HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0_Collins Residence Appeal and Amendment_PA2020-215CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
March 18, 2021
Agenda Item No. 2
SUBJECT: Collins Residence Appeal and Amendment (PA2020-215)
Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-130
Zoning Clearance No. ZC2021-009
SITE LOCATION: 413 and 413 ½ Edgewater Place
APPLICANT: William Guidero
OWNER: Russell Fluter
PLANNER: Patrick Achis, Assistant Planner 949-644-3237, pachis@newportbeachca.gov
PROJECT SUMMARY
The applicant requests an amendment to a coastal development permit previously
approved by the Zoning Administrator on October 15, 2020, allowing the demolition of a
duplex and the construction of a new single-family residence. The project was appealed
by two California Coastal Commissioners on November 21, 2020, due to density concerns from the loss of one unit. The applicant requests to amend the project and now proposes
a three-story, 29-foot-tall, 2,234-square-foot, single-family residence with a 421-square-
foot junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) located above the attached 424-square-foot,
two-car garage. The revised project would no longer result in a loss of density.
RECOMMENDATION
1)Conduct a public hearing;
2)Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)pursuant to 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. PC2021-008 approving Coastal Development Permit No.CD2020-130 and Zoning Clearance No. ZC2021-009 (Attachment No. PC 1).
1
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE2
Collins Residence Appeal and Amendment (PA2020-215)
Planning Commission, March 18, 2021
Page 2
VICINITY MAP
GENERAL PLAN ZONING
LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE
ON-SITE RT (Two-Unit Residential) R-2 (Two UnitResidential)Duplex
NORTH N/A N/A Newport Bay
SOUTH RT / Multiple Unit
Residential (RM)
R-2 / Multiple Unit
Residential (RM)Residential
EAST RT R-2 Residential WEST RT R-2 Residential
3
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE4
Collins Residence Appeal and Amendment (PA2020-215)
Planning Commission, March 18, 2021
Page 3
INTRODUCTION
Project Setting
The subject property is 3,205 square feet in area, rectangular, topographically flat, and
located on the bayfront between Cypress and Adams Street on the north side of Balboa
Peninsula. The property is separated from the Newport Bay by an approximately 10-foot-
wide public boardwalk and small intertidal beach. The property is protected by a City-
owned bulkhead system that protects this section of the Balboa Peninsula. Figure 1 depicts the property and adjoining properties, as seen from a “birds-eye-view” facing
south.
Figure 1, A bird’s-eye-view aerial photograph showing the project’s setting.
Background
Zoning Administrator Approval
On October 15, 2020, the City’s Zoning Administrator approved Coastal Development
Permit No. CD2020-130, finding the demolition of the existing duplex and the construction
of a new single-family residence and attached two-car garage compliant with Title 20
City-owned Bulkhead
Public Boardwalk
Subject Property
5
Collins Residence Appeal and Amendment (PA2020-215)
Planning Commission, March 18, 2021
Page 4
(Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) and Title 21 (Local
Coastal Program Implementation Plan). See Attachment Nos. PC 2 and PC 3 for the
approved resolution and meeting minutes.
Coastal Commission Appeal
On November 21, 2020, an appeal (A-5-NPB-20-0068) of the original project was filed by
two California Coastal Commissioners. During the first steps of the appeal review, the
California Coastal Commission (CCC) found substantial issue with the original project, citing that “the proposal to demolish two housing units to construct one housing unit is inconsistent
with the certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) for Newport Beach, which designates the
site for two-unit residential development.”0F1 CCC also had concerns that the City’s approval
would “set a negative precedent for future interpretation of the LCP, which would result in a
cumulative reduction in housing density in areas that have been planned to more support housing pursuant to the LCP.”1 The appeal was to be heard at the January 13, 2021, Coastal
Commission meeting, but the Applicant decided to redesign the original project prior to this
hearing. The Coastal Commission’s appeal letter is provided as Attachment No. PC 4. The
CCC took this action with full knowledge and understanding that the City’s certified Local
Coastal Program (LCP) allows for single-family and duplex development on lots designated for two-family or R-2 development.
In response, the applicant has worked closely with CCC staff and provided plans to
include a junior accessory dwelling unit. CCC staff directed the applicant to apply for a
CDP amendment with the City to incorporate the changes.
According to 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. This action has the effect of suspending the appeal filed by two Coastal
Commissioners. The Planning Commission's modification or reversal of the Zoning Administrator's decision would effectively render the appeal moot because NBMC Section
21.64.035 requires a new appeal to be filed if such action on the Planning Commission’s
decision is warranted.
City’s Response to Coastal Commission Appeal
Like most jurisdictions throughout the State, the City of Newport Beach is concerned and
grappling with the State’s housing crisis and applauds the CCC’s interest in residential
density loss. However, the City believes the original project is consistent with the City’s
certified LCP. See Attachment No. PC 5 for City staff’s response to the appeal and justification of the project’s original approval.
1 California Coastal Commission Staff Report for Appeal No. A-5-NPB-20-0068, p. 2. Note the item was never heard by the Coastal Commission at the January 13, 2021 meeting, as the Applicant opted to redesign the project.
6
Collins Residence Appeal and Amendment (PA2020-215)
Planning Commission, March 18, 2021
Page 5
Project Description
Revised Project
The revised project proposes to demolish the existing duplex on-site to construct a single-
family residence and attached JADU. All applicable residential development standards,
including, but not limited to, floor area limitation, setbacks, height, parking, and density
would be respected by the project. For specific development information, see project
plans as Attachment No. 6; a summary is provided in Table 1 below. The attached 421-square-foot JADU is located on the second floor and contains a bedroom/living area,
bathroom, and kitchen. An independent entrance for the JADU is provided through a side
yard. The second floor has an internal connection with the principal residence. Per
Subsection 20.48.200.E.8.d.i (Parking) of the NBMC, no additional parking is required for
a JADU. The inclusion of the JADU requires only a ministerial permit under State law; it would not otherwise require discretionary approval separate from this application.
Table 1 – Development Standards
Development Standard Standard Proposed Density (max.) 2 units 2 units Setbacks (min.)
Front (Edgewater Place) 4’ 7’
Left Side 3’ 3’
Right Side 3’ 3’
Rear 0’ 5’ Parking (min.) 2-car garage 2-car garageHeight (max.) 24’/29’ 24’/29’ Floor Area (max.) 3,154 sq. ft. 3,081 sq. ft. Floor Area JADU (max.) 500 sq. ft. 421 sq. ft.
DISCUSSION
Analysis
General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Zoning
The property is designated RT (Two Unit Residential) by the General Plan Land Use
Element and is located within the R-2 (Two-Unit Residential) Zoning District. The Property
is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is RT-E (Two Unit Residential – 30.0 – 39.9 DU/AC) and it is located within the R-2 (Two-Unit Residential) Coastal Zoning District. These classifications intend to provide for areas appropriate a
maximum of two residential dwelling units (i.e., duplexes) located on a single legal lot.
The proposed project would demolish the existing duplex on-site to construct a single-family residence and attached JADU, consistent with the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Zoning designations.
7
Collins Residence Appeal and Amendment (PA2020-215)
Planning Commission, March 18, 2021
Page 6
Coastal Development Permit Findings
The subject property is located between the first public road and the sea in the Coastal
Zone, so the proposed demolition of the existing duplex and construction of the new residence and JADU 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.The project conforms to all applicable sections of the certified Local CoastalProgram;
2.The project 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 Coastal Land Use (CLUP) Policy 2.2.1 (Location of New Development) directs “to
allow redevelopment and infill development within and adjacent to the existing developed
areas in the coastal zone subject to the density and intensity limits and resource
protection policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan.” In compliance with this Policy, the revised project will replace an existing duplex in a residential neighborhood with a new
single-family residence and JADU. The residential character of the neighborhood would
be maintained by the revised project and density would not exceed the allowed maximum
of two units.
CLUP 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.” The project does
not require any new shoreline protective devices to protect future development on the
property, as discussed in the Coastal Hazards Report and Sea Level Rise Analysis
prepared by Geosoils, Inc. The report was prepared on January 27, 2021 for the revised project. It details that the property is protected from the bay by a City-owned bulkhead,
which reaches a height of approximately 8.6 feet based on the North American Vertical
Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). The bulkhead that protects the property is part of a larger
bulkhead system, which surrounds sections of the Peninsula. No changes to the bulkhead
are proposed. The current maximum bay water elevation is 7.7 feet NAVD88. The report analyzes future sea level rise scenarios assuming a 2.9-foot increase in the maximum
water level over the next 75 years (i.e., the life of the structure). Therefore, the sea level
is estimated to reach approximately 10.65 feet NAVD88 - (the likely range for sea level
rise over 75-year design life of the structure based on low risk aversion estimates for sea
level rise provided by the State of California, Sea Level Rise Guidance: 2018 Update).
However, the bulkhead is not privately owned, and the property owner does not have the
ability to raise the City-owned bulkhead. Therefore, a waterproofing curb is proposed to
be constructed around the perimeter of the building that would protect against flooding up
to an elevation of 10.65 feet NAVD88. Flood shields (sandbags and other barriers) can be deployed across the openings to protect and prevent flooding to the structure. The
8
Collins Residence Appeal and Amendment (PA2020-215)
Planning Commission, March 18, 2021
Page 7
report concludes that the revised project will be safe from flooding hazards for the next
75 years with the flood protection curb as conditioned. The finish floor elevation of the
revised project is 9.25 feet NAVD88, which complies with the minimum 9-foot NAVD88
elevation standard.
The project site is located between the nearest public road and the sea or shoreline.
Implementation Plan 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 replaces an existing duplex located on a standard R-2 lot with a new single-family residence and junior accessory dwelling unit.
Therefore, the project does not involve a change in land use, density or intensity that will
result in increased demand on public access and recreation opportunities. Furthermore, the
project is designed and sited (appropriate height, setbacks, etc.) so as not to block or impede
existing public access opportunities.
Vertical access to the bay is available at the ends of the block, along Cypress Street and
Adams Street. Lateral access is available adjacent to the subject property, along the existing
public boardwalk. There is a pedestrian walkway easement along the boardwalk to ensure
public access, as decided by California Superior Court Case 169606. The project does not include any features that would obstruct access along these routes and no construction is
proposed bayward of the subject property. Condition of Approval No. 6 prohibits storage of
demolition or construction materials on public property.
