HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.0_Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment_PA2019-085
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
March 4, 2021
Agenda Item No. 6
SUBJECT: Bethel and Ridge Subdivision and Residences Appeal Amendment
(PA2019-085)
Coastal Development Permit No. CD2019-024
Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2019-008
County Tentative Parcel Map No. 2019-126 SITE LOCATION: 365 Via Lido Soud, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4
APPLICANT/OWNER: Jeffrey and Michele Bethel Stephen and Shelley Ridge
PLANNER: David S. Lee, Associate Planner
949-644-3225, dlee@newportbeachca.gov
PROJECT SUMMARY
An amendment to a previously approved (and subsequently appealed) Coastal Development Permit and Tentative Parcel Map for the subdivision of an existing parcel
into two separate lots and the demolition of an existing four-unit residence, to include one
new single-unit residence with an attached junior accessory dwelling unit on each lot. The
proposed subdivision includes a deviation from design standards of Title 19
(Subdivisions) and relief from Implementation Plan development standards of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan).
RECOMMENDATION
1) Conduct a public hearing;
2) Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Section 15301 under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Section 15303
under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA
Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and
3) Adopt Resolution No. PC2021-007 approving Coastal Development Permit No.
CD2019-024 and Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2019-008 (Attachment No. PC 1).
1
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE2
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision and Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Planning Commission, March 4, 2021
Page 2
VICINITY MAP
GENERAL PLAN ZONING
LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE
ON-SITE RM (Multiple Residential) RM (Multiple Residential) Four-unit residence
NORTH RM RM Residential
SOUTH RM RM Residential
EAST RS-D (Single Unit Residential Detached) R-1 Residential
WEST N/A N/A Bay
3
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision and Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Planning Commission, March 4, 2021
Page 3
INTRODUCTION
Project Setting
The subject property is 6,300 square feet in area, topographically flat, and located on Via
Lido Soud between Via Genoa and Via Fermo on the west side of Lido Isle. The property
is separated from the Newport Bay by an approximately 5-foot-wide public boardwalk and
small intertidal beach. The property is not protected by a bulkhead or any shoreline
protective devices.
Background
The property currently consists of a two-story, four-unit residential structure with an
attached six-car garage. On July 18, 2019, the Community Development Director approved
Staff Approval No. SA2019-004 (PA2019-085) finding the future demolition of four units within one structure compliant with Zoning Code Chapter 20.34, Local Coastal Program
Implementation Plan (IP) Chapter 21.34 (Conversion or Demolition of Affordable Housing),
and the Mello Act (Government Code Section 65590). The approval did not authorize the
physical demolition of the existing structure, but instead established that a future project
would not result in a conversion of residential to nonresidential uses, and none of the units are and/or were occupied by low- and moderate-income families or persons.
4
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision and Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Planning Commission, March 4, 2021
Page 4
Zoning Administrator Approval
On September 26, 2019, the Zoning Administrator approved Coastal Development Permit
No. CD2019-024 and Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2019-008 (Attachment No. PC 2). The application included the demolition of the existing four-unit residential structure and the
subdivision of the existing 70-foot-wide parcel into two 35-foot-wide parcels. No new
construction was proposed as a part of the application.
Coastal Commission Appeal
On October 30, 2019, an appeal was filed by two California Coastal Commissioners. On
December 12, 2019, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) found substantial issue with
the application during the first step of the appeal review (Attachment No. PC 4), citing that
the project is a subdivision of a low-lying shoreline lot in an area subjected to coastal hazards that requires a variance to waive minimum lot size and width standards, which is inconsistent
with the City’s Local Coastal Program and public access policies of the Coastal Act. CCC
also had concerns with the methodology utilized in the coastal hazards report, and wanted
to see additional support for the required findings to deviate from Title 21 development
standards.
The applicant has worked closely with Coastal Commission staff and provided plans for two
new residential structures each including a junior accessory dwelling unit, as well as an
updated coastal hazards report. On December 15, 2020, Commission staff directed the
applicant to apply for a CDP amendment with the City of Newport Beach to incorporate the changes.
Pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 21.64.035, the Community
Development Director has transmitted the appeal and the modified project to the Planning
Commission as the local appellate body. If the Planning Commission modifies or reverses the decision of the Zoning Administrator, the Coastal Commission would be required to file
a new appeal if the decision of the Planning Commission warranted an appeal. Coastal staff
has assured the applicant and City staff that the modified project as evaluated by the
updated coastal hazards report addresses the issues raised in the Coastal Commissioners’
appeal.
Project Description
Proposed Subdivision
The Tentative Parcel Map is for the purpose of subdividing an existing 70-foot-wide lot
into two separate 35-foot-wide parcels. The request requires a deviation to the minimum
lot size standard of 5,000 square feet and lot width standard of 50 feet for new
subdivisions, pursuant to Table 2-3 of Zoning Code Section 20.18.020 and Table 21.18-
4 of Implementation Plan (IP) Section 21.18.030. There is an inconsistency between the two tables. Where the IP does not include a footnote and requires a variance from
5
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision and Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Planning Commission, March 4, 2021
Page 5
development standards, the Zoning Code includes a footnote stating that lots may be
subdivided so that the resulting lot area and dimensions are less, provided the minimum
lot size shall not be less than the original underlying lots on the same block face and in
the same zoning district. In addition, no new subdivisions are permitted that would result in additional dwelling units beyond what the original underlying lots would allow for. In this
case, the proposed 35-foot-wide lots are comparable in size with the original subdivision
in which a majority of lots had widths between 30 and 40 feet, and depths of 90 feet. The
subject property is located in the RM block of Tract 907. Within this block, the original
subdivision consisted of 23 lots. Among these lots, 22 of them ranged from 30 to 40 feet in width (Attachment No. PC 6). Many of the parcels were reconfigured over time and this
block currently contains 24 lots, which range from 30 to 70 feet in width. The subject
property is 70 feet wide and has an underlying configuration of Lot 923 (40 feet wide), the
southeasterly 10 feet of Lot 922, and the northwesterly 20 feet of Lot 924 (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Existing underlying lot configuration
--- Existing underlying lot lines Property Line
The existing configuration of the lot has a maximum density of five units, as restricted by
the General Plan and Zoning Code (6,300 sq. ft. lot / 1,200 sq. ft. minimum site area per unit = 5.25 or 5 units). The proposed subdivision would create two separate 3,150-square-foot parcels (Figure 2). Each parcel would have a maximum density of two units (3,150
sq. ft. / 1,200 sq. ft. minimum site area = 2.6 or 2 units), resulting in a total of four units
allowable on two lots.
6
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision and Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Planning Commission, March 4, 2021
Page 6
Figure 2: Proposed subdivision
Property Line
Proposed Residences
The amended application now includes a single-family residence with an attached junior
accessory dwelling unit on each lot. This results in two units on each subdivided parcel (361 and 365 Via Lido Soud), and a total of four units on two parcels. The proposed
residences will conform to all applicable development standards, including setbacks and
height, as evidenced by the project plans (Attachment No. PC 7) and illustrated in Table 1
below. An attached junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) is proposed for each residence,
which includes a bedroom, bathroom, full kitchen, and separate exterior access. No additional parking is required for a JADU. The inclusion of JADUs require only a ministerial
permit under state law, and would not otherwise require discretionary approval separate
from this application to create the two lots and allow development of the two single-family
residences.
Table 1 – Development Standards
361 Via Lido Soud
Development Standard Standard Proposed
Density (max.) 2 units 2 units
Setbacks (min.)
Front (Via Lido Soud) 4’ 5’
Left Side 3’ 3’
Right Side 3’ 3’
Rear 0’ 0’
Parking (min.) 2-car garage 2-car garage
Height (max.) 33’ 24’
Floor Area (max.) 4,240 sq. ft. 4,062 sq. ft.
Floor Area JADU (max.) 500 sq. ft. 479 sq. ft.
7
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision and Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Planning Commission, March 4, 2021
Page 7
Table 1 (continued)
365 Via Lido Soud
Development Standard Standard Proposed Density (max.) 2 units 2 units Setbacks (min.)
Front (Via Lido Soud) 4’ 5’
Left Side 3’ 3’
Right Side 3’ 3’
Rear 0’ 0’ Parking (min.) 2-car garage 2-car garage Height (max.) 33’ 24’ Floor Area (max.) 4,240 sq. ft. 4,110 sq. ft. Floor Area JADU (max.) 500 sq. ft. 494 sq. ft.
DISCUSSION
Analysis
General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Zoning
The subject property is designated as Multiple-Unit Residential (RM) by the General Plan
and is located in the Multi-Unit Residential (RM) Zoning District, which is intended to provide
primarily for mutli-family residential development containing attached or detached dwelling units. The subject property is located within the coastal zone and has a Coastal Land Use
Designation of Multiple Unit Residential (RM-E) and a Coastal Zoning District of Multi-Unit
Residential (RM).
The proposed project is to demolish an existing four-unit residence on an existing 70-foot-wide parcel, subdivide the parcel into two 35-foot wide-lots, and construct two residential
units on each newly subdivided lot. Therefore, the project is consistent with the General
Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Zoning designations.
Tentative Parcel Map for Subdivision Findings
The applicant is requesting a tentative parcel map for the purpose of subdividing the
existing 70-foot-wide parcel into two 35-foot-wide parcels. Pursuant to Section 19.12.070
(Required Findings for Action on Tentative Maps) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code,
the Planning Commission must make the following findings in order to approve the tentative parcel map:
1. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are
consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with
applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code;
2. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development;
8
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision and Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Planning Commission, March 4, 2021
Page 8
3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision
making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to
Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic,
social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the environmental impact report;
4. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause
serious public health problems;
5. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision making body may
approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be
provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones
previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of
record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that
the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property
within a subdivision;
6. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land
Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a
subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or
the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial
agricultural use of the land;
7. That, in the case of a “land project” as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California
Business and Professions Code: (1) There is an adopted specific plan for the area
to be included within the land project; and (2) the decision making body finds that
the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area;
8. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been
satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map
Act;
9. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act
and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City’s share
of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region
against the public service needs of the City’s residents and available fiscal and
environmental resources;
9
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision and Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Planning Commission, March 4, 2021
Page 9
10. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer
system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board; and
11. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision
conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with
public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act.
The Tentative Parcel Map is for the purpose of subdividing an existing parcel into two separate parcels. The existing structure is two stories and consists of four units with an
attached six-car garage. The proposed subdivision and improvements are consistent with
the density of the RM Zoning District and the current General Plan Land Use Designation
(Multiple-Unit Residential) and is not located within a specific plan area. The project has
been conditioned to require public improvements, including the reconstruction of sidewalks, curbs, and gutters along the Via Lido Soud frontage, consistent with the
Subdivision Code (Title 19).
Each lot is physically suitable for up to two units of development because they are regular
in shape, accessible from Via Lido Soud, and would be adequately served by existing utilities. All improvements associated with the project will comply with all Building, Public
Works, and Fire Codes, which are in place to prevent serious public health problems.
There is an existing 4-foot utility easement in favor of the City of Newport Beach located
directly behind the right-of-way of Via Lido Soud. The proposed subdivision will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of property within the proposed development.
Deviation from Design Standards Findings
Per Section 19.24.050.A of Title 19 (Lot Design, Lot Size), new subdivisions must meet the applicable zoning district regulations stated in Title 20 (Zoning Code). Deviation from
the design standards set forth in Title 19 may be approved by the Planning Commission
subject to specific findings stated per Section 19.24.130.C. The proposed subdivision
would create lots which do not meet the lot width standards required by the Zoning Code
for new subdivisions within the RM Zoning District. The Zoning Code requires new subdivision interior lots to be 50 feet wide, and have a lot area of 5,000 square feet. The
proposed subdivided lots are 35 feet wide and 3,150 square feet in area. The required
findings to deviate from the standards are as follows:
1. The requested deviation(s) will create a land plan or development design equal or superior to that under the baseline design standards in this chapter;
2. The deviation(s) will not negatively impact the carrying capacity of the local
vehicular circulation network;
3. The deviation(s) will not negatively impact pedestrian circulation;
10
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision and Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Planning Commission, March 4, 2021
Page 10
4. The resulting subdivision will be compatible with the pattern of surrounding
subdivisions;
5. The resulting subdivision design and improvements will be consistent with the
General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and will conform to the Subdivision
Map Act and all other provisions of this Subdivision Code; and
6. The resulting subdivision design and improvements will not be materially detrimental to the residents or tenants of the proposed subdivision or surrounding
properties, nor to public health or safety.
The proposed lots are comparable in width, length, and area with the majority of the
original subdivision in which most of the lots had widths between 30 and 40 feet and depths of 90 feet. Since the original subdivision was created, some lots in the vicinity
have been re-subdivided but a majority of the lots remain between 30 and 40 feet in width
(Attachment No. PC 6). As previously discussed, the proposed 35-foot-wide lots are
consistent with Footnote 2 of Table 2-3 of the Zoning Code (Section 20.18.030).
Additionally, the proposed subdivision would create lot sizes not less than the original underlying lots on the same block face (351 through 463 Via Lido Soud) in the same
zoning district. The proposed subdivision would divide the existing 70-foot-wide, 6,300-
square-foot RM parcel into two 35-foot-wide, 3,150-square-foot RM parcels, which are
compatible with the pattern of the surrounding subdivision. Facts in support of findings for
the deviation from the design standards of Title 19 (Subdivisions) and relief from IP development standards are addressed below and attached draft resolution.
The proposed subdivision would not negatively impact the carrying capacity of the local
vehicular circulation network. Although the proposed subdivision would create one
additional lot compared to the original subdivision, the potential number of units would decrease. As currently configured, the existing 70-foot-wide lot has the development
potential of five residential units. The proposed subdivision would create two lots, each
with a development potential of two units for a total of four units. The resulting subdivision
design does not introduce an incompatible land use and would not be detrimental to the
surrounding residents and public.
Coastal Development Permit Findings
The subject property is located within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, the proposed
subdivision, demolition of the existing four-unit residence, and construction of new residences require a coastal development permit. Per NBMC Section 21.52.015.F, the
required findings to approve a coastal development permit are as follows:
1. Conforms to all applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal Program;
11
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision and Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Planning Commission, March 4, 2021
Page 11
2.Conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the
Coastal Act if the project is located between the nearest public road and the sea
or shoreline of any body of water located within the coastal zone.
The project previously approved by the Zoning Administrator on September 26, 2019
included a subdivision and demolition of the existing four-unit structure. The project did
not include the proposed residences. CCC appealed the project and found substantial
issue during its appeal review, citing that the project is a subdivision of a shoreline lot in
a hazardous area into two lots, which requires a variance to waive minimum lot size and width standards. Additionally, CCC had concerns with the methodology utilized in the
coastal hazards report and requested additional support for the required findings to
deviate from Title 21 development standards.
As a result of the appeal by CCC, the applicant worked with CCC staff and provided plans for two new residential structures. The proposed single-family residences and attached
JADUs on both parcels conform to all applicable development standards, including
setbacks, floor area, height, and parking applicable to the proposed lots. There are no
shoreline protective devices serving the property, and new devices are not necessary to
protect future development on the resultant parcels.
Additionally, the applicant provided CCC with an updated coastal hazards report. The
proposed project is located near the Newport Bay. However, a public boardwalk and small
intertidal beach separates the subject property from the water. The updated coastal
hazards report, prepared by GeoSoils, Inc. on December 17, 2020, concludes that the reconfigured parcels would be safe from hazards, which includes shoreline movement,
waves and wave runup, and flooding due to future sea level rise, for a minimum of 75
years. The historical water elevation at the Newport Bay is 7.7 feet North American
Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Based on the “medium-high risk aversion, high
emissions” scenario, which is estimated to have a sea level rise (SLR) of 6.7 feet by the year 2100, the future extreme bay water level may reach as high as 14.4 feet NAVD 88
(7.7 feet NAVD 88 + 6.7 feet SLR) over the next 75 years (i.e. life of future development).
The report states that there is a much lower probability (0.5 percent) of the SLR meeting
the 6.7-foot estimate. While the finished site grade is approximately 11.0 feet NAVD 88,
the proposed finished floor elevation for both structures proposed is 12.8 feet NAVD 88, which makes them safe from flooding with 5.1 feet of sea level rise. The applicant is
proposing to waterproof each structure, which will protect them up to 14.4 feet NAVD 88.
As conditioned, this necessary adaptable measure is required for the residences to
respond to the “medium-high risk aversion, high emissions” scenario for sea level rise.
The project site is located near two public viewpoints as identified by the Coastal Land
Use Plan. One viewpoint, which is a public park, is located approximately 100 feet north
of the subject lots. The second viewpoint, which is currently utilized as boat parking, is
located approximately 50 feet south of the subject lots. Both viewpoints offer public views
of the bay from Via Lido Soud. Additionally, there is a public boardwalk which connects these two viewpoints, located between the subject property and the bay. Due to
12
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision and Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Planning Commission, March 4, 2021
Page 12
development of the parcel, no public views through the site exist. It is also important to
note that the public boardwalk between the property and the bay will not be encroached
upon and access will be maintained throughout construction.
The proposed project maintains building envelopes consistent with the existing
neighborhood pattern of development. With the subdivision and the application of side
yard setback requirements, the two buildings will be separated by 6 feet, whereas the
existing four-unit building is a single building mass, resulting in reduced mass. The project
is located on the landward side of the public boardwalk and does not disrupt views of the bay from the boardwalk. Furthermore, all improvements in the front setback area of the
subject property are limited to 42 inches from existing grade. An investigation of the project
site and surrounding area did not identify any other public view opportunities. Therefore, the
project does not have the potential to degrade the visual quality of the Coastal Zone or
result in significant adverse impacts to public views. The residential lot does not currently provide nor inhibit public coastal access, and the proposed project will not remove any
available access to the bay.
Relief from Implementation Plan Development Standards Findings
Title 20 includes a provision which allows for a parcel to be subdivided to a minimum lot
size not less than the original underlying lots on the same block face in the same zoning
district. The proposed 35-foot-wide lots are consistent with the 30- to 40-foot wide lots
contained on the original block face within the same zoning district. However, Title 21
does not have the same provision that allows lots to be subdivided to a lot size not less than the original underlying lots on the same block face in the same coastal zoning district.
Therefore, the applicant requests a variance to allow for two 35-foot-wide lots, whereas
Title 21 requires a minimum of 50 feet. Per Section 21.52.090 (Relief from Implementation
Plan Development Standards), the Planning Commission may approve a waiver to a
development standard of the Implementation Plan only after making all of the following findings:
1. Whether or not the development is consistent with the certified Local Coastal
Program to the maximum extent feasible; and
2. Whether or not there are feasible alternatives that would provide greater
consistency with the certified Local Coastal Program and/or that are more
protective of coastal resources.
3. The granting of the variance is necessary due to special circumstances applicable to the property, including location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, and/or
other physical features, the strict application of the development standards
otherwise applicable to the property denies the property owner privileges enjoyed
by other property owners in the vicinity and in the same coastal zoning district; and
13
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision and Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Planning Commission, March 4, 2021
Page 13
4. The modification or variance complies with the findings required to approve a
coastal development permit in Section 21.52.015(F);
5. The modification or variance will not result in development that blocks or significantly impedes public access to and along the sea or shoreline and to coastal
parks, trails, or coastal bluffs;
6. The modification or variance will not result in development that blocks or
significantly impairs public views to and along the sea or shoreline or to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas;
7. The modification or variance will not result in development that has an adverse
effect, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources, including wetlands,
sensitive habitat, vegetation, or wildlife species; and
8. The granting of the modification or variance will not be contrary to, or in conflict
with, the purpose of this Implementation Plan, nor to the applicable policies of the
certified Local Coastal Program.
As previously discussed, the proposed development is consistent with the certified Local
Coastal Program to the maximum extent possible. The project is located on an existing
lot with a finished grade of 11.0 feet NAVD 88 and will be further waterproofed to 14.4
feet NAVD 88. The proposed residences comply with all IP development standards and
do not negatively affect public views or access of the bay. The existing 70-foot wide-lot is surrounded by two 30-foot-wide lots on both sides. The proposed lot widths of 35 feet are
consistent with the 30- to 40-foot lot widths contained on the original block face within the
same zoning district. Additionally, the existing lot is 6,300 square feet in area. The
proposed subdivision would create two 3,150-square-foot lots, where surrounding lots on
the same block face range from 2,700 to 4,500 square feet. Strict application of the IP would deny the property owners privileges enjoyed by surrounding property owners and
allow for the development of two 35-foot-wide lots which is more consistent with the
original underlying subdivision pattern of the block.
An alternative to the proposed project is for the existing four-unit residential structure to remain in place. The existing lot is 70 feet wide and 6,300 square feet in area, whereas
surrounding lots on the same block face vary between 30 feet and 40 feet wide, and
between 2,700 and 4,500 square feet in area. The existing structure does not offer any
modulation or openings that provide views to the bay from Via Lido Soud. If the lot remains
without the proposed subdivision, a new residential structure could be similarly constructed without modulations and openings. If the lot is subdivided as proposed, both
35-foot-wide lots would require 3-foot side yard setbacks which would create a visual
opening to the bay as well as reduce the overall mass compared to the existing structure.
Additionally, the proposed subdivision results in less floor area that can be achieved than
if the subject parcel remained in its existing configuration. The subdivision would create two lots with maximum floor areas of 4,364.5 square feet each, totaling 8,729 square feet
14
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision and Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Planning Commission, March 4, 2021
Page 14
total (4,364.5 x 2 = 8,729). If the subject parcel remained in its existing configuration, a
total floor area of 8,849 square feet can be constructed. As previously discussed, the
project does not provide public access and views of the bay, and the variance will not
result in development that blocks or significantly impairs public views or access of the bay.
As noted, Title 20 permits the re-subdivision of larger lots to create a nonconforming
development pattern provided it is consistent with the neighborhood, but Title 21 does
not. The City prepared, authorized and submitted Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) application to make Title 21 consistent with Title 20 in regards to the re-
subdivision of lots in this fashion. The LCPA application is pending before the Coastal
Commission. Once certified, and implemented through an ordinance, similar applications
to the proposal would not be required to request the deviation from development
standards as presented above; however, a Coastal Development permit would be required.
Alternatives
1. The Planning Commission may require changes to the project to alleviate any concerns related to the design or the ability to make the required findings. If the
changes are substantial, the item should be continued to a future meeting to allow
the applicant to make the necessary adjustments and to allow staff to prepare a
revised resolution incorporating new findings and/or conditions.
2. If the Planning Commission believes that there are insufficient facts to support the
findings for approval, the Planning Commission may deny the application and provide
facts in support of denial, and allow staff to prepare a revised resolution for denial of
the project.
Environmental Review
This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15301 under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Section 15303 under Class 3 (New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect
on the environment.
Public Notice
Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners and residential
occupants of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening
rights-of-way and waterways) including the applicant and posted on the subject property
at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the
Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website.
15
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision and Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Planning Commission, March 4, 2021
Page 15
Prepared by: Submitted by:
David S. Lee
Associate Planner
ATTACHMENTS
PC 1 Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions
PC 2 Adopted Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-062
PC 3 Minutes of September 26, 2019, Zoning Administrator Meeting PC 4 Coastal Commission Appeal Letter PC 5 Coastal Hazards Report
PC 6 Lot Width Exhibit of Original Tract Map No. 907
PC 7 Project Plans - Tentative Parcel Map
PC 8 Project Plans - 361 Via Lido SoudPC 9 Project Plans - 365 Via Lido Soud
16
Attachment No. PC 1
Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions
17
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE18
RESOLUTION NO. PC2021-007 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. NP2019-008
AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. CD2019-024 FOR THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING FOUR (4)-UNIT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, THE SUBDIVISION OF THE
EXISTING PARCEL INTO TWO (2) SEPARATE PARCELS, AND
THE CONSTRUCTION OF ONE (1) NEW SINGLE-UNIT
RESIDENCE AND ATTACHED JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ON EACH LOT (PA2019-085)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An application was filed on April 6, 2018 by Jeffery and Michele Bethel and Stephen and
Shelly Ridge (“Applicant”), with respect to property located at 365 Via Lido Soud Units 1,
2, 3, and 4 and legally described as Lot 923 and the southeasterly 10 feet of Lot 922 and
half of Lot 924, (“Property”) requesting approval of a tentative parcel map and a coastal development permit.
2. The Applicant requested a tentative parcel map and coastal development permit to
subdivide the property into two (2) separate parcels. The coastal development permit
(CDP) application also included the demolition of an existing four (4)-unit residential structure and waiver of the minimum lot width and area standard associated with the
proposed subdivision (“Project”). No new construction was proposed as a part of the
Project.
