members along with a special private meeting that included my Architect, the City Manager, City Attorney, along with the heads of Planning, Building and Public Works. During this exact meeting we used my neighbor's house at 418 Redlands as an example of why the City should allow us to have a front facing driveway. After all the reason I designed my house with the front facing garage was to be neighborly and to try to match the property at 418 Redlands all possible. During this private meeting the group came back to me with the fact that the house at 418 was built many years ago before new set back and design regulations. They went on to tell me that "if' the owner of 418 were to ever apply for a permit that changes any interior walls or exterior foot print that it would not be allowed! The City officials also told me that the only way that my neighbor could add on was if they changed the design of their house to conform to the new set back regulations. They did say however that they would have to grant permits for maintenance issues. After this meeting I personally feel there should have been a flag attached to the City records of 418, obviously this did not happen. In the end and just before I was to appear in front of the City Council it was decided that it was in the best interest of the neighborhood for me to redesign my home omitting the front facing design all together. At this time I worked out a settlement with the City and proceeded to redesign my house. "With all the information on the table" my architect and I focused on how best to redesign the new house. We decided that it was now best to key off of the existing split structure of 418 because it was on the south and windward side of my property. We now have a beautiful home designed with a south facing side entrance front door and a small but sunny side outdoor living space. We have been very happy with the new design even though it cost us an extra $160,000.00 to build. I do have to say however that now that the issue has come up again I am expecting the City to follow through with their promise from 1999 and prevent any further change in footprint to 418 Redlandsl Page 6 lea I have presented many findings that point out this redevelopment is not up to code and my past issue should really not have to come into play. I do however feel that I need my past issue to be a part of the public record incase further action is needed. Really what we have in my opinion is another mistake within the City departments. This is the exact same problem that I had in 1999. In fact there were internal workflow policy changes made because of my issue. (See Don Webb letter) I now would like to recommend that the City come up with a flagging system for non conforming and other "special properties" so that an oversight such as this will not happen again. If a system like this was in place the City would have been alerted at an earlier stage so that a big problem such as this can be avoided. Thank God Mrs. Redwillow has not started construction! The bottom line is, the City should enforce its own policies and codes to the full extend to preserve value for all of us neighbors. I have the support of the surrounding neighbors and these letters of opposition can be found on the public record. (See tract map) In closing I would like to say that we are in favor of letting the property exist in its current configuration as long as the owner maintains the property. We are however in total opposition of any addition that would change the footprint of any of the structures on the property. If any change in footprint is to take place we respectfully ask that the City require the property be updated to the current zoning and planning set backs along with full compliance of the City Council Policy L-2. We feel that this is in the best interest of all the homeowners in Newport Heights. Sincerely, Will Higman 422 Redlands Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 Page 7 163 Page 20.62 -1 Nonconforming Structures and Uses CHAPTER 20.62 NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND USES Sections: 20.62.010 Purpose 20.62.020 Applicability 20.62.030 Determination of Nonconformity 20.62.040 Nonconforming Structures 20.62.050 Nonconforming Uses 20.62.060 Nonconforming Parking 20.62.065 Landmark Buildings 20.62.070 Restoration of Damage or Destruction 20.62.080 Termination of Nonconforming Status 20.62.090 Abatement 20.62. 100 Rights of Appeal 20.62.010 Purpose This chapter establishes procedures for the continuance or abatement of existing structures and uses that do not conform to the provisions of the Zoning Code and the goals and polices of the General Plan, and which may be detrimental to the orderly development of the City and adverse to the general welfare of persons and property. This chapter is intended to limit the expansion of nonconforming structures and uses to the maximum extent feasible, to establish the criteria under which they may be continued or possibly expanded, and to bring these structures and uses into conformity in an equitable, reasonable and timely manner, without infringing upon the constitutional rights of property owners. 5C�°MG�rlCtG47FtOh fL0'-01ifs .20•-13.635 p4ge-f p4mgm ph B 20.62.020 Applicability Uses, buildings, structures or lots that become nonconforming due to reclassification, ordinance changes, or annexations may be continued subject to the provisions of this chapter. 20.62.030 Determination of Nonconformity The Planning Director shall determine the nonconformity of any use, building, structure, or lot. Any use, building, structure, or lot found to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Zoning Code shall be deemed to be nonconforming. 12/23/04 11 q Page 20.62 -11 Nonconforming Structures and Uses C. Aging and Deterioration. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to permit replacement of nonconforming conditions in structures undergoing renovation, remodel, or reconstruction, structures damaged by ongoing natural processes such as dry rot or termites or structure which have deteriorated due to age. D. Condominium Units. When a use permit is required for replacement or repair of any condominium units which are damaged or destroyed by fire earthquake, explosion, or other disaster, no reduction in the number of units shall be required. The replacement units shall be permitted to be equivalent in size and location to the units which were damaged or destroyed. 20.62.080 Termination of Nonconforming Status A. A nonconforming structure or use must be modified to conform to the regulations of the district in which such property is located when one or more of the following events occur: '= 1. Unless otherwise provided for in this chapter, a nonconforming use which remains inactive for 180 consecutive days, shall be deemed have to ceased, and shall not thereafter be reestablished, except as provided in Subsection B, below. Mul +i Unit 4on%r r +ft-1 +6 Sir>g/e MMi ly Res. 2. A nonconforming use is converted to a conforming use. 3. If a nonconforming use or structural nonconformity is enlarged, extended, expanded or in any other manner changed to increase its inconsistency with the regulations of the Zoning Code. "A r+ S +V41t .5reO tOt° GLC -L%l Aloe a -0-thl .9 4. Expiration of the period of time provided in the resolution establishing the conditions of abatement and the abatement period. rtnsroa �e5 Page 20.93 -1 Modification Permits CHAPTER 20.93 MODIFICATION PERMITS Sections: see f*Jea 2,1 +1 S1 T 20.93.010 Purpose 20.93.015 Authority 20.93.020 Application for a Modification Permit 20.93.025 Notice and Public Hearings 20.93.030 Required Findings 20.93.035 Duties of the Zoning Administrator 20.93.440 Conditions of Approval 20.93.045 Effective Date 20.93.050 Expiration, Time Extension, Violation, Discontinuance, and Revocation 20.93.055 Amendments and New Applications 20.93.060 Rights of Appeal and Review 20.93.010 Purpose This Chapter provides administrative relief through a Modification Permit for certain development proposals where there is a practical difficulty or physical hardship. This article achieves the purposes of this code by establishing procedures for approval, conditional approval and disapproval for a Modification Permit. Additionally, this Chapter establishes procedures for the administration of minor discretionary items where the authority is assigned to the Zoning Administrator by the individual chapters of the Municipal Code or by action of the Planning Commission or City Council. 20.93.015 Authority A. Modification Permits. The Zoning Administrator shall approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove applications for Modification Permits relating to the following code provisions, subject to the submitted application, platys, materials, and testimony and findings in Section 20.93.030: Required building setbacks in front, side or rear yards; 2. Heights of walls, hedges or fences; 3. Distances between buildings; 4. Area, number and height ofsigns not requiring an exception permit or limited by Planned Community District regulations; ivs3M l e�� Page 20.93 -2 Modification Permits 5. Roof signs and off -site signs in accordance with Chapter 20.67; 6. Structural appurtenances or projections which encroach into front, side or rear yards; 7. Location of accessory buildings on a site; the construction or installation of chimneys, vents, rooftop architectural features and solar equipment in excess of permitted height limits; 8. Size or location of parking spaces or access to parking spaces; 9. Swimming pool and swimming pool equipment encroachments; 10. Roof parking of automobiles in nonresidential districts; 11. Minor modifications and improvements to nonconforming buildings; B. Other Applications. The Zoning Administrator may approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the following applications, subject to the submitted application, plans, materials, and testimony and applicable findings in the referenced sections of the Municipal Code: I.ot line adjustments, in accordance with Chapter 19.76 of Title 19 (Subdivision Code); 2. Tcntative parcel maps, in accordance with Chapter 19.12 of Title 19 (Subdivision Code); 3. Condominium conversions involving four or less units, via approval of a tentative parcel map in accordance with Chapter 20.83 and Title 19 (Subdivision Code); and 4. Such items as may be subsequently set forth by the Planning Commission resolution, subject to a confirming resolution by the City Council. The Zoning Administrator shall also pass upon all requests to extend existing use permits which have been approved by the Planning Commission and exercised by the applicant. 20.93.020 Application for a Modification Permit A. Procedure. An application for a modification permit shall be filed and processcd in a manner consistent with the requirements contained in Chapter 20.90: Application Filing and Fees. ivzrroa 161 Page 20.93 -3 Modification Permits B. Required Plans and Materials. An application for a modification permit shall be accompanied by the following: Plot plans showing all property lines, structures, parking, driveways, other major improvements or facilities and landscaped areas. 2. Elevations of all proposed structures 3. Other plans such as fl(x)r plans as may be required by the Planning Director to assure a proper consideration of the application. 4. In the case of lot line adjustment, the materials described in Chapter 19.76 of Title 19 (Subdivision Code). 5. In the case of tentative parcel map, the map and olhermaterials described in Title 19 (Subdivision Code). 20.93.025 Notice and Public Hearing A. Tentative Parccl Maps. Notwithstanding otherprovisions of this Section, notice and hearing procedures for tentative parcel maps shall be as specified in Chapter 19.08 of Title 19 (Subdivision Code). B. Time of Hearing. Upon receipt of a complete application, a time and place for a public hearing shall be scheduled according to the provisions set forth in Chapter 20.90. C. Required Notice. Mailed or Delivered Notice. a. Residential Districts. At least 10 days prior to the hearing, notice shall be mailed to the applicant and all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries ofthe site, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll or, alternatively, from such other records as contain more recent addresses. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and provide to the City the names and addresses of owners as required by this section. b. Nonresidential Districts. At least 10 days prior to the hearing, notice shall be mailed to the applicant and all owncrs of properly within 300 feet, excluding intervening rights -of -way and waterways, of the boundaries ofthe site, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll or, alternatively, from such other records as contain more recent addresses. 12/23,'04 (p b. Page 20.93 -4 Modification Permits It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain and provide to the City the names and addresses of owners as required by this section. 2. Posted Notice. Notice shall be posted in not less than 2 conspicuous places on or close to the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing. D. Contents of Notice. The notice of public hearing shall contain: A description of the location of the project site and the purpose of the application; 2. A statement of the time, place, and purpose of the public hearing; 3. A reference to application materials on file for detailed information; 4. A statement that any interestcd person or authorized agent may appear and be heard. E. Continuance. Upon the date set for a public hearing before the Zoning Administrator, the Zoning Administrator may continue the hearing to another date without giving further notice thereof if the date of the continued hearing is announced in open meeting. 20.93.030 Required Findings The Zoning Administrator may approve or conditionally approve a modification permit if, on the basis of the application, plans, materials, and testimony submitted, the Zoning Administrator finds all of the following: A. The granting of the application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Codc results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the "Zoning Code. B. # The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. C.io The granting of such an application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. A +wo 6-f-ary o f�-n , noi- Cora pyf�b /e s dedelopmew, k5iden +i�q f Ce s b yig A r-t W 14A Me ex/.5-h/069 + t;l our Q -1 HeighborhoM 51'ngIP —i amily 1� Page 20.93 -5 Modification Permits 20.93.035 Duties of the Zoning Administrator A. Investisation. The Zoning Administrator shall investigate each application to assure that the proposal is consistent with the intent and purpose of this chapter, all applicable regulations and policies, and sound planning practices. The Zoning Administrator shall refer each application to the Building Department and Public Works Department, and to other city departments as needed. Each department shall make written recommendations to the Zoning Administrator. B. Rendering of Decision. After the conclusion of the hearing on any application for a modification permit, the Zoning Administrator shall render a decision within 15 days unless both the applicant and the Zoning Administrator consent to a later date. When addressing the finding in Section 20.93.030(A), the Zoning Administrator may consider the physical aspects of the property and/or improvements and their relationship to adjacent properties. In addressing the finding in Section 20.93.030 (B), the "Zoning Administrator may consider the sum ofqualities that distinguish the neighborhood from other areas within the City. However, the Zoning Administrator may onlyconsider such characteristics as they relate to direct impact of the proposed modification on the neighborhood's character and not development rights that would otherwise be enioved without the In addressing the finding in Section 20.93.030 (C), the Zoning Administrator may consider the potential adverse impacts on persons or property in the vicinity. These include, but are not limited to, modifications that would significantly interfere with rovision of adequate air and light on an adjacent ropea, adversely impact use of a public n t -o -way, impede access by public safety personnel, result in excessive noise, vibration, dust, odors, glare, or electromagnetic interference, interfere with safe vehicular sight distances, or result in a substantial invasion of privacy. C. Referral to Planning Commission. In the event the Zoning Administrator determines that an application should properly be heard by the Planning Commission, the Zoning Administrator may refer the matter to the Planning Commission for hearing and original determination on the merits. The procedure for notice and hearings held by the Planning Commission on such applications shall he in accordance with the same provisions as set forth in this chapter. D. Administrative Act. The granting of any modification permit, when conforming to the provisions of this code, is hereby declared to be an administrative function, the authority and responsibility for performing which is imposed upon the Zoning Administrator. The action thereon by the Zoning Administrator shall be construed as administrative acts performed for the purpose ofassuring that the intent and purpose of this code shall apply in special cases, as provided in this section, and shall not be 12/23/06 Page 20.93 -6 Modifiealion permits construed as amendments to the provisions of this code or the districting map of the City. E. Meetings. The Zoning Administrator shall hold at least one regular meeting each month and may hold special meetings as necessary. 20.93.040 Conditions of Approval The Zoning Administrator may impose such conditions in connection with the granting of a modification permit as they deem necessary to secure the purposes of this code and may require guarantees and evidence that such conditions are being or will be complied with. 20.93.045 Effective Date No permit or license shall be issued for any use or property modification until the decision shall have become final by reason of the expiration of time to make an appeal, which for purposes of modification permits shall be within 14 calendar days after the date of the Zoning Administrator's decision. In the event an appeal is filed, the modification permit shall not become effective unless and until a decision is made by the Planning Commission on such appeal, under the provisions of Chapter 20.95. No permit or license shall be issued for any use or property modification until the decision shall have become final by reason of the expiration of time to make an appeal. 