The property is not located adjacent to a coastal view road or Coastal Viewpoint as identified in the Coastal Land Use Plan. The nearest coastal viewpoint is in Peninsula Park and is not
visible from the site. Implementation Plan 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. The site is located inland and adjacent to the
public access way of Edgewater Place (public boardwalk), which provides opportunities to view the harbor. The development is landward of Edgewater Place and will not impact views
from Edgewater Place. As currently developed, the existing property and other residences
along Edgewater Place are located within the bay's viewshed but the revised project
complies with all applicable Local Coastal Program development standards. The proposed
project maintains a building envelope consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern of development and the LCP. Additionally, the revised project does not contain any unique
features that could degrade the coastal zone's visual quality. The front of the proposed
project, which is visible from Edgewater Place, contains architectural treatments and
visual interest in keeping with the design guidelines of the Zoning Code. Fronting the bay,
the project’s covered decks on the first and second levels separate the project from the setback approximately 5 feet, helping to relieve massing from the boardwalk. Stone
veneer, stainless steel, and cedar features accent large floor-to-ceiling glass door
systems to form an integrated design consistent with the surrounding development.
As currently developed, the existing property and other residences along Edgewater Place are located within the viewshed of the bay. However, the proposed single-family residence
9
Collins Residence Appeal and Amendment (PA2020-215)
Planning Commission, March 18, 2021
Page 8
complies with all applicable Local Coastal Program (LCP) development standards and
maintains a building envelope consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern of
development.
Considering the above, the project does not have the potential to degrade the visual quality
of the Coastal Zone or result in significant adverse impacts to existing public views or
access. Staff believes the revised project is in full conformance with applicable LCP
requirements and public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal
Act.
Summary
As described above and detailed in the attached resolution for approval, staff believes
there are facts supporting the required findings. The applicant’s revised project addresses the CCC’s concern regarding a loss in density. Staff recommends approval of the project,
as revised.
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
The revised project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the State
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines under Section 15303 - Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Class 3 exempts the construction
of limited numbers of new, small structures, including the new single-family residence and
junior accessory dwelling unit proposed by the project. The exceptions to these
categorical exemptions under Section 15300.2 are not applicable. The revised project
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
10
Collins Residence Appeal and Amendment (PA2020-215)
Planning Commission, March 18, 2021
Page 9
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.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
ATTACHMENTS
PC 1 Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions
PC 2 Adopted Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2020-068 PC 3 Minutes of October 29, 2020, Zoning Administrator Meeting
PC 4 Coastal Commission Appeal Letter
PC 5 City Staff’s Response to Coastal Commission Appeal
PC 6 Project Plans
11
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE12
Attachment No. PC 1
Draft Resolution with Findings and
Conditions
13
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE14
05-14-19
RESOLUTION NO. PC2021-008
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONING CLEARANCE NO. ZC2021-009 AND AN AMENDMENT TO
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. CD2020-130 FOR THE
DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING DUPLEX AND THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ONE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 413 AND 413 ½ EDGEWATER PLACE (PA2020-
215)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1.An application was filed on July 31, 2020, by William Guidero (“Applicant”), on behalf of
Russell Fluter (“Owner”) with respect to property located at 413 and 413 ½ EdgewaterPlace, and legally described as Lot 8 of Block 2 in the Balboa Bayside Tract as more
specifically described on Exhibit “A,” attached (“Property”), requesting approval of a
coastal development permit (“CDP”) to allow for the demolition of the existing duplex and
the construction of a new single-family residence and attached two-car garage (“original
Project”).
2.A telephonic public hearing was held via Zoom on October 15, 2020, 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 California Government Code Section 54950 et seq. (“Ralph M. Brown Act”) andChapters 20.62 and 21.62 (Public Hearings) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code
(“NBMC”). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the
Zoning Administrator at this hearing.
3.At the conclusion of the hearing, the City of Newport Beach’s (“City”) ZoningAdministrator approved CDP No. CD2020-130 finding the original Project compliant with
Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the NBMC and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program
Implementation Plan) subject to City and California Coastal Commission (“CCC”) appeal
periods.
4.Subsequent to final approval, the original Project entered a required 14-calendar day City
appeal period that concluded on October 29, 2020, without any appeal filed. Thereafter,
the original Project entered a 10-business-day CCC appeal period. On November 21,
2020, an appeal (A-5-NPB-20-0068 (Collins)) was filed by the CCC. CCC found substantial
issue(s) during the first step of the appeal review of the original Project, citing that “theproposal to demolish two housing units to construct one housing unit is inconsistent with
the certified Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) for Newport Beach, which designates the site
for two-unit residential development.” CCC also had concerns that the City’s approval
would “set a negative precedent for future interpretation of the LCP, which would result in
a cumulative reduction in housing density in areas that have been planned to more support
15
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-008
Page 2 of 14
housing pursuant to the LCP.” The appeal was to be heard at the January 13, 2021,
Coastal Commission meeting, but the Applicant decided to redesign the original Project
prior to this meeting.
5. As a result of the original Project appeal, the Applicant worked with CCC staff to include a
second unit with the proposed single-family residence in the form of a junior accessory
dwelling unit (“JADU”). On January 11, 2021, the Applicant submitted to the City of Newport
Beach (“City”) an amendment to the original Project application. The revised project proposes a three-story, 29’ tall, 2,234 square-foot single-family residence with a 421
square-foot JADU located above the attached 424 square-foot, 2-car garage (“revised
Project”). If the revised Project is approved by the Planning Commission, CCC will have
the ability to withdraw its appeal, consistent with Section 21.64.035 (Appeal to the Coastal
Commission) of the NBMC.
6. The Property is designated RT (Two Unit Residential) by the City of Newport Beach
General Plan Land Use Element and is located within the R-2 (Two-Unit Residential)
Zoning District. The RT (Two Unit Residential) designation applies to a range of two-family
residential dwelling units such as duplexes and townhomes. The R-2 (Two-Unit Residential) Zoning District is intended to provide for areas appropriate for a maximum of
two residential dwelling units (i.e., duplexes) located on a single legal lot.
7. The Property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is
RT-E (Two Unit Residential – 30.0 – 39.9 DU/AC) and it is located within the R-2 (Two-Unit Residential) Coastal Zoning District. The RT-E (Two Unit Residential – 30.0 – 39.9
DU/AC) designation applies to a range of two-family residential dwelling units such as
duplexes and townhomes. The R-2 (Two-Unit Residential) Coastal Zoning District is
intended to provide for areas appropriate for a maximum of two residential dwelling units
(i.e., duplexes) located on a single legal lot.
8. A telephonic public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 18, 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. The revised Project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3,
because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment.
2. Class 3 exempts the demolition of up to three single-family residences and additions of
up to 10,000 square feet to existing structures. The revised Project consists of the
demolition of a duplex and the construction of a three-story, 29’ tall, 2,234 square-foot
16
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-008
Page 3 of 14
single-family residence with a 421 square-foot JADU located above the attached 424
square-foot, 2-car garage.
3.The exceptions to this categorical exemption under Section 15300.2 are not applicable.The location of the revised Project 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. REQUIRED FINDINGS.
In accordance with Section 21.52.015(F) (Coastal Development Permits, Findings and
Decision) of the NBMC, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth:
Finding:
A.Conforms to all applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal Program.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1.Coastal Land Use (CLUP) Policy 2.2.1 (Location of New Development) directs “to allow
redevelopment and infill development within and adjacent to the existing developed
areas in the coastal zone subject to the density and intensity limits and resourceprotection policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan.” In keeping with this Policy, the revised
Project will replace an existing duplex in a residential neighborhood with a new single-
family residence and JADU (i.e., two units). The residential character of the
neighborhood would be maintained by the revised Project and density would not exceed
the allowed maximum of two units. The Property’s RT-E designation applies to a rangeof two-family residential dwelling units such as duplexes and includes single-family
development as named in Table 21.18-1 of the Implementation Plan (Allowed Uses) for
the R-2 Coastal Zoning District.
2.CLUP Policy 2.8.1-2 holds, “Design and site new development to avoid hazardous areas
and minimize risks to life and property from coastal and other hazards.” The project doesnot require any new shoreline protective devices to protect future development on the
property, as discussed in the Coastal Hazards Report and Sea Level Rise Analysis
prepared by Geosoils, Inc. The report concludes that the revised project will be safe
from flooding hazards for the next 75 years with the flood protection curb as conditioned.
The finish floor elevation of the revised project is 9.25 feet NAVD88, which complieswith the minimum 9-foot NAVD88 elevation standard.
3. The revised Project is a three-story, single-family residence with a JADU that is
consistent with the design, bulk, and scale of the existing neighborhood pattern of
development. The Property is zoned R-2 and currently developed with a residential
duplex. The R-2 designation is intended to provide for a maximum of two residentialdwelling units located on a single legal lot. Existing uses in the neighborhood are both
single-family and duplexes wherein structures range from two to three stories tall. Along
the 400 block of Edgewater Place that contains the Property and the 400 block of East
17
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-008
Page 4 of 14
Bay Avenue, single-family development is the majority use with just 6 of the 20 R-2 sites
as duplexes.
4. The revised Project proposes to demolish the existing duplex on-site to construct a
single-family residence and attached JADU that adheres to all applicable residentialdevelopment standards including, but not limited to, floor area limitation, setbacks,
height, parking, and density.
a.Table 21.18-1 of the Implementation Plan (Allowed Uses) identifies that a R-2
property may be developed with a single-unit dwelling and associated accessorydwelling unit.
b.The maximum floor area limitation is 3,154 square feet, where the proposed gross
floor area is 3,081 square feet (accounting for the attached garage and JADU).
c.The revised Project provides the minimum required setbacks, which are 7 feet
along the front property line abutting Edgewater Place, 3 feet along each side
property line and five feet along the rear property line abutting the alley.
d. The revised Project will maintain the minimum open volume required on the lot of237 square feet.
e.The highest guardrail is less than 24 feet from established grade (9.25 foot North
American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) and the highest ridge is no more than
29 feet from established grade, which are compliant with the maximum heightrequirements.
f.The revised Project includes garage parking for a total of two vehicles, complying
with the minimum two-car garage parking requirement for single-family residences
with less than 4,000 square feet of habitable floor area. Pursuant to Subsection20.48.200.8.d.i (Accessory Dwelling Units, Parking) of the NBMC, no additional
parking shall be required for JADUs.
