Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0_Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments_PA2019-070 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 7, 2020 Agenda Item No. 2 SUBJECT: Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) ▪Code Amendment No. CA2019-004 ▪Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-006 SITE LOCATION: Citywide APPLICANT: City of Newport Beach PLANNER: Jaime Murillo, Principal Planner 949-644-3209 or jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY The City is proposing amendments to Title 20 (Zoning Code) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) revising development standards applicable to single- and two-unit residential development. Generally, the proposed amendments would reduce bulk and mass associated with future residential development by clarifying the definition of gross floor area, regulating covered third floor decks, and expanding the application of third floor and open volume standards to all single-unit and two-unit residential developments constructed in the R-BI and RM zoning districts. Third floor step backs (front and rear) would also apply to lots 25 feet wide or less in the R-2 zoning district. The amendments would not result in the reduction of allowable density on a lot. Furthermore, no changes in overall height limits, allowable floor area, lot coverage, or setbacks are proposed that would lessen the intensity of housing on a site. RECOMMENDATION 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; and 3)Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-013 (Attachment No. PC 1) recommending the City Council approve Amendment No. CA2019-004; and of the proposed amendments to the City Council; and 11 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE22 Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070) Planning Commission, May 7, 2020 Page 2 4) Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-014 (Attachment No. PC 2) recommending the City Council authorize staff to submit Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019- 006 to the California Coastal Commission. INTRODUCTION Background With the adoption of the 2010 Zoning Code Update, changes to residential development standards were made with the intent to streamline the review process while maintaining allowable building envelopes and preserving the character of existing communities. However, changes to height measurement standards and definition of gross floor area have inadvertently resulted in proliferation of covered third level decks and bulkier building designs. Despite measuring the same in terms of enclosed gross floor area, newer development appears larger and at times out of scale with the pre-2010 development. Staff believes it is due in part to unarticulated third floor decks, minimal covered deck openings, and manipulation of attic floor area exceptions. The 2010 Zoning Code attempted to regulate third floor mass and bulk through the use of NBMC Section 20.48.180 (Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria), which includes third floor area limits and third floor step backs for enclosed floor area to provide building modulation. It includes a minimum open volume standard to increase building modulation/articulation on the first or second floors. However, the third-floor limits do not apply to unenclosed covered deck areas or unfinished attics, resulting in building designs with third levels (enclosed and unenclosed) that visually appear larger and bulkier than intended. Furthermore, these standards do not currently apply to the Two-Unit Residential, Balboa Island (R-BI) zoning district, the Multiple Residential (RM) zoning district, and to lots 25 feet wide or less located in the Two-Unit Residential (R-2) zoning district. Figure 1. Examples of third floor mass associated with covered decks 33 Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070) Planning Commission, May 7, 2020 Page 3 As a result of growing community concerns related to the loss of small residential cottages and the bulk and mass associated with new single - and two-unit dwelling developments in the City, the City Council held a study session on April 23, 2019. The City Council directed staff to prepare amendments regulating these concerns (Attachment No. PC3 - Study Session Minutes). Initiation of Code Amendment On May 14, 2019, the City Council initiated portions of subject amendment under Resolution No. 2019-043 (Attachment No. PC4) authorizing staff to investigate code revisions to reduce third floor mass and overall building bulk associated with single-unit and two-unit developments. On May 28, 2019, the City Council initiated the remaining portion of the subject amendment under Resolution No. 2019-045 (Attachment No. PC5) authorizing staff to investigate code revisions to restrict single-unit and two-unit dwellings developed on lots zoned for Multiple Residential (RM) to the development standards applicable to the standards of the Two- Unit Residential (R-2) Zoning District. DISCUSSION Summary of Proposed Revisions The proposed amendments would reduce bulk and mass associated with future residential development as follows and illustrated in more detail further below. A redline/strikeout version of the proposed code revisions is included as Attachment No. PC6. Revisions to Third Floor Standards •Third floor step backs1 would apply to covered deck areas (currently applies only to enclosed floor area). •Third floor sidestep backs would apply to lots 30 feet wide or greater (currently applies to lots wider than 30 feet). •Maximum covered third floor area (enclosed or unenclosed) limited to 50 percent of buildable area. Uncovered deck area would remain unrestricted. •Third floor step back standards (front and rear) would apply to 25 -foot wide or less lots zoned R-2 (currently exempt). Clarification of Gross Floor Area •Unfinished attics with a ceiling height of 6 feet or higher would count as floor area (currently only finished attics count). 1 A step back is an additional offset of a wall of building feature beyond the minimum setback line. 44 Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070) Planning Commission, May 7, 2020 Page 4 •Covered patios, decks, and balconies above the first floor would count as floor area unless completely open on at least two sides, rather than one side. •Carports only open on one side would count as floor area. Single-Unit and Two-Unit Dwellings in the R-BI and RM Zone Third floor and open volume standards applicable to R-1 and R-2 zones would now apply to single- and two-unit dwellings in R-BI and RM zones. Comparison of Pre-2010 and Current Building Height Measurements Prior to the 2010 Zoning Code Update, there were no third floors regulations; however, third floor designs were limited through the method to measure building height in effect at the time. Within the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts, heights are limited to 24 feet for flat roofs and 29 for sloping roofs, and within the RM zone flat roofs are limited to 28 feet and sloping roofs limited to 33 feet. Pre-2010, sloping roofs were required to maintain a midpoint of no higher than 24 feet, which proved difficult to calculate and was further complicated by an allowance to project imaginary roof lines for the purposes of computing allowable midpoints. Post 2010, the Zoning Code eliminated the midpoint measurement sloped roofs in exchange for a requirement that the sloping roof maintain a minimum pitch of 3:12. Pre-2010 Height Measurement Post-2010 Height Measurement Figure 2. Comparison of building height measurements 55 Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070) Planning Commission, May 7, 2020 Page 5 In 2010 with a recognition that building bulk may increase, third floor step backs requirements and maximum third floor area limitations were added in most cases, but not all. Specifically, the enclosed third floor area is required to be stepped back an additional 15 feet from the required front and rear setback line. On lots greater than 30 feet in width, the third floor is required to be stepped back an additional 2 feet from the required side setback lines. Furthermore, the maximum enclosed third floor area is limited to either 15 percent or 20 percent (depending on lot width) of the buildable area of a lot. Buildable area is calculated as lot size minus required setback area. Figure 3 below conceptually illustrated how third floor area is regulated. Figure 3. Current third floor regulations Unfortunately, third floor regulations only apply to enclosed floor area and do not apply to covered unenclosed third floor area. As a result, third floor covered decks, often referred to as loggia or cabanas, have become popular design amenities becoming larger over the years adding to the visual building bulk. These requirements also do not apply to enclosed third floor area within R-BI residential zoning district for Balboa Island, the RM zoning district citywide, or lots 25 feet wide or less within the R-2 zoning district. Proposed Third Floor Change – Application of step backs and coverage limits to third floor covered decks The proposed amendment would apply the third-floor step back requirements to both enclosed and unenclosed third floor area to reduce third floor building bulk. As illustrated in Figure 4 below, the allowed third floor enclosed area would remain the same (illustrated in green shading), but the covered deck area (illustrated in shaded light blue) will be required to observe the 15-foot front and rear step backs and be limited to a maximum 50 percent third floor coverage limit. The coverage limit would be calculated as 50 percent of the buildable area of the lot (lot size minus setbacks) and would include both enclosed area and unenclosed covered third floor deck area. The end result is a third-floor mass 66 Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070) Planning Commission, May 7, 2020 Page 6 that is located closer to the middle of the building farther away from the building edges, reducing the visual mass as viewed from the public streets and alleys. Current Code •Only enclosed area subject to step backs and third floor area limits (green) •No limits on covered decks (blue) Proposed Code •Covered decks subject to step backs •Maximum 50% third floor coverage limit. Figure 4. Comparison of current and proposed third floor regulations Figure 5. Examples of desired outcome Proposed Third Floor Change – Expanded Applicability to Side Step Backs In addition to front and rear step backs, current regulations require that development on lots wider than 30 feet provide additional 2-foot step backs from the required side setback lines on third levels. The intent is to articulate and pull the third leve l mass back away side facades (Figure 6). However, this requirement currently only applies to enclosed floor 77 Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070) Planning Commission, May 7, 2020 Page 7 area and not covered decks. Also, the standard lot width in Corona del Mar, Balboa Island, and in many neighborhoods within the Balboa Peninsula co nsist of 30-wide lots; therefore, this side step back requirement is not typically applied in most new developments. As a result, new three level residential developments lack upper level side articulation. When located adjacent to private property, this has the effect of impacting light and air to the narrow side yards between lots. This lack of articulation is more pronounced and visible when located adjacent to a street. Comparison Outcome No side step back applied 2-foot side step back applied Figure 6. Application of side step back comparison 88 Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070) Planning Commission, May 7, 2020 Page 8 The proposed code change would: •Apply side step back to lots 30 feet wide or greater. With the exception of extremely narrow lots, this would ensure that most new residential development is subject to the side step back requirement. •Apply side step back to both enclosed and covered decks. This would ensure that the covered third level decks are subject to the same articulation requirement. •Exception- Stairs and elevator shafts do not count as floor area on upper levels and would therefore remain exempt from third floor step back requirements. This also minimizes