Accordingly, in its consideration of DR 25-0431, which was approved 4-0, the City Council shall not conduct a de novo hearing. Rather, the City Council shall consider whether the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
If the Applicant proposes new plans that result in a redesign, the City Council shall not consider such plans; however, the City Council may (but is not required to) remand such plans to the Board for further review.
Notwithstanding that the City Council cannot review proposed new plans, the City Council can uphold the approval of DR 25-0431, subject to more restrictive conditions of approval that are effectuated through the provision of new plans;13 in such event, remand is not required.
3. City Council Options
The City Council has numerous options in consideration of this matter, which are listed below.
1. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Board Approval, and finding the Revised Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303;
2. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the decision of the Board to conditionally approve DR 25- 0431, CDP 25-0433, VAR 25-0432, and REP 25-2285, and finding the Revised Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, but modifying the Resolution to include more restrictive conditions of approval;
3. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution overturning the Board Approval, with findings in support of overturning the Board Approval and denying the Revised Project; or
4. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution remanding DR 25-0431, CDP 25-0433, VAR 25-0432, and REP 25-2285 to the Board, with findings in support of the remand and further direction to the Board.
LEGAL LANDSCAPE
Below is an overview of the applicable state housing laws and the Coastal Act carve outs.
A. Overview of the HAA
The HAA requires a city to notify a developer if the proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provisions (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria) within 30 days of the date that the application is determined to be complete and failure to take such action will result in the project being deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision (to objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria). (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(2).) 13 By way of example only, the City Council could choose to uphold a DR decision but impose a condition requiring that a wall be moved in three feet (3’) in order to support a view equity finding. In such event, new plans would be required to effectuate the condition, but the plans would not need to be remanded to the DRB or Planning Commission for further consideration. 6 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, the city must make certain written findings to deny a project that (1) the housing development project “would have a ‘specific, adverse impact’15 upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density”; and (2) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the identified adverse impact, other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1).) The HAA also has a Coastal Act carve out:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with . . . the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code).
(Cal. Gov't Code § 65589.5(e).)
B. Application of the HAA to this Property
Pursuant to HCD’s Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory Memorandum, the HAA applies to a new single-family residence and new ADU. Thus, the HAA applies to the project.
DISCUSSION
The Board held three public hearings on May 9, 2024, April 10, 2025, and December 11, 2025 and adopted Resolution No. 25-0431 conditionally approving the Revised Project on December 11, 2025. A summary of the Public hearings is set forth below.16
A. May 9, 2024 Board Hearing – The Conceptual Project
1. Staff Report
The subject site is a 6,045 square-foot vacant lot in the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan (D/CSP) area that maintains a moderate upward slope of approximately 34 percent, with a mapped watercourse traversing along the north property line. The Applicant requested a concept review hearing to construct a 1,971-squarefoot, four-level structure consisting of a residence, attached two-car garage, and attached ADU. 15 A “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(j)(1)(A).)
16 The summaries and charts within this staff report are not exhaustive of all commentary or deliberations, but are intended to be a tool to aid the City Council in its review of the evidence. 7 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
Figure 1: Aerial View of Project Site
2. Staff Presentation
Staff summarized the project history and the proposed improvements for the new single-family residence and identified key issues for the Board’s consideration. Staff noted that while the project generally complies with applicable development standards, there are outstanding concerns related to permitted height, lot slope calculations, on-street parking, access, roof form, design integrity, and neighborhood compatibility. Staff acknowledged public comments received both prior to and after publication of the staff report, which generally raised concerns regarding mass and scale, privacy, view equity, and neighborhood compatibility, and recommended that the Board consider these comments and provide concept-level feedback on the project.
3. Board Ex Parte Disclosures
Board
Member
Ex Parte Disclosure Transcript
Page Nos.
Jessica
Gannon
Absent -
MJ Coveny Met with Evgenii Kraskow, read all submitted public commentary, and visited the neighborhood.
p. 7 of 21
Louis Weil Met with Edward Sotto and Evgenii Kraskow, called architect’s company but did not get a response, and visited the site.
p. 7 of 21
Thomas
Gibbs
Met with Mike Cjakowski, Evgenii Kraskow, and Edward Sotto and spoke with Matt Lawson.
p. 7 of 21
8 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
Deborah
Neev
Called architect but did not get a response. Conducted site visit and walked the neighborhood.
p. 7-8 of 21
4. Applicant Presentation
David Freeland, Project Architect, provided an overview of the project and responded to issues raised in the staff report. He stated that the design had been developed over several years to comply with the Diamond Crestview Specific Plan and to address community concerns, noting that the current proposal differed substantially from an earlier iteration that was located higher on the site and raised greater view and policy conflicts. He emphasized that the proposed residence was modest in size at approximately 1,971 square feet, well below the maximum allowable floor area of 3,225 square feet, and had a reduced lot coverage of approximately 26 percent compared to the 35 percent maximum.
Applicant explained that although the home included three levels above the garage, it was carefully sited and provided an increased front setback of approximately 12 feet, exceeding the minimum requirement, to reduce visual and neighborhood impacts. He stated that the structure is significantly embedded into the hillside, with an estimated 30 to 40 percent of the building below grade, and that the roofline remains below the rear property line. He acknowledged that a small portion of the structure exceeds the height limit due to challenging cross slope topography, but noted that this condition is limited.
He further described the architectural approach, stating that the building mass is broken into multiple rotated volumes to reduce perceived scale, allow access to light and views, and minimize obstruction of surrounding views. He noted that material selection and articulation, including a concrete garage base, and board and batten style siding, are intended to further reduce visual bulk and provide a contemporary interpretation of rustic and farmhouse inspired architecture that integrates with the hillside and neighborhood context.
5. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, three individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:
Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
[Attachment 5]
Page Nos.
Edward Sotto Expressed concerns that the proposed project is incompatible with the Diamond Crestview design standards and surrounding neighborhood context, citing impacts to privacy, views, neighborhood character, and perceived urban density. Raised objections to the scale, materials, and siting of the residence, stating it is perched above the hillside rather than embedded within it. Asserted that the project would affect access, parking, and safety by altering an adjacent driveway and retaining wall within the right of way, potentially resulting in loss of parking, and by creating construction staging and traffic constraints on Crestview Drive that could impede emergency vehicle access.
Also expressed concerns regarding prolonged construction impacts, p. 6-7 of 21
9 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
including noise, vibration, and potential effects on nearby homes, and urged that the project be redesigned to better comply with area guidelines and minimize impacts to existing residences.
Evgenii
Kraskow
Expressed concerns that the proposed project is incompatible with the Diamond Crestview design standards and surrounding hillside context, describing the structure as excessively tall, vertically stacked, and tower like, with a large garage base and multiple upper levels that elevate the building to capture views at the expense of adjacent properties. Stated that the massing, lack of terracing, and three-story wall facing the neighboring property would significantly affect privacy by introducing multiple windows facing nearby bedrooms without landscaping or privacy buffers. Asserted that the project would substantially obstruct existing views, including views toward the ocean and Catalina Island that are identified for protection in the Diamond Crestview Specific Plan, and objected to the requested height variance as further exacerbating these impacts. Mr. Kraskow also raised concerns regarding reflective and bright materials, lack of natural materials, insufficient integration into the hillside, architectural incompatibility with surrounding homes, and inadequate neighborhood outreach, and requested that any development on the site fully comply with applicable design standards and respect existing privacy and view conditions.
p. 8-9 of 21
Unknown
Speaker
Expressed concerns regarding the proposed project’s landscaping and environmental impacts, stating that it would eliminate a valuable hillside habitat and wildlife migration corridor identified in the Diamond Crestview Specific Plan. Alleged that numerous native trees on the site were removed prior to project commencement, raising concerns about premature disturbance of the site. Also expressed agreement with prior speakers regarding concerns about the project’s design and emphasized the need to protect native vegetation and natural hillside conditions.
p. 9 of 21
6. Applicant Rebuttal
Applicant acknowledged neighborhood concerns regarding construction disturbance and stated that efforts would be made to minimize impacts. He addressed access and safety issues related to the Crestview Drive hairpin turn, explaining that the project would require roadway widening, which would improve access for vehicles and emergency services, and noted that modifications to an existing retaining wall would be completed at the Applicant’s expense to facilitate these improvements. He stated that the residence is substantially embedded into the hillside, is well below allowable floor area limits, and has a reduced footprint to minimize site impacts. In response to landscaping concerns, he explained that limiting the building footprint is intended to reduce disturbance to the site and that the design incorporates landscaping on stepped and rotating building volumes to better integrate the structure with the hillside and surrounding native vegetation. (Attachment 5 [Transcript], pg. 9 of 21). 10 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
7. Board Questions and Responses
Topic Question and Response Transcript
[Attachment
5] Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Project
Compliance
Board member Weil asked staff if the references in the
presentation and staff’s report regarding the project’s nonconformance with certain elements of the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan were accurate. Staff confirmed that it was. pg. 10-11 of 21
[Weil, Khan]
Roadway
Expansion
Board Member Weil asked staff whether the proposed driveway or roadway expansion within the public right-of-way is being required and overseen by the Public Works Department and whether it is being driven primarily by the Applicant’s access needs rather than a broader public safety or infrastructure benefit.
Staff responded by informing the Board member that the
Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan Area requires street
improvements to take place in front of the property, which includes street widening and paving.
p. 11 of 21
[Weil, Khan]
Public Right-ofWay and
Interdepartmental
Review
Board Member Gibbs raised questions regarding the proposed modifications to driveways and a retaining wall located within the public right of way, specifically seeking clarification on whether Planning or Public Works would oversee the work to ensure safety, access, and proper vehicle circulation between adjacent garages.
Staff responded that Planning and Public Works would coordinate review of the proposed removal or modification of the retaining wall encroaching into the public right of way, and that any required work would involve an agreement with the adjacent property owner. Staff noted that Public Works’ prior comments were limited to replacement parking and did not address the retaining wall, and stated that the issue would be forwarded to Public Works for further review and comment.
p. 11-12 of 21
[Gibbs, Khan,
Dobson]
Setbacks Board member Coveny asked whether the building could be set back further on the lot and reoriented to reduce impacts to an adjacent property, including whether moving the structure approximately 10 feet rearward would remain compliant with required setbacks and potentially alter garage placement. Staff explained that the Diamond Crestview Specific Plan requires setbacks to be distributed across 40 percent of the lot depth, providing the Applicant with flexibility to allocate setbacks within that area, subject to minimum front setback requirements. Staff indicated there may be some opportunity to adjust the building placement but noted that changes to garage orientation could be p. 12 of 21
[Coveny,
Khan]
11 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
constrained by steep topography and roadway conditions, and deferred further explanation to the project architect.
Lot Slope
Discrepancy
Board member Neev asked for clarification regarding a
discrepancy in the calculated slope of the site, questioning whether it was due to existing drainage patterns and topography or differences in calculation methods. Staff responded that the discrepancy was the result of differing calculations and stated that staff’s analysis determined the lot slope exceeds 40 percent, which allows the proposed maximum building height of 29 feet under applicable regulations
p. 13 of 21
[Neev, Khan]
8. Board Deliberation
Topic Discussion Transcript
[Attachment
5] Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Buildability,
Mass and Scale,
and
Neighborhood
Compatibility
The Board generally agreed that the site is buildable despite its challenging topography and history of prior design iterations. One member concluded that the proposed mass and scale are appropriate given the constraints of the lot and are comparable to nearby homes that feature stacked, block-like forms. While acknowledging concerns raised by neighbors, the Board found that the overall size of the residence is modest relative to what could be permitted and that the stepped articulation helps reduce perceived bulk. Several members noted that contemporary architecture exists in the neighborhood, but emphasized that the project’s brightness and modern character should be softened through the use of more rustic, earth-toned materials consistent with Diamond Crestview. One Board member found the building form overly “boxy,” stating that the design contributes to view impacts and could be improved through alternative roof forms and articulation.
pg. 13-20
[Gibbs, Weil,
Coveny, and
Neev]
Siting,
Orientation, and
View Equity
The Board generally supported the proposed placement of the residence, noting that it is set back farther from the street than adjacent homes and helps protect uphill views. Board members found that minor height increases were acceptable given site conditions and did not materially interfere with views from uphill properties. The Board concluded that overall view equity is largely achieved for both adjacent neighbors, though some Board members requested further study of limited view impacts to the Krasko property and encouraged exploration of modest adjustments to improve view corridors without requiring major reductions in building height or floor area.
pg. 13-20
[Gibbs, Weil,
Coveny, and
Neev]
12 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
Privacy Impacts
and Mitigation
While the Board did not find privacy impacts sufficient to preclude development, members expressed concern about the proximity of the structure to the adjacent southern property, particularly overlooking windows near the rear yard. The Board requested additional privacy mitigation measures, including landscaping, hedging, window treatments such as opaque glass, and other design refinements to soften visual impacts and improve neighbor privacy.
Pg. 15,16,
19,20
[Coveny,
Gibbs]
Design
Articulation and
Materials
Board members generally supported the project’s articulation and breakdown of mass through porches, stair elements, and stepped volumes, but agreed that the exterior materials and color palette should be revised. Board members emphasized the importance of using darker, more natural, and rustic materials to better integrate the home into the hillside environment and reduce the perception of scale, even within a contemporary design approach.
Pg. 14, 17, 19,
20 [Gibbs,
Coveny, Weil,
Neev]
Access, Parking,
and Public
Right-of-Way
Improvements
The Board emphasized the importance of resolving access and parking issues along Crestview Drive, particularly given the narrow roadway and blind curve serving multiple homes. Board members supported roadway widening and the proposed off-site parking location, citing safety benefits for residents and emergency vehicles.
However, concerns were raised regarding driveway alignment, vehicle conflicts, and modifications within the public right of way, including impacts to adjacent properties. The Board stressed that these issues must be fully resolved through coordination with Planning and Public Works prior to approval
Pg. 17, 18, 19
[Gibbs, Weil,
Coveny]
Watercourse
Encroachment
The Board generally agreed that the watercourse is a modified feature and does not present a significant obstacle to the project. The Board indicated that a variance related to the watercourse encroachment could be supported.
Pg. 16, 17, 20
[Gibbs, Weil,
Neev]
Specific Plan
Findings
Board member Weil indicated challenges with several
Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan findings, particularly related to grading, massing, and compatibility, and requested more accurate staking and additional refinement before the project returns.
Pg. 17 [Weil]
9. Board Action
As the application was reviewed at the conceptual plan stage, the Board did not take formal action. Instead, the Board provided detailed direction for further refinement and encouraged the Applicant to return with revised plans addressing privacy mitigation, material and color selection, view sensitivity, and access and safety concerns. Board members indicated that, with additional modifications, the project could better balance neighborhood compatibility with reasonable development of the site. Chair Pro Tem Neev confirmed for the public that the project would be re-noticed prior to a future hearing, and no date was set for the item’s return.
13 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
B. April 10, 2025 Board Hearing – The Original Project
1. Staff Report
In the staff report published to the Board and public for the Original Project, staff noted revisions made by the Applicant since the prior hearing and summarized the changes as follows:
• Additional landscaping was added along the south side of the proposed structure to address privacy concerns associated with the adjacent property at 2100 Crestview Drive, including the installation of two Arbutus unedo (strawberry trees).
• Exterior color was modified from a “light mist” to a “cape cod blue,” and a limestone veneer was added to the garage face.
• Grading volume calculations were revised to more accurately reflect how the structure is embedded into the hillside, including:
o An increase of 55 cubic yards of cut within the building footprint o An increase of 272 cubic yards of cut outside the building footprint In addition, staff introduced an additional variance request of the Applicant to allow deviation from the requirement to provide an on-street public parking space, as specified in Diamond Crestview Specific Plan Section IV(J)(1).
2. Staff Presentation
Staff acknowledged public comments raising concerns related to mass and scale, as well as privacy and view impacts, and advised the Board to consider whether these issues affected the Original Project’s compliance with the design review criteria.
3. Ex Parte Disclosures
Board
Member
Ex Parte Disclosure Transcript
[Attachment 9]
Page Nos.
Jessica
Gannon
Met with the Applicant/owner, Mike Czajjowski, and Steve Kawaratani and his client, Evgenii Krasko.
Pg. 1
Imer Bauta Met with the Applicant/owner, Mike Czajjowski, and Steve Kawaratani and his client, Evgenii Krasko.
Pg. 2
MJ Coveny Conducted a site visit, met with adjacent neighbor Evgenii Krasko, and communicated with the Applicant.
Pg. 2
Thomas
Gibbs
Met with the project architect at the site, met with adjacent neighbor Evgenii Krasko, and spoke by telephone with consultant Steve Kawaratani.
Pg. 2
Louis Weil Conducted site visit prior to leaving town, spoke with Steve Kawaratani, and received correspondence
Pg. 2
14 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
4. Applicant Presentation
Applicant stated that the project has been developed and refined over several years to respond to the Diamond Crestview Specific Plan and community input, noting that the design has been substantially revised since its initial review in 2013 and reduced in size from approximately 3,600 square feet to about 2,000 square feet. He described the site as highly constrained due to its narrow width and significant cross slope, and discussed the existing retaining wall and fire access serving the adjacent southern property, noting that the proposed partial demolition of the retaining wall within the public right-of-way would require review and approval by Building and Safety and Public Works, and that fire access would be maintained. Applicant emphasized that the residence is significantly embedded into the hillside, with a substantial portion below grade, and that the design breaks down mass through stepped volumes and material changes to reduce visual scale. He noted that the architectural character is not uncommon in the neighborhood, referenced nearby contemporary residences, and summarized revisions since the prior hearing, including changes to exterior color and materials. He also stated that additional landscaping has been incorporated to address privacy concerns for adjacent properties, particularly 785 Gainsborough Drive and 2100 Crestview Drive.
Figure 2: Original Project Rendering
5. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, three individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:
15 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
[Attachment 9]
Page Nos.
Evgenii
Kraskow
Expressed concerns that the proposed project would adversely affect views, privacy, and neighborhood compatibility for the adjacent property at 785 Gainsborough Drive. Stated that the building would block views of Catalina Island from the master bedroom, contrary to Diamond Crestview Specific Plan
guidelines, and asserted that these impacts could be reduced through modest changes to building placement, grading, or height. Raised privacy concerns regarding multiple windows on the north elevation facing a guest bedroom, and objected to the use of large, unarticulated wall surfaces and materials described as inconsistent with neighborhood quality standards. Asserted that the design does not meaningfully respond to prior Board direction and characterized the project as a direct replication of a residence designed for a different neighborhood, arguing that it fails to account for the site’s specific context. Urged the Board to require redesign of the project to better comply with applicable guidelines and respect surrounding properties.
Pg. 11
Edward Sotto Expressed concerns that the project does not adequately address prior Board direction or comply with the higher design standards of the Diamond Crestview Specific Plan. Stated that the proposed siting and angled orientation of the residence would negatively affect the adjacent property at 2100 Crestview Drive by requiring removal of a portion of an existing retaining wall and resulting in the loss of driveway access and parking spaces, which were described as essential for a family residence. Raised concerns regarding access and safety, asserting that the garage orientation and driveway configuration could interfere with vehicle movements and fire access, and suggested that
alternative siting or access solutions be explored. Objected to the project’s architectural character, stating that the materials and color remain inconsistent with the rustic nature of the neighborhood, and characterized the design as overly modern and reliant on artificial materials. Mr. Sotto also raised privacy concerns regarding windows overlooking the backyard and fire pit area, stating that the proposed landscaping was insufficient to mitigate these impacts, and urged further redesign to better integrate the project into the neighborhood context.
p. 13
Steve
Karawatani
Expressed concerns that, while the current proposal represents an improvement over earlier designs, it does not comply with the Diamond Crestview Specific Plan or DR Board guidelines
Pg. 14
16 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
related to view protection and privacy. Stated that the project would compromise protected coastal views, including Catalina Island views, and asserted that the Board could not make the required findings to allow the requested height increase.
Recommended that the upper level be moved farther back on the site to reduce view impacts and better comply with hillside development guidelines. Also raised concerns that the proposed landscaping does not provide sufficient space or opportunity to adequately mitigate massing and privacy impacts for adjacent properties, and suggested that modest adjustments to building placement could improve both view and privacy conditions.
6. Applicant Rebuttal
The Applicant responded by stating that additional landscaping has been incorporated to address privacy and view concerns, including the addition of five strawberry trees along the south property line and three additional trees along the rear of the site to provide screening for adjacent properties, including 785 Gainsborough Drive. Asserted that concerns regarding building height should be evaluated in light of the existing drainage improvements that raised grade elevations along the north side of the property, and stated that height measurements taken from this condition should not result in negative impacts to neighboring properties. Emphasized that the site is highly constrained due to its narrow width and steep cross slope, and stated that the design reflects careful consideration of these conditions and ongoing efforts to balance site constraints, regulatory requirements, and neighborhood concerns.
7. Board Questions and Responses
Topic Question and Response Transcript
[Attachment 9] Page
Nos. [Commenter]
Project Revisions. Board Member Weil asked whether the project had materially changed since the prior concept review, noting that while exterior colors and stonework appeared revised, he did not see changes to square footage or building
placement.
Staff confirmed that the building mass, setbacks, and
location on the lot have not changed. The primary revisions consist of changes to exterior colors and materials,
additional landscaping to address privacy concerns, and the introduction of a variance request related to on-street public parking.
Pg. 6 of 34 [Weil,
Khan]
Retaining Wall,
Parking, and
Property Interface
Chair Gibbs asked whether there was unresolved
uncertainty regarding the interface between the Applicant’s property and the adjacent southern property related to the Pgs. 6-7 of 34
[Gibbs, Khan]
17 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
retaining wall and parking.
Staff explained that the Applicant initially proposed
removing the portion of the existing retaining wall that encroaches into the public right-of-way to widen the
roadway, consistent with Diamond Crestview requirements.
However, staff determined that removal would negatively affect the neighbor’s fire access. Following coordination with Public Works and Building and Safety, staff indicated support for maintaining the existing wall and paving around it, provided that the Applicant constructs a new retaining wall on their side to maintain structural integrity. Staff noted this approach would preserve the neighbor’s parking and allow the Applicant to retain two on-site parking spaces.
Conditions and
Revocable
Encroachment
Permit
Chair Gibbs asked whether this solution would be
formalized as a condition of approval.
Staff stated that a condition could require the Applicant to obtain a revocable encroachment permit at a later stage, processed administratively, and that any alternative
involving removal of the wall would require a mutual
agreement between the two property owners.
Pg. 7 of 34 [Gibbs,
Khan]
Existing Wall
Authorization
Board Member Coveny asked whether the existing retaining wall on the Sotos’ property has a revocable encroachment permit.
Staff indicated that no revocable encroachment permit could be located, but historical building plans show the wall was reviewed and allowed at the time of construction.
Pgs. 7-8 of 34
[Coveny, Khan]
Public Right-ofWay AuthorityBoard Member Weil asked whether improvements constructed within the public right-of-way remain subject to City authority regardless of permitting history.
The Assistant City Attorney confirmed that structures built within the public right-of-way do not change its status as public property and may be reclaimed or modified by the City as needed.
Pg. 8 of 34 [Weil,
Donegan]
Plate Heights Board members asked for clarification regarding the proposed floor plate heights for each level of the residence.
The Project Architect responded that most residential levels have plate heights of approximately 10 feet, with the
exception of the garage level, which has a taller floor to floor height due to the steep site conditions. He confirmed that the Pgs. 16-17 of 34
[Gannon, Weil,
Freeland]
18 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
garage level is approximately 16 feet in height, the first and second residential levels are just under 10 feet each, and the uppermost level has a reduced plate height of approximately
8.5 feet to address overall height limitations.
Grading Chair Gibbs asked for clarification on the total amount of grading export anticipated for the project. The Project Architect confirmed that the total export is approximately 1,300 cubic yards, as reflected in the civil engineering plans.
Pg. 17 of 34 [Gibbs,
Freeland]
Retaining Wall
and Impact to
Adjacent Property
Parking
The Chair asked whether the project proposes any changes to the existing retaining wall adjacent to the Sottos’
driveway and whether such changes would affect their
parking. The Project Architect stated that the project is intended to retain existing grades at the property line and does not propose removal or modification of the existing retaining wall. He indicated that the wall is intended to remain in place and not interfere with the adjacent property or its parking.
Staff explained that an earlier concept included removal of the portion of the retaining wall encroaching into the public right of way to facilitate roadway widening. Following
consultation with Public Works, staff determined that the wall could remain, with paving accommodated around it.
Staff noted that some of the adjacent driveway parking
spaces extend into the public right of way and that removal of the wall could require reconfiguration of fire access stairs, potentially affecting driveway access. Staff expressed a preference for retaining the wall and indicated that
alternative solutions would require mutual agreement
between the property owners. Staff provided background on the wall, explaining that it was constructed decades ago to support the adjacent property and fire access stairs, with a portion extending into the public right of way. Staff stated that the wall must remain to maintain fire access and that the Applicant may need to construct or extend a supporting wall on their side to maintain structural integrity. Staff explained that such work would require a revocable encroachment
permit, which is not part of the current application, and could be addressed administratively prior to building permit issuance. Staff confirmed that the proposed wall solution would not interfere with parking or driveway access for either property and that any modification or removal of the Pgs. 17-20 of
34[Gibbs, Khan,
Campbell]
19 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
existing wall would require agreement from both property owners.
Public Right-ofWay
Encroachment
and Future Street
Improvements
Board Member Weil questioned how Public Works
evaluates an existing retaining wall that encroaches into the public right-of-way, and whether prior nonconforming
encroachments should constrain future improvements. He
expressed concern that allowing a new project to construct additional wall improvements to “match” an existing
encroachment could perpetuate or worsen right-of-way
impairments on already constrained Diamond Crestview
streets.
Staff explained that the existing wall was constructed
decades ago as part of the neighboring home’s development to support the slope and provide fire access, and while it was permitted by the City, no revocable encroachment permit was processed at that time. He agreed it would be preferable to avoid expanding encroachments into the right-of-way, but stated that Public Works is agreeable to leaving the existing wall in place given current conditions and safety needs, including maintaining the required fire access
stairway. He noted that this approach would require the Applicant to retain and support the earth beneath the
stairway and adjacent right-of-way area, resulting in side by side driveways with two parking spaces per property. He characterized this as an acceptable compromise, though not an ideal long-term right-of-way condition.
Pages 20 -21 of 34
[Weil, Campbell]
8. Board Deliberation
Topic Discussion Transcript
[Attachment
9] Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Parking,
Driveway
Capacity, and
Public Safety
Board members focused on whether the driveway can accommodate two on-site spaces given the constrained roadway conditions and lack of practical on-street parking in the area. Chair Pro Tem Gannon stated she would require two standard (18 foot) spaces for safety and cited prior Board precedent on a similar project. Board Member Weil agreed that parking and access needed clearer resolution, including how the right-of-way and shared driveway interface near the Sottos would function, and requested stronger documentation and a more definite solution rather than remaining “gray.” Board Member Coveny generally supported the driveway Pgs. 22, 23,
24, 27
[Coveny,
Gannon,
Gibbs, Weil]
20 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
configuration and felt the Applicant should not be overly penalized for existing right of way constraints, but encouraged exploring minor adjustments (including pushing the building back or grading) to better accommodate two standard spaces. Chair Gibbs
emphasized that the retaining wall serving the Sottos’ should remain and that parking must be workable for both properties; he stated he would prefer the Board review the final parking/wall solution rather than deferring it to an administrative process.
Retaining Wall
and Adjacent
Property Impacts
Multiple Board members emphasized that the Sottos’ retaining wall and related features should not be adversely affected by the project.
Board Member Bauta stated the wall is an established feature and should not be penalized or altered due to the Applicant’s development. Chair Gibbs strongly agreed that the wall should remain and that the Applicant’s design must avoid encroachment or changes that would reduce the Sottos’ parking or access.
Pgs. 26, 27, 28
[Bauta, Gibbs]
Views and View
Equity
Board members differed on the extent of view impacts to the Krasko property and what design changes are warranted. Chair Pro Tem Gannon stated that blocking a primary Catalina view is a significant concern and should be corrected, suggesting the upper level be pushed back into the hillside. Board member Weil stated view protection in the Diamond Crestview area is a central requirement and did not believe the project sufficiently responded to prior direction, including grading and hillside integration that could reduce impacts. Chair Gibbs reiterated his view that overall view equity is achieved, particularly for primary living areas of the Krasko home, but acknowledged that modest design adjustments could help address Board concerns and improve the project’s support.
Pgs. 22, 24, 27,
28 [Gannon,
Gibbs, Weil]
Height, Mass
and Scale, and
Hillside Fit
Chair Gibbs stated he did not have concerns with height, mass, or scale and found the proposal generally neighborhood compatible on those points. Board Member Bauta suggested that the requested height modification warranted closer scrutiny and that reducing the exceedance could meaningfully address neighborhood concerns.
Board Member Weil reiterated that the project should better follow hillside guidelines and that more could be done to sit the structure into the slope, including evaluating garage height and grading, and he stated the project did not reflect enough change from the prior hearing.
Pgs. 24, 26, 27
[Bauta, Gibbs,
Weil]
Design Integrity,
Neighborhood
Character, and
Materials
Several members stated that the design still reads as overly “container like” or too modern for the area’s rustic character. Chair Pro Tem Gannon and Chair Gibbs both said the form and materials do not yet align with neighborhood design expectations. Board Member Coveny praised the overall concept and noted
Pgs. 22, 25, 28
[Gannon,
Coveny,
Gibbs]
21 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
improvements from the prior iteration, but stated the color and exterior treatment remain critical to reducing the “container” perception and better integrating the building with the hillside.
Privacy and
Landscape
Screening
Chair Gibbs stated he did not see a privacy issue with the Krasko property due to separation and window orientation, but encouraged the Applicant to work with the Sottos on landscaping solutions and make privacy mitigation clearer in the next submittal. Board Member Coveny indicated that privacy mitigation appeared improved, especially with added trees, but suggested further landscape measures could help address remaining concerns.
Pgs. 25-28
[Coveny,
Gibbs]
9. Board Action
Following deliberation, the Board voted 5–0 to continue the hearing to allow the Applicant additional time to revise the project in response to Board direction and to engage further with neighboring property owners.
After discussion regarding scheduling and required submittal timelines, the Board continued the item to July 10, 2025. The Applicant subsequently requested additional continuances to September 11, 2025 and then to October 9, 2025. At the October 9, 2025 hearing, the Board determined that the application did not include a required REP request and, as a result, did not deliberate on the merits of the project. The Board continued the item to a date certain of December 11, 2025.
C. December 11, 2025 Board Hearing – The Revised Project
1. Staff Report
In the staff report published to the Board and public, staff noted revisions made by the Applicant in response to the Board’s direction and feedback since the prior hearing and summarized the changes as follows:
• The setback between the garage and the street has been increased by 2 feet to better accommodate two cars parking on the driveway. One space in the driveway is 18 feet deep (i.e., a standard space).
The second space is about 16 feet deep.
• The third (uppermost) level was shifted 3 feet toward the rear, resulting in a corresponding shift and slight enlargement of the second level, to address views over the building. • The exterior color was updated to Sagre Green and additional limestone veneer was added to the garage face.
• Vertical siding was removed in two areas on the front elevation and replaced with stucco to soften the structure’s box-like appearance.
• Additional landscaping along the north and south-side property lines, including two Arbutus unedo (Strawberry trees), was included to address privacy concerns. • The structure was also further embedded into the hillside to reduce the appearance of mass. • A REP application was submitted, requesting the construction of a 10-foot high retaining wall and the installation of a 10-foot-high wall mounted foldable metal ladder. 22 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
The table below summarizes the changes made since the April 10, 2025 DR hearing:
DRB April 10, 2025 Changes DRB December 11,
2025
Building Site Coverage 23.6% (1,523 SF) +47 SF 24.3% (1,569 SF) Height 31.4 Feet -2.4 Feet 29 Feet
Front Yard Setback (Garage) 14 Feet +2 Feet 16 Feet
Rear Yard Setback (House) 54 Feet -3 Feet 51 Feet
Deck 1 (Level 1) 496 Feet -91 SF 405 Feet
Deck 2 (Level 2) 291 SF -23 SF 268 SF
Deck 3 (Level 3) 65 SF +15.50 115.5 SF
Level 2 Area 836 SF +88 SF 924 SF
Landscaping (North) 0 Trees +1 Count 1 Strawberry Tree
Landscaping(South) 2 Strawberry Trees +1 Count 3 Strawberry Trees Grading (Cut inside footprint) 823 CY +30 CY 853 CY
23 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
Figure 3: Revised Project Renderings
2. Staff Presentation
Staff presented the Revised Project, highlighting modifications made since the prior hearing, including updated elevations, a revised landscape plan, and a revocable encroachment permit application for a 10- foot-high retaining wall and foldable fire-access ladder. Staff acknowledged public comments raising concerns related to mass and scale, as well as privacy and view impacts.
3. Ex Parte Disclosures
Board
Member
Ex Parte Disclosure Transcript
[Attachment
13]
Page Nos.
Louis Weil Spoke with the Applicant/owner, Mike Czajkowski, and conducted a site visit.
Pg. 1
MJ Coveny Reviewed past meetings and spoke with City Staff about a few things. Pg. 1 Jessica
Gannon
Drove by the site and previously met with the neighbor above, Mr.
Kraskow and Steve Karawatani
Pg. 1
Imer Bauta Visited the site and spoke with Steve Karawatani Pg. 1 Thomas
Gibbs
Absent -
4. Applicant Presentation
Applicant presented the Revised Project for the single-family residence, noting that the design has been substantially refined in response to prior Board direction and neighbor concerns. He described the site as a 24 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
deep, narrow parcel with steep slopes in two directions and surrounded by multiple adjacent homes, requiring careful balancing of views, privacy, and access. The architect stated that the current design has been significantly reduced from earlier versions reviewed in 2012, decreasing from approximately 3,000 square feet to about 1,800 square feet,19 and relocated lower on the site to better embed the structure into the hillside. He explained that portions of the upper level previously identified as affecting views were pulled back, resulting in increased grading but improved view equity for neighboring properties. Additional revisions include updated exterior colors and materials to better blend with the canyon setting, the introduction of stone elements for a more rustic character, and landscaping adjustments to address privacy concerns. The Applicant also addressed the revocable encroachment permit, stating that the proposed approach would improve safety and access conditions along the constrained roadway.
5. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, two individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:
Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
[Attachment 13]
Page Nos.
Evgenii
Kraskow
Evgenii Krasko, an adjacent property owner, reiterated his ongoing concerns regarding view obstruction, neighborhood compatibility, and building quality. He stated that the project continues to break the horizon line and obstruct a significant portion of his Catalina Island view from the master bedroom, and that the Board’s prior direction to address these impacts through grading and terracing has only been minimally implemented. He expressed frustration that the Applicant has not coordinated with him to address privacy concerns and stated that windows remain unscreened and oriented toward neighboring homes. He further asserted that the project does not reflect the rustic character of the neighborhood, describing the design as container-like and inconsistent with the Diamond Crestview Specific Plan, and objected to what he characterized as selective use of stone materials. Mr. Krasko also contended that the project appears to replicate a residence built elsewhere and that the building height and raised garage were intentionally designed to maximize views at the expense of adjacent properties. He concluded by stating that, while he supports reasonable development, he does not believe the current proposal reflects good faith efforts to address the Board’s direction or achieve equitable treatment of neighboring views.
Pgs. 5-6
19 Here, the Applicant appears to be referring to the living area of the single-family dwelling only, as proposed with the Revised Project. The Revised Project also includes a 221.93-square-foot ADU. 25 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
Steve
Kawaratani
Steve Kawaratani, a neighbor’s representative and prior participant in the proceedings, expressed a desire to see the project approved but stated that the Applicant has not adequately engaged with adjacent property owners to resolve ongoing concerns. He noted that, despite prior suggestions, the Applicant did not reach out to Mr. Krasko to seek a mutually acceptable solution. Mr. Kawaratani asserted that the project continues to conflict with the Diamond Crestview Specific Plan and DR guidelines related to view equity, as well as Land Use Element policies calling for protection of coastal views. He stated that the proposed structure blocks a substantial portion of the Catalina Island view from the neighboring master bedroom and identified the height of the garage level as a primary contributor to the impact, noting it is significantly taller than a typical garage. He suggested that lowering the project by several feet could substantially reduce view impacts and allow him to support the project, concluding that projects which prioritize one property’s views at the expense of another’s should not be approved Pg. 6
6. Applicant Rebuttal
Applicant responded to view equity concerns by presenting visual simulations intended to approximate the project’s effect on views from 785 Gainsborough Drive. He explained that wide-angle photographs were taken from the back of the subject property at different elevations to estimate how the proposed residence would appear from neighboring viewpoints. Based on these simulations, the Applicant stated that the proposed residence would affect approximately 10 percent of the lower-level viewshed, primarily at a single corner of the structure, and would not impact views from the neighbor’s main living areas. He emphasized that the DR process requires balancing preservation of existing views with the right to reasonably develop property, noting that views may evolve as surrounding parcels are developed. He concluded that the proposal achieves view equity by retaining meaningful view access for adjacent properties while allowing reasonable development of the site.
7. Board Questions and Responses
Topic Question and Response Transcript
[Attachment
13] Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Firefighter Access
and Ladder
Design.
Board Member Weil asked whether the revised firefighter access proposal, which replaces a previously discussed fixed ladder extending into the public right of way with a retractable ladder mounted to the wall, adequately minimizes risk within the rightof-way. The Fire Marshal responded that he personally reviewed the proposal, conducted a site visit, and consulted with an onduty fire captain to confirm operational suitability. He stated that Pgs. 8-9 of 27
26 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
the proposed retractable ladder meets firefighter access requirements and represents an improvement over the existing condition. He noted that a condition was added requiring a breakaway lock so firefighters would not need special tools to deploy the ladder, and confirmed that the ladder would be rated to support approximately 300 pounds to accommodate
firefighters and equipment. The Fire Marshal further stated that the existing staircase providing firefighter access is in poor condition and that the proposed ladder would significantly improve safety and access for both the subject property and the adjacent property.
Maintenance
Responsibility
Board Member Coveny asked about long-term maintenance
responsibilities and upkeep requirements for the ladder. The Fire Marshal responded that the ladder is designed to be weather resistant and requires minimal maintenance, comparable to exterior fire escape systems, with periodic painting every five to ten years. The Assistant City Attorney clarified that maintenance responsibility would rest with the property owner and would be coordinated with the City as part of the approval and compliance process.
Pg. 9 of 27
Fall Protection Board Member Bauta asked whether fall protection would be required along the leading edge of the fire access walkway, noting that while portions appear at grade, some renderings suggest a steep drop-off. He sought clarification on whether additional safety measures had been considered. Staff noted that a gate is located at the top of the ladder near the neighboring property, which limits access and serves as an existing safety precaution. The Assistant City Attorney acknowledged the concern but stated that fall protection measures had not been specifically evaluated, emphasizing that the primary purpose of the access route is to allow rapid firefighter access. He explained that adding guardrails or similar features could interfere with emergency operations and undermine the intended function of the fire access system.
Pgs. 10-11 of
27 Parking Location
and Public Safety
Chair Pro Tem Gannon questioned whether the Applicant was prepared to move the house farther back so that the two driveway parking spaces would be fully outside of the public right of way and front setback. She referenced prior projects on Gainsborough Drive where parking was required to be relocated out of the right of way and emphasized that the subject driveway is located at a tight blind corner, creating a public safety concern if vehicles extend into the right of way when parking or backing out. The Applicant and architect responded that the identified parking Pg. 11 of 27
27 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
space is shown as 18 feet in length and noted that shorter parking spaces, as short as 16 feet, have been approved elsewhere. Chair Pro Tem Gannon maintained that given modern vehicle sizes and the constrained corner condition, partially encroaching parking could pose safety risks.
Building Height,
Garage Plate
Height, and View
Impacts
Board Member Weil raised concerns regarding the overall height of the structure and reiterated prior Board direction to reduce height impacts, particularly as they relate to preserving Catalina Island views for the uphill neighbor. He questioned whether the rear portion of the house or the entire structure could be lowered, including reducing the garage plate height, to improve the horizon line and view equity. Chair Pro Tem Gannon specifically asked whether the garage height could be reduced from
approximately 15 feet to a more typical height. The Applicant stated that the house is already embedded into the hillside by approximately 40 percent and that lowering the structure further would result in the south side of the house being largely buried, significantly reducing sunlight and views from the project site.
The Applicant and architect explained that the current siting reflects a compromise that places the home into the narrower portion of the lot and balances grading constraints, light access, and views. Board Member Weil responded that many homes
within the Diamond Crestview area are embedded 60 to 70 percent into hillsides and emphasized that further lowering the structure could still be feasible while better protecting neighborhood views, consistent with the Specific Plan.
Pg. 12 of 27
8. Board Deliberation
Topic Discussion Transcript
[Attachment
13] Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Overall
Compliance
with Design
Review Criteria
Board Member Bauta stated that despite multiple hearings and clear prior direction, the project does not currently meet DR criteria. He identified unresolved issues related to view equity, neighbor privacy, egress safety, and parking, and expressed concern that these matters could have been addressed prior to the hearing. He concluded that, for these reasons, he could not support approval.
Pg. 15 of 27
Safety, Parking,
and Access
Chair Pro Tem Gannon emphasized safety as her primary concern, stating that the project should be held to the same high safety standards applied to nearby properties, particularly given the blind curve and narrow roadway. She reiterated concerns about driveway access, parking safety, and emergency access, noting that access Pg. 15 of 27
28 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
improvements are necessary to protect residents and motorists.
Board Member Bauta similarly cited egress and parking as unresolved safety issues.
View Equity and
Height
Reduction
Chair Pro Tem Gannon and Board Member Weil both emphasized protection of Catalina Island views as a key issue. Chair Pro Tem Gannon stated that Catalina is a significant view that should be protected and suggested that lowering the garage plate height could mitigate the impact. She noted that incomplete staking made it difficult to assess exact impacts but estimated that a reduction of several feet could address view concerns. Board Member Weil echoed this position, stating that view equity remained his primary concern and that lowering the structure by approximately four to five feet could preserve the horizon line and improve compliance with the Diamond Crestview Specific Plan.
Pg 15-16 of 27
Neighborhood
Context,
Privacy, and
Project
Modifications
Board Member Coveny expressed a contrasting view, stating that she was prepared to approve the project. She acknowledged the difficulty of building on the site and felt that view impacts had been sufficiently addressed through setbacks and modest pullbacks of the upper levels. She stated that driveway parking dimensions appeared adequate for modern vehicles and did not see privacy impacts as unusual given the dense neighborhood context. She also emphasized that additional concessions could unreasonably limit the Applicant’s right to build and cited the Fire Marshal’s approval of the proposed access solution as a positive factor.
Pg. 15 of 27
Design Quality
and Project
Evolution
Board Member Weil acknowledged that the Applicant had made progress in addressing several issues over the course of the hearings, including parking layout, garage placement, access improvements, and material refinements. However, he stated that the overall building height and its effect on view equity had remained largely unchanged, which prevented him from supporting the project as proposed.
Pg. 16 of 27
Potential
Modification
and Board Split
Board Member Weil noted that the Board appeared split and suggested that further concessions, particularly lowering portions of the structure, could potentially change the outcome. Board Member Bauta asked whether the Applicant should be given an opportunity to present an alternative approach, while Board Member Weil responded that any such proposal would need to be straightforward and responsive, given the number of remaining agenda items.
Pg. 16 of 27
Applicant
Willingness to
Modify Height
and Siting
The Applicant stated that the house has already been significantly downsized and lowered into the hillside, resulting in reduced views and sunlight for the project site. He expressed concern that further reductions would overly compromise his ability to enjoy light and views but offered a potential compromise by lowering the overall Pg. 17 of 27
29 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
building height by two feet and adjusting the garage placement further into the hillside. He requested that the Board consider a twofoot reduction instead of the four feet previously discussed.
Board
Negotiation on
Height
Reduction and
View Protection
Board members discussed whether a two-foot reduction would be sufficient to address view impacts, particularly the Catalina Island view. Chair Pro Tem Gannon and Board Member Weil indicated that additional reduction was needed to protect the horizon line, with Chair Pro Tem Gannon initially stating that a four-foot reduction would be preferable. Through discussion, members acknowledged that a combination of pushing the structure back into the hillside and lowering it could achieve similar results. The Board generally agreed that pushing the upper level back and reducing overall height would help preserve views while allowing reasonable development.
Pg 17-20 of 27
Garage
Relocation and
Parking
The Applicant agreed to slide the garage two feet further into the hillside to improve driveway access and reduce encroachment concerns near the blind curve. Board members viewed this as a positive step toward improving safety and addressing prior access concerns. Clarifications were made that the adjustment would primarily affect the garage, while the ADU would remain in place.
Pg. 17-20 of
27 Cantilevering
and Upper Level
Adjustments
Board members discussed the mechanics of implementing the proposed changes, including cantilevering the upper levels back toward the hillside and lowering both the third and fourth levels together. The architect confirmed that the upper portions of the structure would move back and down as a unified adjustment, resulting in a lower roof ridge height. Board members generally agreed that a two-foot reduction combined with a two-foot pushback represented a meaningful improvement.
Pg. 18-20, 23
of 27
Retaining Walls
and Fall
Protection
Considerations
Board Member Bauta raised concerns regarding potential fall hazards along a retaining wall adjacent to the fire access area and suggested that this issue be addressed now to avoid future conflicts.
