HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210311_ZA_Staff report
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STAFF REPORT
March 11, 2021
Agenda Item No. 3
SUBJECT: Frieden Residence Site Alterations (PA2017-092)
Coastal Development Permit No. CD2017-040
SITE LOCATION: 169 Shorecliff Road
APPLICANT: EBTA Architects, Inc
OWNER: Lori Frieden
PLANNER: Benjamin M. Zdeba, AICP, Senior Planner
949- 644-3253, bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov
LAND USE AND ZONING
General Plan: RS-D (Single Unit Residential Detached)
Zoning District: R-1-6,000 (Single-Unit Residential)
Coastal Land Use Category: RSD-A (Single Unit Residential Detached 0.0- 5.9
DU/AC)
Coastal Zoning District: R-1-6,000 (Single-Unit Residential)
Bluff Overlay District: Map B-7 (Bluff Development Shorecliffs)
PROJECT SUMMARY
A request for a coastal development permit to allow the removal, restoration and
maintenance of existing accessory structures, hardscaping and landscaping on an
oceanfront bluff property. The request was prompted by a notice from the California Coastal
Commission advising that the existing improvements require a coastal development permit.
RECOMMENDATION
1) Conduct a public hearing;
2) Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Section 15301 under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the State CEQA
Guidelines California Code of Regulations. Tittle 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, 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. CD2017-040 (Attachment No. ZA 1).
1
Frieden Residence Site Alterations (PA2017-092)
Zoning Administrator, March 11, 2021
Page 2
BACKGROUND
In 1980, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) issued Coastal Development
Permit (CDP) P-80-6914 to previous owners of the property, allowing construction
of a swimming pool, decks and a retaining wall. Photographic records show
subsequent improvements, including construction of a concrete stairway, decks
and retaining walls, were completed without obtaining proper permits. On
December 8, 2014, the CCC issued a Notice of Violation, requesting the property
owner remove or obtain approval of the unpermitted elements.
The current property owner submitted an application to the CCC, which was under
review by CCC staff at the time that
Implementation Plan was certified. The applicants withdrew the CCC application
and then submitted the current application to the City for local processing.
The 1980 CDP memorialized the location of the bluff edge for development
purposes. An updated topographic survey of the property prepared in 2015
appears to be consistent with the 1980 determination. Based on the data point
used in the 2015 survey, the bluff edge is mapped at the 46.57-foot contour, based
on the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88).
DISCUSSION
Land Use and Development Standards
The subject property is located in the R-1-6,000 Coastal Zoning District, which
provides for single-
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 CCC Appeal Area.
The property is also located within the Bluff Overlay District, intended to establish
special development standards for projects proposed on or adjacent to identified
coastal bluffs. Section 21.28.040 (Bluff (B) Overlay District)
Coastal Program Implementation Plan
specific improvements may be placed. Table 1 below provides a summary of the
applicable development standards.
2
Frieden Residence Site Alterations (PA2017-092)
Zoning Administrator, March 11, 2021
Page 3
Table 1 Map B-7 Location of Development Areas
Development Area Description Types of Improvements Allowed
A
Area between front property line
and the oceanward extent of
existing development
Principal structures and major
accessory structures, including guest
houses and swimming pools
B
Area between Area A and a 10-
foot setback from bluff edge
Accessory structures
C
All other portions of the property Limited accessory structures and
improvements such as landscape, on-
grade public paths and stairways
Proposed Scope of Work
The project site contains an existing single-family residence with a pool terrace
located within Development Area A. The proposed scope of work involves the
removal, restoration and maintenance of existing hardscape, landscape and
accessory structures in Areas A, B and C. No additions or alterations to the existing
residence are proposed in conjunction with this application. All proposed work is
show in more detail on Attachment No. ZA 5 (Project Plans). Figure 1 below shows
the existing improvements and Figure 2 on the next page shows the proposed
plan, including maintenance and restoration.
Figure 1, Existing improvements.
3
Frieden Residence Site Alterations (PA2017-092)
Zoning Administrator, March 11, 2021
Page 4
Figure 2, Proposed plan with main improvements to be removed shaded in red. The remaining areas
in Development Areas B and C will be restored with native plantings.
In 2013, the City issued a building permit to modify an existing kidney-shaped pool
in Area A to a rectangular shape. Because the pool already existed, the City did
not believe a CDP was needed. CCC staff believed a coastal development permit
should have been required. The applicant has included this completed work in the
current application -
Within Area A, the scope of work includes resurfacing the pool terrace with stone
pavers; removing an unpermitted seating area and retaining walls below the pool
terrace; maintaining a stone-covered planter wall along easterly side of the turf
area to serve as a safety barrier; and replacing the existing metal pool terrace
railing with a glass guardrail.
Within Area B, the scope of work includes removing an unpermitted wood retaining
wall that was constructed to expand the existing turf area seaward and reconstructing
the wall along the landward boundary of Area B, thereby reducing the width of the
turf area by approximately one-third.
Within Area C, the scope of work includes removing an unpermitted barbeque terrace
on the lower bluff area, restoring pre-existing grade and installing railroad ties/erosion
control steppers; removing unpermitted crib-block planters and palm trees; and
Guardrail
to Remain Bluff Edge
4
Frieden Residence Site Alterations (PA2017-092)
Zoning Administrator, March 11, 2021
Page 5
removing an unpermitted wood deck and retaining wall adjacent to the existing beach
access stairs.
Within Area C, remove existing ice plant and palm trees; replace with drought-tolerant
and non-invasive plantings consistent with the submitted landscape plan (Attachment
No. ZA 4).
Within Area C, maintain an existing unpermitted safety rail adjacent to the railroad
ties/erosion control steppers, where the bluff falls off sharply to the rocks below. This
requires relief from the development standards of the Implementation Plan. Section
21.52.090 (Relief from Implementation Plan Development Standards)
Coastal Implementation Plan provides standards and approval findings for relief from
the development standards of the Implementation Plan when doing so is consistent
with the purpose of the certified Local Coastal Program and will not have an adverse
effect on coastal resources. Compliance with the requisite findings of approval is
detailed in the attached draft resolution. The guardrail is necessary to provide a
measure of safety for residents. The safety guardrail has an open and transparent
design and alternatives to including this project feature are not available.
The resulting improved and restored bluff with remaining improvements will appear
in character with the adjoining properties, as depicted in Figure 3 below.
Figure 3, Oblique aerial photography showing the project site and neighboring properties, as seen
from the ocean side. The subject area is shown in a yellow outline.
5
Frieden Residence Site Alterations (PA2017-092)
Zoning Administrator, March 11, 2021
Page 6
Hazards
A Geotechnical Hazards Analysis was prepared for the project by GeoFirm, dated
geotechnical evaluation of potential hazards associated with slope stability and
bluff retreat. Based exploratory drilling and laboratory testing results, GeoFirm
finds the existing development presents adequate factors of safety. Additional
analysis of aerial photographs and bluff retreat over the past 77 years indicates
the impact of minor sea level rise will not be significant or impact the site
development.
