Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-11-2019_ZA_MinutesNEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MINUTES 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, NEWPORT BEACH CORONA DEL MAR CONFERENCE ROOM (BAY EAST FLOOR) THURSDAY, JULY 11, 2019 REGULAR MEETING — 3:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER — The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. Staff Present: Rosalinh Ung, Zoning Administrator Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner II. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF JUNE 27, 2019 Action: Approved IV. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO.2 Uptown Newport Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2019-003 (PA2019-067) Site Location: 4311 Uptown Newport Drive Council District 3 Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the Uptown Newport mixed -use planned community project consists of 1,244 residential units, 11,500 square feet of retail use, and 2 acres of public park. The applicant is proposing a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide an existing vacant 2.5-acre parcel into two parcels for future conveyance purposes only. The parcel is located within Phase I of the Uptown Newport development, adjacent to the 1-acre neighborhood park which is under construction. No development is proposed as part of the application. All future development of the site will comply with allowed uses and development standards of the previously approved planned community project. Applicant Tom Bitney of Shopoff Realty Investments, 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. Action: Approved ITEM NO. 3 Sheehy Residence Coastal Development Permit CD2017-076 (PA2017-179) Site Location: 2495 Ocean Boulevard Council District 6 Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner, provided a brief project description stating that the applicant requests a Coastal Development Permit to allow the demolition of an existing single-family residence and detached garage and the construction of a new 6,672-square-foot single-family residence and attached 656-square-foot garage. The proposed development includes accessory elements such as walls, fences, patios, hardscape, and a swimming pool. The project complies with all applicable development standards, and the applicant does not request any deviations. As background information, in 1984, the Planning Commission approved a variance for the existing garage to exceed the maximum allowed height limit at the front half of the lot because of the lot's unique and difficult topography. The garage also exceeded the maximum height limit with respect to the Ocean Boulevard's curb elevation. At the intersection, Ocean Boulevard is considered a Coastal View Road that requires view protection under the City's Local Coastal Program. Demolition of the existing home and garage Page 1 of 5 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 07/11/2019 will improve the view corridor from the identified public viewpoint on Ocean Boulevard. In 2014, the Community Development Director approved an alternative grade determination for the project site. The determination allows the building height to be measured from the established grade to the roof element of each structure, and established the grade profile as the topography of the site that existed prior to the 1986 construction of the existing home. Measuring height based on the current topography of the site is difficult given that the bluff has been excavated and filled and does not represent the natural topography. The project is located in an R-1 Coastal Zoning District, which allows single -unit residential development. Two multifamily developments, the eight -unit Aerie condominium development and the 48-unit Channel Reef condominium development, have been constructed on either side of the bluff. An existing single-family residence is located above the project site. As depicted in the view simulations, the proposed house closely resembles the overall mass and scale of the existing home and maintains the existing home's footprint. The project complies with all applicable development standards including the Bluff Overlay District. The project application contains a Coastal Hazards Analysis that has been updated twice. The reports conclude that the proposed development is reasonably safe from coastal hazards, flooding, and future sea level rise. A Geotechnical Investigation and update conclude that the proposed construction and grading will not adversely impact the geologic stability of the existing bluff or adjacent properties. The project will not impact public access to the coast. Staff has received four comment letters regarding the project, two in support and two in opposition. Applicant Christopher Brandon of Brandon Architects, stated that he has worked with the owner to create a new home that conforms with requirements, removes existing nonconformities, and provides a public benefit. He has reviewed the draft resolution and agrees with all of the required conditions of approval. Ted Donohue, counsel for the property owner, reported he was aware of the July 5, 2019 letter from Jon Corn Law Firm. Because Jon Corn Law Firm submitted a second letter the day of the hearing, which does not comply with the deadline to submitwritten correspondence, he requested the Zoning Administrator not consider the letter. The assertions contained in the July 5th letter are not substantiated by any engineering diagrams or any other documentation. The attorney and his client have worked with engineers and, if the attorney and his client had facts to support their claims, they would have submitted them. In response to the Zoning Administrator's inquiries, Senior Planner Murillo reported grade can be established in a number of ways based on the Zoning Code and Local Coastal Program (LCP). One way is through the approval of a new subdivision map, which does not apply to this project. For properties that are less than 5 percent in slope, staff typically averages four points taken from the proposed footprint of a home and the existing grade elevations shown on a topographic survey to establish a baseline height measurement. The project slopes more than 5 percent; therefore, this method is not applicable to the project. For properties that slope more than 5 percent, the Code provides a methodology to create a grade plane based upon five equidistant points along the side property lines. This methodology helps equalize the grade of the property by eliminating high points and low points. This methodology is useful when neighboring properties maintain a general slope as well. When the lot slopes more than 20 percent, the Community Development Director is allowed to establish additional points for a grade evaluation. Staff evaluated the grade of the proposed site using five points. Because the site is unique in shape and the majority of the side property line and a portion of the rear property line are located in the bay, evaluating the grade based on five points results in a grade significantly below the natural topography of the bluff. The Code also allows the Community Development Director to establish a grade on properties that have been previously altered through excavation, construction of retaining walls, and other conditions such that the grade is not representative of prevailing grades on adjoining lots or the general area. In this case, staff determined the most accurate method of measuring height was to establish a grade plane that matched the original topography of the site based on records of the home built in 1986. Staff utilized the topographical contours from the 1986 project to create a grade plane. A licensed land surveyor reviewed the exhibit and confirmed that the points are consistent with the topographical contours of 1986. In order to measure height, the project architect, with direction from City staff, created a grade exhibit and a roof plan exhibit where the roof plan is superimposed over the grade plane. Staff measured the height of each element subject to height restrictions to the proposed grade plane. The Community Development Director established the grade plane in 2014, and the appeal period for the determination expired in 2014. Therefore, the decision before the Zoning Administrator pertains to the Coastal Development Permit for construction of the home and the impacts of construction on coastal resources, character of the area, and coastal hazards. The topographic survey contained in the proposed plans shows the Ocean Boulevard curb height ranges from 68.19 feet to 69.22 feet along the general width of the lot. The letter from Jon Corn's office indicates the curb height ranges from 66.28 feet to 67.33 feet. For the purposes of the site design, 68 feet was used as the Page 2 of 5 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 07/11/2019 baseline curb height to ensure all proposed roof structures, gate, and fence elements do not exceed the elevation. The survey identified as sheet C-05 is the actual topographic survey of the current conditions with the existing single-family home. Senior Planner Murillo indicated he utilized the survey to determine the top of curb elevations. The contours from this survey and the contours from the 1986 survey were utilized to establish the grade determination in 2014. He concurred with the Zoning Administrator in that the process for determining grade was fairly consistent from 1986 to 2014 to the current time, and no changes had been made. The Local Coastal Program requires staff to analyze new development in the coastal zone to ensure development is free of coastal hazards for the fife of the structure. The Coastal Hazards Analysis prepared by GeoSoils indicates the minimum elevation of the proposed residence, which is 28.42 feet, exceeds the City's minimum 9.0 elevation and significantly exceeds any identified sea level rise scenario for the next 75 years. The Coastal Hazards Analysis also concludes the project is safe from the potential impacts of shoreline movement, wave runup, and flooding. The Geotechnical Investigation reviews the conditions of the soil below the proposed structure and the conditions of the bluff and provides design and construction recommendations to ensure the structure is stable. A water quality management plan was prepared and reviewed by the City Soils Engineer to ensure the project addresses and handles water runoff and rain events properly. A visual impact analysis illustrates that the project will not impact public views. The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing. Chandra Slaven of Jon Corn Law Firm, representing Joe and Lisa Vallejo of 2501 Ocean Boulevard, spoke and stated that the project application is inconsistent with the City's Local Coastal Program. She believed the Coastal Commission will find substantial issue with the City's alternative grade determination. City staff erroneously applied Municipal Code Section 