HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-25-2021_HO_MinutesSep 27 2021 12:04pm visionary 8316449974
NEWPORT BEACH HEARING OFFICER MINUTES
100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, NEWPORT BEACH
ZOOM
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 25, 2021
REGULAR MEETING -10:00 A.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER -The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m.
Present
Staff Present:
Willi~m B. Conners, Hearing Officer
Jim Campbell, Deputy Community Development Director
Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner
IL PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
p.2
ITEM N0.1 Aerie Condominium Funicular Reasonable Accommodation No. RA2020-002 and
Approval In Concept No. AIC2020005 (PA2020-067)
Site Location: 101 Carnation Avenue GolJlncil District 6
Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the request is to construct
a funicular within the Coastal Bluff setback area of the existing Aerie Condominium project, where such
improvements are not allowed. The applicant contends that the funicular is necessary to provide disabled
residents, who are unable to utilize the existing stairway, with the ability to access wcterside amenities.
Approval of the reasonable accommodation authorizes the City to approve Approval fn Concept No.
AIC2020005 and allow the applicant to submit the funicular to the Coastal Commission for an amendment to
its existing coastal development permit (CDP).
Ms Whelan described that the property is located at the comer of Carnation Avenue and Oceain Boulevard in
Corona del Mar and includes the entire bluff, beach, and water area, including the pier and common area. In
2011, the Coastal Commission approved CDP No. 510298 for the seven-unit, blufltop condominium
development. The reasonable accommodation application requests relief from Newport Bea8h Municipal Code
(NBMC) Section 20.28.040 and the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program (LCP) Implementation Plan (IP)
Section 21.28.040 to allow construction of a funicular on the bluff face below the 50.7-foot contour line. The
funicular will be an inclined elevator that traverses a 120-foot-long on-grade track and accommodates up to
four passengers in one cab. The track will be affixed to an on-grade concrete footing foundation of the minimum
required size. Track footings will expand existing footings for the approved water line located on the bluff face.
Assistant Planner Whefan explained that the applicant chose to submit an application for a reasonable
accommodation because at least four current condominium residents who utilize waterfront amenities have a
disability. The Zoning Code and LCP provide a procedure that allows reasonable accommc,dations if relevant
findings can be made. The proposed accommodation will not result in any fundamental alterations to the
character and use of the condominiums or neighborhood. The funicular will provide needed access to
waterside amenities. Information provided by medical doctors, as detailed in the staff report, indicates mobility-
impaired residents would not be able to access waterside amenities without the funicular. Alternatives have
been explored, and feasible alternatives do not provide accommodation more consistent \l\'ith the LCP. The
funicular alternative is the least intrusive with respect to public coastal views and the le~1st i:Hsruptive with
respect to the natural coastal bfuff. The funicular wilf not affect traffic and parking.
Ms. Whelan added that staff has proposed facts in support ofthe required findings contained in NBMC Chapter
20.52.070 and recommends approval of the application and adoption of the resolution authorizing the approval
in concept for Coastal Commission review. Condition of Approval No. 7 needs to be amended to state:
"because of the substantial cost of this improvement and the funicular can effectively be used by future owners
of the property and is physically integrated into the residential structure and cannot be easily removed or altered
Page 1 of 3
Sep 27 2021 12:04pm visionary
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
NEWPORT BEACH HEARING OFFICER
8316449974 p.3
08/25/2021
to make the residence comply with the Zoning Code, the reasonable accommodation shall remain indefinitely
unless the Director determines that the modifications authorized by this reasonable accommod,:1tion application
are subject to removal under the Newport Beach Municipal Code and it is appropriate to require such removal.
It is the intent of the Hearing Officer, based on the findings of this case, that the funicular re~main indefinitely."
Applicant Brion Jeannette of Brion Jeannette Architecture on behalf of the Owner stated that he had reviewed
and agrees to the draft resolution and the required conditions, including staff's proposed revision. The reason
for the application for a reasonable accommodation is to allow persons with handicaps to a:cess the beach by
way of the funicular. The funicular is ADA certified. A funicular was constructed with the oriiginal building in
1948 and remained for at least 20 years. The existing stairway is difficult for persons witll mobility issues to
navigate. An elevator provides access to the five levels of the structure, and the funicular provides access to
the beach and amenities.
The Hearing Officer opened the public hearing.
