Laguna Beach City Council
February 24, 2026

Design Review Board Meeting, May 9, 2024
Concept Review of Project located at 2058 Crestview Drive.

Chair Pro Tem Neev:

Thank you, okay, now we'll move to regular business. The first item on our agenda is the application for 2058 Crestview Drive. This is going to be presented by Mark? Amber Dobson (Planning Manager):

Yes. We have a contract planner, Mr. Shehriyar Khan is with us tonight and this is his first presentation to the Design Review Board.

Chair Neev:

Well, welcome. We'll, we're going to be really hard on you now, you know? That's kind of the thing, but welcome and is the applicant here? If you'd come up to the front, make sure your mic's working. Everything that's said has to be said through the mic so that we can make sure that we get it recorded for the record, okay? And would you please pronounce your name again so I get it right?
Shehriyar Khan (Contract Planner):

Sherry-Yaar
Chair Pro Tem Neev:

Shehriyar, okay. Shehriyar, take it away.

Shehriyar Khan (Contract Planner):

Thank you. Good evening, board members. This is item 5.1 for concept review 23-2048 for a new, single-family dwelling located at 2058 Crestview Drive. The site is within the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan area and is currently vacant. As you can see, a mapped watercourse runs along the length of the north property line and a watercourse encroachment variance is included as a part of this request. Previous submittals for site development were made as early as 2004, with prior concept review hearings conducted in 2005, 2006, 2012 and 2013. In July, 2013, after conducting three public hearings on the previous project, the board ultimately denied the application. Primary contention at the time was related to the placement of the structure at the rear of the lot. In August, 2013, the applicant appealed the board's decision and in September, the city council sustained the board's denial of the application. Subsequently, the applicant initiated litigation against Attachment 5
177
177 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript

the city in a trial court, which ultimately affirmed the city council's decision. The proposed new single-family dwelling is a four-level structure, which includes an attached two-car garage, an attached ADU, the primary residence across two levels and three elevated decks. The garage is set back 12 feet from the front property line and the highest level of the structure set back 46 feet from the rear property line. The proposed project is in compliance with all of the development standards of the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan, with the exception of the permitted height and the on-street public parking space. Staff wanted to point out that the project plans include discrepancies related to grade elevations at property corners and lot slope calculations. The plans note a slope of 34.2%, but staff calculations put the slope over 40%. Staff will require these inconsistencies to be corrected before the project returns to the board for approval. A lot slope of 35% and higher would allow a height of 29 feet to be proposed. As you can see on the north elevation, part of the structure is 31.2 feet in height, exceeding the permitted height by 2.2 feet. The Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan allows the board to modify the height requirement when site topography makes such modification unavoidable and when the proposed development maintains view sheds, air, light, privacy and neighborhood character. As detailed in the report, this part of the structure is located on top of an existing v-ditch. Staff has also received concerns from neighbors regarding massing, privacy and view equity impacts that these sides of the structures may cause. As you can see from the streetfacing west elevation, the roof line is flat and the architectural style is not entirely compatible with the rustic character of the neighborhood. The staff report details how the project is not in compliance with some design review criteria, applicable residential design guidelines and does not meet a couple of Diamond/Crestview findings. As pointed out earlier, a mapped watercourse runs along the north of the property line. The existing watercourse has been significantly modified due to the installation of a city storm drain constructed on the adjacent contiguous property. Based on previous hydrology reports for the subject property, no impacts to significant modified watercourse are anticipated, but an updated hydrology report will be required prior to design review. At prior hearings, board members indicated that they could make the findings for the watercourse encroachment variance. As detailed in the report and indicated earlier, staff has identified issues with access, design integrity, neighborhood compatibility and roof form. At the time this report was published, staff had received public comments concerning mass and scale privacy, view equity and neighborhood compatibility. Since the report was published, staff has received additional public comments related to the same concerns. Staff recommends that the board review and provide comments regarding the proposed project's concept design. And that concludes staff's report.
178
178 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript

Chair Pro Tem Neev:

Thank you, very well done. And now I will open the public hearing and you have five minutes to present your project.

David Freeland (Architect):

Thank you very much. Are there slides, possibly that? Oh, fantastic, thank you so much.

That was a great staff report there and I think effectively describes the project. What I'd like to be able to do now is talk a little bit about some of those concerns that were brought up.

First of all, we've been working on the development of this design for several years now to ensure that responds to the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan and the interest and concerns of the community. And we're happy to have this opportunity to hear what those further concerns might be. As noted, this design is quite different from the earlier one, which was sited at the top of the property and had all sorts of other kind of view concerns and conflicts with the specific plan. The alterations we made are specifically in response to those concerns. I won't go through the details since you've done such a nice job of explaining that, beyond to mention that the size of the house is 1,971 square feet, which is quite less than the allowable amount, which is 3,225 square feet. So it's quite modest in size. It is three levels over the garage, but only has a lot coverage of 26%, whereas the allowable is 35% and it's quite narrow lot. So we do go all the way to the side yard setbacks, but where the front yard setback is five feet, we're providing 12 feet. So the intention here is that the house is modestly sized and carefully placed in the site so as not to interfere with view shed and other aspects of the community. You can go to the next slide, thank you.

We'll go past this one, actually. So to address exactly that, the siting, the project is sunk down significantly into the site and I think this is an elevation. It's a little bit difficult to see. I hope that you can see on the left-hand side is an elevation. On the right-hand side is a section, so you can see that there's two aspects to slope here. One is along the direction, the long ways of the site, but there's also quite a significant cross-slope here. So I think that's important to note, also that approximately, depending how it's measured, 30 to 40% of the house is actually below grade. So really doing the best we can to minimize presence on the site. And noting here that the top of the roof is at least eight feet below the rear property line. And to address that concern about the corner that was identified, not that diagram specifically here, but in the elevation on the left-hand side, the upper left-hand corner, there's a small slice that does exceed the height limit as was identified. I just want to point out that is by no means the majority of the house, it's really quite a small portion, which is of concern and it's the difficult cross-slope topography which is really making that necessity. You can see how much the house has already sunk down below grade. Okay, we 179
179 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript

can go to the next slide. Here's the renderings. There's definitely a kind of minimal scale that we're trying to bring to the house in relation to the surroundings. The building is broken up into a series of different volumes and these volumes are rotated to create different kinds of orientations, both to allow a diversity of views from the interior, but also unimpeded view access by surrounding houses and easy accessibility to natural light. We're also working with different materials to further minimize the scale. So the garage is a kind of concrete base, breaks down this kind of single mass as a four-story volume. You can go to the next slide. The articulation of the siding is also used to produce variation. So we're working with an idea related to board and batten siding, you can go to the next slide. This is a siding that has a long history in building construction first in Europe and later in the US, when it was introduced in the 19th century. I would put this in the category. This house was built in Missouri recently. It's straight off the Hardie board website, which is the material that's considering being used. I would put this in the category of modern farmhouse. And our project is really meant to reinterpret this and to bring a kind of rustic quality to the project.

In, am I out of time?
Chair Pro Tem Neev:

So that was five minutes.

David Freeland (Architect):

Oh, it was five minutes, okay.

Chair Pro Tem Neev:

Is that five?
David Freeland (Architect):

There is more things to say. I'll just show one last image and then I apologize for taking more time. This is actually completed, a project that I made several years ago in the Los Angeles area working with that same kind of technique and so it gives a kind of sense of what the material qualities are as it's built.

Chair Pro Tem Neev:

Okay, thank you. And you'll also have three minutes after the, you know, after any public comment.

David Freeland (Architect):

Sure.
180
180 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript

Chair Pro Tem Neev:

And I might ask, could you set the timer so you get a 30-second warning? Oh, did it? Okay, I wasn't paying attention, okay.

David Freeland (Architect):

My fault.

Chair Pro Tem Neev:

Okay, both of us. We should have paid attention. Anyway, all right, so I know, okay, so at this time is there anyone that would like to speak from the audience that'd like to speak on this project?
Edward Sotto (Neighbor):

I have slides. So my name is Edward Sottoo. I sent my slides to you, so hopefully those slides can be loaded. I don't want my, I don't want that affecting my time yet.

Chair Pro Tem Neev:

Of course not, you know, and no.

Edward Sotto (Neighbor):

I've never done this before, you guys.

Chair Pro Tem Neev:

Don't worry about that.

Edward Sotto (Neighbor):

Go easy on me.

Chair Pro Tem Neev:

Just be sure that the mic is working for me.

Edward Sotto (Neighbor):

The mic is working.

Chair Pro Tem Neev:

Okay, that's great.
181
181 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript

Edward Sotto:

Okay, do you have the slides?
Chair Pro Tem Neev:

We'll get that loaded.

Edward Sotto (Neighbor):

Perfect. Okay, let's go play
Chair Pro Tem Neev:

All right, now your time does start.

Edward Sotto (Neighbor)
I'm Edward Sotto. Our family lives at 2100, adjoining the home proposed. We chose Diamond/Crestview two years ago for its higher design standards. Having said that, the concept that was reviewed with us seems to be driven not by compliance with those standards, but almost an ignorance of context at all. To that end, we beg the city to examine this design closely as to its compliance to this area, but also to the safety and access issues it creates in being a mature neighborhood. Our home, next slide please. Our home out of context. This home seems out of context, creating an impression of urban density, not diverse design nestled in rustic green Passersby, actually this is true, actually ask me when I'm in my driveway, if it is that close. Is that a room addition you're building? That's what they asked. So the board and batten materials don't seem to be compliant with the quality standards either of surrounding homes. Even in concept, minimalism appears to be budget driven. Anyway, given the failed attempts to build higher up, the project's been shoehorned next to our home. In order to create access, Mike's hoping to revoke our permit and demolish parts of a retaining wall driveway, thus reshaping Crestview Drive as our wall would be then in the right of way and that goes, there goes our driveway as well, essentially losing our setback and changing the compositional balance of the exterior of our home. To me, this is huge. Mike has owned the plan since 1998 before the home existed. So, design issues should be kind of raised then. This was all avoidable though by just adjusting the angle of access. Again, ignoring context. The Crestview guidelines, the next slide please, depict how homes should be embedded in the hillside, not perched atop it, destroying ours and others' privacy and blocking views of the canyon from our upper patio with a window staring right into the fire pit. Next slide, please. Needless to say, this project affects all of Diamond/Crestview, construction staging in a hairpin turn congests the sole access to a 182
182 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript

mature neighborhood of over 30 homes. Years of drilling foundation and street closures await everyone. And this year, we had a street closure for like six hours just to put one vault in for the underground job. You couldn't get an emergency vehicle up the hill. And we see, unfortunately, you see EMTs going to the top of the hill in this neighborhood very frequently.

You know, anyway, preventing emergency services. Noise, vibration, potential disturbance to our own homes, foundations, which kind of scares me. And dirt removal can be disruptive for years. So what's my point? Last slide, please. A home can be built here but the price of admission is compliance with the higher Diamond/Crestview standards, which means lower, maybe more subterranean, centered to allow more green space and designed in a way as to not alter existing homes in street. The concept should be reimagined to enhance the Diamond/Crestview experience, not degrade it. So thank you very much for your attention. I appreciate that.

Chair Pro Tem Neev:

Thank you.

Edward Sotto (Neighbor):

Nine seconds left there.

Chair Pro Tem Neev:

Perfect timing. Thank you. I was just reminded that we did not give our ex parte and I, shame on me. So we'll just do that right now. Dive right in.

Board member Gibbs:

Okay, I met with the owner, Mike Cjakowski. I also met with Mr. Krasko and with Edward Sottoo and I had a conversation with Matt Lawson.

Board member Coveny:

Okay, and I met with Mr. Krasko and I took numerous pictures, which I have here as well.

And I read all the public commentary and spent some time in the neighborhood.

Board member Weil:

I met with Eddie Sotto and Mr., how do you say your name again? Evgenii, sorry. And I did call to the architect's company but I didn't get a response, and visited the site.

