409 Pearl Street APN #

Transcription

1 CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: January 12,2012 TO: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT/DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CASE: Design Review Variance 7716 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: PREPARED BY: Derek Wolf, Designer 409 Pearl Street APN # In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section that allows alterations to a historic structure as long as it complies with the Secretary of Interior Standards. Nancy Csira, Principal Planner REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant requests design review for modifications to a prior design review approval and alterations to a " C" rated historic property. The proposed modifications include converting 114 square-feet of garage area to living space, constructing a 37 square-foot terrace and construction in an environmentally sensitive area due to a mapped watercourse. A variance is requested to not provide one covered parking space [LBMC 2S.S2.004(C)(2)) and to encroach into the watercourse setback [LBMC 2S.S0.030(D)). The improvements have been constructed (Code Enforcement). BACKGROUND: City records indicate that the property is improved with a single-family dwelling and an attached one-car garage. The structure was placed on the City's Historic Register as a "C" rated structure in The Heritage Committee and Design Review Board approved an exterior siding change on December 2, 1993 (DR-287). On September 11, 2007, a building permit was obtained to replace windows in-kind. Staff observed some un-permitted construction when inspecting the property after the windows were installed. The existing garage was converted to living area, a terrace was constructed that obstructs the vehicular access to the garage, and-a gravel parking area has been installed in the side yard and public right-of-way. On October 17, 2007, code enforcement opened a violation case (CE-lS78) for the unpermitted improvements. At the initial hearing on September 22, 2011, Board members agreed that they could support encroachment into the watercourse setback, however the majority could not find justification to not have the required one-covered parking space provided. The applicant subsequently decided to table the project (minutes attached). The applicant has not changed the project plans since the initial hearing.

2 & Variance Pearl Street January 12,2012 Page 2 of 4 STAFF ANALYSIS: Access: The property has not maintained a garage since before On February 16,2001, a project was cleared from zoning plan check to schedule a design review hearing for a new detached two-car garage but the property owner did not complete the process. The project was never heard by the Design Review Board. Converting the existing one-car garage to habitable space is not permitted without providing the required parking elsewhere on site. The required parking for the historic structure is one covered parking space [LBMC (A)(l)]. The current owner has provided plans showing two gravel parking spaces that encroach into the public right-of-way. The City engineer reviewed this proposal on October 5, 2009 and provided the following comments: 1.) The gravel driveway is shown partially within the right-of-way and should not be established for private parking. 2.) Use of gravel for a parking space next to a public street is problematic because gravel gets tracked into the street where it becomes a tripping hazard for pedestrians. Pursuant to LBMC (B), all parking stalls, driveways and maneuvering areas shall be paved and permanently maintained with asphalt, concrete or any other stable, all-weather surfacing approved by the director of community development and subject to current City standards. The current spaces cannot be approved as shown on the plans. A Revocable Encroachment Permit (REP 93-09) was approved by the City Council on December 12, 1993 for stone walls within the right-of-way along Pearl Street. New low retaining walls are proposed within the right-of-way at the corner intersection and at two infill areas along Catalina Street. These walls do not require a revocable encroachment permit because they are associated with street improvements where dirt currently falls into the street during rainy weather. The street paving is proposed be widened up to the new walls. Environmental Context: A portion of the mapped watercourse setback area crosses the north east property corner. A gravel parking area, fencing, and flagstone patio are built within the setback. A Hydrology and Botanical Assessment has been provided which states that there is not a functioning watercourse and hasn't been for 50 years (see attached). Historic Preservation: On April 25, 2011, the Heritage Committee reviewed the as-built changes to the structure and site, and recommended design review approval. The Heritage Committee minutes are attached. Privacy & View Equity: No privacy or view issues have been identified. Requested Variances: The applicant requests approval of Variance 7716 to convert the existing garage to living area and a storage area without providing one covered parking space [LBMC (A)(l)]. A variance is also requested for some of the installed improvements that encroach into the mapped watercourse setback area [LBMC (0)]. The Design Review Board must make all of the following findings in order to support the granting of a variance:

3 & Variance Pearl Street January 12,2012 Page 3 of 4 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 ofprivileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. The location of the existing structure on the site, corner property configuration, location of mapped watercourse setback, and historic status of the structure are special circumstances applicable to the property, however not unique to the neighborhood. 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. The proposed living area of the residence including the garage conversion is 1,152 square-feet. Many properties in the immediate vicinity on similar size lots enjoy living areas that are larger, and a number of those properties provide less than the required onsite parking. Existing structures on the two adjacent properties (421 Pearl Street and 1848 Catalina Street) are built within the setback area. The garage at 1848 Catalina Street is built across the centerline of the watercourse. 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. Public parking opportunities are limited in this neighborhood. Granting of the variance could further impact public parking and set precedent for future projects. 4. The granting of such a variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the zoning ordinance or the general plan. The requested variance is contrary to the intent of the zoning ordinance Chapter to ensure adequate off street parking is provided to meet local parking needs. Staff is not aware of any similar variances granted in the immediate area allowing required on-site parking within the public right-of-way. Findings for Watercourse Encroachment Variances: In addition to the four standard variance findings, LBMC (D)(4) requires two additional findings in order to grant a variance for encroachments into a watercourse setback: 1. The proposed encroachment will act to preserve, enhance or restore the significance of the watercourse. 2. The proposed encroachment is not likely to impair the functional, scenic and ecological purposes ofthe watercourse.

4 & Variance Pearl Street January 12,2012 Page 4 of 4 The applicant has submitted a Hydrology and Botanical Assessment which indicates that the mapped watercourse through the project site is no longer a functioning watercourse. Watercourse encroachment variances may only be granted subject to the conditions that no physical disturbance of the watercourse shall occur at any time; and that, where feasible, specified native riparian vegetation shall be replanted where disturbance of vegetation occurs during construction. Community Interest: Staff has not been made aware of any neighbor interest or concerns related to this application. There have been no letters or telephone calls received by the City as of the date of this report. Conclusion: In reviewing applications which involve property modifications which have been constructed without prior permits or approvals, the Design Review Board should consider such requests in the same manner as it would evaluate applications involving modifications which have not been constructed; special consideration should not be given simply because the improvements have been completed. To eliminate the variances, the original garage must be restored, the terrace removed and a driveway installed to allow vehicular access to the garage. If the Board determines that the garage conversion may be permitted but that a replacement parking space should be provided onsite, a variance will likely be required to place the parking space - covered or uncovered within the watercourse setback. The submitted hydrology report indicates that the mapped watercourse through the project site is no longer a functioning watercourse. For reasons of safety and community interest, the City Engineer has recommended that the Board not approve private parking spaces within the public right-of-way, and that the loose gravel finish be removed. ATTACHMENTS: Project Summary Table Minutes (9/22111)\ Heritage Committee Minutes of 4/25111 Historic Inventory Description Photo of Original Driveway Hydrology Report of 3/4111 Pre-Application Site Development Meeting of 7/3/09 ConstraintlVicinity Map Oblique Photos (2)

5 Pr-1JECT SUMMARY TABL ZONING STANDARDS DESCRIPTION REQUIRED/ALLOWED EXISTING PROPOSED USE SFD SFD SFD ZONE R-1 CONFORMS (Yes/No) LOT AREA 6,000 SF 3,400 SF No change No LOT WIDTH (AVG.) 70 feet 34 feet No chanqe No LOT DEPTH (AVG.) 80 feet 100 feet No change Yes LOT SLOPE (%) 14% MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT 20 feet above CL street 18.3 feet No change Yes MAX. HEIGHT FROM GRADE 25 feet 22.2 feet No change Yes SETBACKS: Front Yard (Historic) 12 feet 12 feet No change Yes Rear Yard 20 feetl25' CL watercourse 43.5 feet to RLL ofeet No Side Yards (Combined) 6.8 feet (3.4 feet each) N 4.3 feetls 7 feet 4.3 fti7 ft Yes LOT COVERAGE (BSC) 44%/1,496 SF 26.2%/891 SF No change Yes FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) NA NA NA LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE NA NA NA., " fli J ~I 1 II!J. J. " " '. PROJECT DATA DESCRIPTION EXISTING PROPOSED TOTAL LIVING AREA: First Floor 147 SF 114 SF 281 SF Second Floor 891 SF osf 891 SF Third Floor TOTAL 1,038 SF 149 SF 1,152 SF GARAGE 160 SF 160 SF SF MECHANICAL 113 SF 113 SF STORAGE osf 37 SF 37 SF GRADING SITE WORK Outside of Structural Footprint Inside Structural Footprint Total Cut 6 cuyds ocu yds 6 cu yds Fill 6 cu yds ocu yds 6 cu yds Net Export ocu yds ocu yds ocu yds IMPERVIOUS SURFACES Square Footage Existing Proposed % of Lot Area Existing Proposed Structure 1,346.4 SF 1,346.4 SF 39.6% 39.6% Hardscape (including drivew~) 1,220.6 SF 1,220.6 SF 35.9% 35.9% TOTAL 2,567.0 SF 2,567.0 SF 75.5% 75.5% 409 Pearl Street NBC

