Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.0_Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP_PA2017-179WPaR a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT a C'9CIF00.NP September 19, 2019 Agenda Item No. 5 SUBJECT: Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP (PA2017-179) Coastal Development Permit No. CD2017-076 SITE LOCATION: 2495 Ocean Boulevard APPELLANT: Joe and Lisa Vallejo APPLICANT: Brandon Architects OWNER: Brian Sheehy PLANNER: Liane Schuller, Planning Consultant 949-644-3200, Ichuller@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's July 11, 2019, decision to approve Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. CD2017-076 related to the demolition of an existing single- family residence and detached one -car garage, and the construction of a new 6,630- square-foot, single-family residence with an attached 656-square-foot, three -car garage located at 2495 Ocean Boulevard. The appeal was filed by a neighboring property owner. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Conduct a de novo public hearing; 2) Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 - Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3) Adopt Resolution No. PC2019-029, upholding and affirming the Zoning Administrator's approval of Coastal Development Permit No. CD2017-076 (Attachment PC 1). 1 9 Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP (PA2017-179) Planning Commission, September 19, 2019 Page 2 VICINITY MAP .P Subject 9 i Property ' Appellant Property 9�9h J T ' F� GENERAL PLAN ZONING P lj R-a 1ui e n �Bi 1 j B O „ P � i U/ � y �U•�%S b na.N P� des Pe PEON 38 GU 4� LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON -SITE Single -Unit Residential Single -Unit Residential Single -Unit Residence Detached RS-DR-1 NORTH RS-D Multiple Residential (RM) 8-unit Aerie condominium development SOUTH RS-D RM 48-unit Channel Reef condominium develo ment EAST RS-D R-1 Single -Unit Residences WEST n/a I n!a Newport Harbor 3 V� QP �. Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP (PA2017-179) Planning Commission, September 19, 2019 Page 3 INTRODUCTION: Project Setting The subject property is a waterfront site located near the juncture of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue in a mixed -density residential neighborhood. The neighborhood includes single- and multi -family residences of varying height and mass. There are two adjacent multi -family developments constructed on the bluff immediately north and south of the project site. To the north is the multi -story, eight -unit Aerie condominium development that is nearing completion. To the south is the multi -story, 48-unit Channel Reef condominium development. The Appellants' single-family residence is located immediately to the east and above the project site. The project site is currently developed with a three -level, approximately 5,346-square- foot, single-family residence and detached 190-square-foot, one -car garage. The existing improvements were constructed in 1986, following the Planning Commission's April 7, 1984, approval of Variance 1114 to allow the garage to exceed the maximum allowed height within the front half of the lot. Project Description The project includes the demolition of the existing residence and detached one -car garage, and the construction of a new three -level 6,630-square-foot, single-family residence and attached 656-square-foot, three -car garage. The proposed residence includes a 3,643-square-foot lower level living area, a 2,885-square-foot second level living area, and a 656-square-foot garage at the upper level. A covered, open-air pool cabana is proposed below the pool adjacent to the backyard area. Prior to designing the proposed project, the Applicant requested a grade determination to establish the points from which building height was to be measured. On December 5, 2014, the Community Development Director approved a grade determination for the project site (Staff Approval No. SA2014-022), based upon the topographic survey prepared in 1986 when the site was initially developed. The grade determination became effective on December 19, 2014, and establishes the points from which height was measured for the proposed project. A copy of the Staff Approval is attached for reference as Attachment No. PC 3. The project plans are included as Attachment No. PC 10 and provide additional information on the site topography as well as the location, height, and layout of the proposed project including floor and elevation plans. 5 Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP (PA2017-179) Planning Commission, September 19, 2019 Page 4 Background Zoning Administrator Hearing and Decision On July 11, 2019, the Zoning Administrator conducted a noticed public hearing for the proposed project. Three members of the public spoke in favor as the proposed project will provide a greater view of the bay from the sidewalk along Ocean Boulevard. Two members of the public asked for project clarification and provided comments on the proposed project. The owners of the property at 2501 Ocean Boulevard (the appellants) provided written communication and spoke in opposition to the project. The Zoning Administrator concluded that the project complies with applicable development standards and the coastal development permit findings could be made. Based on the required findings, the Zoning Administrator approved Coastal Development Permit CD2017-076. Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-047 is included as Attachment No. PC 4. The staff report and minutes from the July 11, 2019, Zoning Administrator hearing are provided in Attachment No. PC 5. Appeal of the Zoning Administrator Decision On July 24, 2019, an appeal was filed by Joe and Lisa Vallejo, owners of the property at 2501 Ocean Boulevard. The appeal focuses on three concerns: 1) opposition to the 2014 grade determination; 2) improper setbacks; and 3) improper expansion of development on the bluff face. The complete appeal application is attached for reference (Attachment No. PC 6). General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Zoninq Code The site is designated as Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS-D) by the General Plan Land Use Element and Single Unit Residential Detached — 6.0-9.9 DU/AC (RSD-B) by the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP). It is located within the Single -Unit Residential (R-1) Zoning District and Coastal Zoning District. The proposed single-family residence is a permitted use under these land use designations. The proposed residence complies with all other applicable development standards of the R-1 Zoning and Coastal Zoning Districts as illustrated in Table 1 below: M Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP (PA2017-179) Planning Commission, September 19, 2019 Page 5 Table 1 — Development Standards Development Standard Standard Proposed Setbacks min. Front Ocean Blvd. 10 feet 80 feet (approximately) Left Side 4 feet 4 feet Right Side 4 feet 4 feet Rear Newport Bay) 10 feet 26 feet (approximately) Allowable Floor Area 20,554 square feet 7,286 square feet Allowable 3rd Floor Area 2,055 square feet 0 Open Volume min. 2,055 square feet 2,316 square feet Parkin min. 3-car garage 3-car garage Height (max.) 24-foot flat roof 29-foot slo ed roof 24-foot flat roof 29-foot sined roof Additionally, the proposed project is below the top of curb height limit applicable to Ocean Boulevard. The proposed project eliminates an existing one -car garage that was permitted to exceed the top of curb through a previous variance application. The property is also located within the Bluff Overlay District, which is intended to establish special development standards for areas of the City where projects are proposed on identified coastal bluffs (Attachment No. PC 7). Section 21.38.040 of the City's Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan establishes "Development Areas" where specific improvements may be placed. The subject property is regulated by Bluff Overlay Development Area Map No. 5 which limits new development by not allowing it to extend farther onto the bluff face beyond existing development. The proposed project will be located within the existing footprint of existing development. Coastal Development Permit The project requires a coastal development permit and the property is not eligible for a waiver for de minimis development because a portion of the property is located in the Coastal Commission Appeal Area. In accordance with Section 21.52.015 (Coastal Development Permits), the Planning Commission must make the following findings in order to approve a coastal development permit. 1. Conforms to all applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal Program; 2. Conforms to 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. As summarized in Table 1 above, the proposed project conforms to all development standards for the R-1 (Single -Unit Residential) Coastal Zoning District set forth in the Local Coastal Program. The Zoning Administrator found that sufficient facts exist to support the coastal development permit request, as proposed by the applicant and demonstrated in the Draft Resolution for Approval (Attachment No. PC 1). The project's Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP (PA2017-179) Planning Commission, September 19, 2019 Page 6 conformance with Local Coastal Program regulations pertaining to coastal hazards, scenic and visual quality protection, and public access are discussed in greater detail below. Coastal Hazards Since the project site fronts onto Newport Bay, a Coastal Hazards Analysis was prepared for the project by GeoSoils, Inc., dated August 14, 2015 and updated on March 6, 2017 and September 13, 2018 (Attachment No. PC 8). The lowest habitable floor elevation of the proposed residence is 28.42 North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88), which exceeds the minimum 9.0 MSL (NAVD 88) elevation standard. The report concludes that the proposed development is reasonably safe from coastal hazards, including shoreline movement, waves and wave runup, and flooding with future sea level rise. The proposed development will neither create nor contribute to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or adjacent area. Furthermore, no protective devices will be necessary to protect the proposed development from any existing or anticipated future coastal hazards for the next 75 years or more. An existing retaining wall at the lower portion of the site adjacent to the bay supports walkway access to an existing boat dock. The wall is not designed to prevent erosion of the shoreline and the proposed residence does not rely on the wall for protection. The foundation of the wall is above the mean high tide line and has been inspected and deemed to be in good condition. No changes to the existing wall or dock are proposed or needed. If the wall is threatened by erosion due to sea level rise in the future, the wall would be removed and alternative access to the dock could be designed. Due to the project's location on a bluff, a Geotechnical Investigation, dated August 24, 2016, and a supplemental analysis, dated March 17, 2017, were prepared by G3 Soilworks. The reports conclude that the proposed grading and construction will not adversely affect geologic stability of the existing bluff or adjoining properties or structures, provided construction is performed in accordance with report recommendations. The development exposures along the bluff face will be generally similar to those of the existing development, and the incorporation of the recommended drainage control improvements will improve overall site stability. The foundation setbacks were found to be adequate for structural support and provide an adequate buffer to allow for long-term bluff retreat, although not considered to be a factor during the anticipated 75-year lifespan of the project. The sandstone bedrock composition of the bluff appears highly resistant to erosion based on the geologists' observation and no issues of special concern were noted, other than the need for pool protection measures to mitigate any pool leakage and/or seismic seiche effects. These required measures are incorporated within the conditions of approval and have been designed into the project. I Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP (PA2017-179) Planning Commission, September 19, 2019 Page 7 Scenic and Visual Quality Protection The proposed residence is designed to open up existing public views of the coastline. A visual impact analysis was prepared for the project (Attachment No. PC 9), evaluating existing and proposed views of Newport Bay from Ocean Boulevard looking over the project site towards the bay and public viewpoints on Peninsula Point looking across the channel towards the project site. Ocean Boulevard is designated as a Coastal View Road by the Coastal Land Use Plan and includes a designated Coastal View Point at the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. Public views of Newport Bay from this location are currently impacted by the existing over -height garage on the project site. The proposed project will open and enhance the public view by removing the existing garage and reconstructing new rooflines below the curb elevation of Ocean Boulevard. Proposed landscaping behind the sidewalk and within the public view corridor will consist of low -growing plant materials with mature heights of less than 3 feet to maintain the public view. Given the project site's location near the mouth of the Newport Harbor, the site is highly visible from the level of the harbor and from the West Jetty View Park, another designated Coastal View Point across the harbor channel. The project will replace an existing single- family residence with a new single-family residence that complies with all applicable development standards, including the Bluff Overlay standards, and does not extend beyond the footprint of the existing development, thereby preserving the existing remaining visible areas of bluff and rocky coastline. The proposed design is consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern of development and will not affect the existing views afforded from the harbor or the West Jetty View Park. In conclusion, the project does not have the potential to degrade the visual quality of the Coastal Zone or result in significant adverse impacts to public views. Public Access The project site is located between the nearest public road and the sea or shoreline; however, the project will not affect the public's ability to gain access to use and/or view the coast and nearby recreational facilities. The existing residential development neither provides nor inhibits public coastal access. Implementation Plan Section 21.30A.040 (Determination of Public Access/Recreation Impacts) requires that the provision of public access bear a reasonable relationship between the requirement and the project's impact and be proportional to the impact. In this case, the project replaces an existing single- family residence with a new single-family residence and does not involve a change in land use, density or intensity that will result in increased demand on public access and recreation opportunities. Staff Responses to Appeal A summary of the appellant's primary concerns and staff responses are discussed below: 1. Improper Ministerial Grade Determination: grade determination was ministerial and improperly based upon original grade rather than current grade. 0 Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP (PA2017-179) Planning Commission, September 19, 2019 Page 8 On December 5, 2014, the Community Development Director approved a grade determination for the project site, pursuant to Title 20 of the Municipal Code (Section 20.30.050.0 - Establishment of Grade by Director). This Code section allows the Community Development Director to establish grade for the purpose of measuring height on properties that have been previously altered through excavation, construction of retaining walls, and other conditions such that the existing grade is not representative of prevailing grades on adjoining lots or the general area. In this case, the Director determined that measuring height based on the current topography of the site is not appropriate, given that the bluff was excavated and filled during construction of the existing structures, and does not represent the natural bluff topography. The Director determined that the most accurate method of measuring height was to establish a grade plane matching the original topography of the site based on 1986 construction records. Based on direction given by City staff, the project architect created a grade and roof plan exhibit that superimposed the proposed roof plan over the proposed grade plane. A licensed land surveyor reviewed the exhibit and confirmed its consistency with the original 1986 topographic contours. The determination allows the building height to be measured from the established grade to the roof element directly above and established the grade profile as the topography of the site that existed prior to the 1986 construction of the existing home. The project plans clearly illustrate project compliance with the resultant height limits based upon the grade determination. The grade determination became effective on December 19, 2014. The appeal period for the determination expired in 2014, and is not subject to appeal today. 2. Improper Setbacks: the shared property line between the project site and Appellant property should be classified as a front rather than side property line, requiring a greater setback between the two sites. A front setback of 10 feet adjacent to Ocean Boulevard is identified for this property pursuant to Setback Map S-10A of both Title 20 (Zoning Code) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan). The nearest corner of the proposed residence is set back approximately 80 feet from the front property line adjacent to Ocean Boulevard. The required side setbacks are 4 feet; the project provides a 4-foot setback along both sides of the property. The required rear setback is 10 feet; the proposed residence is located approximately 26 feet from the rear property line. For purposes of establishing setbacks, Title 20 and Title 21 define a "front property line" as the lot line that "separates the lot from the street", a "rear lot line" as the lot line "that is parallel to the front lot line and does not intersect the front lot line", and a "side lot line" as a lot line that "is not a front or rear lot line." The exhibit below illustrates the required setbacks for both the subject and Appellant's properties. Staff believes that the setbacks for the project site have been correctly classified and the project complies with these setback requirements. 10 Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP (PA2017-179) Planning Commission, September 19, 2019 Page 9 Code -Required Setbacks Exhibit 3. Improper Expansion of Development on the Bluff Face: expansion of garage from one car to three considerably expands development on the bluff face. Both Title 20 and Title 21 limit new development of this lot by Bluff Overlay, Development Area Map No. 5 that limits new development by not allowing it to extend farther onto the bluff face beyond existing development. The proposed project will be located within the footprint of existing development. Furthermore, the location of the proposed garage is the only viable location for a three -car garage' and driveway slope that complies with City standards. The proposed garage is also within the existing extent of development. The expanded garage brings the property into conformance with current parking standards, complies with height and setback requirements, and allows for the demolition of the existing over -height garage that currently impedes public views from Ocean Boulevard. APPEAL HEARING Pursuant to Section 21.64.030 of Title 21, a public hearing on an appeal is conducted "de novo," meaning that it is a new hearing and the prior decision to approve the application by the Zoning Administrator has no force or effect. The Planning Commission is not bound by the Zoning Administrator's decision, and it is not limited to the issues raised on appeal. Upon review, the Planning Commission may sustain or reverse the prior decision. A draft resolution for denial to reverse the Zoning Administrator's decision is included as Attachment No. PC 2. The Planning Commission may also remand the matter to the Zoning Administrator for further consideration; a remand shall include specific issues to be considered or direction to conduct a new hearing. ' A 3-car garage is required for single family homes exceeding 4,000 gross square feet pursuant to §20.40.40 and §21.40.40. 11 Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP (PA2017-179) Planning Commission, September 19, 2019 Page 10 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the State CEQA Guidelines because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. This exemption covers the construction of new small facilities or structures including up to three new single-family residences in urbanized areas. The proposed project involves the construction of one new single-family residence, consistent with this exemption. 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. 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. APPEAL PERIOD This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date the Resolution is adopted unless within such time an appeal or call for review is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 21.64 (Appeals and Calls for Review) of the NBMC. The project site is located within the appeal area of the Coastal Zone; therefore, final action by the City may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission. For additional information on filing an appeal, contact the Planning Division at 949-644-3200. ATTACHMENTS: PC 1 Draft Resolution for Project Approval PC 2 Draft Resolution for Project Denial PC 3 2014 Grade Determination (SA2014-022) PC 4 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-047 PC 5 Zoning Administrator Staff Report, Minutes and Correspondence PC 6 Appeal Application PC 7 Bluff Overlay Map PC 8 Coastal Hazards Analysis PC 9 View Analysis PC10 Project Plans 12 Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution For Project Approval 13 E. RESOLUTION NO. PC2019-029 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. CD2017-076 TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ONE -CAR GARAGE, AND TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH ATTACHED THREE -CAR GARAGE LOCATED AT 2495 OCEAN BOULEVARD (PA2017-179) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: 6yx0111Ile] ►`III-Ir_TIIALTA IA01Ire] y_11"1611 1. An application was filed by Brandon Architects representing property owner Brian Sheehy ("Applicant'), with respect to property located at 2495 Ocean Boulevard, and legally described as Parcel 2, Block C, of Resub 274 (`Property"), requesting approval of a coastal development permit. 2. The Applicant requested a coastal development permit to demolish an existing single- family residence and one (1)-car garage, and to construct a new 6,630 square foot, single-family residence with an attached 656-square-foot, three (3)-car garage ("Project'). 3. The Property is designated Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS-D) by the General Plan Land Use Element and is located within the Single -Unit Residential (R-1) Zoning District. 4. The Property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is RSD-A (Single -Unit Residential Detached) (0.0 — 5.9 DU/AC) and the Coastal Zone District is R-1 (Single -Unit Residential). 5. A public hearing was held by the Zoning Administrator on July 11, 2019, in the Corona del Mar Conference Room located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with California Government Code Section 54950 et seq. ('Ralph M. Brown Act') and Chapter 20.62 and 21.62 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Zoning Administrator at this public hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Zoning Administrator approved Resolution No. ZA2019-047, approving the Project. 6. On July 24, 2019, Joe and Lisa Vallejo filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to the Planning Commission. 7. A public hearing was held on September 19, 2019, in the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and Chapter 20.62 and 21.62 of 15 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-029 Pape 2 of 11 the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. This 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. 2. The Class 3 exemption applies to the construction of a single-family residence in a residential zone. The Project consists of the demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new 6,630-square-foot, single-family residence and attached 656-square-foot, three (3)-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) 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 Project conforms to all applicable development standards including, but not limited to, floor area limitation, setbacks, height, and parking. a. The maximum floor area limitation is 20,554 square feet and the proposed floor area is 7,286 square feet. b. The Project provides the required setbacks, which are 10 feet along the front property line abutting Ocean Boulevard, four (4) feet along each side property line and 10 feet along the rear property line abutting the bay. c. Municipal Code Section 20.30.050.0 authorizes the Community Development Director to establish grade for the purpose of measuring height on properties 10 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-029 Pape 3 of 11 that have been previously altered through excavation, construction of retaining walls, and other conditions such that the grade is not representative of prevailing grades on adjoining lots or the general area. d. The highest guardrail or flat roof is no more than 24 feet, measured from established grade as established by the approved grade determination (SA2014-022) for the project site and the highest ridge is no more than 29 feet from established grade, which complies with the maximum height limitation. Additionally, no structure exceeds the curb height elevation along Ocean Boulevard. e. The Project includes enclosed garage parking for three (3) vehicles, which complies with the minimum three (3)-car garage parking requirement for single-family residences with more than 4,000 square feet of habitable floor area. f. Pursuant to the Bluff Overlay Map B-5 (Carnation), the Property is located on a bluff subject to marine erosion, and development shall not extend farther onto the bluff face beyond existing development. Consistent with the Bluff Overlay standards, the proposed principal dwelling and major accessory structures (including swimming pool) are located within Development Area A as illustrated on Map B-5. No accessory structures are proposed within Development Area C. g. The Project includes a pool and spa. These structures will incorporate double wall construction with subdrains between the walls and leak detection devices. Drainage for the pool will be tied into a proposed bioretention planter and discharged to an onsite stormwater pump. 2. The neighborhood is developed with a mix of single- and multi -family residences of varying height and mass. There are two adjacent multi -family developments constructed on the bluff immediately north and south of the Project site. To the south is the multi- story, 48-unit Channel Reef condominium development. To the north is the multi -story, eight (8)-unit Aerie condominium development. The property immediately above the Project is developed with an existing single-family residence. Based upon existing development in the vicinity and current development standards, the proposed design, bulk, and scale of the project is consistent with both the established and expected neighborhood development pattern. 