Chair Pro Tem Neev:
183
183 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript

And I called the architect as well. Didn't get a response, but I did visit the site and walked the neighborhood and tried to walk above and couldn't find any access above but walked around the other side. Okay, now we can continue. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? Okay.

Evgenii Kraskow (Neighbor):

Yes, can I have my slides on display? All right, good evening members of the Design Review Board. My name is Evgenii Krasko. I own the property at 785 Gainsborough Drive, directly adjacent to the proposed construction. When I purchased this property in 2022, I was well aware of the existence of an empty lot next to me and that something will be built there sooner or later. However, the current proposal is something I definitely did not expect. The proposal is to erect an essentially tower leg structure with a massive garage and three levels on top of it. Next slide, please. The first floor has just a 200 square feet ADU on it.

And I believe the reason, nothing else is located on this floor is to raise the rest of the building for view at the expense of my view and privacy. Two upper floors will be stacked vertically with no attempts to blend with the hillside. The wall facing my property is going to be three stories tall. It's a wide siding wall with no terracing and multiple windows on it.

These windows are facing my bedrooms and no landscaping or privacy walls are included in the design in order to fix that. Next slide, please. The applicant even requests a height variance to invade my privacy and block the view. Regarding views, there is a canonical example of what a great view is documented right in the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan.

Next slide, please. In fact, the main reason I purchased my house is that it possesses a view that's very similar to what's shown. I get to enjoy it from my master bedroom and backyard every day. Next slide, please. The proposal is essentially to take this view away from me, putting a massive wall that would block Catalina Island, while the Specific Plan guidelines explicitly suggest to protect the views of such prominent objects. My impression is that the proposed construction was not evaluated from a variety of angles as the guidelines suggest. The materials are reflective and bright and the entire design totally lacks natural materials. It's not up to the quality standards of the neighborhood. Next slide, please. The design is not well thought through, not harmonious with other structures around. It digs into the hillside minimally and orients the building towards the ocean to capture the views at the expense of the existing views of the neighbors and of their privacy.

This is not view equity. I want to separately mention that the neighborhood communication was quite poor. We weren't given any option to express concerns or opinions and we were just faced with the fact that this is how the project would go to the Design Review. The next slide please. I tried my best by sending a letter with my comments and suggestions to the owner, but I haven't heard back and I don't see any of them incorporated in the current 184
184 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript

proposal. I would welcome a building on this lot, but the plan needs to respect the same exact rules that the city applied to every other building in the area. The plan should be driven by care for the neighborhood, not by neglect for it. Thank you.

Chair Pro Tem Neev:

Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this project? Come on up.

Speaker X:

Hi. I live on 2025 Crestview Drive and so my main issue is regarding the landscaping. The project also destroys a valuable hillside habitat that is a migration route of many animals in the area, as outlined in the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan. In fact, despite that development hasn't started yet, the multitude of native trees has been cut down on the lot in quite a barbaric manner. I was working and just heard noise of trees being bulldozed down and looked outside the house and saw all the trees just completely destroyed. And I know this project hasn't gone into effect. I also agree with everyone else regarding the design aspect, but that's also something I wanted to bring to your attention because we do need to protect our native land here in Laguna. Thank you.

Chair Pro Tem Neev:

Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? Going once, okay, thank you. All right, so now you have three minutes.

David Freeland (Architect): Sure. The first thing I want to say to each of those that came up to speak is that construction in your neighborhood is a disturbance and that's something that we recognize and appreciate your comments and concerns, and are interested to do our best to minimize that disturbance. I heard a few different categories of comment here.

One had to do with access and the hairpin turn at Crestview at this point. I think that as part of the development, it's required that the street be expanded and this will actually increase the accessibility both for emergency vehicles and those that are driving. And so the existing retaining wall that's in place that was spoken about is actually I think going to be modified at the, at Mr. Cjakowski's expense in order to further that street improvement. As I mentioned in my presentation, the house already is sunk into the site a great deal and its overall mass has been minimized. We're far under the square footage threshold and also minimizing the footprint of the house. And I think that goes to maybe the third comment which is about landscaping. The footprint is a primary way that we can minimize the impact on the site. And we're doing that. There's also an intention to incorporate landscaping into the project itself. And so if you look on those different volumes as they rotate and step up 185
185 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript

the hill, there's planting there and that's meant to connect with the surrounding natives and to produce more of integrated appearance for the house overall.

Chair Pro Tem Neev:

Anything else you'd like to add?
David Freeland (Architect):

Oh, I'm sorry that I did not get your calls from the, I did not realize that you would be reaching out.

Chair Pro Tem Neev:

That we would be calling, okay.

David Freeland (Architect):

Apologies for that.

Chair Pro Tem Neev:

Okay, we'll have another chance.

David Freeland (Architect):

Okay, good.

Chair Pro Tem Neev:

Okay, all right. Is there, at this time then, well, I have a question of order. Do I close the public hearing before we ask questions of the applicant or do? Assistant City Attorney:

The public hearings shall only be closed once you're going to begin deliberations.

Chair Pro Tem Neev:

Okay, thank you, okay. So at this time if any of the board, any members of the board would like to ask questions of either the applicant or staff, now is the time to do that.

Board member Weil:

Two questions. One, you in your presentation and in the staff report, it alludes that the project's not in conformance with the elements of the DCSP. Is that still accurate? Shehriyar Khan (Contract Planner):
186
186 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript

That is correct.

Board Member Weil:

Okay, and then for the, what's proposed for that driveway expansion from a right of way encroachment, is Public Works driving that or is it just solely the applicant's needs? Is it a public benefit-driven project or is it just for the benefits of access? Board member Weil:

It's a requirement within the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan Area for street improvements to take place in front of the property. That includes street widening and paving.

Board member Gibbs:

Excuse me, Chair or Board Member Weil, I just have a related question if I can ask that, 'cause the question I had is how is, one of the neighbor, Mr. Sottoo had a concern about redoing the driveways which go over the public right of way. How is that going to, because we want it safe. Is that something that planning or Public Works are going to determine how that's going to be done in a safe way, or how is that going to be dealt with? 'Cause that's all in the public right of way and it's going to require some modification including, as best I can tell, to Mr. Sotto's property.

Shehriyar Khan (Contract Planner):

Yes, planning and Public Works will coordinate the process for the removal for a portion of that retaining wall that's encroaching into the public right of way.

Board member Gibbs:

And will come up with the safe solution to Mr. Sotto's issue regarding the, it was more of an issue he raised on my site inspection regarding how those cars are going to exit from each side, his, Sotto's garage and the applicant's garage so that we don't have cars running into each other?
Amber Dobson (Planner Manager):

The arrangement for the whatever work needs to happen to Mr. Sotto's wall, there needs to be an agreement with Mr. Sotto and that is on, that is within the right of way, that is on the public right of way area.
187
187 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript

Board member Gibbs: I guess is that something that we need to be worried about here or is that something that's going to be resolved by Public Works and planning? Amber Dobson (Planning Manager):

We can run these plans and this comment by Public Works. The comments that we had received from Public Works earlier related only to the replacement parking space. I don't believe that they made comments on this, the removal of this wall. So that is something that we will bring forward to them.

Board member Gibbs:

Thanks.

Board member Coveny:

I had just a quick question. I don't know if this is for now or later. Sorry, I'm still learning. As far as the placement of the building, I think I called you about this earlier today. If it was moved back and skewed differently, is there enough setbacks left and right if it came back, let's say 10 feet? Are you able to look into that?
Shehriyar Khan (Contract Planner)
Yes. So within the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan area, setbacks are supposed to be distributed 40% of the lot depth. So that provides the applicant with roughly 56 feet to work with to distribute, with an eight feet minimum setback from the front of the property line.

That leaves 46 feet and some change towards the rear. So there may be some opportunity to negotiate replacement, but I would defer to the architect to elaborate on that.

Board member Coveny:

And then would that change the placement of the garage, which then might not affect Mr.

Sotto's property at all? Do you know if by pushing it back, skewing it north would open that area up or is it still a problem because of the road having to change? Shehriyar Khan (Contract Planner):

I think skewing the garage, maybe it's going to be complex due to the steep topography right in front of the property. But again, I would defer to the architect to elaborate on that.

Board member Coveny:

Thank you, thank you, Chair.
188
188 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript

Board member Gibbs:

I have no further questions.

Chair Pro Tem Neev:

I had a question. I know that there's a huge discrepancy on the slope, the actual percentage of the slope and is that just because of the way the drainage has been in the past and the old waterway? Because it also, you know, goes in and down. Or is it just the calculations that there's this huge thing, or is it really like the topographic elevations? Shehriyar Khan (Contract Planner):

There's a discrepancy in the calculations.

Chair Pro Tem Neev:

Okay.

Shehriyar Khan (Contract Planner):

Staff calculation bring the lot slope to over 40%, which would allow the applicant to propose a height of 29 feet.

Chair Pro Tem Neev:

Right. Yeah. Okay, that's what I was getting to. Thank you, okay, I don't have any other questions either. So with that, we will move on to our comments. Oh, what? That I need to close the public hearing before I do that. There may be another question.

Board member Gibbs:

Yeah, if it's okay with the Chair, I'd like to start, I put a lot of time into this.

Chair Pro Tem Neev:

Of course. At this time I will close the public hearing and now we will begin our deliberation, so.

Board member Gibbs:

Okay, I spent a lot of time on this project. I found it challenging and so I'll start with it's a very challenging site and I am not prepared to say it's not buildable. It's a buildable site and it's been vacant. We have a little bit of the vacant lot syndrome. It's also looking at the history, it's moved up. I mean, it's moved back. It's moved up and so it presented some 189
189 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript

complications. So this is my analysis and I'll go through the guidelines in general, not all of them specific, some overlap. The first issue is mass and scale and is this consistent with the neighborhood? The square footage is small, it's 17, I think 16 with a 22, or 222 foot ADU on a relatively small lot for that area. I think that you could have asked for a lot more square feet, which would've had a lot more impact on a lot of the neighbors. Should it be more in keeping with the topography? We heard that from Mr. Krasko and Mr. Sotto. So on that, I looked at a lot of the other houses. I see this, your building as somewhat of a block building, but with articulation. The lower levels set forward, that prior upper two levels are set back. So if you could show the photos. Amber, are you going to be doing it? So let's go with the first photo. You've already seen what the applicant's house is going to look like. So let's look at the first photo. Okay, this is, can you do full screen or is that the? I guess you can see it. I prefer, you know, we're not seeing the full picture. This is Mr. Sotto's house. So I think from looking at it, you can tell what I'm about to tell. This house is closer to the street and if you could scroll down, scroll the other way. You can see it has a similar block formation. Yes, it's got some articulation. I wish we could see the whole house at one time. Is there any way you can do that? You can see it has a similar block construction with, and this time essentially a three-story look from the ground up with a setback at the upper story, which is kind of the opposite of what the applicant has, which is a ground floor up close with the rest of the house setback. Go to the next one. This should be the house on the other side of the street or the other side of the building. There it goes. This one is a very large house and yes, it's up the hill. Keep in mind that the applicant's house is set back from Mr. Sotto's house and this one has a similar block construction. Yes, there's some articulation but it's, it has a, I would say a comparable mass and scale to the applicant. Go to the next one please. And this one is the next house to the north and you can see there, that's essentially four story. Again it's similar, block-type construction. By block, I'm not in any way using a term of art. I mean just the floors are stacked at one another without a great deal of recess. Go to the next one please. And this is a house that's up the hill and this one's much wider, much bigger helm but again, similar what I've been calling block construction. So I think the block construction itself is the next slide we'll get to in a second. Amber, I think the block-type construction, that kind of elevated construction is neighborhood compatible and given the site constraints with this lot, I think the mass and scale is appropriate. Now with respect to the design being contemporary, and that was hit by the staff, I also see contemporary design in the neighborhood. If you go to the next slide please. And there's more than this one, but I just took this one as an example. No, next slide please. I'm sorry, I forgot I had two of that house but we don't need to see more of it. That's just another one, a few of the big house. Yeah, scroll up on this. You can see the house on 190
190 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript

the top to the right is very modern. However, notwithstanding it being modern and by the way, this is a concept review so we're going to not be voting tonight. We're going to be giving you our comments. On the point the staff makes and I agree with is that a white, modern house is not consistent with the neighborhood. The neighborhood uses rustic materials and colors, as even this modern house shows. I think that the way you have it, the materials and the color being you know, kind of white-white, while I think that's maybe somewhat of a trademark of yours from the other house and I totally love the house, don't get me wrong, it needs to have rustic character. And notwithstanding that one, the one house you're looking at, the modern, it is primarily more craftsman and I don't think particularly architecturally attractive. I know people in Diamond/Crestview may disagree with me, but it definitely has, you know, the browns and the bricks, you know, the not modern brick but you know, rocklooking bricks very much like you see in Mr. Sotto's house. And so for me to approve this and find it neighborhood compatible, I would need a different vibe with that house that brings in the rustic colors and materials. With respect to location and orientation, you can take this off now. I looked at the footprint of the house and the property lines and I don't see moving it within the setbacks that you've set. You have the house set back further from the street than Mr. Sotto's house and it does not interfere with, you know, Sotto's view from the front at all because it's set back. It is, you've got a lot of room in the back but if you go up the hill, you're going to potentially be bringing in more view issues including with Mr. Krasko.