3. On July 18, 2019, the Community Development Director approved Staff Approval No. SA2019-004 (PA2019-085) finding the future demolition of four (4) units within one (1)
structure compliant with Title 20 (Planning and Zoning), Chapter 20.34 (Conversion or
Demolition of Affordable Housing) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (“NBMC”), Title
21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan), Chapter 21.34 (Conversion or
Demolition of Affordable Housing) of the NBMC, and the Mello Act (Government Code Section 65590). The Staff Approval did not authorize the physical demolition of the existing
structure, but instead established that a future project would not result in a conversion of
residential to nonresidential uses, and none of the units are and/or were occupied by low-
and moderate-income families or persons.
4. A public hearing was held on September 26, 2019 in the Corona del Mar Conference Room
(Bay E-1st Floor) at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time,
place and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with California Government
Code Section 54950 et seq. (“Ralph M. Brown Act”), Chapter 20.62 and Chapter 21.62
(Public Hearings) of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Zoning Administrator at this hearing. The Zoning Administrator
19
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-007
Page 2 of 21
approved the project which included the demolition of the existing residence and the subdivision of the lot. The project reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator
did not include proposed residences.
5. Subsequent to the approval, the project entered a 14-calendar day City appeal period,
which concluded on October 10, 2019 without any appeals filed. Subsequently, the project entered a 10-business day California Coastal Commission (CCC) appeal period. On
October 30, 2019, an appeal was filed by CCC. On December 12, 2019, CCC found
substantial issue with the project during the appeal review, citing that the project is a
subdivision of a shoreline lot in a hazardous area into two (2) lots, which further requires a
variance to waive minimum lot size and width standards inconsistent with the City’s Local Coastal Program and public access policies of the California Coastal Act of 1976, Public
Resources Code Section 30000 et seq. (“Coastal Act”). CCC also had concerns with the
methodology utilized in the coastal hazards report, and wanted to see additional support
for the required findings to deviate from Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation
Plan) development standards.
6. As a result of the appeal by CCC, the Applicant worked with CCC staff and provided plans
for two (2) new residential structures, as well as an updated coastal hazards report. On
December 15, 2020, CCC directed the Applicant to apply for a CDP amendment with the
City of Newport Beach (“City”) that incorporated into the revised Project the proposed two (2) single-unit residences, each which included a junior accessory dwelling unit (“revised
Project”). If the revised Project is approved by the Planning Commission, CCC will have
the ability to withdraw its appeal of the project, consistent with Local Coastal Program
Implementation Plan Section 21.64.035 (Appeal to the Coastal Commission) of the NBMC.
7. The Property is located within the Multi-Unit Residential (RM) Zoning District and the
General Plan Land Use Element category is Multiple-Unit Residential (RM).
8. The Property is located within the coastal zone and has a Coastal Land Use Designation
of Multiple Unit Residential (RM-E) and a Coastal Zoning District of Multi-Unit Residential (RM).
9. A telephonic public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 4, 2021, in
the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, due to the
Declaration of a State Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to COVID-19. A notice of time, place and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance
with Government Code Section 54950 et seq. (“Ralph M. Brown Act”) and Chapters
20.62 and 21.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was
presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. This revised Project has been determined to be categorically exempt from the State
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines pursuant to Section 15301
under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).
20
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-007
Page 3 of 21
2. Class 1 exempts the demolition of single-family, duplex, and multifamily structures
where no more than six (6) units are demolished. In this case, the revised Project
involves the demolition of a four (4)-unit multi-family structure.
3. Class 3 exempts the construction of single-family residences, duplexes, and apartments designed for not more than six (6) dwelling units. In this case, the subdivision would
result in two (2) parcels which each contain a single-unit residence and a junior
accessory dwelling unit.
4. The exceptions to these categorical exemptions under Section 15300.2 are not applicable. The revised Project location does not impact an environmental resource of
hazardous or critical concern, does not result in cumulative impacts, does not have a
significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances, does not damage
scenic resources within a state scenic highway, is not a hazardous waste site, and is
not identified as a historical resource.
SECTION 3. FINDINGS.
Tentative Parcel Map for Subdivision
In accordance with Section 19.12.070 (Required Findings for Action on Tentative Maps
(66412.3, 66473 et seq.)) of the NBMC, the following findings and facts in support of such
findings are set forth:
Finding:
A. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent
with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of
the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The Tentative Parcel Map is for the purpose of subdividing an existing parcel into
two (2) separate parcels. The existing structure is two (2) stories and consists of four
(4) units with an attached six (6)-car garage. The subdivision and improvements are consistent with the density of the RM Zoning District and the current General Plan
Land Use Designation (Multiple-Unit Residential), as it creates two (2) lots with a
maximum of four (4) units between both lots. The revised Project includes four (4)
total residential units on two (2) lots.
2. The Property is not located within a specific plan area.
3. The revised Project has been conditioned to require public improvements, including
the reconstruction of sidewalks, curbs, and gutters along the Via Lido Soud frontage,
consistent with Title 19 (Subdivisions) of the NBMC.
21
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-007
Page 4 of 21
Finding:
B. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The existing configuration of the lot has a maximum density of five (5) units, as
restricted by the General Plan and Zoning Code (6,300 sq. ft. lot / 1,200 sq. ft.
minimum site area per unit = 5.25 or 5 units). The subdivision would create two (2)
separate 3,150-square-foot parcels. Each parcel would have a maximum density of two (2) units (3,150 sq. ft. / 1,200 sq. ft. minimum site area = 2.6 or 2 units), resulting
in a total of four (4) units allowable on two (2) lots.
2. Each lot is physically suitable for up to two (2) units of development because they
are regular in shape.
3. Each lot would be accessible from Via Lido Soud and would be adequately served
by existing utilities.
4. The Property is located near the Newport Bay, but is separated from the water by a public boardwalk and small intertidal beach. A coastal hazards report, prepared by
GeoSoils, Inc. on December 17, 2020, concludes that the reconfigured parcels will
be developed safe from hazards, which includes shoreline movement, waves and
wave runup, and flooding with future sea level rise, for a minimum of 75 years. The
single-unit residences and junior accessory dwelling units have a finished floor elevation of 12.8 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) and have
adaptation measures to protect the structures from flooding up to 14.4 feet NAVD88.
There are no shoreline protective devices serving the subject property, and new
shoreline protective devices are not necessary to protect future development on the
resultant parcels.
Finding:
C. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision making body may
nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared
for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California
Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. A four (4)-unit structure will be demolished and the existing parcel will be subdivided into two (2) separate parcels. Development is limited to two (2) units on each lot. A
22
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-007
Page 5 of 21
single-unit residence and junior accessory dwelling unit are proposed on each lot, resulting in four (4) total dwelling units between the two (2) lots.
2. The Property is located in an urbanized area that does not contain any sensitive
vegetation or habitat.
3. The revised Project is categorically exempt under Section 15301 (Article 19 of
Chapter 3), of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines – Class
1 (Existing Facilities) and Section 15303 - Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion
of Small Structures).
Finding:
D. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious
public health problems.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. The Tentative Parcel Map is for the purpose of subdividing an existing lot into two
(2) distinct parcels. All improvements associated with the revised Project will comply
with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes, which are in place to prevent serious
public health problems. Public improvements will be required of the developer pursuant to Section 19.28.010 (General Improvement Requirements) of the NBMC
and Section 66411 (Local Agencies to Regulate and Control Design of
Subdivisions) of the Subdivision Map Act. All ordinances of the City and all
Conditions of Approval will be complied with.
Finding:
E. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the
proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these
easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This
finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of
a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to
determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. There is an existing 4-foot utility easement in favor of the City of Newport Beach located directly behind the right-of-way of Via Lido Soud. The subdivision will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use
of property within the development.
23
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-007
Page 6 of 21
Finding:
F. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if
the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation
Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would
not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The Property is not subject to the Williamson Act because the subject property is not designated as an agricultural preserve and is less than 100 acres in area.
2. The site is developed for residential use and is located in a Zoning District that
permits residential uses.
Finding:
G. That, in the case of a “land project” as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business
and Professions Code: (1) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included
within the land project; and (2) the decision making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. California Business and Professions Code Section 11000.5 has been repealed by the Legislature. However, this project site is not considered a “land project” as
previously defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions
Code because the project site does not contain 50 or more parcels of land.
2. The Project is not located within a specific plan area.
Finding:
H. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied
in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. The Tentative Parcel Map and any future improvements are subject to Title 24 of
the California Building Code that requires new construction to meet minimum
heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Division enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan
check and inspection process.
24
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-007
Page 7 of 21
Finding:
I. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and
Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City’s share of the regional
housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service
needs of the City’s residents and available fiscal and environmental resources.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. The subdivision would create two (2) distinct parcels with the potential of up to two
(2) units on each parcel. A single-family residence or a duplex would be consistent with the RM Zoning District and with existing development in the community.
Therefore, the Tentative Parcel Map will not affect the City in meeting its regional
housing need.
Finding:
J. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system
will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. The subdivision would divide a parcel into two (2) individual parcels and would not
create waste that would result in a violation of the existing requirements prescribed
by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Finding:
K. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision conforms
with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. The Property is within the Coastal Zone and the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and the public access and recreation policies of
Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. The facts in support of findings R and S below
are hereby incorporated by reference.
Deviation from Design Standards
Pursuant to Section 19.24.050(A) (Lot Design, Lot Size), of the NBMC, new subdivisions must
meet the applicable zoning district regulations of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the NBMC.
Deviation from the design standards set forth in Title 19 (Subdivisions) may be approved
subject to specific findings in Section 19.24.130(C) (Deviation from Design Standards, Required Finding to Allow Deviation) of the NBMC. The subdivision would create lots which do
25
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-007
Page 8 of 21
not meet the lot width standards required by Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) for new subdivisions within the RM Zoning District, which requires new subdivision interior lots to be 50 feet wide
and have a lot area of 5,000 square feet. The subdivided lots will be 35 feet wide and 3,150
square feet in area. The required findings to deviate from the standards and facts in support of
those findings are as follows:
Finding:
L. The requested deviations will create a land plan or development design equal or superior
to that under the baseline design standards in this Chapter [19]. Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The lots are comparable in width, length, and area with the majority of the original
subdivision in which a majority of lots had widths between 30 and 40 feet and depths
of 90 feet. Since the original subdivision was created, some lots in the vicinity have been re-subdivided but a majority of the lots remain between 30 and 40 feet in width.
The 35-foot-wide lots are consistent with Footnote 2 of Table 2-3 of Title 20 (Planning
and Zoning).
2. The subdivision would create lot sizes not less than the original underlying lots on the same block face (351 through 463 Via Lido Soud) in the same zoning district.
The subdivision would divide the existing 70-foot-wide, 6,300-square-foot RM parcel
into two (2) 35-foot-wide, 3,150-square-foot RM parcels, which are compatible with
the pattern of the surrounding subdivision.
3. The existing lot orientation with vehicular access from Via Lido Soud are maintained.
Finding:
M. The deviations will not negatively impact the carrying capacity of the local vehicular circulation network.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The subdivision would not negatively impact the carrying capacity of the local vehicular circulation network. Although the subdivision would create one (1)
additional lot compared to the original subdivision, the potential number of units
would decrease. As currently configured, the existing 70-foot-wide lot has the
development potential of five (5) residential units. The subdivision would create two
(2) lots, each with a development potential of two (2) units for a total of four (4) units.
2. No improvements or changes are proposed that would cause additional capacity to
the roadways.
26
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-007
Page 9 of 21
Finding:
N. The deviations will not negatively impact pedestrian circulation.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The subdivision will not reduce, encroach or change the size or location of the Via
Lido Soud sidewalk.
2. The subdivision will not eliminate or impede pedestrian circulation as the necessary
improvements are conditioned in accordance with applicable Public Works design standards and permitting.
Finding:
O. The resulting subdivision will be compatible with the pattern of surrounding subdivisions.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The Property is located in a block that is designated RM by the General Plan and
Zoning Code. The subdivision would divide an existing RM lot into two (2) RM lots.
2. The Property is 70 feet wide and 6,300 square feet in area, which is the largest lot
within the same block face in the same zoning district. The subdivision would result
in two (2) 35-foot-wide, 3,150-square-foot lots which are more compatible with the
surrounding lots than the existing configuration.
Finding:
P. The resulting subdivision design and improvements will be consistent with the General Plan
and any applicable specific plan, and will conform to the Subdivision Map Act and all other provisions of this Subdivision Code.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The resulting subdivision design results in two (2) parcels and two (2) residential units on each parcel, where the General Plan allows for two (2) units on each parcel.
Therefore, the subdivision is consistent with the density of the RM General Plan Land
Use Designation.
2. The subject property is not located within a specific plan area.
3. The project has been conditioned to require public improvements, including the
reconstruction of sidewalks, curbs, and gutters along the Via Lido Soud frontage,
consistent with Title 19 (Subdivisions).
27
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-007
Page 10 of 21
Finding:
Q. The resulting subdivision design and improvements will not be materially detrimental to the
residents or tenants of the proposed subdivision or surrounding properties, nor to public
health or safety.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. The subdivision to re-subdivide the existing parcel in a comparable manner to the
underlying legal lots would allow two (2) units to be constructed on each lot in
accordance with the General Plan. Approval does not introduce an incompatible land use, and the resulting subdivision design would not be detrimental to the residents
as vehicular and pedestrian access would be maintained. Any development must be
in accordance with the conditions of approval and the NBMC. The resulting lot widths
are consistent with the lot widths of the original subdivision or the existing
development pattern of the neighborhood.
Coastal Development Permit
In accordance with Section 21.52.015(F) (Coastal Development Permits, Findings and
Decision) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth:
Finding:
R. Conforms to all applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal Program.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The Tentative Parcel Map is for the purposes of subdividing an existing lot into two
(2) distinct parcels and meets all of the requirements of the Local Coastal Program, including 21.30.025 (Coastal Subdivisions) and Section 21.52.090 (Relief from
Implementation Plan Development Standard) of the NBMC as it relates to lot widths
and area.
2. The subdivision complies with 21.52.090(B)(2) (Relief from Implementation Plan Development Standards, Variances) of the NBMC, which allows for waiver or
modification of certain standards of the Implementation Plan because of special
circumstance including location. The required 50-foot lot width and 5,000-square-
foot minimum lot area standards may be modified to less based on the lot widths and
areas of the original subdivision, the majority of which are between 30 to 40 feet in width and from 2,700 to 4,500 square feet in area.
3. The subdivision complies with Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 2.8.1-3, which states that
land divisions shall avoid hazardous areas and minimize risks to life and property from
coastal and other hazards. The subdivision also complies with the Local Coastal Implementation Program Plan pursuant to Section 21.30.025 (Coastal Zone
28
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-007
Page 11 of 21
Subdivisions) of the NBMC, which states that subdivisions within the Coastal Zone shall be designed to avoid current hazardous areas, as well as areas that may become
hazardous due to future changes. Additionally, there shall be no division of land near
the shoreline unless the new or reconfigured parcels can be developed safe from
geologic and other hazards for a minimum of 75 years, and unless shoreline protective
devices are prohibited to protect development on the resultant parcels.
4. The revised Project is located near the Newport Bay. However, a public boardwalk
and small intertidal beach separates the Property from the water. A coastal hazards
report, prepared by GeoSoils, Inc. on December 17, 2020, concludes that the
reconfigured parcels will be developed safe from hazards, which includes shoreline movement, waves and wave runup, and flooding with future sea level rise, for a
minimum of 75 years. The historical water elevation at the Newport Bay is 7.7 feet
North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Based on the “medium-high risk
aversion, high emissions” scenario, which is estimated to have a sea level rise (SLR)
of 6.7 feet by the year 2100, the future extreme bay water level may reach as high as 14.4 feet NAVD 88 (7.7 feet NAVD 88 + 6.7 feet SLR) over the next 75 years (i.e.
life of future development). The report states that there is a much lower possibility
(0.5 percent) of the SLR meeting the 6.7-foot estimate. While the finished site grade
is approximately 11.0 feet, the finished floor elevation for both structures is 12.8 feet
NAVD 88, which makes them safe from flooding for SLR of 5.1 feet. Additionally, the revised Project includes conditions that require additional adaptation measures that
waterproofs the structures up to 14.4 feet NAVD 88.
5. The single-unit residence and attached junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) at 361
Via Lido Soud conforms to all applicable development standards, including setbacks, floor area, height, and parking.
a. The single-unit residence and attached JADU complies with the required setbacks,
which are 4 feet abutting Via Lido Soud and 3 feet along each side property line.
There is no required setback abutting the public boardwalk.
b. The JADU is 479 square feet in area, which complies with the maximum 500 square
feet for a JADU. The proposed JADU is located on the second floor above the
garage, and includes separate exterior access, a bedroom and a full kitchen.
c. The maximum floor area limitation is 4,240 square feet, where the proposed
residence has a total floor area of 4,062 square feet (including JADU).
d. The highest ridge of the proposed residence is 24 feet from established grade. This
complies with the maximum height requirement, which is 33 feet from established grade.
e. The development provides an attached two (2)-car garage, meeting the minimum
parking requirement for a single-unit residence under 4,000 square feet of habitable
floor area. No additional parking is required for a JADU.
29
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-007
Page 12 of 21
6. The single-unit residence and attached JADU at 365 Via Lido Soud conforms to all applicable development standards, including setbacks, height, and parking.
a. The single-unit residence and attached JADU complies with the required setbacks,
which are 4 feet abutting Via Lido Soud and 3 feet along each side property line.
There is no required setback abutting the public boardwalk.
b. The JADU is 494 square feet in area, which complies with the maximum 500 square
feet for a JADU. The JADU is located on the second floor above the garage, and
includes separate exterior access, a bedroom and a full kitchen.
c. The maximum floor area limitation is 4,240 square feet, where the proposed
residence has a total floor area of 4,110 square feet (including JADU).
d. The highest ridge of the proposed residence is 24 feet from established grade. This
complies with the maximum height requirement, which is 33 feet from established grade.
e. The development provides an attached two (2)-car garage, meeting the minimum
parking requirement for a single-unit residence under 4,000 square feet of habitable
floor area. No additional parking is required for a JADU.
7. There are no shoreline protective devices serving the subject property, and new
shoreline protective devices are not necessary to protect future development on the
resultant parcels. A condition of approval is included waiving the rights to future
shoreline protective devices.
8. The Property is located in an area known for the potential of seismic activity and
liquefaction. All projects are required to comply with the California Building Code and
Building Division standards and policies.
9. No natural or cultural resources are located on the Project site, which has been
developed for many years. The demolition will remove the existing residence,
landscaping, and hardscape improvements. Best management practices (BMP) will
be required to ensure that the demolition will not result in water quality impacts due
to construction debris or run-off entering the waters of Newport Bay or onto adjacent properties. Any construction of future residences will require separate coastal
development permits.
10. The Project site is located near two (2) public viewpoints as identified by the Coastal
Land Use Plan. One viewpoint, which is a public park, is located approximately 100 feet north of the subject lots. The second viewpoint, which is currently utilized as
boat parking, is located approximately 50 feet south of the subject lots. Both
viewpoints offer public views of the bay from Via Lido Soud. Additionally, there is a
public boardwalk which connects these two (2) viewpoints, located between the
subjected property and the bay. The revised Project is to demolish an existing four (4)-unit residence, subdivide the lot into two (2) parcels, and construct two (2) single-
30
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-007
Page 13 of 21
unit residences with attached JADUs. The revised Project maintains building envelopes consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern of development. The
revised Project is located on the landward side of the public boardwalk and does not
disrupt views of the bay from the boardwalk. Furthermore, all improvements in the
front setback area of the subject property is limited to 42 inches from existing grade.
An investigation of the Project site and surrounding area did not identify any other public view opportunities. Therefore, the revised Project does not have the potential to
degrade the visual quality of the Coastal Zone or result in significant adverse impacts
to public views.
11. The construction of two (2) separate single-unit residences requires each structure to comply with side setbacks. This creates a 6-foot distance between the proposed
principal structures that may serve as additional view opportunities of the bay, which
was not provided with the existing four (4)-unit residence.
Finding:
S. Conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal
Act if the project is between the nearest public road and the sea or shoreline of any body of
water located within the coastal zone.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The Project site is located between the nearest public road and the sea or shoreline.
The residential lot does not currently provide nor inhibit public coastal access. NBMC
Section 21.30A.040 (Determination of Public Access/Recreation Impacts) requires that the provision of public access bear a reasonable relationship between the requirement
and the project’s impact and be proportional to the impact. In this case, the revised
Project is a tentative parcel map for the purpose of subdividing an existing lot into two
(2) distinct parcels and a coastal development permit for the demolition of the existing
residence and construction of two (2) single-unit residences with two JADUs. The development will not remove any access to the bay.
2. The public boardwalk between the Property and the bay shall remain. The public will
continue to have access to the bay through a public walkway which has multiple access
points throughout Via Lido Soud.
Coastal Development Permit – Relief from Implementation Plan Development Standards
In accordance with NBMC Section 21.52.090 (Relief from Implementation Plan Development
Standards), the waiver to development standards of the Implementation Plan is supported by the following findings and facts supporting those findings:
Finding:
T. The Planning Commission has considered the following:
31
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-007
Page 14 of 21
i. Whether or not the development is consistent with the certified Local Coastal Program to the maximum extent feasible; and
ii. Whether or not there are feasible alternatives that would provide greater consistency
with the certified Local Coastal Program and/or that are more protective of coastal
resources.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. An alternative to the revised Project is for the existing four (4)-unit residential
structure to remain in place. The existing lot is 70 feet wide and 6,300 square feet in area, whereas surrounding lots on the same block face vary between 30 and 40 feet
wide, and between 2,700 and 4,500 square feet in area.
2. The existing structure does not offer any modulation or openings that provide views
to the bay from Via Lido Soud. If the lot remains without the subdivision, a new residential structure could be similarly constructed without modulations and
openings. If the lot is subdivided, both 35-foot-wide lots would require 3-foot side
yard setbacks which would create a visual opening to the bay as well as reduce the
overall mass compared to the existing structure.
3. The subdivision results in less floor area that can be achieved than if the subject
parcel remained in its existing configuration. The subdivision would create two (2)
lots with maximum floor areas of 4,364.5 square feet each, totaling 8,729 square feet
total (4,364.5 x 2 = 8,729). If the subject parcel remained in its existing configuration,
a total floor area of 8,849 square feet can be constructed.
4. There are no coastal resources to protect on the property.
Finding:
U. The granting of the variance is necessary due to special circumstances applicable to the
property, including location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, and/or other physical
features, the strict application of the development standards otherwise applicable to the
property denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the
vicinity and in the same coastal zoning district.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The Property is located in the RM block of Tract 907. Within this block, the original
subdivision consisted of 23 lots, a majority of which ranged from 30 to 40 feet in width. The parcels were reconfigured over time and this block currently contains 24
lots, a majority of which range from 30 to 70 feet in width. The subject property is 70
feet wide and has an underlying configuration of Lot 923 (40 feet wide), the
southeasterly 10 feet of Lot 922, and the northwesterly 20 feet of Lot 924.
2. The revised Project is to subdivide an existing 70-foot-wide, 6,300-square-foot parcel
32
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-007
Page 15 of 21
into two (2) 35-foot-wide, 3,150-square-foot parcels, whereas Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC
require a minimum lot width of 50 feet and minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet for
newly created interior lots. Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the NBMC includes a
provision which allows for a parcel to be subdivided to a minimum lot size not less
than the original underlying lots on the same block face in the same zoning district.
3. Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the NBMC does not contain
the same provision as Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) that allows lots to be subdivided
to a lot size not less than the original underlying lots on the same block face in the
same coastal zoning district.
4. The existing 70-foot-wide lot is surrounded by two (2) 30-foot-wide lots on both sides.
The proposed lot widths of 35 feet are consistent with the 30- to 40-foot lot widths
contained on the original block face within the same zoning district. The existing lot
is 6,300 square feet in area. The subdivision would create two (2) 3,150-square-foot lots, where surrounding lots on the same block face range from 2,700 to 4,500
square feet. Strict application of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation
Plan) of the NBMC would deny the property owners privileges enjoyed by
surrounding property owners and allow for the development of two (2) 35-foot-wide
lots which is more consistent with original underlying subdivision pattern of the block.
Finding:
V. The variance complies with the findings required to approval a coastal development permit
in NBMC Section 21.52.015(F).
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. Facts in Support of Findings R and S above are hereby incorporated by reference.
Finding:
W. The variance will not result in development that blocks or significantly impedes public
access to and along the sea or shoreline and to coastal parks, trails, or coastal bluffs.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. The Property does not currently provide access to the sea or shoreline, nor does it
provide access to any coastal parks, trails, or coastal bluffs.
2. Vertical access to the Newport Bay is available for the public from multiple access
points along Via Lido Soud. Lateral access is available in the form of a public
boardwalk between the bay and the subject property. The Project does not result in
development that will impede existing public access.
33
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-007
Page 16 of 21
Finding:
X. The variance will not result in development that blocks or significantly impairs public views
to and along the sea or shoreline or to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. Facts 10 and 11 in support of Finding R above are hereby incorporated by reference.