3. A Coastal Hazards Analysis was prepared for the Project by GeoSoils, Inc., dated August 14, 2015 and updated on March 6, 2017 and September 13, 2018. The lowest habitable floor elevation of the proposed residence is 28.42 North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88), which exceeds the minimum 9.00 MSL (NAVD88) elevation standard. The report concludes that the Project is reasonably safe from coastal hazards, including shoreline movement, waves and wave runup, and flooding with future sea level 17 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-029 Pape 4 of 11 rise. The Project will neither create nor contribute to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or adjacent area. Furthermore, no protective devices will be necessary to protect the Project from any existing or anticipated future coastal hazards for the next 75 years or more. A retaining wall at the lower portion of the Property adjacent to the bay was constructed prior to the 1972 California Coastal Act codified in Public Resources Code Section 30000 et seq. and provides walkway access to an existing boat dock. The wall is documented in 1972 Coastal Photographic Records. It is not designed to prevent erosion of the shoreline and the Project does not rely on the wall for protection. The foundation of the wall is above the mean high tide line and has been inspected and deemed to be in good condition. No changes to the existing wall or dock are proposed. 4. Pursuant to Section 21.30.030(C)(3)(i)(iv) of the NBMC, 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 Property 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 the issuance of building permits for construction. 5. A Geotechnical Investigation, dated August 24, 2016, and a supplemental analysis, dated March 17, 2017, were prepared by G3 Soilworks. It concluded that the proposed grading and construction will not adversely affect geologic stability of the existing bluff or adjoining properties or structures, provided construction is performed in accordance with report recommendations. The development exposures along the bluff face will be generally similar to those of the existing development, and when incorporating the recommended drainage considerations, should likely improve overall site stability. The foundation setback were found to be adequate for structural support and provide an adequate buffer to allow for long-term bluff retreat, although not considered to be a factor during the project life. The sandstone bedrock composition of the bluff appears highly resistant to erosion. No special issues or concerns relative to the California Coastal Commission or City guidelines were noted, other than the need for pool protection measures to mitigate pool leakage and/or seismic seiche effects. 6. Pursuant to Section 21.35.030 of the NBMC, a Construction Pollution Prevention Plan ("CPPP") is required to implement temporary Best Management Practices ("BMP"s) during construction to minimize erosion and sedimentation and to minimize pollution of runoff and coastal waters derived by construction chemicals and materials. A CPPP prepared by Total Engineering on September 25, 2015, and updated on March 29, 2018, has been reviewed and approved by the City's Engineer Geologist. 7. Pursuant to 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 AN Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-029 Pape 5 of 11 more than 75 percent of impervious surface area, a Water Quality and Hydrology Plan ("WQHP") is required. A Water Quality Management Report ("WQMR") prepared for the Project by Total Engineering on September 25, 2015, has been reviewed and approved by the City's Engineer Geologist. The WQHP includes a polluted runoff and hydrologic site characterization, a sizing standard for BMPs, use of an LID approach to retain the design storm runoff volume on site, and documentation of the expected effectiveness of the proposed BMPs. Construction plans will be reviewed for compliance with the approved WQHP prior to building permit issuance. 8. The Project design addresses water quality with a construction erosion control plan and a post -construction drainage system that includes drainage and percolation features designed to retain dry weather and minor rain event run-off on -site. Any water not retained on -site is directed to the City's storm drain system. 9. New landscaping will be verified for compliance with Section 21.30.075 (Landscaping) of the NBMC. A condition of approval is included that requires drought -tolerant plantings, and prohibits invasive species. Prior to issuance of the building permits, the final landscape plans will be reviewed to verify invasive species are not planted. 10. A visual impact analysis prepared for the Project evaluated existing and proposed views towards the bay from Ocean Boulevard, and also from public viewpoints on Peninsula Point across the harbor channel towards the project site. The Property site is located on Ocean Boulevard, which is designated as a Coastal View Road by the Coastal Land Use Plan and includes a designated Coastal View Point at the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. Public views of Newport Bay at this location are currently impacted by the existing over -height garage on the Property. The Project will open and enhance the public view by removing the existing garage and reconstructing new rooflines below the curb elevation of Ocean Boulevard. Proposed landscaping behind the sidewalk and within the public view will consist of low -growing plant materials with a mature height of less than three (3) feet to ensure the public view is maintained. 11. Given the Project's location near the mouth of the Newport Harbor, the site is highly visible from the level of the harbor and from the West Jetty View Park, another designated Coastal View Point, across the harbor channel. The Project will replace an existing single-family residence with a new single-family residence that complies with all applicable development standards, including the Bluff Overlay standards, does not extend beyond the footprint of the existing development, thereby preserving the existing remaining visible areas of bluff and rocky coastline. Site evaluation revealed that the proposed design is consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern of development and will not affect the existing views afforded from the harbor or the West Jetty View Park. In conclusion, the Project does not have the potential to degrade the visual quality of the Coastal Zone or result in significant adverse impacts to public views. 19 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-029 Pape 6 of 11 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. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Project is located between the nearest public road and the sea or shoreline; however, the Project will not affect the public's ability to gain access to use and/or view the coast and nearby recreational facilities. The existing residential development neither provides nor inhibits public coastal access. Implementation Plan Section 21.30A.040 (Determination of Public Access/Recreation Impacts) requires that the provision of public access bear a reasonable relationship between the requirement and the Project's impact and be proportional to the impact. In this case, the Project replaces an existing single-family residence 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. 2. The Project is designed and sited so as not block or impede existing public access opportunities and occurs within the confines of private property. Vertical access to the bay front and a small public beach is available south of the Project at China Cove via the China Cove Ramp located 300 feet east of the Project driveway. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby finds the Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act 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. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Coastal Development Permit No. CD2017-076, 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 fourteen (14) days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal or call for review is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 21 Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Final action taken by the City may be appealed to the Coastal Commission in compliance with Section 21.64.035 of the City's certified LCP and Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Sections 13111 through 13120, and Section 30603 of the Coastal Act. 20 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-029 Paqe 7 of 11 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Peter Koetting, Chairman M Lee Lowrey, Secretary 21 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-029 Pape 8 of 11 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Project -specific conditions are in italics) 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. Revisions to the approved plans may require an amendment to this Coastal Development Permit or the processing of a new coastal development permit. 3. This Coastal Development Permit No. CD2017-076 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. 4. Prior to the issuance of any 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. 5. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the Property owner shall submit a notarized signed letter acknowledging all hazards present at the site, assuming the risk of injury or damage from such hazards, unconditionally waiving any claims of damage against the City from such hazards, and to indemnify and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of development. 6. No demolition or construction materials, equipment debris, or waste, shall be placed or stored in a location that would enter sensitive habitat, receiving waters, or a storm drain or result in impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat areas, streams, the beach, wetlands or their buffers. 7. This approval does not authorize any new or existing improvements (including landscaping) on State tidelands, public beaches, or the public right-of-way. 8. This Coastal Development Permit does not authorize any development seaward of the private property. 9. 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 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-029 Pape 9 of 11 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. 10. Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Good Housekeeping Practices (GNPs) shall be implemented prior to and throughout the duration of construction activity as designated in the Construction Pollution Prevention Plan (CPPP). 11. 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. 12. 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. Stock piles 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. 13. 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. 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. 16. This Coastal Development Permit may be modified or revoked by the Planning Commission 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. 23 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-029 Pape 10 of 11 17. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, 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 any building permit, 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 the issuance of any building permit, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Division an additional copy of the approved architectural plans for inclusion in the coastal development permit 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. 20. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the approved CPPP and WQHP/WQMR shall be submitted with the Building Permit plans. Implementation shall be in compliance with the approved CPPP and WQHPIWQMR and any changes may require separate review and approval by the Building Division. 21. Prior to the issuance of any 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. 22. Private landscape improvements behind the sidewalk and within the public view corridor shall not exceed three (3) feet in height. 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. The swimming pool shall incorporate double wall construction with subdrains between the walls and leak detection devices or an equivalent method. 25. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Division. 26. 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. M Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-029 Pape 11 of 11 27. Prior to the building permit final, an agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney between the Property owner and the City shall be executed and recorded waiving rights to the construction of future shoreline protection devices to address the threat of damage or destruction from waves, erosion, storm conditions, landslides, seismic activity, bluff retreat, sea level rise, or other natural hazards that may affect the property, or development of the property, today or in the future. The agreement shall be binding against the Property owners and successors and assigns. 28. All project landscaping contained in planters along proposed driveway shall not exceed a height of three (3) feet at maturity and shall be maintained at a height of three (3) feet or lower (including raised planters). 29. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, a construction management plan shall be submitted for review and approved by the Community Development Department, Fire Department, and Public Works Department. The construction management plan shall address construction staging, employee parking, and construction material deliveries. 30. Prior to the complete building framing approval, the general contractor shall submit roof height certification to the Building Division Inspector verifying compliance with the approved building heights. 31. 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 Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP including, but not limited to, Coastal Development Permit No. CD2017-076 (PA2017-179). 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. 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.) 25 20 Attachment No. PC 2 Draft Resolution for Project Denial 2� 22 RESOLUTION NO. PC2019-029 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OVERTURNING ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL AND DENYING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. CD2017-076 TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ONE -CAR GARAGE, AND CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH ATTACHED THREE -CAR GARAGE LOCATED AT 2495 OCEAN BOULEVARD (PA2017-179) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: [6yx 91010SE&9rGAr1�•d:1.rr•]011111yGNl1601 An application was filed by Brandon Architects ("Applicant"), on behalf of Brian Sheehy ("Owner"), with respect to property located at 2495 Ocean Boulevard, and legally described as Parcel 2, Block C, of Resub 274 ("Property"), requesting approval of a coastal development permit. 2. The Applicant requested a coastal development permit to demolish an existing single-family residence and one -car garage, and construct a new 6,630-square-foot, single-family residence with an attached 656-square-foot, three -car garage ("Project"); 3. The subject property is designated Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS-D) by the General Plan Land Use Element and is located within the Single -Unit Residential (R-1) Zoning District. 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is RSD-A (Single -Unit Residential Detached) (0.0 — 5.9 DU/AC) and the Coastal Zone District is R-1 (Single -Unit Residential). 5. A public hearing was held by the Zoning Administrator on July 11, 2019, in the Corona del Mar Conference Room located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Zoning Administrator at this public hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Zoning Administrator approved Resolution No. PC2019-047, approving the project. 6. On July 24, 2019, Joe and Lisa Vallejo filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to the Planning Commission. 7. A public hearing was held on September 19, 2019, in the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC"). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. 29 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-029 Paqe 2 of 2 SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. A coastal development permit is required to authorize new development in the Coastal Zone. In this case, the Planning Commission was unable to make the required findings for the approval of the Project based upon the following: 1. The proposed residence does not conform to all applicable sections of the certified Local Coastal Program. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies Coastal Development Permit No. CD2017-076. 2. 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 the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 21 Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Final action taken by the City may be appealed to the Coastal Commission in compliance with Section 21.64.035 of the City's certified LCP and Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Sections 13111 through 13120, and Section 30603 of the Coastal Act. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 19T" DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: I0-ya M Peter Koetting, Chairman Lee Lowrey, Secretary 30 Attachment No. PC 3 2014 Grade Determination (SA2014-022) 31 S2 Application No. Applicant Site Address Legal Description COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 100 Civic Center Drive, P.O. Box 1768, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 (949) 644-3200 Fax: (949) 644-3229 www. newportb eachca. gov COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ACTION LETTER Staff Approval No. SA2014-022 (PA2014-152) Brandon Architects 2495 Ocean Boulevard 2495 Ocean Boulevard Grade Determination Parcel 2, Block C, PMB 36/3 On December 5, 2014, the Community Development Director approved Staff Approval No. SA2014-022 to establish grade for the purpose of measuring heights using the original grade of the site that existed prior to the 1986 development of the existing residence and allow structure heights to be measured from the natural grade directly below. This approval is based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions. ZONING DISTRICT/GENERAL PLAN Zone: R-1 (Single -Unit Residential) General Plan: RS-D (Single -Unit Residential Detached) DISCUSSION The subject parcel is an irregularly -shaped lot on the coastal side of Ocean Boulevard. The property is currently developed with a single -unit dwelling constructed in 1986 on a steeply sloped bluff (Attachment CD 1). Subsequent to the site's 1986 improvements, the original grade of the subject site has been substantially altered with retaining walls resulting in extensive excavation and fill areas (Attachment CD 2). The current existing grade elevations no longer represent the natural topography of the bluff and therefore not appropriate for determining the grade from which heights should be measured. The applicant has prepared a topographic grade exhibit, based on the original topographic survey of the site conditions that existed prior to 1986, to be used as the grade for height measurement purposes (Attachment CD 3). In addition, the applicant is requesting heights be measured from the grades directly below the structure's roof and deck features rather than the grade plane method currently specified in the Zoning Code. 33 Sheehy Residence Grade Determination December 5, 2014 Page 2 Pursuant to Section 20.30.050.E (Establishment of Grade), on lots with slopes greater than five percent, the established grade from which structure height is measured is determined by placing five evenly spaced points along both side property lines and connecting each point with the corresponding point on the opposite side property line to establish an equidistant elevation grade along the width of the property. The intent of this code is to simplify the measurements of height and save time for staff, property owners, and builders. However, this current method of grade establishment does not work because the rear property line and portions of the side property lines are located within the Newport Bay resulting in interpolated elevations excessively below the actual grade elevations of the property and is not representative of the prevailing grades in the area or of the original topography (Attachment CD 4). The purpose of this grade determination is to ensure development on -site is not artificially lowered or raised by providing a more precise measurement using the vertical distance between the highest points of the structure and the grades directly below using the original grades that existed prior to the 1986 improvements. FINDINGS In accordance with Zoning Code Section 20.30.050.0 (Grade Establishment — Establishment by Director) if the Community Development Director finds that the existing grade on the subject lot has been previously altered (e.g., contains retaining structures, property line walls, planters, or excavation/fill), or other conditions are present to the degree that the existing grade is not representative of the prevailing grades on adjoining lots and/or the general area and, therefore, is not appropriate for the purpose of establishing the grade of the subject lot, the Community Development Director may establish the grade that is reasonable and comparable with the grades of adjoining lots and that will not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements on adjoining lots. Finding: A. The existing grade on the subject lot has been previously altered or other conditions are present to the degree that the existing grade is not representative of the prevailing grades on adjoining lots and/or the general area and, therefore, is not appropriate for the purpose of establishing the grade of the subject lot. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The existing grades on the subject property have been altered with planters, significant excavation/fill, and retaining walls artificially lowering and raising the current elevations from the original topography. Utilizing the original topography of the site that existed prior to the 1986 improvements is appropriate in this case and is representative of the prevailing grades that naturally existed on the bluff. 2. The current methodology to establish the grade plane from which structure height is measured is determined by measuring five evenly spaced points along each of the two side property lines and connecting each of the points along a side property line with the corresponding point on the opposite side property line . The rear property line and Tmple 04/04/13 M, Sheehy Residence Grade Determination December 5, 2014 Page 3 segments of both side yard property lines are located within Newport Bay, thus resulting in interpolated elevations excessively below the actual grade elevations of the property and not representative of the prevailing grades in the area or of the original topography. Finding: B. The grade is reasonable and comparable with the grades of adjoining lots and will not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements on adjoining lots. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposal will provide a grade plane that is representative of the original topography of the bluff that existed prior to the 1986 improvements of the existing home and the neighboring residences at the time of development. 2. The proposed grade establishes elevations consistent with natural topography of the site and requires building heights to be measured from the grade directly below each feature to ensure building height conforms to the original topography of the site as accurately as possible. 3. The property will be required to comply with all applicable development standards of the Zoning Code which are in place to prevent detriment or injury to the existing property and neighboring properties and improvements on adjoining lots. CONDITIONS 1. A copy of this action letter including the findings and conditions shall be copied onto the building plans. 2. Grades for the purpose of measuring heights for the principal and accessory structures shall be measured from the topographic map stamped with the date of this approval and identified as Attachment CD 3 (Restored Topographic Map (GD-2). 3. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the Sheehy Residence Grade Determination including, but not limited to, the SA2014- 022 (PA2014-152). 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 Tmplt 04/04/13 3,5 Sheehy Residence Grade Determination December 5, 2014 Page 4 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. APPEAL PERIOD An appeal may be filed with the Director of Community Development or City Clerk, as applicable, within fourteen (14) days following the date the action or decision was rendered. For additional information on filing an appeal, contact the Planning Division at (949)644-3200. On behalf of Kimberly Brandt, AICP, Community Development Director By: p &a4j-_ Debbie Drasler, Contract Planner JM/dad Attachments: CD 1 Vicinity Map CD 2 Current Topographic Survey CD 3 Restored Topographic Map (GD-2.0) 1986 Topographic Map (GD-2.1) CD 4 Grade Plane Exhibit (GD-1.0) Grade Plane Sections (GD-1.3) Tmph: 04/04/13 3o Attachment No. CD 1 Vicinity Map S Sheehy Residence Grade Determination December 5, 2014 Page 2 VICINITY MAP Staff Approval No. SA2014-022 PA2014-152 2495 Ocean Boulevard Tmplt.' 04/04/13 S2 Attachment No. PC 4 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-047 39 40 RESOLUTION NO. ZA2019-047 A RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. CD2017-076 TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ATTACHED THREE -CAR GARAGE LOCATED AT 2495 OCEAN BOULEVARD (PA2017-179) THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Brandon Architects, with respect to property located at 2495 Ocean Boulevard, and legally described as Parcel 2, Block C, of Resub 274 requesting approval of a coastal development permit. 2. The applicant proposes to demolish an existing single-family residence and construct a new 6,672-square foot, single-family residence with an attached 656-square-foot, three - car garage. 3. The subject property is located within the R-1 (Single -Unit Residential) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element is RS-D (Single -Unit Residential Detached). 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is RSD-A (Single Unit Residential Detached) (0.0- 5.9 DU/AC) and the Coastal Zone District is R-1 (Single -Unit Residential). 5. A public hearing was held on July 11, 2019, in the Corona del Mar Conference Room (Bay E-1st Floor) at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Zoning Administrator at this hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. 