5.Since the revised Project involves the demolition of two dwellings in one structure, the
Mello Act, NBMC Section 21.34 (Conversion or Demolition of Affordable Housing), andCoastal Land Use Policy 2.7-2 do not apply.
6.An LCP amendment has been prepared by staff and submitted for review to the California
Coastal Commission (City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Plan Amendment 1-20, LCPA-
5-NPB-20-0025-1) that seeks to update NBMC Section 21.48.200 (Accessory DwellingUnits) consistent with recent changes in State laws. The revised Project, as designed,
would comply with current State law and conform to the proposed LCP amendment. The
revised Project includes an attached JADU to the single-family residence and possesses
the following characteristics:
a. Measures 421 square feet in area and located on the second floor;
b.Features an independent entrance from the principal residence through a side
yard and an internal connection with the principal residence on the second
floor;
18
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-008
Page 5 of 14
c.Contains a bedroom/living area, bathroom, and kitchen; and
d.Matches the principal dwelling with respect to architectural style, roof pitch,
color, and materials.
7.Per NBMC Subsection 20.48.200(H) (Accessory Dwelling Units, Deed Restriction and
Recordation Required) and Implementation Plan Subsection 21.48.200(E) (Accessory
Dwelling Units, Development Standards), the revised Project is conditioned to require the
recordation of a deed restriction that will prohibit the use of the JADU for short-term rentals
(i.e., less than 30 days), prevent sale of the ADU separate from the principal dwelling, andrequire owner-occupancy in either the principal dwelling unit or the junior accessory
dwelling unit as the owner’s legal domicile and permanent residence.
8.A Coastal Hazards Report and Sea Level Rise Analysis was prepared by GeoSoils, Inc.
dated January 27, 2021, for the revised Project. The Property is protected from the bayby a City-owned bulkhead, which reaches a height of approximately 8.6 feet (NAVD88).
The bulkhead that protects the Property is part of a larger bulkhead system, which
surrounds sections of the peninsula. No changes to the bulkhead are proposed. The
current maximum bay water elevation is 7.7 feet (NAVD88). The report analyzes future
sea level rise scenarios assuming a 2.9’ increase in the maximum water level over thenext 75 years (i.e., the life of the structure). Therefore, the sea level is estimated to reach
approximately 10.65 feet (NAVD88) - (the likely range for sea level rise over 75-year
design life of the structure based on low risk aversion estimates for sea level rise provided
by the State of California, Sea Level Rise Guidance: 2018 Update). However, the
bulkhead is not privately owned and the Owner does not have the ability to raise the City-owned bulkhead. Therefore, a waterproofing curb is proposed to be constructed around
the perimeter of the building that would protect against flooding up to an elevation of 10.65
feet (NAVD88). Flood shields (sandbags and other barriers) can be deployed across the
openings to protect and prevent flooding to the structure. The report concludes that the
revised Project will be safe from flooding hazards for the next 75 years with the floodprotection curb. The revised Project has been conditioned to require the proposed
waterproofing curb. The finish floor elevation of the revised Project is 9.25 feet (NAVD88),
which complies with the minimum 9-foot (NAVD88) elevation standard.
9.Pursuant to NBMC Section 21.30.030(C)(3)(i)(iv) (Natural Landform and ShorelineProtection, Development Standards, Protective Structures), the Owner will be required to
enter into an agreement with the City waiving any potential right to protection to address
situations in the future in which the development is threatened with damage or destruction
by coastal hazards (e.g., waves, erosion, and sea level rise). The Owner will also be required
to acknowledge any hazards present at the site and unconditionally waive any claim todamage or liability against the decision authority, consistent with NBMC Section
21.30.015(D)(3)(c) (General Site Planning and Development Standards, Water Front
Development, Development Standards). Both requirements are included as conditions of
approval that will need to be satisfied prior to final building inspection, and prior to the
issuance of building permits, respectively.
10. 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 (CBC) and Building
Division standards and policies. Geotechnical investigations specifically addressing
19
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-008
Page 6 of 14
liquefaction are required to be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of building
permits. Permit issuance is also contingent on the inclusion of design mitigation identified in
the investigations. Construction plans are reviewed for compliance with approved
investigations and CBC prior to building permit issuance.
11. The revised Project is adjacent to coastal waters. A Construction Erosion Control Plan was
provided to implement temporary Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction
to minimize erosion and sedimentation and to minimize pollution of runoff and coastal waters
derived by construction chemicals and materials. The revised Project design also addresseswater quality through the inclusion of a post construction drainage system that includes
drainage and percolation features designed to retain dry weather and minor rain event runoff
onsite. Any water not retained onsite is directed to the City’s storm drain system.
12. Pursuant to NBMC Section 21.35.050 (Water Quality and Hydrology Plan) of the NBMC,due to the proximity of the development to the shoreline and the development containing
more than 75 percent of impervious surface area, a Water Quality and Hydrology Plan
(WQHP) is required. A preliminary WQHP was prepared for the original Project by Thomas
M. Ruiz, Civil Engineer, on July 29, 2020. The WQHP includes a polluted runoff and
hydrologic site characterization, a sizing standard for BMPs, use of a LID approach to retainthe design storm runoff volume on site, and documentation of the expected effectiveness of
the proposed BMPs. A final WQHP will be prepared and reviewed as part of the building
permit plan check process.
13. Proposed landscaping will comply with Section 21.30.075 (Landscaping) of the NBMC.Condition of Approval No. 22 is included that requires drought-tolerant species. Prior to
issuance of building permits, the final landscape plans will be reviewed to verify invasive
species are not planted.
14. The Property is not located adjacent to a coastal view road or Coastal Viewpoint as identifiedin the Coastal Land Use Plan. The nearest coastal viewpoint is in Peninsula Park and is not
visible from the Property. The Property is located adjacent to a public access way of
Edgewater Place (boardwalk), which is accessible to the public and provides some
opportunities to view the bay. As currently developed, the existing property and other
residences along Edgewater Place are located within the view shed of the bay. However,the revised Project complies with all applicable Local Coastal Program (LCP) development
standards and maintains a building envelope consistent with the existing neighborhood
pattern of development. Additionally, the revised Project does not contain any unique
features that could degrade the visual quality of the coastal zone.
15. The revised Project does not have the potential to degrade the visual quality of the Coastal
Zone or result in significant adverse impacts to existing public views. The front of the revised
Project, which is visible from Edgewater Place, contains architectural treatments and
visual interest in keeping with the design guidelines of the Title 20 (Planning and Zoning)
of the NBMC. Fronting the bay, the development’s covered decks on the first and secondlevels separate the proposed dwelling from the setback approximately five feet, helping
to relieve massing from the boardwalk. Stone veneer, stainless steel, and cedar features
accent large floor-to-ceiling glass door systems to form an integrated design consistent
with the surrounding development.
20
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-008
Page 7 of 14
Finding:
B.Conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of theCoastal 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.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1.The Property is located between the nearest public road and the sea or shoreline.
Section 21.30A.040 (Determination of Public Access/Recreation Impacts) of the
NBMC 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 replaces an existing duplex located onstandard R-2 lot with a new single-family residence and JADU. Therefore, the
project does not involve a change in land use, density or intensity that will result in
increased demand on public access and recreation opportunities. Furthermore, the
revised Project is designed and sited (appropriate height, setbacks, etc.) so as not
to block or impede existing public access opportunities.
2.Vertical access to the bay is available at the ends of the block, along Cypress Street
and Adams Street. Lateral access is available adjacent to the Property, along the
existing public boardwalk. There is a pedestrian walkway easement along the
boardwalk to ensure public access, as decided by Orange County Superior CourtCase No. 169606 (P. A. Cassel vs. City of Newport Beach, et al). The revised
Project does not include any features that would obstruct access along these routes
and no construction is proposed bayward of the Property.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1.The revised Project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to the State
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines under Section 15303 - Class 3(New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). 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 scenichighway, is not a hazardous waste site, and is not identified as a historical resource.
2.The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves the amendment
to Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-130 and Zoning Clearance No. ZC2021-009,
subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “B,” which is attached hereto and incorporatedby reference.
3.This action shall become final and effective fourteen (14) days following the date this
Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal or call for review is filed with
21
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-008
Page 8 of 14
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
appealed to the Coastal Commission in compliance with Section 21.64.035 (Appeal to the
Coastal Commission) of the NBMC and Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Sections 13111 through 13120, and Section 30603 of the Coastal Act.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2021.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
BY:_________________________ Erik Weigand, Chairman
BY:_________________________
Lauren Kleiman, Secretary
22
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-008
Page 9 of 14
EXHIBIT “A”
Legal Description
23
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-008
Page 10 of 14
EXHIBIT “B”
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Project-Specific Conditions are Italicized
Planning Division
1. The revised Project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor
plans and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval (except as modified by applicable conditions of approval).
2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the revised Project plans must be updated to reflect
that a waterproofing curb will be constructed around the proposed residence as an
adaptive flood protection device up to 10.65 feet (NAVD88). Flood shields (sandbags and other barriers) can be deployed across the openings to protect prevent flooding to
the structure.
3. Prior to final building permit inspection, an agreement in a form approved by the City
Attorney between the Owner and the City shall be executed and recorded waiving rights to the construction of future shoreline protection devices including the repair and
maintenance, enhancement, reinforcement, or any other activity affecting the bulkhead,
that results in any encroachment seaward of the authorized footprint of the bulkhead or
other shoreline protective device. The agreement shall be binding against the Owners
and successors and assigns.
4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Owner shall submit a notarized and 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 the issuance of a building permit, the Owner shall record a deed restriction with
the County Recorder’s Office, the form and content of which is satisfactory to the City
Attorney. The deed restriction document shall notify future owners of the owner occupancy requirements, prohibition on the separate conveyance, the approved size
and attributes of the unit, and restrictions on short-term rentals. This deed restriction
shall remain in effect so long as the junior accessory dwelling unit exists on the lot.