I'm not prepared to say that you need to experiment more with that site location. I think given the impacts, I'm going to talk about the view and the other impacts on Mr. Sotto, I am good with the location so let's go to view. I think that you have it set forward, which impacts the view of your house, the applicant's house. And so it's justified to go up and I don't have a problem with a couple of feet 'cause I don't think that couple of feet materially interferes either with the views from the uphill houses including Mr. Krasko's, or for that matter any other house. And it's such a nominal increase that I think given what you've done in terms of reducing the size of this and bringing the house forward to protect the views from the uphill neighbors that I'm fine with that. Now what's the view with Mr. Sotto's house? You know, I do not see any significant view impacts. I think view equity is achieved. Mr. Sotto has awesome views that are totally not hindered. He's got a back area and we'll talk a little bit about with privacy. That is kind of a nice area, stand, you know, sitting area up above that your house goes right up next to, and I'll get to that with privacy. But again, you're entitled to build there and that's kind of, you know, kind of goes with the territory that it does have some impact and we'll talk about minimizing that in a second with respect to privacy. But I'm not prepared to say you can't build there because of its close proximity to Mr. Sotto's house. With respect to the Krasko house, I think view equity is also achieved. I 191
191 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript

went both on the upstairs, which the view has no impact on. He's got an awesome view from up there and that's from the primary area, the living room and kitchen area. With respect to downstairs, he's got two rooms, he's got the master and he's got the second bedroom. The second bedroom's view is obstructed more by his trees than by what your building is. With respect to the bedroom, to protect his view there, again his trees would, he has views to the right but to otherwise protect his view would mean you can't build it.

Certainly can't, you'd have to reduce a whole story. And again, I'm not prepared to go there.

I think given all the other views that he has in his house, view equity is achieved. Now privacy, I think privacy, I'd like to see some work on privacy with respect to Mr. Sotto's house. The closeness of your building to that backyard area in particular is, and it raises privacy concerns, particularly with two windows that you have overlooking that as best I can tell. Since it's going to come back to us, what I would like to see is his privacy in that back area protected and to the extent you can, soften the look there with landscaping. I also know Mr. Sotto, that when this thing's built, you have some room there to soften it as well with landscaping. So I don't think that's a perfect solution to the issue but I think, you know, that we've got a balance and the balance says that you can build your house but you need to do something with privacy, even to the extent of doing something about making those windows opaque. Finally, the watercourse, as I read it, is not an issue and nor is based upon my understanding the parking. Lemme talk a second about parking. There's no way you can put a parking space for public parking in front of your house. It's a blind turn.

That'd be grossly unsafe. I am prepared to approve assuming it complies with code and the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan to approve the location where you're proposing to put the public parking space and to widen the road, which makes that whole area safe. One of the problems with Diamond/Crestview is that so many blind, narrow turns makes it very difficult for fire equipment to get up there. So any improvement, I think, is positive. Plus, I think the location of that parking space makes all the sense in the world. I am concerned about the parking issues with your house and Mr. Sotto's house. I don't have a visual as to how that's going to work, which led to both Board Member Weil's and my questions to staff, that has got to be solved before I could approve this house. And I don't know whether Mr.

Sotto needs approval to do what you're doing there. I do note, Mr. Sotto, you have a stairway that goes to nowhere right there and it is darn unsightly and I don't think it's safe. I mean, you know, I know you don't use it. You get some kid up there, thinks it might be fun to try to climb up there. It gives a chance to remodel the front of your house on that side. I mean remodel, not the house, but remodel that area to make it attractive 'cause I don't think it's very attractive now, in a way that you work with the neighbor to make something that will work for both of you. I know there's a solution to be had. I don't know what it is 192
192 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript

'cause that's not my expertise. So, but just so you know, the way it looks now, I'm not at all convinced it's safe or appropriate. I would need to get experts to tell us that and I want that and I expect that and from what I've heard, it will be vetted by both planning and public works. It's in a public right of way, which means the city owns it. So I think they have a lot of say over what that's going to look like and that needs to be corrected. And then the watercourse, I think there's a geology report that needs to be done. I assume that's not going to be a problem. I looked at the watercourse. It's complicated but there's solution there. I think there's been much more difficult watercourse issues resolved with a house in a situation like that. So those are my comments. Sorry I was a little long-winded but there was a lot of issues on this house.

Chair Pro Tem Neev:

No, that's great. Who wants to go next?
Board member Weil:
- Yeah, so I agree with a fair amount of Board Member Gibbs' comments but I'll try to, I put down a fair amount of notes as well, but I'll try to be a little more succinct. As far as the watercourse, I agree with prior boards and council, it's a modified watercourse. There's other homes in the area that have been built through it. So, reasonable elements can apply to your site and you can encroach into that, or I can find that reasonable as outlined in the staff report. As far as the height variance, I am challenged 'cause there is some view blockage and I don't think it respects, you know, the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan in its entirety and I think there's some modifications that could be done that can achieve your results better. Doesn't mean that Mr., I'm sorry, I can't say the last, Krasko isn't gonna have some obstructions, there potentially will be, but I think as I go into more comments I'll try to articulate that a little bit better. Articulation, I don't find it as compatible with the Diamond/Crestview. It's a little too boxy, a little too modern in shape and I think that adds to some of your impacts 'cause of your choice. I'm not one to necessarily say that any one style is more significant or the other. That's you and your homeowner's choice. But I do know that, you know, some styles do create more impacts as you lay them out into different, especially difficult sites. And I do think the boxy nature of the modern scope may be hurting some of those elements, especially for view corridors being remained open there. There might be some roof elements that could enhance that capability. As far as access, you know, Diamond/Crestview is always tough. Board Member Gibbs talked about it, it's a choke point curve. This is a feeder street to 30 some-odd homes beyond this point.

You know, staff did a good job outlining that the parking, you know, it's going to be difficult but I can work with you on a reasonable site for parking. But I do need to see improvements 193
193 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript

into that corner to try to get, you know, the best benefits and width for the curve is my primary focus for granting this. And as that kind of relates to your access component, I am challenged with the component of trying to create a driveway that potentially creates, you know, backing into situations. So I want to see that be kind of addressed and/or, you know, come to some sort of agreement or just general plan that works with staff, city and potentially the neighbor. I understand that it won't always come to an agreement but I'd like to see that access line improved and re-thought out 'cause I don't think it's quite safe in accordance with the guidelines. That one's that one, the general plan, I agree with staff. It's you know, the LU policy 2.10, maximize the preservation of coastal views. I don't, I do see the view blockage as shown in some of the photos and I can submit mine to staff for your review as well. I do think some of the components could be mitigated with grading for some, for most, actually, of the uphill streets, uphill from streetside, the grading that you're proposing is extremely minimal for Diamond/Crestview. Most of the homes have four, six, even one had 7,000 cubic yards of being exported. I'm not saying you got to go to that extent, but in the 1,000 range I think more could be achieved by grading into the hill and it would preserve your buildable pad to achieve the square footage that you're seeking. Also when it comes to the driveway, putting it back to give more room for the driveway is something that has been more encouraged with more of our recent challenged sites that are in the curve or bend in Diamond/Crestview. So I encourage you to take a look at some of those applications to find some compatibility because we have been concerned for the safety, not only for your ingress and egress but the ingress and egress of the street. As far as the DCSP findings, I was challenged with number one and two. Staff really articulated number five as being the challenge. For number one, it's proposed is compatible to the surrounding. I think the color and the style doesn't necessarily, wait, hold on, I got offset.

Proposed compatible to surrounding issues land use constraint with the intent and purpose to establish the specific plan minimal grading. So I touched on that. I think more grading is necessary. The site is adequate in size and shape. Number two, the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate proposed development, not compliant to the current design. I think reductions may be necessary in different levels, but you can try to blend it and maybe push it back a little bit more. I know in prior approvals they wanted you to come forward and you came forward quite a bit. So I do think there is some room to play that can give you more of a stair-step component and I'd like to see that. And then I did agree with number five. Yeah and that's what I've got. So I'm challenged with it. There's a lot of things to go figure out and I'm looking forward to seeing what you can do to come back.

Also when you do come back, the staking does need to be much more accurate than what I saw when I was up there. I don't think there's a single straight line string that ran across. 194
194 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript

And so if that was the case and we were hearing this tonight, I couldn't approve it if even if we could, given that complexity. But since this is concept, you know, I got enough to get adjusted to where we're at.

Chair Pro Tem Neev:

Thank you, Board Member Weil.

Board member Coveny:

Chair, I thank you. First of all, I want to thank staff. Mr. Khan, you did a great job. It was challenging, I appreciate it. I also want to thank the neighbors who sent in notes, and Mr.

Krasko especially for the efforts you made to get us up to speed on Diamond/Crestview's guidelines. I echo both of my board members here. I think this is a really, really cool house. I just think it's in the wrong place in the sense that this is a diverse neighborhood and there's contemporary homes there. I took a couple but I won't be redundant because a couple of 'em are the same ones that Tom took. So, and I feel like it can work. It's just the materials, as was pointed out in the staff report, specifically color and color. It's so, it just needs to be less bright and strong and contemporary. Contemporary works when it's organic, especially in a hillside. And I think you'll see a lot of those around now and they're becoming more popular. The darker tones, more earth colors, more woods, more cement. The board and batten I love, have it on my house and it's kind of a slight contemporary cottage and it sort of is boxy in a way. And I have a tower and it's in a darker green, grayish, funky color. Happy to share that color with you if you need it. But I think that's one thing to handle. I think that the, going back a touch if possible, I know there was some problems in the past with being too high for the back neighbor, but I do think there is a small view equity issue for Mr.

Krasko's property specifically that I think should be looked at to be solved. Again, I couldn't quite tell from the stakes. I did take pictures. Again for redundancy, I won't show them, but there are a couple areas, especially from the guest bedroom and a little bit from the master. I don't think it's insurmountable, but I think it can potentially be addressed with a slight adjustment. I'd like you just to take a minute to see if that's possible. Height, mass and scale. I think that overall it's not bad and I think your articulation also is good with the way your porches break this up and the staircases, that all looks great. I just think it's the brightness of the overall building that's causing it to feel massive. Access, we've talked about the parking space, so I won't repeat that. Privacy, once it's finished, I just would like to get some idea of if you're going to cover those windows with some sort of film, if they're looking directly into a bedroom or into the back patio even. And in your landscaping, if you could potentially address some sort of hedging, perhaps specifically for Mr. Sotto's property in his backyard there, that perhaps there's some sort of a landscape element that 195
195 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript

could help block that feeling of being looked down from a large area. Privacy, grade, materials, we talked about parking space, hedging and I think that covers it. Is that okay? So I'm finished, thank you, thank you, Chair.

