vcportal.ventura.orgvcportal.ventura.org/rma/planning-archives/pdf/... · 12/28/2015 · in...

In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contactNicole Doner at 805-654-5042. Reasonable advance notification of the need for accommodation prior to the meeting (48 hoursadvance notice is preferable) will enable us to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

Ventura CountyCultural Heritage Board

Agenda - REVISED

Monday, December 28, 2015 Meeting – POSTPONED TO 1/11/2016 @ 1:15 PM

Notice is hereby given that on Monday, December 28, 2015 at 1:15 p.m., the Ventura CountyCultural Heritage Board (CHB) will convene for a Public Meeting at the Ventura CountyGovernment Center, Administration Building, Second Floor, Atlantic Conference Room,located at 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA. Members of the public are welcome to attend.

1. ROLL CALLPatricia Havens, Ricki Mikkelsen, John Kulwiec, Don Shorts, Gary Blum, Stephen Schafer, MiguelFernandez

2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONThis time is set aside for public comment on items not otherwise on this agenda which are within thepurview of the Cultural Heritage Board. Each speaker is allowed a maximum of five minutes. Boardmembers may question the speaker but there will be no debate or decision. Staff may refer the matterfor investigation and/or a future report.

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTESSeptember 14, 2015 MinutesOctober 26, 2015 Minutes

4. CONVENE THE MEETING OF THE VENTURA COUNTY CULTURAL HERITAGE BOARD2001 Ocean Drive, Silverstrand Beach CommunityAction: Consider the Coastal Planned Development Permit Case No. PL15-0162 and provide arecommendation to the Planning Director regarding the historical significance of the existing buildingpursuant to CEQA, using the County of Ventura Initial Study Assessment Guidelines.

5. DISCUSSIONa. Board Member Reportsb. CHB Program Updates from Staff

6. MEETING ADJOURNMENT

Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board Minutes

September 14, 2015 at 12:00 noon County of Ventura • Resource Management Agency • Planning Division 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009-1740 • (805) 654-2478 • ventura.org/rma/planning

1 Public Meeting was called to order at 12 noon by Chair Blum in the Atlantic Conference Room Commissioners Present: Gary Blum - Chair, Don Shorts, Stephen Schafer, Pat Havens, and Miguel Fernandez Commissioners Absent: Ricki Mikkelsen, Vice Chair and John Kulwiec Staff Present: Nicole Doner, Franca Rosengren, and Tricia Maier

2. Oral Communications: None.

3. Minutes: None.

Convene the Meeting of the Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board (VCCHB)

4a. California Preservation Foundation Webinar "Modernism on the Brink- Assessing Threats to Modern Buildings and Landscapes" by Andrew Wolfram and Gretchen Hilyard 12:00-1:15p.m.

Don Shorts left the meeting at this time.

4b. Timber School Presentation by William Maple

4c. Consider a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) a request for the removal of 96 original windows and replacement with 96 new multi-lite dual-glazed fiberglass clad windows and refurbishment of all front façade windows to their original condition

Ms. Doner presented the staff report and the following recommended actions:

1. CONDUCT the public hearing, RECEIVE oral and written testimony, and CONSIDER the County Planning staff report and all exhibits and attachments on this project; and,

2. FIND that the proposed window replacement and refurbishment project at Landmark No. 155 meets the requirements of the County Cultural Heritage Ordinance and the Secretary of Interior's Standards based on the substantial evidence presented in the staff report and the entire record; and

3. Based on the preceding evidence and analysis, APPROVE a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed window replacement and refurbishment project at Landmark No. 155.

1

September 14, 2015 CHB Minutes

Page 12

Disclosures: Mr. Fernandez disclosed that he had worked in his capacity as an architect on a project for the Briggs Elementary School in the 1990s. Mr. Schafer disclosed that he went to the site and took photos.

Presentation of public speakers in favor of the recommended actions: Rod Leard project manager for California Construction Management, Inc.

Deliberation and Vote: Discussion arose between Mr. Schafer and Mr. Fernandez regarding the preservation of the wavy glass to be reused on the front façade windows and the restoration of 16 windows on the west side (2 classrooms).

Mr. Schafer motioned to approve the COA with the following conditions:

• The proposed replacement windows located on the East, West and South elevations shall match the historic window's appearance using a substitute material on the secondary locations as long as the appearance of the window components will match those of the original in dimension, profile, operation, and window unit placement (recessed).

• The front façade windows (facing Telegraph Road) shall be refurbished and restored.

• The first five original windows (from the corner) located on the West elevation shall either be replaced with dual-glazed wood windows or refurbished/restored.

• Any wavy glass from the discarded windows on the East elevation shall be used to replace newer glass on the restored front façade windows.

Mr. Fernandez seconded the motion. Motion passed 3-1. (Ms. Havens voted no).

5. Discussion a. Board Member Reports — Mr. Schafer mentioned his involvement with a

California Preservation Foundation workshop in Vallejo in November 2015. Precision Preservation: On-site Documentation at Mare Island

b. Updates from Staff —None.

6. Adjournment of the Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Board by Chair Blum.

2

Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board Minutes

October 26, 2015 at 1:15 p.m. County of Ventura • Resource Management Agency • Planning Division 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009-1740 • (805) 654-2478 • ventura.org/nna/planning

1. Tour of 975 Pacific Avenue, Simi Valley, CA. began at 1:15p.m. by Chair Blum

Then, the Public Meeting was called to order at 2:10p.m. by Gary Blum at the Strathearn Historical Park and Museum church 137 Strathearn Place, Simi Valley, CA Commissioners Present: Gary Blum - Chair, Pat Havens, Miguel Fernandez, Ricki Mikkelsen, and John Kulwiec Commissioners Absent: Stephen Schafer and Don Shorts Staff Present: Nicole Doner and Tricia Maier

2. Oral Communications: None.

3. Minutes: June 22, 2015 Minutes — Ms. Havens corrected the minutes to read that the Simi Elementary School has new pillars with wrought iron fencing and the remaining area has chain link fencing. Ms. Mikkelsen motioned to approve the minutes. Mr. Fernandez seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. (Mr. Kulwiec abstained).

4. CONVENE THE MEETING OF THE SIMI VALLEY CULTURAL HERITAGE BOARD

Consider request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove and relocate the Bessie Printz Colony house currently located at 975 Pacific Avenue to Strathearn Historical Park and Museum located at 137 Strathearn Place, Simi Valley, CA. Case No. CH15-0008

Ms. Doner presented the staff report and the following recommended actions:

1 CONDUCT the public hearing, RECEIVE oral and written testimony, and CONSIDER the County Planning staff report and all exhibits and attachments on this project; and,

2. MAKE the required findings that the proposed project meets all applicable requirements of the Simi Valley Cultural Heritage Ordinance and the Secretary of Interior's Standards based on the substantial evidence presented in the staff report and the entire record

3. Based on the preceding evidence and analysis, APPROVE a Certificate of Appropriateness for this project with the implementation of the staff recommended conditions of approval a) through e) listed on page 9 of the staff report.

Disclosures: None.

3

October 26, 2015 CHB Minutes Page 12

Presentation of public speakers in favor of the recommended actions Wayne Nakaoka, RSRPD manager who submitted a new set of conditions for the Colony House Relocation and Reconstruction (see attached).

Deliberation and Vote: Mr. Kulwiec motioned for approval with the revised conditions as agreed to a) through e) shown below:

a) Relocation/Preservation Plan: Prior to relocation of the structure (Printz Colony house), the applicant (RSRPD) shall retain the services of an architect with experience with historic preservation projects to document the existing conditions of the Colony house and to make recommendations as to its reconstruction at R.P. Strathearn Historical Park. ' tt" "

Printz Colony house, RSRPD This report (Relocation and Preservation Plan) shall be submitted to the CHB for their approval along with the Conditions Assessment and the "Proposed Construction Plans" for the proiect prior to issuance of a building permit.

preservation plan to ensure the overall project meets the Secretary of Interior's Standards;

b) RSRPD shall make every effort to re-establish the historic settingeFientatian-and landssape4eatufes-of the relocated building at its new site for the period of 1891 to 1941;

c) HABS Documentation Prior to Relocation: Prior to issuance of a building permit for relocating the Printz Colony house, RSRPD shall submit HABS photographic documentation of the Printz house (or a comparable level of archival-quality documentation) to be approved by the CHB.

d) A historic preservation architect shall be involved in every aspect of the

relocation to ensure the ultimate preservation of the resource; and Item d) to be omitted and incorporated into Item a) above.

e) Conditions Assessment: A conditions assessment shall be prepared by an architect, preservation specialist or structural engineer experienced with historic structures, to set priorities for repairs necessary to stabilize the property, structure, evaluate the age, and condition of the major elements of the building and its mechanical systems. The conditions assessment shall be submitted to the CHB for their approval prior to issuance of final-occupancy the building permit for construction of the Printz house at its new location.

Ms. Mikkelsen seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. (Ms. Havens abstained).

Discussion

4

October 26, 2015 CHB Minutes Page 13

a. Board Member Reports b. Updates from Staff.

6. Adjournment of the Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Board by Chair Blum.

5

Staff Report and Recommendations Agenda of December 28, 2015, Item 4 County of Ventura • Resource Management Agency • Planning Division 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009-1740 • (805) 654-2478 • ventura.org/rrna/planning

APPLICANT/OWNER:

Richard Greenberg 2001 Ocean Drive Oxnard, CA 93035

REQUEST:

The property owner requests a review of Coastal Planned Development Permit (PD Case No. PL15-0162) for purposes of CEQA compliance. The proposed project consists of rehabilitating the single-story residence and attached one-car garage including but not limited to: raising the roof to install insulation and add head height to the sun room, adding a fascia board to the eaves, replacing the exterior window trim with new wood trim; replacing a door with an aluminum-clad casement window, replacing a shed roof over the front entry with a gable roof, and adding a gable roof over garage without prior approval at 2001 Ocean Drive, Silverstrand Beach.

LOCATION:

2001 Ocean Drive, Silverstrand Beach Community, CA APN 206-0-179-280

I. CULTURAL HERITAGE BACKGROUND:

A. Historical Background

The subject property consists of Lot 149 of the Silverstrand Beach (15MR14) subdivision that was originally purchased by Isaac Linden Rouse in 1927 from Pacific Southwest Trust and Savings Bank. Pacific Southwest Trust and Savings Bank may have acted on behalf of the original developer to sell the Silverstrand beach lots. In 1927, the Rouses built the existing one-story house and one-car garage.

An evaluation of the project was completed by San Buenaventura Research Associates (SBRA) and dated August 25, 2015 ("Report" - Exhibit 1) for the subject property. The Report was prepared to assist the CHB staff in their compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

o+t

OF Staff Report and RecommendationsAgenda of December 28,2015, Item 4County of Ventr¡¡a' Resource Management Agency' Planning Division800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventwa, CA 93009-17&' (805) 654-2478'ventura.org;/nta/planning

APPLIGANT/OWNER:

Richard Greenberg2001 Ocean DriveOxnard, CA 93035

REQUEST:

The property owner requests a review of Coastal Planned Development Permit (PDCase No. PL15-0162) for purposes of CEQA compliance. The proposed project consistsof rehabilitating the single-story residence and attached one-car garage including butnot limited to: raising the roof to install insulation and add head height to the sun room,adding a fascia board to the eaves, replacing the exterior window trim with new woodtrim; replacing a door with an aluminum-clad casement window, replacing a shed roofover the front entry with a gable roof, and adding a gable roof over garage without priorapproval at 2OO1 Ocean Drive, Silverstrand Beach.

LOGATION:

2001 Ocean Drive, Silverstrand Beach Community, CAAPN 206-0-179-280

I. CULTURAL HERITAGE BACKGROUND:

A. Historical Background

The subject property consists of Lot 149 of the Silverstrand Beach (15MR14)subdivision that was originally purchased by lsaac Linden Rouse in 1927 from PacificSouthwest Trust and Savings Bank. Pacific Southwest Trust and Savings Bank mayhave acted on behalf of the original developer to sell the Silverstrand beach lots. ln1927, the Rouses built the existing one-story house and one-car garage.

An evaluation of the project was completed by San Buenaventura Research Associates(SBRA) and dated August 25, 2015 ("Report" - Exhibit 1) for the subject property. TheReport was prepared to assist the CHB staff in their compliance with CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act (CEOA).

6

Staff Report and Recommendations Cultural Heritage Board Meeting of December 28, 2015

Page 2

The property is described in the Report as follows:

The property consists of a single-story residence with attached one-car garage, rectangular in plan, with a medium pitched front-facing gable roof with medium eaves and exposed rafter tails over the eastern wing intersecting with a higher pitched side-facing gable on the western wing. A low-pitched shed roof covers an enclosed porch extending across the entire western elevation. The house is clad in medium lap siding and rests on a concrete block foundation. The eastern, street-side elevation features the single car garage enclosed with a pair of hinged, vertical plank doors on the left, two small four-over one sash or casement windows centered, and an entry door above a wood stoop covered by a pent roof supported by knee brackets.'

B. Past Alterations to Residence:

• All original windows replaced by current owner with aluminum-clad dual-glazed four over one casement windows in 2015 (Building Permit #B15-214)

• Exterior wood siding replaced by current owner with wood clapboard siding in 2015 (Building Permit #B15-214).

• Upgrade electrical panel and electrical wiring in 2015 (Building Permit #B15-189) • Roof replaced and 13 skylights added by current owner (Building Permit #615-

214). • New foundation and firewall installed in 1970 • Retaining wall at rear yard added in 1966 • Electrical and plumbing repairs completed between 1966 and 1970

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND CHO ANALYSIS:

A. Project Description

The applicant requests a Coastal Planned Development Permit to rehabilitate the existing 1,384 square foot beachfront dwelling with a 70 square foot storage loft and a 184 square foot attached one car garage that consists of:

(1) Raising the roof to install insulation and add head height to the sun room; (2) Adding a fascia board to the eaves; (3) Replacing the original exterior 5-inch window trim with 3 %-inch wood trim; (4) Replacing a door with an aluminum-clad casement window; (5) Replacing the existing shed roof over the front entry with a gable roof; and (6) Adding a gable roof over the garage.