21.30.050(C), which resulted in the measurement of the proposed building height using the site's original, undisturbed grade rather than the current existing grade as the base elevation. The applicant rather than staff interpreted the Zoning Code and provided a new method to determine the original grade for the site. Thus, the applicant justified a much higher finished elevation for the proposed home. If the existing grade or finished grade had been utilized, the height of the proposed home would be considerably lower and more in context with adjacent homes. In order to make the findings for consistency with the City's certified LCP, the Zoning Administrator must find that the establishment of grade is not injurious to both property and improvements on adjoining lots as outlined in Section 21.30.050(C). This finding cannot be made. The law firm's letters raise concerns regarding height calculations, grading and shoring, unsafe conditions, inadequate fire protection access, light and noise impacts, expanded development on the bluff face, and inconsistency with fencing regulations. Her clients would be amenable to additional conditions of approval such that the overall height of the garage would be an elevation of 60 feet, consistent with the house; a deed restriction would prohibit the installation of solar panels; fencing and site walls would not exceed a height of 42 inches and consist of transparent glass; all project landscaping contained in planters would not exceed a maximum height of 3 feet; and story poles would be installed immediately upon approval of the modified Coastal Development Permit. She requested monitoring to address potential subsidence and sublateral movement and the applicant obtain insurance for the duration of construction including for the general contractor. She also requested the Zoning Administrator continue the hearing until the applicant submits additional documentation consistent with the LCP or agrees to the additional suggested conditions of approval. Jim Mosher, spoke and stated that the legal description contained in Statement of Fact 1 in the draft resolution is incomplete. This project may not be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as the lot is extremely close to the harbor. Measuring from the existing topographic surface to determine structure height is more reasonable than utilizing a topographic surface from the 1980s. The staff report erroneously refers to development requirements in Title 20. The applicant is seeking a Costal Development Permit; therefore, the important standards for the project are contained in Title 21. The Community Development Director's grade determination was made in 2014, before the City adopted a Costal Development Program that gives the Director the authority to make grade determinations related to Coastal Development Permits. The resolution should refer to the Ocean Boulevard curb height standard provided in Table 21.18-2. The staff report does not contain an exhibit confirming that the development is located within overlay zones. Mr. Mosher did not believe water runoff could be directed to the storm drain on Ocean Boulevard. Perhaps the fence -like structure shown in the Ocean Boulevard street perspective should be open instead of solid wood. From the East Balboa Boulevard dock perspective, the large white retaining wall on the left side of the property could be textured or colored to reduce the mass. With respect to Finding B-1, residential development on the lot inhibits the public's ability to reach the beach. Perhaps the project site and adjoining property could provide public access to the private beach located at the rear of the two properties. He questioned whether the conditions of Page 3 of 5 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 07/11/2019 approval should include construction staging on Ocean Boulevard such that the public would not be inconvenienced. Richard Taketa, spoke and stated that the project will provide a greater view of the bay from the sidewalk along Ocean Boulevard. Linda Rasner, spoke and stated that the project will open the views of the bay from Ocean Boulevard. When the adjacent Aerie project was approved, the plans included a bench and water fountain, which enhance the view. She supported the project. Brett Davis, spoke and stated that hopefully the neighbors could resolve the grading issue quickly. Multiple residents enjoy the view from Ocean Boulevard nightly, and the new project would open the view and make the view much nicer for the public. Jay Laws, spoke and questioned whether the new house would extend closer toward the water than the existing house. The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing. Brian Sheehy, property owner, advised that the Vallejos' architect had informed him that the project complies with all standards and that the Vallejos' requests would reduce Mr. Sheehy's legal right to use his real estate. He stated that on a nightly basis, people climb on the wall at the Vallejos' property or on his mailbox to view the bay from Ocean Boulevard. The project, including the garage door and gate, will not block the view of the bay, the Peninsula, or Catalina from Ocean Boulevard. He further stated, the project will eliminate a nonconforming property on Ocean Boulevard and comply with building standards. Mr. Chris Brandon, the applicant's architect, indicated the garage ramp as proposed is the only concept that will allow removal of the existing garage and provide the required three onsite parking spaces. The majority of improvements are lower than the maximum allowed curb height. The existing home is taller than the proposed home. The proposed garage will be taller than the existing home, but it is located in the back corner where the topography is higher. He further stated the Vallejos' views to the bay will improve under the project from their residence. In reply to the Zoning Administrator's queries, Mr. Sheehy reported he saw no reason to consider any of the demands listed in the letters from Jon Corn Law Firm because the project conforms with all requirements and benefits the Vallejos and the public. Mr. Brandon explained that the retaining wall Mr. Mosher mentioned is not as large as it appears in the rendering. There will be three small walls and the wall, garage ramp, and stairway will be screened by landscaping. Senior Planner Murillo related that the LCP and the Zoning Code provide the Community Development Director the authority to make grade determinations. LCP standards are consistent with Zoning Code standards. Staff believes the 2014 grade determination is valid for determining structure height. Aformal decision is not required for a grade determination, and a staff report for the 2014 determination was prepared to provide clarity and explain the process. Sheet A-3.1 in the plans clearly illustrates the structure's compliance with height requirements. The Vallejos' concern about impacts to their property is a common concern for residents of any hillside development. Any real property damage is a civil matter between the property owners. Conditions during grading and construction are monitored, and any movement on the site will be reported to the building inspector. The Vallejos' property and the project site are adjacent to Ocean Boulevard, which provides emergency access for the properties. The proposed location of the garage is the only location for a compliant three -car garage and for a driveway slope that complies with requirements. The survey represents an accurate measurement of curb elevations. The project complies with bluff overlay standards, which establish the limits of Development Areas A and C. The project drawings clearly indicate the boundary between Development Areas A and C. Sheet A-3.1 illustrates fence heights and compliance with the front and side setbacks. The existing house contains 6,061 square feet of living area, and the existing garage contains 273 square feet. The square footage of the existing house and garage is approximately 1,000 square feet less than the proposed home. The proposed home's mass and height is comparable to the existing home's mass and height. Page 4 of 5 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 07/11/2019 The Zoning Administrator included conditions of approval fora construction management plan and the Vallejos' request regarding height of landscaping in the planters. She commented that the City cannot impose conditions of approval requiring deed restrictions or insurance as proposed by the Vallejos. A civil engineer will conduct height certification by verifying and certifying the maximum height of framing in certain areas of the new structure, and a City Building Inspector will review and approve the certification. She then commented that this is standard practice; however, it will be added as a condition of approval. The LCP and the Coastal Act do not protect private views. The Zoning Administrator's scope of review is limited to public views to and along the shoreline and the overall visual quality of the coastal zone. A visual impact analysis has been prepared for the project evaluated existing and proposed views toward the bay from Ocean Blvd, and from public viewpoints on Peninsula Point across the harbor channel towards the project site. The proposed development does not extend beyond the footprint of the existing house. The project does not increase demand on public access or recreation opportunities. The proposed project will open and enhance the public view by removing the existing garage and reconstructing new rooflines below the curb elevation of Ocean Boulevard and rocky coastline. The new development occurs within the confines of private property. It is designed and situated not to block or impede existing public access opportunities. Technical reports consisted of coastal hazard analysis, geotechnical investigation report, water quality and hydrology plan have been submitted for city approval. The project does not involve a change in land use, density or intensity that will result in increased demand on public access and recreation opportunities. The Zoning Administrator does not have the authority to approve a different grade determination method or to override the Community Development Director's decision of 2014. The Zoning Administrator found no discrepancies between Titles 20 and 21 and no additional review is necessary. Action: Approved :111:14 .141010101 Sri l Jtl :1 '01 b491010 IQ C_[e1 :1 01 •T_\ I I :I LI, 61 One member of the public, Jim Mosher, commented that Coastal Commission approved a residential project located on the Marcus Avenue canals using medium -risk scenarios for sea level rise. The City typically utilizes low -risk scenarios. VI. ADJOURNMENT The hearing was adjourned at 4:10 p.m. The agenda for the Zoning Administrator Hearing was posted on July 5, 2019, at 2:30 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 July 5, 2019, at 3:15 p.m. EF14.11,61 / � Page 5 of 5