Pursuant to NBMC Section 21.30.030(C)(3)(i)(iv) (Development Standards -
Protective Structures), 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) (Waterfront Development - Development Standards).
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.
Water Quality
The property is located within 100 feet of coastal waters. Pursuant to Section
21.35.030 (Construction Pollution Prevention Plan) of the Implementation Plan, a
Construction Pollution Prevention Plan (CPPP) is required to implement temporary
sedimentation and to minimize pollution of runoff and coastal waters derived from
construction chemicals and materials. A preliminary CPPP was prepared for the
project by Toal Engineering, Inc., dated October 27, 2017. Construction plans and
activities will be required to adhere to the approved CPPP.
Consistent with Section 21.35.050 (Water Quality and Hydrology Plan) of the
Implementation Plan, a Water Quality and Hydrology Plan (WQHP) is not required
because the project includes less than 75 percent of impervious surface area,
6
Frieden Residence Site Alterations (PA2017-092)
Zoning Administrator, March 11, 2021
Page 7
Public Access and Views
The project site is located between the nearest public road and the sea or shoreline.
Implementation Plan Section 21.30A.040 requires that the provision of public access
be proportional to the impact. In this case, the project is limited to the removal,
restoration and maintenance of existing improvements on a developed site and
does not involve a change in land use, density or intensity that will result in increased
demand on public access and recreation opportunities.
Implementation Plan Section 21.30A.040 (Determination of Public
Access/Recreation Impacts) requires that the provision of public access bear a
proportional to the impact. In this case, the project is limited to the removal,
restoration and maintenance of existing improvements on a site developed with an
existing single-family residence in the Coastal Zone. 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. Public coastal access is provided east
of the project site near the intersection of Milford Drive and Brighton Road in the
Cameo Shores neighborhood and west of the project site by way of an easement
between the properties at 127 and 133 Shorecliff Road. Public coastal access is also
provided beyond to the west at Corona del Mar State Beach and along the coastline.
The project site is not located adjacent to a coastal view road or coastal viewpoint
identified by Local Coastal Program maps. The project site may be located within
the viewshed of distant public viewing areas; however, the project is limited to the
removal, restoration and maintenance of existing improvements and does not have
the potential to degrade the visual quality of the Coastal Zone or result in significant
adverse impacts to public views. The restoration work within Area C will improve
the natural quality of the bluff.
Summary
Staff believes the project results in an improvement of a coastal bluff, which will be
cleared from invasive species, restored and revegetated with native plantings.
Several unauthorized alterations and structures will be removed.
Approval of this application and implementation of the work will fully abate the
violations in a manner consistent with the Local Coastal Program.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15301 under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code
7
Frieden Residence Site Alterations (PA2017-092)
Zoning Administrator, March 11, 2021
Page 8
of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a
significant effect on the environment.
The Class 1 exemption includes demolition and removal of accessory structures such as
swimming pools and fences. The proposed project consists of the removal, restoration and
maintenance of existing accessory structures, hardscaping and landscaping.
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
provisions of the Municipal Code. A Notice of Filing was posted at the site by the Applicant
as required by NBMC Chapter 21.50.080 (Posting Notice). 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 NBMC. Final action taken by the City may be appealed to the
Coastal Commission in compliance with Section 21.64.035 (Appeal to the Coastal
Commission)
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:
_____________________
Benjamin M. Zdeba, AICP
Senior Planner
JWC/bmz
Attachments: ZA 1 Draft Resolution
ZA 2 Vicinity Map
ZA 3 Description
ZA 4
ZA 5 Project Plans
8
Attachment No. ZA 1
Draft Resolution
9
RESOLUTION NO. ZA2021-###
A RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. CD2017-040 ALLOWING REMOVAL,
RESTORATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES, HARDSCAPING AND LANDSCAPING, AND
GRANTING RELIEF FROM THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF
THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AT 169
SHORECLIFF ROAD (PA2017-092)
THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An application was filed by EBTA Architects, Inc. (Applicant), with respect to property located
at 169 Shorecliff Road, and legally described as Lot 106, Tract 1116 requesting approval of
a coastal development permit.
2. The Applicant proposes to remove, restore and maintain existing accessory structures,
hardscaping and landscaping on an oceanfront bluff property (Project). The request was
prompted by a notice from the California Coastal Commission advising that the existing
improvements require a coastal development permit.
3. The subject property is located within the R-1-6000 (Single-Unit Residential) Zoning District
and the General Plan Land Use Element category 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 Zoning
District is R-1-6000 (Single-Unit Residential).
5. A public hearing was held online on March 11, 2021, observing restrictions due to the
Declaration of a State Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to COVID-
19. A notice of time, place and purpose of the hearing was given in accordance with the
Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented
to, and considered by, the Zoning Administrator at this hearing.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1.
pursuant to Section 15301 under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) 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. Class 1 exempts the permitting, maintenance or minor alteration of existing private
structures. The proposed project includes the removal, restoration and maintenance of
existing accessory structures, hardscaping and landscaping on an oceanfront bluff property.
10
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2021-###
Page 2 of 9
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 subject property is zoned R-1-6000. It is currently developed with a single-family
residence and accessory site improvements. The proposed project is not affecting the
existing single-family residential structure. All work is proposed within the site area on
private property between the residence and the ocean.
2. The project includes the removal of several unauthorized improvements and the removal
of invasive plant species. These previously altered areas will be restored with native
plantings and will enhance the natural visual quality of the bluff, as can be seen from the
Pacific Ocean and distant viewsheds.
3. Approval of the project will result in a property that is more conforming to the Bluff
Development Overlay requirements and will abate all violations, as identified by the
California Coastal Commission. Development Area C will be mostly restored to appear
as a natural coastal bluff. Development outside of Area B will be removed and relocated
into the appropriate location for compliance.
4. The proposed scope of work conforms to all applicable policies of the Coastal Land Use
Plan (CLUP) related to coastal hazards, including but not limited to:
a. Policy 2.8.1-2 Design and site new development to avoid hazardous areas and
minimize risks to life and property from coastal and other hazards.
b. Policy 2.8.1-4 Require new development to assure stability and structural integrity,
and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or
destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction
of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs
and cliffs.
The proposed project will remove unauthorized improvements from more sensitive areas
while providing a restored, natively landscaped bluff in several previously altered areas.
5. Adjoining properties also have improvements adjacent to the same bluff areas. The
proposed project will not appear out of character for existing and expected development
in the neighborhood.
11
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2021-###
Page 3 of 9
6. New landscaping will be verified for compliance with NBMC Section 21.30.075
(Landscaping). A condition of approval is included to require 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.
7. The property is located within an area identified as hazardous due to erosion factors or
coastal hazards. The project will be required to comply with the California Building Code
(CBC) and Building Division standards and policies.
8. As conditioned, 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 Section 21.30.015(D)(3)(c) (Waterfront Development -
Development Standards) of the NBMC prior to the issuance of building permits for
construction.
