Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft Minutes_06-08-2017IV V VI. VII. NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS — 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 2017 REGULAR MEETING — 6:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER — The meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Chair Kramer ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Kory Kramer, Commissioner Bill Dunlap, Commissioner Bradley Hillgren, Commissioner Raymond Lawler, Commissioner Erik Weigand ABSENT: Vice Chair Peter Koetting, Secretary Peter Zak Staff Present: Deputy Director Brenda Wisneski; Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres; Deputy City Attorney Kyle Bevan, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine, Chief Building Official Seimone Jurjis, Senior Planner Jaime Murillo, Planning Manager Patrick Alford, Administrative Support Specialist Jennifer Biddle PUBLIC COMMENTS None. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES $ None. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF MAY 4, 2017 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap to approve the minutes of May 4, 2017 with the revisions submitted by Jim Mosher. AYES: Kramer, Dunlap, Hillgren, Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: Lawler ABSENT: Koetting, Zak PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO.2 VIEWPOINT CHURCH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT (PA2016-144) Site Location: 866 and 864 West 16th Street Deputy Director Wisneski reported the item pertained to an amendment of a conditional use permit approved by the Planning Commission in November 2016. The application identified the address of the church's offsite parking location as 1701 Placentia Avenue, but the correct address is 1718 Monrovia Avenue. The use permit needs to be amended and the parking management program updated to reflect the correct address. In response to Commissioner Hillgren's inquiry, Deputy Director Wisneski indicated there had been no problems with the operation. Commissioners reported no ex parte communications. Chair Kramer opened and closed the public hearing with no public comment. 1 of 5 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 06/08/2017 Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to adopt Resolution No. 2056 approving an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. UP2016-039 and to find this project categorically exempt under Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. AYES: Kramer, Dunlap, Hillgren, Lawler, Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Koetting, Zak ITEM NO. 3 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ORDINANCE (PA2017-069) Site Location: Citywide Senior Planner Murillo reported this item was continued from the May 4 meeting because of technical difficulties and to conduct additional outreach requested by the Planning Commission. Staff prepared and distributed a revised public hearing notice and a companion fact sheet to the community associations. Staff prepared an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) webpage that answered questions and provided additional details. Staff presented a summary of the amendments to the Corona del Mar Realtors Association. The Daily Pilot published an article summarizing the State standards and proposed amendments. Staff received only one correspondence from the Newport Hills Community Association opposing the amendments and some telephone calls from association property managers who asked questions but did not oppose the amendments. The State recently revised a portion of State law relating to accessory dwelling units. An accessory dwelling unit is a secondary dwelling unit with complete, independent living facilities. There are two types of accessory dwelling units and they are regulated slightly differently under State law and the proposed amendments. The first type is created through new construction and can be either an addition attached to the principal dwelling or a standalone, detached structure. The second type is created through converting or repurposing existing space within an existing home into an accessory dwelling unit. The law is intended to increase the supply of housing in the state and is an alternative to government -subsidized housing programs. The law does not address associations or preempt existing or proposed Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs); it only affects local agencies. The law does not allow cities to prohibit second units and existing regulations are considered null and void. Until cities adopt compliant ordinances, they must utilize the interim State standards. Under the State standards, cities must approve all ADUs ministerially and must approve ADUs in all single-family and multifamily zones where only a single-family home is present. The City's ability to regulate ADUs is subject to minimal development standards. With adoption of an ordinance, the City can apply additional regulations pertaining to location, lot size, parking, and aesthetics provided that the regulations are not arbitrary, excessive, burdensome, or unreasonably restrict the creation of ADUs. Staff proposes to allow ADUs in single-family residential zoned lots only and only in lots containing a minimum of 5,000 square feet. The older parts of the City have a high concentration of lots that are substandard, meaning the lots contain less than 5,000 square feet and have less privacy, less setbacks, and little on -street parking. The older parts of the City also have a higher concentration of properties zoned for