HomeMy WebLinkAboutC 1 2 - Correspondences from JMosher - Items C, 1 and 2 - PA2013-126Additional Materials Received
Mosher Comments for Items C, 1 and 2
Sept. 12, 2013, Zoning Administrator Agenda Comments
Comments submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosherta'�vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach
92660 (949- 548 -6229)
Suggested corrections to passages in italics are shown in �• %^-i* underline format.
Item C: Minutes of August 29, 2013
Page 4, Item No. 6, paragraph 2: The staff report identified the applicant as "Architectural
Design & Signs." I am guessing "Applicant Milton" was representing "AD /S Companies' rather
than "AC /S Companies," so I would suggest changing "D" to "C ". I would also guess "Applicant
Milton" might have been the "Milton Solomon" listed as a founding partner on the company
history page at http: / /www.ad -s.com /site /history ds.html .
Item 1. Mitchell Residence Condominium Conversion (PA2013 -126)
Regarding the Draft Resolution (Attachment ZA 1):
Section 2. (California Environmental Quality Act Determination): There is a section of
the Class 1 CEQA exemption which seems more appropriate to the conversion of an
existing structure, namely CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(k): "Division of existing
multiple family or single- family residences into common - interest ownership and
subdivision of existing commercial or industrial buildings, where no physical changes
occur which are not otherwise exempt."
2. Section 3:
a. Line 3: "... the following finding is findings are set forth:"
b. Page 5, Facts in Support of Finding C -1: see CEQA note, above, for more
appropriate fact.
c. Page 7, Finding K:
i. Per the California Supreme Court Case of Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile
Estates, LLC v_ City of Los Angeles, 55 Cal.4th 783 (2012), any action in
the Coastal Zone implicating the Subdivision Map Act is "development' as
defined in the Coastal Act.
ii. In the absence of a certified Local Coastal Program, the City lacks the
authority to determine the consistency of that development with the
Coastal Act.
3. Section 4: the draft resolution appears to set an effective date for the "Condominium
Conversion action," but by implication not for the Parcel Map action. Is something
missing?
4. Exhibit "A" (Conditions of Approval):
a. Condition 4 refers to "construction" but the staff report and resolution suggest the
proposed action requires no construction, since the units are already built to
"condominium standards" (page 4, Fact A -1).
Additional Materials Received
Mosher Comments for Items C, 1 and 2
September 12, 2013 Zoning Administrator agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2
b. Many of the "Building Division" and "Public Works Division" conditions similarly
seem construction related. Are physical improvements required for the applicant
to comply with the approval?
Item 2. Sessions Sandwiches - Minor Use Permit (PA2013 -142)
Regarding Section 3 of the Draft Resolution (Attachment ZA 1):
1. Finding C: I am pleased to see the non- conforming parking analysis is performed
relative to the actual prior use rather than to what might have been theoretically possible
with the zoning. However the calculation seems to relate only to the former bike and
soon -to -be sandwich shop unit. Are there additional required spaces for the dry cleaner
and upper story occupants, and if so, how do they figure into the total? The applicant's
letter (handwritten page 21) implies that 11 is the total number of available spaces,
shared by multiple uses, which seems to be confirmed by the striping plan proposed on
Sheet A11 (handwritten page 30).
2. Facts in Support of Finding C -5: "... and does not impede with the parking spaces." (or
"access to the ")
3. Condition 18: Does the trash enclosure, as well as the dumpster within it, need a solid
cover?