9. The property is not located adjacent to a coastal view road or coastal viewpoint identified
by Local Coastal Program maps. The project site may be located within the viewshed of
distant public viewing areas; however, the project is limited to on-grade and low-profile
accessory improvements and complies with all applicable Local Coastal Program (LCP)
development standards. Therefore, the project does not have the potential to degrade the
visual quality of the Coastal Zone or result in significant adverse impacts to public views.
The restoration work within Area C will improve the natural quality of the bluff.
Finding:
B. 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.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The project site is located between the nearest public road and the sea or shoreline.
Implementation Plan Section 21.30A.040 requires that the provision of public access bear
proportional to the impact. In this case, the project is limited to the removal, restoration and
maintenance of existing improvements on a developed site and does not involve a change
in land use, density or intensity that will result in increased demand on public access and
recreation opportunities.
2. Section 21.30A.040 (Determination of Public Access/Recreation Impacts) of the NBMC
requires that the provision of public access bear a reasonable relationship between the
project involves the removal, restoration and maintenance of existing accessory
structures, hardscaping and landscaping within the confines of private property located in
the Coastal Zone. 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. Public
coastal access is provided east of the project site near the intersection of Milford Drive and
12
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2021-###
Page 4 of 9
Brighton Road in the Cameo Shores neighborhood and west of the project site by way of an
easement between the properties at 127 and 133 Shorecliff Road. Public coastal access is
also provided beyond to the west at Corona del Mar State Beach and along the coastline.
Finding:
C. The Zoning Administrator has considered the following:
i. Whether or not the development is consistent with the certified Local Coastal Program
to the maximum extent feasible; and
ii. Whether or not there are feasible alternatives that would provide greater consistency
with the certified Local Coastal Program and/or that are more protective of coastal
resources.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The property has steep bluffs with preexisting private stair access to the beach area below.
The requested deviation to maintain safety railing within Area C adjacent to a sheer drop off
area is necessary for safety purposes.
2. With the exception of the variance to maintain safety railing within Area C, the proposed
project complies and is consistent with the certified LCP.
3. The proposed guard rail will have no detrimental effect on coastal resources that the
development standards are intended to protect. Section 21.52.090(B)(1) (Relief from
Implementation Plan Development Standards) of the NBMC specifically allows a waiver of
development standards through approval of a coastal development for projects that will not
have an adverse effect on coastal resources.
Finding:
D. The granting of the variance is necessary due to special circumstances applicable to the
property, including location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, and/or other physical
features, the strict application of the development standards otherwise applicable to the
property denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the
vicinity and in the same coastal zoning district.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. The project site contains steep bluff areas characterized by sheer drop offs to the rocky
beach area below. The requested guardrail facilitates use and enjoyment of the property in
a safe manner without causing detrimental effects on coastal resources that the
development standards are intended to protect. The guardrail is necessary to provide a
measure of safety for residents. The safety guardrail is has an open and transparent design
and alternatives to including this project feature are not available.
13
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2021-###
Page 5 of 9
2. All Facts in Support of Findings A and B above are hereby incorporated by reference.
Finding:
E. The variance complies with the findings required to approve a coastal development permit
in Section 21.52.015(F).
Fact in Support of Finding:
All Facts in Support of Findings A and B above are hereby incorporated by reference.
Finding:
F. The variance will not result in development that blocks or significantly impedes public access
to and along the sea or shoreline and to coastal parks, trails, or coastal bluffs.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1.
nearby recreational facilities. The property is located south of Coast Highway, approximately
one (1)-half mile from the coast. Coastal access is currently provided and will continue to be
provided east of the project site near the intersection of Milford Drive and Brighton Road in
the Cameo Shores neighborhood and west of the project site at Corona del Mar State
Beach.
2. All Facts in Support of Finding B are hereby incorporated by reference.
Finding:
G. The variance will not result in development that blocks or significantly impairs public views to
and along the sea or shoreline or to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas.
Fact in Support of Finding:
Fact in Support of Finding A (7) is hereby incorporated by reference.
Finding:
H. The variance will not result in development that has an adverse effect, either individually or
cumulatively, on coastal resources, including wetlands, sensitive habitat, vegetation, or
wildlife species.
Fact in Support of Finding:
The project will not negatively impact any coastal resources, which the bluff setback is intended to
protect. Several unauthorized improvements will be removed, and the affected areas will be
14
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2021-###
Page 6 of 9
restored as a bluff with native plants. Invasive plant species will also be removed from the site,
which will ultimately benefit, improve and protect coastal resources on-site and beyond.
Finding:
I. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to, or in conflict with, the purpose of this
Implementation Plan, nor to the applicable policies of the certified Local Coastal Program.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1. Approval of the CDP and associated deviation will not be contrary to the applicable policies
of the Coastal Land Use Plan intended to protect coastal resources. The proposed
project includes substantial rehabilitation of previously affected bluff areas and will help to
ensure coastal resources are protected and enhanced on the property.
2. The granting of the coastal development permit to allow a guardrail for safety purposes in
Development Area C is consistent with NBMC Section 21.52.090 (Relief from
Implementation Plan Development Standards), which provides for relief from development
standards for projects that will have no detrimental effect on environmental or visual coastal
resources. The guardrail is necessary to provide a measure of safety for residents. It has an
open design and alternatives to including this project feature are not available.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Zoning Administrator of the City of Newport Beach hereby finds this Project is
categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 under Class 1 (Existing
Facilities) 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 Zoning Administrator of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Coastal
Development Permit No. CD2017-040, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A,
which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
3. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was
adopted unless within such time an appeal or call for review is filed with the Community
Development Director in accordance with the provisions of Title 21 Local Coastal
Implementation Plan, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Final action taken by the City
may be appealed to the Coastal Commission in compliance with Section 21.64.035 (Appeal
to the Coastal Commission)
Regulations, Sections 13111 through 13120, and Section 30603 of the Coastal Act.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021.
____________________________
Jaime Murillo, Zoning Administrator
15
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2021-###
Page 7 of 9
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans
and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval (except as modified
by applicable conditions of approval).
2. Revisions to the approved plans shall require separate review by the Planning Division
and may require an amendment to this Coastal Development Permit or the processing of
a new coastal development permit.
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall provide 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,
judgements, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation,
atsoever
development. The letter shall be scanned into the plan set prior to building permit
issuance.
4. Prior to the final inspection of the building permit, 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.
5. No demolition or construction materials, equipment debris, or waste, shall be placed or
stored in a location that would enter sensitive habitat, receiving waters, or a storm drain
or result in impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat areas, streams, the beach,
wetlands or their buffers. No demolition or construction materials shall be stored on public
property.
6. The Applicant is responsible for compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
In compliance with the MBTA, grading, brush removal, building demolition, tree trimming,
and similar construction activities shall occur between August 16 and January 31, outside
of the peak nesting period. If such activities must occur inside the peak nesting season
from February 1 to August 15, compliance with the following is required to prevent the
taking of Native Birds pursuant to MBTA:
A. The construction area shall be inspected for active nests. If birds are observed flying
from a nest or sitting on a nest, it can be assumed that the nest is active. Construction
16
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2021-###
Page 8 of 9
activity within 300 feet of an active nest shall be delayed until the nest is no longer active.