Finding:
Y. The variance will not result in development that has an adverse effect, either individually or
cumulatively, on coastal resources, including wetlands, sensitive habitat, vegetation or
wildlife species.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. There are no coastal resources on the Property nor are there any in the immediate
area that could be affected by its redevelopment as the Property is separated from
the bay by a public boardwalk.
Finding:
Z. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to, or in conflict with, the purpose of this
Implementation Plan, nor to the applicable policies of the Local Coastal Program.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. Facts in Support of Finding T above are hereby incorporated by reference.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. This Project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the State
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines under Section 15301 - Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Section 15303 - Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures).
2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Tentative Parcel
Map No. NP2019-008 and Coastal Development Permit No. CD2019-024, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A,” which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
3. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution
was adopted unless within such time an appeal or call for review is filed with the
Community Development Director in accordance with the provisions of Title 21 (Local Coastal Implementation Plan) of the NBMC. Final action taken by the City may be
34
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-007
Page 17 of 21
appealed to the Coastal Commission in compliance with Section 21.64.035 (Appeal to the Coastal Commission) of the NBMC of the City’s certified LCP and Title 14 California
Code of Regulations, Sections 13111 through 13120, and Section 30603 of the Coastal
Act.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2021.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
BY:_________________________
Erik Weigand, Chairman
BY:_________________________
Lauren Kleiman, Secretary
35
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-007
Page 18 of 21
EXHIBIT “A”
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLANNING
1. The Project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
2. This approval shall expire and become void unless exercised within 24 months from the
actual date of review authority approval, except where an extension of time is approved in
compliance with the provisions of Title 19 (Subdivisions) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
3. Prior to map recordation, an agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney between
the property owner and the City shall be executed and recorded waiving rights to the
construction of future shoreline protection devices to address the threat of damage or destruction from waves, erosion, storm conditions, landslides, seismic activity, bluff
retreat, sea level rise, or other natural hazards that may affect the property, or
development of the property, today or in the future. The agreement shall be binding
against the property owners and successors and assigns.
4. Prior to map recordation, the property owner shall submit a notarized signed letter
acknowledging all hazards present at the site, assuming the risk of injury or damage
from such hazards, unconditionally waiving any claims of damage against the City from
such hazards, and to indemnify and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and
commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses,
judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation,
attorney’s fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which
may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City’s approval of
development. This letter shall be scanned into the plan set prior to building permit issuance.
5. Prior to issuance of the building permits, a copy of the Resolution, including conditions
of approval Exhibit “A” shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of
plans.
6. All conditions of approval shall apply to both 361 and 365 Via Lido Soud.
7. All principal structures shall be waterproofed to a minimum height of 14.4 feet NAVD 88.
8. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit a final landscape and irrigation plan. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings, non-
invasive plant species and water efficient irrigation design. The plans shall be approved
by the Planning Division.
36
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-007
Page 19 of 21
9. No demolition or construction materials, equipment debris, or waste, shall be placed or stored in a location that would enter sensitive habitat, receiving waters, or a storm drain
or result in impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat areas, streams, the beach,
wetlands or their buffers.
10. This approval does not authorize any new or existing improvements (including landscaping) on State tidelands, public beaches, or the public right-of-way.
11. The Applicant is responsible for compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
In compliance with the MBTA, grading, brush removal, building demolition, tree
trimming, and similar construction activities shall occur between August 16 and January 31, outside of the peak nesting period. If such activities must occur inside the peak
nesting season from February 1 to August 15, compliance with the following is required
to prevent the taking of Native Birds pursuant to MBTA:
A. The construction area shall be inspected for active nests. If birds are observed flying from a nest or sitting on a nest, it can be assumed that the nest is active. Construction
activity within 300 feet of an active nest shall be delayed until the nest is no longer
active. Continue to observe the nest until the chicks have left the nest and activity is no
longer observed. When the nest is no longer active, construction activity can continue
in the nest area.
B. It is a violation of state and federal law to kill or harm a native bird. To ensure
compliance, consider hiring a biologist to assist with the survey for nesting birds, and
to determine when it is safe to commence construction activities. If an active nest is
found, one (1) or two (2) short follow-up surveys will be necessary to check on the nest and determine when the nest is no longer active.
12. Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Good Housekeeping Practices (GHPs) shall
be implemented prior to and throughout the duration of construction activity as
designated in the Demolition Plan.
13. The discharge of any hazardous materials into storm sewer systems or receiving waters
shall be prohibited. Machinery and equipment shall be maintained and washed in
confined areas specifically designed to control runoff. A designated fueling and vehicle
maintenance area with appropriate berms and protection to prevent spillage shall be provided as far away from storm drain systems or receiving waters as possible.
14. Debris from demolition shall be removed from work areas each day and removed from
the project site within 24 hours of the completion of the project. Stockpiles and
construction materials shall be covered, enclosed on all sides, not stored in contact with the soil, and located as far away as possible from drain inlets and any waterway.
15. Trash and debris shall be disposed in proper trash and recycling receptacles at the end
of each construction day. Solid waste, including excess concrete, shall be disposed in
adequate disposal facilities at a legal disposal site or recycled at a recycling facility.
37
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-007
Page 20 of 21
16. The Project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
17. The Applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of
any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Coastal
Development Permit.
18. This Coastal Development Permit may be modified or revoked by the Zoning
Administrator if determined that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being
operated or maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained so as to constitute a public nuisance.
19. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future
owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by the current
property owner or agent.
20. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless
City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents
from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of
action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including
without limitation, attorney’s fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City’s
approval of the Bethel and Ridge Subdivision and Residences Appeal Amendment
including, but not limited to, Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2019-008 and Coastal
Development Permit No. CD2019-024 (PA2019-085). This indemnification shall include,
but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action,
suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or
bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs,
attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions
set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition.
BUILDING
21. Prior to issuance of building permits, the final WQHP/WQMP shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Division. Implementation shall be in compliance with the
WQHP/WQMP and any changes could require separate review and approval by the
Building Division.
22. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit a final drainage and grading plan. The plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the Building
Division.
38
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-007
Page 21 of 21
23. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a final construction erosion control plan. The plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the Building
Division.
PUBLIC WORKS
24. A parcel map shall be recorded. The map shall be prepared on the California coordinate
system (NAD83). Prior to recordation of the Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the
Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital-graphic
file of said map in a manner described in Section 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange
County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. The Map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City’s CADD
Standards. Scanned images will not be accepted.
25. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the map shall tie
the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Section s 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County
Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Monuments
(one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set On Each Lot Corner unless otherwise approved
by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to
completion of construction project.
26. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works
Department.
27. An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right-of-way.
28. Any existing broken and/or otherwise damaged curb and pavement along the Via Lido
Soud frontage shall be reconstructed.
29. All existing overhead utilities shall be undergrounded.
30. An encroachment permit/agreement shall be obtained for any non-standard
improvements within a 4-foot wide Public Utilities Easement along Via Lido Soud.
31. Each parcel shall be served by its individual water service/meter and sewer lateral/cleanout to be constructed per City Standards.
32. All improvements shall comply with the City’s sight distance requirement. See City
Standard 110-L.
33. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by
the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right-of-way could be
required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector.
39
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE40
Attachment No. PC 2
Adopted Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-062
41
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE42
RESOLUTION NO. ZA2019-062
A RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP NO. NP2019-008 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
NO. CD2019-024 FOR THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING
FOUR-UNIT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND THE
SUBDIVISION OF THE EXISTING PARCEL INTO TWO
SEPARATE PARCELS (PA2019-085)
THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An application was filed by Jeffery and Michele Bethel and Stephen and Shelly Ridge, with
respect to property located at 365 Via Lido Soud Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 and legally described
as Lot 923 and the southeasterly 10 feet of Lot 922 and half of lot 924, requesting approval
of a tentative parcel map and a coastal development permit.
2. The applicant requests a tentative parcel map and coastal development permit to subdivide
the property into two separate parcels. The coastal development permit result also includes
the demolition of an existing four-unit residential structure and waiver of the minimum lot
width and area standard associated with the proposed subdivision. No new construction is
proposed as a part of this project.
3. The subject property is located within the Multi-Unit Residential (RM) Zoning District and
the General Plan Land Use Element category is Multiple-Unit Residential (RM).
4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone and has a Coastal Land Use
Designation of Multiple Unit Residential (RM-E) and a Coastal Zoning District of Multi-Unit
Residential (RM).
5. On July 19, 2019, the Community Development Director approved Staff Approval No.
SA2019-004 (PA2019-085) finding the demolition of four units within one structure
compliant with Zoning Code Chapter 20.34 and Local Coastal Program Implementation
Plan Chapter 21.34 (Conversion or Demolition of Affordable Housing). The staff approval
concluded that there will be no conversion of residential to nonresidential uses, and none
of the units are and/or were occupied by low- and moderate-income families or persons.
6. A public hearing was held on September 26, 2019 in the Corona del Mar Conference Room
(Bay E-1st Floor) at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and
purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal
Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Zoning
Administrator at this hearing.
43
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-062
Page 2 of 18
07-11-17
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the State
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines under Class 1 (Existing
Facilities) and Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).
2. Class 1 exempts the demolition of single-family, duplex, and multifamily structures
where no more than six units are demolished. In this case, the project involves the
demolition of a four-unit multi-family structure.
3. Class 3 exempts the construction of single-family residences, duplexes, and apartments
designed for not more than six dwelling units. In the case, the subdivision would result
in two parcels that can accommodate up to two dwellings each, for a total of four units.
4. The exceptions to these categorical exemptions under Section 15300.2 are not
applicable. The project location does not impact an environmental resource of
hazardous or critical concern, does not result in cumulative impacts, does not have a
significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances, does not damage
scenic resources within a state scenic highway, is not a hazardous waste site, and is
not identified as a historical resource.
Tentative Parcel Map for Subdivision
The Zoning Administrator determined in this case that the Tentative Parcel Map is consistent
with the legislative intent of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code and is approved based on the following findings per Section 19.12.070 (Required
Findings for Action on Tentative Maps) of Title 19:
Finding:
A. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent
with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of
the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The Tentative Parcel Map is for the purpose of subdividing an existing parcel into
two separate parcels. The existing structure is two stories and consists of four units
with an attached six-car garage. The proposed subdivision and improvements are
consistent with the density of the RM Zoning District and the current General Plan
Land Use Designation (Multiple-Unit Residential).
2. The subject property is not located within a specific plan area.
3. The project has been conditioned to require public improvements, including the
reconstruction of sidewalks, curbs, and gutters along the Via Lido Soud frontage,
consistent with the Subdivision Code (Title 19).
44
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-062
Page 3 of 18
07-11-17
Finding:
B. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The existing configuration of the lot has a maximum density of five units, as
restricted by the General Plan and Zoning Code (6,300 sq. ft. lot / 1,200 sq. ft.
minimum site area per unit = 5.25 or 5 units). The proposed subdivision would create
two separate 3,150-square-foot parcels. Each parcel would have a maximum
density of two units (3,150 sq. ft. / 1,200 sq. ft. minimum site area = 2.6 or 2 units),
resulting in a total of four units allowable on two lots.
2. Each lot is physically suitable for up to two units of development because they are
regular in shape.
3. Each lot would be accessible from Via Lido Soud and would be adequately served
by existing utilities.
4. The subject property is located near the Newport Bay, but is separated from the
water by a public boardwalk and small intertidal beach. A coastal hazards report,
prepared by GeoSoils, Inc. on September 16, 2019, concludes that the reconfigured
parcels will be developed safe from hazards, which includes shoreline movement,
waves and wave runup, and flooding with future sea level rise, for a minimum of 75
years. There are no shoreline protective devices serving the subject property, and
new shoreline protective devices are not necessary to protect future development
on the resultant parcels.
Finding:
C. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or
their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision making body may
nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared
for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California
Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental
impact report.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. A four-unit structure will be demolished and the existing parcel will be subdivided into
two separate parcels. Future development would be limited to four units per maximum
density standards.
45
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-062
Page 4 of 18
07-11-17
2. The property is located in an urbanized area that does not contain any sensitive
vegetation or habitat.
3. The project is categorically exempt under Section 15301 (Article 19 of Chapter 3),
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines – Class 1 (Existing
Facilities) and Section 15302 - Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures).
Finding:
D. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious
public health problems.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The Tentative Parcel Map is for the purpose of subdividing an existing lot into two
distinct parcels. All improvements associated with the project will comply with all
Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes, which are in place to prevent serious public
health problems. Public improvements will be required of the developer per Section
19.28.010 (General Improvement Requirements) of the Municipal Code and Section
66411 (Local Agencies to Regulate and Control Design of Subdivisions) of the
Subdivision Map Act. All ordinances of the City and all Conditions of Approval will
be complied with.
Finding:
E. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the
proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision making body may approve a map if
it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these
easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This
finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of
a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to
determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of
property within a subdivision.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. There is an existing 4-foot utility easement in favor of the City of Newport Beach
located directly behind the right of way of Via Lido Soud. The proposed subdivision
will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through,
or use of property within the proposed development.
Finding:
F. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if
the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation
Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would
46
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-062
Page 5 of 18
07-11-17
not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential
development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The property is not subject to the Williamson Act because the subject property is
not designated as an agricultural preserve and is less than 100 acres in area.
2. The site is developed for residential use and is located in a Zoning District that
permits residential uses.
Finding:
G. That, in the case of a “land project” as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business
and Professions Code: (1) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included
within the land project; and (2) the decision making body finds that the proposed land project
is consistent with the specific plan for the area.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. California Business and Professions Code Section 11000.5 has been repealed by
the Legislature. However, this project site is not considered a “land project” as
previously defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions
Code because the project site does not contain 50 or more parcels of land.
2. The project is not located within a specific plan area.
Finding:
H. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied
in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. The Tentative Parcel Map and any future improvements are subject to Title 24 of
the California Building Code that requires new construction to meet minimum
heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The
Newport Beach Building Division enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan
check and inspection process.
Finding:
I. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and
Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City’s share of the regional
housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service
needs of the City’s residents and available fiscal and environmental resources.
47
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-062
Page 6 of 18
07-11-17
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. The subdivision would create two distinct parcels with the potential of up to two units
on each parcel. A single-family residence or a duplex would be consistent with the
RM Zoning District and with existing development in the community. Therefore, the
Tentative Parcel Map will not affect the City in meeting its regional housing need.
Finding:
J. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system
will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. The proposed subdivision would divide a parcel into two individual parcels and
would not create waste that would result in a violation of the existing requirements
prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Finding:
K. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision conforms
with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and
recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. The subject property is within the Coastal Zone. The facts in support of findings Q
and R below are hereby incorporated by reference.
Deviation from Design Standards
Per Section 19.24.050.A of Title 19 (Lot Design, Lot Size), new subdivisions must meet the
applicable zoning district regulations stated in Title 20 (Zoning Code). Deviation from the design
standards set forth in Title 19 may be approved by the Zoning Administrator subject to specific
findings stated per Section 19.24.130.C. The proposed subdivision would create lots which do
not meet the lot width standards required by the Zoning Code for new subdivisions within the
RM Zoning District. The Zoning Code requires new subdivision interior lots to be 50 feet wide,
and have a lot area of 5,000 square feet. The proposed subdivided lots are 35 feet wide and
3,150 square feet in area. The required findings to deviate from the standards and facts in
support of those findings are as follows:
Finding:
L. The requested deviations will create a land plan or development design equal or superior
to that under the baseline design standards in this Chapter.
48
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-062
Page 7 of 18
07-11-17
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The proposed lots are comparable in width, length, and area with the majority of the
original subdivision in which a majority of lots had widths between 30 and 40 feet
and depths of 90 feet. Since the original subdivision was created, some lots in the
vicinity have been re-subdivided but a majority of the lots remain between 30 and 40
feet in width. The proposed 35-foot-wide lots are consistent with Footnote 2 of Table
2-3 of the Zoning Code.
2. The proposed subdivision would create lot sizes not less than the original underlying
lots on the same block face (351 through 463 Via Lido Soud) in the same zoning
district. The proposed subdivision would divide the existing 70-foot-wide, 6,300-
square-foot RM parcel into two 35-foot-wide, 3,150-square-foot RM parcels, which
are compatible with the pattern of the surrounding subdivision.
3. The existing lot orientation with vehicular access from Via Lido Soud are maintained.
Finding:
M. The deviations will not negatively impact the carrying capacity of the local vehicular
circulation network.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The proposed subdivision would not negatively impact the carrying capacity of the
local vehicular circulation network. Although the proposed subdivision would create
one additional lot compared to the original subdivision, the potential amount of units
would decrease. As currently configured, the existing 70-foot-wide lot has the
development potential of five residential units. The proposed subdivision would
create two lots, each with a development potential of two units for a total of four units.
2. No improvements or changes are proposed that would cause additional capacity to
the roadways.
Finding:
N. The deviations will not negatively impact pedestrian circulation.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The subdivision will not reduce, encroach or change the size or location of the Via
Lido Soud sidewalk.
2. The subdivision will not eliminate or impede pedestrian circulation provided that the
necessary improvements are provided in accordance with applicable Public Works
design standards and permitting.
49
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-062
Page 8 of 18
07-11-17
Finding:
O. The resulting subdivision will be compatible with the pattern of surrounding subdivisions.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The subject property is located in a block that is designated RM by the General Plan
and Zoning Code. The proposed subdivision would divide an existing RM lot into two
RM lots.
2. The subject property is 70 feet wide and 6,300 square feet in area, which is the
largest lot within the same block face in the same zoning district. The proposed
subdivision would result in two 35-foot-wide, 3,150-square-foot lots which are more
compatible with the surrounding lots than the existing configuration.
Finding:
P. The resulting subdivision design and improvements will not be materially detrimental to the
residents or tenants of the proposed subdivision or surrounding properties, nor to public
health or safety.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. The proposed subdivision to re-subdivide the existing parcel in a comparable manner
to the underlying legal lots would allow two units to be constructed on each lot in
accordance with the General Plan. Approval does not introduce an incompatible land
use, and the resulting subdivision design would not be detrimental to the residents
as vehicular and pedestrian access would be maintained. Any development must be
in accordance with the conditions of approval and the Municipal Code. The resulting
lot widths are consistent with the lot widths of the original subdivision or the existing
development pattern of the neighborhood.
Coastal Development Permit
The Zoning Administrator determined in this case that the Tentative Parcel Map is consistent
with the legislative intent of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code and approves the Coastal Development Permit based on the
following findings per Section 21.52.015.F of Title 21:
Finding:
Q. That the proposed map conforms to all applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal
Program.
50
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-062
Page 9 of 18
07-11-17
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The Tentative Parcel Map is for the purposes of subdividing an existing lot into two
distinct parcels and meets all of the requirements of the Local Coastal Program,
including 21.30.025 (Coastal Subdivisions) and Section 21.52.090 (Relief from
Implementation Plan Development Standard) as it relates to lot widths and area.
2. The proposed subdivision complies with 21.52.090(2) Variances, which allows for
waiver or modification of certain standards of the Implementation Plan because of
special circumstance including location. The required 50-foot lot width and 5,000-
square-foot minimum lot area standards may be modified to less based on the lot
widths and areas of the original subdivision, the majority of which are between 30-
40 feet in width and from 2,700 to 4,500 square feet in area.
3. The proposed subdivision complies with Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 2.8.1-3, which
states that land divisions shall avoid hazardous areas and minimize risks to life and
property from coastal and other hazards. The proposed subdivision also complies with
Implementation Plan Section 21.30.025, which states that subdivisions within the
Coastal Zone shall be designed to avoid current hazardous areas, as well as areas that
may become hazardous due to future changes. Additionally, there shall be no division
of land near the shoreline unless the new or reconfigured parcels can be developed
safe from geologic and other hazards for a minimum of 75 years, and unless shoreline
protective devices are prohibited to protect development on the resultant parcels.
4. The proposed subdivision is located near the Newport Bay. However, a public
boardwalk and small intertidal beach separates the subject property from the water.
A coastal hazards report, prepared by GeoSoils, Inc. on September 16, 2019,
concludes that the reconfigured parcels will be developed safe from hazards, which
includes shoreline movement, waves and wave runup, and flooding with future sea
level rise, for a minimum of 75 years. The Newport Beach City Council approved the
use of the high estimate of the “low risk aversion” scenario, which is 3.2 feet of
projected sea level rise (SLR) by the year 2100, or 2.9 feet by 2095.The historical
water elevation at the Newport Bay is 7.7 feet North American Vertical Datum of
1988 (NAVD 88); therefore, the likely projected bay level water level is 10.6 feet
NAVD 88 (7.7 feet NAVD 88 + 2.9 feet SLR) over the next 75 years (i.e. the life of
the future development) . The finished site grade is approximately 11.0 feet NAVD
88, which makes it safe from up to 3.3 feet of SLR. The report also identifies that
there is a 0.5 percent chance that sea level rise could reach as high as 13.1 feet
NAVD88, or a 5.4-foot increase by 2100 utilizing the “medium-high risk aversion”
scenario. As conditioned, necessary adaptable measures shall be required for future
development of the lots to respond to the projected SLR.
5. There are no shoreline protective devices serving the subject property, and new
shoreline protective devices are not necessary to protect future development on the
resultant parcels. A condition of approval is included waiving the rights to future
shoreline protective devices.
51
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-062
Page 10 of 18
07-11-17
6. The property is located in an area known for the potential of seismic activity and
liquefaction. All projects are required to comply with the California Building Code and
Building Division standards and policies.
7. No natural or cultural resources are located on the site, which has been developed
for many years. The demolition will remove the existing residence, landscaping, and
hardscape improvements. Best management practices (BMP) will be required to
ensure that the demolition will not result in water quality impacts due to construction
debris or run-off entering the waters of Newport Bay or onto adjacent properties. Any
construction of future residences will require separate coastal development permits.
Finding:
R. Conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal
Act if the project is between the nearest public road and the sea or shoreline of any body of
water located within the coastal zone.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The project site is located between the nearest public road and the sea or shoreline.
The residential lot does not currently provide nor inhibit public coastal access. Newport
Beach Municipal Code Section 21.30A.040 requires that the provision of public access
bear a reasonable relationship between the requirement and the project’s impact and
be proportional to the impact. In this case, the project is a tentative parcel map for the
purpose of subdividing an existing lot into two distinct parcels and a coastal
development permit for the demolition of the existing residence. The demolition of the
residence will not alter or remove any access to the bay.
2. The public boardwalk between the subject property and the bay shall remain. The
public will continue to have access to the bay through a public walkway which has
multiple access points throughout Via Lido Soud.
In accordance with NBMC Section 21.52.090 (Relief from Implementation Plan Development
Standard), the Zoning Administrator may approve a waiver to a development standard of the
Implementation Plan only after making all of the following findings:
Finding:
S. The Zoning Administrator has considered the following:
i. Whether or not the development is consistent with the certified Local Coastal
Program to the maximum extent feasible; and
ii. Whether or not there are feasible alternatives that would provide greater consistency
with the certified Local Coastal Program and/or that are more protective of coastal
resources.
52
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-062
Page 11 of 18
07-11-17
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. An alternative to the proposed subdivision is for the existing four-unit residential
structure to remain in place. The existing lot is 70 feet wide and 6,300 square feet in
area, whereas surrounding lots on the same block face vary between 30 feet and 40
feet wide, and between 2,700 and 4,500 square feet in area.
2. The existing structure does not offer any modulation or openings that provide views
to the bay from Via Lido Soud. If the lot remains without the proposed subdivision, a
new residential structure could be similarly constructed without modulations and
openings. If the lot is subdivided as proposed, both 35-foot-wide lots would require
a 3-foot side yard setbacks which would create a visual opening to the bay as well
as reduce the overall mass compared to the existing structure.
3. The proposed subdivision results in less floor area that can be achieved than if the
subject parcel remained in its existing configuration. The proposed subdivision would
create two lots with maximum floor areas of 4,364.5 square feet each, totaling 8,729
square feet total (4,364.5 x 2 = 8,729). If the subject parcel remained in its existing
configuration, a total floor area of 8,849 square feet can be constructed.
4. There are no coastal resources to protect on the property.
Finding:
T. The granting of the variance is necessary due to special circumstances applicable to the
property, including location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, and/or other physical
features, the strict application of the development standards otherwise applicable to the
property denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the
vicinity and in the same coastal zoning district.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The subject property is located in the RM block of Tract 907. Within this block, the
original subdivision consisted of 23 lots, a majority of which ranged from 30 to 40
feet in width. The parcels were reconfigured over time and this block currently
contains 24 lots, a majority of which range from 30 to 70 feet in width. The subject
property is 70 feet wide and has an underlying configuration of Lot 923 (40 feet wide),
the southeasterly 10 feet of Lot 922, and the northwesterly 20 feet of Lot 924.