20.93.050 Expiration, Time Extension, Violation, Discontinuance, and Revocation A. Expiration. Any modification permit granted in accordance with the terms of this code shall expire within 24 months from the effective date of approval or at an alternative time specified as a condition of approval unless: 1. A grading permit has been issued and grading has been substantially completed; or 2. A building permit has been issued and construction has commenced; or 3. A certificate of occupancy has been issued; or 4. The use is established; or 5. A time extension has been granted. In cases where a coastal permit is required, the time period shall not begin until the effective date of approval of the coastal permit. W23M4 Ot Page 20.93 -7 Modification Permits B. Tune EXtension. The Planning Director may grant a time extension for a modification permit for a period or periods not to exceed 3 years. An application for a time extension shall be made in writing to the Planning Director no less than 30 days or more than 90 days prior to the expiration date. C. Violatt_ 'on of term . Any modification permit granted in accordance with the terms of this code may be revoked if any of the conditions or terms of such modification permit are violated, or if any law or ordinance is violated in connection therewith. D. Discontinuance. A modification permit shall lapse if the exercise of rights granted by it is discontinued for 180 consecutive days. E. Revocation. Procedures for revocation shall be as prescribed by Chapter 20.96: Enforcement. 20.93.055 Amendments and New Applications A. Amendments. A request for changes in conditions of approval of a modification permit, or a change to plans that would affect a condition of approval shall be treated as a new application. The Planning Director may waive the requirement for a new application if the changes are minor, do not involve substantial alterations or addition to the plan or the conditions of approval, and are consistent with the intent of the original approval. B. New Applications. If an application for a modification permit is disapproved, no new application for the same, or substantially the same, modification permit shall be filed within one year of the dale of denial of the initial application unlessthe denial is made without prejudice. 20.93.060 Rights of Appeal A. Appeals. Decisions of the Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the Planning Commission and decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. B. Procedures. Procedures for appeals shall be as prescribed by Chapter 20.95: Appeals. 0�: November 8, 1999 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 20 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CURB CUT ADJACENT TO 422 REDLANDS AVENUE IN THE NEWPORT HEIGHTS AREA RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal for an Encroachment Permit to allow construction of a curb cut at 422 Redlands Avenue. DISCUSSION: Mr. Will Higman, the owner of 422 Redlands Avenue, is requesting approval of an Encroachment Permit for the construction of a curb cut along the Redlands Avenue frontage to provide parking for a new home (see attached letter dated October 15, 1999, Exhibit "A "). Also attached is a November 1, 1999, letter (Exhibit "A -1 ") explaining the reasons why Mr. Higman feels that City Council Policy L -2 should be waived to allow a curb cut at 422 Redlands Avenue. The rear of 422 Redlands Avenue abuts an alley, (see Exhibit "B "). City Council Policy L -2 states that "curb cuts shall not be permitted to residential property which abuts an alley". Any exceptions to this policy must be approved by the City Council (see Exhibit „C "). All redeveloped properties along Redlands Avenue have provided vehicular access from the adjacent alley. City Council Policy L -2 requires property owners that redevelop their property to provide vehicular access from the adjacent alley and remove any driveway access from the adjacent street. Of the 41 lots fronting on Redlands Avenue between Cliff Drive and 15th Street there are 8 properties that have vehicular access from the street and the dwellings appear to have been constructed in the 1940's, 50's or 60's. There are 3 additional unused curb cuts that have been blocked off and are no longer in use. The City will close these curb cuts this year. In the City's instructional memo concerning submittals and approvals required in the Building Permit process, Mr. Higman points out that the Building or Planning Department did not indicate that the Public Works DepartmenttTraffic Engineering approval was needed. i SUBJECT: Appeal Of The Denial Of An Encroachment Permit For The Construction Of A Curb Cut In Redlands Avenue Adjacent To 422 Redlands Avenue In The Newport Heights Area November8, 1999 Page: 2 His letter further states that he needs a curb cut. A curb cut requires work in the City's right -of -way. In the July plan check the applicant was directed to check with the Public Works Department concerning the curb cut. Also, under "NOTES (c,)" in the instructional memo (see attachment to Exhibit A), it clearly states that the applicant is responsible for submitting plans to the Public Works Department for approval and for obtaining an Encroachment Permit for work in the City's right -of -way. This was not done until after the Building Department plan check was completed Staff has reviewed its procedures and is implementing revisions that will insure early notification of the City's policy on curb cut restrictions where alley access is available. Respectfully Sub 'tied, Don Webb L Public Works Director By: ZZ Richard L. boffstadt, P.E. Development Engineer Attachments: Exhibit "A" Letter dated October 15, 