'San Buenaventura Research Associates, Historic Resource Report for the Property at 2001 Ocean Drive, Hollywood Beach, August 25, 2015, pg.6

Staff Report and RecommendationsCultural Heritage Board Meeting of December 28,2015

Page 2

The property is described in the Report as follows:

The property consists of a srng/e-sfory residence with attached one-car garage,rectangular in plan, with a medium pitched front-facing gable roof with mediumeayes and exposed rafter tails over the eastern wing intersecting with a higherpitched side-facing gable on the western wing. A low-pitched shed roof coversan enclosed porch extending across the entire western elevation. The house isclad in medium lap siding and resfs on a concrete block foundation. The eastern,sfreef-srde elevation features the single car garage enclosed with a pair ofhinged, vertical plank doors on the left, two small four-over one sash or casementwindows centered, and an entry door above a wood sfoop covered by a pent roofsupported by knee brackets.l

B. Past Alterations to Residence:

. All original windows replaced by current owner with aluminum-clad dual-glazedfour over one casement windows in 2015 (Building Permit #815-214)

o Exterior wood siding replaced by current owner with wood clapboard siding in2015 (Building Permit #815-214).

. Upgrade electrical panel and electrical wiring in 2015 (Building Permit #815-189)

. Roof replaced and 13 skylights added by current owner (Building Permit #815-214).

o New foundation and firewall installed in 1970. Retaining wall at rear yard added in 1966. Electrical and plumbing repairs completed between 1966 and 1970

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND CHO ANALYSIS:

A. Project Description

The applicant requests a Coastal Planned Development Permit to rehabilitate theexisting 1,384 square foot beachfront dwelling with a 70 square foot storage loft and a184 square foot attached one car garage that consists of:

(1) Raising the roof to install insulation and add head height to the sun room;(2) Adding a fascia board to the eaves;(3) Replacing the original exterior S-inch window trim with 3 %-inch wood trim;(4) Replacing a door with an aluminum-clad casement window;(5) Replacing the existing shed roof over the front entry with a gable roof; and(6) Adding a gable roof over the garage.

1 San Buenaventura Research Associates, Historic Resource Report for the Property at 2001 Ocean Drive,

Hollywood Beach, August 25,2015, pg.6

7


Page 3

B. Historic significance of the site and subject structures (ISAG's Step 1)

For purposes of CEQA, the Board is directed to review the proposed project using the County of Ventura Initial Study Assessment Guidelines (ISAGs) Section 8b, Item E Methodology Steps 1 through 3 (Exhibit 2) and to provide a recommendation to the Planning Division, as the lead agency. Since this is a request for a discretionary permit for a site that has not been determined to be a Site of Merit or Landmark in the past, the first step in the CEQA review process is to determine whether the site has historical significance.

In the 2001 Ocean Drive Report, SBRA states:

This property may be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history, the establishment of Hollywood Beach, Silver Strand and Hollywood-by-the Sea. It appears to be a scarce remaining example of a residence constructed during the early years of the beach in the first few years of development in this area (Landmark Criterion 2).

Photo #1 — 2001 Ocean Drive East Elevation (2014)

Staff believes the potential eligibility of this site as a historical resource rests (in part) upon the integrity of the existing resource as a scarce remaining example of a residence built during the early years of the beach. Integrity is defined as the retention of the resource's physical identity that existed during its period of significance. Integrity is determined through considering the setting, design, workmanship, materials, location, feeling, and association of the resource. In the SBRA analysis, the subject property was reviewed for its historical integrity and determined to retain sufficient integrity,

Staff Report and RecommendationsCultural Heritage Board Meeting of December 28, 2015

Page 3

B. Historic significance of the site and subject structures (ISAG's Step 1)

For purposes of CEQA, the Board is directed to review the proposed project using theCounty of Ventura Initial Study Assessment Guidelines (lSAGs) Section 8b, ltem EMethodology Steps 1 through 3 (Exhibit 2) and to provide a recommendation to thePlanning Division, as the lead agency. Since this is a request for a discretionary permitfor a site that has not been determined to be a Site of Merit or Landmark in the past, thefirst step in the CEQA review process is to determine whether the site has historicalsignificance.

ln the 2001 Ocean Drive Report, SBRA states:

This property may be assoclaúed with events that have made a significantcontribution to the broad patterns of history, the establishment of Hollywood Beach,Silver Strand and Hollywood-by-the Sea. lt appears to be a scarce remainingexample of a residence constructed during the early years of the beach in the firstfew years of development in this area (Landmark Criterion 2).

Photo #1 -2001Ocean Drive East Elevation (2014)

Staff believes the potential eligibility of this site as a historical resource rests (in part)upon the integrity of the existing resource as a scarce remaining example of a residencebuilt during the early years of the beach. lntegrity is defined as the retention of theresource's physical identity that existed during its period of significance. Integrity isdetermined through considering the setting, design, workmanship, materials, location,feeling, and association of the resource. In the SBRA analysis, the subject propertywas reviewed for its historical integrity and determined to retain sufficient integrity=

8

Photo #2 — 2001 Ocean Drive South Elevation (2014)

Photo #3 — Aerial Oblique of 2001 Ocean Drive (2014)


Page 4

Staff Report and RecommendationsCultural Heritage Board Meeting of Decembe¡ 28,2015

Page 4

Photo #2 - 2001 Ocean Drive South Elevation (2014)

Photo #3 - Aerial Oblique of 2OO1 Ocean Drive (2014)

9


Page 5

III. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA") ANALYSIS:

Pursuant to title 14, California Code of Regulations ("CEQA Guidelines), sections 15060 and 15378, the proposed request to rehabilitate the single-story residence and attached one-car garage, and new construction in the Coastal zone is a project subject to CEQA. A review of both statutory and categorical exemptions from CEQA environmental impact analysis under CEQA Guidelines sections 15260-15285 and 15300-15333, respectively, indicates that the project is not exempt from CEQA environmental impact analysis.

1. Role of the CHB during CEQA Review of a Discretionary Project

CHB is being consulted to provide input during the CEQA review process. The CHB's role as a CEQA project reviewer is: (1) to advise and provide comment to the Planning Division (who functions as the Lead Agency) on designated cultural heritage sites or those potentially eligible for designation; (2) where a site is determined to be a historical resource, to assess and advise the Planning Director whether a proposed project would have a substantial change on the significance of such cultural heritage sites or potential sites; and, (3) recommend to the Planning Director appropriate action in compliance with the ISAGs.

2. Public Resources Code § 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(b) (ISAG's Step 2):

CEQA statutory and regulatory provisions help guide the CHB in determining whether a project, treatment or other development activity may cause a significant adverse change in the significance of an historical resource.

The proposed project is considered to have a significant historical resources impact if it will cause a substantial adverse change of a historic resource as defined in Section 15064.5 (b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. A "substantial adverse change" is the physical demolition, destruction, relocation or alteration of the historical resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired. Material impairment means altering in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and its inclusion in a local register or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant.

There are several well-established and applicable criteria or guidance for determining whether a particular treatment, development or building project will have a significant adverse impact on an historic resource.


Page 5

ilt. CALIFORNIA NVIRONMENTAL QUALITY l.,cEClA"lANALYSIS:

Pursuant to title 14, California Code of Regulations ("CEQA Guidelines), sections 15060and 15378, the proposed request to rehabilitate the single-story residence and attachedone-car garage, and new construction in the Coastal zone is a project subject to CEQA.A review of both statutory and categorical exemptions from CEQA environmental impactanalysis under CEQA Guidelines sections 15260-15285 and 15300-15333, respectively,indicates that the project is not exempt from CEQA environmental impact analysis.

1. Role of the CHB durino CEQA Review of a Discretionary Proiect

CHB is being consulted to provide input during the CEQA review process. The CHB'srole as a CEQA project reviewer is: (1) to advise and provide comment to the PlanningDivision (who functions as the Lead Agency) on designated cultural heritage sites orthose potentially eligible for designation; (2) where a site is determined to be a historicalresource, to assess and advise the Planning Director whether a proposed project wouldhave a substantial change on the significance of such cultural heritage sites or potentialsites; and, (3) recommend to the Planning Director appropriate action in compliancewith the lSAGs.

2.(ISAG's Step 2):

CEQA statutory and regulatory provisions help guide the CHB in determining whether aproject, treatment or other development activity may cause a significant adverse changein the significance of an historical resource.

The proposed project is considered to have a significant historical resources impact if itwill cause a substantial adverse change of a historic resource as defined in Section15064.5 (bX1) of the CEQA Guidelines. A "substantial adverse change" is the physicaldemolition, destruction, relocation or alteration of the historical resource or its immediatesurroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materiallyimpaired. Material impairment means altering in an adverse manner those physica!characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and itsinclusion in a local register or its identification in an historical resources survey meetingthe requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the publicagency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidencethat the resource is not historically or culturally significant.

There are several well-established and applicable criteria or guidance for determiningwhether a particular treatment, development or building project will have a significantadverse impact on an historic resource.

10


Page 6

3. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings and Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties ("Standards" - 36 C.F.R. Part 68)

As required by the Cultural Heritage Ordinance, the Standards have been used to review this project and the Board's review must be based on consistency of the project with them. Standards Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 9 and 10 apply to this case in particular. SBRA's Report analyzed the project's potential impacts to historic resources in accordance with CEQA and found that the alterations underway at the time of the Report conform to the rehabilitation approach recommended by the Standards. Next to each Standard are corresponding comments from SBRA and RMA Planning staff.

• Standards No. 1 - A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.

Discussion: Staff: The site will continue to be used for residential purposes. Based on the above considerations, the project is compatible with this Standard.

• Standards No. 2 - The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.

• Standards No. 5 - Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

Discussion: SBRA: The past alterations to the residence substantially reduces the property's integrity of materials and workmanship. However, the design of the residence appears to be substantially intact and the features will be (or have been) reconstructed according to their original design.

Staff: Staff agrees with SBRA's comments that a loss of integrity occurred with the replacement of the windows and wood siding. Staff believes that significant efforts were made by the property owner to try to replicate the historic appearance of the building using new building materials. For example, the new exterior wood siding was milled very closely if not identically to the original wood siding and all of the new windows replicate the original window's glazing and muntin pattern except that the replacement windows are not true divided lite panes.


Page 6

3. The Secretarv of lnterior's Standards for Rehabil ion and lllustratedGuidelines for ilitatino Historic Buildinos and of the lnterior'sStandards for the Treatment of Historic Properties ("Standards" - 36 C.F.R.Part 68)

As required by the Cultural Heritage Ordinance, the Standards have been used toreview this project and the Board's review must be based on consistency of the projectwith them. Standards Nos. 1,2,3,5,9 and 10 applyto this case in particular. SBRA'sReport analyzed the project's potential impacts to historic resources in accordance withCEQA and found that the alterations underway at the time of the Report conform to therehabilitation approach recommended by the Sfandards. Next to each Standard arecorresponding comments from SBRA and RMA Planning staff.

Standards No. 1 - A property will be used as ff u¡as historically or be given a newuse that requires minimal change fo ifs distinctive materials, features, spaces,and spatial relationships.

a

o

a

Discussion:Staff: The site will continue to be used for residential purposes. Based on theabove considerations, the project is compatible with this Standard.

Standards No. 2 - The historic character of a property shall be retaíned andpreserued. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces,and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.

Standards No. 5 - Distinctive features, finrsfieg and construction techniques orexamples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

Discussion:SBM: The past alterations to the residence substantially reduces the property'sintegrity of materials and workmanship. However, the design of the residenceappears to be substantially intact and the features will be (or have been)reconstructed according to their original design.

Staff: Staff agrees with SBRA's comments that a loss of integrity occurred withthe replacement of the windows and wood siding. Staff believes that significantefforts were made by the property owner to try to replicate the historicappearance of the building using new building materials. For example, the newexterior wood siding was milled very closely if not identically to the original woodsiding and all of the new windows replicate the original window's glazing andmuntin pattern except that the replacement windows are not true divided litepanes.

11


Page 7

Since the subject property was not identified as a potential historic resource, the applicant obtained building permits to replace all of the original wood casement windows, replace the original wood siding, reroof, and install seven skylights without prior review by Planning Division staff.

The proposed project before the Board is to raise the roof to accommodate insulation, install fascia board over the eaves, replace the original shed roof over the entry with a gable roof, replace a door with a window, and install a gable roof over the garage. Most of these alterations (except the gable roof overhangs over the garage and front entry) are located to the side and rear of the property and would not be seen from the public view. Thus, the property would retain most of its historic character along the primary elevation.

Based on the above considerations, the project is compatible with this Standard.

• Standards No. 3 — Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.

Staff: Conjectural design features are not proposed to be added to this property (i.e. changes that are intended to make the house look more historic than it actually was). Based on the above considerations, the project is compatible with this Standard.

• Standards No. 9. - New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

Staff: The modern materials and finishes that are proposed in the proposed rehabilitation are compatible with the original design of the residence. The raising of the roof to accommodate insulation and add head height and replacing a door with an aluminum-clad casement window would provide for the continued use of an existing historic resource while allowing appropriate alterations to ensure its contemporary use. The proposed gable roof overhang over the front entry and the addition of the same roof overhang over the garage are considered minor changes that would not significantly reduce the property's integrity. Based on the above considerations, the project is compatible with this Standard.

• Standards No. 10 - New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired

a


Page 7

Since the subject property was not identified as a potential historic resource, theapplicant obtained building permits to replace all of the original wood casementwindows, replace the original wood siding, reroof, and install seven skylightswithout prior review by Planning Division staff.

The proposed project before the Board is to raise the roof to accommodateinsulation, install fascia board over the eaves, replace the original shed roof overthe entry with a gable roof, replace a door with a window, and install a gable roofover the garage. Most of these alterations (except the gable roof overhangs overthe garage and front entry) are located to the side and rear of the property andwouid not be seen from the public view. Thus, the property would retain most ofits historic character along the primary elevation.

Based on the above considerations, the project is compatible with this Standard.

Standards No. 3 - Each property will be recognized as a physical record of itstime, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historicaldevelopment, such as adding conjecturalfeatures or elements from other historicproperties, will not be undertaken.

Staff: Conjectural design features are not proposed to be added to this property(i.e. changes that are intended to make the house look more historic than itactually was). Based on the above considerations, the project is compatible withthis Standard.

Standards No. 9. - New additions, exterior alterations, or related newconstruction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationshipsthat characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the oldand witt be compatibte with the historic materials, features, size, scale andproportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and dsenvironment.

Staff: The modern materials and finishes that are proposed in the proposedrehabilitation are compatible with the original design of the residence. Theraising of the roof to accommodate insulation and add head height and replacinga door with an aluminum-clad casement window would provide for the continueduse of an existing historic resource while allowing appropriate alterations toensure its contemporary use. The proposed gable roof overhang over the frontentry and the addition of the same roof overhang over the garage are consideredminor changes that would not significantly reduce the property's integrity. Basedon the above considerations, the project is compatible with this Standard.

