Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01_05-28-2020_ZA_Minutes - DRAFT Page 1 of 5 NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL CHAMBERS THURSDAY, MAY 28, 2020 REGULAR MEETING – 10:00 A.M. I. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting was called to order at 10:02 a.m. Staff Present: Jaime Murillo, Zoning Administrator Benjamin Zdeba, Senior Planner Liz Westmoreland, Associate Planner Joselyn Perez, Assistant Planner Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner II. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2020 Action: Approved as amended IV. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 Youssef Land Eight, LLC Condominiums Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2020-002 (PA2020-039) Site Location: 612 and 612 1/2 Goldenrod Avenue Council District 6 Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the request is standard for a tentative parcel map for two-unit condominium purposes. A duplex has been demolished and a new duplex is currently under construction. No waivers of Title 19 are proposed. The Tentative Parcel Map would allow each unit to be sold individually. Ms. Whelan explained that a letter was received from Allen Matkins Law Firm representing the commercial property at 2800 East Coast Highway , concerned with access, historical drainage and site conditions. Ms. Whelan confirmed with research that there is a sewer easement, but no other existing easements on the subject property to allow drainage or a walkway for the benefit of the neighboring commercial site use. Therefore, this is a private issue that the City would not get involved in. Applicant James “Buzz” Person, on behalf of the Youssef Land Eight, LLC stated that he had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions. He responded to the letter from Allen Matkins Law Firm, explaining that the new duplex is almost complete in the field and confirmed all of the drainage was designed per the Municipal Code. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. One member of the public, Rick Friess with Allen Matkins Law Firm representing the commercial property at 2800 East Coast Highway, explained the drainage that was changed was not brought to his clients attention until recent rains. The drainage is now a concern. The walkway is a request to be neighborly, and they are requesting the City to condition that the existing walkway be maintained to match what has been there for years. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 05/28/2020 Page 2 of 5 The Zoning Administrator said he visited the site and did not understand the need for the additional access for the commercial property at 2800 East Coast Highway on the subject property. Parking for the commercial property is provided below the building and access is maintained around the building via the patio and on-grade walk path to the rear of the building. The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing. He explained that there is adequate access maintained for the commercial property without mandating an easement for a walkway on the subject property. Further, he confirmed that the public sewer easement is to the benefit of the City for repair, maintenance, and replacement of sewer line and not to the adjacent commercial property. The duplex has been permitted and found in compliance with City’s Municipal Code and drainage requirements. The application presented is for the tentative parcel map for condominiums only and the redevelopment of the subject site has received all appropriate permits through the City for the new duplex which is currently under construction. He concluded with encouraging both property owners to work together on any private land issues. Action: Approved ITEM NO. 3 AT&T Small Cell SLC0902 Minor Use Permit No. UP2019-032 (PA2019-113) Site Location: Public right-of-way, City streetlight number SLC0902, at the northwestern corner of 38th Street and Lake Avenue Council District 1 Benjamin Zdeba, Senior Planner, provided some background on small cell technology and the City’s purview stressing that the City’s review is narrowed by Federal Law to focus primarily on land use compatibility, aesthetics, and environmental impacts. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) exclusively sets standards for radio frequency or “RF” emissions. Because of this, the City is not able to base any recommendation on potential health and safety impacts. Senior Planner Zdeba also noted that on February 12, 2019, the Newport Beach City Council authorized the execution of a Master License Agreement with AT&T, authorizing non-exclusive use of City-owned streetlights to install wireless telecommunications facilities and included approved designs, fee and rent assessments. Mr. Zdeba then provided a brief project description stating that AT&T is requesting to remove and replace City Streetlight No. SLC0902, which is located within the public right-of-way adjacent to the northwestern corner of the 38th Street and Lake Avenue intersection near the Newport Island bridge. All surrounding land uses are residential and vary in density. This location is unique in that there is a vacant parcel of land that is owned by the City between it and the adjacent residence to the west. This intervening parcel is triangular and approximately 60 feet wide at its base. Senior Planner Zdeba continued that staff analyzed the project for consistency with the Coastal Act and determined it does not negatively impact any designated public view corridors nor does it negatively impact coastal access and resources. In consultation with Coastal Commission staff, it was determined the proposed replacement streetlight pole and small cell installation does not require the issuance of a coastal development permit and is further considered repair and maintenance pursuant to NBMC Section 21.52.035(c)(4). He emphasized that although the streetlight pole is located between the first public road paralleling the sea and the sea, it is being located on an existing structure and is, therefore, allowable. The project is consistent with the City’s Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan, which aims to protect and enhance scenic resources. Mr. Zdeba explained that the replacement