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. No demolition or construction materials shall be stored on
public property.
24
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-008
Page 11 of 14
7. This CDP for the revised Project does not authorize any development seaward of the
Property.
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
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 Construction Erosion Control 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 sites, 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. Revisions to the approved plans may require an amendment to this Coastal Development Permit or the processing of a new coastal development permit.
14. The Project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless
specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
25
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-008
Page 12 of 14
15.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.
16.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 maintainedso as to constitute a public nuisance.
17.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.
18.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.
19.Prior to issuance of a building permit, a copy of the Resolution, including conditions of
approval Exhibit “B” shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of
plans.
20.Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Divisionan additional copy of the approved architectural plans for inclusion in the Coastal
Development file. The plans shall be identical to those approved by all City departments
for building permit issuance. The approved copy shall include architectural sheets only
and shall be reduced in size to 11 inches by 17 inches. The plans shall accurately depict
the elements approved by this Coastal Development Permit.
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
approved CPPP and 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 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.
23.All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained in accordance with
the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and
growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming.
24.Prior to the issuance of building permit, the Applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative
costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Division.
26
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-008
Page 13 of 14
25.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
Owner or agent.
26.This revised Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-130 shall expire unless exercised
within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 21.54.060 (Time Limits
and Extensions) of the NBMC, unless an extension is otherwise granted.
27.To the fullest extent permitted by law, Applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmlessCity, 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’sapproval of Collins Residence Appeal Amendment including, but not limited to, Coastal
Development Permit No. CD2020-130 and Zoning Clearance No. ZC2021-009 (PA2020-
215). 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 Division
28.Comply with California Building Code requirements related to kitchen and living area of
the junior accessory dwelling unit.
29.Construction between main dwelling and junior accessory dwelling unit must meet
sound and fire rated construction requirements of a residential duplex.
Public Works
30.All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works
Department.
31.Each unit shall be served by its individual water meter and sewer lateral and cleanout.Each water meter and sewer cleanout shall be installed with a traffic-grade box and
cover.
32.An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right-of-way.
33.The existing public walkway along Edgewater Place shall be maintained.
27
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2021-008
Page 14 of 14
34.All improvements shall comply with the City’s sight distance requirement. See City
Standard 110-L.
35.In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site bythe private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right-of-way could be
required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector.
36.This approval does not authorize any new or existing improvements (including
landscaping) on State tidelands, public beaches, or the public right-of-way.
28
Attachment No. PC 2
Adopted Zoning Administrator Resolution
No. ZA2020-068
29
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE30
05-14-19
RESOLUTION NO. ZA2020-068
A RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. CD2020-130 TO DEMOLISH AN
EXISTING DUPLEX AND CONSTRUCT A NEW THREE-STORY
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH ATTACHED 2-CAR
GARAGE LOCATED AT 413 AND 413 ½ EDGEWATER PLACE (PA2020-215)
THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An application was filed by William Guidero (Applicant), with respect to property located
at 413 and 413 ½ Edgewater Place, requesting approval of a coastal development permit.
2. The lot at 413 and 413 ½ Edgewater Place is legally described as Lot 8 of Block 2 of the Balboa Bayside Tract.
3. The Applicant requests a coastal development permit to allow the demolition of an
existing duplex and the construction of a new three-story, 2,591-square-foot single-
family residence with an attached 475-square-foot two-car garage. No work is proposed to the adjacent public boardwalk or City-owned bulkhead. The project design complies
with all development standards and includes hardscape, patios, site walls, drainage
devices, and landscaping.
4. The subject property is designated RT (Two Unit Residential) by the General Plan Land Use Element and is located within the R-2 (Two-Unit Residential) Zoning District.
5. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan
category is RT-E (Two Unit Residential – 30.0 – 39.9 DU/AC) and it is located within the
R-2 (Two-Unit Residential) Coastal Zoning District.
6. A public hearing was held online on October 15, 2020, observing restrictions 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 the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Zoning Administrator at this hearing.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. This project is categorically exempt pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Section 15303, Article 19 of Chapter 3, Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 3 (New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures), because it has no potential to have a significant effect
on the environment.
31
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2020-068
Page 2 of 10
07-02-19
2. Class 3 exempts the demolition of up to three single-family residences and additions of
up to 10,000 square feet to existing structures. The proposed project consists of the
demolition of a duplex and the construction of a new 2,591-square-foot single-family
residence and attached 475-square-foot two-car garage.
3. The exceptions to this categorical exemption 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.
SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS.
In accordance with Section 21.52.015 (Coastal Development Permits, Findings and Decision)
of the NBMC, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth:
Finding:
A. Conforms to all applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal Program.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The proposed development complies with applicable residential development standards including, but not limited to, floor area limitation, setbacks, height, and parking.
a. The maximum floor area limitation is 3,154 square feet and the proposed floor area
is 3,066 square feet.
b. The proposed development provides the minimum required setbacks, which are 7
feet along the front property line abutting Edgewater Place, 3feet along each side
property line and five feet along the rear property line abutting the alley.
c. The highest guardrail is less than 24 feet from established grade (9.25 foot North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) and the highest ridge is no more than
29 feet from established grade, which comply with the maximum height
requirements.
d. The project includes garage parking for a total of two vehicles, complying with the minimum two-car garage parking requirement for single-family residences with less
than 4,000 square feet of habitable floor area.
2. Since the existing duplex would be demolished for the construction of a single-family
residence, density on site would be reduced by one unit. Recent changes to State law temporarily prohibiting reduction of residential density under SB330 do not apply in this case.
A letter from the California Department of Housing and Community Development dated July
31, 2020, clarified to the City that single-family developments do not meet the definition of a
“housing development” as described in Government Code section 66300, subdivision (a)(6).
32
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2020-068
Page 3 of 10
07-02-19
The development of a single-family residential development at the site is compatible with
City plans and Codes, including the City’s certified Local Coastal Program.
3. The neighborhood is developed with one, two- and three-story, single-family and two-unit residences. The proposed design, bulk, and scale of the development is consistent with
the existing neighborhood pattern of development.
4. A Coastal Hazards Report and Sea Level Rise Analysis was prepared by GeoSoils, Inc.
dated July 21, 2020, for the project. The subject site is protected from the bay by a City-owned bulkhead, which reaches a height of approximately 8.6 feet (NAVD88). The
bulkhead that protects the property is part of a larger bulkhead system, which surrounds
sections of the peninsula. No changes to the bulkhead are proposed. The current
maximum bay water elevation is 7.7 feet (NAVD88). The report analyzes future sea level
rise scenarios assuming a 2.9-foot increase in the maximum water level over the next 75 years (i.e. the life of the structure). Therefore, the sea level is estimated to reach
approximately 10.65 feet (NAVD88) - (the likely range for sea level rise over 75-year
design life of the structure based on low risk aversion estimates for sea level rise provided
by the State of California, Sea Level Rise Guidance: 2018 Update). However, the
bulkhead is not privately owned and the property owner does not have the ability to raise the City-owned bulkhead. Therefore, a waterproofing curb is proposed to be constructed
around the perimeter of the dwelling that would protect against flooding up to an elevation
of 10.65 feet (NAVD88). Flood shields (sand bags and other barriers) can be deployed
across the openings to protect and prevent flooding to the structure. The report concludes
that the proposed project will be safe from flooding hazards for the next 75 years with the flood protection curb. The project has been conditioned to require the proposed
waterproofing curb.
5. The finish floor elevation of the proposed single-family residence is 9.25 feet (NAVD88),
which complies with the minimum 9 feet (NAVD88) elevation standard. The Coastal Hazard Report concludes that the bay water elevation (currently 7.7 feet NAVD88) will not exceed
the proposed flood protection curb around the single-family residence at 10.65 feet
(NAVD88) for the anticipated 75-year life of the structure.
6. Pursuant to NBMC Section 21.30.030(C)(3)(i)(iv), the property owner will be required to enter into an agreement with the City waiving any potential right to protection to address situations
in the future in which the development is threatened with damage or destruction by coastal
hazards (e.g., waves, erosion, and sea level rise). The property owner will also be required
to acknowledge any hazards present at the site and unconditionally waive any claim to
damage or liability against the decision authority, consistent with NBMC Section 21.30.015(D)(3)(c). Both requirements are included as conditions of approval that will need
to be satisfied prior to final building inspection, and prior to the issuance of building permits,
respectively.
7. 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 (CBC) and Building
Division standards and policies. Geotechnical investigations specifically addressing
liquefaction are required to be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of building
permits. Permit issuance is also contingent on the inclusion of design mitigation identified in
33
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2020-068
Page 4 of 10
07-02-19
the investigations. Construction plans are reviewed for compliance with approved
investigations and CBC prior to building permit issuance.
8. The property is adjacent to coastal waters. A Construction Erosion Control Plan was provided to implement temporary Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction to minimize
erosion and sedimentation and to minimize pollution of runoff and coastal waters derived by
construction chemicals and materials. The project design also addresses water quality
through the inclusion of a post construction drainage system that includes drainage and
percolation features designed to retain dry weather and minor rain event runoff onsite. Any water not retained onsite is directed to the City’s storm drain system.
9. Pursuant to Section 21.35.050 of the NBMC, due to the proximity of the development to the
shoreline and the development containing more than 75 percent of impervious surface area,
a Water Quality and Hydrology Plan (WQHP) is required. A preliminary WQHP has been prepared for the project by Thomas M. Ruiz, Civil Engineer, on July 29, 2020. The WQHP
includes a polluted runoff and hydrologic site characterization, a sizing standard for BMPs,
use of a LID approach to retain the design storm runoff volume on site, and documentation
of the expected effectiveness of the proposed BMPs.
10. Proposed landscaping will comply with Implementation Plan Section 21.30.075. A
condition of approval is included that requires drought-tolerant species. Prior to issuance
of building permits, the final landscape plans will be reviewed to verify invasive species are
not planted.