Chair Pro Tem Neev:
- Thank you, okay and the only thing I have to add, I think that, you know, with the height, I'm okay with the two feet extra height because there is that v-ditch that's so onerous. But I wanna qualify that statement by saying that you really need to work with staff on making sure you have the right percentage because that really directly will dictate your height, you know, possibilities. So be sure that is settled. We've talked a lot about Public Works and working with them as far as, I do think that there does need to be an offsite parking situation there and I think that certainly with the wall and those issues that Member Gibbs articulated, I think that working with that, you can get there as well. And if you go, you know, up and around the neighborhood, both on the Crestview side and the Diamond side, I mean you have so many different types and styles and homes and I agree that a lot of them are very blocky because they're so steep and you're trying to get, you're trying to capture that.

Your plate heights are not extensive. They're very modest and I think that, so I'm okay with the way you have your house, but I think that you can achieve some amazing articulation with materials. So take a look at that. I'm not going to dictate anything particular, but I think that by some clever use of materials that you can really achieve a lot of articulation, which you have done I think with your retaining walls lower on the garage side. The only other thing that I had, I have to comment on the watercourse and I think that there's been so much interruption and there's been so much development up there and I know that the city has already addressed it and they have, you know, they have proper drainage. So I don't think that the watercourse is an issue at all. And so I could approve that variance. And I think that's it. I do want to ask you, because I know you've gotten a lot of directions, do you have any questions from the board or anything that might be unclear? David Freeland:

No, I actually think it's quite consistent, the comments. Thank you.

Chair Pro Tem Neev:

Okay.

Board member Gibbs:

Chair, I have one comment I forgot to give.
196
196 of 485
Concept Review 23-2048, May 9, 2024
Hearing Transcript

Chair Pro Tem Neev:

Of course.

Board member Gibbs:

With respect to parking, I want to also comment with respect so my view on the position of the building is clear. Again, it's pushed back beyond Mr. Sotto's property and it allows for a larger driveway to park cars on, which are off that street. And the less cars that park on that street, the better. It again goes to where I think that the position of this house is appropriate. The second thing in with respect to the quantity of the excavation, I mean part of the reason it's relatively small quantity is because it's a small house. You could have gone with a lot bigger house with a lot more excavation and then we would be even more challenged. I think the neighbors would be even more challenged. However, that being said, to the extent that you can incorporate what Mr. Weil said in particular, not only do I think you'd have a better house, but also you would have neighbors that would very much appreciate that. So see what you can do. But I just wanted to point out that I do appreciate what you did with that parking area.

Chair Pro Tem Neev:

Okay, thank you. We look forward to seeing you back here soon.

David Freeland (Architect):

All right, thank you.

Chair Pro Tem Neev:

Okay, yeah, so for the neighbors, this will be renoticed for the next hearing. 197
197 of 485

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
April 10, 2025
Agenda Item No. 5.3
Case No: Design Review 25-0431
Coastal Development Permit 25-0432
Variance 25-0432
Project Location: 2058 Crestview Drive | APN: 644-291-70 Applicant/ Mike Czajkowski
Property Owner: (949) 244-4423 | [email protected]
Prepared By: Community Development Department
Shehriyar Khan | Associate Planner
(949) 715-0672 | [email protected]
Board Members within a
500’ Radius: None
RECOMMENDATION: By motion, adopt Resolution 25-0431 (Attachment 1) approving Design Review 25-0431, Coastal Development Permit 25-0433 and Variance 25-0432 for a new single-family residence including an assessor dwelling unit and with an attached two-car garage on a vacant site in the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan (D/CSP) area, and finding said action exempt from CEQA. Design review is requested for the new structure, elevated decks, retaining walls, height requirement modification, street improvements, grading and landscaping plan. A Coastal Development Permit is required for a new singlefamily home [Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Section 25.07.004] and the attached ADU [LBMC Section 25.17.030(B)(1)] in the Coastal Zone. A Variance is requested to encroach into a modified watercourse [LBMC Section 25.50.030(D)(4)], and to not provide a required on-street public parking space [DCSP Section IV(J)(1)] and finding said action exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Applicant, Mike Czajkowski, is requesting Design Review 25-0431, Coastal Development Permit 25- 0433 and Variance 25-0432 for a new single-family residence with an attached two-car garage on a vacant site within the D/CSP area. The proposed project includes a 1,523 square-foot (building footprint), fourlevel structure consisting of a 476 square-foot two-car garage, 221 square-foot accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”), 1,716 square-foot primary residence (floor area), 852 square-feet of elevated deck area, grading, landscaping plan, and street improvements (the “Project”). The ADU is not subject to Design Review. A Attachment 6
198
198 of 485
DR-25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433
4/10/2025

Coastal Development Permit is required for the overall development program including the ADU per Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Section 25.07.004 and per LBMC Section 25.17.030(B)(1). A Variances is requested to encroach into a significantly modified watercourse [LBMC Section

25.50.030(D)(4)], and to not provide the required on-street public parking space [DCSP Section IV(J)(1)] due to its infeasibility.

Staff recommends conditional approval of the Project. Staff has analyzed the Applicant’s request and believes that all of the findings of fact necessary for approval can be made for the requested entitlements.

The entitlements are supported by the Hydrology Technical Report—June 20,2022, attached hereto as Attachment 6.

BACKGROUND
General Location: 2058 Crestview Drive
Assessor’s Parcel Number: 644-291-70
Environmental Determination: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project is categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 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. The proposed project involves one single-family resident and attached two-car garage and is located in a residential zone. Therefore, this project fits within a Class 3 exemption Related Cases: Concept Review 23-2048
199
199 of 485
DR-25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433
4/10/2025

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) Proposed Use Single Family + ADU complies with density and use

ZONING REVIEW
The proposed Project complies with applicable zoning standards and guidelines as shown in the summary table below.

Development Standard Required Proposed Conforms
Site Coverage 35% Max 26.3% Yes
Landscape Open Space 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 ½”
8’
Yes (w/ DRB)
Yes
Setbacks
Front
Side (North)
Side (South)
Rear
5’-0” (Garage)
8’-0” (House)
5’-0”
5’-0”
44’-7 1/4”
16’-0” (Garage)
35-0” (House)
5’-3”
6’-3”
54’-0”
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
200
200 of 485
DR-25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433
4/10/2025

Surrounding General Plan Land Uses Designations, Zoning Districts, and Use of Properties Direction General Plan Land Use Zoning Use
North Village Low Density (VLD) Diamond Crestview
Specific Plan (DC/SP
Single-Family
Residential
South Village Low Density (VLD) Diamond Crestview
Specific Plan (DC/SP
Single-Family
Residential
East Village Low Density (VLD) Diamond Crestview
Specific Plan (DC/SP
Single-Family
Residential
West Village Low Density (VLD) Diamond Crestview
Specific Plan (DC/SP
Single-Family
Residential
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 steep upward slope above the street of approximately 41 percent. The property also has a modest cross slope, and the street frontage also slopes. The unusual slope of the property makes development of the site more challenging.

Previous submittals for site development were made as early as 2004, with prior Concept Review hearings conducted in 2005, 2006, and 2013. Those prior designs requested multiple variances, and the most recent review ended in denial. The proposed project does not resemble the prior proposal despite the two-pronged variance request. The applicant initially submitted the current project for zoning review on June 24, 2022.

Prior Hearings
Pursuant to D/CSP Property Development Standards (N) (pg. IV-10), Design Review is a two-step process that requires a Concept Review prior to submittal for approval of the final design. A Concept Review hearing took place on May 9, 2024, during which the board evaluated the proposed design, considered all public testimony on the proposed Project and all relevant public comments. Public comments received and public testimony during the hearing were related to view equity, neighborhood compatibility, and privacy issues.

The Board directed the applicant to:
- Explore colors and materials to make the project more “rustic” to promote neighborhood compatibility;
- Increase landscaping as a solution to address privacy concerns; and - Increase grading excavation to better integrate the project into the hillside and to reduce the overall mass of the development.

The Board also conveyed that the variance request to encroach into the significantly modified watercourse setback was reasonable as there was no environmental value to protect. 201
201 of 485
DR-25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433
4/10/2025

Proposed Project
The applicant requests approval to construct a 1,523 square-foot, four-level structure consisting of a 476 square-foot two-car garage, 221 square-foot accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”), and 1,716 square-foot residence. Other improvements include 852 square feet of elevated deck area, grading (571 cubic yards outside the building footprint), retaining walls, street improvements, and landscaping. 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 discussed 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 property. Based on previous hydrology reports for the subject property, and a Hydrology Technical memo prepared in 2022 (Attachment 6), no impacts to the significant modified watercourse are anticipated.

Although the watercourse has been modified a variance is still required to encroach within 25 feet of the centerline of the former watercourse pursuant to the municipal code.

The angled garage is accessed from an uphill sloping driveway. The finished garage 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 221 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 (41%), drainage, and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).

Modification of Height Requirement
The permitted height allowed within the D/CSP for lots with slopes over 35% is 29 feet (D/CSP. pg. IV-3).

The proposed building height is 31.2 feet measured from the top of the lower-level slab 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” (D/CSP.pg. IV-3). 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 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. Figure 1, below demonstrates the area that exceeds the 29-foot height limit, and Figure 2 demonstrates the minimal volume of the excess.
202
202 of 485
DR-25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433
4/10/2025

Figure 1: North Elevation (Partial) Figure 2 – Volume of Excess Height In response to the Board’s comments and direction, the applicant has proposed additional landscaping along the south of proposed structure to address privacy concerns held by the neighbor located at 2100 Crestview Drive, consisting of two (2) Arbutus Unedo ‘Strawberry Trees’ as shown on the updated landscape plan (Sheet A-1.5) in Attachment 2. Additionally, the design is further pushed into the hillside as requested. The following table describes the changes in grading since the May 9, 2024, Concept Review Hearing:

CR 23-2048 Changes DR 25-0431

Inside
Building
Footprint
Outside
Building
Footprint
Total
Inside
Building
Footprint
Outside
Building
Footprint
Total
Inside
Building
Footprint
Outside
Building
Footprint
Total
Cut
(CY) 516 551 1067 +55 +272 +327 571 823 1394
Fill
(CY) 12 69 81 No Change
No
Change
No
Change 12 69 81
Net
Export
(CY)
504 482 986 +55 +272 +327 559 754 1313
203
203 of 485
DR-25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433
4/10/2025

The applicant has provided a grading volume exhibit in Attachment 7. The exhibit shows the total volume of the proposed design being 1750.35 cubic yards (CY) of which 54% (957.19 CY) is above grade and 46% (793.16 CY) is below grade, thus demonstrating that a significant portion of the project is below grade thereby reducing the overall mass of the design above the current slope.

ENTITLEMENTS: Included within this staff report is an analysis of the following entitlements: design review, coastal development permit, and variance(s).

Design Review
The proposed new single-family dwelling, elevated decks, grading, height requirement modification, retaining walls, public street improvements, grading and landscaping plan requires the approval of Design Review (See LBMC Section25.05.040(B). ADUs are not subject to Design Review. 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:

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 should be minimized by specifically providing for each applicable mode of transportation. Handicapped access shall be provided as required by applicable statutes.

Yes. 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 DCSP 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-of-way.

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.

Yes. The proposed project is designed to step up from Crestview Drive and maintains the appearance of four levels consisting of a lower-level garage and living area across three upper-levels (including the ADU). The front (West) elevation is articulated with terracing and varied projections/offsets.