2. The proposed project is to subdivide an existing 70-foot-wide, 6,300-square-foot
parcel into two 35-foot-wide, 3,150-square-foot parcels, where the Zoning Code
(Title 20) and Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan (Title 21) require a
minimum lot width of 50 feet and minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet for newly
created interior lots. Title 20 includes a provision which allows for a parcel to be
subdivided to a minimum lot size not less than the original underlying lots on the
same block face in the same zoning district.
53
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-062
Page 12 of 18
07-11-17
3. Title 21 does not contain the same provision that allows lots to be subdivided to a lot
size not less than the original underlying lots on the same block face in the same
zoning district.
4. The existing 70-foot-wide lot is surrounded by two 30-foot-wide lots on both sides.
The proposed lot widths of 35 feet are consistent with the 30-foot to 40-foot lot widths
contained on the original block face within the same zoning district. The existing lot
is 6,300 square feet in area. The proposed subdivision would create two 3,150-
square-foot lots, where surrounding lots on the same block face range from 2,700 to
4,500 square feet. Strict application of Title 21 would deny the property owners
privileges enjoyed by surrounding property owners and allow for the development of
two 35-foot-wide lots which is more consistent with original underlying subdivision
pattern of the block.
Finding:
U. The variance complies with the findings required to approval a coastal development permit
in NBMC Section 21.52.015(F).
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. Facts in Support of Findings Q and R above are hereby incorporated by reference.
Finding:
V. The variance will not result in development that blocks or significantly impedes public
access to and along the sea or shoreline and to coastal parks, trails, or coastal bluffs.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. The property does not currently provide access to the sea or shoreline, nor does it
provide access to any coastal parks, trails, or coastal bluffs.
2. Vertical access to the Newport Bay is available for the public from multiple access
points along Via Lido Soud. Lateral access is available in the form of a public
boardwalk between the bay and the subject property. The proposed project does not
result in development that will impede existing public access.
Finding:
W. The variance will not result in development that blocks or significantly impairs public views
to and along the sea or shoreline or to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas.
54
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-062
Page 13 of 18
07-11-17
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The project site is not located adjacent to a coastal view road or public viewpoint.
However, the site is located adjacent to a public accessway, as identified in the Coastal
Land Use Plan. Also, the project may be located within the viewshed of distant public
viewing areas. The proposed project is to demolish an existing four-unit residential
structure and to subdivide the existing property into two separate parcels. Although
there is no construction proposed as part of this project, there is a potential for two units
on each of the proposed parcels. Future development shall comply with all applicable
Local Coastal Program (LCP) development standards and shall be consistent with the
existing neighborhood pattern of development. Furthermore, all improvements in the
front setback area of the subject property is limited to 42 inches from existing grade.
An investigation of the project site and surrounding area did not identify any other public
view opportunities. Therefore, the project does not have the potential to degrade the
visual quality of the Coastal Zone or result in significant adverse impacts to public
views.
Finding:
X. The variance will not result in development that has an adverse effect, either individually or
cumulatively, on coastal resources, including wetlands, sensitive habitat, vegetation or
wildlife species.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. There are no coastal resources on the property nor are there any in the immediate
area that could be affected by its redevelopment as the property is separated from
the bay by a public boardwalk.
Finding:
Y. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to, or in conflict with, the purpose of this
Implementation Plan, nor to the applicable policies of the Local Coastal Program.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. Facts in Support of Finding S above are hereby incorporated by reference.
SECTION 6. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the State
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines under Class 1 (Existing
Facilities) and Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).
55
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-062
Page 14 of 18
07-11-17
2. The Zoning Administrator of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Tentative Parcel
Map No. NP2019-008 and Coastal Development Permit No. CD2019-024, subject to the
conditions set forth in Exhibit “A,” which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
3. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution
was adopted unless within such time an appeal or call for review is filed with the
Community Development Director in accordance with the provisions of Title 21 Local
Coastal Implementation Plan, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Final action taken
by the City may be appealed to the Coastal Commission in compliance with Section
21.64.035 of the City’s certified LCP and Title 14 California Code of Regulations,
Sections 13111 through 13120, and Section 30603 of the Coastal Act.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019.
_____________________________________
James W. Campbell, Zoning Administrator
56
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-062
Page 15 of 18
07-11-17
EXHIBIT “A”
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLANNING
1. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless
specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
2. This approval shall expire and become void unless exercised within 24 months from the
actual date of review authority approval, except where an extension of time is approved in
compliance with the provisions of Title 19 (Subdivisions) and Title 21 (Local Coastal
Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
3. Prior to map recordation, an agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney between
the property owner and the City shall be executed and recorded waiving rights to the
construction of future shoreline protection devices to address the threat of damage or
destruction from waves, erosion, storm conditions, landslides, seismic activity, bluff
retreat, sea level rise, or other natural hazards that may affect the property, or
development of the property, today or in the future. The agreement shall be binding
against the property owners and successors and assigns.
4. Prior to map recordation, the property owner shall submit a notarized signed letter
acknowledging all hazards present at the site, assuming the risk of injury or damage
from such hazards, unconditionally waiving any claims of damage against the City from
such hazards, and to indemnify and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and
commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all
claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses,
judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation,
attorney’s fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which
may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City’s approval of
development. This letter shall be scanned into the plan set prior to building permit issuance.
5. Necessary adaptable measures shall be required for future development of the lots to
respond to the projected SLR based on the Medium-High Risk Aversion estimates.
6. No demolition or construction materials, equipment debris, or waste, shall be placed or
stored in a location that would enter sensitive habitat, receiving waters, or a storm drain
or result in impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat areas, streams, the beach,
wetlands or their buffers.
7. This approval does not authorize any new or existing improvements (including
landscaping) on State tidelands, public beaches, or the public right-of-way.
8. The applicant is responsible for compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
In compliance with the MBTA, grading, brush removal, building demolition, tree
trimming, and similar construction activities shall occur between August 16 and January
57
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-062
Page 16 of 18
07-11-17
31, outside of the peak nesting period. If such activities must occur inside the peak
nesting season from February 1 to August 15, compliance with the following is required
to prevent the taking of Native Birds pursuant to MBTA:
A. The construction area shall be inspected for active nests. If birds are observed flying
from a nest or sitting on a nest, it can be assumed that the nest is active. Construction
activity within 300 feet of an active nest shall be delayed until the nest is no longer
active. Continue to observe the nest until the chicks have left the nest and activity is no
longer observed. When the nest is no longer active, construction activity can continue
in the nest area.
B. It is a violation of state and federal law to kill or harm a native bird. To ensure
compliance, consider hiring a biologist to assist with the survey for nesting birds, and
to determine when it is safe to commence construction activities. If an active nest is
found, one or two short follow-up surveys will be necessary to check on the nest and
determine when the nest is no longer active.
9. Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Good Housekeeping Practices (GHPs) shall
be implemented prior to and throughout the duration of construction activity as
designated in the Demolition Plan.
10. The discharge of any hazardous materials into storm sewer systems or receiving waters
shall be prohibited. Machinery and equipment shall be maintained and washed in
confined areas specifically designed to control runoff. A designated fueling and vehicle
maintenance area with appropriate berms and protection to prevent spillage shall be
provided as far away from storm drain systems or receiving waters as possible.
11. Debris from demolition shall be removed from work areas each day and removed from
the project site within 24 hours of the completion of the project. Stockpiles and
construction materials shall be covered, enclosed on all sides, not stored in contact with
the soil, and located as far away as possible from drain inlets and any waterway.
12. Trash and debris shall be disposed in proper trash and recycling receptacles at the end
of each construction day. Solid waste, including excess concrete, shall be disposed in
adequate disposal facilities at a legal disposal site or recycled at a recycling facility.
13. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless
specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
14. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of
any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Coastal
Development Permit.
15. This Coastal Development Permit may be modified or revoked by the Zoning
Administrator if determined that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being
operated or maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious
58
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-062
Page 17 of 18
07-11-17
to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained
so as to constitute a public nuisance.
16. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future
owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by the current
property owner or agent.
17. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless
City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents
from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of
action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including
without limitation, attorney’s fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature
whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City’s
approval of the Bethel and Ridge Demolition and Subdivision including, but not limited to,
Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2019-008 and Coastal Development Permit No. CD2019-024
(PA2019-085). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded
against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in
connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred
by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant
shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City
incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant
shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the
indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition.
PUBLIC WORKS
18. A parcel map shall be recorded. The map shall be prepared on the California coordinate
system (NAD83). Prior to recordation of the Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the
Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital-graphic
file of said map in a manner described in Section 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange
County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. The
Map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City’s CADD
Standards. Scanned images will not be accepted.
19. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the map shall tie
the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County
Surveyor in a manner described in Section s 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County
Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Monuments
(one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set On Each Lot Corner unless otherwise approved
by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to
completion of construction project.
20. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works
Department.
21. An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right-of-way.
59
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-062
Page 18 of 18
07-11-17
22. Any existing broken and/or otherwise damaged curb and pavement along the Via Lido
Soud frontage shall be reconstructed.
23. All existing overhead utilities shall be undergrounded.
24. An encroachment permit/agreement shall be obtained for any non-standard
improvements within a 4-foot wide Public Utilities Easement along Via Lido Soud.
25. Each parcel shall be served by its individual water service/meter and sewer
lateral/cleanout to be constructed per City Standards.
26. All improvements shall comply with the City’s sight distance requirement. See City
Standard 110-L.
27. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by
the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right-of-way could be
required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector.
60
Attachment No. PC 3
Minutes of September 26, 2019, Zoning
Administrator Meeting
61
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE62
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 09/26/2019
Page 3 of 6
The Zoning Administrator stated that the Implementation Plan certified by the Coastal Commission allows a
single-family residence in the RM zoning district. Because of a recently filed appeal of a similar CDP application,
this project might be appealed to the Coastal Commission as well. The Zoning Administrator expressed the
belief that the project is consistent with the certified Local Coastal Plan.
He asked the applicant if the docks would be modified to comply with current Harbor regulations. The applicant
referenced the condition of the resolution that requires them to obtain a coastal development permit from the
Coastal Commission to modify the docks to meet the code.
The Zoning Administrator asked if the applicant would be able to flood proof the home to the mid-to high level
sea level rise projection, in consistent with what the Coastal Commission has been requiring. The bulkhead
would remain the same as proposed. The architect accepted the additional condition of approval.
The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing.
The Zoning Administrator and Ms. Westmoreland provided some additional comments in response to the
public.
The Zoning Administrator approved the project.
Action: Approved
ITEM NO. 4 Bethel and Ridge Demolition and Subdivision Coastal Development Permit
No. CD2019-024 and Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2019-008 (PA2019-085)
Site Location: 365 Via Lido Soud, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 Council District 1
Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the requests include a tentative
parcel map and coastal development permit to subdivide the property into two separate parcels. The coastal
development permit request also includes the demolition of an existing four-unit residential structure and waiver
of the minimum lot width and area standard associated with the proposed subdivision. No new construction is
proposed as a part of this project. He explained the project’s consistency with Coastal Land Use Plan Policy
2.8.1-3 and Implementation Plan Section 21.30.025 regarding subdivisions located in potentially hazardous
areas. A coastal hazards report concluded that the parcels would be safe from geologic and other hazards for
a minimum of 75 years and that no shoreline protective devices exist and that future development is not reliant
upon future shoreline protection for the economic life of the structure (75 years). Conditions of approval have
been added requiring the waiver of future shoreline protection. Mr. Murillo also presented revisions to Facts 1,
2, and 3 of Finding Q in the draft resolution.
The Zoning Administrator requested that Fact 2 of Finding L also be clarified to list the address range of the
referenced block face used in the zoning code consistency analysis.
Applicant Shawna Schaffner of CAA Planning, on behalf of the property owners, stated that she had reviewed
the draft resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions.
The Zoning Administrator also clarified for the record that he has considered alternatives to the variance
request, primarily leaving the lot as a larger 70-foot wide parcel, which results in a lot width that is less
comparable to adjacent lots in block. The reduction in width is compatible and consistent with surrounding lot
widths within the same RM block as well as the broader neighborhood that is primarily comprised of 30-foot
wide lots.
The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing.
Jim Mosher had the following comments: 1) questioned the use of the Class 32 (In-Fill) CEQA exemption and
recommended the use of a Class 1 (Existing Facilities) exemption for the demolition; 2) inquired about the
future project and plans for the proposed lots; 3) questioned the need for the subdivision and possible
63
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 09/26/2019
Page 4 of 6
inconsistency with the intent of the RM coastal land use plan designation and zoning district; 4) shared concerns
with sea level rise; and 5) questioned access to the public boardwalk in front of properties.
Charles Klobe stated he had no concerns with the project now, but if single-family homes are to be constructed
on lots in the future, he would oppose a project at that time due to the reduction in density in the RM zone.
Sharon Grimes stated as a resident and relator on Lido Isle, she supports the project.
Shawna Schaffner responded to comments, including that she agreed that a Class 1 CEQA exemption is more
appropriate, and that the project has been designed to respond and adapt to sea level rise.
The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and clarified for the record that no protective devices exist
and will not be needed (or allowed) in the future. As such, the project is consistent with Implementation Plan
Section 21.30.025. He agreed that a Class 1 (exiting Facilities) and a Class 3 (New Construction) exemption
were more appropriate for this project. The Zoning Administrator found the project exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Action: Approved
ITEM NO. 5 Annual Review of the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church Development Agreement
No. 10 (PA2009-137)
Site Location: 798 Dover Drive Council District 3
Patrick Achis, Planning Technician, provided a brief project description stating that the item is for an annual
review of Development Agreement No. 10 for Newport Harbor Lutheran Church. The Development Agreement
was executed in 1997 and vested development rights for the expansion of Church facilities, addressed parking
for the Church, and required the conveyance of park land to the City. To date, the terms and conditions of the
Development Agreement have been implemented and/or accomplished except for the planned expansion of
the Church. On July 13, 2011, the City authorized the temporary placement of modular classrooms. The Church
has expressed interest in pursuing action in the near future to make the three existing temporary modular
classrooms permanent and to convert an existing office space into additional classrooms, though the City has
not yet received an associated application submittal. No planning applications have been submitted and no
building construction has been completed since the last Development Agreement review in 2014. After
reviewing the Annual Report and applicable documents, staff believes that the Newport Harbor Lutheran
Church continues to comply in good faith with terms and conditions of Development Agreement No. 10.
Bob Fernandez, on behalf of the Newport Harbor Lutheran Church, stated that he had reviewed the staff report
and he agrees with the recommendation.
The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one from the public wished to comment,
the public hearing was closed.
Action: The Zoning Administrator found Newport Harbor Lutheran Church in good faith compliance
with Development Agreement No. 10
ITEM NO. 6 Jaguar Landrover Auto Center Comprehensive Sign Program No. CS2019-007and
Modification Permit No. MD2019-004 (PA2019-118)
Site Location: Council District 5
Patrick Achis, Planning Technician, provided a brief project description stating that the request is to update an
existing comprehensive sign program for a recently remodeled building occupied by an automotive dealership.
Included in the request is a modification permit to allow an increase in overall sign area. If approved, this
Comprehensive Sign Program and Modification Permit would supersede the existing comprehensive sign
program and staff approval related to existing signage. Given the width of the building façade at 165 feet and
64
Attachment No. PC 4
Coastal Commission Appeal Letter
65
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE66
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast Area Office
301 E Ocean Blvd, Suite 300
Long Beach, CA 90802
(562) 590-5071
Th14a
Filed: 10/29/19
49th Day: 1/13/20
Staff: A. Yee-LB
Staff Report: 11/21/19
Hearing Date: 12/12/19
STAFF REPORT: APPEAL – SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE
Appeal No.: A-5-NPB-19-0204
Applicant: 2010 Bethel Family Trust & Stephen John Ridge
and Shelley Marie Ridge AB Living Trust
Local Government: City of Newport Beach
Local Decision: Approval with Conditions
Appellants: Commissioners Donne Brownsey and Caryl Hart
Project Location: 361-365 Via Lido Soud, Newport Beach, Orange County
(APN: 423-167-04)
Project Description: Appeal of City of Newport Beach Local Coastal
Development Permit No. CD2019-024 for demolition of a
four-unit building and creation of a Tentative Parcel Map to
subdivide the property into two lots. No new construction
proposed.
Staff Recommendation: Substantial issue.
IMPORTANT HEARING PROCEDURE NOTE: The Commission will not take testimony on
this “substantial issue” recommendation unless at least three commissioners request it. The
Commission may ask questions of the applicant, any aggrieved person, the Attorney General or the
executive director prior to determining whether or not to take testimony regarding whether the
appeal raises a substantial issue. If the Commission takes testimony regarding whether the appeal
raises a substantial issue, testimony is generally and at the discretion of the Chair limited to 3
minutes total per side. Only the applicant, persons who opposed the application before the local
government (or their representatives), and the local government shall be qualified to testify during
67
A-5-NPB-19-0204 (2010 Bethel Family Trust, et al.)
Appeal – Substantial Issue
2
this phase of the hearing. Others may submit comments in writing. If the Commission finds that the
appeal raises a substantial issue, the de novo phase of the hearing will occur at a future Commission
meeting, during which it will take public testimony.
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the Commission, after public hearing, determine that a substantial issue
exists with respect to the grounds on which the appeal has been filed for the following reasons: the
subdivision of a shoreline lot in a hazardous area into two lots, further requiring a variance to waive
minimum lot size and width standards, is inconsistent with the City of Newport Beach’s certified
Local Coastal Program (LCP) and the public access policies of the Coastal Act.
The City-approved project is the demolition of an existing four-unit multi-family structure and
creation of a tentative parcel map to subdivide the property into two separate parcels, each 35 ft. in
width and 3,150 sq. ft. in area, and a waiver of the IP’s minimum lot width and area standards which
require minimum lot size of 5,000 sq. ft. and minimum lot width of 50 ft.
The appellants are Commissioners Donne Brownsey and Caryl Hart, who contend that the City’s
approval of CD2019-024 is inconsistent with Land Use Plan Policies 2.8.1-2 and 2.8.1-3, and
Implementation Plan Policy 21.30.025. These policies require that new development minimize risk to
life and property, and Policy 21.30.025 specifically prohibits land divisions in hazardous areas unless
the City can find that the resulting parcels would be safe from hazards for a minimum of 75 years.
The City relied on a Coastal Hazards Report prepared by GeoSoils, Inc., which itself relied on
direction from the Newport Beach City Council to apply a methodology for estimating sea level rise
that is not consistent with State guidance from the California Ocean Protection Council nor the
Coastal Commission. This methodology has never been certified by the Commission for application
in the City’s LCP, and is particularly inappropriate for application at the subject site because the site
does not currently have a bulkhead and any future right to shoreline protection must be waived; the
proposed subdivision has little to no adaptive capacity and may last in perpetuity. Thus, the City
lacked sufficient factual and legal support for its finding that the site is safe from coastal hazards. The
continued application of this methodology raises a significant issue, and future approvals of
subdivisions in hazardous areas raises issues of statewide significance.
The City was also required to approve a variance waiving minimum lot size and width because
the proposed subdivision would have resulted in new parcels that did not meet these standards. In
order to approve the variance, the City was required to find that “strict application of Title 21
would deny the property owners privileges enjoyed by surrounding property owners.” However,
the City also appears to lack sufficient factual support of this finding. It does not state what such
privileges would be. On the contrary, any privilege that the property owner would have following
the proposed subdivision could be enjoyed currently on the existing, un-subdivided lot.
The subdivision is not necessary to increase housing density; in fact, it would reduce maximum
density on site by one unit.
68
A-5-NPB-19-0204 (2010 Bethel Family Trust, et al.)
Appeal – Substantial Issue
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. MOTION AND RESOLUTION – SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE .............................. 4
II. APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS ....................................................................... 4
III. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTION ................................................................... 5
IV. APPEAL PROCEDURES ................................................................................... 5
V. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS – SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE ..................... 7
A. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ............................................................................... 7
B. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM CERTIFICATION ...................................................................... 8
C. FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE ANALYSIS ........................................ 8
D. SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 8
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Substantive File Documents
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 – Project Location
Exhibit 2 – Project Plans
Exhibit 3 – Appeal
Exhibit 4 – City Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-062
Exhibit 5 – Coastal Hazards Report, prepared by GeoSoils, Inc.
69
A-5-NPB-19-0204 (2010 Bethel Family Trust, et al.)
Appeal – Substantial Issue
4
I. MOTION AND RESOLUTION –SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE
Motion: I move that the Commission determine that Appeal No. A-5-NPB-19-0204 raises
NO SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE with respect to the grounds on which the appeal has
been filed under § 30603 of the Coastal Act.
Staff recommends a NO vote. Failure of this motion will result in a de novo hearing on the
application, and adoption of the following resolution and findings. Passage of this motion will
result in a finding of No Substantial Issue and the local action will become final and effective. The
motion passes only by an affirmative vote of the majority of the appointed Commissioners present.
Resolution:
The Commission hereby finds that Appeal No. A-5-NPB-19-0204 presents a
SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE with respect to the grounds on which the appeal has been filed
under Section 30603 of the Coastal Act regarding consistency with the certified Local
Coastal Plan and/or the public access policies of the Coastal Act.
II. APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS
The appellants contend that the City’s approval does not comply with the certified LCP, raising the
following contentions:
1) The City’s approval of a subdivision in a hazardous area is inconsistent with LUP Policy
2.8.1-2, which requires that new development be designed and sited to avoid hazardous
areas and minimize risks to life and property from coastal and other hazards; LUP Policy
2.8.1-3 which requires that land divisions, including lot line adjustments, be designed to
avoid hazardous areas and minimize risks to life and property from coastal and other
hazards; and IP Policy 21.30.025, which requires that proposed subdivisions be designed
to avoid current hazardous areas, as well as areas that may become hazardous due to future
changes, such as from sea level rise, and minimize risks to life and property from coastal
and other hazards.
2) The Zoning Administrator lacked sufficient factual basis to support its finding that the
site would be safe from hazards, because based on the applicant’s hazards analysis
and direction from the Newport Beach City Council, they considered only the low
risk-aversion scenario for high emissions to estimate sea level rise (SLR) (approx. 2.9
ft. by 2095), and thus did not adequately demonstrate that the resulting parcels would
be developed safe from potential impacts from hazards over 75 years. Potential for
flooding as a result of SLR beyond the high emissions estimate of the “low risk aversion”
scenario is particularly important to be evaluated at the subject site because the property is
not fronted by a bulkhead and is required to waive the right to future shoreline protection.
Moreover, the approach is not consistent with the methodology recommended by Ocean
Protection Council’s (OPC) or Commission’s SLR guidance.
3) The subdivision results in two parcels which are 3,150 sq. ft. in size and 35 ft. in width,
which is not consistent with minimum lot size and lot width as defined by IP Table 21.18-4
(5,000 sq. ft. and 50 ft., respectively). The proposed subdivision does not comply with IP
Section 21.52.090(2), which allows for a variance from development standards of the IP if
strict application of the development standards denies the property owner privileges
70
A-5-NPB-19-0204 (2010 Bethel Family Trust, et al.)
Appeal – Substantial Issue
5
enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and in the same coastal zoning district.
4) The subdivision is not necessary for increasing housing density in the City.
III. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTION
On September 26, 2019 the City of Newport Beach Zoning Administrator approved Coastal
Development Permit No. CD2019-024, Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2019-008, and County
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2019-126 after a public hearing. The Zoning Administrator approved the
local CDP with special conditions and adopted Resolution No. ZA-2019-062 (Exhibit 4) including
findings in support and conditions of approval. The City determined that the project was
categorically exempt from CEQA under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Class 3 (New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures).
Public notice of the Coastal Development Permit application is required by IP Policy 21.62.020.
Pursuant to this policy, notice of the application was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all
owners and residential occupants of the property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site, and
posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled hearing. Additionally, the item
appeared on the agenda for the Zoning Administrator meeting, which was posted at City Hall and
on the City website.
The City approved the local CDP with 27 conditions requiring, among other things:
An agreement between the property owner and the City waiving rights to the construction
of future shoreline protection devices and to address the threat of damage or destruction
from coastal hazards
A signed and notarized letter acknowledging all hazards present at the site, assuming risk of
injury or damage from such hazards, unconditionally waiving any claims of damage against
the City from such hazards
The submission of additional copies of approved architectural plans for inclusion in the
Coastal Development permit file.
The Coastal Commission’s South Coast District Office received a Notice of Final Action (NOFA)
on October 15, 2019. The Commission issued a Notification of Appeal Period on October 17,
2019.1 On October 29, 2019, the tenth day of the ten (10) working day appeal period, an appeal was
filed by Commissioners Brownsey and Hart (Exhibit 3), pursuant to Section 13111 of the
California Code of Regulations. The City was notified of the appeal in a letter dated October 30,
2019.