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. 2. Class 3 includes the construction of a single-family residence in a residential zone. The proposed project consists of the demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new 6,672-square-foot, single-family residence and attached 656- square-foot, three -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 iM Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-047 Pape 2 of 10 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) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, 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 conforms to all applicable development standards including, but not limited to, floor area limitation, setbacks, height, and parking. a. The maximum floor area limitation is 20,554 square feet and the proposed floor area is 7,328 square feet. b. The proposed development provides the required setbacks, which are 10 feet along the front property line abutting Ocean Boulevard, 4 feet along each side property line and 10 feet along the rear property line abutting the bay. c. The highest guardrail or flat roof is no more than 24 feet, measured from established grade as established by an approved grade determination (SA2014- 022) for the project site and the highest ridge is no more than 29 feet from established grade, which complies with the maximum height limitation. Additionally, no structure exceeds the curb height elevation along Ocean Boulevard. d. The project includes enclosed garage parking for three vehicles, which complies with the minimum three -car garage parking requirement for single-family residences with more than 4,000 square feet of habitable floor area. e. Pursuant to the Bluff Overlay Map B-5 (Carnation), the property is located on a bluff subject to marine erosion and development shall not extend farther onto the bluff face beyond existing development. Consistent with the Bluff Overlay standards, the proposed principal dwelling and major accessory structures (including swimming pool) are located within Development Area A as illustrated on Map B-5. No accessory structures are proposed within Development Area C. f. The Project includes a pool and spa. These structures will incorporate double wall construction with subdrains between the walls and leak detection devices. Drainage for the pool will be tied into a proposed bioretention planter and discharged to an onsite stormwater pump. 42 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-047 Pape 3 of 10 2. The neighborhood is developed with a mix of single- and multi -family residences of varying height and mass. There are two adjacent multi -family developments constructed on the bluff immediately north and south of the project site. To the south is the multi- story, 48-unit Channel Reef condominium development. To the north is the multi -story, 8-unit Aerie condominium development. The property immediately above the project site is developed with an existing single-family residence. Based upon existing development in the vicinity and current development standards, the proposed design, bulk, and scale of the project is consistent with both the established and expected neighborhood development pattern. 3. A Coastal Hazards Analysis was prepared for the project by GeoSoils, Inc., dated August 14, 2015 and updated on March 6, 2017 and September 13, 2018. The lowest habitable floor elevation of the proposed residence is 28.42 MSL (NAVD 88), which exceeds the minimum 9.00 MSL (NAVD88) elevation standard. The report concludes that the proposed development is reasonably safe from coastal hazards, including shoreline movement, waves and wave runup, and flooding with future sea level rise. The proposed development will neither create nor contribute to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or adjacent area. Furthermore, no protective devices will be necessary to protect the proposed development from any existing or anticipated future coastal hazards for the next 75 years or more. A retaining wall at the lower portion of the site adjacent to the bay was constructed prior to the 1972 Coastal Act and provides walkway access to an existing boat dock. The wall is documented in 1972 Coastal Photographic Records. It is not designed to prevent erosion of the shoreline and the proposed residence does not rely on the wall for protection. The foundation of the wall is above the mean high tide line and has been inspected and deemed to be in good condition. No changes to the existing wall or dock are proposed. 4. 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 the issuance of building permits for construction. 5. A Geotechnical Investigation, dated August 24, 2016, and a supplemental analysis, dated March 17, 2017, were prepared by G3 Soilworks. It was concluded that the proposed grading and construction will not adversely affect geologic stability of the existing bluff or adjoining properties or structures, provided construction is performed in accordance with report recommendations. The development exposures along the bluff face will be generally similar to those of the existing development, and when incorporating the recommended drainage considerations, should likely improve overall site stability. The foundation setback were found to be adequate for structural support and provide an adequate buffer to allow for long-term bluff retreat, although not considered to be a factor during the project life. The sandstone bedrock composition of the bluff appears highly resistant to erosion. No special issues or concerns relative to California Coastal Commission or City guidelines RE Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-047 Pape 4 of 10 were noted, other than the need for pool protection measures to mitigate pool leakage and/or seismic seiche effects. 6. Pursuant to Section 21.35.030 of the Municipal Code, a Construction Pollution Prevention Plan (CPPP) is required 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. A CPPP prepared by Toal Engineering on September 25, 2015, and updated on March 29, 2018, has been reviewed and approved by the City's Engineer Geologist. 7. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 21.35.050 (Water Quality and Hydrology Plan), 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 Water Quality Management Report (WQMP) prepared forthe project by Toal Engineering on September 25, 2015, has been reviewed and approved by the City's Engineer Geologist. The WQHP includes a polluted runoff and hydrologic site characterization, a sizing standard for BMPs, use of an LID approach to retain the design storm runoff volume on site, and documentation of the expected effectiveness of the proposed BMPs. Construction plans will be reviewed for compliance with the approved WQHP prior to building permit issuance. 8. The project design addresses water quality with a construction erosion control plan and a post construction drainage system that includes drainage and percolation features designed to retain dry weather and minor rain event run-off on -site. Any water not retained on -site is directed to the City's storm drain system. 9. New landscaping will be verified for compliance with NBMC Section 21.30.075 (Landscaping). A condition of approval is included that requires drought -tolerant, and prohibits invasive species. Prior to issuance of the building permits, the final landscape plans will be reviewed to verify invasive species are not planted. 10. A visual impact analysis prepared for the project evaluated existing and proposed views towards the bay from Ocean Boulevard, and also from public viewpoints on Peninsula Point across the harbor channel towards the project site. The project site is located on Ocean Boulevard, which is designated as a Coastal View Road by the Coastal Land Use Plan and includes a designated Coastal View Point at the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. Public views of Newport Bay at this location are currently impacted by the existing over -height garage on the project site. The proposed project will open and enhance the public view by removing the existing garage and reconstructing new rooflines below the curb elevation of Ocean Boulevard. Proposed landscaping behind the sidewalk and within the public view will consist of low -growing plant materials with a mature height of less than 3'-0" to ensure the public view is maintained. 11. Given the project site's location near the mouth of the Newport Harbor, the site is highly visible from the level of the harbor and from the West Jetty View Park, another designated Coastal View Point, across the harbor channel. The project will replace an existing single-family residence with a new single-family residence that complies with all Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-047 Pape 5 of 10 applicable development standards, including the Bluff Overlay standards, does not extend beyond the footprint of the existing development, thereby preserving the existing remaining visible areas of bluff and rocky coastline. Site evaluation revealed that the proposed design is consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern of development and will not affect the existing views afforded from the harbor or the West Jetty View Park. In conclusion, the project does not have the potential to degrade the visual quality of the Coastal Zone or result in significant adverse impacts to public views. Finding: 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; however, the project will not affect the public's ability to gain access to use and/or view the coast and nearby recreational facilities. The existing residential development neither provides nor inhibits public coastal access. Implementation Plan Section 21.30A.040 (Determination of Public Access/Recreation Impacts) requires that the provision of public access bear a reasonable relationship between the requirement and the project's impact and be proportional to the impact. In this case, the project replaces an existing single-family residence 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. 2. The project is designed and sited so as not block or impede existing public access opportunities and occurs within the confines of private property. Vertical access to the bay front and a small public beach is available south of the project site at China Cove via the China Cove Ramp located 300 feet east of the project driveway. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Zoning Administrator of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Coastal Development Permit No. CD2017-076, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A," which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 2. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal or call for review is filed with the Community Development Director in accordance with the provisions of Title 21 Local Coastal Implementation Plan, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Final action taken by the City may be appealed to the Coastal Commission in compliance with Section 21.64.035 of the City's certified LCP and Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Sections 13111 through 13120, and Section 30603 of the Coastal Act. RE Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-047 Paqe 6 of 10 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 11T" DAY OF JULY, 2019. os linh Ung g Administrator 40 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-047 Pape 7 of 10 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Project -specific conditions are in italics) 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. Revisions to the approved plans may require an amendment to this Coastal Development Permit or the processing of a new coastal development permit. 3. This Coastal Development Permit No. CD2017-076 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 Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 4. Prior to the 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. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall submit a notarized signed letter acknowledging all hazards present at the site, assuming the risk of injury or damage from such hazards, unconditionally waiving any claims of damage against the City from such hazards, and to indemnify and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of development. 6. No demolition or construction materials, equipment debris, or waste, shall be placed or stored in a location that would enter sensitive habitat, receiving waters, or a storm drain or result in impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat areas, streams, the beach, wetlands or their buffers. 7. This approval does not authorize any new or existing improvements (including landscaping) on State tidelands, public beaches, or the public right-of-way. 8. This Coastal Development Permit does not authorize any development seaward of the private property. 9. The applicant is responsible for compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In compliance with the (MBTA), grading, brush removal, building demolition, tree trimming, and similar construction activities shall occur between August 16 and January 31, 47 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-047 Pape 8 of 10 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. 10.Best Management Practices (BMP's) and Good Housekeeping Practices (GHP's) shall be implemented prior to and throughout the duration of construction activity as designated in the Construction Pollution Prevention Plan (CPPP). 11. 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. 12. 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. Stock piles 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. 13. 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. 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. 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. M Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-047 Pape 9 of 10 17. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, 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 a building permit, 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 the 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 permit 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. 20. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the approved CPPP and WQHPMQMP shall be submitted with the Building Permit plans. Implementation shall be in compliance with the approved CPPP and WQHP/WQMP and any changes may require separate review and approval by the Building Division. 21. 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. 22. Private landscape improvements behind the sidewalk and within the public view corridor shall not exceed 3 feet in height. 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. The swimming pool shall incorporate double wall construction with subdrains between the walls and leak detection devices or an equivalent method. 25. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Division. 26. 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. 49 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2019-047 Paqe 10 of 10 27. Prior to the building permit final, an agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney between the property owner and the City shall be executed and recorded waiving rights to the construction of future shoreline protection devices to address the threat of damage or destruction from waves, erosion, storm conditions, landslides, seismic activity, bluff retreat, sea level rise, or other natural hazards that may affect the property, or development of the property, today or in the future. The agreement shall be binding against the property owners and successors and assigns. 28. All project landscaping contained in planters along proposed driveway shall not exceed a height of 3 feet at maturity and shall be maintained at a height of 3 feet or lower (including raised planters). 29. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a construction management plan shall be submitted for review and approved by the Community Development Department, Fire Department, and Public Works Department. The construction management plan shall address construction staging, employee parking, and construction material deliveries. 30. Prior to the complete building framing approval, the general contractor shall submit roof height certification to the Building Division Inspector verifying compliance with the approved building heights. 31.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 Sheehy Residence including, but not limited to, Coastal Development Permit No. CD2017-076 (PA2017-179). 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/orthe 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 pursuantto the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 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.) 50 Attachment No. PC 5 Zoning Administrator Staff Report, Minutes and Correspondence 51 52 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STAFF REPORT July 11, 2019 Agenda Item No. 3 SUBJECT: Sheehy Residence (PA2017-179) Coastal Development Permit No. CD2017-076 SITE LOCATION: 2495 Ocean Boulevard APPLICANT: Brandon Architects OWNER: Brian Sheehy PLANNER: Liane Schuller, Planning Consultant 949- 644-3200, Ischuller(ODnewportbeachca.goy LAND USE AND ZONING • General Plan: RS-D (Single -Unit Residential Detached) • Zoning District: R-1 (Single -Unit Residential) • Coastal Land Use Category: Single -Unit Residential Detached — (0.0- 5.9 DU/AC) (RSD-A) • Coastal Zoning District: R-1 (Single -Unit Residential) • Bluff Overlay District: Map B-5 (Carnation Avenue) PROJECT SUMMARY A request for a coastal development permit to allow the demolition of an existing single- family residence and detached one -car garage, and the construction of a new 6,672-square- foot, single-family residence with an attached 656-square-foot, three -car garage. The proposed development also includes accessory elements such as walls, fences, patios, hardscape, swimming pool, drainage devices and landscaping. The proposed project complies with all applicable development standards and no deviations are requested. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; 2) Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 - Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3) Adopt Draft Zoning Administrator Resolution No. _ approving Coastal Development Permit No. CD2017-076 (Attachment No. ZA 1). me Sheehy Residence CDP (PA2017-179) Zoning Administrator, July 11, 2019 Page 2 BACKGROUND On April 7, 1984, the Planning Commission approved Variance No. VA1114, which allowed portions of the existing garage to exceed the maximum allowed height within the front half of the lot. Project implementation would result in demolition of the over -height garage and existing single-family residence. Subsequent to the site's development in 1986, the original grade of the subject site was substantially altered with retaining walls resulting in extensive excavation and fill areas and current existing grade elevations that no longer represent the natural topography of the bluff. Therefore, on December 5, 2014, the Community Development Director approved a grade determination for the project site (Staff Approval No. SA2014-022), establishing grade for the purpose of measuring height based upon the original natural grade prior to the development of the existing construction approved in 1986. The approved grade determination became effective on December 19, 2014, and establishes the points from which height is to be measured for the proposed project. DISCUSSION Land Use and Development Standards • The subject property is located in the R-1 Coastal Zoning District, which provides for single -unit residential development and is consistent with the City's Coastal Land Use Plan, General Plan, and Zoning Code. A coastal development permit is required and the property is not eligible for a waiver for de minimis development because a portion of the property is located in the Coastal Commission Appeal Area. • The property currently consists of one legal lot developed with a single-family residence.. The neighborhood is developed with a mix of single- and multi -family residences of varying height and mass. There are two adjacent multi -family developments constructed on the bluff immediately north and south of the project site. To the south is the multi -story, 48-unit Channel Reef condominium development. To the north is the multi -story, 8-unit Aerie condominium development. The property immediately above the project site is developed with an existing single-family residence. Based upon existing development in the vicinity and current development standards, the proposed design, bulk, and scale of the project is consistent with both the established and expected neighborhood development pattern. • The proposed single-family dwelling and accessory structures conform to all applicable development standards set forth in Title 20 of the Municipal Code (Planning and Zoning), including floor area limit, setbacks, height, and off-street parking as evidenced by the project plans and illustrated in Table 1 below: NSA Sheehy Residence CDP (PA2017-179) Zoning Administrator, July 11, 2019 Page 3 evelo rteGS'+ndatl ;S#anda� .,Pro _ Setbacks min. Front Ocean Blvd. 10 feet >10 feet Sides 4 feet 4 feet Rear (Newport Bay) 10 feet >10 feet Allowable Floor Area 20,554 square feet 7,328 square feet Allowable V Floor Area 2,055 square feet 0 Open Space min. 2,055 square feet 2,316 square feet Parkin min. 3-car garage 3-car ciaraoe Height (max.) 24 feet flat roof 29 feet sloped roof 24 feet flat roof 29 feet sloped roof • The property is also located within the Bluff Overlay District, which is intended to establish special development standards for areas of the City where projects are proposed on identified coastal bluffs. Section 21.38.040 of the City's Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan establishes "Development Areas' where specific improvements may be placed. The proposed single-family dwelling and accessory structures conform to the standards summarized below: - o ,3 4tl_�vei _escrftoa Area between front Principal structures and major A property line and the accessory structures, including oceanward extent of guest houses and swimming pools existing development None for this site (Area A Accessory structures B overlaps Area B) All other portions of the Limited accessory structures and C property improvements such as landscape, temporary irrigation, drainage devices, public paths and stairways Hazards • The project site fronts onto Newport Bay. A Coastal Hazards Analysis was prepared for the project by GeoSoils, Inc., dated August 14, 2015 and updated on March 6, 2017 and September 13, 2018. The lowest habitable floor elevation of the proposed residence is 28.42 MSL (NAVD 88), which exceeds the minimum 9.0 MSL (NAVD 88) elevation standard. The report concludes that the proposed development is reasonably safe from coastal hazards, including shoreline movement, waves and wave runup, and flooding with future sea level rise. The proposed development will neither create nor contribute to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or adjacent area. Furthermore, no protective 5� Sheehy Residence CDP (PA2017-179) Zoning Administrator, July 11, 2019 Page 4 devices will be necessary to protect the proposed development from any existing or anticipated future coastal hazards for the next 75 years or more. • A retaining wall at the lower portion of the site adjacent to the bay was constructed prior to the 1972 Coastal Act and provides walkway access to an existing boat dock. The wall is documented in 1972 Coastal Photographic Records. It is not designed to prevent erosion of the shoreline and the proposed residence does not rely on the wall for protection. The foundation of the wall is above the mean high tide line and has been inspected and deemed to be in good condition. No changes to the existing wall or dock are proposed or needed. • A Geotechnical Investigation, dated August 24, 2016, and a supplemental analysis, dated March 17, 2017, were prepared by G3 Soilworks. It was concluded that the proposed grading and construction will not adversely affect geologic stability of the existing bluff or adjoining properties or structures, provided construction is performed in accordance with report recommendations. The development exposures along the bluff face will be generally similar to those of the existing development, and when incorporating the recommended drainage considerations, should likely improve overall site stability. The foundation setback were found to be adequate for structural support and provide an adequate buffer to allow for long-term bluff retreat, although not considered to be a factor during the project life. The sandstone bedrock composition of the bluff appears highly resistant to erosion. No special issues or concerns relative to California Coastal Commission or City guidelines were noted, other than the need for pool protection measures to mitigate pool leakage and/or seismic seiche effects. • 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 the issuance of building permits for construction. • 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 a building permit. 