6 Design Review Board Minutes of (9/22/11) 409 PEARL STREET, APN (Sta(fAssist) TABLED VARIANCE m6, DESIGN REVIEW AND A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. The applicant requests design review for modifications to a prior approval and alterations to a "C" rated historic property. The proposed modifications include converting 114 square feet of garage area to living space, constructing a 37 square-foot terrace and construction in an environmentally sensitive area due to a mapped watercourse. A variance is requested to not provide one covered parking space [LBMC (C)(2)] and to encroach into the watercourse setback [LBMC (0)]. (Code Enforcement). Project Representative: Designer Derek Woltt said this project was originally approved in It was completed and in 2002 his client took ownership of the property. In 2007, Mr. Gutweiler replaced windows and when he requested final approval on the windows, it was noticed that the paperwork wasn't there and the terracing and garage conversion was then considered illegal. It's basically existing. The addition of 114 square feet of the garage to the home brings it to 1,152 for the home overall. The terrace is within the setback, the grading to remove the original driveway had no export. The original driveway was a 15% slope which is nonconforming. A modern car can't go up the driveway into the garage and the garage won't accommodate a modern car. Two parking spaces are provided at the lower end of the lot. The corner of the parking area does encroaches slightly into the setback and the watercourse. They have a letter that the watercourse is basically nonexistent. The parking area sits below grade and wouldn't impede water flow if the watercourse was active. As far as a covered space, rather than constructing a trellis, they felt it was better not to apply for any more variances. In keeping with the pattern of development it's a modest unobstructive parking area. The encroachment comes out beyond the property line but no further than the existing nonconforming walls and is not inconsistent with the pattern of development. He also commented the Staff report says the flagstone patio is built into setback and it's not. Public Testimony: None Board Questions: Mr. Wilkes verified with staff that the proposed parking hasn't triggered a variance for encroaching into the rear yard setback because no structure is proposed and there is no prohibition against parking in the rear setback as there is in the side setback. Ms. Lenschow verified with staff that a watercourse setback variance is required. Ms. Liuzzi verified the applicant is willing to change the gravel surface to pavers. Mr. Sadler said the parking spot encroaches six feet ten inches beyond the property line and asked if they explored pushing further into the property. The applicant said they did but didn't want to create more grading issues encroaching any further into the mapped watercourse. Comments: Ms. Liuzzi said there is a provision in the historic document that says a lenient building code is one thing the Board can do to preserve cottages. This is 1,152 square feet on a 3,400 square-foot lot; the access to the garage is unusable and would tum all the outdoor living space unusable if it were turned into a driveway. She can find for the variance and support it as proposed with the provision that the parking surface be pavers. Ms. Zur Schmiede is concerned that granting a variance to not provide a parking space then becomes a vested right and allows for later changes to the house when nothing can be done about the lack of garage space. Her concern was if they could connect the granting a variance with saving the cottage and that hasn't been explored. She doesn't think the reasons