Continue to observe the nest until the chicks have left the nest and activity is no longer
observed. When the nest is no longer active, construction activity can continue in the
nest area.
B. It is a violation of state and federal law to kill or harm a native bird. To ensure compliance,
consider hiring a biologist to assist with the survey for nesting birds, and to determine
when it is safe to commence construction activities. If an active nest is found, one (1) or
two (2) short follow-up surveys will be necessary to check on the nest and determine
when the nest is no longer active.
7. Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Good Housekeeping Practices (GHPs) shall be
implemented prior to and throughout the duration of construction activity as designated in
the Construction Erosion Control Plan.
8. 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.
9. Debris from demolition shall be removed from work areas each day and removed from
the project site within 24 hours of the completion of the project. Stockpiles and
construction materials shall be covered, enclosed on all sites, not stored in contact with
the soil, and located as far away as possible from drain inlets and any waterway.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless
specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
17
Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2021-###
Page 9 of 9
14. The Applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any
of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Coastal
Development Permit.
15. This Coastal Development Permit may be modified or revoked by the Zoning Administrator
if determined that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being operated or
maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to property
or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained so as to
constitute a public nuisance.
16. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a copy of the Resolution, including conditions of
17. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Division
an additional copy of the approved architectural plans for inclusion in the Coastal
Development file. The plans shall be identical to those approved by all City departments
for building permit issuance. The approved copy shall include architectural sheets only
and shall be reduced in size to 11 inches by 17 inches. The plans shall accurately depict
the elements approved by this Coastal Development Permit.
18. 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.
19. Coastal Development Permit No. CD2017-040 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.
20. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless
City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents
from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of
action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including
whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner
approval of the Frieden Residence Site Alterations including, but not limited to Coastal
Development Permit No. CD2017-040 (PA2017-092). 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.
18
Attachment No. ZA 2
Vicinity Map
19
Feet
Every reasonable effort has been made to assure the
accuracy of the data provided, however, The City of
Newport Beach and its employees and agents
disclaim any and all responsibility from or relating to
any results obtained in its use.
Disclaimer:
3/3/2021
0 833417
20
Attachment No. ZA 3
21
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, JR.,Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast Area Office
200 Oceangate, Suite 1000
Long Beach, CA 90802-4302
(562) 590-5071
March 15, 2017
ATTN: Mr. Sherman Stacey
Gaines & Stacey LLP
1111 Bayside Drive, Suite 280
Corona del Mar, California 92625
Re: NOTICE OF RETURNED APPLICATION
Quon Lee Family Trust; Applicant
169 Shorecliff Road, Newport Beach, Orange County; Location
Coastal Development Permit Application No. 5-15-1578
Dear Mr. Stacey:
The above referenced application was received on October 1, 2015. Coastal Commission staff
reviewed your application for the removal of unpermitted development and restoration of the
bluff as referenced in our Notice of Violation dated December 8, 2014. Commission staff
subsequently sent out a Notice of Incomplete Application, dated October 30, 2015, and received
your response to that notice on November 16, 2015, which stated that you anticipated being able
to provide responses to all eight of the items discussed in the Notice of Incomplete Application
by the first week of December, 2015. To date, Commission staff has not received the
information requested in our Incomplete Application Notice, and the application has remained
incomplete for over one year.
As you know, a Local Coastal Plan for the City of Newport Beach was effectively certified on
January 13, 2017. The proposed development is within the City’s LCP jurisdiction, and the
standard of review for development in the City’s jurisdiction is the Certified LCP. In order to
resolve this matter, please submit your application to the City of Newport Beach within 30 days
of your receipt of this letter to ensure the unpermitted development is removed in a timely
manner, and immediately submit a copy of the stamped local CDP application to Commission
staff.
Please note that since the CDP application was submitted to resolve unpermitted development on
the subject property, Coastal Commission enforcement staff will continue to monitor the project,
as the Commission retains jurisdiction of all enforcement related matters in the coastal zone.
If you have any questions, you may contact me at (562) 590-5071.
Sincerely,
Mandy Revell
Coastal Program Analyst
22
PA2017-092
23
PA2017-092
24
PA2017-092
25
Aerial 1990
169 Shorecliff Road
26
Attachment No. ZA 4
Landscaping Plan
27
28
Attachment No. ZA 5
Project Plans
29
30
Project File PA 2017-092 Activity No.nCD2017-040
Zone R-1-6000 Single unit Residential. General Plan RS-D Single Unit Residential
Coastal Land Use Plan RSD-A. filing Date: May 3, 2017
Location 169 Shorecliff Road Applicant EBTA Architect
The residents Richard and Hyla Bertea at 173 Shorecliff and Valaree Wahler at 165
Shorecliff Road filed a complaint starting in 2014 with the California Coastal Commission.
We retained a lawyer and also a consultant at that time.
We are now, after 7 years, and considerable cost hearing that the landscape and
construction which all was done illegally needs to be removed.
The alarming thing is not only was the complete bluff top altered significantly but there
were no set backs observed and the construction was over the cliff with no 25 foot set back
concern.
We are definitely concerned with any additional construction or demolition of any sort.
The bluff tops are fragile and residents on BOTH sides of 173 have altered the ENTIRE
BLUFF top with no permits all illegally.
Any steps taken now will need a geologist and movement meters on the houses adjacent to
this altered and fragile bluff top.
We would need to see exactly what is proposed not just a vague description as given. I am
enclosing extensive files and photos of the misuse of this bluff top.
There are also photos enclosed of the large tent erected to conceal what the Friedman’s
were doing to the property.
This is the first time we have seen a notice and we were NOT mailed a notice.
Please keep us referenced on any addition information.
Please contact Hyla Bertea 949.463.1095 or Valaree Wahler at Valaree@Westforellc.com.
Thank You,
Hyla Bertea
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021 Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021 Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021 Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received
Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021 Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received
Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021
Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021 Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received
Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021 Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021 Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021 Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021 Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021 Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021
Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021
Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021
Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021 Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received
Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021 Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received
Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021 Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received
Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021
Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021 Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received
Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
LAW OFFICES OF
FRED GAINES GAINES & STACEY LLP TELEPHONE
SHERMAN L. STACEY 3197-A AIRPORT LOOP (949)640-8999
LISA A. WEINBERG COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 FAX
REBECCA A. THOMPSON (714)434-1111
NANCI S. STACEY
KIMBERLY RIBLE
ALICIA B. BARTLEY
March 10, 2021
BY EMAIL
Mr. Benjamin Zdeba
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Way
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Re: PA 2017-92
169 Shorecliff
Dear Ben:
I am writing on behalf of the Applicant for PA2017-92, for restoration improvements at
169 Shorecliff. I have had the opportunity to review the communication and attachments that
were sent by Hyla Bertea. Most of the photographs which were attached show the property as it
existed prior to the purchase by my client. Most of the improvements seaward of the swimming
pool deck were installed by the owners of the property before my client’s purchase. At the time
that the Coastal Commission Notice of Violation letter was sent in 2014, my client was
completing a remodel of the residence, reshaping of the swimming pool and deck, and cosmetic
surfacing of existing walls with stone. The blue covering shown in the photographs was placed
over the swimming pool temporarily to protect the epoxy securing the tile from UV rays. All of
the work on the house, swimming pool and deck was done with permits issued by the City of
Newport Beach.
