Commission approves variance and coastal permit for 2516–2518 Bayside Drive after neighbors raise privacy, hedge and parking concerns

The Newport Beach City Planning Commission voted unanimously July 9 to approve a variance and coastal development permit (PA‑2022‑0148) for development at 2516–2518 Bayside Drive after staff and applicant presentations and extended public comment.

Assistant planner Daniel Kopshever outlined the application: demolition of an existing duplex and construction of a single‑family home with a junior accessory dwelling unit, encroachments into rear‑alley setbacks (a 2.5‑foot balcony encroachment), and a structural retaining wall. Staff described unique circumstances — steep topography and limited vehicle access from the front yard setback — as the basis for variance findings, recommended a Class 3 CEQA exemption, and explained the proposed encroachment agreement that would record private improvements and maintenance responsibilities.

Neighbors raised several concerns. Attorney Scott Russo said the retaining wall would be excavated to within about 1 foot of a neighboring property line and that the new 29‑foot structure would sit roughly 7.5 feet from a neighbor’s bedrooms. Multiple neighbors described loss of privacy if the Bayside Park hedge is removed along the frontage and urged the commission to require clearer maintenance commitments. Others cited safety and access problems on the shared driveway and requested the commission ensure parking and access impacts are addressed.

Applicant architect Horst Knoppenberger acknowledged shortcomings in early neighborhood outreach, said the project team is willing to work with neighbors, and clarified that the 10‑foot retaining wall will appear much shorter on the neighbor side because of sloping topography and that guardrail height on that side will be about 3 feet 6 inches. Staff added that the 10‑foot wall is structural and not part of the variance request. The applicant confirmed acceptance of the recommended conditions of approval and agreed to record encroachment agreements for maintenance responsibilities.

After discussion about precedent for variances on hillside lots and whether findings could be made based on topography, a commissioner moved to approve the project as drafted; the motion was seconded and carried unanimously on roll call. Conditions include the encroachment agreement, limits on hedge height along the alley, and the required coastal permit findings. The applicant and neighbors were advised to continue coordination during the building‑permit and encroachment‑agreement process.