11. The project site is not located adjacent to a coastal view road, public access way, or Coastal
Viewpoint as identified in the Coastal Land Use Plan. The nearest coastal viewpoint is in
Peninsula Park and is not visible from the site. The site is located adjacent to Edgewater
Place (boardwalk), which is accessible to the public and provides some opportunities to view
the bay. As currently developed, the existing property and other residences along Edgewater Place are located within the view shed of the bay. However, the proposed single-family
residence complies with all applicable Local Coastal Program (LCP) development standards
and maintains a building envelope consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern of
development. Additionally, the project does not contain any unique features that could
degrade the visual quality of the coastal zone.
12. The project does not have the potential to degrade the visual quality of the Coastal Zone or
result in significant adverse impacts to existing public views. The front of the proposed
residence, which is visible from Edgewater Place, contains architectural treatments and
visual interest in keeping with the design guidelines of the Zoning Code. Fronting the bay, the project’s covered decks on the first and second levels separate the proposed dwelling
from the setback approximately five feet, helping to relieve massing from the boardwalk.
Stone veneer, stainless steel, and cedar features accent large floor-to-ceiling glass door
systems to form an integrated design consistent with the surrounding development.
34
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2020-068
Page 5 of 10
07-02-19
Finding:
B. 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.
Fact in Support of Finding:
1. The project site is located between the nearest public road and the sea or shoreline.
Implementation Plan 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 replaces an
existing duplex located on standard R-2 lot with a new single-family residence. Therefore, the project does not involve a change in land use, density or intensity
that will result in increased demand on public access and recreation opportunities.
Furthermore, the project is designed and sited (appropriate height, setbacks, etc.)
so as not to block or impede existing public access opportunities.
2. Vertical access to the bay is available at the ends of the block, along Cypress
Street and Adams Street. Lateral access is available adjacent to the subject
property, along the existing public boardwalk. There is a pedestrian walkway
easement along the boardwalk to ensure public access, as decided by California
Superior Court Case 169606. The project does not include any features that would obstruct access along these routes and no construction is proposed
bayward of the subject property.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Zoning Administrator of the City of Newport Beach hereby finds this Project is
categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to
Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because
it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment and the exceptions to this
exemption do not apply.
2. The Zoning Administrator of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-130, 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
35
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2020-068
Page 6 of 10
07-02-19
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 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020.
REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
36
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2020-068
Page 7 of 10
07-02-19
EXHIBIT “A”
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Division
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor
plans and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval (except as
modified by applicable conditions of approval).
2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project plans shall be updated to reflect that a
waterproofing curb will be constructed around the proposed residence as an adaptive
flood protection device up to 10.65 feet (NAVD88). Flood shields (sand bags and other
barriers) can be deployed across the openings to protect prevent flooding to the structure.
3. Prior to final building permit inspection, 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 including the repair and maintenance, enhancement, reinforcement, or any other activity affecting the
bulkhead, that results in any encroachment seaward of the authorized footprint of the
bulkhead or other shoreline protective device. The agreement shall be binding against
the property owners and successors and assigns.
4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall submit a notarized
and 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. 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. No demolition or construction materials shall be stored on
public property.
6. This approval does not authorize any new or existing improvements (including
landscaping) on State tidelands, public beaches, or the public right-of-way.
7. This Coastal Development Permit does not authorize any development seaward of the
private property.
37
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2020-068
Page 8 of 10
07-02-19
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
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 Construction Erosion Control 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 sites, 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. Revisions to the approved plans may require an amendment to this Coastal
Development Permit or the processing of a new coastal development permit.
14. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless
specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
15. 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.
38
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2020-068
Page 9 of 10
07-02-19
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a copy of the Resolution, including conditions of
approval Exhibit “A” shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of
plans.
20. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Division an additional copy of the approved architectural plans for inclusion in the Coastal
Development file. The plans shall be identical to those approved by all City departments
for building permit issuance. The approved copy shall include architectural sheets only
and shall be reduced in size to 11 inches by 17 inches. The plans shall accurately depict
the elements approved by this Coastal Development Permit.
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
approved CPPP and 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 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.
23. All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained in accordance with
the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and
growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming.
All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of
regular maintenance.
24. Prior to the issuance of building permit, the applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative
costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Division.
25. 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.
39
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2020-068
Page 10 of 10
07-02-19
26. This Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-130 shall expire unless exercised within 24
months from the date of approval as specified in Section 21.54.060 (Time Limits and
Extensions) of the NBMC, unless an extension is otherwise granted.
27. 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 Collins Residence including, but not limited to, Coastal Development Permit
No. CD2020-130 (PA2020-215). 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
28. The existing public walkway along Edgewater Place shall be maintained.
29. Any damaged sidewalk, alley, or bulkhead shall be repaired. Extent of repair shall be per
Public Works Inspector and Community Development Director.
40
Attachment No. PC 3
Minutes of October 29, 2020, Zoning
Administrator Meeting
41
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE42
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 10/15/2020
Page 3 of 6
floor slab height of 9.00 NAVD88. He then observed that both properties have their own boat slip and a condition of approval would need to be added to the resolution requiring the removal of one of the slips. He then stated that the density for Balboa Island overall is currently 33 units per acre and will remain at 33 units
per acre after the merger. This density will remain in the allowable range for R-BI of 30.0 - 39.9 dwelling units per acre. Applicant Ian Harrison, on behalf of the Owner, stated that he had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions.
The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. One member of the public, Jim Mosher, expressed concern that approving the lot merger will eliminate the opportunity for the density of these two lots to be higher and within the allowable range of the zoning district
and furthermore, the lot merger will encourage a pattern a development that is not necessarily desirable. Mr. Mosher closed his comment by stating he had never heard the public pathway referred to as the Balboa Island
Loop and that there was in error in the draft resolution with regards to the effective date of the lot merger. The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing.
Action: Approved as amended
ITEM NO. 5 Cabin 3, LLC Residence Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-127 (PA2020-183) Site Location: 113 Grand Canal Council District 5
David Lee, Associate Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the project is a demolition of an
existing single-family residence and construction of a new 2,501-square-foot single-family residence with an attached 399-square-foot garage. Mr. Lee provided the location and zoning of the property and stated that it
complied with all applicable development standards. The project site is protected by a public boardwalk and existing City-owned bulkhead, which remains in place. Mr. Lee discussed potential coastal hazards and
concluded that the project will not be adversely impacted by potential hazards. Mr. Lee stated that the proposed project does not impact public views or public access of the bay.
Applicant Rod Jeheber, on behalf of the Owner, stated that he had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees
with all of the required conditions.
The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one from the public wished to comment, the public hearing was closed.
Action: Approved ITEM NO. 6 Collins Residence Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-130 (PA2020-215) Site Location: 413 and 413 ½ Edgewater Place Council District 1 Patrick Achis, Assistant Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the applicant is requesting
approval to demolish the existing duplex and construct a new approximately 3,006-square-foot, single-family residence and attached two-car garage which is an allowed use in the R-2 zoning district. The plans include a
waterproofing curb around the perimeter of the new structure to protect against flooding and sea level rise. A condition of approval has been included in the draft resolution requiring the waterproofing curb. The property is separated from the bay by a public walkway and City-owned bulkhead which is part of a larger bulkhead system that exists in sections of the peninsula. Any modifications to the existing bulkhead would be part of an
area-wide project, and no modifications to the bulkhead are proposed in conjunction with the project. The project does not affect or alter current coastal access conditions. Vertical and lateral access to the oceanfront is provided and will continue to be provided by street ends throughout the neighborhood with access to the public walkway and sandy beach areas along the waterfront. Provisions of Senate Bill 330 (SB330) do not
43
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 10/15/2020
Page 4 of 6
apply since the project does not meet the definition of a housing development as explained in the staff report. Staff received a comment from a member of the public expressing opposition to a third story development replacing one that’s two stories. Notwithstanding, the third floor and development as a whole complies with all
applicable design standards, including requirements of the City’s Local Coastal Program. Applicant William Guidero, Designer, on behalf of the Owner, stated that he had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions. The Zoning Administrator commented the project has been designed with the proposed new residential design
standards. One member of the public, Jim Mosher, expressed concerns about the project’s compliance with the recently implemented SB330 that prohibits the reduction of residential density. He stated that the City had a prior
interpretation of SB330 that would have prevented approval of the project because of the loss of one residential unit. He continued that despite provisions of SB330, he believed the Coastal Commission would be concerned
about reduction of density because of the loss of opportunity to live in coastal zone. Without seeing the letter referenced in the staff report, it is difficult to comment further about how SB330 applies to the project. The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing.
The Zoning Administrator responded that that the City did indeed have an initial understanding of SB330 that would have prohibited approval of the project. However, the City was challenged on this interpretation and after
review from the City Attorney’s Office, the City sought formal clarification from the California Department of Housing (HCD). HCD confirmed the law defines residential development projects as “residential units” - plural,
meaning two or more units - are subject to SB330. With HCD’s confirmation, the City has updated its processes and is able to permit the subject project. A copy of the letter can be provided, which also addressed questions
on compliance of pending residential design standards changes under SB330. The subject project is consistent with the LCP that allows for single-family development.
Action: Approved
ITEM NO. 7 Annual Review of Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian Development Agreement No. 5 (PA2009-064) Site Location: 1 Hoag Drive Council District 2
Chelsea Crager, Associate Planner, provided a brief project description stating that this is an annual review of a Development Agreement (DA) for Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian. The DA was last reviewed in
November 2019 where Hoag was found to be in good faith compliance with the terms of the agreement. In August 2020, the term of the agreement was extended one year in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The
annual review was submitted in June 2020, after a three-month extension granted by Planning staff in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Typically, the annual review includes an analysis of noise compliance and a noise report with measurements taken from the interior of nearby residences. This requirement was waived for this year’s review due to the hospital operating at above-average levels and the difficulty of obtaining interior noise measurements with
social distancing orders in effect. The report includes a project status report stating that construction over the past year has been limited to interior improvements with no significant new construction on the Hoag Campus.
Landscaping areas continue to be in good health, as confirmed by a visit to the site by Planning staff. Plume reduction protocols for the Co-Gen facility continue to operate. Hoag continues to operate the Melinda Hoag Smith Center for Healthy Living, as required by the DA, and has submitted payments to the City for the first- and second-year’s public benefit payments.