The Assistant City Attorney clarified that permanent improvements beyond the property line are constrained but noted that fall protection on the Applicant’s retaining wall could be considered within the Board’s discretion. Ultimately, the Board indicated that staff could address this issue as part of final DR.
Pg. 20-22 of
27 Board
Consensus
Toward
Conditional
Approval
Following clarification of the proposed modifications, Board members indicated growing consensus that the adjustments could resolve the primary concerns related to views, access, and safety.
Board Member Coveny stated support for approving the project if the agreed-upon changes were incorporated, signaling that the proposed compromise could allow the project to move forward.
Pg. 24 of 27
30 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
9. Board Adoption of Resolution Approving the Application The Board voted 4-0 (Chair Gibbs absent) to adopt Resolution No. 25-0431, approving the Revised Project and finding the Revised Project exempt from CEA pursuant to the state CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (Class 3). Approval was subject to the conditions presented in the staff report and additional project-specific conditions requiring the Revised Project to be pushed back two feet toward the rear property line, the uppermost roof to be lowered and not exceed the 135-foot elevation mark, and, at the City’s discretion, the installation of a railing for fall protection on the Applicant’s southerly retaining wall along the property line.
RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
As noted above, the Appellant submitted an Appeal of the Board’s decision (Attachment 15). As indicated under Standards of Review, in the City Council’s review of non-design review appeals, such as a coastal development permit, variance, revocable encroachment permit, and CEQA, the Council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application and shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal, nor is the Council limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board. Accordingly, in its consideration of the Board’s approval of CDP 25-0433, VAR 25-0432, REP 25-2285, and Class 3 categorical exemption from CEQA finding, the Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing. For the consideration of DR 25-0431, the City Council shall not conduct a de novo hearing, but is limited to considering whether the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence. Further, for DR 25-0431, the City Council is limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of Appeal.
Below are the grounds for Appeal and City staff’s response:
1. “Failure to Adequately Protect View Equity: The Design Review Board approval failed to adequately protect view equity for the appellant, Evgenii Krasko, as required by the City’s Design Guidelines, Land Use Element Policy 2.10 of maximizing the preservation of coastal views from existing properties, and Design Standards, Diamond Crestview Specific Plan (D/CSP). The approval relied on flawed and unreliable evidence that prevented an accurate evaluation of the project’s impact to Mr. Krasko’s view. Under the D/CSP, the horizon line is the most sensitive element of a view. Blockage of important and recognizable physical features, including Catalina Island, is significantly more difficult to approve than blockage of lesser elements. In this case, the project’s massing, particularly along the side of the structure associated with story poles 8 and 10, encroaches into the most important portion of Mr. Krasko’s view, affecting both the horizon line and Catalina Island. The DRB record does not demonstrate that this impact was adequately avoided, minimized, or fairly balanced against the applicant’s desire to capture views. The story pole deficiencies are significant because they undermined the City’s ability to properly evaluate view equity, which should have been the primary focus of the DRB review. Although the poles were reportedly corrected a day before the hearing, Mr. Krasko believes that the condition of the poles during site inspections did not allow for an accurate or fair evaluation of view impacts from his home.”
31 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
Staff’s Response
The Board found that the Project complied with DR Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 16 (View Equity) as follows:
“Due to the hillside setting and orientation of uphill and downhill homes, significant impacts to private views are not anticipated. The project proposes a rear setback of 51 feet and the roof of the highest level would be approximately 12 feet to 22 feet below the homes above. Three strawberry trees are proposed to be approximately 14 feet from the rear property line, which with a maintained height of 15’ should not impede public or private views over the project site. Prior to the Concept Review Hearing on May 9, 2024, and the Board hearing on April 10, 2025, staff received view equity concerns from the neighbor located north of the subject property. Based on a site visit, it appears the neighbor’s existing landscaping effectively screens the proposed project and already impedes the ocean view. However, in response to the Board direction to increase screening to address the privacy concerns of the neighbors located to the south and north of the subject property, the Applicant proposed additional landscaping consisting of four (4) Arbutus Unedo ‘Strawberry Trees’ as shown on the updated landscape plan (Sheet A-1.5) in Attachment 2. Furthermore, in response to the Board’s direction, the third level (uppermost) has been shifted toward the rear by 3 feet, effectively addressing the neighbor’s concerns.”
Further, the Board imposed the following project-specific condition of approval, in part, addressing view equity:
Condition No. 32: At the Board meeting of December 11, 2025, the project was approved subject to the following conditions, which shall be incorporated into the final plans and implemented as part of the proposed development: the project program shall be shifted a minimum of two (2) feet toward the rear of the lot; the maximum height of the proposed structure shall be reduced and shall not exceed the 135-foot elevation mark; and, at the City’s discretion, a fall protection railing shall be installed along the exposed portions of the neighboring property’s fire access pathway at the front of the property to be located on the Applicant’s southerly retaining wall along the property line.
The City’s Design Guidelines – A Guide to Residential Development (the “Design Guidelines”)21 requires that “development, including its landscaping… be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop…” (Pg. 63.) Land Use Element Policy 2.10 similarly directs the City to “maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views.” The Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan (“DCSP”)22 further recognizes that “view protection is more important for major ‘ceremonial’ rooms (living, dining, kitchen, deck) than for secondary rooms (bedroom, bathroom, family room, etc.)” (Pg. 21 Design Guidelines, adopted by the City Council on December 7, 2010 as set forth by Resolution No. 10.117:
https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/home/showpublisheddocument/12989/638001331177400000 22 DCSP, last amended by Ordinance No. 1532 on August 31, 2010:
https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/home/showpublisheddocument/260/637360447937670000 32 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
A-35); that the “horizon line is the most sensitive part of a view” (Pg. A-36); and that “blockage of any important objects in the view (Catalina Island, city lights, etc.) is more difficult to accept than blockage of other, less well-known elements” (Pg. A-37).
The Board’s record demonstrates that view impacts and view equity were not only considered, but were a central focus of Board discussion across all three hearings, including specific discussion of Catalina Island views, the horizon line, and the extent and location of any view obstruction. For example, at the Concept Review hearing, Board members evaluated potential view impacts to adjacent properties. Chair Gibbs expressly concluded that view equity was achieved with respect to the Appellant’s property at 785 Gainsborough Drive. At the April 10, 2025 Board hearing, Board members again discussed view impacts and view equity, including the relative importance of views from primary versus secondary rooms and whether additional modifications were warranted to reduce view blockage. While Appellant contends that portions of the structure associated with story poles 8 and 9 affect the most important portion of his views (i.e., the horizon line and Catalina), these views appear to be from the secondary rooms in his home – the master bedroom and a second bedroom – as opposed to the major ceremonial rooms. At the December 11, 2025 hearing, multiple Board members identified view equity, Catalina Island, and the horizon line as key issues, and the Board’s discussion directly informed the project revisions that were ultimately incorporated into approval conditions. Specifically, Condition No. 32 of Board-adopted Resolution No. 25-0431 requires that the following changes be incorporated into the final plans and implemented as part of the proposed development: (1) “the project program shall be shifted a minimum of two (2) feet toward the rear of the lot”; and (2) “the maximum height of the proposed structure shall be reduced and shall not exceed the 135-foot elevation mark.” The Board found that with these changes, the Revised Project satisfied the View Equity design review criterion.
Regarding the Appellant’s claim that the Board relied on flawed and unreliable evidence due to story pole deficiencies, the City’s Municipal Code requires the following:
A staking plan shall be prepared as specified on the most current zoning and design review submittal checklist. Staking poles and connecting ribbons, which accurately represent the full extent of the proposed structure, including decks and eaves, shall be constructed at least 21 calendar days prior to the first public hearing. At least 21 calendar days prior to the first public hearing, the location and height of the staking poles must be certified as accurate by a registered land surveyor or registered civil engineer licensed to conduct land surveys in the State of California. If complete and certified project staking is not in place at least 21 calendar days prior to the first Design Review Board public hearing date . . ., the project shall be continued to a later date. Neither the applicant, a relative of the applicant, nor any other person possessing a financial interest in the property or the project may certify the location and height accuracy of the staking poles. If the project is modified during the design review process because of a view consideration, privacy or other concerns that the Board determines is necessary to restake, the project shall be re-staked and re-certified at least 14 calendar days prior to any subsequent public hearing,
(LBMC Section 25.05.040(C)(2)(a).)
33 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
As an initial matter, upon receipt of the Appeal and evaluating the contentions, City staff closely rereviewed the story poles and ribbons that were installed by contractors hired by Applicant and the certification, which is required to be done by a registered land surveyor, or registered civil engineer licensed to conduct land surveys in the State of California, who is not the applicant, relative of the applicant, or any other person with a financial interest. The intent of this requirement is to ensure integrity in the process and accurate representation of the design review project.
Applicant, who is a licensed civil engineer, certified the staking on July 10, 2024 for the Original Project (see Sheet A-1.4 of the April 10, 2025 Board plans, attached as Attachment 7) and on June 18, 2025 for the Revised Project. (See Sheet A-1.4 of the December 11, 2025 Board plans, attached as Attachment 11.) While this certification was done 21 calendar days prior to the public hearing on the Revised Project, the certification did not fully comply with the Municipal Code because it was certified by Applicant. In response to the Appeal, Applicant retained a third party registered civil engineer licensed to conduct land surveys in the State of California, Cynthia A De Leon, to review the staking. On January 8, 2026, Ms. De Leon certified the story pole height and location of the Revised Project (as it existed before the conditions imposed by the Board in the Board Approval). (Attachment 17.) According to Ms. De Leon’s certification, there was not a discrepancy of the pole and ribbon locations and the plans for the Revised Project, which was reviewed by the Board before the Board Approval. This subsequent verification cures the concern that the staking inaccurately represented the Revised Project’s height or massing, which was further mitigated by the Board through the imposition of additional project-specific conditions of approval on December 11, 2025. Furthermore, the City Council in its review of the Appeal will have the benefit of assessing the merits of the Appeal in reliance on an appropriately certified staking plan, for the version of the project (the Revised Project) that was reviewed by the Board before the Board imposed conditions of approval to further minimize impact of the project, among other evidence in the record.
Further, it should be noted that the Board’s evaluation did not depend on story poles alone. The Board considered the full evidentiary record, including the project plans, elevations, sections, visual materials presented at hearings, and extensive testimony, and Board members conducted site visits. In addition, Board members expressly raised view-related concerns during deliberations and directed measurable modifications to address them, including adjustments intended to reduce horizon and Catalina Island impacts. The Board’s approval required additional design changes that directly addressed the view equity issues discussed during the hearings, consistent with the City’s and DCSP’s balancing approach and the directive to avoid cutting into a neighbor’s horizon line whenever possible.
For these reasons, staff finds that the Board appropriately applied the City’s adopted view equity standards and policies, evaluated view equity in the manner required by the Design Guidelines, the Land Use Element, and the DCSP, and imposed conditions responsive to view impacts as reflected in the Board record. The approval, as conditioned and mitigated, represents a lawful exercise of discretion intended to respect both the Applicant’s rights and the Appellant’s view concerns.
2. “Reliance on an Improper Survey Basis: The Design Review Board’s findings relied on a topographic survey rather than a certified boundary survey. Without a boundary survey, particularly on a vacant lot, the Board and City staff lacked a verifiable baseline to confirm accurate 34 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
height, massing, and setback compliance. This deficiency undermined the approval related to project conformance with the approved plans and impacts to adjacent properties.” Staff’s Response
The Appellant asserts that the Board improperly relied on a topographic survey rather than a certified boundary survey, thereby undermining the Board’s ability to evaluate height, massing, and setback compliance.
A boundary survey and a topographic survey serve distinct but complementary purposes. A boundary survey is intended to establish the precise horizontal location of property lines and legal boundaries. By contrast, a topographic survey documents existing site conditions, including grades, contours, slopes, and elevation data, and is the appropriate technical basis for evaluating building height, massing, slope conditions, and visual impacts on a site. In the context of design review, particularly within the DCSP area where topography is a critical factor, a topographic survey is necessary and appropriate to assess how a structure relates to existing grades, hillside conditions, and view impacts. Height calculations, story pole placement, and evaluations of massing and visual prominence rely on elevation data that is provided through a topographic survey rather than a boundary survey.
The Board’s review appropriately relied on the project’s topographic information to evaluate compliance with height limits, massing, and visual impacts, including view equity considerations. The absence of a certified boundary survey at the design review stage did not preclude the Board from conducting a meaningful and accurate evaluation of the project’s design, as the Board’s findings were not dependent on final boundary verification but rather on the relationship of the proposed structure to existing grades and surrounding development.
Because boundary surveys are typically completed during the building permit application process that follows the discretionary entitlement phase, they are not usually used to inform the design review plans, which instead rely on the information contained in the topographic survey.
Importantly, the City addressed the need for final boundary verification through a Building Division Condition of Approval in Board-adopted Resolution No. 25-0431. Condition No. 20 requires that, “prior to issuance of a building permit, a record of survey shall be submitted to verify the location of all property lines. If the record of survey reflects property lines that are different than the site plan approved by the [Board], submittal of a new Zoning Plan Check will be required to verify consistency with the Board’s approval and the Zoning Code. Additionally, any project modifications may be subject to Design Review approval.” This condition ensures that final construction will be based on verified property boundaries and provides a clear procedural safeguard to address any discrepancies before building permits are issued and construction commences. In addition to the requirement for a boundary survey prior to building permit issuance, the City’s process involves numerous City inspections throughout the construction process to ensure compliance with the approved plans, and notably, the City requires a Building Height and Location Certification prepared by a licensed surveyor for a newly built residential structure at roof sheathing inspection, which ensures that the building is correctly sited on the lot and built to the appropriate height.
This certification is required before the City passes a final inspection for the building permit. Thus, if the 35 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
property lines depicted on the Board-approved plans are inaccurate, the Applicant will be required to submit a Zoning Plan Check application, and the changes to the site plan may require design review approval. No evidence has been presented that the boundaries have been improperly located on the plans.
Accordingly, reliance on a topographic survey at the design review stage was appropriate and consistent with standard practice for evaluating height, massing, and hillside development. Further, the condition of approval requiring a certified record of survey prior to permit issuance adequately addresses boundary verification. Lastly, the City’s requirement for a certificate of elevation clearance during construction will ensure that the new construction complies with the City’s approvals for the Revised Project.
3. “Inaccurate story pole installation; Exhibit A—Staking Investigation Letter (December 24, 2025): The letter confirms that the story poles did not match the approved plans, with measured deviations both above and below the proposed elevations. These inconsistencies—whether higher or lower—demonstrate that the story pole installation failed to accurately represent the submitted design and therefore could not serve as a reliable basis for the DRB approval findings. These deviations are material in a hillside environment where fractions of a foot significantly impact views. The DRB approval relied substantially on the physical story pole installation. The subsequent investigation demonstrates that the story poles did not accurately represent the approved design, rendering those findings unreliable.”
Staff’s Response
The Appellant contends that the Board’s approval relied on inaccurate story pole installation, citing a December 24, 2025 “Staking Investigation Letter” prepared by G.J. Design & Development. For the following reasons, this letter does not negate the validity of the Board’s findings or approval.
First, the letter itself has limited evidentiary value in the context of the Board’s decision making. The document does not identify whether the preparer, Garo of GJ Design & Development, is a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized under California law to perform boundary, elevation, or construction staking verification. The letter does not include a professional stamp or certification.
Second, the methodology used to prepare the letter is not explained. The letter does not describe how reference elevations were established, what control points were used, whether measurements were taken from approved plan benchmarks, or whether the measurements accounted for site conditions such as slope.
The absence of this information makes it impossible to determine whether the reported deviations are accurate. Without a clear methodology, the reported differences do not provide a reliable basis to conclude that the story poles materially misrepresented the proposed design. As such, staff cannot verify the technical reliability of the conclusions presented or determine whether the measurements were prepared in accordance with accepted surveying or engineering practices.
Third, even if the reported deviations were assumed to be accurate, the letter identifies variations both above and below the proposed elevations, generally on the order of a few tenths of a foot. The Board’s evaluation of view equity and massing was not based on a single story pole or precise fractional measurements, but on the overall relationship of the structure to the site, surrounding development, topography, and viewshed, as 36 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
reflected in the full project record. The concept of view equity requires a balancing of both a property owner’s right to develop with the rights of others already in the neighborhood to continue to enjoy views, which was accomplished here through several Board-directed changes over the course of three public hearings, including shifting the uppermost level toward the rear by three feet and the garage level toward the rear by two feet in response to direction provided to the Applicant at the April 10, 2025 Board hearing, and conditions of approval to require further reductions in building height and a requirement that the building be set back further into the hillside in response to conditions of approval imposed by the Board at the December 11, 2025 Board hearing, which reduce the Revised Project’s height and massing relatively below what was depicted by the story poles.
Fourth, as indicated further above, and in response to Appellant’s December 24, 2025 Staking Investigation Letter, the Applicant retained a registered civil engineer to re-certify and attest to the accuracy of the previously installed story poles. (Attachment 17.) There are also safeguards in place to assure that construction is in conformance with the approved plans. The condition of approval requiring a certified record of survey prior to building permit issuance adequately addresses boundary verification, and the City’s requirement for a certificate of elevation clearance during construction will ensure that the new construction complies with the City’s approvals for the Revised Project.
For these reasons, the December 24, 2025 staking investigation letter does not demonstrate that the Board relied on inaccurate or unreliable evidence, nor does it establish that the Board’s findings are unsupported by the record. Accordingly, this appeal contention does not provide a basis to overturn the approval.
4. “Lack of survey pole hub locations invalidates story pole accuracy: As documented in Exhibit A, the story poles were installed without survey stakes or ground hubs, a fundamental requirement for accurate staking. Without fixed control points tied to a certified survey, the placement and elevation of the poles could not be verified. This deficiency alone invalidates the story pole installation as a meaningful representation of the approved project.”
Staff’s Response
The City’s staking requirements are intended to ensure that story poles accurately depict the height and envelope of a proposed structure for DR purposes, not to require permanent survey monuments, which will occur when the boundary survey is prepared and reviewed and recorded by the County Surveyor. The story pole elevations are tied to a fixed datum benchmark location, in this case a sewer manhole near the Revised Project’s front lot line, as required by the City’s Planning Application form.25 Furthermore, in response to the Appeal contentions, the Applicant retained a registered civil engineer to re-certify and attest to the accuracy of the previously installed story poles. (Attachment 17.) The LBMC does not require the use of permanent ground hubs at every pole location. Fixed control for elevation and horizontal reference may be established using existing, identifiable datum points reflected in the topographic survey. Here, the fixed datum was derived from a topographic survey prepared by a registered civil engineer. 25 https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/home/showpublisheddocument/23183/638925948831600000 37 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
Accordingly, staff finds that the absence of permanent survey hubs does not, by itself, invalidate the story pole installation or negate the Board’s findings. The Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record.
5. “Poles erected off-plumb further compromised reliability: Field observations further confirm that many of the poles were erected off plumb, introducing additional distortion in the perception of height and massing. Off-plumb poles may understate apparent height depending on viewing angle and slope, particularly on a hillside site such as Crestview Drive. This condition further undermined the value of the story poles.”
Staff’s Response
The Appellant asserts that certain story poles were erected off plumb and therefore failed to accurately represent the approved project. Staff agrees that story poles are required to be installed accurately so they can reliably depict the proposed building height, massing, and envelope for design review purposes.
However, the record does not support the conclusion that the story poles were erected off-plumb.
As discussed in the responses to Appeal Contentions Nos. 1 through 4, the Appellant’s contention is based on a document prepared by Garo of GJ Design & Development. That document does not identify whether the preparer is a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized under California law to perform boundary, elevation, or construction staking verification. The letter does not include a professional stamp or certification. The Applicant, however, did retain a registered civil engineer qualified to certify the accuracy of the story poles, who confirmed that the poles were accurately set to represent the Revised Project. (Attachment 17.) As such, the record demonstrates that the story poles were not installed off-plumb.
In addition, even after the staking period, the Board required further reductions in height and massing and required the structure to be shifted further into the hillside, resulting in an approved project that is more conservative than what was depicted by the story poles.
Consistent with the City’s established process, final compliance with approved building heights and setbacks will be verified through conditions of approval that require a certified record of survey prior to building permit issuance and a building height and location certification during construction. These requirements will ensure that the constructed project will accurately reflect the Board Approval.
Accordingly, while accurate story pole installation is required, the Appellant has not demonstrated with substantial evidence that any story poles were erected off-plumb, or that any such inaccuracies resulted in inaccurate Board findings or deprived the Board of the ability to properly evaluate height, massing, or view impacts. The Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record and reflects a reasoned application of the City’s DR standards.
6. “Applicant-certified Staking Does Not Constitute Substantial Evidence: The staking was certified by the applicant, rather than independently verified. Applicant certification of inconsistent and inaccurately installed story poles cannot support DRB findings related to view, height and massing impacts. Taken together, the lack of an accurate survey basis and inconsistent story pole elevations, 38 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
whether higher or lower, demonstrate that the story poles were not a reliable basis for evaluating compliance with the Design Guidelines of View equity and Neighborhood Compatibility.” Staff’s Response
The Appellant contends that the story pole installation does not constitute substantial evidence because the staking was certified by the Applicant rather than independently verified, and therefore cannot support the Board’s findings related to view, height, and massing impacts.
The City’s Municipal Code requires the following with respect to staking for design review:
A staking plan shall be prepared as specified on the most current zoning and design review submittal checklist. Staking poles and connecting ribbons, which accurately represent the full extent of the proposed structure, including decks and eaves, shall be constructed at least 21 calendar days prior to the first public hearing. At least 21 calendar days prior to the first public hearing, the location and height of the staking poles must be certified as accurate by a registered land surveyor or registered civil engineer licensed to conduct land surveys in the State of California. If complete and certified project staking is not in place at least 21 calendar days prior to the first Board public hearing date . . ., the project shall be continued to a later date. Neither the applicant, a relative of the applicant, nor any other person possessing a financial interest in the property or the project may certify the location and height accuracy of the staking poles. If the project is modified during the design review process because of a view consideration, privacy or other concerns that the Board determines is necessary to restake, the project shall be re-staked and re-certified at least 14 calendar days prior to any subsequent public hearing,
(LBMC Section 25.05.040(C)(2)(a).)
As an initial matter, upon receipt of the Appeal and evaluating the contentions, City staff closely rereviewed the story poles and ribbons that were installed by contractors hired by Applicant and the certification, which is required to be done by a registered land surveyor, or registered civil engineer licensed to conduct land surveys in the State of California, who is not the applicant, relative of the applicant, or any other person with a financial interest. The intent of this requirement is to ensure integrity in the process and accurate representation of the design review project.
Applicant, who is a licensed civil engineer, certified the staking on July 10, 2024 for the Original Project (see Sheet A-1.4 of the April 10, 2025 Board plans, attached as Attachment 7) and on June 18, 2025 for the Revised Project. (See Sheet A-1.4 of the December 11, 2025 Board plans, attached as Attachment 11.) While this certification was done 21 calendar days prior to the public hearing on the Revised Project, the certification did not fully comply with the Municipal Code because it was certified by Applicant. In response to the Appeal, Applicant retained a third party registered civil engineer licensed to conduct land surveys in the State of California, Cynthia A De Leon, to review the staking. On January 8, 2026, Ms. De Leon certified the story pole height and location of the Revised Project (as it existed before the conditions imposed by the Board in the Board Approval). (Attachment 17.) According to Ms. De Leon’s certification, there was not a discrepancy of the pole and ribbon locations and the plans for the Revised Project, which 39 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
was reviewed by the Board before the Board Approval. This subsequent verification cures the concern that the staking inaccurately represented the Revised Project’s height or massing, which was further mitigated by the Board through the imposition of additional project-specific conditions of approval on December 11, 2025. Furthermore, the City Council in its review of the Appeal will have the benefit of assessing the merits of the Appeal in reliance on an appropriately certified staking plan, for the version of the project (the Revised Project) that was reviewed by the Board before the Board imposed conditions of approval to further minimize impact of the project, among other evidence in the record.
Further, it should be noted that the Board’s evaluation did not depend on story poles alone. The Board considered the full evidentiary record, including the project plans, elevations, sections, visual materials presented at hearings, and extensive testimony. In addition, Board members expressly raised view-related concerns during deliberations and directed measurable modifications to address them, including adjustments intended to reduce horizon and Catalina Island impacts. The Board’s approval required additional design changes that directly addressed the view equity issues discussed during the hearings, consistent with the City’s and DCSP’s balancing approach and the directive to avoid cutting into a neighbor’s horizon line whenever possible.
Accordingly, while the staking may have been defective because it was certified by a licensed civil engineer with a financial interest in the Revised Project (i.e., the Applicant), there was other evidence in the record that the Board relied upon that constitutes substantial evidence supporting the decision. The certification by Ms. De Leon, which confirms that the story pole placement and ribbons accurately reflected the Revised Project also supports that the original certification by Applicant (as opposed to a person without a financial interest) was harmless error.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact to the budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the Revised Project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, in that the project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures. Examples of Class 3 exemptions include single-family residence, second dwelling units, duplexes, and multi-family residential structures totaling no more than four dwelling units. Here, the proposed project includes the construction of a new single-family dwelling with an attached two- car garage and attached ADU within a residential zone. Therefore, this project fits within a Class 3 exemption.
Further, none of the exceptions outlined in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply. The project site is identified as an environmentally sensitive drainage area due to the presence of a drainage watercourse; however, the Revised Project will not adversely affect the environmentally sensitive area in that the watercourse has been significantly modified and altered due to the installation of a City storm drain constructed on the adjacent contiguous property. Furthermore, based on previous hydrology reports for the subject property, and a Hydrology Technical memo prepared in 2022, no impacts to the significant modified watercourse are anticipated. (Attachment 18.) Therefore, the Revised Project will not present significant 40 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
impacts to a particularly sensitive environment. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. The Revised Project is not located on a hazardous waste site or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The Revised Project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA. Staff will cause to be filed a Notice of Exemption (“NOE”) with the County Recorder's Office and state Clearinghouse within 5 days of adoption of this Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council Resolution (Pgs. 42-97)
2. May 9, 2024, Design Review Board Staff Report (Pgs. 98-117)
3. May 9, 2024, Design Review Board Plans (Pgs. 118-145)
4. May 9, Design Review Board Public Comments (Pgs. 146-176)
5. May 9, 2024 Design Review Board Transcript (Pgs. 177-197)
6. April 10, 2025, Design Review Board Staff Report (Pgs. 198-222)
7. April 10, 2025, Design Review Board Plans (Pgs. 223-249)
8. April 10, 2025, Design Review Board Public Comments (Pgs. 250-281)
9. April 10, 2025, Design Review Board Transcript (Pgs. 282-315)
10. December 11, 2025, Design Review Board Staff Report (Pgs. 316-343)
11. December 11, 2025, Design Review Board Plans (Pgs. 344-371)
12. December 11, 2025, Design Review Board Public Comments (Pgs. 372-375)
13. December 11, 2025, Design Review Board Transcript (Pgs. 376-402)
14. Board Approval Resolution 25-0431 (Pgs. 403-427)
15. Appeal (Pgs. 428-434)
16. City Council Appeal Public Notice (Pg. 435)
17. Ms. De Leon’s Recertified Staking Plan, 2026 (Pg. 436)
18. Hydrology Reports (Pgs. 437-446)
19. Project Renderings (Conceptual, Original, & Revised) (Pgs. 447-464)
20. Order of Testimony (Pgs. 465-466)
Submitted By: Matthew Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:
Shehriyar Khan, Associate Planner Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community
Development
41 of 485
RESOLUTION NO. 26.XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL
AND SUSTAINING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD’S
APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED TWO-CAR
GARAGE, ELEVATED DECKS, GRADING, AND
LANDSCAPING, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 25-0433
FOR THIS NON-EXEMPT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE
COASTAL ZONE, INCLUDING AN ATTACHED ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT, VARIANCE 25-0432 TO ENCROACH INTO
A SIGNIFICANT MODIFIED WATERCOURSE SETBACK
AREA AND TO NOT PROVIDE A PUBLIC PARKING SPACE IN
THE DIAMOND/CRESTVIEW SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, AND
REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 25-2285 FOR
RETAINING WALL AND FIRE ACCESS LADDER WITHIN
THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
WHEREAS, David Freeland, Architect (“Applicant”)1, for 2058 Crestview Drive (the “Property”) applied for Design Review (“DR”) 25-0431 for a new single-family residence with an attached two-car garage, elevated decks, retaining walls, grading, landscaping, Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 25-0433 for this non-exempt development within the coastal zone and an attached accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”), Variance (“VAR”) 25-0432 for encroachment into a significant modified watercourse setback area2 and to not provide a public parking space3, and Revocable Encroachment Permit (“REP”) 25-2285 for a 10-foot-high retaining wall and fire access ladder within the public right-of-way.
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2024, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project at the conceptual plan stage (the “Conceptual Project”). 1 The Project’s owner is Mike Czajkowski, who is within the definition of Applicant. 2 Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.50.030(D)(4).
3 Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan (“DCSP”) Section IV(J)(1).
Attachment 1
42 42 of 485
-2- Reso. #26.XXX
During the hearing, the Board evaluated the proposed design and received public testimony, which focused primarily on view equity, neighborhood compatibility, and privacy concerns. Following discussion, the Board directed the Applicant to explore alternative colors and materials to improve neighborhood compatibility and achieve a more rustic character, increase landscaping to address privacy impacts, and increase grading to better integrate the structure into the hillside and reduce its apparent mass. The Board also indicated that the requested variance to encroach into the significant modified watercourse setback was reasonable, given the altered condition of the watercourse and the absence of environmental resources.
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2025, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the entitlement applications, consisting of Design Review 25-0431, Coastal Development Permit 25-0433, Variance 25-0432, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 25-2285 (the “Original Project”). In the published staff report, staff summarized revisions made by the Applicant in response to prior Board direction, including the addition of landscaping along the south side of the structure to address privacy concerns associated with 2100 Crestview Drive, modifications to exterior colors and materials, and updated grading calculations demonstrating greater integration of the structure into the hillside. As indicated in the staff report, the Applicant requested an additional variance request to allow deviation from the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan requirement to provide an on-street public parking space. After receiving input from staff, the Applicant, and public comments, the Board discussed the Original Project and voted 5–0 to continue the hearing to July 10, 2025, to allow the Applicant additional time to revise the project in response to Board direction and to engage further with neighboring property owners. The Board provided the following direction to the Applicant: (1) shift the uppermost level toward the rear to 43 43 of 485
-3- Reso. #26.XXX
help address view equity concerns; (2) modify the driveway to accommodate two standard parking spaces outside of the public right-of-way; (3) adjust the proposed exterior color to a more rustic tone; (4) incorporate additional landscaping to enhance privacy; and (5) explore solutions regarding the neighboring wall encroaching into the public right-of-way, which currently protects the adjacent (southern) property’s emergency access stairs.
WHEREAS, the Applicant subsequently requested additional continuances to September 11, 2025 and then to October 9, 2025. At the October 9, 2025 hearing, upon discovering that the application did not include a request for the required Revocable Encroachment Permit, the Board decided not to deliberate on the merits of the project and instead continued the item to December 11, 2025.
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2025, the Applicant submitted revised plans to City staff with the following modifications (the “Revised Project”): (1) The setback between the garage and the street has been increased by 2 feet to better accommodate two cars parking on the driveway.
One space in the driveway is 18 feet deep (i.e., a standard space). The second space is about 16 feet deep (i.e., a compact space)4
; (2) the third (uppermost) level was shifted 3 feet toward the rear, 4 Section IV(J)(1) of the DCSP states: “Upon development of a building site, one (1) on-street public parking space shall be provided. If the provision of on-street parking is found to be infeasible, an equivalent parking space shall be provided on-site. Only upon exhaustion of all possible alternatives to provide a parking space either on-street or onsite and with approval of a variance, an in-lieu fee as established by City Council, shall be paid to fund the future construction of parking in the neighborhood.” Here, the Revised Project satisfies this requirement with the imposition of COA No. 21 in Board-adopted Resolution No. 25-0431, which requires the payment of a $23,000 in-lieu fee. The in-lieu fee was imposed because the Board found that it was infeasible for the Revised Project to provide a public parking space. The in-lieu fee is in addition to the two covered parking spaces that will be provided in the garage to satisfy the parking required for the single-family home. The ADU is exempt from the parking requirements due to its proximity to a public transit stop. The driveway parking spaces would provide additional, non-required off-street parking on the Applicant’s Property for the Applicant’s exclusive use. Although the second space in the driveway (fourth off-street space overall) is too shallow to meet the criteria for a standard parking space, it exceeds the minimum depth required for a compact parking space (15 feet), and as such would be usable by smaller vehicles without encroachment into the right-of-way.
44 44 of 485
-4- Reso. #26.XXX
resulting in a corresponding shift and slight enlargement of the second level, to address views over the building; (3) exterior color was updated to Sage Green and additional limestone veneer was added to the garage face; (4) vertical siding was removed in two areas on the front elevation and replaced with stucco to soften the structure’s box-like appearance; (5) additional landscaping along the north and south-side property lines, including two Arbutus unedo (Strawberry trees), was included to address privacy concerns; (6) the structure was also further embedded into the hillside to reduce the appearance of mass; and (7) Revocable Encroachment Permit application was submitted, requesting the construction of a 10-foot-high retaining wall and the installation of a 10- foot-high wall mounted foldable metal ladder.
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2025, the Board held a public hearing to consider the Revised Project and received public testimony expressing continued concerns related to view equity and neighborhood compatibility. The Board voted 4-0 (Chair Gibbs absent) to adopt Resolution 25-0431, approving the Revised Project and finding the Revised Project exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, subject to the standard conditions of approval and the following Board-imposed condition of approval (COA No. 32) (the “Board Approval”):
Condition No. 32: “At the Design Review Board meeting of December 11, 2025, the project was approved subject to the following conditions, which shall be incorporated into the final plans and implemented as part of the proposed development: the project program shall be shifted a minimum of two (2) feet toward the rear of the lot; the maximum height of the proposed structure shall be reduced and shall not exceed the 135-foot elevation mark; and, at the City’s discretion, a fall protection railing shall be installed along the exposed portions of the neighboring property’s fire access pathway at the front of the property to be 45 45 of 485
-5- Reso. #26.XXX
located on the Applicant’s southerly retaining wall along the property line.”5 WHEREAS, on January 2, 2025, Evgenii Krasko (the “Appellant”), the neighboring property owner of 785 Gainsborough Drive, filed a notice of appeal of the Board Approval (the “Appeal”). The Appellant contends that the Board failed to adequately protect view equity, citing six contentions.
WHEREAS, LBMC Section 25.05.070 requires certain forms of public notice for an appeal. Public notice was duly provided to consider the Appeal of the Project at the February 24, 2026 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065.
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Appeal and carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence and arguments presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH DOES RESOLVE:
SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby makes the following findings in response to grounds for appeal stated in Appellants’ notice of Appeal:
1. “Failure to Adequately Protect View Equity: The Design Review Board approval failed to adequately protect view equity for the appellant, Evgenii Krasko, as required by the City’s Design Guidelines, Land Use Element Policy 2.10 of maximizing the preservation 5 Implementation of COA No. 32 would have the effect of increasing the depth of the non-required offstreet parking spaces located on the Applicant’s Property within the driveway to meet the minimum depth for standard residential parking spaces.
46 46 of 485
-6- Reso. #26.XXX
of coastal views from existing properties, and Design Standards, Diamond Crestview Specific Plan (D/CSP). The approval relied on flawed and unreliable evidence that prevented an accurate evaluation of the project’s impact to Mr. Krasko’s view. Under the D/CSP, the horizon line is the most sensitive element of a view. Blockage of important and recognizable physical features, including Catalina Island, is significantly more difficult to approve than blockage of lesser elements. In this case, the project’s massing, particularly along the side of the structure associated with story poles 8 and 10, encroaches into the most important portion of Mr. Krasko’s view, affecting both the horizon line and Catalina Island. The DRB record does not demonstrate that this impact was adequately avoided, minimized, or fairly balanced against the applicant’s desire to capture views. The story pole deficiencies are significant because they undermined the City’s ability to properly evaluate view equity, which should have been the primary focus of the DRB review.
Although the poles were reportedly corrected a day before the hearing, Mr. Krasko believes that the condition of the poles during site inspections did not allow for an accurate or fair evaluation of view impacts from his home.”
City Council Response
The Board found that the Project complied with Design Review Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 16 (View Equity) as follows:
“Due to the hillside setting and orientation of uphill and downhill homes, significant impacts to private views are not anticipated. The project proposes a rear setback of 51 feet and the roof of the highest level would be approximately 12 feet to 22 feet below the homes above. Three strawberry trees are proposed to be approximately 14 feet from the rear 47 47 of 485
-7- Reso. #26.XXX
property line, which with a maintained height of 15’ should not impede public or private views over the project site. Prior to the Concept Review Hearing on May 9, 2024, and the Design Review Board hearing on April 10, 2025, the City received view equity concerns from the neighbor located north of the subject property. Based on a site visit, it appears the neighbor’s existing landscaping effectively screens the proposed project and already impedes the ocean view. However, in response to the Board direction to increase screening to address the privacy concerns of the neighbors located to the south and north of the subject property, the Applicant proposed additional landscaping consisting of four (4) Arbutus Unedo ‘Strawberry Trees’ as shown on the updated landscape plan (Sheet A-1.5).
Furthermore, in response to the Board’s direction, the third level (uppermost) has been shifted toward the rear by 3 feet, effectively addressing the neighbor’s concerns.” Further, the Board imposed the following project-specific condition of approval, in part, addressing view equity:
Condition No. 32: At the Design Review Board meeting of December 11, 2025, the project was approved subject to the following conditions, which shall be incorporated into the final plans and implemented as part of the proposed development: the project program shall be shifted a minimum of two (2) feet toward the rear of the lot; the maximum height of the proposed structure shall be reduced and shall not exceed the 135-foot elevation mark; and, at the City’s discretion, a fall protection railing shall be installed along the exposed portions of the neighboring property’s fire access pathway at the front of the property to be located on the Applicant’s southerly retaining wall along the property line.
The City’s Design Guidelines – A Guide to Residential Development (the “Design 48 48 of 485
-8- Reso. #26.XXX
Guidelines”)6 requires that “development, including its landscaping… be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop…” (Pg. 63.) Land Use Element Policy 2.10 similarly directs the City to “maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views.” The Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan (“DCSP”)7 further recognizes that “view protection is more important for major ‘ceremonial’ rooms (living, dining, kitchen, deck) than for secondary rooms (bedroom, bathroom, family room, etc.)” (Pg. A-35); that the “horizon line is the most sensitive part of a view” (Pg. A-36); and that “blockage of any important objects in the view (Catalina Island, city lights, etc.) is more difficult to accept than blockage of other, less well-known elements” (Pg. A-37).
The Board’s record demonstrates that view impacts and view equity were not only considered, but were a central focus of Board discussion across all three hearings, including specific discussion of Catalina Island views, the horizon line, and the extent and location of any view obstruction. For example, at the Concept Review hearing, Board members evaluated potential view impacts to adjacent properties. Chair Gibbs expressly concluded that view equity was achieved with respect to the Appellant’s property at 785 Gainsborough Drive. At the April 10, 2025 Board hearing, Board members again discussed view impacts and view equity, including the relative importance of views from primary versus secondary rooms and whether additional 6 Design Guidelines, adopted by the City Council on December 7, 2010 as set forth by Resolution No.
10.117:
https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/home/showpublisheddocument/12989/638001331177400000 7 DCSP, last amended by Ordinance No. 1532 on August 31, 2010:
https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/home/showpublisheddocument/260/637360447937670000 49 49 of 485
-9- Reso. #26.XXX
modifications were warranted to reduce view blockage. While Appellant contends that portions of the structure associated with story poles 8 and 9 affect the most important portion of his views (i.e., the horizon line and Catalina), these views appear to be from the secondary rooms in his home – the master bedroom and a second bedroom – as opposed to the major ceremonial rooms. At the December 11, 2025 hearing, multiple Board members identified view equity, Catalina Island, and the horizon line as key issues, and the Board’s discussion directly informed the project revisions that were ultimately incorporated into approval conditions. Specifically, Condition No. 32 of Board-adopted Resolution No. 25-0431 requires that the following changes be incorporated into the final plans and implemented as part of the proposed development: (1) “the project program shall be shifted a minimum of two (2) feet toward the rear of the lot”; and (2) “the maximum height of the proposed structure shall be reduced and shall not exceed the 135-foot elevation mark.” The Board found that with these changes, the Revised Project satisfied the View Equity design review criterion.
Regarding the Appellant’s claim that the Board relied on flawed and unreliable evidence due to story pole deficiencies, the City’s Municipal Code requires the following:
“A staking plan shall be prepared as specified on the most current zoning and design review submittal checklist. Staking poles and connecting ribbons, which accurately represent the full extent of the proposed structure, including decks and eaves, shall be constructed at least 21 calendar days prior to the first public hearing. At least 21 calendar days prior to the first public hearing, the location and height of the staking poles must be certified as accurate by a registered land surveyor or registered civil engineer licensed to conduct land surveys in the State of California. If complete and certified project staking is not in place 50 50 of 485
-10- Reso. #26.XXX
at least 21 calendar days prior to the first Design Review Board public hearing date . . ., the project shall be continued to a later date. Neither the applicant, a relative of the applicant, nor any other person possessing a financial interest in the property or the project may certify the location and height accuracy of the staking poles. If the project is modified during the design review process because of a view consideration, privacy or other concerns that the Board determines is necessary to restake, the project shall be re-staked and re-certified at least 14 calendar days prior to any subsequent public hearing.” (LBMC Section 25.05.040(C)(2)(a).)
As an initial matter, upon receipt of the Appeal and evaluating the contentions, the City closely re-reviewed the story poles and ribbons that were installed by contractors hired by Applicant and the certification, which is required to be done by a registered land surveyor, or registered civil engineer licensed to conduct land surveys in the State of California, who is not the applicant, relative of the applicant, or any other person with a financial interest. The intent of this requirement is to ensure integrity in the process and accurate representation of the design review project.
Applicant, who is a licensed civil engineer, certified the staking on July 10, 2024 for the Original Project (see Sheet A-1.4 of the April 10, 2025 Board plans) and on June 18, 2025 for the Revised Project. (See Sheet A-1.4 of the December 11, 2025 Board plans.) While this certification was done within 21 calendar days prior to the first public hearing, the certification did not fully comply with the Municipal Code because it was certified by Applicant. In response to the Appeal, Applicant retained a third party registered civil engineer licensed to conduct land surveys in the State of California, Cynthia A De Leon, to review the staking. On January 8, 2026, Ms. De Leon 51 51 of 485
-11- Reso. #26.XXX
certified the story pole height and location of the Revised Project (as it existed before the conditions imposed by the Board in the Board Approval). According to Ms. De Leon’s certification, there was not a discrepancy of the pole and ribbon locations and the plans for the Revised Project, which was reviewed by the Board before the Board Approval. This subsequent verification cures the concern that the staking inaccurately represented the Revised Project’s height or massing, which was further mitigated by the Board through the imposition of additional projectspecific conditions of approval on December 11, 2025. Furthermore, the City Council in its review of the Appeal will have the benefit of assessing the merits of the Appeal in reliance on an appropriately certified staking plan, for the version of the project (the Revised Project) that was reviewed by the Board before the Board imposed conditions of approval to further minimize impact of the project, among other evidence in the record.
Further, it should be noted that the Board’s evaluation did not depend on story poles alone.
The Board considered the full evidentiary record, including the project plans, elevations, sections, visual materials presented at hearings, and extensive testimony, and Board members conducted site visits. In addition, Board members expressly raised view-related concerns during deliberations and directed measurable modifications to address them, including adjustments intended to reduce horizon and Catalina Island impacts. The Board’s approval required additional design changes that directly addressed the view equity issues discussed during the hearings, consistent with the City’s and DCSP’s balancing approach and the directive to avoid cutting into a neighbor’s horizon line whenever possible.
For these reasons, the City Council finds that the Board appropriately applied the City’s adopted view equity standards and policies, evaluated view equity in the manner required by the 52 52 of 485
-12- Reso. #26.XXX
Design Guidelines, the Land Use Element, and the DCSP, and imposed conditions responsive to view impacts as reflected in the Board record. The approval, as conditioned and mitigated, represents a lawful exercise of discretion intended to respect both the Applicant’s rights and the Appellant’s view concerns.
2. “Reliance on an Improper Survey Basis: The Design Review Board’s findings relied on a topographic survey rather than a certified boundary survey. Without a boundary survey, particularly on a vacant lot, the Board and City staff lacked a verifiable baseline to confirm accurate height, massing, and setback compliance. This deficiency undermined the approval related to project conformance with the approved plans and impacts to adjacent properties.”
City Council Response
The Appellant asserts that the Board improperly relied on a topographic survey rather than a certified boundary survey, thereby undermining the Board’s ability to evaluate height, massing, and setback compliance.
A boundary survey and a topographic survey serve distinct but complementary purposes.