IV. APPEAL PROCEDURES
After certification of Local Coastal Programs (LCP), the Coastal Act provides for limited appeals to
the Coastal Commission of certain local government actions on coastal development permits.
Developments approved by cities or counties may be appealed if they are located within appealable
areas, such as between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea or within three hundred
feet of the mean high tide line or inland extent of any beach or top of the seaward face of a coastal
1 Commission staff initially sent out a Notification of Appeal Period, dated October 17, 2019, which had inadvertently
listed the tenth working day as October 25, 2019. A Corrected Notification of Appeal Period was issued later the same
day, with the correct tenth working day of October 29, 2019.
71
A-5-NPB-19-0204 (2010 Bethel Family Trust, et al.)
Appeal – Substantial Issue
6
bluff [Coastal Act Section 30603(a)]. In addition, an action taken by a local government on a
coastal development permit application may be appealed to the Commission if the development
constitutes a “major public works project” or a “major energy facility” [Coastal Act Section
30603(a)(5)].
The City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program was certified in 2017. The City’s LCP is
comprised of the coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) and the Implementation Plan (IP), which is Title 21
of the City’s Municipal Code. The standard of review for this appeal is the City’s certified LCP and
the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. Section 30603(a)(1) of the Coastal Act
identifies the project site as being in an appealable area by virtue of its location between the sea and
the first public road paralleling the sea.
Section 30603 of the Coastal Act states:
(a) After certification of its Local Coastal Program, an action taken by a local government
on a coastal development permit application may be appealed to the Commission for
only the following types of developments:
(1) Developments approved by the local government between the sea and the first
public road paralleling the sea or within 300 feet of the inland extent of any
beach or of the mean high tide line of the sea where there is no beach, whichever
is the greater distance.
(2) Developments approved by the local government not included within paragraph
(1) that are located on tidelands, submerged lands, public trust lands, within 100
feet of any wetland, estuary, stream, or within 300 feet of the top of the seaward
face of any coastal bluff.
The grounds for appeal of an approved local coastal development permit in the appealable area are
stated in Section 30603(b)(1), which states:
(b)(1) The grounds for an appeal pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be limited to an allegation
that the development does not conform to the standards set forth in the certified Local Coastal
Program or the public access policies set forth in this division.
After a final local action on a local coastal development permit application, the Coastal Commission
must be noticed within five days of the decision. After receipt of such a notice that contains all the
required information, a ten working-day appeal period begins during which any aggrieved person,
or any two members of the Commission, may appeal the local decision to the Coastal Commission.
[Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30603.] As provided under section 13318 of Title 14 of the California Code
of Regulations, the appellant must conform to the procedures for filing an appeal as required under
section 13111 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, including the specific grounds for
appeal and a summary of the significant question raised by the appeal.
The action currently before the Commission is to find whether there is a "substantial issue" or "no
substantial issue" raised by the appeal of the local approval of the proposed project. Sections 30621
and 30625(b)(2) of the Coastal Act require a de novo hearing of the appealed project unless the
Commission determines that no substantial issue exists with respect to the grounds for appeal.
72
A-5-NPB-19-0204 (2010 Bethel Family Trust, et al.)
Appeal – Substantial Issue
7
Commission staff recommends a finding of substantial issue. If the Commission finds that a
substantial issue does exist with respect to the conformity of the action of the local government with
the standards set forth in the certified Local Coastal Program or the public access policies of the
Coastal Act, the Commission takes jurisdiction over the permit application and typically continues
the public hearing to a later date in order to review the coastal development permit as a de novo
matter. [Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 30621 and 30625.] Section 13321 of the Coastal Commission
regulations specifies that de novo actions will be heard according to the procedures outlined in
Sections 13114 and 13057-13096 of the Commission’s regulations.
Alternatively, if the Commission decides that the appellant’s contentions raise no substantial issue
as to conformity with the standards set forth in the certified Local Coastal Program or the public
access policies of the Coastal Act, the action of the local government stands.
If there is no motion from the Commission to find no substantial issue, it will be presumed that the
appeal raises a substantial issue and the Commission will schedule the de novo phase of the public
hearing on the merits of the application at a subsequent Commission hearing. A de novo public
hearing on the merits of the application uses the certified LCP as the standard of review. In
addition, for projects located between the first public road and the sea, findings must be made that
an approved application is consistent with the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal
Act. Sections 13110-13120 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations further explain the
appeal hearing process.
If the Commission decides to hear arguments and vote on the substantial issue question, those who
are qualified to testify at the hearing, as provided by Section 13117 of Title 14 of the California
Code of Regulation, will have three minutes per side to address whether the appeal raises a
substantial issue. The only persons qualified to testify before the Commission at the substantial
issue portion of the appeal process are the applicants, persons who opposed the application before
the local government (or their representatives), and the local government. Testimony from other
persons must be submitted in writing. The Commission will then vote on the substantial issue
matter. It takes a majority of Commissioners present to find that the grounds for the appeal raise no
substantial issue.
V. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS – SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE
A. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject property is located at 361, 363, and 365 Via Lido Soud on Lido Isle in the City of
Newport Beach, between the first public road and the sea (Exhibit 1). The property is designated as
Multiple-Unit Residential (RM-E) in the certified coastal Land Use Plan (LUP), and is zoned
“Multi-unit Residential” (RM) in the IP. The minimum lot size in the RM zoning district is 5,000 sq.
ft., and the minimum lot width is 50 ft.
The City-approved project is the demolition of an existing four-unit multi-family structure and a
tentative parcel map to subdivide the property into two separate parcels, each 35 ft. in width and
3,150 sq. ft. in area, and a waiver of the IP’s minimum lot width and area standards (Exhibit 2). No
new construction is proposed. The elevation of the site is approximately +11.0 ft North American
73
A-5-NPB-19-0204 (2010 Bethel Family Trust, et al.)
Appeal – Substantial Issue
8
Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88), which exceeds the minimum 9 ft. elevation standard for new
structures subject to sea-level rise, as required by IP Section 21.30.015(D)(3). In addition, the City
required, through the imposition of Special Conditions 5 and 6, that the property owner execute an
agreement waiving rights to the construction of future shoreline protection devices, and assuming
risk of injury or damage from hazards and unconditionally waiving any claims against the City.
B. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM CERTIFICATION
The City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program was certified in 2017. The City’s LCP is
comprised of a Land Use Plan (LUP) and Implementation Plan (IP), which is the portion of the LCP
adopted as Title 21 of the City’s Municipal Code. The standard of review for this appeal is the
City’s certified LCP and the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act.
C. FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE ANALYSIS
Section 30625(b)(2) of the Coastal Act requires a de novo hearing of the appealed project unless
the Commission determines that no substantial issue exists with respect to the grounds on which the
appeal has been filed pursuant to Section 30603(a) of the Coastal Act. The term “substantial issue”
is not defined in the Coastal Act or its implementing regulations. Section 13115(b) of the
Commission’s regulations simply indicates that the Commission will hear an appeal unless it “finds
that the appeal raises no significant question.” In previous decisions on appeals, the Commission
has considered the following factors.
1. The degree of factual and legal support for the local government’s decision that the
development is consistent or inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the Coastal Act;
2. The extent and scope of the development as approved or denied by the local government;
3. The significance of the coastal resources affected by the decision;
4. The precedential value of the local government’s decision for future interpretations of its
LCP; and,
5. Whether the appeal raises local issues, or those of regional or statewide significance.
Staff is recommending that the Commission find that a substantial issue exists with respect to the
grounds on which the appeal has been filed pursuant to Section 30603(a) of the Coastal Act.
D. SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE ANALYSIS
As stated in Section IV of this report, the grounds for an appeal of a CDP issued by the local
government is the development’s conformity with the policies of the certified LCP and with the
public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. The appellant contends that the local
government’s action is inconsistent with the certified LCP for reasons discussed in further detail
below (and included in full in Exhibit 3).
Appellants’ Argument: Inconsistency with LUP Policies 2.8.1-2 and 2.8.1-3 and IP Policy
21.30.025.
74
A-5-NPB-19-0204 (2010 Bethel Family Trust, et al.)
Appeal – Substantial Issue
9
LUP Policy 2.8.1-2 states:
“Design and site new development to avoid hazardous areas and minimize risks to
life and property from coastal and other hazards.”
LUP Policy 2.8.1-3 states:
“Design land divisions, including lot line adjustments, to avoid hazardous areas and
minimize risks to life and property from coastal and other hazards.”
IP Policy 21.30.025 states:
“C. Hazardous Areas. Proposed subdivisions shall be designed to avoid current
hazardous areas, as well as areas that may become hazardous due to future
changes, such as from sea level rise, and minimize risks to life and property from
coastal and other hazards. No division of land near the shoreline, including along
the shoreline and bluffs, and including abutting the ocean, bays, lagoons, and other
coastal water bodies, unless the new or reconfigured parcels can be developed safe
from geologic and other hazards for a minimum of seventy-five (75) years, and
unless shoreline protective devices are prohibited to protect development on the
resultant parcels.”
The City’s certified LUP requires new development, land divisions, and lot line adjustments to avoid
hazardous areas and minimize risks to life and property from coastal and other hazards. In this case,
the proposed project includes demolition of an existing four-unit multi-family structure, and a
subdivision of one lot into two. No new development subject to LUP Policy 2.8.1-2 is currently
proposed. However, in order to be found consistent with LUP Policy 2.8.1, the proposed subdivision
must ensure that the new parcels can be developed safe from hazards. This policy is implemented by
IP Policy 21.30.025, which states that there shall be no division of land near the shoreline, including
abutting the ocean, unless the new parcels can be developed safe from geologic and other hazards for
a minimum of 75 years, and shoreline protective devices are prohibited. In this case, the applicant has
been required to waive any future right to shoreline protection through the imposition of Special
Condition 3. However, there is no evidence that the proposed subdivision has been designed to avoid
areas that may become hazardous due to future changes, such as from SLR.
In fact, unlike structural development, which can be designed to incorporate adaptive elements like
waterproofing or elevation, subdivisions have little to no adaptive capacity. Thus, it is not always
feasible to mitigate the impacts created by subdivisions. For example, the proposed subdivision
would create two lots, instead of one, for which an owner may claim the right to develop or to be
compensated if government regulation deprives the owner of all economically beneficial use of the
property. It is important to note that the subdivision of the lot proposed in this project is an action
that lasts in perpetuity, beyond the minimum 75 year period for analysis of hazards required by the
IP. Subdividing the lot could limit future options for long term, community-scale SLR adaptation by
increasing the number of lots and potential properties that would have to be incorporated into a
community scale strategy. Because the vulnerability of the site is likely to increase after 75 years,
the larger question at hand is whether a subdivision on this site is consistent with intent of the IP
Policy to ensure safety and minimize risks to lives and for future development.
75
A-5-NPB-19-0204 (2010 Bethel Family Trust, et al.)
Appeal – Substantial Issue
10
Appellants’ Argument: The City lacked sufficient factual support for its hazards findings
because it only considered the high emissions projection of the low risk-aversion scenario,
and thus did not adequately demonstrate that the resulting parcels would be developed safe
from potential impacts from hazards over 75 years.
The subject parcel is a bayside lot on Lido Isle that abuts Newport Bay, specifically the West Lido
Channel. Lido Isle is identified in Section 2.8.3-1 of Appendix A to the IP as an area requiring SLR to
be considered in CDP applications due to “proximity to water.” Consequently, the applicant submitted
a report prepared by GeoSoils, Inc. dated September 16, 2019 (Exhibit 5) to determine how physical
impacts from SLR may impact the project site. Consistent with Appendix A of the IP, the report
referenced the best available science (ie. Kopp, et al., 2014), which provides SLR projects under low
and high emissions assumptions, and at various probable ranges of exceedance to allow policy makers
to account for “risk aversion.” However, the report was not consistent with the OPC’s guidance to
evaluate low, medium-high, and extreme levels of risk aversion to evaluate a spectrum of scenarios,
nor did the report incorporate the Commission’s SLR guidance, which recommends use of the high
emissions assumption for the medium-high risk aversion for residential projects or development with
low adaptive capacity. Instead, the report utilizes the high emissions assumption for the “low risk
aversion” scenario, resulting in the report’s conclusion that the “likely” amount of SLR over 75 years
is 2.9 ft. The City found that because the finished site grade is approximately +11 ft. NAVD88, that it
would be safe from the “future extreme bay water level” of +10.6 ft. NAVD88.
The report notes that its use of the high emissions assumption for the low risk aversion scenario is
consistent with direction from the Newport Beach City Council. This direction from the City Council
is much less precautionary than Commission SLR guidance recommends for use in evaluating
development with low adaptive capacity such as residential development and subdivisions.
Furthermore, this less precautionary approach does not appear anywhere in the certified LCP, which is
the standard of review for the City’s CDPs, nor has the Commission approved an LCP amendment to
include it. This less precautionary approach is not be consistent with certified LUP policy 2.8.1-2 and
2.8.1-3, or IP Policy 21.30.025, which all require the minimization risk to life and property from
coastal and other hazards.
In this case, the use of a less precautionary method is particularly inappropriate because the subject
parcel does not currently have a bulkhead. Any right to future protection has been required to be
waived through a special condition imposed by the City in CD2019-024. The Commission supports
the use of shoreline protective device waivers to protect the beach. However, proposed subdivision
could potentially last long past 75 years analyzed in the report. Thus, shoreline protective devices
onsite cannot be counted on to hedge against potential consequences of underestimating impacts
from coastal hazards onsite, and a more comprehensive analysis of potential future impacts across
moderate-high and potentially extreme amounts of SLR should have been reviewed by the City to
determine whether the subject parcel constitutes a site that may become hazardous due to future
changes, such as from sea level rise, and minimize risks to life and property from coastal and other
hazards. In conclusion, the City lacked sufficient information to support its finding that the site
would be safe from future coastal hazards, and consequently should not have approved the
subdivision.
76
A-5-NPB-19-0204 (2010 Bethel Family Trust, et al.)
Appeal – Substantial Issue
11
Appellants’ Argument: The subdivision should not have been approved because the
variance required to waive minimum lot size and width standards was inconsistent with IP
Section 21.52.090(B)(2). It is also not necessary in order to increase housing density.
IP Policy 21.52.090(B)(2) states:
“Variances. Waiver or modification of certain standards of this Implementation
Plan may be permitted when, because of special circumstances applicable to the
property, including location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other
physical features, the strict application of the development standards otherwise
applicable to the property denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other
property owners in the vicinity and in the same coastal zoning district.”
To support its decision to grant a waiver of the minimum lot size (5,000 sq. ft.) and lot width (50
ft.) standards of the IP, the City found that the special circumstances at the subject parcel include
an original underlying subdivision pattern which consisted of lots of 30 to 40 ft. in width. The
City found that the subdivision to create two 35 ft. wide, 3,150 sq. ft. parcels is allowable
because Title 20 (i.e. the Zoning Code outside of the Coastal Zone) contains a provision which
allows for a parcel to be subdivided to a minimum lot size not less than the original underlying
lots on the same block face in the same zoning district. However, the applicable zoning code for
parcels in the Coastal Zone is Title 21 (i.e. the Implementation Plan), which, as the City notes,
does not contain the same provision.
Instead, the City was required to find that “strict application of Title 21 would deny the property
owners privileges enjoyed by surrounding property owners.” The City does not provide sufficient
factual support for this finding. The City does not state what such privileges would be. Any
number of dwelling units allowed to be constructed on the surrounding properties of the same
zoning district would also be allowed on the existing, un-subdivided lot. For example, the other
parcels on the same block face range from 2,700 to 4,500 sq. ft., and the subject parcel in its
existing, un-subdivided form is 6,300 sq. ft. The RM zone states that the minimum site area per
dwelling unit is 1,200 sq. ft., meaning that the other parcels on the block could be developed with
a maximum of 2 to 3 units per lot. The subject parcel could be developed with a maximum of 5
units. Single-unit dwellings are also permitted on each lot in this RM zoning district. Thus, any
privilege that the property would have with regard to the resulting 35 ft. wide, 3,150 sq. ft. lots
can be enjoyed currently on the existing lot.
The subdivision is also not necessary to increase housing density in the City. In fact, the
subdivision of subject lot decreases the overall potential density on the site, since each resulting
lot could be developed with a maximum of 2 dwelling units, for a total of 4, compared to the
maximum of 5 for the un-subdivided lot.
Public Access and Recreation Policies of the Coastal Act
The subject property is located between the first public road and the sea and must be consistent
with the coastal access and recreation policies of the LCP pursuant to Section 21.30A.040 of the
IP. The project does not impact private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational
facilities because it is designated for residential use. It does not contain any coastal access
77
A-5-NPB-19-0204 (2010 Bethel Family Trust, et al.)
Appeal – Substantial Issue
12
easements. It would not impact the public’s ability to access the beach and would not impact any
visual resources or public coastal views. As conditioned, it would not impact shoreline processes.
Accordingly, the project is consistent with all public access and recreation policies of the LCP.
SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE FACTORS:
Applying the five factors typically relied upon by the Commission in making a determination
whether an appeal raises a substantial issue or not confirms that the appeal does raise a “substantial
issue” per Section 30625(b)(2) of the Coastal Act.
1. The degree of factual and legal support for the local government’s decision that the
development is consistent with the relevant provisions of the Coastal Act.
The City lacked sufficient factual support for its key finding that the subject site would be safe from
future coastal hazards for the reasons stated above. Without sufficient factual support for this
conclusion, the City also lacked sufficient factual support to approve a land division on a shoreline
parcel. Furthermore, the City did not adequately demonstrate that the subdivision was necessary to
prevent the property owner from being denied privileges afforded to property owners in the vicinity
in the same zoning district, and thus lacked adequate factual support for its approval of a variance to
waive minimum lot size and width standards of the IP. Lastly, the application of an inappropriate
SLR analysis methodology at City Council’s direction lacks legal support because this direction has
never been certified by the Commission and appears to be inconsistent with certified LCP policies.
2. The extent and scope of the development as approved or denied by the local government.
The scope of development in this appeal is limited. It entails the demolition of a four-unit residential
structure, and subdivision of one parcel into two. No new construction is proposed. The demolition
of the existing four-unit residential structure is not itself of significant scope, unless considered
within the context of a change in housing density. Because no new construction is proposed on the
resulting lots at this time, actual change in housing density is difficult to evaluate at this time. The
subdivision would result in a decrease in maximum density on the site, although as above, it is
difficult to evaluate definitive impacts to housing density that result from the subdivision without
further information about future proposed development on each resulting lot. However, the
subdivision is more significant in scope because it has the potential to change development
potential, property ownership, and limit future adaptation options on the site in perpetuity.
3. The significance of the coastal resources affected by the decision.
The subject site is a shoreline parcel located on Lido Isle between the first public road and the sea.
Shoreline parcels are presumed to be subject to coastal hazards and are thus specifically identified in
both the LUP and IP as inappropriate sites for land divisions, unless proven otherwise. Lido Isle is also
identified by the City as a site where SLR analysis requirements are applicable due to its proximity to
the water. Lastly, development located between the first public road and the sea is identified in the
Coastal Act as having high potential to impact coastal access and recreation. In this case, the subdivision
would create two lots, instead of one, for which an owner may claim the right to develop or to be
compensated if government regulation deprives the owner of all economically beneficial use of the
property. Furthermore, even though the individual property owner(s) at the subject site have waived
any right to future shoreline protection, additional property owners and investment in property
values in a hazardous area could result in increased incentive for the City to pursue hard protection
adaptation strategies that may impact coastal resources through coastal squeeze.
78
A-5-NPB-19-0204 (2010 Bethel Family Trust, et al.)
Appeal – Substantial Issue
13
4. The precedential value of the local government’s decision for future interpretations of its
LCP.
There is high precedential value of the local government’s decision for future interpretations of its
LCP. The most immediate precedential implication is that future subdivisions in hazardous areas
could potentially be approved, which would amplify the impacts on coastal resources across the
city. More importantly, this decision utilized a non-certified, insufficiently precautionary
methodology to evaluate potential impacts from SLR and coastal hazards. This methodology would
theoretically be used in all CDP decisions by the City subject to Policy 21.30.010(E) “Development
in Shoreline Hazardous Area” which requires a coastal hazards report. In a similar way that this
methodology effectively allowed the City to circumvent its certified LUP and IP policies relating to
land divisions, continued use of this methodology could also potentially allow the City to
circumvent any and all certified policies requiring findings relating to the safety of a site or
development from coastal hazards.
5. Whether the appeal raises local issues, or those of regional or statewide significance.
The primary topic of concern raised in this appeal is the City’s approval of a subdivision in a
hazardous area. The approval of subdivisions in hazardous areas is an issue of statewide significance,
and is included as a topic of discussion in the Commission’s Draft SLR Residential Adaptation
Guidelines. More broadly, this appeal also raises issues with the City of Newport Beach’s
interpretation and application of its LCP policies on evaluating coastal hazards. Issues with the City
Council’s direction, outlined in the discussion above, are local issues.
Conclusion
The appeal raises significant concerns with the degree of factual and legal support for the City’s
approval of a subdivision in a hazardous area. Subdivisions in hazardous areas are an issue of statewide
concern, while the City’s application of an inappropriate SLR estimation methodology raises
significant local issues. The application of the LCP is an ongoing concern which the City and the
Commission may resolve through iterative review of future applications, and thus there is high
precedential value for the City’s future interpretations of its LCP and application of this
methodology. Thus, considering all of the factors and the standard of review, there exists a substantial
issue with respect to whether the local government action conforms to the policies of the City’s
certified LCP and the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act.
Appendix A – Substantive File Documents
1. City of Newport Beach certified Local Coastal Program
79
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE80
Attachment No. PC 5
Coastal Hazards Report
81
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE82
Geotechnical C Geologic C Coastal C Environmental
5741 Palmer Way C Carlsbad, California 92010 C (760) 438-3155 C FAX (760) 931-0915 C www.geosoilsinc.com
December 17, 2020 WO S7677
Mr. Jeff Bethel & Mr. Steve Ridge
365 Via Lido Soud
Newport Beach CA 92663
SUBJECT: Supplemental Coastal Hazard and Sea Level Rise Discussion for Two New
Residences, 361 & 365 Via Lido Soud, Newport Beach, Orange County,
California.
Dear Mr. Bethel & Mr. Ridge:
In accordance with your request and authorization, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is pleased to
provide this supplemental discussion regarding the potential coastal hazards, including the
impact of future sea level rise (SLR), on the proposed construction of two new residences
in Newport Beach, California. The purpose of this report is to provide the hazard
information for your permit amendment application requested by the City of Newport Beach
and the California Coastal Commission (CCC). Our scope of work includes a review of the
State of California Sea-Level Rise (SLR) Policy Guidance document (March 2018), CCC
SLR Guidance (November 2018), a discussion of the proposed project, a site inspection,
and preparation of this letter report.
INTRODUCTION
The proposed project is construction of two new residential structures, in the City of
Newport Beach. Each structure will include a traditional housing unit and a junior
accessory dwelling unit. Figure 1, downloaded from Google Maps (Bird’s Eye View),
shows the site in relation to the adjacent properties, the public boardwalk, an intertidal
beach, and the navigation channel within Newport Bay. The two parcels are rectangular
shaped, about 35 feet by 90 feet each. The proposed project will create two new
residences on the two new parcels. The finished grade at the site is ~+12.1 feet NAVD88
with a lowest finished floor (FF) at about +12.8 feet NAVD88 for both residences. The top
of the City of Newport Beach owned boardwalk is at about elevation 8.5 NAVD88. The
project includes a privacy wall on the landward side of the public boardwalk and exterior
structure stem walls that extend to elevation +14.40 feet NAVD88. The site is currently
mapped by FEMA to be in the unshaded X Zone, with the adjacent bay mapped in the AE
Zone, with a base flood elevation of +8 feet NAVD88. The elevation of the Via Lido Soud
street flow line elevation is about +11.2 feet NAVD88.
83
2
Figure 1. Subject site, 365 Via Lido Soud, adjacent properties, public boardwalk, and
Newport Bay channel.
DATA & DATUM
The datum used in this report is NAVD88, which is about 2.62 feet below the mean tide
level (MTL). The units of measurement in this report are feet (ft), pounds force (lbs), and
seconds (sec). Site elevations were taken from a topographic map prepared by Forkert
Engineering and Surveying, Inc., dated 10/26/18. Plans by Craig S. Hampton Architect,
showing future coastal hazard adaptability measures, dated 12/16/20, were reviewed. A
site reconnaissance was performed in July 2019. The offsite walkway/boardwalk was
observed to be in good condition. There is a small (about 5 feet wide) supra-tidal beach
fronting an intertidal beach bayward of the boardwalk.
