The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.0 - Miller Residence Grade Establishment Appeal - PA2015-120 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT October 8. 2015 Meeting Agenda Item No. 2 SUBJECT: Miller Residence Grade Establishment Appeal - (PA2015-120) 1608 West Ocean Front Appeal to Planning Commission APPLICANT/OWNER: Jeff and Holly Miller PLANNER: Makana Nova, Associate Planner (949) 644-3249, mnova@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY An appeal of the Community Development Director's August 6, 2015, Determination No. 2015-04 (PA2015-120), establishing grade for purposes of determining height in accordance with Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 20.30.050 (Grade Establishment) for the construction of a new single-family residence. The appellant artificially filled in the front yard and is seeking to use the raised elevation points for purposes of determining height. The appellant seeks to construct a new single-family residence utilizing an average grade of 12.31 feet (NAVD 88 datum) rather than 11.27 feet (NAVD 88 datum) as established by the Community Development Director. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a de novo public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. _ denying the applicant's Appeal to Planning Commission and upholding the Community Development Director's establishment of grade (Attachment No. PC 1). BACKGROUND September 17, 2015, Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission voted to continue the project to October 8, 2015, at the request of the applicant. Refer to the September 17, 2015, staff report packet for the complete analysis and recommendation. Meeting with the Appellant City staff, including the Community Development Director, met with the project appellant on September 21, 2015, to explore options for meeting the height requirements as well as the project objectives. The appellant presented alternative methods for determining 1 Miller Residence Grade Determination Appeal Planning Commission, August 20, 2015 Page 2 the grade. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Community Development Director stated that the original grade determination would stand because the alternatives proposed by the appellant did not satisfy the municipal code requirements. The discussions also revealed design changes which would reduce the height but not enough to meet the standards. To date, revised project plans have not been received. Public Notice This item was continued to a date certain in the Planning Commission minutes from September 17, 2015. Notice for the September 17, 2015, 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: .L/ Maka& Nyva *na i, ICP, Deputy Director Associate Planner GR/mkn ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution for Denial of Appeal PC 2 Draft Resolution for Approval of Appeal PC 3 Planning Commission Staff Report from September 17, 2015 PC 4 Correspondence Received Following Distribution of the September 17, 2015, Planning Commission Packet 2 Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution for Denial of Appeal 3 V� QP �P RESOLUTION NO. #### A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL TO UTILIZE A HIGHER AVERAGE GRADE AND UPHOLDING THE AVERAGE GRADE ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING HEIGHT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1608 WEST OCEAN FRONT (PA2015-120) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. On August 11, 2015, an appeal of the Community Development Director's August 6, 2015, establishment of grade was filed by Jeff and Holly Miller (collectively, "Appellant"), with respect to property located at 1608 West Ocean Front, and legally described as Lot 4, Block 16, Section B, of Newport Beach, in conjunction with an approval in concept (AIC) application for the construction of a new single-family residence. 2. The Appellant has filed an appeal of the Community Development Director's establishment of grade for purposes of determining height in accordance with Section 20.30.050 (Grade Establishment) of the Zoning Code for the construction of a new single-family residence. Under the appeal, the Appellant seeks to use a higher average grade than the grade elevations determined by the Community Development Director. The Appellant artificially filled in the front yard and is seeking to use the raised elevation points for purposes of determining height. The Appellant seeks to construct a new single-family residence utilizing an average grade of 12.31 feet (NAVD88 datum) rather than 11.27 feet (NAVD88 datum) as established by the Community Development Director. 3. The Property is located within the R-2 (Two-Unit Residential) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is RT (Two-Unit Residential). 4. The Property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is RT-D (Two Unit Residential). 5. A public hearing was scheduled on September 17, 2015, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Planning Commission voted to continue this item to October 8, 2015, at the request of the Appellant. 6. A public hearing was held on October 8, 2015, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. This hearing was continued to a date certain from the September 17, 2015, Planning Commission meeting. 15 Planning Commission Resolution No. eft Page 2 of 3 SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. In this appeal, the Planning Commission finds: 1. The Appellant's suggestion to utilize elevations following the artificial fill of the site is contrary to the definition of, "established grade," as identified in NBMC Section 20.70 (Definitions). The Planning Commission does not consider the topographic conditions resulting from the artificial fill of the Property to be a unique circumstance requiring approval for a higher average grade for purposes of determining height. The Planning Commission, in this case, determined that the average grade proposed by the Community Development Director is consistent with the legislative intent of NBMC Title 20. 2. The grades on adjacent properties are most representative of the existing grade elevations prior to disturbance and alteration on-site. Granting of the higher average grade provides special privileges to the Property that are not granted to similar residential properties in the vicinity. 3. The higher average grade for purposes of determining height as proposed by the Appellant is neither required by code nor necessary for the enjoyment of the Property. As shown through previously approved building permits, the Property can be designed to comply with the requirements of the NBMC and be used for the construction of a new single-family or two-unit residence. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies the appeal and upholds Director's Determination No. 2015-04 (PA2015-120) by the Community Development Director made on August 6, 2015. The Appellant shall utilize the average grade elevation of 11.27 feet (NAVD88 datum) for purposes of determining height at 1608 West Ocean Front. 2. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution is adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of NBMC Title 20 Planning and Zoning. 03-03-2015 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 3 of 3 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Kory Kramer, Chair BY: Peter Koetting, Secretary 03-03-2015 V� QP �P g Attachment No. PC 2 Draft Resolution for Approval of Appeal 9 V� QP �P 20 RESOLUTION NO. #### A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GRANTING THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL TO UTILIZE HIGHER GRADE ELEVATIONS FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING HEIGHT AND OVERTURNING THE AVERAGE GRADE ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1608 WEST OCEAN FRONT (PA2015-120) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. On August 11, 2015, an appeal of the Community Development Director's August 6, 2015, establishment of grade was filed by Jeff and Holly Miller (collectively, "Appellant"), with respect to property located at 1608 West Ocean Front, and legally described as Lot 4, Block 16, Section B, of Newport Beach (Property), in conjunction with an approval in concept (AIC) application for the construction of a new single-family residence. 2. The Appellant has filed an appeal of the Community Development Director's establishment of grade for purposes of determining height in accordance with Section 20.30.050 (Grade Establishment) of the Zoning Code for the construction of a new single-family residence. Under the appeal, the Appellant seeks to use a higher average grade than the grade elevations determined by the Community Development Director. The Appellant artificially filled in the Property's front yard and is seeking to use the raised elevation points for purposes of determining height. The Appellant seeks to construct a new single-family residence utilizing an average grade of 12.31 feet (NAVD88 datum) rather than 11.27 feet (NAVD88 datum) as established by the Community Development Director. 3. The Property is located within the R-2 (Two-Unit Residential) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is RT (Two-Unit Residential). 4. The Property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is RT-D (Two Unit Residential). 5. A public hearing was scheduled on September 17, 2015, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The Planning Commission voted to continue this item to October 8, 2015, at the request of the appellant. 6. A public hearing was held on October 8, 2015, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. This hearing was continued to a date certain from the September 17, 2015, Planning Commission meeting. 11 Planning Commission Resolution No. ;fit# Page 2 of 5 SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (Section 15315, Article 19 of Chapter 3, Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act) under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). 2. The Class 3 exemption includes the construction of one single-family residence. The subject appeal involves the potential for the future redevelopment of a single-family residence on an individual property. The existing structure may be partially or fully demolished. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for an exemption under Class 3. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. In accordance with Section 20.30.050 (Grade Establishment) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: 1. The grade elevations requested by the Appellant are consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the NBMC. 2. The resulting design and size of the proposed residence is compatible with the allowed residential development in the vicinity. 3. The existing artificial fill at the front yard of the Property is a unique circumstance, resulting in the necessity to utilize higher grade elevations for purposes of determining height. Granting of the Appellant's request does not provide special privileges to the Property as provided by the Zoning Code in similar circumstances for residential development. 4. The Property cannot be designed with a useable single-family residence that complies with the grade elevations as identified by the Community Development Director. The proposed residence as designed would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves the Appellant's appeal and overturns the Community Development Director's Determination No. 2015-04 made on August 6, 2015, to establish grade for purposes of determining height (PA2015- 120), subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. The Appellant shall utilize the average grade elevation of 12.31 feet (NAVD88 datum) for purposes of determining height at 1608 West Ocean Front. 03-03-2015 12 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 3 of 5 2. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 8T" DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Kory Kramer, Chair BY: Peter Koetting, Secretary 03-03-2015 13 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 4of5 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLANNING 1 . The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 2. The Appellant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Use Permit. 3. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit "A" shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans prior to issuance of the building permits. 4. The Appellant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Building Division and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. Approval from the Orange County Health Department is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. Prior to issuance of building permits, approval from the California Coastal Commission shall be required. 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Appellant shall obtain an encroachment permit and an encroachment agreement from the Public Works Department. All encroachments shall comply with Council Policy L-6, L-8, and L-12 for the existing block wall within the West Ocean Front right-of-way. If the wall location is not permitted by the California Coastal Commission, the block wall shall be relocated to private property. 7. The proposed driveway profile shall comply with City Standard STD-160-L-C. Parking shall be prohibited on slopes greater than 5 percent. The maximum driveway slope is 15 percent. The maximum grade change is 11 percent with a minimum interval of 5 feet. 8. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current property owner or the real estate agent. 9. This approval shall expire and become void unless exercised within 24 months from the actual date of review authority approval, except where an extension of time is approved in compliance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 03-03-2015 Planning Commission Resolution No. fit# Page 5 of 5 10. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Appellant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the Miller Residence Grade Establishment Appeal (PA2015-120). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by Appellant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The Appellant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The Appellant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 03-03-2015 1.5 V� QP �P 2� Attachment No. PC 3 Planning Commission Staff Report from September 17, 2015 17 V� QP �P sg CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 17, 2015 Meeting Agenda Item No. 2 SUBJECT: Miller Residence Grade Establishment Appeal — Director's Determination No. 2015-04 (PA2015-120) 1608 West Ocean Front Appeal to Planning Commission APPELLANT/OWNER: Jeff and Holly Miller PLANNER: Makana Nova, Associate Planner (949) 644-3249, mnova@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY An appeal of the Community Development Director's August 6, 2015 Determination No. 2015-04 (PA2015-120), establishing grade for purposes of determining height in accordance with Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 20.30.050 (Grade Establishment) for the construction of a new single-family residence. The appellant artificially filled in the front yard and is seeking to use the raised elevation points for purposes of determining height. The appellant seeks to construct a new single-family residence utilizing an average grade of 12.31 feet (NAVD 88 datum) rather than 11.27 feet (NAVD 88 datum) as established by the Community Development Director. RECOMMENDATION 1 ) Conduct a de novo public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. _ denying the appellant's Appeal to Planning Commission and upholding the Community Development Director's establishment of grade (Attachment No. PC 1). Appeal Process On June 19, 2015, Jeff and Holly Miller, property owners of 1608 West Ocean Front, filed an appeal (Attachment No. PC 3) in response to a staff letter sent on April 1, 2015, regarding the grade of the property. However, at the time of the appellant's filing the Community Development Director had not formally issued her determination; thus, the appeal was premature. On August 6, 2015, the Community Development Director, acting under the authority of NBMC Section 20.50.050, issued a formal determination letter denying the appellant's requested average grade height of 12.31 feet (NAVD 88 datum) and instead set the height at 11.27 feet (NAVD 88 datum) (Attachment No. PC 4). 