A boundary survey is intended to establish the precise horizontal location of property lines and legal boundaries. By contrast, a topographic survey documents existing site conditions, including grades, contours, slopes, and elevation data, and is the appropriate technical basis for evaluating building height, massing, slope conditions, and visual impacts on a site. In the context of design review, particularly within the DCSP area where topography is a critical factor, a topographic survey is necessary and appropriate to assess how a structure relates to existing grades, hillside conditions, and view impacts. Height calculations, story pole placement, and evaluations of 53 53 of 485
-13- Reso. #26.XXX
massing and visual prominence rely on elevation data that is provided through a topographic survey rather than a boundary survey.
The Board’s review appropriately relied on the project’s topographic information to evaluate compliance with height limits, massing, and visual impacts, including view equity considerations. The absence of a certified boundary survey at the design review stage did not preclude the Board from conducting a meaningful and accurate evaluation of the project’s design, as the Board’s findings were not dependent on final boundary verification but rather on the relationship of the proposed structure to existing grades and surrounding development.
Because boundary surveys are typically completed during the building permit application process that follows the discretionary entitlement phase, they are not usually used to inform the design review plans, which instead rely on the information contained in the topographic survey.
Importantly, the City addressed the need for final boundary verification through a Building Division Condition of Approval in Board-adopted Resolution No. 25-0431. Condition No. 20 requires that, “prior to issuance of a building permit, a record of survey shall be submitted to verify the location of all property lines. If the record of survey reflects property lines that are different than the site plan approved by the [Board], submittal of a new Zoning Plan Check will be required to verify consistency with the Board’s approval and the Zoning Code. Additionally, any project modifications may be subject to Design Review approval.” This condition ensures that final construction will be based on verified property boundaries and provides a clear procedural safeguard to address any discrepancies before building permits are issued and construction commences. In addition to the requirement for a boundary survey prior to building permit issuance, the City’s process involves numerous City inspections throughout the construction process to 54 54 of 485
-14- Reso. #26.XXX
ensure compliance with the approved plans, and notably, the City requires a Building Height and Location Certification prepared by a licensed surveyor for a newly built residential structure at roof sheathing inspection, which ensures that the building is correctly sited on the lot and built to the appropriate height. This certification is required before the City passes a final inspection for the building permit. Thus, if the property lines depicted on the Board-approved plans are inaccurate, the Applicant will be required to submit a Zoning Plan Check application, and the changes to the site plan may require design review approval. No evidence has been presented that the boundaries have been improperly located on the plans.
Accordingly, reliance on a topographic survey at the design review stage was appropriate and consistent with standard practice for evaluating height, massing, and hillside development.
Further, the condition of approval requiring a certified record of survey prior to permit issuance adequately addresses boundary verification. Lastly, the City’s requirement for a certificate of elevation clearance during construction will ensure that the new construction complies with the City’s approvals for the Revised Project.
3. “Inaccurate story pole installation; Exhibit A—Staking Investigation Letter (December 24, 2025): The letter confirms that the story poles did not match the approved plans, with measured deviations both above and below the proposed elevations. These inconsistencies—whether higher or lower—demonstrate that the story pole installation failed to accurately represent the submitted design and therefore could not serve as a reliable basis for the DRB approval findings. These deviations are material in a hillside environment where fractions of a foot significantly impact views. The DRB approval relied substantially on the physical story pole installation. The subsequent investigation 55 55 of 485
-15- Reso. #26.XXX
demonstrates that the story poles did not accurately represent the approved design, rendering those findings unreliable.”
City Council Response
The Appellant contends that the Board’s approval relied on inaccurate story pole installation, citing a December 24, 2025 “Staking Investigation Letter” prepared by G.J. Design & Development. For the following reasons, this letter does not negate the validity of the Board’s findings or approval.
First, the letter itself has limited evidentiary value in the context of the Board’s decision making. The document does not identify whether the preparer, Garo of GJ Design & Development, is a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized under California law to perform boundary, elevation, or construction staking verification. The letter does not include a professional stamp or certification.
Second, the methodology used to prepare the letter is not explained. The letter does not describe how reference elevations were established, what control points were used, whether measurements were taken from approved plan benchmarks, or whether the measurements accounted for site conditions such as slope. The absence of this information makes it impossible to determine whether the reported deviations are accurate. Without a clear methodology, the reported differences do not provide a reliable basis to conclude that the story poles materially misrepresented the proposed design. As such, the City Council cannot verify the technical reliability of the conclusions presented or determine whether the measurements were prepared in accordance with accepted surveying or engineering practices.
Third, even if the reported deviations were assumed to be accurate, the letter identifies 56 56 of 485
-16- Reso. #26.XXX
variations both above and below the proposed elevations, generally on the order of a few tenths of a foot. The Board’s evaluation of view equity and massing was not based on a single story pole or precise fractional measurements, but on the overall relationship of the structure to the site, surrounding development, topography, and viewshed, as reflected in the full project record. The concept of view equity requires a balancing of both a property owner’s right to develop with the rights of others already in the neighborhood to continue to enjoy views, which was accomplished here through several Board-directed changes over the course of three public hearings, including shifting the uppermost level toward the rear by three feet and the garage level toward the rear by two feet in response to direction provided to the Applicant at the April 10, 2025 Board hearing, and conditions of approval to require further reductions in building height and a requirement that the building be set back further into the hillside in response to conditions of approval imposed by the Board at the December 11, 2025 Board hearing, which reduce the Revised Project’s height and massing relatively below what was depicted by the story poles.
Fourth, as indicated further above, and in response to Appellant’s December 24, 2025 Staking Investigation Letter, the Applicant retained a registered civil engineer to re-certify and attest to the accuracy of the previously installed story poles. There are also safeguards in place to assure that construction is in conformance with the approved plans. The condition of approval requiring a certified record of survey prior to building permit issuance adequately addresses boundary verification, and the City’s requirement for a certificate of elevation clearance during construction will ensure that the new construction complies with the City’s approvals for the Revised Project.
For these reasons, the December 24, 2025 staking investigation letter does not demonstrate 57 57 of 485
-17- Reso. #26.XXX
that the Board relied on inaccurate or unreliable evidence, nor does it establish that the Board’s findings are unsupported by the record. Accordingly, this appeal contention does not provide a basis to overturn the approval.
4. “Lack of survey pole hub locations invalidates story pole accuracy: As documented in Exhibit A, the story poles were installed without survey stakes or ground hubs, a fundamental requirement for accurate staking. Without fixed control points tied to a certified survey, the placement and elevation of the poles could not be verified. This deficiency alone invalidates the story pole installation as a meaningful representation of the approved project.”
City Council Response
The City’s staking requirements are intended to ensure that story poles accurately depict the height and envelope of a proposed structure for Design Review purposes, not to require permanent survey monuments, which will occur when the boundary survey is prepared and reviewed and recorded by the County Surveyor. The story pole elevations are tied to a fixed datum benchmark location, in this case a sewer manhole near the Revised Project’s front lot line, as required by the City’s Planning Application form.8 Furthermore, in response to the Appeal contentions, the Applicant retained a registered civil engineer to re-certify and attest to the accuracy of the previously installed story poles. The LBMC does not require the use of permanent ground hubs at every pole location. Fixed control for elevation and horizontal reference may be established using existing, identifiable datum points reflected in the topographic survey. Here, the fixed datum was derived from a topographic survey prepared by a registered civil engineer. 8 https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/home/showpublisheddocument/23183/638925948831600000 58 58 of 485
-18- Reso. #26.XXX
Accordingly, the City Council finds that the absence of permanent survey hubs does not, by itself, invalidate the story pole installation or negate the Board’s findings. The Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record.
5. “Poles erected off-plumb further compromised reliability: Field observations further confirm that many of the poles were erected off plumb, introducing additional distortion in the perception of height and massing. Off-plumb poles may understate apparent height depending on viewing angle and slope, particularly on a hillside site such as Crestview Drive. This condition further undermined the value of the story poles.” City Council Response
The Appellant asserts that certain story poles were erected off plumb and therefore failed to accurately represent the approved project. The City agrees that story poles are required to be installed accurately so they can reliably depict the proposed building height, massing, and envelope for design review purposes. However, the record does not support the conclusion that the story poles were erected off-plumb.
As discussed in the responses to Appeal Contentions Nos. 1 through 4, the Appellant’s contention is based on a document prepared by Garo of GJ Design & Development. That document does not identify whether the preparer is a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized under California law to perform boundary, elevation, or construction staking verification. The letter does not include a professional stamp or certification. The Applicant, however, did retain a registered civil engineer qualified to certify the accuracy of the story poles, who confirmed that the poles were accurately set to represent the Revised Project. As such, the record demonstrates that the story poles were not installed off-plumb. In addition, even after the staking period, the 59 59 of 485
-19- Reso. #26.XXX
Board required further reductions in height and massing and required the structure to be shifted further into the hillside, resulting in an approved project that is more conservative than what was depicted by the story poles.
Consistent with the City’s established process, final compliance with approved building heights and setbacks will be verified through conditions of approval that require a certified record of survey prior to building permit issuance and a building height and location certification during construction. These requirements will ensure that the constructed project will accurately reflect the Board Approval.
Accordingly, while accurate story pole installation is required, the Appellant has not demonstrated with substantial evidence that any story poles were erected off-plumb, or that any such inaccuracies resulted in inaccurate Board findings or deprived the Board of the ability to properly evaluate height, massing, or view impacts. The Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record and reflects a reasoned application of the City’s Design Review standards.
6. “Applicant-certified Staking Does Not Constitute Substantial Evidence: The staking was certified by the applicant, rather than independently verified. Applicant certification of inconsistent and inaccurately installed story poles cannot support DRB findings related to view, height and massing impacts. Taken together, the lack of an accurate survey basis and inconsistent story pole elevations, whether higher or lower, demonstrate that the story poles were not a reliable basis for evaluating compliance with the Design Guidelines of View equity and Neighborhood Compatibility.”
60 60 of 485
-20- Reso. #26.XXX
City Council Response
The Appellant contends that the story pole installation does not constitute substantial evidence because the staking was certified by the Applicant rather than independently verified, and therefore cannot support the Board’s findings related to view, height, and massing impacts.
The City’s Municipal Code requires the following with respect to staking for design review:
A staking plan shall be prepared as specified on the most current zoning and design review submittal checklist. Staking poles and connecting ribbons, which accurately represent the full extent of the proposed structure, including decks and eaves, shall be constructed at least 21 calendar days prior to the first public hearing. At least 21 calendar days prior to the first public hearing, the location and height of the staking poles must be certified as accurate by a registered land surveyor or registered civil engineer licensed to conduct land surveys in the State of California. If complete and certified project staking is not in place at least 21 calendar days prior to the first Design Review Board public hearing date . . ., the project shall be continued to a later date. Neither the applicant, a relative of the applicant, nor any other person possessing a financial interest in the property or the project may certify the location and height accuracy of the staking poles. If the project is modified during the design review process because of a view consideration, privacy or other concerns that the Board determines is necessary to restake, the project shall be re-staked and re-certified at least 14 calendar days prior to any subsequent public hearing. (LBMC Section 25.05.040(C)(2)(a).)
As an initial matter, upon receipt of the Appeal and evaluating the contentions, the City 61 61 of 485
-21- Reso. #26.XXX
closely re-reviewed the story poles and ribbons that were installed by contractors hired by Applicant and the certification, which is required to be done by a registered land surveyor, or registered civil engineer licensed to conduct land surveys in the State of California, who is not the applicant, relative of the applicant, or any other person with a financial interest. The intent of this requirement is to ensure integrity in the process and accurate representation of the design review project.
Applicant, who is a licensed civil engineer, certified the staking on July 10, 2024 for the Original Project (see Sheet A-1.4 of the April 10, 2025 Board plans) and on June 18, 2025 for the Revised Project. (See Sheet A-1.4 of the December 11, 2025 Board plans.) While this certification was done within 21 calendar days prior to the first public hearing, the certification did not fully comply with the Municipal Code because it was certified by Applicant. In response to the Appeal, Applicant retained a third party registered civil engineer licensed to conduct land surveys in the State of California, Cynthia A De Leon, to review the staking. On January 8, 2026, Ms. De Leon certified the story pole height and location of the Revised Project (as it existed before the conditions imposed by the Board in the Board Approval). According to Ms. De Leon’s certification, there was not a discrepancy of the pole and ribbon locations and the plans for the Revised Project, which was reviewed by the Board before the Board Approval. This subsequent verification cures the concern that the staking inaccurately represented the Revised Project’s height or massing, which was further mitigated by the Board through the imposition of additional projectspecific conditions of approval on December 11, 2025. Furthermore, the City Council in its review of the Appeal will have the benefit of assessing the merits of the Appeal in reliance on an appropriately certified staking plan, for the version of the project (the Revised Project) that was 62 62 of 485
-22- Reso. #26.XXX
reviewed by the Board before the Board imposed conditions of approval to further minimize impact of the project, among other evidence in the record.
Further, it should be noted that the Board’s evaluation did not depend on story poles alone.
The Board considered the full evidentiary record, including the project plans, elevations, sections, visual materials presented at hearings, and extensive testimony. In addition, Board members expressly raised view-related concerns during deliberations and directed measurable modifications to address them, including adjustments intended to reduce horizon and Catalina Island impacts.
The Board’s approval required additional design changes that directly addressed the view equity issues discussed during the hearings, consistent with the City’s and DCSP’s balancing approach and the directive to avoid cutting into a neighbor’s horizon line whenever possible.
Accordingly, while the staking may have been defective because it was certified by a licensed civil engineer with a financial interest in the Revised Project (i.e., the Applicant), there was other evidence in the record that the Board relied upon that constitutes substantial evidence supporting the decision. The certification by Ms. De Leon, which confirms that the story pole placement and ribbons accurately reflected the Revised Project also supports that the original certification by Applicant (as opposed to a person without a financial interest) was harmless error.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for DR 25-0431:
Finding No. 1: Physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with the design review criteria specified in Section
25.05.040(H), as set forth below:
1. Access. Conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and other modes of transportation 63 63 of 485
-23- Reso. #26.XXX
should be minimized by specifically providing for each applicable mode of transportation.
Handicapped access shall be provided as required by applicable statutes.
The Project includes an attached two-car garage which is accessed from an uphill sloping driveway, providing sufficient vehicular back-up distance. There is no area within 200 feet of the property that can accommodate a public parking space. Accordingly, the applicant is concurrently seeking a variance from the D/CSP requirement to provide one on-street public parking space. In addition, the Project design accommodates one (1) conforming private parking space and one substandard private parking space onsite in the driveway leading to the code compliant 2-car garage.
These driveway parking spaces would not impede vehicle travel in the abutting public right-ofway. There are no public sidewalks. Adequate vehicle sight distance exists to access the on-site parking spaces based on the proposed site plan reviewed by Public Works staff.
2. Design Articulation: Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized. Articulation techniques including, but not limited to, separation, offsets, terracing and reducing the size of any one element in the structure may be used to reduce the appearance of mass.
The proposed terraced project steps up from Crestview Drive and appears as a four-level structure, consisting of a lower-level garage and three upper levels, including the ADU. The front (west) elevation is articulated through terracing, varied projections, and offsets. The angled garage is set back 16 feet and 26 feet from the front property line at its shortest and longest points, respectively. There will be only one publicly visible retaining wall along the south property line between the garage and the street. The wall will slope up from the street and will be no taller than 16 feet at the face of the garage remaining pedestrian in scale. The first-level deck is located 64 64 of 485
-24- Reso. #26.XXX
directly above the garage, and the ADU at this level is set back approximately 42 feet from the front property line. The second-level deck is above the ADU, with the primary residence set back approximately 63 feet. The third (uppermost) level is set back an additional 3 feet, bringing its setback to approximately 66 feet. With a terraced form and a compact building footprint of 1,569 square feet, the design reduces visual massing and is appropriately articulated.
3. Design Integrity: Consistency with the applicant’s chosen style of architecture should be achieved by the use of appropriate materials and details. Remodels should be harmonious with the remaining existing architecture.
One of the policies of the D/CSP seeks to ensure that “the proposed new residences and modifications to existing residences are compatible with the rustic character of the neighborhood by requiring varied and eclectic architectural styles and moderate scale and mass with low-profile design that respect the topography of the land…” (Policy No.1. pg. III-2.). The proposed project is terraced and built into the hillside and provides contemporary design with rustic colors and materials. The lower-level garage features a limestone veneer. Board-and-batten siding is used on the first level and portions of the third level, while stucco is applied to the second level and parts of the third to soften the structure’s appearance. The exterior is finished in a rustic Sage Green color. The proposed eclectic architectural style is compatible with the more modern character of the neighborhood.
4. Environmental Context: Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city’s scenic natural setting. Natural features, such as existing heritage trees, rock outcropping, ridgelines and significant watercourses should be protected. Existing terrain should be utilized in the design and grading should be minimized. 65 65 of 485
-25- Reso. #26.XXX
The site is devoid of significant natural features such as heritage trees, rock outcroppings, ridgelines or natural watercourses. The proposed project includes a net grading export of 1,343 cubic yards, which is consistent with new home development on steep hillside building sites. The amount of grading facilitates a reasonable balance of above and below grade structure thereby reducing the appearance of mass. Impervious surfaces are less than 50% which the City has found to be an acceptable amount for steep hillside lots of this size. Further, based on hydrology reports for the subject property, and a Hydrology Technical memo prepared in 2022, no impacts to the significant modified watercourse are anticipated.
5. General Plan Compliance: The development shall comply with all applicable policies of the General Plan, including all of its elements, applicable specific plans, and the certified local coastal program.
With the concurrently sought variances to encroach into the watercourse, and to not provide the required one on-street public parking space, the proposed project complies. More specifically, the Project complies with goals and policies of the General Plan below, and as evidenced below:
General Plan Policies
Land Use (LU) Policy 2.8 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.
The subject property is located within the D/CSP area, which features steep topography.
The proposed project is compatible and integrated with the natural topographic features as it incorporates articulation techniques such as offsets and terracing into the design. The watercourse 66 66 of 485
-26- Reso. #26.XXX
on site has been significantly modified through a City installed storm drain and an easement has been established to protect the infrastructure. The proposed project does not have an impact on public views based on the location of the structure built into the hillside. Public views from the abutting roadway are away from the subject property to the south and public views from the street above (Gainsborough) are not affected due to the project being at a much lower elevation.
LU Policy 2.10 Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).
The proposed project siting considers previous privacy and view equity concerns and has minimized potential impacts by providing a terraced design, landscaping and siting the building appropriately from the rear setback. The Project has no impact on public views because the public right-of-way (Gainsborough Drive) uphill from the subject property, is at a significantly higher elevation. Public comment with view equity concerns was received by a neighbor located at 785 Gainsborough Drive above the Project site prior to the Concept Review hearing on May 9, 2024, and the Design Review Board hearing on April 10, 2025. Based on a site visit, it appears the neighbor’s existing landscaping effectively screens the proposed project and already blocks a portion of their ocean view. Furthermore, in response to the Board’s direction, the third level (uppermost) has been shifted toward the rear by 3 feet to partially address view equity concerns.
LU Policy 3.10 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography or other 67 67 of 485
-27- Reso. #26.XXX
significant on-site resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document by maintaining the low-profile character of structures. Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff-top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).
The site is devoid of significant natural features such as heritage trees, rock outcroppings, ridgelines or natural watercourses. The current project siting is a result of multiple project iterations, and the building design and siting is compatible and integrated with the natural topographic features. The excavation into the hillside makes the 4-level terraced design more low profile and reduces above grade mass. The proposed project includes a net grading export of 1,343 cubic yards which is consistent with new home development on steep hillside building sites.
Impervious surfaces are less than 50% which the Board has found to be an acceptable amount for steep hillside lots of this size. The watercourse on site has been significantly modified through a City installed storm drain and an easement has been established to protect the infrastructure. In addition, based on hydrology reports for the subject property, and a Hydrology Technical memo prepared in 2022, no impacts to the significant modified watercourse are anticipated. Public views from the abutting roadway are away from the subject property to the south and public views from the street above (Gainsborough) are not affected due to the project being at a much lower elevation.
LU Policy 7.3 and 10.2 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources, such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize natural landform alterations. (Same as 68 68 of 485
-28- Reso. #26.XXX
Policy 10.2.) GOAL: Protect, preserve, and enhance the community’s natural resources.
The proposed project meets this policy and the facts are discussed in the Environmental Context (No.4) and View Equity (No.16) Design Review criteria and LU Policy 10.2 (Coastal Development Permit Section) and they are incorporated herein by reference.
LU Policy 7.10 Require new construction and grading to be located in close proximity to preexisting development to minimize environmental impacts and growth-inducing potential.
The proposed construction and associated grading is within a mostly developed neighborhood of single-family residences and has no growth inducing potential.
6. Historic Preservation: Destruction or alteration to historic resources should be avoided whenever possible. See Chapter 25.45 for more information.
The subject property is a vacant building site and not listed on the City’s Historic Register.
7. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be incorporated as an integrated part of the structure’s design and relate harmoniously to neighborhood and community landscaping themes.
View equity shall be an important consideration in the landscape design. The relevant landscaping guidelines contained in the City’s “Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document” should be incorporated, as appropriate, in the design and planned maintenance of proposed landscaping.
The proposed project is located within the Diamond/Crestview neighborhood as described in the City’s Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document. This document includes a set of policies and maintenance guidelines to address the issues of tree maintenance, fire safety, heritage tree preservation, view preservation, scenic highways, water conservation, soil stability, invasive plants, and neighborhood landscape character. The proposed landscape plan includes a 69 69 of 485
-29- Reso. #26.XXX
mix of new trees (such as Arbutus Unedo and Rhus Integrifolio) and small shrubs while avoiding target species for fire safety considerations. The required landscape open space is 21.55% (1,392 SF) and the project provides 3,299 SF, which includes as area of natural vegetation. The proposed landscape plan was approved by the City’s Landscape consultant on November 29, 2022.
8. Lighting and Glare: Adequate lighting for individual and public safety shall be provided in a manner which does not significantly impact neighboring properties. Reflective materials and appurtenances that cause glare or a negative visual impact (e.g., skylights, white rock roofs, high-gloss ceramic tile roofs, reflective glass, etc.) should be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance in those locations where those surfaces are visible from neighboring properties.
The proposed lighting plan is shown on sheet A1.6 and includes a total of 12 light fixtures, such as lantern wall lights,and ceiling lights. Overall, the plan provides low level lighting where needed for safety and efficient operation in outdoor activities, terraces, stairs, and walkways.
9. Neighborhood Compatibility: Development shall be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and respect neighborhood character. Neighborhood character is the sum of the qualities that distinguish areas within the City, including historical patterns of development (e.g., structural heights, mass, scale or size), village atmosphere, landscaping themes and architectural styles.
The pattern of development in the neighborhood consists of a mixture of three-level and four-level residences that are stepped into the hillsides with varying architectural styles and rustic exteriors, including mid-century and Mediterranean styles. Similar to other residences in the neighborhood, the proposed building is integrated into the hillside. The applicant proposes a 70 70 of 485
-30- Reso. #26.XXX
contemporary design with rustic colors and materials that is consistent with the surrounding pattern of development.
10. Pedestrian Orientation: Commercial development design shall enhance and encourage pedestrian uses. Incorporation of articulated building masses, compact open spaces and courtyards, mixed use developments, use of landscaping as part of design, and orientation to pedestrian access should be maximized.
Design Review Criteria for Pedestrian Orientation is related to commercial development and this residential project is not subject to those criteria.
11. Privacy: The placement of activity areas (e.g., decks, picture windows and ceremonial or entertainment rooms) in locations that would result in a substantial invasion of privacy of neighboring properties should be minimized.
Prior to the Concept Review hearing on May 9, 2024, and the Design Review Board hearing on April 10, 2025, the City received a public comment from a neighbor regarding the potential privacy issues the current project may cause. The neighbor located north of the subject property, claimed that the windows on the North elevation of the building are placed directly across from their bedrooms and ocean viewing windows and would therefore infringe on their privacy.
Based on City site visits, it appears that existing landscaping at that neighbor’s property screens the Project site and promotes privacy. Moreover, in response to the Board direction to increase screening to address the privacy concerns of the neighbors located to the south and north of the subject property, the applicant proposed additional landscaping consisting of four (4) Arbutus Unedo ‘Strawberry Trees’ as shown on the updated landscape plan (Sheet A-1.5). Furthermore, in response to the Board’s direction, the third level (uppermost) has been shifted toward the rear by 71 71 of 485
-31- Reso. #26.XXX
3 feet, in order to address the neighbor’s concerns.
12. Public Art: Public art is encouraged and shall be displayed where feasible or required by the Art in Public Places ordinance.
Design Review Criteria for Public Art is related to commercial development and this residential project is not subject to those criteria.
13. Sign Quality: Signs shall be incorporated into the architecture of the structure and shall be made of high quality materials, be simple in design and be visually compatible with the surrounding physical environment in terms of color, scale and size. Use of natural materials in the construction of signs is encouraged.
Design Review Criteria for Signage is related to commercial development and this residential project is not subject to those criteria.
14. Sustainability: New development should consider architecture and building practices which minimize environmental impacts and enhance energy efficiency by: (a) reducing energy needs of buildings by proper site and structural design; (b) increasing the building’s ability to capture or generate energy; (c) using low-impact, sustainable and recycled building materials; (d) using the latest Best Management Practices regarding waste and water management; and (e) reducing site emissions.
New construction is required to meet Title 24 energy and Building Code requirements, which include insulated windows and energy efficient lighting. The applicant will be required to provide proof of compliance. Further, the applicant will be required to reuse, recycle, or divert at least 65 percent of the project’s construction and demolition debris. Finally, to promote future installation of solar panels, a minimum of 250 square-feet of “solar ready” roof area will be 72 72 of 485
-32- Reso. #26.XXX
provided.
15. Swimming Pools, Spas, and Water Features: Swimming pools, spas and water features shall be located, designed and constructed where: (a) geology conditions allow; (b) noise produced by circulatory mechanical pumps and equipment is mitigated; and (c) any associated fencing or other site improvements are compatible with neighboring properties.
No pool/spa or other water feature is proposed for this project site.
16. View Equity: The development, including its landscaping, shall be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop as described and illustrated in the City’s “Design Guidelines.” The “Design Guidelines” are intended to balance preservation of views with the right to develop property.
Due to the hillside setting and orientation of uphill and downhill homes, significant impacts to private views are not anticipated. The project proposes a rear setback of 51 feet and the roof of the highest level would be approximately 12 feet to 22 feet below the homes above. Three strawberry trees are proposed to be approximately 14 feet from the rear property line, which with a maintained height of 15’ should not impede public or private views over the project site. Prior to the Concept Review Hearing on May 9, 2024, and the Design Review Board hearing on April 10, 2025, the City received view equity concerns from the neighbor located north of the subject property. Based on a site visit, it appears the neighbor’s existing landscaping effectively screens the proposed project and already impedes the ocean view. However, in response to the Board direction to increase screening to address the privacy concerns of the neighbors located to the south and north of the subject property, the applicant proposed additional landscaping consisting of four 73 73 of 485
-33- Reso. #26.XXX
(4) Arbutus Unedo ‘Strawberry Trees’ as shown on the updated landscape plan (Sheet A-1.5).
Furthermore, in response to the Board’s direction, the third level (uppermost) has been shifted toward the rear by 3 feet, effectively addressing the neighbor’s concerns.
Finding No. 2. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with all other applicable design guidelines.
Yes. The Project is consistent with the Residential Design Review Guidelines, as explained above. In addition, the Project is also consistent with Design Guidelines for Hillside Development:
The guidelines are intended to describe the City’s design philosophy for hillside development. The guidelines set forth design principles and parameters and provide the framework for the City’s Design Review process. The guidelines are intended to provide the flexibility in the design review process because the evaluation of building design includes the application of judgement, discretion and independent analysis. Furthermore, the guidelines are intended to provide assistance and direction in the design of hillside projects in a manner that is compatible with the mutual interests of the property owner and the City (Design Guidelines for Hillside Development. Pg. A-2).
The hillside guideline suggests terraced walls with landscape incorporated to break up the appearance of mass. The Project is designed to be terraced into the hillside and is graded appropriately. The applicant proposes elevated decks that are set back and integrated with the topography, and planter areas to soften the structure’s appearance from street view. Open space between the properties has been provided by providing substantial planter area along the south property line. Furthermore, the setback on the north side was increased due to the sewer easement which allows for additional planting.
74 74 of 485
-34- Reso. #26.XXX
Finding No. 3. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are characterized by appropriately scaled development, diverse and unique architectural designs, pedestrian orientation, and sensitivity to the natural conditions of the site.
Yes. See Findings above under Design Review Criteria 2, 3, 4, and 9 for design articulation, design integrity, environmental context, and neighborhood compatibility, with the facts provided incorporated herein by reference.
Finding No. 4. The project is consistent with any specific plan or any other specific zoning design review criteria.
The Project is consistent with the Diamond Crestview Specific Plan findings, as detailed below, and based on the concurrently sought variance from the one on-street public parking space.
DIAMOND CRESTVIEW SPECIFIC PLAN FINDINGS.
No. 1 | The proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses and is consistent with the intent and purpose established in the specific plan; The intent of the D/CSP is to preserve and enhance this unique area by creating special land use development standards that protect and promote the rustic character of the neighborhood, and that allow for safe and orderly development. The site is designated for single family use including ADUs. The proposed use is that of a single-family dwelling with an attached two-car garage and is consistent with surrounding single family uses on adjacent properties in the D/CSP area.
No. 2 | The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed development; The subject property is 6,450 square-feet and is “fan-like shape”. The proposed program conforms to the maximum allowable building area of the site and the proposed design appears to 75 75 of 485
-35- Reso. #26.XXX
be neighborhood compatible in terms of mass and scale relative to the natural topography. The overall living and elevated deck areas are consistent with the pattern of development. The design also conforms to development standards (e.g. setbacks, parking, building coverage, etc.) the Board is comfortable with the watercourse setback variance and the design accommodates additional onsite private parking.
No. 3 | All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as conditions of approval;
All necessary and required public access improvements have been incorporated in the design and will require separate street improvement plans submitted and approved by Public Works prior to building permit issuance, which is reflected in a condition of approval on this project. The street frontage will be widened along the frontage of the property, providing a greater than the minimum for a 10’ travel lane and 2’ reserve shoulder. The initially proposed on-street parking space along Gainsborough Drive is no longer available and a parking variance has been requested. DCSP Section IV(J)(1) states that upon the development of a building site, “one (1) onstreet public parking space shall be provided”. The development standard further adds that “if the provision of on-street parking is found to be infeasible, an equivalent parking space shall be provided on-site. Only upon exhaustion of all possible alternatives to provide a parking space either on-street or on-site and with the approval of a variance, an in-lieu fees as established by the City Council, shall be paid to fund the future construction of parking in the neighborhood”.
To satisfy the requirement, two on-street public parking spaces were proposed. The first parking space, near the intersection of Crestview Drive and Diamond Street, was found infeasible due to inadequate pavement width by the Public Works Department. Adding a designated space in 76 76 of 485
-36- Reso. #26.XXX
that location would force oncoming cars into one another, increasing the risk of accidents. After coordination with the Public Works Department and the Planning Division, a second potential parking location was identified further to the west of the site close to ‘hairpin’ turn on Crestview Drive. The revised location (and other potential locations along the ‘hairpin’ turn) were ultimately found infeasible due to insufficient pavement width even with creating retaining walls within the public right-of-way. Additionally, any reduction in lane width with the provision of a new public on-street parking space would impede emergency fire access based on input from the City Fire Marshall. A potential public parking space across from the subject property proximate to 2025 Crestview was also examined and deemed infeasible due to the need to construct 6-8-foot-high retaining walls and the loss of existing vegetation creating privacy issues for that property owner.
Additionally, that potential space is close to the hairpin curve in Crestview Drive and existing vegetation can create sight distance constraints and additional safety risks. No other potential locations to accommodate the on-street parking have been identified within 200 feet of the subject property, already significantly far from the property’s line-of-sight.
The Project design provides code-required covered parking in a two-car garage, and it can accommodate two parking spaces on the driveway (a conforming parking space and an additional sub-standard parking space) but these spaces could not accommodate the public as it would prevent access to the garage. The driveway spaces will reduce street parking demands for residents and their guests. All possible alternatives within a reasonable distance of the project site have been exhausted. Therefore, a variance is being sought with the payment of an in-lieu fee as established by the City Council.
No. 4 | The project will not cause any significant environmental impact and appropriate 77 77 of 485
-37- Reso. #26.XXX
mitigation measures, if any, have been incorporated into the project or are attached as conditions of approval;
The site is devoid of significant natural features such as heritage trees, rock outcroppings, ridgelines or natural watercourses. Based on previous hydrology reports for the subject property, and a Hydrology Technical memoprepared in 2022, no impacts to the significant modified watercourse are anticipated. The property is not located within any sensitive biological overlay, and a geotechnical study shall be required during the building plan check review phase.
No. 5 | The project complies with the development standards and design guidelines of the specific plan; and
With the concurrently sought variance for not providing the required on-street public parking space (D/CSP Section IV(J)(1)), as discussed in more detail under the variance entitlements herein, the project complies with the development standards and design guidelines of the specific plan. The project complies with the Lot Coverage, Setback, Allowable Building Area and Landscape Open Space requirements and meets the Hillside Design Guidelines as it is designed to be terraced and integrated into the hillside, with an appropriate amount of grading to reduce the appearance of mass.
No. 6 | The project mitigates or avoids environmental constraints of the lot as identified in the site-specific studies and/or overlay maps of high and very high value habitats and unique geological features (Figures 5 & 7).
The site is devoid of significant natural features such as heritage trees, rock outcroppings, ridgelines or natural watercourses. The subject property is not included within any sensitive biological area that would warrant additional review or studies. The site is within the 78 78 of 485
-38- Reso. #26.XXX
“Undifferentiated Uncertified and Certified Fill” geologic overlay. The vacant lot features a westfacing slope. In general, the Seismic and Public Safety Element of the General Plan designates the specific plan area as having high probability for slope instability due to particular types of geologic formation. Historically, the unstable slopes in the Plan area are the steep, south facing slopes underlain by weak bedrock. A geotechnical study, which is a standard requirement for hillside development shall be required during the building plan check review phase to ensure that the proposed construction design and slope remain stable. The site constraints include steep topography, which the proposed design embraces, and a significant modified watercourse which is already protected and preserved through the establishment of an easement.
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for CDP 25-0433:
Finding No. 1: The project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program, including the following review criteria
1. The proposed development will not encroach upon any existing physical accessway legally utilized by the public or any proposed public accessway identified in the adopted local coastal program land use plan.
The proposed development will occur on vacant private property (currently only improved with an underground sewer and terrace drains), which is accessible from an improved public street.
The public street will be widened slightly and no public sidewalks exist along this narrow street (Crestview Drive). The proposed project is not encroaching on a public coastal accessway, and no new coastal access is proposed.
2. The proposed development will not adversely affect marine resources, environmentally 79 79 of 485
-39- Reso. #26.XXX
sensitive areas, or archaeological or paleontological resources.
There are no known marine resources, archeological, or paleontological resources in the project area. The property has been identified and mapped as an environmentally sensitive area (drainage). The existing watercourse has been significantly modified due to the installation of a City storm drain constructed on the adjacent contiguous property and easements have been established to protect the infrastructure. The revised drainage system no longer uses the V-ditch storm drain and instead collects site runoff, which is piped to the street for conveyance into the City’s storm drain system. Based on previous hydrology reports for the subject property, and a Hydrology Technical Memo prepared in 2022, no impacts to the significant modified watercourse are anticipated. The project primarily involves a new single-family dwelling, including grading, to a site within an established residential neighborhood and is not expected to result in impacts to any of these resources.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources.
The site is devoid of significant natural features such as heritage trees, rock outcroppings, ridgelines or natural watercourses. The proposed project is located on a vacant lot designated for single family use by the Local Coastal Program (ADUs are allowed by State law) within an established residential neighborhood and is not adjacent to any recreational or visitor-serving facilities. The proposed project will not impact any coastal scenic resources, such as public ocean views, as it will be stepped into the hillside and the public-right-of-way uphill of the project, Gainsborough Drive, it at a significantly higher elevation.
4. The proposed development will be sited and designed to prevent adverse impacts to 80 80 of 485
-40- Reso. #26.XXX
environmentally sensitive habitats and scenic resources located in adjacent parks and recreation areas, and will provide adequate buffer areas to protect such resources.
The site is devoid of significant natural features such as heritage trees, rock outcroppings, ridgelines or natural watercourses. The proposed project is located on a vacant lot designated for residential use by the Local Coastal Program within an established residential neighborhood. The property has been identified and mapped as an environmentally sensitive area (drainage). The existing watercourse has been significantly modified due to the installation of a City storm drain constructed on the adjacent contiguous property and easements have been established to protect the infrastructure. The revised drainage system no longer uses the V-ditch storm drain and instead collects site runoff, which is piped to the street for conveyance into the City’s storm drain system.
Based on previous hydrology reports for the subject property, and a Hydrology Technical Memo prepared in 2022, no impacts to the significant modified watercourse are anticipated. The site is not within any sensitive biological overlay and is not adjacent to any parks or recreation areas.
5. The proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or flood and fire hazards.
The vacant hillside property will be altered for the construction of a new single-family dwelling. The subject site is within the “Undifferentiated Uncertified and Certified Fill” geologic overlay and is not a natural landform and contains no rock outcroppings. The vacant lot features a west-facing slope. In general, the Seismic and Public Safety Element of the General Plan designates the specific plan area as having high probability for slope instability due to particular types of geologic formation. Historically, the unstable slopes in the Plan area are the steep, south facing slopes underlain by weak bedrock. A geotechnical study shall be required during the 81 81 of 485
-41- Reso. #26.XXX
building plan check review phase to ensure that the proposed construction design and slope remain stable. The project meets the Hillside Design Guidelines as it is designed to be terraced and integrated into the hillside, with an appropriate amount of grading to reduce the appearance of mass.
6. The proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.
The new residence appears to be compatible with the neighborhood and surrounding hillside development. The Project is designed to be stepped into the hillside and incorporates rustic colors and materials which in consistent with the character of the neighborhood.
7. The proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on any known archaeological or paleontological resource.
There are no known archeological or paleontological resources in the project area.
8. The proposed development will be provided with adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities.
The project does not involve any significant changes to existing facilities. The onsite drainage has been designed to collect and convey site runoff to a swale or closed drain for off-site discharge and collection by the City storm drain system.
9. Other public services, including, but not limited to, solid waste and public roadway capacity have been considered and are adequate to serve the proposed development.
The project does not involve any significant changes to existing public services. The existing public services are considered to be adequate to serve an additional single-family dwelling on a site designated for residential use by the Local Coastal Program. 82 82 of 485
-42- Reso. #26.XXX
The project is consistent with all applicable policies of the Certified LCP.
LCP COASTAL VIEW POLICIES (CDP)
Land Use Element (LU) Policy 2.8 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant on-site resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.
The subject property is located within the D/CSP area, which features steep topography.
The proposed project is compatible and integrated with the natural topographic features as it incorporates articulation techniques such as offsets and terracing into the design. The watercourse on site has been significantly modified through a City installed storm drain and an easement has been established to protect the infrastructure. Public views from the abutting roadway are away from the subject property to the south and public views from the street above (Gainsborough Drive) are not affected due to the project being at a much lower elevation. The project meets the Hillside Design Guidelines, as it is designed to be terraced and integrated into the hillside, with an appropriate amount of grading to reduce the appearance of mass.
LU Element Policy 2.9 Require the use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and/or siting considerations to protect public views for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets.
The landscaping is appropriate for the neighborhood and complies with the City’s landscape requirements. During the Building plan check review phase, the Building Official may require a fuel modification plan or an Alternative Means & Method report. The project is not visible from Coast Highway or arterial streets. Public views from the abutting roadway are away 83 83 of 485
-43- Reso. #26.XXX
from the subject property to the south and public views from the street above (Gainsborough Drive) are not affected due to the project being at a much lower elevation.
LU Element Policy 2.10 Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff top trails, visitorserving facilities, etc.) Policy 2.10 includes: Action 2.10.1 Discourage the addition of second stories in established neighborhoods where view equity has historically been achieved through one-story construction.
The Project is designed to be stepped into the hillside in a tiered fashion and conforms to the allowable buildable area. No obstructions to public views of coastal or canyon resources shall be caused by the proposed project because public views from the abutting roadway are away from the subject property to the south and public views from the street above (Gainsborough Drive) are not affected due to the project being at a much lower elevation. Prior to the Concept Review Hearing on May 9, 2024, and Design Review Board hearing on April 10, 2025, the City received view equity concerns from the neighbor located at 785 Gainsborough Drive, north of the subject property. The proposed project may have a minimal yet inevitable impact on the neighbor’s private views. After a site visit, however, a Board member confirmed that the neighbor’s existing landscaping, which would screen the proposed project, already impedes the ocean view.
Furthermore, in response to the Board’s direction, the third level (uppermost) has been shifted toward the rear by 3 feet, promoting partial view retention with the goal to address neighbor’s concerns.
84 84 of 485
-44- Reso. #26.XXX
LU Element Policies 7.3 and 10.2 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources, such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize landform alterations.
The building design and siting is compatible and integrated with the natural topographic features as it incorporates articulation techniques such as offsets and terracing into the design with an appropriate amount of grading to reduce the appearance of mass. The watercourse on site has been significantly modified through a City installed storm drain and an easement has been established to protect the infrastructure. Public views from the abutting roadway are away from the subject property to the south and public views from the street above (Gainsborough Drive) are not affected due to the project being at a much lower elevation.
LUE Policy 3.10 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography or other significant on-site resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document by maintaining the low-profile character of structures. Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff-top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).
Policy 3.10 requires protection of public views as specified in the Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines require View Equity for impacts to public views, and require maintenance of view corridors.
View Equity is defined as: View equity means achievement of a fair, reasonable and 85 85 of 485
-45- Reso. #26.XXX
balanced accommodation of views and competing obstructions such as structures, trees and/or vegetation, privacy and the use and enjoyment of property.
The Design Review Guidelines refers to Public Views:
15.6 Maintain view corridors when feasible.
∙Consider opportunities for public views.
∙Locate a building to retain view opportunities through side yards.
The Project is designed to be stepped into the hillside in a tiered fashion. No obstructions to public views of coastal or canyon resources shall be caused by the proposed project because the public right-of-way (Gainsborough Drive) uphill from the subject property, is at a significantly higher elevation and the subject property is surrounded by developed properties. The side yards meet the required setbacks and retain view opportunities. Three strawberry trees are proposed to be approximately 14 feet from the rear property line, and two strawberry trees have been proposed along the south property line, which with a maintained height of 15’ would not impede views.
Prior to the Concept Review Hearing on May 9, 2024, and the Design Review Board hearing on April 10, 2025, the City received view equity concerns from the neighbor located at 785 Gainsborough Drive, north of the subject property. Based on a site visit, it appears the neighbor’s existing landscaping effectively screens the proposed project and already impedes the ocean view.
Furthermore, in response to the Board’s direction, the third level (uppermost) has been shifted toward the rear by 3 feet, effectively addressing the neighbor’s concerns Open Space Conservation Element (OSCE) 7A As best possible, preserve the quality of public views from the hillsides and along the City’s shoreline.
The Project is designed to be stepped into the hillside in a tiered fashion. No obstructions 86 86 of 485
-46- Reso. #26.XXX
to public views of coastal or canyon resources would be caused by the proposed project because public views from the abutting roadway are away from the subject property to the south and public views from the street above (Gainsborough Drive) are not affected due to the Project being at a much lower elevation.
LCP DOCUMENTS
The project conforms with all the following applicable documents of the Certified LCP.
Design Guidelines for Hillside Development (as adopted by Resolution 89.104) Finding No. 2. Any development located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea is in conformity with the certified local coastal program and with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
The Project is not located between the sea and first public road paralleling the sea.
Finding No. 3. The proposed development will not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act.
As described further herein, the Project does not have any significant adverse environmental impacts. The Project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15303, as discussed further herein.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for VAR 25-0432 for variances from encroachments into a significant watercourse setback (LBMC Section 25.50.030(D)(4)) and not to provide a required on-street public parking space (D/CSP Section IV(J)(1)):
Finding No. 1: There are special circumstances applicable to the property involved, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which cause the strict application of 87 87 of 485
-47- Reso. #26.XXX
the zoning ordinance to deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
The lot is triangular in shape and has 40-foot-wide street frontage and also has steep topography (41% slope). These factors significantly limit the buildable area of the lot. The on-site mapped watercourse runs along the north property line and diagonally towards the rear property line and it requires a 25-foot setback buffer. The “watercourse” is not natural and is highly modified due to being piped underground and a small concrete V-ditch. The existing watercourse has also been significantly modified due to the installation of a City storm drain constructed on the adjacent contiguous property and easements have been established to protect the infrastructure.
The watercourse setback is a regulatory constraint that further restricts the development of the property.
The Project site is in the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan area (D/CSP), which is characterized by steeply sloping developed and non-developed lots accessed by narrow sloping streets. The existing development pattern (e.g. existing driveways, narrow streets, and on-street parking) coupled with existing slopes and vegetation are physical constraints to providing access to lots and to providing additional safe on-street parking spaces. Specifically, the project site is located on a steeply sloping street with limited pavement width proximate to a hairpin curve with.
The width of the street in the nearby vicinity is consistently less than 25 feet and some cases less than 18 feet.
D/CSP Section IV(J)(1) states that upon the development of a building site, “one (1) onstreet public parking space shall be provided”. The development standard further adds that “if the provision of on-street parking is found to be infeasible, an equivalent parking space shall be 88 88 of 485
-48- Reso. #26.XXX
provided on-site. Only upon exhaustion of all possible alternatives to provide a parking space either on-street or on-site and with the approval of a variance, an in-lieu fees as established by the City Council, shall be paid to fund the future construction of parking in the neighborhood.” To satisfy the requirement, two on-street public parking spaces were proposed. The first parking space, near the intersection of Crestview Drive and Diamond Street, was found infeasible due to inadequate pavement width by the Public Works Department. Adding a designated space in that location would force oncoming cars into one another, increasing the risk of accidents. After coordination with the Public Works Department and the Planning Division, a second potential parking location was identified further to the west of the site close to ‘hairpin’ turn on Crestview Drive. The revised location (and other potential locations along the ‘hairpin’ turn) were ultimately found infeasible due to insufficient pavement width even with creating retaining walls.
Additionally, any reduction in lane width with the provision of a new public on-street parking space would impede emergency fire access based on input from the City Fire Marshall. A potential public parking space across from the subject property proximate to 2025 Crestview was also examined and deemed infeasible due to the need to construct 6-8-foot-high retaining walls and the loss of existing vegetation creating privacy issues for that property owner. Additionally, that potential space is close to the hairpin curve in Crestview Drive and existing vegetation can create sight distance constraints and additional safety risks. No other potential locations to accommodate the on-street parking have been identified within 200 feet of the subject property, already significantly far from the property’s line-of-sight.
The project design provides code-required covered parking in a two-car garage, and it can accommodate two parking spaces on the driveway (a conforming parking space and an additional 89 89 of 485
-49- Reso. #26.XXX
sub-standard parking space) but these spaces could not accommodate the public as it would prevent access to the garage. All possible alternatives within a reasonable distance of the project site have been exhausted. Therefore, a variance is being sought with the payment of an in-lieu fee as established by the City Council.
Finding No. 2: Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same vicinity and zone.
Granting the variance to the watercourse setback standard and provision of on-street parking is necessary to permit the construction of a single-family home and appurtenant accessory improvements in a safe and compatibly way consistent with the existing development pattern of the area. This privilege is enjoyed by all developed lots in the D/CSP area (zone) and without variance approval, the property owner is deprived of the ability to develop the buildable lot compatible with the neighborhood.
The property immediately above (803 Gainsborough Drive) the subject site was granted a variance allowing construction of a new single-family dwelling within the 25-foot watercourse setback. That property was identically constrained by the watercourse setback to a significantly modified and non-existent watercourse and City easements.
Finding No. 3: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience and welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located.
The granting of the two variances would not be detrimental to the public because the watercourse is significantly altered, and the proposed design incorporates all the necessary 90 90 of 485
-50- Reso. #26.XXX
drainage improvements to accommodate stormwater as shown on the plans and addressed in the associated hydrology report for the proposed development. No setback to the “watercourse” is necessary as a result. Providing a public-on-street parking space in the immediate area would increase risks of accidents due to reduced lane width. It would potentially impede fire emergency access and create privacy issues for nearby homes. No feasible location exists in the vicinity of the project site and the applicant will pay an in-lieu fee to the City in the amount established by the City Council to provide a space in the larger neighborhood. The project design provides its own required parking, and it accommodates two additional spaces in the driveway, reducing the need for off-site parking. Due to these facts, the grant of variances will not be detrimental to public health, safety, convenience and welfare.
Finding No. 4: The granting of such a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the zoning ordinance or the general plan.
The general purpose of the General Plan and Zoning Code is to provide for the orderly, safe, and compatible development of the City consistent with a community approved land use plan.
The General Plan and Zoning Code allow for the development of a single-family home and appurtenant accessory improvements on the project location and the proposed project is consistent with the allowed use.
The purpose of the 25-foot watercourse setback is to protect existing or planned development and ensure compatible development and use near mapped watercourses. In this case, the watercourse is significantly modified due to underground piping, and it is a concrete V-ditch.
The proposed design incorporates all the necessary drainage improvements to accommodate stormwater as shown on the plans and addressed in the associated Hydrology Technical Memo for 91 91 of 485
-51- Reso. #26.XXX
the proposed development. No setback to the “watercourse” is necessary as a result. The project improvements will preserve the drainage carrying capacity of the site, ensuring the safe transference of storm water protecting the subject and neighboring properties thereby protecting the functional significance of the watercourse.
The watercourse has no scenic or ecological value given that it is so highly modified. The watercourse is not connected to a natural watercourse and the concrete v-ditch connects existing channels and drainage pipes, therefore the encroachments within the watercourse setback will not impair the functional, scenic and ecological purposes of the watercourse.
The purpose of the requirement to provide a public on-street parking space with new home development is to increase the parking supply in the D/CSP area that has very limited on-street parking spaces for general use where it is feasible to do so. The specific requirement provides for relief if it is determined that no space can be accommodated. In this case, several proximate locations were examined by the applicant and the City and all either created unacceptable risks to vehicular or fire access or they would create undue privacy issues due to the loss of vegetation and potential safety concerns due to limited sight distance for vehicles on a steeply sloping street at a hairpin curve. Additionally, the proposed design provides 4 on-site parking spaces, reducing the need for residents and guests of the project to park on the street. Granting relief from the on-site parking requirement will avoid safety and privacy issues and would therefore not be detrimental to the public.
25.50.030(D)(4) Watercourse Encroachment Variances
92 92 of 485
-52- Reso. #26.XXX
Variances for the purpose of placing a building or structure within an established watercourse setback area may be granted only when the following findings are made in addition to those listed above.
Finding No. 5: The proposed encroachment will act to preserve, enhance or restore the significance of the watercourse.
The “watercourse” has not maintained its natural form and is highly modified due to being piped underground via a small concrete V-ditch. The existing watercourse has also been significantly modified due to the installation of a City storm drain constructed on the adjacent contiguous property and easements have been established to protect the infrastructure. The proposed project encroaches into the 25-foot watercourse setback buffer but does not encroach into the established easement and will therefore preserve the significant modified watercourse.
Finding No. 6: The proposed encroachment is not likely to impair the functional, scenic and ecological purposes of the watercourse.
The proposed encroachment is not likely to impair any functional, scenic and ecological purposes of the modified watercourse. There is no scenic or ecological purpose of the mapped watercourse. Man-made swales were created 20 years ago after the 1980 Del Mar landslide that occurred uphill from the subject site. Significant modified watercourses are typified by the continuous presence of a topographic swale or depression and the ability to conduct overflow runoff. The respective watercourse is highly modified due to being piped underground and a small concrete V-ditch. The existing watercourse has also been significantly modified due to the installation of a City storm drain constructed on the adjacent contiguous property and easements have been established to protect the infrastructure.
93 93 of 485
-53- Reso. #26.XXX
SECTION 6. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for REP 25-2285:
Finding No. 1: It should be located in a manner that is not hazardous to the traveling public, including motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians.
The proposed retaining wall and foldable fire access ladder are located along the uphill edge of the public right of way where no sidewalks exist and where pedestrian activity is minimal. The improvements do not project into the travel lane and do not reduce the existing roadway width. When in the closed position, the ladder remains mounted flat against the retaining wall and does not encroach into the roadway. In an emergency, the ladder would be deployed by public safety personnel and extended onto the street under controlled conditions. Public Works staff, Building and Safety staff, and the Fire Marshal have reviewed the proposal and determined that the location and design will not create a hazard for motorists, bicyclists, or pedestrians.
Finding No. 2: It should be sufficiently set back from the edge of pavement or street centerline to provide adequate travel, parking, and walking lanes.
The proposed retaining wall and foldable fire access ladder are fully located within the uphill portion of the public right of way and do not extend into the paved roadway. The improvements are set back from the edge of pavement in a manner that maintains the existing travel lane width, which Public Works staff has confirmed is adequate for vehicle circulation. There are no public sidewalks or designated on-street parking spaces along this segment of Crestview Drive, and the proposed encroachments do not alter existing walking or parking conditions. Public Works staff has reviewed the plans and determined that the required clearances for travel, parking, and pedestrian movement are maintained. The City Council concurs.
94 94 of 485
-54- Reso. #26.XXX
Finding No. 3: It should not conflict with preexisting public utility structures, especially hydrants, vault and service meters in any manner that necessitates relocation thereof at public expense or causes any other unacceptable interference, including impediments to the maintenance, relocation or repair of pipelines, conduits, or substructures of any public utility.
Electric utility boxes are located beneath the existing base of the neighboring stairs and adjoining retaining wall. Removal of the existing stairs will improve access to these facilities by eliminating the concrete structure currently situated over them. Public Works staff has reviewed the plans and confirmed that the proposed retaining wall and foldable fire access ladder will not interfere with the utility boxes or associated lines, nor will they require any relocation of utility infrastructure at public expense. The proposed encroachments maintain adequate clearance for ongoing utility maintenance, repair, and future work. The City Council concurs.
Finding No. 4: It will not preclude public access, use or enjoyment of any area that has historically established such access, use or enjoyment.
The area of the public right of way where the retaining wall and foldable fire access ladder are proposed has not historically been used for public access or recreational purposes. There are no sidewalks, trails, or designated public spaces in this location, and the existing neighboring stairs serve only as emergency access for the private property at 2100 Crestview Drive. The proposed improvements do not alter or restrict any established public access or use patterns, and emergency access for the neighboring property will be maintained through the new foldable ladder system. As a result, the Project does not preclude public access, use, or enjoyment of any area where such access has historically occurred.
Finding No. 5: It is not precedent setting in nature to the extent that it creates a noticeable 95 95 of 485
-55- Reso. #26.XXX
projection into the streetscape as established by existing construction and improvements on neighboring properties.
The proposed retaining wall and foldable fire access ladder are located along the uphill edge of the public right of way and do not project into the roadway or alter the established streetscape pattern. The existing neighboring stairs already extend into the right of way in this same location, and the proposed improvements represent a reduction in mass and visual presence compared to the existing condition. The ladder remains folded against the wall when not in use and does not introduce a new form or scale of encroachment along the street. As a result, the Project does not create a precedent setting condition or a new type of projection into the streetscape beyond what currently exists on neighboring properties.
Finding No. 6: It does not create structures of unusual or unacceptable appearance, form, shape or height that detract from the general quality of the streetscape.
The proposed retaining wall is similar in scale and appearance to other walls commonly found along hillside streets. The foldable fire access ladder is a functional and compact solution developed to address emergency access needs without leaving a permanent projection into the right of way.
When not in use, the ladder remains folded flat against the wall, which reduces its visibility and presence in the streetscape. Although the ladder is a creative solution rather than a typical access feature, its low profile and utilitarian design do not detract from the general visual quality of the street.
SECTION 7. The City Council hereby denies the Appeal and sustains the Design Review Board’s determination on the Revised Project, as reflected in Design Review Board Resolution No. 25-0431, including all conditions attached thereto, which such Resolution and conditions are incorporated herein by this reference.
96 96 of 485
-56- Reso. #26.XXX
ADOPTED this 24th day of February, 2026.
Mark Orgill, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
I, Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 26.XXX was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on February 24, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach, CA
97 97 of 485
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
May 9, 2024
Agenda Item No. 5.1
Case No: Concept Review 23-2048
Project Location: 2058 Crestview Drive | APN: 644-291-70 Applicant: Alfonso Buitrago-Jimenez, Agent
(714) 737-2246 | [email protected]
Property Owner: Mike Czajkowski
Prepared By: Community Development Department
Shehriyar Khan | Contract Planner
(949) 715-0672 | [email protected]
Board Members within a
500’ Radius: None
REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant requests a Concept Review for a 1,971 square-foot, four level structure consisting of a two-car garage, 205 square-foot accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”), and 1,767 square-foot residence in the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan (D/CSP) area. Other improvements include 716 square feet of elevated deck area, grading (528 cubic yards outside the building footprint), retaining walls, street improvements, and landscaping/fuel modification. Design review is required for the new structure, elevated decks, grading, landscaping/fuel modification, height exception within D/CSP, and construction within an environmentally sensitive area (watercourse & slope greater than 30 percent). The ADU does not require Design Review.
In the D/CSP area, Design Review approval is a two-step process:
(1) Concept Review. Concept review is required prior to submittal for approval of the final design of the structure(s).
(2) Final Design Approval. After the Design Review Board (the Board) reviews the location and design of the structure(s) through the concept review process, plans may be submitted to the Community Development Department for final design approval by the Design Review Board.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board review and provide comments regarding the proposed project’s concept design based upon the design review criteria, Hillside Development Guidelines, Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan Design Guidelines, and Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan findings, and Attachment 2
98 98 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
find said action statutorily exempt for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15262.
PROPERTY AERIAL PHOTO
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Land Use Designation Village Low Density (1-7 DU/AC)
Zoning Designation R-1 Residential Low Density
Specific Plan Area Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan (D/CSP) Development Standards Required Proposed Conforms
Site Coverage 35% Max. 26.3% Yes
Allowable Building Area 3,225 SF Max. 1,523 SF Yes
Height (Lowest floor to top of roof)
Height Above Rear Lot Line
29’-0”
12’
31’- 2 1/2”
8’
Yes (w/ DRB)
Yes
Setbacks
Front 5’-0” (Garage) 16’-0” (Garage) Yes
99 99 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
Side (North)
Side (South)
Rear
8’-0” (House)
5’-0”
5’-0”
44’-7 1/4”
35’-0” (House)
5’-3”
6’-3”
46’-0”
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
Site History
The subject site is a 6,045 square-foot vacant lot in the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan (D/CSP) area that maintains a moderate upward slope of approximately 34 percent. The applicant initially submitted the current project for zoning review on June 24, 2022. Previous submittals for site development were made as early as 2004, with prior Concept Review hearings conducted in 2005, 2006, and 2013. Prior designs required several variances including a variance to encroach into the watercourse setback, to exceed the maximum allowable building height (36’), to encroach into the required side and rear setbacks, and to exceed the maximum allowable retaining wall height (5’). The current project, which has significantly changed in comparison to previously reviewed by staff and the Design Review Board, only includes a request to encroach into the watercourse setback.
On July 25, 2013, after conducting three (3) public hearings on the previous project the Board ultimately denied the application on a 4-0 vote based upon its determination that the project did not comply with the following design review criteria: (1) design articulation, specifically mass and scale; (2) environmental context; (3) landscaping; (4) neighborhood compatibility; and (5) privacy. A primary contention at the time was related to the placement of the structure at rear of the lot. On August 8, 2013, the applicant appealed the Board’s decision and on September 3, 2013, the City Council in a unanimous decision denied the appeal and sustained the Board’s denial of the application. Subsequently, the applicant filed a petition for writ of mandate and a complaint for declaratory relief and violation of equal protection in the Orange County Superior Court. The trial court affirmed the City Council’s decision.
It should be noted that the current project proposal is revised and substantially different than previously submitted designs and the Board should consider it as a new project.
Proposed Project
The applicant requests concept review to construct a 1,523 square-foot, four-level structure consisting of a 476 square-foot two-car garage, 222 square-foot accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”), and 1,716 square-foot residence. Other improvements include 852 square feet of elevated deck area, grading (504 cubic yards outside the building footprint), retaining walls, street improvements, and landscaping/fuel modification and on street parking. As described above, the proposed structure is in compliance with all setbacks, floor area ratio (allowable building area), and lot coverage requirements of the D/CSP. The applicant requests approval to exceed the maximum building height, as noted below.
A mapped watercourse runs along the north of the property line and diagonally towards the rear of the property line (see Property Aerial Photo). Significant modified watercourses include those that have been channeled, piped, culverted or otherwise improved or diverted. The existing watercourse has been significantly modified due to the installation of a City storm drain constructed on the adjacent contiguous 100
100 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
property. Based on previous hydrology reports for the subject property, no impacts to the significant modified watercourse are anticipated. An updated hydrology report or letter will be required prior to design review. Although the watercourse has been modified, pursuant to the municipal code, a variance is still required to encroach within 25 feet of the centerline of the watercourse.
The garage is accessed from an 18’-2” long uphill sloping driveway. The garage finished floor (elevation
88.25’) is 7 feet above the centerline of the street (elevation 81.28’). Stairs abutting the garage to the north are proposed to access a 222 square-foot ADU and a 495 square-foot uncovered deck on the first floor,
16.43 feet above the garage finished surface. Exterior stairs attached to the ADU access a second uncovered deck and the primary dwelling on the second level (third story). The primary dwelling itself consists of two levels with the main entry, kitchen, dining room and den on the second level (elevation 115.68’) and three bedrooms on the next level, or the fourth story (elevation 126.68’).
Site Constraints for the property include steep topography (34.2%), fuel modification, drainage, and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).
Height Exception
The permitted height allowed within the D/CSP for lots with slopes over 35% is 29 feet. The proposed building height is 31.2 feet and will exceed the permitted height by 2.2 feet. According to the D/CSP, the height requirement may be modified by the Design Review Board when it is determined that “unique topography and/or site conditions make such modification unavoidable and when proposed development preserves and maintains viewsheds, air, light and privacy and neighborhood character, minimizes building mass and bulk, and is consistent with the city’s design guidelines for hillside development”. Current site conditions indicate the presence of a man-made ‘V-Gutter’ ditch. According to the applicant, the ditch is remnant of a drain system that was installed more than 40 years as a temporary measure. The difference between the base grade elevation and the story pole height placed on top the ditch is 31.4 feet. The applicant maintains that in order to develop near the edge of the ditch it is necessary for the permitted height to be exceeded. The request for the increased height is limited to an area where the development approaches the existing v-ditch. See Figure 1 below that demonstrates the area that exceeds the 29-foot height limit. 101
101 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
Figure 1: North Elevation (Partial)
In addition, the project plans include discrepancies related to grade elevations at the property corners. The topographic survey and site plan present differing elevations at the property corner which causes inconsistent lot slope calculation. The project plans note the lot slope at 34.2%, however, staff calculations result in lot slope calculations between 41% and 54%. Staff will require these inconsistencies to be corrected before the Board acts on the project and prior to the certification of staking.
ENTITLEMENTS: After preliminary review, the project is determined to be subject to design review and requires a coastal development permit, and variance for encroachment into a significant watercourse.
Design Review
The proposed project requires the approval of design review. (See LBMC Section 25.05.040(H)). In the D/CSP area, Design Review approval is a two-step process:
(1) Concept Review. Concept review is required prior to submittal for approval of the final design of the structure(s).
(2) Final Design Approval. After the Design Review Board (the Board) reviews the location and design of the structure(s) through the concept review process, plans may be submitted to the Community Development Department for final design approval by the Design Review Board. 102
102 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
Design review is governed by Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.05.040. Design Review is considered by the Design Review Board at a duly noticed public hearing where the following findings are considered in relation to the proposed development:
1. Access. Conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and other modes of transportation should be minimized by specifically providing for each applicable mode of transportation. Handicapped access shall be provided as required by applicable statutes.
No. The proposed design includes a two-car garage that meets the City’s covered parking requirement for a residence with less than 3,600 square feet of floor area. However, the required onstreet parking space is proposed to be located within the required 10-foot-wide travel lane and along 601 Diamond Street and 775 Gainsborough Drive, approximately 131 feet from the subject property.
The location of this space is within the public right-of-way. Finally, a Street Improvement Plan (Sheet A-1.7) has been provided identifying areas of proposed street widening but does not satisfy a minimum 10-foot-wide travel lane as required by the D/CSP. For this reason, this criterion has not been met. Staff recommends the on-street parking space to be revised to meet the minimum requirements. The location of the public parking space is subject to design review. The Board should evaluate the proposed location and provide direction to the applicant if there are any concerns.
2. Design Articulation: Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized. Articulation techniques including, but not limited to, separation, offsets, terracing and reducing the size of any one element in the structure may be used to reduce the appearance of mass.
Yes. The proposed project is designed to step up from Crestview Drive and maintains the appearance of four levels consisting of a garage and three levels of living area (including the ADU). The front (West) elevation is articulated with terracing and varied projections/offsets. It should be noted that due to a lack of variation in color/materials the side elevations (North and South) may appear massive. Staff has received concerns from neighbors with regard to massing. The Board should evaluate the project and provide direction as it relates to this criterion.
3. Design Integrity: Consistency with the applicant’s chosen style of architecture should be achieved by the use of appropriate materials and details. Remodels should be harmonious with the remaining existing architecture.
No. The D/CSP seeks to ensure that “the proposed new residences and modifications to existing residences are compatible with the rustic character of the neighborhood by requiring varied and eclectic architectural styles and moderate scale and mass with low-profile design that respect the topography of the land…”. The proposed project features a contemporary style that does not utilize rustic colors or materials. The contemporary style resembles a ‘container style’ architecture that incorporates box like features, which with the absence of a variety of colors and materials and the emphasis on ‘Light Mist’ as a color contributes to monotony, and compromises design integrity.
Staff recommends that an alternative color to ‘Light Mist’ be incorporated into the final design as the D/CSP discourages the use of “bright colors including white and highly reflective materials.” 103
103 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
With these changes, and upon staff review, this criterion may be met. The Board should evaluate the project and provide direction as it relates to the exterior finishes of the building.
4. Environmental Context: Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city’s scenic natural setting. Natural features, such as existing heritage trees, rock out-cropping, ridgelines and significant watercourses should be protected. Existing terrain should be utilized in the design and grading should be minimized.
Yes. The significant watercourse located along the north property line is already modified, channelized, and culverted and does not require further protection or preservation. Based on previous hydrology reports for the subject property, no impacts to the significant modified watercourse are anticipated.
5. General Plan Compliance: The development shall comply with all applicable policies of the General Plan, including all of its elements, applicable specific plans, and the certified local coastal program.
Based on a preliminary review, the project complies with applicable General Plan policies, however the project is not consistent with several design guidelines of the Diamond Crestview Specific Plan, and Hillside Development Guidelines. These inconsistencies arise from issues with design integrity related to neighborhood compatibility, and colors and materials.
General Plan Policies
After review, staff believe that the project is consistent with the General Plan policies listed below.
Land Use (LU) Policy 2.8 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.
The proposed design incorporates articulation techniques such as offsets and terracing to integrate with the hillside topography of the site. The modified significant watercourse onsite is protected through a City installed drain and no further alteration is being proposed.
LU Policy 2.10 Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views.
Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).
The proposed project siting considers previous privacy and view equity concerns and attempts to minimize potential impacts by providing a terraced design and siting the building further from the rear setback. Some conflict with coastal views from existing neighboring properties may be inevitable and the Board should evaluate any impacts per the view equity criteria. 104
104 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
LU Policy 3.10 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document by maintaining the low-profile character of structures.
Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff-top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).
The building design and siting is compatible and integrated with the natural topographic features.
The modified significant watercourse onsite is protected through a City installed drain and no further alteration is being proposed.
LU Policy 7.3 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources, such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize natural landform alterations. (Same as Policy 10.2.) GOAL:
Protect, preserve, and enhance the community’s natural resources.
The modified significant watercourse is protected through a City installed drain and does not require further protection.
LU Policy 7.10 Require new construction and grading to be located in close proximity to preexisting development to minimize environmental impacts and growth-inducing potential.
The proposed construction and associated grading is within a mostly developed neighborhood of single-family residences. Staff believes the environmental impact of the project will not be significant.
LU Policy 10.2 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize landform alterations. (Same as Policy 7.3) GOAL: Ensure that proposals for new development, subdivisions, and major remodels are sufficiently evaluated to protect public health and safety and natural resources.
Considering that the significant watercourse on site is already modified through a City installed drain on the adjoining property, the design and siting of the new development does not harm the resource.
The design guidelines of the Diamond Crestview Specific Plan and Hillside Development Guidelines are discussed further below.
6. Historic Preservation: Destruction or alteration to historic resources should be avoided whenever possible. See Chapter 25.45 for more information.
N/A. The project site is a vacant lot.
105
105 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
7. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be incorporated as an integrated part of the structure’s design and relate harmoniously to neighborhood and community landscaping themes. View equity shall be an important consideration in the landscape design. The relevant landscaping guidelines contained in the City’s “Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document” should be incorporated, as appropriate, in the design and planned maintenance of proposed landscaping.
The proposed project is located within the Diamond/Crestview neighborhood as described in the City’s Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document. This document includes a set of policies and maintenance guidelines to address the issues of tree maintenance, fire safety, heritage tree preservation, view preservation, scenic highways, water conservation, soil stability, invasive plants, and neighborhood landscape character. The proposed landscape plan includes a mix of new trees (such as Arbutus Unedo and Rhus Integrifolio) and small shrubs while eliminating target species for fire safety considerations. The required landscape open space is 21.55% (1,392 SF) and the project provides 3,299 SF, which includes area of natural vegetation. Staff has received a public comment from a neighbor arguing that the proposed landscaping is deficient. Staff will continue to work with the applicant, the City’s landscape consultant, and the Building Department to ensure consistency with this criterion and compliance with fuel modification requirements.
8. Lighting and Glare: Adequate lighting for individual and public safety shall be provided in a manner which does not significantly impact neighboring properties. Reflective materials and appurtenances that cause glare or a negative visual impact (e.g., skylights, white rock roofs, highgloss ceramic tile roofs, reflective glass, etc.) should be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance in those locations where those surfaces are visible from neighboring properties.
Yes. The proposed lighting plan is shown on sheet A1.6 and includes a total of twenty-five (25) light fixtures, such as lantern wall lights, path lights, step lights, tree spotlights and directional lights.
Overall, the plan provides low level lighting where needed for safety and efficient operation in outdoor activities, terraces, stairs, and walkways.
9. Neighborhood Compatibility: Development shall be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and respect neighborhood character. Neighborhood character is the sum of the qualities that distinguish areas within the City, including historical patterns of development (e.g., structural heights, mass, scale or size), village atmosphere, landscaping themes and architectural styles.
No. The pattern of development in the neighborhood consists of a mixture of three-level and fourlevel residences that are stepped into the hillsides with varying architectural styles and rustic exteriors, including mid-century and Mediterranean styles. Even though part of the proposed building is stepped into the hillside and may occupy less square-footage than other dwellings in the neighborhood, the applicant proposes a contemporary design that is inconsistent with the surrounding pattern of development; Staff recommends that the design incorporate more rustic colors and materials to reduce the appearance of massing on the third and fourth levels of the structure. The Board should evaluate the project and provide direction as it relates to this criterion. 106
106 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
10. Pedestrian Orientation: Commercial development design shall enhance and encourage pedestrian uses. Incorporation of articulated building masses, compact open spaces and courtyards, mixed use developments, use of landscaping as part of design, and orientation to pedestrian access should be maximized.
N/A. Design Review Criteria for Pedestrian Orientation is related to commercial development and is not applicable to the proposed project.
11. Privacy: The placement of activity areas (e.g., decks, picture windows and ceremonial or entertainment rooms) in locations that would result in a substantial invasion of privacy of neighboring properties should be minimized.
In 2013, when a project was last proposed on the subject property, the property owners located behind the subject property at 785, 803 and 812 Gainsborough Drive expressed concerns about the impact project siting would have on their privacy, view, light and open space. The designs have significantly changed since then. Staff has received a public comment from a neighbor regarding the potential privacy issues the current project may cause. The community member argues that the windows on the North elevation of the building are placed directly across their bedrooms and ocean viewing windows and would therefore infringe privacy. The Board should evaluate the project and provide direction as it relates to this criterion.
12. Public Art: Public art is encouraged and shall be displayed where feasible or required by the Art in Public Places ordinance.
N/A. Design Review Criteria for Public Art is related to commercial development and is not applicable to the proposed project.
13. Sign Quality: Signs shall be incorporated into the architecture of the structure and shall be made of high quality materials, be simple in design and be visually compatible with the surrounding physical environment in terms of color, scale and size. Use of natural materials in the construction of signs is encouraged.
N/A. Design Review Criteria for Signage is related to commercial development and is not applicable to the proposed project.
14. Sustainability: New development should consider architecture and building practices which minimize environmental impacts and enhance energy efficiency by: (a) reducing energy needs of buildings by proper site and structural design; (b) increasing the building’s ability to capture or generate energy; (c) using low-impact, sustainable and recycled building materials; (d) using the latest Best Management Practices regarding waste and water management; and (e) reducing site emissions.
Yes. New construction is required to meet Title 24 energy and Building Code requirements, which include insulated windows and energy efficient lighting. The applicant will be required to provide proof of compliance. Further, the applicant will be required to reuse, recycle, or divert at least 50 107
107 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
percent of the project’s construction and demolition debris. Finally, to promote future installation of solar panels, a minimum of 250 square-feet of “solar ready” roof area will be provided. For these reasons, this criterion has been met.
15. Swimming Pools, Spas, and Water Features: Swimming pools, spas and water features shall be located, designed and constructed where: (a) geology conditions allow; (b) noise produced by circulatory mechanical pumps and equipment is mitigated; and (c) any associated fencing or other site improvements are compatible with neighboring properties.
N/A. No pool is proposed.
16. View Equity: The development, including its landscaping, shall be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop as described and illustrated in the City’s “Design Guidelines.” The “Design Guidelines” are intended to balance preservation of views with the right to develop property.
Yes. Due to the hillside setting and orientation of uphill and downhill homes, significant impacts to views are not anticipated. A consistent concern at the hearings in 2013 was related to project siting which saw the then proposed dwelling at approximately 18 feet from the rear property line prompting opposition from primarily the property owners at 803 Gainsborough Drive, which adjoins the subject property at its rear. The current project proposes a rear setback of 46 feet. Three strawberry trees are proposed to be approximately 14 feet from the rear property line, which with a maintained height of 15’ would not impede views. Staff has received view equity concerns from a neighbor and the Board should evaluate view impacts during site visits.
Design Guidelines for Hillside Development
The Diamond Crestview Specific Plan, Topic 5, discusses Hillside Development. Policy 1 states: Require buildings to utilize designs which follow the natural topography while minimizing mass and scale, respecting the rustic neighborhood character and limiting visual intrusion on the natural landscape as required in the Design Guideline component of this plan and the City’s Hillside Development Guidelines.
The Hillside Development Guidelines are intended to describe the City’s design philosophy for hillside development. The guidelines set forth a framework for the City’s Design Review Process. The guidelines are intended to provide flexibility in the design review process since the evaluation of building design includes the application of judgement, discretion, and independent analysis. Furthermore, the guidelines are intended to provide assistance and direction in the design of hillside projects in a manner that is compatible with the mutual interests of the property owner and the City.
Staff is concerned that the project is not consistent with the following Hillside Guidelines:
Hillside Development Guideline No. 4: Follow hillside contours and slope with building forms, particularly roof form, to increase the integration of dwelling and site. 108
108 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
Hillside Development Guideline No. 8: Use changes of material to soften large elevations of building and blend into hillside.
Hillside Development Guideline No. 9: Excavate underground or below grade rooms to dramatically reduce effective bulk, provide energy efficient and environmentally desirable space.
Hillside Development Guideline No. 11: Do not use colors, texture, materials, and forms which will attract attention by not relating to other elements in the neighborhood. No one dwelling should stand out.
Hillside Development Guideline No. 12: Do not use large expanses of a single material on walls, roofs or paving areas. Remember, most dwellings will be seen from below and above by others higher on the hillside.
In addition, staff has received a public comment in opposition to the proposed project regarding Hillside Development Guidelines No. 23, 25, 26, and 29 which are concerned with view preservation, view quality, and partial view blockage. As noted in this report, the project siting has changed significantly from previously submitted designs in consideration of privacy concerns that neighbors had in the past. The new project design may impact views of surrounding neighbors and the Board should evaluate these hillside guidelines and provide direction to the applicant if there are any concerns.
Diamond Crestview Specific Plan Design Guidelines:
The design guideline component of this Specific Plan is composed of written statements, which articulate the City’s basic design philosophy. The design guidelines establish the goals and concepts for design that is appropriate to the area and provide the framework for the City’s design review process. Well-designed buildings, landscaping and open spaces reflect the quality of and values of a community, enhance the visual character of the City and increase the building and property values. The guidelines focus on the composition of good design and represent the design interests and priorities of the City. Each project that requires design review must be consistent with these guidelines.
Architecture
1. Designs should be appropriate to the unique features of the site and should complement the natural terrain.
2. Structures must complement the general design and massing of buildings in the neighborhood. New buildings must be sympathetic to the scale, form and proportion of older development.
3. Design repetition that results in the appearance of sameness between structures must be avoided.
4. A harmonious mixture of materials and color and forms shall be used to blend with the natural hillsides.
5. Architectural details and materials used on the front of the building should be extended to a portion of all sides of the building, including the rear. Treatment to the front façade only is not acceptable.
6. Use of tack-on elements, artificial materials and trendy, imitation design elements are discouraged.
The honest use of materials is encouraged.
7. Tract type massing and “plan-on” details are discouraged.
8. Excessive above-grade decking should be avoided.
109
109 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
The proposed project is inconsistent with applicable architecture guidelines as described within the No.2 Design Integrity section of this report in that the structure does not complement the general design of the buildings in the neighborhood as it features a contemporary style which does not utilize rustic colors or materials.
Alterations and Accessory Structures
1. Accessory structures and alterations to existing structures shall maintain the same architectural style as the primary structure.
2. The same materials, colors, textures and decorative elements used on the existing structure or principle structure generally should be used on all additions and accessory structures.
3. Roofs of additions and accessory structures shall relate style and pitch of the roof to the principal or existing structure.
N/A. The proposed project is a new build.
Building Siting
1. The structures shall relate to the natural topography
2. Unique features of individual site (e.g mature trees, rock outcroppings, drainage courses, geologic, hydrologic, environmentally sensitive biologic resources, etc.) shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible.
3. The preservation of views of coastal and canyon areas from existing residences and public viewpoints should be maximized while respecting rights of property owners proposing new construction.
4. Buildings shall be spaced and oriented in such a way as to project a sense of openness and randomness.
5. The siting of structures shall take into consideration the size and configuration of the lot so as to avoid the appearance of over building (setback to setback) and overcrowding.
6. Structures shall be sited and designed to maintain privacy between adjacent properties.
7. Buildings shall have a desirable visual appearance from all viewpoints, adjoining developments, streets and other view corridors.
The proposed building is sited appropriately. As described within the Design Review Criteria, the front (West) elevation is articulated with terracing and varied projections/offsets providing a sense of openness and randomness. The building is setback 46’ feet from the rear property line and avoids the appearance of overbuilding, while providing privacy to the rear neighbor.
Roofs
1. Roof design should minimize mass. Building forms, particularly roof forms, should step to follow the hillside contours and slope to increase the integration of the dwelling and site.
2. The pitch and scale of the roof shall be in proportion to the size of the structure and the size and configuration of the lot.
3. On sloping roofs, mechanical equipment, plumbing vents and skylight curbs should be located so they do not visually interrupt roof planes or profiles.
4. Roof protrusions, such as roof-mounted air conditioning units and solar collector panels, should be screened from view or otherwise incorporated into the design of the structure. 110
110 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
5. Excessive roof projections, overhangs and cantilevers should be avoided.
The proposed roof is designed as a flat plane and does not follow the hillside contours and does not increase the integration of the dwelling to the site.
Materials and Colors
1. Colors are critical to maintain the rustic character of the neighborhood and shall be neighborhood sensitive. The use of colors shall be sensitive to the neighborhood and shall enhance the rustic character of the neighborhood.
2. Roof materials shall be of a type and quality consistent with the architectural design of the structure and shall be of fire resistive construction consistent with the current Uniform Fire Code. Roof colors shall be of darker tones, including browns, black, greens and terracotta. Bright colors including white and highly reflective materials shall be avoided.
3. Surface materials shall be rough textured to blend with the coarseness of landscaping and natural vegetation. Textured stucco, wood, earth tone brick and coarse block are appropriate.
4. Windows shall not have bare, untreated aluminum frames.
As described within the No.2 Design Integrity section of this report, the proposed project is devoid of any rustic colors and materials. In addition, the absence of a variety of colors and materials and the emphasis on ‘Light Mist’ as the sole color contributes to monotony and does not enhance the rustic character of the neighborhood. Furthermore, the color of the roof is the same as the exterior faces of the building. Staff recommends that an alternative color to ‘Light Mist’ be incorporated into the final design as the D/CSP discourages the use of “bright colors including white and highly reflective materials.” Grading
1. Buildings shall be terraced to follow the slope of the site.
2. Topographic variations within the site should be utilized rather than obliterated. Existing rock outcroppings and trees, for example, can be preserved by deigning split levels, offsets in planes and courtyards. Soil disruption, displacement and compaction should be minimized and should not impact high value biological and unique geological features.
3. Hard edges left by cut and fill operations should be given a rounded appearance that more closely resembles the natural contours of the land.
4. Where cut or fill conditions are created, slopes should be varied rather than left at a constant angle which may be unstable or create an unnatural, rigid, “engineered” appearance.
The lot is half-pipe/pie shaped and the proposed building is terraced to follow the slope of the site to a certain extent. Proposed grading includes a net export of 504 cubic yards outside the building footprint, and net export of 482 cubic yards inside the building footprint.
Landscaping
1. Landscaping coverage and stabilization of graded slopes shall be designed to be compatible with surrounding natural vegetation or to replace removed natural vegetation and should recognize climatic, soil and ecological characteristics of the region. 111
111 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
2. Where development occurs adjacent to undeveloped, natural open space, landscape planting shall provide a gradual transition from new ornamental material to native types. Hard, defined plant “edges” are discouraged.
3. Landscaping shall be used to preserve and frame the scenic view “windows” of hillsides, parks and ocean from adjacent lots.
4. Landscaping should be planned so as to be sensitive to the goal of public and private preservation.
5. Diversity in form, texture and color of plant material is encouraged.
6. Clustered, informal planting schemes are encouraged to reflect a natural, unstructured theme.
7. Xerophytic materials, especially those native to the area shall be selected wherever feasible.
8. Plant materials shall be fire resistant and fire retardant.
9. Discourage the use of plants that are highly combustible.
10. Plant materials that require excessive water after becoming established should be avoided.
11. Drip irrigation systems rather than conventional sprinklers are encouraged to conserve water and prevent runoff.
The proposed landscape plan includes a mix of new trees (such as Arbutus Unedo and Rhus Integrifolio) and small shrubs while eliminating target species for fire safety considerations. The required landscape open space is 21.55% (1,392 SF) and the project provides 3,299 SF, which includes area of natural vegetation.
The landscape plan does not provide clustered or informal planting schemes, or landscaping to minimize the appearance of massing at the north elevation. Staff has received a public comment from a neighbor arguing that the proposed landscaping is deficient. Staff will continue to work with the applicant, the City’s landscape consultant, and the Building Department to ensure consistency with this criterion and compliance with fuel modification requirements.
Lighting
1. Lighting fixtures shall be compatible with the appearance of the residence.
2. Exterior lighting shall be located and shielded so as not to impact adjacent properties and/or the public viewshed.
The proposed lighting plan is shown on sheet A1.6 and includes a total of twenty-five (25) light fixtures, such as lantern wall lights, path lights, step lights, tree spotlights and directional lights. Overall, the plan provides low level lighting where needed for safety and efficient operation in outdoor activities, terraces, stairs and walkways.
Street Improvements, Parking and Signage
1. Required retaining walls within the street right-of-way should use components that avoid straight vertical and horizontal lines and should be terraced or stepped where feasible.
2. Retaining walls within the street right-of-way should be screened with landscaping using native vegetation wherever possible and should use materials that conform with and blend into the hillside.
3. Street signage shall be designed and constructed with natural materials and earth-toned colors that are consistent with the rustic nature of the neighborhood.
4. The use of permeable materials or grass road pavers shall be encouraged for on-site parking as alternatives for concrete or asphalt.
112
112 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
Apart from the proposed on-street parking space, which requires a retaining wall at the limit of the public right-of-way, the project does not propose any other walls within the public right-of-way.
Fencing
1. Fencing shall not interfere with identified animal migration corridors.
2. Chainlink fencing is not permitted.
3. Retaining walls or other support structures should be designed to minimize their visual impact by avoiding straight vertical and horizontal lines such as terracing, stepping, crib walls and appropriate landscaping.
4. Retaining walls should use materials that conform with and blend into the hillscape; these materials include cribbing, treated timber and rockwork veneers using native materials.
5. Retaining walls within the street right-of-way should be screened with landscaping using native vegetation wherever possible.
6. Walls and fences shall integrate materials and colors used in the façade of the structure.
7. Walls and fences that are visible from the public right-of-way shall be designed to incorporate visual interest.
Staff believes that landscaping and stepping along the retaining wall abutting the stairs at the front of the property should be incorporated to minimize its visual impact.
DIAMOND CRESTVIEW SPECIFIC PLAN FINDINGS
No. 1 | The proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses and is consistent with the intent and purpose established in the specific plan;
Yes, the land use designation within the specific plan area is “Village Low Density” which allows for 3 to 7 dwelling units per acre. The proposed use is a single-family dwelling with an attached twocar garage, an attached ADU and three elevated decks. The proposed elements will not alter the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood and are therefore consistent with the surrounding pattern of development.
No. 2 | The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed development; Yes, the subject property is 6,450 square-feet and holds a fan-like shape. The proposed project complies with all development standards for the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan (D/CSP) apart from the permitted height, which may be modified by the Board, and the variance requested for construction within a significant mapped watercourse. Staff believes the site is adequate to accommodate the proposed development.
No. 3 | All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as conditions of approval;
The proposed project requires the provision of a public parking space, the location of which is subject to design review. The proposed on-street public parking space does not conform to standards and revision shall be required.
113
113 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
No. 4 | The project will not cause any significant environmental impact and appropriate mitigation measures, if any, have been incorporated into the project or are attached as conditions of approval; Staff does not anticipate the project to have any significant adverse impacts on the environment and will provide a recommended determination with the project’s return to the Board after the conclusion of the Concept Review Hearing.
No. 5 | The project complies with the development standards and design guidelines of the specific plan; and
The project does not comply with the permitted height of 29 feet for lots with slopes of over 35%.
The height requirement may be modified by the Board when it is deemed that unique topography and/or site conditions make such modification unavoidable and when the proposed development preserves and maintains viewsheds, air, light and privacy, and neighborhood character, minimizes building mass and bulk, and is consistent with the City’s design guidelines for hillside development.
In addition, the project requires a significant watercourse encroachment variance. Lastly, the proposed project does not comply with the architecture, roofs, materials and colors components of the design guidelines of the specific plan;
No. 6 | The project mitigates or avoids environmental constraints of the lot as identified in the sitespecific studies and/or overlay maps of high and very high value habitats and unique geological features (Figures 5 &7).
The subject property is not included within any biologic overlay that may warrant additional review or studies and is within the “Undifferentiated Uncertified and Certified Fill” geologic overlay. The site constraints include steep topography, which the proposed design attempts to embrace, and a modified significant watercourse which is already protected and preserved.
VARIANCE
The proposed single-family residence requires the approval of a variance to encroach into the watercourse setback (See LBMC Section 25.50.03) Variances are governed by Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section
25.05.025. A Variance is considered by the Design Review Board at a duly noticed public hearing where the following findings are considered in relation to the proposed development:
Finding No. 1: There are special circumstances applicable to the property involved, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which cause the strict application of the zoning ordinance to deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
Finding No. 2: Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same vicinity and zone.
114
114 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
Finding No. 3: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience and welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located.
Finding No. 4: The granting of such a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the zoning ordinance or the general plan.
Additional Considerations:
25.50.030(D)(4) Watercourse Encroachment Variances
Variances for the purpose of placing a building or structure within an established watercourse setback area may be granted only when the following findings are made in addition to those listed above:
Finding No. 5: The proposed encroachment will act to preserve, enhance or restore the significance of the watercourse.
The significant watercourse located along the north property line is already modified, channelized and culverted due to the installation of a City storm drain on the adjacent contiguous property and does not require further protection or preservation. Based on previous hydrology reports for the subject property, no impacts to the significant modified watercourse are anticipated.
Finding No. 6: The proposed encroachment is not likely to impair the functional, scenic and ecological purposes of the watercourse.
Considering that the existing drainage course has been piped underground (modified) and because proposed development will tie into existing drainage facilities, no effects on the modified drainage course are anticipated.
At prior hearings, the Board Members indicated that they could make the findings for the watercourse setback variance. Specifically, there are special circumstances applicable to the property including the location of the existing watercourse and the City installed storm drain and sewer. The property immediately above the subject site was improved with a new single-family dwelling without the need for a variance to encroach into the 25-foot watercourse setback, likely due to the modified state of the watercourse. Current policies and regulations require variance approval to encroach into any watercourse setback, whether modified or natural. That property development was also constrained by the city easements required for the underground storm drain and sewer easements.
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT:
The proposed new single-family dwelling requires the approval of a coastal development permit. (See LBMC Section 25.07.004.) Coastal Development Permits are governed by Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 25.07. Findings for the Coastal Development permit will be provided for consideration after the Concept Review Hearing and upon submission of final designs. 115
115 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048
May 9, 2024
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15262, the proposed project is exempt from CEQA under the “feasibility and planning studies” statutory exemption, since the proposal is currently in its nascent stages and any direction provided to the applicant at this time will have no legally binding effects on later activities.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board review and provide comments regarding the proposed project’s concept design based upon the design review criteria, Hillside Development Guidelines, Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan Design Guidelines, and Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan findings, and find said action statutorily exempt for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under section 15262.