When my client was made aware that the work seaward of the swimming pool deck could
not be done without a coastal development permit, and that much of the work done by prior
owners in that area had been done without a coastal development permit, my client ceased work
in that area. In order to remedy the alterations that had previously had been done, my client
retained EBTA Architects, Kevin Trigg of GeoFirm as engineering geologist, and Toal
Engineering as Civil Engineer, and Daniel Stewart as Landscape Architect. My client proposed
to restore the property, to the maximum extent feasible, to the condition in which the property
was found before alterations were made by prior owners.
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021 Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
Mr. Ben Zdeba
City of Newport Beach
March 10, 2021
Page 2
The work includes relocating the lower wood retaining wall to a prior location identified
by the City, removing block crib walls which had been placed on the face of the bluff, removing
a block wall and deck which was installed in the mid-stair area of the beach stairway. Although
identified in some photographs as a “retaining wall”, it is the engineer’s conclusion that the block
is not engineered as a retaining wall and only exists to create the area for the deck which will be
removed and to prevent sloughing from the soils above the deck on to the deck. When the deck
is removed, the purpose of that wall will cease.
The beach stairway predated 1972 but the deck was added later. The iceplant and palm
trees on the face of the bluff will be removed with replanting of the area with drought tolerant
native plants in accordance with the Stewart Landscape plan. The sand pit area at the northern
boundary and the stairway descending from the area below the swimming pool would be buried
under a new fill with a surface pathway extending from the bottom of the stairs from the pool
deck to the top of the beach stairs.
The changes which my client has proposed are detailed on the EBTA plan and the
Stewart landscape plan. The final countours for refilling areas from which prior owners had
excavated portions of the property were provided by Toal Engineering. The retaining walls
which prior owners had erected adjoining the property to the north will be left in place to provide
support to that property. A small wall along the bluff at the bottom of the sand pit area will also
remain as removal could affect the stability of the bluff. Following the approval of the coastal
development permit, my client will obtain any necessary grading or building permits to complete
the restoration work. All of the work has been evaluated by GeoFirm who will continue to
provide engineering advice for the work as it proceeds.
My client is not responsible for most of the work which altered the property without
appropriate coastal development permits prior to purchase of the property. She will remedy the
work of her predecessors as well as some work which she had undertaken in the mistaken belief
that it was cosmetic and no permitting was required.
In 1980, I represented the then owner of the property, Ernest George, in connection with
coastal development permit no. P80-6914 which authorized the erection of the present house and
the previous swimming pool and deck. During the hearing before the South Coast Regional
Coastal Commission, the bluff edge was determined to be at a line identified as the bluff edge on
the geologic drawing prepared by geologist Fred Pratley. Since the pool deck area was set back
25 feet from this bluff edge, the Coastal Commission approved the installation of the deck and
pool which were constructed by Mr. George in 1980-81. I personally conducted the hearing
before the Coastal Commission on July 14, 1980 whree the decision about the bluff edge was
made.
Several intervening owners of the property have made other alterations before my client
acquired the property. I have noted some of these alterations earlier in this letter. The
photographs that accompany Ms. Bertea’s communication show many of the alterations that had
been made by prior owners including the concrete stairs, sand pit, retaining walls, midbluff deck
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021 Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
Mr. Ben Zdeba
City of Newport Beach
March 10, 2021
Page 3
and other improvements. You can distinguish the earlier work because the swimming pool
installed by Mr. George was kidney shaped and the swimming pool installed by my client to
replace that swimming pool is rectangular.
I agree with your staff report concerning the application. The conditions are acceptable.
Restoration of the property is being accomplished to the maximum extent feasible with
appropriate safeguards assured by proper engineering and design. I urge the Zoning
Administrator to approve PA2017-92 in accordance with your recommendation.
Very truly yours,
Sherman L. Stacey
SHERMAN L. STACEY
SLS/sh
cc: Lori Frieden
Jeff Frieden
John Ilkcagla
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021 Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
-----Original Message-----
From: Valaree Wahler <valaree@westforellc.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 11:31 AM
To: Zdeba, Benjamin <bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Jeff Lynn Sherwood <Jeff.Sherwood@skypointsecurity.com>
Subject: 169 Shorecliff Road
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content
is safe.
Good morning Ben,
Jeff Sherwood just called you regarding tomorrow zoom call that we need invitation for.
This is regarding 169 Shorecliff Road
I live next door at 165 Shorecliff and my neighbor Hyla Bertea has been in touch with you regarding this bluff top
disturbance.
They and the neighbors before don’t go in for permits from the city or Coastal. I’ve owned my home since 1987 and
I built a new home but I was in good standing with coastal and the city.
I’m very concerned about any movement on our bluff tops.
Will you be having geologist out to look at the bluff tops and to monitor them?
I know the neighbor next to Hyla Bertea at 177 Shorecliff Road he just cut up his bluff top so he could go to the
beach! That wasn’t approved to my knowledge.
Valaree Wahler
"Gratitude opens the door to the power, the wisdom, the creativity of the universe. You open the door through
gratitude."
Deepak Chopra
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021 Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
From: Valaree Wahler <valaree@westforellc.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 11:37 PM
To: Zdeba, Benjamin <bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: 169 Shorecliff Road
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Benjamin,
Thank you for the Zoom meeting ID, as well as the attachment detail of
The City of Newport Beach – Zoning Administrator Staff Report.
It is my contention, that many of the surrounding neighbors of 169
Shorecliff Rd., CDM, were not aware of the upcoming hearing because
The City of Newport Beach did not MAIL OR PROVIDE A NOTICE, to all the
owners of properties (nor did they receive – confirmed by me) that were
within 300 feet of 169 Shorecliff Rd., CDM; additionally the posted notice
of this hearing was NOT PLACED TO BE SEEN, nor was the sign/notice
was not clearly written to advised the neighbors of the hearing and
what it was about (my contention was validated when I asked if they saw
any of the signs, receive any mail pieces from The City of Newport Beach
of a hearing and if they knew about any changes that the Frieden’s were
requesting – and they responded “NO!).
It is important to understand our neighborhood and specially the cul-de-
sac that surrounds the Frieden property. First of all, the lead home within
the cul-de-sac is located at 157 Shorecliff Rd., CDM has been going
through an 8-year build of a new residence (started 2011 I believe and
would really like to know how this plan was approved). Each day for
the last 4 years we have had to endurance a constant stream of large
unloading trucks, large crane trucks, worker’s trucks, worker’s Vans and
cars – averaging 7 to 10 cars as day - that park in the Cul-de-sac as well as
the streets – and of course part in front of all of the curbs, especially the
Frieden’s property as it is known that Lori Frieden and family moved to
Coto De Casa - last summer. Please reflect upon the last sentence, even
the owner of 157 Shorecliff Rd., - Mr. Wang (owner of Vizio Technology) is
not aware of this hearing. I am not sure that he cares as it doesn’t matter
to the project manager nor an occasional City of Newport Beach vehicle –
I think I have seen 5 or 6 but over 8 years!!!!. Additionally, Mr. Don and
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received After Deadline Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
Joan Beall , (the ex-CEO of Rockwell International and philanthropist of
UCI – The Beall Technology Cove Center) located at 161 Shorecliff Rd.,
CDM (two doors down), DID NOT receive a notice in the mail of this
hearing, nor see the signage due to the size of the sign – due to the
parked trucks or lack of time notice (less than 5 working days – I believe),
In fact, I did not see the signage myself (as I am the next-door neighbor
located at 165 Shorecliff Rd., CDM) until March 5th as my domestic
partner – Jeff Sherwood brought in the mail with the notice and walked
me outside to see the signage – which again was very hard to see as the
trucks were illegally parked in the middle of the cul-de-sac and on the
curb. That leaves me to finish my point that Lori Frieden’s other neighbor
– Dick and Hyla Bertea - to the right of the mentioned property DID NOT
receive the notice of this hearing, nor see the signage on the Frieden
property which is set back therefore, it is impossible to see the sign unless
they are told about it. I have to say, that the position of the notice was
not acceptable to any reasonable person and not “best effort” to notify
the neighbors of this hearing. Additionally, both residences are less than
300 feet of 169 Shorecliff Rd., CDM as outlined in your own city
standards and rules!! The above reasons (all residences within 300 feet
must receive a mailed copy of the notice of the hearing), lack of clear sign
posting of the hearing, and due to the pandemic, having a hearing without
the proper advance notice – limits the neighbors’ ability to engage our
attorney’s, as most are working from home and not available. I might be
paranoid, but it seemed very unusual that three neighbors didn’t received
a mailer on the hearing, and the signage was of very small size, poorly
visible and blocked by trucks everywhere – sure seems funny to me.
Upon my follow up with you, today March 10, 2021 - after I reviewed, the
City of Newport Beach Zoning Administrator Staff Report, dated March
11, 2021, was shocked to learn that this request – in actuality a
continuation of legal action against the California Coastal Commission,
and the City of Newport Beach in 2014 and 2015 paid for by the
Bertea’s and the Wahler’s that cost thousands of dollars, impacted the
total neighborhood during the build cycle and at the end of the day did
not provide us “relief from illegal and non-permitted changes that were
counter to the The City of Newport Beach and California Coastal
Commissions (CCC) plan. I believe you received an email today from
Hyla Bertea which highlighted our legal action in 2014-2015, but more
importantly mentioned that additional construction or demolition of
any sort – will endanger the entire bluff side – the Bertea’s as well as
my property, which is not acceptable as I own the cliffside per my
recent survey per my property insurance policy!!!
I am aware that you are going through a process, but there is a level of
details that are important for The City of Newport Beach to take notice.
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received After Deadline Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
As a senior citizen, which is another way of saying that I am experienced -
what people do in the past, is most likely to be repeated – and this
request for changes as documented within their proposed plan, is to add
significant infrastructure without correction of the un-permitted actions
they took 6 years ago. Very few of the un-permitted items will not be
corrected as outlined in the plan!! Let me clearly state, their proposed
plans from 2014 that were approved by the City of Newport Beach and
the CCC in 2015, were not followed. The Frieden’s made extensive
additions and changes without permits & approval and went ahead and
literally covered up their changes (see Hyla photos of a huge tent
covering their backyard. This affected my value of my property and
added to the instability to the “Arch Rock” cliffside. Additionally, the
owner of 177 Shorecliff Rd., CDM – also made extensive changes and
additions to their backyard by adding “non-enforced” walls (Hyla provided
photos of these brick walls that are higher than 2 feet, have NO rebar, no
footing. This is a great liability) to the City of Newport Beach as it is above
a public access trail to the beach and with a heavy rain – it will fall. This
structure further creates instability to the “Arch Rock” cliffside. Even
though these changes were done within the last years, they didn’t even
bother to request approval and permits at least I wasn’t notified of this –
and now he is trying to sell the property at a great discount on
unsuspecting citizens. By the way, the above-mentioned wall, is the same
type that was used as a retaining wall for houses facing PCH which is the
frontage road for Cameo Highlands. This wall is failing as we speak, which
I am sure you are aware of as this is opening discussion during HOA
meetings.
One last important point which may cause me to seek counsel
immediately, I advised Lori Frieden in December of 2020, that I planned to
sell my property immediately. What do you think the impact of this
construction project will be the salability my property in 2021-2022,
especially if their project causes changes to the cliffside or the geological
aspects of my property? I will answer that question, with another
question. What does The City of Newport Beach think has been the
impact of an 8-year property build cycle that has happened less than 100
feet way at Mr. Wang’s property at 157 Shorecliff Rd., CDM? It has been
hell for me, the neighborhood and without a doubt and mentioned by
interested buyers of my property “every time we stop or drive by –
there are trucks parked in the middle of the Cul-de-sac, dirt is
everywhere and many times they block the entrance and exit from the
neighborhood. When is it ever going to stop? Now, let’s visualize
what happens if this project is approved (again – NOBODY LIVES THERE
– except the people left behind – the Wang Family, the Bealls Family,
the Wahler Family and the Bertea Family)! This will be a normal day for
us – trucks everyplace – in the middle of the cul-de-sac, stacked three
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received After Deadline Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
or four wide, at every curbs there a trucks, Vans, cars – most illegally
parked and nobody ever gets a ticket and now double that number.
Besides the fact, we at my residence are blocked from leaving my
residence and I have to find the owner, but now let’s saying that
somebody has a health issue and requires an emergency vehicle!!! Mr.
Bealls is 84, Mr. Bertea is 92 and Hyla Bertea is 82 and I am is 69, and
during the summer anybody can have a health issue.
Let me advise The City of Newport Beach – that I am giving notice – that
there is a large of point of liability pointing directly at the city. First, let’s
delay this hearing so I can contact my attorney, you contact the planning
department and find out how a property takes 8 years to build and how
workers can block the city streets limiting access to Emergency vehicles.
If this plan is approved, I will see significant monetary lost as I try to sell
my property, besides the possible destruction of the Arch Rock cliffside!
Most sincerely,
Valaree Wahler.
From: "Zdeba, Benjamin" <bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov>
Date: March 10, 2021 at 11:54:39 AM PST
To: Valaree Wahler <Valaree@westforellc.com>
Cc: Jeff Lynn ❤️ Sherwood <Jeff.Sherwood@skypointsecurity.com>
Subject: RE: 169 Shorecliff Road
Good morning, Valaree,
Thank you for writing and sorry I missed Jeff's call, as I am currently
working from home with limited access to my phone line.
The Zoning Administrator hearing is a public hearing. There is no special
invitation required and the Zoom meeting link is listed on the agenda
packet. For ease of reference, I have copied and pasted it below:
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received After Deadline Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_Ssf9OM_JRgycBQBlJxlzjQ
I will pass along your correspondence to our administrative team for
distribution to the Zoning Administrator and to include as part of the
public record.
I have attached the staff report for this matter to be considered
tomorrow. If approved, all construction activities to restore several bluff
areas will require grading and building permits, which would include
review of applicable geotechnical and slope stability information. Please
let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Ben Z.
BENJAMIN M. ZDEBA, AICP
Community Development Department
Senior Planner
bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov
949-644-3253
-----Original Message-----
From: Valaree Wahler <valaree@westforellc.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 11:31 AM
To: Zdeba, Benjamin <bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Jeff Lynn ❤️ Sherwood <Jeff.Sherwood@skypointsecurity.com>
Subject: 169 Shorecliff Road
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good morning Ben,
Jeff Sherwood just called you regarding tomorrow zoom call that we need
invitation for.
This is regarding 169 Shorecliff Road
I live next door at 165 Shorecliff and my neighbor Hyla Bertea has been in
touch with you regarding this bluff top disturbance.
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received After Deadline Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
They and the neighbors before don’t go in for permits from the city or
Coastal. I’ve owned my home since 1987 and I built a new home but I was
in good standing with coastal and the city.
I’m very concerned about any movement on our bluff tops.
Will you be having geologist out to look at the bluff tops and to monitor
them?
I know the neighbor next to Hyla Bertea at 177 Shorecliff Road he just cut
up his bluff top so he could go to the beach! That wasn’t approved to my
knowledge.
Valaree Wahler
"Gratitude opens the door to the power, the wisdom, the creativity of the
universe. You open the door through gratitude."
Deepak Chopra
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received After Deadline Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
From: Sherman Stacey <sstacey@gaineslaw.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 8:59 AM
To: Zdeba, Benjamin <bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Lori Frieden <lori-mat@hotmail.com>; Jeff Frieden <JeffF@auction.com>; John Ilkcagla
<john@ebta.com>
Subject: RE: 169 Shorecliff Road
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Ben,
Thank you. I expect that with the work that has transpired in the neighborhood at other homes over
the past several years, that Frieden is targeted for the brunt of neighbor irritation while Frieden is
trying to do no more than correct alterations that were done by previous owners. We have an
excellent professional team which is quite capable of performing the work without any risk to the
adjoining owners.
On one issue, I want to be clear. The offer to replant the bluff bowl area with native vegetation, to
replace the iceplant and palm trees planted by prior owners, was made to mitigate any impact from
prior owners alterations that Frieden could not remove, i.e. retaining walls that support neighboring
property and the small wall next to the sand pit. There was never a claim by the Coastal Commission
that the planting in this bowl was part of the alleged violation. However, the LCP and the Coastal
Commission express a clear preference for native plants over iceplant and palm trees. The
replanting is limited to the bowl area between the wood support wall and the stairs. No alterations
on the steeper portions of the bluff face are proposed.
I look forward to the hearing at 10:00.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ADDRESS HAS CHANGED
Sherman L. Stacey
GAINES & STACEY, LLP
3197-A Airport Loop
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Tel: 949-640-8999
Fax: 714-434-1111
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021 Item No. 3d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
*Due to the current situation with Covid-19, we and working remotely and therefore ask that you
please provide all correspondence by email including but not limited to letters, pleadings and
documents. Thank you for your cooperation.*
From: Zdeba, Benjamin
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 7:30 AM
To: Sherman Stacey
Subject: FW: 169 Shorecliff Road
Good morning, Sherman,
I wanted to pass along some additional public correspondence received late last night regarding the
Frieden’s project.
Thanks,
Ben Z.
BENJAMIN M. ZDEBA, AICP
Community Development Department
Senior Planner
bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov
949-644-3253
From: Valaree Wahler <valaree@westforellc.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 11:37 PM
To: Zdeba, Benjamin <bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: 169 Shorecliff Road
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
Benjamin,
Thank you for the Zoom meeting ID, as well as the attachment detail of
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021 Item No. 3d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
The City of Newport Beach – Zoning Administrator Staff Report.
It is my contention, that many of the surrounding neighbors of 169
Shorecliff Rd., CDM, were not aware of the upcoming hearing because
The City of Newport Beach did not MAIL OR PROVIDE A NOTICE, to all the
owners of properties (nor did they receive – confirmed by me) that were
within 300 feet of 169 Shorecliff Rd., CDM; additionally the posted notice
of this hearing was NOT PLACED TO BE SEEN, nor was the sign/notice
was not clearly written to advised the neighbors of the hearing and
what it was about (my contention was validated when I asked if they saw
any of the signs, receive any mail pieces from The City of Newport Beach
of a hearing and if they knew about any changes that the Frieden’s were
requesting – and they responded “NO!).
It is important to understand our neighborhood and specially the cul-de-
sac that surrounds the Frieden property. First of all, the lead home within
the cul-de-sac is located at 157 Shorecliff Rd., CDM has been going
through an 8-year build of a new residence (started 2011 I believe and
would really like to know how this plan was approved). Each day for
the last 4 years we have had to endurance a constant stream of large
unloading trucks, large crane trucks, worker’s trucks, worker’s Vans and
cars – averaging 7 to 10 cars as day - that park in the Cul-de-sac as well as
the streets – and of course part in front of all of the curbs, especially the
Frieden’s property as it is known that Lori Frieden and family moved to
Coto De Casa - last summer. Please reflect upon the last sentence, even
the owner of 157 Shorecliff Rd., - Mr. Wang (owner of Vizio Technology) is
not aware of this hearing. I am not sure that he cares as it doesn’t matter
to the project manager nor an occasional City of Newport Beach vehicle –
I think I have seen 5 or 6 but over 8 years!!!!. Additionally, Mr. Don and
Joan Beall , (the ex-CEO of Rockwell International and philanthropist of
UCI – The Beall Technology Cove Center) located at 161 Shorecliff Rd.,
CDM (two doors down), DID NOT receive a notice in the mail of this
hearing, nor see the signage due to the size of the sign – due to the
parked trucks or lack of time notice (less than 5 working days – I believe),
In fact, I did not see the signage myself (as I am the next-door neighbor
located at 165 Shorecliff Rd., CDM) until March 5th as my domestic
partner – Jeff Sherwood brought in the mail with the notice and walked
me outside to see the signage – which again was very hard to see as the
trucks were illegally parked in the middle of the cul-de-sac and on the
curb. That leaves me to finish my point that Lori Frieden’s other neighbor
–Dick and Hyla Bertea - to the right of the mentioned property DID NOT
receive the notice of this hearing, nor see the signage on the Frieden
property which is set back therefore, it is impossible to see the sign unless
they are told about it. I have to say, that the position of the notice was
not acceptable to any reasonable person and not “best effort” to notify
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021 Item No. 3d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
the neighbors of this hearing. Additionally, both residences are less than
300 feet of 169 Shorecliff Rd., CDM as outlined in your own city
standards and rules!! The above reasons (all residences within 300 feet
must receive a mailed copy of the notice of the hearing), lack of clear sign
posting of the hearing, and due to the pandemic, having a hearing without
the proper advance notice – limits the neighbors’ ability to engage our
attorney’s, as most are working from home and not available. I might be
paranoid, but it seemed very unusual that three neighbors didn’t received
a mailer on the hearing, and the signage was of very small size, poorly
visible and blocked by trucks everywhere – sure seems funny to me.
Upon my follow up with you, today March 10, 2021 - after I reviewed, the
City of Newport Beach Zoning Administrator Staff Report, dated March
11, 2021, was shocked to learn that this request – in actuality a
continuation of legal action against the California Coastal Commission,
and the City of Newport Beach in 2014 and 2015 paid for by the
Bertea’s and the Wahler’s that cost thousands of dollars, impacted the
total neighborhood during the build cycle and at the end of the day did
not provide us “relief from illegal and non-permitted changes that were
counter to the The City of Newport Beach and California Coastal
Commissions (CCC) plan. I believe you received an email today from
Hyla Bertea which highlighted our legal action in 2014-2015, but more
importantly mentioned that additional construction or demolition of
any sort – will endanger the entire bluff side – the Bertea’s as well as
my property, which is not acceptable as I own the cliffside per my
recent survey per my property insurance policy!!!
I am aware that you are going through a process, but there is a level of
details that are important for The City of Newport Beach to take notice.
As a senior citizen, which is another way of saying that I am experienced -
what people do in the past, is most likely to be repeated – and this
request for changes as documented within their proposed plan, is to add
significant infrastructure without correction of the un-permitted actions
they took 6 years ago. Very few of the un-permitted items will not be
corrected as outlined in the plan!! Let me clearly state, their proposed
plans from 2014 that were approved by the City of Newport Beach and
the CCC in 2015, were not followed. The Frieden’s made extensive
additions and changes without permits & approval and went ahead and
literally covered up their changes (see Hyla photos of a huge tent
covering their backyard. This affected my value of my property and
added to the instability to the “Arch Rock” cliffside. Additionally, the
owner of 177 Shorecliff Rd., CDM – also made extensive changes and
additions to their backyard by adding “non-enforced” walls (Hyla provided
photos of these brick walls that are higher than 2 feet, have NO rebar, no
footing. This is a great liability) to the City of Newport Beach as it is above
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021 Item No. 3d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
a public access trail to the beach and with a heavy rain – it will fall. This
structure further creates instability to the “Arch Rock” cliffside. Even
though these changes were done within the last years, they didn’t even
bother to request approval and permits at least I wasn’t notified of this –
and now he is trying to sell the property at a great discount on
unsuspecting citizens. By the way, the above-mentioned wall, is the same
type that was used as a retaining wall for houses facing PCH which is the
frontage road for Cameo Highlands. This wall is failing as we speak, which
I am sure you are aware of as this is opening discussion during HOA
meetings.
One last important point which may cause me to seek counsel
immediately, I advised Lori Frieden in December of 2020, that I planned to
sell my property immediately. What do you think the impact of this
construction project will be the salability my property in 2021-2022,
especially if their project causes changes to the cliffside or the geological
aspects of my property? I will answer that question, with another
question. What does The City of Newport Beach think has been the
impact of an 8-year property build cycle that has happened less than 100
feet way at Mr. Wang’s property at 157 Shorecliff Rd., CDM? It has been
hell for me, the neighborhood and without a doubt and mentioned by
interested buyers of my property “every time we stop or drive by –
there are trucks parked in the middle of the Cul-de-sac, dirt is
everywhere and many times they block the entrance and exit from the
neighborhood. When is it ever going to stop? Now, let’s visualize
what happens if this project is approved (again – NOBODY LIVES THERE
– except the people left behind – the Wang Family, the Bealls Family,
the Wahler Family and the Bertea Family)! This will be a normal day for
us – trucks everyplace – in the middle of the cul-de-sac, stacked three
or four wide, at every curbs there a trucks, Vans, cars – most illegally
parked and nobody ever gets a ticket and now double that number.
Besides the fact, we at my residence are blocked from leaving my
residence and I have to find the owner, but now let’s saying that
somebody has a health issue and requires an emergency vehicle!!! Mr.
Bealls is 84, Mr. Bertea is 92 and Hyla Bertea is 82 and I am is 69, and
during the summer anybody can have a health issue.
Let me advise The City of Newport Beach – that I am giving notice – that
there is a large of point of liability pointing directly at the city. First, let’s
delay this hearing so I can contact my attorney, you contact the planning
department and find out how a property takes 8 years to build and how
workers can block the city streets limiting access to Emergency vehicles.
If this plan is approved, I will see significant monetary lost as I try to sell
my property, besides the possible destruction of the Arch Rock cliffside!
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021 Item No. 3d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
Most sincerely,
Valaree Wahler.
From: "Zdeba, Benjamin" <bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov>
Date: March 10, 2021 at 11:54:39 AM PST
To: Valaree Wahler <Valaree@westforellc.com>
Cc: Jeff Lynn ❤️ Sherwood <Jeff.Sherwood@skypointsecurity.com>
Subject: RE: 169 Shorecliff Road
Good morning, Valaree,
Thank you for writing and sorry I missed Jeff's call, as I am currently
working from home with limited access to my phone line.
The Zoning Administrator hearing is a public hearing. There is no
special invitation required and the Zoom meeting link is listed on the
agenda packet. For ease of reference, I have copied and pasted it
below:
https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_Ssf9OM_JRgycBQBlJxlzjQ
I will pass along your correspondence to our administrative team for
distribution to the Zoning Administrator and to include as part of the
public record.
I have attached the staff report for this matter to be considered
tomorrow. If approved, all construction activities to restore several
bluff areas will require grading and building permits, which would
include review of applicable geotechnical and slope stability
information. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021 Item No. 3d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)
Ben Z.
BENJAMIN M. ZDEBA, AICP
Community Development Department
Senior Planner
bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov
949-644-3253
-----Original Message-----
From: Valaree Wahler <valaree@westforellc.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 11:31 AM
To: Zdeba, Benjamin <bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Jeff Lynn ❤ ️Sherwood <Jeff.Sherwood@skypointsecurity.com>
Subject: 169 Shorecliff Road
[EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good morning Ben,
Jeff Sherwood just called you regarding tomorrow zoom call that we
need invitation for.
This is regarding 169 Shorecliff Road
I live next door at 165 Shorecliff and my neighbor Hyla Bertea has
been in touch with you regarding this bluff top disturbance.
They and the neighbors before don’t go in for permits from the city
or Coastal. I’ve owned my home since 1987 and I built a new home
but I was in good standing with coastal and the city.
I’m very concerned about any movement on our bluff tops.
Will you be having geologist out to look at the bluff tops and to
monitor them?
I know the neighbor next to Hyla Bertea at 177 Shorecliff Road he
just cut up his bluff top so he could go to the beach! That wasn’t
approved to my knowledge.
Valaree Wahler
"Gratitude opens the door to the power, the wisdom, the creativity
of the universe. You open the door through gratitude."
Deepak Chopra
Zoning Administrator - March 11, 2021 Item No. 3d Additional Materials Received After Deadline Frieden Residence Site Alterations CDP (PA2017-092)