1j Miller Residence Grade Determination Appeal Planning Commission, September 17, 2015 Page 2 On August 11, 2015, the appellant filed this appeal of the Community Development Director's Determination (Attachment No. PC 3) in accordance with the procedures set forth in NBMC Chapter 20.64 (Appeals). Staff notes that the Planning Commission is not bound by the Community Development Director's decision and is not limited to the issues raised in the appeal. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 20.64.030 (Filing and Processing of Appeals and Calls for Review), 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 Planning Commission acting as the appellate body in this matter is not bound by the decision being appealed or limited to the issues raised on appeal. Prior Planning Commission Meetings The original appeal that was filed prematurely by Mr. & Mrs. Miller was scheduled for August 6, 2015, and continued to August 20, 2015, and on September 3, 2015 the appeal was tabled indefinitely to allow the item to be re-noticed for this meeting. This action allowed the item to be re-noticed after the Director's Determination was prepared and the appeal was filed, thus following the logical progression of the appeals process. A public hearing was not held at these meetings and all of the relevant information and analysis has been incorporated into this staff report. INTRODUCTION The subject property is located on the Balboa Peninsula along West Ocean Front between 16th and 17th Streets. The neighborhood is characterized by single-family and two-unit residential structures. The two adjacent properties are currently developed with duplexes. The property faces the beach along West Ocean Front with alley access to the rear. Photos of the sites are provided as Attachment No. PC 5. The property is designated RT (Two-Unit Residential) by the General Plan Land Use Element and the lot is within the R-2 (Two-Unit Residential) Zoning District, allowing for a maximum of two residential units located on a single legal lot. The property is designated RT-D (Two-Unit Residential) by the Local Coastal Program, Coastal Land Use Plan and development of a single-family or two-unit residence in this location requires a Coastal Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission. 20 Miller Residence Grade Determination Appeal Planning Commission, September 17, 2015 Page 3 VICINITY MAP ;84 r �A ®a( Subject Property '. Ila I^ (9c) u a Q . 1616 160a Air 16 6 - +' 1604 GENERAL PLAN ZONING • e fj N,q Ny NN •4 .W u• LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON-SITE RT(Two-Unit Residential) R-2 (Two Unit Single-Family Residence Residential NORTH RT(Two-Unit Residential) R-2 (Two Unit Single and Two-Unit Residences Residential SOUTH PR (Parks and PR (Parks and Newport Beach and the Pacific Recreation Recreation) Ocean EAST RT(Two-Unit Residential) R-2 (Two Unit Single and Two-Unit Residences Residential WEST RT(Two-Unit Residential) R-2 (Two Unit Single and Two-Unit Residences Residential 21 Miller Residence Grade Determination Appeal Planning Commission, September 17, 2015 Page 4 Background The property is currently developed with a single-family residence that was built in 1939. On September 25, 2014, the Code Enforcement Division received a complaint regarding dirt dumped in the alley behind the property. The responding Code Enforcement Officer visited the site the following day and found that the contractor was landscaping the front yard area. The Officer advised the contractor to clean up the dirt from the street. The Public Works Department then inspected the alleyway and determined that there was no damage to the concrete within the alley. On October 28, 2014, the Building Division responded to a complaint regarding dirt dumped onto the front yard to almost the same level as an existing 3-foot block wall along the front property line. The responding Building Inspector visited the site and advised the contractor to cut back the earth to a 1 to 1 slope to eliminate surcharging on the existing block wall. The Inspector determined that the scope of work was too small to require a grading permit then closed the complaint once the fix was made. On January 29, 2015, the Planning Division received a phone call from a concerned citizen that the grade of the subject property had been artificially filled and that a surveyor was now assessing the increased height of the subject property. The Planning Division conducted a site visit, reviewed the prior complaints, and determined that the grade elevation of the property had been artificially filled two to three feet above the adjacent boardwalk. Lidarl data from 2006 and March, 2014, confirms that the existing grade elevations were two to three feet lower at the front of the property prior to September/October of 2014 (Attachment No. PC 6). The elevation points from the 2006 and 2014 Lidar data show that the elevation points are approximately 12 feet (NAVD88 datum). On February 9, 2015, the appellant submitted an Approval in Concept (AIC) application for the development of a new single-family residence in the coastal zone. An AIC from the City is required prior to submitting a Coastal Development Permit application to the California Coastal Commission. A topographic survey was submitted showing the artificially filled grade elevations. The elevation points within the front yard area from the topographic survey are approximately 15 feet (NAVD88 datum). The Planning Division reviewed the AIC and posted corrections on February 10, 2015, noting that the grade elevations on the two adjacent properties should be utilized to establish average grade for purposes of determining height since the grade on the subject property had been artificially filled. The corrections are attached as Attachment No. PC 7. ' Lidar data is a remote sensing technology that measures distance by illuminating a target with a laser and analyzing the reflected light. Lidar detects subtle topographic features to measure elevations. Miller Residence Grade Determination Appeal Planning Commission, September 17, 2015 Page 5 On April 1, 2015, the Planning Division sent a letter to the property owner, advising that the resulting elevations are no longer representative of the property's original topography. Thus, the resulting grade elevations on the property are not consistent with the prevailing grades on the two adjacent properties. Unless additional documentation could be provided that illustrates the grade elevations prior to artificial fill, grade for the purposes of measuring structure height would be calculated utilizing the grade of the two neighboring properties. Refer to the attached letter sent by the Planning Division (Attachment No. PC 8). On May 22, 2015, planning staff met with the owner and architect to discuss the establishment of grade and corrections to the AIC submittal. DISCUSSION Establishment of Grade Section 20.30.050 (Grade Establishment) identifies the methodology by which grade is established for the purposes of determining height. The establishment of grade sets the parameters for future development on the site but does not directly consider the design for a residence. Ultimate design must also comply with the applicable height limits, floor area limits, setbacks, etc. The property is characterized by a three percent slope, where the boardwalk along West Ocean Front is approximately three feet higher than the elevation points adjacent to the rear alley. In cases where the slope is five percent or less, the grade is established by a plane using the average of the existing grade elevations at each corner of a four-sided polygon (typically at the corners of the buildable area). Chapter 20.70 (Definitions) of the Zoning Code defines existing grade as, "the surface of the ground or pavement at a stated location as it exists prior to disturbance in preparation for a project." As discussed above, the subject property was altered in September/October of 2014 so that the grade is no longer representative of the condition prior to disturbance. In accordance with Section 20.30.050.0 (Grade Establishment — Establishment by Director) of the Zoning Code, if the Community Development Director finds that the existing grade has been previously altered (e.g., contains retaining structures, property line walls, planters, or excavation/fill), or other conditions are present to the degree that the existing grade is not representative of the prevailing grades on adjoining lots and/or the general area and, therefore, is not appropriate for the purpose of establishing the grade of the subject lot, the Community Development Director may establish the grade that is reasonable and comparable with the grades of adjoining lots and that will not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements on adjoining lots. 23 Miller Residence Grade Determination Appeal Planning Commission, September 17, 2015 Page 6 Community Development Director Determination In this case, the Community Development Director found that the existing grade on the subject property had been previously altered and that it was not representative of the prevailing grades on adjoining lots in the area. Thus, as identified in the determination dated August 6, 2015 (Attachment No. PC 4), the Community Development Director determined that the grade elevations on the two adjacent properties were the most representative of the prevailing grades in the area adjacent to West Ocean Front. Average grade per Community Development Director's Determination: As established by the Community Development Director, the determination of average grade utilizes the two front elevation points on the adjacent properties and two elevation points on the subject property adjacent to the alley. The resulting average grade is calculated as follows: 12.95' + 12.8' + 9.67' + 9.65' = 11.27' average grade Content of Appeal On August 11, 2015, Jeff and Holly Miller, the property owners of 1608 West Ocean Front, filed an appeal of the Director's determination. Average Grade as Requested by Appellant: The average grade requested by the appellant utilizes elevation points on the subject property based on the topographic survey, which was prepared after the front yard area was artificially filled in September/October of 2014. The resulting average grade is calculated as follows: 15.00' + 14.9' + 9.67' + 9.65' = 12.31' average grade With the higher grade elevations suggested by the appellant, the resulting slope of the property is 5.2 percent. Thus, grade for the purposes of determining height would be established by five section points taken at equal intervals in accordance with Section 20.30.050.6 (Establishment of Grade, More than Five Percent Slope). In this case, an average would not be used for the establishment of grade. The appellant has identified the following reasoning in their appeal letter, provided as Attachment No. 7: a. "Average grade as indicated at 12.31 feet [NAVD88 datum] is below the adjacent neighbor grades of 12.8 feet and 12.95 feet. The current design indicates a finished floor of 12.67 feet, which is slightly below the grade of both existing adjacent neighbors, an elevation which will flow quite nicely." 24 Miller Residence Grade Determination Appeal Planning Commission, September 17, 2015 Page 7 The subject properties along West Ocean Front have higher grade elevations adjacent to the boardwalk area and lower grade elevations at the rear adjacent to the alley. Should the two adjacent properties be redeveloped, the higher elevations at the front would be averaged together with the lower elevations along the alley to create an average grade elevation that is lower than the 12.8 feet and 12.95 feet indicated by the appellant (approximately 11.24 feet [NAVD88 datum] and 11.30 feet [NAVD88 datum] respectively). b. "With the granting of average grade of 12.31 feet [NAVD88 datum] and allowing the project as currently designed to go forward as planned, that would make the maximum roof height of a sloped roof 41.31 feet at its high point and 38.31 feet at its low point assuming the required 3/12 slope. Our project's design, attached (Attachment No. PC 8), presented only 164.5 square feet of roof area, approximately 7 percent, of the 2,244 buildable area as a sloped roof within these height limits. The other 93 percent of roof heights fall well below the maximum height of 41.31 feet to heights ranging from 32.58 feet to 36.08 feet." The appellant desires to construct a residence with four levels of habitable floor area including a subterranean basement level and roof deck with appurtenant structures. In reviewing the project plans (Attachment No. PC 11), Planning staff has issued corrections, noting that several rooflines covering the third floor roof deck exceed the 24-foot height limit for flat roofs and the 29-foot height limit for sloping roofs based on the grade as established by the Community Development Director. Staff acknowledges that utilizing the lower average grade elevation of 11.27 feet results in a lower height limit elevation of 35.27 feet [NAVD88 datum] for flat roof structures (including roof deck guardrails) at 24 feet in height and 40.27 feet [NAVD88 datum] for the ridge of a sloping roof at 29 feet in height. A single-family residence can typically be designed with two floors of living area and a portion of a third floor area living area with an adjacent roof deck within the height limit. The basement level garage access and rooflines at the third floor deck level would need to be modified in order to comply with the height limit per the Community Development Director's determination. The appellant provided a response to the staff report distributed on August 6, 2015 along with a color elevation with photos of existing development in the same block (Attachment No. PC 9). Staff notes that there are two existing nonconforming residences located in this block that were constructed at a time when the height regulations of the Zoning Code were different. For example, the property at 1600 West Ocean Front was constructed in 1989 when the properties were zoned R-4 and the height limit was 28 feet for a flat roof structure and 33 feet to the ridge of a sloped roof. Additionally, 1612 West Ocean Front was constructed in 2003 when height was measured from natural grade directly below each roofline rather than from average grade as is required under the current Zoning Code. As a result, this structure appears to be higher at the Ocean Front boardwalk where grade elevations are higher. 215 Miller Residence Grade Determination Appeal Planning Commission, September 17, 2015 Page 8 Public Correspondence Staff has received four letters of opposition to the appellant's request for a higher grade establishment and one comment regarding the procedural aspects of the application. These letters are provided as Attachment No. PC 10. Summary The establishment of grade sets the parameters for future development on the site but does not directly consider the design of the residence. Staff recommends the denial of the appellant's appeal to use the higher grade elevations, upholding the Community Development Director's establishment of grade by utilizing front elevations on the two adjacent properties. The artificially filled front yard elevations are not representative of the existing grade as defined by the Zoning Code or representative of the prevailing grades on adjoining lots in the area. Granting of a higher average grade would provide special privileges that are not granted to similar residential properties in the vicinity. Alternatives The Planning Commission could: 1. Uphold the Community Development Director's original determination, as shown in Attachment No. PC 4. 2. Identify a different average grade methodology for purposes of determining height. 3. Grant the appellant's request to utilize the higher grade elevations resulting from the artificially filled front landscape area as shown on the topographic survey. Environmental Review Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. If the appellant's request is approved, the project is categorically exempt under Section 15303, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). The Class 3 exemption includes the construction of one single-family residence. The subject appeal involves the potential for the future redevelopment of a single-family residence on an individual property. The existing structure may be partially or fully demolished. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for an exemption under Class 3. 