NOTIFICATION:
Pursuant to Title 25 (Zoning) Public Notice, a public hearing notice has been mailed at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the hearing date in accordance with Title 25. In addition, a public hearing notice has been posted on the project site at least 10 days in advance of the hearing date. Further, a public hearing notice has been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least 10 days in advance of the public hearing.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
The City has received two public comments regarding the current proposed project to date. The public comments raise concerns related to staking, mass and scale, neighborhood compatibility and potential view impacts, and privacy. Staff has identified these concerns in the Design Review Criteria, Hillside Development Guidelines, and D/CSP Design Guidelines sections of the report.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Attachment 1 – Project Plans.
Attachment 2 – Public Commentary
116
116 of 485
EXHIBIT ‘B’
PROPOSED PLANS
117
117 of 485
STAMP CRESTVIEW HOUSE REVISIONS 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 SITE PLAN PROJECT NUMBER 001 DATE 05.22 SCALE N/ASHEET NO. A-1.0 1 of 28 1 PLANNING 12.31.19 2 FIRE DEPARTMENT 02/21/20 3 PLANNING 02.18.22 3299 221.93 49.43 852.85 221.93 49.43 852.85 (106) (102) (96) (98) (100)(104) (94) (92) (90) (88) (108) (110) (112) (114) (116) (118) (120) (122) (124) (126) (128) (130) (132) (134) (110)(112) (108) (106) (122) (124)(126) (120) (114) (116)(118) (136) (128)(130) (132) (134) (136)(138)(140)(142) (144)(146)(148) (150) (152) (154) (156) (102) (104) 157.0' PROPERTY CORNER 137.6' PROPERTY CORNER 128.13' 138.50' (N)RET.WALL 5% SITE PLAN SCALE 18"=1'-0" 120' (N)RET.WALL 113' 26'-6" 8'-0" (90.5) 85.0 (100.0) 85.56 18'-10" 10' MIN. 16' MIN. 3.5' 4'1"14' 100.0' PROPERTY CORNER (SW PROPERTY CORNER)
E.P.
81.41 CL
CL
E.P.
CRESTVIEWE.P.
FD. 3/4" I.P.
82.92 82.5
84.56 84.31
81.60P. CL
EXISTING POWER POLE MANHOLE RIM: 81.28
E.P. 82.91 83.80' MIDPOINT AT CL OF STREET (RIGHT OF WAY) 83.68' DRIVEWAY ELEV. AT PRPPERTY LINE LS3064 EXIST. SLOPE EXIST. SLOPE EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT EXIST. EDGE OF EXISTING ROAD (FIXED DATUM) 83.00' AT MIDPOINT82.30' ADD NEW BASE AND PAVING TO MEET 26' ROAD WIDTH REQUIREMENT FOR POWER CONNECTION END OF EXISTING PAVING MATCH NEW PAVING WITH NEXT DOOR PROPERTY STREET IMPROVEMENT EXISTING NEIGHBOR'S RET. WALL TO BE DEMOED IN THE CITY STREET R.O.W EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT DRIVE CL. PAVE FD 1" I.P. 86.0' PROPERTY CORNER (E) UTILITY BOX T.ODRIVEWAY 88.80 3"DIAM. WEEP HOLES F.F.104.68 CURB END106.5' CONCR.T.O T.O.W 113.0'T.O.W 108.0' F.G.104.0' T.O.W 106.5' 2:1 F.G.106.0' F.G.108.5' T.O.W 112.5' T.O.W 119.0' 2:1 2:12:1 LOW GRADE SWALE 113.25' BOTTOM OF WINDOWS 119.0 117.0' 2:1
2:1 F.G.120.0' 5% F.G.122.5' T.O.W127.5'
4' F.G.129.0' T.O.W 135.0' T.O.W136.0' T.O.W134' 2:1
SLOPE
5%MIN LANDSCAPING WALL T.O CONCR. 119.0' WALL END. T.O. WALL EL. 118.5' GRADE EL.118.5' F.G 119' 5%MIN SLOPE ROOF OF PRIMARY STRUCTURE DECK 1 GARAGE BELOW DECK 2 DECK 3 FD. 3/4" I.P. LS3064 FD. 1" I.P. LS3064
FD. 3/4" I.P.
40.00'
16' 16' GARAGE DOOR SHEET INDEX A-1.0 SITE PLAN SURVEYING PLAN BY JOY CIVIL ENGINEERING A-1.1 PROJECT INFORMATION A-1.2 PROJECT LOCATION PLAN A-1.3 GRADING PLAN A-1.4 STAKING PLAN A-1.5 LANDSCAPING PLAN A-1.6 EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN A-1.7 STREET PARKING FD-1 FIRE ACCESS PLAN A-2 GRID PLAN A-3.0 GARAGE FLOOR PLAN A-3.1 GARAGE FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS A-4.0 FLOOR PLAN FIRST LEVEL A-4.1 FIRST LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS A-4.2 SLAB PLAN LEVEL 1 A-5.0 FLOOR PLAN SECOND LEVEL A-5.1 SECOND LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS A-6.0 FLOOR PLAN THIRD LEVEL A-6.1 THIRD LEVEL FLOOR AREA CALCUALTIONS A-7.0 ROOF PLAN A-8.0 SOUTH ELEVATION A-8.1 NORTH ELEVATION A-8.2 WEST ELEVATION A-8.3 EAST ELEVATION A-9.0 SECTION 1 A-9.1 SECTION 2 A-9.2 SECTION 3 A-9.3 SECTION 4,SECTION 5 NOTE: 1) ALL UTILITIES TO BE ROUTED UNDERGROUND TO THE NEAREST UTILITY BOX. 2) RESIDENTIAL, FIRE SPRINKLERS ARE REQUIRED 3) FENCING, LANDSCAPING OR GRADING WITHIN SANITARY SEWER EASMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH MEMO DATED JAN. 1, 2000 BY STEVE W. MAY - CITY ENGINEER. "SEE SHEET FD-1 FOR LBFD CODE REQUIREMENTS" 7' SYS PLLCRM NAME RM # AREA SYMBOLS PROJECT DESCRIPTION NEW 3 STORIES SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH ATTACHED GARAGE TO AN EXISTING VACANT LOT. PROJECT DATA APN 644-291-70 ZONE DCSP OCCUPANCY R/3/U CONSTRUCTION TYPE VB FULLY SPRINKLED NUMBER OF STORIES 3 W/ATTACHED GARAGE SQUARE FOOTAGES FIRST FLOOR LIVING (ADU) 205.28 SF SECOND FLOOR LIVING 836.11 SF THIRD FLOOR LIVING 880.00SF TOTAL LIVING 1,921.39 SF GARAGE 476.67 SF FIRST FLOOR DECK 472 SF SECOND FLOOR DECK 179 SF THIRD FLOOR DECK 65 SF TOTAL DECK 716 SF OUTSIDE WALKWAY/STAIRS 314 SF LOT AREA 6,450 SF BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA 1,523 SF PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE 23.6% ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE 35+(((8,000-6450)X9)/4000 =38.5% CODE DATA: THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE 2019 CBC,CMC,CPC & CEC,CRC,CAL-GREEN,CALIFORNIA TITLE 24 ACCESSIBILITY REGULATIONS,2019 TITLE 24 ENERGY REGULATIONS,CITY ORDINANCES,AND STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS AVERAGE LOT DEPTH 133.0' +- R=82.85 L=40.00' 7'-7.5"
SYS
14'-10" VICINITY MAP FYSB/RYSB CALCULATION: PROJECT SITE MAGNETIC ASSUMED C.B. (156) 156 E.P TOWCL FSFG LEGEND: EXISTING TOPO. CONTOURS FINISHED TOPO. CONTOURS CATCH BASIN DRAINAGE TROUGH (SWALE OR CLOSED DRAIN) END OF STREET PAVEMENT TOP OF WALL CENTER LINE FINISHED SURFACE EXISTING GRADE FINISHED GRADE DIRECTION OF SLOPE EG T.O.W 134' T.O.W 132.0' F.S 122.5' F.G.121.0' LANDSCAPE STEPS T.O.W 95.0' PLANTER DRIVEWAY F.F EL.88.17' T.O 101.66' T.O 91.05' 2ND STORY DECK CANTILIVER 1'-7" 1'-9" 3RD STORY CANTILIVER 3'-0" 8'-0" 2/A-9.1 A-8.2 A-8.1 A-8 A-8.3 1/A-9 3/A-9.2 4/A-9.3 5/A-9.3 1 EDGE OF DRIVEWAY' 5'-5" 1 1 NARROWEST DIST.BTWN PL AND GARAGE 1 1 FIRE ACCESS NON-COMBUSTIBLE STAIRS SEE SHEET FD-1 1 1 1 1 1 FIRE ACCESS STEP 3' MIN. 1 1 F.G 108.0' 1 56'-0"AVERAGE REAR SET BACK 4" DIAM. SEWER LINE CONNECTION TO EXIST. CITY SEWER LINE OR NEW SEWER LINE IN THE CITY EASEMENT 1 3'-0" EASEMENT ACCESS UNDERGROUND SANITARY SEWER AND STORMDRAIN AND 7'-0" TOTAL OF ACCESS NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT RIGHT OF WAY 7'-0" ACCESS EASEMENT 1 21' C.L CITY MAPPED OLD WATERCOURSE 1 0 END OF WALL 86.3' T.O DRIVEWAY 1 T.O.W 102.0' 1 87.80' T.O DRIVEWAY 108.0' T.O. WALL 1 ALTERNATIVE LOCATION FOR 6'X4' TRASH BIN COMPARTMENT ALTERNATIVE LOCATION FOR 6'X4'X6' HIGH TRASH BIN COMPARTMENT X X' 4'-0" 6'-0" SECTION X-X' NTS SOIL ABOVE DOOR TO MATCH GARAGE DOOR T.O.W 95.0' 2 A IF THE AVERAGELOT DEPTH IS 131.50' THEN 40% X 131.50'=52.60' B IF THE MINIMUM FYSB (HOUSE)=8'AND IF 52.6'=FYSB+RYSB THEN RYSB=52.6'-8'=44.6' C THEREFORE THE "REQ/ALLOWED"FYSB=8' (HOUSE);5' (GARAGE) AND RYSB=44.6'
61.54' 3' 5'(GAR) FYSB
8'(HOUSE) FYSB MAIN CONCRETE. RET.WALL SECONDARY CONCRETE RET/LANDSCAPING WALL 1 1 CORTEN STEEL CORTEN STEEL 1 1 5' 5'SY SB 1 44'-6"RYSB 5'SYSB 1 AC CONDENSER RHEEM RP1448A 35"X33.75"X33.75" 55 DB WITH TIMER PROVIDE INTERNAL SOUND BLANKET AND SHOCK ABSORTION PAD 1 CL EXIST. PAVED AREA CL CRESTVIEW DRIVE ROW 3 3 20'-0" 3 3 3 3' 20'-0" 10% SLOPE 3 44'-6" 2/A-9.1 A-8.2 A-8.1
A-8 3/A-9.2 5/A-9.3
D/A-1.3 3 (*)EXISTING TEMPORARY TERRACE DRAIN EXCAVATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE IN CONNECTION TO DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY BY THE OWNER.PER EASEMENT AGREEMENT ORANGE COUNTY RECORDING BK13743 PG 1986-1990 DRIVEWAY WALL VIEW NTS
24.2' T.O.W 113.0' T.O.W 102.0' 7' 6' 6' 8' TRASH BIN COMPARTMENT 88.8' TOP OF DRIVEWAY CONCRETE (TYP) SMOOTH FINISH
15.7' 86.3' T.O FINISHED GRADE CORTEN STEEL 1
4' 4' 4' 4' 4' 4' 5'-0"
4'
10'-0" PLANTER LIVE ROOF 5%MIN SLOPE 44'-6" RYS LINE UP UP 1' 5'-5"
12' CONCR. LANDING OWNER/APPLICANT JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 ARCHITECT FREELANDBUCK 724 S.SPRING STREET LOS ANGELES CA 90014 (323)540-4346 FAX (323)570-0846 [email protected] STRUCTURAL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 CIVIL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E.23RD.STREET COSTA MESA,CA 92627 949-244-4423 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING KEITH TUCKER CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 9032 CHRISTINE DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH ,CA 92646 ARBORIST GUY STIVERS 160 CENTENNIAL WAY SUITE 3 TUSTIN ,CA 92670 714-838-9811 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP JOY CIVIL ENEGINEERING 9681 GARDEN GROVE BLVD #205 GARDEN GROVE CA 92844 7143235795 FREELANDBUCK Attachment 3 118
119
119 of 485
STAMP CRESTVIEW HOUSE REVISIONS 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 PROJECT SHEET NO. A-1.1 INFORMATION 3 of 28 1 PLANNING 12.31.19 PROJECT NUMBER 001 DATE 05.22 SCALE N/A 3 PLANNING 02.18.22 CRESTVIEW DRIVE C R=82.85' L=40.00' C C MAGNETIC ASSUMED A) CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT PARKING B) CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS C) CONSTRUCTION PARKING SPACES D) GARAGE AREA FOR TEMPORARY STAGING 1 @ 10' X 20' 1 @ 15' X 20' 9' X 20' EACH 17.33' X 18' D E.P. 81.41 CL CL E.P. FD 1" I.P. E.P. 82.92 82.5 84.56 84.31 81.60P. CL FD. 3/4" I.P. LS3064 EXISTING RETAINING WALL PROTRUDING INTO CITY ROW AT 2100 CRESTVIEW DRIVE AREAS TO BE TEMPORARY, SHORED AND GRADED FOR PARKING AND MATERIALS. SHORING TO BE APPROVED BY BUILDING AND SAFETY. CONSTRUCTION STAGING PLAN PLAN SCALE 3/16"=1'0" EDGE OF EXISTING ROAD A C (N)RET.WALLS 5' MAX. HIGH. (N)LANDSCAPING WALL 3' HIGH MAX. DECK 1 DECK 3 PRIMARY STRUCTURE
DECK 2
8'-8" CITY R.O.W GARAGE AREA BELOW FIRE ACCESS PATH FIRE ACCESS PATH 1 1 ACCESS TO STAGING AND CONSTRUCTION DRIVE 85.17' DRIVEWAY ELEV. AT PRPPERTY LINE 88.17' ADD NEW BASE AND PAVING TO MEET 26' ROAD WIDTH REQUIREMENT SIDE YARD SETBACK/ GARAGE FLOOR PLAN SCALE 14"=1'0" 20'2" 20'4" FD. 3/4" I.P. LS3064 EXISTING NEIGHBOR'S WALL (2100 CRESTVIEW DR) TO BE DEMOLISHED-PART IN THE CITY ROAD R.O.W EDGE OF EXISTING ROAD (N)RET.WALLS 5' MAX. HIGH. PL PROPERTY CL CITY R.O.W PL 8'-8" NARROWEST DIST.BTWN PL AND GARAGE 1 15% SLOPE MAX 10% SLOPE 5'5"
6'5"
10'11"
CRESTVIEW
DRIVE
R=82.85' L=40.00' GRADIENT DRIVEWAY 15%/10% MAGNETIC ASSUMED THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DESIGN CONFORMS TO THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY IN THAT IT IS ALIGNED WITH MAJOR SE/NW DOWN SLOPE AND ITS MASS IS STEPPED DOWN THE SLOPE IN DESCENDING LEVELS AND ROOF LINES. THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AT THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE ENCROACHES THE EDGE OF THE TRAVEL LINE ON CRESTVIEW DRIVE LEAVING MINIMAL PAVED SHOULDER BEYOND THE TRAVEL LINE. THE NORTHWEST-FACING PARCEL IS FAIRLY STEEP (1.7:1) AND IS SURROUNDED ON ALL SIDES BY EXISTING RESIDENCES: ELEVATIONS RANGED FROM 86 FEET AT THE SITE'S NORTHERNMOST POINT POINT (AT CRESTVIEW DRIVE) TO 157 FEET AT THE SOUTHERNMOST POINT. THE SITE DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY STREAMBEDS OF SEASONAL DRAINAGE COURSES.THE PROPERTY IS ALREADY IMPARED ON ALL SIDES BY EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND IS NOT WILDLIFE CORRIDOR AS STATED IN STAFF LETTER FROM JULY 25,2013 "THE PROJECT MITIGATES OR AVOIDS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS OF THE LOT AS IDENTIFIED IN THE SITE-SPECIFIC STUDIES AND/OR OVERLAY MAPS OF HIGH OR VERY HIGH VALUE HABITATS AND UNIQUE GEOLOGICAL FEATURES . NO PROTECTED OAKS TREES OR BLACK WALNUT TREE IS PRESENT WITHIN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT . SEE PROJECTS SOIL REPORT AND DRAINAGE REPORT FOR OTHER CHARACTERISTICS. NO ROCK OUTCROPPING ON THE PROPERTY SIDE YARD SETBACK/ 5'5" MANHOLE RIM: 81.28 POWER POLE E.P. 81.41 CL CL E.P. FD 1" I.P. E.P. 82.92 82.5 84.56 84.31 81.60P. CL FD. 3/4" I.P. LS3064 REAR YARD SETBACK 49.5' FD. 1" I.P. LS3064 FD. 3/4" I.P. LS3064 20' FRONT YARD SETBACK SLOPE 5'5" 31'1" SIDE YARD SETBACK/ EASEMENT 7'-0" 7' CONSTRAINT ANALYSIS PLAN SCALE 116"=1'0" 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE LAGUNA BEACH CA (N)RET.WALLS 5' MAX. HIGH. A EDGE (E)PAVEMENT C FIRE ACCESS PATH FIRE ACCESS PATH 1 1 ACCESS TO STAGING AND CONSTRUCTION VIEW CORRIDOR VIEW CORRIDOR UP 6'-5" UP OWNER/APPLICANT JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 ARCHITECT FREELANDBUCK 724 S.SPRING STREET LOS ANGELES CA 90014 (323)540-4346 FAX (323)570-0846 [email protected] STRUCTURAL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 CIVIL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E.23RD.STREET COSTA MESA,CA 92627 949-244-4423 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING KEITH TUCKER CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 9032 CHRISTINE DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH ,CA 92646 ARBORIST GUY STIVERS 160 CENTENNIAL WAY SUITE 3 TUSTIN ,CA 92670 714-838-9811 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP JOY CIVIL ENEGINEERING 9681 GARDEN GROVE BLVD #205 GARDEN GROVE CA 92844 7143235795 FREELANDBUCK 120
STAMP CRESTVIEW HOUSE REVISIONS 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 PROJECT SHEET NO. A-1.2 LOCATION PLAN 4 of 28 1 PLANNING 12.31.19 PROJECT NUMBER 001 DATE 05.22 SCALE N/A3 PLANNING 02.18.22 OWNER/APPLICANT JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 ARCHITECT FREELANDBUCK 724 S.SPRING STREET LOS ANGELES CA 90014 (323)540-4346 FAX (323)570-0846 [email protected] STRUCTURAL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 CIVIL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E.23RD.STREET COSTA MESA,CA 92627 949-244-4423 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING KEITH TUCKER CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 9032 CHRISTINE DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH ,CA 92646 ARBORIST GUY STIVERS 160 CENTENNIAL WAY SUITE 3 TUSTIN ,CA 92670 714-838-9811 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP JOY CIVIL ENEGINEERING 9681 GARDEN GROVE BLVD #205 GARDEN GROVE CA 92844 7143235795 FREELANDBUCK GAINSBOROUGH DRIVE 74 73 72 71 69 146 70 MAIN HOUSE OCCUPIED 2100 2058 777 785 803 145 144 143 59 75 OCCUPIED OCCUPIED GARAGE AREA BELOW 60 CRESTVIEW DRIVE +/-21'-7" +/-32'-0" +/-44'-0" +/-52'-0" OCCUPIED OCCUPIED 821 GAINSBOROUGH DRIVE PROJECT LOCATION PLAN SCALE 332"/1'0" VIEW CORRIDOR VIEW CORRIDOR VIEW CORRIDOR 21'-7"
121
STAMP REVISIONS 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 GRADING PLAN SHEET NO. A-1.3 CRESTVIEW HOUSE PRELIMINARY 5 of 28 1 PLANNING 12.31.19 2 FIRE DEPARTMENT 02/21/20 PROJECT NUMBER 001 DATE 05.22 SCALE N/A3 PLANNING 02.18.22 C.B. (156) 156 E.P TOWCL FSFG LEGEND: EXISTING TOPO. CONTOURS FINISHED TOPO. CONTOURS CATCH BASIN DRAINAGE TROUGH (SWALE OR CLOSED DRAIN) END OF STREET PAVEMENT TOP OF WALL CENTER LINE FINISHED SURFACE EXISTING GRADE FINISHED GRADE DIRECTION OF SLOPE ABANDDONED EXIST. CONCRETE DITCH 7'-0" EASEMENT AND SETBACK (106) (102) (96) (98) (100)(104) (94) (92) (90) (88) (108) (110) (112) (114) (116) (118) (120) (122) (124) (126) (128) (130) (132) (134) (110)(112) (108) (106) (122) (124)(126) (114)(116)(118) (120) (136) (128)(130) (132) (134) (136)(138)(140)(142) (144)(146)(148) (150) (152) (154) (156) (102) (104) 157.0' PROPERTY CORNER 137.6' PROPERTY CORNER 128.13' 138.50' (N)RET.WALL 5% PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN SCALE 18"=1'-0" 120' (N)RET.WALL 113' 26'-6" 8'-0" (90.5) 85.0 (100.0) 85.56 18'-10" 10' MIN. 16' MIN. 3.5' 4'-1"14'-0 1/2" 100.0' PROPERTY CORNER E.P. 81.41 CL CL E.P. CRESTVIEWE.P. FD. 3/4" I.P. 82.92 82.5 84.56 84.31 81.60P. CL EXISTING POWER POLE MANHOLE RIM: 81.28
E.P. 82.91 83.80' MIDPOINT AT CL OF STREET (RIGHT OF WAY) 83.68' DRIVEWAY ELEV. AT PRPPERTY LINE LS3064 EXIST. SLOPE EXIST. SLOPE EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT EXIST. EDGE OF EXISTING ROAD (FIXED DATUM) 83.00' 82.30' ADD NEW BASE AND PAVING TO MEET 26' ROAD WIDTH REQUIREMENT FOR POWER CONNECTION END OF EXISTING PAVING MATCH NEW PAVING WITH NEXT DOOR PROPERTY STREET IMPROVEMENT EXISTING NEIGHBOR'S WALL TO BE DEMOED FROM THE CITY STREET R.O.W EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT DRIVE CL. PAVE FD 1" I.P. 86.0' PROPERTY CORNER (E) UTILITY BOX T.ODRIVEWAY 88.80 3"DIAM. WEEP HOLES T.O.W 113.0' T.O.W 108.0' F.G.104.0' T.O.W 106.5' 2:1 F.G.108.5' F.G.106.0' T.O.W 112.5' T.O.W 119.0' 2:1 2:1 2:1 LOW GRADE SWALE 113.25' BOTTOM OF WINDOWS 119.0 117.0' 2:1
2:1
5%F.G.121.0' F.G.120.0' F.G.122.5' T.O.W127.5'
4' F.G.129.0' T.O.W 135.0' T.O.W136.0' T.O.W127.5' LANDSCAPE STEPS 120.0' T.O.W122.0' 4' 2:1
2:1
SLOPE
5%MIN LANDSCAPING WALL T.O CONCR. 119.0' 5%MIN SLOPE
61.54'
FD. 3/4" I.P. LS3064
FD. 1" I.P. LS3064
FD. 3/4" I.P.
40.00' T.O.W 100.5' 31'1"
6'3" 16' GARAGE DOOR SITE WORK GRADING OUTSIDE STRUCTURAL FOOTPRINT (CYS) TOTAL (CYS) AVERAGE LOT SLOPE : 34.2% 7' MAGNETIC ASSUMED GARAGE PAD EL. 87.67' PAD EL.104.0' ALL CUT PAD EL.115.0' FILL CUT FIRE ACCESS NON-COMBUSTIBLE STAIRS SEE SHEET FD-1 EG CUT FILL NET EXPORT INSIDE STRUCTURAL FOOTPRINT-INCLUDING GARAGE (CYS) 350 12338 551 69482 1067 81986 84' 85' 86' 87' 88' 108' 110' 112'114' 116' 120' 122'124' 126' 127' 130' 118' 128' 104' 106' 108' 110' 112' 114' 116' 118' 122' 120' 124' 126' T.O.W 127.5' T.O.W 132.0' F.S 122.5' 1 ADJACENT RESIDENCE 1 ADJACENT RESIDENCE 1 ADJACENT RESIDENCE 1 PUBLIC ROW 1660 BB' A A' D D' UNDERSLAB APROX. BOUNDARY OF CUT APROX. BOUNDARY OF CUT 166 CL EXIST. PAVED AREA CL CRESTVIEW DRIVE ROW 3 3 CUT FILL 33 16'-2" 17'-1" 6'-8" WALL END.LANDSCAPING GRADE EL.118.5' F.G 119' OWNER/APPLICANT JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 ARCHITECT FREELANDBUCK 724 S.SPRING STREET LOS ANGELES CA 90014 (323)540-4346 FAX (323)570-0846 [email protected] STRUCTURAL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 CIVIL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E.23RD.STREET COSTA MESA,CA 92627 949-244-4423 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING KEITH TUCKER CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 9032 CHRISTINE DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH ,CA 92646 ARBORIST GUY STIVERS 160 CENTENNIAL WAY SUITE 3 TUSTIN ,CA 92670 714-838-9811 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP JOY CIVIL ENEGINEERING 9681 GARDEN GROVE BLVD #205 GARDEN GROVE CA 92844 7143235795 FREELANDBUCK 85.91' 15% MAX. 10% MAX. 84.31 E.P EXISTING 88.17' 88.25' GAR.FS. 1% MIN 84.56 C.L STREET EXISTING 9'-8" 16' EXISTING ASPHALT STREET 88.0' NEW ASPHALT DRIVEWAY IN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY NEW GRASS PAVE-2 SYSTEM DRIVEWAY 88.45' GAR.FS. 16'-1" PL DRIVEWAY SECTION D-D' SCALE 18"=1'-0" CL
CRESTVIEW VIEW
DRIVE
6"MIN 98.0' 106.0' 108.2' 104.35' TOP OF GARAGE 18'-2" 100 104 108 112 116 120 124 128 132 9692888482 GARAGE PAD 87.7' CL CRESTVIEW VIEW DRIVE 25'-6" PL 21.7' 84.0' 87.8' TEMP. EX=87.5' 21'-7" 10.4' TEMP.EX=87.7' TEMP.EX=96.0' 24' 128.0' BACKYARD CUT AND FILL ATLANDSCAPING WALLS 10' 17' BACK OF THE HOUSE EXCAVATION 10.9' TEMP. EX=105.0' TEMP. EX=107.0' TEMP. EX=105.0' TEMP. EX=114.0' 17' SECTION A-A' SCALE 18"=1'-0" EXISTING GRADE 85.1' 98.0' 106.0' 17'-1" 27'-9" 100 104 108 112 116 120 124 128 (E)GRADE 126.0' 10' VARIES PL 5'
5' PL 3' 7' (E)GRADE 103.0' MIN. SECTION B-B' SCALE 18"=1'-0" T.OW 119.0' F.G 113.0' F.G 104.0' F.G 121.0'F.G 114.0' TEMP.EXC 101.0' 104.0' TEMP.EXC 101.0' 2' 31'-11" DITCH ELEV. 101.5' 122
STAMP REVISIONS 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 STALKING PLAN SHEET NO. A-1.4 CRESTVIEW HOUSE 6 of 28 1 PLANNING 12.31.19 2 FIRE DEPARTMENT 02/21/20 PROJECT NUMBER 001 DATE 05.22 SCALE N/A3 PLANNING 02.18.22 ABANDDONED EXIST. CONCRETE DITCH 7'-0" EASEMENT (106) (102) (96) (98) (100)(104) (94) (92) (90) (88) (108) (110) (112) (114) (116) (118) (120) (122) (124) (126) (128) (130) (132) (134) (110)(112) (108) (106) (122) (124)(126) (114)(116)(118) (120) (136) (128)(130) (132) (134) (136)(138)(140)(142) (144)(146)(148) (150) (152) (154) (156) (102) (104) 157.0' PROPERTY CORNER 137.6' PROPERTY CORNER 128.13' 138.50' (N)RET.WALL 5% STAKING PLAN SCALE 18"=1'-0" 120' (N)RET.WALL 113' 26'-6" 8'-0" (90.5) 85.0 (100.0) 85.56 18'-10" 10' MIN. 16' MIN. 3.5' 4'-1"14'-0 1/2" 100.0' PROPERTY CORNER E.P.
81.41 CL
CL
E.P.
CRESTVIEWE.P.
FD. 3/4" I.P.
82.92 82.5
84.56 84.31
81.60P. CL
EXISTING POWER POLE MANHOLE RIM: 81.28
E.P. 82.91 83.80' MIDPOINT AT CL OF STREET (RIGHT OF WAY) 83.68' DRIVEWAY ELEV. AT PRPPERTY LINE LS3064 EXIST. SLOPE EXIST. SLOPE EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT EXIST. EDGE OF EXISTING ROAD (FIXED DATUM) 83.00' 82.30' ADD NEW BASE AND PAVING TO MEET 26' ROAD WIDTH REQUIREMENT FOR POWER CONNECTION END OF EXISTING PAVING MATCH NEW PAVING WITH NEXT DOOR PROPERTY STREET IMPROVEMENT EXISTING NEIGHBOR'S WALL TO BE DEMOED IN THE CITY STREET R.O.W EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT DRIVE CL. PAVE FD 1" I.P. 86.0' PROPERTY CORNER (E) UTILITY BOX T.ODRIVEWAY 88.80 F.F.104.68 T.OCONCRETE CURB END T.O.W 113.0' T.O.W 108.0' F.G.104.0' T.O.W 106.5' 2:1 F.G.106.0' F.G.108.5' T.O.W 112.5' T.O.W 119.0' 2:1 2:1 2:1 LOW GRADE SWALE 113.25' BOTTOM OF WINDOWS 119.0 117.0' 2:1
2:1
5% F.G.120.0' F.G.122.5' T.O.W127.5'
4' F.G.129.0' T.O.W 135.0' T.O.W136.0' T.O.W127.5' 4'
2:1
2:1
SLOPE
5%MIN LANDSCAPING WALL T.O CONCR. 119.0' WALL END. T.O. WALL EL. 118.5' GRADE EL.118.5' F.G 119' 5%MIN SLOPE PRIMARY STRUCTURE DECK 1 DECK 2 DECK 3
61.54'
FD. 3/4" I.P. LS3064
FD. 1" I.P. LS3064
FD. 3/4" I.P.
40.00' T.O.W 100.5' 31'1" 16' 16' GARAGE DOOR NOTE: 1. STAKE POINTS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS TABLE FALL BELOW EXISTING GRADE. Pole Number Base Grade Elevation*(Ft) Story Pole Height from Proposed Maximum Base Grade Elevation(Ft) Elevation(Ft) *If standard base grade elevation nails are not feasible because of the existence of rocks, paving or existing structural improvements, then the surveyor or engineer may use an alternative
method of establishing horizontal and vertical
control for story poles that can be observed in
the field. The surveyor or engineer shall describethe control method used directly on the full-size staking plan. Such alternative methods may
include painted markings. It is also recognized
that sometimes it may not be feasible to set
poles due to unforeseen circumstances. In that
case, please identify the story poles that were
not established and an explanation as to the reason. 12345678 (SEE NOTE) 9101112131415161718192020-1 2122 Name of Surveyor or Engineer: Datum Benchmark: Date: Site Address: Story Pole Construction Notes Table 444546474849505152535455565758596061626364656636673768394038424341707169727375 81.28 SMH 07/19 2058 Crestview Drive, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 74 7' 1 9 10 11 8 12 16 1719 15 14 13 6 7 5 4 3 2 18 MAGNETIC ASSUMED 7' 7' 7' 5'-3" 5'-3" 13'-5"20'-9"21'-4" 21'-9" 7'-10"
8'-11"
7'-5"
7'-11"
13'-10" 3RD STORY CANTILIVER 3RD STORY POLE CANTILIVER 2ND STORY CANTILIVER 5'-5" C.B. 156 E.P TOWCL FSFG LEGEND: EXISTING TOPO. CONTOURS FINISHED TOPO. CONTOURS CATCH BASIN DRAINAGE TROUGH (SWALE OR CLOSED DRAIN) END OF STREET PAVEMENT TOP OF WALL CENTER LINE FINISHED SURFACE EXISTING GRADE FINISHED GRADE DIRECTION OF SLOPE EG T.O.W 127.5' T.O.W 132.0' F.G.121.0' NON-COMBUSTIBLE STAIRS SEE SHEET FD-1 20-1 1'-7" 1'-9" 2 137.68 137.68 137.68 137.68 137.68 137.68 137.68 137.68 137.68 137.68 130.18 105.16 119.18 119.18 106.5 108.2 108.2 95.0 108.0 119.18 2.MAN MADE DITCH SUBJECT TO LANDOWNER MODIFICATION AS PER BK13743PG 1986 20UP 6'-5" 5'-5"
18'-7" C032946 Exp.06-30-2024 Z A E W.C J J OW M I C K I A K SCIVIL E E F TS T AT O E I N A N R I G EEN CALI FOR F D RO P ESSIONA ER L REGI MACIEJ WOJCIECH CZAJKOWSKI S C032946/06.30.24 02.19.24 2221 115.9 21.8 129.0 8.7 123.2 14.5 124.8 12.9 121.2 16.5 111.5 26.2 112.0 25.7 106.0 31.4 (see note 2) 115.5 22.2 100.0 27.7 103.4 26.8 99.5 5.7 106.7 11.0 117.0 2.2 115.0 -8.5 98.0 10.2 110.8 -2.6 89.2 5.8 114.0 -6.0 114.0 5.2 108.5 18.2 126.68 113.5 5.7 119.18 112.0 7.2 119.18 OWNER/APPLICANT JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 ARCHITECT FREELANDBUCK 724 S.SPRING STREET LOS ANGELES CA 90014 (323)540-4346 FAX (323)570-0846 [email protected] STRUCTURAL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 CIVIL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E.23RD.STREET COSTA MESA,CA 92627 949-244-4423 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING KEITH TUCKER CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 9032 CHRISTINE DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH ,CA 92646 ARBORIST GUY STIVERS 160 CENTENNIAL WAY SUITE 3 TUSTIN ,CA 92670 714-838-9811 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP JOY CIVIL ENEGINEERING 9681 GARDEN GROVE BLVD #205 GARDEN GROVE CA 92844 7143235795 FREELANDBUCK 123
STAMP REVISIONS 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET NO. A-1.5 CRESTVIEW HOUSE 7 of 28 1 PLANNING 12.31.19 2 FIRE DEPARTMENT 02/21/20 PROJECT NUMBER 001 DATE 05.22 SCALE N/A3 PLANNING 02.18.22 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE 18"=1'-0"MAGNETIC ASSUMED FUEL MODIFICATION: THE PROPOSED NATIVE VEGETATION CONSIST OF LOW FIRE FUEL SPECIES. THE SITE IS SURROUND BY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH DOMESTICATED, LOW FUEL MODIFIED LANDSCAPES, REDUCING THE POTENTIAL FOR WILDLAND FIRE. IN ADDITION THE PROPOSED VEGETATION SHALL HAVE A PERMANENT IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND RECEIVE REGULAR MAINTENANCE TO REDUCE FIRE FUELS. THE OWNER SHALL PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING FUEL MODIFICATION: 1. BI-ANNUALLY (April & Oct.), THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL REMOVE ALL DEAD, DYING, HIGH FUEL VEGETATION INCLUDING NATIVE SAGES, ARTEMESIA, BUCKWHEAT, ANNUAL GRASSES AND BROADLEAF WEEDS. OAK LEAF LITTER IS ALLOWED TO REMAIN. 2. ON A MONTHLY BASIS THE OWNER SHALL REMOVE ALL WEEDS ON SITE AND CHECK THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO ENSURE PROPER OPERATIONS. 3. THE OWNER SHALL NOT STORE FLAMABLE MATERIALS ADJACENT TO HOUSE WALLS OR UNDER DECKS, EAVES OR OVERHANGS. 4. THE OWNERS SHALL NOT ALLOW SHRUB VEGETATION TO GROW ONTO HOUSE WALLS OR UNDER DECKS, EAVES OR OVERHANGS. NOTES: 1) PROPOSED VEGETATION IS NATIVE TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. AND MOST ARE INDIGENOUS TO THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH. 2) LANDSCAPING WILL BE IRRIGATED BY A PERMANENT AUTOMATIC DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM. 3) SEE SHEET A-1 FOR ADDITIONAL EXISTING LOT CONDITIONS & LOT INFORMATION NOT TO SCALE SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL ROOTBALL DIA. DEPTH ROOTBALL 2" 2" BERM COMPACTED BASE; NATIVE SOIL CROWN OF SHRUB 1" ABOVE ADJACENT FINISH GRADE ROOTBALL, SET CROWN COMPACT BACKFILL MIX: FINISH GRADE KEEP CROWN OF TREE CLEAR OF MULCH. 2" DEEP MULCH GROUND COVER SHRUB (PER PLAN) 2x 15% BY VOL. GOOD QUALITY HUMUS/COMPOST 1/8 POUND OF AG. GYPSUM ROOTBALL TREE PLANTING DETAIL SLOPE VEGETATION ROOTBALL DEPTH 18" 2x 24" 12" BETWEEN STAKE & TREE 2" DIA X 10' LONG LODGE POLE STAKES 2" DEEP MULCH GROUND COVER KEEP CROWN OF TREE CLEAR OF MULCH. COMPACT BACKFILL MIX: ROOTBALL, SET CROWN 1" ABOVE ADJACENT FINISH GRADE COMPACTED BASE; NATIVE SOIL 1 POUND OF AG. GYPSUM 15% BY VOL. GOOD QUALITY HUMUS/COMPOST FINISH GRADE NOT TO SCALE DIA 2" "E-ZEE" TIE CROWN OF TREE 2" BERM TREE (PER PLAN) PLANTER 1 NATIVE GRASSES PLANTED ON DISTURBED GROUND (N) ARBUTUS UNEDO TREE, TYP (3 TOTAL) WEATHER BASED IRRIGATION CONTROLLER HOSE BIB DECK 1 104.68' F.F DECK 2 115.68' F.F DECK 3 126.68' F.F ROOF 137.68' F.F FIRE ACCESS PATH FIRE ACCESS PATH GRASS PAVE 2 SYSTEM GRASS PAVE 2 SYSTEM 1 1 1 1 FIRE ACCESS STEP 3' MIN. 1 3' WIDE FIRE ACCESS STEP DOWN 1 3' MIN FIRE ACCESS 1 LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE REQUIRED 15% + (( 6450-2500)X 20 12000 =21.58% OR 1,392.13SF 1 GRASS PAVE 2 SYSTEM GRASS PAVE 2 SYSTEM GRASS PAVE 2 SYSTEM 1 1 1 GRASS PAVE 2 SYSTEM 2 2FD 2FD 2FD 2FD 2FD 2FD 5' AVERAGE +/-60' MIN.LANDSCAPE OPENSPACE PROVIDED 52'X52'=2,704.00 SF (AREA A) 83'X5'= 415.00 SF (AREA B) 36'X5'= 180.00 SF (AREA C) TOTAL= 3,299.00 SF 1,392.13 SF 3 UP UP NATIVE VEGETATION GREEN ROOF AND PLANTER TREE SPOT LIGHTS COOL WHITE DOWN LIGHTS (MOONLIGHT) PATH LIGHTS LIGHTING LEGEND FOR HOUSE LIGHTING SEE DWG A-1.6 * * ** * * * * * GREEN ROOF OWNER/APPLICANT JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 ARCHITECT FREELANDBUCK 724 S.SPRING STREET LOS ANGELES CA 90014 (323)540-4346 FAX (323)570-0846 [email protected] STRUCTURAL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 CIVIL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E.23RD.STREET COSTA MESA,CA 92627 949-244-4423 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING KEITH TUCKER CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 9032 CHRISTINE DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH ,CA 92646 ARBORIST GUY STIVERS 160 CENTENNIAL WAY SUITE 3 TUSTIN ,CA 92670 714-838-9811 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP JOY CIVIL ENEGINEERING 9681 GARDEN GROVE BLVD #205 GARDEN GROVE CA 92844 7143235795 FREELANDBUCK GENERAL NOTES 1. FOR INFORMATION ON TREE REMOVALS AND NEW TREE INSTALLATIONS SEE ARBORIST REPORT 2. PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION NEAR PROTECTED TREES, A SITE MEETING IS TO BE CONVENED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE EXCAVATION W. THE ARCHITECT & ARBORIST 3. IT WILL BE THE CONTRACTORS SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT TREES ON SITE. ANY DAMAGE WILL BE MITIGATED BY CONTRACTOR OR TREE REPLACED AT THE CONTRACTORS EXPENSE 4. SEE SOIL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GRADED SLOPES 1. LID PLANTER (15.8 SF) FOR TRIBUTARY AREA FOR UNCOVERED BALCONIES. 2. LID PLANTER (43.2 SF) FOR TRIBUTARY ARE FOR ROOF KEYNOTES LANDSCAPE (TO BE SPRINKLERED) BROOM FINISHED CONCRETE (125 SF) PERMEABLE HARDSCAPE HARDWOOD DECKING LEGEND DECK 1
DECK 3
DECK 2 LANDSCAPE LIGHTING PLAN SCALE 1/16"=1'-0" (75)
(75)
(75)
(60)
(60)
(60)
(75)
(75)
(75)
(75) FIRE ACCESS PATH FIRE ACCESS PATH LANDSCAPE AREA B LANDSCAPE AREA C LANDSCAPE AREA A LANDSCAPE AREAS LAYOUT SCALE 1/16"=1'-0" PRIMARY STRUCTURE * * * * * * * * UP UP DECK 1
DECK 3
DECK 2 PRIMARY STRUCTURE UP UP
124
STAMP REVISIONS 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 LIGHTING PLAN SHEET NO. A-1.6 CRESTVIEW HOUSE 8 of 28 1 PLANNING 12.31.19 PROJECT NUMBER 001 DATE 05.22 SCALE N/A 3 PLANNING 02.18.22 DUPLEX CONVENIENCE OUTLET FLOOR OUTLET HOUSE LIGHTING SCHEDULE CEILING MTD. FIXT. W/INCANDESCENT LAMP. LAMP PLUS - MISSION LODGE COLLECTION BRONZE FLUSH OUTDOOR. WALL MTD. FIXT. W/INCANDESCENT LAMP. LAMP PLUS - MISSION LODGE COLLECTION BRONZE HIGH LANTERN. WALL MTD. FIXT. W/INCANDESCENT LAMP. LAMP PLUS - MISSION LODGE COLLECTION BRONZE HIGH LANTERN. (60) (75) SYMBOL DESCRIPTION/MANUFACTURER QUANTITY WATTS VOLTAGE MOUNTING 3 120 WALL MOUNT 7 120 WALL MOUNT 2 120 CEILING MOUNT NO MORE THAN 4 WATTS OR 300 LUMENS PER LIGHT NO MORE THAN 4 WATTS OR 300 LUMENS PER LIGHT NO MORE THAN 4 WATTS OR 300 LUMENS PER LIGHT NO MORE THAN 4 WATTS OR 300 LUMENS PER LIGHT LANDSCAPE LIGHTING PLAN SCALE 1/8"=1'-0" TREE SPOT LIGHTS COOL WHITE DOWN LIGHTS (MOONLIGHT) PATH LIGHTS LIGHTING LEGEND * DECK 1
DECK 3
DECK 2
(75)
(75)
(75)
(60)
(60)
(60)
(75)
(75)
(75)
(75) FIRE ACCESS PATH FIRE ACCESS PATH PRIMARY STRUCTURE * * * * * * * * UP UP OWNER/APPLICANT JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 ARCHITECT FREELANDBUCK 724 S.SPRING STREET LOS ANGELES CA 90014 (323)540-4346 FAX (323)570-0846 [email protected] STRUCTURAL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 CIVIL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E.23RD.STREET COSTA MESA,CA 92627 949-244-4423 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING KEITH TUCKER CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 9032 CHRISTINE DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH ,CA 92646 ARBORIST GUY STIVERS 160 CENTENNIAL WAY SUITE 3 TUSTIN ,CA 92670 714-838-9811 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP JOY CIVIL ENEGINEERING 9681 GARDEN GROVE BLVD #205 GARDEN GROVE CA 92844 7143235795 FREELANDBUCK 125
STAMP REVISIONS 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 STREET PARKING SHEET NO. A-1.7 CRESTVIEW HOUSE 9 of 29 1 PLANNING 12.31.19 DETAIL 1 SCALE 14"-1'-0" PROJECT NUMBER 001 DATE 05.22 SCALE N/A 3 PLANNING 02.18.22 OWNER/APPLICANT JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 ARCHITECT FREELANDBUCK 724 S.SPRING STREET LOS ANGELES CA 90014 (323)540-4346 FAX (323)570-0846 [email protected] STRUCTURAL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 CIVIL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E.23RD.STREET COSTA MESA,CA 92627 949-244-4423 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING KEITH TUCKER CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 9032 CHRISTINE DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH ,CA 92646 ARBORIST GUY STIVERS 160 CENTENNIAL WAY SUITE 3 TUSTIN ,CA 92670 714-838-9811 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP JOY CIVIL ENEGINEERING 9681 GARDEN GROVE BLVD #205 GARDEN GROVE CA 92844 7143235795 FREELANDBUCK 88.02 87.34 80.43 86.00 84.96 84.77
85.55 85.28 85.27 86.03
80.21 80.62 80.04 81.28 84.36 84.94 83.56 85.95 86.17 83.17 83.15 89.50 88.83 79.16 79.85 78.38 79.05 79.08 78.13 71.56 78.18 66.68 64.90 62.66 63.11 66.07 65.80 65.81 65.99 68.73 69.88 104.31 109.42 114.68 R=82.85 L=39.95' 99.57 105.05 103.13 104.36 98.62 109.17 96.88 87.57 113.75 92.00 88.93 86.88 84.69 80.45 83.48 84.88
84.37 84.09 90.48
83.54 91.89 93.1386.30 84.31
82.12 80.13 79.96 72.38 76.78 98.21 94.92 CURB ASPHALT TC63.15 FS62.84 CURB ASPHALT V-GUTTER V-GUTTER TC64.71 FS64.31 TC65.82 FS65.58 TC69.11 FS68.90 TC70.82 FS70.48 TC72.01 FS71.64 TC77.44 FS77.08 FS76.37 FS74.41 TW65.42 FS62.75 TC66.14 TC65.78 FS65.73 FS65.37 TW67.46 FS65.00 TC67.42 FS67.12 TC69.13 FS68.76 TC70.99 FS70.54 TC75.45 FS75.05 TC77.86 FS77.48 TC81.13 FS80.84 TC83.65 FS83.28 TC86.09 FS85.76 TC83.98 FS83.57 TC82.96 FS82.46 TC82.46 FS82.02TC80.92 FS80.60 TC79.79 FS79.04 TC79.09 FS78.26 FL66.52 FL66.14 TG FS EG EG FG FG FG FG FG FG FL78.60 EG EG FS TG TG TG TG TGFS FL85.96 FSFS EG FS FG FG TC85.34 FS84.93 EGEG FL FG FG FG TW FG
TW EG EG
EG FL78.64 HOUSE MATAL GRATE LOT 146 LOT 147 LOT 148 LOT 56 40' 40' CRESTVIEW DR. FL81.98 CRESTVIEW DR. CURB & GUTTER STORM DRAIN INLET FD. 3/4" IP LS 3064 TG FS TG FG FG FG FG
FG
FG FG FG FG FG FG TW FG FG FG FG FG FG FG FG EG FG FG FG TG FG FG FG TW TW FS FG EG FS (E)POWER POLE 22' 10' CLEAR 30' 8" THICK RET.WALL 1'CLEAR NW PROPERTY CORNER NW PROPERTY CORNER 131' APPROX. STREET PARKING LOCATION PLAN SCALE 332"=1'-0" PROPOSED STREET PARKING (90) (88) (112) (110) (108) (106) (114) (102) (104) FD 1" I.P.85 90 16'-2" 12'-4" 20'-0" CL ROW CL (E) PAVEMENT 12.14' 3 3 3 3 3 66.68 64.90 62.66 63.11 66.07 65.80 65.81 65.99 68.73
84.37 84.09 90.48
83.54 84.31
82.12 80.13 79.96 72.38 76.78 TC63.15 FS62.84 V-GUTTER TC64.71 FS64.31 TC65.82 FS65.58 TW65.42 FS62.75 TC66.14 TC65.78 FS65.73 FS65.37 TW67.46 FS65.00 TC67.42 FS67.12 TC69.13 FS68.76 FL66.52 FL66.14 TG FS EG EG FG FG FG FG LOT 148 40' TG FS TG FG FG FG FG
FG
FG FS (E)POWER POLE 22' 10' CLEAR 30' 8" THICK RET.WALL 1'CLEAR 16'-2" 12'-4" 12.14' 3 3 (E)GRADE (E)PAVING
(N)PAVING PER CITY STANDARDS RET.WALL FTG (N)8"RET.WALL CITY ROW (E)GRADE FS 67.00' PL SECTION A-A' NTS PROPERTY LINE 126
STAMP REVISIONS 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 FIRE ACCESS PLAN SHEET NO. FD-1 CRESTVIEW HOUSE 10 of 28 1 PLANNING 12.31.19 2 FIRE DEPARTMENT 02/21/20 PROJECT NUMBER 001 DATE 05.22 SCALE N/A 3 PLANNING 02.18.22 74 73 69 146 70 MAIN HOUSE OCCUPIED 2100 2058 145 144 59 75 OCCUPIED GARAGE AREA BELOW 60 FIRE ACCESS PLAN SCALE 1/8"=1'0" CRESTVIEW DRIVE R=82.85' L=40.00'GRADIENT DRIVEWAY 15%/10% B MANHOLE RIM: 81.28 POWER POLE E.P. 81.41 CL CL E.P. FD 1" I.P. E.P. 82.92 82.5 84.56 84.31 81.60P. CL FD. 3/4" I.P. LS3064 20' FRONT YARD SETBACK 31'1" A EDGE (E)PAVEMENT C +/-18'-0" +/-32'-0"
+/-44'-0"
+/-52'-0" OCCUPIED FIRE TRUCK PARK AREA