HAZARD ANALYSIS
There are three different potential shoreline hazards identified at this site: shoreline
movement/erosion, waves and wave runup, and flooding. For ease of review, each of
these hazards will be analyzed and discussed separately, followed by a summary of the
analysis including conclusions and recommendations, as necessary
84
3
Shoreline Erosion Hazard
There is no actual shoreline at the site proper. There is an intertidal beach bayward of the
public boardwalk/walkway. The beach is a receiver beach from dredging within the Newport
Bay navigation channels. The beach is maintained at a width that is adequate to protect
the public boardwalk. The shoreline is essentially located just bayward of the City
boardwalk. The public boardwalk will prevent shoreline erosion from impacting the
proposed development over the life of the development, provided the boardwalk is
maintained and protected by the City.
Current Flooding Hazard
The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric (NOAA) National Ocean Survey tidal data
station closest to the site with a long tidal record (Everest International Consultants Inc.
(EICI), 2011) is located at Los Angeles Harbor (Station 94106600). The tidal datum
elevations are as follows:
Mean High Water 4.55 feet
Mean Tide Level (MSL) 2.62 feet
Mean Low Water 0.74 feet
NAVD88 0.0 feet
Mean Lower Low Water -0.2 feet
During storm conditions, the sea surface rises along the shoreline (super-elevation) and
allows waves to break closer to the shoreline and runup on the beach. Super-elevation of
the sea surface can be accounted for by: wave set-up, wind set-up and inverse barometer,
wave group effects and El Niño sea level effects. The historical highest ocean water
elevation at the Los Angeles Harbor Tide station is +7.72 feet NAVD88 on January 10,
2005. In addition, EICI reported that the elevation of 7.71 feet NAVD88 is the 1% water
elevation. For this analysis the historical highest water elevation will be +7.7 feet
NAVD88.
Future Tide Levels Due to Sea Level Rise
The California Coastal Commission (CCC) SLR Guidance document recommends that a
project designer determine the range of SLR using the “best available science.” When the
SLR Guidance document was adopted by the CCC in 2015, it stated that the best available
science for quantifying future SLR was the 2012 National Research Council (NRC) report
(NRC, 2012). The NRC (2012) is no longer considered the state of the art for assessing
the magnitude of SLR in the marine science communities. The California Ocean
Protection Council (COPC) adopted an update to the State’s Sea-Level Rise Guidance in
March 2018. These new estimates are based upon a 2014 report entitled “Probabilistic
21st and 22nd century sea-level projections at a global network of tide-gauge sites” (Kopp
et al., 2014). This update included SLR estimates and probabilities for Los Angeles Harbor
the closest SLR estimates to Newport Beach. These SLR likelihood estimates are
provided below in Figure 2 taken from the Kopp et al., 2014 report. The report provides
85
4
SLR estimates based upon various carbon emission scenarios known as a “representative
concentration pathway” or RCP. Figure 2 provides the March 2018 COPC data (from the
Kopp et al., 2014 report) with the latest SLR adopted estimates (in feet) and the
probabilities of those estimate to meet or exceed the 1991-2009 mean, based upon the
best available science.
Figure 2. Table from Kopp et al., (2014) and COPC 2018, providing current SLR estimates
and probabilities for the Los Angeles Harbor tide station.
This table illustrates that SLR in the year 2100 for the likely range, and considering the
most onerous RCP (8.5), is 1.3 feet to 3.2 feet above the 1991-2009 mean. Interpolating
the above table, the very low probability SLR (0.5%) for the year 2096, high emissions,
SLR is ~6.0 feet and for the year 2100 it is 6.7 feet. Based upon this table there is a much
lower probability (0.5%) of SLR of about ~6 feet to 6.7 feet. This SLR would account for
future extreme bay water level as high as of 14.4 feet NAVD88 (7.7 feet NAVD88 + 6.7 feet
SLR). As stated before, the present maximum (1%) historical water elevation at the site,
including El Niño effects, is +7.7 feet NAVD88. Based upon the elevation of the access
street flow line (11.5 feet NAVD88), the extreme Newport Bay water level will exceed the
height of the existing street flow line when SLR is 4.2 feet or greater. For the likely COPC
SLR estimate range (high emissions) the access street is safe from flooding until beyond
the year 2100. For the 0.5% SLR case this may occur in after the year 2080. It should be
noted that, if SLR is higher, flooding the street will not occur constantly but rather only a
few times a month, at the full moon and new moon, for a period of about 1 hour. With the
FF at elevation +12.8 feet NAVD88 the structure will be safe from flooding for SLR less
than 5.1 feet. For the 5% COPC SLR estimate range (high emissions) the structure is
safe from flooding until beyond the year 2100.
The Kopp et al. paper used 2009 to 2012 SLR modeling for the probability analysis, which
86
5
means the “best available science” as determined by the CCC is almost 10 years old. The
CCC SLR Guidance requires the use of the “best available science.” Dr. Reinhard Flick
from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography has provided information that global sea level
from 1992 to 2018 has resulted in 8.32 centimeters of relatively uniform SLR in the past
26 years. This information is shown on Figure 3 taken from the CCC SLR Guidance
(2015). This current measurement shows that SLR is tracking more on the intermediate
SLR prediction curves, which is more like a 50% (median) probability SLR in the year 2100,
as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 3. Current global SLR plotted on SLR prediction curves (graphic taken from
TerraCosta Consulting).
The recent global SLR measurement provided in Figure 3 shows that the current SLR
trend, is not following the higher SLR estimate curves. It is GSI’s professional opinion that
the methodology and SLR estimates suggested by the CCC SLR Guidance, based upon
current SLR trends, are an overestimate of SLR over the project design life of 75 years.
The City of Newport Beach has recognized that in the future there will be a need to raise
the elevation of the boardwalks and bulkheads around the Newport Bay. The City of
Newport Beach Building Department (CNBBD) has a standard drawing, and a regional plan
for rehabilitating and raising the bulkheads. With SLR greater than 3 feet the entire Lido
Island can be flooded from the several sections of the island shoreline that do not currently
have a shore protection device in place. Flooding through these areas will result in
flooding of the access roads to hundreds of homes which are not on the shoreline. The
island will require some form of shore protection before there is flooding of the residences.
87
6
Waves and Wave Runup
The potential surface gravity waves (ocean swell) to arrive at this site is nil. Boat wakes
and wind waves are the only possible waves that can reach the bulkhead fronting the site.
Boast wakes are very small due to speed restriction in the channel and there is insufficient
fetch to produce wind waves or more than a couple inches.
Tsunami
Tsunami are waves generated by submarine earthquakes, landslides, or volcanic action.
Lander, et al. (1993) discusses the frequency and magnitude of recorded or observed
tsunami in the southern California area. James Houston (1980) predicts a tsunami of less
than 5 feet for a 500-year recurrence interval for this area. Legg, et al. (2002) examined
the potential tsunami wave runup in southern California. While this study is not specific to
the site, it provides a first order analysis for the area. The Legg, et al. (2002) report
determined a maximum open ocean tsunami height of less than 2 meters. The maximum
tsunami runup in the Newport Beach open coast area is less than 1 meters in height. Any
wave, including a tsunami, that approaches the site in will be refracted, modified, and
reduced in height by the Newport jetties, and as it travels into the bay. Due to the
infrequent nature and the relatively low 500-year recurrence interval tsunami wave height,
and the elevation of the proposed improvements, the site is reasonably safe from tsunami
hazards.
It should be noted that the site is mapped within the limits of the California Office of
Emergency Services tsunami innundation map, Newport Beach Quadrangle (State of
California, 2009). The tsunami inundation maps are very specific as to their use. Their use
is for evacuation planning only. The limitation on the use of the maps is clearly stated in
the PURPOSE OF THIS MAP on every quadrangle of California coastline. In addition, the
following paragraph is taken from the CalOES Local Planning Guidance on Tsunami
Response concerning the use of the tsunami inundation maps.
Inundation projections and resulting planning maps are to be used for emergency
planning purposes only. They are not based on a specific earthquake and tsunami.
Areas actually inundated by a specific tsunami can vary from those predicted. The
inundation maps are not a prediction of the performance, in an earthquake or
tsunami, of any structure within or outside of the projected inundation area.
The City of Newport Beach and County of Orange have clearly marked tsunami evacuation
routes for the entire Newport Beach/Bay area.
CONCLUSIONS
• The proposed residential structures with the implementation of the SLR adaptation
strategies (design for future water proofing to above elevation +14.4 feet NAVD88
and the future protection of all the island residences by the City) will not be
88
7
adversely impacted by potential coastal hazards including more than 6 feet to 6.7
feet sea level rise. The site will be part of a community wide response to mitigate
SLR hazards.
• Provided the recommendations of this report are implemented during the project
construction, no site specific protective devices will be necessary to protect the
proposed development from any existing or anticipated future coastal hazards for
the life of the development.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon the analysis and discussion herein, the proposed development is reasonably
safe from coastal hazards for the life of the development including shoreline movement,
waves and wave runup, and flooding with future SLR. It should be noted that future
flooding hazards due to SLR are shared by all development around Newport Bay. The
public roads for access to the site will be impassable due to ocean flooding long before the
flood water level approaches the FF elevation of the development. SLR impacts will be a
regional problem and only solved by a regional management plan. The proposed
development will neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability,
or destruction of the site or adjacent area.
The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Respectfully submitted,
GeoSoils, Inc.
David W. Skelly MS, PE
RCE#47857
89
8
REFERENCES
Everest International Consultants, Inc., 2011, Assessment of seawall structure integrity and
potential for seawall over-topping for Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island, main report,
No Project No., dated April 21.
Kopp, Robert E., Radley M. Horton Christopher M. Little Jerry X. Mitrovica Michael
Oppenheimer D. J. Rasmussen Benjamin H. Strauss Claudia Tebaldi Radley M. Horton
Christopher M. Little Jerry X. Mitrovica Michael Oppenheimer D. J. Rasmussen Benjamin
H. Strauss Claudia Tebaldi “Probabilistic 21st and 22nd century sea-level projections at
a global network of tide-gauge sites” First published: 13 June 2014
Newport Beach, “Waterfront Project Guidelines and Standards, Harbor Design Criteria
Commercial & Residential Facilities,” 2017 Edition
NOAA, 2018, Web Site, Maps http://anchor.ncd.noaa.gov/states/ca.htm Tidal Datums
http://www.opsd.nos.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/websql/ftp/query_new.pl
State of California, County of Orange, 2009, “Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency
Planning, Newport Beach Quadrangle,” 1:24,000 scale, dated June 1.
State of California Sea Level Rise Guidance 2018 Update, by Ocean Protection Council,
dated in March 2018.
90
Attachment No. PC 6
Lot Width Exhibit of Original Tract Map No. 907
91
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE92
93
94
Attachment No. PC 7
Project Plans - Tentative Parcel Map
95
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE96
97
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE98
Attachment No. PC 8
Project Plans - 361 Via Lido Soud
99
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE100
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com
Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Date: 1/26/21
Drawn: CSH
1
OF
SHEET
SHEETS15
Job:361 VIA LIDO SOUD LICA SUBMITTAL PACKAGE1/26/21 4:13 PM 361 VIA LIDO SOUD_RIDGE_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV3_COASTAL PACKAGE.plnSITE PLANN 27°30'00" W 457.14'VIA LIDO SOUDN 27°30'00" W 35.02'N 69°29'03" W 90.01'
N62°30'48"E 90.01'N27°30'08"W 35.00'(11.76)(12.08)(11.08)(12.08)CONC. BOARDWALKBEACH17.15 TW
12.49TW
12.49 TW17.18 TW 17.15 TW
EXIST WALL
GATEGATEGATENEW WALL 17.90 TW(11.97)18.44 TW(12.52)
N
3'-1"BLDG.3'-1"BLDG.5'-1"BLDG.12"21'-5"2'-1"F.P.4'-5"ROOF
2'-5"ROOF8'-6"5'-6" 12"
13" BLDG.15'-0" LOT "A"2'-5"ROOFK N E E S P A C EKITCHENCLG. 94
LIVINGCLG. 94
DININGCLG. 94
BOOTHCLG. 94
ENTRYCLG. 94
ELEVATOR
MUDCLG. 94
PANTRYCLG. 94
COVEREDPATIOCLG. 94 GARAGECLG. 94
POWDERCLG. 94
AVERAGE GRADE CALCULATION PER NBZC
EXISTING GRADES:11.08+12.08+12.08+11.76 (DIVIDE BY 4) = 11.75
DECK
AVERAGE CURB HEIGHT PER LICA
EXISTING CURB HEIGHTS:11.56+11.70 (DIVIDE BY 2) = 11.63
TRASH
19'-0" DEEP X 18'-6" WIDEPARKING AREA
NEW 2 STORY SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE
WITH ROOF DECK ANDATTACHED GARAGE
SHEET INDEX
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
C1
C2
12
13
14
15
Name
SITE PLAN
FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
THIRD FLOOR/ROOF PLAN
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS (FRONT, REAR & LEFT)
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS (RIGHT SIDE)
LANDSCAPE HARDSCAPE PLAN
LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN
FUTURE COASTAL HAZARDS ADAPTABILITY MEASURES
PRECISE GRADING PLAN
EROSION CONTROL PLAN
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
FIRST LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS
SECOND LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS
THIRD LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
SITE PLAN
PROJECT INFORMATION
CUSTOM RESIDENCE FOR
Steve & Shelley Ridge
202 Opal Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 874-2322
JOB ADDRESS
361 Via Lido Soud
Newport Beach, CA 92663
LEGAL
Lot (1/2) 922 & 923 & (1/2) 924
Tract 907
Zoning RM
APN: 423 167 04
SITE
Lot Area 3,150 sq. ft.
Buildable Lot Area 2,494 sq. ft.
Max. Buildable Area (1.75x) 4,240 sq. ft.
Project Buildable Area (1.63x) 4,062 sq. ft.
NBZC Volume Area (15%) 374 sq. ft.
Project Volume Area (26%) 653 sq. ft.
LICA Via Soud Volume Area (15%) 374 sq. ft.
Project Via Soud Volume Area (16%) 400 sq. ft.
LICA Upper Roof Area 2,398 sq. ft.
LICA Upper Deck/Flat Roof Area (23.1%) 555 sq. ft.
RESIDENCE (3 bedrooms)
First Level Floor Area 1,384 sq. ft.
Second Level Floor Area 1,660 sq. ft.
Total Floor Area 3,044 sq. ft.
Garage Area 539 sq. ft.
Second Level Deck 62 sq. ft.
Covered Patio 374 sq. ft.
Roof Deck 555 sq. ft.
JADU (1 bedroom)
Second Level Floor Area 479 sq. ft.
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA 88 sq. ft.
OCCUPANCY: R-3, U
TYPE: V-B fire-sprinkled per NFPA 13D
ZONING: RM
VICINITY MAP
PA2019-085 Attachment No. PC 8 - Project Plans - 361 Via Lido Soud
101
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Date: 1/26/21
Drawn: CSH
2
OF
SHEET
SHEETS15
Job:361 VIA LIDO SOUD LICA SUBMITTAL PACKAGE1/26/21 4:13 PM 361 VIA LIDO SOUD_RIDGE_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV3_COASTAL PACKAGE.plnFIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN13"12'-0"71'-10"5'-1"
62'-7"9'-3"
21'-0"13'-2" 5'-2" 7'-6" 2'-6" 13'-3" 2'-3" 7'-0"3'-1"28'-10"3'-1"2'-1" 12" 21"25'-4"21"2'-7"23'-8"2'-7"13 1/4"12'-0"71'-10"5'-1"
6'-2"8'-0"20'-0"8'-8"29'-0"
6'-10"13'-2"6'-6"22'-6"36"3'-1"28'-10"3'-1"24"23'-4"3'-6"2'-6"18'-4"2'-6"24"17'-6"5'-0"
12'-9"6"
16"5'-6"
UPSINK
K N E E S P A C EDWMICROREFR.
KITCHEN
CLG. 94
LIVING
CLG. 94
DINING
CLG. 94
BOOTH
CLG. 94
ENTRY
CLG. 94
ELEVATOR
MUD
CLG. 94
PANTRY
CLG. 94
SHELVES SHELVESSHELVES
COVERED
PATIO
CLG. 94 GARAGE
CLG. 94
W/CLAVPOWDER
CLG. 94 FAUFAUTRASH
19'-0" DEEP X 18'-6" WIDE
PARKING AREA
62" F.P.
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
PA2019-085 Attachment No. PC 8 - Project Plans - 361 Via Lido Soud
102
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Date: 1/26/21
Drawn: CSH
3
OF
SHEET
SHEETS15
Job:361 VIA LIDO SOUD LICA SUBMITTAL PACKAGE1/26/21 4:13 PM 361 VIA LIDO SOUD_RIDGE_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV3_COASTAL PACKAGE.plnSECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLANW
D
1'-1"83'-10"5'-1"
61'-4"15'-6" 24" 5'-0"
14'-6"16'-0"12'-0"8'-8"7'-8"2'-6"4'-0"11'-6"3'-1"28'-10"3'-1"2'-1" 12"12'-0"16'-10"13"83'-10"5'-1"
1" 12" 4'-2"74'-8"5'-0"
10'-4"16'-0"7'-6"12'-0"2'-6"5'-8"6'-5"2'-6"11'-9"
3'-8" 2'-0"6'-0"10" 3'-6"5'-6"24"3'-1"28'-10"3'-1"25'-4"3'-6"12'-8"12'-8"22"6'-10"SHELF & POLESHELF & POLEDRESSER
SHELF & POLESHELF & POLEDRESSER
36" FIREPLACE
MASTER
BEDROOM
SLOPED CLG.4:12 SLOPE4:12 SLOPECLOSETCLG. 78 CLOSETCLG. 78
3:12 SLOPE 3:12 SLOPE
STUDY
SLOPED CLG.DECK
CLG. 76
MASTER
BATH
CLG. 78
HALLCLG. 78
TUB
BENCH
LAVLAV VANITY
SHOWER
W/C 4:12 SLOPE4:12 SLOPEW/C
SHOWER
ELEVATOR
BEDROOM 2
SLOPED CLG.LAV4:12 SLOPE 4:12 SLOPE
JADU (473 SF)
SLOPED CLG.5:12 SLOPE5:12 SLOPEBEDROOM
SLOPED CLG.W/CSHOWERLAVW/CSHOWER LAVSHELF & POLE3:12 SLOPE3:12 SLOPEBEDROOM 3
SLOPED CLG.
BATH
CLG. 86
BATH 3
CLG. 86
HALL
CLG. 76
LAUNDRY
CLG. 78
UP DN.
BATH 2
CLG. 86
VENT
DN.SHELF & POLELIVING
KITCHEN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
PA2019-085 Attachment No. PC 8 - Project Plans - 361 Via Lido Soud
103
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Date: 1/26/21
Drawn: CSH
4
OF
SHEET
SHEETS15
Job:361 VIA LIDO SOUD LICA SUBMITTAL PACKAGE1/26/21 4:13 PM 361 VIA LIDO SOUD_RIDGE_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV3_COASTAL PACKAGE.plnTHIRD FLOOR/ROOF PLANV ALL EY
VAL
L
EYRIDGERIDGE
RIDGE4:124:123:12 3:123:123:123:12PITCH
TO PLATE
PITCH
TO PLATE PITCHTO PLATEPITCHTO PLATERIDGERIDGE
PITCH
TO PLATE3:12SLOPE 2%SLOPE 2%SLOPE 2%SLOPE 2%SLOPE 2%SLOPE 2%3:12 VALLEYV
A
L
L
E
Y
VAL L EY
5:12
5:12
3'-1"BLDG.5'-4" 7'-2" 3'-10" 7'-2" 5'-4" 3'-1"BLDG.2'-4"24"4'-2"10'-4"15'-8"7'-6"13'-4"7'-10"18'-0"24" 3"3"3"3"3"2'-5"ROOF8"8"3"8"10"ROOF
3"8"8" 2'-5"ROOF3"3"8"3"3"8" 4'-5"ROOF
8"8"3"8"3"3"3"
5'-1"BLDG.
13"BLDG.
A/C A/C 35.4635.46
35.4635.4635.46
DN.
DN.
DOWNSPOUT LOCATIONS
TYPICAL. CONNECT TOSTORM DRAIN. SEE
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
+42" WALL
T.O.W. 35.46
DECK DRAIN
DECK DRAIN DECK DRAIN
DECK DRAIN
DECK DRAIN
DECKDRAIN
DECK DRAIN
DECK
DRAIN
+42" WALL
T.O.W. 35.46
+42" WALL
T.O.W. 35.46
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
ROOF DECK / ROOF PLAN
PA2019-085 Attachment No. PC 8 - Project Plans - 361 Via Lido Soud
104
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Date: 1/26/21
Drawn: CSH
5
OF
SHEET
SHEETS15
Job:361 VIA LIDO SOUD LICA SUBMITTAL PACKAGE1/26/21 4:13 PM 361 VIA LIDO SOUD_RIDGE_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV3_COASTAL PACKAGE.plnEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS (FRONT, REAR & LEFT)24'-0"9'-4"8'-7"12" 24"12" 24"
4 12
RIDGE 35.63
F.F. 12.80
NBZC AVG. GRADE 11.75
LICA AVG. CURB HT. 11.63
T.O.W. 35.63
24'-0"9'-4"8'-7"9'-4"7'-9"3'-6"24'-0"9'-0"GARAGE8'-7"12" 24"12" 24"
512
RIDGE 35.63
F.F. 12.80
NBZC AVG. GRADE 11.75
LICA AVG. CURB HT. 11.63
F.F. 12.80
T.O.W. 35.63 RIDGE 35.63
NBZC AVG. GRADE 11.75
LICA AVG. CURB HT. 11.63
T.O.W. 35.63
F.F. 12.8024'-0"9'-4"8'-7"24"12" 24"
5 3/16
12
RIDGE 35.63
F.F. 12.80
NBZC AVG. GRADE 11.75
LICA AVG. CURB HT. 11.63
T.O.W. 35.63
412
! "
!""
! "
! "
! " ! "
!
" !
"
! "
! "
! "
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
REAR EXTERIOR ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
FRONT EXTERIOR ELEVATION
PA2019-085 Attachment No. PC 8 - Project Plans - 361 Via Lido Soud
105
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Date: 1/26/21
Drawn: CSH
6
OF
SHEET
SHEETS15
Job:361 VIA LIDO SOUD LICA SUBMITTAL PACKAGE1/26/21 4:13 PM 361 VIA LIDO SOUD_RIDGE_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV3_COASTAL PACKAGE.plnEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS (RIGHT SIDE)24'-0"9'-4"8'-7"3'-6"42" RAILING9'-4"7'-9"3'-6"12" 24"12" 24"24'-0"3 3/4 12
5
12
RIDGE 35.63
F.F. 12.80
NBZC AVG. GRADE 11.75
LICA AVG. CURB HT. 11.63
T.O.W. 35.63
F.F. 12.80
T.O.W. 35.63
! "
!""
! "
! "
! " ! "
!
" !
"
! "
! "
! "
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION
PA2019-085 Attachment No. PC 8 - Project Plans - 361 Via Lido Soud
106
1/26/21 4:13 PM 361 VIA LIDO SOUD_RIDGE_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV3_COASTAL PACKAGE.plnVIA LIDO SOUDCONC. BOARDWALKBEACHKITCHEN
LIVING
DINING
BOOTH
ENTRY
ELEVATOR
MUD
PANTRY
COVEREDPATIO
GARAGE
POWDER VIA LIDO SOUDCONC. BOARDWALKBEACHKITCHEN
LIVING
DINING
BOOTH
ENTRY
ELEVATOR
MUD
PANTRY
COVEREDPATIO
GARAGE
POWDER
LIVING
DINING/PIANO
ENTRY
ELEVATOR
MUD
PANTRY
COVEREDPATIO
GARAGE
POWDER
KITCHEN
NOOK
2
2
6825312
9
41
6
7
4
3
2
2
682512
41
6
7
4
10
11 11 12
11 11
9
10
11 11
11
11 12
11
6
6
13
13
HARDSCAPE KEYNOTES
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
CONSTRUCT CONCRETE PAVING
CONSTRUCT STONE PAVING
CONSTRUCT 12" SQUARE CONCRETE STEPPERS
CONSTRUCT CONCRETE STEPS AND HANDRAIL
1
2
3
4
CONSTRUCT CONCRETE STEPS AND HANDRAIL
CONSTRUCT STONE PAVER STEPS
CONSTRUCT WOOD GATE
CONSTRUCT BBQ COUNTER
CONSTRUCT 6' HT. CMU WALL
4
5
6
7
8
CONSTRUCT DECK DRAIN CONNECT TO STORM DRAIN
INSTALL FLUSH MOUNTED STAINLESS STEEL HOSE BIBBCABINET
CONSTRUCT 8" SQUARE VINE CUT-OUT
INSTALL OUTDOOR SHOWER WITH DRAIN TO SEWER
EXISTING SIDE YARD WALL TO REMAIN
9
10
11
12
13
11/12/2020DATE:REVISIONSXXXXXREMARKSDATEREMARKSDATEJOB NO:
DRAWN BY:RIDGE AND BETHELRESIDENCES361 VIA LIDO SOUDNEWPORT BEACH, CAHARDSCAPEPLANL1.17
OF
SHEET
SHEETS15LICA SUBMITTAL PACKAGEPA2019-085 Attachment No. PC 8 - Project Plans - 361 Via Lido Soud
107
1/26/21 4:13 PM 361 VIA LIDO SOUD_RIDGE_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV3_COASTAL PACKAGE.plnVIA LIDO SOUDCONC. BOARDWALKBEACHKITCHEN
LIVING
DINING
BOOTH
ENTRY
ELEVATOR
MUD
PANTRY
COVEREDPATIO
GARAGE
POWDER VIA LIDO SOUDCONC. BOARDWALKBEACHKITCHEN
LIVING
DINING
BOOTH
ENTRY
ELEVATOR
MUD
PANTRY
COVEREDPATIO
GARAGE
POWDER
LIVING
DINING/PIANO
ENTRY
ELEVATOR
MUD
PANTRY
COVEREDPATIO
GARAGE
POWDER
KITCHEN
NOOK
PROPOSED PLANT PALETTE
SYMBOL KEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING
WATER
USE DESCRIPTION QTY.