7 mentioned by Ms. Liuzzi are driving the lack of ability to provide the parking space; it's just providing a lack of ability to use the existing covered parking for other uses. She hopes the City will look into changing the code in these unique situations as was suggested to the Heritage Committee. Until then she's reluctant to grant a variance for lack of control when the variance is granted. She can support the variance for parking in the watercourse but not for the conversion of the garage space. Ms. Lenschow can also support a variance for parking in the watercourse. The watercourse is no longer in existence. She also feels the existing converted garage is no longer functional and so it can't be recreated back into a garage. She can make the findings for a covered parking space that encroaches into the watercourse. Mr. Sadler agrees with the hydrologist that this watercourse is not to be found and he has no problem with the variance. He feels it is unreasonable to request getting it out of the rightof-way. It's the pattern of development along this street for cars to be further out into the street and it's not impeding traffic. He does have a concern regarding the use of gravel but the applicant is willing to deal with that. There is parking functional for this property. It may be possible to re-grade, lose the outdoor living space and make a driveway to the garage but the garage can't accommodate a normal car. He feels putting something over it to create covered parking would detract from the historic cottage to the point that he can't ask for that. He is willing to support the project as proposed and can make a variance finding. Mr. Wilkes said unless the applicant is willing to put the garage back where it was before and restore the driveway, regardless of the grade or whether it is functional that a variance will be required. The code isn't designed to be logical. It's a requirement all across the City that at least one parking stall for historic structures be provided and they are requesting not to do that. They have presented an alternative that meets the spirit of parking requirements but it doesn't quite get there and triggers the variances. He agrees it's not a functioning watercourse and encroaching into it will not make any difference so he has no problem granting that variance. He does have a problem with granting a variance to not provide one covered parking stall. As the applicant is not willing to restore the original garage to a parking stall, it puts the Board in a difficult position where it must find for a variance or have it remain in code enforcement. The legal findings must be made and the staff report doesn't make the findings or recommend approving the variance. He doesn't find the pattern of development sufficient reason for approval to extend into the public right of way. Only cost would preclude the applicant from constructing a single covered parking spot. If the stall is pushed closer to the other property it will trigger another variance to encroach into the rear setback. Mr. Wilkes commented this neighborhood has a history of parking problems. He thinks the code is kind in allowing for one covered parking space. He feels that the covered parking issues should be addressed with the granting of any variance and not just grant a variance to do what the applicant desires. Mr. Gutweiler commented this house has been the way it is since he bought it. He said he can put a carport up but he was told it could block the view of the neighbor. Mr. Wolfe said if they do construct a carport and push it off the lot, they are still adding more paving off the street. The project was tabled at the applicant's request.

8 Heritage Committee Minutes ~ April 25, 2011 lj, Page 3 of4 Tracy Moscaritolo, property owner of261 Cajon Street voiced a strong protest to the proposed addition due to th~ impact that it would have on her ocean view and the fact that the size and mass of the proposed is not in keeping with the neighborhood. The Heritage Committee's fmding is that an accurate and corrected plan should be provided with staking of the proposed project. A Historical Analysis Report accurately reflecting what is being proposed shall also be provided. B. 328 Glenneyre Street - The applicant requests Heritage Committee review and recommendations to the Planning Commission for alterations to a "K" rated structure on the City's Historic Register. A Historic Analysis Report has been provided. IV. New Business Ms. Csira explained to the Committee that the original building had two entrances and the proposed project includes one recessed entry moved to the left side of the front elevation. Architect Lance Polster and Ahmed Labbate, restaurant general manager, presented the project. Mr. Polster explained that a full height (8'-0") door will be provided. The existing masonry pony wall will be removed and a new steel storefront will be provided. The Committee feels that the architecture is in keeping with the original style of the building and agreed with the historian's report. There were comments amongst the Committee about the choice of colors. Mr. Iverson made a motion, seconded by Rick Gold, to recommend that the Planning Commission approve the project as submitted. All Heritage Committee members agreed (8-0). A. 409 Pearl Street -The applicant requests Heritage Committee review and recommendations to the Design Review Board for alterations to a "C" rated structure on the City's Historic Register. A Historic Analysis Report has not been provided. Property owner JOM Gutweiler and designer Derek Wolf presented the project. The Committee recommended approval of the proposed changes to the structure and site. Ms. Csira noted that the required parking variance will be addressed by the Board of AdjustmentlDesign Review Board and the Heritage Committee has no influence on parking requirements or granting of variances. L-.,

9 Ii Pearl (C) A shingled bungalow cottage with multi-gabled roof and rectangular plan. probably an open porch has now be~n enclosed for a sunroom. What was

10 . w, '. (..n...!:'..j. (; I~. I '"..Ifl )~oo-o.. I. I :.."...