Standards No. 10 - New additions and adjacent or related new construction willbe undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, fhe essential formand integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired

a

12


Page 8

Most of the proposed alterations would only be noticeable on non-primary elevations and the appearance of their components would match those of the original in materials, design, texture, and other visual qualities. The proposed gable roof overhang over the front entry and the addition of the same roof overhang over the garage are considered minor changes that could be removed in the future without impairing the essential form and integrity of the historic property. Based on the above considerations, the project is compatible with this Standard.

3. Planning Staff Conclusions Regarding Protect Impacts to Historic Resources (ISAG's Step 3):

Staff believes that the project meets the Standards. Most of the proposed alterations such as the increase in roof height and adding a fascia board to the eaves would only be noticeable on non-primary elevations and the appearance of the new construction would match those of the original in materials, design, texture, and other visual qualities.

Staff considers the proposed gable roof overhang over the front entry and the addition of the same roof overhang over the garage minor changes that could be removed in the future without impairing the essential form and integrity of the historic property. Based on the above considerations, the project is compatible with this Standard. A project that meets the Secretary of Interior's Standards shall be considered a project that will not cause a significant impact. In fact, in most cases, if a project meets the Secretary of Interior's Standards, it can be considered categorically exempt from CEQA

It should be noted that staff has seen an increase in requests for demolition and alteration in the unincorporated beach communities that have not been surveyed. We will continue to provide training to new staff and to develop a screening process to review these type of requests that do not require a permit from the Planning Division.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

No public comment regarding this request has been received to date.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

1. CONDUCT public hearing, RECEIVE oral and written testimony, and CONSIDER the County Planning staff report and all exhibits and attachments on this project; and,


Page 8

Most of the proposed alterations would only be noticeable on non-primaryelevations and the appearance of their components would match those of theoriginal in materials, design, texture, and other visual qualities. The proposedgable roof overhang over the front entry and the addition of the same roofoverhang over the garage are considered minor changes that could be removedin the future without impairing the essential form and integrity of the historicproperty. Based on the above considerations, the project is compatible with thisStandard.

3. Plannino Conclusions Reoardino Proiect lmoacts to H c Resources(ISAG's Step 3):

Staff believes that the project meets the Standards. Most of the proposed alterationssuch as the increase in roof height and adding a fascia board to the eaves would onlybe noticeable on non-primary elevations and the appearance of the new constructionwould match those of the original in materials, design, texture, and other visual qualities.

Staff considers the proposed gable roof overhang over the front entry and the additionof the same roof overhang over the garage minor changes that could be removed in thefuture without impairing the essential form and integrity of the historic property. Basedon the above considerations, the project is compatible with this Standard. A project thatmeets the Secretary of lnterior's Standards shall be considered a project that will notcause a significant impact. ln fact, in most cases, if a project meets the Secretary oflnterior's Standards, it can be considered categorically exempt from CEQA

It should be noted that staff has seen an increase in requests for demolition andalteration in the unincorporated beach communities that have not been surveyed. Wewill continue to provide training to new staff and to develop a screening process toreview these type of requests that do not require a permit from the Planning Division.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

No public comment regarding this request has been received to date.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

1. CONDUCT public hearing, RECEIVE oral and written testimony, and CONSIDERthe County Planning staff report and all exhibits and attachments on this project;and,

13

A (U. k leg-- Tricia Maier, Manager Planning Programs Section (805) 654-2464


Page 9

2. REVIEW and COMMENT on the proposed project in accordance with the County of Ventura Initial Study Assessment Guidelines (ISAGs) Section 8b, Item E. Methodology Step 1 through Step 3, based on the preceding evidence and analysis.

Prepared by:

Reviewed by:

Nicole Doner, Case Planner (805) 654-5042

Attachments:

Exhibit 1: August 25, 2015 SBRA Historic Resource Report for the Property at 2001 Ocean Drive, Silverstrand Beach

Exhibit 2: Initial Study Assessment Guidelines Section 8b. Cultural Resources — Historic, pages 59 through 62

Exhibit 3: Demolition Plan Exhibit 4: Site Plan, Floor Plan and Elevations


Page 9

2. REVIEW and COMMENT on the proposed project in accordance with the Countyof Ventura lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines (lSAGs) Section 8b, ltem E.Methodology Step 1 through Step 3, based on the preceding evidence andanalysis.

Prepared by: Reviewed by:

Nicole Doner, Gase Planner(805) 654-5042

t€r?-'Tricia Maier, nagerPlanning Programs Section(805) 654-2464

Attachments:

Exhibit 1: August 25, 2015 SBRA Historic Resource Report for the Property at 20Q1 OceanDrive, Silverstrand Beach

Exhibit 2: lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines Section 8b. Cultural Resources - Historic, pages59 through 62

Exhibit 3: Demolition PlanExhibit 4: Site Plan, Floor Plan and Elevations

14

Historic Resources Report 2001 Ocean Drive Silver Strand (Oxnard) CA

25 August 2015

Prepared for:

Finishline Carpentry PO Box 5897 Ventura CA 93005

Prepared by:

/31 SAN BUENAVENTURA 1,11 RESEARCH ASTCIATES

HISTORIC • RESOURCES • CONSULTING I1528 WOODLAND DitiVe IISANTA PAULA CA 95060 II

County of Ventura Cultural Heritage Board Hearing

Agenda Item #4 Exhibit 1— Historic Resource Report

Historic Resources Report2OO1 Ocean DriveSilver Strand (Oxnard) CA

25 August 2015

Prepared for:

Finishline Carpentry

PO Box 5897

Ventura CA 93005

Prepared by:

sAN DUENAìTNTURARESEARCH A559CIATE5lilsÍoRrc . REsgwcEs .c01$uffill6

County of VenturaCultural Heritage Board Hearing

Agenda ltem # 4Exhibit 1 - Historic Resource ReportI llZt W00Dt,tt{D DltlVl I t,ll{T^ l,luL^ (,1 ?t0ó0 ¡

15

Executive Summary

This report was prepared for the purpose of assisting the County of Ventura in their compliance with the Cali-

fornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local regulatory requirements as it relates to historic resources, in connection with a single family residence Located at 2001 Ocean Drive, in an unincorporated area known as

Silver Strand, located between the cities of Port Hueneme and Oxnard. [Figure 1]

This report assesses the historical and architectural significance of potentially significant historic properties in accordance with the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical

Resources (CRHR) Criteria for Evaluation, and County of Ventura criteria.

This report was prepared by San Buenaverrtura Research Associates of Santa Paula, California, Judy Triem, His-torian; and Mitch Stone, Preservation Planner, for Finishline Carpentry, and is based on a field investigation and research conducted in July and August 2015. The conclusions contained herein represent the professional

opinions of San Buenaventura Research Associates, and are based on the factual data available at the time of

its preparation, the application of the appropriate local, state and federal regulations, and best professional practices.

Summary of Findings

The property evaluated in this report was found to be ineligible for listing on the NRHP and CRHR but poten-

tially eligible for designation as a County of Ventura landmark under Criterion 2.

Report Contents

1. Administrative Setting 1

Ventura County Landmark Criteria

Ventura County Site of Merit Criteria

2. Impact Thresholds and Mitigation 3

3. Historical Setting 4

General Historical Context

Site-Specific Context

4. Potential Historic Resources 5

5. Eligibility of Historic Resources 6

Ventura County Landmark Eligibility

Integrity Discussion

Summary Conclusion

6. Selected Sources 9

Executive Summary

This report was prepared fior the purpose of assisting the County of Ventura in their comptiance with the Cati-

fornia Environmental Quatity Act (CEOA) and local regulatory rcquirements as it retates to historic resources,

in connection with a single famity residence located at 2001 Ocean Drive, in an unincorponted area known as

Sitver Strand, located between the cities of Port Hueneme and 0xnard. [Figure 1]

This report assesses the historical and architectunt significance of potentiaþ significant historic propertiesin accordance with t}e National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), tlre Catifurnia Register of HistoricalResources (CRHR) Criteria for Evatuation, and CourtSl of Ventura criteria.

This report was prepared by San Buenaventun Research Associates of Sarta Pauta, Catifiomia, Judy Triem, His-torian; and Mitch Stone, Preservation Planner, for Finishtine Carpentry, and is based on a field investigationand research conducted in July and August 2015. The conctusions contained herein represent the professional

opinions of San Buenavenhtn¡ Research Associates, and are based on the åctual data availabte at tJre time ofits preparation, the apptication of the appropriate [oca[, state and federat regutations. and best professionalpractices.

Summary of Findings

The property evatuated in this report was fuund to be inetigibte for tisting on the NRHP and CRHR but poten-

tiatty etigibte for designation as a County of Ventun landmark under Criterion 2.

Report Contents

1. AdminishativeSettingVentura County Landmark Criteria


2. Impact Threshotds and Mitigation3. Historical Setting

General HistoricaI Context

Site-Specific Context

4. Potentiat Historic Resources

5. Etigibitity of Historic Resources

Ventun County Landmark EtigibitityIntegrity Discussion

Summary Conclusion

6. Selected Sources

7

3

4

5

6

9

16

rirval_._ IN/0.5

•

• • •

- . Is

0 0

■

••

r•r1

Hollywood Beach

i I

of

•

•-ri/sr A V is .• :S..,\ 'rTi•N‘ ri...).

'1, • m•-•7 • .ir• i it; i i i• •Ii. 10

J', , ea . .....

Silver Strand

I IM1

A L

Hollywood by the Sea

Project Location

Pt Hueneme

Figure 1. Project Location [Source: USGS 7.5' Quadrangle, Oxnard CA, 1949 rev 1967]

TN ^t

!a

l-

ta 0

0

Project Location

FÍgure 1. Project LocatÍon [Source: USGS 7.5'Quadnngþ 0xnard CA, 1949 rev 1967]

17

1. Administrative Setting

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires evaluation of project impacts on historic resources,

including properties "listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical

Resources [or] included in a local register of historical resources." A resource is eligible for listing on the Cali-

fornia Register of Historical Resources if it meets any of the criteria for listing, which are:

1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or

regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;

2. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or repre-

sents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (PRC

§5024.1(c))

By definition, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) also includes all "properties formally de-

termined eligible for, or listed in, the National Register of Historic Places,' and certain specified State His-

torical Landmarks. The majority of formal determinations of NRHP eligibility occur when properties are evalu-

ated by the Office of Historic Preservation in connection with federal environmental review procedures (Sec-

tion 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966). Formal determinations of eligibility also occur

when properties are nominated to the NRHP, but are not listed due to a lack of owner consent

The criteria for determining eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) have been

developed by the National Park Service. Eligible properties include districts, sites, buildings and structures,

A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of

our history; or

B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past or

C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that rep-

resent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and

distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

According to the NRHP standards, in order for a property that is found to be significant under one or more of

the criteria to be considered eligible for listing, the "essential physical features" that define the property's

significance must be present. The standard for determining if a property's essential physical features exist is

known as integrity, which is defined for the NRHP as "the ability of a property to convey its significance." The

CRHR defines integrity as "the authenticity of a historical resource's physical identity evidenced by the sur-

vival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance. Historical resources eligible

for listing in the California Register must meet one of the criteria of significance described above and retain

enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the

reasons for their significance." (National Register Bulletin 15; California OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin 6)

For purposes of both the NRHP and CRHR, an integrity evaluation is broken down into seven "aspects." The

seven aspects of integrity are: Location (the place where the historic property was constructed or the place

where the historic event occurred); Design (the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space,

structure, and style of a property); Setting (the physical environment of a historic property); Materials (the

physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pat-

f . Adminifrative Setting

The Gtifornia Environmentat Quatity Act (CEOA) requires evatuation of project impacts on historic resources,

inctuding properties "listed in, or determined etigible for tisting in, the Catifumia Register of Historical

Resources [or] inctuded in a local register of historical. resources.o A resource is etigibte for tisting on the Cati-

fornia Register of Historical Resources if it meets any of the criteria fur listing, which are:

1. Associated with events tlat have made a significant contribution to the broad pattems of [oca[ or

regional history or the culturaL heritage of Catifornia or the United States;

Z. Associated with the lives of persons important to locat, Califomia or nationat history;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a tyrpe, period, region or method of constuction or repre-

sents the work of a master or possesses high artistic vatues; or

4. Has yietded, or may be tikety to yietd, infurmation importart in prehistory or history. (PRC

9s02a.1(c))

By definition, the Catifomia Register of Historicat Resources (CRHR) also inctudes all "propeÉies formally de-

termined etigibte for, or listed in, the National Register of Historic Places,'and certain specified State His-

toricat Landmark. The majority of furmal. determinations of NRHP etigibitity occur when properties are evalu-

ated by the gffice of Historic Preservation in connection with ftdenl environmenta[ review procedures (Sec-

tion 106 of the Nationa[ Historic Preservation Act of 1966). Formal determinations of etigibitit¡t also occur

when properties are nominated to the I{RHB but are not tisted due to a lack of owner consenl

The criteria for determining etigibitity fur tisting on the Nationat Register of Historic Places (NRHP) have been

devetoped by the National Park Service. Etigible properties include disüicts, sites, buildings and s:bt¡ctures,

A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contibution to the broad pattems of

our history; or

B. That are associated witì the tives of persons significant in our pasÇ or

C. That embody t}e distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of constuction or tfiat rep-

resent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and

distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

D. That have yietded, or may be likety to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

According to the NRHP standards, in order for a properþr tlrat is found to be significant under one or more ofthe criteria to be considered etigibte for listing, the 'essential physicat features' ttrat define the propert¡t's

significance must be present. The standard fur determining if a prope(y's essential physicat fratures exist is

known as íntegrityr, which is defined fur the NRHP as "the ability of a property to convey its significance.' The

CRHR defines integrity as 'üre authenticity of a historical resource's physicat identity evidenced by the sur-

vival of characteristics that odsted during ttìe rcsource's period of significance. Historical resources etigibte

for tisting in the California Register must meet one of the cdteria of significance described above and retain

enough of their historic chancter or appean¡nce to be recognizabte as historicat resources and to convey ütereasons for their significance.' (Nationat Register Bultetin 15; Gtifomia OHP Technical Assistance Buttetin 6)

For purposes of both tlte NRHP and CRHR, an integrity evaluation is broken down irto seven "aspects.o The

seven aspects of integrity arez Locat¡on (the place where the historic property was constructed or the place

where the historic event occuned); Design (the combination of elements that create the furm, plan, space,

structure, and sgte of a properly); Settìng (the physical. environment of a historic property); Møterìols (thephysicat elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pat-

18

Historic Resources Report 2001 Ocean Drive, Silver Strand (Oxnard)

tern or configuration to form a historic property); Workmanship (the physical evidence of the crafts of a par-

ticular culture or people during any given period of history or prehistory); Feeling (a property's expression of

the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time), and; Association (the direct link between an

important historic event or person and a historic property).