The proposed garage angled and is setback 14’-0” from the front property line at the shorter side, and 24’-4” at the other, longer side. The elevated deck on the second level is set back approximately 12’-6” from the front property line, and the living area (ADU) at this level is setback approximately 204
204 of 485
DR-25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433
4/10/2025

42 feet. The third level deck is situated on top of the second level living area, and the primary residence at this level is setback approximately 63 feet from the front property line. The fourth, uppermost level is situated at a similar setback as the third level but is offset appropriately by the employment of varied angles and projections. With a terraced design, and a relatively smaller building footprint of 1,523 square-feet, the design minimizes the appearance of mass 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.

Yes. 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 “face” features a limestone veneer, with parged concrete at each side. Board and batten siding is used for the exterior of the residence across the three upper levels and employs Cape Cod Blue, an earth blueish-green color. The proposed architectural style is eclectic and achieves harmony with the rustic 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 out-cropping, ridgelines and significant watercourses should be protected. Existing terrain should be utilized in the design and grading should be minimized.

Yes. 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 1313 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.

Yes. 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:
205
205 of 485
DR-25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433
4/10/2025

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 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 and siting the building further 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. Based on a site visit, it appears the neighbor’s existing landscaping effectively screens the proposed project and already impedes the ocean view.

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 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 1313 cubic yards which is 206
206 of 485
DR-25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433
4/10/2025

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 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.

N/A. The subject property is a vacant building site.

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.

Yes. 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 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. 207
207 of 485
DR-25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433
4/10/2025

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 (Attachment 2) 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.

Yes. 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. Similar to other residences in the neighborhood, the proposed building is integrated into the hillside. The applicant proposes a 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.

N/A. Design Review Criteria for Pedestrian Orientation is related to commercial development and is not applicable to the proposed residential 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.

Yes. Prior to the Concept Review hearing on May 9, 2024, staff received a public comment from a neighbor regarding the potential privacy issues the current project may cause. The neighbor located at 785 Gainsborough Dr, 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 site visits, it appears that existing landscaping at that neighbor’s property effectively screens the project site and eliminates the respective privacy concern. In response to the Board direction to increase screening to address the privacy concerns of the neighbor located to the South of the subject property, at 2100 Crestview 208
208 of 485
DR-25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433
4/10/2025

Drive, the applicant proposed additional landscaping consisting of two (2) Arbutus Unedo ‘Strawberry Trees’ as shown on the updated landscape plan (Sheet A-1.5) in Attachment 2.

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 residential 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 residential 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 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.

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/spa 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 private views are not anticipated. The project proposes a rear setback of 54 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 209
209 of 485
DR-25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433
4/10/2025

height of 15’ should not impede public or private views over the project site. Prior to the Concept Review Hearing on May 9, 2024, staff 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.

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.

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.

Yes. 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;
210
210 of 485
DR-25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433
4/10/2025

Yes. 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; Yes. 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 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 small height exceedance and watercourse setback variance and the design accommodates additional on-site private parking.

No. 3 | All necessary public improvements have been provided or will be required as conditions of approval;
Yes. 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) on-street 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 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 211
211 of 485
DR-25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433
4/10/2025

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 mitigation measures, if any, have been incorporated into the project or are attached as conditions of approval; Yes. 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 memo prepared 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
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.

With the concurrently sought height requirement modification, and a variance for not providing the required on-street public parking space [DCSP 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 sitespecific 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 212
212 of 485
DR-25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433
4/10/2025

that would warrant additional review or studies. The site is within the “Undifferentiated Uncertified and Certified Fill” geologic overlay. 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, which is a standard requirement for hillside developmentshall 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.

VARIANCE
The proposed new single-family residence requires the approval of the following variances because the proposed project encroaches into a into a significant watercourse setback [LBMC Section 25.50.030(D)(4)] and does not provide a required on street public parking space [D/CSP Section IV(J)(1)]. 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.

The lot is triangular and has a 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) that 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 walkable 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) on-street 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. 213
213 of 485
DR-25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433
4/10/2025

Only upon exhaustion of all possible alternatives to provide a parking space either on-street or onsite 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 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 (803 Gainsborough Drive) immediately above 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 nonexistent watercourse and City easements. 214
214 of 485
DR-25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433
4/10/2025

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 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 inlieu 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 the public.

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 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 City staff 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 215
215 of 485
DR-25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433
4/10/2025

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
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” 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 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. Manmade 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.

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT

The proposed new single-family residence 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. A Coastal Development Permit 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: 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.
216
216 of 485
DR-25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433
4/10/2025

Yes. 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 sensitive areas, or archaeological or paleontological resources.

Yes. 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.

Yes. 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 environmentally sensitive habitats and scenic resources located in adjacent parks and recreation areas, and will provide adequate buffer areas to protect such resources.

Yes. 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 217
217 of 485
DR-25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433
4/10/2025

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.

Yes. 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 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.

Yes. 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.

Yes. 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.

Yes. 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.

Yes. 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.

The project is consistent with all applicable policies of the Certified LCP. 218
218 of 485
DR-25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433
4/10/2025

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) 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 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 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, visitor-serving 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) are not affected due to the project being at a much lower elevation. Prior to the Concept Review Hearing on May 9, 2024, staff 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. 219
219 of 485
DR-25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433
4/10/2025

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) 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 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.).

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 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, staff 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.
220
220 of 485
DR-25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433
4/10/2025

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 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) 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.

THIRD HEARING FINDING:

This is the second hearing for the project. Per LBMC 25.05.040 (F)(5), Design review hearings on a proposed residential development project shall usually be limited to a maximum of two hearings. A third hearing may be permitted if the approval authority makes a finding that the applicant followed the authority's direction(s) from the initial hearing in good faith and further design work on the project is in the best interest of the community and the project. The approval authority may allow up to two continuances of hearings at which no substantive discussion of the application occurs. Concept review hearings for residential dwelling units of three units or less are not allowed, except where required by current City ordinance. If required, concept review shall be limited to one hearing and shall count as one of the above limited hearings.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project is categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 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. The proposed 221
221 of 485
DR-25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433
4/10/2025

project involves one single-family resident and attached two-car garage and is located in a residential zone.

Therefore, this project fits within a Class 3 exemption.

Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. The project site contains an environmentally sensitive drainage area that has been significantly modified and altered due to the installation of a City storm drain constructed on the adjacent contiguous property. 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. Therefore, the Project will not present significant 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 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 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 should the Project receive final approval.

RECOMMENDATION:

If the Design Review Board determines that the project is consistent with the design review criteria, then it is recommended that the Board, by motion, adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) approving Design Review 25-0431, Variance 25-0432, and Coastal Development Permit 25-0433 and finding said action exempt from CEQA.

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.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

As of the drafting of this report, staff has not received any public comments on the proposed project.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Attachment 1 – Resolution No. 25-0431
Attachment 2 – Plans
Attachment 3 – Certified Staking Plan
Attachment 4 – Color and Material Board
Attachment 5 – Colored Elevations and Renderings
Attachment 6 – Technical Studies, etc.

Attachment 7 –Volume Exhibit
222
222 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 41.00 571 559 823 754 1394 1313 PROJECT NUMBER 001 DATE 05.22 SCALE N/A4 DRB 07.10.24 4 4 4 44 (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 RET. WALL TO BE DEMOED IN THE CITY STREET R.O.W. DEMO DETAILS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENTS 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) 221.93 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 8'-4" 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 223
224
224 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 225
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"
226
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 4 DRB 07.10.24 4 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 :41.00% 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) 571 12559 823 69754 1394 811313 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' 1479 INCL.PUBLIC ROW 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' 227
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 4 DRB 07.10.24 4 4 4 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.06-30-2026 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 C032946/06.30.26 07.10.24 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 31.6 (see note 2) 115.5 22.2 110.0 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 228
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 4 DRB 07.10.24 4 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 ARBUTUS LINEDO (STRAWBERRY TREE) 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
229
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 230
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 231
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 232
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 233
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, &#20.) 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 234
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, &#20.) 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 235
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, &#20.) 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 236
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, &#20.) 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 237
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, &#20.) 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 238
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, &#20.) 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 239
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, &#20.) 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 240
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 241
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 242
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 243
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 244
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 245
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 246
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 247
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 248
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
249
Attachment 8
250
250 of 485
251
251 of 485
252
252 of 485
253
253 of 485
254
254 of 485
255
255 of 485
256
256 of 485
257
257 of 485
258
258 of 485
259
259 of 485
260
260 of 485
261
261 of 485
262
262 of 485
263
263 of 485
264
264 of 485
265
265 of 485
266
266 of 485
267
267 of 485
268
268 of 485
269
269 of 485
270
270 of 485
271
271 of 485
272
272 of 485
273
273 of 485
274
274 of 485
275
275 of 485
276
276 of 485
277
277 of 485
278
278 of 485
279
279 of 485
280
280 of 485
281
281 of 485
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript

Design Review Board Meeting, April 10, 2025
Design Review of Project located at 2058 Crestview Drive.

Chair Gibbs:

The next one, just rattling right through here, 5.3, which is 2058 Crestview Drive. And while they're coming up, can we do...

Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

Yes.

Chair Gibbs:

Where are they?
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

Let me do it.

Chair Gibbs:

Yeah, do ex-parte.

Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

So my ex-parte is I met with the applicant team. I believe his name was Mike. And I met with Steve Kawaratani and his client. What was his name?
Board Member Coveny:

Is the applicant team here?
Chair Gibbs:

His name isChair Pro Tem Gannon:

Whoever the neighbor is above.

Chair Gibbs:

Evgenii Krasko.

Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

Yes, I'm not even going to try to pronounce that name.

Attachment 9
282
282 of 485
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript

Board member Bauta:

I met with the same people as Jessica.

Chair Gibbs:

There he is. Come on up, Mike, you're on. Okay, go ahead Miss Coveny.

Board member Coveny:

Okay, so I'll do my ex parte. I'm Crestview, okay? I went by the site, I met with the neighbor.

Gosh, sorry, it's a very interesting name, and I can't ever say it right. Oh, Evgenii Krasko.

Chair Gibbs:

Oh.

Board member Coveny:

And I also spoke with the applicant, and emailed.

Chair Gibbs:

Imer?
Board member Bauta:

I met with the neighbor, Evgenii Krasko. Steve Kawaratani, and Mike the owner. *in audible*
Board member Weil:

This is a reoccurring hearing. I'd seen the site prior, and I saw it before I left town. I spoke to Steve Kawaratani, and I received correspondence.

Chair Gibbs:

All right, finally, I met the architect at the site. I also met with Mr. Krasko, and I spoke to Mr.

Kawaratani by telephone. With that said, could we have a staff report please? Shehriyar Khan (Associate Planner):

Hi, good afternoon, board members. This is item number 5.3 for Design Review 25-0431, Variance 25-0432, and Coastal Development Permit 25-0433.

Chair Gibbs:
283
283 of 485
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript

Hold on a second till Ms. Gannon comes in.

Shehriyar Khan (Associate Planner):

Sure.

Chair Gibbs:

Forgot that she wasn't here. It was so quiet, I should've known.

Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

It's a party out there.

Chair Gibbs:

Okay, go ahead, thank you.

Shehriyar Khan (Associate Planner):

All right, I'll restart. Good afternoon, board members. This is item number 5.3 for Design Review 25-0431, Variance Number 25-0432, and Coastal Development Permit 25-0433 for a new single-family dwelling located at 2058 Crestview Drive. A concept review hearing took place for this project on the 9th of May, 2024. And this evening's hearing is the second meeting on the project. To provide a recap, the proposed new single-family dwelling is a four-level structure which includes an attached two-car garage, an attached ADU, the primary residence across two levels and three elevated decks. For some reason, there's a delay in the slides. I quickly just wanted to point out that the walls that you see at the southern portion of the image being shared are not entirely accurate in the rendering, and I'll touch upon that later in the presentation.

