Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-17-2019 - Planning CommissionI. II. Ill. NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS -100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2019 REGULAR MEETING -6:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER -The meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -Commissioner Ellmore ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: Chair Peter Koetting, Vice Chair Erik Weigand, Secretary Lee Lowrey, Commissioner Curtis Ellmore, Commissioner Sarah Klaustermeier, Commissioner Lauren Kleiman, Commissioner Mark Rosene None Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, Senior Engineer David Keely, Principal Planner Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Makana Nova, Administrative Support Specialist Clarivel Rodriguez, Administrative Support Technician Amanda Lee IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS V. None REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell advised that Item Number 3, appeal of the Sheehy residence project, should be continued to November 21, 2019. VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO.1 MINUTES OF OCTOBER 3, 2019 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Chair Koetting to approve the minutes of the October 3, 2019 meeting as presented. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Koetting, Weigand, Klaustermeier, Rosene Lowrey, Ellmore, Kleiman ABSENT: VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 OFFICE AND PARKING STRUCTURE (PA2019-023) Site Location: 215 Riverside Avenue Summary: A coastal development permit to demolish an existing restaurant/office building and associated surface parking lot, and to construct a new 41-space, two-level parking structure and a 2, 7 44-square-foot office building. A conditional use permit is required to authorize the parking structure adjacent to residentially zoned property. The project includes hardscape, drainage, and landscape improvements. The proposed development complies with all applicable development standards including height, setbacks, and floor area limits. 1 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2019 Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332 under Class 32 (Infill) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3. Adopt Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-031 approving Coastal Development Permit No. CD2019-003 and Conditional Use Permit No. UP2019-003. Associate Planner Makana Nova reported the project has changed since the Commission reviewed it on August 22, 2019. The floor area for the office building has been reduced from 2,830 square feet to 2,744 square feet. The tandem parking spaces previously proposed through a modification permit have been removed from the plans and the applicant has withdrawn the application for a modification permit. Based on public comments made on August 22, 2019, staff notes a wetland is located adjacent to the property along Avon Street and a biologist studied it. The applicant for the restaurant application has also submitted correspondence indicating the applicant is pursuing parking options other than the surplus parking supply proposed in the application before the Planning Commission. With removal of tandem parking, the number of parking spaces within the proposed structure has been reduced from 4 7 to 41. Associate Planner Nova explained that the applicant proposes to replace the existing retaining wall with a new retaining wall structure and to increase the amount of vegetation. Plans for the first and second floors of the parking structure remain virtually the same as that reviewed on August 22, 2019. Access to the first floor of the parking structure is from Avon, while access to the second floor is from Riverside Avenue. Associate Planner Nova stated that the Zoning Code provides height limits of 32 feet for a flat-roof structure and 37 feet for a pitched-roof structure. The proposed project will be built to the 32-foot height limit. The existing building measures 28 feet in height. Staff received a public comment regarding a private air space covenant. From staffs perspective, the project complies with the height limit imposed by City standards and the covenant is a private matter. Any changes related to height as a result would decrease the height of the structure, and staff would review any changes for substantial conformance with an approval, should the Planning Commission approve the project. The bulk and scale of the proposed building will be consolidated at the street corner. Associate Planner Nova noted that staff reviewed the project for compliance with the Class 32 exemption under CEQA and prepared a number of supporting studies. The restaurant applicant's consideration of alternative parking separates the uses in the two applications. Surplus parking proposed in the office building application could be utilized by a restaurant use or some other use within Mariners' Mile. Staff believes the restaurant and office building applications can be reviewed independently. The existing development encroaches slightly into the public park, but the applicant proposes to remove these encroachments, which will increase the distance between the project and the wetland resource from 29 feet to 39 feet. A biologist has prepared a memorandum that finds the buffer and water quality measures are sufficient for the protection of the resource. The City is tasked with protecting public views, and Cliff Drive Park is designated as a coastal view. A visual simulation depicts the view of the project site from Cliff Drive Park. Associate Planner Nova went on to indicate that public comments suggest the project is inconsistent with General Plan policies. Staffs review concludes that the project is consistent with existing development in the Mariners' Village area. Removal of tandem parking strengthens the application and ensures the existing parking configuration is easy to maintain and enforce. The Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework encourages development of common