SHRUBS, GRASSES, & GROUNDCOVERS
BUXUS 'GREENBEAUTY'GREEN BEAUTYBOXWOOD 5 GAL. 18" O.C. M
FORMALBORDER 16
DIANELLA 'CASA BLUE' CASA BLUE FLAX LILY 5 GAL. 18" O.C. L PERENNIAL 58
AGAPANTHUSAFRICANUS 'PETERPAN'LILY OF THE NILE 5 GAL. 18" O.C. L PERENNIAL 34
ROSA SPP. 'ICEBERG' ICEBERG ROSE 5 GAL. 30" O.C. M
FLOWERING
ACCENT 3
HARDENBERGIA
VIOLACEA 'HAPPY
WANDERER'
PURPLE LILAC VINE 15
GAL.
PER
PLAN L FLOWERING
VINE 12
KURAPIA KURAPIA SOD -- L
BETWEENSTEPPERS --
WATER USE KEY:VL = VERY LOW WATER USE, L = LOW WATER USE, M = MODERATE WATER USE, H = HIGH WATER USE. WATER USESTATED IS PER 'A GUIDE TO ESTIMATING IRRIGATION WATER NEEDS OF LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS IN CALIFORNIA' (ALSO
REFERRED TO AS WUCOLS) FOR REGION 3.
11/12/2020DATE:REVISIONSXXXXXREMARKSDATEREMARKSDATEJOB NO:
DRAWN BY:RIDGE AND BETHELRESIDENCES361 VIA LIDO SOUDNEWPORT BEACH, CAPLANTINGPLANL2.18
OF
SHEET
SHEETS15LICA SUBMITTAL PACKAGEPA2019-085 Attachment No. PC 8 - Project Plans - 361 Via Lido Soud
108
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Date: 1/26/21
Drawn: CSH
9
OF
SHEET
SHEETS15
Job:361 VIA LIDO SOUD LICA SUBMITTAL PACKAGE1/26/21 4:13 PM 361 VIA LIDO SOUD_RIDGE_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV3_COASTAL PACKAGE.plnFUTURE COASTAL HAZARDS ADAPTABILITYMEASURESUPSINK
K N E E S P A C EDW MICRO
REFR.
KITCHEN
CLG. 94
LIVING
CLG. 94
DINING
CLG. 94
BOOTH
CLG. 94
ENTRY
CLG. 94
ELEVATOR
MUD
CLG. 94
PANTRY
CLG. 94
SHELVES SHELVESSHELVES
COVERED
PATIO
CLG. 94 GARAGE
CLG. 94
W/CLAVPOWDER
CLG. 94 FAUFAUTYPICAL HOUSE FOUNDATION F.F. 12.80
PROVIDE FUTURE COASTAL HAZARDS
PROTECTION DEVICE MEASURES AS FOLLOWS:
1) PROVIDE FUTURE APPLIED WATERPROOF
MEASURES AT EXTERIOR OF BUILDING TO
AN ELEVATION OF 14.40 PER
2) PROVIDE FUTURE WATER INTRUSION
BARRICADES AT ALL DOOR OPENINGS PER
TRASH
62" F.P.
2
9
1
9
2
9
1
9
2
9
1
9
2
9
2
9
1
9
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
COASTAL HAZARDS ADAPTABILITY MEASURES
1 EXTERIOR WALL SECTION 2 EXTERIOR WALL OPENING ELEVATION
STACK SANDBAGS BEYOND
OPENINGS AS SHOWN TO
PROVIDE NECESSARY SUPPORT
PA2019-085 Attachment No. PC 8 - Project Plans - 361 Via Lido Soud
109
1/26/21 4:13 PM 361 VIA LIDO SOUD_RIDGE_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV3_COASTAL PACKAGE.plnC1
OF
SHEET
SHEETS15
STEVE & SHELLEY RIDGE202 OPAL AVENUE
NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 92663
PA2019-085 Attachment No. PC 8 - Project Plans - 361 Via Lido Soud
110
1/26/21 4:13 PM 361 VIA LIDO SOUD_RIDGE_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV3_COASTAL PACKAGE.plnC2
OF
SHEET
SHEETS15
PA2019-085 Attachment No. PC 8 - Project Plans - 361 Via Lido Soud
111
1/26/21 4:13 PM 361 VIA LIDO SOUD_RIDGE_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV3_COASTAL PACKAGE.pln12
OF
SHEET
SHEETS15
PA2019-085 Attachment No. PC 8 - Project Plans - 361 Via Lido Soud
112
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Date: 1/26/21
Drawn: CSH
13
OF
SHEET
SHEETS15
Job:361 VIA LIDO SOUD LICA SUBMITTAL PACKAGE1/26/21 4:13 PM 361 VIA LIDO SOUD_RIDGE_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV3_COASTAL PACKAGE.plnFIRST LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS13"12'-0"71'-10"5'-1"
62'-7"9'-3"
21'-0"13'-2" 5'-2" 7'-6" 2'-6" 13'-3" 2'-3" 7'-0"3'-1"28'-10"3'-1"2'-1" 12" 21"25'-4"21"2'-7"23'-8"2'-7"13 1/4"12'-0"71'-10"5'-1"
6'-2"8'-0"20'-0"8'-8"29'-0"
6'-10"13'-2"6'-6"22'-6"36"3'-1"28'-10"3'-1"24"23'-4"3'-6"2'-6"18'-4"2'-6"24"17'-6"5'-0"
12'-9"6"
16"5'-6"
UPSINK
K N E E S P A C EDW MICRO
REFR.
KITCHEN
CLG. 94
LIVING
CLG. 94
DINING
CLG. 94
BOOTH
CLG. 94
ENTRY
CLG. 94
ELEVATOR
MUD
CLG. 94
PANTRY
CLG. 94
SHELVES SHELVESSHELVES
COVERED
PATIO
CLG. 94 GARAGE
CLG. 94
W/CLAVPOWDER
CLG. 94 FAUFAUTRASH
19'-0" DEEP X 18'-6" WIDE
PARKING AREA
62" F.P.
22'-6" x 23'-4"
525.00 SF
4'-0" x 3'-6"
14.00 SF
8'-1" x 3'-7"
28.97 SF
38'-9" x 2'-1"
80.73 SF
1'-1" x 23'-4"
25.28 SF6'-6" x 26'-10"
174.42 SF
8'-8" x 24'-10"
215.22 SF
18'-8" x 28'-10"
538.22 SF
9'-4" x 29'-10"
278.45 SF
6'-2" x 28'-10"
177.81 SF
13'-1" x 29'-0"
379.51 SF TOTAL FIRST LEVEL SF
A: 1,384 sq ft
GARAGE SF
A: 539 sq ft
FRONT OPEN SPACE SF
A: 135 sq ft
NBZC OPEN SPACE SF
A: 380 sq ft
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
FIRST LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS
PA2019-085 Attachment No. PC 8 - Project Plans - 361 Via Lido Soud
113
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Date: 1/26/21
Drawn: CSH
14
OF
SHEET
SHEETS15
Job:361 VIA LIDO SOUD LICA SUBMITTAL PACKAGE1/26/21 4:13 PM 361 VIA LIDO SOUD_RIDGE_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV3_COASTAL PACKAGE.plnSECOND LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONSW
D
1'-1"83'-10"5'-1"
61'-4"15'-6" 24" 5'-0"
14'-6"16'-0"12'-0"8'-8"7'-8"2'-6"4'-0"11'-6"3'-1"28'-10"3'-1"2'-1" 12"12'-0"16'-10"13"83'-10"5'-1"
1" 12" 4'-2"74'-8"5'-0"
10'-4"16'-0"7'-6"12'-0"2'-6"5'-8"6'-5"2'-6"11'-9"
3'-8" 2'-0"6'-0"10" 3'-6"5'-6"24"3'-1"28'-10"3'-1"25'-4"3'-6"12'-8"12'-8"22"6'-10"SHELF & POLESHELF & POLEDRESSER
SHELF & POLESHELF & POLEDRESSER
36" FIREPLACE
MASTER
BEDROOM
SLOPED CLG.4:12 SLOPE4:12 SLOPECLOSET
CLG. 78 CLOSET
CLG. 78
3:12 SLOPE 3:12 SLOPE
STUDY
SLOPED CLG.DECK
CLG. 76
MASTER
BATH
CLG. 78
HALLCLG. 78
TUB
BENCH
LAVLAV VANITY
SHOWER
W/C 4:12 SLOPE4:12 SLOPEW/C
SHOWER
ELEVATOR
BEDROOM 2
SLOPED CLG.LAV4:12 SLOPE 4:12 SLOPE
JADU (473 SF)
SLOPED CLG.5:12 SLOPE5:12 SLOPEBEDROOM
SLOPED CLG.W/CSHOWERLAVW/CSHOWER LAVSHELF & POLE3:12 SLOPE3:12 SLOPEBEDROOM 3
SLOPED CLG.BATH
CLG. 86
BATH 3
CLG. 86
HALLCLG. 76
LAUNDRYCLG. 78
UP DN.
BATH 2
CLG. 86
VENT
DN.SHELF & POLELIVING
KITCHEN
4'-2" x 16'-10"
70.14 SF
57'-2" x 3'-6"
200.09 SF
55'-0 1/2" x 15'-1 1/2"
832.50 SF
54'-4 1/2" x 10'-2 1/2"
555.08 SF
2'-0" x 1'-0"
2.00 SF
23'-7" x 3'-7"
84.51 SF
17'-7 1/2" x 15'-1 1/2"
266.58 SF
18'-3 1/2" x 10'-2 1/2"
186.73 SF
8'-1" x 12'-8"
102.38 SF
6'-1" x 12'-9"
77.56 SF
2'-0" x 12'-8"
25.33 SF
TOTAL UPPER LEVEL SF
A: 1,660 sq ft
TOTAL JADU SF
A: 479 sq ft
FRONT OPEN SPACE SF
A: 265 sq ft
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
UPPER LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS
PA2019-085 Attachment No. PC 8 - Project Plans - 361 Via Lido Soud
114
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Date: 1/26/21
Drawn: CSH
15
OF
SHEET
SHEETS15
Job:361 VIA LIDO SOUD LICA SUBMITTAL PACKAGE1/26/21 4:13 PM 361 VIA LIDO SOUD_RIDGE_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV3_COASTAL PACKAGE.plnTHIRD LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONSVALL
E
Y
VA
LL
E
YRIDGERIDGE
RIDGE4:124:123:12 3:123:123:123:12PITCH
TO PLATE
PITCH
TO PLATE PITCHTO PLATEPITCHTO PLATERIDGERIDGE
PITCH
TO PLATE3:12SLOPE 2%SLOPE 2%SLOPE 2%SLOPE 2%SLOPE 2%SLOPE 2%3:12 VALLEYV
A
L
L
E
Y
VALL
EY
5:12
5:12
3'-1"BLDG.5'-4" 7'-2" 3'-10" 7'-2" 5'-4" 3'-1"BLDG.2'-4"24"4'-2"10'-4"15'-8"7'-6"13'-4"7'-10"18'-0"24" 3"3"3"3"3"2'-5"ROOF8"8"3"8"10"ROOF
3"8"8" 2'-5"ROOF3"3"8"3"3"8" 4'-5"ROOF
8"8"3"8"3"3"3"
5'-1"BLDG.
13"BLDG.
A/C A/C 35.4635.46
35.4635.4635.46
DN.
DN.
DOWNSPOUT LOCATIONS
TYPICAL. CONNECT TO
STORM DRAIN. SEE
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
+42" WALL
T.O.W. 35.46
DECK DRAIN
DECK DRAIN DECK DRAIN
DECK DRAIN
DECK DRAIN
DECK
DRAIN
DECK DRAIN
DECK
DRAIN
+42" WALL
T.O.W. 35.46
+42" WALL
T.O.W. 35.46
15'-4" x 20'-2"
309.22 SF
7'-6" x 12'-0"
90.00 SF
13'-4" x 3'-10"
51.11 SF
5'-2" x 10'-9"
55.54 SF
4'-7" x 6'-2"
28.26 SF
3'-3" x 6'-6"
21.12 SF
ROOF DECK SF
A: 555 sq ft
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
UPPER LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS
PA2019-085 Attachment No. PC 8 - Project Plans - 361 Via Lido Soud
115
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE116
Attachment No. PC 9
Project Plans - 365 Via Lido Soud
117
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE118
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com
Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Date: 1/26/21
Drawn: CSH
1
OF
SHEET
SHEETS15
Job:365 VIA LIDO SOUD CDP SUBMITTAL PACKAGE1/26/21 4:14 PM 365 VIA LIDO SOUD_BETHEL_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV1_COASTAL SUBMITTAL.plnSITE PLANN 27°30'00" W 35.02'N62°30'48"E 90.01'N27°30'08"W 35.00'CONC. BOARDWALKBEACHN62°30'48"E 90.01'N 27°30'00" W 457.14'365 VIA LIDO SOUD(11.74)(12.08)(11.04)(12.08)18.44 TW NEW WALL 17.90 TW
GATEGATEGATEGATETW17.00EXIST WALL
(12.52)(11.97)
N
8'-6"5'-6" 12"
15'-0" LOT "B"
13"BLDG.5'-1"BLDG.12" 21'-6"2'-5"ROOF3'-1"BLDG.3'-1"BLDG.2'-5"ROOF2'-1"F.P.UP
K N E E S P A C EKITCHENCLG. 94
LIVINGCLG. 94
DINING/PIANOCLG. 94
BOOTHCLG. 94
ENTRYCLG. 94
ELEVATOR
MUDCLG. 94
PANTRYCLG. 94
COVEREDPATIOCLG. 94
GARAGECLG. 94
POWDERCLG. 94
UPEXTERIOR STAIRS TO JADU
AVERAGE GRADE CALCULATION PER NBZC
EXISTING GRADES:
11.04+12.08+12.08+11.74 (DIVIDE BY 4) = 11.74
AVERAGE CURB HEIGHT PER LICA
EXISTING CURB HEIGHTS:11.76+11.70 (DIVIDE BY 2) = 11.73
TRASH
19'-0" DEEP X 18'-6" WIDEPARKING AREA
PAPA
PLANTING AREAPA PA PA
PA
NEW 2 STORY SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENCE
WITH ROOF DECK ANDATTACHED GARAGE
SHEET INDEX
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
C1
C2
12
13
14
15
Name
SITE PLAN
FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
THIRD FLOOR/ROOF PLAN
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS (FRONT, REAR & RIGHT)
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS (RIGHT SIDE)
LANDSCAPE HARDSCAPE PLAN
LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN
FUTURE COASTAL HAZARDS ADAPTABILITY MEASURES
GRADING PLAN
EROSION CONTROL PLAN
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
FIRST LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS
SECOND LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS
THIRD LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
SITE PLAN
PROJECT INFORMATION
CUSTOM RESIDENCE FOR
Jeff & Michelle Bethel
1930 Port Townsend Circle
Newport Beach, CA 92660
JOB ADDRESS
365 Via Lido Soud
Newport Beach, CA 92663
LEGAL
Lot (1/2) 922 & 923 & (1/2) 924
Tract 907
Zoning RM
APN: 423 167 04
SITE
Lot Area 3,150 sq. ft.
Buildable Lot Area 2,494 sq. ft.
Max. Buildable Area (1.75x) 4,240 sq. ft.
Project Buildable Area (1.65x) 4,110 sq. ft.
NBZC Volume Area (15%) 374 sq. ft.
Project Volume Area (23%) 581 sq. ft.
LICA Via Soud Volume Area (15%) 374 sq. ft.
Project Via Soud Volume Area (16%) 408 sq. ft.
LICA Upper Roof Area 2,306 sq. ft.
LICA Upper Deck/Flat Roof Area (19.9%) 458 sq. ft.
RESIDENCE (3 bedrooms)
First Level Floor Area 1,416 sq. ft.
Second Level Floor Area 1,667 sq. ft.
Total Floor Area 3,083 sq. ft.
Garage Area 533 sq. ft.
Covered Patio 374 sq. ft.
Roof Deck 459 sq. ft.
JADU (1 bedroom)
Second Level Floor Area 494 sq. ft.
TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA 88 sq. ft.
OCCUPANCY: R-3, U
TYPE: V-B fire-sprinkled per NFPA 13D
ZONING: RM
VICINITY MAP
PA2019-085 Attachment No. PC 9 - Project Plans - 365 Via Lido Soud
119
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Date: 1/26/21
Drawn: CSH
2
OF
SHEET
SHEETS15
Job:365 VIA LIDO SOUD CDP SUBMITTAL PACKAGE1/26/21 4:14 PM 365 VIA LIDO SOUD_BETHEL_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV1_COASTAL SUBMITTAL.plnFIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN13"83'-10"5'-1"
12'-0"60'-8"11'-2"
23'-2"12'-2" 5'-0" 10'-2" 10'-2" 7'-6" 3'-8"3'-1"28'-10"2'-1"12"21"25'-4"21"2'-7"23'-8"2'-7"36"5'-1"23'-4"3'-6"3'-1"3'-1"24"23'-4"24"13"83'-10"5'-1"
12'-0"35'-4"8'-8"27'-10"
6'-6"21'-4"23'-2"12'-2"
8'-9"7'-1"7'-4"
UP
SINKK N E E S P A C EDWMICROREFR.
KITCHEN
CLG. 94
LIVING
CLG. 94
DINING/PIANO
CLG. 94
BOOTH
CLG. 94
ENTRY
CLG. 94
ELEVATOR
MUD
CLG. 94
PANTRY
CLG. 94
SHELVES
SHELVESSHELVES
COVERED
PATIO
CLG. 94
GARAGE
CLG. 94W/CLAVPOWDER
CLG. 94
FAU FAU
UPEXTERIOR STAIRS TO JADU
TRASH
19'-0" DEEP X 18'-6" WIDE
PARKING AREA
62" F.P.
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
PA2019-085 Attachment No. PC 9 - Project Plans - 365 Via Lido Soud
120
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Date: 1/26/21
Drawn: CSH
3
OF
SHEET
SHEETS15
Job:365 VIA LIDO SOUD CDP SUBMITTAL PACKAGE1/26/21 4:14 PM 365 VIA LIDO SOUD_BETHEL_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV1_COASTAL SUBMITTAL.plnSECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLANW
D
13"78'-10"10'-1"
76'-10"2'-0" 5'-0" 5'-1"
12'-0"7'-10"7'-6"5'-10"2'-10"12'-0"7'-9"5'-4"2'-10"12'-11"3'-1"28'-10"3'-1"3'-6"13'-4"12'-0"12" 2'-1"
13"78'-10"10'-1"
1" 12" 24"60'-6"16'-4" 5'-0" 5'-1"
14'-6"10'-6"4'-10"12'-0"8'-6"7'-8"2'-6"3'-1"28'-10"3'-1"16'-2"12'-8"6'-2"22"5'-4"
11"5'-3"
HALLCLG. 78
LAUNDRY
CLG. 78
UP DN.
VENT
ELEVATOR
SHELF & POLEW/C
SHOWER LAVBATH 3
CLG. 86
TUB
BENCHLAV
LAVVANITYSHOWER
W/C
MASTER
BEDROOM
36" FIREPLACE W/CSHOWER
LAVBATH
CLG. 86W/CSHOWER
LAVBATH 2
CLG. 78 SHELF & POLEOFFICE SHELF & POLEDRESSER
SHELF & POLESHELF & POLEDRESSER
CLOSETCLG. 78 CLOSETCLG. 78
SHELF & POLEHALLCLG. 78
MASTER
BATH
CLG. 78 SHELF & POLEBUILT-IN
LIVING
DN.
JADU (494 SF)
BEDROOM
KITCHENBEDROOM 2
BEDROOM 3
HALLCLG. 78
BUILT-IN
EXTERIOR STAIRS TO JADU3:12 SLOPE3:12 SLOPESLOPED CLG.3:12 SLOPE3:12 SLOPESLOPED CLG.
SLOPED CLG.3:12 SLOPE3:12 SLOPE
SLOPED CLG.5:12 SLOPE5:12 SLOPE5:12 SLOPE5:12 SLOPESLOPED CLG.
SLOPED CLG.
3:12 SLOPE 3:12 SLOPE
CLG. 78
DECK
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
PA2019-085 Attachment No. PC 9 - Project Plans - 365 Via Lido Soud
121
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Date: 1/26/21
Drawn: CSH
4
OF
SHEET
SHEETS15
Job:365 VIA LIDO SOUD CDP SUBMITTAL PACKAGE1/26/21 4:14 PM 365 VIA LIDO SOUD_BETHEL_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV1_COASTAL SUBMITTAL.plnTHIRD FLOOR/ROOF PLANPITCHTO PLATERIDGERIDGE5:125:12RIDGERIDGE3:12 3:12
3:12 3:12
RIDGE
3:123:12RIDGE
V ALLEY
VALLE
Y
V
A
L
L
E
Y
VA
L
LE
Y
VALL
E
Y
V
A
L
L
E
Y
VAL
L
E
Y
VAL LEY
RIDGE
3:123:12
PITCHTO PLATERIDGERIDGEV ALLEY
RIDGE
V
A
L
L
E
Y
T.O.W
T.O.WT.O.WT.O.W
5:12
5:12
3:123'-1"BLDG.4'-0" 8'-6" 3'-10" 8'-6" 4'-0" 3'-1"BLDG.8" 2'-5"ROOF5"ROOF
8" 24"14'-6"19'-6"15'-10"8'-6"16'-6"24"
22"
2'-6"SQ.8"2'-5"ROOF8"3"3"3"2"2"2'-4"8"
8"8"3"
8"8"8"8" 4'-5"ROOF8"DN.
DN.
ROOF DECK
35.7335.46A/CA/C
35.7335.7335.73
35.73
35.73
35.73
35.73
35.7335.73DOWNSPOUT LOCATIONS
TYPICAL. CONNECT TOSTORM DRAIN
DRAIN TO
DECK BELOW
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
ROOF DECK / ROOF PLAN
PA2019-085 Attachment No. PC 9 - Project Plans - 365 Via Lido Soud
122
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Date: 1/26/21
Drawn: CSH
5
OF
SHEET
SHEETS15
Job:365 VIA LIDO SOUD CDP SUBMITTAL PACKAGE1/26/21 4:14 PM 365 VIA LIDO SOUD_BETHEL_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV1_COASTAL SUBMITTAL.plnEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS (FRONT, REAR & RIGHT)24'-0"9'-4"8'-7"12" 24"12" 24"
5 12
RIDGE 35.73
F.F. 12.80
NBZC AVG. GRADE 11.74
LICA AVG. CURB HT. 11.73
T.O.W. 35.73
24'-0"9'-0"GARAGE8'-7"9'-4"7'-9"3'-6"24'-0"12" 24"12" 24"24'-0"9'-4"8'-7"3 12
512
RIDGE 35.73
NBZC AVG. GRADE 11.74
LICA AVG. CURB HT. 11.73
T.O.W. 35.73
F.F. 12.80
T.O.W. 35.73
312
F.F. 12.80
RIDGE 35.73
F.F. 12.80
NBZC AVG. GRADE 11.74
LICA AVG. CURB HT. 11.73
NBZC AVG. GRADE 11.74
LICA AVG. CURB HT. 11.73 24'-0"9'-4"8'-7"12" 24"12" 24"
RIDGE 35.73
F.F. 12.80
NBZC AVG. GRADE 11.74
LICA AVG. CURB HT. 11.73
T.O.W. 35.73
5 12
! "
"
! "
! "
! " ! "
! " !