20 Miller Residence Grade Determination Appeal Planning Commission, September 17, 2015 Page 9 Public Notice Notice for the September 17, 2015, 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: Maka& N a *nar i, ICP, Deputy Director Associate Planner GR/mkn ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution for Denial of Appeal PC 2 Draft Resolution for Approval of Appeal PC 3 Appellant's Appeal Form and Letter PC 4 Community Development Director's Determination PC 5 Site photos dated January 30, 2015 PC 6 Lidar Data from 2006 and March of 2014 PC 7 AIC Corrections PC 8 Planning Division Correspondence dated April 1, 2015 PC 9 Appellant's Response and Exhibit in Color PC 10 Public Correspondence PC 11 Topographic Survey and Project Plans 2j V� QP �P Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution for Denial of Appeal 2J° V� QP �P 30 RESOLUTION NO. #### A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL TO UTILIZE A HIGHER AVERAGE GRADE AND UPHOLDING THE AVERAGE GRADE ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING HEIGHT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1608 WEST OCEAN FRONT (PA2015-120) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. On August 11, 2015, an appeal of the Community Development Director's August 6, 2015, establishment of grade was filed by Jeff and Holly Miller (collectively, "Appellant"), with respect to property located at 1608 West Ocean Front, and legally described as Lot 4, Block 16, Section B, of Newport Beach, in conjunction with an approval in concept (AIC) application for the construction of a new single-family residence. 2. The Appellant has filed an appeal of the Community Development Director's establishment of grade for purposes of determining height in accordance with Section 20.30.050 (Grade Establishment) of the Zoning Code for the construction of a new single-family residence. Under the appeal, the Appellant seeks to use a higher average grade than the grade elevations determined by the Community Development Director. The Appellant artificially filled in the front yard and is seeking to use the raised elevation points for purposes of determining height. The Appellant seeks to construct a new single-family residence utilizing an average grade of 12.31 feet (NAVD88 datum) rather than 11.27 feet (NAVD88 datum) as established by the Community Development Director. 3. The Property is located within the R-2 (Two-Unit Residential) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is RT (Two-Unit Residential). 4. The Property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is RT-D (Two Unit Residential). 5. A public hearing was held on September 17, 2015, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. 31 Planning Commission Resolution No. eft Page 2 of 3 SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. In this appeal, the Planning Commission finds: 1. The Appellant's suggestion to utilize elevations following the artificial fill of the site is contrary to the definition of, "established grade," as identified in NBMC Section 20.70 (Definitions). The Planning Commission does not consider the topographic conditions resulting from the artificial fill of the Property to be a unique circumstance requiring approval for a higher average grade for purposes of determining height. The Planning Commission, in this case, determined that the average grade proposed by the Community Development Director is consistent with the legislative intent of NBMC Title 20. 2. The grades on adjacent properties are most representative of the existing grade elevations prior to disturbance and alteration on-site. Granting of the higher average grade provides special privileges to the Property that are not granted to similar residential properties in the vicinity. 3. The higher average grade for purposes of determining height as proposed by the Appellant is neither required by code nor necessary for the enjoyment of the Property. As shown through previously approved building permits, the Property can be designed to comply with the requirements of the NBMC and be used for the construction of a new single-family or two-unit residence. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies the appeal and upholds Director's Determination No. 2015-04 (PA2015-120) by the Community Development Director made on August 6, 2015. The Appellant shall utilize the average grade elevation of 11.27 feet (NAVD88 datum) for purposes of determining height at 1608 West Ocean Front. 2. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution is adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of NBMC Title 20 Planning and Zoning. 03-03-2015 32 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 3 of 3 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Kory Kramer, Chair BY: Peter Koetting, Secretary 03-03-2015 33 V� QP �P Attachment No. PC 2 Draft Resolution for Approval of Appeal 35 V� QP �P RESOLUTION NO. #### A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GRANTING THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL TO UTILIZE HIGHER GRADE ELEVATIONS FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING HEIGHT AND OVERTURNING THE AVERAGE GRADE ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1608 WEST OCEAN FRONT (PA2015-120) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. On August 11, 2015, an appeal of the Community Development Director's August 6, 2015 establishment of grade was filed by Jeff and Holly Miller (collectively, "Appellant"), with respect to property located at 1608 West Ocean Front, and legally described as Lot 4, Block 16, Section B, of Newport Beach (Property), in conjunction with an approval in concept (AIC) application for the construction of a new single-family residence. 2. The Appellant has filed an appeal of the Community Development Director's establishment of grade for purposes of determining height in accordance with Section 20.30.050 (Grade Establishment) of the Zoning Code for the construction of a new single-family residence. Under the appeal, the Appellant seeks to use a higher average grade than the grade elevations determined by the Community Development Director. The Appellant artificially filled in the Property's front yard and is seeking to use the raised elevation points for purposes of determining height. The Appellant seeks to construct a new single-family residence utilizing an average grade of 12.31 feet (NAVD88 datum) rather than 11.27 feet (NAVD88 datum) as established by the Community Development Director. 3. The Property is located within the R-2 (Two-Unit Residential) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is RT (Two-Unit Residential). 4. The Property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is RT-D (Two Unit Residential). 5. A public hearing was held on September 17, 2015, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. SJR Planning Commission Resolution No. ; Page 2 of 5 SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (Section 15315, Article 19 of Chapter 3, Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act) under Class 3 New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). 2. The Class 3 exemption includes the construction of one single-family residence. The subject appeal involves the potential for the future redevelopment of a single-family residence on an individual property. The existing structure may be partially or fully demolished. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for an exemption under Class 3. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. In accordance with Section 20.30.050 (Grade Establishment) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: 1. The grade elevations requested by the Appellant are consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the NBMC. 2. The resulting design and size of the proposed residence is compatible with the allowed residential development in the vicinity. 3. The existing artificial fill at the front yard of the Property is a unique circumstance, resulting in the necessity to utilize higher grade elevations for purposes of determining height. Granting of the Appellant's request does not provide special privileges to the Property as provided by the Zoning Code in similar circumstances for residential development. 4. The Property cannot be designed with a useable single-family residence that complies with the grade elevations as identified by the Community Development Director. The proposed residence as designed would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves the Appellant's appeal and overturns the Community Development Director's Determination No. 2015-04 made on August 6, 2015, to establish grade for purposes of determining height (PA2015- 120), subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. The Appellant shall utilize the average grade elevation of 12.31 feet (NAVD88 datum) for purposes of determining height at 1608 West Ocean Front. 03-03-2015 38 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 3 of 5 2. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Kory Kramer, Chair BY: Peter Koetting, Secretary 03-03-2015 Si Planning Commission Resolution No. eft Page 4 of 5 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLANNING 1 . The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 2. The Appellant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Use Permit. 3. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit "A" shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans prior to issuance of the building permits. 4. The Appellant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Building Division and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. Approval from the Orange County Health Department is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. Prior to issuance of building permits, approval from the California Coastal Commission shall be required. 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Appellant shall obtain an encroachment permit and an encroachment agreement from the Public Works Department. All encroachments shall comply with Council Policy L-6, L-8, and L-12 for the existing block wall within the West Ocean Front right-of-way. If the wall location is not permitted by the California Coastal Commission, the block wall shall be relocated to private property. 7. The proposed driveway profile shall comply with City Standard STD-160-L-C. Parking shall be prohibited on slopes greater than 5 percent. The maximum driveway slope is 15 percent. The maximum grade change is 11 percent with a minimum interval of 5 feet. 8. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current property owner or the real estate agent. 9. This approval shall expire and become void unless exercised within 24 months from the actual date of review authority approval, except where an extension of time is approved in compliance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 03-03-2015 40 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 5 of 5 10. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Appellant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the Miller Residence Grade Establishment Appeal (PA2015-120). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by Appellant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The Appellant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The Appellant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 03-03-2015 41 V� QP �P Attachment No. PC 3 Applicant's Appeal Form and Letter 4S V� QP �P ��wr'oQT Appeal Application For Office Use Only o� Date Appeal Filed: H . Community Development Department � > Planning Division Fee Received: 100 Civic Center Drive/P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Received by: (949)644-3204 Telephone/(949)644-3229 Facsimile www.newportbeachGa.gov Application to appeal the decision of the: ❑ Zoning Administrator IN Planning Director ❑ Hearing Officer ❑ Flood Plain Administrator ❑ Other Appellant Information: Name(s): Jeff and Holly Miller Address: P. O. Box 1096 City/State/Zip: Yorba Linda CA 92885-1096 Phone: 714-920-7470 Fax: Email: milleria3@sbcglobal.net Appealing Application Regarding: Name of Applicant: Jeff Miller Date of Decision: May 22,2015 Project No. (PA): AIC2015005 Activity No.: First Review Site Address: 1608 West Oceanfront Boulevard,Newport Beach CA Description: Zone R-2, Single Family Residence. Proposed for future new construction. Reason(s) for Appeal (attach a separate sheet if necessary): Received a request from Planning to substitute the Property's existing grade elevtions with the adjacent neighbors grade elevations. As originally noted in the Plan Check Correction No. AIC2015005 dated February 9 2015 please see the attached letter. This form was originally submitted 6/8/15 and is now being re-submitted as requested by the Planning Department. Along with application, please submit the following: • Twelve (12) 1 1x1 7 sets of the project plans • One set of mailing labels (on Avery 5960 labels) for all property owners within a 300-foot radius, excluding intervening right-of-wa s and waterways subject site. Signature of Appellant: Date: AJC Li 14- F:\Usem%CDDISharedWdmin'Planning_DivisionWppliwtionsWppeal Wppliwtion.do Updated 03111/13 45 PA2015-120 "'pRT Appeal Application For Office Use Only Date Appeal Filed: F r Community Development Department Planning Division Fee Received: ei•c 100 Civic Center Drive/P.O. Box 1768 cgtrroyN�* Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Received by: (949)644-3204 Telephone/ (949)644-3229 Facsimile www.newportbeachca.gov Application to appeal the decision of the: ❑ Zoning Administrator ® Planning Director ❑ Hearing Officer ❑ Flood Plain Administrator ❑ Other Appellant Information: Name(s): Jeff and Holly Miller Address: P. O. Box 1096 City/State/Zip: Yorba Linda CA 92885-1096 Phone: 714-920-7470 Fax: Email: millerja3(&sbcgIobal.net Appealing Application Regarding: Name of Applicant: Jeff Miller Date of Decision: May 22, 2015 Project No. (PA): AIC2015005 Activity No.: First Review Site Address: 1608 West Oceanfront Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA Description: Zone R-2, Single Family Residence. Proposed for future new construction. Reason(s) for Appeal (attach a separate sheet if necessary): Received a request from Planning to substitute the Property's existing grade elevations with the adjacent neighbors grade elevations. Please see attached letter. _ Along with application, please submit the following: • Twelve (12) 11x17 sets of the project plans • One set of mailing labels (on Avery 5960 labels) for all property owners within a 300-foot radius, excluding intervening right-of-ways and/waterways, of the subject site. Signature of Appellant: O`� i Date: 1 S F:1Users\CDD1,Shared'AdminT]anni ng_Division W pplioationsappeal Wpp}ication.docx tl 03/11/13 PA2015-120 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Planning Activity History: APN No: n L)] — Oa — 9 Date Filed: (0' Council District No.: 'L Fee Pd: �. S `7 5 . 6D General Plan Designation: Receipt No: �6OpOS 1j� 53 Zoning District: --- Z -t�2700-5000 Account Coastal Zone:-%Yes ❑ No (o� Deposit Acct. No. Community Association(s): Cytjc.X Y\) �. Development No: t),2O) �— oa R O Lot-, 0io Project No: PE�rao\5— �aO Activity No: pr1 ❑Planning Commission Meeting [:]Zoning Administrator Hearing ❑Community Development Director ACTION: ❑ Approved ❑ Denied ❑ Tabled: ACTION DATE ❑ CONTINUED TO: Continued Date(s) ❑Planning Commission ❑Zoning Administrator ❑Community Development Director ACTION: ❑ Approved ❑ Denied ❑ Tabled: ACTION DATE APPEALED: Appeal Received (Date): Appealed to: ❑City Council []Planning Commission ❑Other: Meeting Date of Appeal: Action: ❑ Approved ❑ Denied ❑ Other APPLICATION WITHDRAWN: Withdrawal Received (Date): Remarks: F:\Users\CDD\Shared\Admin\Planning_Division\Applications\OFFce Use Only.docx Up;�t 05/14/15 PA2015-120 J� a7�ndra �eS4� 928&t7O96' May 28, 2015 City of Newport Beach Community Planning Department Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92658 Subject: Plan Check No. AIC2015005 dated 2/10/15, First Review Plan Checker: Makana Nova @ 949-644-3249 Property Address: 1608 West Oceanfront Dear Makana, I would like to thank you for taking the time to meet with me and our Project Architect, Mr. Walt Bushman last Friday, May 22, 2015 to discuss all our adjustments and changes made as a result of comments we received in your first review and plan check. As you could see, we had addressed most all the items and are able to maintain our desired design and use of the home with the goal of this property eventually becoming our primary residence. The one main item which still remains open is the determination of the grade for our project. This open item has a big impact on the direction that my wife and I, along with our architect, are taking—whether we are to continue and proceed using our current design or look into scraping our current design and start over. 1. As you are aware, our "Existing Property Grades" at the four corners of the buildable area are 15.00', 14.90', 9,67' and 9.65' which total 49.22' and produce an average grade of 12.31'. We respectfully request that these grades be maintained to proceed forward with our current design. 