The Zoning Administrator asked if any comments had been received on this item. Associate Planner Crager confirmed that no comments were received.
44
Attachment No. PC 4
Coastal Commission Appeal Letter
45
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE46
STATE OF CALIFORNiA _ NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEIISOM GOYER OR
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SOUTH COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
301 E OCEAN BLVD, SUITE 3OO
LONG BEACH CA 90802
(562) 590-s071
SOUIHCOAST@COASTAL CA GOV
South Coost Region
NOV 2o 2020
CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMISSION
APPEAL FORM
Appeal of Local Government Coastal Development Permit
Filing lnformation (STAFF ONLY)
District Office: South Coast
Appeal Number k5-N?B- D-00d8
Date Filed
Appellant Name(s):lno,*IQ sarl u 0u
'/
APPELLANTS
IMPORTANT. Before you complete and submit this appeal form to appeal a coastal
development permit (CDP) decision of a local government with a certified local coastal
program (LCP) to the California Coastal Commission, p lease review the appeal
information sheet. The appeal information sheet describes who is eligible to appeal
what types of local government CDP decisions, the proper grounds for appeal, and the
procedures for submitting such appeals to the Commission. Appellants are responsible
for submitting appeals that conform to the Commission law, including regulations.
Appeals that do not conform may not be accepted. lf you have any questions about any
aspect of the appeal process, please contact staff in the Commission district office with
jurisdiction over the area in question (see the Commission's contac! p3ge at
Note regarding emailed appeals. Please note that emailed appeals are accepted
ONLY at the general email address for the Coastal Commission district office with
jurisdiction over the local government in question. For the South Coast district office,
the email address is SouthCoast@coastal.ca .gov. An appeal emailed to some other
email address, including a different district's general email address or a staff email
address, will be rejected. lt is the appellant's responsibility to use the correct email
address, and appellants are encouraged to contact Commission staff with any
questions. For more inform
coastal. ca. gov I contactl# l).
ZD
ation, see the Commission's contact
lt
APPEAL NO. A-5-NPB-20-0068
EXHIBIT 2 - APPEAL
47
Appeal of local GDP decision
Page 2
l. Appellant informationr
Name:Coastal Commissioners Mike Wilson and Dr. Caryl Hart
Mailing address 455 Market Street, Suite 300 / San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone number (d15) 904-5202
Email address:
How did you participate in the local CDP application and decision-making process?
Moio not participate
Describe:
Submitted comment Testified at hearing Other
lf you did nof participate in the local CDP application and decision-making process,
please identify why you should be allowed to appeal anyway (e.9., if you did not
participate because you were not properly noticed).
Describe: Coastal Commissioner appeal - not required to participate in local CDP process
Please identify how you exhausted all LCP CDP appeal processes or otherwise identify
why you should be allowed to appeal (e.9., if the local government did not follow proper
CDP notice and hearing procedures, or it charges a fee for local appellate CDP
processes).
Describe:
r lf there are multiple appellants, each appellant must provide their own contact and participataon
information. Please attach additional sheets as necessary.
48
2. Local CDP decision being appealedz
Local government name:
Local government approval body:
Local government CDP application number:
Local government CDP decision:
Date of local government CDP decision:
Appeal of local GDP decision
Page 3
City of Newport Beach
Zoning Administrator
cD2020-130
E"o, approvat
October 15,2010
Please identify the location and description of the development that was approved or
denied by the local government.
Describe: Demolition of existing duplex and construction of new three-story
2,591 sq. ft. single family residence and attached 475 sq. ft.
two-car garage. No work is proposed to adjacent public boardwalk
or City-owned bulkhead. The project design complies with all
development standards and includes hardscape, patios, site
walls, drainage devices, and landscaping.
2 Attach additional sheets as necessary to fully describe the local government CDP decision, including a
description of the development that was the subject of the CDP application and decision.
3 Very few local CDP denials are appealable, and those that are also require submittal of an appeal fee.
Please see the appeai information sheet for more information.
CDP denialr
49
Page 4. Grounds for Appeal
The proposed development would reduce housing density in an area that can support
housing density. Two housing units exist on the site and two housing units may be
redeveloped on the site pursuant to both standards of the certified LCP. The proposal to
demolish two housing units and construct one housing unit is inconsistent with the LCP.
The lot where development is proposed is designated R-2 (Two Unit Residential) in the
zoning code/lmplementation Plan. The lot is designated RT-E 30.0 - 39.9 DU/AC (Two
Unit Residential) in the Coastal Land Use Plan.
Coastal Land Use Plan Table 2.1.1-1 states: "The RT category applies to a range of two
family residential dwelling units such as duplexes and townhomes."
Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 2.1 .10-1 states: "Land uses and new development in the
coastal zone shall be consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan Map and all applicable
LCP policies and regulations."
Coastal Land Use Plan Section 2.2.1-1 slates: "Continue to allow redevelopment and
infill development within and adjacent to the existing developed areas in the coastal
zone subject to the density and intensity limits and resource protection policies of the
Coastal Land Use Plan."
Coastal Land Use Plan Section 2.7-2 slates'. "Continue the administration of provisions
of State law relative to the demolition, conversion and construction of low and
moderate-income dwelling units within the coastal zone."
The City approved the project to demolish two housing units and construct one housing
unit based on findings that the project is exempt from State laws including 58330
(Housing Crisis Act of 2019) requiring preservation of housing units: "A letter from the
California Department of Housing and Community Development dated July 31,2020,
clarified to the City that single family developments do not meet the definition of
'housing development' as described in Government Code Section 66300, subdivision
(aX6)."
The City did not make specific findings related to the LCP's housing density criteria or
policies, other than that the project is consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern
of development. lf the City continues to exempt these types of projects from review
under SB330, and the CDP component of the approved project(s) is not appealed, it will
set a precedent for future City actions that will result in a cumulative loss of housing
density in areas which have been planned to support housing density pursuant to the
LCP.
50
SECTIONV. Certification
The informarion and facts $ared above are correcl to the of knortledge.
Sigrature of Appllant(s) or Authorized Agent
Date:/r,/za/zo
Note: lf signed by agent appellant(si must also sign belorv.
Section YI. Asent Authorizs tion
li,w*e hcreby
authorize
to act as mvlow rcpresentativc and ro bind me/us in all maners concerning this appeal.
S igratore of Appellanl(s)
Date:
l_-j--.-
U
51
APPEAL FROM COASTAL PERMIT DECISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Page 4)
SECTION V. Certification
The information and facts stated above are correct to the best of my/our knowledge.
Signature of Appellant(s) or Authorized Agent
Date:
Note: If signed by agent, appellant(s) must also sign below.
Section VI. Agent Authorization
I/We hereby
authorize
to act as my/our representative and to bind me/us in all matters concerning this appeal.
Signature of Appellant(s)
Date:
[NOT APPLICABLE]
[NOT APPLICABLE]
[NOT APPLICABLE]
11/21/20
52
Attachment No. PC 5
City Staff’s Response to Coastal Commission Appeal
53
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE54
Community Development Department
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
949 644-3200
newportbeachca.gov/communitydevelopment
Memorandum
To: Planning Commission
From: Jim Campbell, Deputy Community Development Director
Re: City Staff’s Response to Coastal Commission Appeal No.
A-5-NPB-20-0068 for the Project at 413 and 413 ½ Edgewater Place
(PA2020-215)
While a resolution was achieved for this project through the incorporation of a junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) to address the Coastal Commission’s (“Commission”) density concerns, City staff does not believe the underlying grounds
of the appeal were merited. The following analysis summarizes staff’s view that the
appeal was not supported by the goals, policies, and regulations of the City’s certified
Local Coastal Program (LCP) and clarifies some of the assumptions and misinterpretations cited in the Commission’s appeal (Attachment No. PC 4).
Maximum, Not Minimum, Densities. The Commission’s appeal seems to rely on
the premise that densities provided in the LCP are prescriptive minimums instead of
maximum densities that are allowed. This would mean the demolition of a duplex on a Two Unit Residential (R-2) lot would be required to be replaced in-kind with a two-unit housing project. But this is plainly not the case as the LCP allows a variety of
uses and density within its coastal land use and zoning designations.
Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) Consistency
The CLUP holds, “the permitted residential unit type and maximum
density of the Coastal Land Use Plan reflect the predominant form of
development”0F1 [emphasis added]. More to the point, the Two-Unit
Residential (RTE) land use category orders a range of 30.0 to 39.9 dwelling units per acre, not one fixed figure. The word “limit” appears
with noticeable frequency in the CLUP to describe density. On the first
page of the CLUP’s Land Use and Development Chapter alone, there
are six such references:
o “precise development limits,”
1 City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, Coastal Land Use Plan, p. 2-27
55
City Staff’s Response to Coastal Commission Appeal (PA2020-215)
Page 2
o “intensity or residential density limit,”
o “development limit established by the General Plan or
its implementing ordinances” (stated twice), and o “development limits of the Land Use Element and the Coastal Land Use Plan.” 1F2
The CLUP never mentions a “minimum” in relation to density on a single
lot.2F3
Implementation Plan Consistency
The City’s Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan (IP) was
certified by the Commission on September 8, 2016, and went into
effect on January 30, 2017. Several citations from the IP further illustrate the densities provided in the CLUP are meant as limits and
not prescriptive minimums. Under IP Section 21.18.010, the purpose
of the R-2 coastal zoning district is to provide for “a maximum of two
residential dwelling units (i.e., duplexes) located on a single legal lot”
[emphasis added]. In keeping with this, IP Table 21.18-1 shows “Single-Unit Dwellings – Detached” as allowed uses in the R-2 (Two-
Unit Residential) zone.
TABLE 21.18-1
ALLOWED USES
Residential Coastal Zoning Districts
A
—
Allowed
Not Allowed *
Land Use See Part 7 of this Implementation Plan for
land use definitions.
See Chapter 21.12 for
unlisted uses. R-A
R-1
R-1-
6,000
R-BI
R-2
R-2-
6,000
RM
RM-
6,000
Specific Use
Regulations
Residential Uses
Home Occupations A A A A
Single-Unit Dwellings—
Attached
— — A A
Single-Unit Dwellings—
Detached
A A A A
Multi-Unit Dwellings — — — A
2 City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, Coastal Land Use Plan, p. 2-21.
3 The CLUP uses “minimum” a total of 6 times within the context of floor area and protective devices. See p. 2-3, 2-4, 2-10, 2-20, and 2-68.