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. Sheehy Residence CDP (PA2017-179) Zoning Administrator, July 11, 2019 Page 5 Water Quality • The property is located within 100 feet of coastal waters. Pursuant to Section 21.35.030 (Construction Pollution Prevention Plan) of the Municipal Code, a Construction Pollution Prevention Plan (CPPP) is required to implement temporary Best Management Practices (BMP's) during construction to minimize erosion and sedimentation and to minimize pollution of runoff and coastal waters derived from construction chemicals and materials. A CPPP has been reviewed and approved by the City's Engineer Geologist. Construction plans and activities will be required to adhere to the approved CPPP. • Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 21.35.050 (Water Quality and Hydrology Plan), 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. The WQHP has been reviewed and approved by the City's Engineer Geologist. The WQHP includes a polluted runoff and hydrologic site characterization, a sizing standard for BMPs, use of an LID approach to retain the design storm runoff volume on site, and documentation of the expected effectiveness of the proposed BMPs. Construction plans will be reviewed for compliance with the approved WQHP prior to building permit issuance. • The project design addresses water quality with a construction erosion control plan and a post construction drainage system that includes drainage and percolation features designed to retain dry weather run-off and minor rain event run-off on -site. Any water not retained on -site is directed to the City's storm drain system. Public Access and Views • The project site is located between the nearest public road and the sea or shoreline; however, the project will not affect the public's ability to gain access to use and/or view the coast and nearby recreational facilities. The existing residential development neither provides nor inhibits public coastal access. Implementation Plan Section 21.30A.040 (Determination of Public Access/Recreation Impacts) requires that the provision of public access bear a reasonable relationship between the requirement and the project's impact and be proportional to the impact. In this case, the project replaces an existing single-family residence 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. • The project is designed and sited so as not block or impede existing public access opportunities and occurs within the confines of private property. Vertical access to the bay front and a small public beach is available south of the project site at China Cove via the China Cove Ramp located 300 feet east of the subject project driveway. M 1 Sheehy Residence CDP (PA2017-179) Zoning Administrator, July 11, 2019 Page 6 • A visual impact analysis prepared for the project evaluated existing and proposed views towards the bay from Ocean Boulevard, and also from public viewpoints on Peninsula Point across the harbor channel towards the project site (Attachment No. ZA 3). The project site is located on Ocean Boulevard, which is designated as a Coastal'View Road by the Coastal Land Use Plan and includes a designated Coastal View Point at the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. Public views of Newport Bay at this location are currently impacted by the existing over -height garage on the project site. The proposed project will open and enhance the public view by removing the existing garage and reconstructing new rooflines below the curb elevation of Ocean Boulevard. Proposed landscaping behind the sidewalk and within the public view will consist of low -growing plant materials with a mature height of less than 3'-0ii to ensure the public view is maintained. • Given the project site's location near the mouth of the Newport Harbor, the site is highly visible from the level of the harbor and from the West Jetty View Park, another designated Coastal View Point, across the harbor channel. The project will replace an existing single-family residence with a new single-family residence that complies with all applicable development standards, including the Bluff Overlay standards, does not extend beyond the footprint of the existing development, thereby preserving the existing remaining visible areas of bluff and rocky coastline. Site evaluation revealed that the proposed design is consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern of development and will not affect the existing views afforded from the harbor or the West Jetty View Park. In conclusion, the project does not have the potential to degrade the visual quality of the Coastal Zone or result in significant adverse impacts to public views. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is 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, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. The Class 3 exemption includes the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures. The proposed project consists of the demolition of one single- family residence and the construction of a new 6,672-square-foot, single-family residence with an attached 656-square-foot, three -car garage. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this public 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 hearing, consistent with the M Sheehy Residence CDP (PA2017-179) Zoning Administrator, July 11, 2019 Page 7 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. APPEAL PERIOD: This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date the Resolution is adopted unless within such time an appeal or call for review is filed with the Community Development Director in accordance with the provisions of Title 21 (Local Coastal Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Final action taken by the City may be appealed to the Coastal Commission in compliance with Section 21.64.035 of the City's certified LCP and Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Sections 13111 through 13120, and Section 30603 of the Coastal Act. For additional information on filing an appeal, contact the Planning Division at 949-644-3200. Prepared by: is Schu er P nning Consultant JMAs Attachments: ZA 1 Draft Resolution ZA 2 Vicinity Map ZA 3 Visual Impact Analysis ZA 4 Project Plans L 2 1 NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, NEWPORT BEACH CORONA DEL MAR CONFERENCE ROOM (BAY E-1ST FLOOR) THURSDAY, JULY 11, 2019 REGULAR MEETING — 3:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER —The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. Staff Present: Rosalinh Ung, Zoning Administrator Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner if. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF JUNE 27, 2019 Action: Approved IV. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO.2 Uptown Newport Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2019-003 (PA2019-067) Site Location: 4311 Uptown Newport Drive Council District 3 Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the Uptown Newport mixed -use planned community project consists of 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of retail use, and 2 acres of public park. The applicant is proposing a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide an existing vacant 2.5-acre parcel into two parcels for future conveyance purposes only. The parcel is located within Phase I of the Uptown Newport development, adjacent to the 1-acre neighborhood park which is under construction. No development is proposed as part of the application. All future development of the site will comply with allowed uses and development standards of the previously approved planned community project. Applicant Tom Bitney of Shopoff Realty Investments, 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. 3 Sheehy Residence Coastal Development Permit CD2017.076 (PA2017-179) Site Location: 2495 Ocean Boulevard Council District 6 Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the applicant requests a Coastal Development Permit to allow the demolition of an existing single-family residence and detached garage and the construction of a new 6,672-square-foot single-family residence and attached 656-square-foot garage. The proposed development includes accessory elements such as walls, fences, patios, hardscape, and a swimming pool. The project complies with all applicable development standards, and the applicant does not request any deviations. As background information, in 1984, the Planning Commission approved a variance for the existing garage to exceed the maximum allowed height limit at the front half of the lot because of the lot's unique and difficult topography. The garage also exceeded the maximum height limit with respect to the Ocean Boulevard's curb elevation. At the intersection, Ocean Boulevard is considered a Coastal View Road that requires view protection under the City's Local Coastal Program. Demolition of the existing home and garage Page 1 of 5 00 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 07/11/2019 will improve the view corridor from the identified public viewpoint on Ocean Boulevard. In 2014, the Community Development Director approved an alternative grade determination for the project site. The determination allows the building height to be measured from the established grade to the roof element of each structure, and established the grade profile as the topography of the site that existed prior to the 1986 construction of the existing home. Measuring height based on the current topography of the site is difficult given that the bluff has been excavated and filled and does not represent the natural topography. The project is located in an R-1 Coastal Zoning District, which allows single -unit residential development. Two multifamily developments, the eight -unit Aerie condominium development and the 48-unit Channel Reef condominium development, have been constructed on either side of the bluff. An existing single-family residence is located above the project site. As depicted in the view simulations, the proposed house closely resembles the overall mass and scale of the existing home and maintains the existing home's footprint. The project complies with all applicable development standards including the Bluff Overlay District. The project application contains a Coastal Hazards Analysis that has been updated twice. The reports conclude that the proposed development is reasonably safe from coastal hazards, flooding, and future sea level rise. A Geotechnical Investigation and update conclude that the proposed construction and grading will not adversely impact the geologic stability of the existing bluff or adjacent properties. The project will not impact public access to the coast. Staff has received four comment letters regarding the project, two in support and two in opposition. Applicant Christopher Brandon of Brandon Architects, stated that he has worked with the owner to create a new home that conforms with requirements, removes existing nonconformities, and provides a public benefit. He has reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions of approval. Ted Donohue, counsel for the property owner, reported he was aware of the July 5, 2019 letter from Jon Corn Law Firm. Because Jon Corn Law Firm submitted a second letter the day of the hearing, which does not comply with the deadline to submit written correspondence, he requested the Zoning Administrator not consider the letter. The assertions contained in the July 5th letter are not substantiated by any engineering diagrams or any other documentation. The attorney and his client have worked with engineers and, if the attorney and his client had facts to support their claims, they would have submitted them. In response to the Zoning Administrator's inquiries, Senior Planner Murillo reported grade can be established in a number of ways based on the Zoning Code and Local Coastal Program (LCP). One way is through the approval of a new subdivision map, which does not apply to this project. For properties that are less than 5 percent in slope, staff typically averages four points taken from the proposed footprint of a home and the existing grade elevations shown on a topographic survey to establish a baseline height measurement. The project slopes more than 5 percent; therefore, this method is not applicable to the project. For properties that slope more than 5 percent, the Code provides a methodology to create a grade plane based upon five equidistant points along the side property lines. This methodology helps equalize the grade of the property by eliminating high points and low points. This methodology is useful when neighboring properties maintain a general slope as well. When the lot slopes more than 20 percent, the Community Development Director is allowed to establish additional points for a grade evaluation. Staff evaluated the grade of the proposed site using five points. Because the site is unique in shape and the majority of the side property line and a portion of the rear property line are located in the bay, evaluating the grade based on five points results in a grade significantly below the natural topography of the bluff. The Code also allows the Community Development Director to establish a grade on properties that have been previously altered through excavation, construction of retaining walls, and other conditions such that the grade is not representative of prevailing grades on adjoining lots or the general area. In this case, staff determined the most accurate method of measuring height was to establish a grade plane that matched the original topography of the site based on records of the home built in 1986. Staff utilized the topographical contours from the 1986 project to create a grade plane. A licensed land surveyor reviewed the exhibit and confirmed that the points are consistent with the topographical contours of 1986. In order to measure height, the project architect, with direction from City staff, created a grade exhibit and a roof plan exhibit where the roof plan is superimposed over the grade plane. Staff measured the height of each element subject to height restrictions to the proposed grade plane. The Community Development Director established the grade plane in 2014, and the appeal period for the determination expired in 2014. Therefore, the decision before the Zoning Administrator pertains to the Coastal Development Permit for construction of the home and the impacts of construction on coastal resources, character of the area, and coastal hazards. The topographic survey contained in the proposed plans shows the Ocean Boulevard curb height.ranges from 68.19 feet to 69.22 feet along the general width of the lot. The letter from Jon Corn's office indicates the curb height ranges from 66.28 feet to 67.33 feet. For the purposes of the site design, 68 feet was used as the Page 2of5 01 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 07/11/2019 baseline curb height to ensure all proposed roof structures, gate, and fence elements do not exceed the elevation. The survey identified as sheet C-05 is the actual topographic survey of the current conditions with the existing single-family home. Senior Planner Murillo indicated he utilized the survey to determine the top of curb elevations. The contours from this survey and the contours from the 1986 survey were utilized to establish the grade determination in 2014. He concurred with the Zoning Administrator in that the process for determining grade was fairly consistent from 1986 to 2014 to the current time, and no changes had been made. The Local Coastal Program requires staff to analyze new development in the coastal zone to ensure development is free of coastal hazards for the life of the structure. The Coastal Hazards Analysis prepared by GeoSoils indicates the minimum elevation of the proposed residence, which is 28.42 feet, exceeds the City's minimum 9.0 elevation and significantly exceeds any identified sea level rise scenario for the next 75 years. The Coastal Hazards Analysis also concludes the project is safe from the potential impacts of shoreline movement, wave runup, and flooding. The Geotechnical Investigation reviews the conditions of the soil below the proposed structure and the conditions of the bluff and provides design and construction recommendations to ensure the structure is stable. A water quality management plan was prepared and reviewed by the City Soils Engineer to ensure the project addresses and handles water runoff and rain events properly. A visual impact analysis illustrates that the project will not impact public views. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. Chandra Slaven of Jon Corn Law Firm, representing Joe and Lisa Vallejo of 2501 Ocean Boulevard, spoke and stated that the project application is inconsistent with the City's Local Coastal Program. She believed the Coastal Commission will find substantial issue with the City's alternative grade determination. City staff erroneously applied Municipal Code Section 21.30.050(C), which resulted in the measurement of the proposed building height using the site's original, undisturbed grade rather than the current existing grade as the base elevation. The applicant rather than staff interpreted the Zoning Code and provided a new method to determine the original grade for the site. Thus, the applicant justified a much higher finished elevation for the proposed home. If the existing grade or finished grade had been utilized, the height of the proposed home would be considerably lower and more in context with adjacent homes. In order to make the findings for consistency with the City's certified LCP, the Zoning Administrator must find that the establishment of grade is not injurious to both property and improvements on adjoining lots as outlined in Section 21.30.050(C). This finding cannot be made. The law firm's letters raise concerns regarding height calculations, grading and shoring, unsafe conditions, inadequate fire protection access, light and noise impacts, expanded development on the bluff face, and inconsistency with fencing regulations. Her clients would be amenable to additional conditions of approval such that the overall height of the garage would be an elevation of 60 feet, consistent with the house; a deed restriction would prohibit the installation of solar panels; fencing and site walls would not exceed a height of 42 inches and consist of transparent glass; all project landscaping contained in planters would not exceed a maximum height of 3 feet; and story poles would be installed immediately upon approval of the modified Coastal Development Permit. She requested monitoring to address potential subsidence and sublateral movement and the applicant obtain insurance for the duration of construction including for the general contractor. She also requested the Zoning Administrator continue the hearing until the applicant submits additional documentation consistent with the LCP or agrees to the additional suggested conditions of approval. Jim Mosher, spoke and stated that the legal description contained in Statement of Fact 1 in the draft resolution is incomplete. This project may not be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as the lot is extremely close to the harbor. Measuring from the existing topographic surface to determine structure height is more reasonable than utilizing a topographic surface from the 1980s. The staff report erroneously refers to development requirements in Title 20. The applicant is seeking a Costal Development Permit; therefore, the important standards for the project are contained in Title 21. The Community Development Director's grade determination was made in 2014, before the City adopted a Costal Development Program that gives the Director the authority to make grade determinations related to Coastal Development Permits. The resolution should refer to the Ocean Boulevard curb height standard provided in Table 21.18-2. The staff report does not contain an exhibit confirming that the development is located within overlay zones. Mr. Mosher did not believe water runoff could be directed to the storm drain on Ocean Boulevard. Perhaps the fence -like structure shown in the Ocean Boulevard street perspective should be open instead of solid wood. From the East Balboa Boulevard dock perspective, the large white retaining wall on the left side of the property could be textured or colored to reduce the mass. With respect to Finding B-1, residential development on the lot inhibits the public's ability to reach the beach. Perhaps the project site and adjoining property could provide public access to the private beach located at the rear of the two properties. He questioned whether the conditions of Page 3 of 5 02 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 07/11/2019 approval should include construction staging on Ocean Boulevard such that the public would not be inconvenienced. Richard Taketa, spoke and stated that the project will provide a greater view of the bay from the sidewalk along Ocean Boulevard. Linda Rasner, spoke and stated that the project will open the views of the bay from Ocean Boulevard. When the adjacent Aerie project was approved, the plans included a bench and water fountain, which enhance the view. She supported the project. Brett Davis, spoke and stated that hopefully the neighbors could resolve the grading issue quickly. Multiple residents enjoy the view from Ocean Boulevard nightly, and the new project would open the view and make the view much nicer for the public. Jay Laws, spoke and questioned whether the new house would extend closer toward the water than the existing house. The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing. Brian Sheehy, property owner, advised that the Vallejos' architect had informed him that the project complies with all standards and that the Vallejos' requests would reduce Mr. Sheehy's legal right to use his real estate. He stated that on a nightly basis, people climb on the wall at the Vallejos' property or on his mailbox to view the bay from Ocean Boulevard. The project, including the garage door and gate, will not block the view of the bay, the Peninsula, or Catalina from Ocean Boulevard. He further stated, the project will eliminate a nonconforming property on Ocean Boulevard and comply with building standards. Mr. Chris Brandon, the applicant's architect, indicated the garage ramp as proposed is the only concept that will allow removal of the existing garage and provide the required three onsite parking spaces. The majority of improvements are lower than the maximum allowed curb height. The existing home is taller than the proposed home. The proposed garage will be taller than the existing home, but it is located in the back corner where the topography is higher. He further stated the Vallejos' views to the bay will improve under the project from their residence. In reply to the Zoning Administrator's queries, Mr. Sheehy reported he saw no reason to consider any of the demands listed in the letters from Jon Corn Law Firm because the project conforms with all requirements and benefits the Vallejos and the public. Mr. Brandon explained that the retaining wall Mr. Mosher mentioned is not as large as it appears in the rendering. There will be three small walls and the wall, garage ramp, and stairway will be screened by landscaping. Senior Planner Murillo related that the LCP and the Zoning Code provide the Community Development Director the authority to make grade determinations. LCP standards are consistent with Zoning Code standards. Staff believes the 2014 grade determination is valid for determining structure height. Aformal decision is not required for a grade determination, and a staff report for the 2014 determination was prepared to provide clarity and explain the process. Sheet A-3.1 in the plans clearly illustrates the structure's compliance with height requirements. The Vallejos' concern about impacts to their property is a common concern for residents of any hillside development. Any real property damage is a civil matter between the property owners. Conditions during grading and construction are monitored, and any movement on the site will be reported to the building inspector. The Vallejos' property and the project site are adjacent to Ocean Boulevard, which provides emergency access for the properties. The proposed location of the garage is the only location for a compliant three -car garage and for a driveway slope that complies with requirements. The survey represents an accurate measurement of curb elevations. The project complies with bluff overlay standards, which establish the limits of Development Areas A and C. The project drawings clearly indicate the boundary between Development Areas A and C. Sheet A-3.1 illustrates fence heights and compliance with the front and side setbacks. The existing house contains 6,061 square feet of living area, and the existing garage contains 273 square feet. The square footage of the existing house and garage is approximately 1,000 square feet less than the proposed home. The proposed home's mass and height is comparable to the existing home's mass and height. Page 4 of 5 o3 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 07111/2019 The Zoning Administrator included conditions of approval for a construction management plan and the Vallejos' request regarding height of landscaping in the planters. She commented that the City cannot impose conditions of approval requiring deed restrictions or insurance as proposed by the Vallejos. A civil engineer will conduct height certification by verifying and certifying the maximum height of framing in certain areas of the new structure, and a City Building Inspector will review and approve the certification. She then commented that this is standard practice; however, it will be added as a condition of approval. The LCP and the Coastal Act do not protect private views. The Zoning Administrator's scope of review is limited to public views to and along the shoreline and the overall visual quality of the coastal zone. A visual impact analysis has been prepared for the project evaluated existing and proposed views toward the bay from Ocean Blvd, and from public viewpoints on Peninsula Point across the harbor channel towards the project site. The proposed development does not extend beyond the footprint of the existing house. The project does not increase demand on public access or recreation opportunities. The proposed project will open and enhance the public view by removing the existing garage and reconstructing new rooffines below the curb elevation of Ocean Boulevard and rocky coastline. The new development occurs within the confines of private property. It is designed and situated not to block or impede existing public access opportunities. Technical reports consisted of coastal hazard analysis, geotechnical investigation report, water quality and hydrology plan have been submitted for city approval. 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. The Zoning Administrator does not have the authority to approve a different grade determination method or to override the Community Development Director's decision of 2014. The Zoning Administrator found no discrepancies between Titles 20 and 21 and no additional review is necessary. Action: Approved V. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS One member of the public, Jim Mosher, commented that Coastal Commission approved a residential project located on the Marcus Avenue canals using medium -risk scenarios for sea level rise. The City typically utilizes low -risk scenarios. VI. ADJOURNMENT The hearing was adjourned at 4:10 p.m. The agenda for the Zoning Administrator Hearing was posted on July 5, 2019, at 2:30 p.m. on the digital display board located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive and on the City's website on July 5, 2019, at 3:15 p.m. (o4lslinh Ung ZGg Administrator Page 5 of 5 = Schuller, Liane From: Ron Yeo <ronyeoarchitect@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2019 8:09 AM To: Schuller, Liane Cc: Ung, Rosalinh; Sinacori, Mike; Howald Walt Subject: 2495 Ocean This project has the potential of a "WIN WIN" for opening up views to the bay and ocean. I feel that it would be helpful to have a change in paving type or a line along the street R/W so that the public will know where they are allowed to stand for a bay view without going onto private property. I can't help but to feel sorry for the neighbors that have lived the many years of construction disruption with the Arie project to have another several years ahead of them with this one. 05 Zoning Administrator- July 11, 2019 Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received Sheehy Residence (PA2017-179) To: Zoning Administrator Subject: Sheehy Residence at 2495 Ocean Boulevard (PA2017-179) From: Kent Moore <moorekent1523C@gmail com> Sent: Monday, July 08, 2019 6:00 PM To: Murillo, Jaime <1Murillo(a)newoortbeachca gov> Subject: Re: Sheehy Residence at 2495 Ocean Boulevard (PA2017-179) Dear liane and Jaime: Thanks for forwarding the report items. Unfortunately, I can't attend due to work obligations this week. However, please put me on the official record In enthusiastically supporting the Sheehy Residence project. I have lived across from this controversial site for almost 47 years now and consider this project a real win -win for the neighborhood. Thank you! Kent Moore, 210 Carnation Ave., Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 (949) 244-1832 Sent from my iPhone 00 THE JON CORN LAW FIRM 16o CHESTERFIELD DRIVE • SUITE 201 CARDIFF BYTHE SEA • CALIFORNIA 92007 www.ioncornlaw.com • 760-944-9oo6 Coastal Property Rights, Land Use & Litigation July 5, 2019 Via electronic mail only Rosalinh Ung Zoning Administrator City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Letter of Opposition to City of Newport Beach Coastal Development Permit No. CD2017-076 (PA2017-179) (Sheehy Residence) Date Filed: September 1, 2017 Location: 2495 Ocean Blvd. (Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 8542) Dear Ms. Ung: We represent Joe and Lisa Vallejo, owners of the single-family residential home located at 2501 Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar (Parcel I of Parcel Map 8542). The Vallejo's home is located on the parcel directly adjacent to 2495 Ocean Boulevard ("Sheehy Property"). On behalf of the Vallejos, we object to the City's approval of Coastal Development Permit (CDP) application No. 2017-076, as the application is inconsistent with the City of Newport Beach's Local Coastal Program (LCP),I Upon review of this project, we believe he California Coastal Commission (CCC) will find substantial issue with the City's alternative grading determination to establish the maximum height for the proposed residence. Moreover, in light of the City's ministerial determination of alternative grade, the City has not afforded our clients a sufficient opportunity to express their concerns related to the proposed height of the residence. Our clients are entitled to proper due process and deserve to know what the height of the proposed residence would be if the applicant had followed the existing code for determining height (i.e., Chapter 21.30 Property Development Standards, Section 21.30.050 Grade Establishment). The proposed resulting grade is not compatible with the existing grade of the Vallejo's adjoining lot and existing residence, as the proposed grade will result in a much higher structure that is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. As the proposed grade will be detrimental to both the property and improvements on adjoining lots, the grade determination for the project should be revisited by the Zoning Administrator. I To approve the CDP application, the Zoning Administrator (ZA) must make the findings that the project is consistent with the LCP (per Public Resource Code Section 30604). 07 July 5, 2019 Page 2 of 6 For the aforementioned reasons, we are requesting that the Zoning Administrator continue the hearing until such time that the applicant submits a quantified exhibit that adequately depicts the difference of what the height would be if the City's municipal code had been justly implemented in contrast to the proposed alternative grade as described in the current CDP application. Existing Condition The Sheehy Property is currently occupied by an existing 3-story, single-family residential structure that descends from a short driveway (El. 68f ft.) and detached garage at the corner of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard, down a stairway and breezeway to the main Floor level (El. 29t ft.), and ultimately to a low-lying outdoor pool and lawn area (El. 9t ft.) and private dock located near the mouth of Newport Harbor. Below the main floor level and patio/lawn area, a sub -vertical to steeply sloping rock face is visible from Newport Harbor and extends northward toward an adjacent property located at 201-205 and 207 Carnation Avenue (a future multi -unit, multi -story condominium complex). This neighboring residence is inset into the original bluff face and includes a private cove located adjacent to and westerly of the project site. Proposed Development The proposed development for'the Sheehy Property consists of the demolition of the existing single- family residence and detached one -car garage, and the construction of a new 6,672-square-foot, single- family residence with an attached 656-square-foot, three -car garage. The proposed development also includes accessory elements such as walls, fences, patios, hardscape, swimming pool, drainage devices and landscaping. Manufactured Grade Determination: Inconsistent with the Local Coastal Program The City of Newport Beach erroneously applied Implementation Plan Section 2I.30050C (Grade Establishment — Establishment by Director), resulting in the measurement of the proposed building height for the new development using the site's original undisturbed grade rather than the current existing grade as the base elevation. As a result, the proposed project base elevations do not consider the current site conditions. The proposed "original grade" is based on a demolition plan/topographic map included in the construction documents used for the existing residence in 1986. However, as the current residence is built on a "manufactured grade," the true original base elevations are uncertain because the site has been improved with the existing residence and related improvements. As a result of creatively utilizing the purported "original" grade, the proposed height for the project was raised exponentially, far above what would normally be permitted by the discretionary review process. Neither the California Coastal Act nor the City's certified LCP provide that height measurements can be based upon the original grade. Rather, height determination has historically been based upon existing or finished grade at the time of submission of an application for a CDP. By approving the project's "alternative" height determination, the Zoning Administrator is establishing a negative precedent for future decisions throughout the City. Moreover, approval of this project does not 02 July 5, 2019 Page 3 of G conform to the requirements of the LCP. Therefore, the grade determination should be revisited and subject to review by the Zoning Administrator. Unsubstantiated Findings The findings included in the Community Development Director Action Letter Application No. Staff Approval No. SA2014-022 (PA2014-152) are inconsistent with the Required Findings, as follows: A. The existing grade on the subject lot has been previously altered or other conditions are present to the degree that the existing grade is not representative of the prevailing grades on adjoining lots and/or the general area and, therefore, is not appropriate for the purpose of establishing the grade of the subject lot. The existing grade of 2495 Ocean Blvd. is representative of the prevailing grades of adjacent properties, as the adjacent properties have also been disturbed due to prior development. There are no natural undisturbed properties in the adjacent area. Notably, this neighborhood has been developed since the 1940s. B. The grade is reasonable and comparable with the grades of adjoining lots and will not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements on adjoining lots. • This cannot be the case, as the manufactured grade contributes to a significantly higher structure that will be detrimental to the adjacent property (2501 Ocean Boulevard). C. "The increased height shall not result in undesirable or abrupt scale changer or relationships being created between the proposed structure(s) and existing adiacent developments or public spaces. Where appropriate, the proposed structure(s) provide a gradual transition to taller or shorter structures on abutting properties; and the structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the approval of the height increase. • As discussed above, the resulting structure's height cannot satisfy the above finding. Discrepancies in the Determination of Alternative Height By way of background, according to the applicant's September 24, 2014 letter to the City of Newport Beach (See attached), "Due to the irregular shape of the site at 2495 Ocean Boulevard and the extreme slope, there are many drfculties in applying these current development standards. it is our proposal to use the on final grade, in its entirely, as the basis for.the height limits. This original grade is based on a demolition plan/topographic map found in the construction documents used for the existing residence in 1986 " It appears the project applicant, rather than City staff, is driving the discretionary review process contrary to the City's LCP. The applicant rationalizes this proposed approach by explaining that the site's irregular shape is reason enough to allow for special consideration by the Community Development Director. However, not only does this circumvent Code Section 21.30.050, but is simply not permitted under Code 09 July 5, 2019 Page 4 of G Section 21.30.050.C. The Community Development Director is required to determine the basis for height, not the project applicant. The letter goes on to state the following, "We have reviewed this original grade (found in the old permit documents) and when compared to the existing topography mapped by Toal Engineering, Inc., on 114113 the contours align with the visible/undeveloped locations. We have used the original grade to create a three-dimensional topographic model which will help illustrate the conformity of a new design with the current zoning heights of 24' and 29' to respective building elements. " We have no way of knowing if in fact the application is based on the true original grade. Instead, we must emphatically trust the project applicant in their use of technology, which also requires a determination that said technology was not manipulated to generate a favorable outcome for determining the maximum height for the proposed development. Further, this methodology is not consistent with Section 21.30.050.C, which states that the "Community Development Director may establish the grade that is reasonable and comparable with the grades of adjoining lots and that will not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements on adjoining lots." The resulting grade is not comparable with the grades of the adjoining lot and is injurious to both property and improvements on adjoining lots. Finally, the applicant goes on to state, "It is our understanding that the zoning code update (2010), was meant to generalize the grade for typical lots. However, the proposed method is much better suited to this specific site and with technology the generalization is not needed. " It appears the applicant, not City staff, interpreted the City's zoning code and provided a new method to determine the original grade for the site. The applicant provides little explanation how this alternative measurement was calculated. -The City's LUP does not contain any policy language supporting the use of original grade. Traditionally, height is determined based upon the existing or finished grade. Pursuant to Section 21.30.050.B (Establishment of Grade), on lots with slopes greater than five percent, the established grade from which structure height is measured is determined by placing five evenly spaced points along both side property lines and connecting each point with the corresponding point on the opposite side property line to establish an equidistant elevation grade along the width of the property. Again, this is using existing or natural grade, not a purported original grade that was determined based on a computer model. Determining Height from Grade Examples from other Coastal Cities To further demonstrate inconsistency with the California Coastal Act, we have surveyed other similar coastal cities policies related to the measurement of height from grade in the Coastal Zone, summarized below as follows: City of Santa Cruz 70 July 5, 2019 Page 5 of The City of Santa Cruz determines the height of a structure (not including fences and walls) located in the Coastal Zone based upon the vertical distance between the existing grade and the uppermost point of the structure directly above that grade unless (1) the structure is located on property zoned with the VC View Corridor Overlay or (2) any portion of the structure is located above an area of the site where the finished grade is 10 feet or more above existing grade and the structure is. not subject to the Ridge] ine/H illside Development Guidelines. City of San Diego The City of San Diego's Policy for Determination of Building Height in the Coastal Height Limitation Overlay Zone states, "To establish the reference datum (the basis for measurement), the following steps shall... Establish the "Adjacent Ground Elevation. The "Adjacent Ground Elevation" shall be determined in accordance with the 1970 Uniform Building Code (UBC). " Thus, the City of San Diego utilizes the standard UBC for determining the basis for the grade from which building height will be measured. City of Encinitas Definition of "Building Height" (Encinitas Municipal Code Chapter 30.04): The vertical distance from the lower of natural or finished exterior grade adjacent to the structure, to the highest portion of the structure immediately above. When a basement element or underground structure exists or is proposed, height is measured from the finished grade (above the underground parking or basement element) provided the finished grade is at or below the previous natural grade, to the highest portion of the structure immediately above. Natural grade may be determined by the Planning and Building Director, or authorized agency when a discretionary application is being reviewed, with consideration given to the following: • The prevailing topography of the site, which has existed for some period of time prior to review of a project under consideration. Documentation of the grade shown on photographs, historical topographic surveys and/or in geotechnical reports prepared by certified professionals may be utilized on a case by case basis to determine the natural grade for purposes of development. The review shall take into account the vegetation on the site, the existing earth forms at the time of the review and the expectation that a reasonable person would consider the grade to be natural. Small earth form irregularities in topography, such as pits or mounds and similar features may be disregarded; • Grading, or other modifications of earth forms which result in gaining an advantage for future development, shall not be considered natural grade when substantial evidence can reasonably document that the grading or modifications of earth forms have resulted in circumvention of the regulations in the Municipal Code. While Encinitas has similar requirements that allow an applicant to alter the natural landform for the benefit of the residence, the City does not allow the applicant to then also benefit from the pre - construction topography when the applicant has already taken advantage of the altered landform for the construction of the residence. 71 July 5, 2019 Page 6 of 6 Summary: Inconsistency with the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program The City's LCP implements the policies of the Coastal Act. In order for the City to find that the proposed project is consistent with the Coastal Act, the proposed project must be compatible with the surrainding neighborhood as it relates to size, height and bulk. Such a finding cannot be made for this proposed project. To make the findings for consistency with the certified LCP, the Zoning Administrator must find that the establishment of grade in NOT injurious to both property and improvements on adjoining lots. This finding simply CANNOT be made. The issue at hand is the proposed home was permitted to have a significantly higher elevation than the existing home due to the applicant creatively applying an "alternative height determination" that is allowed in the City code. However, nowhere. in the code does it allow the applicant to utilize the previous original grade that was supposedly in place over 30 years ago prior to the construction of the existing home. By manufacturing the grade, the applicant was able to justify a much higher finished elevation for the proposed home. In contrast, if they utilized the existing grade and/or finished grade that can actually be measured today (which is typical practice), then the height would be considerably lower and more in context with adjacent homes. Request for Continence of Zoning Administrator Hearing We strongly object to the Community Development Director's approval of the "alternative" determination of grade as contained in CDP No. 2017-076 (PA2017-179). Therefore, we request that the Zoning Administrator continue the hearing until such time that that applicant submits additional documentation that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. We request that the City require the applicant to resubmit their CDP application using the methodology provided by Chapter 21.30 Property Development Standards, Section 21.30.050 Grade Establishment, such that the project will be consistent with the LCP. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. �Sincere) � ne Spangler Of Counsel THE JON CORN LAW FIRM 72 THE JON CORN LAW FIRM 16o CHESTERFIELD DRIVE • SUITE 201 CARDIFF BY THE SEA • CALIFORNIA 92007 www.ioncornlaw.com • 760-944-90o6 Coastal Property Rights, Land Use & Litigation July 11, 2019 Via hand delivery Rosalinh Ung Zoning Administrator City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Second Letter of Opposition to City of Newport Beach Coastal Development Permit No. CD2017-076 (PA2017-179) (Sheehy Residence) Date Filed: September 1, 2017 Location: 2495 Ocean Blvd. (Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 8542) Dear Ms. Ung: We represent Joe and Lisa Vallejo, owners of the single-family residential home located at 2501 Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar (Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 8542). The Vallejo's home is located on the parcel directly adjacent to 2495 Ocean Boulevard ("Sheehy Property"). On behalf of the Vallejos, we object to the City's approval of Coastal Development Permit (CDP) application No. 2017-076 as inconsistent with the City of Newport Beach's Local Coastal Program (LCP). Upon review of this project, we believe the California Coastal Commission (CCC) will find substantial issue with the City's alternative grading determination to establish the maximum height for the proposed residence. The proposed grade determination combined with the height of the proposed structure is not compatible with the existing grade of the Vallejo's adjoining lot and existing residence, as the proposed grade will result in a much higher structure that is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. As the proposed grade will be detrimental to both the property and improvements on adjoining lots,2 the Zoning Administrator should revisit the grade determination for the project in light of the plans for the proposed structure. To approve the CDP application, the Zoning Administrator (ZA) must make the findings that the project is consistent with the LCP (per Public Resource Code Section 30604). 2 Municipal Code Section 21.30.050 — Grade Establishment: C. Establishment of Grade by Director. For reference, in order to make the required findings for establishment of grade by the Community Development Director, the director must find that the existing grade on the subject lot has been previously altered (e.g., contains retaining structures, property line walls, planters, or excavation/fill), or other conditions are present to the degree that the existing grade is not representative of the prevailing grades on adjoining lots and/or the general area and, therefore, is not appropriate for the purpose of establishing the grade of 73 July 11, 2019 Page 2 of 5 For the aforementioned reasons, we are requesting that the Zoning Administrator continue the hearing until such time that the applicant submits a quantified exhibit that adequately depicts the difference of what the height would be if the City's municipal code had been justly implemented in contrast to the proposed alternative grade as described in the current CDP application OR addresses our client's concerns adequately though the inclusion of additional condition of approval and redesign in such that the project is compliant with the City's municipal code. Background on Relevant Elevation Points According to the project plans (Exhibit ZA4), the proposed project's top of garage elevation point is 67.32' and the garage roof plate is 63.58.' Further, each ceiling plate for the residential floors measure at approximately I P and 13'. According to our client's records, the top of curb for Ocean Boulevard at the lowest elevation point is 66.28' and at highest is 67.33'. For further context, our client's adjacent home's upper floor elevation point is approximately 66.9 P and the lower floor is approximately 57.35'. Additional Areas of Dispute for the Administrative Record Questionable Height Calculation It is unclear is the applicant is measuring height from the lowest base grade for the project versus the grade of the pad for each level. As it currently appears, the total structural height is 67.32', which is inconsistent with the maximum heights provided by Municipal Code Section 21.30.060 - Height Limits and Exceptions: Height Limit Areas.3 We request that the applicant clarify at which point (or points) the elevation has been measured. For reference, height shall be measured as the vertical distance from the established grade of the pad to the highest part of the structure, including any protective guardrails and parapet walls. Structures with sloping roofs shall be measured to the highest peak of the roof. Substantial Grading and Shoring, Reconstruction of Retaining Wall The project is proposing substantial grading and replacement of a significant retaining wall. This could impact the structural stability of the neighboring property (Vallejo). Our clients are very concerned that the proposed project will further exasperate this tenuous situation. Inadequate Fire Protection Access Our client has serious concerns regarding the ability for the fire department to access the proposed residence (and thus the backside of our clients' residence) via its narrow and steep driveway. It appears that the driveway is less than I I' wide at the front curb. The minimum required width is 20' for a fire truck the subject lot, the director may establish the grade that is reasonable and comparable with the grades of adjoining lots and that will not be detrimental or injurious to roe and improvements on adjoining lots. 3 The height limit areas shall be as follows: a. R-A, R-I, R-131, and R-2 Coastal Zoning Districts Height Limit Area. In this height limit area the base height limit for structures with flat roofs is twenty-four (24) feet (including guardrails and parapet walls) and the base height limit for structures with sloped roofs is twenty-nine (29) feet. The height of a structure may be increased up to a maximum of twenty-eight (28) feet with a flat roof or thirty-three (33) feet with a sloped roof through the approval of a coastal development permit as provided above. This height limit applies in all R-A, R-1, R-131, and R-2 Coastal Zoning Districts as shown on the Coastal Zoning Map. 74 July 11, 2019 Page 3 of 5 for access purposes and 24' pursuant to Municipal Code section 4904.3.5. Farther, if the proposed project were to catch fire, a fire hose from the street would not likely reach all portions of the structure. 1-low does the applicant plan to address this from a safety perspective? Light and Noise Impacts There will be a substantial amount of direct light and noise intrusion from vehicles pulling in and out of the garage while accessing the proposed residence. The driveway access is directly adjacent to our client's lower level elevation (and bedrooms) at 57.35'. Inconsistencies with Curb Height Notations According to the project plans, the effective curb height for Ocean Boulevard is measured at 68', yet according to our client's records, the top of curb at the lowest elevation point is 66.28' and at highest is 67.33'. We request this inconsistency be addressed in a revision of the project drawings. Development on the Bluff Face According to Map B-5 (cited in the City Staff report as applicable to this project), "new development [at 2495 Ocean Boulevard] shall not extend farther onto the bluff face beyond existing development." Therefore, development on the project site should not be expanded beyond the footprint of the existing structure. However, through the substantial increase in bulk, mass and height, the proposed project DOES considerably expand the development on the bluff face of the applicant's properly, in direct violation of the specific provisions included on Map B-5. Inconsistent with Fencing Regulations Upon inspection of the staff report and project plans, it is not clear that the project complies with the City of Newport Beach's LUP Special Area Regulations as they pertain to fencing.4 Inconsistencies contained in CDP No. CD2017-076 (PA2017-179) Staff Report The following are notable inconsistencies throughout the City's published Staff Report: • Why does the staff report not provide for the existing home's square footage? We believe that the replacement of the existing residence with the proposed significantly larger residence effectively INCREASES both the intensity and density of the project site. • According to page 2, what is the definition of "expected neighborhood development pattern?" Typically, surrounding development patterns are based on "existing" conditions. One cannot predict what "expected" or "future" patterns will entail. Proposed Compromise in Exchange for Preclusion of Appeals In exchange for our client to riot contest the proposed project's overall height, mass, and bulk through a series of multiple appeals, our client would be amenable to the additional of the following conditions of approval: '' In front setback areas in Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, Corona del Mar, West Newport, East Bay Fronton Little Balboa Island, and North Bay Front and South Bay Front on Balboa [stand fences and walls shall be allowed to extend to it height of 5 feet, provided that any portion of the fence or wall above 2 feet shall be constructed of open grillwork, wrought iron, latticework, pickets, Plexiglas, or similar materials so that at [east 40 percent of the portion of the fence or wall above 2 feet is open. 715 July 11, 2019 Page 4 of 5 1. Reduce the overall height of the garage to the elevation point 60' through design revisions that can be easily accomplished by removing the roof parapets and hip structure and lowering the ceiling plates for habitable floors. Alternatively, the applicant could obtain a variance, (similar to the existing home) for 2-car garage with a car lift at street -level. 2. Provide a deed restriction that prohibits the installation of solar panels at a location that will adversely impact the Vallejos' home. 3. All project fencing and site walls shall not exceed a height of 42 inches and shall consist of transparent glass. 4. All project landscaping contained in the planters shall be species with a growth potential not to exceed 3' at maturity and shall be maintained at a height of 3' or lower (including raised planters). 5. Upon approval of a modified coastal development permit, the project must provide story poles to be installed immediately. 