"
! "
! "
! "
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
REAR EXTERIOR ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
FRONT EXTERIOR ELEVATION
PA2019-085 Attachment No. PC 9 - Project Plans - 365 Via Lido Soud
123
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Date: 1/26/21
Drawn: CSH
6
OF
SHEET
SHEETS15
Job:365 VIA LIDO SOUD CDP SUBMITTAL PACKAGE1/26/21 4:14 PM 365 VIA LIDO SOUD_BETHEL_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV1_COASTAL SUBMITTAL.plnEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS (RIGHT SIDE)24'-0"9'-4"8'-7"3'-6"42" RAILING9'-4"7'-9"3'-6"24'-0"12" 24"12" 24"
3"12
5
12
RIDGE 35.73
F.F. 12.80
NBZC AVG. GRADE 11.74
LICA AVG. CURB HT. 11.73
T.O.W. 35.73
F.F. 12.80
T.O.W. 35.73T.O.W. 35.73
NBZC AVG. GRADE 11.74
LICA AVG. CURB HT. 11.73
! "
"
! "
! "
! " ! "
! " !
"
! "
! "
! "
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION
PA2019-085 Attachment No. PC 9 - Project Plans - 365 Via Lido Soud
124
1/26/21 4:14 PM 365 VIA LIDO SOUD_BETHEL_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV1_COASTAL SUBMITTAL.plnVIA LIDO SOUDCONC. BOARDWALKBEACHKITCHEN
LIVING
DINING
BOOTH
ENTRY
ELEVATOR
MUD
PANTRY
COVEREDPATIO
GARAGE
POWDER VIA LIDO SOUDCONC. BOARDWALKBEACHKITCHEN
LIVING
DINING
BOOTH
ENTRY
ELEVATOR
MUD
PANTRY
COVEREDPATIO
GARAGE
POWDER
LIVING
DINING/PIANO
ENTRY
ELEVATOR
MUD
PANTRY
COVEREDPATIO
GARAGE
POWDER
KITCHEN
NOOK
2
2
6825312
9
41
6
7
4
3
2
2
682512
41
6
7
4
10
11 11 12
11 11
9
10
11 11
11
11 12
11
6
6
13
13
HARDSCAPE KEYNOTES
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
CONSTRUCT CONCRETE PAVING
CONSTRUCT STONE PAVING
CONSTRUCT 12" SQUARE CONCRETE STEPPERS
CONSTRUCT CONCRETE STEPS AND HANDRAIL
1
2
3
4
CONSTRUCT CONCRETE STEPS AND HANDRAIL
CONSTRUCT STONE PAVER STEPS
CONSTRUCT WOOD GATE
CONSTRUCT BBQ COUNTER
CONSTRUCT 6' HT. CMU WALL
4
5
6
7
8
CONSTRUCT DECK DRAIN CONNECT TO STORM DRAIN
INSTALL FLUSH MOUNTED STAINLESS STEEL HOSE BIBBCABINET
CONSTRUCT 8" SQUARE VINE CUT-OUT
INSTALL OUTDOOR SHOWER WITH DRAIN TO SEWER
EXISTING SIDE YARD WALL TO REMAIN
9
10
11
12
13
11/12/2020DATE:REVISIONSXXXXXREMARKSDATEREMARKSDATEJOB NO:
DRAWN BY:RIDGE AND BETHELRESIDENCES361 VIA LIDO SOUDNEWPORT BEACH, CAHARDSCAPEPLANL1.17
OF
SHEET
SHEETS15
PA2019-085 Attachment No. PC 9 - Project Plans - 365 Via Lido Soud
125
1/26/21 4:14 PM 365 VIA LIDO SOUD_BETHEL_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV1_COASTAL SUBMITTAL.plnVIA LIDO SOUDCONC. BOARDWALKBEACHKITCHEN
LIVING
DINING
BOOTH
ENTRY
ELEVATOR
MUD
PANTRY
COVEREDPATIO
GARAGE
POWDER VIA LIDO SOUDCONC. BOARDWALKBEACHKITCHEN
LIVING
DINING
BOOTH
ENTRY
ELEVATOR
MUD
PANTRY
COVEREDPATIO
GARAGE
POWDER
LIVING
DINING/PIANO
ENTRY
ELEVATOR
MUD
PANTRY
COVEREDPATIO
GARAGE
POWDER
KITCHEN
NOOK
PROPOSED PLANT PALETTE
SYMBOL KEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING
WATER
USE DESCRIPTION QTY.
SHRUBS, GRASSES, & GROUNDCOVERS
BUXUS 'GREENBEAUTY'GREEN BEAUTYBOXWOOD 5 GAL. 18" O.C. M
FORMALBORDER 16
DIANELLA 'CASA BLUE' CASA BLUE FLAX LILY 5 GAL. 18" O.C. L PERENNIAL 58
AGAPANTHUSAFRICANUS 'PETERPAN'LILY OF THE NILE 5 GAL. 18" O.C. L PERENNIAL 34
ROSA SPP. 'ICEBERG' ICEBERG ROSE 5 GAL. 30" O.C. M
FLOWERING
ACCENT 3
HARDENBERGIA
VIOLACEA 'HAPPY
WANDERER'
PURPLE LILAC VINE 15
GAL.
PER
PLAN L FLOWERING
VINE 12
KURAPIA KURAPIA SOD -- L
BETWEENSTEPPERS --
WATER USE KEY:VL = VERY LOW WATER USE, L = LOW WATER USE, M = MODERATE WATER USE, H = HIGH WATER USE. WATER USESTATED IS PER 'A GUIDE TO ESTIMATING IRRIGATION WATER NEEDS OF LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS IN CALIFORNIA' (ALSO
REFERRED TO AS WUCOLS) FOR REGION 3.
11/12/2020DATE:REVISIONSXXXXXREMARKSDATEREMARKSDATEJOB NO:
DRAWN BY:RIDGE AND BETHELRESIDENCES361 VIA LIDO SOUDNEWPORT BEACH, CAPLANTINGPLANL2.18
OF
SHEET
SHEETS15
PA2019-085 Attachment No. PC 9 - Project Plans - 365 Via Lido Soud
126
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Date: 1/26/21
Drawn: CSH
9
OF
SHEET
SHEETS15
Job:365 VIA LIDO SOUD CDP SUBMITTAL PACKAGE1/26/21 4:14 PM 365 VIA LIDO SOUD_BETHEL_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV1_COASTAL SUBMITTAL.plnFUTURE COASTAL HAZARDS ADAPTABILITYMEASURESUP
SINKK N E E S P A C EDWMICROREFR.
KITCHEN
CLG. 94
LIVING
CLG. 94
DINING/PIANO
CLG. 94
BOOTH
CLG. 94
ENTRY
CLG. 94
ELEVATOR
MUD
CLG. 94
PANTRY
CLG. 94
SHELVES
SHELVESSHELVES
COVERED
PATIO
CLG. 94
GARAGE
CLG. 94W/CLAVPOWDER
CLG. 94
FAU FAU
UPEXTERIOR STAIRS TO JADU
TYPICAL HOUSE FOUNDATION F.F. 12.80
PROVIDE FUTURE COASTAL HAZARDS
PROTECTION DEVICE MEASURES AS FOLLOWS:
1) PROVIDE FUTURE APPLIED WATERPROOF
MEASURES AT EXTERIOR OF BUILDING TO
AN ELEVATION OF 14.40 PER
2) PROVIDE FUTURE WATER INTRUSION
BARRICADES AT ALL DOOR OPENINGS PER
TRASH
62" F.P.
29
1
9
2
9
1
9
2
9
2
9
2
9
1
9
1
9
1
9
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
COASTAL HAZARDS ADAPTABILITY MEASURES
1 EXTERIOR WALL SECTION 2 EXTERIOR WALL OPENING ELEVATION
STACK SANDBAGS BEYOND
OPENINGS AS SHOWN TO
PROVIDE NECESSARY SUPPORT
PA2019-085 Attachment No. PC 9 - Project Plans - 365 Via Lido Soud
127
1/26/21 4:14 PM 365 VIA LIDO SOUD_BETHEL_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV1_COASTAL SUBMITTAL.plnC1
OF
SHEET
SHEETS15
PA2019-085 Attachment No. PC 9 - Project Plans - 365 Via Lido Soud
128
1/26/21 4:14 PM 365 VIA LIDO SOUD_BETHEL_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV1_COASTAL SUBMITTAL.plnC2
OF
SHEET
SHEETS15
PA2019-085 Attachment No. PC 9 - Project Plans - 365 Via Lido Soud
129
1/26/21 4:14 PM 365 VIA LIDO SOUD_BETHEL_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV1_COASTAL SUBMITTAL.pln12
OF
SHEET
SHEETS15
PA2019-085 Attachment No. PC 9 - Project Plans - 365 Via Lido Soud
130
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Date: 1/26/21
Drawn: CSH
13
OF
SHEET
SHEETS15
Job:365 VIA LIDO SOUD CDP SUBMITTAL PACKAGE1/26/21 4:14 PM 365 VIA LIDO SOUD_BETHEL_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV1_COASTAL SUBMITTAL.plnFIRST LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS13"83'-10"5'-1"
12'-0"60'-8"11'-2"
23'-2"12'-2" 5'-0" 10'-2" 10'-2" 7'-6" 3'-8"3'-1"28'-10"2'-1"12"21"25'-4"21"2'-7"23'-8"2'-7"36"5'-1"23'-4"3'-6"3'-1"3'-1"24"23'-4"24"13"83'-10"5'-1"
12'-0"35'-4"8'-8"27'-10"
6'-6"21'-4"23'-2"12'-2"
8'-9"7'-1"7'-4"
UP
SINKK N E E S P A C EDWMICROREFR.
KITCHEN
CLG. 94
LIVING
CLG. 94
DINING/PIANO
CLG. 94
BOOTH
CLG. 94
ENTRY
CLG. 94
ELEVATOR
MUD
CLG. 94
PANTRY
CLG. 94
SHELVES
SHELVESSHELVES
COVERED
PATIO
CLG. 94
GARAGE
CLG. 94W/CLAVPOWDER
CLG. 94
FAU FAU
UPEXTERIOR STAIRS TO JADU
TRASH
19'-0" DEEP X 18'-6" WIDE
PARKING AREA
62" F.P.
21'-4" x 23'-4"
497.78 SF
10'-2" x 3'-6"
35.58 SF
6'-6" x 26'-10"
174.42 SF
8'-8" x 24'-10"
215.22 SF
19'-6" x 28'-10"
562.25 SF
7'-1" x 29'-10"
211.32 SF
8'-9" x 28'-10"
252.29 SF
13'-1" x 29'-0"
379.42 SF
TOTAL FIRST LEVEL SF
A: 1,416 sq ft
GARAGE SF
A: 533 sq ftNBZC OPEN SPACE
A: 380 sq ft
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
FIRST LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS
PA2019-085 Attachment No. PC 9 - Project Plans - 365 Via Lido Soud
131
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Date: 1/26/21
Drawn: CSH
14
OF
SHEET
SHEETS15
Job:365 VIA LIDO SOUD CDP SUBMITTAL PACKAGE1/26/21 4:14 PM 365 VIA LIDO SOUD_BETHEL_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV1_COASTAL SUBMITTAL.plnSECOND LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONSW
D
13"78'-10"10'-1"
76'-10"2'-0" 5'-0" 5'-1"
12'-0"7'-10"7'-6"5'-10"2'-10"12'-0"7'-9"5'-4"2'-10"12'-11"3'-1"28'-10"3'-1"3'-6"13'-4"12'-0"12" 2'-1"
13"78'-10"10'-1"
1" 12" 24"60'-6"16'-4" 5'-0" 5'-1"
14'-6"10'-6"4'-10"12'-0"8'-6"7'-8"2'-6"3'-1"28'-10"3'-1"16'-2"12'-8"6'-2"22"5'-4"
11"5'-3"
HALLCLG. 78
LAUNDRY
CLG. 78
UP DN.
VENT
ELEVATOR
SHELF & POLEW/C
SHOWER LAVBATH 3
CLG. 86
TUB
BENCHLAV
LAVVANITYSHOWER
W/C
MASTER
BEDROOM
36" FIREPLACE W/CSHOWER
LAVBATH
CLG. 86W/CSHOWER
LAVBATH 2
CLG. 78 SHELF & POLEOFFICE SHELF & POLEDRESSER
SHELF & POLESHELF & POLEDRESSER
CLOSETCLG. 78 CLOSETCLG. 78
SHELF & POLEHALLCLG. 78
MASTER
BATH
CLG. 78 SHELF & POLEBUILT-IN
LIVING
DN.
JADU (494 SF)
BEDROOM
KITCHENBEDROOM 2
BEDROOM 3
HALLCLG. 78
BUILT-IN
EXTERIOR STAIRS TO JADU3:12 SLOPE3:12 SLOPESLOPED CLG.3:12 SLOPE3:12 SLOPESLOPED CLG.
SLOPED CLG.3:12 SLOPE3:12 SLOPE
SLOPED CLG.5:12 SLOPE5:12 SLOPE5:12 SLOPE5:12 SLOPESLOPED CLG.
SLOPED CLG.
3:12 SLOPE 3:12 SLOPE
CLG. 78
DECK
16'-5 1/2" x 25'-4"
416.94 SF
2'-0" x 13'-4"
26.67 SF
2'-2" x 3'-8"
7.58 SF
5'-0" x 18'-7 1/2"
93.12 SF
5'-0" x 10'-2 1/2"
51.04 SF
27'-7" x 28'-10"
795.32 SF
25'-10" x 28'-10"
744.86 SF
2'-0" x 12'-8"
25.43 SF
1'-10" x 1'-0"
1.83 SF
JADU SF
A: 494 sq ft
TOTAL UPPER LEVEL SF
A: 1,667 sq ft
NBZC OPEN SPACE SF
A: 201 sq ft
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
SECOND LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS
PA2019-085 Attachment No. PC 9 - Project Plans - 365 Via Lido Soud
132
CRAIG S. HAMPTON I N C O R P O R A T E D DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979 5500 E. QUARTERSAWN STREET ~ BOISE, IDAHO 83716 (949) 209-8883 craig@craigshampton.com www.craigshampton.com
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Date: 1/26/21
Drawn: CSH
15
OF
SHEET
SHEETS15
Job:365 VIA LIDO SOUD CDP SUBMITTAL PACKAGE1/26/21 4:14 PM 365 VIA LIDO SOUD_BETHEL_DESIGN PACKAGE_REV1_COASTAL SUBMITTAL.plnTHIRD LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONSPITCHTO PLATERIDGERIDGE5:125:12RIDGERIDGE3:12 3:12
3:12 3:12
RIDGE
3:123:12RIDGE
V ALLEY
VALLE
Y
V
A
L
L
E
Y
VA
L
LE
Y
VALL
E
Y
V
A
L
L
E
Y
VAL
L
E
Y
VAL LEY
RIDGE
3:123:12
PITCHTO PLATERIDGERIDGEV ALLEY
RIDGE
V
A
L
L
E
Y
T.O.W
T.O.WT.O.WT.O.W
5:12
5:12
3:123'-1"BLDG.4'-0" 8'-6" 3'-10" 8'-6" 4'-0" 3'-1"BLDG.8" 2'-5"ROOF5"ROOF
8" 24"14'-6"19'-6"15'-10"8'-6"16'-6"24"
22"
2'-6"SQ.8"2'-5"ROOF8"3"3"3"2"2"2'-4"8"
8"8"3"
8"8"8"8" 4'-5"ROOF8"DN.
DN.
ROOF DECK
35.7335.46A/CA/C
35.7335.7335.73
35.73
35.73
35.73
35.73
35.7335.73DOWNSPOUT LOCATIONS
TYPICAL. CONNECT TOSTORM DRAIN
DRAIN TO
DECK BELOW
14'-8" x 20'-2"
295.78 SF
4'-2" x 12'-0"
50.00 SF
15'-11" x 3'-10"
61.01 SF
5'-2" x 14'-7"
75.35 SF
4'-7" x 2'-4"
10.69 SF
3'-3" x 16'-2"
52.54 SF
ROOF DECK SF
A: 545 sq ft
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
THIRD LEVEL AREA CALCULATIONS
PA2019-085 Attachment No. PC 9 - Project Plans - 365 Via Lido Soud
133
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
March 2, 2021
Dear Chair Weigand and Planning Commissioners,
I am writing in reference to Project No. PA2019-085. This project that was approved by the City of
Newport Beach without controversy in 2019. The proposed amendment is consistent with the City’s
Local Coastal Program and the California Coastal Act. I appreciate the hard work of City staff and urge
approval of the CDP amendment.
Sincerely,
James Greene
Lido Isle Resident
235 Via Firenze
Newport Beach, Ca 92663
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021 Item No. 6a Additional Materials Received
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision
and Residence
Appeal Amendment
Tentative Parcel Map and Coastal Development Permit
365 Via Lido Soud Units 1, 2, 3, and 4
Planning
Commission
Public Hearing
March 4, 2021
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Project Site
Community Development Department -Planning Division 2
General Plan / Zoning:
Multiple Residential (RM)
Existing Structure:
4-Unit Residence
Lot area: 6,300 SF
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Project Site
Community Development Department -Planning Division 3
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Background:
Original
Project
Approved by ZA
Sept. 26, 2019
Community Development Department -Planning Division 435’Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Background:
Coastal
Appeal
Oct. 30, 2019
Appealed by Coastal Commission
Potential reduction in density
Coastal Hazards Report methodology
Community Development Department -Planning Division 5
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Amendment
Proposed plans provided for new residences
Each lot includes SFR and JADU
No reduction in density
Updated Coastal Hazards Report
Uses Coastal Commission adopted scenario for SLR
Project is safe from hazards for 75 years
Community Development Department -Planning Division 6
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Residences
Community Development Department -Planning Division 7
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Junior ADU
Community Development Department -Planning Division 8
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 9
361365
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 10
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 11
Standard Requirement 361 Via Lido Soud 365 Via Lido Soud
Floor Area (max.)4,240 sq. ft. 4,062 sq. ft.4,110 sq. ft.
Setbacks (min.)Front: 4 feet 5 feet 5 feet
Sides: 3 feet 3 feet 3 feet
Rear: None None None
Parking (min.)2-car garage
JADU: None
2-car garage 2-car garage
Height 33 feet 24 feet 24 feet
JADU Floor Area (max.)500 sq. ft.479 sq. ft.494 sq. ft.
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Coastal Hazards
Separated by boardwalk and small sandy
beach
Under extreme conditions, future bay water
projected at 14.4 feet NAVD 88
Site is ~11 feet NAVD 88
Finish floor elevation of 12.8 feet NAVD 88
Waterproofing to 14.4 feet NAVD 88
Community Development Department -Planning Division 12
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Findings
Tentative Parcel Map
Regular-shaped lots
Adequate utilities
Coastal Development Permit
Complies with IP
Safe from hazards
No impact to views/access
Title 19 and 21 Deviations
Community Development Department -Planning Division 13
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Recommended
Action
Conduct a public hearing
Exempt from CEQA
Class 1 (Existing Structures)
Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures)
Approve PA2019-085
Coastal Development Permit No. CD2019-024
Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2019-008
County Tentative Parcel Map No. 2019-126
Community Development Department -Planning Division 14
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Next Steps
If final action is taken, City appeal period
expires March 18
Additional Coastal Commission appeal
period (ten business days)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 15
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
For more
information
Contact Questions?
Applicant: Shawna Schaffner, CAA Planning
David S. Lee
949-644-3225
dlee@newportbeachca.gov
www.newportbeachca.gov
Community Development Department -Planning Division 16
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6b Additional Materials Presented at Meeting by Staff
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Planning Commission March 4, 2021
Planning Application PA2019-085
Coastal Development Permit No. CD2019-024
Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2019-008
Bethel-Ridge Subdivision and Residences
361-365 Via Lido Soud
CDP Amendment
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6c Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by the Applicant
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Project Background
•CDP Application for demolition and lot subdivision May 2019
•Zoning Administrator approved CDP September 2019
•Two Coastal Commissioners appealed CDP October 2019
•Spent 2020 working with CCC Staff
•Additional detail related to sea level rise (SLR), SLR adaptability of residential units, density of residential units
•CCC Staff directed CDP Amendment consistent with IP Section 21.64.035 allowing the Planning Commission to consider the amended project
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6c Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by the Applicant
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Project Site
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6c Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by the Applicant
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Existing Development
•Originally subdivided in 1920s
•Lot subsequently expanded to include 10’ of northerly
lot, 20’ of southerly lot
•Fourplex constructed in 1940s, pre-Coastal Act:
-Two larger units: 1,900 SF and 1,550 SF
-Two smaller units: 525 SF and 650 SF
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6c Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by the Applicant
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Proposed Development
•Single lot subdivision
•Relief from IP Standards related to minimum lot size
•Demolition of existing structure
•Construction of 2 Residences, each with JADU (4 total dwelling units)
-361: 3,044 SF + JADU 479 SF
-365: 3,083 SF + JADU 494 SF
-Compliance with all development standards related to building height, area, setbacks, and parking
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6c Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by the Applicant
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Sea Level Rise (SLR)
•Medium-High Risk Aversion, High Emissions Scenario
•7.7 ft Historic Max. Sea Level
•6.7 ft Projected SLR for Year 2100
•7.7 ft + 6.7 ft = 14.4 ft
•Finished Floor 12.8 ft and adaptability measures to 14.4 ft
•Far exceeds City’s adopted SLR scenario standard
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6c Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by the Applicant
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Future SLR Adaptability
•SLR Adaptation Strategies
•Finished Floor 12.8 ft
•Waterproofing Exterior to 14.4 ft
•Sandbags / 15 ml Visqueen plastic at openings
•No Reliance on a Shoreline Protective Device
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6c Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by the Applicant
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
361 Via Lido Soud
Residence 3,044 SF
JADU 479 SF
FF
12.8 ft
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6c Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by the Applicant
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
NBZC AVG. GRADE 11.99
LICA AVG. CURB HT. 11.73 24 ftFF
12.8 ft
365 Via Lido Soud
Residence 3,083 SF
JADU 494 SF
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6c Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by the Applicant
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs)
1 bedroom units with living area, kitchen, bathroom, exterior access
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6c Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by the Applicant
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Conclusion
•Issues raised in Coastal Commission appeal addressed through:
•Updated SLR analysis and adaptability measures
•Preparation of project plans for residential units
•No loss in density
•Process to amend CDP consistent with IP Section 21.64.035 as recommend by Coastal Staff
•Coastal Staff concurrence that Amended CDP application resolves issues raised in appeal
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6c Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by the Applicant
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Requested Action
•Approve Coastal Development Permit Amendment
•Single lot subdivision and lot size deviation
•Demolition of existing structure
•Construction of new residences and JADUs
•Approve Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2019-008
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6c Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by the Applicant
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6c Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by the Applicant
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
361 Via Lido Soud
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6c Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by the Applicant
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
361 Via Lido Soud
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6c Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by the Applicant
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
361 Via Lido Soud
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6c Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by the Applicant
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
361 Via Lido Soud
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6c Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by the Applicant
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
365 Via Lido Soud
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6c Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by the Applicant
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
365 Via Lido Soud
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6c Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by the Applicant
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
365 Via Lido Soud
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6c Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by the Applicant
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
365 Via Lido Soud
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6c Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by the Applicant
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
361 Via Lido Soud Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6c Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by the Applicant
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
365 Via Lido Soud
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6c Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by the Applicant
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6c Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by the Applicant
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6c Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by the Applicant
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6c Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by the Applicant
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Subdivision Code M.C. 19.24.130.A
Modified Standards Per Title 20 Provisions.
Notwithstanding other requirements of this Section, the
tentative map decision making body may approve projects
with different design standards than set forth in this
chapter if it determines that such modified designs are
specifically permitted pursuant to the provisions of the
planned community, planned residential development,
specific plan or other regulations set forth in Title 20
(Planning and Zoning).
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6c Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by the Applicant
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Planning and Zoning Code Section 20.18.030
Table 2-3, Note 2
A parcel may be subdivided to a minimum lot size
not less than the original underlying lots on the
same block face in the same zoning district. The
requested 35-foot lot widths are consistent with the
30-foot to 40-foot lot widths contained on the
original block face and with provision of Chapter
19.24.130.A and consistent with the surrounding
development.
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6c Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by the Applicant
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6c Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by the Applicant
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)
Proposed Residences
City
Requirement 361 Via Lido 365 Via Lido
Side Setback
R/L
3 ft/3 ft 3 ft/3 ft 3 ft/3 ft
Front Setback 4 ft 5 ft 5 ft
Rear Setback 0 ft 0 ft 0 ft
Height 33 ft 24 ft 24 ft
Floor Area 4,240 sf 4,062 sf 4,110 sf
Density Up to 2 DU 2 –Primary
residence + JADU
2 –Primary
residence + JADU
Planning Commission - March 4, 2021
Item No. 6c Additional Materials Presented at the Meeting by the Applicant
Bethel and Ridge Subdivision & Residences Appeal Amendment (PA2019-085)