It is not required that significant property possess all aspects of integrity to be eligible; depending upon the

NRHP and CRHR criteria under which the property derives its significance, some aspects of integrity might be

more relevant than others. For example, a property nominated under NRHP Criterion A and CRHR Criterion 1

(events), would be likely to convey its significance primarily through integrity of location, setting and asso-

ciation. A property nominated solely under NRHP Criterion C and CRHR Criterion 3 (design), would usually rely

primarily upon integrity of design, materials and workmanship.

While the NRHP guidelines and the CRHR regulations include similar language with respect to the aspects of integrity, the latter guidelines also state It is possible that historical resources may not retain sufficient in-

tegrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but they may still be eligible for listing in the

California Register." Further, according to the NRHP guidelines, the integrity of a property must be evaluated

at the time the evaluation of eligibility is conducted. Integrity assessments cannot be based on speculation

with respect to historic fabric and architectural elements that may exist but are not visible to the evaluator,

or on restorations that are theoretically possible but which have not occurred. (National Register Bulletin 15;

CCR §4852 (c); California OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin 6)

The minimum age criterion for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of

Historical Resources (CRHR) is 50 years. Properties less than 50 years old may be eligible for listing on the

NRHP if they can be regarded as "exceptional," as defined by the NRHP procedures, or in terms of the CRHR,

"if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance" (Chapter

11, Title 14, §4842(d)(2))

Historic resources as defined by CEQA also includes properties listed in "local registers" of historic properties.

A "local register of historic resources" is broadly defined in §5020.1 (k) of the Public Resources Code, as "a

List of properties officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant

to a local ordinance or resolution." Local registers of historic properties come essentially in two forms: (1)

surveys of historic resources conducted by a local agency in accordance with Office of Historic Preservation

procedures and standards, adopted by the local agency and maintained as current, and (2) landmarks desig-

nated under local ordinances or resolutions. These properties are "presumed to be historically or culturally

significant... unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically or

culturally significant." (PRC §§ 5024.1, 21804.1, 15064.5)


An improvement, natural feature, or site may become a designated landmark if it meets one the following

criteria:

1. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the County's social, aesthetic, engineering, architectural

or natural history;

2. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of

Ventura County or its cities, regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United

States;

SAN BUENAVENTURA RESEARCH ASSOCIATES Page 2 of 9

Historic Resources Report2001 Ocean Drive, Silver Strand (Oxnard)

tem or configuration to form a historic property); Workmanship (the physicat evidence of the cnfts of a par-

ticuf¡r cutture or people during any given period of hifory or prehistory); Feeling (a property's expression of

the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time), and; Associøtion (the direct link between an

important historic event or person and a historic property).

It is not required that significant properly possess al.t aspects of integrity to be etigibte; depending upon the

NRHp and CRHR criteria under which the properl¡r derives its significance, some aspects of integri$ might be

more relevant than others. For exampte, a property nominated under NRHP Criterion A and CRHR Criterion 1

(events), woutd be tikety to convey its significance primarity through integrity of location, setting and asso-

ciation. A property nominated solety under NRHP Criterion C and CRHR Criterion 3 (design), would usualty rely

primarity upon integrity of design, materiats and workmanship.

White the NRHp guidetines and the CRHR regulations include simitar language with respect to the aspects ofintegrity, the latter guidetines also state'it is possibte that historical resources may not retain sufficient in-tegrity to meet the criteria for tisting in the National Register, but they may stil.t be etigibte for listing in the

Catifornia Register." Further, according to the NRHP guidetines, the integrity of a property must be evaluated

at the time the evatuation of etigibitity is conducted. Integrity assessments cannot be based on specutation

with respect to historic fabric and architectural elements that may exist but are not visibte to the evatuator,

or on restorations that are theoreticalty possibte but which have not occuned. (National' Register Buttetin 15;

CCR 54352 (c); Catifornia OHP Technical Assistance BuLtetin 6)

The minimum age criterion for the National Register of Historic Ptaces (NRHP) and the Catifornia Register ofHistorical Resources (CRHR) is 50 years. Properties less than 50 years old may be etigibte for listing on the

NRHp ifthey can be regarded as'exceptiona\" as defined bythe NRHP procedures, orin terms ofthe CRHR,,,if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance" (Chapter

11, Titte 1.4, E$42(d)(2))

Historic resources as defined by CEQA also includes properties tisted in "tocal registers" of historic properties.

A "tocal register of historic resourceso is broadty defined in 55020.1 (k) of the Public Resources Code, as "a

tist of properties ofñcial.ty designated or recognized as historical.ty significant by a [oca[ government pursuant

to a [oca[ ordinance or resotution.' Locat registers of historic properties come essentialty in two fiorms: (1)

surveys of historic resources conducted by a tocat agency in accordance with Office of Historic Preservation

procedures and standards, adopted by the Loca[ agency and maintained as current, and (2) landmarks desig-

nated under [oca[ ordinances or resotutions. These properties are "presumed to be historicatty or culturatly

significant... untess the preponderance of t}te evidence demonsüates that the resource is not historical[y or

cu ltu ra lly si g nifi ca nt." ( PRC S 5 5024.7, 2780 4.1, 15064.5)


An improvement, natural feature, or site may become a designated t¿ndmark if it meets one the fottowing

criteria:

1.. It exemptifies or reflects speciat etements of the County's sociat, aesthetic, engineering, architectural

or natural history;

Z. It is associated with events that have made a significant conùibr¡tion to the broad patterns of

Ventura County or its cities, regional history, or the cultural. heritage of Catifornia or the United

States;

SAN BIEN VENTIßÄ RESEIRG ,1I50CÂÏE5 Page 2 of 9

19

Historic Resources Report

2001 Ocean Drive, Silver Strand (Oxnard)

3. It is associated with the lives of persons important to Ventura County or its cities, California, or na-

tional history;

4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of

Ventura County or its cities, California or the nation;

5. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or

represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values;

6. Integrity: Establish the authenticity of the resource's physical identity by evidence of lack of deterio-

ration and significant survival of the characteristics that existed during its period of importance. This

shall be evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship.


Sites of Merit satisfy the following criteria:

1. Sites of historical, architectural, community or aesthetic merit which have not been designated as

landmarks or points of interest, but which are deserving of special recognition; and

2. County approved surveyed sites with a National Register status code of 5 or above.

2. Impact Thresholds and Mitigation

According to the Public Resources Code, "a project that may cause a substantial change in the significance of

an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment." The Public

Resources Code broadly defines a threshold for determining if the impacts of a project on an historic property

will be significant and adverse. By definition, a substantial adverse change means, "demolition, destruction,

relocation, or alterations," such that the significance of an historical resource would be impaired. For pur-

poses of NRHP eligibility, reductions in a property's integrity (the ability of the property to convey its signifi-

cance) should be regarded as potentially adverse impacts. (PRC §21084.1, §5020.1(6))

Further, according to the CEQA Guidelines, "an historical resource is materially impaired when a project...

[d]emolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource

that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the Cali-

fornia Register of Historical Resources [or] that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical

resources pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical

resources survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the pub-

lic agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is

not historically or culturally significant"

The lead agency is responsible for the identification of "potentially feasible measures to mitigate significant

adverse changes in the significance of an historical resource." The specified methodology for determining if

impacts are mitigated to less than significant levels are the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treat-ment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings and the Secretary of the Interiors Standards fur Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating

Historic Buildings (1995), publications of the National Park Service. (CCR §15064.5(b)(3))

SAN BIE-NAVENTURA RESEARal ASSOGATES Page 3 of 9


3. It is associated with the [ives of persons important to Ventura County or its cities, Califomia, or na-

tional history;

4. It has yietded, or has the potential to yietd, information important to tlre prehistory or history of

Ventura County or its cities, Glifurnia or lfie nation;

5. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a t¡tpe, period, region, or method of construction, or

represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values;

6. Integrity: Estabtish the authenticity of the resource's physicat identity by evidence of lack of deterio-

ration and significant survival of the characteristics that e:<isted during its period of importance. This

shal.l be evaluated with regard to the retertion of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship.


Sites of Merit satisfo the fottowing criteria:

7. Sites of historicaL architectura[, communig or aesthetic merit which have not been designated as

landmarks or points ofinterest, but which are deserving of special recognition; and

2. County approved surveyed sites with a National Register status code of 5 or above.

2. lmpact Thresholds and Mit¡gat¡on

According to the Pubtic Resources Code, 'a project that may cause a substantial change in the significance ofan historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment." The Pubtic

Resources Code broadþ defines a threshotd for determining if the impacts of a project on an historic property

witt be significant and adverse. By definition, a substantial adverse change means, "demo]ition, destruction,

relocation, or atterations," such that füe significance of an historical resource would be impaired. For pur-

poses of NRHP etigibitity, reductions in a propeSy's integrity (the abitity of the property to convey its signifi-cance) should be regarded as potentiatty adverse impacb. (PRC 521084.1, 55020.1(6))

Further, according to tle CEQA Guidetines, 'an historical resource is materia[y impaired when a project...

[d]emotishes or materiatly atters in an adverse manner those physical chancteristics of an historical resource

that convey its historical. significance and t}at justifo its inclusion in, or etigibitity for, inctusion in the Cali-

fornia Register of Historical Resources [or] that account for its inclusion in a [oca[ register of historicalresources pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical

resources survey meeting the requirements of section 5O24.7(g) of tlte Public Resources Code, untess the pub-

tic agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a prepondennce of evidence that the resource is

not historically or culturally significanl'

The tead agency is responsible for the identification of "potentia[y feasible measures to mitigate significantadverse changes in tlre significance of an historicat resource.'The specified methodotogy for determining ifimpacts are mitigated to less than significant levels are the Secretary of the Interíols Standards þr the Trcot-

ment of Hìstoríc Propertìes with Guìdelines þr Preseruing, Rehobilítøtíng, Restoring, dnd Reconstructìng Hístoric

Buitdings and the Secretdry of the Interíols Støndards þr Rehabílitation and Guidelines þr Rehdbilitating

Historic Buítdings (1995), pubtications of the National Palk Service. (CCR 815064.5(bX3))

SAN Dt tI,II{VENTUA RESE,IRG,1S50C,1ïE5 Page 3of9

20



3. Historical Setting

General Historical Context

The first of three beachfront subdivisions between Oxnard and Hueneme, Hollywood Beach, was recorded in

1924 by a partnership consisting of William and Frances Lingenbrink, William and Alma Dunn of Los Angeles,

along with the owners of the property, the family estate of Oxnard Plain pioneer Dominick McGrath. The sub-

division stretched nearly a mile along the beachfront sand dunes west of Hueneme, but little more than 300

feet deep. Typical of the many highly speculative beachfront subdivisions that appeared along the Ventura

County coastline during the 1920s, most of the 502 parcels were tiny, only 35 feet wide and 75 feet deep,

befitting their purpose, for the construction of weekend and vacation cottages.

Both the Location and the name of the Hollywood Beach subdivision were an effort to capitalize on the Ru-

dolph Valentino craze set off by the release of his immensely popular silent film "The Sheik" in 1921. Despite

the somewhat remote location, and the lack of improved roads, Valentino fans reportedly streamed to the

sand dunes between Hueneme and Oxnard where many of the outdoor scenes for "The Sheik" had been filmed. The parcels marketed by the partnership's "Hollywood Beach Sales Company" were reported to have sold out

quickly, with all of them turned over to eager buyers in a matter of months. (Smalley, 1976: 11-13)

As with all such real estate development claims, especially during the 1920s when even small deposits were

reported as property sales, the actual sales rate in the subdivision is difficult to judge. In any case the devel-

opers had to be encouraged; a year Later they purchased 85 additional acres of beachfront to the south, which

they subdivided as Silver Strand. This subdivision was of a similar character, but at 876 parcels, even more

ambitious than its predecessor. The Hollywood-by-the-Sea subdivision, between the two, continued the theme

of tying the beachfront to the film industry with its recording by another development partnership in 1926.

(Los Angeles Times, 11-1-1925; Smalley, 1976: 15-19)

William Lingenbrink (1870-1949) was a real estate developer, art gallery owner, publisher, and notable pro-

moter of Modern and Pre-Modern architecture, particularly the work of avant guard architects Rudolf Schindler

and Jock Peters. Both designed a number of buildings for him, including his own home in Los Angeles. Neither

of these designers had any known connection to Hollywood Beach or Silver Strand, however. William Dunn was

a Los Angeles real estate developer about whom little is presently known.

The connection between the Ventura County coastline and the film industry remained a powerful one well into

1920s, as film companies continued to employ the dunes for exotic movie settings. At the same time, any

number of film industry notables were supposed to have bought property and built weekend cottages along

the beach, but always through aliases or fronts, rendering these claims virtually impossible to verify. Never-theless, the Hollywood connection was so powerful in the public mind that in 1927 it could be used convinc-

ingly by the Ventura County Sheriff and District Attorney as cover for a sting operation. In a case of life imi-

tating art, when a team of "rum runners" attempted to deliver a Load of liquor to a film company party held

on Hollywood Beach, they were promptly arrested. The film company and the event were complete fictions

created by the Sheriff. (Los Angeles Times, 2-12-1927)

Other films reported to have used the locale include "Blood and Sand" (1922, also starring Valentino), "Burn-

ing Sands" (1922), and "The Crowd" (1928). With the advent of the sound era, filming in outdoor locations in

general was curtail d in favor of sound stages, and the connection between the beach communities and the

industry gradually faded. It is unclear how many homes were constructed in these subdivisions prior to the

SAN DUENAVeNTURA RE-SEARCH ASSOCIATES Page 4 of 9

Historic Resources Report;äïi;";" Drive' silver strand (oxnard)

3. Historical Setting

iï,Jiîî:i::î*n.:,bdi:.:::::_between 'xnard and Hueneme, Horrvwood Beach' was recorded in

te24 bya partnership consistins * n,oot "ïî;;;;; r-ins"nu'i;k'-wìiti"t í¿ Ahn't -DÏn

of Los Anseles'atong with tt . o*n"L orit

" p.p"rrry, *"'orì., "*a"

or õ"n"r¿ it"in-f,on"", Dominick. McGrath' The sub-

division stretched nearty a mite atong ttre_beachíont sand dunes.we* oi tu"n"re, but littte more than 300feet deep. Typicat "i,ñ.

many hightv rdil;;;;""tttt-t '"'åi"iti""t t'at appeared atons the ventura

county coasttine during the 1g20s, .most-of

the 502 parcets *o".in'' onty 35 feet wide and 75 feet deep'befittingtr.."i,pu.pî,"]"i.*corlstructionofweekendandvacationcottages.Both the location and the name of the Hotlywood Beach subdivision were an effort to capitatize on the Ru-

dor,ph vatentino .rJr" ,", off bv the re!e"r" ot t'ri, immensety o";;; siunt nm "The sheik" in 1921' Despitethe somewhat ,"rn'o-i"-to.ation, and u'" ;; oi-irprou"¿ -"¿r,'î"t"ntino fans reportedty streamed to thesand dunes ¡etween Hueneme and oxnardi'ù* ,nr* of ttr" out¿oJri"n" The sheik" had been fitmed'The parcets *.rn*¿'i, the partnershie-rî';tü;;oå á"*rt t"*ii"to"" ported to have sotd outquickty,withal'Lofthemturnedoverto""g"'bu!"oinamatterofmonths'7976:77-\3\As with a[ such real e eciatty during the 1920s when evejr sma[ deposits were

reported as property iiti*îr"Èi**ilulfläTlili'.:::jfiiïfioPers had to be encout

they subdivided as sit, as of a ,iriã, .l',"octer, br¡t at g76 parcers' even more

ambitious than its predecessor. The Hottywood-by-*re-sea subdivision' between the two' continued the theme

of tying tte ueactrtront to the fitm industf-;ú il recording o, """""r devetopment partnership in 1926'

(Los Angeles r'^ii"'li-t-t925; smal'tey' 1976: 15-19)

w*riam Linsenbrink (1870-1e4e) was.a reat estate ::1fi["t"ll':itT:i:"t'limoter of mo¿"'n'"n¿'p'"-mo¿",n architecture' partit ome in Los Angeles' Neitherand Jock Peters' Both des however' witliam Dunn wasifflil:il:i::ì":"ä is PresenttY known'

The connection between the ventura. county coasttine and thefitm industry remained a powerful one wett into,e20s,asnh.;=;;;;;"scontinued¿',:iJif if ;llii*:n",;ïT"fîË-iå:äilï:inumber of fil'm

or ftonts, rendering *Jr" .Ottt virtuaUy impossibte to verifo' Never-the beach' butthetess, the Ho li ö;'äi i" ut" o"otti;tJ d; ¡¡ :.{izt it coutd be used convinc-ingty by the ventura county sheriff and District Attorney"';;:;;;t $ing operation' In a case of tife imi-tating art, when a team of 'ru* ,unnJ,i'"ä".no*¿ -*t'"o ' ùîi"ittoî"ito a fitm company party hel'd

on Hottywood Beach, they were p..îatv ",'"'*d'-The

fitm t";*' and the event were complete fictionscreated O, tn" tn"nO ' ltos lngelæ Tines' 2-12-1927)

'ther fir"ms reported to have used the locate inctude

,Btood and Sand" (1g22, atso staning vatentino)' "Burn-

ins Sands" ltszz¡'a1{ "lhe "::{.1;;;i' nt'n tP'"din" **¿ en'fitmins in outdoor locations in

general *., .urt"it d in favor ot rounTãgå'' "n¿ n" tonnl;ånït*""n the beach communities and the

industry graduatty faded. It is unctear how many tor", ""* .onstructed in these subdivisions prior to the

s^N NEl{AVENNßA RESEARG ,lssoa^IEs Page 4of9

21



important to Ventura County or its cities, California, or national history (Criterion 3). The property does not

embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the

work of a master or possesses high artistic values (Criterion 5). Criterion 4 pertains to archeological resources

and consequently has not been evaluated in this report.

Integrity Discussion

1. Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event

occurred.

The residence does not appear to have been moved.

2. Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.

The design of the residence appears to be substantially intact. Windows and door openings are substan-

tially in their original configuration, expressing their original detailing and size. Although the windows

were replaced, the design of the new windows duplicates the original in terms of their dimensions and

muntin patterns. Other features will be (or have been) reconstructed according to evidence of their origi-

nal design. The roof configuration has been altered somewhat and raised slightly to accommodate insula-

tion.

3. Setting: The physical environment of a historic property.

The beachfront community setting of the property is only partially intact, due to the replacement of the

small, rustic beach cottages that once characterized the area with larger-scale residences. The property

retains a direct visual connection to its historical beach setting.

4. Materials: The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and

in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.

The alterations to the residence substantially reduces the property's integrity of materials.

5. Workmanship: The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period

of history or prehistory.

The alterations to the residence substantially reduces the property's integrity of workmanship.

6. Feeling: A property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.

The property retains some sense of its period and use due to the persistence of it residential use and rela-

tionship to the beach.

7. Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

Association is a relatively more important aspect of integrity for properties that derive their significance

from historic events, and is said to be retained if the property is "the place where the event or activity

occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer." The property's integrity of

association remains somewhat intact as it might still be judged by an observer to be from the period of

significance.

SAN BUENAVENTURA RESEARCM ASSOCIATES Page 7 of 9

Historic Resources Report2fi)1 Ocean Drive, Silver Strand (Oxnard)

important to Ventura County or its cities, California, or nationat history (Criterion 3). The property does notembody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the

work of a master qr possesses high artistic vatues (Criterion 5). Criterion 4 pertains to archeologicat resources

and consequentty has not been evatuated in this report.

Integríty Discussion

1. Location: The place where tåe historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event

occurred.

The residence does not appear to have been moved.

2. Design: The combination of elements thet create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.

The design of the residence appears to be substantiatty intacl Windows and door openings are substan-

tial.ty in their original configuration, o<pressing their original detaiting and size. Att]rough the windows

were replaced, the design of tlre new windows dupticates the original in terms of their dimensions and

muntin patterns. Otier features witt be (or have been) reconsFucted according to evidence of their origi-

nal design. The roof configuration has been attered somewhat and nised stightty to accommodate insula-

tion.

3. Setting: The physicat environment of a historic property.

The beachfront communit¡r setting of the property is only partiatty intact, due to the reptacement of the

smatt, rustic beach cottages that once chancterized the area with [arger-scale residences. The property

retains a direct visual connection to its historical beach setting.

4. Materials: The physicat elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and

in a particular pattem or configuration to furm a historic property.

The alterations to the residence substantially reduces füe property's integrity of materials.

5. Workmanship: The physicat evidence of the crafts of a particular cutture or people during any given period

of history or prehistory.

The alterations to the residence substantially reduces the propert¡y's integrity of workmanship.

6. Feeling: A prope$y's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particutar period of time.

The property retains some sense of its period and use due to lùe persistence of it residential use and rela-

tionship to the beach.

7. Association: The direct tink between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

Association is a relatively more important aspect of integrity fior properties that derive their significance

from historic events, and is said to be retained if the property is "the place where tlre event or activityoccurred and is sufficientty intact to convey that relationship to an observer.o The property's integrity ofassociation remains somewhat intact as it might stil,L be judged by an observer to be from the period ofsignificance.

S,lN BGl{AVEtlTtßÁ RESE,IRG,lSsOC,tTEs Page 7of9

22


Summary Conclusion

The alterations underway at the time of this writing conform to the rehabilitation approach recommended by

the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, which state:

The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or

alterations of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.

Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration re-

quires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated

by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.

Given the effort undertaken to preserve the character of the property, include form, plan, and design, in the rehabilitation process, based on limited evidence of its historic appearance, the property appears to retain

sufficient integrity to be potentially eligible for listing as a Ventura County Landmark.

SAN BUENAVENTURA RESEARCH ASSOCIATES Page 8 of 9

Historic Resources Report200f Ocean Drive, Silver Strand (Oxnard)

Summary Conclusìon

The atterations underway at the time of this writing conform to the rehabititation approach recommended by

the Secretary ofthe Interiot's Støndørds, which state:

The historic chøracter of a propefty shøll be retoìned ond preserued. The removal of historíc materiøb or

alteratíons offeotures and spøces thøt characterize a propefly shøll be avoided.

Deteriorated historíc features shdll be repaired røther thon replaced. Whete the severíty of deteiorøtìon re-

quíres replacement of a dístindive feøture, the new feafure sholl match the old in deign, color, tuture, and

other visuøl qualities and, where possible, møterioLs. Replacement of nissing features shall be substontiated

by documentary, physicøL or pictorial evidence.

Given the effort undertaken to preserve the character of the properþr, inctude form, ptan, and design, in the

rehabititation process, based on timited evidence of its historic appearance, tre proper\t appears to retain

sufl'icient integrity to be potentiaþ etigibte for listing as a Ventura County Landmark.

SAN DLEtIlt\Æf,lTtß,1 RESE,IRG,1SS00^ïE5 Page 8of9

23


6. Selected Sources

City Directories.

Los Angeles Times: 11-1-1925, 2-12-1927.

Oxnard Press-Courier: 11-8-1946, 11-12-1946.

Smalley, Jack. The Star-Spangled Story of the Channel Island Harbor. Oxnard: Channel Island Chamber of Com-merce, 1976.

Ventura County Assessor Records.

Ventura County Official Records (deeds).

Ventura County Maps of Record.

SAN BUENAVENTURA RESEAR01 ASSOCIATES Page 9 of 9


6. SelectedSources

City Directories.

Los Angeles Times: 77-l-1925, 2-72-7927.

Oxnard Press-Courier: 17-8-7946, 7l-72-7946.

Smaltey, Jack. The Star-Spongled Story of the Chonnel Islsnd Haúor. Oxnard: Channel Island Chamber of Com-

merce,1976.

Ventura County Assessor Records.

Ventura County 0fficiat Records (deeds).

Ventura County Maps of Record.

sl{N Dtfll,llJENnn l RESE,1RGi,lts0Q,lTEs Page 9of9

24

Photo 1. Eastern elevation. [Real estate listing photo, date unknown.]

Photo 2. Eastern and southern elevations. [7-14-2015]

Photo 1. Eastern elevation. [Rea[ estate listing photo, date unknown.]

Photo 2. Eastern and southern etevations. 17-14-20751

25

Photo 3. Southern elevation. [Real estate listing photo, date unknown.]

Photo 4. Southern and western elevation. [7-14-2015]

Photo 3. Southem elevation. [Real estate listing photo, date unknown.]

Photo 4. Southem and western etevation. 17-74-20751

26

Photo 5. Western elevation. [Real estate listing photo, date unknown.]

Photo 6. Western elevation. [7-14-15]

"'{

ftII

t

Photo 5. Western etevation. [Real. estate listing photo, date unknown.]

Photo 6. Western elevation. 17-1'4-751

27

8b. Cultural Resources - Historic

A. Definition of Issue For purposes of this section, the term "historical resources" includes the following:

1. A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code Section S5024.1; Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et. seq.).

2. A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements, Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.

3. Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be historically significant if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code Section S5024.1; Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following:

a. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;

b. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

c. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or

d. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

4. The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

5. Historical resource includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California. (Public Resources Code, Section 5020.1(j).)

B. Definition of Technical Terms Mandatory Significance - A historical resource must be considered significant if it is on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historic Places.

Presumptive Significance - A historical resource is presumed to be significant if it is listed on a local register of historic resources unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates otherwise. In Ventura County this includes County Landmarks, Site of Merit, and Points of Interest. These are all noted on Permits Plus in the Planning Dept.


Agenda Item # 4

Ver Exhibit 2 — Initial Study Assessment

8b. Cultural Resources - Historic

A. Definition of lssueFor purposes of this section, the term "historicatresources" includes the following:

1. A resource listed in, ordetermined to be eligible bythe State Historical Resources Commission,for listing in the California Register of Histoiical Resources (Pub. Res. Code Section 55024'1;Title 't4 CCR, Section 4850 et' seq').

2. A resource included in a local register of historicatresources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k)oftified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting theof the pu¡l¡c Resources Code, shall be presumed to bePublicagenciesmusttreatanysuchresourceassignificant

idence dernonstrates that it is not historically or culturallysignificant.3

;ff:? "l#i'?"liTl'1,i""locial, Political, military,

ource, Provided the leadby substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered bythe lead

"g"n"y to Oe n¡stõr¡cally significant if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the

Catifornia negiåter of Historical ReJources (Pub. Res. Code Section 55024.1; Title 14 CCR'Section 4852) including the following:

a. ls associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patternsof California's history and cultural heritage;

b.lsassociatedwiththelivesofpersonsimportantinourpast;c. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region,

. or method of

construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual' or possesseshigh artistic values; or

d. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

4. The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the CaliforniaRegister of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuantto section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources code), or identified in an hrsforical resources survey(meeting tne criteiiá in Section 502a.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a leadagency from determining that the resõurce may be an historical resource as defined in PublicRãsources Code Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024'1'

5. but is not limited to, any object, building, structure, site, area, place'is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in theientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military'

or cultural annals of California. (Public Resources Code, Section 5020.1(j).)

B. Definition of Technical TermsMandatory significance - A historical resource must be considered significant if it is on or eligible forlisting on îne Ñationat Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historic Places'

presumptive Significance - A historical resource is presumed to be significant if it is listed on a localregister of historic resources unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates othen¡vise' lnVentura County this includes County Landmarks, Site of Merit, and Points of lnterest. These are all notedon Permits Plus in the Planning Dept.


Agenda ltem # 4Exhibit 2 - lnitial Study AssessmentVer

31

Discretionary Significance - A historical resource may still be considered significant even if it is not on a federal, state or local list if substantial evidence demonstrates its significance. (League for Protection of Oakland's Architectural and Historic Resources v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal. App. 4th 896.)