7.5"MAX 11"min FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES: a) A SEPARATED (DEFERRED) SUBMITTAL FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS IS REQUIRED.SYSTEM DESIGN MUST COMPLY WITH THE 2016 CFC AND 2016 NFPA 13d STANDARD .PLANS MUST BE DESIGNED AND INSTALLED BY A QUALIFIED FIRE PROTECTION CONTRACTOR .PLANS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE LBFD,WITH PERMIT ISSUED AND APPROPRIATE INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED. b) ALL EXTERIOR FIRE PLACES AND FIRE PITS MUST BE GAS FIRE ONLY.NO SOLID FUEL IS ALLOWED PER THE LBFD MUNICIPAL CODE.FIRE PLACES AND FIRE PITS MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET FROM COMBUSTIBLE VEGETATION. c) MAINTAIN JOBSITE SAFETY DURING CONSTRUCTION AS PER CHAPTER 33 OF THE 2016 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE. d) COMPLETE FIREFIGHTER ACCESS AROUND THE BUILDING IS REQUIRED, AND MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH DRB APPROVED PLANS.SEE THIS SHEET FOR DETAILS.THIS IS SUBJECT TO FINAL FIRE INSPECTION AND REQUIRES APPROVAL PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY. e) ADDRESS NUMBERS MUST BE PLACED ON THE EXTERIOR FACING THE STREET ADDRESSED TO MINIMUM SIZE OF NUMBERS IS 4",AND THEY MUST CONTRAST WITH BACKGROUND. f) FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT INSPECTIONS,CALL (949)497-0352 AT LEAST 3 DAYS IN ADVANCE TO SCHEDULE. 1 10% MAX SLOPE EA WAY 1 1 (E)FIRE WATER HYDRANT 170' TO (E)FIRE WATER HYDRANT +_ PAVED AREA TOTAL HOSE PULL 126' +_ TOTAL HOSE PULL 127' +_ 1 1 1 1 1 GRASS PAVE 2 SYSTEM GRASS PAVE 2 SYSTEM GRASS PAVE 2 SYSTEM GRASS PAVE 2 SYSTEM GRASS PAVE 2 SYSTEM GRASS PAVE 2 SYSTEM 1 1 1 1 1 1 HOSE PULL 1 FIRE ACCESS PATH 1 FIRE ACCESS PATH 1 FIRE ACCESS PATH 1 1FD ACCESS STEPS 1FD ACCESS STEPS 1 1 FIRE ACCESS STEP 3' MIN. 1PROPOSED EXTRA STREET PARKING 6'-0"X22'-0" FIRE HOSE LENGHT CALCULATIONS LEFT SIDE 18' 2.5' 69 X 1.069 (SLOPE)=73.7' 2' 30' ----------------------------------------------- TOTAL=126.2 TO S.E CORNER RIGHT SIDE 26' 3X (SLOPE)=4' 16' (11.75' STAIRS RAISE)=19.9' 4' 25' 48'X SLOPE (16' RISE)=50.6' ----------------------------------------------- TOTAL= 126.9' TO S.E CORNER2 2 2 FIREFIGHTER ACCESS AREAS WITHOUT STAIRS DO NOT HAVE A SLOPE AND CROSS SLOPE EXCEEDING 10%.THE MAXIMUM. FOR STAIRS SEE DETAIL 1-FD CONCRETE STAIRS 2 CONCRETE DECK 2 GRASS PAVE 2 SYSTEM 2 GRASS PAVE 2 SYSTEM 2 2 2 2 2FD 2FD 2FD 2FD 2FD 2FD 2FD 2FD 2FD 1FD OWNER/APPLICANT JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 ARCHITECT FREELANDBUCK 724 S.SPRING STREET LOS ANGELES CA 90014 (323)540-4346 FAX (323)570-0846 [email protected] STRUCTURAL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 CIVIL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E.23RD.STREET COSTA MESA,CA 92627 949-244-4423 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING KEITH TUCKER CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 9032 CHRISTINE DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH ,CA 92646 ARBORIST GUY STIVERS 160 CENTENNIAL WAY SUITE 3 TUSTIN ,CA 92670 714-838-9811 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP JOY CIVIL ENEGINEERING 9681 GARDEN GROVE BLVD #205 GARDEN GROVE CA 92844 7143235795 FREELANDBUCK 127
STAMP REVISIONS 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 SHEET NO. A-3.0 GARAGE FLOOR PLAN CRESTVIEW HOUSE 11 of 28 1 PLANNING 12.31.19 PROJECT NUMBER 001 DATE 05.22 SCALE N/A3 PLANNING 02.18.22 GARAGE FLOOR PLAN SCALE 14"=1'0" 20'2" 20'4" 16' PARKING SPACE 1 8'-8"x18'-0'=155.88' SF MIN 203.33' SF PROVIDED 2%MIN. 8" 6'5" 8" 8" 8" 3'3" UP MAGNETIC ASSUMED RETAINING WALL AND STAIRS UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT FOUNDATION STEPS-SEE STRUCT. 88.25' F.F GARAGE S/MO 001 2/A-9.1 A-8.2 A-8.1
A-8
A-8.3
1/A-9
3/A-9.2
4/A-9.3 5/A-9.3
PARKING SPACE 2 8'-8"x18'-0'=155.88' SF MIN 203.33' SF PROVIDED 1 1 3'-3" 5'(GAR) FYSB
8'(HOUSE) FYSB
5'5"
9'-4"
7'-0"
22' 3 3 3 33 3 3 2'4"
5'-0"SYS
SYS 5'-0" 1' A B D A.6
C.8 C 2 3 4 2.1 3.6 1 6'-2" 15' 6'-5" 15'-2"
8'
4'-5" 44.5' RYS 14'-0"
24'-4"
20' GENERAL NOTES GREEN BUILDING NOTES: 1. EACH APPLIANCE PROVIDED AND INSTALLED SHALL MEET ENERGY STAR IF AN ENERGY STAR DESIGNATION IS APPLICABLE FOR THAT APPLIANCE. 2. MATERIALS DELIVERED TO THE CONSTRUCTION SITE SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM RAIN OR OTHER SOURCES OF MOISTURE. (4.407.4, 9.407.4) 3. ALL DUCT AND OTHER RELATED AIR DISTRIBUTION COMPONENT OPENINGS SHALL BE COVERED WITH TAPE, PLASTIC, OR SHEETMETAL UNTIL THE FINAL STARTUP OF THE HEATING AND COOLING EQUIPMENT. (4.504.1, 9.504.1) 4. THE FLOW RATES FOR ALL PLUMBING FIXTURES SHALL COMPLY WITH THE MINIMUM FLOW RATES IN TABLE 4.303.2. 5. ALL DUCT AND OTHER RELATED AIR DISTRIBUTION COMPONENT OPENINGS SHALL BE COVERED WITH TAPE, PLASTIC, OR SHEET METAL UNTIL THE FINAL STARTUP OF THE HEATING AND COOLING EQUIPMENT. 6. THE VOC CONTENT VERIFICATION CHECKLIST, FORM GRN 2, SHALL BE COMPLETED AND VERIFIED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION APPROVAL. THE MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS SHOWING VOC CONTENT FOR ALL PPLICABLE PRODUCTS SHALL BE READILY AVAILABLE AT THE JOB SITE AND BE PROVIDED TO THE FIELD INSPECTOR FOR VERIFICAITON. BUILDING ENVELOPE NOTES: 1. VEHICULAR ACCESS DOORS SHALL COMPLY WITH SECTION R612.7 2. BUILDINGS SHALL HAVE APPROVED ADDRESS NUMBERS, BUILDING NUMBERS OR APPROVED BUILDING IDENTIFICATION PLACED IN A POSITION THAT IS PLAINLY LEGIBLE AND VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ROAD FRONT THE PROPERTY. (R319) 3.PROTECTION OF WOOD AND WOOD BASED PRODUCTS FROM DECAY SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE LOCATIONS SPECIFIED PER SECTION R317.1 BY THE USE OF NATURALLY DURABLE WOOD OR WOOD THAT ISPRESERVATIVE-TREATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AWPA U1 FOR THE SPECIES, PRODUCT, PRESERVATIVE AND END USE. PRESERVATIVES SHALL BE LISTED IN SECTION 4 OF AWPA U1. 4. PROVIDE ANTI-GRAFFITI FINISH WITHIN THE FIRST 9 FEET, MEASURED FROM GRADE, AT EXTERIOR WALLS AND DOORS. EXCEPTION: MAINTENANCE OF BUILDING FFIDAVIT IS RECORDED BY THE OWNER TO COVENANT AND AGREE WITH THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO REMOVE ANY GRAFFITI WITHIN 7-DAYS OF THE GRAFFITI BEING APPLIED. (6306) GARAGE NOTES: 1. DUCTS PENETRATING THE WALLS OR CEILINGS SPEARATING THE DWELLING FROM THE GARAGE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF A MIN. N0.26 GA. SHEET STEEL OR OTHER APPROVIED MATERIAL AND THERE SHALL BE NO OPENINGS FROM THE DUCTS INTO THE GARAGE. (R302.5.2) 2. OTHER PENETRATIONS OF GARAGE/DWELLING CEILINGS AND WALLS ARE TO BE PROTECTED AS REQ. BY SECTION 302.11, ITEM 4 (R309.1 ). 3. GARAGE FLOOR SURF SHALL BE OF AN APPROVED NONCOMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL, AND THE AREA USED TO PARK THE VEHICLES SHALL BE SLOPED TO A DRAIN ORTOWARDS THE MAIN VEHICLE ENTRY. (R309. 1) 4. PROV. 5/8" TYPE "X" GYP. THROUGHOUT GARAGE FOR 1 HR FIRE PROTECTION BETWEEN R-3 & U OCCUPANCY. 5. AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR OPENERS, IF PROVIDED SHALL BE LISTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UL325. 6. ALL INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR STAIRWAYS SHALL BE ILLUMINATED (R303.6). ESVE NOTES 1. THE PANEL OR SUBPANEL SHALL PROVIDE CAPACITY TO INSTALL A 40 AMP MINIMUM DEDICATED BRANCH CIRCUIT AND SPACE RESERVED TO PERMIT INSTALLATION OF A BRANCH CIRCUIT OVERCURRENT PROTECTIVE DEVICE. 2. THE SERVICE PANEL OR SUBPANEL CIRCUIT DIRECTORY SHALL IDENTIFY THE OVERCURANT PROTECTIVE DEVICE SPACES RESERVED FOR FUTURE EV CHARGING AS EV CAPABLE. THE RACEWAY TERMINATION LOCATION SHALL BE PERMANEND AND VISIBLY MARKED EV CAPABLE. 3. A MIN 1" (INSIDE DIAMETER) LISTED RACEWAY IS INSTALLED FOR EACH UNIT TO ACCOMMODATE A DEDICATED 208 240 VOLT BRANCH CIRCUIT NOTE: DAMPPROOFING WHERE REQ. SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH MATERIALS AND AS REQUIRED IN SECTION R406.1 LEGEND BROOM FINISHED CONCRETE BLOCK WALL POURED CONC WALL SMOKE/ CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR S/MO OWNER/APPLICANT JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 ARCHITECT FREELANDBUCK 724 S.SPRING STREET LOS ANGELES CA 90014 (323)540-4346 FAX (323)570-0846 [email protected] STRUCTURAL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 CIVIL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E.23RD.STREET COSTA MESA,CA 92627 949-244-4423 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING KEITH TUCKER CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 9032 CHRISTINE DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH ,CA 92646 ARBORIST GUY STIVERS 160 CENTENNIAL WAY SUITE 3 TUSTIN ,CA 92670 714-838-9811 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP JOY CIVIL ENEGINEERING 9681 GARDEN GROVE BLVD #205 GARDEN GROVE CA 92844 7143235795 FREELANDBUCK 128
STAMP REVISIONS 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 SHEET NO. A-3.1 GARAGE FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS CRESTVIEW HOUSE 12 of 28 1 PLANNING 12.31.19 PROJECT NUMBER 001 DATE 05.22 SCALE N/A3 PLANNING 02.18.22 FLOOR AREA BREAKDOWN GARAGE: 476.67 SF RFA: 0 SF R3 OCC: 0 SF U COC: 476.67 SF 21'-8" 22'-0" GARAGE FLOOR AREA CALCULATION SCALE 14"=1'0" MAGNETIC ASSUMED "PER CITY STANDARDS FLOOR AREAS ARE CALCULATED TO OUTSIDE OF WALLS" 1 GENERAL NOTES GREEN BUILDING NOTES: 1. EACH APPLIANCE PROVIDED AND INSTALLED SHALL MEET ENERGY STAR IF AN ENERGY STAR DESIGNATION IS APPLICABLE FOR THAT APPLIANCE. 2. MATERIALS DELIVERED TO THE CONSTRUCTION SITE SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM RAIN OR OTHER SOURCES OF MOISTURE. (4.407.4, 9.407.4) 3. ALL DUCT AND OTHER RELATED AIR DISTRIBUTION COMPONENT OPENINGS SHALL BE COVERED WITH TAPE, PLASTIC, OR SHEETMETAL UNTIL THE FINAL STARTUP OF THE HEATING AND COOLING EQUIPMENT. (4.504.1, 9.504.1) 4. THE FLOW RATES FOR ALL PLUMBING FIXTURES SHALL COMPLY WITH THE MINIMUM FLOW RATES IN TABLE 4.303.2. 5. ALL DUCT AND OTHER RELATED AIR DISTRIBUTION COMPONENT OPENINGS SHALL BE COVERED WITH TAPE, PLASTIC, OR SHEET METAL UNTIL THE FINAL STARTUP OF THE HEATING AND COOLING EQUIPMENT. 6. THE VOC CONTENT VERIFICATION CHECKLIST, FORM GRN 2, SHALL BE COMPLETED AND VERIFIED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION APPROVAL. THE MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS SHOWING VOC CONTENT FOR ALL PPLICABLE PRODUCTS SHALL BE READILY AVAILABLE AT THE JOB SITE AND BE PROVIDED TO THE FIELD INSPECTOR FOR VERIFICAITON. BUILDING ENVELOPE NOTES: 1. VEHICULAR ACCESS DOORS SHALL COMPLY WITH SECTION R612.7 2. BUILDINGS SHALL HAVE APPROVED ADDRESS NUMBERS, BUILDING NUMBERS OR APPROVED BUILDING IDENTIFICATION PLACED IN A POSITION THAT IS PLAINLY LEGIBLE AND VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ROAD FRONT THE PROPERTY. (R319) 3.PROTECTION OF WOOD AND WOOD BASED PRODUCTS FROM DECAY SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE LOCATIONS SPECIFIED PER SECTION R317.1 BY THE USE OF NATURALLY DURABLE WOOD OR WOOD THAT ISPRESERVATIVE-TREATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AWPA U1 FOR THE SPECIES, PRODUCT, PRESERVATIVE AND END USE. PRESERVATIVES SHALL BE LISTED IN SECTION 4 OF AWPA U1. 4. PROVIDE ANTI-GRAFFITI FINISH WITHIN THE FIRST 9 FEET, MEASURED FROM GRADE, AT EXTERIOR WALLS AND DOORS. EXCEPTION: MAINTENANCE OF BUILDING FFIDAVIT IS RECORDED BY THE OWNER TO COVENANT AND AGREE WITH THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO REMOVE ANY GRAFFITI WITHIN 7-DAYS OF THE GRAFFITI BEING APPLIED. (6306) GARAGE NOTES: 1. DUCTS PENETRATING THE WALLS OR CEILINGS SPEARATING THE DWELLING FROM THE GARAGE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF A MIN. N0.26 GA. SHEET STEEL OR OTHER APPROVIED MATERIAL AND THERE SHALL BE NO OPENINGS FROM THE DUCTS INTO THE GARAGE. (R302.5.2) 2. OTHER PENETRATIONS OF GARAGE/DWELLING CEILINGS AND WALLS ARE TO BE PROTECTED AS REQ. BY SECTION 302.11, ITEM 4 (R309.1 ). 3. GARAGE FLOOR SURF SHALL BE OF AN APPROVED NONCOMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL, AND THE AREA USED TO PARK THE VEHICLES SHALL BE SLOPED TO A DRAIN ORTOWARDS THE MAIN VEHICLE ENTRY. (R309. 1) 4. PROV. 5/8" TYPE "X" GYP. THROUGHOUT GARAGE FOR 1 HR FIRE PROTECTION BETWEEN R-3 & U OCCUPANCY. 5. AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR OPENERS, IF PROVIDED SHALL BE LISTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UL325. 6. ALL INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR STAIRWAYS SHALL BE ILLUMINATED (R303.6). ESVE NOTES 1. THE PANEL OR SUBPANEL SHALL PROVIDE CAPACITY TO INSTALL A 40 AMP MINIMUM DEDICATED BRANCH CIRCUIT AND SPACE RESERVED TO PERMIT INSTALLATION OF A BRANCH CIRCUIT OVERCURRENT PROTECTIVE DEVICE. 2. THE SERVICE PANEL OR SUBPANEL CIRCUIT DIRECTORY SHALL IDENTIFY THE OVERCURANT PROTECTIVE DEVICE SPACES RESERVED FOR FUTURE EV CHARGING AS EV CAPABLE. THE RACEWAY TERMINATION LOCATION SHALL BE PERMANEND AND VISIBLY MARKED EV CAPABLE. 3. A MIN 1" (INSIDE DIAMETER) LISTED RACEWAY IS INSTALLED FOR EACH UNIT TO ACCOMMODATE A DEDICATED 208 240 VOLT BRANCH CIRCUIT NOTE: DAMPPROOFING WHERE REQ. SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH MATERIALS AND AS REQUIRED IN SECTION R406.1 LEGEND BROOM FINISHED CONCRETE BLOCK WALL POURED CONC WALL SMOKE/ CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR S/MO OWNER/APPLICANT JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 ARCHITECT FREELANDBUCK 724 S.SPRING STREET LOS ANGELES CA 90014 (323)540-4346 FAX (323)570-0846 [email protected] STRUCTURAL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 CIVIL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E.23RD.STREET COSTA MESA,CA 92627 949-244-4423 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING KEITH TUCKER CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 9032 CHRISTINE DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH ,CA 92646 ARBORIST GUY STIVERS 160 CENTENNIAL WAY SUITE 3 TUSTIN ,CA 92670 714-838-9811 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP JOY CIVIL ENEGINEERING 9681 GARDEN GROVE BLVD #205 GARDEN GROVE CA 92844 7143235795 FREELANDBUCK 129
STAMP REVISIONS 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 SHEET NO. A-4.0 FIRST FLOOR PLAN CRESTVIEW HOUSE 13 of 28 1 PLANNING 12.31.19 PROJECT NUMBER 001 DATE 05.22 SCALE N/A3 PLANNING 02.18.22 2% MIN 2% MIN 36"MIN CLR.REQ 36"MIN.CLR. RQD 2% MIN FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE 14"=1'0" MAGNETIC ASSUMED DECK 1 STORAGE BATH UNFINISHED CRAWL SPACE CEILING HEIGHT 4'-6"/1'-6" LID PLANTER 104.68' F.F 104.68' F.F 5'-4" 14'-7" 4'-10" 14' ADU 101 101 101 2/A-9.1 A-8.2 A-8.1
A-8
A-8.3
1/A-9
3/A-9.2
4/A-9.3 5/A-9.3
5'(GAR) FYSB
8'(HOUSE) FYSB
7'-0" 3 3 3 3 3
5'-0"SYS
SYS 5'-0" 5' UNFINISHED CRAWL SPACE CEILING HEIGHT
5'/3'
KITCHEN
REF UPUP 44.5' RYS A B D A.6
C.8 C 2 3
4 2.1
3.6 1 1' 8' 4'-5" GENERAL NOTES GENERAL NOTES: 1. ALL DIMENSIONS MEASURED FROM FACE OF STRUCTURE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. AN APPROVED SEISMIC GAS SHUTOFF VALVE WILL BE INSTALLED ON THE FUEL GAS LINE ON THE DOWN STREAM SIDE OF THE UTILITY METER AND BE RIGIDLY CONNECTED TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE ONTAINING THE FUEL GAS PIPING. 3. PLUMBING FIXTURES ARE REQUIRED TO BE CONNECTED TO A SANITARY SEWER OR TO AN APPROVED SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM. 4. KITCHEN SINKS, LAVATORIES, BATHTUBS, SHOWERS, BIDETS, LUNDRY TUBS, WASHING MACHINE OUTLETS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH HOT AND COLD WATER AND CONNECTED TO AN APPROVED WATER SUPPLY. 5. BATHTUB AND SHOWER FLOORS, WALLS ABOVE BATHTUBS WITH A SHOWERHEAD, AND SHOWER COMPARTMENTS SHALL BE FINISHED WITH A NOABSORBENT SURFACE SUCH WALL SURFACES SHALL EXTEND TO A EIGHT OF NOT LESS THAN 6 FEET ABOVE THE FLOOR. 6. PROVIDE ULTRA LOW FLUSH WATER CLOSETS FOR ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION. 7. PROVIDE 70-INCH HIGH NON-ABSORBENT WALL ADJACENT TO SHOWER AND APPROVED SHATTER-RESISTANT MATERIALS FOR SHOWER ENCLOSURE. B. WATER HEATER MUST BE STRAPPED TO WALL. (SEC 507 LAPC) 9.SMOKE DETECTORS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL DWELLING UNITS INTENDED FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY. 10. WHERE A PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ALTERATIONS REPAIRS OR ADDITIONS EXCEEDING $1000.00 EXISTING DWELLINGS OR SLEEPING UNITS THAT HAVE ATTACHED GARAGES OR FUEL-BURNING APPLIANCES SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION R315.1. 11. EVERY SPACE INTENDED FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH NATURAL LIGHT BY MEANS OF GLAZED OPENINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION R303.1 OR SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH ARTIFICIAL LIGHT THAT IS ADEQUATE TO PROVIDE AN AVERAGE ILLUMINATION OF 6 FOOT-CANDLES OVER THE AREA OF THE ROOM AT A HEIGHT OF 30" ABOVE THE FLOOR LEVEL. 12. A COPY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT AND/OR CONDITIONS OF LISTING SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE AT THE JOB SITE. 13. HEATER SHALL BE CAPABLE OF MAINTAINING A MINIMUM ROOM TEMPERATURE OF 68aF AT A POINT 3 FEET ABOVE THE FLOOR AND 2 FEET FROM EXTERIOR WALLS IN ALL HABITABLE ROOMS AT THE DESIGN TEMPERATURE. (R303.8) 14. EVERY DWELLING UNIT SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A WATER CLOSET, LAVATORY, BATHTUB OR SHOWER, AND KITCHEN (R306.1 AND R306.2). 15. ALL INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR STAIRWAYS SHALL BE ILLUMINATED (R303.6). WATER CLOSET NOTES: 1. PROVIDE 15" MIN. BETWEEN THE CENTER OF WATER CLOSET TO ANY SIDEWALL. 2. PROVIDE 24" CLEAR SPACE IN FRONT OF ANY WATER CLOSET. 3. BATHROOMS, WATER CLOSET COMPARTMENTS AND OTHER SIMILAR ROOMS SHALL PROVIDE NATURAL VENTILATION OR WITH MECHANICAL VENTILATION CABABLE OF 50 CFM EXHAUSTED DIRECL Y TO THE OUTSIDE (R303.3). 4. ALL EXHAUST FAN UNITS IN PROJECT SHALL BE ENERGY STAR RATED AND HUMIDSTAT CONTROLED AND VENTED TO THE OUTSIDE (SEE GRN CODE NOTES ON SHT. C102 #18, #19, .) TYPICAL ON ALL PLANS AT ALL LOCATIONS). NOTE: DAMPPROOFING WHERE REQ. SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH MATERIALS AND AS REQUIRED IN SECTION R406.1 LEGEND KEYNOTES 1. FOUNDATION STEPS; SEE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 2. LINE OF BLDG. ABOVE BLOCK WALL BROOM FINISHED CONCRETE POURED CONC WALL PLANTING EARTH TILE SMOKE/ CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR S/MO OWNER/APPLICANT JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 ARCHITECT FREELANDBUCK 724 S.SPRING STREET LOS ANGELES CA 90014 (323)540-4346 FAX (323)570-0846 [email protected] STRUCTURAL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 CIVIL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E.23RD.STREET COSTA MESA,CA 92627 949-244-4423 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING KEITH TUCKER CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 9032 CHRISTINE DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH ,CA 92646 ARBORIST GUY STIVERS 160 CENTENNIAL WAY SUITE 3 TUSTIN ,CA 92670 714-838-9811 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP JOY CIVIL ENEGINEERING 9681 GARDEN GROVE BLVD #205 GARDEN GROVE CA 92844 7143235795 FREELANDBUCK 130
STAMP REVISIONS 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 SHEET NO. A-4.1 CRESTVIEW HOUSE 14 of 28 FIRST FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 1 PLANNING 12.31.19 PROJECT NUMBER 001 DATE 05.22 SCALE N/A3 PLANNING 02.18.22 FIRST FLOOR AREA CALCULATION SCALE 14"=1'0" AREA 1 AREA 2
CRAWL SPACE
AREA 3 MECHANICAL SPACE: 0 SF STAIR AREA: 0 SF AREA 1:UNCOVERED DECK : 495.94 SF AREA 2:ADU: 221.93 SF AREA 3: STORAGE: 49.43 SF FLOOR AREA BREAKDOWN MAGNETIC ASSUMED"PER CITY STANDARDS FLOOR AREAS ARE CALCULATED TO OUTSIDE OF WALLS" 1 3 18'-8" 5'-10" 8'-8"
9'-2"
5'-4"
14'-0"
4'-10' 4" 12'-3"
13'-6" 10'-4" 4'-10" 10'-3"
15'-0"
15'-1"
22'-2"
14'-5" GENERAL NOTES GENERAL NOTES: 1. ALL DIMENSIONS MEASURED FROM FACE OF STRUCTURE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. AN APPROVED SEISMIC GAS SHUTOFF VALVE WILL BE INSTALLED ON THE FUEL GAS LINE ON THE DOWN STREAM SIDE OF THE UTILITY METER AND BE RIGIDLY CONNECTED TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE ONTAINING THE FUEL GAS PIPING. 3. PLUMBING FIXTURES ARE REQUIRED TO BE CONNECTED TO A SANITARY SEWER OR TO AN APPROVED SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM. 4. KITCHEN SINKS, LAVATORIES, BATHTUBS, SHOWERS, BIDETS, LUNDRY TUBS, WASHING MACHINE OUTLETS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH HOT AND COLD WATER AND CONNECTED TO AN APPROVED WATER SUPPLY. 5. BATHTUB AND SHOWER FLOORS, WALLS ABOVE BATHTUBS WITH A SHOWERHEAD, AND SHOWER COMPARTMENTS SHALL BE FINISHED WITH A NOABSORBENT SURFACE SUCH WALL SURFACES SHALL EXTEND TO A EIGHT OF NOT LESS THAN 6 FEET ABOVE THE FLOOR. 6. PROVIDE ULTRA LOW FLUSH WATER CLOSETS FOR ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION. 7. PROVIDE 70-INCH HIGH NON-ABSORBENT WALL ADJACENT TO SHOWER AND APPROVED SHATTER-RESISTANT MATERIALS FOR SHOWER ENCLOSURE. B. WATER HEATER MUST BE STRAPPED TO WALL. (SEC 507 LAPC) 9.SMOKE DETECTORS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL DWELLING UNITS INTENDED FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY. 10. WHERE A PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ALTERATIONS REPAIRS OR ADDITIONS EXCEEDING $1000.00 EXISTING DWELLINGS OR SLEEPING UNITS THAT HAVE ATTACHED GARAGES OR FUEL-BURNING APPLIANCES SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION R315.1. 11. EVERY SPACE INTENDED FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH NATURAL LIGHT BY MEANS OF GLAZED OPENINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION R303.1 OR SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH ARTIFICIAL LIGHT THAT IS ADEQUATE TO PROVIDE AN AVERAGE ILLUMINATION OF 6 FOOT-CANDLES OVER THE AREA OF THE ROOM AT A HEIGHT OF 30" ABOVE THE FLOOR LEVEL. 12. A COPY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT AND/OR CONDITIONS OF LISTING SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE AT THE JOB SITE. 13. HEATER SHALL BE CAPABLE OF MAINTAINING A MINIMUM ROOM TEMPERATURE OF 68aF AT A POINT 3 FEET ABOVE THE FLOOR AND 2 FEET FROM EXTERIOR WALLS IN ALL HABITABLE ROOMS AT THE DESIGN TEMPERATURE. (R303.8) 14. EVERY DWELLING UNIT SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A WATER CLOSET, LAVATORY, BATHTUB OR SHOWER, AND KITCHEN (R306.1 AND R306.2). 15. ALL INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR STAIRWAYS SHALL BE ILLUMINATED (R303.6). WATER CLOSET NOTES: 1. PROVIDE 15" MIN. BETWEEN THE CENTER OF WATER CLOSET TO ANY SIDEWALL. 2. PROVIDE 24" CLEAR SPACE IN FRONT OF ANY WATER CLOSET. 3. BATHROOMS, WATER CLOSET COMPARTMENTS AND OTHER SIMILAR ROOMS SHALL PROVIDE NATURAL VENTILATION OR WITH MECHANICAL VENTILATION CABABLE OF 50 CFM EXHAUSTED DIRECL Y TO THE OUTSIDE (R303.3). 4. ALL EXHAUST FAN UNITS IN PROJECT SHALL BE ENERGY STAR RATED AND HUMIDSTAT CONTROLED AND VENTED TO THE OUTSIDE (SEE GRN CODE NOTES ON SHT. C102 #18, #19, .) TYPICAL ON ALL PLANS
AT ALL LOCATIONS). NOTE: DAMPPROOFING WHERE REQ. SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH MATERIALS AND AS REQUIRED IN SECTION R406.1 LEGEND KEYNOTES 1. FOUNDATION STEPS; SEE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 2. LINE OF BLDG. ABOVE BLOCK WALL BROOM FINISHED CONCRETE POURED CONC WALL PLANTING EARTH TILE SMOKE/ CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR S/MO OWNER/APPLICANT JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 ARCHITECT FREELANDBUCK 724 S.SPRING STREET LOS ANGELES CA 90014 (323)540-4346 FAX (323)570-0846 [email protected] STRUCTURAL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 CIVIL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E.23RD.STREET COSTA MESA,CA 92627 949-244-4423 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING KEITH TUCKER CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 9032 CHRISTINE DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH ,CA 92646 ARBORIST GUY STIVERS 160 CENTENNIAL WAY SUITE 3 TUSTIN ,CA 92670 714-838-9811 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP JOY CIVIL ENEGINEERING 9681 GARDEN GROVE BLVD #205 GARDEN GROVE CA 92844 7143235795 FREELANDBUCK 131
STAMP REVISIONS 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 SHEET NO. A-4.2 SLAB PLAN LEVEL 1 CRESTVIEW HOUSE 15 of 28 1 PLANNING 12.31.19 PROJECT NUMBER 001 DATE 05.22 SCALE N/A3 PLANNING 02.18.22 2% MIN 2% MIN 2% MIN 1 SLAB PLAN LEVEL 1 SCALE 14"=1'0" MAGNETIC ASSUMED 104.68' F.F 104.68' F.F 8'-9'10'-8" 13'-6'
13'-8"
5'-4"
4'-10"
14' LID PLANTER ON GRADE BOT. @ 7'-6" LOCATION OF 8" CMU, TYP. EXTEND STAIR TO BE FOUNDATION FOR STAIR WALL FULL HEIGHT BLOCK WALL 3' 3'-7" 8" 5'-10" 2'-8" 5'-5" 2/A-9.1 A-8.2 A-8.1
A-8
A-8.3
1/A-9
3/A-9.2
4/A-9.3 5/A-9.3 14" GAP AT BACK GARAGE WALL 2'-781" 9'-281" 5' 5'(GAR) FYSB 8'(HOUSE) FYSB 5'-0"SYS
SYS 5'-0"
UP 44.5' RYS 13'-2"
18'-9 316" A B D A.6
C.8 C 2 3 4 2.1 3.6 1 GENERAL NOTES GENERAL NOTES: 1. ALL DIMENSIONS MEASURED FROM FACE OF STRUCTURE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. AN APPROVED SEISMIC GAS SHUTOFF VALVE WILL BE INSTALLED ON THE FUEL GAS LINE ON THE DOWN STREAM SIDE OF THE UTILITY METER AND BE RIGIDLY CONNECTED TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE ONTAINING THE FUEL GAS PIPING. 3. PLUMBING FIXTURES ARE REQUIRED TO BE CONNECTED TO A SANITARY SEWER OR TO AN APPROVED SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM. 4. KITCHEN SINKS, LAVATORIES, BATHTUBS, SHOWERS, BIDETS, LUNDRY TUBS, WASHING MACHINE OUTLETS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH HOT AND COLD WATER AND CONNECTED TO AN APPROVED WATER SUPPLY. 5. BATHTUB AND SHOWER FLOORS, WALLS ABOVE BATHTUBS WITH A SHOWERHEAD, AND SHOWER COMPARTMENTS SHALL BE FINISHED WITH A NOABSORBENT SURFACE SUCH WALL SURFACES SHALL EXTEND TO A EIGHT OF NOT LESS THAN 6 FEET ABOVE THE FLOOR. 6. PROVIDE ULTRA LOW FLUSH WATER CLOSETS FOR ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION. 7. PROVIDE 70-INCH HIGH NON-ABSORBENT WALL ADJACENT TO SHOWER AND APPROVED SHATTER-RESISTANT MATERIALS FOR SHOWER ENCLOSURE. B. WATER HEATER MUST BE STRAPPED TO WALL. (SEC 507 LAPC) 9.SMOKE DETECTORS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL DWELLING UNITS INTENDED FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY. 10. WHERE A PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ALTERATIONS REPAIRS OR ADDITIONS EXCEEDING $1000.00 EXISTING DWELLINGS OR SLEEPING UNITS THAT HAVE ATTACHED GARAGES OR FUEL-BURNING APPLIANCES SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION R315.1. 11. EVERY SPACE INTENDED FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH NATURAL LIGHT BY MEANS OF GLAZED OPENINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION R303.1 OR SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH ARTIFICIAL LIGHT THAT IS ADEQUATE TO PROVIDE AN AVERAGE ILLUMINATION OF 6 FOOT-CANDLES OVER THE AREA OF THE ROOM AT A HEIGHT OF 30" ABOVE THE FLOOR LEVEL. 12. A COPY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT AND/OR CONDITIONS OF LISTING SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE AT THE JOB SITE. 13. HEATER SHALL BE CAPABLE OF MAINTAINING A MINIMUM ROOM TEMPERATURE OF 68aF AT A POINT 3 FEET ABOVE THE FLOOR AND 2 FEET FROM EXTERIOR WALLS IN ALL HABITABLE ROOMS AT THE DESIGN TEMPERATURE. (R303.8) 14. EVERY DWELLING UNIT SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A WATER CLOSET, LAVATORY, BATHTUB OR SHOWER, AND KITCHEN (R306.1 AND R306.2). 15. ALL INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR STAIRWAYS SHALL BE ILLUMINATED (R303.6). WATER CLOSET NOTES: 1. PROVIDE 15" MIN. BETWEEN THE CENTER OF WATER CLOSET TO ANY SIDEWALL. 2. PROVIDE 24" CLEAR SPACE IN FRONT OF ANY WATER CLOSET. 3. BATHROOMS, WATER CLOSET COMPARTMENTS AND OTHER SIMILAR ROOMS SHALL PROVIDE NATURAL VENTILATION OR WITH MECHANICAL VENTILATION CABABLE OF 50 CFM EXHAUSTED DIRECL Y TO THE OUTSIDE (R303.3). 4. ALL EXHAUST FAN UNITS IN PROJECT SHALL BE ENERGY STAR RATED AND HUMIDSTAT CONTROLED AND VENTED TO THE OUTSIDE (SEE GRN CODE NOTES ON SHT. C102 #18, #19, .) TYPICAL ON ALL PLANS AT ALL LOCATIONS). NOTE: DAMPPROOFING WHERE REQ. SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH MATERIALS AND AS REQUIRED IN SECTION R406.1 LEGEND KEYNOTES 1. FOUNDATION STEPS; SEE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 2. LINE OF BLDG. ABOVE BLOCK WALL BROOM FINISHED CONCRETE POURED CONC WALL PLANTING EARTH TILE SMOKE/ CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR S/MO OWNER/APPLICANT JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 ARCHITECT FREELANDBUCK 724 S.SPRING STREET LOS ANGELES CA 90014 (323)540-4346 FAX (323)570-0846 [email protected] STRUCTURAL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 CIVIL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E.23RD.STREET COSTA MESA,CA 92627 949-244-4423 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING KEITH TUCKER CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 9032 CHRISTINE DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH ,CA 92646 ARBORIST GUY STIVERS 160 CENTENNIAL WAY SUITE 3 TUSTIN ,CA 92670 714-838-9811 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP JOY CIVIL ENEGINEERING 9681 GARDEN GROVE BLVD #205 GARDEN GROVE CA 92844 7143235795 FREELANDBUCK 132
STAMP REVISIONS 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 SHEET NO. A-5.0 SECOND FLOOR PLAN CRESTVIEW HOUSE 16 of 28 1 PLANNING 12.31.19 PROJECT NUMBER 001 DATE 05.22 SCALE N/A3 PLANNING 02.18.22 UP17 R @7-1/2" 16 T @ 10" REF DW UNDER PANTRY STAIR SECOND FLOOR PLAN SCALE 14"=1'0" DINING ROOM DEN
KITCHEN
LIVING ROOM
CL CL
CL
DECK 2 115.68' F.F
115.68' F.F
115.68' F.F
115.68' F.F
115.68' F.F MAGNETIC ASSUMED 11'-5"
14'-7"
4'-10"
14'-1"
6'-1"
2'-10"
8'-2"
2'-10"
14'-1"
11'-8"
13'-7"
12'-1" 202 204 203 205 201 R7' R5' R12' R8'-0"
R10'R13'
R2'-6"
R6'-7"
3'-3" R12'-7" 7'-6"
7" 4'-10"
3'-9"
5'
5'-3"
4" 5'-4"
5'-11"
6"2'-1"
6'-0"
6'-0"
3'-7"
5'-4"
5'-8"
3'-8"
4'-10"
4'-0"
7'-4"
3'-10" 4'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
3'-112" 6'-9"
2/A-9.1
A-8.2
A-8.1
A-8
A-8.3
1/A-9
3/A-9.2
4/A-9.3 5/A-9.3
5'(GAR) FYSB
8'(HOUSE) FYSB 3 3 3 3
5'-0"SYS
SYS 5'-0"
UP STAIRWAY HANDRAIL AND GUARDRAIL 42" HIGH GUARDRAIL (OUTSIDE GARAGE FLOOR FOOTPRINT) MODULAR GREEN ROOF SYSTEM (TRIMMED TO 2' MAX ABOVE DECK) 42" HIGH GUARDRAIL (INCL.PLANTER AREA) 2' WIDE X 5' LONG X 2' HIGH MAX PERMANENT PLANTER A' SECTION A-A' 44.5' RYS 8' 4'-5" A B D A.6 C.8 C 2 3 4 2.1 3.6 1 UP 1' A' 17-6" STORAGE BELOW WITH MODULAR GREEN ROOF SYSTEM (TRIMMED TO 2' MAX ABOVE DECK) 22'-6" GENERAL NOTES: 1. ALL DIMENSIONS MEASURED FROM FACE OF STRUCTURE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. AN APPROVED SEISMIC GAS SHUTOFF VALVE WILL BE INSTALLED ON THE FUEL GAS LINE ON THE DOWN STREAM SIDE OF THE UTILITY METER AND BE RIGIDLY CONNECTED TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE ONTAINING THE FUEL GAS PIPING. 3. PLUMBING FIXTURES ARE REQUIRED TO BE CONNECTED TO A SANITARY SEWER OR TO AN APPROVED SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM. 4. KITCHEN SINKS, LAVATORIES, BATHTUBS, SHOWERS, BIDETS, LUNDRY TUBS, WASHING MACHINE OUTLETS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH HOT AND COLD WATER AND CONNECTED TO AN APPROVED WATER SUPPLY. 5. BATHTUB AND SHOWER FLOORS, WALLS ABOVE BATHTUBS WITH A SHOWERHEAD, AND SHOWER COMPARTMENTS SHALL BE FINISHED WITH A NOABSORBENT SURFACE SUCH WALL SURFACES SHALL EXTEND TO A EIGHT OF NOT LESS THAN 6 FEET ABOVE THE FLOOR. 6. PROVIDE ULTRA LOW FLUSH WATER CLOSETS FOR ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION. 7. PROVIDE 70-INCH HIGH NON-ABSORBENT WALL ADJACENT TO SHOWER AND APPROVED SHATTER-RESISTANT MATERIALS FOR SHOWER ENCLOSURE. B. WATER HEATER MUST BE STRAPPED TO WALL. (SEC 507 LAPC) 9.SMOKE DETECTORS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL DWELLING UNITS INTENDED FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY. 10. WHERE A PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ALTERATIONS REPAIRS OR ADDITIONS EXCEEDING $1000.00 EXISTING DWELLINGS OR SLEEPING UNITS THAT HAVE ATTACHED GARAGES OR FUEL-BURNING APPLIANCES SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION R315.1. 11. EVERY SPACE INTENDED FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH NATURAL LIGHT BY MEANS OF GLAZED OPENINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION R303.1 OR SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH ARTIFICIAL LIGHT THAT IS ADEQUATE TO PROVIDE AN AVERAGE ILLUMINATION OF 6 FOOT-CANDLES OVER THE AREA OF THE ROOM AT A HEIGHT OF 30" ABOVE THE FLOOR LEVEL. 12. A COPY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT AND/OR CONDITIONS OF LISTING SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE AT THE JOB SITE. 13. HEATER SHALL BE CAPABLE OF MAINTAINING A MINIMUM ROOM TEMPERATURE OF 68aF AT A POINT 3 FEET ABOVE THE FLOOR AND 2 FEET FROM EXTERIOR WALLS IN ALL HABITABLE ROOMS AT THE DESIGN TEMPERATURE. (R303.8) 14. EVERY DWELLING UNIT SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A WATER CLOSET, LAVATORY, BATHTUB OR SHOWER, AND KITCHEN (R306.1 AND R306.2). 15. ALL INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR STAIRWAYS SHALL BE ILLUMINATED (R303.6). WATER CLOSET NOTES: 1. PROVIDE 15" MIN. BETWEEN THE CENTER OF WATER CLOSET TO ANY SIDEWALL. 2. PROVIDE 24" CLEAR SPACE IN FRONT OF ANY WATER CLOSET. 3. BATHROOMS, WATER CLOSET COMPARTMENTS AND OTHER SIMILAR ROOMS SHALL PROVIDE NATURAL VENTILATION OR WITH MECHANICAL VENTILATION CAPABLE OF 50 CFM EXHAUSTED DIRECL Y TO THE OUTSIDE (R303.3). 4. ALL EXHAUST FAN UNITS IN PROJECT SHALL BE ENERGY STAR RATED AND HUMIDSTAT CONTROLED AND VENTED TO THE OUTSIDE (SEE GRN CODE NOTES ON SHT. C102 #18, #19, .) TYPICAL ON ALL PLANS AT ALL LOCATIONS). NOTE: DAMPPROOFING WHERE REQ. SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH MATERIALS AND AS REQUIRED IN SECTION R406.1 KEYNOTES 1. FOUNDATION STEPS; SEE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS LEGEND BLOCK WALL EARTH WOOD FLOOR, GREY STAIN ORIENT PER PLAN WOOD DECK, GREY STAIN, ORIENT PER PLAN, CLASS A ROOF BELOW TILE SMOKE DETECTOR..................................S/MO OWNER/APPLICANT JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 ARCHITECT FREELANDBUCK 724 S.SPRING STREET LOS ANGELES CA 90014 (323)540-4346 FAX (323)570-0846 [email protected] STRUCTURAL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 CIVIL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E.23RD.STREET COSTA MESA,CA 92627 949-244-4423 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING KEITH TUCKER CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 9032 CHRISTINE DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH ,CA 92646 ARBORIST GUY STIVERS 160 CENTENNIAL WAY SUITE 3 TUSTIN ,CA 92670 714-838-9811 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP JOY CIVIL ENEGINEERING 9681 GARDEN GROVE BLVD #205 GARDEN GROVE CA 92844 7143235795 FREELANDBUCK 133
STAMP REVISIONS 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 SHEET NO. A-5.1 SECOND FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS CRESTVIEW HOUSE 17 of 28 1 PLANNING 12.31.19 PROJECT NUMBER 001 DATE 05.22 SCALE N/A3 PLANNING 02.18.22 AREA 1: RFA 836.11 SF STAIR AREA: 0 SF (RFA EXEMPT) AREA 2: COVERED DECK: 55.13 SF AREA 3: UNCOVERED DECK: 236.78 SF RFA: 836.11 SF FLOOR AREA BREAKDOWN 29'-3" 19'-8"
2'-1" 11'-4"
14'-1" 7"
26'-4" SECOND FLOOR AREA CALCULATION SCALE 14"=1'0" MAGNETIC ASSUMED "PER CITY STANDARDS FLOOR AREAS ARE CALCULATED TO OUTSIDE OF WALLS" AREA 1 1 AREA 2 1 AREA 3 1 1 2'-6" 15'-6" 16'-1" 4'-8" 21'-1" 3'-5" 3'-3"