1999 Exhibit "A -1" Letter dated November 1, 1999 Exhibit "B" Exhibit showing location of parcel Exhibit "C" Council Policy L -2 f:l users% pbvAsharedkcouncil 1fy99.001november- 8uediands.doc � 1 �I 42 DRPJRWAY ,msgppCl I� GENERAL see Q4g4W 3 A. A permit will be required prior to any driveway const:ruction within the street right -of -way. All construction shall conform with the Standard Plans and Specifications of the City of Newport Beach. Brick, textured concrete or flat stone surfacing may be used subject to Public Works Department approval. Such brick, textured concrete or flat stone surfacing may not be used on Bayside Drive. B. The number of driveway openings shall be kept to a minimum so as to preserve on-street parking and to reduce the points of traffic conflict. C. The term "Curb Opening° shall mean the total width of the approach including the slope distances on the curb. The term "Approach Bottom" shall mean the total width of the approach less the slope distances on the curbs. D. Curb openings shall not be constructed closer than 5 feet to the beginning of the curvature of a curb return, fire hydrant, traffic signal /pedestrian street light, utility Pole/anchor /Pedestal, trees or vent pipe, unless approved by the Public Works Department. E. The entire curb opening shall be within the prolongation of the property lines except when cross easements provide for a common driveway along the mutual Property line. F. No permit shall be issued for driveways on Clubhouse Drive, Glen Drive, Balboa Island or on the ocean side of Ocean Boulevard without City Council approval. No curb openings will be permitted on Ocean Boulevard when access is available from an existing alley, street or improved private roadway. G. No permit shall be issued if the driveway construction requires the removal of a street tree until such removal has been approved by the General Services Director. H. No permit shall be issued if the driveway encroaches on a crosswalk area I. No permit shall be issued if the driveway construction requires the re location of any public facility such as fire hydrants utility pole /anchor /pedestal, tree, vault, vent pipes, or street lights until approved by the Public Works Department and a L-2 deposit has been made to cover the cost of relocation Property owner shall pay all costs for the relocation of any public facilities. 7• No permit shall be issued unless the applicant agrees that at no cost to the City he will remove any driveway opening that is or will be abandoned, and reconstruct curb, gutter and sidewalk (if applicable) to City Standards. 1G Where practical, difficulties or hardships may result from the strict application of this policy, minor dimensional variances may be granted with written approval of the Public Works Director. L. Nothing herein shall be construed as preventing any person from appealing to the City Council for relief from the applications of this policy. K No building permit shall be issued on a parcel whose access requires City Council review for an encroachment permit on public property, until said encroachment permit has been issued. RE51DENTIAL ZONES AND RESIDENTIAL USES - SPECIAL REQUMEh& nS A. The width of the driveway approach bottom shall not exceed 20 feet except when the driveway is to serve an enclosed three or four car garage, In which caw the driveway approach bottom may be increased to 25 feet or 32 feet, respectively. B. One additional curb opening will be permitted to a single parcel subject to the following conditions: 1. The total width for all openings shall not exceed 50% of the total frontage of the parcel. 2 The openings shall be separated by at least 20 feet to retain maximum street parking. L•2 C Street curb openings shall not be permitted to residential property which abuts an alley. An exception may be made in the case of comer lots where the street on which the curb cut is proposed is not an arterial street and street frontage is available for the full depth of the lot, subject to the following conditions: 1. Access from the street will be permitted where existing structures prevent full alley access, or additional covered off- street parking is being provided. 2. The width of the curb opening shall be limited to one -half of the lot depth. 3- In the case of duplexes, condominiums and condominium conversions, an additional driveway curb cut shall be permitted if the units are separated by a continuous vertical plane, from the ground to the rooftop, with one common wall and /or physically separated by open space. The resultant building product shall have the appearance of two distinct and separate units with a rear unit that has vehicle access from the alley and the front unit with vehicle access from the side street. No overlapping of between the front unit and rear unit floorplans shall be permitted. D. Driveway grades must not exceed the listed applicable maximum slope depending on application. Driveways to lowered or subterranean parldng must rise above the flood level or a minimum of sic inches above the flow line of the street or alley, whichever is greater, before bmWtioning to a downward slope. Slope transitions shall be a minimum of five feet in length and the change of slope cannot exceed eleven percent. Driveways providing only Wking access - Fifteen- percent maximum slope. Must have access directly from garage into residence - D vti -m-nmviding vehicle pedestrian access - Eighi• percent maximum slope. . IsgittzAke Minor variations from the listed maximum slopes and slope changes may be granted by the Traffic Engineer when unusual site conditions are encountered. 