11 GeoHydrologic Consultants, Inc. v.... March 4,2011 GHC Project No RECEIVED Mr. John Gutweiler JUL (I 5 / "; 409 Pearl Street Laguna Beach, California CIty or Laguna Beach Building Division Subject: Hydrology and Botanical Assessment for 409 Pearl Street, Laguna Beach, California I Dear Mr. Gutweiler: GeoHydrologic Consultants, Inc. (GHC) of Huntington Beach, California perfonned a hydrology and botanical assessment of 409 Pearl Street in Laguna Beach, California on February 25, The survey was conducted by Mr. Richard A. Vogi who is a Certified Hydrogeologist in the State ofcaiifornia (CHG #47). Mr. Richard A. Vogi is also a certified wetland delineator. Dr. Richard J. Vogl, plant ecologist, was also9,onsulted on the botanical issues pertaining to the Site, including species confinnation. The hydrology assessment included inspection ofthe property for any sign of water channels or indication of current or past flow or ponding ofwater on the property. Although historical topographic maps for this area indicated a historic water drainage through the backyard portion ofthis property, the entire area has been developed as a residential net,ghborhood for at least the last 50 years, and the house on this property was actually built in 1927, and there is no trace of this fonner drainage either on the property or on the neighboring properties. There was no indication of any channeling of water or ponded water on the property and the soils on the property had no signs ofany standing or flowing water. The drainage of the backyard appeared to be relatively flat with a slight southward slope towards the street. The property directly north or uphill of the yard is a developed residential property with a building directly up hill from the yard of the property in question. All of the surrounding properties are developed residential lots with no sign of any historic watercourse present. A recent aerial photograph from Google Earth ofthe property is included as Attachment A, which clearly shows that there is no watercourse currently present on the property or surrounding properties, and judging by the age ofthe majority ofthe homes, has not been present for approximately the last 50 years or so. GHC also conducted a botanical survey ofthe property specifically looking for any native plant species, including any wetland indicator species. Based on the survey GHC did not identify any native plant species on the property or any wetland indicator species, further supporting the conclusion that there is no current watercourse on the property. All of the plants on the property were non-native ornamental plants or weeds. P.o. Box 2234, Huntington Beach, CA Phone (714) , Fax (714)

12 GeoHydrologic Consultants, Inc. Ifyou have questions or require any additional information, please feel free to contact me at (714) S~7~:;'p/ d~ Richard A. Vogl, RG, CHG, CEG Principal Hydrogeologist 2

13 Attachment A Aerial Photograph of 409 Pearl Street, Laguna Beach, CA and Neighboring Properties

14 ',1, "

15 City of Laguna Beach - Community Development Department Pre-Application Site Development Review Meeting Evaluation Evaluation Meeting Number: Date: 7/3/09 Planner: Nancy Csira met with Derek Wolf, designer, Steve Kawaratani, applicant's advocate, and John Gutweiler, property owner. ~ I o jl ij."~,i r,.t,~ I--.r., I ' Site Address: 409 Pearl Street Zone/Specific Plan: R-1 Assessor Parcel Number: Background: City records indicate that property is improved with a single-family residence and an attached I-car garage. The structure was placed on the City's Historic Register as a "c" rated structure in The Heritage Committee and Design Review Board approved an exterior siding change. A building permit was obtained to replace windows "in-kind". Staff observed some un-permitted construction when reviewing the property to refund fees for the historic property after windows were installed. The existing garage was converted to living area, a terrace was constructed that obstructs the vehicular access to the garage, and a gravel parking area has been installed in the side yard and public rightof-way. The applicant also wants to enlarge the breakfast area in conjunction with the plans to legalize prior construction. Environmentally Sensitive Area: A portion of the 25 foot mapped watercourse setback runs diagonally across the rear of the property. Development (Based on prior application): Front Setback (Pearl Street): 12 feet ( Historic) Rear Setback: 20 feet and/or 25 feet from watercourse centerline Side Setbacks: 3'-4" each side (34' wide lot) Lot slope in percent: 10-15% Height: 20 feet above the centerline of Pearl Street and 25 feet above natural grade, finished grade, or lowest fmished floor, whichever is more restrictive. Building Site Coverage: 45.35% or 1,541.9 square-feet Parking: 1 covered space (Historic) Design Review Criteria 1. Access: Conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and other modes of transportation should be minimized by specifically providing for each applicable mode of transportati on. One covered parking space is required for this historic property. The applicant proposes to cover one of the un-permitted gravel spaces with a trellis to meet the covered parking requirement. The trellis/carport cover cannot be permitted as