structural and spatial design impacts associated with accommodating side step backs. A good example of this is seen in the lower picture in Figure 6. Figure 7. Examples with no third floor side step backs Figure 8. Examples of desired outcome with side step backs applied Proposed Gross Floor Area Change- Fix the Attic Loophole Both the Zoning Code (Title 20) and the Implementation Plan of the Local Coastal Program (Title 21) of the NBMC primarily regulate building bulk and mass through the application of a floor area limit, which is a ratio of gross floor area to the buildable area of the lot. For example, in Corona del Mar, the maximum allowed floor area of a lot is equal 99 Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070) Planning Commission, May 7, 2020 Page 9 to the buildable area of the lot (lot area minus setbacks) times a factor of 1.5. Gross floor area includes interior finished portion of a structure that is accessible and that measures more than 6 feet from finished floor to ceiling. This is intended to account for large attics that visually add to the bulk and mass of structures. However, since the third-floor regulations only applies to finished areas, the definition does not include unfinished attics, including those with unfinished attics higher than 6 feet. Furthermore, the third-floor step backs previously discussed do not apply to unfinished attics since they are not considered enclosed floor area. As a result, many new developments are designed with large unfinished attics to accommodate mechanical equipment and resident storage needs. Although not intended to be used as habitable floor area, from the street, these structures appear to have large third floors and are visually bulkier than the floor area limits intend (see Figure 9). In some cases, these large attics are illegally converted without permits by future property owners seeking to take advantage of the additional space. The proposed code change would eliminate the word finished from the definition of gross floor area, resulting in any interior portion of a structure with a ceiling height higher than six feet counting towards maximum floor area limits. As illustrated in Figure 10, this would discourage designs with large attics, reducing the visual building bulk of new structures and minimizing future opportunities for illegal attics conversions into livable space. Figure 9 - Bulk associated with large attics Figure 10 - Desired Outcome of Revised Definition 1010 Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070) Planning Commission, May 7, 2020 Page 10 Proposed Gross Floor Area Change- Application to Covered Decks and Carports Prior to the 2010 Zoning Code Update, the definition of gross floor area excluded covered decks, patios, and carports provided they were open on at least sides. Unfortunately, the current definition of gross floor area is silent with respect to covered decks, patios, and carports. As a result, it has been interpreted that absent of any clear code language, covered decks, patios, and carports completely open on one side, or substantially open on two sides, do not count towards gross floor area simply because these areas are not enclosed. The lack of regulation of these features has contributed to increased visual bulk associated with new residential development as follows: •Visually bulky decks and patios •Relocation of patios from front and rear of structure to sides where they are less visible to public •Design is easily enclosed with windows by some owners seeking to increase privacy and comfort by creating an all-weather enclosure. Figure 11. Examples of covered decks and patios designs under current code The proposed code change would revise the definition of gross floor area requiring covered decks, patios, and carports to be at least open on two side s, similar to the pre- 2010 Zoning Code requirements. To ensure that the sides are completely open and not Easy to enclose Bulky design Easy to enclose Less visible side open side open 1111 Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070) Planning Commission, May 7, 2020 Page 11 easily able to be illegally enclosed in the future, the open side of the deck or patio will be required to fully open with the exception of minimal structural supports and required safety railings. The safety railing will need to be constructed of transparent material (except for supports) (e.g., glass, decorative grillwork, wrought iron, latticework, or similar material) so that at least 40 percent of the railing is open with the space between the railing and the structural support above completely open . Examples illustrating compliance with the code revisions are illustrated below. The revised definition would continue to allow first floor outdoor spaces such as patio s and foyers to be open only on one side, given they are less visible to the public and in some case required by code for entry ways facing side yards. Figure 12. Examples of desired openness of covered decks and patios Proposed Applicability Change- Balboa Island A majority of residential lots on Balboa Island are zoned Two-Unit Residential, Balboa Island (R-BI). The R-BI zone is currently exempt from the third floor and open volume regulations contained in the NBMC Section 20.48.180 (Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria). As a result, the existing and proposed aforementioned third floor limits (i.e., step backs, area, and coverage limits) and open volume requirements do not apply. Open above Required open volume moved to front Glass Guardrails Open Guardrails 1212 Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070) Planning Commission, May 7, 2020 Page 12 The proposed code amendment would revise the applicability of Section 20.28.180 to include the proposed new residential development standards within the R-BI zone so they would apply to all new construction on Balboa Island. Proposed Applicability Change- Multi-Unit Residential (RM) Zone The Multiple Residential (RM) zoning district allows for a range of residential density ranging from single-unit dwellings to higher density apartments and condominiums. As a result, the RM zone development standards are designed for higher density development and include a higher height limit of 28 feet for flat roofs and 33 feet for sloped roofs (R-1 and R-2 are limited to 24 feet flat/29 feet sloped) and private and common open space requirements for residents. Typically, RM zoned lots are larger, but there are pockets of RM lots located in Corona del Mar and the Balboa Peninsula that are smaller lots, including 30-foot-wide lots (Attachment No. PC7). On these smaller lots, it is difficult to accommodate current code-required parking (2 spaces/unit + one guest) for a three-unit development, so it is common to see many of these lots developed and redeveloped with single- and two-unit dwellings. In addition to the height benefit of the RM zone, single -unit and two-unit dwellings developed in the RM zone are currently exempt from the third-floor limitations of Section 20. 