streetlight pole will be purposed with maintaining the intent of the City’s streetlight inventory. It will keep the same exact luminaire height as the current streetlight pole; however, the new equipment will extend up to an overall height of 27 feet, 6 inches from grade. All equipment and supporting equipment will either be contained within the pole itself, behind a shroud/screen, or underground in a vaulted area. Senior Planner Zdeba continued that from a Municipal Code perspective, this type of facility is considered a Class 3 (Public Right-of-Way) installation and falls lower on the preferential list of installation types. The first two classes are stealth facilities, which are often housed on top of existing commercial and multi-family residential structures, and visible facilities, which are exposed antennas on existing commercial and multi- MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 05/28/2020 Page 3 of 5 family residential structures. Given the lack of any taller commercial buildings in the area, these more-preferred classes were determined to be unviable. Mr. Zdeba stated that although it does fall lower on the priority list, this facility is designed to blend into the streetscape without visually dominating the area. Maintaining the same luminaire height as the current pole will help to maintain consistency with the surrounding streetlights in the area. Furthermore, the Code discusses development standards including blending and screening. The proposed facility is located adjacent to a vacant parcel that serves as one of the largest buffers to residential properties in the area. The streetlight pole is also located within a landscaped parkway that is planted with taller palm trees, which will serve as a softening buffer between the residential structures beyond and will help to blend the facility into the surroundings. With respect to heights in the area, the maximum allowable height for the abutting residential zoning districts is 29 feet to the ridge of a sloping roof. The current streetlight pole sits below the maximum allowed height of residential structures by 1 foot, 6 inches. Senior Planner Zdeba added that another component of staff’s review is alternative sites in the area that may be better suited for the proposed facility. The applicant provided analysis for three other sites in the vicinity. Attachment No. ZA 3 to the staff report explains each alternative site in more detail and provides photographs as well. Each of the three alternative sites was determined to be unviable due to limited accessibility around a slightly wider pole and proximity to residential structures and living areas. Mr. Zdeba concluded that staff believes all required findings can be made and recommends that the Zoning Administrator find the project exempt from CEQA under Classes 2 and 3, and recommends approval of this project, as submitted. Lastly, Senior Planner Zdeba mentioned that three pieces of written correspondence were received on this matter. The first expressing concern that the project proposed to replace one of the two decorative “acorn-style” streetlamps, which Mr. Zdeba confirmed it did not. The second posing questions about the project to which staff responded by providing the staff report. And a third primarily expressing concern about the validity of exempting the project from a Coastal Development Permit. Applicant Franklin Orozco of M-Squared Wireless, on behalf of the AT&T, provided some additional detail on small cell technology, as well as the coverage improvements that would result from this project being implemented. He also stated that he had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. One member of the public, Jim Mosher, spoke regarding his written correspondence and reiterated the concern that this project, as well as the others that have come before the Zoning Administrator, should not be exempt from the Coastal Development Permit requirement. He asserted that there are set exceptions to allowing a wireless telecommunications facility within an area that is between the first public road paralleling the sea and the sea. This project does not involve an existing building and an existing structure does not qualify. The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and clarified that the issue of whether these small cell projects require a coastal development permit was discussed at length at a previous hearing. He reiterated that City staff had worked with the Coastal Commission’s staff to come to the conclusion that the replacement streetlights with small cell facilities included could be considered repair and maintenance and would, therefore, be exempt from the requirement for a coastal development permit He also added that the replacement streetlight pole and small cell equipment meets the intent of not allowing new facilities within the area between the first public road paralleling the sea and the sea. This is largely due to the fact that no new structure would be introduced, as the streetlight pole is being replaced in the same exact location. Senior Planner Zdeba confirmed that the Zoning Administrator’s understanding and statement were correct. Action: Approved MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 05/28/2020 Page 4 of 5 ITEM NO. 4 Stewart Residence Coastal Development Permit No. CD2019-057 (PA2019-224) Site Location: 320 Alvarado Place Council District 1 Liz Westmoreland, Associate Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the application is for a coastal development permit to allow the remodel of an existing duplex. The improvements include façade upgrades, minor remodeling, and removing and replacing the existing flat roof with a sloped roof. The project is nonconforming due to front and rear setbacks, number of units, and parking spaces; therefore, the scope is very limited. The project would be exempt, but it includes an increase in height of more than 10 percent. A project of this scope would normally be excluded pursuant to the Categorical Exclusion Order; however, it does not comply with parking requirements, so it does not qualify for exclusion. The project would be considered for a waiver; however, it is located in the California Coastal Commission’s appeal area and the coastal development permit cannot be waived. Lastly, the proposed project includes walling off an existing staircase that allows access to the roof, which does not include a safety parapet or guardrail. The project would eliminate access to the roof as it would be enclosed by the new sloped roof, removing this safety hazard. Applicant Jeff Roberts of Jeff A. Roberts & Associates, Inc., on behalf of the Owner, stated that he had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions. In response to the Zoning Administrator’s inquiry, the Applicant confirmed that he understood the condition of approval stating that the existing balcony cannot be structurally altered, and that work is limited to repair and maintenance, and also reaffirmed that no structural work is proposed. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. One member of the public, Jim Mosher, asked if the City’s indemnification condition would apply to the owner or the applicant. Seeing as no others wished to comment, the Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing. The Zoning Administrator responded that the City Attorney’s Office has prepared the condition and that it is a standard condition for all projects. The applicant indemnifies the City on behalf of the owner. The Zoning Administrator stated that the project would remove an unsafe condition and improve the building. Action: Approved ITEM NO. 5 La Plante Family Trust Mixed-Use Remodel and Addition Coastal Development Permit No. CD2019-072 (PA2019-260) Site Location: 112 Agate Avenue Council District 5 Joselyn Perez, Assistant Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the request is for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) to allow a new third floor residential addition of 235 square feet and a roof top deck. The CDP is needed because the proposed project will increase the height of the existing structure by more than 10 percent. The existing building was built in the 1960s in conformance with a Use Permit that allowed for a commercial laundry on the ground floor and a residential unit above. The building is currently nonconforming for a variety of reasons including floor area ratio (FAR), parking, and setbacks. The proposed construction conforms to all applicable development standards; however, it does not propose to bring any of the existing nonconformities into conformance with the current development standards. Ms. Perez explained that the project was not deemed a new structure and approval of a site development review is not required. The project site is located between the nearest public road and the sea, does not involve a change in land use, density or intensity that will result in increased demand on public access, is not located adjacent to a coastal view road, and does not currently provide nor inhibit public coastal access. Lateral access will continue to be provided by the Balboa Island Loop. Zoning Administrator Murillo noted that the project is not on the water and directed Assistant Planner Perez to eliminate Condition of Approval No. 5 which prohibited private development seaward of the bulkhead. He then MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 05/28/2020 Page 5 of 5 noted that the third floor had external access separate from the second floor and asked if the third floor is intended to be used as an extension of the second floor and not as a separate unit. Assistant Planner Perez confirmed that the third floor is part of a single residential unit. Zoning Administrator Murillo asked the Applicant, Scott Peotter of Aslan Companies, Inc, to clarify the intention of the third floor further. Mr. Peotter replied that the third floor unit is intended to function as part of the second floor unit and the staircase is intentionally external to the unit, both to conform with floor area ratios and to decrease the overall massing of the building. Mr. Peotter then stated that he had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions. Zoning Administrator Murillo asked the Applicant if he would accept an additional condition of approval stating that the third floor living space is not to be used separately from the second floor living space, barring any changes to the zoning code which would allow the unit to be used separately. Mr. Peotter agreed. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. One member of the public, Jim Mosher, commented that the addition appeared larger than a 65-net-square- foot addition, partially because of the covered patio on the third floor, and asked if future changes to the Zoning Code to limit third floor massing on residential structures would have affected this project. Zoning Administrator Murillo answered that the proposed changes to third floor massing would only apply to properties zoned residential and the project site is zoned mixed use which is considered nonresidential. The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing. Action: Approved as amended V. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS One member of the public, Mr. Mosher, reminded the public of the lobbyist registration requirements in Newport Beach. He suggested changing the deadline for written comments. He also stated that the standard reference system for measuring heights by the harbor will be updated in the next couple of years. VI. ADJOURNMENT The hearing was adjourned at 11:06 a.m. The agenda for the Zoning Administrator Hearing was posted on May 22, 2020, at 3:00. 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 May 22, 2020, at 3:30 p.m. Jaime Murillo Zoning Administrator 1 Jim Mosher <jimmosher@yahoo.com> Wednesday, June 10, 2020 6:38 AM CDD Written comments for Zoning Administrator (6/11/2020) From: Sent: To: Subject: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. With regard to Item 1 (the draft minutes from May 28), I would note: 1. Of the “Staff Present” on page 1, only Jaime was actually in the Council Chambers (the meeting location cited in the header). The minutes should probably indicate the others appeared remotely, by Zoom. 2. In the last paragraph on page 3, the sentence ending “requirement for a coastal development permit” is missing a period. Yours sincerely, Jim Mosher Zoning Administrator - June 11, 2020 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of May 28, 2020