Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/05/19791MISSIONERS I Regular Planning Commission Meeting MINUTES Place: City Council Chambers 2 Time: 7:30 P.M. w a; D' Date: July 5, 1979 Citv of Newport Beach ROLL CALL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1' 1INDEX Present 1 xI Axix Motion All Ayes otion 1 Ayes Motion All Ayes Motion All Ayes Motion Ayes Abstain Motion Ayes Abstain EX- OFFICIO R. V. Hogan, Community Development Director Hugh Coffin, Assistant City Attorney Robert Lenard, Acting Advance Planning Adminis!tral Michael Ocorr, Senior Planner Don Webb, Assistant City Engineer Glenna Gipe, Secretary Minutes Written By: Glenna Gipe x ELECTION OF OFFICERS x Chairman: Commissioner Paul Balalis First Vice- Chairman: Commissioner Helen McLaughli x Second Vice - Chairman: Commissioner Hal Thomas Secretary; Commissioner Deborah Allen (All votes were unanimous.) of the regular Planning Commission meeltin x lxlilminutes of June 7, 1979 were approved as written. x * x of the regular Planning Commission meetinc x lxliIMinutes of June 21, 1979 were approved as written. x Request to amend a previously approved site plan for a Mutual Savings and Loan facility on the:pro- perty so as to revise the approved plan related to signs. An exception to the Zoning Code is also requested so as to permit a double -faced roof ;sign on the proposed structure. -1- ) r Ttcm Al SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. IT APPROVED CONDI- . TIONALLY 9 0m UI JC f/i July 5, 1979 In MINUTES ROLL CALL I 11 I Jill I INDEX Motion LOCATION: Parcel No. 1, Parcel Map 129 -34 an 35 (Resubdivision No. 582), locate at 3150 East Coast Highway on the northeasterly corner of East Coast Highway and Larkspur Avenue in.Cor ona del Mar. ZONE: C -1 APPLICANT: Q.R.S. Corporation, Los Angeles OWNER: Mutual Savings and Loan Association Pasadena The Public Hearing was opened regarding this item and Mr. Armeda, Senior Vice President of Mutual Savings and Loan Association, appeared before the Planning Commission to state his concurrence with the Conditions as set forth in the Staff Report. Commissioner Thomas posed a question, to which Mr. Armeda explained that at the time the original Site Plan was prepared, presented and heard, it wa not his understanding that they were making that formal and precise an application for a sign ap- proval. Commissioner McLaughlin posed a question regarding the Special Purpose Sign C -2, to which Mr. Armeda replied that it will be blue and white, as all the other signs are. Motion was made that the Planning Commission make the following findings: 1. The proposed signs as modified, are consis- tent with the requirements of Chapter 20.06 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and will not preclude the attainment of General Plan objectives and policies. The proposed signs as modified, will not ad- versely affect the.adjoining. residential area nor affect benefits of occupancy and use of -t-he-Coast Highway frontage. -2- 0 0 July 5, 1979 zr 14N I k 6 iCity of Newport Beach MINUTES 3. The proposed signs as modified, will not ad- versely affect the public benefit derived from the expenditure of public funds spent for the improvement and beautification of the Coast Highway and Larkspur Avenue frontage. 4. The proposed signs as modified promote thh maintenance of superior site location chah- acteristics adjoining a major thoroughfare of city -wide importance. 5. The proposed roof sign exception is necessary to protect a substantial property right, will not be contrary to the purpose of this Chap- ter as herein set forth, and will not be ma- terially detrimental to the health, safety, comfort, or general welfare of persons resid- ing in the neighborhood, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the City. and approve Site Plan Review No. 12, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the roof sign and wall sign shall be in substantial conformance with the plot plan and elevations. 2. That the Special Purpose Sign "C -1" to be lo- cated near the corner of East Coast Highway and Larkspur Avenue shall be limited to an area of 6 sq. ft. per face, shall show only "customer parking ". and a directional arrow thereon and shall be limited to a height of 8'0 ". 3. That the Special.Purpose Sign "C -2" to be lo- cated at the parking area on Larkspur Avenue shall be limited to an area of 6 sq. ft. per face, shall show only "PARKING" and a direc- tional arrow and shall be limited to a helight of 8'0 ". I4. That the Traffic Engineer shall review anid ap prove the location of both Special Purpose Signs. -3- INDEX COMMISSIONERS I July 5, 1979 MINUTES I O WX 1 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX 5. That all remaining conditions of the previous ly approved site plan be met. 6. That the roof sign be limited to its initial proposed square footage of 200 sq. ft. Ayes Noes Commissioner Thomas stated his preference that th original conditions be upheld. Motion was then voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. Request to consider an amendment to Chapter 20.73 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as it .pertains to Condominium Conversions and the consideration of an Environmental Document. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Richard Hogan, Community Development Director, sta ted that this latest version was one in which Staf attempted to incorporate the recent Planning Com- mission decisions on the various items, and to pro vide a comparison between this proposal and the Coastal Commission's proposed Condominium Conver- sion Regulations. Commissioner Haidinger stated his understanding that the flow of logic on Page 4, Section 20.73.25 included that any new condominium project must meet the Zoning and Building Codes and that Sectio 20.73.30 provided that the Planning Commission could modify or waive said standards if they could find the finding of Section 20.73.35, and express- ed his feeling that Item "A" under Section 20.33.3 presented circular logic. Michael Ocorr, Senior Planner, stated that the "Development Standards" are primarily the Build- ing and Zoning Code Standards, to which Commission er Haidinger questioned why Item "A" was there, al ter which Mr. Ocorr again responded that Item "A" was primarily involved because the ordinance was dealing with both new and converted condominiums. -4- Item #2 AMENDMENT NOS APPROVED AS A�FI E 0 July 5, 1979 MINUTES r City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL JINDEX • I� LJ Mr. Hogan stated that should Section 20.73.30 not exist following Section 20.73.25, going dir- ectly to Section 20.73.35, then if the Planning Commission is going to approve a project without waiver, then the findings shown in Section 20.73. would be made and that with the waiver, Section 20.73.30 would apply, allowing only the right to waive it. Commissioner Haidinger expressed his feeling that this Section was not clearly worded. Robert Lenard, Acting Advance Planning Administra- tor, stated that there are four mandatory find- ings listed in Section 20.73.35 and that the first two can be waived through Section 20.73.30 which precedesthat and that the third and fourth find - ings listed on Page 5 are mandatory , the reason for specific referral to the two findings that are eligible to waive. Commissioner Haidinger stated that he would be co fortable with the wording, " . shall make all the following findings: (Findings A & B may be waived if Section 20.73.30 has been invoked .)" Commissioner Beek stated his feeling that these items should not be waived, but should be manda- tory and suggested that Section 20.73.30 be de- leted altogether. Commissioner Haidinger inquired regarding the mea ing of Page 6, Item "B -1 ", to which Mr. Ocorr re- plied that should there be a conversion project where there was evidence submitted to the Commis- sion that 2/3 of the existing tenants wished to exercise their option to purchase, then the Com- mission could find that the effect on displacemen of those people was a minimal effect, or if the proponent for the conversion had evidence that other prospective purchasers were vacating rental units. Regarding Item "B -3 ", Commissioner Haidinger in- quired as to how this would be calculated, to whic Mr. Ocorr replied that using HUD's figures of af- -5- COMMISSIONERS 1 July 5, 1979 n 2 w City of Newport Beach MINUTES ROLL CALL V I I I (i l l (INDEX • fordability for moderate income, rental is such that a person with 4 times that rent as income is considered affordable. Commissioner Balalis inquired whether HUD figures and SCAG figures were the same, to which Mr. Ocorr replied that SCAG used HUD formulas and figures. Commissioner Thomas posed a question regarding the basis of the 200% of the County's median income, to which Mr. Ocorr stated that it was suggested as a wide enough gap between what is considered low and moderate, low being 80% of the median in- come and below and moderate being 81 -120% and that if the target group for availability of conversion is low and moderate income people, then the 200% was suggested as a wide enough gap between the 120% figure in terms of income. Commissioner Thomas then inquired regarding the basis of the 200 %, to which Mr. Hogan stated that • this was an original decision by the Staff and has been retained by the Commission through subsequent discussions. The Public Hearing was continued regarding this item, and Ray Watson, 2501 Alta Vista Drive, ap- peared before the Planning Commission to pose a question regarding an apartment building built prior to Title 24, Energy Code, in that you could have built an all- electric radiant ceiling apart- ment building and under the new code, this is not allowed, and he asked what would be required to allow the radiant ceiling, to which Mr. Hogan sta- ted that Section 20.73.30 would permit that, based on a waiver. Mr. Watson then commented regarding the 200 %, stating his understanding that the idea behind it is that the expensive apartments occupie by affluent or better, that there is no public rea son to restrict their conversion, but either have a very expensive rental for those who can afford it or convert it to very expensive housing for those who can afford it and no public policy is served by doing that,.so they try to find a figure as to where this would come out, and would be very subjective, and that his experience was such that it only partially serves the purpose, the reason r1 COMMISSIONERS July 5, 1979 MINUTES City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL17T= INDEX 0 • being that if you had an apartment building with . very small units, you might have a relatively low rent, but very expensive per sq. ft., as measured, so that it would still be for the affluent; where- as, if you had very large units and had the same rent, it would be low per sq. ft. and could very well be moderate income housing, and may not agree with Section 20.73.40, Item "B -3". He additionall expressed his feeling that the reason to him to have a condominium conversion ordinance would be to cause certain projects presently rentals to be available for those who would not have been able t afford to occupy those units if you didn't allow some change, and that as he reads this proposed ordinance, there is the ability to allow that. Commissioner Allen inquired as to whether the Plan ning Commission had received a copy of the Calif - Drnia State Assembly Housing and Community Develop ment Department Position Paper on Condominium Con- versions, expressing her concern that the action taken by the Planning Commission be amenable to th State Coastal Commission and the State Assembly, to which Mr. Hogan replied that Staff had not received such paper. Commissioner Balalis expressed his feeling that if the Planning Commission proceeds with the pre- sent proposed ordinance and compares it to the suggestions of the Coastal Commission, that the or dinance will be as close as possible to whatever the State comes up with and would require only mi- nor changes, to which Mr. Hogan replied that there are a lot of ordinances like this presently being proposed and that an ordinance can be amended if i is determined at a later date that it should be. Commissioner Thomas inquired as to whether Section 20.73.05 was taken from the Housing Element, to which Mr. Hogan stated that the wording is not ex- act, but the sentiment is in the General Policy statements in the General Plan. Regarding Section 20.73.10, Item "E ", Commissioner McLaughlin commented regarding the exclusion of 4 or less dwelling units, stating her understand- ing that this would exclude 60% of the dwelling -7- COMMISSIONERS July 5, 1979 MINUTES Iwo 34. City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL 117DEX units and stated her preference that all dwelling units be included, to which Commissioner Haidinge inquired of her as to whether her concern related to the absolute number of units surveyed, or ob- taining a mix of all of them, stating that he was agreeable to including developments of 4 or less units in the surveying, but that surveying 75% of those units would be a very large number to surve giving the reliability of sampling methods, and he further stated that he would be comfortable with that amendment, if the 75% were changed to something significantly lower. Mr. Hogan stated that the ordinance covers all units and that the only thing excluded from cover- age is the application of the vacancy rate, which would not apply to developments having 4 or fewer units. Commissioner Beek expressed his feeling that it would be desirable to exclude the 4 or fewer units because you can get a good idea of the vacancy rates by looking only at the larger units and it would also reduce the burden on the Staff. ommissioner McLaughlin stated that she would be illing to go back to the HUD survey. Commissioner Thomas stated his understanding that under the Housing Element preparation, it would be necessary to survey all rental units. Commissioner Allen inquired whether surveying 75% of all the City's rental units exclusive of 4 uni or less would give as accurate a figure as the HUD survey. Mr. Hogan stated in reply that the HUD survey is itself a sample and is not a 100% survey of all rental units in the City, and that according to the information Staff has to date, that the sug- gested survey would be a larger sample than the HUD survey. we Ll • July 5, 1979 MINUTES i � � > City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Allen questioned whether the HUD sur- vey would, however, be more accurate, to which Mr. Ocorr replied that HUD sampled 1,600 units sand that 1,300 of them were in the same complex. In response to a question posed by Commissioner !Beek, Mr. Hogan replied that the Staff would be willing to use the HUD survey, but is only anxious ':to make certain the Commission understands as !nearly as they have the information what the HUD .survey involves. !Commissioner Balalis.inquired as to the number of units that were involved in the 40% figure, to which Mr. Ocorr responded that it would involve ,just over 4,800 units. Motion ,Motion was made that the determination of the va- cancy rate shall be as established by HUD. In response to a question posed by Commissioner • Allen, Mr. Ocorr responded that HUD would run a random survey and publish a survey for the City and that the City would have no say in the method- ology of the survey. Commissioner Thomas inquired as to the reason for HUD's surveys, expressing his feeling that if we are not receiving any block grant money or HUD action, then we cannot expect an accurate survey. Ayes t Straw Vote was then taken on the Motion, which Noes xi x x _M fION FAILED. Motion Motion was made that said vacancy rate shall be as established twice a year, in October and April, by survey of 25% of the City's rental units, exclud- ing developments of 4 or less dwelling units. Commissioner Beek expressed his feeling that there would not.be a great deal of difference in the workload involved between 75% and 25% of the dev= elopments of 5 units or more. Mr. Hogan stated that they could make a two -unit and single -unit dwellings list without much effort however, the problem would be in determining whe- ther they are rentals or not. -9- I ((pp m July 5, 1979 Of t Beach MINUTES • E LJ Mr. Hogan stated that 15% of all rental units in 2 or more unit dwellings would be a possibility. Commissioner Beek addressed the question of sampl- ing 2 or more unit dwellings, expressing hi.s feel- ing that this would yet require going into the R -2 Districts, a major part of the City, and excluding 2 or more unit dwellings would not involve the R -2 Districts and the magnitude of the problem would come down considerably, still giving a clear indi- cation of what the rental situation is in the City' Commissioner Balalis expressed his feeling that this method would eliminate a large number of unit Mr. Hogan then stated that 15% of all dwelling uni would be 1,800 dwelling units, that if 1/3 of them were duplexes, this would involve quite a large number of duplexes, and that surveying units that are 4 or more would provide a much easier kind of sample. Commissioner .Thomas stated his understandin.a that they would have to conduct a rental survey as part of the Housing Element and will at some point have a list. Ayes x x Straw Vote was then taken on the Motion, which Noes x X x xx MOTION FAILED. Motion x Motion was made to determine said vacancy rate as Ayes x YX x xx established twice each year, in October and April, Noes x by a random survey of 15% of all units, upon which a Straw Vote was taken. Commissioner Haidinger stated his preference to eliminating the requirement that existing property meets the new Zoning and Building Codes, which he felt they would not be able to do, and stated his feeling that this would result in a moratorium on conversion projects, regardless of the vacancy. rate. Motion x Motion was made to change the wording on Line 1 of Section 20.73.25 to read, "New Condominium pro- jects, whether- new- projeets- @F- eeAVeps4ons, shall comply with ", and that Section 20.73.30 be revised to read, "The Planning Commission shall -10- • E LJ July 5, 1979 MINUTES � 0 d n i N il City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I I I I I JINDEX • 0 have the right to modify or waive any of the pre- ceding standards if such modification or waiver w4}}- aeh4eve- substant *ably - the- saa+e- eesu ;Se -and will in no way be detrimental to adjacent proper- ties or improvements than will the strict compli- ance with these standards." Commissioner Beek stated his understanding that Section 20.73.30 would cope with those cases in which the previous section works an injustice, and expressed his -feeling that they should con- tinue to control with the building.and zoning standards both new projects and conversions. Commissioner Allen stated that she had difficu.1ty with Section 20.73.30, expressing her feeling tha if the right is given to waive or modify any of the standards in the preceeding Section, that it doesn't make sense to her to set the standards, and she stated her understanding that the right is given to modify the standards under Section 20.73.30 to make them more stringent than they ar elsewhere in the ordinance. Hugh Coffin, Assistant City Attorney; replied that the Section could be read to mean precisely that, but that the intent was not there to say that and that when.dealing with building standards, it,isn' very likely that they could "get away with" in- creasing building standards over and above whalt is allowed or prescribed in the Building Code, and that the Section lessens rather than strengthens the preceding Section. Commissioner Allen stated that she would be more comfortable if Section 20.73.30 were deleted al- together. Commissioner McLaughlin expressed her feeling that she would not be comfortable with removing Section 20.73.30, as there may come an instance where.they may wish to consider a waiver by a majority or super majority, but to hold that there could be no waiver at all, she stated that she would find very stringent, to which Commissioner Allen stated her feeling that requiring a super majority would be a very reasonable way to handle it. -11- COMMISSIONERS1 July 5, 1979 MINUTES � w City of New rt Beach 41 ROLL CALL INDEX Commissioner Cokas expressed his feeling that Sec - tion 20.73.25 and Section 20.73.30 as presently written are very adequate. Ayes Noes Mr. Watson again appeared before the Planning Com- mission to state his understanding that Section 20.73.30 states that you can waive something only if it achieves substantially the same results as without waiving it, which would read that by waiv- ing electric ceilings you would have the same re- sults that you would without waiving it, and that it doesn't give the Planning Commission the lati- tude that appears to be in the ordinance; that the Planning Commission has some reason in this pro- ject how that it will achieve a goal and that goal is worth waiving a Building Code and in conclu- sion, that the way it is now worded would not al- low for this. Mr. Coffin stated that it would depend on how the goal is defined and what the substantially same result is which is being sought, stating his agre ment with Mr. Watson as to the subject discussed, in this Section, stating that there is no clear, precise standard within the Section, but rather the same type of standards used in a Use Permit, achieving substantially the same result as would be achieved if one applied Section 20.73.25 regar ing building and zoning requirements. Commissioner Balalis stated his understanding tha waiving the electric ceiling would be accomplish- ing the same goal as if it had been built from scratch without the electric ceiling. Mr. Watson stated that the Code Section has a re- sult by not allowing one to go all electric and by waiving this requirement how could one achieve the same objective with that Section. traw Vote was then taken on the Motion, which OTION CARRIED. -12- i • July 5, 1979 Of RM MINUTES ROLL CALL INDEX Motion 0 Motion Ayes Noes Motion Ayes Ooes x1x Mr. Hogan informed the Planning Commission that as a result of the previous motion, they had ex- cluded conversions, to which Commissioner Haidin- ger stated his understanding that Section 20.73.4 applies to condominium conversions, to which Mr. Hogan replied that Section 20.73.40 is not a stan dard and doesn't determine what condition the building should be in or whether it has any'park- ing. Commissioner Beek stated his understanding. that all of Section 20.73.35 applies to conversions as well as new projects, to which Mr. Hogan stated that said Section would now necessarily have to be modified, as Paragraph "A" would no longer ap- ply to conversions because it has been taken out of the previous Section, and that the two Sections are now in conflict. Motion was made to include Condominium under Building Standards. Mr. Hogan stated the Staff's concern regarding the fact that the Planning Commission had made the Development Standards apply only to new projects and the fact.that the waiver standards also now apply only to new projects. Commissioner Beek inquired regarding the necessity of both Section 20.73.25 and Section 20.73.35, to which Mr. Ocorr replied that Section 20.73.25 man- dates conformance to the standards and Section 20.73.35 requires the Planning Commission to make the findings and that one refers back to the pre - sent Zoning Code requirements and that Section 20.73.35 must necessarily refer back to Section 20.73.25. tion was then Withdrawn. Motion was made to reconsider the previous Motion that was voted on, upon which a Straw Vote was taken. Motion was made that Section 20.73.25 remain as written, upon which a Straw Vote was taken. -13- m 3�w C July 5, 1979 Of Beach MINUTES ROLLCALLI 111 1111 JINDEX Motion Motion Ayes Noes Ayes Noes Motion sa x Ix Motion was made to revise Section 20.73.30, to wit: "20.73.30 Modification or Waiver of Develo ment Standards. The Planning Commission shall ave t_ e right to modify or waive any of the preceding standards if such modifi- cation or waiver w444- aeh4eve- substapt4a44y the - same- rese4ts -apd will in no way be more detrimental to adjacent properties or im- provements than will the strict compliance with these standards." Amendment to the Motion was made to require a 4/5 vote by the Planning Commission of those present and voting, as follows: "The Planning Commission on a 4/5 vote of those resent and votin sha 1 have the ri g t to mo i fy . . . . , upon which a Straw Vote was taken. Straw Vote was then taken on the Original Motion; which MOTION CARRIED. Motion was made to revise the wording of Section 20.73.35, as follows: "The Planning Commission, or the City Council on appeal, approving any proposed condomin- ium project use permit shall make all of the following findings except these- yerta4n4ng te- 9eve4egrsent- standards;- where- a- med4 €4ea- t4en-er-wa4yer- has - been- spee4 #4ea44y- appfev- ed- tR- aeeerdanee- w4th- Seet4en -2Or7g 38 -e€ th4s- Ghapter+ where Section 20.73.30 has bee In response to a question posed by Commissioner H'aidinger, Mr. Hogan replied that some develop- ments are built on lots which are below .the mini- mum for the zoning area, and finding "B" would al• low those to be converted if an exception were granted and requiring a 4/5 vote would allow the Planning Commission to have adequate control over that. -14- • l__J • COMMISSIONERS July 5, 1979 _ MINUTES 0 0 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL I I I I I I INDEX Ayes Noes Motion Ayes Noes • Motion Ayes Noes Abstain Motion • x Commissioner Beek expressed his feeling that the very small lots with excess units built upon them should not be allowed to be converted to condo!min iums. x Straw Vote was then taken on the Motion, which x x MOTION FAILED. Motion was then made to revise the wording of Sec - x XK x tion 20.73.35, to wit: "The Planning Commission, or the City Council on appeal, approvi "ng any proposed condomin- ium project use permit shall make all of the following findings except these- peri:a4R4R9 te- deve4epmeRt- si:andards,- where- a- med4 €4Ea- t4eR-er-wa4ver- has- 9eeR- spee4 €4ea43y- apprev- ed- iR- aseerdaRse -w4th- See ,t4eR - 29:73:89 -ei€ tk4s- Ghapter= where Section 20.73.30 has bee invoked findings 'A" and "B may be except- ed.-", upon which a Straw Vote was taken. Motion was made to delete the words, of 5 x x:or more existing dwelling units " from Sec - x tion 20.73.40, as used twice in that Section, upon which a Straw Vote was taken. ;Regarding Section 20.73.40, Item "A -1", Commission er Cokas suggested that the rental dwelling unit vacancy rate be equal to or less than 2 %, to which Commissioner McLaughlin suggested 3 %, after which they mutually agreed to 22 %. x 'Motion was made to revise the wording of Section 20.73.40, Item "A -1 ", as follows: "The rental dwelling unit vacancy rate in the City at the time of .the public hearing, is equal to, or less, than 2.5 %." Commissioner Allen expressed her feeling that if it seems that they are well below the 22% figure, that she had difficulty with setting a vacancy -15- COMMISSIONERS July 5, 1979 MINUTES -1 lv$ Ohl 11 kg City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL 111 111 1 INDEX rate that is other than 5% only because she feare that if they unilaterally ignored the Coastal Com mission guidelines, they would set themselves up in a situation where the Coastal Commission may, in fact, think the Planning Commission has ingore their standards and attempt to set the standards for them and as long as they were going to be bel 23-2% to 3% or 5 %, that she would be a lot more com fortable with 5% or with leaving it open to the City Council's discretion, and that she could not support the 2' %. Commissioner Balalis stated his understanding tha 2k% almost means that there would be no conver- sions, and that a 5% figure is a moretorium on conversions, to which Commissioner Allen responde with her feeling that they were leaving themselve open for Coastal Commission ridicule on almost a moot point as long as they were going to more tha likely be below either one. In response to a question posed by Commissioner McLaughlin, Mr. Ocorr stated that he was unsure a to whether the Coastal Commission would change its vacancy rate. Ayes K x x x Straw Vote was then taken on the Motion, which Noes x x M�IbN_U_RRIED. Motion x Motion was made that Section 20.73.40, Item "B -2" be revised to read: "2. Evidence has been submitted that 6we- th4wds E8¢34 one -half (�) of the exist- ing tenants have voted to recommend ap- proval of the conversion; or" Commissioner Thomas stated his opposition to the motion, as he felt that "2/3" is a much more rea- sonable figure than "k ", to which Commissioner Beek agreed. Commissioner Balalis expressed that he had proble with both figures. -16- • July 5, 1979 MINUTES K =rs • City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Ayes Noes Motion • Ayes Noes Motion x Ix Straw Vote was then taken on the Motion, which MOTION FAILED. Commissioner Cokas stated for the record that it seemed to him that the owner of the property shoul have some vote on what he can do with his private property and that this was his reason for support- ing the "h" figure; # of the occupants, if they 'agree, means that the owner gets a vote, which makes it a majority. Motion was made to use the 1175 %" figure in Secti 20.73.40,.Item "B -3 ". Commissioner Thomas asked in what way this figure relates to the annual household income, to which Mr. Ocorr replied that 200% would be.just over $39,000, or $816 per unit would be just a little more than 200 %. Paul Shapiro, 3804 River Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission to ask in what way a va- cant property would be treated under these rules, whether the owner would state what the intended rent is and be taken at his word, or would the Staff necessarily have to make a determination of fair market value rent because, presumably, an owner could empty a building and then say the:rent is anything he wants, to qualify under this exemp- tion. Mr. Hogan responded that the Staff would do its best to determine what the rent had been at the time of the last occupants., and if it had never been occupied, it would be necessary to obtain a market analysis. Straw Vote was then taken on the Motion, which MOTION! CARRIED. Motion was made to revise the wording of Section 20.73.40, Item- "B -3 ", to read: -17- COMMISSIONERS 1 July 5, 1979 MINUTES ROLL CALL Motion Ayes Noes Ayes Noes Motion All Ayes -a r 'w 3 0 W City of Newport Beach x "3. 75% of all rental units within a single project rent at a cost in excess of 50% of the County's median household in- come." Commissioner Allen inquired regarding if we were to get to a situation where it was considered standard for 1/3 of a moderate income family's income to go toward housing, would the ordinance as worded now handle this situation better than the proposed wording, to which Mr. Ocorr replied that the proposed wording would then not-follow the HUD formula for affordability, and if HUD changes the 25% figure, then the only thing that would change automatically would be the new in- come figure, and Mr. Hogan stated that this would produce a high -cost unit. Amendment to the Motion was then made to change the percentage of the County's median household income from 50% to 40% in Section 20.73.40, Item "B -3 ", upon which a Straw Vote was taken. Straw Vote was then taken on the Original Motion, wig MOTION FAILED. Motion was then made to revise the wording of Section 20.73.40, Item "13-3", to read: 113. 75% of all rental units within a single project rent in excess of rates afford- able by HUD standards to tenants whose annual household income exceeds 200% of the County's median household income. ", upon which a Straw Vote was taken. Commissioner McLaughlin inquired whether Section 20.73,40, Item "C -6 ", was possible without estab- lishing a housing authority, to which Commissione Balalis responded that the Coastal Commission has required that on some projects and the deve- loper has found people to buy and maintain them. Commissioner Allen posed a question regarding Item "C -6 ", inquiring if 10% of the units were offered for sale at affordable prices, whether ON! • • C MISSIONERS1 July 5, 1979 MINUTES N N City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX there would be a built -in mechanism for precluding re -sale at non - affordable prices, to which Mr. Hogan replied in the negative. Motion x Motion was made to delete from Section 20.73.40, Item "C -6 ", the phrase, " . . . or offered for sale at prices affordable to persons whose in- come is less than 120% of the HUD median County income, and an adequate method to guarantee sale to such persons has been provided." Commissioner Beek suggested deleting the entirety of Section 20.73.40, Item . "C -6 ", at which time Commissioner Balalis withdrew his motion. Motion x Motion was made to delete Section 20.73.40, Item . Ayes x x x x x "C -6 ", altogether, upon which a Straw Vote was Noes x taken. Abstain Commissioner Haidinger stated his understanding that these findings are only suggested language • if the Planning Commission cares to find it, and doesn't require any mandatory action, to which Mr. Hogan agreed, stating that it means something only if the Planning Commission wishes to apply these findings that would limit the development ii j some way and make the finding that those findings have been met. Motion x Motion was then made to delete Section 20.73.40, Item "C ", altogether. Robert Lenard, Acting Advance Planning Administra for stated that in addition to the reasons stated Item "'C" is also providing the Planning Commissio with findings appropriate relative to Vacancy!Rat which don't appear in the previous Section under "Findings" and specific findings with respect to the three different methods that can be used to waive the Vacancy Rate, which are the first four findings listed in Item "C" and that from there •. on the intent was that the additional five findin (5, 6, 7, 8 and 9) could be applied in.circumstan ces where it was reasonable to apply them, but de leting the whole Section would probably require I • i i i -19- July 5, 1979 MINUTES 1 � w y City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX going back and adding some of the findings to do with Vacancy Rate and Waiver of Vacancy Rate to one of the other Sections. Motion Ayes Noes Commissioner Beek stated his understanding that the motion meant that nothing would be done re- garding the fixed income elderly, handicapped per• sons, existing tenants remaining and tenants exer• cising option to purchase. Commissioner Balalis again stated that the mechan ism to administer the rules must be set up before making the rules. Commissioner Allen stated that these are just sug- gested findings that offer guidelines for the de- veloper and other than taking a little bit more paper space, she had no objection to leaving them in, as the Planning Commission was not mandated to make the findings or approve or disapprove a project on the basis of them, and she further sta- ted her particular concern with Number 5 and Num- ber 7, that they give an indication to the appli- cant of considerations that the Planning Commis- sion might consider.. Motion was then withdrawn. Regarding Section 20.73.40, Item "C -7"; Commis- sioner Cokas stated that he might consider one year, whereas Commissioner McLaughlin responded that one year would be too long, and Commissioner Beek stated his preference to 3 -4 years. Motion was made that Section 20.73.40; Item "C -7" be revised to read: "7. That existing tenants (whose income is below 120% of the County's mean income) will be permitted to remain as renters for a period of one year. ", upon which a Straw Vote was taken,. -20- • • COMMISSIONERS July 5, 1979 MINUTES F City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL III JINDEX Motion x Motion was made that Section 20.73.40, Item "C -8 ", Ayes x x x A be revised to read: Noes X x "8. That a minimum of 30% of existing tenant have expressed written interest in exer- cising their option to purchase a conver ted unit within the project. ", upon which a Straw Vote was taken. Commissioner Beek expressed his concern.regarding Item "C -8 ", stating his feeling that there should be something in said item in reference to state law as stating that they have to have this option which cannot be withdrawn, because they might ex- press an interest, have.the item approved and then the owner might not offer an option, due to the interest. Mr. Coffin replied by stating that this is mandat- ed by the Subdivision Map Act, as well as the op- tion to purchase and notice of intent to convert, that under State Law, the existing tenants are gi- ven an option for 60 days to purchase a unit at : :the same price or term that will be initially of- fere.d to the public, or terms more favorable to !the tenant. Motion x ;Motion was made to further revise Section 20.73.40 All Ayes Item "C -9 ", to read: "8. That a minimum of 30% of existing tenant have expressed written interest in.exer- cising their option to purchase a canver ted unit within the project at the price offered. ", iupon which a Straw Vote was taken. Commissioner Thomas expressed his feeling that thi would help anyone in an attempt to determine what ;was happening if they were being converted out as :they might not be aware of what the Map Act says, but could read the local Ordinance. • ; I -21- ; COMMISSIONERS I July 5, 1979 MINUTES �m M Beach ROLL CALL I I I I I I I I I INDEX Motion All Ayes Motion Motion was made to delete Section 20.73.40, Item "C -9 ", upon which a Straw Vote was taken. Commissioner Beek suggested removing Section 20.73.40, Item "B -i", to which Mr. Ocorr replied that this item was intended so that the Planning Commission could make findings based on the pecu- larities of a given application where a large num- ber of renters are going to buy into the project and therefore are not looking for more rentals, or there is evidence submitted that other people from other rental units are going to buy into the pro- ject and that would effectively show that the rent ers were leaving the market but the units weren't and it would be a minimizing factor. Commissioner Thomas posed a question regarding the sampling of rental units to determine vacancy rate whether each unit in a project would be considered to which Mr. Ocorr replied in the affirmative. Motion was made that the Planning Commission ap- prove Amendment No. 529, Condominiums and Condo- minium Conversions, as amended, and recommend to the City Council that they adopt same. Commissioner Beek expressed his lack of confiden that the result of this would be satisfactory to the Planning Commission and that possibly there would be further changes. Commissioner Allen inquired whether they had a mechanism for forwarding to the City Council some of the Planning Commission's various concerns, to which Commissioner Balalis replied that the City Council receives copies of the minutes of the Plan ning Commission meetings, after which Commissioner Allen expressed her concern specifically with the vacancy rate factor and generally with a few other factors. Commissioner Beek requested Planning Commission receive nance as revised to study at the Planning Commission can Council whatever commentary to go with it. -22- of the Staff that the a copy of the ordi- the next meeting and submit to the City would be appropriate r 0 • COMMISSIONERS July 5, 1979 MINUTES r S City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Ayes Noes- 0 0 Commissioner Haidinger stated for the record his feeling that the ordinance as it now stands is a clear and complete moratorium on condominium con- versions and that he would have been wil.ling to vote in favor of some regulation of conversions, but that he is not in favor of a moratorium and that he would oppose the motion. Motion was then voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. Request to consider an amendment to Chapter 20 of Item #3 the Newport Beach Municipal Code as it pertains to required parking for residential uses and the AMENDMENT acceptance of an Environmental Document. IND. 535 INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach JCONTIN- 3uCY79; The Public Hearing was opened regarding this item 1979 and there was no one desiring to appear and be heard. Commissioner Beek inquired whether there was a re- port from Staff on the requirements that we should not have side -yard parking and tandem parking on the same lots, to which Richard Hogan, Community Development Director, replied that the reason was that historically the Planning Commission discusse this at a previous time (at the time the regula- tion was adopted) and there was the feeling that if they allowed two tandem spaces, that it would cause over - crowding of the property. Commissioner Beek expressed the feeling that he was not happy with the situation and that perhaps ;the parking regulations are a.big topic.for which there was not time to discuss that evening, be- cause there are a number of ways in which it is becoming practically impossible for people to cope with 30' lots, which is prevalent in Newport Beach land that the only way a duplex can legally be buil on a 30' lot and provide the required parking spaces is to have two tandem garage spaces (4 cars all in the same garage - 2 in front of the other 2 -23- ROLL CALL Motion Ayes Abstain WISSIONERS July 5, 1979 MINUTES N City of Newport Beach i which he felt was an excessive amount of floor area being used for cars and he suggested that the cars park in tandem in the side yard so that the side yard can become part of the back yard of the property and a fence could be placed around the area so that they are inside the yard, and could possibly consider that the garage be offset into the opposite side yard to make that side yar bigger where the cars would be parking. Mr. Hogan additionally responded that this was, done when 3 parking spaces were required for a du plex and not 4. Commissioner McLaughlin posed a question regard- ing the R -4 District Section of the Ordinance, inquiring whether they were differentiating bet- ween guest rooms and dwelling units, to which Mr. Hogan responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Beek expressed his concern regarding people using new apartments for hotels and the requirement for only half as many parking spaces in such case, to which Mr. Hogan responded that there has never been a problem of that nature. In response to a comment by Commissioner Thomas, Mr: Hogan replied that in cases in which there is a small hotel without any other facilities such as restaurant and dancing, and the only parking requirement there is is for the guest.rooms, then there is usually a parking problem. Commissioner Balalis requested of the Staff addi- tional information and a report regarding a revie of parking requirements for hotels, motels and rooming houses and the effect if the side yard an tandem parking situation were changed. Motion was made that Amendment No. 535 be contin- ued to the regular Planning Commission meeting of July 19, 1979. -24- 0 0 C_UMMIS)NUNLKN July 5, 1979 MINUTES 9 City of Newport Beach ROLL CALL INDEX Request to create one parcel of land so as to per Item #4 mit the construction of a two -unit residential condominium complex on the property. RESUBDI- ISION LOCATION: Lot 8, Block 7, Tract No. 27, loca N0. 634 ted at 3232 Broad Street, on the easterly side of Broad Street be- APPROVED tween Bolsa Avenue and Westminster ONDI- Avenue in Newport Heights. I N LLY ZONE: R -2 APPLICANTS: Albert 0: Rickabaugh and W. A. Couch, Paramount 'OWNERS: Same as Applicants The Public Hearing was opened regarding this item and William Couch, Applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission to state his concurrence with • the conditions as set forth in the Staff Report. .Commissioner Haidinger expressed his feeling that :this application is consistent with the Condominiu 'Conversion Ordinance that the Planning Commission has just passed. Mr. Couch stated that he would provide 2 parking :spaces for each unit. Motion x Motion was made that the Planning Commission make the following findings: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all or- dinances of the City, all applicable general or s.pecific plans and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. ;and approve Resubdivision No. 634, subject to the following conditions: I1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as req- -25- COMMISSIONERS July 5, 1979 MINUTES �0d F City of Newport Beach i ROLL CALL INDEX uired by ordinance and the Public Works De- partment. All Ayes 3. That each proposed dwelling be provided with individual connections to the public water and sewer facilities. 4. That all improvements (curb, gutter, sidewali and pavement) be constructed along the Broad Street frontage. Street improvement plans will be prepared by the Public Works Depart- ment.. 5. That separate electric and gas meters shall be provided for each dwelling unit.. 6. That a minimum of two offstreet parking space (including at least two garage spaces) per dwelling unit shall be maintained for ve- hicular storage. Commissioner Allen inquired whether this 5,450 sq. ft. of land area was standard for a duplex, to which Commissioner Balalis responded that the R -2 lots require 2,000 - 5,000 sq. ft. depending on the area. Commissioner Thomas stated his preference to mak- ing a determination as to whether or not this ap- plication is in agreement with the existing ordi- nance and hold this application until the City Council adopts the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Haidinger stated his understanding that this is in agreement with the proposed ordi- nance. Motion was then voted on, which MOTION CARRIED. Request to create one parcel of land so as to per, mit the conversion of two existing dwelling units on the site into a two -unit residential condomin- ium complex. -26- 0 Item #5 RESUB- DIVISION NO. 622 DENIE July 5, 1979 M MINUTES ROLL CALI.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1INDEX LOCATION: Lot 20, Block 543, Corona del Mar, located at 518 =518 Poinsettia Ave nue, on the southeasterly side of Poinsettia Avenue between Second Avenue.and Third Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ZONE: R -2 APPLICANT: William J. McGee, Newport Beach OWNER: Clodom.iro J. and Betty Rodriquez, Whittier ENGINEER: Same as Applicant Richard Hogan, Community Development Director, co mented that this application differs from the one • previous, because in this instance there is the vacancy rate consideration and the City Council policy that is still in existance as establishing the vacancy rate at 3 %. The Public Hearing was opened regarding this item and William McGee, Applicant, appeared before the Planning Commission to state that they had consi- dered this application 19 weeks ago. Mr. Hogan stated that they had not examined this project in the light of any of the possible excep- tions so that the Staff could not make a recommen- dation as to whether this application would fit an of the exceptions considered by the Planning Com- mission. Commissioner Balalis described the two alternative of continuing the item and disscussing the possibl exceptions with Staff or to receive denial from th Planning Commission and appeal it to the City'Coun cil, to which Mr. McGee stated his preference to a consideration by the Planning Commission at the present time. Motion Motion was made that the Planning Commission make All Ayes the following findings: -27- Z m ON ■00001■ Motion Al L Ayes Motion Ayes Noes Motion Ayes Abstain July 5, 1979 on MINUTES 1. That the request is not consistent with Coun• cil Policy T -1 in that the most recent renta' unit vacancy rate as established by HUD is 1.7 %. 2. That the approval of Resubdivision No. 622 may be premature pending the adoption of amendments to the City's Condominium Con- version Regulations and modifications to the Housing Element of the General Plan. and deny Resubdivision No. 622. 1) Set for discussion at the Study Session on July 19, 1979 and set for Public Hearing at the regular Planning Commission meeting on September 6, 1979, Residential Development Standards for R -1 and oning�t igF1' ay, including the perimeters of Avocado 5th, Buck Gully, Pacific, Ocean and Bay. 2. Request that the City Council adopt an emer- gency ordinance that immediately restricts building permits in excess of proposed stan- dards, pending the proposed ordinance regard• ing said standards. 3. Commissioner Haidinger was excused from the regular Planning Commission meeting of July 19, 1979. There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 10:55 P.M. -28- kj�d P (u& Deborah Allen, Secretary City of Newport Beach Planning Commission r •