11'-9" 3'-5" 14'-1" 9'-11" 5'-7" 2'-0" GENERAL NOTES: 1. ALL DIMENSIONS MEASURED FROM FACE OF STRUCTURE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. AN APPROVED SEISMIC GAS SHUTOFF VALVE WILL BE INSTALLED ON THE FUEL GAS LINE ON THE DOWN STREAM SIDE OF THE UTILITY METER AND BE RIGIDLY CONNECTED TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE ONTAINING THE FUEL GAS PIPING. 3. PLUMBING FIXTURES ARE REQUIRED TO BE CONNECTED TO A SANITARY SEWER OR TO AN APPROVED SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM. 4. KITCHEN SINKS, LAVATORIES, BATHTUBS, SHOWERS, BIDETS, LUNDRY TUBS, WASHING MACHINE OUTLETS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH HOT AND COLD WATER AND CONNECTED TO AN APPROVED WATER SUPPLY. 5. BATHTUB AND SHOWER FLOORS, WALLS ABOVE BATHTUBS WITH A SHOWERHEAD, AND SHOWER COMPARTMENTS SHALL BE FINISHED WITH A NOABSORBENT SURFACE SUCH WALL SURFACES SHALL EXTEND TO A EIGHT OF NOT LESS THAN 6 FEET ABOVE THE FLOOR. 6. PROVIDE ULTRA LOW FLUSH WATER CLOSETS FOR ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION. 7. PROVIDE 70-INCH HIGH NON-ABSORBENT WALL ADJACENT TO SHOWER AND APPROVED SHATTER-RESISTANT MATERIALS FOR SHOWER ENCLOSURE. B. WATER HEATER MUST BE STRAPPED TO WALL. (SEC 507 LAPC) 9.SMOKE DETECTORS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL DWELLING UNITS INTENDED FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY. 10. WHERE A PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ALTERATIONS REPAIRS OR ADDITIONS EXCEEDING $1000.00 EXISTING DWELLINGS OR SLEEPING UNITS THAT HAVE ATTACHED GARAGES OR FUEL-BURNING APPLIANCES SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION R315.1. 11. EVERY SPACE INTENDED FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH NATURAL LIGHT BY MEANS OF GLAZED OPENINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION R303.1 OR SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH ARTIFICIAL LIGHT THAT IS ADEQUATE TO PROVIDE AN AVERAGE ILLUMINATION OF 6 FOOT-CANDLES OVER THE AREA OF THE ROOM AT A HEIGHT OF 30" ABOVE THE FLOOR LEVEL. 12. A COPY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT AND/OR CONDITIONS OF LISTING SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE AT THE JOB SITE. 13. HEATER SHALL BE CAPABLE OF MAINTAINING A MINIMUM ROOM TEMPERATURE OF 68aF AT A POINT 3 FEET ABOVE THE FLOOR AND 2 FEET FROM EXTERIOR WALLS IN ALL HABITABLE ROOMS AT THE DESIGN TEMPERATURE. (R303.8) 14. EVERY DWELLING UNIT SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A WATER CLOSET, LAVATORY, BATHTUB OR SHOWER, AND KITCHEN (R306.1 AND R306.2). 15. ALL INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR STAIRWAYS SHALL BE ILLUMINATED (R303.6). WATER CLOSET NOTES: 1. PROVIDE 15" MIN. BETWEEN THE CENTER OF WATER CLOSET TO ANY SIDEWALL. 2. PROVIDE 24" CLEAR SPACE IN FRONT OF ANY WATER CLOSET. 3. BATHROOMS, WATER CLOSET COMPARTMENTS AND OTHER SIMILAR ROOMS SHALL PROVIDE NATURAL VENTILATION OR WITH MECHANICAL VENTILATION CAPABLE OF 50 CFM EXHAUSTED DIRECL Y TO THE OUTSIDE (R303.3). 4. ALL EXHAUST FAN UNITS IN PROJECT SHALL BE ENERGY STAR RATED AND HUMIDSTAT CONTROLED AND VENTED TO THE OUTSIDE (SEE GRN CODE NOTES ON SHT. C102 #18, #19, .) TYPICAL ON ALL PLANS AT ALL LOCATIONS). NOTE: DAMPPROOFING WHERE REQ. SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH MATERIALS AND AS REQUIRED IN SECTION R406.1 KEYNOTES 1. FOUNDATION STEPS; SEE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS LEGEND BLOCK WALL EARTH WOOD FLOOR, GREY STAIN ORIENT PER PLAN WOOD DECK, GREY STAIN, ORIENT PER PLAN, CLASS A ROOF BELOW TILE SMOKE DETECTOR..................................S/MO OWNER/APPLICANT JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 ARCHITECT FREELANDBUCK 724 S.SPRING STREET LOS ANGELES CA 90014 (323)540-4346 FAX (323)570-0846 [email protected] STRUCTURAL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 CIVIL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E.23RD.STREET COSTA MESA,CA 92627 949-244-4423 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING KEITH TUCKER CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 9032 CHRISTINE DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH ,CA 92646 ARBORIST GUY STIVERS 160 CENTENNIAL WAY SUITE 3 TUSTIN ,CA 92670 714-838-9811 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP JOY CIVIL ENEGINEERING 9681 GARDEN GROVE BLVD #205 GARDEN GROVE CA 92844 7143235795 FREELANDBUCK 134
STAMP REVISIONS 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 SHEET NO. A-6.0 THIRD FLOOR PLAN CRESTVIEW HOUSE 18 of 28 1 PLANNING 12.31.19 PROJECT NUMBER 001 DATE 05.22 SCALE N/A3 PLANNING 02.18.22 THIRD FLOOR PLAN SCALE 14"=1'0" MAGNETIC ASSUMED W D MASTER BED. WALK-IN CLOSET BEDROOM 2 BATH BATH BEDROOM 1 DECK 3 CL CLCL 126.68' F.F 126.68' F.F 126.68' F.F 126.68' F.F 11'-10" 14'-5" 11'-11" 12'-5" 10'-1" 8'-10" 6'-6" 8'-10" 14'-6" MAX 4" BETWEEN POST AND FACE OF BUILDING, TYP. 306 307 308 301 302 303 304 305 9" 5' 6'-5" 3'-9" 7'-5" 3'-1" 1'-10" 2'-8"
2'-0"
6"
8'-10"
3'-5"
8'-8"
2'-4" 1'-4" 2'-10" 10" 3'-10" 1'-3" 5'-6" 5" 3'-0" 4"8" 5'-3" 4'-11" 2'-11" 5' 4'-10"
5'-4"
5'-2"
7'-6"
1'-1"
10'-3"
3'
4"
2'-8"
8'-2"
6'-10"
3'-3" R6'-2"
2'-4" 2'-8"
4'-4"
2'-8"
8'-2"
12'-5"
5'-741" 5"
6'-5"
2/A-9.1
A-8.2
A-8.1
A-8
A-8.3
1/A-9
3/A-9.2
4/A-9.3 5/A-9.3
LEVEL 2
DECK BELOW
5'(GAR) FYSB
8'(HOUSE) FYSB3 3 3 3
5'-0"SYS
SYS 5'-0"
HALLWAY 126.68' F.F LANDING 122.8' F.F UP 44.5' RYS 6'-2" 15' 6'-5"
8'
4'-5"
15'-5"
23'-5"
6'-10" A B D A.6
C.8 C 2 3 4 2.1 3.6 1 1' UPA' 15'-2" 22'-6" GENERAL NOTES: 1. ALL DIMENSIONS MEASURED FROM FACE OF STRUCTURE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. AN APPROVED SEISMIC GAS SHUTOFF VALVE WILL BE INSTALLED ON THE FUEL GAS LINE ON THE DOWN STREAM SIDE OF THE UTILITY METER AND BE RIGIDLY CONNECTED TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE ONTAINING THE FUEL GAS PIPING. 3. PLUMBING FIXTURES ARE REQUIRED TO BE CONNECTED TO A SANITARY SEWER OR TO AN APPROVED SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM. 4. KITCHEN SINKS, LAVATORIES, BATHTUBS, SHOWERS, BIDETS, LUNDRY TUBS, WASHING MACHINE OUTLETS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH HOT AND COLD WATER AND CONNECTED TO AN APPROVED WATER SUPPLY. 5. BATHTUB AND SHOWER FLOORS, WALLS ABOVE BATHTUBS WITH A SHOWERHEAD, AND SHOWER COMPARTMENTS SHALL BE FINISHED WITH A NOABSORBENT SURFACE SUCH WALL SURFACES SHALL EXTEND TO A EIGHT OF NOT LESS THAN 6 FEET ABOVE THE FLOOR. 6. PROVIDE ULTRA LOW FLUSH WATER CLOSETS FOR ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION. 7. PROVIDE 70-INCH HIGH NON-ABSORBENT WALL ADJACENT TO SHOWER AND APPROVED SHATTER-RESISTANT MATERIALS FOR SHOWER ENCLOSURE. B. WATER HEATER MUST BE STRAPPED TO WALL. (SEC 507 LAPC) 9.SMOKE DETECTORS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL DWELLING UNITS INTENDED FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY. 10. WHERE A PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ALTERATIONS REPAIRS OR ADDITIONS EXCEEDING $1000.00 EXISTING DWELLINGS OR SLEEPING UNITS THAT HAVE ATTACHED GARAGES OR FUEL-BURNING APPLIANCES SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION R315.1. 11. EVERY SPACE INTENDED FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH NATURAL LIGHT BY MEANS OF GLAZED OPENINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION R303.1 OR SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH ARTIFICIAL LIGHT THAT IS ADEQUATE TO PROVIDE AN AVERAGE ILLUMINATION OF 6 FOOT-CANDLES OVER THE AREA OF THE ROOM AT A HEIGHT OF 30" ABOVE THE FLOOR LEVEL. 12. A COPY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT AND/OR CONDITIONS OF LISTING SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE AT THE JOB SITE. 13. HEATER SHALL BE CAPABLE OF MAINTAINING A MINIMUM ROOM TEMPERATURE OF 68aF AT A POINT 3 FEET ABOVE THE FLOOR AND 2 FEET FROM EXTERIOR WALLS IN ALL HABITABLE ROOMS AT THE DESIGN TEMPERATURE. (R303.8) 14. EVERY DWELLING UNIT SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A WATER CLOSET, LAVATORY, BATHTUB OR SHOWER, AND KITCHEN (R306.1 AND R306.2). 15. ALL INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR STAIRWAYS SHALL BE ILLUMINATED (R303.6). WATER CLOSET NOTES: 1. PROVIDE 15" MIN. BETWEEN THE CENTER OF WATER CLOSET TO ANY SIDEWALL. 2. PROVIDE 24" CLEAR SPACE IN FRONT OF ANY WATER CLOSET. 3. BATHROOMS, WATER CLOSET COMPARTMENTS AND OTHER SIMILAR ROOMS SHALL PROVIDE NATURAL VENTILATION OR WITH MECHANICAL VENTILATION CAPABLE OF 50 CFM EXHAUSTED DIRECL Y TO THE OUTSIDE (R303.3). 4. ALL EXHAUST FAN UNITS IN PROJECT SHALL BE ENERGY STAR RATED AND HUMIDSTAT CONTROLED AND VENTED TO THE OUTSIDE (SEE GRN CODE NOTES ON SHT. C102 #18, #19, .) TYPICAL ON ALL PLANS AT ALL LOCATIONS). NOTE: DAMPPROOFING WHERE REQ. SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH MATERIALS AND AS REQUIRED IN SECTION R406.1 KEYNOTES 1. FOUNDATION STEPS; SEE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS LEGEND BLOCK WALL EARTH WOOD FLOOR, GREY STAIN ORIENT PER PLAN WOOD DECK, GREY STAIN, ORIENT PER PLAN, CLASS A ROOF BELOW TILE SMOKE DETECTOR.................................. S/MO OWNER/APPLICANT JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 ARCHITECT FREELANDBUCK 724 S.SPRING STREET LOS ANGELES CA 90014 (323)540-4346 FAX (323)570-0846 [email protected] STRUCTURAL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 CIVIL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E.23RD.STREET COSTA MESA,CA 92627 949-244-4423 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING KEITH TUCKER CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 9032 CHRISTINE DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH ,CA 92646 ARBORIST GUY STIVERS 160 CENTENNIAL WAY SUITE 3 TUSTIN ,CA 92670 714-838-9811 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP JOY CIVIL ENEGINEERING 9681 GARDEN GROVE BLVD #205 GARDEN GROVE CA 92844 7143235795 FREELANDBUCK 135
STAMP REVISIONS 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 SHEET NO. A-6.1 THIRD FLOOR AREA CALCULATION CRESTVIEW HOUSE 19 OF 28 1 PLANNING 12.31.19 PROJECT NUMBER 001 DATE 05.22 SCALE N/A3 PLANNING 02.18.22 FLOOR AREA BREAKDOWN 7'-0" 2'-9" 14'-8" 4'-10"
7'-6" AREA 1: RFA 880.00 SF AREA 2:STAIR AREA: 53.2 SF (RFA EXEMPT) COVERED DECK: 0 SF (RFA EXEMPT)
AREA 3:UNCOVERED DECK: 65 SF (RFA EXEMPT) RFA: 880.00 SF R3 OCC: 880.00 SF THIRD FLOOR AREA CALCULATION SCALE 14"=1'0" MAGNETIC ASSUMED "PER CITY STANDARDS FLOOR AREAS ARE CALCULATED TO OUTSIDE OF WALLS" 1AREA 3 1 AREA 1 1 AREA 2 1 2'-0" 11'-2" 31'-8" 21'-8" 15'-5" 9'-10" 26'-8" GENERAL NOTES: 1. ALL DIMENSIONS MEASURED FROM FACE OF STRUCTURE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. AN APPROVED SEISMIC GAS SHUTOFF VALVE WILL BE INSTALLED ON THE FUEL GAS LINE ON THE DOWN STREAM SIDE OF THE UTILITY METER AND BE RIGIDLY CONNECTED TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE ONTAINING THE FUEL GAS PIPING. 3. PLUMBING FIXTURES ARE REQUIRED TO BE CONNECTED TO A SANITARY SEWER OR TO AN APPROVED SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM. 4. KITCHEN SINKS, LAVATORIES, BATHTUBS, SHOWERS, BIDETS, LUNDRY TUBS, WASHING MACHINE OUTLETS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH HOT AND COLD WATER AND CONNECTED TO AN APPROVED WATER SUPPLY. 5. BATHTUB AND SHOWER FLOORS, WALLS ABOVE BATHTUBS WITH A SHOWERHEAD, AND SHOWER COMPARTMENTS SHALL BE FINISHED WITH A NOABSORBENT SURFACE SUCH WALL SURFACES SHALL EXTEND TO A EIGHT OF NOT LESS THAN 6 FEET ABOVE THE FLOOR. 6. PROVIDE ULTRA LOW FLUSH WATER CLOSETS FOR ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION. 7. PROVIDE 70-INCH HIGH NON-ABSORBENT WALL ADJACENT TO SHOWER AND APPROVED SHATTER-RESISTANT MATERIALS FOR SHOWER ENCLOSURE. B. WATER HEATER MUST BE STRAPPED TO WALL. (SEC 507 LAPC) 9.SMOKE DETECTORS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL DWELLING UNITS INTENDED FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY. 10. WHERE A PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ALTERATIONS REPAIRS OR ADDITIONS EXCEEDING $1000.00 EXISTING DWELLINGS OR SLEEPING UNITS THAT HAVE ATTACHED GARAGES OR FUEL-BURNING APPLIANCES SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION R315.1. 11. EVERY SPACE INTENDED FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH NATURAL LIGHT BY MEANS OF GLAZED OPENINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION R303.1 OR SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH ARTIFICIAL LIGHT THAT IS ADEQUATE TO PROVIDE AN AVERAGE ILLUMINATION OF 6 FOOT-CANDLES OVER THE AREA OF THE ROOM AT A HEIGHT OF 30" ABOVE THE FLOOR LEVEL. 12. A COPY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT AND/OR CONDITIONS OF LISTING SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE AT THE JOB SITE. 13. HEATER SHALL BE CAPABLE OF MAINTAINING A MINIMUM ROOM TEMPERATURE OF 68aF AT A POINT 3 FEET ABOVE THE FLOOR AND 2 FEET FROM EXTERIOR WALLS IN ALL HABITABLE ROOMS AT THE DESIGN TEMPERATURE. (R303.8) 14. EVERY DWELLING UNIT SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A WATER CLOSET, LAVATORY, BATHTUB OR SHOWER, AND KITCHEN (R306.1 AND R306.2). 15. ALL INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR STAIRWAYS SHALL BE ILLUMINATED (R303.6). WATER CLOSET NOTES: 1. PROVIDE 15" MIN. BETWEEN THE CENTER OF WATER CLOSET TO ANY SIDEWALL. 2. PROVIDE 24" CLEAR SPACE IN FRONT OF ANY WATER CLOSET. 3. BATHROOMS, WATER CLOSET COMPARTMENTS AND OTHER SIMILAR ROOMS SHALL PROVIDE NATURAL VENTILATION OR WITH MECHANICAL VENTILATION CAPABLE OF 50 CFM EXHAUSTED DIRECL Y TO THE OUTSIDE (R303.3). 4. ALL EXHAUST FAN UNITS IN PROJECT SHALL BE ENERGY STAR RATED AND HUMIDSTAT CONTROLED AND VENTED TO THE OUTSIDE (SEE GRN CODE NOTES ON SHT. C102 #18, #19, .) TYPICAL ON ALL PLANS AT ALL LOCATIONS). NOTE: DAMPPROOFING WHERE REQ. SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH MATERIALS AND AS REQUIRED IN SECTION R406.1 KEYNOTES 1. FOUNDATION STEPS; SEE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS LEGEND BLOCK WALL EARTH WOOD FLOOR, GREY STAIN ORIENT PER PLAN WOOD DECK, GREY STAIN, ORIENT PER PLAN, CLASS A ROOF BELOW TILE SMOKE DETECTOR.................................. S/MO OWNER/APPLICANT JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 ARCHITECT FREELANDBUCK 724 S.SPRING STREET LOS ANGELES CA 90014 (323)540-4346 FAX (323)570-0846 [email protected] STRUCTURAL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 CIVIL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E.23RD.STREET COSTA MESA,CA 92627 949-244-4423 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING KEITH TUCKER CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 9032 CHRISTINE DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH ,CA 92646 ARBORIST GUY STIVERS 160 CENTENNIAL WAY SUITE 3 TUSTIN ,CA 92670 714-838-9811 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP JOY CIVIL ENEGINEERING 9681 GARDEN GROVE BLVD #205 GARDEN GROVE CA 92844 7143235795 FREELANDBUCK 136
STAMP REVISIONS 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 SHEET NO. A-7.0 ROOF FLOOR PLAN CRESTVIEW HOUSE 20 of 28 1 PLANNING 12.31.19 PROJECT NUMBER 001 DATE 05.22 SCALE N/A3 PLANNING 02.18.22 ROOF FLOOR PLAN SCALE 14"=1'0" MAGNETIC ASSUMED ROOF TOP OF PARAPET 137.68' F.F 10'-71116" 11'-10" 15'-0" 15'-10"
10'-1" 21'-5"
18'-1"
13'-2"
2/A-9.1
A-8.2
A-8.1
A-8
A-8.3
1/A-9
3/A-9.2
4/A-9.3 5/A-9.3
2% MIN SLOPE
2% MIN SLOPE
2% MIN
2% MIN
2% MIN 2% MIN
3'MIN.CL RQD
3'MIN.CL RQD
24'-6" 5' 3'-10"
7'
18'-9" FOR SOLAR USE 250 FS MIN. RQD (254.9 SF PROVIDED) PROVIDE 1" MIN. METALLIC CONDUIT FOR SOLAR USE 5'(GAR) FYSB 8'(HOUSE) FYSB 3 3 3 3 5'-0"SYS
SYS 5'-0"
UP 44.5' RYS 1' A B D A.6
C.8 C 2 3
4 2.1
3.6 1 8' 4'-5" GENERAL NOTES KEYNOTES 1. ROOFING MATERIAL- CARLISLE WHITE SURE-WELD TPO REINFORCED MEMBRANE ICC #ESR-1463 SRI INITIAL-99, SRI 3 YEAR-85, THERMAL EMITTANCE-0.9 2. BALCONY MATERIAL- OPEN WOOD DECK, GREY STAIN, ORIENT PER PLAN, CLASS A ROOF BELOW ROOF NOTES: 1. ALL DIMENSIONS MEASURED FROM FACE OF STRUCTURE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. DIAGONAL DIMENSIONS ALIGN WITH CONTROL POINT"B". 3. CONVEY RUNOFF TO THE STREET VIA A NON-EROSIVE DEVICE. 4. PROVIDE A "CLASS A" FIRE-RETARDANT ROOF COVERING. 5. CLASS "A" ROOF COVERING IS REQ. FOR ALL BUILDINGS LOCATED IN A MOUNTAIN FIRE DISTRICT OR FIRE BUFFER ZONE. 6. ROOF SHALL CONSIST OF A "CLASS A" MODIFIED BITUMEN BUll T-UP ROOF. 7. THE MAIN ELECTRICAL SERVICE PANEL SHALL HAVE A RESERVED SPACE TO ALLOW FOR INSTALLATION OF A DOUBLE POLE CIRCUIT BREAKER FOR A FUTURE SOLAR ELECTRIC INSTALLATION. THE RESERVED SPACE SHALL BE POSITIONED AT THE OPPOSITE (LOAD) END FROM THE INPUT FEEDER LOCATION OR MAIN CIRCUIT LOCATION SHAT BE PERMANENTLY MARKED AS 'FOR FUTURE SOLAR ELECTRIC 8. SOLAR ZONE SHALL BE FREE OF OBSTRUCTIONS AND BE SETBACK AT LEAST TWO TIMES THE HEIGHT OF ANY OBSTRUCTIONS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO VENTS, CHIMNEYS, AND EQUIPMENT 9.ROOFING MATERIAL- CARLISLE WHITE SURE-WELD TPO REINFORCED MEMBRANE ICC #ESR-1463 SRI INITIAL-99, SRI 3 YEAR-85, THERMAL EMITTANCE-0.9 ELECTRIC NOTES 1. THE MAIN SERVICE PANEL SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM BUSBAR RATING OF 200 AMPS 2. THE MAIN ELECTRICAL SERVICE PANEL SHALL HAVE A RESERVED SPACE TO ALLOW FOR INSTALLATION OF A DOUBLE POLE CIRCUIT BREAKER FOR A FUTURE SOLAR ELECTRIC INSTALLATION. THE RESERVED SPACE SHALL BE POSITIONED AT THE OPPOSITE (LOAD) END FROM THE INPUT FEEDER LOCATION OF MAIN CIRCUIT LOCATION AND SHALL BE PERMENANTLY MARKED AS 'FOR FUTURE SOLAR ELECTRIC' B.O.S. LID DEVCE CALCS TOTAL ROOF AREA: 985 SF GROSS MITIGATION REQ. FOR TRIBUTARY AREA FROM ROOF: ONE 38.5 SF PLANTER TOTAL UNCOVERED BALCONY AREA: 340 GROSS MITIGATION REQ. FOR TRIBUTARY AREA FROM BALCONIES: ONE 13.5 SF PLANTER LEGEND GWB. CLG. (SEE PLAN FOR ELEV) CEILING DIFFUSER FLOOR DIFFUSER CEILING DIFFUSER DUCT UP/DN RETURN FAN DUCT WALL SUP WALL RETURN F U P D N OWNER/APPLICANT JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 ARCHITECT FREELANDBUCK 724 S.SPRING STREET LOS ANGELES CA 90014 (323)540-4346 FAX (323)570-0846 [email protected] STRUCTURAL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 CIVIL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E.23RD.STREET COSTA MESA,CA 92627 949-244-4423 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING KEITH TUCKER CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 9032 CHRISTINE DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH ,CA 92646 ARBORIST GUY STIVERS 160 CENTENNIAL WAY SUITE 3 TUSTIN ,CA 92670 714-838-9811 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP JOY CIVIL ENEGINEERING 9681 GARDEN GROVE BLVD #205 GARDEN GROVE CA 92844 7143235795 FREELANDBUCK 137
STAMP REVISIONS 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 SHEET NO. A-8.0 SOUTH ELEVATION CRESTVIEW HOUSE 21 of 28 1 PLANNING 12.31.19 2 FIRE DEPARTMENT 02/21/20 PROJECT NUMBER 001 DATE 05.22 SCALE N/A3 PLANNING 02.18.22 85.17' 15% MAX. EXIST. GRADE AT SOUTH PL EXIST. GRADE AT SOUTH FACE OF THE BLDG FF 104.68 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE 1/4"=1'0" FF 115.68 FF 126.68 TOP OF ROOF 137.6816'1" LEGEND NOTES: 1. ALL DIMENSIONS MEASURED FROM FACE OF STRUCTURE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. STRUCTURE SHOWN FOR SCHEMATIC PURPOSES ONLY. 3. PROVIDE DAMP-PROOFING FOR ALL WALLS BELOW GRADE THAT ENCLOSE USABLE SPACE. HARDIEPANEL VERT. SIDING (LARR 24862) BOARD ON BATTEN, LIGHT MIST HARDIEPANEL VERT. SIDING (LARR 24862) BATTEN ON BOARD, LIGHT MIST FF 88.17'
8'-6" 9'-10.5" 9'-10.5"
CEILING HEIGHT CEILING HEIGHT CEILING HEIGHT F.G 104.0' GARAGE F.F 88.25' 88.17' AT END OF DRIVEWAY 5'-0" MAX (TYP) 14" SEPARATION GAP C.B. (156) 156 E.P TOWCL FSFG LEGEND: EXISTING TOPO. CONTOURS FINISHED TOPO. CONTOURS CATCH BASIN DRAINAGE TROUGH (SWALE OR CLOSED DRAIN) END OF STREET PAVEMENT TOP OF WALL CENTER LINE FINISHED SURFACE EXISTING GRADE FINISHED GRADE DIRECTION OF SLOPE EG 100.0' PROPERTY CORNER-SOUTH 86.0' PROPERTY CORNER-NORTH 4"X4" BOX GUTTER EXIST. GRADE AT SOUTH PL EXIST. GRADE AT SOUTH BLDG FACE FINISHED GRADE ATHOUSE FACE T.O.W 132.0' T.O.W 127.5' F.G.120' BOTTOM OFWINDOWS 119.0' F.G 115' F.G106.0' F.S 122.5' T.O.W 95.0' T.O 91.05' T.O.W 104.68' PERVIOUS PATIO AREA 1 2 (E)SLOPE BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING HARDIE BOARD, TYP. (LARR 24862) T.O RAIL 108.2' 3' FIRE ACCESS 3' WIDE MIN. STEP DOWN F.G 104.1 7.5" MAX. DROP 7.5" MAX RISER (TYP) 10%MAX SLOPE (TYP) FIRE ACCESS PATH 1 1 1 1 1 F.S 120.6' 1 1% MIN NATURAL GRADE EL.146.0' AT REAR PL ALONG SOUTHERN FACE OF BLDG 1 12'-0" EL.158.0' GUIDELINE ALONG SOUTHERN FACE OF BLDG 1 GUIDELINE 12'-0" MAX. ABOVE REAL PL 1 CLG 103.68' CLG 114.56' CLG 125.56' CLG 135.18'1FD FOR FIRE ACCESS PATH SEE NON-COMBUSIBLE STAIRS DETAILS 2FD 2 110' FINISHED GRADE AT THIS POINT (SEE PLAN) 29'-2" SEE PLAN FOR PRECISE LOCATION
29'-0" FG 121' AT HOUSE FACE 29' FINISHED GRADE LINE TOP RAIL EL.119.18' GARAGE MAX ALLOWED FOR STAIRS 42" STAIRS LANDING 42" METAL RAILING OUTSIDE GARAGE FLOOR FOOTPRINT (SEE PLAN) PL 99'-6" 15'-0" 5'-0" 5'FYS (GARAGE) 8'-0"
15'-0" 8'FYS (HOUSE)
15'-0" PL 44.5' RYS LINE 302 303 305 203 202 4 3.6 3 2.1 2 1 4'-0" 15'-5" 22'-6" 6'-5" 6'-2" 15' 36'-0" 21'-6" OWNER/APPLICANT JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 ARCHITECT FREELANDBUCK 724 S.SPRING STREET LOS ANGELES CA 90014 (323)540-4346 FAX (323)570-0846 [email protected] STRUCTURAL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 CIVIL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E.23RD.STREET COSTA MESA,CA 92627 949-244-4423 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING KEITH TUCKER CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 9032 CHRISTINE DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH ,CA 92646 ARBORIST GUY STIVERS 160 CENTENNIAL WAY SUITE 3 TUSTIN ,CA 92670 714-838-9811 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP JOY CIVIL ENEGINEERING 9681 GARDEN GROVE BLVD #205 GARDEN GROVE CA 92844 7143235795 FREELANDBUCK 138
STAMP REVISIONS 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 SHEET NO. A-8.1 NORTH ELEVATION CRESTVIEW HOUSE 22 of 28 1 PLANNING 12.31.19 2 FIRE DEPARTMENT 02/21/20 PROJECT NUMBER 001 DATE 05.22 SCALE N/A3 PLANNING 02.18.22 F.G AT HOUSE NORTH ELEV. NORTH ELEVATION 137.68'
23.41' NORTH ELEVATION SCALE 1/4"=1'0" FF 104.68'
11'-0" FF115.68' FF 126.68' TOP OF ROOF PARAPET137.68'11'-0" 11'-0" F.F EL.85.17'
15% MAX. 10% MAX. BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING HARDIE BOARD, TYP. (LARR 24862) 4"X4" BOX GUTTER
CEILING HEIGHT CEILING HEIGHT CEILING HEIGHT
9'-10.5" 9'-10.5" 8'-6" LEGEND NOTES: 1. ALL DIMENSIONS MEASURED FROM FACE OF STRUCTURE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. STRUCTURE SHOWN FOR SCHEMATIC PURPOSES ONLY. 3. PROVIDE DAMP-PROOFING FOR ALL WALLS BELOW GRADE THAT ENCLOSE USABLE SPACE. HARDIEPANEL VERT. SIDING (LARR 24862) BOARD ON BATTEN, LIGHT MIST HARDIEPANEL VERT. SIDING (LARR 24862) BATTEN ON BOARD, LIGHT MIST C.B. (156) 156 E.P TOWCL FSFG LEGEND: EXISTING TOPO. CONTOURS FINISHED TOPO. CONTOURS CATCH BASIN DRAINAGE TROUGH (SWALE OR CLOSED DRAIN) END OF STREET PAVEMENT TOP OF WALL CENTER LINE FINISHED SURFACE EXISTING GRADE FINISHED GRADE DIRECTION OF SLOPE EG EXIST. GRADE AT HOUSE SOUTH FACE F.G AT HOUSE SOUTH FACE E.G AT HOUSE SOUTH FACE E.G. 113.75' 42"MIN GUARD WALL TYP. T.O.W 108.2'
16'-1" 100.0' PROPERTY CORNER-SOUTH 86.0' PROPERTY CORNER-NORTH 14" SEPARATION GAP T.O.W 118.5' END T.O.W 118.5 F.S 122.5' 5'-0" MAX (TYP) T.O.W 127.5' T.O.W 95.0' T.O LANDING 91.05' T.O LANDING 101.66' E.G REAR PL 144.0' HOUSE SOUTH FACE E.G REAR PL,S.E CORNER 137.0' 42"MIN EL. 119.18' T.O.W 105.16' FIRE ACCESS STEPS (TYP) GARAGE F.F 88.25' FILL 6" MAX.1 1 1 11 1 1 7.5" MAX RISER (TYP) 10%MAX SLOPE (TYP) 1 1 FIRE ACCESS 3' WIDE MIN. 1 LANDSCAPING WALL SEE PLAN (TYP) FIRE ACCESS STEPS (TYP) 1 1 TO DRIVEWAY F.F AT STEPS EL.88.5' 1 CLG 103.68' CLG 114.56' CLG 125.56' CLG 135.18' 29' GUIDELINE 143.5' 29'-0"
12'-0" 1 REAR PL GUIDELINE 149.68' 1 E.G. 137.68' AT REAR PL HOUSE NORTH FACE 1 F.G AT HOUSE SOUTH FACE TOP OF WALL AT PL AT DRIVEWAY T.O.W EL. 102.0' 6'X3' STAINLESS STEELCABLE TRELLIS SYSTEM FOR GREEN WALL 1FD FIRE ACCESS PATH SEE NON-COMBUSIBLE STAIRS DETAILS 2FD 2 1 2 2.1 4 EG EL.104.5' AT HOUSE FACE 29'-0" T.O PARAPET CORNER AT NORTH ELEVATION 137.68' (E)REMNANT OF TEMPORARY TERRACE DRAIN SYSTEM OWNERS OPTION TO MODIFY PER EASEMENT AGREEMENT PERMANENT PLANTER 2' MAX HEIGHT MANTEINED STAIRS LANDING GUARDRAIL 44.5' RYS 10'-0" 36'-0" PL FYS (GARAGE) FYS (HOUSE)
15'-0"
15'-0"
15'-0" GREEN ROOF METAL GUARDRAIL (TYP) AT BACKGROUND
MAX AT
STAIRWAY 87.0' AT PL 308 309 204 206 101 FF 88.17' END OF DRIVEWAY 5'-0" 8'-0" E.G AT NORTH PL 3 3.6 15' 6'-2" 6'-5" 22'-6" 15'-5" OWNER/APPLICANT JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 ARCHITECT FREELANDBUCK 724 S.SPRING STREET LOS ANGELES CA 90014 (323)540-4346 FAX (323)570-0846 [email protected] STRUCTURAL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 CIVIL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E.23RD.STREET COSTA MESA,CA 92627 949-244-4423 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING KEITH TUCKER CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 9032 CHRISTINE DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH ,CA 92646 ARBORIST GUY STIVERS 160 CENTENNIAL WAY SUITE 3 TUSTIN ,CA 92670 714-838-9811 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP JOY CIVIL ENEGINEERING 9681 GARDEN GROVE BLVD #205 GARDEN GROVE CA 92844 7143235795 FREELANDBUCK 139
STAMP REVISIONS 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 SHEET NO. A-8.2 WEST ELEVATION CRESTVIEW HOUSE 23 of 28 1 PLANNING 12.31.19 2 FIRE DEPARTMENT 02/21/20 PROJECT NUMBER 001 DATE 05.22 SCALE N/A3 PLANNING 02.18.22 88.25' GARAGE F.F 104.68' FIRST FLOOR F.F TOW 106.5' 115.68' SECOND FLOOR F.F 126.68' THIRD FLOOR F.F 137.68' TOP OF ROOF PARAPET 16'1" 11'-0"
11' EMERGENCY EGRESS WINDOW: MIN 24H X 20W & 44" MAX HGT, TO SILL 42"STEEL GUARDDRAIL, TYP AT STAIRWAY AND OUTSIDE GARAGE FLOOR FOOTPRINT ELEV. 119.19' EXPOSED RETAINING WALL CONCRETE STAIRS PARGED CONCRETE GARAGE DOOR CLOPAY MODERN GROOVED PANEL OR SIM. MODERN OR SIMILAR 301 205 101 E.G.137.68' REAR PROPERTY CORNER SOUTH PROPERTY LINE E.G 157.0' REAR PROPERTY CORNER NORTH PROPERTY LINE LEGEND NOTES: 1. ALL DIMENSIONS MEASURED FROM FACE OF STRUCTURE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. STRUCTURE SHOWN FOR SCHEMATIC PURPOSES ONLY. 3. PROVIDE DAMP-PROOFING FOR ALL WALLS BELOW GRADE THAT ENCLOSE USABLE SPACE. HARDIEPANEL VERT. SIDING (LARR 24862) BOARD ON BATTEN, LIGHT MIST HARDIEPANEL VERT. SIDING (LARR 24862) BATTEN ON BOARD, LIGHT MIST C.B. (156) 156 E.P TOWCL FSFG LEGEND: EXISTING TOPO. CONTOURS FINISHED TOPO. CONTOURS CATCH BASIN DRAINAGE TROUGH (SWALE OR CLOSED DRAIN) END OF STREET PAVEMENT TOP OF WALL CENTER LINE FINISHED SURFACE EXISTING GRADE FINISHED GRADE DIRECTION OF SLOPE EG EG.ELEV.100.0' FRONT PROPERTY CORNER 10'-0"
2'-3"
8'-9" WEST ELEVATION SCALE 1/4"=1'0" T.O.W 95.0' T.O LANDING F.F.91.05' F.F. 88.17' T.O LANDING 101.66' 10'-1118" 42"MIN
42"MIN
42"MIN T.O.W 108.2' T.O.W 113.0' AT DRIVEWAY AT PL BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING HARDIE BOARD, TYP. (LARR 24862) T.O.W 108.0' T.O RAILING 108.2' FIRE ACCESS STEPS (TYP) 11"MIN TREAD,7.5"MAX RAISER,3'WIDE MIN. 1 FIRE ACCESS STEPS (TYP) 11"MIN TREAD,7.5"MAX RAISER,3'WIDE MIN. 1 CLG 103.68' CLG 114.56' CLG 125.56' CLG 135.18' 1FD FIRE ACCESS PATH SEE NON-COMBUSIBLE STAIRS DETAILS 2FD 2 EG. ELEV.86.0' FRONT PROPERTY CORNER STAIRS LANDING PLANTER TOP ELEV.117.7' 6" GREEN ROOF TRIMMED TO 2' MAX ABOVE DECK FLR 301 201 OWNER/APPLICANT JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 ARCHITECT FREELANDBUCK 724 S.SPRING STREET LOS ANGELES CA 90014 (323)540-4346 FAX (323)570-0846 [email protected] STRUCTURAL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 CIVIL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E.23RD.STREET COSTA MESA,CA 92627 949-244-4423 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING KEITH TUCKER CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 9032 CHRISTINE DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH ,CA 92646 ARBORIST GUY STIVERS 160 CENTENNIAL WAY SUITE 3 TUSTIN ,CA 92670 714-838-9811 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP JOY CIVIL ENEGINEERING 9681 GARDEN GROVE BLVD #205 GARDEN GROVE CA 92844 7143235795 FREELANDBUCK 140
STAMP REVISIONS 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 SHEET NO. A-8.3 EAST ELEVATION CRESTVIEW HOUSE 24 of 28 1 PLANNING 12.31.19 2 FIRE DEPARTMENT 02/21/20 PROJECT NUMBER 001 DATE 05.22 SCALE N/A3 PLANNING 02.18.22 EAST ELEVATION SCALE 1/4"=1'0" 3 137.68' TOP OF ROOF PARAPET F.F 11'-0'' LEGEND NOTES: 1. ALL DIMENSIONS MEASURED FROM FACE OF STRUCTURE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. STRUCTURE SHOWN FOR SCHEMATIC PURPOSES ONLY. 3. PROVIDE DAMP-PROOFING FOR ALL WALLS BELOW GRADE THAT ENCLOSE USABLE SPACE. HARDIEPANEL VERT. SIDING (LARR 24862) BOARD ON BATTEN, LIGHT MIST HARDIEPANEL VERT. SIDING (LARR 24862) BATTEN ON BOARD, LIGHT MIST C.B. (156) 156 E.P TOWCL FSFG LEGEND: EXISTING TOPO. CONTOURS FINISHED TOPO. CONTOURS CATCH BASIN DRAINAGE TROUGH (SWALE OR CLOSED DRAIN) END OF STREET PAVEMENT TOP OF WALL CENTER LINE FINISHED SURFACE EXISTING GRADE FINISHED GRADE DIRECTION OF SLOPE EG 137.6' PROPERTY CORNER REAR 157.0' PROPERTY CORNER REAR E.G 135.0' T.O.W 135.0' 5'-0" MAX (TYP) EXIST.GRADE ATEAST ELEVATION T.O.W 127.5' F.G122.5' F.G 120.0' TOP OUTSIDE PAD 122.5' T.O.W 119.0' MAX E.G 116.0' E.G 128.0' F.G 121.0' 4'-0" 4'-0" 122.8' STAIR LANDING F.F 122.0' PATIO AREA F.G 1 1 2 1 2 5% MIN 11'-0" HARDIE PANEL
2'-8" BOX GUTTER DOWNSPOUT 126.68' THIRD FLOOR F.F EGRESS WINDOW MIN. 24"X 20"W & 44" MAX. HEIGHT TO SILL D C B A FIRE ACCESS STEPS (TYP) 11"MIN TREAD,7.5"MAX RAISER,3'WIDE MIN. 10% MAX.CROSS SLOPE 1 FIRE ACCESS STEPS (TYP) 11"MIN TREAD,7.5"MAX RAISER,3'WIDE MIN. 1 FILL. CUT E.G 113.5' CLG 125.56' CLG 135.18' 29'-0"
12'-0" 12'-0" MAX. ABOVE REAR PROPERTY LINE GUIDELINE 144.0' GUIDELINE 157.0' 29'-0" 1FD FIRE ACCESS PATH SEE NON-COMBUSIBLE STAIRS DETAILS 2FD 2 4" THICK PAVED APPROACH PAD F.G 115.0' 305 306 302 OWNER/APPLICANT JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 ARCHITECT FREELANDBUCK 724 S.SPRING STREET LOS ANGELES CA 90014 (323)540-4346 FAX (323)570-0846 [email protected] STRUCTURAL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 CIVIL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E.23RD.STREET COSTA MESA,CA 92627 949-244-4423 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING KEITH TUCKER CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 9032 CHRISTINE DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH ,CA 92646 ARBORIST GUY STIVERS 160 CENTENNIAL WAY SUITE 3 TUSTIN ,CA 92670 714-838-9811 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP JOY CIVIL ENEGINEERING 9681 GARDEN GROVE BLVD #205 GARDEN GROVE CA 92844 7143235795 FREELANDBUCK 141
STAMP REVISIONS 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 SHEET NO. A-9.0 SECTION 1 CRESTVIEW HOUSE 25 of 28 1 PLANNING 12.31.19 PROJECT NUMBER 001 DATE 05.22 SCALE N/A3 PLANNING 02.18.22 EXIST GRADE AT SECTION GARAGE 001 DEN 204 DINING ROOM 202 BATHROOM 205 BEDROOM 1 301 M BEDROOM 303 SOFFIT FOR MECH. SOFFIT FOR MECH. FF 104.68 11' 115.68 126.6811' 11' 88.25' GARAGE F.F 15% MAX. 1 2 2.1 3 SECTION 1 SCALE 1/4"=1'0" 16'1" REAR PL HOUSE SOUTH FACE EL. 144.0' 14" SEPARATION GAP 4"X4" BOX GUTTER T.O.W 95.0' 88.17' 3'-7.5"
8'-6"
7'-6"
9'-10.5"
8'
9'-10.5"
2'-8"
1% MIN
42"MIN T.O RAILING 108.2' 36"MIN T.O LANDING 91.5' 137.68' TOP OF ROOF PARAPET F.F E.G AT HOUSE SOUTH FACE CLG 114.56' CLG 125.56' CLG 135.18' CLG 103.68 3.6 4 LEGEND NOTES: 1. ALL DIMENSIONS MEASURED FROM FACE OF STRUCTURE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. STRUCTURE SHOWN FOR SCHEMATIC PURPOSES ONLY. 3. PROVIDE DAMP-PROOFING FOR ALL WALLS BELOW GRADE THAT ENCLOSE USABLE SPACE. HARDIEPANEL VERT. SIDING (LARR 24862) BOARD ON BATTEN, LIGHT MIST HARDIEPANEL VERT. SIDING (LARR 24862) BATTEN ON BOARD, LIGHT MIST C.B. (156) 156 E.P TOWCL FSFG LEGEND: EXISTING TOPO. CONTOURS FINISHED TOPO. CONTOURS CATCH BASIN DRAINAGE TROUGH (SWALE OR CLOSED DRAIN) END OF STREET PAVEMENT TOP OF WALL CENTER LINE FINISHED SURFACE EXISTING GRADE FINISHED GRADE DIRECTION OF SLOPE EG 42" METAL RAILING OUTSIDE GARAGE FOOTPRINT (SEE PLAN) STAIRS LANDING AND RAIL 6'-3" F.F ELEV. 108.0'
29' 44.5' RYS
15'
29'
36'-0"
MAX AT
STAIRS PL EG.91.0' FYS (GARAGE) FYS (HOUSE)
15'-0"
15'-0" UNFINISHED CRAWL SPACE PERMANENT PLANTER SEE DWG A-5.0 GREEN ROOF 8' 8'-0" 5' 22'-6" 15' 6'-2" 6'-5" 22'-6" 15'-5" 12'-6" GENERAL NOTES 1. ALL DIMENSIONS MEASURED FROM FACE OF STRUCTURE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. STRUCTURE SHOWN FOR SCHEMATIC PURPOSES ONLY. 3. ENCLOSED USABLE SPACE UNDER INTERIOR STAIRS REQUIRES 1-HR. FIRE-RESISTIVE CONTRUCTION. ON ENCLOSED SIDE. USE 5/8" "TYPE X" GYP OR SIM. 4. PROVIDE DAMP-PROOFING FOR WALLS THAT ENCLOSE USABLE SPACE. 5. FOOTINGS TO BE SETBACK FROM DESCENDING SLOPES EXCEEDING 3:1 [H:V] A MINIMUM OF H/3 BUT NEED NOT EXCEED 40FT. (1806.5.3). 6.THE GARAGE FLOOR SHALL BE NON-COMPUSTABLE OR ASPHALTIC PAVING MATERIALS. 7.FOOTINGS TO BE SETBACK FROM DESCENDING SLOPES EXCEEDING 3:1 [H:V] A MINIMUM OF H/3 BUT NEED NOT EXCEED 40FT. (1806.5.3). 8. BACKFILL COMPACT GRAVEL OF SLURRY. CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT MIX DESIGN FOR STRUCT. APPROVAL OWNER/APPLICANT JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 ARCHITECT FREELANDBUCK 724 S.SPRING STREET LOS ANGELES CA 90014 (323)540-4346 FAX (323)570-0846 [email protected] STRUCTURAL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 CIVIL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E.23RD.STREET COSTA MESA,CA 92627 949-244-4423 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING KEITH TUCKER CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 9032 CHRISTINE DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH ,CA 92646 ARBORIST GUY STIVERS 160 CENTENNIAL WAY SUITE 3 TUSTIN ,CA 92670 714-838-9811 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP JOY CIVIL ENEGINEERING 9681 GARDEN GROVE BLVD #205 GARDEN GROVE CA 92844 7143235795 FREELANDBUCK 142
STAMP REVISIONS 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 SHEET NO. A-9.1 SECTION 2 CRESTVIEW HOUSE 26 of 28 1 PLANNING 12.31.19 PROJECT NUMBER 001 DATE 05.22 SCALE N/A3 PLANNING 02.18.22 4 3.6 3 2.1 1 KITCHEN 203 LIVING ROOM 201 BEDROOM 2 302 BATHROOM 304 M BATHROOM 307 SOFFIT FOR MECH. GARAGE 001 F.F115.68 F.F126.68 137.68 TOP OF ROOF PARAPET 11' 11' FF 104.68
16'-1" 11' SECTION 2 SCALE 1/4"=1'0" 84.00 15% MAX. 10% MAX. E.P. 84.00 EXIST GRADE AT SECTION T.O.W 95.0' T.O LANDING 91.05' 88.17' 85.17' 9'-10.5"
8'-0"
7'-6"
8'-6" T.O RAILING 108.2' 1% MIN
42"MIN LEGEND NOTES: 1. ALL DIMENSIONS MEASURED FROM FACE OF STRUCTURE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. STRUCTURE SHOWN FOR SCHEMATIC PURPOSES ONLY. 3. PROVIDE DAMP-PROOFING FOR ALL WALLS BELOW GRADE THAT ENCLOSE USABLE SPACE. HARDIEPANEL VERT. SIDING (LARR 24862) BOARD ON BATTEN, LIGHT MIST HARDIEPANEL VERT. SIDING (LARR 24862) BATTEN ON BOARD, LIGHT MIST C.B. (156) 156 E.P TOWCL FSFG LEGEND: EXISTING TOPO. CONTOURS FINISHED TOPO. CONTOURS CATCH BASIN DRAINAGE TROUGH (SWALE OR CLOSED DRAIN) END OF STREET PAVEMENT TOP OF WALL CENTER LINE FINISHED SURFACE EXISTING GRADE FINISHED GRADE DIRECTION OF SLOPE EG CLG 114.56' CLG 125.56' CLG 135.18' CLG 103.68 BELOW GRADE ELEV. 99.5' 5' 8' FYS (GARAGE) FYS (HOUSE) 15'
15'
29'
29'-1 1
16" 127.0'
15'
29' PL
9'-10.5"
42"MIN STAIRS LANDINGPERMANENT PLANTER 2' HIGH ADU
BATH/
KITCHENNETTE 42" HIGH GUARDRAIL ADU 14" SEPARATION GAP 18'-0" 5' PL PL AT SECTION 2 44.5 RYS 15'-0" 49'-0" 15'-5" 22'-6" 6'-5" 6'-2" OWNER/APPLICANT JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 ARCHITECT FREELANDBUCK 724 S.SPRING STREET LOS ANGELES CA 90014 (323)540-4346 FAX (323)570-0846 [email protected] STRUCTURAL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 CIVIL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E.23RD.STREET COSTA MESA,CA 92627 949-244-4423 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING KEITH TUCKER CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 9032 CHRISTINE DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH ,CA 92646 ARBORIST GUY STIVERS 160 CENTENNIAL WAY SUITE 3 TUSTIN ,CA 92670 714-838-9811 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP JOY CIVIL ENEGINEERING 9681 GARDEN GROVE BLVD #205 GARDEN GROVE CA 92844 7143235795 FREELANDBUCK 143
STAMP REVISIONS 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 SHEET NO. A-9.2 SECTION 3 CRESTVIEW HOUSE 27 of 28 1 PLANNING 12.31.19 2 FIRE DEPARTMENT 02/21/20 PROJECT NUMBER 001 DATE 05.22 SCALE N/A3 PLANNING 02.18.22 SECTION 3 THRU GARAGE (HOUSE IN BACKGROUND) SCALE 1/4"=1'0" A B C D 11'-0" 115.68 126.68 137.68 TOP OF ROOF PARAPET11'-0" 11'-0" 16'1" FF 104.68 115.68 88.25' GARAGE F.F GARAGE 001 EXIST GRADE AT SECTION THRU GARAGE EXIST. GRADE 137.6' REAR PROPERTY CORNER EXISTING GRADE 157-0' REAR PROPERTY CORNER T.O.W 118.0' RET. WALL (TYP) 5'-0" MAX (TYP) 3'MIN 1 2 CURB LEGEND NOTES: 1. ALL DIMENSIONS MEASURED FROM FACE OF STRUCTURE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. STRUCTURE SHOWN FOR SCHEMATIC PURPOSES ONLY. 3. PROVIDE DAMP-PROOFING FOR ALL WALLS BELOW GRADE THAT ENCLOSE USABLE SPACE. HARDIEPANEL VERT. SIDING (LARR 24862) BOARD ON BATTEN, LIGHT MIST HARDIEPANEL VERT. SIDING (LARR 24862) BATTEN ON BOARD, LIGHT MIST C.B. (156) 156 E.P TOWCL FSFG LEGEND: EXISTING TOPO. CONTOURS FINISHED TOPO. CONTOURS CATCH BASIN DRAINAGE TROUGH (SWALE OR CLOSED DRAIN) END OF STREET PAVEMENT TOP OF WALL CENTER LINE FINISHED SURFACE EXISTING GRADE FINISHED GRADE DIRECTION OF SLOPE EG FIRE ACCESS STEPS (TYP) 11"MIN TREAD,7.5"MAX RAISER,3'WIDE MIN. 1 FIRE ACCESS STEPS (TYP) 11"MIN TREAD,7.5"MAX RAISER,3'WIDE MIN. 1 T.O.W 111.0' CLG 114.56' CLG 125.56' CLG 135.18' CLG 103.68