16 ci ~,., T. II designed because it is located within the public right-of way and encroaches into the required watercourse setback, rear setback, and side setback. Gravel is not permitted for required parking areas [LBMC (B)]. Refer to LBMC (B)(3). Property within the public right-of-way of a street shall not be used to provide the minimum parking requirements. 2. Design Articulation: Within the allowable 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 anyone element in the structure may be used to reduce the appearance of mass. 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. 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, ridge lines and significant watercourses should be protected. Existing terrain should be utilized in the design and grading should be minimized. 5. General Plan Compliance: The development shall comply with all applicable policies of the general plan, including all of its elements and the local coastal program. 6. Historic Preservation: Destruction or alteration to properties with historic significance, as identified in the city's Historic Resources Inventory or Historic Register, should be avoided whenever possible. Special preservation consideration should be given to any structures over forty-five years old. Heritage Committee review is required for additions and alterations to a historic property. The Heritage Committee makes recommendations to the Design Review Board based on the historic integrity of the proposed improvements. The breakfast room addition and any structure planned to cover parking must be reviewed by the Committee. 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. 8. Lighting and Glare: Adequate lighting for individual and public safety shall be provided in a manner which does not significantly impact neighboring properties. Reflective materials and appurtenances that cause glare or a negative visual impact (e.g., skylights, white rock roofs, high-gloss ceramic tile roofs, reflective glass, etc.) should be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance in those locations where those surfaces are visible from neighboring properties.

17 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. Potential Variance Issues: The variance required to permit a new structure and/or parking in the watercourse, side and rear setbacks will be difficult to grant due to the four findings that must be made. Staff has outlined some solutions that could be presented to the Board for approval. Option #1: Restore the original garage, remove the terrace to permit vehicular access to the garage, and remove the gravel parking area. No Heritage Committee Review or Board ofa djustmentldesign Review Board approval will be required. A plan must be provided that restores the property and landscaping. Option #2: Design the required one covered parking space to be within the property lines and required setback lines. It appears that this design would require removal of the unpermitted terrace to not encroach into the required setbacks with the covered parking structure. Heritage Committee Review and Design Review Board approval will be required. Option #3: Prepare a plan to permit an uncovered parking area within the property lines. Heritage Committee Review and Board ofadjustmentldesign Review Board approval will be required. A variance is required to not provide one covered parking space and to encroach into the rear and watercourse setbacks. The breakfast room addition will require Heritage Committee Review and may require the preparation of a Historic Resource Assessment. The applicant should evaluate whether to include this addition with the application to legalize the un-permitted construction or process separately. This preliminary evaluation is being provided to applicants and their design advisors to utilize as early as possible in the design stage of a contemplated project so that the ensuing desi~n is more likely to meet the Design Review Board's approval before substantial time and resources have been expended. However, this preliminary evaluation provided by staff does not bind the Design Review Board in any manner in its review of or decisions on an application.

18 City of Laguna Beach City Limits Specific Plan Areas Parcels Open Space Preserve Areas 100 Year Flood Plain Seismic Hazard Liquifaction Ar Seismic Hazard Landslide Are: Drainage Course 25ft Buffer Significant Drainage Course C, Ridgelines Very High Value Habitat High Value Habitat 2008 Color Aerial Orthophotos Red: Band_' Blue: Band_ Building Footprints 1: o Data layers that appear on this map City of Laguna Beach! mayor may not be accurate, current, or ~ otherwise reliable. W '~~,)E { Enter Map Description

19

20