2. In the City's review, we received comments to utilize "Grades of Adjacent Neighbors" in lieu of our property's existing grades at the four corners of the buildable area which would then become 12.95', 12.80', 9.67' and 9.65' totaling 45.07' and produce an average grade of 11.27'. We are respectfully requesting that these be reconsidered. As you can see above, our average grade as indicated above of 12.31' is below the adjacent neighbor grades of 12.80' and 12.95'. As you will also find in our attached drawings, the current design indicates a finish floor of 12.67' which is slightly below the grade of both existing adjacent neighbors, an elevation which will flow quite nicely. 4g PA2015-120 Letter to City of Newport Beach May 28, 2014 Page 2 With the City granting the average grade of 12.31' and allowing the project as currently designed to go forward as planned, that would make the maximum roof height of a sloped roof 41.31' at its high point and 38.31' at its low point assuming the required 3/12 slope. Our current project's design attached presented only 164.50 sf of roof area, approximately 7%, of the 2,244 buildable area as a sloped roof within these height limits. The other 93% of roof heights fall well below the maximum height of 41.31' to heights ranging from 32.58' to 36.081 . With that said we appreciate the City reviewing our request and would appreciate the City granting this project approval to move forward allowing the completion of design for final submittal, approval and construction of our future primary residence. Should you have questions or require further clarification of our proposed design, please feel free to contact me at(714) 920-7470. Best regards, Jeff Miller Home Owner Cell: 714-920-7470 Attachments: 1. Completed Appeal Application 2. Check#1022 for$4,575.00—Appeal Fee 3. 12 sets of 11 x 17 Drawing 4J V� QP �P �o Attachment No. PC 4 Community Development Director's Determination No. 2015-04 51 V� QP �P CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CEOpo 100 Civic Center Drive O(� Newport Beach,California 92660 949 644-3200 F}" f newportheachca.gov/communitydevelopment e.t CqG/ROIX August 6, 2015 Jeff and Holly Miller 1608 West Ocean Front Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: 1608 West Ocean Front, AIC2015005 (PA2015-120) Director's Determination 2015-04: Grade Establishment Dear Mr. and Mrs. Miller, Staff has reviewed your submitted plans and has determined that the average grade for the purpose of measuring building height is 11.27 feet (NAVD88 datum). This determination is based upon Municipal Code Section 20.30.050, Subsections A and B. Your request to use alternative elevation points has been considered pursuant to Section 20.30.050.0 (Establishment of Grade by Director). Based upon the topographic map, surrounding grades, the presence of retaining walls at or near the front and side property lines, and field verification by staff, the site has clearly been previously altered. Your request to use an average elevation of 12.31 feet (NAVD88 datum) is based upon elevation points that are not consistent with Section 20.50.050, Subsection A and B, and the higher elevation will result in taller construction that would impede partial ocean views of adjoining properties, to their detriment. Therefore, your request does not meet the required findings of Section 20.30.050.0 and your request is hereby denied. Please revise your proposed drawings to reflect compliance with the average elevation of 11.27 feet (NAVD88 datum) or as an alternative, you can appeal the grade determination provided within this letter to the Planning Commission. Appeals must be filed in writing within 14 days following the date of this letter (before 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, August 19, 2015) and must be accompanied by a fee. For additional information on filing an appeal, contact Makana Nova, Associate Planner, at (949) 644-3249 or m nova(c)newportbeachca.gov. %4kr�"- Ki b ly Brandt, I Co unity Developrilient Director Attachments: Section 20.30.050 of the Zoning Code Exhibit"A" City exhibit depicting the staff determination of grade Exhibit"B"Applicant's requested grade exhibit Community Development Department 53 V� QP �P PA2015-120 Exhibit "A" City exhibit depicting the staff determination of grade NORTH 6 SCALE.—?-B' ( CI - I �y.4'D NCrC I NOTE, RECORD EASEMENTS ARE NOT PLOTTED IF ANY, SURVEYOR DR ENGINEER SHALL PERMANENTLY BEFORENSTAR�PERNG TGRADIN�F,RRS 4R OFFSETS &7_40 GNTtOR I r I S' bSTORY ~••1 I - RESIDENCE i i I 'ao yy Q I , WA X4.0 4� s• I L L air ots^ J� twI% S9°41'17Wf10250' ra a4aam LWb4� Or) , mOC q �A L1 pRPERiY � O CJ I - r� GMK a as RESIDENCE qqj -u• � a M d 00 • Lqn � O1IO �} .�. 4 � � CON(. y CONC. P P ON OOR PROP TY LL 9p Cmc. OONc. DB_¢NR. T ttx 9_„41'17'W 102.50'#k .a Z Lqb I if n WDLL IS a.15' `a4) irV yy ° OCDNC.RCPERTY W ON OOR PR P6RTY 6q # 1- W Iae RESIDENCE ° lae toNc. U OcW1t pa� �Z ou Average Grade: � (12.8' + 12.95' + 9.65' + 9.67')/4 = ca¢ q 11.27 feet(NAVD 88 datum) LEGEND DESCRIP DN (123.45) M S. ELEVATIONS Z ) REC. BRI. & DIST. - # BRICK WALL --- — BUILDING LOT LINE WN WATER METER g 41enp �'a E.F. FINISH FLOOR +G.F, GARAGE FLOOR CONC. CONCRETE F.S. FINISH SURFACE N.H. MANHOLE - Hn:acw A.C. ASPHALT -ZB T.G. TOP- RATE OWNER. ]LEGAL DESCRIPTION BENCH MARK- ADDRESS OF PROJECT RclM SURVEYING INC, TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY JEFF MILLER ILOT 4, AIN. 4/27 BENCH MARK OT-4415 1608 W. OCEANFRONT RON MIEDEMA,LS. 4653 1608 W. OCEANFRONT ELEVATION v 7.73 NAVD D8 DATUM NEWPORT BEACH, CA 23016 LAKE FOREST DR. #409 - NEWPORT BEACH, CA- LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 4949) 8582924 OFFICE JOB, 5415 DATE. 1/28/15 - (949) 858-3438 FAX RDMSURVEYING@CUX.NET PA2015-120 Exhibit "B" Applicant's requested grade exhibit WORtx 6 SCALE.—?-W ( CI - 19y.4'D GDR( I NOTE, RECORD EASEMENTS ARE NOT PLOTTED IF ANY, SURVEYOR DR ENGINEER SHALL PERMANENTLY ° BEEFFORENSTAR�PERNG TGRADIN�r,RRS 4R OFFSETS AW GUTtOR I r I S° b - STTMY 0.1 �C• 4� ~•d I - RESIDENCE I I I 'z0 yy WA L / o'PA r` to"� 59'41'17"Wf102,50' GT R4E3TVJ �b4 tO� T�;{1ga8Or) MLO"aR ra o C' -9 pppPERiY 0 6 O �f w o rYT # �S CJ43 I r O cQiC. o as M RESIDENCE • Lqn � �yb �} .�. 4 � � CON(. Do wxc. coNc. N 9�y J— ba n� aW cy. ON Tr LL P P oue PROP s+gbn" Sp WAL 1s o.5 CC CMC. 1 auNc. p ,� T tom 41117'W 102.5 V I i3 ONO�NCROPERTY b d gI ON OUR PRDP6RTY a°N 0 PU N F Uj I" Ne� � RESIDENCE � � (� a # � o c9)t pa� 144R,6'S Average Grade: 00-- (15.0' + 14.9' + 9.65' + 9.67')/4 a 12.31 feet (NAVD 88 datum) LEGEND DESERIP ON (123.45) M S. ELEVATIONS Z ) REC. BRI. & DIST. - # BRICK WALL --- — BUILDING LOT LINE WN WATER METER E.F. FINISH FLOOR +G.F, GARAGE FLOOR CONC. CONCRETE F.S. FINISH SURFACE N.H. MANHOLE - Hn:acw A.C. ASPHALT -ZB T.G. TOP- RATE OWNER. ]LEGAL DESCRIPTION BENCH MARK- ADDRESS OF PROJECT, Rc1M SURVEYING INC, TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY JEFF MILLER ILOT 4, MN. 4/27 BENCH MARK OT-4415 1608 W. OCEANFRONT RON MIEDEMA,LS, 4653 1608 W. OCEANFRONT ELEVATION v 7.73 NAVD D8 DATUM NEWPORT BEACH, CA 23016 LAKE FOREST DR. #409 - NEWPORT BEACH, CA- LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 4949) 8582924 OFFICE JOB, 5415 DATE. 1/28/15 - (949) 858-3438 FAX RDMSURVEYING@CUX.NET Attachment No. PC 5 Site Photos dated January 30, 2015 5 V� QP �P �g iillullL�,� ,� �IIIIII�_rr�r_- iiii�i. JIM M View from West Ocean Front facing the raised front yard area. Close-up view from West Ocean Front facing the raised front yard area. I o � i b- View from 1610 West Ocean Front facing the front yard area. View from West Ocean Front facing the raised front yard area! t_L• Y s � "� z � � i r as,. � -� sir. �, r �:.. .2 Y..,. � ` Y �__ ... __ - N .AFI 'e"^ ,`ii r F' ��, `"�/i r 1 �,� . i o- _ � s �� AM' ILC: `.� � � .._�� "\ � _,� �� A ��I y` �- b `:,baa • � �+�'1 ti. 'r ^'��D� ,, � , , r Attachment No. PC 6 Lidar Data from 2006 and March of 2014 01 V� QP �P 11952 •stun •J1.Ubb - •M.311 --- �_ j 089 28.%1 .348 • 30.907 • 6 • 15. � 1j.906 28.51 29.145 28.89 .70 1.002 9 30.%6 • 30.6 • 0.403 1 . 4311. 27.572 1 :1.102 " ••• 27.774 t�.941 273 30.815 •34626 i 0.351 30 4 ? .. 1 27.37! Idb . 34.57 • l 7 } t '34.77 31.174 19.142 • 0 24.744 • 31.074 tj.%] �- 35.4 8 f � ' • • • .u+ tr *1 9. 1r� �, 0.393 12.262 • 4 • 1.037 • { � 31.096` 1.043 7 e 66.389 .93 • p7o a 3. /{ J 11 1 34.864 12.28 30.845 . T �' .91� •!• �7. N.O • • • • 0.844 • 0 - m 5.8 26.666 1.36}-r1 as •1t a 5; 30.93 1 - ,126.044 7 4 - • 49 30.997 0 U.305 7.186 u 1965 �a 29d M ' • S o 71 4'r 3.3 30.%6 1.47 30.893 1 &16 1 • 11A • • 12.48 1 11 `��• � •31.226 +� � • •12.57 /nf F 1 11 :0.859 30.872 }. 11�y1 • • • 17.152 •12.6 1 • • 1639 Al2.N35 12,W3 �h , / 11.047 1 ;1 • 4 • ti .. 16 _ • 2 iL715 • 11'909 i K' • 1 • 383 19.096 ` 0 3.096 30325 7 . 12.664 l _ ♦ ,_ • 2 • ' Y 11.706 *11.159 7 .119, _�• 691 *1 6.095 72.166 12.382 '�� .• ® 4 -� • • m _� 2.78 • �� '�/� 1 17.234 ` 18 ^ 1 71944 12.072 12.337 • ° l o '•2.434 • *1 199 e 1 r 2.691 J • 12. 11.74 12.065 - • • 11.923 12.224 • e 1 11.794 *1 2.074 • 12253 *1 2.189 •� 8 m 11.858 11986 i 11.646 2i1d3 • • • • 11.837 12.311 • • 7993 •11931 12.389 *1 2.406 r. - 71.71 12.44 11972 • 11.781 � 12.111 • • 12.393 • • • 11.682 12.248 12.237 • • • 12.133 12.145 11.783 11954 • 12.251 • • • 11.734 *1 1939 12.104 122 11971 12.309 • 12.328 0 12. 12.736 *1 1978 • • :1988 11.89 12.077 • 12.446 12.325 • 12.17712.167 • • • • 12.07711.906 11.847 • LiDar dat63a 203006 tt Ola +3 0 J Wit V's 6421, -- -->„N 304.! 101 • t* - - Doi tc5-1jt� 304 • �. 0 , 1" • T •02 3,102 31037 31.99 31 IM 30ba • t • • 3D On 3004D • E• of-3 • 300 • • 64200 30 8?3 H03"M 301" 30 11 a'.•e • tY4, 3 1• • • r•x D 305 a 30 MW 'e y • • a•7i13$12 • + �• N 200 *21 3104!S ll� � b• a6! r 1234 1r 31102 ,m .a•,3064 . N 1m • 11111 �_ 1:R• •• ` • N td30q. • :+20, • • 1311, 0 • 12 1.,. •V ,�,. N t3E N a011•:30 fA • 1141 Qii1 „a e N 102 •3064 . • ,3664 f • 4tla h� n .. ♦ � ate• a. • �11i 3+20+ ' 013 e31 HLy 1.14 + • • a • •• �y Yea tla Q6il to J1 7j♦1 ,y 6 31 3419 12 T� • •� •r-� y . Von,, r64 30ot : M,T7 lQ 30 303e2 ' , : • 41 '13!r 00• • 30 w ,1871140 •ON 43.120: •n 31 t1• atp• :eij iY♦Y]. •t832•":•a �•17A 110a vim 102131'1+206 • 0 11222 ♦ q �. • • V= • 30 ♦ RQ •1j_'1C ••ate tll 11013 ' } ♦30971,360 1264: • •,2 f!! I •Q� • �2NC ^ •31122 C'l 12 120 Grff MSN�� • a ♦ 1 Nevi • 1001! • • f:< • TTN ' 301a 13646 • 175:• •` -t 0333 ' • r 170) q.,l l]a7i 0601 • i1: •n • •� 1' :2•.��•• ' 30a0/Da03 • 11.31 0 • •'- • �•� A•-a • • ,•2]164,» ., » - 1232JQ10i 6412126 • cow f3 E•• .7 ♦a•+! 7� •moi: `` r • no + „3 • a 713.3 f 17 � t 12'!: 12 x'011 ••. .ip 1171 9H y • • ..A• 11040 14 ,.f 331 t • 4364 13.,23 ume • - 115, ,1 792 to O+• v a±! :.1M • 3363 • • - a • vU1 • ,4304 • i+ .,3 1 lie •' 1aJ 14 4 ++. • v • ••a •I • • r • •1533 • •t 0631`:3a • 0336 126640 X21 'la 12'°'l:6ea ' R 02 • Sy C 01, C 0!1 } 1 a 3M OM 0 • 123 12336:- 12 3{:.. ISIS {� 12.1112 Ka Jy• • . . .. ' m. M• _/ 1S•:.r• .i..i•-- ]]ti LiDar data Matcf2014 Attachment No. PC 7 AIC Corrections 05 V� QP �P WP() Residential Zoning Corrections Plan Check No.: AIC2015005 O 6 Community Development Department Address: 1608 WEST OCEAN n Planning Division aoNT v 100 Civic Center Drive ; P.O Box 1768 overtime PC: ❑ c9irxoaN�A Newport Beach, CA 92658 Date: 02/10/2015 (949)644-3200 Telephone - (949)644-3229 Facsimile www.newportbeachca.gov Approval Date: Corrections Required Plan Checker Information "1" (First Review): 02/10/15 If you have questions regarding your plan check, please contact: "2" (Second Review): Plan Checker: Makana Nova Email: mnova@newportbeachca.gov "3" (Third Review): Phone: 949-644-3249 Fax No.: 949.644.3203 General Information 1. Zone: x-2 Setback Map No: S-2C PC Text: 2. Proposal: Z New ❑Addition ❑Alteration ❑ Other SFR 3. No. of Units Allowed: 2 No. of Units Proposed:1 4. Demo Proposed Z Yes ❑ No If Yes, number of units to be demolished 1 Coastal Commission Review 5. Coastal Zone: Z Yes ❑ Exclusion Zone ❑ No 6. Exempt because: 7. Categorical Exclusion No.: Effective Date: 8. Waiver No: Effective Date: 9• 1 AIC No:AIC2015003 Coastal Development Permit No: Effective Date: 10. 1 Coastal Approval Letter(all pages)to be bluelined/blacklined into plans. 11. Comments: Discretionary Action 12. Application required: Reason: Previous Discretionary Approvals: 1. Application Type No. For: 13. 2. Application Type No. For: 3. Application Type No. For: 4. Application Type No. For: 5. Application Type No. For: 14. ❑ Please make an apptwith: Phone: Email: 15. Blueline resolution and conditions into the drawings. ❑ Copy attached 16. Blueline approval letter into the drawings.❑ Copy attached 17. HOLD ON FINAL. The following items must be completed before the building permits are finaled: 18. Comments: Residential Zoning Corrections (Cont'd) Required Fees 19. Fairshare Fee Contribution: 20, San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Fee: 21. Other: Lot or Parcel Status 22. Legal Description: Lot: 1 Block: 16 Section: B Tract:NEWPORT BEACH 23• Easement(s)on-site: ❑ Yes ® No ❑Verify with Public Works No person shall develop any structure including, but not limited to, a principal or accessory structure across a lot P4, line per Section 19.04.035(Development Across Property Lines)of the Subdivision Code. Please apply for a Parcel Map, Lot Merger, Lot Line Adjustment, or Certificate of Compliance to address underlying legal lot lines. 25. Covenant required. Please have the property owner's signature notarized on the attached document and return with the filing fee payable to the County Recorder. Comments:ADD NOTE: "THERE SHALL BE NO FACILITIES USED FOR FOOD PREPARATION WIHTIN THE BASEMENT AREA NOR SHALL THE BASEMENT BE UTLIZED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES 26• 1 SEPERATELY OR INDEPENDENTLY FROM OCCUPANTS OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.." IN ORDER TO CONVERT THE DEVELOPMENT INTO A DUPLEX, FAIRSHARE FEES FOR ONE NEW DWELLING UNIT ARE REQUIRED. Setbacks Setback Regulations (20.30.110) 27. 'Setbacks are measured from property line to finished surface, unless otherwise specified. Front: 9' Left Side: 3' Right Side: 3' Rear: O' Other: Third Floor Step-backs (20.48.180A.3.b.) (Applicable to all R-1 and R-2 zoning districts, except:R-81;R-1-6000; 28. R-1-7,200;R-1-10,000, lots 25 feet wide or less in R-2;and Planned Community district) Front: 15' LeftSide: O ' RightSide: O ' Rear: 15' N/A: 29. Comments: Floor Area/Site Area Limitations 30. Lot Size: 3, 075 square feet Lot Dimensions: 30 ' X 102.5' 31. Buildable Area: lot area minus required setback areas = 2,244 SQ FT Floor Area Limitation: 2 x buildable area + (200 Square Feet for R-BI only) = 4, 488 maximum square footage 32. 0 Calculation includes exterior walls, stairway(s) on one level, enclosed parking (including subterranean) • Calculation does not include subterranean basements • Comments: 33. 1 Proposed Floor Area: 4, 925 squarefeet Site (Lot)Coverage Limitation: N/A percent of total lot area 34. Calculation includes the percentage of a site covered by structures, including eaves and overhangs, and accessory structures and by decks more than 30 inches in height. 35. Proposed Lot Coverage: square feet or percent of total lot area 36. 1 Provide tissue overlay of calculations verifying proposed square footage (show dimensions&calculations on tissue). Updated 09/16/14 I:\apps\shared\permplus\Docs\AIC2015005WIC2015005.docx (pw_CDD) Page 2 of 8 02 Residential Zoning Corrections (Cont'd) Comments: DIMENSIONS DO NOT REFLECT FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS ON THE COVER SHEET. 37. 