C. Applicable General Plan Goals and Policies The following goals and policies of the Ventura County General Plan are applicable to this issue:

Countywide Goals, Policies and Programs: Goals 1.8.1-1 & -2

Policies 1.8.2-1 through -6

El Rio/Del Norte Area Plan: Ojai Valley Area Plan:

Goal 1.6.1-1 Goals 1.7.1-1 through -3

There are no supplemental policies. Policies 1.7.2-1 & -2

Lake Sherwood/Hidden Valley Area Plan: Piru Area Plan

Goals 2.2.1-1 & -2 Goals 1.4.1-1 & -2

Policies 2.2.2-1 through -10 Policies 1.4.2-1 through -3

Oak Park Area Plan: Thousand Oaks Area Plan:

Goals 1.5.1-1 & -2 Goals 1.5.1-1 through -4

Policies 1.5.2-1 & -2 Policies 1.5.2-1 & -2

D. Threshold of Significance Criteria A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the mandatory significance, presumptive significance or discretionary significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historic resource would be materially impaired. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.)

The significance of an historic resource is materially impaired when a project:

1. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or

2. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Act or its identification in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or

3. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.

4. Demolition, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of an historical resource would be impaired. (Public Resources Code, Sec. 5020(q))

E. Methodology Step 1. Historic Significance

Examine the Project Site - If completion of the project involves physical changes in anything on the historic site (land, building, structure, object), the project reviewer must first determine

Ventura County Initial Study Assessment Guidelines 70

Discretionary Significance - A historical resource may still be considered significant even if it is not on afederal, state or local list if substantial evidence demonstrates its significance. (League for Protection ofOaktand's Architecturat and Historic Resources v. CW of Oakland (19 17) 52 Cal. App. 4"' 896.)

C. Applicable General Plan Goals and PoliciesThe following goals and policies of the Ventura County General Plan are applicable to this issue:

Countywide Goals, Policies and Programs:Goals1.8.1-1 &-2Policies 1.8.2-1 through -6

El Rio/Del Norte Area Plan: ojaivalley Area Plan:

Goal 1.6.1-1 Goals 1.7.1-1 through -3

There are no supplemental policies. Policies 1.7 .2-1 & -2

Lake sherwood/Hidden valley Area Plan; Piru Area Plan

Goals2.2.1-1 &-2 Goals 1.4.1-'t &-2Poticies 2.2.2-1 through -10 Policies 1 .4.2-1 through -3

Oak Park Area Plan: Thousand Oaks Area Plan:

Goals 1 .5.1-1 &'2 Goals 1.5.1-1 through -4

Policies 1.5.2-1 &-2 Policies 1.5.2-1 &'2

D. Threshold of Significance GriteriaA project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse'change in the mandatory significance,presumptive significance or discretionary significance of an historical resource is a project that may havea significant effect on the environment. Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historicalresource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, oralteration of the resource or its immediatesurroundings such that the significance of an historic resource would be materially impaired. (CEOAGuidelines Section 1 5064.5.)

The significance of an historic resource is materially impaired when a project:

1. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of anhistorical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, oreligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or

2. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that accountfor its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of thePublic Resources Act or its identification in a historical resources survey meeting therequirements of Section 5O2ai@) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agencyreviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resourceis not historically or culturally significant; or

3. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historicalresource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in theCalifornia Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes ofCEQA.

4. Demolition, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of an historical resource would beimpaired. (Public Resources Code, Sec. 5020(q))

E. MethodologyStep l. Historic SignificanceExamine the Project Site - lf completion of the project involves physicalchanges in anything onthe historic site (land, building, structure, object), the project reviewer must first determine

Ventura County lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines70

32

Cumulative Impact Analysis - An area 1/4 mile in radius (that used by the SCCIC ) surrounding the site should be used to see if there have been any recent significant adverse impacts to any significant historic site. These then should be listed and cumulatively analyzed with any identified impacts on the project site.

Effect on Adjacent Sites - In determining whether the project might have an effect on the site/building/s, the reviewer must consider whether it might have an effect on the surroundings. This may also be a consideration when a new project is adjacent to a historic resource site. For example, construction of a new house in the midst of an entire block of historic homes in a documented historic area may be a significant impact. The compatibility of the design of the new house with its surroundings must be analyzed.

In complex, cases, the CHB may request that a consultant be hired to evaluate any of these issues.

Site Not Historically Significant - If a historical resource is deemed not significant, the effects of the project on that resource shall be considered a less than significant effect on the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the effect on it are noted in the Initial Study or

EIR, if one is prepared, to address impacts on other resources, but they need not be considered further in the CEQA process.

Step 3. Mitigation

General — Avoidance is an excellent strategy and is preferable. A project that follows the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than significant impact on the historical resource. Close adherence to the Secretary of the Interior Standards is recommended.

The CHB shall identify feasible measures to mitigate significant adverse changes in the significance of an historical resource. The staff person responsible for administering the project shall ensure that any adopted measures to mitigate or avoid significant adverse changes are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.

Data recovery shall not be required for a historical resource if the lead agency determines that testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from and about the historical resource, provided that the determination is documented in the environmental document and that the studies are deposited with the SCCIC.

Demolitions - These constitute an IMPORTANT exception to rule above regarding full mitigation of adverse impacts on a significant historical resource. According to case law, demolition of a significant historical resource may not be mitigated to a less than significant level and an environmental impact report will be required. Mitigation is still required however, even though commonly used mitigations are no longer sufficient to fully offset the impact. These include:

o Preparation of a historic resources report

o Historic building survey

o Designing the replacement building to reflect the historic elements of the building

o A plaque or marker commemorating the building

Construction Effects - The County staff person responsible for conditioning the project should include conditions in the permit/entitlement for historical resources accidentally discovered during construction. These conditions should include an immediate evaluation of the find by a qualified archaeologist. If the find is determined to be an historical resource, contingency funding and a time allotment sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures or appropriate mitigation should be made a condition of approval. Work may continue on other parts of the building site while historical resource mitigation takes place.

Ventura County Initial Study Assessment Guidelines 72

Cumulative lmpact Analysis - An area 114 mile in radius (that used by the SCCIC ) surroundingthe s1e should be used to see if there have been any recent significant adverse impacts to anysignificant historic site. These then should be listed and cumulatively analyzed with any identifiedimpacts on the project site.

Effect on Adjacent Sites - ln determining whether the project might have an effect on thesite/building/s, the reviewer must consider whether it might have an effect on the surroundings.This may also be a consideration when a new project is adjacent to a historic resource site. Forexample, construction of a new house in the midst of an entire block of historic homes in adocumented historic area may be a significant impact. The compatibility of the design of the newhouse with its surroundings must be analyzed.

ln complex, cases, the CHB may request that a consultant be hired to evaluate any of theseissues.

Site Not Historically Significant - lf a historical resource is deemed not significant, the effects ofthe project on that resource shall be considered a less than significant effect on the environment.It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the effect on it are noted in the lnitial Study or

ElR, if one is prepared, to address impacts on other resources, but they need not be consideredfurther in the CEQA process.

Step 3. MitigationGeneral - Avoidance is an excellent strategy and is preferable. A project that follows theSecretary of the lnterior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines forPreserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary ofthe lnterior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings(1995), Weeks and Grimmer, shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than significantimpact on the historicat resource. Close adherence to the Secretary of the lnterior Standards isrecommended.

The CHB shall identify feasible measures to mitigate significant adverse changes in thesignificance of an historical resource. The staff person responsible for administering the projectshall ensure that any adopted measures to mitigate or avoid significant adverse changes are fullyenforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.

Data recovery shall not be required for a historical resource if the lead agency determines thattesting or studies already completed have adequately recovered the scientifically consequentialinformation from and about the historical resource, provided that the determination is documentedin the environmental document and that the studies are deposited with the SCCIC.

Demolitions - These constitute an IMPORTANT exception to rule above regarding full mitigationof adverse impacts on a significant historical resource. According to case law, demolition of asignificant historical resource may not be mitigated to a less than significant level and anenvironmental impact report will be requíired. Mitigation is still required however, even thoughcommonly used mitigations are no longer sufficient to fully offset the impact. These include:

o Preparation of a historic resources report

o Historic building survey

o Designing the replacement building to reflect the historic elements of the building

o A plaque or marker commemorating the building

Construction Effects - The County staff person responsible for conditioning the project shouldinclude conditions in the permiUentitlement for historical resources accidentally discovered duringconstruction. These conditions should include an immediate evaluation of the find by a qualifiedarchaeologist. lf the find is determined to be an historical tesoLtrce, contingency funding and atime allotment sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures or appropriatemitigation should be made a condition of approval. Work may continue on other parts of thebuilding site while historical resource mitigation takes place.

Ventura County lnitial Study Assessment Guidelines72

33

EAST" „VW ELEVATION

c

0_1

EY/S -77 AI/E ELEVA."-1- ION

EXIST/NO Li-Oz./774E4Sr E c/a -77(.2/v

N,..),T1-/WEST EL EVAT 101\1

In m O

IL at

04> ct 1-1 Z

ce Z 4 u.

1-1 u o

o o N

z O

arr

Ex/yr hvG ILL / N

11...m1A 4.7* 41 7s 4.3

Livhva


Agenda Item # 4 Exhibit 3 — Demolition Plan

67 d. A 1

Ir.i4E)-4 6ZOIV-v-,fri

0

uv

1 r

8a-Fu

BEOR a,../ L__40 Ga,za4e

4+AI 4 2

A2 A LE A -

ex/ST

z

D.

F

O

z 11

ooto 22'-2as

• ;:g • /

OWNER RICHARD GREENBERG

2001 OCEAN DRIVE OXNARD, CALIFORNIA 93035

Jab

REVISIONB BY

DEMOLITION NOTES

1. REMOVE EXISTING ROOF

2. REMOVE EXISTING SIDING

3. REMOVE FASTING CASEMENT WINDOWS, AND MODIFY OPENINGS AS REQUIRED FOR NEW

CODE REQUIRED EGRESS WINDOWS

4. REMOVE !WRING DOOR, AND MODIFY OPENING FOR NEW WINDOW

5. REMOVE EXISTING WINDOW TRIM ON ALL SIDES

6. REMOVE EXISTING STONE FIREPLACE

7. REMOVE EXISTING HANDRAIL TO ALLOW ACCESS FOR APPLIANCES

8. REMOVE EXISTING WOOD DECK

9. REMOVE EXISTING STEPS

10. REMOVE EXISTING ELECTRIC METER AND RELOCATE

11. REMOVE EXISTING STAIR

12. REMOVE EXISTING ROOF AND ROOF FRAMING

13. REMOVE ROOF OVERHANG AT DOOR

14. ROMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING DOOR

15. REMOVE EXISTING GARAGE DOORS AND TRIM, KEEP DOORS AND

RE-INSTALL

16. REMOVE BATHTUB, SINK AND TOILET

17. REMOVE CABINETS, STOVE AND SINK

EKlST ¿_ L- L- toN €K/sT/Nq ,-1o u fU ulST e t- ay'aT /QNl

O

€K/ST xt/ e ¿ t- EVA-T / ()N e\./.\T/N(} -T ELEVA-T ION

DEMOtMOf{ NOTES

REMOW EXISNNG RæF

REMOVE ÛSTING SIDING

RIMW MSNNG CASTMTMWINMWS, AND MODIfl OP€NIreSN REqUIRED fOfl NEW

CODEREqUIñED EGßSWNMS

REMOVE gISTG MOR, ND MOOITY OPENING FOR NEW WINæW

REMOVE qISTIìG WINDM TRIM OÑ ÀLSIDE5

FFMOVT ügIÑG ÍONE FIREPUG

SEMOVI UISIING HANDMILfO ALOW AGS FOR ÂPPLIAI'¡CEs

REMOW EXISNG WæD O€CX

RÊMOW qISNGSTEP5

REMOW ãIÍING ELEqRT MEftR ÑD REIMTE

REMOW qIsNN6 fAR

REMOW EXIflNG RæF NO ROOF FMMING

REMOVE RæF OWRHANG AI æOR

ßOMOVE ND REPUCE EXIÍNG MR

RCMOW UISTIN6 AMGE Dæ6 NDNIM, XEEP MR5AflDßEINfAtr

SEMOW M]mB,sINXÑDTOIF

REMOW ruINÍS, ÍOVE ANO SINX

tt/ ø2aLzÉ.1^)

(1.

z.

3.

5.

6.

7.

a.

9,

10.

Lt.

12.

13.

14.

t5.

16-

77.

o s{!rñ

EX/ST ,ATT/C

*11 7L

o


Agenda ltem # 4Exhibit 3- Demolition plan

owf{ERRICHAND GREE¡IBERG

2OO1 OCEAÍI DRIYE

ntì

6Aaa4êôÐ¡<e1 Z

?.ttæNt5¿OKþ14 t_ @

86ap@Lt¿t^/e Pcavo^Y-@Y-

EY/STING FL<>o< PL¿xl

@

OXNARD, CAL¡FIORXIA 93OT5

BEVtgror,¡8

z5Èzo

o-u¡ô

E

óoË:Êi6eS nr<Eoååi$Et5È'3 EE6õEú8

¡

¡rìmoffl

l¡¡ o[ì<x2-dzo<rrl¡¡ l.'!

r3t9'\-zxo

w l'2t.Þ/ssh /t<sM

ol 6mt)[

34

647-re..1, G LVW 2,A0 r- ,7.'1

- ESY•si

EL.. 14,5'

AIR-Ds o,N.LE. Avelqua

SITE AND BUILDING ANALYSIS

APN 206-0-179-280 ZONE: RBH

ADDRESS: 2001 Ocean Drive PARCEL SIZE: 2550 SF / 05 acre Oxnard, California 93035

EXISTING RESIDENCE: HOUSE: 1384 SF LOFT: 70 SF GARAGE: 184 SF

TOTAL (GROSS AREA) 1638 SF

REAR DECK: 246 SF

OBSERVATION DECK: 221 SF

OWNER: Richard Greenberg 2001 Ocean Drive Oxnard, California 93035 310713-7316

CONTACT: Kevin Estes P.O. Box 5897 Ventura, California 93005 805 947-6958

HISTORIC RESOURCES CONSULTANT: San Buenaventura Research Associates

1328 Woodland Drive Santa Paula, California 93060

OCCUPANCY: R3 / Ul

CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VN

LOT COVERAGE: 62 5%

ENTRY PORCH / WALKING DECK: 373 SF

APPLICANT: Richard Greenberg

2001 Ocean Drive Oxnard, California 93035 310 713-7316

ARCHITECT: Gene Barrey Robles 09746 4500 Regents Court Westlake Village, California 91361 818 991-4216

SCOPE OF WORK REVISIONS BY

12-3

evACC-- NAtia- 6040

to O

pL A iv jc„,._E IA.. s f

EXISTING 2-,572.117-7. ftaziomcE.