7.5" GRADE AT REAR PROPERTY LINE 101 8'-0" 14'-0" PL 7'-0" PL PL PL 7'-0" 42"MIN 301 205 101 GENERAL NOTES 1. ALL DIMENSIONS MEASURED FROM FACE OF STRUCTURE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. STRUCTURE SHOWN FOR SCHEMATIC PURPOSES ONLY. 3. ENCLOSED USABLE SPACE UNDER INTERIOR STAIRS REQUIRES 1-HR. FIRE-RESISTIVE CONTRUCTION. ON ENCLOSED SIDE. USE 5/8" "TYPE X" GYP OR SIM. 4. PROVIDE DAMP-PROOFING FOR WALLS THAT ENCLOSE USABLE SPACE. 5. FOOTINGS TO BE SETBACK FROM DESCENDING SLOPES EXCEEDING 3:1 [H:V] A MINIMUM OF H/3 BUT NEED NOT EXCEED 40FT. (1806.5.3). 6.THE GARAGE FLOOR SHALL BE NON-COMPUSTABLE OR ASPHALTIC PAVING MATERIALS. 7.FOOTINGS TO BE SETBACK FROM DESCENDING SLOPES EXCEEDING 3:1 [H:V] A MINIMUM OF H/3 BUT NEED NOT EXCEED 40FT. (1806.5.3). 8. BACKFILL COMPACT GRAVEL OF SLURRY. CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT MIX DESIGN FOR STRUCT. APPROVAL OWNER/APPLICANT JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 ARCHITECT FREELANDBUCK 724 S.SPRING STREET LOS ANGELES CA 90014 (323)540-4346 FAX (323)570-0846 [email protected] STRUCTURAL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 CIVIL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E.23RD.STREET COSTA MESA,CA 92627 949-244-4423 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING KEITH TUCKER CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 9032 CHRISTINE DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH ,CA 92646 ARBORIST GUY STIVERS 160 CENTENNIAL WAY SUITE 3 TUSTIN ,CA 92670 714-838-9811 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP JOY CIVIL ENEGINEERING 9681 GARDEN GROVE BLVD #205 GARDEN GROVE CA 92844 7143235795 FREELANDBUCK 144
STAMP REVISIONS 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 SHEET NO. A-9.3 SECTION 4 CRESTVIEW HOUSE 28 of 28 SECTION 5 1 PLANNING 12.31.19 2 FIRE DEPARTMENT 02/21/20 PROJECT NUMBER 001 DATE 05.22 SCALE N/A3 PLANNING 02.18.22 133.5' +/- (E)GRADE AT PL EXIST GRADE AT SECTION CL 115.68' SECOND FLOOR F.F 126.68' THIRD FLOOR F.F 137.68' TOP OF ROOF PARAPET 11'-0"
11' 5'-0" MAX (TYP) F.G 117.0' RET. WALL (TYP) 1 2 5% MIN 1 2 SECTION 5 SCALE 1/4"=1'0" A B C D BEDROOM 1 301DEN 301 KITCHEN 203 BEDROOM 2 302 2'-8"
5'-6"
9'-10.5"
6'-6.5"
3'-9.5"
9'-10.5"
2'-8"
5'-6" FIRE ACCESS STEPS (TYP) 11"MIN TREAD,7.5"MAX
RAISER,3'WIDE MIN. AND CONCRETE 1 FIRE ACCESS STEPS (TYP) 11"MIN TREAD,7.5"MAX RAISER,3'WIDE MIN. 1 CLG 114.56' CLG 125.56' CLG 135.18' T.O.W 134.0' T.O.W 125.0' 1FD FIRE ACCESS PATH SEE NON-COMBUSIBLE STAIRS DETAILS 2FD 2 EXIST. GRADE REAR PL CORNERELEV. 157' PL PL E.G.137.68' REAR PROPERTY CORNER GENERAL NOTES 1. ALL DIMENSIONS MEASURED FROM FACE OF STRUCTURE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. STRUCTURE SHOWN FOR SCHEMATIC PURPOSES ONLY. 3. ENCLOSED USABLE SPACE UNDER INTERIOR STAIRS REQUIRES 1-HR. FIRE-RESISTIVE CONTRUCTION. ON ENCLOSED SIDE. USE 5/8" "TYPE X" GYP OR SIM. 4. PROVIDE DAMP-PROOFING FOR WALLS THAT ENCLOSE USABLE SPACE. 5. FOOTINGS TO BE SETBACK FROM DESCENDING SLOPES EXCEEDING 3:1 [H:V] A MINIMUM OF H/3 BUT NEED NOT EXCEED 40FT. (1806.5.3). 6.THE GARAGE FLOOR SHALL BE NON-COMPUSTABLE OR ASPHALTIC PAVING MATERIALS. 7.FOOTINGS TO BE SETBACK FROM DESCENDING SLOPES EXCEEDING 3:1 [H:V] A MINIMUM OF H/3 BUT NEED NOT EXCEED 40FT. (1806.5.3). 8. BACKFILL COMPACT GRAVEL OF SLURRY. CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT MIX DESIGN FOR STRUCT. APPROVAL OWNER/APPLICANT JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 ARCHITECT FREELANDBUCK 724 S.SPRING STREET LOS ANGELES CA 90014 (323)540-4346 FAX (323)570-0846 [email protected] STRUCTURAL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E. 23RD.STREET COSTA MESA ,CA 92627 949-244-4423 CIVIL ENGINEER JZMC,LLC 300 E.23RD.STREET COSTA MESA,CA 92627 949-244-4423 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING KEITH TUCKER CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 9032 CHRISTINE DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH ,CA 92646 ARBORIST GUY STIVERS 160 CENTENNIAL WAY SUITE 3 TUSTIN ,CA 92670 714-838-9811 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP JOY CIVIL ENEGINEERING 9681 GARDEN GROVE BLVD #205 GARDEN GROVE CA 92844 7143235795 FREELANDBUCK ND) SECTION 4 SCALE 1/4"=1'0" 115.68' SECOND FLOOR F.F 126.68' THIRD FLOOR F.F 137.68' TOP OF ROOF PARAPET 11'-0" 104.68' FIRST FLOOR F.F11'-0" 11'-0" EXIST GRADE AT SECTION T.OW. 124.5' 5'-0" MAX (TYP) RET. WALL (TYP) 1 216'-1" 88.25' GARAGE F.F A A.1 B B.1 C C.1 D M.CLOSET 306 M.BATH 307 GARAGE 001 2'-8"
8'-0"
9'-10.5" FIRE ACCESS STEPS (TYP) 11"MIN TREAD,7.5"MAX
RAISER,3'WIDE MIN. 1 FIRE ACCESS STEPS (TYP) 11"MIN TREAD,7.5"MAX RAISER,3'WIDE MIN. 1 CLG 114.56' CLG 125.56' CLG 135.18' CLG 103.68 E.G.137.68' REAR PROPERTY CORNER PL 7'-0" ADU 205 ELEV.103'ELEV.101' ELEV.104' EXIST.REMNANT OF OLD TEMP. TERRACE DITCH OWNER'S OPTION TO MODIFY PER EASEMENT AGREEMENT EXIST. GRADE REAR PL CORNERELEV. 157' PL 5% MIN 5'-0" ELEV.120.5'
5'-0"
5% MIN ELEV. 118.5' UPPER FLOORS IN BACKGROUND (SEE PLAN)
ORIGINAL (E)GRADELINE
145
Dear members of the Design Review Board,
I live at 785 Gainsborough Dr. and my lot is directly adjacent to 2058 Crestview. I purchased this house just a little less than two years ago and I was well aware of the existence of an empty lot next to me, and that sooner or later, the lot would be developed. At the same time, the potential impact of the proposed plan exceeded even my most pessimistic estimates. I had also studied the prior history of attempts to develop the lot, and concluded that previously rejected plans would’ve had some impact, but by no means a devastating impact on the liveability of my house, which the current proposal has. The new plan is in many ways worse than what was proposed before; it is entirely incompatible with the neighborhood.
I’m going to list what problems I see with the proposal. On a separate note, communication with the neighbors from the lot owner was insufficient, and I only got a chance to see the staking and some renders which were brought to the neighbors meeting. In some ways they are in conflict with each other (for a concrete example, the staking shows that the building would be taller than 2100 Crestview; renders suggest otherwise). In such cases I’m going to use staking as the source of truth.
In my opinion the project has multiple violations of the Laguna Beach Design Review Criteria and the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan. There are four main DSCP policies that I find violated:
1. Topic 1 (“Rustic Atmosphere”), Policy 1: “Ensure that proposed new residences and modifications to existing residences ... [have] ... moderate scale and mass with a low-profile design that respects the topography of the land…”. I find that the proposed design stands out among adjacent buildings in terms of the materials used, the shape of the building, and its mass. A lot of mass appears on the right side of the building (as viewed from my lot) directly above Crestview Drive. The natural hill slope is respected in terms of the garage and the first story, but the placement of 2nd and the 3rd stories right on top of the 1st story, as well as the sheer number of stories, creates an appearance of mass and blocks my views.
2. Topic 1, Policy 9: “Preserve existing … view corridors wherever possible”. The proposed design severely impacts my views. From the staking that I observe it appears to me that the design aims at capturing a lot of view for the proposed residence, and no consideration is given to the views from my property.
3. Topic 5 (“Hillside development”), Policy 1: “Require buildings to utilize designs which follow the natural topography while minimizing mass and scale ... and limiting visual intrusion on the natural landscape…”. As viewed from my lot, the building would have massive scale, and would be intrusive to the natural landscape. In particular its right side is a massive wall that would be located right in front of my bedroom windows.
4. Topic 5, Policy 3: “Maximize the preservation of views of canyon and coastal areas from existing residences…”. There is a significant view blockage, including the view of Catalina Island and the horizon line of the view.
Attachment 4
146
146 of 485
I’m going to start with the following example. The Specific Plan suggests:
The project resembles the bottom-left picture the most, where the building is raised for view; from the staking I observe, the proposed roof line is higher than the one of the adjacent structure at 2100 Crestview, despite the fact that the street slopes downwards towards 2058 Crestview, meaning that the new building would start at a lower base level. Worse than that, most of the mass of the building is stacked vertically right on top of the first story, which makes the building appear to have a large mass. On top of that, the building orientation is such that it is oriented towards the ocean, which (a) is incompatible with the natural shape of the terrain (b) further widens its side profile as viewed from my lot and (c) creates privacy issues both for me and for my neighbors. To me these points seem to be fundamental flaws of the design, from which all other problems stem.
147
147 of 485
From the first picture above you can see how the adjacent house at 2100 Crestview is embedded into the terrain, with minimal side profile. The proposed building would have a side profile an order of magnitude larger. They had to connect four long boards together to make a story pole for its right corner. Looking at the right picture (render), the stories are placed on top of each other and there is no effort to embed the structure into terrain. The lowest level of the building starts at the street level, and there is a tall garage + three stories. Even if each level is 11ft (minimal estimate), that is 44ft above the street level, and perhaps some 35ft above the natural grade at its highest point, while the Building Height standard in DCSP Chapter IV, (B)(a) only allows 29ft even for the steepest lots. In addition, DCSP Chapter IV, (B)(4) requires extra setbacks for tall buildings (“where portions of a new building or additions to a building attain a height in excess of fifteen feet above the natural grade of the required front or rear setback, such portions shall maintain, in addition to the required building setback, an additional foot of distance for every foot of height in excess of fifteen feet”), which, I believe, are not respected here; the building takes up the entire width of the lot, being extremely close to 2100 Crestview.
The same can be observed from the side:
148
148 of 485
Again, the structure is taller than the adjacent building, it “sticks out” of the terrain, and it faces directly at that building’s balconies. To me this seems an attempt to capture as much of the ocean view as possible, ignoring the views and privacy of the neighbors. DSCP Chapter V suggests: “The siting of structures shall take into consideration the size and configuration of the lot so as to avoid the appearance of overbuilding (setback to setback) and overcrowding”.
Placing the building simultaneously so close to 2100 Crestview, making the building taller than it, orienting towards the ocean, and taking the entire width of the lot, creates an effect of overcrowding.
Next I will go in detail through the DCSP Design Guidelines that are violated.
Guideline 1: "REDUCE EFFECTIVE VISUAL BULK OF A STRUCTURE AND AVOID
MONUMENTAL AND EXCESSIVELY LARGE
DWELLINGS BY PLACING BUILDINGS INTO THE HILLSIDE".
149
149 of 485
This guideline comes with the example:
The plan proposes a structure that will have a sizable bulk, mainly because it has 3 stories above the garage and the higher stories are placed essentially on top of the first story, instead of being shifted backwards into the hillside. The garage is tall and massive (see previous pictures).
Guideline 4: “FOLLOW HILLSIDE CONTOURS AND SLOPE WITH BUILDING FORMS,
PARTICULARLY ROOF FORMS, TO
INCREASE THE INTEGRATION OF DWELLING AND SITE.”
The proposal does not follow the slope. Its rightmost part, as viewed from my lot, is just as tall as the leftmost part, which creates bulk, as well as view and privacy problems. The flat roof adds to the monumental view of the building (from DCSP: “Roof design should minimize mass.
Building forms, particularly roof forms, should step to follow the hillside contours and slope to increase the integration of the dwelling and site.”) . This is how the staking looks from my patio:
150
150 of 485
As you can see, the side profile of the building, compared to the existing property at 2100 Crestview behind it, is massive. The wall has an enormous height, and the proposal includes a number of windows on it, which leads to privacy problems.
Guideline 5: “FOLLOW HILLSIDE CONTOURS WITH HORIZONTAL BUILDING ELEMENTS
TO INCREASE INTEGRATION OF
DWELLING UNIT AND SITE.”
151
151 of 485
The proposal makes the building stand out as a major object. I understand that due to the width of the lot, there isn’t much that can be done in terms of spreading its elements to the sides; however, I believe it is still possible to make the building follow the natural terrain by making it go in steps, with higher levels ending much farther away from the street. Total height of the building could also be reduced.
Guideline 6: “AVOID MASSIVE ROOF OVERHANGS AND CANTILEVERS ON DOWNHILL FACES OF BUILDINGS.”
152
152 of 485
The proposed construction has a cantilever on the 3rd story similar to the one shown in the guideline; terracing is limited to the 1st story only:
153
153 of 485
The 3rd story looks completely unnatural to me. It protrudes forward, increasing the effective height and creating the appearance of mass. This is the part of the building that blocks my views the most.
Guideline 9: “EXCAVATE UNDERGROUND OR BELOW GRADE ROOMS TO DRAMATICALLY
REDUCE EFFECTIVE BULK, PROVIDE
ENERGY EFFICIENT AND ENVIRONMENTALLY DESIRABLE SPACE.”
154
154 of 485
The current design appears to put the 2nd and the 3rd stories very high, creating a lot of bulk.
Guideline 23: “PRESERVE EXISTING VIEWS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AND ALLOW NEW
DWELLINGS ACCESS TO VIEWS SIMILAR TO THOSE ENJOYED FROM EXISTING DWELLINGS. LOCATE ALL NEW DWELLINGS SO THEY INTERFERE MINIMALLY WITH VIEWS OF ADJACENT DWELLINGS.”
This guideline is violated grossly. The narrow ocean view from my 2nd bedroom is blocked entirely:
155
155 of 485
One might argue that the guest bedroom view is less important, but I still believe that taking the last bit of it is extremely detrimental: the feeling of “air” is essentially destroyed. There are so many ways to design this building to avoid these impacts. I am looking at the proposal in comparison with the existing building at 2100 Crestview, which is by no means small; nevertheless it leaves me the maximal possible amount of view for its size. The proposed building has a much smaller square footage, but it manages to destroy my view because it is tall and poorly placed.
For my master bedroom and for my backyard, there is a substantial view blockage: half of Catalina Island is blocked, horizon line of the view is blocked, and a large amount of mass is placed in a space which is currently a beautiful view framed by trees on both sides:
156
156 of 485
For my dining room, living room and the patio, there is no ocean view blockage per se, but the building places an aesthetically disturbing amount of mass right in the view foreground. The 157
157 of 485
view of the village below and a beautiful palm tree belonging to one of our neighbors is to some degree blocked, and is replaced by a view of a large wall of the new building. The sense of openness is destroyed:
158
158 of 485
Guideline 25: “VIEWS SHOULD BE PRESERVED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE WITHIN REASON; HOWEVER, NOT EVERYONE CAN HAVE A PANORAMIC VIEW. THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND 159
159 of 485
THE OWNER AND ARCHITECT OF A NEW DWELLING MUST WORK TOGETHER TO
OBTAIN THE BEST SOLUTION BETWEEN SLOT VIEWS, VIEW CORRIDORS AND PANORAMIC VIEWS. REMEMBER, THE SLOT VIEW IS JUST AS IMPORTANT TO THE PERSON WHO OWNS IT AS THE 360 PANORAMIC VIEW IS TO ITS OWNER.” This guideline comes with a specific technique that could be employed to minimize view impact:
The proposed design, instead of slicing a corner that would recover my Catalina Island view, as well as the view from my 2nd bedroom, even extends that corner out a little. The building is also oriented in a way to capture the ocean view by blocking one from my residence:
160
160 of 485
I will also note that slicing that corner as suggested would make perfect sense from the point of view of the natural terrain, as the hill contour on the lot wraps inwards, away from the street:
I believe that it is still possible to orient windows towards the city lights and the ocean by cutting the corner in a stepped manner. In fact, one of the previously proposed designs at 2058 161
161 of 485
Crestview utilized this exact technique:
No attempts have been made by the owner to discuss any of these issues with me, or to try to involve the neighbors in the loop with architects. The plans and renders presented avoid showing the proposed building from my lot, and I believe that not enough consideration (if any) was given to neighbors’ views.
Guideline 26: “VIEW QUALITY IS USUALLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN VIEW QUANTITY….NEARBY ELEMENTS ARE PART OF THE VIEW AND SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED BY BOTH BUILDERS AND NEIGHBORS IN MAKING THEIR COMMENTS AND DECISIONS.”
This guideline comes with an example that closely resembles my existing master bedroom view:
162
162 of 485
The proposal destroys this view by placing a massive wall into it:
This picture is very similar to an example of a “bad” design from the DCSP:
Guideline 28: “THERE MUST BE COMPROMISE BETWEEN CONFLICTING OBJECTIVES OF EXISTING DWELLINGS AND NEW ONES. VIEWS ARE VERY IMPORTANT BUT SO IS PRIVACY.”
163
163 of 485
I believe that the currently proposed profile of the building would severely interfere with my privacy. The massive wall of the building in front of my master bedroom would have windows on it:
The windows on the side of the building are looking at virtually every single ocean-facing window of my dwelling, including the master bedroom, 2nd bedroom, dining room, patio, and living room. (Guideline 16: “CONTROL WINDOW PLACEMENT FOR SUN, PRIVACY AND VIEW … AVOID PLACING WINDOWS WHERE THEY WILL "LOOK RIGHT INTO" SOMEONE ELSE'S HOME.”) Here are the window locations from two viewpoints (patio and 2nd bedroom):
164
164 of 485
Even if the windows are removed, this will still be detrimental to views and aesthetics. From DCSP: “Buildings shall have a desirable visual appearance from all viewpoints, adjoining developments, streets and other view corridors.”. A 3-story-tall wall (whether having windows or not) is an object that doesn’t have a desirable visual appearance. The only solution, in my opinion, is to significantly redesign the building. I acknowledge that this is not the easiest lot to build on, but that only means that more careful planning and more work with the neighbors may be required to achieve view equity, aesthetics, and other desirable properties of the 165
165 of 485
construction. I suggest the Design Review Board reject the proposal and require major changes to the plan before it can be carried out. At the minimum, I suggest moving the upper floors of the building to the left, hiding them behind existing trees and bushes on my lot, creating a stepped structure that doesn’t obstruct my view and creates no possibility for privacy problems, and changing the orientation of the building. I would also support moving the entire structure further back into the lot, reducing its mass and height. I believe there exists a sweet spot between the former proposal where the building was placed in the very back of the lot, and the current one.
Also, the plan is in a significant need for extra landscaping, as the current proposal introduces virtually none.
Guideline 29(b): “HORIZON LINE IS THE MOST SENSITIVE PART OF A VIEW, THEN FOREGROUND, THEN MIDDLEGROUND. IF POSSIBLE, AVOID CUTTING HORIZON LINE OF A NEIGHBOR'S VIEW.”
The proposed design not only cuts the horizon view from my master bedroom, but also blocks the view entirely for another bedroom.
Guideline 29(d): “BLOCKAGE OF ANY IMPORTANT OBJECTS IN THE VIEW (CATALINA ISLAND, CITY LIGHTS, ETC.) IS MORE DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THAN BLOCKAGE OF OTHER, LESS WELL-KNOWN ELEMENTS.”
As shown in the pictures above, the proposed design blocks Catalina Island, which directly violates this guideline.
Since my letter is getting too long, I will only briefly mention other issues, you can observe them from the pictures I attached:
- My property has a lot of greenery on it: trees, bushes, other plants – to isolate me from the neighbors and the neighbors from me; to frame views and create a sense of living in harmony with nature. I don’t see any substantial landscaping in the proposal. The proposed plan doesn’t attempt to introduce visual barriers in order to achieve privacy, or to soften the rough visual appearance of the house. DCSP: “Landscaping shall be used to preserve and frame the scenic view "windows" of hillsides, parks and ocean from adjacent lots”. ”LANDSCAPING IS, AFTER THE FORM OF THE DWELLING, THE
MOST VISIBLE, THEREFORE IMPORTANT, PART OF THE DWELLING UNIT PROJECT. GOOD VIABLE LANDSCAPES ENHANCE THE DWELLING, SOFTEN THE
EFFECT OF IT UPON THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SCREEN IT FROM VIEW, SCREEN OTHER HOMES FROM VIEW BY THE OCCUPANTS.”
- From the renders I see, the building would be covered by white siding that is not up to the standards of the neighborhood. It is bright and reflective. DCSP: “A harmonious mixture of materials, color and forms shall be used to blend with the natural hillsides.”; “Colors are critical to maintain the rustic character of the neighborhood and shall be neighborhood sensitive. The use of colors shall be sensitive to the neighborhood and shall enhance the rustic character of the neighborhood.”; “Surface materials shall be 166
166 of 485
rough textured to blend with the coarseness of landscaping and natural vegetation.
Textured stucco, wood, earth tone brick and coarse block are appropriate.” – all of these guidelines are violated in the proposed design.
- The massive wall violates yet another two design guidelines: “12. DO NOT USE LARGE EXPANSES OF A SINGLE MATERIAL ON WALLS, ROOFS OR PAVING AREAS.” “13.
USE NATIVE AND NATURAL MATERIALS WHICH BLEND WITH THE HILLSIDE WHERE POSSIBLE. USE SYNTHETIC OR COMPOUND MATERIALS (CONCRETE, STUCCO, METAL, PLASTICS, GLASS) WITH MODERATION AND CARE.” The Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan states that “all new development shall conform to the requirements of the Design Guideline component of this Plan and the City's Hillside Development Guidelines”. Since numerous Design Guidelines are violated, I cannot support this project. I urge the DRB to reject the proposal and request a redesign of the structure to conform to the Guidelines: reduce the scale and mass of the building, follow the hillside terrain, remove blockages of views from my residence, and respect the privacy of neighbors. –
Sincerely,
Evgenii Krasko
167
167 of 485
Re: Providing comments on a project
Evgeniy Krasko <[email protected]>
Tue 4/30/2024 9:34 AM
To:Dobson, Amber CD <[email protected]>;Khan, Shehriyar <[email protected]> Cc:Dulalia, Michelle CD <[email protected]>
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Amber, Shehriyar,
I would like to provide some extra commentary on 2058 Crestview. Over the weekend I studied the prior history of the project in more detail. As you might be aware, the prior rejection was challenged in court (with no success): https://casetext.com/case/czajkowski-v-city-of-laguna-beach. As it can be read from the case text, perhaps the biggest single objection from the neighbors and the DRB was siting of the project close to the rear lot line. The court confirmed this was the problem that led to privacy issues. It may seem that at least on paper, the current plan addresses this issue, because the building is now located in the center of the lot. During the neighbors meeting, the Applicant also stated to me that this resolution of the Board is what drove the siting in his new design. However, I want to draw your attention to the following. The lot is 133 feet deep. I've printed one of the plans that were shown by the Applicant to me:
It is 133ft printed in 2 1/8 inches so the scale is about 1:750. The building starts at 3/4 inches, that would be approximately 46-47 feet from the rear lot line. That's my approximate estimate before I am shown complete plans; the number should be confirmed. Now (from the case text), the previous attempt was first to build "10.5 feet from the rear" then "the rear setback was increased by 2.33 feet", and the neighbors only stated that "moving the Structure 15 feet down the hill would open up the site". The current plan moves the structure an extra 15-20 feet more from what was asked, which directly contributes to a view blockage. From the note about 15 ft I conclude that there would be no issues with having the upper stories of the building shifted backwards to remove view blockages, and move the windows facing my master bedroom behind the existing trees (ideally adding extra landscaping of its own). The stories of the building should not be vertically stacked, but rather follow the hillside.
Another issue is with the orientation of the building. Right now as viewed from my master bedroom, the building would be at 45 degree angle, so its visual footprint is as large as it can theoretically be. It would also hang over the balconies and the patio of 2100 Crestview. On top of that, the backyard of 168
168 of 485
the proposed construction, one of the activity areas, is directly adjacent to my master bedroom. All of that comes from the poorly chosen orientation of the building.
I want to emphasize one more point from the case text: Nor do we agree with plaintiff's characterization of Mr. Parker's response to a question from the Board chair. She suggested that if the Structure was moved farther downhill, he would have "view impacts" and Mr. Parker agreed. Plaintiff maintains he would have then objected on that basis. But the context of the colloquy does not support that. Mr. Parker went on to state that "I think it'll be different." "[I]nstead of looking at the side of a structure" "you're looking over it.". Mr. Parker is the previous owner of my home. As you can see, the idea of suggesting to move the building downhill was not to accept view blockages (while gaining some privacy; which the current plan doesn't achieve either), but rather to achieve view equity, because the thinking was that the view would be over the building. As demonstrated by the photos I attached to my previous comments, this has not been achieved in the current design. In fact it's quite the opposite. There would be a massive wall of the structure right in front of my master bedroom, blocking Catalina Island view. Looking at the previous plan from 2012-2013 and the current plan, here's why this happens. The old plan included a garage, then a gap, and then two stories. The new plan is a taller garage plus three stories on top of it. So, the building was moved not downhill, but rather simply forward. It's still at a comparable height, it just protrudes from the hill much more.
Somehow even with 3 stories and a flat roof it's still taller than 2100 Crestview, which is 3 stories, slanted roofs, and higher up the street. If the plan kept it at two stories, then I'd be looking over the building as Mr. Parker noted. But with 3 stories stacked on top of each other it's very different. It's leading to a worsened, rather than improved situation with respect to the previously observed issues.
Thank you for your consideration.
--
Sincerely,
Evgenii Krasko
169
169 of 485
FW: Litigation History Around Project at 2058 Crestview Dr. Concept Review 4/25 Dobson, Amber CD <[email protected]>
Mon 4/8/2024 7:40 AM
To:Khan, Shehriyar <[email protected]>
Cc:Caron, Martina CD <[email protected]>
Please read and lets discuss.
From: matt lawson <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2024 6:44 PM
To: Dobson, Amber CD <[email protected]>
Subject: Litigation History Around Project at 2058 Crestview Dr. Concept Review 4/25 Importance: High
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Amber, I just received the notice of Concept Review on this project now scheduled for April 25, 2024.
This project has a history dating back more than 20 years, during which time the same Applicant has been attempting to obtain entitlement for what has been basically the same design, with pretty much the same result.
This unfortunate history was summarized by the judge in his opinion when this Applicant unsuccessfully sued the City after his most recent appeal to Council was rejected. Link:
https://casetext.com/case/czajkowski-v-city-of-laguna-beach.
Hopefully, the Staff Report will review this history with respect to the current project design. I don't believe that the citywide standards of review for DR have changed since this project was last before the Board, nor has the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan been amended. What has changed is that the immediate neighbors who dealt with this project previously have moved on and the current residents may not be as familiar with this history nor with their rights under the City's DR process.
In fairness to the Applicant, it's also possible that the designed/project siting has been altered sufficiently to comply with all applicable City requirements, but a casual look at the staking doesn't suggest that has occurred.
I currently don't have the bandwidth to get directly involved in this matter but wanted to call out the historical context to your attention. We trust that CD staff will be able to vet the project sufficiently to provide solid decision support to the Board members. none of whom were on the Board last time this project came up more than a decade ago. Thank you once again for your service to our community.
Cordially, Matt
5/2/24, 9:19 AM Mail - Khan, Shehriyar - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAQkAGU4NzIxMDM5LWY3ZmItNDg1Yi1hNjQyLTlmNDEzZDEwODViNwAQAPAUQ4Krx1NCojSZJs1AoQA%3D?n… 1/1 170
170 of 485
Edward Sotto
2100 Crestview Dr
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
I am Edward Sotto, our family lives at 2100 Crestview Dr, next door, right of the property proposed for new development.
My wife chose Diamond Crestview 2 years ago, not just because it’s where she found the perfect home, but the higher design standards the city established for this special zone. The homes nestled into the hillsides, surrounded by landscape with views of both canyon and ocean. This gave us comfort as the guidelines are a protection and quite specific. We love our neighbors and feel Crestview is special.
Having said that, when this new project emerged, the beautiful landscape was replaced by mud and story poles, we were more than curious and met with the builder in his required neighborhood review.
Even though plans existed, only some selected views of his concept in crude 3D renderings were shared with all of us, but even then, we sensed the potential impact and design intent of his concept.
My reason for making this statement, is that after reviewing what he was willing to share and discuss with us that the city should pay extremely close attention to what is being proposed, as in our opinion, the concept was not developed in compliance with the Crestview guidelines, but almost in defiance, “shoehorned” into a difficult pie wedged site. As the city, of course you are the final word.
As his attempts to build on this site higher up the hill have failed twice, the project has now moved down up against our home. In order to wedge the project in, his driveway glances across our property. The builder told us that our permit would need to be revoked, the street redesigned, our stone facade retaining wall partially removed, costing us two parking spaces due to shortening our driveway.
Essentially losing our setback. I’m an architectural designer by trade and changes like this are HUGE.
Our “sense of place” is established by tapered angled
retaining walls on each side defining the property. The left wall balances the visual weight of the right stair. 171
171 of 485
The wall establishes our driveway boundary and “sense of place,” and removing it ruins the symmetrical composition of the exterior. I left thinking, since when does building another’s home destroy the facade of yours?
The Crestview guidelines depict how homes should be embedded in the hillside, not perched atop of it as he shows, blocking views of the canyon from our only upper patio with a wall a few feet away. Out of context, the structure exudes a look of urban density, not diverse homes nestled in green. The materials shown do not seem to be compliant with the contextual quality of the surrounding homes. Minimalism depends on quality finishes. Even in concept, it does not seem to be context driven, it appears budget driven.
Needless to say, this project affects all of Diamond Crestview. Construction staging is in a hairpin turn congests the only access to the entire neighborhood. Years of drilling foundations and street closures await everyone here as there is little to no place for trucks and heavy equipment. Noise, vibration, and dirt removal will be disruptive for years. Not to mention safety if a disaster occurred.
Mike has had this property longer than we have (1998) and in fact, could have raised issues of design review and variance when our home was being planned. Revoking our permit to build his home and impacting the design to wedge something in seems absurd, but I think good design could prevail if only he was flexible in his thinking.
A home can be built here, but it needs to driven by compliance with the high standards and impact to the area, which means embedded much deeper into the hillside, centered more between the other homes, and access designed in such a way as to not alter the existing homes and street. The concept we were shown does NONE of that. Simply put, it needs to enhance the Diamond Crestview experience, not degrade it.
Thank you.
Recent 9-4pm Crestview closure for underground cabling. This hairpin turn is the only way in or out of the entire neighborhood. The city should weigh the safety and disruption of years of drilling, dirt removal and other staging issues. 172
172 of 485
Note how close this new home is to our own in comparison with other complaint homes.
Shared driveway on a redesigned street. Its so close, our revokable permit would have to be changed and driveways joined to accommodate this. Passersby ask me if it’s an addition to our home!
ISSUES OF SITING AND DESTROYING SENSE OF PLACE.
173
173 of 485
The retaining wall proposed
between us is shorter, but somehow shown rebuilt at an angle that actually blocks our driveway. (See RED square) These images are very deceiving until examined closely. So if you did cut the wall back far enough to allow our car to back out, it would it the wall as shown below. This destroys the symmetry of the facade of our home and “sense of place”. His home is angled across our property and far too close to our existing home. Contrary to the scale of the cars in the renderings, the driveway work out to be less than a car length to the revised street.
Wall is 90 Degrees from
New Wall angles across
driveway and is shorter,
shorting the driveway costing
EXISTING DRIVEWAY
Area to be modified.
174
174 of 485
Lost view, privacy to our main patio, just a few
feet away.
Most of the upper level experience is looking
into the side of his home.
PATIO
No Privacy at all between levels.
PRIVACY AND VIEWS
175
175 of 485
176
176 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript