Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01_03-11-2021_ZA_Minutes - DRAFT Page 1 of 4 NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, NEWPORT BEACH ZOOM THURSDAY, MARCH 11, 2021 REGULAR MEETING – 10:00 A.M. I. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. Staff Present (Remote): Jaime Murillo, Zoning Administrator Benjamin Zdeba, Senior Planner David Lee, Associate Planner II. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Action: Approved as amended IV. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 ARC Bottle Shop Minor Use Permit No. UP2021-003 (PA2021-003) Site Location: 501 30th Street Council District 1 Benjamin Zdeba, Senior Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the applicant requested a minor use permit to allow an off-sale alcohol sales establishment in an existing ground-floor tenant space of a mixed-use structure. The structure has one residential unit above the first floor and has four parking spaces, including two employee spaces and one accessible parking space. There will be no improvements to the space that would require a building permit. Hours will be limited to between 10 a.m. and 9 p.m., daily. He added that there will also be no food or tastings served at the location, such that it cannot be operated as anything close to a food service establishment. The Newport Beach Police Department had reviewed the application and provided a memorandum. Although the site is in Reporting District (RD) 15, the Police Department had no concerns with the project given its limited operation and assuming recommended conditions are included in the Resolution for approval. He noted that staff received one letter in opposition from a nearby resident citing concerns of land-use compatibility. Staff believes this use is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning District inasmuch as it is conditionally permitted and will be a limited operation comparable to a retail store or other commercial uses expected in a mixed-use district. Applicant Marín Howarth stated that she had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one from the public wished to comment, the public hearing was closed. The Zoning Administrator agreed the proposed use is consistent and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, as conditioned. He approved the project. Action: Approved MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 03/11/2021 Page 2 of 4 ITEM NO. 3 Frieden Residence Site Alterations Coastal Development Permit No. CD2017-040 (PA2017-092) Site Location: 169 Shorecliff Road Council District 6 Benjamin Zdeba, Senior Planner, provided a project description stating that this item is a request to allow the removal of several structures that were constructed on the bluff without the proper permits and the restoration of the same areas to appear as a natural coastal bluff. He added that the applicant received a notice of violation from the California Coastal Commission’s office in 2013, and shortly thereafter pursued to correct the violations by submitting an improvement plan for a coastal development permit. In 2017, the applicant was told to withdraw the application and to instead apply for the same scope of work to the City of Newport Beach, as the City had recently received certification of its Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan. He provided further background stating that in 1980, a previous owner received a coastal development permit from the Coastal Commission for an addition and remodel, as well as several improvements in the yard area adjacent to the bluff. The stairway that is leading down to the beach from the private property was constructed in 1972 prior to the Coastal Act. It is not part of this application and can remain. He described the three development areas (A, B, and C), which are applicable for properties like this within the Bluff Overlay and stated the applicant’s intent is to restore most areas within Development Area C to appear as a natural coastal bluff. The applicant has retained a team of qualified, licensed professionals to assist in identifying the proper improvement plan. Where it is unsafe to remove structures, such as retaining walls, they will instead be buried to ensure there is no compromising of the bluff’s stability. He noted that a geotechnical study was prepared for the project, but it was not attached to the staff report. Appropriate analyses will be required if the project gets approved when it comes in for a building permit or grading permit. He then provided a detailed description of the scope of work stating which structures will be removed or buried within Development Areas B and C. The reshaping of the pool from kidney-shaped to rectangular, as well as the increase in height and resurfacing of site walls is included in the project request, as those were identified by Coastal Commission staff as being unpermitted. There is a request to leave a guardrail, which was installed for safety within Development Area C, which is a deviation from the allowed structures and requires a coastal variance. He emphasized that part of the project the removal of a portion of non-native Ice Plant and the restoration of these areas with native, drought-tolerant plantings and reiterated the intent to restore much of the altered bluff area to appear as natural. He clarified the public access points mentioned in the staff report and the resolution to the west and east of the site were not public access points. Both access points from Shorecliff