1 AREAS AT THE THIRD FLOOR MUST BE COUNTED AS SQUARE FOOTAGE. REFER TO REDLINES. PROVIDE A TISSUE OVERLAY TO VERIFY FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS. Updated 09/16/14 I:\apps\shared\permplus\Docs\AIC2015005WIC2015005.docx (pw_CDD) Page 3 of 8 0j Residential Zoning Corrections (Cont'd) For 39-42, applicable to all R-1 and R-2 zoning districts, except.R-81;R-1-6000;R-1-7,200;R-1-10,000, lots 25 feet wide or less in R-2;and Planned Community district Third Floor Limitation (20.48.180 3.) ❑ 15% of the total buildable area for lots wider than 30 feet: Maximum: .15 x buildable area= Proposed: 38, ® 20% of the total buildable area for lots 30 feet wide or less: Maximum: .20x buildable area = 449 Proposed: 126 • Enclosed square footage located on the third floor shall be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the front and rear setback lines • For lots greater than 30 feet in width a minimum of 2 feet from each side setback line, including bay windows. 39. Comments: Open Volume Area Required (20.48.180 4.) ® 15% of the buildable area of the lot in addition to the required setback areas Required: .15 x buildable area: 336 square feet 40' Proposed: 624 square feet • Open volume must be located within the buildable envelope(within the setback; under 24 FEET) • Open Volume must have a minimum dimension of 5 feet in depth from the setback line on which it is located • Open volume must be open on a minimum of one side and have minimum clear vertical dimension of 7.5 feet 41. Comments: Plot Plan/Site Plan/Floor Plans 42• Provide Site Plan/Plot Plan, Floor Plans, fully dimensioned. 43. Show the location of all buildings on-site and dimension distance to property lines. 44• Dimension the distance from face of curb to front property line(verify with Public Works). 45. Indicate the second and third floor footprints(if applicable). Dimension all projections(e.g., fireplaces, bay windows, eaves), label distance(s)to property lines. DIMENSION 46. 1 FIREPLACE AND BALCONY RAIL PROJECTIONS (ONLY 6 INCH PROJECTION PERMITTED FOR BALCONY RAIL) 47. Dimension the distance between buildings. 48. 1 Provide floor plan(s)fully dimensioned showing all room uses for all buildings on-site. PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FLOOR PLAN DIMENSIONS PER REDLINES. 49• Provide existing and proposed floor plans fully dimensioned showing all room uses for all buildings on-site. 50. Plot property lines on site plan and all floor plans with setbacks called out. 51. Indicate the location of easement(s)plotted on site plan. 52. Comments: Updated 09/16/14 I:\apps\shared\permplus\Docs\AIC2015005WIC2015005.docx (pw_CDD) Page 4 of 8 76 Residential Zoning Corrections (Cont'd) Off-Street Parking (20.40) Accessory Dwelling Units 1 per unit, a minimum of 2 covered per site Single-Unit Dwellings—Attached 2 per unit in a garage Single-Unit Dwellings—Detached and less than 4,000 sq. ft. 2 per unit in a garage of gross floor area* Single-Unit Dwellings—Detached and 4,000 sq. ft. or 3 per unit in a garage greater of gross floor area* Single-Unit Dwellings—Balboa Island 2 per unit in a garage Multi-Unit Dwellings—3 units 2 per unit covered, plus guest parking 1-2 units, no guest parking required 3 units, 1 guest parking space Multi-Unit Dwellings—4 units or more 2 per unit covered, plus 0.5 space per unit for guest parking Two-Unit Dwellings 2 per unit; 1 in a garage and 1 covered in a garage LiveiWork units 2 per unit in a garage, plus 2 forguest/customer parking Senior Housing—market value 1.2 per unit Senior Housing - affordable 1 per unit *Gross Floor Area in this case shall include the square footage of basements but shall not include the square footage of garages. Minimum Interior Dimensions The minimum interior dimensions for parking spaces in residential zoning districts shall be as provided, below. The Director may approve a reduced width for duplex units when two separate single car garages are proposed side by side and the applicant has proposed the maximum width possible. Lot Width Single CarlTandem* Two Car Three Car 30 feet or less 9'-3" x 19' (35')* 17'-6" x 19' Two car garage minimum width plus 8'3" 30.1 - 39.99 feet 10'x 19' (35')* 18'-6"x 19' for each additional space x Two car garage 40 feet or more 10'x 20' 20'x-20' depth *The minimum depth for a 2-car tandem space is 35 feet 53. Gross Floor Area for purposes of calculating the number of parking spaces: Gross Floor Area (don't include garage) + Basement= 54. Number of Parking Spaces Required: 2 Minimum interior clear dimensions required: 17' 6" x 19' 55. Label interior clear dimensions of the garage free of all obstructions such as cabinetry, appliances, steps, posts, etc. (one riser is allowed, maximum 6 inches high, encroaching no more than 18 inches into garage). Indicate on the plans that the garage doors are automatic roll-up doors. Garages with doors that face the street 56. that are located within twenty(20)feet of the front property line are required to be equipped with automatic roll-up doors. 57. 1 Comments: REVISE STAIR AREA NOTE PER REDLINE ON THE PLANS. HEIGHT LIMITATION (20.30.060) • Measured from average grade if slope is 5% or less • 20.30.050 Grade Establishment • Roofs over the Flat Roof Limit must have a minimum 3:12 pitch • Sloped roofs with a pitch less than 3:12 and parapets, railings, etc are considered flat roof for the purpose of height limits • Heights are measured to the top of all finished materials. • Height certification will be required in some cases 58. 1 Flat Roof Limit: 24 feet Sloped Roof Allowable Ridge Height: 29 feet Updated 09/16/14 I:\apps\shared\permplus\Docs\AIC2015005WIC2015005.docx (pw_CDD) Page 5 of 8 71 Residential Zoning Corrections (Cont'd) Height certification inspection required? ® Yes ❑ No (Stamp Plans if Required) 59. 1 If an inspection is required,the planner shall place a notice in permit plus so the inspector knows a height certification inspection is required. 60. Provide topographic survey to establish slope and average grade or, use subdivision grading plan, if applicable. 61. Provide a sheet showing the outline of the proposed structure over a topo survey to verify determination of slope and height to be used for measuring elevation 62. Plot roof plan over topographic survey to assist with determination of grade points located directly below ridge peaks, roof areas and/or parapets. 63. Label grade below and at top of any critical ridge, parapet, etc. 64. 1 Dimension heights from established grade to: ® top of flat roof ® ridge peak ® any flat elements 65. The height will be measured from 9.0 (88 NAVD datum). Land uses shall have a finished floor elevation below the elevation per Section 20.65.030.13 of the Zoning Code. 66. Provide a roof plan. 67. Label and dimension roof pitches on roof plan and elevations. 68. Label and dimension eave overhang to property line on all exterior elevations. 69. 1 Label and dimension highest point of: ® all roof top equipment ® deck rails ® other: SPA Rooftop equipment or screening structures may not exceed the height limit 70. 20.30.060 D. Exceptions to Height Limits Comments: THIS PROJECT SHALL UTILIZE THE GRADE ELEVATIONS ON THE 2 ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO DETERMINE GRADE FOR THIS PROPERTY. THE EXISTING GRADE WAS RAISED 2-3 FEET IN OCTOBER OF 2014 WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF PERMITS. THIS GRADE IS NOT REFLECTIVE OF THE EXISTING NATURAL GRADE OF THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 2. UTILIZING GRADE ELEVATIONS ON THE TWO ADJACENT PROPERTIES, SLOPE IS <5%. THUS 71. 1 TAKE AN AVERAGE OF THE FOUR POINTS. POINTS ARE HIGHLIGHTED ON THE SURVEY. SUGGESTED AVERAGE GRADE CALCULATIONS: 12.95 + 12.8 + 9. 67 + 9.65 = 45.07/4 = 11.27' . 3. PROPOSED HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE AT RIDGE AND TOP OF RAIL EXCEEDS THE HEIGHT LIMIT FROM THE PROPOSED AVERAGE GRADE ELEVATION IDENTIFIED IN COMMENT #2. REFER TO REDLINES ON THE SECTION, SHEET A5. LANDSCAPING 20.36 LANDSCAPING—TITLE 14 Chapter 14.16 of the Municipal Code (Water Conservation and Supple Level Regulations)applies to landscape installation projects requiring a ministerial or discretionary permit and/or design review and are: 1. Homeowner-provided >5,000 sq ft of landscaped area, developer-provided > 2,500 sq ft Rehabilitation landscape installation projects which meet the applicability criteria (above), are 50% of the total landscaped area on the property, and the modifications are planned to occur within one year. 72• New Landscapes: total sq ft of existing landscaped area total sq ft of new landscaped area Rehabilitated Landscapes: total sq ft of existing landscaped area total sq ft of rehabilitated landscaped area % of total landscaped area on site to be rehabilitated Updated 09/16/14 I:\apps\shared\permplus\Docs\AIC2015005WIC2015005.docx (pw_CDD) Page 6 of 8 72 Residential Zoning Corrections (Cont'd) 73• Comments: LANDSCAPING—TITLE 20(20.36.050A) Impervious surfaces in R-1 and R-2 zones. 1. Impervious surface areas, excluding driveways, shall not exceed 50 percent of the front yard area with the remaining area landscaped with plant material. The use of pervious materials for walkways, porches, and outdoor living areas is allowed. 74• 2. Where the typical neighborhood pattern of front yards has been developed with hardscaped outdoor living areas that exceed the 50 percent maximum for impervious surfaces the Director may waive this requirement. Project complies with: No.1 ❑ Yes ❑ No No.2 ❑ Yes ❑ No 75. Comments: Design Criteria (20.48.180 B.) For 76-81 below, applicable to all single-unit and two-unit residential building citywide Walls: Long unarticulated exterior walls are discouraged on all structures.The visual massing of a building should 76, be reduced by incorporating appropriate design elements; including variation in the wall plane, building modulation, opening, recesses, vertical element, varied textures, and design accents(e.g. moldings, pilasters, etc.). Front facades shall include windows. Upper floors: Portions of upper floors should be set back in order to scale down facades that face the street, n• common open space, and adjacent residential structures. Upper story setbacks are recommended either as full length "ste backs"or partial indentations for upper story balconies, decks, and/or aesthetic setbacks. 78, Architectural treatment: Architectural treatment of all elevations visible from public places, including alleys, is encouraged.Treatments may include window treatments, cornices, siding, eaves, and other architectural features. Front fagade: Where the neighborhood pattern is for the primary entrance to face the street, the primary entry and 79, windows should be the dominate elements of the front fagade. Primary entrances should face the street with a clear, connecting path to the public sidewalk or street.Alternatively, entry elements may be visible from the street without the door necessary facing the street. 80. Main entrance: The main dwelling entrance should be clearly articulated through the use of architectural detailing. 81. Comments: MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TWO-TO FOUR-UNIT DWELLING PROJECTS A notice shall be signed by property owners and copied into the plan set prior to the issuance of a building permit for development of two-to four-unit dwellings.The notice serves 82. as a record of acknowledgement that property owners understand should they choose to pursue the approval of a Parcel Map for condominium purposes during the construction, they fully understand that the Parcel Map application is a discretionary process and is not guaranteed. CONDOS- (Existing Structures) Before a condominium unit may be sold, a condominium conversion building 83, permit must be signed off by the Planning Department. The Parcel Map must be signed off by the Public Works Department, approved by the County and RECORDED at the County. Proof of recordation will be required before Planning can sign off on the building permit final. Provide a copy of the first page of the recorded document. CONDOS- (New Structures) Before a condominium unit may be sold, a building permit is required for a description change from "duplex"to"condominiums." Before building permits can be finaled,the Parcel Map must 84. be signed off by the Public Works Department, approved by the County and RECORDED at the County. Proof of recordation will be required before Planning can sign off on the description change. Provide a copy of the first page of the recorded document. 89, 1 20.30.040 (Fences. Hedges.Walls. and Retaining Walls) Label the height, length, and location of all fences, hedges, walls, retaining walls, and self-closing/self-latching gates on the subject property. Updated 09/16/14 I:\apps\shared\permplus\Docs\AIC2015005WIC2015005.docx (pw_CDD) Page 7 of 8 73 Residential Zoning Corrections (Cont'd) 20.30.130 Traffic Safety Visibility Area: 86. Design includes improvements within traffic safety visibility triangle: ❑ Yes ❑ No • If Yes, label and illustrate traffic safety visibility triangle as follows: • Label proposed improvements within triangle as follows: INTERIOR FIREPLACES The overall chimney height for an interior fireplace is permitted to exceed the height limit by two feet above the roof plane plus an additional two foot maximum for the cap/spark arrestor. The S7• 1 additional two foot section is not only limited in height but also to 2 feet by 4 feet in width and depth. In addition, the chimney must be located a minimum distance of 10 feet from the nearest roof plane. Label dimensions of the chimney plus any portion of the cap/arrestor. 88. 1 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Accessory structures are typically limited to 6 feet in side and rear setbacks and 42 inches in front setbacks. Please label height from natural grade below to highest point of structure. 89, 1 ADD THE FOLLOWING NOTE ONTO SHEET NO. "Pools, spas,walls,fences, patio covers and other freestanding structures require separate reviews and permits" ASSOCIATION APPROVAL (ADVISORY) Issuance of a Building Permit by the City does not relieve applicant of 90, legal requirement to observe covenants, conditions and restrictions which may be recorded against the property or to obtain community association approval of plans. 91. 1 TRASH AREA Indicate the location of the screened trash area on the site plan or floor plan. TRASH AREA SHOULD BE COUNTED AS GROSS FLOOR AREA 92. 1 Comments: PLEASE PROVIDE A DRAINAGE/PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN FOR THIS APPROVAL IN CONCEPT. Updated 09/16/14 I:\apps\shared\permplus\Docs\AIC2015005WIC2015005.docx (pw_CDD) Page 8 of 8 74 Attachment No. PC 8 Planning Division Correspondence dated April 1, 2015 715 V� QP �P CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CEOpo 100 Civic Center Drive O(� Newport Beach,California 92660 949 644-3200 F}" f newportheachca.gov/communirydevelopment CqG/ROIX April 1, 2015 Mr. Jeff Miller Post Office Box 1096 Yorba Linda CA 92885-1096 Re: 1608 W. Ocean Front, Newport Beach Dear Mr. Miller, Thank you for submitting the requested information on how you intend to correct the building violations that occurred in October 2014 and identified in a Notice Letter dated February 9, 2015. Improvements included raising the finish grade of the yard, adding steps, and backfilling against adjacent freestanding walls. Eric Skarin, Senior Civil Engineer, and I have reviewed the proposed plans submitted and determined that the proposed modifications would resolve the Building Code violations; however, you will need to apply for a building permit for the installation of the new handrail illustrated in Section B of your proposed plans. Please contact Joe Slouka, Building Inspector, to schedule an inspection to verify all proposed modifications have been completed. Upon confirmation, the case will be closed. Please be advised that the resulting finish grade is no longer representative of the property's original topography and is not consistent with the prevailing grades on the two adjacent properties. Unless you are able to submit documentation that illustrates what the existing grade was prior to the artificial fill, grade for the purposes of measuring future structure height will be calculated utilizing the grade of the two neighboring properties. Thank you for your cooperation. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns at (949) 644-3209 or imurilloCdnewportbeachca.aov. Sincerely, �� Jaifne Murillo Senior Planner Community Development DepartmentJ—zJ—z ae 6AP AL law At4 -12 a xaa�s March 12,2015 Mr. Jaime Murillo Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Reference: 1608 W. Ocean Front,Newport Beach Dear Mr. Murillo Upon receipt of a Notice Letter dated February 9, 2015, regarding the above referenced property, we had a meeting last Friday, March 6, 2015 to address this letter that was a result of a neighbor's complaint. As such, please find attached three (3) copies of an 11 x 17 drawing which addresses the required modifications as requested at the meeting with yourself and Mr. Eric Skarin. During our meeting, it was determined that no permit would be necessary to complete the scope of work requited and illustrated on the attached drawing. This work includes the following: ® Addition of one handrail at the back stairs. ® Removal of a portion of the wood chips from planters. ® Removal of step and replacement with a concrete landing at the ocean front. ® Extension:of a red wood landing onto the yard lawn area at existing stairs. The work required on the above scope of work is anticipated to be completed within the next thirty (3 0) days—by April 12,2015 —and this should conclude the matter. Please feel free to contact me at (714) 920-7470 should you require additional information or have any further questions. Thank you again for•your assistance and time in helping to bring closure to this issue. Best regards, Jeff Miller Jig %It V7 Tf,? 'Z �ti I `t i��D• P44LWD 2x'l� 99 X41 ED 0 r _ w � `p • C�j�fA-�I�h �'F `�.i TAP t�,Y s�-.�+•pSt W/ f`1 - r - r'•"�j' i �. M t4Y. u... / ter, c•NN r _ �l ' NTS z 14 00 r 1 �.-- SI NCC > so rtmA I -�7 f y qZo• 2- Tt-70 �'�(z'�R �•�-kR I�A-h�(�A-I L-_lm'�-��- iz�� `�. ��' J� R.AN� ��'j �� - ._ � d ,u.�+da, �1 fIUa;1> W/ lµ+'..p C44. pS rttor) of wry, cy I v �t2f�,ta�a�j� %4'tUr411- T� C�� V�z�:�t4�, �,N,�,,.�G�r C�X�(�-I nf�J � • : �`'. ---- [6��. � �` _ � � �- y - i A ,II/ /'F'i �i .na- c� A V� QP �P go Attachment No. PC 9 Applicant's Response and Exhibit in Color 21 V� QP �P g� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPLICANT'S INFORMATION (for consideration along with Planning's 63 pages Staff Report) August 6, 2015 Meeting Agenda Item No. 4 SUBJECT: Miller Residence Grade Establishment Appeal - (PA2015-120) 1608 West Ocean Front Appeal to Planning Commission APPLICANT/OWNER: Jeff and Holly Miller PLANNER: Makana Nova, Associate Planner (949) 644-3249, mnova@newportbeachca.gov PREPARER: Jeff Miller, Owner OF THIS REPORT: (714) 920-7470, millerja@sbcglobal.net On behalf of my wife Holly, our daughters and myself — I would like to thank the Planning Commission for your time and consideration regarding our property and potential future residence. Also, I would like to thank the Community Development Director and the entire Planning Department for their assistance, knowledge, guidance and input regarding this property. Please find below information allowing a complete picture regarding this property's past as well as an understanding on how the recommendation below creates the best result for our adjoining neighbors, the surrounding neighborhood, and our family. PROJECT SUMMARY It has been established that the permanent existing average grade of the above referenced property is 12.31 feet (NAVD 88 datum) of which the Community Development Director has elected to modify to 11.27 feet (NAVD 88 datum). This appeal has been filed to ask for reconsideration in using the existing average grade as indicated above in conjunction with the current proposed and submitted design. The proposed design of this property provides benefits to the neighbors/neighborhood and in no way is detrimental or injurious to the property of adjoining lots and our neighbors. RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission adopts Resolution No. approving the applicant's Appeal (Attachment No. PC2) to utilize existing grade elevations as submitted with the applicant's proposed design (Attachment No. PC9). Planning Department may commence utilizing the resolution number to proceed with Plan Check No. AIC2015005. RS Miller Residence Grade Determination Appeal Planning Commission, August 6, 2015 Page 2 ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND - HISTORY 1. Our family purchased the residence at the end of June 2014 after sitting empty for nearly one year with the initial intent of the property being fixed up as our weekend getaway. 2. The property purchase closed on August 4, 2015 and we immediately jumped into home improvements. The home's exterior and garage were repaired and repainted including resurfacing all decks, purchasing new screens for all windows throughout the home and installed new weather stripping. At the homes interior we installed a new kitchen, counters, backsplash, sink and fixtures — we also repaired walls, repainted all rooms, installed new wood flooring at the lower level and installed new carpet upstairs. In addition, we installed new baseboards throughout the entire home. We purchased all new furniture for all rooms throughout the home including four bedrooms, the dining room and living room and outdoor deck area, installed air conditioning and moved in Labor Day Weekend. 3. In addition, during this time we embarked on yard improvements which included the removal of two excessively large ficus trees due to health and sanitary concerns we had for our family. Upon doing so, we soon found out it was not a popular choice in the eyes of some as the previous homeowner planted these trees when they first moved into the property many years ago and they were somewhat of an icon and caused some initial upset feelings. 4. While we made the unpopular decision, it was the right one for our family's health as well as the surrounding neighbors. The root structure was causing issue above and below ground with landscaping, sidewalks, patios, and the property line walls. In addition, we learned the previous home owner had paid to clear tree roots out of sewer lines for the adjacent neighbors and for themselves. The trees needed to be cut down to stop the roots system from continuing to cause problems in the future so we chose to do so. 5. With all that said, our interior home improvements were complete and we were living in the home on weekends and many times through the entire week during the months that followed and truly enjoyed our time in Newport living life at the beach. 6. As mentioned in the staff report - September 25, we had brought in dirt to cover the tree root system and provide a grass area to play games with the kids and their friends at which time we were instructed to clean up the dirt and remove it from the alley way which we did that same day. 24 Miller Residence Grade Determination Appeal Planning Commission, August 6, 2015 Page 3 7. The future complaint in October was for tree bark brought in to be laid around our new plants, flowers and trees to help hold moisture from the new water drip system installed to water the new potted plants, trees and flowers. In addition, we brought some gypsum and black topsoil to till in before new grass sod was put down. 8. The yard turned out great, it includes many new palm trees, shrubs, bushes, flowers, grass, irrigation, lighting, etc. When sitting in the yard watching waves or playing games on the lawn with our kids and friends, people always stop to comment on how beautiful the yard looks. 9. We really began to enjoy our newly remodeled beach home and started spending more and more time there through the holidays in lieu of our current primary residence. During the holidays, we began discussing the potential sale of our primary residence and moving to Newport Beach as full time residents. 10. At that point, we decided to take the next step in determining if we could create a property that would fit our family needs— as such, we began creating drawings which addressed our requirements and dreams and passed that information onto our now Architect, Mr. Walt Bushman to prepare drawings for submittal to Planning. In addition, I needed drawings to determine and prepare a cost budget to understand the additional financial impact. 11. As such, a survey was complete in late January to accompany the architectural drawings. We submitted our initial plan check for review in early February for which we received AIC corrections back; reviewed, corrected and addressed in a letter mid-April with a meeting which followed. Following our meeting, planning requested we submit an Appeal to you, the Planning Commission, for approval to grant the use of the Existing Average Property Grade to build our future primary residence and desired beach home. DISCUSSION As mentioned in the staff report, the current proposed design of our residence, (Attachment No. PC 9) was not directly taken into consideration when determining the use of Existing Property Grades to determine the average property grade. Upon doing so, it becomes clear - the current proposed property design in conjunction with the utilization of our average property grade of 12.31 feet — "will not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements of adjoining lots." 25 Miller Residence Grade Determination Appeal Planning Commission, August 6, 2015 Page 4 To the contrary, this proposed design provides the following benefits and additional amenities to the surrounding area and adjoining neighbors beyond those required by the City's building code: 1. The current proposed design provides additional open space of 235% beyond what the planning code requires. 2. The current proposed design at the Oceanfront Elevations Second Floor provides an additional 4'-0" setback from the required 9'-0" setback creating a total combined setback of 13'-0" allowing a greater panoramic open view for the adjacent neighbor's at their second floor levels. 3. The current proposed design at the east elevation second floor where our adjoining neighbors deck sets, we have incorporated into the design an additional 12'-0" setback beyond the codes requirement of 3'-0" creating an overall setback of 15'-0" and deck allowing our neighbor a greater sense of open space when enjoying time on their second floor outdoor deck area. 4. The current proposed design will allow for eight (8) parking spaces within its own residence and driveway alleviating parking burden placed on the City's public streets and parking lots. 5. The current proposed design does not come close to maximizing the City's highest allowable building code height for new construction as suggested in the one received public correspondence (Attachment No. PC 8). Not only are we not 4'-0" greater than the maximum code height, we are 4'-0" lower than the maximum code height on over 93% of the roof area which falls within the buildable envelope. With that said, we would not be creating adverse effects to surrounding neighbors as implied, quite the opposite, we would be dramatically improving the possible effects - eliminating additional overshadowing, improving views which would be present using the proposed designed and grade. Should the project be redesigned, a redesigned structure maximizing the allowable building code height limits combined with the CCD modified average grade assigned of 11.27 would in fact create that exact adverse effect as the referenced correspondence indicates. 6. Utilizing the average existing grade of 12.31 feet to build our current proposed design will create a new grade upon completed construction which would be in concert with and consistent with our adjoining neighbors. 20 Miller Residence Grade Determination Appeal Planning Commission, August 6, 2015 Page 5 Having recently spoken to both adjoining neighbors to show them the current proposed design and discuss the purpose of my application request, they are both pleased with the proposed design and how it abuts their properties, creates the above mentioned amenities and benefits and assimilates nicely into the neighborhood. In addition to the benefits described above, we would like to specifically identify the items/areas of our current proposed design which are affected as a result of the differing average grades described herein and are requesting a variance or relief be granted. These items/areas are as follows: 1. The Roof Areas to remain at the current sloped elevations between grades of 41.25' to 40.53' in lieu of the proposed grade of 40.27' to 39.42' for the remaining 7 percent of the roof not referenced in item 4 above. It should also be noted these 3 roof areas below set back off the boardwalk approximately 45' or more and set back off the alley approximately 30' or more. a. Open Outdoor Kitchen Shade Roof: 63.00 SF b. Bathroom Shower Roof: 60.20 SF c. Enclosed Mechanical Area: 41.00 SF 2. The top of a 42" glass handrail to remain at elevation 36.81' in lieu of 35.27' at the east elevation. It should also be noted this glass rail is located and setback approximately 40' or more off the boardwalk and setback approximately 40' or more off the alley. a. East Roof Elevation: 24.00 LF The two items above conclude what remains in question with our current proposed design and are at the heart of this request for an approved adopted resolution and accepted variance resulting from the differing average grade described herein. Upon the recommendation above being enacted, we will continue working with Planning to ensure the design of this residence conforms to City development standards. In closing, during my reading of the prepared report, it struck me to see artificially filled grade used throughout the document when referencing the permanent existing property grades. During this past week as I walked and rode my bike up and down the boardwalk enjoying all the peninsula has to offer, I started to pay attention to all the homes. In doing so, I became more aware of the patios, yards and grade elevation variations and changes as it relates from property to property. There are many properties with much higher grade elevations and a few with lower elevations then their neighbors up and down the boardwalk which left me thinking which are which pertaining to grade. In any case, my hope is it will not matter as our current proposed design would have a new grade compatible with our adjoining neighbors. In addition, there are 27 Miller Residence Grade Determination Appeal Planning Commission, August 6, 2015 Page 6 the other amenities and benefits noted above which would be recognized should the average grade of 12.31 feet as shown in our proposed plans be granted allowing this proposed project designed to move forward. Thank you for your time and consideration. Prepared and Submitted by 2Jeff Miller Future Resident Referenced attachments are part of the Planning Commission Staff Report 22 r . ... .. ...._ o, 2 , (6th SEREEI'� iM1�ex QafnPmx �nla M.�M1.rtnii. iM1tn Ma�AvnYmp YdN W.4w�tmm(y:N1Y4TP11"PYYI IM1COW 4mMnw� 1✓y M'.Oa.O tlw11 IdgW dFn FleN vtlAi•MIA„mpM.G..i'Ylf 3� 1 CV OCEAN FRONT ELEVATION(PLAN A) 1/8"=1'-0" established average N.G. = 12.31' a a $ � z y 3 tnth SI FET - IM1iex,pwnlMn �e�u N,iman tnnl NN W.DernMmt(9I1V41TPX(IWA x'.Orn Fmu M4N.(kwo Flan WnN.0.eanYrni '� Cta"xMi Meng NF.•11J> �� OCEAN FRONT ELEVATION(PLAN B) 1/8"=1'-O" _- established average N.G. = 11.27' b 1 � g� V� QP �P 9� Attachment No. PC 10 Public Correspondence 9:L V� QP �P 9� Subject: FW: PLANNING PROJECT PA2015-120- FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD From: Denys Oberman rmailto:dho@obermanassociates.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 6:23 AM To: Brown, Leilani Subject: FW: PLANNING PROJECT PA2015-120- FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD Please submit this Correction to the typographical error in my testimony as submitted yesterday. And attach to the distribution and record copy to prevent any potential misunderstanding. The word, "necessary" was intended to be "Unnecessary". Please confirm receipt of this and letter of testimony Thank you, Denys Oberman .................................................................................................. Regards, Denys H. Oberman, CEO NOBERMAN Shology and Flirx ncld A&Awm OBERMAN Strategy and Financial Advisors 2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel (949)476-0790 Cell (949) 230-5868 Fax (949) 752-8935 Email: dho((Dobermanassociates.