parking lots because a number of uses in Mariners' Mile have high parking requirements. Conditions of Approval Nos. 3 through 7 impose requirements on lighting and allow the Director of Community Development to reduce lighting onsite if staff receives a complaint about lighting. The Planning Commission may impose additional conditions of approval. Because a use generates traffic, staff analyzes parking requirements and traffic trips related to the use (not the presence of parking). The Public Works Department has reviewed the driveway along Riverside Avenue and feels the design is appropriate. The applicant has reduced the slope and increased the width of the ramp and relocated the driveway further south of the existing location, all of which will improve the visibility of pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles. The Planning Commission may consider the amount of vegetation screening the buffer, the trellis proposed for the upper level of the structure, limiting hours of operation for the upper level or the entire parking structure, and covering the structure. 2 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2019 In response to Commissioner Kleiman's inquiries, Associate Planner Nova advised that staff has discussed the possibility of additional conditions of approval with the applicant. The noise study finds that the project complies with the Noise Ordinance; however, the Planning Commission may add conditions of approval to further buffer the use or alleviate a potential nuisance. The Zoning Code requires a conditional use permit to analyze adequate buffering for a parking structure located adjacent to residentially zoned property. In reply to Chair Koetting's queries, Associate Planner Nova explained that the existing sloping parking lot has two levels, but it is not considered a parking structure because both levels occur on grade and can be accessed through one driveway. Public Works has indicated that placing gates at the entries to the proposed parking structure could cause vehicles to queue in the right-of-way for entry to the parking structure. Staff would have to review the affordability of parking in the area if the applicant proposes to charge for parking on the site since this site is located in the Coastal Zone. Senior Engineer David Keely added that there is no space for vehicles that inadvertently turn into the structure to turn around prior to a gated entry. If the applicant charges for parking, the applicant would have to provide a grace period so that vehicles could turn around inside the structure and exit. The proposed parking structure will be lower than the existing structure. In answer to Vice Chair Weigand's questions, Senior Engineer Keely indicated Riverside Avenue has a double- yellow center stripe, but a vehicle may legally cross a double-yellow stripe to enter and exit driveways. Associate Planner Nova related that the letter referencing the agreement with the neighboring business for alternative parking for the restaurant application can be found on page 434 of the packet. The applicants for the restaurant application and the subject application are different, but the owner is the same. Staff proposed Condition of Approval No. 52 to require a valet operation plan should the applicant propose valet parking in the future. With the large amount of surplus parking, valet parking is a possibility. The lower level of the parking structure is not truly underground but built into the slope of the lot. In response to Commissioner Klaustermeier's inquiries, Associate Planner Nova remarked that enforcing the Noise Ordinance is challenging. Conditions of approval for other projects have required an applicant to cover a parking structure or to limit the operational hours of the upper level of a parking structure. Exterior noise standards in the Noise Ordinance change at 10 p.m. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell clarified that staff utilizes the community Noise Ordinance and other provisions of the Municipal Code regarding loud and unreasonable noise to address noise complaints. Staff believes the hillside will sufficiently prevent noise from reaching the residences. Commissioners Rosene, Kleiman Secretary Lowrey, Vice Chair Weigand and Chair Koetting disclosed communications with the applicant, the applicant's consultant, and/or members of the community. Commissioners Klaustermeier and Ellmore disclosed no ex parte communications. Chair Koetting opened the public hearing. Scott Laidlaw, applicant, reported the conditions of approval as outlined in the staff report are acceptable. The project will further the goals of the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework. The project relates to the immediate commercial context, uses a well-articulated, five-sided approach to design, and relies on enhanced architectural detailing and finishes. The existing building is old, dilapidated, and nonconforming, and the proposed building will be a significant improvement. The proposed building will have significantly less mass and scale. The proposed footprint including parking will be one-third smaller than the existing footprint. Landscaping will increase by 150 percent. Mr. Laidlaw reiterated that the biological study finds that the proposed project will have no potential adverse effect on the Avon Street wetlands. The existing parking structure provides 18 parking spaces on two levels. None of the spaces are covered, and all exit onto Riverside Avenue. The proposed parking structure will move parking spaces away from the residences. A conditional use permit would not be required for a surface parking lot of the same size and access. Mr. Laidlaw noted that the project will not impact Bay and ocean views and will have very little impact to foreground views. The proposed use, even at nighttime, is extremely similar to the use that has been at the location for the bulk of the building's history. In a worst-case scenario, headlights from a vehicle traveling up the ramp would have 3 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2019 no impact on the residences and would be screened from the adjacent parkland by vegetation. The slope, width, and location of the proposed ramp on Riverside Avenue will improve sightlines and increase safety. Mr. Laidlaw clarified that the project does not propose a second parking level. Instead, it proposes to excavate beneath the existing parking level to create parking spaces. Mr. Laidlaw expressed a willingness to consider extending the trellis across the parking area, if the Planning Commission suggests it. The Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework encourages every redevelopment to create a vibrant commercial climate, which actively solicits and promotes local-serving tenants. Parking under current City requirements is needed to support more parking-intensive uses. The surplus parking makes the project a viable commercial use on its own. In answer to Vice Chair Weigand's inquiries, Mr. Laidlaw indicated the 10 metered parking spaces will be maintained. Building tenants will likely utilize onsite parking spaces provided for them. Whether or not cars are allowed to turn across double yellow lines on Riverside Avenue to enter the parking structure is a matter for traffic staff. Senior Engineer David Keely related that metered parking ends at 6 p.m. except in larger beach lots. Meter limits vary throughout the City. In reply to Commissioner Ellmore's query, Mr. Laidlaw stated the intent is not to install gates at either access. In response to Secretary Lowrey's question, Mr. Laidlaw advised that onsite security will monitor overnight parking. In answer to Chair Koetting's inquiries, Mr. Laidlaw related that a portion of the brick wall could be moved back at the upper level. Moving the brick wall at the lower level would create a conflict with the access ramp. At the current time, there are no plans for use of the tandem parking spaces. The six parking spaces could be moved forward so that the drive aisle is wider. If the Commission wishes, a right-hand turn only entrance from Riverside Avenue is acceptable. Susan Hori, applicant's legal counsel, concurred with staff in that the project qualifies for the CEQA Class 32 exemption. The proposed project is smaller in scope with greater buffering for the wetland area than the existing conditions. The noise analysis assumed a worst-case scenario. Noise from the project will not be significant and will not exceed any of the City's daytime or nighttime thresholds. The ambient noise level in the area of the project is already quite high. The restaurant and office building can operate independently. The location of the two uses in the same area is not a reason to require them to be considered together. Different entities own the two properties and are pursuing the planning applications although they share similar managing members. The easement and covenant between private landowners will be addressed privately. Gary Jabara, property owner's representative, recalled prior renovation of The Garden Shopping Center in the area of the project. The brick wall at the project site can be moved and additional vegetation planted. The applicant would not oppose a double double-yellow line on Riverside Avenue, if Public Works staff feels it is necessary. Vice Chair Weigand stated that he did not appreciate the comments expressed in a letter from attorneys associated in some manner with the project to residents. Carol Anne Dru remarked that the community has not been allowed to review plans for the entire area. The Planning Commission has denied all prior proposals for parking structures with open rooftops. Charles Klobe asked the Planning Commission to review the office building project with other projects contemplated for The Garden. Daniel Boyd believed a nexus exists between the office building project and the restaurant project. Perhaps the Planning Commission could add a condition of approval to restrict any restaurant's use of the parking. The proposed parking management plan allows all people to use the parking. The developer should have a master plan for development of the area. The driveway on Avon Street should be a right-turn exit only. Lynn Lorenz requested the property owner provide transparency and good communication with neighbors. 4 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2019 Hal Woods noted on-street parking on Riverside Avenue obstructs sightlines for vehicles exiting the parking lot. He supported placing a limit on the operational hours for the upper level of the parking structure. The restaurant project should be considered with the office building project. Troy Pilalas suggested the Planning Commission restrict the hours of operation for parking if the two applications are not considered together. Stephanie Sitzer read from the private agreement regarding air space. Anything greater than 28 feet in height on the project site would encroach into the residents' air space. Perhaps the Planning Commission could require a cover. Jack Staub commented that any kind of interference with the Riverside Avenue access would be a problem. Aaron Ehrlich, legal counsel for four abutting residential property owners, related that the nexus between the two applications is a critical issue. The parking management plan refers to the restaurant utilizing surplus parking in the parking structure. The intent of the project is to fulfill the offsite parking requirement for the restaurant. When projects are integrally related or when one action will change the impacts of a second action, CEQA requires the two to be considered together. Pat Cory supported the development of The Garden and appreciated the goods and services offered at The Garden. Chris Crosson remarked that the applicant is providing one of the nicest projects in Newport Beach. Korbin Duley supported the project because it improves the aesthetics of the community, the tenant mix, and property values. Carmen Rawson suggested a gate be installed at the parking structure's exit. Sue Leal advised that existing restaurant employees park in the neighborhoods. Chris Budnik stated the parking structure will be used to support the restaurant, and the two projects should be tied together. If the restaurant does not need the surplus parking, perhaps the property owner would consider rezoning the office building site to residential. Lowell Anderson commented that the noise study does not address noises other than traffic. He requested the Planning Commission deny the project. Kevin Healey noted the marine layer magnifies sound for residents in Newport Heights, and the noise study may not have considered the marine layer. Tomiko Diavolo related that businesses in The Garden will increase traffic and parking congestion, but the benefits will be worth the trouble. Paul Kohne advised that the area has improved with redevelopment. Egress from the parking structure will be a problem. Ms. Hori reiterated that the proposed parking structure will be at a lower elevation than the existing structure. A number of City policies talk about providing more parking in Mariners' Mile. Limiting hours of operation for the parking structure would also limit the hours of operation of any use that may want the surplus parking. The noise study did consider noises such as beeping, talking, and doors closing. Restaurant owners may negotiate use of the existing parking structure for their employees. The application for 215 Riverside Avenue may be considered separate from the application for a restaurant. The parking management plan was required because of the proposal for tandem parking spaces. Tandem parking has been removed from the project, and the parking management plan is no longer needed. 5 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2019 Mr. Jabara reported he allowed restaurants in the area to utilize the existing parking structure shortly after he purchased the property. He discontinued the policy because of the expenses for security and maintenance. He was not aware of any noise complaints made during that time. The view easement was not listed in the title report for the property, but it will be respected. Chair Koetting closed the public hearing. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell agreed that the need for a parking management plan was eliminated when the proposal for tandem parking spaces was eliminated. The reference to the parking management plan in Condition of Approval No. 2 should be deleted. At Chair Koetting's request, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill explained that the correspondence indicating the restaurant application will not include use of the surplus parking diminishes any nexus between the two projects. Based on that information, the Planning Commission may consider the two projects independently. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell clarified that staff previously stated the Planning Commission could continue the current project until the restaurant project is ready for review. The statement was not a motion, suggestion, or recommendation. After review of all the facts, staff is confident the two projects can be reviewed independently. Associate Planner Nova indicated staff has not proposed any conditions of approval limiting the hours of operation of the parking structure, but the Planning Commission may consider doing so. Condition of Approval No. 2 limits the office building portion of the project to office uses only. Senior Engineer Keely indicated any barriers to accessing the parking structure should be visible to drivers before they turn into the facility. Chair Koetting noted the proposed ramp from the second level will improve the safety of pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists by improving sightlines. The application for the restaurant has not been published or presented to the Planning Commission for review. In response to Vice ChairWeigand's inquiries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported there is nothing prohibiting the Planning Commission from imposing restrictions on the uses that may utilize the parking structure. Fewer restrictions on the parking structure could increase opportunities to provide shared parking for other uses in the coastal zone, which could improve public access. Assistant City Attorney Summerhill clarified that staff is responsible for determining whether an application is consistent with the General Plan and zoning and planning policies. The private easement's grantors and grantees are the only parties to the agreement. The City could be named in a lawsuit regarding the easement, but it is not a concern. Associate Planner Nova indicated a condition of approval limiting the hours of operation of the upper level of the parking structure would be enforced by Code Enforcement. In answer to Commissioner Rosene's queries, Associate Planner Nova related that designating the surplus parking as Code-required parking for a specific use would require a conditional use permit and a parking management plan. The Planning Commission would review the matter in a public hearing. If the surplus parking is not a component of a use's Code-required parking, the Planning Commission would not review the matter. Designating the surplus parking for public use would not require Planning Commission review. At the current time, parking for the separate restaurant use application has not been determined. Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis clarified that staff does not know what the entitlements for the restaurant use will be. The restaurant application could be presented to the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission based on the entitlements. The Planning Commission could call the project for review if it is presented to the Zoning Administrator. In reply to Commissioner Kleiman's question, Associate Planner Nova reported the majority of restaurant and some excursion uses in Mariner's Mile have agreements for offsite parking. During the Mariner's Mile comprehensive plan process, staff sought to formalize these agreements and create a shared and common parking plan for the area, but the plan was not completed. Commissioner Kleiman did not believe an agreement to share the surplus parking would be a concern if the parking structure and restaurant applications were clearly standalone projects. The City would likely not be involved in any issues around the private easement. Limiting the property rights of this applicant is not fair. Reasonable conditions of approval such as requiring an attendant or limiting hours could ease residents' concerns. 6 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2019 Secretary Lowrey supported staffs recommendation. The easement is a private concern. Because he has no expertise in acoustics and sound, he has to trust the opinion of licensed individuals. Condition of Approval No. 17 could include a specific time at which the Planning Commission would review the project to ensure residents' concerns have been addressed. Chair Koetting could support the project with modifications to the conditions of approval to require the brick wall along Avon Street to be moved back at least 3 to 4 feet for additional landscaping, a closing time with barrier for the upper parking level, the tandem parking spaces to be moved forward, and relocation of the bike rack. Vice Chair Weigand proposed conditions of approval prohibiting a left turn into the driveway from Riverside Avenue, restricting parking to office tenants and their guests, and attempting to eliminate after-hours loitering in the parking structure. The upper level could be closed from 9 p.m. to 6 or 7 a.m. Commissioner Klaustermeier questioned whether the Planning Commission is unfairly burdening the property owner by imposing hours of operation and restricting parking to office tenants and guests. Vice Chair Weigand remarked that in the future, the Planning Commission could discuss the intention of the restaurant. Chair Koetting disagreed with restricting parking to tenants and their guests because the office building is small at 2,700 square feet and the area needs parking. Perhaps lighting on the upper level could automatically dim or shut off when the upper level is closed. Mr. Jabara agreed to extend the trellis and installing a barrier for the upper level. An exercise studio may want to utilize the parking structure, and its last class is 8:30 or 9 p.m. Access to the parking structure is currently not restricted. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported the surplus parking could be available for any use in the area. Secretary Lowrey suggested installation of some type of barrier that allows a vehicle to leave when the structure is closed. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell noted revisions to conditions of approval are to provide 4 feet of landscaping between the Avon Street public parking spaces and the building; modify the parking lot layout to move spaces closer to the front wall; limit the use of the upper level between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m.; extend the trellis across the full front of the building; prohibit loitering in the parking lot; require a review six months after occupancy; require security-level lighting only after the parking lot is closed; and delete the reference to the parking management plan in Condition of Approval No. 2. Commissioner Klaustermeier believed closing the parking lot could result in more people parking in the neighborhood. Commissioner Rosene viewed the closing hours as a temporary measure. If the surplus parking can be utilized in another fashion in the future, a conditional use permit will be brought before the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission can place appropriate conditions on the parking at that time. Commissioner Kleiman questioned the need to restrict the hours before that future use is presented to the Planning Commission. Ms. Hori agreed to move the wall and add landscaping; to move the parking stalls; to provide some sort of security to ensure no after-hours loitering; to extend the trellis; and to provide security-level lighting on the upper level. She could agree to prohibiting parking in the upper level at 11 p.m. provided cars parked in the upper level at 11 p.m. are allowed to leave. Mr. Jabara concurred. 7 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2019 Vice Chair Weigand disagreed with allowing vehicles to leave after 11 p.m. as they could create noise at a late hour. Motion made by Secretary Lowrey and seconded by Commissioner Kleiman to approve the staff recommendation and modifications to the conditions of approval as accepted by the applicant; to require a review of the project six months from the date the structure is completed; and to delete the reference to the parking management plan from Condition of Approval No. 2. Substitute Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand to review the office building/parking structure application in conjunction with the restaurant application. Chair Koetting announced the Substitute Motion fails for lack of a second. Secretary Lowrey's motion carried by the following vote AYES: NOES: Koetting, Lowrey, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Kleiman, Rosene Weigand ABSTAIN: ABSENT: The Planning Commission took a short break at approximately 9:35 p.m. ITEM NO. 3 APPEAL OF SHEEHY RESIDENCE CDP (PA2017-179) Site Location: 2495 Ocean Boulevard Summary: An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's July 11, 2019, decision to approve Coastal Development Permit No. CD2017-076 related to the demolition of an existing single-family residence and detached one-car garage, and the construction of a new 6,630-square-foot, single-family residence with an attached 656- square-foot, three-car garage located at 2495 Ocean Boulevard. The proposed development also includes accessory elements such as walls, fences, patios, hardscape, swimming pool, drainage devices and landscaping. The proposed project complies with all applicable development standards and no deviations are requested. The appeal was filed by a neighboring resident. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 -Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2019-029, upholding and affirming the Zoning Administrator's approval of Coastal Development Permit No. CD2017-076. Commissioner Ell more recused himself from the item as the property is located within 500 feet of his primary residence. Chair Koetting announced the request to continue the item to November 21, 2019. Chair Koetting opened the public hearing and received no public comment. Vice Chair Weigand appreciated the parties working to resolve the issues. Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Rosene to continue the item. AYES: NOES: RECUSED: ABSENT: Koetting, Weigand, Lowrey, Klaustermeier, Kleiman, Rosene Ellmore 8 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2019 ITEM NO.4 COTTAGE PRESERVATION CODE AND LCP AMENDMENTS (PA2019-181) Site Location: Citywide Summary: The City is proposing amendments to the Local Coastal Program (Coastal Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan), Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Title 20 (Planning and Zoning), and Title 15 (Building and Construction) to provide an option to preserve traditional beach cottages. Typically, cottages do not provide all the code-required parking and additions are limited to 10 percent of the existing floor area. The amendments would allow larger additions of up to 50 percent or 500 square feet, whichever is greater, of the existing floor area without providing the minimum code-required parking when the project would result in the preservation of the cottage character and building envelope that is representative of traditional development patterns in the City. Eligible projects would also receive relief from a building code valuation threshold requiring building code compliance as new construction. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 21065 of CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060 (c)(2), 15060 (c)(3), and 15378. The proposed action is also exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b )(3) because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2019-033 recommending the City Council approve Code Amendment No. CA2019-006; and 4. Adopt Resolution No. PC2019-034 recommending the City Council authorize staff to submit Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-004 to the California Coastal Commission. Principal Planner Jaime Murillo reported in May 2019, the City Council directed staff to prepare Code amendments in response to community concerns about the loss of cottages and developments replacing cottages. The Code amendments pertain to reducing third floor massing; reducing the height and bulk of single-and two-family development projects within the Multiple Unit Residential (RM) Zoning District; and incentives to preserve cottages. Principal Planner Murillo further reported that staff conducted a community meeting on August 19, 2019, to share proposed amendments. Public comments at the meeting indicated demolishing and building a new home is easier than remodeling a cottage because of existing Code requirements. The community preferred incentives rather than restrictions of property rights to achieve cottage preservation. The community seemed to support allowing increased floor area for nonconforming structures if it resulted in preservation of cottages. Principal Planner Murillo went on to state that the draft amendment defines cottages as existing smaller residential structures that tend to be one or two units and that are representative of traditional development patterns common in Corona del Mar, the Balboa Peninsula, and Balboa Island. Cottages are typically one story but may have a second story at the rear of the structure. The use of cottages has changed from a second home to a primary residence. Cottages typically are nonconforming because they have zero or one parking space, when two parking spaces are currently required. The Zoning Code limits an addition to an existing structure that is nonconforming due to parking requirements to 10 percent of existing floor area, which precludes many remodel projects. The Building Code requires a homeowner to bring the entire structure into compliance with the current Building Code if the cost of a project is more than 50 percent of the replacement value of the structure excluding the land value. Often, demolishing and building a new structure is less expensive than remodeling. Principal Planner Murillo indicated that staff proposes incentives to increase the 10-percent limit to 50 percent for existing nonconforming structures and to exempt cottages from the 50-percent replacement value threshold. The exemption would not apply to structures located in special flood hazard areas. In exchange for the incentives, the front half of the lot would be restricted to a one-story structure no more than 16 feet in height, and the back half of the lot would be restricted to a two-story structure no more than 24 feet in height. Third floors and third-floor decks would not be allowed. A deed restriction would be required for current and 9 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2019 subsequent property owners to maintain the cottage; however, if the property owner decided to redevelop the property in the future consistent with the Zoning Code standards in effect at that time, they would be permitted to demolish the cottage and redevelop the property. Principal Planner Murillo indicates that staff has received comments expressing concerns about allowing expansions for nonconforming structures when the availability of on-street parking is already limited. The remodel project will have to fit within the form-based building envelope proposed, which will constrain the property owner from over-building a site. A great deal of flexibility is needed to achieve preservation of cottages; however, the 50-percent allowance could be reduced. Alternatively, the 50-percent allowance could be maintained, but an addition could be capped at 750 square feet. The total floor area could also be limited to no more than 75 percent of the maximum allowed. As proposed, the amendment could apply to a 10-unit building. Therefore, staff recommends the amendment apply only to single-family duplexes, duplexes, or triplexes. In addition, staff recommends the amendment prohibit short-term rentals through the required deed restriction. Second-floor decks are common amenities throughout Corona del Mar and Balboa Island and should be allowed. Next steps include City Council review of proposed amendments, submission of proposed amendments to the California Coastal Commission for review and approval, and City Council adoption. Vice Chair Weigand expressed concern that cottages in each area of the City are slightly different such that a one-size-fits-all approach to preservation may not be appropriate. He suggested continuing the item so that additional outreach can be conducted with stakeholders and the community. Commissioner Kleiman could not envision a scenario where a property owner would deed restrict his property such that the resale value would be limited. She did not support the amendment as drafted. Presenting the amendment to the Coastal Commission would be a waste of time. In response to Chair Koetting's inquiry, Principal Planner Murillo advised that the architectural style of existing cottages varies. The form is more important than the style of the cottage. The property owner could employ a Mid-Century Modern style as long as the structure complies with the required form and height limit. Principal Planner Murillo explained that compliance with the preservation ordinance would be voluntary. If the property owner wants to redevelop the property compliant with the Code, staff would remove the deed restriction. The deed restriction is intended to prevent a property owner from utilizing the incentives and subsequently proposing a second-story addition at the front of the structure. The deed restriction would run for the duration of the structure. Condominiums are prohibited on Balboa Island. The current Code requires compliance with parking requirements in order to convert existing units to condominiums. Cottages typically do not conform to parking requirements. Chair Koetting opened the public hearing. Charles Klobe believed there is a market for preserved cottages. The community has made no negative comments about the proposed amendment at community meetings. Carmen Rawson expressed concern that the amendments would allow a property owner to add two or three bedrooms to a rental cottage such that there would be multiple tenants and no parking. She wanted the amendments to apply to single-family units only. Ken Rawson related that the primary concern is parking. The proposed amendment will only increase parking congestion. The 50-percent threshold is too much. Parking requirements should be maintained for all but single-family homes. Jim Mosher expressed confusion about the calculation of the limit on floor area. The third exception in the Building Code amendment should be the second exception. He questioned the waiver of Subsections (A)(1) and (A)(2) in the Local Coastal Program amendment. The City is not complying with Section 13515 of the California Code of Regulations as stated in Section 1.5 of the Statement of Facts. Chair Koetting closed the public hearing. 10 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2019 In answer to Commissioner Kleiman's question, Principal Planner Murillo indicated approximately half of the target areas on Balboa Island and portions of the Peninsula are located in special flood hazard areas. Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Ellmore to continue the item to a later date. Chair Koetting felt the SO-percent limit is too high. Amended Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Ell more to continue the item so that staff can draft language applicable to specific areas and reconsider waiving parking requirements for duplexes and triplexes. Vice Chair Weigand recommended staff hold community meetings in each area. Community Development Director Jurjis clarified that staff held a community meeting and presented the issue as a study session before the City Council. The Council directed staff to carve out requirements for cottages and to proceed. AYES: NOES: RECUSED: ABSENT: Koetting, Weigand, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Rosene Lowrey, Kleiman VIII. DISCUSSION ITEMS ITEM NO. 5 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA) Summary: Staff will provide a presentation providing an update regarding the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process. The presentation will include the regional determination made by the State Department of Housing and Community Development and current draft allocation methodology recommended by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Chair Koetting announced the item is continued due to the late hour. IX. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 6 None ITEM NO. 7 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR MATTERS WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA. Community Development Director Jurjis reported the community fair on October 26 will launch the General Plan Update. The new website for the General Plan Update is now available at newporttogether.com. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell noted one item, review of the Newport Auto Center, is scheduled for the November 7 meeting. He suggested scheduling the item to November 21 and canceling the November 7 meeting. The RHNA presentation and the cottage preservation amendments, if ready, can be scheduled for November 21. Community Development Director Jurjis indicated the November 7 meeting will be canceled. Chair Koetting requested a future agenda item to discuss deadlines for submission of documents. 11 of 12 X. ITEM NO. 8 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 2019 Commissioner Ellmore advised that he will not be present for the November 21, 2019, meeting. ADJOURNMENT -10:34 p.m. The agenda for the October 17, 2019, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, October 11, 2019, at 3:56 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, October 11, 2019, at 3:22 p.m. 12 of 12