Road and from Milford Drive/Brighton Road were gated. The easements for each of those access points were recorded in the 1950s and 1960s, prior to the Coastal Act. Instead, public coastal access is available west of the project site at Corona del Mar State Beach and Little Corona Beach, and to the east by way of Crystal Cove State Park. The project site itself bears no relationship to any opportunities for public access. Public coastal visual resources will be enhanced by way of this project, as several unpermitted structures are being removed or buried to restore the bluff face to appear more natural. He summarized stating that City staff believes this to be a good project that is in the spirit and intent of the Coastal Act by restoring unnatural, unpermitted improvement areas on a coastal bluff. All appropriate precautions with respect to bluff and slope stability will be taken through the building and grading permit processes. Lastly, he added that there were written public comments received questioning the noticing methodology and citing concerns of the proposed work’s impact to the integrity of the bluff. He stated that he had confirmed with administrative staff that the ownership and occupant mailing labels were accurate and properly prepared, and that the site was properly posted in accordance with all Municipal Code requirements. The Zoning Administrator clarified the increase in wall height along the side property line and requested confirmation that the heights comply with the Municipal Code. Mr. Zdeba confirmed the height complies with the Municipal Code requirements that were in effect at the time of construction and that the walls were constructed in conjunction with a pool permit. Applicant’s attorney, Sherman Stacey, on behalf of Jeff and Lori Frieden, introduced himself and members of the project team. He stated that the permit request before the Zoning Administrator is an effort to satisfy a Coastal Commission Notice of Violation generally over improvements on the bluff portion of the property. These MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 03/11/2021 Page 3 of 4 improvements were all made by a previous property owner. He discussed a recent pool remodel, in which neither the City nor the property owner were aware a coastal development permit should be required and clarified as to why that is included in the scope. He reiterated several parts of Mr. Zdeba’s presentation, including the longstanding history of the property owner’s attempt to address the situation. He assured that the bluff and slope stability is of utmost importance to the applicant and that the intent is to remove all unpermitted structures that can be safely removed. No work is proposed to be done on the steep portions of the bluff. He noted the experienced professionals who are part of the project team and stated they are qualified to design this project. He acknowledged the public comments received and reiterated that safety with respect to the slope’s integrity is a primary concern for his applicant. He rebutted a claim that work on the pool area was concealed in 2015, stating that the pool was being resurfaced and needed to be kept out of the sunlight. The Zoning Administrator requested clarification on the scope of work related to the block walls. Mr. Stacey confirmed the work was done by a prior property owner in conjunction with the pool. He clarified that the current property owner simply refaced these block walls. The Zoning Administrator requested clarification on the sand material will be used as fill when burying improved areas. Mr. Stacey noted that the soil is supposed to be a clean mix that replicates the bluff sand. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. One member of the public, Valaree Wahler, expressed concern over the plans and indicated difficulty in reviewing digital files. She indicated she would rather accept the improvements, as they are, to help prevent disturbance to the bluff. She expressed that she is more comfortable with the scope of work after hearing the presentation by staff and the applicant. However, she requested an opportunity to review hard copies of plans. Jeff Sherwood, alongside Ms. Wahler, requested modifications to the City’s noticing procedures, including sending certified mail. He expressed concern over the posting of the notice indicating it was difficult to see. He urged open communication and desired an opportunity to review hard copies of plans more closely. They mentioned unpermitted work at 177 Shorecliff Road and requested the City review it. The Zoning Administrator acknowledged the work and expressed appreciation for the notice. He indicated City staff is opening a code enforcement case to investigate the matter. Jim Mosher spoke and agreed the City has permitting jurisdiction over this project. He expressed that it was confusing reviewing the staff report without the Coastal Commission’s Notice of Violation attached. He also questioned the use of the bluff edge contour from the 1980 Coastal Development Permit, as it does not appear to match the City’s Map B-7, showing the various development areas. He also suggested there be a clearer description of the project in the resolution. Hyla Bertea attempted to provide public comments and City staff attempted to assist Ms. Bertea in doing so; however, there appeared to have been technical difficulties. For the record, Ms. Bertea wrote “No on Project” on a piece of paper and displayed it for the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator assured Ms. Bertea that he had received her prior written public comments and that they are being considered. The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and invited Mr. Stacey to respond. He noted they would coordinate sharing the plans with Ms. Wahler and Mr. Sherwood. He agreed with Mr. Mosher’s comments on the permitting jurisdiction. He clarified that his applicant had been relying on a bluff edge determination made by the Coastal Commission in 1980. There was a hearing specifically dealing with the location of the bluff edge and the Commission, in a 7-to-4 vote, approved the bluff edge location that is being used currently. He confirmed there was no work done on the stairs leading to the beach area; however, there was a resting place added by the previous property owner, which will be removed. He opined on the purpose of the project description in the resolution and expressed agreement with the description as written. The Zoning Administrator added conditions of approval to the project related to obtaining applicable permits from the Building Division, engaging a geotechnical engineer to ensure bluff stability, best management practices for construction, noise-generating construction limits, and the requirement of a construction pollution prevention plan (CPPP) and a water quality management plan (WQMP). MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 03/11/2021 Page 4 of 4 Mr. Stacey stated that the applicant agrees with all the required and added conditions. He clarified that most of the work will be done by hand given the difficulty in putting any equipment in the area. The Zoning Administrator emphasized that the WQMP is being required due to the location of construction a hillside of over 15-percent slope, as the report had mentioned there was not enough impervious surfaces to require a WQMP. The Zoning Administrator expressed agreement that all required findings are satisfied and there are adequate conditions of approval in place with his changes to the resolution. Action: Approved as amended ITEM NO. 4 Liu Residence Coastal Development Permit No. CD2020-151 (PA2020-355) Site Location: 2000 West Ocean Front Council District 1 David Lee, Associate Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the proposed project is a demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new 2,626-square-foot single-family residence and attached 385-square-foot garage. He described the project site’s zoning and the surrounding pattern of development. He stated that the project complies with all applicable development standards from the LCP Implementation Plan and is safe from coastal hazards from the next 75 years. The project does not affect public views or access. He introduced additional materials for the project which revises the proposed residence with an additional second floor deck encroachment into the front setback abutting West Ocean Front, which complies with the LCP Implementation Plan and Zoning Code. Applicant Bill Guidero, on behalf of the owner, stated that he had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one from the public wished to comment, the public hearing was closed. The Zoning Administrator requested a revision to the resolution which clarifies that single-family residences are permitted within Multiple Residential Zoning. Action: Approved as amended V. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS One member of the public, Mr. Mosher, commented that the clarifications provided in the pending bill (SB 8), which is an update to the Housing Crisis Act (SB 330), should be considered by the City when advising applicants on potential projects. VI. ADJOURNMENT The hearing was adjourned at 11:15 a.m. The agenda for the Zoning Administrator Hearing was posted on March 4, 2021, at 5:10 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 March 4, 2021, at 5:00 p.m. Jaime Murillo Zoning Administrator March 25, 2021, 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 March 11, 2021 The following corrections are suggested: Page 2, Item 3, paragraph 2, last sentence: “He emphasized that part of the project is the removal of a portion of non-native Ice Plant and the restoration of these areas with native, drought-tolerant plantings and reiterated the intent to restore much of the altered bluff area to appear as natural.” Page 3, full paragraph 2, sentence 1: “The Zoning Administrator requested clarification on the sand material that will be used as fill when burying improved areas.” Page 4, paragraph 2: “The Zoning Administrator emphasized that the WQMP is being required due to the location of construction on a hillside of over 15-percent slope, as the report had mentioned there was not enough impervious surfaces to require a WQMP.” Page 4, Item V: “One member of the public, Mr. Mosher, commented that the clarifications provided in the pending bill (SB 8), which is an update to the Housing Crisis Act (SB 330), should be considered by the City when advising applicants on potential projects.” Comment: The California Senate Governance and Finance Committee is scheduled to review SB 8 at their March 25 hearing beginning at 9:30 a.m., or when the Senate floor session ends. It is the next to last item on their agenda. A Senate staff analysis of the draft bill has now been posted, which includes some interesting comments, not all positive. Zoning Administrator - March 25, 2021 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received After Deadline Draft Minutes of March 11, 2021