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any disclosure,copying,distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us Immediately at 9491476-0790 or the electronic address above,to arrange for the return of the document(s)to us. From: Denys Oberman rmailto:dho@obermanassociates.com] Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 5:43 PM To: I brown@ newoortbeachca.aov Cc: 'Peter Anderson'; Grace Dove; Scott Robinson; 'Fredric Mark Levine'; dho@obermanassociates.com Subject: PLANNING PROJECT PA2015-120- FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD i 93 PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THIS LETTER TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AND ENTER INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPEAL SCHEDULED FOR HEARING ON AUGUST 6, 2015 Re. PA 2015-120 Residential project at 1608 W. Oceanfront Newport Beach Members of the Planning Commission: am out of town on business and unable to attend the Hearing on August 6`h concerning this project. I am writing to object to the Project Applicant's request that he be allowed to construct a Residential building of height over 4 feet greater than that allowed under the City's zoning code. To grant such an appeal would cause a number of adverse impacts on the surrounding neighbors, and also create a precedent for perpetuation of necessary, extraordinary heights that would over-shade, destroy views , and impair privacy and aesthetics for surrounding neighbors,as well as visitors enjoying the boardwalk along the coast. We believe that the Community Development and Planning Department rightfully denied the Applicant's request for a variance, and respectfully request that the Planning Commission do the same. Thank you, Denys Oberman Resident Regards, Denys H. Oberman, CEO NOBERMAN Vwtogy and Flnor`c d Advisers OBERMAN Strategy and Financial Advisors 2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel (949)476-0790 Cell (949) 230-5868 Fax(949) 752-8935 Email: dho(o).obermanassociates.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any disclosure,copying,distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately at 949/476-0790 or the electronic address above,to arrange for the return of the document(s)to us. 2 9-� •r Central NeWPOrt Beach Community Association PO Sex 884•Newport Reach, CA•94661-0884 www.CeatralNewport.Or9 Date: July 31, 2015 To: Members of the Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach From: Central Newport Beach Community Association (CNBCA) Subject: Agenda of August 6, 2015, PA 2015-120, Miller The Central Newport Beach Community Association is opposed to the subject application. CNBCA's membership includes residents and property owners on Balboa Peninsula between Newport and Balboa Piers — Pier to Pier. We are of the opinion that being able to use an artificial, previously altered grade for the purpose of raising the height of a proposed new dwelling would be detrimental to the community and a very unfortunate precedent. We support the Director of Community Development's determination pursuant to Zoning Code 20.20.050 Grade Establishment, to deny subject request inasmuch as the altered grade would not be representative of the prevailing grade on adjoining lots and the general area. Thank you for consideration of our comments. Sincerely, Central Newport Beach Community Association Scott Robinson, President cc: Makana Nova 9� Nova, Makana From: BudNuCom@aol.com Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 11:20 AM To: Nova, Makana Subject: Miller Residence Grade Establishment Appeal @ 1608 West Ocean Front Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged RE: Project File No: PA2015-120 Activity No. A/C2015005 Location: 1608 West Ocean Front Good morning Makana, This is our response to this appeal. We are the owners of 1604 West Ocean Front. This property has been in our family for 53 years. We are opposed to the Miller request. Lots; 1604, 1606, 1608 have equal size lots and equal grade. Changing 1608 will cause potential future hardships for 1604 & 1606 as well as other contiguous properties. Each property owner in this neighborhood has made a major investment. In our opinion, raising a grade of one lot has the potential of adversely affecting the entire area and causing future complications for many of these property owners. Granting this appeal would be good for one but no one else. Thank you for taking the above into account as you do your professional evaluation with the Miller Request. Richard & Barbara Farquhar 17 Baker Avenue Westport CT 06880 203-226-6066 budnucom(a.aol.com i q Nova, Makana From: Louise Fundenberg <pier2pier@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 2:25 PM To: Nova, Makana Subject: Letter to Makana Nova Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed > Dear Planning Commission: > I am writing you to ask that you do not grant a grade/height variance for 1608 West Ocean Front Newport Beach CA 92663. >They put in three feet of dirt to raise the grade and now want to measure from the new grade for the height of the house they want to build.This is just a way to get around the height codes and set back codes. > If this is allowed to happen it will be happening all over Newport Beach. It is unfair to the neighbors on both sides of such a property. It cuts out light and air to the neighbors in the area. >Thank you for the work you do for us in Newport Beach. >Sincerely, Louise Fundenberg >808 West Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach CA 92661. >949-673-5981 >Sent from my iPad t 9� �'Euerve0 6y COMMUNITY AUG 17 2015 8/6/15 Q�°DEVELOPMENT 4.Z TO: City Clerk of Newport Beach,California, OP NEWPORt 0� FROM: Concerned neighbor of 1608 West Oceanfront RE: Protest against granting an increase in the allowable height for 1608 West Oceanfront Project file#: PA2015-120 Activity No: AIC2015005 Applicant: Jeff and Holly Miller We,the below signed neighbor of 1608 West Oceanfront,wish to protest the appeal effort of the Millers to obtain a higher grade elevation than determined by the Community Development Director of Newport Beach. We ask that you refect the appeal and abide by the decision of the Communitv Development Director and in accordance with Section 20.30.050 (Grade Establishment)of the Zoning Code for the construction of a new single family resident. The appeal, if granted,would set an undesirable and potentially damaging precedent. Our home is within 50 feet of the lot line of 1608 West Oceanfront. We are property owners and have been long time residents of this neighborhood. Please distribute this letter to the Planning Commission and enter it into the PUBLIC RECORD in connection with the application and the hearing. We thank you for your attention to this very important matter for our community. —� - ---- — James Niemiec Toni Niemiec 1611 West,9eeaa#rorr ZA\jOc'- Newport Beach 9g September 3, 2015, Planning Commission Agenda Comments Comments on Newport Beach Planning Commission regular meeting agenda item submitted by: Jim Mosher( iimmosher(o),vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 2. MILLER RESIDENCE GRADE ESTABLISHMENT APPEAL (PA2015-120) Should the Resolution be revised to reference the August 6, 2015, "Director's Determination" and the August 1 Vh appeal from it (current agenda packet Attachments PC 2 and PC 3) if that is the matter the Commission is now being asked to rule on? Although I agree completely with staff's conclusion, and although the appellant has been consistent in rejecting staffs interpretation of the established grade as 11.27' and insisting the correct value is 12.31', 1 have a little difficulty determining exactly when the determination that is the subject of the present hearing was made, and whether a written appeal was timely filed. The "Decision" part of the proposed Resolution of Denial refers to the Commission upholding "the grade establishment by the Community Development Director made on April 1, 2015 (PA2015-120)." April 1 actually seems to be a City "Notice Letter' (found in Attachment No. PC 6 to the August 6`h agenda packet)) regarding the correction of building violations caused by improvements made in connection with filling of the ocean-facing portion of the lot. The letter, by Senior Planner Jaime Murillo mentions that since the unpermitted filling obliterated the previously existing grade, the elevation of neighboring lots would be used to establish grade unless the appellant could provide evidence of the actual pre-fill elevations. The April 15t letter does not actually mention the specific 11.27' determination, which the appellant seems to have first been notified of, at least in writing, in Item 71 of the "Residential Zoning Corrections' document prepared by Associate Planner Makana Nova and dated February 10, 2015 (found in Attachment No. PC 6 to the August 6'h agenda packet). What purports to be the appellant's original written objection/appeal of the February 10, 2015, decision is a letter dated May 28, 2015 (found in Attachment No. PC 7 to the August 6'h agenda packet), although handwritten page 5 of the August 6th staff report oddly refers to a "June 19, 2015" filing of appeal — that was not reproduced in the agenda packet, but both far beyond the 14 day window for filing appeals for a decision made in February. The appellant's May 28, 2015, letter, suggests the February 10`h interpretation was reiterated orally at a May 22, 2015, meeting with City staff. Although the appeal/notification problem that necessitated the continuation of the August 6`h hearing to August 201h has never been clearly explained, the present staff report adds to the above confusion by submitting, as Attachments PC 2 and PC 3, a new letter of determination on behalf of the Community Development Director dated August 6, 2015, and an appeal therefrom dated August 11, 2015, which itself says the original decision was made on May 22, 2015, and that it is a repeat of an appeal filed on June 8, 2015 (possibly a typo for "June 18" or possibly 95 September 3, 2015, PC agenda Item 2 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 the reference to a June 19 appeal in the August 6th staff report is a typo for "June 9"?), and it mentions being notified of staff's position in the "February 9, 2015" Plan Check Correction (apparently a typo for February 10). If there was an appeal form filed on June 8 or June 19 (the Planning Division's Case Log for PA2015-120 appears to confirm the opening appeal being filed on June 19th), or a written decision issued on May 22, they do not seem to have been reproduced in any of the staff reports. Since the August 6, 2015, letter is the only one clearly labeled as a "Director's Determination" it would seem like that is the one (rather than the April 1 letter) that should be referenced as being upheld in the Resolution of Denial. Although the appellant's August 11th form technically says it's staffs oral(?) statement of position on May 22"d that is being appealed, it's not clear that any of the decisions prior to August 6th, including that on May 22"d were appealed within the required 14 day window. I might note that I was unable to find any record of the staff actions on April 1, May 22 or August 6 in any of the weekly lists of"Administrative Approvals" which the Planning Division voluntarily (and helpfully) posts on-line. I guess a "determination" is not an approval, but it would seem of interest for the public to be able to see formal staff decisions on potentially controversial issues of all sorts. 100 Attachment No. PC 11 Topographic Survey and Project Plans 1018 V� QP �P soy PA2015-120 �6 SVLFI fw% • tlec NpIF RF,mAp EP¢t111S PRE Npl P4➢fT®IF N+1. SIgNFi1R ER ENG➢I LW1 PERMPgNily I v� me :YiFaFIIT PLLPFXiv L9R&l5 W RFS£t5 . I{ LLk- a 9R£mPRnW Q W G # � RESIDENCE�� I V F S 7;� a P -Lh-� RESIDENCE .,y I N# . 1 __ m " .�. ... ... ... . . .... . .. .. .. . _ vl ,•a��u yk m g Z I � 6R avE��_a+'F�. So `oe SX..�.� � In�•y � I . LL • S � _ awc - 9_43'1 "W IO2.50'# _-- -Z .. 1m� "{— RESIDENCE '' llESRlPIl6V e�zR.ns NEaR.HRG ELcvaw <) REG B DLR. - vgLL -- BN.ED1Poi _ M1 M1RR HEi£R ' if. TiNIAi RWR WV^� S E F. 'EK 1. 49NLmi £1➢NR T" FINyRFKE MM, Y.PM-MOLE P.0 MSMNLT �U T.4 lID'-TRVC RdM SURVEYING INC. TMOGRAPHIC SURYE: °"'"�' 7LOTxBSi a�n�m METmZ xsaa numsss�PRm¢r•' .£TT XEtM BFItl�1 XPRR{T-045 16Pd V.OLEPRFROII ROH WEOfJl0.LS.9£S I6�U.OCFPNFRONi ELEVPiIOX T.TJ tNVY BB WTW NEITHR EMP LP ' M3 .LW-F.tF OR C4W NEWPORT aEPEN,CA- LPGONA HE-LS.LP 92653 f94A RSR-2R4 vw.I JU&45 R ➢PEE UPA/45 . (95%RE,3M FR% RWtSVhVETIN6PCOKNET C i 1O� PA2015-120 - - Attachment PC 8-Project Plans PROiPOPOATA RPNARn1.NlY1'PC H�� Pa6n0140nwvwi°�4�iu9nnauml vwo-amm'nw. �� O�uenOHOw��ry PNmi 019U&Ke � p��`�l i��nu�i'm'e�WYSiunumiue^ommn ei��®:Rn�om:v��uw�d W m9 GYP.�0�WR�Onfl mIf GYY.BMv41d49 R fl$ Q{rv'e �a,:rs{°c°e1°om°v m my w umw Fl98 LLrga:.e�mho^��Y�mx�4wbPs+� TCkf=] d$Ee o'� m01m�°xu°Oµ�"n'omw. m>® nwm.Rwbn�am..w is wwmm � maxvumxv,;sm ®mrv.®amm - ' ' svmHnim`oauvwti un.msv. vvaemavevo:wrcvas. SHAFT iNnF.X: P°0p°''0""86flv' Al-PROJRCPINPORMATION,sm PLAN,ROOPPLW n� "wP'+ww°+�R>w�PH%ROmwugwnomtuam,¢N°yq A2-HA3ENIDJP PIA PLAN,w PWC PIAN mcu.amcnwautav a�xw A3-2nd PLR PLAN,3N FLR/ROOP PLAN sr.lm�°d°ta^waaoti°ee®:m:0 A4-=R10RHL ATION3 = ws zH aunwIR.q ID.•�— �. .o.<n�mW�mew�i V - rl"° 1 w -w:wV V OPI9J NACP RAOIRRAD � � PF` � n5xal�vNxt9{.�,b O66N nPPRNCPAORPAOMED: W U R rmm .v- 9P. p — pRUIFGI'QINARTANIP () C µMfh/1�uv2n 10eNma ucmure®w a1 z :u��r G.rytlmN1�� ♦ rc PNW AnD.wM0WFl1oIlNwoR.K 'y. p�� mwHresum:6m ® .��nMM wxoruwo mr'66m° '�' Gp3 I0XN0mIe:m11 ROOF MAN �m.waun Av m.nn_,m waw 9�S'G u0N MfXsszm I 102 O' $lydew 1®0rybi m� ��^moµHwn.wWm:ne��pmuJ�,^� n neA � •Om:uui®ueiwmkm.tr.m�bllw.mou �INb btwab:4awutl .. g � rbmsasv�bmp+�vn�e��mi°"a`wl`ua�.�s�wew�w �g6 �t a :w°w:wbf� W�bsv.aemmaeav:Yulmvw� 6vxm .� `m-w rr �a u.w:W�m4pf:.wHn.ebvmarvwn..wwva.' S i10250' 'aae�m.wkam*q.�:wmmbm:mwmwHb.e�,.eu ' pm��mmmw�bm'�'ik+im� �y _ncwrrr auP mm srre PUN scALu:ve-- a,,,,m, ••••�:m"�'�"m'"n=•"""^w-� �t56 104 PA2015-120 Attachment PC 8-Project PIanS xr xe zEED1 x 1 p l p P Ill{ST PI1Hl1?,PLAN Vel/Yn a c Ov o ° 411 mamim z m ..wrmrovn. w � nsmimesm a�exwmm�. 11(b PIAN 1O� PA2U1 -120 Attachment PC 8-Protect Plans 6Y9' f4' I E I a'Webmt.SOeIVW -�• 9 q b vNy1 b..�IN.Moflpnl 3 R �V$y Wem'WYeitlw�M ArziddAVWI .n..'b' � u,pg@ �� ""'•°' yaM� Rsl T I ' �-wNa. ��nss �EL�YVJJ 1mISTT{ w -pyp I ewv�mLrveA !=J d x#Jxmnm.bxv-YoflWl _ ULM- K WObwt-Yw10a) x'Nplv�m_Yef�rypJ 9 � I QN P THIRD FfQOR/x(ZQF PT AN � w O�q — W5 as —� z p � I A Po' m �.Y tl.➢�Illyi ��yL % Tw M.BHp¢tON �o 1' ' ➢BC5 a4� � P'C b�au ry x mx � p�vVnx 9F. ado eaM' d'^ ,E svxf xdfrvu+au'e<dmwuLmn. 5WDC U&02 PIAN Ei1e$'g 1�ICl If• i�N y Lm"•f' Yj�e` F3 i Vg, F119�i'Iliq� it r� III ,1NI w. � \. dl$g rs opp: ws ++I c� $p o 1 _ -- . I T1hl� 3 IUI lid . ' R I "y-�'8-2dis�aV,.�oxx;amrewer�be�(w�fs�stunen):� c'c . MSR He d® U � CT1;TrtiN3AT[I1N X%A�'C) _ ;9�u1 Y III III I A�b�W dV$a�IiE39f / eLSAPA[FVATT(1N RT(1RTft1 � ni a - ��/ a f3 III lie lryl 11 la nillh Ill ��57�+�,�=' - �3- ¢ I 1 "9 p ri =_��- .''- -`uww✓Jw.-1 Itm ' I HAY.�'-naS l; gra � - ., _ .P �� - . .. _— 's211Iv Iulllw§11 B11n12 .9=-a 1 I _4y I ___ RFii III �,n 1 �Irxt g[WAILuW=ELEp=[SOVM mvc Ah It12 II 1 III gl F� ,�'+� �i .ACEI x'+31 IIIIIII�IA !E as - 10j I� i mom I, .niw ttl':IIIIIrri►r. Attachment No. PC 4 Correspondence Received Following Distribution of the September 17, 2015, Planning Commission Packet 10� V� QP �P 220 Subject: ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED - PC MEETING - SEPTEMBER 17, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION —SEPTEMBER 17, 2015 ITEM NO. 2A: ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED MILLER RESIDENCE GRADE ESTABLISHMENT APPEAL (PA2015-120) From: Toby OBrien [mailto:thomas.j.obrieniii(@Qmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 12:56 PM To: Nova, Makana Cc: Toby OBrien Subject: PA2015-120/1608 West Ocean Front Makana, I am writing to you on the appeal of the Miller's to have a higher average grade than the grade elevations determined by the Community Developer Director. I am the owner and part time resident of 1605 W Balboa Blvd,Newport Beach, Ca. I am located behind and 2 doors down from the Miller residence. I am opposed to this appeal for many reasons and ask the city to please consider my points. 1) The Millers built up the oceanfront yard of the property after acquiring the property. This seems to have been done with the intention raising the overall grade knowing that a remodel was on the horizon. I find the build up of the yard to be deceptive move on the homeowners part to gain overall height on their remodel. I understand that the build up of the yard was not originally approved by the city and went through various states of status with the city. Now complete I ask that the city use the original grade to determine the elevations. 