So, at the concept review hearing last year, the board directed the applicant to explore colors and materials to make the project more rustic to promote neighborhood compatibility, to increase landscaping as a solution to address privacy concerns, and increase grading excavation to better integrate the project into the hillside and reduce the overall appearance of mass of the development. The board also conveyed that the variance request to encroach into the significantly modified water core setback was reasonable as there was no environmental value to protect. In response to board feedback, the applicant has revised a previously proposed exterior color of the residence to the previous white exterior color of the residence to Cape Cod Blue, an earthy bluish-green color, and the lower-level garage face now features a limestone veneer with parched concrete at each 284
284 of 485
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript

side. The applicant has also proposed additional landscaping along the south property line, highlighted here in yellow, to address the respective adjoining neighbors' privacy concerns, and these landscape changes consist of two strawberry trees 15 feet in height which will provide screening. Staff would like to provide clarification regarding some language used in the staff report that regretfully presented information inaccurately on page six of the staff report. Staff states that the design is further pushed into the hillside as requested. Staff understands that this language may have implied that this siting had been altered, which it hasn't. In actuality, the applicant utilized a software program that provides a more accurate representation of the amount of grading taking place, in that the updated calculation is a correction representing an increase of 327 cubic yards of net export from the previously calculated volume. The applicant has provided a grading exhibit that shows approximately 54% of the volume of the project being above grade, and 46% below grade, thus demonstrating that a significant portion of the project is below grade and has been appropriately graded.

As you can see on the north elevation, part of the structure is 31.2 feet in height, exceeding the permitted height by 2.2 feet. The DCSP allows the board to modify the height requirement when site topography makes such modification unavoidable and when the proposed development maintains view sheds, air, light, and privacy and neighborhood character. Current site conditions indicate the presence of a manmade V gutter ditch, which is a remnant of a drain system that was installed more than 40 years ago as a temporary measure. In order to develop near the edge of the ditch, it is necessary for the permitted height to be exceeded, and the request for the increased height is limited to an area where the development approaches the existing V ditch. With the concurrently sought variances, the project is consistent and complies with the Design Review Criteria, General Plan, Design Guidelines for a Hillside Development, and Diamond-Crestview Specific Plan.

A mapped water course runs along the north of the property line. The existing water course has been significantly modified due to the installation of a city storm drain constructed on the adjacent contiguous property. Based on hydrology reports for the subject property, no impacts to the significant modified water course are anticipated. At prior hearings, board members indicated that they could make the findings for the water course encroachment variance.

One significant change that has taken place that has been made since the concept review hearing is the addition of a variance request to not provide the required Diamond-Crestview Specific Plan on-street public parking space. To satisfy the requirement, the applicant had proposed two on-street public parking spaces at different locations. The first parking space shown here towards the left, upper left, was found infeasible due to the inadequate 285
285 of 485
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript

pavement width by the Public Works Department. After coordination with the Public Works Department and Planning Division, the applicant proposed a second potential parking space, shown on the top right, and, my apologies, will identify further to the west of the site, and was close to the 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. Additionally, any reduction in lane width with a provision of a new public on-street parking space would impede emergency fire access based on input from the City Fire Marshal. Potential public parking space was identified across the subject property, approximate to 2025 Crestview, was also examined, and also deemed infeasible due to the need to construct a pretty high retaining wall and the loss of existing vegetation creating privacy issues for that property owner. 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, which is a standard parking space and an additional compact parking space. So 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.

As detailed in the staff report, the project is in compliance with all of the development standards of the Diamond-Crestview Specific Plan, with the exception of the permitted height, for which a height modification is being requested, and the on-street public parking space, for which a variance is being sought. Findings for all respective variances can be made. The project is in conformance with all applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program. Staff recommends that the board conduct a public hearing and that the board adopt Resolution Number 25-0431, approving Design Review 25-0431, Variance 25- 0432, CDP 25-0433, and finding said action exempt from CEQA. Staff has also received multiple correspondence, which has been made available to the board, regarding view activity, privacy concerns, and concerns regarding the proposed demolishing of the wall along the south property line that encroaches into the public right of way. This concludes staff's report, and we are available to answer questions, thank you.

Chair Gibbs:

Okay, board, any questions of staff? MJ, none?
Board member Weil:

Chair.
286
286 of 485
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript

Chair Gibbs:

Louis, go ahead.

Board member Weil:

So, just to be clear, the project didn't, like itself, didn't change a whole lot in comparison to where it was in our first hearing, in the concept review. The coloring really changed, and the stonework changed the exterior, but from square footage and location on the lot, can you help me? I was struggling to see those changes.

Shehriyar Khan (Associate Planner):

Yes, overall, yeah, the siding has not changed, the setbacks remain the same, and the project has not shifted. The significant changes that have taken place are the change in color and material, increased the provision of the additional landscaping, and the addition of the variance request for the parking space.

Board member Weil:

Okay, thank you.

Chair Gibbs:

Is there any lack of clarity regarding the interface between the property to the south and the applicant's property regarding the retaining wall and the parking? Shehriyar Khan (Associate Planner):

Yes, so staff did some research regarding the existing wall that's encroaching into the public right of way. The applicant is proposing to demolish a portion of the wall that encroaches into the right of way in order to expand the existing lane width and paving, which is part of the requirements of Diamond-Crestview Specific Plan when you're constructing a new project, which requires carving out from the topography, so just to sort of keep it in line. In this case, the existing wall is proving to be a little problematic, considering it holds up the neighbor at 2100 Crestview's fire access. So staff has been discussing this internally, and we will not be in support of demolishing the wall, considering it would be impacting fire access for the neighbor to the south. However, after discussing with the Public Works Department and Building and Safety, the consensus is that there would need to be a mutual agreement between the two parties on how to address this problem. Public Works has signed off on the possibility of the wall not being demolished and paving being provided around the wall, thereby just maintaining the existing condition. 287
287 of 485
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript

And part of that would essentially require the applicant to then propose a wall, sort of on his side of the property line, to encroach into the public right of way, to be in line and maintain the structural integrity of the existing wall.

Chair Gibbs:

And that would preserve the parking from Mr. Sotto's property to the south and allow the two-car parking, the standard and the compact, in the applicant's property? Shehriyar Khan (Associate Planner):

That is correct.

Chair Gibbs:

Okay, I would like you to address that in your comments as well, please. So I hopeShehriyar Khan (Associate Planner):

I would like to, if you'll allow me, we're prepared to add that as a condition for the revocable encroachment permit for the applicant, and in addition to, unless they come to a mutual agreement, and I can defer to the planning manager to elaborate on that.

Chair Gibbs:

Just so it's clear, and we'll get on with the hearing, the condition that you are suggesting would be that they come to a mutual agreement on how that works? Shehriyar Khan (Associate Planner):

The condition we would be placing is for the applicant to propose a revocable encroachment permit at a later date that we can process through the admin DR process, and that, unless they come to a mutual agreement, which would involve demolishing the wall and certain design changes to Mr. Sotto's property, unless they come to an agreement, we would be asking for an REP.

Chair Gibbs:

Okay, thank you.

Board member Coveny:

I have one quick question, and related to this. The Sottos' property, that wall, it's obviously in public area then if it's, does it have a revocable encroachment permit related to it or... 288
288 of 485
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript

Shehriyar Khan (Associate Planner):

No, so staff did some background research, and we could not locate any REP that was processed and/or approved for it. However, some building plans do indicate the presence of that wall, implying that it was reviewed, and it was, city was fine with them constructing the wall.

Chair Gibbs:

Yeah, part of the problem is the fire access to keep that. All right, any other questionsBoard member Weil:

Patrick, so just because someone built into the right of way, and whether they have an encroachment permit or not, it's still the public space, right? The public can take it back and widen the street, is that correct, Patrick?
Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):

Correct, yeah, just because someone builds it does not alter its fundamentalBoard member Weil:

Location.

Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):

Correct, yeah.

Chair Gibbs:

Alrighty, any other questions of staff? With that, I open the public hearing. We'll start with the applicant. You have five minutes.

David Freeland (Architect):

Okay, and you have slides, yes? First, thank you so much for that very detailed report. It actually takes much of the burden off my presentation, and I think that actually some of the slides are exact duplicates of yours, so we maybe can skip through a few things, but wanna address that wall, of course. My name is David Freeland. I'm the architect for the project.

Owner sitting just behind me. If any questions come up, I'm sure we can also call his expertise to this. And so I think that the, okay, but I was gonna simply start, and we don't need a slide for this, that we've been working on the developments of this design for a number of years to assure that it responds to the Diamond-Crestview Specific Plan, and 289
289 of 485
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript

the interest and concerns of the community. The project was first reviewed in 2013, has been modified multiple times since then in response to public comment and the board, and reduced from an initial 3,600 square feet to only 2,000 square feet thereabouts. So definitely responsive and attentive to these concerns. And then I was going to point out in the second slide, which was a survey, just that, again, that the site is quite constrained.

Yeah, here's the slide. It's a super constrained site, in part because of the cross slope, which is unusual, so high on the south side, low on the north side. So this is something that makes this project unusual. Also, the width of the parcel is only 40 feet at the street. This is to point out that constrained situation. And sure, I don't know if you can zoom in actually on the wall. We can address that condition right now, possibly on this slide. If you zoom in, yeah, south all the way to the left, you can see the presence of that wall, and also marked here is the fire access for the adjacent property to the south. This is the condition right here. And so I think the indication that the wall can remain, you can see the angle that it takes, and the way it restricts in some ways the width of the required drive, but that this encroachment on the width of the drive is actually quite minor. And my understanding is this would have to be reviewed as part of the Building and Safety plan check process, and also approved by Public Works, so this is not a final say on this matter is my understanding, but that shows that that condition also, they needed fire access that needs to be maintained. We can keep going here. This is a slide that I had showed in the last presentation, also points out just how sunk into the site the house is. So these are, this is the front elevation on the left, and on the right is a section taken through the middle of the site, and you can see exactly what it means. Those percentages that have been shown, by the percentage of the house that is below grade, it really is buried substantially into the ground, which carries with it diminished opportunities for sight lines, of course, but also increased cost in terms of export of dirt. Can go to the next. Yeah, and there's definite design intention here to minimize the scale in relation to the surrounding houses, and break up the scale also through a series of volumes instead of a single massive one. And the materials that were used, that was noted, the stone on the face of the garage, also acts to further diminish that scale. There's been notes about the contemporary sort of aesthetics and style, and just wanted to point out that this is a character that's not unfamiliar to the area, and these are two adjacent neighbors at 812 and 831 Gainsborough that have similar kind of qualities to them, so not foreign to the neighborhood at all. Go to the next slide. This is showing side-by-side the changes from the previous presentation.

This one, the difference in color, the difference in materials, and that new kind of Cape Cod Blue. Thank you for showing the slide already, and just showing further detail about those materials, and the cement board siding that's being shown here as well. One thing that 290
290 of 485
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript

wasn't mentioned is the concern about privacy that had come up in the last meeting, and in response to that, several different landscape elements have been added. And this was in concern particularly to 785 Gainsborough and 2100 Crestview. It's a little hard to see, but 785 Gainsborough, which is northeast of the site, is over 50 feet away, soChair Pro Tem Gannon:

And in conclusion? Sorry.

Chair Gibbs:

Light go off?
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

Yes.

David Freeland (Architect):

Oh, I did this last time as well.

Chair Gibbs:

Oh, I didn't notice it.

Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

You'll have three minutes to speakChair Gibbs:

At the end.

David Freeland:

Okay, very good.

Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

It did, twice.

David Freeland (Architect):

I think we covered most everything.

Chair Gibbs:
291
291 of 485
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript

Okay, yeah, all right, so now I open it to the public. Each person has three minutes to speak, and try to keep your comments to three minutes. Okay, come on up.

Evgenii Kraskow (Neighbor):

Can I have my slides?
Shehriyar Khan (Associate Planner):

Just wanted to bring to everyone's attention that there is a slight delay due to the internet being a little weak. So there might be a slight delay in shifting to the slides.

Patrick Donegan (Assistant City Attorney):

But yes, if you just want to hang tight until your slides come up.

Chair Gibbs:

Yeah, your time won't start until the slide's up. Okay, go ahead.