56
City Staff’s Response to Coastal Commission Appeal (PA2020-215)
Page 3
TABLE 21.18-1 ALLOWED USES
Residential Coastal Zoning Districts
A — Allowed Not Allowed *
Land Use
See Part 7 of this
Implementation Plan for land use definitions. See Chapter 21.12 for
unlisted uses. R-A
R-1 R-1-
6,000
R-BI R-2 R-2-
6,000
RM RM-
6,000
Specific Use
Regulations
Two-Unit Dwellings — — A A
Accessory Dwelling Units A A A A Section 21.48.200
The use of the term “maximum” allowed use of Single-Unit Dwellings
– Detached in the R-2 Zoning district, and use of the term “limit” in multiple references in the CLUP make clear its stated densities are not
intended as prescriptive minimum densities. Until 2020, the Coastal
Commission has not appealed a single coastal development permit for
a duplex to single-family residence in the City’s R-2 coastal zoning
district on the basis of density. This demonstrates the Commission has a long and documented history of routinely finding single-family
development consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan’s Two Unit
Residential (RT) density limits. What has changed?
The neighboring property at 417 Edgewater Place, two doors east of the appeal site, proposed a duplex to single-family and was approved
by the City’s Zoning Administrator on December 12, 2019, without
appeal from the Coastal Commission. Between 2014 and 2015, the
Coastal Commission approved coastal development permits for the
construction of single-family residences at the nearby R-2-zoned lots of 416 East Bay Avenue and 419 Edgewater Place.3F4 Within the 400
Blocks of Edgewater Place and East Bay Avenue that contain the
subject property, single-family development is the majority use with
14 of the 20 R-2 sites being single-family residences.4F5 The City is
encouraged the Coastal Commission is giving more careful consideration to density loss in light of the State’s housing crisis, but
claims that a single-family project in the R-2 zone is now inconsistent
with the City-adopted Local Coastal Program does not have
precedent and is not supported as outlined above. Furthermore,
4 The development of a single-family residence at 416 East Bay Avenue was approved April 15, 2015, by the Coastal Commission under Waiver No. 5-14-1827-W. For 419 Edgewater Place, the
single-family residence was approved June 12, 2014, as Waiver No. 5-14-0681-W.
5 Numbers based on research of available City building permit records.
57
City Staff’s Response to Coastal Commission Appeal (PA2020-215)
Page 4
there have been no amendments to the City’s LCP that would warrant
a change in policy related to density and or a change with regard to the
interpretation of existing density policies. SB330 Exemption. The State Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) has verified with the City that single-family developments are
exempt from SB330 requirements. This understanding is affirmed in a response
letter to the City from HCD dated July 31, 2020. HCD advised that, according to
§66300(a)(6), “housing development project” has the same meaning as defined in §65589.5(h)(2). Under §65589.5(h)(2), a “housing development project” is defined
as a use consisting of any of the following:
(A) Residential units only. [emphasis added, it’s plural]
(B) Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage
designated for residential use.
(C) Transitional housing or supportive housing.
Since the definition states that a development project consisting of residential units (plural and more than one dwelling unit), the law does not apply to the development
of a single-family dwelling. This fact is recognized in early drafts of Senate Bill 592
that would have amended the definition of “housing development project” under
the Housing Accountability Act to include “a single-unit.” That bill ultimately failed
and so the definition was never amended. Nonetheless, it signifies that the Legislature understood that a legislative amendment was necessary to define
“housing development project” to apply to a single residential unit.
Mello Act Compliance. IP Section 21.34.020 (Applicability), clearly states that the
provisions of the Mello Act only apply in two scenarios:
(1) The conversion or demolition of 11 or more dwelling units located in two
or more structures; and
(2) The conversion or demolition of three or more units located in one
structure.
The subject project involves the demolition of two dwellings in one structure. As a
result, the Mello Act, LCP Implementation Plan Chapter 21.34, and CLUP Policy
2.7-2 do not apply. The City does not need to make, or customarily include, findings
for compliance with sections that do not apply.
Cumulative Density Loss. Over the last several months, many items from other
jurisdictions have been considered on the Coastal Commission’s agenda that
raised the issue of cumulative density loss. While cumulative density loss may be
an issue in some jurisdictions, the City of Newport Beach has added 1,580 units in the Coastal Zone since 2000. It is also important to note the City is bound to
implement the laws and regulations in place. There is an expectation from our
property owners/residents that the City will actively protect their rights. In this case,
58
City Staff’s Response to Coastal Commission Appeal (PA2020-215)
Page 5
the property owner has elected to construct a single-family home versus a duplex
which is entirely consistent with all applicable laws and regulations. Regardless of
overarching concerns of the State’s housing crisis, the City must follow and
implement the laws that are in place.
Conclusion. The Commission’s appeal of the project is not substantiated by the
LCP’s regulations or policies. It is noteworthy that in the spirit of early collaboration,
the City proactively sought clarity from HCD (as discussed) and the California Coastal
Commission regarding policy consequences of the State’s housing crisis. The City has yet to receive a response from the Coastal Commission on the matter. A series
of recent Commission appeals from various jurisdictions similarly centered on density
loss suggest a lack of clear policy direction from either the Commission or its staff.
The City finds the current ad-hoc appeal process distressing for many property
owners burdened by the ill-defined and abrupt change in policy direction. Each coastal community is unique with its own LCP and set of characteristics and facts.
Meaningful policy or guidance is difficult to achieve under the Commission’s current
appeal approach. Considering the number of recent appeals, formal publication of a
policy or workshop from Commission staff would provide a rather simple but powerful
solution to define the new, undisclosed density interpretation/requirement the Commission is seeking to achieve.
59
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE60
Attachment No. PC 5
City Staff’s Response to Coastal
Commission Appeal
Attachment No. PC 6
Project Plans
61
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE62
I I I I I I I >--
Lw I �i <t:' I I I .• p,->
1q'-B"
5'-0" SETBACK
NE� b'-0" HIGH �OD FENGE 19.00' T.O. FENCE
V'( b'-0' HIGH OD 6A TE 19.00'
N :35° BT 04" E 81.55'
43'-:l 1/2"
ADJAGENT RESIDENC,E
METERS r-t;=����=::::=::;;;:=:±==r:::��=:;-;:========:;;;:;:;;�;:::::====;::::E:::::E:::t::=::::E===lE:3:::::======:::E:::::JE:i;i=
I pf;y ______ g-�BB ____ _J l I RAN6E / C,OOKTOP I I
I 1q'-O" CLR.
I I I I I I
2 -CAR <;>ARAGE
,--1 ,--7 I �== � L_ I i--� -i �-I L __ .-_J ,--
__ .-J ,--1 I 1 1 I I 1
�
DINING
I I : I �--L --LA�:::::::;=;,;�;;;;;:t::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::'.:::::::::::::::::::::::t::r:::::::::::::::::::::::::J�$::::::::::::::������-
0 NEV'\ 6'-0" Hl6H moo FENC-E 12.<"IO' T.0. FENC.E N 35 °351 35" E 80.48'
c--+--s•,,_�·.;,
,.,,
"'
"-----+-----0-N_c.uRB ___ -+ __ AD�JAC,ENT RESIDE�N_cE_\-+----+-----------------�
23'-:l 1/2"
FAMILY
F.s. ,�-i.o . �,,,_. ���;''
4-1 1/2"
=-q� I I I I I II I II I :I I I I I I I I I I
I I I
I I I I I
11 I 11 I I/ I I
AREA CALCUAL TIONS: LOT AREA = 5,205 SO. FT. BUILDABLE LOT AREA 1,511 X 2 MAX. SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOl'IABLE, = 5,154 SO. FT.
!VIAIN RESIDENCE: FIRST FLOOR LIVING, q25 SO. FT. SECOND FLOOR LIVING, qq4 SQ. FT. THIRD FLOOR LIVING, 515 SO. FT. TOTAL LIVING AREA 2,254 50. FT.
GARAGE, 426 SO. FT. TOTAL MAIN RESIDENCE AREA 2p60 SO. FT.
JADU RESIDENCE, TOTAL LIVING AREA, 421 SQ. FT. TOTAL BUILDING AREA 5,0BI SO. FT.
THIRD FLOOR COVRED DECK, 204 SQ. FT. THIRD FLOOR OPEN DECKS, 428 SO. FT.
MAX. THIRD FLOOR CONDITIONED AREA 1,511 X 20% = 515 SQ. FT. ALLO>'IABLE OPEN SPACE REQUIRED ---1,571 X 15% = 256.5 SO. FT. OPEN SPACE PROVIDED ---= 251 SQ. FT.
I I
�� I
,,.f:,q;")' I\.io·,,,,'-' v' lJ+
\j I I <t: I
,o,,.o�. ----J I ,o• ("-1 . I Q_ I I � 0-: I
1w I t i,. I " 1--.. Im " <t: I'I-" I t i 1w I
\I) I I
VJ''OQ) ()I ,.,_:::::,. v//; I!' ' I v' I I I I
NORTH
SITE / FIRST FLOOR PLAN 0
SCALE, 1/4" = l'-0"
0
--" w.... <U � :t � <U z
<:(
c:s � cs
� ,� --" --" C) c.)
z <( _J Q_
It C) C)_J IL f\J) It IL
'-.._ w f-\J)
DATE 1-11-2021
� Cl
�
��"' ;s
"' ih t'. C
"'
CD
PA2020-215 Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans
63
PA2020-215 Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans
64
PA2020-215 Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans
65
PA2020-215 Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans
66
PA2020-215 Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans
67
PA2020-215 Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans
68
PA2020-215 Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans
69
RdM SURVEYING INC.
RON MIEDEMA L.S. 4653
23016 LAKE FOREST DR. #409
LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653
949 858-2924 OFFICE
949 858-3438 FAX
RDMSURVEYING@COX.NET
ADDRESS OF PROJECT:BENCH MARK:LEGAL DESCRIPTION:OWNER:TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
JOB: 73-76 DATE: 8/16/20
NOTE: RECORD EASEMENTS ARE NOT PLOTTED IF ANY.
