Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01_06-10-2021_ZA_Minutes - DRAFT Page 1 of 3 NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, NEWPORT BEACH ZOOM THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 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): Matthew Schneider, Zoning Administrator David Lee, Associate Planner Liz Westmoreland, Associate Planner Joselyn Perez, Assistant Planner Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer II. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2021 Action: Approved IV. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 Haeri Residential Condominiums Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2021-003 (PA2021-061) Site Location: 600 Jasmine Avenue and 3110 Third Avenue Council District 6 Joselyn Perez, Assistant Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the request is for a tentative parcel map which will allow each unit of an under-construction duplex to be sold individually. The project site is a flat, rectangular lot, zoned R2, and located at the intersection of Jasmine Avenue and Third Avenue. The under-construction duplex will be built to applicable development standards and public improvements, which accompany subdivisions, and have been included as conditions of approval in the draft resolution. 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 asked the applicant if they had reviewed the draft resolution and if they have any questions regarding the required conditions. Applicant and Owner, Sean Haeri stated that he did not agree with the conditions to remove and replace an existing Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) ramp or to remove his patio wall from the 10-foot radius corner cutoff. Mr. Haeri stated that his lot is already narrow, the existing neighborhood is not currently equipped with compliant ramps or sidewalks, and he believed there were other compliant designs for ADA ramps which would allow the wall to remain. The Zoning Administrator asked City Traffic Engineer, Tony Brine, to provide context for the referenced conditions of approval and why they have been included. Mr. Brine explained that these are standard conditions of approval and their implementation dates back decades. Sidewalks are added or improved on a case by case basis as properties are redeveloped and ADA ramps at corner properties must be upgraded to current standards any time a sidewalk is installed or improved. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 06/10/2021 Page 2 of 3 The Zoning Administrator revised condition of approval number 20 to read, “prior to recordation of the parcel map, a 10-foot radius corner cutoff at the corner of Jasmine Avenue and Third Avenue shall be dedicated to the City for street purposes. Any proposed improvement within the easement shall require the approval of an encroachment agreement and permit” and added to condition of approval number 11, “prior to recordation of the parcel map, a new accessibly compliant curb ramp and landing shall be installed at the corner of Jasmine Avenue and Third Avenue subject to the review of the City Traffic Engineer”. Action: Approved as Amended ITEM NO. 3 Devir Residence Coastal Development Permit No. CD2021-004 (PA2021-012) Site Location: 508 Via Lido Nord Council District 1 Liz Westmoreland, Associate Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the Devir Residence coastal development permit would allow for the existing single-family residence to be demolished and replaced with a new single-family residence that is two-stories and 24 feet high. The project includes raising the bulkhead to 10.9-foot (NAVD88) in compliance with the Harbor Design Guidelines standard. Ms. Westmoreland revised the draft resolution based on a written public comment. On handwritten page 11, which is finding A.4 the text was revised to state that the sea level rise would reach 10.7 feet instead of 10.65 feet to correct the math. Additionally, Ms. Westmoreland added a parenthesis on handwritten page 9 to correct a typographical error. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. Applicant Elizabeth Hanna, on behalf of the Owner, stated that she had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions. Seeing that no one from the public wished to comment, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Westmoreland confirmed that the coastal hazards report stated that the proposed bulkhead design could accommodate a height of up to 14.4 feet (NAVD88). Action: Approved as Amended ITEM NO. 4 Harrison Residence Addition Coastal Development Permit No. CD2021-002 (PA2021-006) Site Location: 2034 East Ocean Front Council District 1 David Lee, Associate Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the request is for a coastal development permit for an addition on the second floor, as well as an addition to the garage. Mr. Lee provided details on the existing development. Mr. Lee discussed the zoning of the property and stated that the project complies with all applicable development standards. Mr. Lee summarized the findings of the provided Coastal Hazards Report, which concluded that the residence is safe from flooding for the next 75 years. Mr. Lee mentioned that the project does not negatively impact public access or views of the beach. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one from the public wished to comment, the public hearing was closed. Applicant Marcus Kemmerer, on behalf of the Owner, stated that he had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions. The Zoning Administrator requested that staff revise the draft resolution in the “Decision” section to include missing standard CEQA language. Action: Approved as Amended MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 06/10/2021 Page 3 of 3 ITEM NO. 5 Ressler Residence Coastal Development Permit No. CD2021-012 (PA2021-066) Site Location: 1700 East Ocean Front Council District 1 David Lee, Associate Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the request is for a coastal development permit for the demolition of an existing single-family residence and the construction of a new single-family residence with an attached three-car garage. Mr. Lee discussed the zoning of the property and stated that the project complies with all applicable development standards. Mr. Lee summarized the findings of the provided Coastal Hazards Report, which concluded that the residence is safe from flooding for the next 75 years. Mr. Lee mentioned that the project does not negatively impact public access or views of the beach and does not impact views from the I Street street-end. Mr. Lee requested to revise Condition No. 4 of the draft resolution, which conditions the waiver of future shoreline protective devices. Mr. Lee revised the condition to remove references to a bulkhead, where the property does not have one. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one from the public wished to comment, the public hearing was closed. Applicant William 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 requested that staff revise the draft resolution in the “Decision” section to include missing standard CEQA language. Action: Approved as Amended V.PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS One member of the public, Mr. Mosher, asked if the Emergency Temporary Use Permits Extension recently discussed at City Council should require an application submittal and a Zoning Administrator approval before September 6, 2021. He also commented that the City should clarify the code that is applied to the Emergency Temporary Use Permits Extension and the approval timeline. The Zoning Administrator stated that the Emergency Temporary Use Permits requires a lot of logistics and ensured that the management team is working through that logistics as well coordinating to notifying impacted business owners. The Zoning Administrator further stated he was not aware if Limited Term Permits applications will need to be submitted by September 6, 2021 or approved by that date and that he would relay Mr. Mosher’s concerns to the management team. VI.ADJOURNMENT The hearing was adjourned at 10:47 a.m. The agenda for the Zoning Administrator Hearing was posted on June 3, 2021, at 2:00 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 3, 2021, at 2:30 p.m. Jaime Murillo Zoning Administrator June 24, 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 June 10, 2021 I have no changes to suggest to the draft minutes, however I do have two comments on them. Comment 1 Under “ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2021” on page 1, the minutes omit a public comment I made requesting clarification of the authority under which Principal Planner Matt Schneider was proposing to sign them as “Matthew Schneider, Zoning Administrator.” Mr. Schneider explained he had attended the May 27 meeting and been appointed by the Planning Director to serve as Zoning Administrator in the absence of Jaime Murillo, who would be returning as Zoning Administrator at the following meeting. I believe I suggested it would be good for the City to indicate on its Zoning Administrator page who the Zoning Administrator currently is, should the public want to communicate with him or her (no direct contact information is presently provided). To expand on that comment, the current Frequently Asked Questions document on that page indicates to those who ask “Who is the Zoning Administrator?” that “The Zoning Administrator is a Planning Division staff member assigned by the Community Development Director.” I believe this wording implies the person holding the position of Zoning Administrator is more changeable than the City Council ever intended it to be. Under NBMC Sec. 20.60.050, “The Director shall appoint a qualified Department staff member to serve as the Zoning Administrator, who shall serve at the discretion of the Director.” This is essentially parallel to the language of NBMC Sec. 20.60.060: “The Director shall be appointed by the City Manager and shall serve at the discretion of the City Manager.” [subsequently clarified, after department names changed, in Sec. 2.12.030: “The term “Planning Director” or “Building Director” as found in the Newport Beach Municipal Code, or in any contract or agreement to which the City is a party, shall be deemed hereafter to refer to the Community Development Director.”] In my experience, the “Director” is not viewed as a position that changes from day to day, and someone who is temporarily assigned to fill the role in the absence of the currently-appointed Director is referred to as the “Acting Director,” not a new “Director.” By that same logic, it seems to me Mr. Schneider had been designated to serve as “Acting Zoning Administrator” (or some similar term) on May 27, and had not replaced Mr. Murillo as the person currently appointed as Zoning Administrator by the Director. At least to me, the absence of a qualifier such as “Acting” implies a permanent change, which was obviously not the case. See, for example, the ZA minutes from December 12, 2012 (which clarified a similarly-confusing agenda), with Patrick Alford noted as serving as Acting Zoning Administrator at a meeting when Zoning Administrator - June 24, 2021 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of June 10, 2021 June 24, 2021, ZA agenda Item 1 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 the currently-appointed Zoning Administrator for that era, Brenda Wisneski (see November 28, 2012, and January 10, 2013, minutes), was unavailable. In summary, it seems important to me that the public be able to know who the current Zoning Administrator is, and not have to ask weekly or be surprised by a possibly new name each time a new agenda is posted. Posting the name of the current appointee on the appropriate page of the City website would seem helpful. Perhaps there should even be a designated alternate (also listed on the website), so the public would know who to expect as the Acting ZA in the absence or incapacity of the current appointee. Comment 2 I assume the draft minutes for May 27 are correct in this respect, but I would further note that for all items other than Item 3, the Acting Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing before asking the applicant if they agreed with the conditions of approval (which, in Item 2, generated extensive discussion between the applicant and staff, all after, the minutes say, closing the hearing). I would personally assume testimony from the applicant, including their agreement or non- agreement to conditions, is part of the public hearing. At least, to the best of my recollection, it is that way at Planning Commission and City Council hearings. At recent Zoning Administrator hearings, a slightly different procedure has been followed with the question of the applicant’s acceptance of the conditions being asked immediately before the opening of the public hearing, so the public at least potentially had an opportunity to respond should changes be suggested. I hope closing the public hearings before opening discussion with the applicant – if correctly recorded in the May 27 minutes -- was a one-time oversight. Zoning Administrator - June 24, 2021 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of June 10, 2021