6. Due to the substantial grading and shoring, we request that the applicant also provide the following: a. Prior to commencement of the construction, the applicant shall conduct a full inspection of the Vallejo's Property and residence and set up monitors to address potential subsidence and/or sub -lateral movement. To the extent that any damage occurs to the Vallejo's Property and/or residence as a result of the applicant's construction of its proposed project, the applicants will be responsible for remediating such damage, including payment of demonstrated damages such as decline in property value, reconstruction costs, relocation costs, damage to household goods and belongings and unanticipated ancillary costs. b. Prior to commencement of construction, the applicant shall obtain and maintain insurance for the entire duration of the construction that covers any and all damage that the Vallejos may incur as a result of the applicant's construction activities. c. Prior to commencement of the construction, the applicant shall require and verify that general liability insurance is obtained and maintained by the General Contractor and all Subcontractors of any tier. Summary: Inconsistency with the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program The City's LCP implements the policies of the Coastal Act. In order for the City to find that the proposed project is consistent with the Coastal Act, the proposed project must be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood as it relates to size, height and bulk of existing single-family residential homes. Such a finding cannot be made for this proposed project. To make the findings for consistency with the certified LCP, the Zoning Administrator must find that the establishment of grade is NOT injurious to both property and improvements on adjoining lots. This finding simply CANNOT be made. The issue at hand is the proposed home was permitted to have a significantly higher elevation than the existing home due to the applicant creatively applying an "alternative height determination" than what is allowed pursuant to City code. However, nowhere in the code allows the applicant to determine the.previous original grade based upon speculation and utilize that previous original grade that was supposedly in place more than 30 years ago prior to the construction of the existing Home. By manufacturing the location of the "original" grade the applicant was able to justify -a much higher finished elevation for the proposed home. In contrast, if they utilized the existing 70 July 11, 2019 Page 5 o F 5 grade and/or finished grade that can actually be measured today (which is typical practice), then the height would be considerably lower and more in context with adjacent homes. Request for Continence of Zoning Administrator Hearing We strongly object to the Community Development Director's approval of the "alternative" determination of grade as contained in CDP No. 2017-076 (PA2017-179). Therefore, we request that the Zoning Administrator continue the hearing until such time that the applicant submits additional documentation that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program using the methodology provided by Section 21.30.050 Grade Establishment, OR agrees to the suggested additional conditions of approval as provided above. Thank you for your consideration of this matter Sincerely, Arie Spangler Of Counsel THE JON CORN LAW FIRM 77 72 Attachment No. PC 6 Appeal Application �9 20 Appeal Application City Clerk's Office 100 Civic Center Drive / P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 949-644-3005 Clerk's Date & Time Stamp RECEIVFn JUL 24 la:a3 Appeals are time sensitive and must be received by the City Clerk specified time period from a decision or final action by a decision -maker. It is advisable to consult with the Department managing the issue if there is question with regards to appealing an action. This is an appeal of the: ❑ (CDD222)Community Development Director Action to the Planning Commission - $1,637 ® (CDD222)Zoning Administrator Action to the Planning Commission - $1,637 ❑ (CDD222)Planning Commission Action to the City Council - $1,637 ❑ (CDD222)Hearing Officer Action to the City Council - $1,637 ❑ (CDD223)Building Official/Fire Marshal Action to the Building/Fire Board of Appeals - $1,637 ❑ (CDD224)Chief of Police Action on an Operator License to the City Manager - $757 ❑ (RSS073)City Manager Action on a Special Events Permit to the City Council - $1, 747 ❑ (HBR001)Harbormaster Action on a Lease/Permit to the Harbor Commission - $100 ❑ (HBR001)Harbormaster Action to the Harbor Commission - Hourly Cost ❑ (HBR001)Harbor Commission Action to the City Council - Hourly Cost ❑ (PBW018)Public Works Director Action Harbor Development Permits to Harbor Commission - Hourly Cost ❑ (PBW018)Public Works Director Action on a Lease/Permit to the Harbor Commission - $100 ❑ Other - Specify decision -maker, appellate body, Municipal Code authority and fee: Appellant Information: , Name(s): (7 0 e /Sd PC) lie j o Address: cT 50 / O C City/State/Zip: Ci O t d h d de z lv, Phone: 9H9'677-s'7/2 Email: Appealing Application Regarding: Y C d2 oc vdZZe Name of Applicant(s): 21_/d/7 V ec/!L� Date of Final Decision: _ Project No.: PA 20/7— /79 Activity No.: CD 2077_ Application Site Address: R V 9S d C e ah QW vd , ce toh d Description of application: r Reason(s) for Appeal (attach a separate sheet if 0M P- CA 9.26.?5 C dUSes / Flury i0 ihP do✓/2C_ e�Orol���U PeY The Codes / C©a77rC/72ell t: VIP tlQ GAroye.- Signature of Appellant: Date:FOR De OFFICE USE ONL �'( , + D�% �e Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: . +� 20 C . �r�WPp��r Director, Deputy Director, Staff, File P ' tj F.1USM1C1erxlsuaM r0nnsbypea1 AppucaGon Updnted 3Rc019 e^ qa C94l Attachment to Appeal The project on appeal from the Zoning Administrator's July 11, 2019 approval (Sheehy, CDP No. CD2017-076), proposes the construction of a new single-family residence, three -car garage and other accessory structures at 2495 Ocean Boulevard. The project is proposed on a steep, irregularly shaped, R-1 zoned coastal bluff lot abutting Newport Bay to the north. At its southern property line, the lot wraps around an existing single-family residential home located at 2501 Ocean Boulevard. A very small portion of the southern property line also abuts Carnation Avenue, providing vehicular access to 2495 Ocean Boulevard. In approving a Coastal Development Permit for the project, the Zoning Administrator found that the project conforms to all applicable sections of the Local Coastal Program. The approval is inconsistent with the LCP as it does not conform to applicable development standards related to height, setbacks and expansion of bluff face development. Moreover, the applicable alternative grade determination utilized to establish height for the project violates appellants' due process rights, as the alternative grade determination was a ministerial act performed without notice or a hearing. The approved project proposes to demolish the existing residence and one -car garage and to build a new 6,672 square foot residence and 656 square foot three -car garage on the property. The new garage location is directly adjacent to the portion of the property line that is shared with 2501 Ocean Boulevard. The project proposes a new four -level structure built on the bluff face, from the 10-foot elevation to the 67.32 elevation of the property, as follows: Lower Cabana Level Elevation: 10 feet First Level Elevation: 29.92 feet Second Level Elevation: 41.42 feet Garage Floor Elevation: 53.67 feet The appellants, Joe and Lisa Vallejo, are owners of the existing single-family home located at 2501 Ocean Boulevard. Appellants object to the height of the proposed new 656 square foot three -car garage, which will be the highest structure on the applicant's property. The proposed garage will have a roof ridge at the 67.32 foot elevation and will be set back only four feet from the appellants' and applicant's shared property line. In sharp contrast, the applicant's existing residence is set back approximately'10.feet [OR more than ten.feet] from the shared property line. The highest point of the existing residence is the top of the flat roof at 60.32 feet and a chimney cap at 63.50 feet. The existing residence was built in the mid-1980s and includes an over -height (non -conforming) one -car detached garage located on one of the highest portions of the lot, on the southeastern portion of the lot, near the portion of the southern property line that abuts Carnation Avenue. (See Variance No. VA1114, approved by Planning Commission on April 7, 1984.) The existing garage is located at a higher elevation than the existing residence, with the top of its flat roof at 22 71.63 feet. However, there are no other structures immediately above the existing garage. The curb on Carnation Avenue is located at approximately 66.28 to 67.33 feet in elevation. Improper Ministerial Grade Determination In an apparent effort to increase the allowable buildable area of the project site, the applicant requested that.the city measure heights from the grades directly below the existing structure's roof and deck features rather than the grade plane method currently specified in the zoning code. Pursuant to the applicant's request, the Community Development Director found that the existing grade on the subject lot is not appropriate for the purpose of establishing the grade of the subject lot because the existing grade had been altered or other conditions were present to the degree that the existing grade is not representative of prevailing grades. Accordingly, on December 5, 2014, the Community Development Director approved an alternative grade determination for the project site establishing grade for the purposes of measuring height of the new structures. This approval was ministerial in nature and no public notice or hearing was provided. Therefore, appellants were precluded from challenging the grade determination until the project was brought before the Zoning Administrator. At the Zoning Administrator hearing, appellants strongly objected to the alternative grade determination, as it deviated from the requirements provided by Section 20.30.050.6, which would have required the utilization of some elevations within Newport Bay (rather than elevations where existing structures are located) to determine base grade elevations for the project site. Moreover, to reach' an alternative grade determination, Section 21.30.050.0 required the Community Development Director to find that the existing grade is not representative of the prevailing grades on adjoining lots and/or the surrounding area. Such a finding could not be made. The proposed project base grade elevations do not consider the current site conditions. The proposed "original grade' is based on a demolition plan/topographic map included in the construction documents used for the existing residence in 1986. However, as the current residence is built on a "manufactured grade," the true original base grade elevations are uncertain because the site has been improved with the existing residence and related improvements. As a result of creatively utilizing the purported "original" grade, the proposed height for the project was raised exponentially, far above what would normally be permitted by the discretionary review process. The code also requires the Community Development Director to establish a grade that "is reasonable and comparable with the grades of adjoining lots and that will not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements on adjoining lots." The proposed grade is inconsistent with the grade of appellants' adjoining lot (which improvements were constructed several years after the completion of grading and construction of the applicant's existing residence). The proposed grade is also detrimental to both the property and improvements on appellants' adjoining lot. As a result of the alternative grade determination, the proposed project includes the addition of a large garage with a roof line that will be above both floor levels of appellants' Os existing residence'. Accordingly, the completion of the garage will substantially interfere with appellants' existing views, light and airspace. Moreover, the proposed driveway location is directly adjacent to the lower level of appellants' residence. Therefore, appellants are likely to experience disturbances from headlights shining into their living and bedroom space. The Zoning Administrator ignored appellants' objections, finding that their challenge to the Community Development Director's ministerial determination was untimely. Improper Setbacks Moreover, consistent with an incorrect determination that the shared portion of the southern property line is a side property line (thus the "front property line" for the subject property would include only the small strip where the driveway abuts Carnation Avenue), the approved project requires only a four -foot setback between the new garage and the shared southern property line. Given the irregular shape of the lot and the fact that it abuts the rear property line of another single-family lot, the shared portion of the southern property line should instead be identified as the front property line for the subject property. Accordingly, a ten -foot setback between the proposed new garage and the shared property line should be required under Development Standards provided by Title 20 of the Municipal Code. Improper Expansion of Development on the Bluff Face According to Map B-5 (cited in the City Staff report as applicable to this project), "new development [at 2495 Ocean Boulevard] shall not extend farther onto the bluff face beyond existing development." Therefore, development on the project site should not be expanded beyond the footprint of the existing structure. However, through the addition of the new three - car garage, the proposed project considerably expands the development on the bluff face, in direct violation of the specific provisions included on Map B-5. ' The lower level of appellants' residence is located at an elevation of 57.35 feet and the upper level is at an elevation of 66.91 feet, while the roof ridge for the proposed three -car garage, downslope from appellants' residence, will be located at the 67.32 elevation. 2 Attachment No. PC 7 Bluff Overlay Map 25 20 70 ft Contour - 239 - 317 Carnation Avenue 50.7 ft Contour - 201 - 233 Carnation Avenue New development shall not extend farther onto the bluff face beyond existing development 2495 Ocean Boulevard 106 103 101 117 115 SAVSfOf 111W, OR 07 S'S S14 S'S ari 12 3°Sps C `bB �O A 2 6 002 7 q0s 79 L� , ryyti titi e ry ti�ryhti6 ti p 0� ti 'j 7 S 7 2�S �g/,�.,•+, Development Areas Delineated By: - Development AreaA Specified Distance from Front Property Line ::::::I Developme nt Are a B B-5 Carnation Avenue �••• Specified Distance Below Top of Curb Development Area Specified Contour 22 Attachment No. PC 8 Coastal Hazards Analysis 29 90 '1 r."t `f Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, Calif nia 2 0 rA38-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com August 14, 2015 XFO Mr. Brian Sheehy 2495 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar, CA 92625CON SUBJECT: Coastal Hazard Analysis, 2495 Ocean Blvd, Corona del Mar, Orange County, California. Dear Mr. Sheehy: At your request, GeoSoils Inc. (GSI) is pleased to provide this coastal hazard analysis for the proposed new development at the subject site. The purpose of this analysis is to provide the City of Newport Beach and the California Coastal Commission (CCC) the necessary hazard information for your Coastal Development Permit application. The site specific coastal hazard analysis uses the latest (July 2015) California Coastal Commission (CCC) Draft Sea -Level Rise (SLR) Policy Guidance document. The site is currently developed with an existing residential structure and dock. The proposed project is a replacement of the existing residence. The project is adjacent to Newport Bay near the bay terminus of the ocean entrance jetties. According to the CCC, this type of development may be subject to hazards from waves, flooding, and erosion. This study investigates the potential for these hazards over the next 75 years, and the estimated frequency of occurrence. SITE INFORMATION The rocky shoreline fronting this site is located inside Newport Bay near the entrance jetties. Figure 1 shows the site location relative to the entrance channel and Newport Bay. Figure 1 also shows the current FEMA flood zone designation, Zone X. The dock at the site is in the AE zone with a flood elevation of +8 feet NAVD88. Figure 2 is an aerial photograph of the site down loaded with permission from the California Coastal Records Project website (http://www.californiacoastline.org/). The site faces north northwest and is just visible in Figure 2 behind the large multi residential building to the south east. It is possible that some ocean swell from the south may travel between the entrance jetties and approach the site. The height of the swell will be reduced by friction along the rock sides of the jetties and wave diffraction as the channel widens from the entrance to the site. Small wind waves may reach the shoreline fronting the site, only if the wind is coming from the south or north west across the bay. However, the fetch is very limited and only 91 XVI 4 -V UpRil haw :. 3 - +.cam e.��� J'�.. �� P ) i•1 ,.yo -A �'r 'i" V �d / f , 4ta ru ::��'.t6�t�s�'�;'jy� 5 :� /r �i;� `ry� ✓ r �+��, � � �4?/ ,5�1 I �.Y�,-!n�� nn17ry����;;tt��--.��-1������.c�r �Sj �'. S5 � /��q• `, Zon 5 E G A etg 3 Figure 2. The subject site in 2006, adjacent navigation channel and west Newport Bay entrance jetty in the foreground. HAZARD ANALYSIS There are three different potential oceanographic hazards identified at this site; shoreline erosion, flooding, and waves (wind waves, boat wakes, and tsunami). For ease of review, each of these hazards will be analyzed and discussed separately followed by a summary of the analysis, including conclusions and recommendations. Erosion Hazard In an effort to determine changes in the shoreline position, aerial photographs from the early 1970s to 2015 were reviewed. Due to the differences in tide levels and oblique angles of the photos, it is difficult to determine the exact location of the shoreline. However, a visual comparison of the most recent and the oldest photographs shows little or no change in the shoreline position over the last four decades. This is due to the rocky nature of the shoreline. The soil material at the shoreline is Monterey Formation, which is a very erosion resistant bedrock material. This material underlies the entire site. Google Earth has historical vertical aerial photographs back to 1995 that show no (very little) visible erosion of the bedrock material at the site and on the nearby shoreline. The future 93 rd shoreline changes over the next 75 years can be assumed to be the same as in the past decades. It is unlikely that there will be any significant change in Newport Bay system with regards to the vessel traffic and waves in the next 75 years. It should be noted that the tides or water level at the site do not measurably erode the bedrock material. A future rise in sea level will not increase the very small erosion rate because the bedrock material extends well above the influence of the ocean and ocean waves. As sea level rises the water level within the bay will also rise moving the shoreline closer to the existing development. The potential for flooding of the site improvements due to SLR is discussed in the next sections of the report. Current Flooding Hazard The current water levels (tides) within Newport Bay are well documented. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric National Ocean Survey tidal data station closest to the Project site is located at the Newport Bay Entrance Station (NOAA, 2013). The current (last tidal epoch) elevations in feet are as follows: MEAN HIGHER HIGH WATER (MHHW) = 5.25 MEAN HIGH WATER (MHW) = 4.49 MEAN TIDE LEVEL (MTL) = 2.62 MEAN SEA LEVEL (MSL) = 2.59 MEAN LOW WATER (MLW) = 0.74 NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM-1988 (NAVD) = 0.0 MEAN LOWER LOW WATER (MLLW) = -0.18 The present maximum historical water elevation near the site at the NOAA tide station, including El Nino effects is, —7.60 feet NAVD88 on January 28, 1983. The lowest patio elevation is at about +21.4 feet NAVD88 with the lowest finished floor (FF) elevation is +28.4 feet NAVD88. The patio and the lowest FF of the residence are well above any potential from flooding due to the historical bay water elevations. Future Tide Levels Due to Sea Level Rise There have been a number of studies that provide some predictions as to the rate/amount of future SLR on the west coast of the United States. The City of Newport Beach contracted Everest International Consultants, Inc. (EICI) to produce an assessment report on the Balboa Island seawall(s) (EICI, 2011). This report provides a comprehensive discussion of future SLR and the potential for flooding of Balboa Island, and is applicable to the Ocean Blvd site. The California Coastal Commission (CCC) re-released a Draft Sea -Level Rise (SLR) Policy Guidance document in July 2015. The document is currently undergoing additional review and public comment, and has not been finalized, approved, or officially implemented. The CCC currently proposes to adopt the National Research Council 2012 SLR estimates of 16.56 inches to 65.76 inches over the time period from 2000 to 2100. The maximum SLR estimate in the policy document for the year 2030 is 12 inches, for the year 2050 is 24 inches, and for the year 2100 is 66 inches. The CCC 94 11 recommendation is to use SLR estimates within that range to analyze coastal hazards. Figure 3 from EICI's April 2011 report provides a comparison of the SLR projections of the Corps of Engineers, the California Ocean Protection Council (COPC), and the California Coastal Conservancy. The COPC high estimate in the year 2100 and the Corps of Engineers intermediate estimate in the year 2100 are similar to the range proposed by the CCC. It is clear that while there is some agreement over the next 20 years, beyond 20 years from now there is a wide range of SLR projections. 7.0 6.0 1.0 2010 �. dQ00Ciloi4�., . —.;USAGE./HISIi 4USACE.GIntiiinaL6l* . Vermeer ajid NahT�?N' KreJn`eiid:9iltee� . 2020 203D 2040 2050 2060 2070 208D 2080 2100 year Figure 3. Sea Level Rise comparisons from EICI (2011). The lowest patio is at elevation -+21 feet NAVD88. As stated before, the present maximum water elevation at the site including El Nino effects is -+7.60 feet NAVD88. Using the highest SLR estimate of 5.5 feet added to the highest historical water elevation yields a future ocean water elevation of about +13 feet NAVD88. Based upon the elevation of the patio grade and the lowest FF (-+28.4 feet NAVD88), the bay water level will not reach even the patio elevation let alone the lowest FF elevation. This flooding hazard analysis does not include any temporary flooding associated with wave runup. Potential flooding associated with wave runup is considered in the next section. 95 r , Wave Runup The potential for surface gravity waves (ocean swell) to arrive at this site is small but not negligible. Boat wakes and wind waves are the other possible waves that can reach the shoreline fronting the site. Boat wakes are small due to speed restrictions and wind waves will be less than 0.75 feet in height with periods of less than 4 seconds. To be conservative a 2 foot surface gravity wave will be considered with a period of 18 second (typical period of a south swell). The wave runup and overtopping for the site is calculated using the US Army Corps of Engineers Automated Coastal Engineering System, ACES. ACES is an interactive computer -based design and analysis system in the field of coastal engineering. The methods to calculate wave runup implemented within this ACES application are discussed in greater detail in the 2004 Coastal Engineering Manual. A 2 foot high wave was used for the ACES wave runup input with a water level of +12.0 feet NAVD88. This combination of wave and water level represents an approximate 75-year recurrence interval oceanographic condition with 4.4 feet of SLR. Table I below is the computed output from the ACES program for the wave runup analysis. TABLE ACES I Mode: Single Case I Functional Area: Wave - Structure Interaction Application: Wave Runup and Overtopping on Impermeable Structures Item Incident Wave Height Hi: Wave Period T: COMM of Mearshore Slope COT(m): Water Depth at Structure Toe ds: COTAH of Structure Slope COT(9): Structure Height Above Toe hs: Rough Slope Coefficient a: Rough Slope Coefficient b: Wave Runup R: Deepwater Wave Height HO: Relative Height ds/HO: Wave Steepness HOi(gr2): Unit ft sec £t ft ft ft Value I Rough Slope Runup 2.000 18.000 100.000 2495 Ocean 1.000 4.4 Ft SLR 1.000 30.000 0.956 Wave 0.398 runup 4.419 1.316 9.878 0.000 The calculated maximum wave runup under the current 100-year recurrence interval wave conditions and 4.4 feet of SLR is just about 4.4 feet above the design still water elevation 90 r" of +12 feet NAVD88 or +16.4 feet NAVD88. This is below the elevation of the patio and well below the elevation of the lowest FF. Any wave runup waters that reach this elevation will have a low velocity, no energy, and no erosion capacity. There is no potential hazard from waves to the existing development under the most onerous SLR. Tsunami Tsunami are waves generated by submarine earthquakes, landslides, or volcanic action. Lander, et al. (1993) discusses the frequency and magnitude of recorded or observed tsumani in the southern California area. James Houston (1980) predicts a tsunami of less than 5 feet for a 500-year recurrence interval for this area. Legg, et al. (2002) examined the potential tsunami wave runup in southern California. While this study is not specific to the Ocean Blvd site, it provides a first order analysis for the area. The Legg, et al. (2002) report determined a maximum open ocean tsunami height of less than 2 meters. The maximum tsunami runup in the Newport Beach open coast area is less than 1 meters in height. Any wave, including a tsunami, that approaches the site in will be refracted, modified, and reduced in height by the Newport jetties, and as it travels into the bay. All of the proposed improvements are well above the elevation the maximum tsunami runup under future SLR conditions. Due to the infrequent nature and the relatively low 500-year recurrence interval tsunami wave height, and the elevation of the proposed improvements, the site is reasonably safe from tsunami hazards. It should be noted that the site is adjacent to a mapped tsunami evacuation zone. The tsunami inundation map use is for evacuation planning only. The County of Orange has developed a 'Tsunami Alert and Evacuation Plan". This plan recommends that coastal communities within the potential areas of inundation upgrade their tsunami education programs. The City of Newport Beach has posted signs throughout the community showing tsunami evacuation routes, tsunami evacuation center locations, and the limits of the tsunami hazard zones. The limit of the tsunami inundation zone is or below the lowest FF elevation of the site. CONCLUSIONS • The City of Newport Beach will review the project for compliance with all applicable City and FEMA requirements and provide project approval in concept. A review of aerial photographs over the last several decades shows no shoreline retreat at the site. The bedrock fronting the site is erosion resistant. No measurable shoreline erosion, even with maximum SLR, is expected in the future. The site has not been subject to flooding, erosion damage, or wave runup attack in the past. 97 r_. 0 • The patio elevation and lowest FF elevation of the residence are above any potential coastal hazard including a 5.5 feet sea level rise over the next minimum 75 years. • No protective devices will be necessary to protect the proposed development from any existing or anticipated future coastal hazards for the next 75 years or more. RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the analysis and discussion herein, the proposed development is reasonably safe from coastal hazards for the next 75 years including shoreline movement, waves and wave runup, and flooding with future SLR. The proposed development will neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or adjacent area. There are no recommendations necessaryfor shore protection and it is very unlikely that any form of shore protection will be needed in the next 75 years. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully submitted, . S, GeoSoils, Inc. David W. Skelly MS, PE RCE#47857 REFERENCES No. HCE 47637 Exo. L2.L3,Lg 9r Of Everest International Consultants, Inc., 2011, Assessment of seawall structure integrity and potential for seawall over -topping for Balboa Island and Little Balboa Island, main report, No Project No., dated April 21. NOAA, 2015, Web Site, Maps http://anchor.ncd.noaa.gov/states/ca.htm Tidal Datums http://www.opsd.nos.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/websqi/ftp/query_new.p] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2009, Water resources policies and authorities incorporating sea -level change considerations in civil works programs. 92 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 March 6, 2017 Mr. Brian Sheehy 2495 Ocean Blvd. Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com SUBJECT: Coastal Commission Review Response, Coastal Hazard Analysis, 2495 Ocean Blvd, Corona del Mar, Orange County, California. Dear Mr. Sheehy: At your request, GeoSoils Inc. (GSI) is pleased to provide this response to specific comments in the California Coastal Commission (CCC) Notice of Incomplete Application (NOI) (CDP 5-16-0886) dated November 9, 2016. For ease of consideration by the CCC staff, the review comment will be provided in bold followed by our response. 4. BULKHEAD/REVETMENT There appears to be an existing bulkhead/revetment on your project site. The wall in question is primarily of retaining wall that creates a flat area for access to the dock. As shown on the topographic map and the photograph below the bottom of the wall is at about elevation +5.7 feet NAVD88 which is above the mean high tide line at +4.5 feet NAVD88. Jr� WALL i 99 `a When and why was it installed? The wall was placed prior to 1972 for access to the dock. The 1972 Coastal Records photograph below shows the site, the dock, and the flat area created by the retaining wall. 100 What is it protecting? Is any work proposed on this existing bulkhead/revetment? The wall protects the Pre -Coastal Act access walkway to the dock. No work is proposed or necessary to the wall. The wall does not prevent erosion of the shoreline. Please verify. If work on the existing bulkhead/revetment is proposed, an approval -in -concept from the City of Newport: Beach Harbor Resources Division for the bulkhead/revetment work is necessary before evaluation of the proposed project can be continued. Therefore, please provide an approval -in -concept and two (2) full size signed sets of plans for the bulkhead/revetment work from the City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Division. Not applicable. Please submit a study prepared by an appropriately licensed professional (Le, engineer with expertise in coastal processes), which investigates and determines the current status of the bulkhead/revetment. The study must answer questions such as: what is the function of the bulkhead/revetment": The function of the wall is to provide access to the dock. The foundation of the wall is above the mean high tide line and will not prevent erosion of the shoreline. The wall protects the level pathway to the dock. what is the structural and visual appearance status of the bulkhead/revetment?; The wall has been inspected by the undersigned and it is in good condition. The photograph above (page 2) shows the visual appearance of the wall. The project rendering below shows that no changes to the wall are proposed nor are they needed at this time. 101 r-" CI what is the economic life (normally taken to be 75 to 100 years) of the bulkhead/revetment?; The wall has been in place for over 45 years and is in good condition. The economic life of the wall will likely be in excess of 100 years. how will the effects of sea level rise impact the bulkhead/revetment?; The top of the wall is at about elevation +10 feet NAVD88. With a SLR of over 2.5 feet the bay water elevation would be above the top of the wall under the highest hsitorical water elevation. Using the CCC most aggressive SLR estimate (from the CCC SLR Guidance document), as shown below, this would be about the year 2060 or 43 years from today. It should be noted that the wall and pathway to the dock are accessory improvements that can be modified to adapt to SLR. 7.0 6A 1.0 2010 2020 MD 20W 2M MO 1070 2M 2M 2100 TM what work on the bulkhead/revetment is anticipated to occur to deal with sea level rise?; The wall could be increased in height to adapt to SLR, if needed. The walkway could also be raised on a pile supported structure and the wall could be removed in the future. The 102 City of Newport Beach will likely have approved SLR adaptation strategies in place within the next few decades. These strategies will include dock and dock access improvements. The site will be subject to any regional SLR adaptation plan. The actual residential development is at an elevation that is well above the highest SLR estimate for over the next 100 years. is the bulkhead/revetment designed so that it can be increased in height without further bayward encroachment to deal with sea level rise?: The height of the wall can be increased, if necessary, without any further seaward encroachment. is the existing/proposed residence reliant upon the existing or to be repaired bulkhead/revetment?; The proposed residence does not rely on the wall. when approximately will the bulkhead/revetment: need to be replaced?, The wall will function as intended for at least another 50 years and its replacement is not foreseeable over the life of the proposed development. The wall may need to be increased it height in response to SLR. if the bulkhead/revetment is removed, what will be its effect on the residence and bluff?, etc. Removal of the wall will not impact the residence. The wall is founded in the very erosion resistant Monterey Formation. The portions of this formational material within the intertidal area show no signs of erosion over the last several decades. 6. COASTAL HAZARDS ANALYSIS Your coastal hazards analysis makes no mention of the existing bulkhead/revetment and is not included in the analysis. This existing development should be included in your coastal hazards analysis. Therefore, please provide two copies of a revised hazards analysis that incorporates the existing bulkhead/revetment into the analysis. The presence of the wall Pre -Coastal Act wall is discussed herein. This response serves as the revised hazard analysis. The analysis state that is was completed prior to the final August 2015 adopted Coastal Commission Adopted Sea Level Rise Guidance document. In order to verify your analysis is consistent with the adopted SLR Policy Guidance, please evaluate your coastal hazards analysis to be consistent with the adopted guidance document. 103 The following five (5) steps are will bring the analysis into conformance with the CCC SLR policy guidance document. Step 1. Establish the projected sea level rise range for the proposed project's planning horizon using the best available science, which is currently the 2012 NRC Report. Using the CCC SLR estimate over the project 75-year design life, the range in the year —2092 is between 1.25 feet and 4.4 feet. This is the sea level rise range for the proposed project. This SLR range would account for future extreme bay water levels in the range of 8.75 feet NAVD88 (7.5 feet NAVD88 + 1.25 feet SLR) and 12 feet NAVD88 (7.5 feet NAVD88 + 4.5 feet SLR). The August 2015 hazard report used 4.4 feet of SLR. Step 2. Determine how physical impacts from sea level rise may constrain the project site, including erosion, structural and geologic stability, flooding, and inundation. The previous hazard report explains that it is very unlikely that any type of wake/wave will reach the residence even with 4.4 feet of SLR. The proposed patio and finished floor elevations are above the maximum SLR estimate beyond the year 2100 (83 years from today). The elevation of the wall that protects the dock access pathway could be below the maximum historical bay water elevation with 2.5 feet of SLR. This would result in temporary flooding of the access pathway. The proposed project is safe from shoreline erosion due to the erosion resistant bedrock material that fronts the site. Step 3. Determine how the project mayimpact coastal resources, considering the influence of future sea level rise upon the landscape as well as potential impacts of sea level rise adaptation strategies that may be used over the lifetime of the project. The project will not impact coastal resources considering sea level rise. To adapt to SLR, the wall fronting the dock access path can be increased in height to +12 feet NAVD88 in the future. It is very likely that the Newport Beach community will adopt SLR adaptation strategies that include dock and dock access improvements. SLR will need to be above 5.5 feet for bay waters to even reach the patio. It is extremely unlikely that bay waters will reach the elevation of the lowest finished floor (FF) of the residence (—+28 feet NAVD88). It should be noted that recent Coastal Commission approvals for new residential development on Newport Bay have allowed FF elevations at +9 feet NAVD88 but required the inclusion of waterproofing the lower minimum 12 inches of the lowest floor such that water is excluded to an elevation at or above +10 feet NAVD88. Step 4. Identify alternatives to avoid resource impacts and minimize risks throughout the expected life of the development. The project does not impact resources and minimizes flood risk through the project design and future implementation of community and site specific SLR adaptation strategies. Ii FA Step 5. Finalize project design and submit CDP application. The project architect will incorporate this report in the design. The Coastal Commission generally considers a report to be obsolete one (1) year after the date of preparation. Therefore, please provides an update letter for this coastal hazards analysis that confirms that the analysis is still valid. This conclusions and recommendations of our August 14, 2015 coastal hazards analysis remain valid and pertinent. This review response serves to update the 2015 analysis to include a discussion of the existing Pre -Coastal Act wall and to provide the information requested in the CCC SLR Policy Guidance document. CONCLUSIONS Based upon our previous analysis and discussion herein, the proposed development is reasonably safe from coastal hazards for the next 75 years including shoreline movement, waves and wave runup, and flooding with future SLR. The proposed development will neither create nor contribute to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or adjacent area. There are no recommendations necessary for shore protection to protect the proposed development, and it is very unlikely that any form of shore protection will be needed in the next 75 years to protect the residence. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully submitted; GeoSoils, Inc. David W. Skelly MS, PE RCE#47857 /oePofessio, a No. HOE 17857 W UP. iz 3 ice} ;7 FIn- OF C pl\FO 105 2 are provide below in TABLE I (Table 31 of the OPC report) . The use of the latest OPC SLR document is in conformance with the CCC guidance document requirement to use the best available SLR science. 1 I ?)YV II!SV rtattThu. hall �I['::.1ltliskaH '7i:: }Inl. ttiilie;o 4171' fin=:gal(t}:IC 1101 h:vll!:IriStiu Will, I. v:a:itl+ll: ihltl TABLE 50%orobabilit y sealevel rise meets or exceeds._ 669Y- robabilit -1 y I sea/eve! nse { is between... i 5'16arobabllne sealevel rise meets orexceeds... 1 O.S �probablliry sealevel.ise meets ' or exceeds... I MOEIum -"T i�l� it E.Il Olne -� glsk AVeI]IOa� n., gV.Il.e1 gISkA !Sion 0.9 1.1 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.8 0.9 0.] 1.2 I a 2.0 2.8 1.0 0.7 1.3 1.7 2.5 i.2 0.9 - 1.6 - - 1.9 2.7 3.9 0.9 1.6 2.0 3.1 1 1,5 11 2.0 2.5 3.6 5.2 1.4 I 1.0 - 1.9 2.4 4.0 1.6 { 13 2..5 3.1 4.6 6.7 1.6 1.0 - 2.2 2.9 48 L....... 2.2 ...__..... -1'3 _.._... . ........ 3.9 5.,- - _ _ _ '- 9 3_" - 13 2.5 3-3 .2.6 I 1.8 3.6 e.6 7.1, .. 10.2 In TABLE I the "meet or exceed" 5% SLR (above the 1991 to 2009 mean) in the year 2100 is 4.6 feet. This SLR is above the 1991-2009 Mean Sea Level. The "meet or exceed" 0.5% in the year 2093 is about 4.8 feet. The GSI report used a SLR range of 1.25 feet to 4.4 feet. The GSI SLR maximum is about 4.4 feet, about the 2% likely SLR for the year 2093 for the "High Emissions" based upon the 2018 COPC SLR report. The original GSI analysis uses a justifiable and conservative SLR range. This is not to say that there is no chance that SLR may be higher but rather that it is not probable based upon what is know about SLR at this time. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INFORMATION Bulkhead condition report shall include (NBMC 21.30.15.E.3): I. A statement of the preparer's qualifications; Mr. Skelly is Vice President and Principal Engineerfor GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI). He has worked with GSI for several decades on numerous land development projects throughout California. Mr. Skelly has over 40 years experience in coastal engineering. Prior to joining the GSI team, he worked as a research engineer at the Center for Coastal Studies at Scripps Institution of Oceanography for 17 years. Mr. Skelly has extensive experience in shoreline erosion, bluff erosion, soils engineering, and the design, permitting, and construction of shore protection 107 3 devices. Projects include levee engineering and design in San Francisco Bay, seawall and marina engineering in Baja California Sur, coastal boardwalk design and protection in Pacifica, and seawall projects throughout southern California. ii. An analysis of the condition of any existing bulkhead including whether the top elevation meets current City standards, the conditions of the sheetpiles or panels, the condition of existing tiebacks and/or deadmen or similar, and any other relevant conditions; There is an existing seawall/retaining wall on the site. The wall was placed prior to 1972 for access to the dock. The wall protects the Pre -Coastal Act access walkway to the dock. No work is proposed or necessary to the wall. The wall does not prevent erosion of the shoreline. The function of the wall is to provide access to the dock. The foundation of the wall is above the mean high tide line and will not prevent erosion of the shoreline. The wall protects the level pathway to the dock. The wall has been inspected by the undersigned and it is in good condition. The photograph below shows the visual appearance of the wall. No changes to the wall is proposed nor is needed at this time. The wall has been in place for over 45 years and is in good condition. The economic life of the wall will likely be in excess of 100 years. The top of the wall is at +10 feet NAVD88 and meets or exceeds the City standards. iii. Recommendations regarding the need for repair, augmentation or replacement of the bulkhead or any parts thereof; No changes to the wall are proposed nor are they needed at this time. The wall has been in place for over 45 years and is in good condition. The economic life of the 102 El wall will likely be in excess of 100 years. The low height retaining wall can be increased up to 3 feet in height (+13 feet NAVD88) in the future if needed. This is more than adequate to adapt to future SLR. iv. If augmentation or replacement in the existing alignment is necessary, recommendations that will avoid seaward encroachment of the bulkhead; The wall is landward of the mean high tide line and entirely on private property. In the future, if augmentation is needed as part of the regional SLR adaptation program, the wall can be increased in height without any bayward encroachment. v. If replacement is necessary and the existing bulkhead is not in alignment with adjacent bulkheads, recommended alternatives that will relocate the bulkhead in as much in alignment with adjacent bulkheads and as far landward, as possible. No replacement of the wall is necessary. Coastal Hazards Report shall include (NBMC 21.30.15.E.2): L A statement of the preparer's qualifications; Mr. Skelly is Vice President and Principal Engineer for GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI). He has worked with GSI for several decades on numerous land development projects throughout California. Mr. Skelly has over 40 years experience in coastal engineering. Prior to joining the GSI team, he worked as a research engineer at the Center for Coastal Studies at Scripps Institution of Oceanography for 17 years. During his tenure at Scripps, Mr. Skelly worked on coastal erosion problems throughout the world. He has written numerous technical reports and published papers on these projects. He was a co-author of a major Coast of California Storm and Tidal Wave Study report. He has extensive experience with coastal processes in southern California. Mr. Skelly also performs wave shoring and uprush analysis for coastal development, and analyzes coastal processes, wave forces, water elevation, Iongshore transport of sand, and coastal erosion. ii. Identification of costal hazards affecting the site; As stated in the 2015 and 2017 hazard analysis, the typical coastal hazards to consider are shoreline erosion, flooding, and wave/wake impacts. There is no beach fronting the site. Boat wakes and wind waves are too small, even with sea level rise (SLR), to flood the residence over the next 75 years. III. An analysis of the following conditions: 1. A seasonally eroded beach combined with long-term (75 year) erosion factoring in sea level rise; log 5 There is no beach fronting the site. 2. High tide conditions, combined with long-term (75 year) projections for sea level rise; Using the most current (2018) SLR estimate over the project 75-year design life, the range in the year-2093 is between 1.25 feet and 4.4 feet. This is the sea level rise range for the proposed project. This SLR range would account for future extreme bay water levels in the range of 8.45 feet NAVD88 (7.2 feet NAVD88 + 1.25 feet SLR) and 11.6 feet NAVD88 (7.2 feet NAVD88 + 4.4 feet SLR). 3. Storm waves from a one hundred year event or storm that compares to the 1982/83 El Nino event; No ocean waves can reach the site. The analysis previously provided in our 2015 and 2017 reports shows that boat wakes and wind waves will not impact the proposed residence. 4. An analysis of bluff stability; a quantitative slope stability analysis that shows either that the bluff currently possesses a factor of safety against sliding of all least 1.5 under static conditions, and 1.1 under seismic (pseudostatic conditions); or the distance from the bluff edge needed to achieve these factors of safety; and GSI is not the project geotechncial consultant. The proposed project is seaward of the bluff. Based upon our experience and site inspection, the bluff is composed of very stable and erosion resistant bedrock (Monterey Formation). 5. Demonstration that development will be sited such that it maintains a factor of safety against sliding of at least 1.5 under static conditions and 1.1 under seismic (pseudostatic) conditions for its economic life (generally 75 years). This generally means that the setback necessary to achieve a factor of safety of 1.5 (static) and 1.1 (pseudostatic) today must be added to the expected amount of bluff erosion over the economic life of the development (generally 75 years); GSI is not the project geotechncial consultant. Based upon our site inspection and project foundation design, there is no potential for sliding. This condition does not occur at the site. iv. On sites with an existing bulkhead, a determination as to whether the existing bulkhead can be removed and/or the existing or a replacement bulkhead is required to protect existing principal 110 structures and adjacent development or public facilities on the site or in the surrounding areas; and Removal of the wall will not impact the residence. The wall is founded in the very erosion resistant Monterey Formation above the mean high tide elevation. The portions of this formational material within the intertidal area show no signs of erosion over the last several decades. v. Identification of necessary mitigation measures to address current hazardous conditions such as siting development away from hazardous areas and elevating the finished floor of structures to be at or above the base floor elevation including measures that may be required in the future to address increased erosion and flooding due to sea level rise such as waterproofing, flood shields, watertight doors, moveable floodwalls, partitions, water -resistive sealant devices, sandbagging and other similar flood -proofing techniques. The project is safe from the coastal hazard of flooding due the finished floor elevation (>+28 feet NASVD88) being well above the future bay water levels. To adapt to SLR, the wall can be increased in height from +10 feet NAVD88 to >+12 feet NAVD88 in the future. It is important to point out that SLR will not impact the principal strucutre. SLR will impact all of the Newport Bay low lying areas. The public streets throughout the Newport Beach coastal area, including Balboa Island and the Balboa Peninsula, will flood with SLR. It is very likely that the community will soon adopt SLR adaptation strategies that are currently being considered by the City of Newport Beach. These strategies involve raising/replacing the bulkheads, beaches and walkways that surround the bay. This can be a site specific adaptation strategy. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. David W. Skelly MS, PE 111 112 Attachment No. PC 9 View Analysis 113 114 EAST BALBOA BLVD. DOCK .. ...... - PERSPECTIVE WEST JEf1Y PARK PERSPE(�NE YE LOCATIONS MAP .4 BLVD, CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 9, OCEAN BLVD PERSPECM BRANDON H;,iII I U; 115 "�,` _•__ _-- -_ - _'.. .ram _J OCEAN BLVD. STREET PERSPECTIVE - EXISTING 2495 OCEAN BLVD, CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 BRANDON 110 =, OCEAN BLVD. STREET PERSPECTIVE - PROPOSED 2495 OCEAN BLVD, CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 BRANDON Alk, 227 EAST BALBOA BLVD. DOCK PERSPECTIVE - EXISTING BRAND 0 N 2495 OCEAN BLVD, CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 128 EAST BALBOA BLVD. DOCK PERSPECTIVE PROPOSED OVERLAY 2495 OCEAN BLVD, CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 229 r' �.0 fry" �` �.. � .. .:r -: - �_�;•.�_ �,.�L,l+ -;' =��Y�� `��.;,. _ - : ' - _ -. WEST JETTY PARK PERSPECTIVE - PROPOSED OVERLAY B R A N D O N 2495 OCEAN BLVD, CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 12-1 122 Attachment No. PC 10 Project Plans 12S 124 PA7(11 7_17Q Ottarhmanf IUn Pf' 1(l _ Prniart Pinnc SHEET# DRAWING ITLE T-10 TITLE OFFSET T-1.1 GENERAL ARCHITECNHAL NOTES T-12 SUPPLEMENUA- NOTES 8 DOCUMENTS U GO0.0 GRACE DETERMINATION APPROVPL GD-id . GRACE PLANE GRACE PLANE SEH[BIT SECTIONS Z F.IF RESTORED TOPGGRAPHY G0.21 ORI GINAL DEMO PLAN TOPCGRPPHIC MAP) Z O AL.O ARCXITECNRAL SITE PLAN ` 6 ' 0 L. ..CAPEPIN G01 PRELIMIN4RYGMOING PLOT coz secrlGxs ■ C. T CUTPION C W EROSION CONTROL PLAN CO U W l- �Ir COS TOPCGRAFXIC SURVEY p R h M10 ODM..ETRICVIEWB 0 RST OORP N A-R:1 SECOND FLOOR PLAN _. —, §}A 'y gBaB d 'sift A-1Y PLAN A-31 ROOF PILIRIVEWAY AN AIR GRACEPLANELOMPLNNLE EXHIBR GRACE Ado RUFSOLDING r I I Ai.t MCIS-1ATIONs BUILDING ELEVATIONS -02 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A50 BUILDING SECTIONS U Ab0 CODRAWINDDWSCHEOULE SX1 STRUCTURALGENERALNOTES SW2 SHORING PLAN Invol 6M3 BHORINGSEC . SH-B SXORINGSECTIONS / W SW5 IGNIVRINGSBOTNINS U Z W P Z a WOF O o Fc u0 L W 3 Q N Z Q THE SHEEHY RESIDENCE 2495 OCEAN BOULEVARD, CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 M< W wF. PLNInll «.. El RBI R _y R.— cceouuw, rrcw[v .aw.vwv.m VsNiGpi LEI`] �EIIL3 C".^ �..�e F ME OR IMF MATERIALLEGEND 110 SPECIAL INSPECTIONS B DEFERRED SUBMITTALS 6 AGENCIE86 PUBUC SERVICES 4 PROTECT DIRECTORY S wicurs .a.,... ® mnvoeiniuu mfOMu IT nm. _ o .�rcn PROTECT DESCRIPTION. "e°ainnn 'e vm q O. T-1.0 OF MRI =1 F �«n.mn.nn4„wn.n,. ,x.,.annwn !SHEET VICINITY MAP) PROJECT DESCRIPTION ANNCTATI--.ENO 11 O.T.ORAREA 9 BUILDING AREA i SITE INFORMATION 5 LODE REVIEW 3 LIST 1 PA7n1 7-17Q Aftnt-hm,nnf Kin Pr. in - Prnin(-f Pinnz m W-MY'r- M. =- CCSRL V mu... �N AnREVIATIONS 2 ME ui U3 mo Lu LU x U) —UR— — -,— zr— z =77= T-1.1 PA7(11 7_17Q Ottarhmant Kin Pr.. in _ Prniart Pinnc L-14F Ws RESIOENTIF CONSTRUCTION MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 1 ui ul _ Lu Lu 3 - '._ _ •_-___-;F=�_�-moo-� _- � =ia =-s � � • ___- `...•�Y._ = C LGREEN—RESIUENTIP MPN.EY MEASURES S e.i`Itth 1 A�liR: i i YII;l1 T-1.2 ®'. (1NML.IN IN:VIIIN'Mf llll l'AaF.M�M «mow. er..r..w.re.�n«o... WF. 6M. Yrn L MLNIV UEVFLOMN 7DFPAaiNEM CCMIIIIaT'pEVEtO wollRcran 1gNlE1'IEP ypieenw Fw.Fmd«aw.umal.A%�..YI I.E.YnNwn I.MLYf S.MIN dw Fa4.a «�gnivy Fagna.GW pwq p. Hn.wi �e«Yer..wpv «�W ew..p�wd om.'.:ere�ua'nr�'a.e.nunwa°�'sF�«mo'. w A.4C Mr. n.Mll.'Pe n «w w.. w d 4r� Y.rY aVI W M�4m.r.m�•n..M.. dnV w�si. �Ma 4wnf:mnw wr......e r..a d:�.d:....wlww...m. psrrrn.rulnmrs taou M1ne•e rtintir.sq..w wns...�.eda...w. �Owa.P..m wpw...rsw..rumr.r «pwydw.wy«puaw.yun .r.y..wrw...ewen«.b .Yd..u..anwml Pwv tw.R W Imal w"Oim�w m...rm.lm�a Mrr�pnY�... �r Ya Staff Approval No. SA2014-022 PA2014-152 2495 Ocala. B.alavatd W Z W fA W } w W S V9 122 1 GD-0.0 G do VICINRV M4P IN 3 SNEINF---- 2 SHEETLIST ! ZI NEWPORT HARBOR ''. Fz_ LU LUZ -tk tlr' Lu I ❑ N w R' 8 / - t' - 1 /0 .� t •irr r II .�i� i i i ii i i �� s �.' Pi //i — x iliiEE� 'r /rilri q 2501 OCEAN BLVD. - NOT A PART (APN: 05201331-PARCEL IE ` rIGTyMDtlPtANE%XIBIi OG�QC� GD-tl1.0 1GP E�SSEGTION ...._._ ..............tee u GWPI SSEGTION V Z W U Z W W & o� wa F R W d r QQoo W R�& W C7 8 S fN GD- 130 L� NEWPORT HARBOR ------------ - --_ TIM. II/ 2501 OCEAN BLVD. - NOT A PART (APN: 052 013 31 - PARCEL 1 QDnSTCREO ca OE rwE V Z W U Z W W & o� wa F R' W � d r ❑oo Lug W C7 8 S fN GD-2.0 � y V Z W Z W o O� W a F ❑Opp LLI W (7 8 3 S �FLNN_ reeves �xamwmm aR GD-2.1 �JI �� Im rl rl f -I II �� L_i . T ,tip_ iL J , > I III - -T - - - - \v/ NEWPOR�T HARBOR u LOWER LOBANA�EXISTING VARO --_-----_- Fr,- - T� T � i I I I I f ]`. 2501 OCEAN BLVC. - NOT A PART (APN: 052 013 31 - PARCEL 1) ® � VPRLHITELTIIRAL 51l£p1AN .re,ux,m - wromv. n.aivm.wvwe.s.n W U w w K< LU o0 W 8 cn i33 I A-0.0 PA2017-179 Attachment No. PC 10 - Project Plans -I S4 PA2017-179 Attachment No. PC 10 - Project Plans LEGEND ® wva ruo .L9Yb oww N•^a omur/ wwM om Grva,� COY OF NEWPORT BEACH NOTES o-•T.Or AT o-M _ o-� v wrum woven wsas a o.ns o-m n�' n�xo auu e[aemm�o w�v:u reeew xew ADDMONAL NOTES ��ws m T'W-29.92 �r PAD-29. i] T/SLAB=28.42 PAD. Z]_6] SCOPE OF WORK - EATSTwc 24'STORM DR UNE NOTE [e6noxeunt - swtEx eS ox>nn nu ��-mxe. NOTE TO CONTRACTOR'. ucep�mm.vncm TOAL OeOO 0 o. aLEI C 4Ti0'4yE • 'a a w G �8 9� ry PA2017-179 Attachment No. PC 10 - Project Plans 3 E%6'11NPC2rS-ORN-EL 0 E S/1 ECf10N 1 TOAL g_ 0 PA2017-179 Attachment No. PC 10 - Project Plans LEGEND: mmw tOTALEA MORKQUAN1'O TOAL @00 0 m PA2017-179 Attachment No. PC 10 - Project Plans �eumeea¢rvxs NOiE urmm wnmmrwv mu avri R.Wn mrm'V neu eE uwuiID.woa ��r.nw/a uu�exim wemm m/mnvusu rcoam wcemivu U END"¢ .awn O�nmwnv mnarzoa��iwr �wr�'wu waurt xmrtnnuvux wbv e�e,uamow a'n aauexiwvuuwwmtt ®mnumm �4 �m�iww�opm�e¢Mn /�ar��w¢o wig. un iaw/w�oi[rtn smu \ XIP % \ o x a / \ C / � A C 4r"" 4 yFN E � \ TOAL g_ 0 EM PA2017-179 Attachment No. PC 10 - Project Plans D m 0 TeT — — ce 141 ° cm S, _V .d�...,.. ° n...m ,mow. 75. 0 J 'l /ery d � FFOII wx.wErFnEx¢xrrtwi[ a��ME�owE 0 � m j ¢. Pun tEt,Euo LJ sEc000�eve e ISEERGER.M.Ma s:Y®....,,..., ... W U 2 W w G 4g WLu <3 = o0 W 8 U) �9[!1F-Ee 5 sel�� •� nil. 142 1 A-2.1 CD az I vuu Leceuo � § W -------------------------------------- uj W o8 i a �\ R -------------- lit `�\ % //�� ®�O�MRGFJ�RNEW�V FIGOR PIANFIGOR PIAN 143 1 A-2.2 .P-A-gnl 7-179 Attachment No PC 10 - PrC)ject F?Ian I= . . .. ... 1 H's ui 0 z ui 12 U) uj Lu LU x U) FM------------ ------- ------------- IN 144 A-3.0 ON- T TJ- ._._ - .T. . w U W c 4 K< °o w 8 x m M0.TERIALSGIEOIItE A-4.0 EVswan UEV4TiON 0um..—... y_.5a... o-- l_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ °�'OPR9 ---7 Ff Jxj --------------- vB s ii ...,»... it � RsoUo 5TIu Aa ON r_sai■ 0 0 . --------- - ----- -- ear¢ __ __ __ ____-- -__ _ __ _— _.____— _.— _._.__ _____________— — — __ ___ ________________ — i U Z W —_ —__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--_ ---__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ --- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--_ >- o W 111, TE "TION W LJ,u .,a 'j en Eff'"' ' .EE r: ; 2� g A-4.2 - , I __ -I e. :_� . _ .� - ,_«�,��.. ._ . . . A-L W' HDOW AND DOOR SIZES ARE NOMINA-SIZES THEY ARE SUI CHARGE SHOP DRAAN1NGR TO ARCHITECT FOR APPROM PRIOR TO ORDERING � PA2017-179 Attachment No. PC 10 - Project Plans STRUCTURAL GENERAL NOTES 1pQ1.L R!W WMOITS PouxoATgxY romWATTw PEMMI�R BMBRNO BEBpB LTT-S - i�m arn.o.� wm wem..e maxw Mb1 -x.n siu. ui vxry imwww mmvnwl__--_... _'- _m v xe vt e.mi"uE" — �omm. MI1pN0 NBRBaw or w�amz umu- BPECI C.TWYB FOR OR.UpO MCRPILINB mvmMrcCw wmmOz�w lROINp CONTROL T. CONCRETE I tL NTd vva. ®i w nF cr WEMINO xmrmvnm R roW ueaxB�w..s. www,.a.a, Tw m.�. 8NORINOmINBTALLNTION PROCEOWEB E N0TE8 I. CONVENTWHAL BNOMNO PROCMUR! 1. B RMO 8 EXCAVATION NOTES NL BNORMBJLOAMNOr ^.1-rvm wwr. zwww ivom «amnwv ewnv�o. mr.mn.. mww m�u 6GLB .. TO RNPCCT, OBRRY! ANON CLRRR THE IOLL & n VIZ mwwvxv- cmm z mwm I m.�nEv wum STA�TEXdT W RPECUL INBPECTNINN o, � A AYOITIONRL ROM .MR[YI.TgN! BNOTCRET! NOTIB MIMING CODE �e.z mrnsw e s ma...e N.TWPLY R1ClIRYIT OP RAIPORCIIOIT IT MBKnwmen3x xum+m �ue� nrlu EWFI..ORS. wxe wuzm Dn')017 170 /�flnnhm�nf fill. D(` 10 D,,;,n4 D1,I,, !I • a, e •n „ ! � i ���1 .iaw•ue i � ii Wao. mu.nmu.m Ih � i„ m•..rt•wnm I� rv°^wi¢•"urim �Giae.0 SH"v�ie`wn 6 ^i SO ,Yx� Exu a l m�s�.w r—_ — _--- _ja_ ��r� .ms•.u..M. — --_-- _—_ - . °ms •m.Na xa emra � rl�='g ���Saf 8y IT—,Ij r- e ._ i y REOTIOR AT MOPING AND MREYFMT/RETAIXRIO Y.LLL MI RECllgl AT RIIgIR1O NO BI1BFJdI/RElYIR10 YLLL RR REOTpR AT BRORIXO •Ill BRREYEM/RETAIXMB YRIL MY x I 0) Dn')017 170 /�flnnhm�nf fill. D(` 10 D,,;,n4 D1,I,, --I I I I L 4, 1 1 Ij kF� sr.a.un d !y I h II� -------- II ---------- ___ I I I ®..rt „�„», i ym: Weo vw.rt nsrm vmnevu u°°ip.cnmu`pm LIN ® n r"�mvv ta C� d G= I I x < a�i � munwv u n ,j���� 'IRII'-"' �j� "�'YTI- T $ 6 RA E E fo 's pa i y SECTION AT BRORIYB.IM MREYFMT/RET�IXRIO Y.LLL MI RECllgl ATRIIgIR1O NO BI1BFJdI/RElYIR10 'ILLL RR REOTpR AT BRORIXO •Il) BRREYEM/RETWYMO WIIU MY x I N Dlon,7,7n e, =c,n D,,,_!_,_ < , ye IN jA . . {■!§ .| 14 q�m , ® � __ ® � )\ \. . . , . � � . «•§ Planning Commission - September 19, 2019 Item No. 5a Additional Materials Received After Printing Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP (PA2017-179) From: Chandra Slaven To: Koettinc, Peter Cc: Schuller. Lane Subject: Appeal of CD2017-076 - Invitation for Site Visit Date: Monday, September 09, 2019 6:13:19 PM Dear Commissioner Koetting, I hope this email finds you well. I am reaching out to you on behalf of our clients, Joe and Lisa Vallejo, who reside at 2501 Ocean Blvd. Our clients have filed an appeal of the City's Zoning Administrator's July 11, 2019 approval of the Sheehy Residence, (CDP No. CD2017-076), which proposes the construction of a new single-family residence, three -car garage and other accessory structures at 2495 Ocean Boulevard. The project is proposed on a steep, irregularly shaped, coastal bluff lot abutting Newport Bay to the north. For your background, we believe that the approval is inconsistent with the LCP as it does not conform to applicable development standards related to height and setbacks. Moreover, the applicable alternative grade determination utilized to establish height for the project violates appellants' due process rights, as the alternative grade determination was a ministerial act performed without notice or a hearing. In summary, we believe that the proposed project will be "detrimental and injurious to the property and improvements on adjoining lots." Given the detrimental impacts that the proposed project will cause, we want to kindly invite you to experience the perspective of our client's residence. Our clients would be more than happy to host you at a time that is convenient for you. Please let me know if this is something that would be of interest to you or if you have any questions regarding this project. Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Chandra Slaven 619-316-7645 chandraslaven&gmai I. com Planning Commission - September 19, 2019 Item No. 5b Additional Materials Received Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP (PA2017-179) THE JON CORN LAW FIRM 160 CHESTERFIELD DRIVE • SUITE 201 CARDIFF BY THE SEA • CALIFORNIA 92007 www.joncornlaw.com • 760-944-9oo6 Coastal Property Rights, Land Use & Litigation September 14, 2019 Via Electronic Mail and U.S. Mail Hon. Chair Peter Koetting and Planning Commissioners City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Permit No. CD2017-076 (PA2017-179) (Sheehy Residence) Dear Chair Koetting and Commissioners: We represent Joe and Lisa Vallejo, owners of the single-family residential home located at 2501 Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar (Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 8542). The Vallejo's home is located on the parcel directly adjacent to and above 2495 Ocean Boulevard which is owned by the Sheehy's ("Sheehy Property"). Please allow this correspondence to supplement the information included in the appeal documents filed with the City of Newport Beach by the Vallejos on July 24, 2019. As referenced in the Vallejo's appeal, the Community Development Director's alternative grade determination for the Sheehy Property pursuant to Zoning Code section 20.30.050.0 was an improper ministerial act that violated the Vallejo's due process rights. This determination was made on December 5, 2014 by Contract Planner Debbie Drassler on behalf of Community Development Director Kimberly Brandt, as reflected in the Community Development Department Planning Division Action Report for the week ending December 5, 2014, approval No. SA2014-022 (PA2014-152). The Director's decision was an adjudicatory act that should not have been performed at the staff level because it required the Director to consider facts peculiar to the grade and site conditions of the individual property and involved the exercise of discretionary judgment. Specifically, the Director was required to use her independent judgment to determine: (1) the location of the original grade prior to the 1986 improvements on the property; (2) whether the new grade was reasonable and comparable to the grades of adjoining lots; and (3) whether the grade would be detrimental or injurious to property and development on adjoining lots. "Resolution of these issues involves the exercise of judgment, and the careful balancing of conflicting interests, the hallmark of the adjudicative process." (See, e.g., Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 615.) Planning Commission - September 19, 2019 Item No. 5b Additional Materials Received Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP (PA2017-179) Chair P. Koetting and Commissioners City of Newport Beach RE: Permit No. CD2017-076 (PA2017-179) (Sheehy Residence) September 14, 2019 Page 2 of 3 As the Director's decision required a significant amount of discretion, it should not have been performed as a ministerial act. (See, Arnel Dev. Co. v. Costa Mesa (1980) 28 Cal.3d 511, 531; see also, California Administrative Code, title 14, section 15024 ["Discretionary project means an activity defined as a project which requires the exercise of judgment, deliberation, or decision on the part of the public agency or body in the process of approving or disapproving a particular activity, as distinguished from situations where the public agency or body merely has to determine whether there has been conformity with applicable statutes, ordinances, or regulations."].) Moreover, the determination deprived the Vallejos of a significant property interest — i.e., the alteration of the existing grade planes on the Sheehy property will result in a new driveway and garage structure with roof lines that are much higher in elevation than would otherwise be allowed directly below and adjacent to the Vallejo property. The City's failure to provide the Vallejos with any notice of the impending decision regarding the alternative grade determination prior to the Director's decision and the Zoning Administrator's subsequent refusal to entertain any arguments related to the same violated our clients' due process rights, as the decision will ultimately negatively affect their interest in their own property. The state and federal Constitutions prohibit the government from depriving persons of property without due process. (U.S. Const., 5th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 7, subd. (a).) "Zoning does not deprive an adjacent landowner of his property, but it is clear that the individual's interest in his property is often affected by local land use controls, and the root requirement of the due process clause is that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest." (Scott v. Indian Wells (1972) 6 Cal.3d 541, 549.) "Due process principles require reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard before governmental deprivation of a significant property interest." (Horn v. County of Ventura 24 Cal.3d 605, 612.) Indeed, "land use decisions which substantially affect the property rights of owners of adjacent parcels may constitute deprivations of property within the context of procedural due process." (Id. at 615.) "In line with this constitutional bedrock, an adjudicative governmental action that implicates a significant or substantial property deprivation generally requires the procedural due process standards of reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard." (Calvert v. County of Yuba (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 613, 622.) In this instance, because the Director's decision was made at the staff level, the Vallejos were not provided with any notice or opportunity to be heard regarding the grade determination before the decision was made. While the Vallejos objected to the determination at the Zoning Administrator hearing, the Zoning Administrator refused to entertain any such arguments as she found the arguments were untimely. Planning Commission - September 19, 2019 Item No. 5b Additional Materials Received Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP (PA2017-179) Chair P. Koetting and Commissioners City of Newport Beach RE: Permit No. CD2017-076 (PA2017-179) (Sheehy Residence) September 14, 2019 Page 3 of 3 The Vallejos respectfully request that the Planning Commission consider the propriety of the Director's alternative grade determination during the upcoming September 19, 2019 hearing on their appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision and afford the Vallejos an opportunity to be heard. As they will be impacted by any development that occurs on the Sheehy property, including an alternative grade determination, the Vallejo's opinions should be heard and considered by the Planning Commission during its review of the Sheehy's permit application. Sincerely, XOA- ATie L. Spangler Of Counsel JON CORN LAW FIRM Planning Commission - September 19, 2019 Item No. 5c Additional Materials Received Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP (PA2017-179) From: Schuller. Liane To: Lee, Amanda Subject: FW: Public hearing, Sept. 19, 2019, Appeal of Sheehy Residence, CDP Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 3:57:26 PM -----Original Message ----- From: Kent Moore[mailto:kentmoore4roadrunner.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 3:21 PM To: Schuller, Liane <Ischuller@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Public hearing, Sept. 19, 2019, Appeal of Sheehy Residence, CDP Thanks for the talk, Liane. Please share with the Planning Commission. Sorry this is late. Thank you. Sent from my iPhone. Dear Planning Commissioners: I have discussed this item at length with Ms. Schuller. I hope she passed on some of my comments with all of you. And, if you happen to have any further questions, please call me at (949) 244-1832 as I feel that I'm somewhat of an expert on this area of Corona Del Mar. I have owned property within 100 yards of the Sheehy residence since the mid- 1970's and am quite familiar with the situation at the corner of Ocean and Carnation. I am also a former board member of the CDM Chamber of Commerce and a member of the CDM Resident's Assn. Going all the way back to the `70's, this parcel has been one of the most controversial sites in old Corona Del Mar. This land below the Vallejo home at 2501 Ocean, containing two lots, was once owned by Mr. Carl Quandt of Perris, CA. Quandt wanted to develop the property by constructing an elevated,.. freeway type on-ramp/driveway to the building sites below. As might be expected, our local residents along Ocean Blvd., and up Carnation and Dahlia vehemently objected as all views from this scenic point and coastal bluff face would have been lost and,hence, destroyed the unique character of this charming part of Old Corona Del Mar. Quandt was very wealthy and hired the best attorneys to push his project through the City and accused the neighbors of trying to sabotage his efforts. He would appear at hearings dressed in old jeans and a t shirt and would ratable on incessantly about building his "little dream home." His real goal was to flip the property upon getting City approval for the project. In desperation, the neighbors formed a small but determined cadre of local homeowners and hired the SF firm of Schulte, Mihaly and Wineberger out of San Francisco. Former Council Member, Jean Watt, had a daughter named Teri who was an attorney with this firm and she greatly assisted in our efforts to try and keep the development to a minimum. I add here that it certainlywasn't cheap using her law firm! Meanwhile, Quandt had plenty of money. This battle went on for years as Quandt, at public hearings, wearing his Sunday best jeans and t shirts, tried to portray himself to the City as a victim of bullying and rumors. His attorney, however, was brilliant, attempting to counter all resident objections to the building of Quandt's little dream home. And back and forth it went for years. With the advent of the Coastal Act, things began to change. The Quandt property now sat on an official Coastal Bluff Face and Coastal assigned staffer, Praveen Gupta, to try and hammer something out with Quandt and the City of Newport Beach. Gupta saw through all of the Quandt propaganda and subterfuge and worked with the neighbors and City Planning to hammer out a compromise. Quant was not allowed to build his sweeping driveway and the City allowed him to build the little garage and mailbox at the top. Variance 1095 was put into place to help keep the view blockage to a minimum. Quandt was also Planning Commission - September 19, 2019 Item No. 5c Additional Materials Received Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP (PA2017-179) permitted to construct a wrought iron fence and plant foliage as long as it didn't exceed 3 ft. above the curb. We felt that this was the only alternative that remained and shook on the deal. Not perfect of course, but better than that freeway on -ramp plan. But what an ordeal it was.!Quara t immediately sold his project to John McIntosh (Reuben, Snack Shops, etc.) For awhile they were good neighbors but had to be reminded often to trim the fast growing foliage. Then Mrs. McIntosh planted huge queen palms in the public right away without permits next to the garage and small driveway. (Another power struggle which appeared on the front page of the papers.) A couple of years ago, Mrs. McIntosh sold the property to the Sheehy family and they want to build a new home on the site. I believe they will be wonderful neighbors and they are sensitive about the difficulties and misunderstandings which have occurred in the past at 2495 Ocean Blvd. Not only have they presented a beautiful project to the City and Coastal Commission, they have been sensitive to the environment at this location and have opened up this wonderful viewpoint to the public which will enjoy a clear and unobstructed view of the bay, peninsula and ocean. A win -win for everyone at long last! Therefore, as a 27-year homeowner and resident, I urge you to deny the Vallejo appeal and allow the Sheehy project to proceed. Thank you - Kent Moore, 210 Carnation, CDM (949)244-1832 Planning Commission - September 19, 2019 Item No. 5d Additional Materials Received Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP (PA2017-179) September 19, 2019, Planning Commission Item 5 Comments These comments on a Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda item are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(o),vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 5. APPEAL OF SHEEHY RESIDENCE CDP (PA2017-179) In conducting the de novo review of this application for a Coastal Development Permit, there would seem to be at least three major Coastal Act issues the Commission needs to consider: (1) minimization of view impacts; (2) the validity of the 2014 grade determination; and (3) the appropriateness of bluff -face development. View Impacts The View Analysis of Attachment No. PC 9 (apparently pursuant to NBMC Sec. 21.30.100 Scenic and Visual Quality Protection) is helpful, but lacks any verbal explanation of what is being illustrated and what conclusions should be reached from it. Regarding protection and enhancement of the "designated Coastal View Point at the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue," Condition 28 (page 25) requiring landscaping to stay below 3 feet (apparently not illustrated) is helpful. But handwritten page 117 shows what appears to be proposed opaque security gates across the driveway and pedestrian entryway which looks like it continues to block the public's view of the harbor from the location illustrated. It appears to be solid wood fencing: In view of the siting and design principles of NBMC Sec. 21.30.100.D, it would seem appropriate to impose an additional condition requiring any security gates to be of transparent or open-work construction so that they, too, do not block the public views. NBMC Sec. 21.30.100.1, also appears to require the recording of a View Protection Easement. Regarding views from the harbor, it was noted at the Zoning Administrator hearing that handwritten page 119 shows what appears to be a large white vertical wall at the left end of the project whose only purpose seems to be to support the driveway: Planning Commission - September 19, 2019 Item No. 5d Additional Materials Received Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP (PA2017-179) September 19, 2019, PC agenda Item 5 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 4 The architect said it will be more articulated than it appears, but it would seem its visual impact could be reduced. In that regard, the general whiteness and design of the structure does not seem planned to blend into the natural setting. Instead, it seems designed to stand out and call attention to itself. In addition, what looks like a two-story glass wall to the right of the vertical white wall would also likely generate bird strike concerns if this application were before the Coastal Commission. Grade Establishment The staff report includes as Attachment No. PC 3 (handwritten pages 31ff) a 2014 Director's Grade Determination (SA2014-022), although it is missing most of the approved attachments to that (some of which seem to be in the Project Plans, pages 129-131. I find reliance on this, and the idea that it is no longer debatable because the 14-day appeal period ended in 2014 highly suspect. As the appellant notes in their correspondence, no one other than the applicant was aware a decision had been made. So a decision unfavorable to the applicant could be appealed, but one that might be detrimental to neighbors or to the public in general could not. That is clearly not providing due process. In addition, the current application is for a Coastal Development Permit subject to Title 21 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Since certification in 2017, Title 21 has its own grade determination procedures (in Sec. 21.30.050 - Grade Establishment), which would appear to make a prior determination under a different title irrelevant. And while I appreciate a tentative grade determination is necessary in order for the architect to generate a proposal, the piecemealing of critical decisions seems to violate the principle (in Newport Beach planning) that all aspects of an application should be heard together. As to the appropriateness of the 2014 grade determination, it states that its purpose is to ensure heights are measured from the original, natural grade that existed on the site prior to development in 1986. There is some logic to that, but it is not the logic of the certified Local Coastal Program (see preceding link). Planning Commission - September 19, 2019 Item No. 5d Additional Materials Received Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP (PA2017-179) September 19, 2019, PC agenda Item 5 comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 4 The words `original' or "natural' grade do not appear in the LCP (or in the Zoning Code). On the contrary, the system adopted involves referencing heights to a series of "planes" based on observed heights along the setback lines: P1 Front Setback P2 Buildable Area 4-sided polygon that approximates ll P3 the building footprint ��•` P4 P2 Q: e' = P5 P3 Lot Line y(' P4 � Setback i Feat To the extent I can understand it, this seems intended to ensure compatibility of the development with its surroundings by "fitting" the development to the heights at the interface with the adjoining properties, irrespective of the actual topography on the lot itself (which will likely be hidden by the development). While Subsection 21.30.050.0 does allow the Director to establish the grade when the lot has been altered (as it has here), it does not direct him to attempt to reconstruct the original topography. Rather, `the Director may establish the grade that is reasonable and comparable with the grades of adjoining lots and that will not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements on adjoining lots." The emphasis is entirely on the adjoining lots, and presumably is direction to establish a new "flat' plane dovetailing with them. It has nothing to do with what might have existed in the past on the subject lot (which might, for example, have once had a massive hill). In connection with this adopted scheme of using artificial grade planes rather than topography, I especially do not understand the comment from 2014 that in the present case "this current method of grade establishment does not work because the rear property line and portions of the side property lines are located within the Newport Bay resulting in interpolated elevations excessively below the actual grade elevations of the property and is not representative of the prevailing grades in the area or of the original topography." It seems to me that if it were not for the water surface the points in the bay would be even lower (namely, on the harbor bottom), causing the "correct' grade planes to be even lower. So far from causing the planes to be "excessively low," the planes are higher than they would if it were not for the water. Planning Commission - September 19, 2019 Item No. 5d Additional Materials Received Appeal of Sheehy Residence CDP (PA2017-179) September 19, 2019, PC agenda Item 5 comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 4 Bluff -face Development It would be very interesting to know how the development in 1986 survived Coastal Commission review, or if the City claimed it qualified for the Categorical Exclusion. Although the City's original Coastal Land Use Plan (adopted by City Council Resolution No. 82- 25 and in effect at the time) identified this lot as suitable for mutli-family residential development (Mai) 17), it also contained policies prohibiting all new development on bluff faces and it did not count any submerged land (as is present here) or slope greater than 26.6° (" 2:1" as is also present here) as part of the buildable area of a lot (see pages 20-21, 26, and 36). This photo, circa 1950, from City GIS/OC archives shows (on the left and mid -height) the spectacular topography the Coastal Act sought to protect, although too late for much of this (obliterated, apparently prior to the 1972 Act, by the Channel Reef condominiums which feature so prominently in the modern photos): It suggests (as does the pre -development topographic map mentioned in the previous section) that the lot should not have been developed at all. Fast -forward to today, and it appears the Bluff protection Overlay Map of Attachment No. PC 7 (page 87, certified in 2017) does little to deliver on the Coastal Act's promises to protect and enhance the coast's natural resources. Instead, it seems satisfied with trying only to draw a line around what has already been destroyed. That said, I am unable to find anything in the staff report clearly overlaying the bluff protection zone map on the existing and proposed development so the Commission can verify it stays entirely within the allowed line. Technical Errors The proposed Resolution of Approval, on handwritten page 17, line 3 from end, refers to the lowest habitable floor elevation exceeding "the minimum 9.00 MSL (NAVD88) elevation standard." The abbreviation "MSL" should be stricken and replaced with "foot." There is no 9 foot MSL ("Mean Sea Level" standard). The standard in flood hazard areas (NBMC Sec. 21.30.060.B.3) is 9.00 (ft) NAVD 88. Indeed, per page 94, 0 MSL is currently at +2.59 feet NAVD 88.