2) The neighbors all need to abide by the city determined grade. This will allow all of the neighboring homeowners to build new homes and stay within a similar height. This will give all neighboring homeowners a chance to maintain views from their rooftops should the various homeowners want roof decks as well. 3) Many of the homeowners plan to remodel their buildings. If you approve this appeal you will open the door for others to begin raising the grade of their individual properties. This will turn into an "elevation race" within the community. I am all for the Millers building a new residence. I simply ask that the Millers stay within the code and grade elevations as determined by the city. Furthermore, I ask that the city maintain the grade elevations as determined prior to the build up of the Millers Ocean front yard. Thank you, Thomas O'Brien 1605 W. Balboa Blvd Newport Beach, Ca 92663 i 111 Subject: ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED - PC MEETING - SEPTEMBER 17, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION —SEPTEMBER 17, 2015 ITEM NO. 2B: ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED MILLER RESIDENCE GRADE ESTABLISHMENT APPEAL (PA2015-120) From: Wisneski, Brenda Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 12:47 PM To: Nova, Makana; 'Walt Bushman'; Jeff Miller Cc: Biddle, Jennifer Subject: RE: 1608 W. Ocean Front Jeff and Walt, Thank you for confirming in writing your request to continue your appeal application to the October 8th Planning Commission meeting. We will forward this email correspondence to the Planning Commission and enter it into the record. Jeff, hope you are recovering well. Brenda Wisneski,AICP Deputy Community Development Director (949) 644-3297 City of Newport Beach Plannim Division 100 Civic Center Drive I Newport Beach,CA 92660 A responsive,knowledgeable team ofprofessioualsgw&wcou nunitydevulopmeutin the publiciu[erest From: Nova, Makana Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 12:21 PM To: 'Walt Bushman'; Jeff Miller Cc: Wisneski, Brenda Subject: RE: 1608 W. Ocean Front Hi Walt, Thank you for the written update. Rather than next week,the next Planning Commission hearing date is scheduled for October 8th.The item will be continued to this date. Let me know if you have any concerns with the proposed date. Msks".OL ADVd I ASSOCIATE PLANNER, AICP Planning Division I Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive I Newport Beach, CA 92660 P. 949.644.3249 m nova Cal new oortbea chca.aov www.newoortbeachca.oov 1 2�� LEED GREEN k550C1 A7E From: Walt Bushman [mailto:wbandleoCcbvahoo.coml Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 12:09 PM To: Nova, Makana; Jeff Miller Subject: 1608 W. Ocean Front Hi Makana, Just to let you know, the Thursday evening planning meeting regarding 1608 w. ocean front has been postponed until next week. Jeff and Brenda discussed the subject property earlier today and Brenda was OK with with waiting until next week. Thanks, Walt Bushman 2 2'13 Biddle, Jennifer Subject: ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED - PC MEETING - SEPTEMBER 17, 2015 Importance: High PLANNING COMMISSION — SEPTEMBER 17, 2015 ITEM NO. 2C: ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED MILLER RESIDENCE GRADE ESTABLISHMENT APPEAL (PA2015-120) From: Denys Oberman rmailto:dho@obermanassociates.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 2:13 PM To: Nova, Makana; 'Peter Anderson'; fredric.mark.levine@gmail.com; scottrbsn@aol.com; doveperch@sbcglobal.com; BudNuCom@aol.com; 'Louise Fundenberg'; Brett@silver-creek.net; 'Toby OBrien' Subject: RE: 1608 West Ocean Front, Planning Commission Importance: High Makana, Thank you so much for advising us of this request. Quite candidly, we believe that this request is Unfair and Unreasonable, and should be denied.This is a thinly-veiled attempt to avoid direct public voice and testimony in a hearing, and is burdensome both to the Community and the City. The request was specious from the beginning, and is clearly not consistent with the City's land use or zoning,codes. The City Community Development/Planning properly denied the request, and the Commission has more than ample information to ratify this decision. Please enter this into the Public Record. We appreciate your keeping us as interested parties informed and updated. Denys Oberman Resident, Central Balboa peninsula ............................................................. Regards, Denys H. Oberman, CEO NOBERMAN 9kafeW and Financbl Advlwm OBERMAN Strategy and Financial Advisors 2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel (949)476-0790 Cell (949)230-5868 Fax(949)752-8935 Email: dho(dobermanassociates.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any disclosure,copying,distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this telecopied information is i 11-� strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately at 949/476-0790 or the electronic address above,to arrange for the return of the documents to us. From: Nova, Makana [mailto:MNovaCd)newoortbeachca.00v] Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 1:49 PM To: 'Peter Anderson'; 'fredric.mark.levine@g mail.com'; 'dho@obermanassociates.com'; 'scottrbsn@aol.com'; 'doveperch@sbcglobal.com'; 'BudNuCom@aol.com'; 'Louise Fundenberg'; 'Brett@silver-creek.net'; 'Toby OBrien' Subject: 1608 West Ocean Front, Planning Commission Thank you for expressing interest in the project application for 1608 West Ocean Front (PA2015-120). I am contacting you to inform you that the applicant has requested a continuance of the tomorrow evening's Planning Commission meeting (September 17th).The item will be continued to the Thursday, October 8th Planning Commission Meeting. Please pass this information along to anyone else who may be interested in the project. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions about this item. Thank you, MrtAoL-*-oL Novs ( ASSOCIATE PLANNER, AICP Planning Division Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive I Newport Beach, CA 92660 P. 949.644.3249 m nova 5 new oortbea chcaa ov www.new port beach ca.a ov LEEI] GREEN pS50Cl riTF 2 225 1 • A • r ri V y Ilk Planning Commission Public Hearing October 8, 2015 AIC2015005 (PA2015-120) Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 ting 20) Introduction Miller Residence Grade Establishment Appeal AIC202-5005 (PA2015-120) An Appeal of the Community Development Director's establishment of grade pursuant to Section 20.30.050 (Grade Establishment) of the Zoning Code. i.6o8 West Ocean Front Balboa Peninsula between 16th and 17th Streets 07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division 2 Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 ting r 20) r ki. Vicinity Map Alit Er is F U c�t�oaN��S f frr. ri rt ra -- � ..,, rem � 4 �1` 4 A p■ n1 M Subject � Baa, e- „rn'•', . j f property �ti t � r 7 +� '•fir`L - r ' �' fd� ! ` � CEA h �:�-,Sv�il..•'. twcn r. '� zy �qY"._ + °fit. ^ .' Cd'. b -s '-_;!,�•. v rte- R Q 07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division 3 Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 ting 20) Project Ti mel i ne/ Backg round September/October 2014. Grade raised January 29, 2015. Planning received a call noting that the raised grade was being surveyed February 9, 2015. AIC2015005 submitted April 1, 2015. Staff issues a letter identifying the adjacent property elevations should be utilized to determine average grade May 22, 2015. Staff meets with the applicant to discuss grade determination and suggests an appeal is necessary to seek a higher grade elevation . June 19, 2015. Applicant files an appeal . August 4, 2015. Formal grade determination issued by the Community Development Director. August 20, 2015. Applicant files the appeal form in accordance with the 14-day appeal procedures. 07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division 4 Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 Item No. 2a: Additional Materials Presented at eeting Miller Residence Grade Establishment Appeal (PA2 5-120) 4 AN XJ I P( _ f1 K _ ia4s."o' / .` -'��e '�a .� iaq-.Ak �.fE � y �,I��.i C � � !tQ �fi1�` f � it � � Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 Ifinm Nin 9n- ArMitinnni ting 20) 07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 9 Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 ting 20) 11952 X31 •4,Nb •n ine o O.ml 25.896 __ 9 3d.3d8 • 3050/ ♦_- t5. 9.,a5 28.89 (j � 3]002 0.966 • $T. 0,403 _ db 1 d3,1. 2]572 31.102 3 1 IA �♦ 27.774 .30.91, W0 5 •t.213 0.351 f•{0 d �ITJ ,3 30.626 ♦ L •�� 4.T �31.17417a / !P. 19/62 4 31.014 y.963 3s. 2.r 24.744 _ • • • •Ir 8 2 if� 1039, 12262 ti d 1�- l'j.x'T 41 • 1.OlT • CJ�T-' r1 `�1 Lam- . 1 :1.096 1.013 'D" �- 38 66. 9 .9l n338 1]. 34.860 30.805 •i- Y t� 1.9►1 ♦ 2.I8 f0.61d �.� x.11` ;�� 26.666 ♦ •36 1] 8 4 / • _ 3 . 30.9] 1 { _f-+i♦ y26.04 49 .S 30.997 • 27.106 1196.5 La„ ♦ 12.355 1.3 11A • •3�6 1.07 :.89J 1 if 31.226 y • 12.574 `/•t `Z R 1 12.td.1 0 , ` ' rrll ]0.859 • 11.1 r . •]0.872 S X2.6 X1639 12.385 4.Si3 31 047 0 2.715 ' TTT o 19.096 f , V 1.M .+♦�� o w 12.337 :1.664 .902_ •-> 11.]59 16.095 12.144 .69 _ •• ` ♦ 7 1z.7af• +a t,9a 0 12.072 12.33] • .`. 0 2.f3a • :199 1114 12.065 ' 11. - • • 11923 12.224 1 ♦ 1.]61 2.0]4 • :2.253 2.189 • II. w a3 ♦ Y. 1858 .1886 :18371 :1893 2315 12.389 2406 1123711S72 11931 1846 .1 .11482 11.71 • ♦ ,2.4d t148I 2.111 ♦ :2.248 2J 3 12.237 R.1]3 /2.1/s ' 11851 ♦ ♦ IIJ93 ♦ 11939 8.104 12.254 • 11]31 ♦ 118]3 2.309 • 12.328 ]122 11878 ♦ • 1189 12.071 12.136 ♦ 1866 2.446 2.325 ♦ .7.117 0 2.167 11.077 11906 11847 07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division 10 Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 ting 20) t�qffinawav 13 W3 fw�- win 0. a,256 �. i•6' ! • 1+996 ]4M y 3 e 6e fl25 ♦ g _ ,�mi7" T"fo 3; aO tP) :•03C s �13 •.W'IT, f r ' # f ! _ Sim • «T 996 �• ,5691+96+2 xI W. + •'f • I.a66 •X1 13[93 Max v r• x,+at W7.13" : w3 • ONT � Asa • :]9n �'. r995a:. .rei r _ '+'N•''Yf6]fl :all i R yam- ':• •'. :93s 6S 7 3• a N.,.-! .m: 95M • uY>:D91• • ,]•6119 4"T],1W2 o• • ,3991 tl • y n•a. • •. ,l C •T.1a1 'n+n 29+ • •,3 gr ' +•u - 393eLL 3x •:_ w..a ♦ + t • csae,Y • -o a410Y13 HB +a �Y • ase. . , s, •+*�� -3. 11.8!631+d 144E} u. W.r_ '2 X911 • ♦ • '� • 994 • • • 'a•lse It If 9418 jt351,N• •�698 a$71.1A 1295.hr • • .. T SN Y912'•H �':191 �.a:E a• ,y., [ • MM' 15•]6 31161 ,LWUN° u•N�.�a �' r.xN • �' i. • a0•a4 • • •129i 3- ._ 13 r>� •�•v [ ;�`b ar: f 91r •±91++35.4 q� • -] `� tsI*2 • v9N •!+ E3 NE - ♦j X1:9�. ,J!!1• • Y 30.2Ea • Ay1: �. •-a9. • Y6 +.T.ef• 't- 56 Y'H •T] •36 RnE "95+1 sf: • • • w]99a T Ox • 13 i . 0 • IDTOM L N9 • '23 053 ` 13 h`6• :6N 6y V•# Ytl +^11. N� !•111 • �:� •5:93s • x 1i 125007es19 . , 9•a .1r�4g :d 36• i. •L' A :�"}99 i Z. QA4 tam, T]6-56613_ 64 13OY• • ,! 9 12.33 y ' 1 ♦jo 07/13/2012 ' c3�+a33e ;°E2-eaa. • •, r-_..] - - ft1' - -. `"• 11 Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 ting CDD Grade Establishment a s 20) cqC/PORN♦P colic I 2Np 43-4 Qy♦ 4$ GUTTER I J - �, RESIDENCE 6,mY I I 15.0 • s , 4 1 Lo/ # - # # # # # #fjor # V '17 102.50' <1443T 4� .� � �+ ♦ ' � VKl ]3 � CMC f �GR oR PROPERTY v� � o ROPERTY V4 �fJ 9 o W 12.8 3s RESIDENCECD I ya # M s+' o S w�c. o cowc. S ty 0 # J - ON @lf PAPE Tr �6 a _ 12.52 t! s S CONC _ �ONL yt�uReauPE colic S9°41'17'W 102.59' # .� ,{ n VKl IS 0.16 C 1 -U tr� Ve I Yy ON OUR PRO RTY� TY cwmw_ F � Iwl R1 OJt PMfER ♦`4j� `♦ # 195 RESIDENCE 12.95 O ma �'` Average Grade: (12.8' + 12.95' + 9.65' + 9.67')/4 = Cw 11.27 feet (NAVD 88 datum) 07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division 12 Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 ting Alukk 20) Appellant's Requested Gradra cqC/FORN`P $, I L9P I p CMC �ow LU' RI➢ENCE )� U Qa I .,WTICR ;DRQ 14'9 s ESI I -] ip �aA , LLQ/ A g S9°41'17'W 10250' C:nas3 PpCPERyyTY O CS II 3s RESIDENCE00 Z m ^♦ cwn y , �.S' t N vftu is ° LLQ ti COK. L o' # P P W DA PRpP Tti � Jt' 9 Sp11CONC. 0 �yy11R_PBOt�E C@C.f� S9_-41'17'W 102.50' �,f�` — Z — �"� i7W—IMUR:1"71 A VMl l3 q13' A�w OR MR PROPERTY w U las a RESIDENCE ' oa O ° Average Grade: 5 (15.0' + 14.9' + 9.65' + 9.67')/4 = q y 12.31 feet (NAVD 88 datum) 07/13/2012 community ueveiopment uepartment - Manning uivision 13 Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 ting 20) Proposed Site Plan NBh CMUf.M kdtiodd6"almx.hwrdwdk 9'0' 1. L 6-7' L 96.8' 'kgh CMUCmm(typical 102.50 N.G.12.31'T.F.=18.31' Lm aaa W,&-WW DN. iv 9a6MMB Cmo Ddw:wry(typ.) (9 QM)9aad Boudrlk tlP• i (20F 00�P)tl� N 21 b�Dk i®u'ny ) edam" bCLII3Y wka r0 pad^ (typ) Finish Floor=12.67 Ron.�DWma bwc tI.VI()idadwd L4 Floor(typical) i 0=Ddw,wey(0y dM i a'0• eme Mlkxay @Siva da. bl Br. � haeama+t/wra elevel( .) P(an Bata MM °Q 102.50' 900 6Ya• 26' 16'0 �,hlghCMU CeDm(typibal) (N.G.�32S1'TY.-I"11 NOTIL 1TP f V1 nl' In'J»P PIAn(M AddlllnMl t1I11 Mt I ( 4>t SM PLAN SCALE 07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division sq Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 Item No 2.q- Addotmonal UatermQls Presented 2t ting OceanWest 20) • Adjacent Properties 1612 W. Ocean Front 1600 W. Ocean Front Built in 2003 under prior AA�(AAq O WehhiOAApit when the property was zoned R-4 24' from natural grade at boa rdwaWroposed Residence 'Q- ; �xumatatweu F7� I — 16th STREET weM.arhal t613 W.paatfooaow.omu Ram ba W.Oa.nMmlsLel¢ciixo tta W.N.n Pmol ,taw.arm R® wmw.awwml OCEAN FRONT ELEVATION(PLAN Al established average N.G. = 12.31' 07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 15 Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 ting Recommendation � s a 20) a.C'dt/FORN�P Conduct a public hearing ■ Deny the appellant's request and uphold the Community Development Director's determination to use the lower front grade elevations on the two adjacent properties . 07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division 16 Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 ting 20) Alternatives Overturn the Community Development Director's determination, and grant the appellant's request to utilize the higher elevation grades on the subject property as depicted on the topographic survey. Identify different elevation points for the establishment of grade for purposes of measuring height . 07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 17 Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 ting MAM6 20) CEQA Review Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. If the appellant's request is granted, the project is categorically exempt under Section 15303, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) . The Class 3 exemption includes the construction of one single-family residence . 07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division A Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 ting Next Steps 1 20) _ a a.C'dt/FORNP If final action is taken, appeal period expires Thursday, October 1, 2015 . ■ If no appeal to City Council is filed, the applicant may proceed to resubmit the Approval In Concept for a Coastal Development Permit, plan check, final design, permitting, and construction . 07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division ig 1 r *i a ti 4 M 46 I For more information contact: Makana Nova,Associate Planner 949-644-3249 mnova@newportbeachca.gov www.newportbeachca.gov Planning Commission - Octoberi , 2015 20) Basement Level Plan e.,.////////, t 1171 C 11111,. _ 11111 -- 1'1 07/13/2012 Community • • Department Planning Commission - Octoberi , 2015 Ifin ••-Nn— — • • ni-1A�zf - ' --�- - • -' -1 1 • 20) First Floor Plan a ISI 3 - A � IIINII Nle 1NNN11 /11'�_I 1 IN r I;Y V A•: Y . 07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 22 I� Planning Commission - October1 1 Second Level Floor Plan 919 "Flew ,,� -- �� ° pp pp4fw � qAFE 5w - ^ = f��l■! — � , , __— "'!.' __ __ _ _ — f��1 —._ _ SII ...., �r Development07/13/2012 Community DepartmentDivision 23 Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 Item No 2.q- Addotmanal UatermQls Presented 2t ting 20) Proposed East • ------------ - - -- P P P - '�— 2. 'fin. B'-W – Q rMg 1 rol ao m ,"•� •�' des. - Zp yn n `_13b0' sand --- ---- — - - - _ -------- ryry `Q Q driveway rbr LBB�¢Ol YBMK ;p 9 A l5%maz.sl A'8a 9r. M"Wa -- 07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division zq Planning Commission - October 8, 2015 Item No 2.q- Addotmanal UatermQls Presented 2t NAe ting 20) Proposed • Elevation ZT 0b11'f&XHT. _ 24'-0•MAX N1: a-u•amx vmm W f P v Igmd I moment j - -- - - — ray OCEAN FRONT ELEVATION (SOUTH) 8n=if n 07/13/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 25 Planning Commission - Octoberi , 2015 Ifin ••-Nn— — • • ni-1A�zf - ' --�- - • -' -1 1 • 20) Proposed Roof Plan HEIGHT CERUACMION REQUIRED. ftwertyum .. u.a' lam ROOF DECK F.& 32M. .. DAM MD DN. dWr over'Tolysfick"undwlayment.(ESR-1697) ROOF PLAN SCALE: 07/13/2012 Community DevelopmentDepartment