RE -91//L-0 tit,' PONCE

Glt6'

..sw, A-A, F pimit....y RESIEJ,ICL E.

1- 1450 SF

FAN/S4 flea,R. Et- ArY

r Y

EXISTING 9-STORY 8.631 ,vos

STREET

f--- SCOPE OF WORN

1 R.place gusting fence on south end north side of kit 75'- 0" long x 51- IY x high each side

2 Remove existing asphalt roams instal plywood sheathing, R-30 insulation and new Asphat Shingles, Certain Teed Presidential ICCES ESS313139

3 Replace toasting wid Oct eosting openings MahAn:U-factor 029 91-11300113,

4 Add Wight. Valet Ursa, 0.49 SHGC D27

Institue existing walls with 9-15 belt insulation

ADDEO TO PERMIT

E Remodel muting Bash, Install new futures in existing locations 500 equate feet.

7 Re-model misting Ktchan Install now cabinets. sink and range in emitting locations, 135 0 square fees

betel new Instantaneous Hot Water Fleeter Noritt NRC 91300

Re-pace existlyg Wood Siring with matching Wood Sting over Waterproof Marnbrune, 3980 square feat

10. Fil&plisort routing masonry fireplace wet app uved Heatgator Metal FresAace

11 Add r•II1 .11ddilonnl SOON.. same sperfication es above

12 Increase roof slope et rear of house

13 Lutell new HVAC system

14 Rewire !muse and up grade outlets. switches and tight fixtures

15. Add gable one garage door

.01...A•ArtAA.

,71.11LIJ ss. rEk.cE

1-1 A.CGE — -

- CLIR-6 ;jar -TEA.

ECIS7 rLYST,GAI es,k3:14

mato a RIO OE SANTA CLARA OtA COLD IA y Ala

"EF7 0

ASSESSOR'S MAP

206-17

,o

ta.it k741.1li SH#'Mfflifj,

IAINgOIPOtAl

,"S:14,11.1MIN6 Worn

VICINITY MAP TITLE BLOCK

Des 5511'T cc,3

Eisals 1"r foto,

or t

" ;.!',.??. .4:\--,,, 1 litentove`•

' : 1

....: -*E4.14W'A

...-- HOLLYVV001,

7

• 4.P4S11,7. BY THE

e c N•17, WI)

.. . R. 1 .Fas..— ;

1. 1 -1

:,....,-. \ 1 ;74-'

.17).—

.;"7"-;-•

F. H ;z - 4

Drew c'Sk


Agenda Item # 4 Exhibit 4 - Plans and Elevations

Job

Must

- --::,-*-. •'"‘-.Er- ti A,

a 4 st..t. SIF

PACIFIC OCEAN

SCOPE OF WORK

t R¡fim ùrje tsm on sM âd fd #e db 75:O" bry r 5!O' x hiSh æch ùe

2 Fmæ sirj4 ðÊph€ÈmtoE, hsg dNd $#ry, m iNbhn ad rwAsÞhs:$imb,ftehTd hdtu ffi Braæ

3 R€d*E6sjeffiheÉ4@ç kM:UsùOÆWO18

4 Âdd *yþb: V* Uler O¿a slff O27

5 lÉÞeridiruw[€dR15ffiGu]tu

Pmd sÈE M: rÈll @ tuE in eÈq hdoß 58O EqkÉ fee

hd ãËE bb: l@! deH@,shkad Eqs rn siùs æ, 1350

É3¡ rHÉ@æHdWùkE MfrNmffi

tut€qiri{Wd S;i}E# lldiq Wd Sq @rw6@lÀ¡€mM.95¡ qusE MRAI@ eÉts lEry Fqlæ wñ ÐFd lffi kl fu€p¡æ

Ad ú #mS9!tgÈ msFftab æ €h

k@mf6lW*mroflrc

LdwWACqdom

Iìbtrlffidupqdffi #h6€ndtghtuE

Add Sbþ ffi gàqe tur

F.ffift/'È

6

7

€

s

AIþE¡¡ ÌD PEFI,IIT

scfPE (f wf¡E(

10

11

12

14

15.

ASSESSOR'S MAP

a

P¡rfr{o o &0 0E s¡ÀI¿{ d,tû ola û-d,*

ffiffitb54&tÀMåe*wrhc,ua4'Èl!

2û-t7

@

Ë

@

@

tlGry

@

øa

VICINITY MAP TITLE BLOCK

þsr.".,t.

1

ZlrIl

êl / s r t P a z: tza19f rreê!Þ=t!g=_

Æ-rytØ øaê-Fæè

søëçuTTe4

&ød4¿| |!e + Fll

t'¿'C2. zh.é

4,7.ØÞ'

ì ¿z:Jtæ d1V^L ).d'! HíQH

.9s

ALÞS|>.Æ ^V¿NU¿4ts-^

4-¡CHä5tA'

&tsTtv< 3-SfozY RÊstÞêw

Çtrc).LE: t¡/þ" lLë"

-:æatÔzo


Agenda ltem # 4Exhibit 4 - Plans and Elevations

%,tû

€ytsrtNS stNq,é FN|çY RéÉ/Þ¡!¿é

I. STèRY IQ$ SF

F/UlStlP4e tì.ttt

Re-&tóÒ!ê" F#

H0ttYW0ôr '8Y TIJE

SiTE AND EUItDING ANALYSIS

API{ 2G{-182&

1638 SFTOtAr lcR6AnS)

RffiOÉO(: 2¡l6SF

OSSRVAÌ|OI¡ DECÍ: 221 SF

ADDRESS: 2001 Oæan DriveOoard, øl¡forn¡a 93O35

EXlf,re REIDEXG: HOU5E: 13& $|OFT: 70 SF

OMGE: 1845F

ZilEr RBH

PmCLSIZE: 2550SF/ 05acre

OCCUPmdT R3/ U1

COilIRUflOX wÆi VN

LOf COWUGT: 62 5%

EüÍRY PORCT{ / WÁLXll{G DlCf: 373 sF

OWilEn: Rkhard GRnberB2m1 O@en Ddvê

O¡nard, CålÍomlå 93035310 713-7316

COnAcT| Xevin ElesP.O. bx 5æ7VentuE, Cãlifomla 93q)5ffi q7{958

ARlCAffl: ñfulerd Grænberg

2001 Ocean Dr¡€O¡nård, C¡llom¡a 93035310 713-7316

ARCÍmCT: Gere Bå.r€y RoblE C9746

45m ß4ents Cou(Wesdake Villâgê, callom¡a 91361818 991-1216

Ítsfonrc R¡gruRcEs cot¡surTArf;Sn EuenðEntuERe*ãrdt Asûiat61328 Woodlend Drlvesanb Paul¡, Csllûomiå 93m

REV|StOllS BY

12-6'z¡s

E

ôo.=g 6

ö :'Ei6Êãegtg$qttì9pEÑ6-to8

=

¡tìfîC¡ût

lr¡ €lì<É=ãeu¡ t{B3

Ëgzxo

zJo-l¡Jbct,

úJEPT 2t Ð;.

ÙD áè

JT

ú1glÚt

8H

35

ELEC./47r firrett

9 061,..AyE eol

11, tW

LIP

!MITA

Flfai *WM I. num. ,.,^rAmicaft W44-1-5

hystiLA-ric."1

/D.e.e-,e-,1,4 I is

..swgzEENMEM01174.,B,BLI:EWBPIBOSJOBII ir Yak moN114+ ITN WOurs. Lk ICI ...WIMP ..priwnrprrr

e c26. : rJL pr o / I'

rAc..2EID A.Iew tx./hvoc,ws i&ISTALLEO eas-rhvy caNIAIC

• , 44-e, 1a =/,-,° • 6

I KOH wra,....urri pa. N CCM..

TOIETCEMPASTMENTWOLLFOr FEM.:"... IN11.11,15H TOMB. MO 11.0.11.11EPACE IN Fla:NT OFWATER CLOET 611:130:r

BAVSIONERBOLOSESTOMAPROYELIfHATTEP REMISE BONER 000110X8ARr6@T 000110 MING OUT/YARD EMILE

▪ 6..Y8805.1. 'REGICIDE IMAYSCOTTOFE PANDAJA Cr 7171-4811ABCHE MAK OYER FESISIMITINTYLNI 12,34431.0,43.1183.1.

B(HaUr FAN TO If 8.313YSTNIMPAPINT MO Er 0.CTIED TO1ERMATETOTFE OJTSCE 1,€011.8. 1OFT. MOW

N0 14 FAN W1.1. FE 03411.183BY 0.1.0314170,..01.0111.

URY 00321391.

OWNER RICHARDAREENBERG


e.

i Iv

PRoPosSE D FL 00/Z PZ-J1./V /6141

VAT

rbs_, e = E 8 g /C a I g 3 2 o rc 5.-),

TITLE BLOCK


APN 206-0-179-280

ADDRESS: 2001 Ocean Drive Oxnard, California 93035

EXISTING RESIDENCE: HOUSE. 1384 SF LOFT: 70 SF GARAGE: 11345F


REAR DECK: 246 SF


OWNER: Richard Greenberg 2001 Ocean Drive Oxnard, California 93035 310 713-7316


HISTORIC RESOURCES CONSULTANT: San Buenaventura Research Assodates

1328 Woodland Drive Santa Paula, Calrfomia 93060

ARCHITECT: Gene Barrey Robles C9746 4500 Regents Court Westlake Village, California 91361 818 991-4216

Dab sEprf4zo,5

Roma%4w-/ 404

DISIM 5/‹.

Job

BIBB

ca

Of 4 Meals

ZONE: RON

PARCEL SIZE: 2550 SF / .05 acre

OCCUPANCY: R3 / U1


LOT COVERAGE, 57.55


APPLICANT: Richard Greenberg 2001 Ocean Drive Oxnard, California 93035 310 713-731.6

FL

OO

R P

LA

NS

REVISIONS BY

12-6-20/5 4‘_

EaCT F17R,7 alsrLIL La. NOL:i ete

11104191=

11,1STALL 13 VELD( SKYLIGHTS' U-FACTCC 048 9I67C 027 ICC 10189 ILCAllON OETERVIND BY ON6131

r _ _ _ I I r- • ' 1-----7/=

I __II I 1---1

I I I II L

1- —I

I I L __J r- I

J

I I

r fr

1

L_ I 1 r I I 45%-h.

47r/c/Lzy_L

I I

1?I tr — —1 r

1 I 1 I

1

PROPOSE O. LOFT Pl _A IQ 94. Sr

AL .6

NIP 43.1.1M•r1•

TITLE BLOCK

êl'-â'

v:1.k)a1 wa g,?^a aù- ffi

NAr13WffiWmO€rc027Øæaots¡mMWryre

.tùB

ü

b

ô\t

dn

s

rq{

a

êqPat& Y/A&s</)' tlts¿ll-a'T¿<^)

.t{Ue

lÚæWrugEErnÚEßOÉNaEAl¡trætffidw^E@ñGg..wffiæmEÆsmffislÉffi@ffi¡mt0ffiwÐBæTffi@ìEru6ffiWMDEAMøD8ÆMffiWABffiMffiMGMÆEEMFAEEffiISWNEI¡æDlmEDE@EE@¡Oñfu Nru@ EruErudÂffiÁIwsruE

PROPOSED FLOOR. PL/\N lâcq I owf{cnRICI{A¡D¡FTIIER,G2001 ocE^ll DRwEPR-tætêD ^Jè,w

v.//N/>ows tLtsTaLLeD rN er<tsrtNç aÉNtNgs&t/¿: ka'=rLê'

-:-:lÒ¿6

._ _ oxilltRD, cÁt.lFTORI{r¡ 9¡to:t5

| ø'-t,

I

ili

aaf k/LoFîq

t-------I

t-I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

h

r- -l t- -lL_lf-lltL-J--rlL_ir--'1lr¡_lT--'tllL-J

--1

I

I

TI

I

I

I

I

L

_lI

-Å(I

II

L

-1 -ti

L _t _:L I

tì-lZx<r g to' .Ao.

DAY Ræ1.4

?L

0¡\

I

I

tor1.

?F

æÐ3tÐì.4 I

tt 6'

(Ltcu¿t¿ {

V(

eGa. tArv^1*tlø'q

sa¿o\þu AÁ'Èee

1ll)'t?:-E

D Lcrr

SITE AND BUII.DING ANAIYSIS

A¡I{ 20æ119-280 ZOû{E| RBH

PARCEISET ã50SF /.05 de

occt PÂt{cY¡ &} / U1

COtlSInUCflOil TYPE| Vl

ÐtlîESS: 2001 O.4an DtuOmãrd, C¿lfdnlå 93035

ÞlBnilGRegDEll€É HOUSCT 1384SFLOr: 70 SF

GARÂGE: 184 5F

TOfÀr (GR(ESAREA) l6:]8SF

RE nDCOG 2¡16sF EmY PORclI / WÀn¡lG DÉcX: 373 St

oBSERVAfþft DECIû 221 SF

owilEÈ RidÉrd Grænb€r82001o@n DthæO¡hed, Califomh 93(851to713-7476

APruC¡Ifl: Rkhard Grænber82001 Oæan DriÊO¡nerd, elitoml¿ 93035

3107117316

COilIACÌ xdin Est6P.O. 8ox 5E97

vertuÞ, calilomia 93ü)58(E 947-6958

HFOÎIC REISOUTCEI COÍISIJTTAI|I:San 8leffiluÉR@rcì Assodâls

1328 Wædland DriE9nÞ Pðule, Cålifomle 9T)60

ARCIIITECI! Geæ Barey Robl€s @7464500 ReSenb CoúdWest¡âke Vi¡lage, c¿lfomb 91361

818 E)1{216

ñEVt8tOH3 BY

12-ê-zÒtt 4i-

ao

ôOË-o9=FåE€S nî<EO!ss¡Jõ

Ës=à9eE66-ó8

3

¡¡lrrtol|lI¡ otì<

É,4aa10<L¡¡¡ H

r3r{E9de

=xo

an2fÀÉ,ool¡'

w sePrtïz¿ils

6 t/1"t!ë'

