Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-11-2018_ZA_Minutes Page 1 of 4 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THE REGULAR MEETING WAS HELD ON: Thursday, October 11, 2018 3:00 p.m. THE MEETING WAS HELD AT: Newport Beach City Hall 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach Corona del Mar Conference Room (Bay E-1st Floor) I. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. Staff Present: James Campbell, Zoning Administrator Gregg Ramirez, Principal Planner Benjamin Zdeba, Associate Planner Liz Westmoreland, Assistant Planner II. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2018 Action: Continued to the October 25, 2018, Zoning Administrator meeting IV. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 505 Poppy LLC Residential Condominiums Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2018-025 (PA2018-175) Site Location: 505 and 505 ½ Poppy Avenue Council District 6 Benjamin Zdeba, Associate Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the existing duplex, which is located on a lot zoned R-2, will be demolished, and a new duplex constructed to condominium standards. In the future, the two units can be sold separately. The project will conform to all Municipal Code requirements and meet all subdivision standards. The property is not located in the coastal zone. Public improvements of repairing the sidewalk, undergrounding any overhead utilities to the units, and repairing the alleyway will be made at the end of construction. Applicant James Person, on behalf of the Owner 505 Poppy LLC, stated that he had reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions. He had spoken with Tim Andrews, owner of 503 Poppy Avenue, who had no objection to the project. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one from the public wished to comment the public hearing was closed. Action: Approved MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 10/11/2018 Page 2 of 4 ITEM NO. 3 Patterson Residential Condominiums Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2018-026 and Coastal Development Permit No. CD2018-075 (PA2018-176) Site Location: 312 35th Street Council District 1 Liz Westmoreland, Assistant Planner, provided a brief project description stating that a single-family residence has been demolished, and a new duplex is under construction. The property is located within a developed neighborhood but is not located adjacent to or near any natural landforms or within the proximity of any environmentally sensitive areas. The project provides off-site parking; thus, no on-street parking is lost. The project will not affect the public's access to, use of, and/or view of the coast and nearby recreational facilities. Public improvements of reconstruction of sidewalks, curbs, and gutters and undergrounding of utilities to the units will be made. The project is required to pay one unit of park fees for the added unit. The duplex will discharge wastewater into the existing sewer system. James Person, on behalf of the Owner/Applicant Andrew Patterson, 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 and suggested staff explain the reasons for the physical development not needing a coastal development permit. Assistant Planner Westmoreland clarified that the applicant previously received a coastal development permit for the demolition of a single-family residence and the construction of a duplex. The current application for a tentative parcel map to subdivide the property for condominium purposes requires its own coastal development permit. There were no other public comments. Action: Approved ITEM NO. 4 Big Canyon Coastal Habitat Restoration and Adaptation – Phase 2A – Coastal Development Permit No. CD2018-027 and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2018- 001(PA2018-078) Site Location: 1900 Back Bay Drive, APN 440-092-79 Council District 4 Principal Planner Gregg Ramirez, on behalf of Associate Planner Makana Nova, provided a brief project description stating that the project, which covers approximately 11 acres, proposes to restore the various habitats on the site by replacing nonnative vegetation with native species appropriate for the site to create a more sustainable habitat, stabilizing the creek and floodplain, and enhancing public access. The Natural Resources Element of the General Plan identifies the project site as an Environmental Study Area. Staff believes the restoration project and the Big Canyon Park are consistent with the open space land use and zoning designations. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) have been identified on the site and will be maintained, improved, and expanded consistent with the goals of the Local Coastal Program (LCP). An Archaeological Research Plan (ARP) has been prepared, but peer review of the ARP is not complete. The project will improve and enhance public access. The public comment period for the draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) opened on September 4 and ended on October 5. To date, staff has received and prepared responses to six comment letters and one phone call. The comment letters have not revealed any new information that warrants recirculation of the Initial Study and MND. Staff proposes an additional condition of approval requiring the applicant to submit a final public access and construction management plan prior to commencement of construction for review and approval by the Public Works Director and a revision of Condition of Approval 6 to development in areas outside that shown on the approved plans. Staff requests the Zoning Administrator hold a public hearing but delay a decision on the project until all information is complete. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 10/11/2018 Page 3 of 4 Josie Bennett, representing the applicant Newport Bay Conservancy, reported one of the major goals of the project is to improve the critical habitat in the park. Water quality degradation, historical land disturbance, increased peak flow of the riparian zone, year-round dry-weather flows, and placement of dredged material in the Lower Canyon have created a highly degraded habitat. The thick tree cover prevents native vegetation from re-establishing itself, promotes illegal access and activity, causes a reduction in native habitat for birds and other wildlife, and causes erosion of stream banks. Without the proposed project, the impact of invasive plant species will expand and further reduce habitat for native coastal plants, animals, and bird species. The major goals of the Phase 2A project are to restore riparian habitat, to restore and create a mosaic of native and sustainable habitats, to stabilize the creek and floodplain while enhancing public access and educational opportunities within the Big Canyon Park. Monitoring requirements depend on the funding agency. Ms. Bennett recommended the preparation of a Riparian Area Monitoring Plan (RAMP) via the California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) with five years of vegetation monitoring and wildlife surveys. Monitoring could be conducted in years 1, 3, and 5 with wildlife surveys and general qualitative monitoring occurring annually. Reports could be prepared quarterly and annually. Michael Houlihan, Environmental Science Associates, advised that the Menzie's Goldbrush Scrub Alliance is identified as an ESHA and a native habitat, but it is not part of the restoration project and it will be avoided. The mixed area of Figure 4 is also an ESHA. Any trees showing signs of borer infestation will be removed, including willow trees. Signage and thick habitat will be used to restrict access to ESHAs. For safety reasons, parts of the trail will be temporarily closed during construction. Wood chips from trees infected with borers will be placed in the solarization areas and covered with tarps in an effort to kill the borers. Once the borers have been killed, the wood chips will be used on the trail. Robert Stein, Newport Beach Assistant City Engineer, advised that unauthorized trails will be addressed in a future phase of the project. If unauthorized trails are created in the restored area, then staff will seek a coastal development permit for fencing. Since the completion of the adjacent Phase 1, unauthorized trails have not occurred in that area. Orange construction fencing will be in place during construction to prevent worker intrusion into areas around the project site and to prevent the public from entering the project site. The City is considering altering the hours of the park in response to public concerns, but changing the hours is not a component of the project. The Zoning Administrator directed staff to develop a program for fencing and a condition of approval for monitoring that is consistent with California Department of Fish and Wildlife requirements. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. One member of the public, Tony Knox, spoke and stated that the existing forest of mature trees should not be replaced with bushes as it would change the nature and use of the park. The existing two gates should be maintained and kept locked to prevent access by unauthorized vehicles. The Zoning Administrator indicated the City’s commitment to restoring natural habitats consistent with the LCP and that the decision to pursue restoration at this site was beyond the Zoning Administrator’s purview especially since this is the continuation of the restoration effort approved by the City. The Zoning Administrator’s role here is limited to ensure the proposed restoration project is consistent with the LCP. One member of the public, Jim Mosher, spoke and stated that the project area is not clearly delineated on the maps. He questioned whether the City had the authority to grant a coastal development permit for the project as the project area seems to be a part of the public trust lands. As the project area is considered a City park, the project should be reviewed by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission. If there is an excess of wood chips, chips subjected to the solarization process should be sent to the landfill. He questioned whether staff had drafted a plan to remove pepper trees that grow after completion of the project. Fencing comprised of metal posts strung with wire would be an unobtrusive method to prevent public access but allow wildlife access. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 10/11/2018 Page 4 of 4 The Zoning Administrator advised that he reviewed the Coastal Commission's approved map delineating permit jurisdiction and appeal areas during the review of the staff report. The project site is clearly within the City’s jurisdiction. The Zoning Administrator also indicated that any potential changes in park hours must consider effects, if any, on public access and that such a change was not part of the subject CDP or within the purvey of the Zoning Administrator. There were no other public comments. Action: Continued to the November 15, 2018 Zoning Administrator meeting. E. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS One member of the public, Jim Mosher, commented that the certified jurisdiction and appeal map may not be accurate and is subject to revision. F. ADJOURNMENT The hearing was adjourned at 4:32 p.m. The agenda for the Zoning Administrator Hearing was posted on October 5, 2018, at 4:00 p.m. in the Chambers binder and 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 October 5, 2018, at 3:41 p.m. James Campbell, Deputy Community Development Director Zoning Administrator