3 i 1� Page 20.05 -1 Use Classifications CRAPTER 20.05 178E CLASSnWATii M S00 f)QW A,.,5 Sections: 20.05.010 Purpose and Applicability 20.05.020 Uses Not Classified 20.05.030 Residential Use Classifications 20.05.040 Public and semipublic Use Classifications 20.05.050 Commercial Use Classifications 20.05.060 Industrial Use Classifications 20.05.070 Agricultural and Extractive Use Classifications 20.05.080 Accessory Use Classifications 20.05.090 Temporary Use Classifications 20.05.010 Purpose and Applicability Use classifications describe one or more uses having similar characteristics, but do not list every use or activity that may appropriately be within the classification. The Planning Director shall determine whether a specific use shall be deemed to be within one or more use classifications or not within any classification in this code. The Planning Director may determine that a specific use shall not be deemed to be within a classification, whether or not named within the classification, if its characteristics are substantially incompatible with those typical of uses named within the classification. The Planning Director's decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission. 20.05.020 Uses Not Classified Any new use, or any use that cannot be clearly determined to be in an existing use classification, may be incorporated into zoning regulations by a Zoning Code text amendment, as provided in Chapter 20.94. 20.05.030 Residential Use Classifications A. Day Care. Limited. "Day Care, Limited" means non - residential, non - medical can and supervision of fourteen or fewer persons on a less than twenty -four hour basis. This classification includes, but is not limited to, nursery schools, preschools, and day care centers for children (large and small family day care homes) and adults. Large Family Child Care Homes. Day care facilities located in single- family residences where an occupant of the residence provides care and supervision 02M O7 1 -18 Page 20.05 -2 Use Classifications for nine to fourteen children. Children under the age of 10 years who reside in the home count as children served by the day care facility. 2. Small Family Child Care Homes. Day care facilities located in single - family residences where an occupant of the residence provides care and supervision for eight or fewer children. Children under the age of 10 years who reside in the home count as children served by the day care facility. B. gg= Residential. "Group Residential' means shared living quarters, occupied by more than one person, which lack separate kitchen and bathroom facilities for each room or unit, as well as shared living quarters occupied by two or more persons not living together as a Single Housekeeping Unit. This classification includes boarding houses, rooming houses, dormitories, fraternities, sororities, and private residential clubs, but excludes residential hotels (see Single -Room Occupancy (SRO) Residential Hotels, Section 20.05.050(EE)(4)). 1. Boarding or Rooming Houses. A residence or dwelling unit, or part thereof, wherein three or more rooms are rented under three or more separate written or oral rental agreements, leases or subleases orcombination thereof, whether or not the owner, agent or rental manager resides within the residence. C. MWfifti y Residential. Three or more dwelling units on a site. This classification includes mobile home and factory-built housing. D. Residential Care. Limited. "Residential Care, Limited" means shared living quarters (without separate kitchen and bathroom facilities for each room or unit) for six or fewer persons with physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more of such person's major life activities. This classification also includes, but is not limited to, group homes, sober living environments, recovery facilities, and establishments providing non - medical care for persons in need of personal services, supervision, protection, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living. E. S' e- Family Residential "Single- Family Residential" means a building or buildings containing one dwelling unit located on a single lot for occupancy by one family. This classification includes mobile homes and factory built housing. F. Two - Family Residential. "Two-Family Residential" means a building or buildings containing two dwelling units located on a single lot, each unit limited to occupancy by a single family. This classification includes mobile homes and factory built housing. OMB/Di I-11 Page 20.05 -5 Use Classificaatons 2&05:050 Commercial Use Cl ud&aftas A. Adult- Oriented Businesses. See Chapter 5.96 of the Municipal Code. B. Ambulance Services. Provision of emergency medical can or transportation, including incidental storage and maintenance of vehicles. C. Animal Sales and Service s. 1. Animal Boardine. Provision of shelter and care for animals on a commercial basis. This classification includes activities such as feeding, exercising, grooming, and incidental medical care. 2. Animal Grooming. Provision of bathing and trimming services for animals on a commercial basis. This classification includes boarding of domestic animals for a maximum period of 48 hours. Animal Hospitals. Establishments where animals receive medical and surgical treatment. This classification includes only facilities that are entirely enclosed, soundproofed, and air - conditioned. Grooming and temporary (30 days) boarding of animals is included if incidental to the hospital use. 4. Animals Retail Sales. Retail sales and boarding of animals, provided such activities take place within an entirely enclosed building. This classification includes grooming if incidental to the retail use, and boarding ofanimals not offered for sale for a maximum period of 48 hours. D. fists' Studidas. Work space for artists and artisans, including individuals practicing one of the fine arts or performing arts, or skilled in an applied art or craft. E. Banks and Savinss and Loans. Financial institutions that provide retail banking services to individuals and businesses. This classification includes only those institutions engaged in the on -site circulation of cash money. It also includes businesses offering check - cashing facilities. With Drive -Throw ive -Un Service. Institutions providing services accessible to persons who remain in their vehicles. 2. Freestandiniz ATM's. Automated teller machines located on properties separate from financial institutions. F. Building Materials and Services. Retailing, wholesaling, or rental of building supplies or equipment. This classification includes lumberyards, tool and equipment �y k Glossar Redevelop —To demolish existing buildingsstots1to increase the overall floor area existing on a prop! or both; irrespective of whether a change occurs in Tana use. Redevelopment—Redevelopment, under the California Community Redevelopment Law, is a process with the authority, scope, and financing mechanisms necessary to provide stimulus to reverse current negative business trends, remedy blight, provide job development incentives, and create a new image for a community. It provides for the planning, development, redesign, clearance, reconstruction, or rehabilitation, or any combination of these, and the provision of public and private improvements as may be appropriate or necessary in the interest of the general welfare. In a more general sense, redevelopment is a process in which existing development and use of land is replaced with new development and /or use. Reflection— Redirection of a wave when it impinges on a steep beach, cliff or other barrier, Regional -- Pertaining to activities or economies at a scale greater than that of a single jurisdiction, and affecting a broad homogeneous area. Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) —The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is based on California projections of population growth and housing unit demand and assigns a share of the region's future housing need to each jurisdiction within the SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments) region. These housing need numbers serve as the basis for the update of the Housing Element in each California city and county. Regional Housing Needs Plan —A quantification by a COG or by HCD of existing and projected housing need, by household income group, for all localities within a region. Regional Park —A park typically 150 -500 acres in size focusing on activities and natural features not included in most other types of parks and often based on a specific scenic or recreational opportunity. Rehabilitation —The upgrading of a building previously in a dilapidated or substandard condition, for human habitation or use. Research and Development Use—A use engaged in study, testing, design, analysis, and experimental development of products, processes, or services. Residential —Land designated in the City or County General Plan and zoning ordinance for buildings consisting only of dwelling units. May be improved, vacant, or unimproved. (See "Dwelling Unit.') Restoration —The replication or reconstruction of a building's original architectural features, usually describing the technique of preserving historic buildings. Retaining Wall—A wall used to support or retain an earth embankment or area of fill. Revetment —A sloped retaining wail; a facing of stone, concrete, blocks, rip -rap, etc. built to protect an embankment, bluff, or development against erosion by wave action and currents. Rezoning An amendment to the map and /or text of a zoning ordinance to effect a change in the nature, density, or intensity of uses allowed in a zoning district and /or on a designated parcel or land area. Newport beach General Plan® I 12 �� �yd3 3) 9 N -t 07 t4eigl%bars L I�:30:g :x �� 0m oboe �o°5' .0 o G aq o o co �'•'Ct w, p Co 0 '. 00 wCD � k i. i b O a`s 07 t4eigl%bars L I�:30:g :x �� 0m oboe �o°5' .0 o G aq o o co �'•'Ct w, p Co 0 '. 00 wCD � k i. i i 9 �T • ^t ° A n v fhb ��� .�T nGi•Y.Q nd d T' l Nase /I ' z e i "wt �\ `• � ' 1 � ' � 1 ' � il�� �� itt ti : ' y� � �� . � �� '� .. _ o - < - � t.-. _ � e -_ .. J i ; t y F � �gy � � a. � )' 0 1 ,/- s �' '0 � °A "h �''�: ` ... Q i a _..�— i y "' o '..�y .^�,I �. j,o � • '�. -� a+. ... ,e�p.q . $� �p ht { "N � ��� � e ': ' u�� • i - -� �_ _.- 01 I 'I n f 1 1 vT' e i r i 4 e y f / � n Mr. Chairman and distinguished planning commissioners.\� 5m AM, My name is Will Higman 422 Redlands Ave. I am appealing the decision of the zoning administrator to approve a modification permit for 418 Redlands Ave. The reason I am appealing this decision is because the existing structure is built 13'6" "and more" into the current city setbacks. I am aware that this property is classified as "existing nonconforming" however the city code places special conditions on these types of property if redevelopment is to occur. Two of these special conditions state that the project must be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood and that the redevelopment will not be injurious to adjacent property. Both of these conditions are disputed by me. Because the proposed addition connects the front and rear structures at a two story height, my property will be permantly damaged by the lack of light and airflow. (Demonstrate the building mass light /airflow, No other homeowner) Over the years this property has been pieced together with many remodels. Because of its nonconforming status it was very difficult and cumbersome to obtain building permits and my understanding is that some of the improvements were done without permits. The bottom line is that there are many inconsistencies with the history of this property. With that said, I believe any redevelopment should have to adhere to chapter 20.(point)62 of the city zoning code. This chapter is intended to limit the expansion of nonconforming structures and is supposed to use "the maximum extent feasible." On top of the permit inconsistencies, the property also has a long history of code violations mainly because it has been used as a multi unit rental property and this is not allowed in an R -1 District. Also Art Studios are classified as a "commercial use" in the zoning code. Allowing this structure would surely expand the nonconformity of the property. Moving on to another area of concern, I believe if a redevelopment is to take place the new development should have to comply with City Council Policy L -2 by removing driveway access from the adjacent street. There have been many remodels that have taken place in our neighborhood where these conditions applied and were enforced. Before I close I would like to say that the back up resolution that the City staff has proposed does not work for me at all. It only delays and makes the project more expensive to build. However in the end it does not solve the light and airflow issues as it relates to my property or limit the expansion of nonconformity. Also I would like to make an internal work flow recommendation going forward. My recommendation would be that when a modification permit is required for an addition oi( redevelopment of this type$9f property, the homeowner should be required to get the MOD permit before building permits can be issued. This will help eliminate oversights and mistakes before plans get to far down the line thus saving time and money for both the City and property owner. This has been quite a process and I respectfully ask for you to vote in favor of the staff recommendation. Thank you for your time. Page 1 of 1 Olson, Gaylene From: Will Higman [Whigman @rwil.