Dffiå<

,b

q4 ¡tË"à

lls

36

0 0

0 0

•

a

avc 0Zot..v.4 Lalak,fq RovM

6 A.aa--;E EX/..37: ATT/C..L0F7-

I/ 0

EXISTIA/ c_SC-,1-/Th/E..4,S7 EL-AL/AT/C-7N

0

0

f

ri 1110

47. .11. 0

-1"-.•••••!,1

ri 0 4

0 111 lif-11 1134 0—

U ----i I I I

0— Ew/sT N/E •I_EVA-7-/c)/Y fia..37-/JVG NORM/WEST ELEVATION

DEMOLITION NOTES

1 REMOVE EXISTING ROOF


3 REMOVE DIVING CASEMENT WINDOWS, AND MODIFY OPENINGS AS REQUIRED FOR NEW CODE REQUIRED EGRESS WINDOWS

4. REMOVE EXISTING DOOR, AND MODIFY OPENING FOR NEW WINDOW

5. REMOVE EXISTING WINDOW TRIM ON ALL SIDES

6 REMOVE EXISTING STONE FIREPLACE

7, REMOVE EXISTING HANDRAIL TO ALLOW ACCESS FOR APPLIANCES

8 REMOVE EXISTING WOOD DECK

9. REMOVE EXISTING STEPS

10 REMOVE EXISTING ELECTRIC METER AND RELOCATE

11. REMOVE EXISTING STAIR

12. REMOVE EXISTING ROOF AND ROOF FRAMING

13. REMOVE ROOF OVERHANG AT DOOR

14. ROMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING DOOR

15. REMOVE EXISTING GARAGE DOORS AND TRIM, KEEP DOORS AND

RE-INSTALL

16 REMOVE BATHTUB, SINK AND TOILET

17. REMOVE CABINETS, STOVE AND SINK

FI

• -7 •

EW/STIkIG FLooR_

11

OWNER RICHARD GREENBERG


O

14",i

/550/X,9.1k1

oe-ox,x....,4

4 2 a. 41

t 4=

:g 1Tu

4 irc.b4cu

5)0377 -VW E L EVA-PON

0

OLUIPporre

0

REVISIONS BY

O

g O Z re

z CC

U01 I-

U- I

0

1-1 0

eg • <

X 0

z 5 0.

z

0

Data //, 2,•Wi5

Bade

Job

d

Of Blues

EKlST L_þt toN €K\'T|NA |loUruUlsT T/QLJ

l)"!)u'

ensr u/e ¿Levattc>¡'t EY/STlNG ST E.LEVA-TlON

DEMOLÍTION NOTES

1 REMOVE EX¡STJNG ROOF


3 REMOV€ qISING æEMENTWINMWS, AND MODIFY OPENINGS AS REQUIRED FORNEW

COD€ NEqUIRÉO EGRffi WINOOWS

4 REMOVE EXISNNG MON,ANO MODIFYOPENING FOR NEWWNDOW

5 REMOW EX'ING WINæWIRìM ON ATLsIDS

6 REMOVE üISING SIONE FIREPUCE

7, REMOVE flÑING HANDMILTO AtrOW ACGS FOR APPLINCE

8 REMOVE flsNNG WOOD DEC(

9, REMOW üIÍING ÍEPS

10 REMOVE üISTING EEffircMETERAND RELOüfE

11 REMOVE EXISTINC SAIR

12 REMOVE ÛISIING RæF AND RæF FRAMING

13 REMOVE RæF OVÉflBNG ATDæR

14 ROMOW AND REPUG EXISTING DæR

15 REMOVE TISÍre GAMGE DæË AND TRIMI KEEP OOORS ANO

ßEITSTALT

16 REMOVEBATfrUE,SINKANDTOIE

17. REMOVECABINÍS,ÍOVEANDSINK

+"/

o

Êr/ ,1+ ^-1/^t-^/J,i. / I ¡/<-. LOFT

,tã\\,

OWNERRICHAND GREETIBERG

2OO1 OCEAil DRTVEoxf{aRD. calrFoRilrA 93035

L'

Þs)<æf4 I

õeD¡<æt1 Z

k rTæN

@

L¿tNq R.eër48eu

\ÐD^Y_&M__Ar7L.'ÞFT

€K/ST/ lJG FL<>o< PLau

@

EEVtStOila BY

toOFóo)Ë-oË 5'Ft6ES nî<EO!åsâ- 6

É?o5F9EÈ6o¡¡ú8

ì

n(rlo(fl

l¡¡ Éì

ì<Ézzo<rrt¡¡ Hr3r{89N-

zxo

zfÀzo

5o=¡¡¡ê

6ll'z2.?¿ts

w /¿'¡te'

m4(Jù

ot[)[

drd.

h

37

TITLE BLOCK


APN 206-0-179-280

ADDRESS: 2001 Ocean Drive Oxnard, California 93035

EKISONG RESIDENCE: HOUSE: 13845F LOFT:

70 SF GARAGE: 184 SF

TOTAL (GRINS AREA) 1638 SF

REAR DECK: 246 SF




HISTORIC RESOURCES CONSULTANT: San Buenaventura Research Associates 1328 Woodland Drive Santa Paula, California 93060

ZONE: FIBH

PARCEL SRC 2550 SF /.OS acre

OCCUPANCY: R3 / U1


LOT COVERAGE: 625%


APPLICANT: Richard Greenberg 2001 Ocean Drive Oxnard, California 93035 310 713-7316

ARCHITECT: Gene Barney Robles C9746 4500 Regents Court Westlake Village, California 91361 818 991-4216

eq

!Li Cl

t ° 2 E A vg

c tn 0 to

'd

20

O CE g >, a) .4 .w

0:Ini

m rt

1A1

g1 O Z

Z 0

tc.

o5UJ 0 e et N

X 0

RO

OF

PL

AN

Data SEPTZ;2015

8.1. r- Mown

doh

C713 Of 4 Barr

EXTWNT arat.wipsiz.

SG (0644/f7.72)

daw SKyLlyl-175 ryP.

EICOT 4 /2: 12 GICVZ

4-- —

Alq

EXIST.

E

R C.? Or p1._ A kl „sca.c=z f/4. -

a

REVISIONS BY

/2-c, • zma

MIMS

Woo. 1 eixi IS i Trial 355 roe/e9 CRTC ITT • l336ll2131, hrophst 9-n0. Aped Soler Reflectance 26 Thermal Ernitralm 29 Nave **me Sheathing 1130 Raid Inaulelidn EICIMMINI 2 x 4 Sleepers ti 24" a

TITLE BLOCK

êxf¿4i

ËG

5b/q

å0dUrl¡fuÆ]lffifuækÉìd$dùpruEUl¡& k zr4qFo24oo

R AatEE€ r

at2

n les Sö-¿/q^f7s/ rlP.

-1I

€1¡t7.€lt:rz

el87

tz€pszst/2:lz

tr

ZOIE| RAH

PA¡CI SAE! 25$ Sf / ,05 ade

OCCUPArcY: FI3 / U1

OoraÍ¡UCìOil Tì,PÊr \4t

L(t @VEnAGE: 62.5ll

ElûnY PORCfi / WAlOflG D€C[: 373 SF

SITE AND BUIT.DING ANALYSIS

APî{ 206+179280

1638 SFfoTAr- lcRflssÂ¡EA)

REARO€CX:246SF

O¡$4VAnOt¡ lxcf: 221 SF

OW¡{Êl: R¡drard GEnbeI8 APPUCAI{T| Rlúerd GrMb€rB2ü)1 Oeen Drhæ

Ona.d, Calt¡omt¿ 93035310 713-ß16

AnCHmClt Gene Bárey Robl6 CÌ4645q) negentr CanWestlake Mlh8e, Cal¡fomia 91:t6181A S1{215

ADfrnESS: 2O0l Oc€¿n DdÉO¡nard, Caltfmie 9:tO35

ExlSnf{GnEgDEl{CÉ HoUSET t3g4SFIOFT: Z0 SF

GARÁGE: 1B4SF

Zþ1Oc€an tHwOmad, Câllfumla 93035310 7117316

COl{f¡ßT: Xevl¡ Est6P.O. Bo¡5897Ventura, c¿llfomla 93005ffi 9474958

HEfOnrc R¡9OUKãt cOìSUtrAI{T¡San Buoâgtu6R@ardt A5siat61328 W@dlmd DriwSante È¿ulå, elffmia 9:¡060

REVISIONa BY

t2-o'bl' tu

roF¡ot!Eo

Eodoo

5o!6E¡0oì

uìfrloIrlluo

Èsôa10<¡¡.l¡¡ r{

rdËriN<

=xo

ËIooIcoFÉ,

zfo.]tooÉ,

wSeer4tots

w Q'=¡'-e'

DüÞ(

ö.H

5o4em

38

kaskr 0

pwr 0X P. PV(.5'

war ll7 .5LopE /4,5.1c/L-4.7-,tar.,/ 400E0

E0.3 7- S„''

y

h• /EW C/aSemiK/147 •c,r.aD

55eN/20"11.3 •

2'4 —

— 'Etat: ic=frokre _ • N.14,r;x:A.

popkwaric,

7r-,A,91.-r•—•,4 V.11-7 i e..*

RE. ROOF,

CorGil Teed Pnixedenusi iar,E3 ESR13+53 355 lbeiee CARL C e 085430061 Aachen Shingle Aped Soler Reflorclence 20 Thermal Gnithence 20 NOW plywood Sheathing 1130 Rigid Insulation Beaveen 2 x 4 SX,Per, 0 24' o

It

&Car A.047142-1 karaDain,

- E/037". nal

---5O5v"7 ic:$ uz7z".;,,,....e

FLAW .:4•01..IENy Kfi ... 7Z. E VENEER_

I f -.57=i4T)

rl

rf V

PRO,2.2)5E.ID 1\1/ E f_LEVA-7- c-)1Q -

,.... NEW 12,-,7.5.,WE LT' ICr-air

-

AlaW clAeleniy YraVESA.

11

WALL NEW Mal SONG TO MATOI EXISTING OVER WATF_FPF1=OF MEACRPNE

11/N-L(4.04 Ts Tr,

V1:eS 7- EL E c/4. IQ iL./

NEW L-/NE

IM

• jam.

.\:.

y

EX/37: R10,-.7E.

- 7

REVISIONS BY

12- -1.e./5

411-. yr. -9.

GR,x5E ft II

PRoPaseo 91W a Le V-ST:ONI '4k

RE'OP0.5E SOLIT 4 EAST E.:LAVA-T/0N •

_

TITLE BLOCK


APN 206-0-179-280

ADDRESS: 2001 Ocean Drive

Oxnard, California 93035

EXISTING RESIDENCE: HOUSE: 1384 SF LOFT: 70 SF GARAGE: 184 SF


REAR DECK: 246 SF



ZONE: RBH

PARCEL SIZE: 2550 SF / 05 acre

OCCUPANCY: R3 / Ul


LOT COVERAGE: 62.5%


APPUCANT: Richard Greenberg 2001 Ocean Drive Oxnard, California 93035 310 713-7316

EL

EVA

TIO

NS

CONTACT: Kevin Estes P.O Box 5897 Ventura, California 93005 805 947-6958

HISTORIC RESOURCES CONSULTANT:

San Buenaventura Research Associates

1328 Woodland Drive Santa Paula, California 93060

ARCHITECT: Gene Barmy Robles 09746 4500 Regents Court Westlake Village, California 91361 818 991-4216

Doll 3E1'77232:v5

sw•

Dram /5K.

doh

Shoot pf:,

DI 4- shoot. 4EIRRRIRIE

l-irle eLocK

*'SW:u:nt*y ( -STëNE V€,IEEL

&sf. þof s!ÒPae' R içt D /LÆui-\T ioñ

^>Da D I æ-æ

€\'/i; ?-¿¿ -. sMrTd¡àl*rÈrræ€s1ss 355bq/6qffiDr(]5æ1AæÈ$G'jêM*rtu@?Gtuñdhæ 2s

a' €xts7, RIDç€Wpltd9eâôi4N0fbt l@hn bs2 x4 kæ8o24'oc

Lth

\

elê7,.iR.qDe

c.s4E

/2,Q2?)5ED ^|e

e-t eVA-TtoNHAUWregNrcMTffirc@WAreffi-ri

nJ=w cutu"uysÍÒNe ve^teÉ<- tia.ts(vtÊursrye

.- &sT gD--e ^ New Rø Llpat'r¿oZOWe

- €íts-,-, R¡Dq€lz

fuEFUæ

gt5Taq

^Þ=

\ææ

e?t/ =t eJ.yy ._Lq

\P,?OPCSED PR.-,P2SED souTile s7 Ê-,' avaT/oN

: V=øæeu<p¡Wæ4DtvtNDNs lfP \ \

LIN¿

ó&st

lr ]E

I ]F

/å':tr

ilt_llL. ìilt-

\

*1Lf¿11S¡Dìuq

,/

ZOi¡E: RBH

PARCfLSIZE: 2550 5F/ 05 ¿cre

OCCUPAilCY: R3/U1

CONÍnUCnON ñÆ: VN

tmOWilGE: 62-s%

EÍ{TRY POfiCH / WALf,rNG DECI(: 373 SF

SITE AND BUILDIf{G ANATYSIS

APII ru179280

RE iDECX; 246SF

OlffiV nOX DECXT 221 SF

HI5TORIC ßESOUßclS COÍ{SUtTAlftl

1638 SF

Research Assælates

1328 W@dland oriwSanta Paula, Cålfqn¡a 93050

AODRE|iS: 2001 Oæãn Drive

Ohard, Cãltforn¡a 93035

OWilEn: Rhhard Grænb€r82m1 Oean DriEOrnard, Cal¡brnh 93035310713-7316

CONTACT: Kev¡¡ Ede5P.O 8q5897Ventur¿, Cãllforhla g:mos

ms 947-6958

APPUCAII: Richård Greenberg

2001 O@n DrtveOnard, C¿l¡fomia 93035310 713-7316

AßCHmCÌt Gene ßar€ryRobl6 C974545m ReßenB CoúnWell¿le V¡lle8e, Glfomla 91361818991-4216

äaSnñGnESlfrEtlCE: HOUSE: I3A4SFLC,fr: 70SFcAmct: 18{ SF

TOfAt {GROsS AREA)

ñEVIStOt{3 EY

/ìtrt2-ò.2d3

@t)g¡

.EEoîooo!

o¡oûoI

uìfrtc,Ít

t¡¡ oì<É¿=o(lLt¡¡ H

r3ËBf{<

zxo

ffi,

Ë:oostroEDoÉ.

ozo

t¡J

t¡J

wJa.T4,Þswtl{.¡:ç"06 ô(

ö

(6tH

d+aú

39

vcportal.ventura.orgvcportal.ventura.org/rma/planning-archives/pdf/... · 12/28/2015 · in...

Documents