DESCRIPTION
SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER SHALL PERMANENTLY
MONUMENT PROPERTY CORNERS OR OFFSETS
BEFORE STARTING GRADING.
LEGEND
XX
123.45
P.P.
WM
F.F.
G.F.
CONC.
F.S.
M.H.
P
A.C.
T.G.
DECK
BRICK
WALL
FENCE
MEAS. ELEVATIONS
REC. BRG. & DIST.
BUILDING
PROPERTY LINE
POWER POLE
WATER METER
FINISH FLOOR
GARAGE FLOOR
CONCRETE
FINISH SURFACE
MAN-HOLE
PLANTER
ASPHALT
TOP-GRATE
NATURAL GRADEN.G.
BENCH MARK
SCALE 1"=8’
0’8’ 16’
N A L D E S N E C I L R O Y E V R U S D
L I F O R N I A S T A T E O F C A
RON
MIEDEMA
No. 4653EXP. 9/30/21
413 EDGEWATER PLACE
NEWPORT BEACH
N35 35’35"E 80.48’
N52 00’53"W 28.90’
ALLEY
EDGEWATER PLACE
LOT 6
LOT 7
LOT 8
7.02 L&T
6.
6
9
L&
T
5.0
RESIDENCE
BENCH MARK #: 1E-116-99
DATUM: NAVD88
ELEVATION: 7.587
LOT 8
BLOCK 2
BALBOA BAYSIDE TRACT
M.M. 4/78
WALSH
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY EASEMENT
PER SCC 169606
PROPERTY LINE
PARCEL 2 TO ORDINARY HIGH TIDE UNDETERMINABLE
PROPERTY LINE PARCEL 2 TO ORDINARY HIGH TIDE UNDETERMINABLE
NEWPORT BAY
NEWPORT BAY
NEWPORT BAY
14’ PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
PER SCC 169606
FEMA FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION:
NUMBER - 060227
PANEL - 0382
SUFFIX - K
DATUM - NAVD88
ELEVATION - 8 FEET
ZONE - AO
BOARDWALK
BOARDWALK
BOARDWALK
7.10FS 7.04FS 8.35FS
8.24FS
7.07FS 7.11FS 7.05FS
8.67 DECK
9.96TW
7.06FS
6.97TG
7.05FS 6.88FS
6.95FS
6.74FS
6.71FS
6.64FS
6.66FS
8.65 DECK
7.14FS
7.14FF 7.15FS 7.12FS
7.12FS 6.93NG
7.07FS
7.12FS
7.11FS
7.17FS
7.16FS
7.19FS
7.24FS
6.88FL
6.93FL
6.99FL
6.99FL
7.07FS
7.25FS
7.30FS
7.21FS
7.21 1" I.P. L.S.2312
CABLE TV
EDISON BOX
SEWER COVER
7.06 L&T L.S.8269
WM
WM
7.04TG
6.71 L&T L.S. 5183
6.74 L&T L.S.5183
8.65TW
8.55 RAMP
7.94TW
5 6.69 lt ls 8583
20 8.66 tw
27 9.67 1x1 pilast
28 9.83 1x1 pilast
29 9.85 1x1 pilast
30 9.85 1x1 pilast
68 -84.02 bld cor 69 -79.08 bld cor
70 -79.08 bld cor
72 -80.29 ang bld deck
97 -84.94 bld cor
98 -83.90 ang carport
99 -84.81 bld cor
100 -84.13 bld cor
102 -83.53 bld cor
103 7.02 lt ls 8583
106 -86.72 line bld
9.70 PILEASTER
9.71 PILEASTER
6.64FS
6.73FS
10.02TW
GM
WM
SEWERCOVER
8.90FF
6.97FS
7.09FS 6.89FS
10.03TW
7.22 S&W L.S.5183
6.98 LEAD
N35
3
7
’
0
4
"
E
8
1
.
5
5
’
N49 53’29"W 28.92’
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.CONC.CONC.CONC.
CONC.CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC AC
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
X
X P P
CONC.
COVERED PATIO
X X CONC.
CONC.CONC.
CONC.
X X
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
CARPORT
GARAGE
CARPORT
2.1
3.3
2.5
CONC.
CONC.
CONC.
1.2
7.1FS
8.66TW
16.8
18.8
7.1FS
7.2FS
7.1FS 7.1FS
0.2
PROPERTYLINE
PROPERTYLINE
PROPERTYLINE
PROPERTYLINE
CENTERLINE
0.1
PA2020-215 Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans
70
PA2020-215 Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans
71
PA2020-215 Attachment No. PC 6 - Project Plans
72
March 18, 2021, Planning Commission Item 2 Comments
These comments on a Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda item are submitted by:
Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229).
Item No. 2. COLLINS RESIDENCE APPEAL AND AMENDMENT
(PA2020-215)
1.Neither the staff report nor the resolution explains why this application is coming to Planning
Commission rather than continuing with the Zoning Administrator or Coastal Commission.
a.At its last meeting, the Planning Commission heard a CDP application (March 4, Item
6)that had been appealed by Coastal Commissioners, who found the Zoning
Administrator’s approval of it raised substantial issues of compliance with the LCP.
Under such circumstances, upon the City being notified of the CCC’s finding of
substantial issue, the last paragraph of NBMC Subsection 21.64.035.C allows the
City’s Community Development Director to refer the application to the Zoning
Administrator’s appellate body (the Planning Commission), and if the Planning
Commission approves a project modified from the original application, the CCC
appeal is automatically extinguished.
b.In the present case, Section 1.4 on handwritten page 15 of the proposed resolution
appears to mischaracterize the status of the appeal, saying “substantial issue” was
found by the Commission and a further CCC hearing on the application was
scheduled for January 13, 2021. But according to the CCC staff report, the January
13 hearing seems to have been the one at which the CCC would have made a
substantial issue determination, and it was postponed. So it appears the CCC has
not yet made a “substantial issue” determination, and as a result, the City’s authority
to act on an application under appeal to the CCC is unclear and unexplained.
2.As is evident from the CCC staff report, their staff does not agree with the Zoning
Administrator’s belief that an application without an ADU would be exempt from SB 330
(paragraph 3.A.2 on handwritten page 32).
3.When the CCC approves CDP’s including ADU’s as a means to avoid a reduction in housing
density, they typically include a deed-recorded condition of approval requiring the applicant
and all assigns/successors to maintain the ADU as a separate residential unit and at no
point incorporate it into the main residence or convert it to a nonresidential use. Had this
modified CDP application proceeded though the CCC appeal process, such a condition
would likely have been imposed, but City staff does not appear to be proposing this.
Planning Commission - March 18, 2021 Item No. 2a - Additional Materials Received Collins Residence Appeal and Amendment (PA2020-215)
Collins Residence
Appeal & Amendment
Coastal Development Permit
413 & 413 ½ Edgewater Place
Planning
Commission
Public Hearing
March 18, 2021
Planning Commission - March 18, 2021
Item No. 2b Additional Materials Presented At Meeting By Staff Collins Residence Appeal and Amendment (PA2020-215)
Aerial
Community Development Department -Planning Division 2
Cliff Haven
Single-Family Zone
Balboa Bay Club
Planned Community
Planning Commission - March 18, 2021
Item No. 2b Additional Materials Presented At Meeting By Staff Collins Residence Appeal and Amendment (PA2020-215)
Timeline
Community Development Department -Planning Division 3
ZA approves CDP for
new single-family
residence
Appealed
by CCC due to
density loss
Applicant worked
with CCC staff to
include JADU
October 15, 2020
November 21, 2020
January 11, 2021
ORIGINAL REVISED
Planning Commission - March 18, 2021
Item No. 2b Additional Materials Presented At Meeting By Staff Collins Residence Appeal and Amendment (PA2020-215)
Project Details
Community Development Department -Planning Division 4
•Coastal Development Permit
•Demolish (e) duplex
•Construct SFR and JADU*
•Residence: 2,234 sq. ft.
•2-car garage: 421 sq. ft.
•JADU (2nd floor): 424 sq. ft.*
•No parking required for
JADU
*Included with revised project
Planning Commission - March 18, 2021
Item No. 2b Additional Materials Presented At Meeting By Staff Collins Residence Appeal and Amendment (PA2020-215)
Coastal
Development
Permit
Findings
Conforms with certified Local
Coastal Program (LCP)
Conforms with public access
and recreation of Coastal Act
Community Development Department -Planning Division 5
Planning Commission - March 18, 2021
Item No. 2b Additional Materials Presented At Meeting By Staff Collins Residence Appeal and Amendment (PA2020-215)
Project
Consistency
No impact
on public
views
No change
to coastal
access
No loss of
density
Community Development Department -Planning Division 6
Viewpoint
sAccess and Views
Planning Commission - March 18, 2021
Item No. 2b Additional Materials Presented At Meeting By Staff Collins Residence Appeal and Amendment (PA2020-215)
Conditions of
Approval
COA No. 1 –Substantial conformance
COA No. 5 –JADU Deed Restriction
COA No. 6 –No demolition or
construction materials on public
property
COA No. 33 –Preservation of Public
walkway on Edgewater Place
Community Development Department -Planning Division 7
Planning Commission - March 18, 2021
Item No. 2b Additional Materials Presented At Meeting By Staff Collins Residence Appeal and Amendment (PA2020-215)
Recommended
Action
Conduct a public hearing
Find project exempt from CEQA
(Class 3 New Construction)
Adopt Resolution No. PC2021-008
approving Coastal Development
Permit No. CD2020-130 and Zoning
Clearance No. ZC2021-009
Community Development Department -Planning Division 8
Planning Commission - March 18, 2021
Item No. 2b Additional Materials Presented At Meeting By Staff Collins Residence Appeal and Amendment (PA2020-215)
For more
information
Contact Questions?Patrick Achis, Assistant Planner
949-644-3237
pachis@newportbeachca.gov
www.newportbeachca.gov
Community Development Department -Planning Division 9
Planning Commission - March 18, 2021
Item No. 2b Additional Materials Presented At Meeting By Staff Collins Residence Appeal and Amendment (PA2020-215)