multifamily and two-family development; therefore, the possibility of increased development already exists. Staff believes new development should occur in these areas consistent with development standards and parking requirements. Of the 18,830 lots zoned for single-family development, approximately 70 percent can be developed with an ADU. Staff proposes a maximum ADU size of 750 square feet or 50 percent of the existing area, whichever is less, to ensure that the ADU remains subordinate to the principal dwelling, does not function as a duplex, and retains the original character of single- family neighborhoods. The City has to adopt essentially the State standards regarding parking; however, the City can clarify them. Staff proposes to define a public transit stop as a stop along a route with an interval of 15 minutes or less during peak periods and to define a car share program as an established program in a fixed location that is available to the public. This will prevent car share apps from being considered as a public transit stop. Staff proposes parking not be allowed in rear alley setbacks consistent with policies throughout the City. Senior Planner Murillo shared a map of bus routes where ADUs would be eligible for a parking waiver. Staff proposes detached ADUs be restricted to one story and no higher than 14 feet. Attached units would be subject to standard zoning height requirements, which is typically 24 feet in single-family zones. Staff proposes requiring that ADUs be designed similar to the principal dwelling on the lot with respect to architectural style, roof pitch, color, and materials. Staff proposes adoption of State standards regarding setbacks for conversion of garages to ADUs and for construction of an ADU above a garage. All other setbacks should comply with the City's standard setback requirements. Staff proposes adoption of the standard not to require a passageway to the unit. The State law states that fire sprinklers shall not be required if not provided for the principal dwelling. With respect to conversion of existing space to an ADU, the City cannot restrict development of these ADUs and shall permit them in any 2of5 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 06/08/2017 single-family dwelling or accessory structure on a property that is zoned for single-family purposes. Because of the potential for homeowners to abuse this standard, staff proposes to define an existing structure as any dwelling or structure that was legally permitted and in existence for a period of three years. There is no limit on the size of these ADUs. The City cannot require any additional parking and cannot require any new fees or utility connections. ADUs need to comply with the Building Code and must have exterior access. With adoption of an ordinance, the City can prohibit rentals for short-term lodging, which is a period of 30 days or less. The City can require that the ADU or the principal dwelling be occupied by the owner of the property. The State law allows the City to require a deed restriction be recorded on the property to notify future owners of the restrictions. In addition to the Zoning Code amendment, the City needs to amend the Local Coastal Program to include similar language in the Implementation Plan of the Local Coastal Program. The Local Coastal Program amendment includes a provision that a Coastal Development Permit is required for the creation of an ADU and that no public hearing is required per State standards. The California Coastal Commission requested that staff add a coastal land use plan policy within the document to help guide and serve as a purpose for the Local Coastal Program amendment. A total of 5,834 lots located within the coastal zone would be affected by the amendments, and approximately 43 percent of those lots contain 5,000 square feet or more. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the amendments to the City Council, approve the Code amendments and direct staff to submit the Local Coastal Program amendments to the California Coastal Commission. In response to Commissioner Dunlap's questions, Chief Building Official Seimone Jurjis explained that the State wants to make construction of accessory dwelling units easy. If the original dwelling does not have fire sprinklers, then a detached accessory unit which is typically new construction does not require fire sprinklers. Whether an ADU is attached or detached and the existing home does not have fire sprinklers, the ADU does not require fire sprinklers. The addition of an ADU could increase the total square footage to more than 5,000 square feet but the ADU is still exempt from fire sprinklers if the original dwelling does not have them. Commissioner Dunlap expressed concern that the provision will allow additional construction that obviates the City's Fire Code. Chair Kramer advised that a report of ex parte communications was not needed. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Jim Mosher inquired about the rationale for the minimum lot size requirement of 5,450 square feet for a granny unit and 5,000 square feet for an ADU. He suggested clarifications be made to language in the first section, Section 2(a) and (b), and Section 6 of the proposed ordinance. Senior Planner Murillo explained that the minimum lot size of 5,450 square feet is from the granny unit ordinance, and 5,000 square feet is the minimum lot size for a new, conforming lot in an R-1 district. The requirement for a setback of no more than five feet was taken from state standards, and staff intended for it to read that way. The provision indicates an applicant needs to comply with basic setback standards from the Code; however, in no case shall the City require more than five feet. The provision does not need to be redrafted. With respect to a separate utility connection, the City cannot require one but the homeowner can voluntarily provide one. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Motion made by Commissioner Lawler and seconded by Chair Kramer to adopt Resolution No. 2057 recommending the City Council approve Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2017-003 modifying regulations pertaining to accessory dwelling units; adopt Resolution No. 2058 recommending the City Council authorize staff to submit Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2017-003 to the California Coastal Commission; and to find this project statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15282(h) of the CEQA Guidelines AYES: Kramer, Hillgren, Lawler, Weigand NOES: Dunlap ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Koetting, Zak 3of5 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 06/08/2017 ITEM NO. 4 NEWPORT DUNES RESORT SPECIAL EVENTS (PA2015-084) Site Location: 131 Back Bay Drive Planning Manager Patrick Alford reported this item is a one-year review of the conditional use permit approved in February 2016. The City Council required a one-year review by the Planning Commission to determine compliance with conditions of approval and the effectiveness of the noise control and mitigation protocol for special events. Normally a special event requires a City permit and events are classified as Level 1, 2, or 3. Planning Manager Alford reviewed the requirements of the use permit. The City Council changed the number of Level 1 events to 250 in the first year, required Planning Commission review after one year, and required a City sound monitor be present at all events. The Dunes held 264 total events in the first year. Events occur primarily in the pavilions and cabanas around the swimming lagoon, the Bayside Pavilion, and the Village Center. The applicant has complied with the type and number of permits; amplified sound hours; advance noticing of Level 1 events, and monthly sound monitoring reports. The noise protocol generally has been effective in controlling sound levels and keeping them within City standards. The number of complaints decreased once the noise protocol was implemented. In reply to Commissioner Hillgren's questions, Planning Manager Alford indicated that notification of the meeting was provided to residents of Dover Shores within 300 feet of the project boundary. Basically, all shorefront properties in Dover Shores received a notice. Planning Manager Alford deferred questions about the Dunes' business strategy to the applicant. The City has an agreement with the applicant for the applicant to deposit funds quarterly in payment of invoices from the City's noise consultant. Assistant City Attorney Torres advised that a Council Member can call an item for review only to allow the entire body to hear the item. In response to Commissioner Lawler's inquiries, Planning Manager Alford stated that some noise complaints had been received but noise readings determined the sound did not exceed noise standards. The noise barrier for smaller events resulted in a decrease in the number of complaints. Some complaints were made to the Police Department after the report was written. Given the number of events held in the past year, there were very few actual noise complaints. In answer to Commissioner Dunlap's question, Planning Manager Alford clarified that the applicant reports in advance of events, and events are sometimes canceled. Fewer events could have been held than was stated in the staff report. The number of events allowed will automatically increase to 500 after one year. Changing the number of events allowed in a year would be subject to the formal process to amend the use permit. Because the Council took final action on the use permit, amending the use permit would occur at the Council level. Commissioners reported no ex parte communications. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Jim Mosher noted 14 Level 2 and Level 3 events are allowed each year, but 19 Level 2 events and 1 Level 3 event were held. That was not covered in the staff report. Planning Manager Alford indicated the applicant is in compliance with the number of events. An event can be held over multiple days but it counts as only one event. That could be the source of the discrepancy. Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Andrew Theodorou, general manager of the Newport Dunes Resort, advised that the demand for events, with both amplified and non -amplified sound, is growing. The Dunes' reporting to the City concerns only amplified sound events. The number of amplified and non -amplified events could be well over 500. Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap to adopt Resolution No. 2059 finding compliance with the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-021 and to find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15323 of the CEQA Guidelines. 4of5 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AYES: Kramer, Dunlap, Hillgren, Lawler, Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Koetting, Zak VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 5 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION None. ITEM NO. 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1. Update on City Council Items 06/08/2017 Deputy Director Wisneski announced the meeting scheduled for June 22 will be canceled. She also noted that this would be Commissioner Hillgren and Commissioner Lawler's final meeting on the Commission, but staff will request their attendance at the July 6 meeting for recognition. The agenda for July 6 includes election of officers and the welcoming of two new Commissioners. ITEM NO. 7 ANNOUNCEMENTS ON MATTERS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, OR REPORT 1►•Iem ITEM NO. 8 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES 1►•Iem IX. ADJOURNMENT — 7:25 p.m. The agenda for the Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, June 2, 2017, at 2:30 p.m. in the Chambers binder, 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 Friday, June 2, 2017, at 3:00 p.m. Kory Kramer, Chair Peter Zak, Secretary 5of5 Planning Commission - July 6, 2017 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of June 8, 2017 July 6, 2017, Planning Commission Agenda Item Comments Comments on Newport Beach Planning Commission regular meeting agenda item submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosherOyahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 2. MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2017 Suggested changes to draft minutes passages are shown in strikeout underline format. Page 2, Item 3, paragraph 1, line 5: "Staff presented a summary of the amendments to the Corona del Mar R^s Residents Association." Note: The present minutes are remarkably complete and surprisingly readable, but the formatting of most of this item as a single long, long paragraph of more than one thousand words seems unusual. Page 4, paragraphs 4 & 5 from end: "Jim Mosher noted 14 Level 2 and Level 3 events are allowed each year, but 19 Level 2 events and 1 Level 3 event were held. That was not covered in the staff report. Planning Manager Alford indicated the applicant is in compliance with the number of events. An event can be held over multiple days but it counts as only one event. That could be the source of the discrepancy." Note: The draft minutes accurately reflect what was said at the meeting. However, immediately after the meeting, Planning Manager Alford privately clarified to me that the actual reason for the discrepancy was that the staff report tallied all the events that had been held at the Dunes at the time of writing. This included events during the first reporting year plus some in the present year (during which they seemed to be occurring at an unexpectedly brisk pace). The number of Level 2 and 3 events for the first year alone, he said, had been in compliance with the 14 allowed for that year. Planning Commission - August 17, 2017 Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received Draft Minutes of June 8, 2017 Aug. 17, 2017, Planning Commission Agenda Item Comments These comments on Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda items are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(o)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 1. MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2017 The following correction was previously suggested in a comment submitted for the July 6, 2017, meeting. Page 2, Item 3, paragraph 1, line 5: "Staff presented a summary of the amendments to the Corona del Mar Realters Residents Association." Item No. 2. MINUTES OF JULY 20, 2017 Suggested changes to draft minutes passages are shown in strikeouf underline format Page 1, Item V, paragraph 2: "Peggy V. Palmer, Coalition to Protect ">s Mariner's Mile, felt all plans for Mariners' Mile should be considered in their entirety to ensure there are compatible and responsible developments." [The Coalition punctuates "Mariner's" as indicated, following the City's monument signs and the City's vision/design document.] Page 2, Item 3, paragraph 1: "Commissioner Lowrey recused himself from the item." When a possible financial conflict exists, California's Political Reform Act requires (Gov. Code Sec. 87105) not only recusal, but also a brief oral explanation of the conflict. If that was the reason for the recusal here, one would hope the minutes would include the gist of the explanation that was offered.] Page 2, Item 3, paragraph 2, last sentence: "The four residential units sewPFise fill the third floor across both lots." [At least to me, the word "comprise" is confusing -- making it sound like the residential units are somehow "equal to" or "confined to" the third floor. "Fill' is not a perfect replacement, but it's a little closer to the intended meaning, which seems to be to point out that (unlike on the first two floors) there is nothing but residential development on the third floors. If that is indeed what was intended, using the latter phrase would seem even better.] Page 3, first full paragraph: "Associate Planner Nova completed her presentation of the project and explained that the tentative tract map proposes consolidating two lots and widening the end parcel slightly." Page 3, paragraph 3 from end: "Commissioners reported no ex parte communications." [I find the Commission's disclosure of ex parte communications very commendable. However, the disclosures, when they occur, still fall a bit short of the best practice recommended by California's Institute for Local Government and followed by such bodies as the California Coastal Commission. That best practice is that not only should the existence of an ex parte communication be revealed at any quasi- judicial hearing, but also the general content of the communication — both so all parties are on the same page, and so those with a differing point of view have a chance to rebut whatever information the Commissioner may have heard.]