Evgenii Kraskow (Neighbor):

Okay, good evening, Chair, and good evening, members of the Design Review Board. My name is Evgenii Krasko, and I own the property at 785 Gainsborough Drive, directly adjacent to the proposed construction. I have three main concerns regarding this building, views, privacy, and neighborhood compatibility. Next slide, please. Regarding views, the building will block the beautiful view of Catalina Island from my master bedroom. The DiamondCrestview Specific Plan guidelines mentioned Catalina as a prominent object whose views are to be preserved. Moreover, another guideline says avoid catching the horizon line if possible. Is it possible here? Absolutely, this could be achieved by relatively minor changes, such as relocating the building some 10 feet back, increasing grading, or reducing the height of the structure by adjusting the slope of the driveway or lowering the 16-foot-tall garage. Many of these suggestions were made by the board during the concept review hearing. The next issue is privacy. Next slide, please. The building includes four windows on its north elevation, placed on a large siding wall. All of them directly face my guest bedroom. I had to get this slide from the concept review plans because the rendering was removed from the new deck, presumably to hide the non-compliance with the guideline against using large expanses of a single material. It is still accurate because despite the extensive DRB comments, nothing has changed aside from the building's color. Next slide, please. The choice of materials still does not meet the quality and style of the surrounding buildings. Only the front facade received some brick treatment. Again, the DiamondCrestview Specific Plan characterizes such an approach as unacceptable. So I was 292
292 of 485
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript

wondering why would the applicant not make the changes requested by the DRB given that they're not difficult to implement? And I think I know the answer. This project is not being designed here. It has already been designed, and it was not designed for DiamondCrestview. This house already exists. It is located in Mount Washington in LA. Next slide.

Here it is. You can easily find it on Google Maps. The current project is not a similar house, it is the same house. Next slide. While there is nothing inherently wrong with building a copy of a successful project, do you think the designers of the 2018 LA building on the left considered the Diamond-Crestview Specific Plan, or did they have the foresight to place the windows and organized spaces in a way that would preserve the privacy of the property surrounding this Crestview lot in Laguna Beach? Next slide. It is a bold and interesting building, but it was designed for an entirely different setting, with no buildings in close proximity, with no privacy concerns for neighbors, and not for a rustic neighborhood. By building a direct copy, the applicant is cutting corners, not relocating even a single window or balcony, and separately, not even maintaining the staking properly, which is constantly losing string lines or bending. Next slide. Therefore I urge you to enforce the guidelines of Laguna Beach, and request that the applicant makes an honest effort to actually design this building with consideration for the specific context of this site and in accordance with the neighborhood's guidelines. Thank you.

Chair Gibbs:

Thank you, next.

Edward Sotto (Neighbor):

Congratulations, by the way. Don't start the time yet, thank you. I'm going to put these documents here. This is the letter I sent. I don't knowChair Gibbs:

Give it to the clerk, please.

Edward Sotto (Neighbor):

Here you go. Just so you can refer in greater detail, 'cause three minutes, not a lot of time.

Chair Gibbs:

Okay, please begin.

Edward Sotto (Neighbor):
293
293 of 485
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript

Hello, I'm Edward Sotto. I represent the family, oh, first slide, please. I have to have my slides up. There we go. Just leave it right there. Hello, I'm Edward Sotto, I represent the family of four that lives at 2100 Crestview Drive. Next slide, please. The closest neighbor to the proposed development at 2058. Well, the board conditionally approved the advancement of the design in the last meeting. We've only seen a few minor things addressed, and still believe not enough has been done to comply with the higher standards of the Diamond-Crestview design guidelines. While we did meet in good faith with the homeowner recently at the site, it was clear that little had changed beyond the board's directives in compliance with guidelines, at least that's what we saw. The call, I still feel the angled sighting, next slide, please, of the home is driving an unnecessary impact, revoking the permit to a driveway, resulting in loss of two parking spaces. Next slide, please. There, you can see the cars in the driveway there. The red represents the loss there, and the guidelines say driveways provide the majority of the parking for residents, which, in addition to the removal of eight feet, according to them, of retaining wall that creates a sense of place and separation of our two homes. I never dreamed that accommodating a neighbor would mean the destruction and loss of parking and facade to my own home. To lose the driveway is to make it virtually impossible for a family with four vehicles to even live here. It's kind of a do-or-die situation. I believe that adjusting the garage sighting to perhaps not cross our exit path, next slide, please, at the functional turning and radius of the fire.

Please, next slide. I know I'm going quickly there. Yeah, I just looked at a fire chart there, and it looks like everything widens in the turn, not on the straightaway, so maybe this could be studied. Obviously, we're not going to solve it here. Colors and materials have changed.

Next slide, please. And while the stone is a welcome addition, the color seems out of compliance with the guideline that seeks to enhance the rustic nature of the neighborhood, and materials should not be artificial. I feel that the facade, while is modern, is almost in defiance of the goals, in that they visually look more like shipping containers than something that seeks to blend into the terrain, and material, as is Hardie board, which is a cement panel that simulates wood, another deviation from the authenticity called for. Item four, a harmonious mixture of materials, colors, and forms that was used in the natural hillsides. It also calls out artificial surfaces in that code. As for privacy, next slide, please, windows looking directly into my fire pit area is the only thing we have. I was told additional planting would be provided. I mean it's an incredibly tiny planter, but no material change, even though the board identified these things as concern to be resolved. I'll just jump to the chase here. We all have a right to develop land, doing so in a way that enhances the nature of the neighborhood per its own higher standards is part of the stewardship of the city. I look forward to progress being made in bringing this project 294
294 of 485
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript

into compliance with the rustic nature of the Diamond-Crestview area, and I apologize for reading so fast.

Chair Gibbs:

Thank you.

Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

Coming from New York, I love it.

Edward Sotto (Neighbor):

Huh?
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

I said, "Coming from New York, I love it."
Edward Sotto (Neighbor):

Thank you.

Chair Gibbs:

And you got everything in.

Edward Sotto (Neighbor):

I tried.

Chair Gibbs:

Mr. Kawaratani, please. Go ahead.

Steve Kawaratani:

Could you cue me? Oh, you already queued me up. Steve Kawaratani, good evening, Chair Gibbs, board members, staff. I consulted with Mike about 12 or 13 years ago, and I'm very relieved that we're both still alive. You know, it's a good thing. This project, as far as massing, is superior to what he presented all those years ago, but there is always room for improvement, and basically, my concerns have to do with view and privacy. So without getting into a lot of detail, I don't believe that the project is in compliance with the Diamond-Crestview Specific Plan design guidelines. I don't believe that it meets the DRB design guidelines, specifically, view. It violates Land Use Policy 2.10, and I'll read the quote.

You need to make a finding that basically coastal views are not compromised. And finally, 295
295 of 485
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript

I'm not sure that the board can make the finding, I know that I can't, allow 2.25, or 2.2 feet, in excess of the maximum allowed in Diamond-Crestview because it is not protecting coastal views nor privacy. Next slide. What I'd like to suggest is that the architect and Mike consider moving the upper level back. As Evgenii said before, it's not a real difficult fix to get most of that program out of his Catalina view. So I do recommend that that upper level move back, and it will be in greater compliance with the hillside guidelines. Last slide. I looked at the landscape plan pretty carefully, and although I think that the applicant addressed some of the privacy concerns for the property to the south, for us, if you look at the landscape plan carefully, there really isn't ample room for the landscape architect to provide any kind of mitigation, both to the massing and to the windows. So if there could be a slight shift to allow room other than the firefighters' access, I think that would go a long way as to satisfying the view concerns. Thank you.

Chair Gibbs:

Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? All right, applicant, you have a three-minute reply.

David Freeland (Architect):

Thank you. Actually, are there, can we go back to the slides again? And I'm glad that you showed that landscape plan because that's why I was going to return to. There were five strawberry trees that were added subsequent to the last review to address those privacy concerns. You can skip to there, and also actually to the rendered slide that is just before it, or after, my apologies. There we go. So here you'll see the proposal before and after, and the additional trees have been provided along the south side. There are also, if you go back to the plan, three strawberry trees, large ones, across the backside of the property, which is meant to mitigate the view for property owners to the east, including 785 Gainsborough, which is, I mentioned, is over 50 feet away from the house. I think that the concerns about the height of the house can also be addressed in relation to the drainage course that was constructed there. That terrace drain actually raised the grade across the north side of the site. And so the measurement taken from that raised grade, as a result of that construction in the easement, should not really impact negatively the property owner, at least so says the document on title for this parcel. And addressing, finally, this question of difficult sites is something that I've worked on quite a bit. I appreciate the recognition of other previous work, but this site is a phenomenally difficult one at only 40 feet in width, and with such a difficult cross slope. And I think that the concerns that have been raised here were actively part of the design process and things that were considered. And I can only say that we're doing our best to mitigate all of these different pressures on the project, as is the case with any of these kinds of difficult sites. Thank you.
296
296 of 485
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript

Chair Gibbs:

Okay, at this time, board questions of the applicant or staff.

Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

I have a question. What are your plate heights for each floor? David Freeland (Architect):

In relation to the garage, or?
Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

I couldn't see when I was looking at the plans. I couldn't see, I tried to go to each floor to see where the plate heights, what your plate heights. Are they 10 feet, 9 feet, 8.5? David Freeland (Architect):

They're 10 feet, with the exception of the garage, which, because the site is so steep, we need a taller floor-to-floor there.

Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

Okay.

Board member Weil:

That's the chair orDavid Freeland (Architect):

The top, yeah, the top.

Chair Gibbs:

Mister, just a second. Mr. Weil, please, your questions? Board member Weil:

I was going to ask that same question that Ms. Gannon was asking. I think, is it on a 8.0? If that can be brought up, I mean, I think the plate heights I'm seeing are 16' 1" for the garage level, 9' 10 5/8" for the first level, 9' 10 5/8" for the second level, and 8' 6" for the third level, or the fourth level. I just wanted to get that verified.

David Freeland (Architect):
297
297 of 485
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript

Yeah, that is correct. So as I mentioned, the floor-to-floor from the garage to the next level up, for the first level, is over the 10 feet, and then the other two are just under 10 feet. The top one has been lowered because of height concerns.

Chair Gibbs:

All right, I have two questions. First, what's the amount of export that I think was shown, but I wasn't sure what the right figure was, total amount of export do you anticipate? Is it, I saw the number 13.

David Freeland (Architect):

Yeah, it's also civil, 1,300 cubic yards.

Chair Gibbs:

Okay, then the second, do your plans call for any change or impact on the retaining wall with the Sottos to the, you know, to the south of the property? We saw, I think it was a picture you showed, with the existing retaining wall, and you heard Sotto's comments about losing a parking place there, which I don't understand if you're not touching the retaining wall, so could you comment on that?
David Freeland (Architect):

So we're taking the existing grade at the property line and retaining everything from that elevation down. It's not meant to impede the existing retaining wall that's in place. And that would be the intention as we were to lay the wall out onsite. Structurally speaking, it's meant to retain the earth and anything behind it, including the adjacent house.

Chair Gibbs:

All right, again, I'm not sure I understood. There's an existing retaining wall that's just, you know, adjacent to the Sottos' driveway. Is that being touched in your plans? David Freeland (Architect):

No.

Chair Gibbs:

Okay, so, I assume, based on that, you're not going to impede the two-car parking that he has in front of his garage?
David Freeland (Architect):
298
298 of 485
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript

No, I think that wall, and staff mentioned that that was going to remain in place.

Chair Gibbs:

Is that correct?
Shehriyar Khan (Associate Planner):

I can clarify. So there is a proposal to remove the portion of the wall that's encroaching into the public right of way. And the applicant proposed that for the street widening and paving.