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 5:53 PM To: jeff.cole @cushwake.com; eaton727 @earthlink.net; rhawkins @earthlink.net; bhillgren @cox.net; scott.peotter @taxfighter.com; Michael Lee Toerge Cc: Lepo, David; Harp, Aaron; Olson, Gaylene; Alford, Patrick; Olson, Gaylene Subject: Redwillow Response Letter To All I have reviewed Mrs. Redwillow's response letter and I do feel it's necessary for me to make a couple comments and there is no need to reply. First of all there was no "formal agreement" with the city in regards to future development at 418 Redlands Ave. I had corrected this verbiage in my final response letter dated 10 -12 -07 which now states that a "promise" was made... Looking back, what took place at the meeting was an explanation by staff on how and why the property was allowed to exist within the current set back, along with having a garage in the front. My understanding from all the information offered at that time was that the property was nonconforming and was allowed to exist because of this status. I do remember the group trying to make me "feel better" about my problem. I remember someone saying that the property would have to be upgraded to the current City setbacks if any addition were to take place in the future. This was just my understanding and there was never any kind of "agreement." We did however redesign our house based on all the information given to me and my Architect at that time. Secondly the other point I would like to respond to is the fact that my Wife and I have no problem with any home being built next door to us as long as it complies with the current City setbacks and codes for an R -1 District. Thank you, Will Higman 10/18/2007 Petition to the Newport Beach Planning Commission 1132 Ebbtide Zoning Modification October 18th 6:30PM, City Hall Dear Commissioners; The undersigned represent neighbors of the Fruchbom's concerning the appeal of The Zoning Administrator's decision of August 206' with respect to this property. We respectfully request that you uphold The Zoning Administrator's decision in all respects. We see no reason why The Commission would force our neighbor to re do their Crown Drive gates, fencing and hedges at a potential cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars when all these amenities have been at this site for at least 23 years, and before the Fruchbom's purchased the property. The only material change in all these years was the increase in height of their driveway gate for safety reasons. Not only do these amenities harm no one, they beautify our neighborhood, especially their gates which are expensive works of art. 2. 3. 4. SIGNATURE t -� _ 0L 4 " PRINT LAST NAME C L A Q K Gd, }SHL -72- 1/f%ash�r I' M i ADDRESS 27ot F'667�4 2S C+, _z:Z , . yllkl Rd. L4 -" Reis I^116ArA6WM c40A? 44flol-', % C i -h q It ► s Petition to the Newport Beach Planning Commission 1132 Ebbtide Zoning Modification October 18th 6:30PM, City Hall Dear Commissioners; The undersigned represent neighbors of the Fruchbom's concerning the appeal of The Zoning Administrator's decision of August 20`h with respect to this property. We respectfully request that you uphold The Zoning Administrator's decision in all respects. We see no reason why The Commission would force our neighbor to re do their Crown Drive gates, fencing and hedges at a potential cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars when all these amenities have been at this site for at least 23 years, and before the Fruchbom's purchased the property. The only material change in all these years was the increase in height of their driveway gate for safety reasons. Not only do these amenities harm no one, they beautify our neighborhood, especially their gates which are expensive works of art. 10. 12. PRINT LAST NAME so5AAJ stf�yoc� 0i_sEA/ �m cp- 6. FRflcA Lost' ADDRESS ton �a(� /S/% �cnNrE(k�NE� CdAj A 2- Ceti( so9 fir zo ,cDw U629 Z,5RP6ARA 5' 7 ArIA4ha COH9,i� %01P 1, do a chwa4 av -, a.1 OQbU- 2 o& At. 6-T 22�CQZ �a d Cores R/a✓�oi1 &-Io -j 9266 22. 23. 24. cur Ll M 25 26F�1�21( 27..T( UP 2s. /il 29. Al 30. i �rVA _�tt��Oil !242 PLEA 4L6� W +kx A). cx e- s �� L.Q mar %1Z VLi�c�<ez Std FALzv4e t*i= cnttf sU/4 c A,(+y'2- Ck) i 32. S'Ij rCPI i4vf�� L 34 S' 5�t 1 vlo O-Acc. C 02aAA(,E-A --u4G � 25 I Petition to the Newport Beach Planning Commission 1132 Ebbtide Zoning Modification October 18`h 6:30PM, City Hall Dear Commissioners; The undersigned represent neighbors of the Fruchbom's concerning the appeal of The Zoning Administrator's decision of August 20`h with respect to this property. We respectfully request that you uphold The Zoning Administrator's decision in all respects. We see no reason why The Commission would force our neighbor to re do their Crown Drive gates, fencing and hedges at a potential cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars when all these amenities have been at this site for at least 23 years, and before the Fruchbom's purchased the property. The only material change in all these years was the increase in height of their driveway gate for safety reasons. Not only do these amenities harm no one, they beautify our neighborhood, especially their gates which are expensive works of art. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 12. PRINT LAST NAME ADDRESS w4,5