One member of the public, Jim Mosher, spoke and stated that the current LCP IP does not allow stairs as they
exist on the site. In 2011, the development was approved with an understanding that there would be no
development below the 50.7-foot contour fine. The stairs are an artifact from the time before enactment of the
Coastal Act The current Code allows stairs only if they provide public access. Allowing public access would
be an alternative that is more in compliance with the LCP. The applicant's materials refer to ctn existing funicular
at 3225 Ocean Boulevard, which was approved prior to adoption of the Code provision allowing stairs providing
public access. Unlike the proposed funicular, the funicular at 3225 Ocean Boulevard connects residential
development at the top and bottom of the bluff.
Hearing Officer Conners advised that the issue is whether the funicular is a reasonabl~~ way to transport
handicapped people from the top of the bluff to the beach/pier area. Public versus pri•1ate access is not
relevant. The Coastal Act is intended to provide as many people as possible with access to the coast The
funicular appears to be located completely within the boundaries of private property. Without an operator to
assist the public in using the funicular, the funicular may be more of a liability than a means of access.
Mr. Mosher noted that Title 21 requires a finding that the funicular alternative is the most ,:onsistent with the
LCP. It is important for the Hearing Officer to understand that the LCP has been changed. Since 2017 when
the LCP was certified, the Municipal Code has provided that on private property, which inclucles .a bluff between
the bluff top and the beach below, a private owner has the option to install a private trail if the bluff is not subject
to marine erosion. The subject bluff is subject to marine erosion. Owners can install private stairs on other
types of bluffs but not on the subject bluff. Providing a public accessway, even though it is located on private
property, is clearly most consistent with Title 21 and a reasonable accommodation.
There were no other public comments.
In response to Hearing Officer Conners' questions, Mr. Jeannette explained that the system will be driven by a
cable. An operator who is familiar with the workings of the car will travel in the car when it is in use. When the
car is not in use, it will be secured in a building located above the 50.7-foot elevation. Safety aspects have to
be monitored onsite. General public use raises liability concerns, which is the reason the f1.mic:ular should be
private. Coastal Commission staff reviewed the stairs and grandfathered them into and reco~Inized them as
part of the development because they were constructed in 1949, prior to the 1976 Coastal Act. Because the
funicular will be located on private property, anyone from the public who accessed the travel path would be
trespassing. Adjacent properties are extremely steep, and someone would need climbing experience to access
the subject property. The funicular has a locking mechanism, and an operator will need to unlock it for use.
There is no guarantee that people will not access the funicular, but doing so will be extremely di'fficult. The car
will move slowly along the track, which will not be electrified. If the funicular and its track are considered an
attractive nuisance, any fence between the properties would also be an attractive nuisance. Only a person
with malicious intent would climb the track. Mr. Jeannette did not believe the funicular is an attractive nuisance.
Landscaping and the design are intended to conceal the track within the coastal slope. fo.dding fences and
Page 2 of 3
Sep 27 2021 12:04pm visionary
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
NEWPORT BEACH HEARING OFFICER
8316449974 p.4
08/25/2021
other things that tend to violate the Coastal Act would be more problematic than the two rails th·at carry the car.
Cameras will monitor the track for maintenance and security issues.
Mr. Jeannette supported staff's recommendation for approval of the application. The cab has electronic safety
brakes. The slack cable brake monitors tension on the drive cable, and a slack cable automatically triggers the
brake to stop the cab. Electronic safety switches on the carriage door will not-allow the li1t to operate unless
the door is properly closed. Safety interlocks are planned for the top and bottom landings to ensure the
environment is safe for carriage movement.
Hearing Officer Conners clarified the question before him as whether a funicular is reasonable to accommodate
handicapped or disabled persons regardless of their being the owners, friends of the owne!rs, or invitees. Mr.
Mosher made some good points, and additional research is needed on those points.
The Hearing Officer closed the public hearing and indicated he would make a decision in a timely manner.
Action: Approved on August 25, 2021
Ill. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
None.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
The hearing was adjourned at 10:50 a.m.
The agenda for the Hearing Officer was posted on August 18, 2021, at 3:15 p.m. on the digital display
board located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center iDri"e and on the
City's website on August 18, 2021, at 3:15 p.m.
William B. Conners, Hearing Officer r
ll o t-\fiN' b-~-J--; VV\ ~ D5\ »,c: tt-
eo vV\ ~ S£,Q 'rl' UI ~ "/ . -J)
Page 3 of 3