However, after consulting with Public Works, they would be fine with that wall remaining and the paving taking place around that wall. I think what Mr. Sotto perhaps may be alluding to, regarding the loss of parking spaces, because technically, the parking spaces that he's referring to in the driveway, they're non-compliant. Half of them are within the public right of way. But if this wall is demolished, that would require changes to their fire safety access stairs. And if those are tilted towards Mr. Sotto's driveway, that may have a potential of blocking access to one of his garage spaces. However, as I mentioned earlier, there, I think staff believes there's room for a mutual understanding to take place between the two property owners. Staff would like that wall to remain. However, if they come to an understanding that requires some sort of redesigning of the fire access stairs and also demolishing part of the wall within the public right of way, we would be in support of that.

Chair Gibbs:

So the condition which we can impose is that that retaining wall be maintained as is, and that condition would be subject to a mutual agreement between the homeowners? Shehriyar Khan (Associate Planner):

Sure, and I can defer to the planning manager regarding that. We had aChair Gibbs:

That would work.

James Campbell (Interim Planning Manager):

Sure, maybe we'll take a quick step back here. You know, that wall was created when the house next door was constructed several decades ago. A portion of that wall extends out into the public right of way. And I think the plans are difficult to see exactly what's going on, but I think there was a proposal at the time maybe to cut it off at the property line. And what 299
299 of 485
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript

we've learned is that the existing wall holds up, you know, the fire access stairway that leads to the Sottos' house, so it needs to remain. And so I think the applicant's proposal, the wall that they're proposing, needs to extend all the way out to cover and to support that existing access stair. And that plan for that wall extension, if you will, isn't really part of the plans, at least it's not very clear that it's part of the plans. And the construction of that wall extension, again, to hold up the Sottos' property and that staircase, would require a revocable encroachment permit, which is not part of our application here today.

Chair Gibbs:

Okay, we haven't seen any plans with this wall, but would that wall in any way encroach or interfere with the current parking on Mr. Sotto's property? James Campbell (Interim Planning Manager):

It wouldn't, it would be in front of the applicant's property.

Chair Gibbs:

So, and also in front of the access stairs, you know, in other words, north of the access stairs.

James Campbell (Interim Planning Manager):

Yeah, it would be parallel to the access stairs and on the applicant's property or in the public right of way in front of the applicant's property. And that wall extension, if you will, to support that stairway, really needs to be there because, again, it's a fire access stair for the neighbor's property. And while that design isn't here, we feel it's a pretty minor component, Public Works is acceptable to have that, and if that wall were created, it wouldn't have an effect on the parking and the driveways of either property, the Sottos' property or the applicant's property. The thought about maybe modifying and pulling that wall back, if that were to happen, we really would need both property owners to agree to that change. They would need a permit from the city to remove the wall, but the hard part is getting the access stairs to turn around and allow access for the fire department. Now, if that was an alternative, sure, we can explore that in the future, but I think, for today, to make it simpler, you know, we just have to make sure the wall is part of the final construction drawings, supports the Sottos' wall, that the wall wouldn't be changed from the perspective of the Sottos, and parking in both driveways would be provided for, and I think we can move forward with this project tonight with a minor condition change, that the applicant get a revocable encroachment permit. It would be an administrative Design Review, and that the design of that wall be consistent with the project that you see before you today. And we 300
300 of 485
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript

have a draft condition for that if you would like to see it. And then we can, in essence, deal with the design of that small, little wall encroachment in the public right of way, you know, prior to the issuance of a building permit. Now if the board wants to continue this item, we can include that with the next hearing.

Chair Gibbs:

Okay, we'll deal with that in deliberations. Thank you for a very clear and thorough, you know, explanation that's answered my questions. Any other questions before we close the public hearing? Go ahead.

Board member Weil:

Sorry if it sounds like I'm interrupting, I'm just trying to, there's no like, raise hand button.

On that same line of questioning, like it's a bit of a challenge, and I think in my own processing on this, I get the old house was built the way it was, there was all this undeveloped neighboring properties. They're holding up the hillside at the time of their development. However, there's still a component that it encroaches into the right of way, and these are still impaired streets up in Diamond-Crestview that, yes, there needs to be a better evaluation of that. But, sorry, where I'm going with the question is, just because the wrong component of the past developments, it shouldn't hinder the right kind of development for the right of ways as we go forward. How does Public Works kind of evaluate that component, you know, with regards to this kind of wall and/or the application of this project? I mean, they shouldn't develop out into the right of way, or I guess where I'm coming from is this new project shouldn't build a wall to go catch up to that one, and now we still have these bigger impairments. Does that make sense? I'm not articulating thatChair Gibbs:

I'm not sure I, I understand, but staff, have any comment on that? I mean, I think it's very clear that to do the retaining wall on the applicant's side is going to require a revocable encroachment permit. The one on the right that's existing either had one or is grandfathered in for some reason, that's how I read it. Go ahead.

James Campbell (Interim Planning Manager):

I'll take a crack at a response. I really can't respond for Public Works, but, you know, we have a situation where the Sottos' property, that house was built, the wall was necessary at the time to hold up the adjacent property, right, to hold up the slope, and the fire access were provided in that location, and it was permitted by the city, although there was no revocable encroachment permit done at the time. This was about two decades ago or so. 301
301 of 485
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript

And so, in this respect, while it does now become an impediment to kind of cleaning up the right of way, I agree with Board Member Weil, it would be preferable to not have these encroachments widen the whole street. But I think, in this case, you know, it exposes those parking spaces. They would actually then be backing out into maybe a future travel lane.

And we do need to maintain that staircase in order to provide safety for the Sottos' property.

And so, we did have a conversation with Public Works staff. They are agreeable to just leave it in place. Now, clearly, that requires the applicant to retain the earth that's under that staircase on their property, as well as in front of their property in the right of way, so that the staircase hits the ground. And in that design, we've got, you know, in essence, driveways for both properties side-by-side, and we can have, you know, two parking spaces in each one.

And I think it's a design that Public Works is agreeable to, and while it's not ideal, I think, you know, it represents the best we can do with the existing condition, and we support that change.

Chair Gibbs:

Yeah, let me, the bottom line is this is existing condition, and we don't have anything else in front of us for an alternative condition. Maybe this answers your question, Louis. So I think we address this in deliberations.

Board member Coveny:

And let me just add to that, Chair, that it sounds like it's important then that we try to find a solution tonight, assuming we approve the project, that's amenable to both parties, as opposed, 'cause the city could just come in and say we're just going to take it all up and, you know, but they're making a compromise. So it's just something to consider.

Chair Gibbs:

Let's address that in deliberation.

Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

I can start with comments, okay.

Chair Gibbs:

Yeah, why don't you go ahead, Jess.

Chair Pro Tem Gannon:
-Okay, so that brings302
302 of 485
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript

Chair Gibbs:

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. I close the public hearing, go ahead.

Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

Need a little hammer. So back to Jim Campbell's comments, that gives me the access. This board had already made the precedents with 806 Gainsborough to require two standard parking spaces. And this location is a hairier turn than what is in front of the 806 Gainsborough. So for me, access for public safety, for whoever lives in that home's safety, I'm going to require two 18-feet parking spaces. And then also for the character of the neighborhood, I agree with the neighbor, it looks like two stacked containers or three stacked containers. It's not really compliant with the Design Review guidelines for that neighborhood. So I'd like to take another look at that. View consideration, the master bedroom, in my view, my point of view is when your construction significantly covers a primary view like a Catalina view, in my mind, that devalues the property of the neighbor. So I'd like to see that corrected, and leave it to the board to say whatever.

Board member Coveny:

Okay, you finished, Jessica?
Board member Weil:

You'reChair Gibbs:

Right before you go, Louis.

Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

Well, let Louis talk 'cause he is the board. Okay.

Chair Gibbs:

I've got a question for you before we go on. My recollection of 806 is they were not standard, and I heard that from Steve and I heard from you, and those, in my recollection, that was one of the problems I had is they were not standard, soChair Pro Tem Gannon:

Right, but we made them make it standard.

Chair Gibbs:
303
303 of 485
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript

No.

Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

They pushed the house back five feet to make it standard.

Chair Gibbs:

No, they pushed it back, and it still was not standard, but it allowed two feet, you know, enough for two relatively small cars. Just for the record, they're not standard, but that was my recollection. You have a different one, but...

Chair Pro Tem Gannon:

They were standard 18 feet.

Chair Gibbs:

Anyway, go ahead Mr. Louis, or Mr. Weil.

Board member Weil:

I mean, that site, I mean, yeah, there's a lot of similarities between that site that Board Member Gannon's referring, and I think it's something that really needs to kind of be looked at 'cause obviously, we tried to make some things work, but I recall that that project was maybe only 22 feet wide, not, you know, 40, so similar kind of pie shape component in the design of this lot, but yeah, I do concur with Board Member Gannon that the driveway really does need to accommodate the parking, especially if there is no off-street parking, you know, afforded in the area. I'd like to see a better review of that or, in exchange, see public benefit done, where the widening of the street does create some improvements. This turn is a really tight turn I think for the fire trucks, the Amazon trucks, the garbage trucks. It's a really good hairpin turn up in Diamond-Crestview, and it does need the right improvements as more homes come in there. It doesn't mean that's entirely the burden of just this one application, but I definitely need to see that better laid out in order to move forward with this project. That also concurs with kind of the access and the concerns with the Sotto project. I just think there's too much gray in the way it's being proposed or what's written in front of us of how you're going to solve this problem. I'd like to see a much stronger review or some creative solutions and/or some potential agreements amongst the two property owners for what works for them. I do want to see the street widen, but I do recognize that the non-conformity exists on the neighboring property, and at this hearing, I can't, you know, condition things that affect a neighboring parcel. Obviously, we can affect the right of way, but I don't think that's well spelled out and solved. And I think one component that 304
304 of 485
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript

also is driving that is the way the garage is oriented. I almost think the garage needs to be oriented a little bit more towards the curve of the street to kind of provide that better angling. I don't know if in that encroachment area, we can do the driveways. I'm assuming the pipe's underground 'cause it runs under the road, that you could make some maybe access improvements in that space that I think benefits the public, your access, and that kind of that as well. It was mentioned in the applicant's beginning that like grading was significant. I mean my challenge with that is like the cost of the grading isn't part of our Design Review criteria. It's how do we fit the right structure in the right zone. So I mean I think we gave pretty clear direction last time that there were grading that needed to be addressed, and I don't see that in this second hearing to have been fixed for the rear portion of this structure. You kind of have an offset, as I look at the cross-sections of this, that, you know, maybe lowering plate heights, the garage plate height's too significant, you know, more of the house could sit into the hillside and better follow the hillside guidelines to preserve those views. Diamond-Crestview as a specific plan has more spelled out that those views are more protected in this zone, and that conversation was well articulated I think in the first hearing. And I don't think that's addressed in the second one. Plus we have the neighbor comments. Letters were pretty much identical to what the first hearing was for the neighbors up on Gainsborough, and I don't see that addressed here. I need that fixed. Staking concerns were an issue last time. You know, when I went up there, it was a little loose. I'd like to see if this does come back for a third hearing if it's warranted, that that stake can be really cleanly done to really help the lines because there is a close analysis of that view preservation. Yeah, so I think, in conclusion, I'm not supportive of the project this evening. It needs more dialing, it needs more issues fixed. There wasn't enough from the first hearing to the second hearing.

Chair Gibbs:

Okay, MJ.

Board member Coveny:

Thank you. I concur with that, to the most part. I don't think moving the driveway will make a difference in how you enter it on that hairpin. That's a hairpin, everybody drives up there pretty slow because that whole area is tough. I think that Sotto's house, their cars actually are in the right of way when they park in their driveway. So everybody's gotta give a little in this world up there, and I don't think you should be heavily penalized for that. It'd be great if you can get two standard cars on the driveway, whether that takes pushing it back, eating something out of the AD, whatever's behind there, or grading a little more just to get a couple more feet is all I think you need. Otherwise, side-by-side's fine, and you're out of the 305
305 of 485
Design Review Meeting, April 10, 2025
Hearing Transcript