HomeMy WebLinkAbout01_06-13-2019_ZA_Minutes - DRAFT
Page 1 of 2
NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES
100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, NEWPORT BEACH
CORONA DEL MAR CONFERENCE ROOM (BAY E-1ST FLOOR)
THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 2019
REGULAR MEETING – 3:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m.
Staff Present: Rosalinh, Zoning Administrator
David S. Lee, Assistant Planner
Joselyn Perez, Planning Technician
Liane Schuller, Consultant Planner
II. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES
Staff requested Item Number No. 2 be continued to July 25, 2019 Zoning Administrator Hearing.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF MAY 30, 2019
Action: Approved as amended
IV. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ITEM NO. 2 Narcissus Waterpointe, LLC Residential Condominiums Tentative Parcel Map
No. NP2019-005 (PA2019-068)
Site Location: 613 and 613 ½ Narcissus Avenue Council District 6
Action: Continued to July 25, 2019
ITEM NO. 3 South Bayfront Waterpointe, LLC. Residences Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2019-004 and
Coastal Development Permit No. CD2019-015 (PA2019-062) and CD2019-016 (PA2019-063)
Site Location: 400 and 402 South Bay Front Council District 5
Liane Schuller, Consultant Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the request is for a tentative
parcel map to divide an existing 5,180-square-foot parcel into two parcels for the purpose of constructing one
single-family residence on each parcel. Ms. Schuller stated that a coastal development permit is also requested to
allow the construction of a new 2,724-square-foot, single-family residence with an attached two-car garage on
Parcel 1 and the construction of a new 2,659-square-foot, single-family residence with an attached two-car garage
on Parcel 2. The proposed parcels comply with the Balboa Island allowance to revert to the original underlying lot
size and dimensions.
The project complies with all applicable development standards, including the City’s Local Coastal Program.
Coastal access is provided by the public sidewalk along the bay in front of the site and vertical access is provided
by numerous street ends throughout the neighborhood.
It was noted that a typo in the documents incorrectly cited the square-footage of the proposed residence at 400
South Bay Front, and the draft resolution would be corrected to reflect a maximum proposed square footage of
2,724-square-feet of habitable area.
Applicant Caitlin Smith of Brandon Architects, on behalf of the owner, stated that she had reviewed the draft
resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions.
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 06/13/2019
Page 2 of 2
The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. One member of the public, Jim Mosher, offered several
comments related to the project. He specifically requested that a condition of approval be added regarding
migratory birds and that staff confirm the coastal zone district cited in the resolutions. Mr. Mosher commented on
the density of projects not meeting the maximum allowed square footage and on staff’s characterization of
surrounding land uses. Additionally, he questioned the parcel map exhibit and the allowed lot dimensions for new
parcels on Balboa Island.
Staff responded to Mr. Mosier’s questions, and agreed to add a condition of approval regarding migratory birds
and to confirm the coastal zoning category to ensure it was correctly labeled in the resolutions. The Zoning
Administrator also addressed Mr. Mosher’s concerns related to density, and thanked him for his comments.
The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing.
Action: Approved
ITEM NO. 4 Glidewell Residence Coastal Development Permit No. CD2019-014 (PA2019-053)
Site Location: 2300 Mesa Drive Council District 3
David S. Lee, Assistant Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the request is for a coastal
development permit for various additions to an existing single-family residential estate. No deviations are
requested for the project. The project requires a coastal development permit because the proposed addition
exceeds 10-percent of the existing floor area on site. Mr. Lee discussed how the project does not interfere with
public access and views.
Applicant Yulis Ayton of Glidewell Laboratories, on behalf of the owner, stated that she had reviewed the draft
resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions.
The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. One member of the public, Jim Mosher, commented that the
project is located in the Santa Ana Heights area and is next to a public park, the Upper Newport Bay Regional
Park, and that the resolution should be revised to include this fact. He also stated that the project is located in the
Santa Ana Heights area and commented on a typographical error.
The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing.
Action: Approved
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
None.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
The hearing was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
The agenda for the Zoning Administrator Hearing was posted on June 6, 2019, at 12:00 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 June 6, 2019, at 1:45 p.m.
Rosalinh Ung
Zoning Administrator
June 27, 2019, Zoning Administrator Agenda Comments
Comments submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach
92660 (949-548-6229)
Item 1. Draft Minutes of June 13, 2019
Page 1 of 3: under “Staff Present” the last name of the Zoning Administrator is missing:
“Rosalinh Ung, Zoning Administrator”
Page 2 of 3: in the first line paragraph 2, my name is misspelled: “Staff responded to Mr.
Mosier’s Mosher’s questions, …”
Item 2. The Lost Bean Minor Use Permit No. UP2018-025 (PA2018-274)
1. Section 1.2 (handwritten page 5): Is the restriction to “walk-up customers only” important
(see, E.4 on page 8)? If so, I see no condition of approval limiting the use to that. And the
design shown on page 22 looks very much like a drive-through one. Is there anything to
prevent drive-up customers and does it matter? Handwritten page 21 shows the windowed
side of the structure fronted by a 750 sf patio, access to which seems to be blocked by
curbs, planters and walls. But these are not shown on, and hard to reconcile with, the drive-
though-looking rendering on page 22. If this is indeed a pedestrian-only patio, it would seem
a tempting place for the operator to place chairs and tables in violation of Condition 9.
2. Condition 12 (handwritten page 11): Should this read “… the project plans shall identify if
that the building is protected with automatic fire sprinklers and/or a fire alarm system …”?
The word “if” implies the City would allow the project to proceed even if the notation on the
plans indicates Life Safety believes the fire protection is unsatisfactory. Which seems
strange. Why would the City sanction an unsafe use?
3. Condition 17 (handwritten page 11): I’m not sure why the delivery/trash hours need to
restricted in an office area like this (who would late hour operations disturb – and wouldn’t
they perhaps be even less disruptive?), but if they need to be, they are awkwardly
expressed. For example, what does “between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on
Sundays” mean? The only 10:00 p.m. on Sunday comes after 9:00 a.m, not before it
(keeping in mind, also Condition 6 prohibits the business from being open at all on
Sundays). To avoid these ambiguities I would suggest something like “Deliveries and refuse
collection for the facility are prohibited before 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and Saturdays, and
before 9:00 a.m. on Sundays and federal holidays, as well as after 10:00 p.m. on all days,
…”
Zoning Administrator - June 27, 2019
Item No. III.1a and Item No. 2b
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED