Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200507_PC_MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes May 7, 2020 6 of 10 Secretary Lowrey agreed with continuing the item and forming an ad hoc committee. He had some concern about property rights and the potential for litigation. Commissioner Klaustermeier expressed some concern that the State would not accept the proposed amendments because of SB 330 provisions. Staff did a good job of addressing loopholes. She wanted to move forward with a recommendation given the amount of public outreach staff conducted. Chair Koetting expressed concern about the proposed amendments complying with SB 330 and agreed with continuing the item. In reply to Chair Koetting's inquiry, Community Development Director Jurjis advised that staff sent questions to the legislative counsel approximately a month prior but has not received a response. He did not know if staff would receive any direction from either legislative counsel or the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Vice Chair Weigand felt staff probably would not receive a response from the State legislative counsel’s office. Motion made by Chair Koetting and seconded by Secretary Lowrey to continue the item to a future date with staff to attempt to obtain feedback from the State and to consider comments from Commissioners. Commissioner Kleiman noted SB 330 imposes a penalty for violation. Her main concern is the ability to enact an amendment that may conflict with State law. In answer to Commissioner Klaustermeier's query, Community Development Director Jurjis understood the item would return to the Planning Commission in 30-45 days. AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Lowrey, Kleiman NOES: Ellmore, Klaustermeier ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Rosene The Planning Commission recessed for a short break. ITEM NO. 3 EXTENSION OF AN AMORTIZATION PERIOD FOR NONCONFORMING SIGNS (PA2019- 184) Site Location: Citywide Summary: Amendments to Section 20.42.140(A) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Section 21.30.065(E) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) to extend an amortization period for nonconforming signs. NBMC currently requires nonconforming signs to be removed by October 27, 2020. These amendments would extend the deadline for the removal to October 27, 2025. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15305 under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3; 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-015 recommending the City Council approve Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2019-007 to amend Section 20.42.140(A) (Nonconforming Signs) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; and 4. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-016 recommending the City Council approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-005 and authorize staff to submit the amendment to the California Coastal Commission to amend Section 21.30.065(E) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2020 7 of 10 Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell reported in October 2005, the City comprehensively updated the Sign Code and adopted a 15-year amortization period for certain nonconforming signs. In October, the Council initiated a Code amendment and suggested extending the amortization period by 3-5 years. The proposed amendment would extend the 15-year amortization period five years to October 27, 2025. Public outreach consisted of requests for comments sent to every property owner and business on whose property a nonconforming sign subject to amortization is located; notices published in the Daily Pilot and on the City website; direct mail notices sent to property and business owners; and emails sent to individuals having expressed interest in the topic. Staff has received written comments from 76 individuals who overwhelmingly support extending the amortization period. The Zoning Code contains a process for declaring a sign a heritage sign, which if approved, the nonconforming sign would become conforming and not subject to removal. The 2005 Municipal Code amendment was subject to a public hearing process, but the process did not include written notice to business and property owners. With the pandemic, businesses are struggling, and requiring them to invest in new signage may not be an appropriate course of action. In response to Chair Koetting's inquiries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that notice was sent to 327 property and business owners, and written comments continue to be received. Since 2005, sign permits have been issued in accordance with the Municipal Code requirements. When a business or property owner applies to change or modify a sign, staff discusses the status of the sign with the business or property owner. The face of a pole sign can be modified during the amortization period if it complies. The City Council did not instruct staff to eliminate the amortization period or to amend the Sign Code through its initiation of the amendment process; although, the Planning Commission may recommend such an action to the Council. In reply to Commissioner Kleiman's questions, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated the Municipal Code contains comprehensive regulations for signage, some of which provide flexibility in design. Since 2005, approximately 25% of nonconforming signs have been removed or corrected. Staff has tools to address illegal signage. The Crab Cooker’s roof sign that was nonconforming would not be allowed to continue and through the Heritage Sign Program process recently considered by the Planning Commission, the sign was allowed. In answer to Commissioner Ellmore's queries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell explained that staff felt a five-year extension is a reasonable time period as some owners became aware of the amortization period in 2020. In addition, the Council suggested three and five years when the amendment was initiated. The Planning Commission could recommend a different timeframe. A longer extension could be valuable because as businesses come and go, nonconforming signs will be removed. However, roof and pole signs probably will not be removed unless their physical condition requires it. In response to Vice Chair Weigand's inquiries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell related that the Planning Commission may discuss and recommend eliminating the amortization process or increasing the extension. Vice Chair Weigand noted the financial impacts of the pandemic on businesses and proposed eliminating the amortization period. Nonconforming signs are likely associated with businesses that have been in the community for a long time. Chair Koetting opened the public hearing. Craig Batley commented that many of the nonconforming signs are 40 and 50 years old and were conforming when they were installed. The Planning Commission should eliminate the amortization period or extend it 10-15 years. Bob Carson indicated the pole sign at 3050-3040 Pacific Coast Highway was legal when it was installed and hoped the Planning Commission would grandfather it. Jim Mosher supported elimination of the amortization program and did not understand the rationale for eliminating signs that are part of the City's heritage. Patricia Langsam, Balboa Peninsula, opposed the construction of very large homes because they are not compatible with Newport Beach's charm. Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2020 8 of 10 Wallace Rodecker, 2823 East Coast Highway, concurred with comments regarding the financial impacts of the pandemic on businesses. He would not have known about the amortization meeting or the hearing if he had not received the notice. He supported eliminating the amortization period. J.C. Clow, The Winery, remarked regarding the inopportune timing of staff's proposal and supported elimination of the amortization schedule. Art Pease, 410 32nd Street, agreed with eliminating the amortization period and allowing attrition to resolve the issue. Seeing no additional speakers, Chair Koetting closed the public hearing. Commissioner Klaustermeier concurred with eliminating or extending the amortization period. Requiring business and property owners to change signs that were conforming at the time of installation is not fair. Attrition will solve the problem. In reply to Vice Chair Weigand's query, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell related that eliminating the amortization period would be fairly easy to accomplish if the Planning Commission wishes to recommend it to the Council. In response to Chair Koetting's inquiries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell recalled staff's desire to address nonconforming signs and raised the issue with the Council in a Study Session. Eliminating the amortization period is different from the Council’s initial thoughts to extend the amortization period, but the Planning Commission may recommend elimination of the amortization requirement to the Council. The Planning Commission may recommend the City Council extend the amortization period. Eliminating the amortization period would not change code enforcement related to illegal signs. At Commissioner Kleiman's request, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell shared photos of nonconforming signs in the City. He also indicated that there is a fee associated with the Heritage Sign Program review. In answer to Commissioner Ellmore's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell explained the enforcement process for nonconforming signage once the amortization period ends. Enforcement is time consuming and staff intensive and could involve litigation. Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Secretary Lowrey to recommend the City Council eliminate the amortization period. AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Lowrey, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Kleiman NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Rosene VIII. NEW BUSINESS: ITEM NO. 4. CITY COUNCIL POLICY K-3 AMENDMENT (CEQA PROCEDURES) REGARDING SB 743 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED POLICY AND PROCEDURES Site Location: Citywide Summary: Senate Bill (SB) 743, signed in 2013, changes the way transportation studies are conducted in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) replaces motorist delay and level of service (LOS) as the new metric for transportation impact determinations in CEQA. The State requires all cities to adopt a VMT policy to include transportation impact thresholds. Public Works staff has prepared a framework for completing a CEQA-level VMT transportation analysis for proposed land development projects and transportation improvement projects.