48.180 (Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria) described above. In other words, a single- or two-unit dwelling can be constructed with three full levels of living area to a maximum height of 33 feet and not be required to provide front, rear, or side step backs to control mass as would normally be required in the R-2 zone. Figure 13. Examples of two-unit development in RM zone with no third floor step backs Initially, the City Council directed staff to prepare amendments that would limit single-unit and two-unit dwellings to the same development standards that would apply in the R -1 and R-2 zones, including the reduced height limit. This potential change resulted in strong opposition from property owners during community outreach . Many of these pockets of smaller RM lots have already been redeveloped, and SB 330 (see expanded SB 330 section of report) precludes the City from changing zoning standards that woul d reduce No 3rd floor area limits No 3rd step backs 1313 Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070) Planning Commission, May 7, 2020 Page 13 the intensity of residential development. As a result, the suggestion to possible reduce height limits for single- and two-family development in the RM zones have been eliminated from the proposed amendments. As currently proposed, the amendments would revise the applicability of Section 20.48.180 (Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria) to only exclude multi- unit developments consisting of 3 or more units within the RM zone. Single- and two-unit dwellings will be required to comply with the aforementioned existing and proposed third floor limitations (i.e., step backs and coverage limits) and open volume requirements in order to enhance third floor building articulation and minimize bulk. The private and common open space requirements applicable to the RM zone are in place to ensure higher density developments include adequate outdoor spaces for the residents of the development; however, these standards are not practical for single-unit and two- unit dwellings. Based on language in the code, staff has interpreted the private and common open space standards as applying only to developments of three units or more. For developments of two units or less, staff has applied the open volume requirements of Section 20.48.180 (Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria), which are intended to provide building modulation and not necessarily useable outdoor living area. The proposed code amendment would include revisions to clarify and codify this existing practice. Proposed Applicability Change- Two-Unit Residential (R-2) lots 25 wide or Less NBMC Section 20.48.180 (Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria) currently exempts lots 25 feet wide or less in the R-2 zone from the third floor and open volume regulations. The rationale was that these lots are already so narrow that the application of additional design limitations would overly constrain the development potential of these lots for two units. Of the 3,791 R-2 lots in the City, 584 of these lots (15%) are 25 feet wide or less. A majority of these lots are located on the Balboa Peninsula and concentrated in between 27th Street and 40th Street (Attachment No. PC8). As a result of input received from the community meeting and in consultation with members of the City’s design community, it has become apparent that new residential development on these lots could benefit from application of the additional 15-foot front and rear third floor step back requirements. Application of these step backs would not constrain the development potential of these lots, but would greatly enhance the aesthetics and visually reduce the upper level bulk. Therefore, the proposed amendments would revise the applicability of Section 20.48.180 to continue to exempt the 25-foot wide lots from the third-floor area limits and open volume requirements, but will now require the application of the 15-foot front and rear step backs. 1414 Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070) Planning Commission, May 7, 2020 Page 14 Proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment (Title 21) Properties located in the Coastal Zone (Attachment No. PC 9) of the City are regulated by the Local Coastal Program (LCP), which is comprised of the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP), a policy document, and the Implementatio n Plan (IP or Title 21), a regulatory document. Any amendments to the LCP must be reviewed and approved by the City Council, with a recommendation from the Planning Commission, prior to submitting the amendment request to the Coastal Commission for review and approval. Although the third floor and open volume regulations contained within NBMC Section 20.48.180 (Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria) don’t exist within the IP of the LCP, the definition of gross floor area does. To ensure that the IP of the LCP maintains the same definition of gross floor area as the zoning code, an amendment to the LCP is necessary. The amendment will also include clarification that the RM coastal zoning district open space standards contained in the IP apply on to multi-unit unit dwellings consisting of three-units are more. For single-unit or two-unit dwellings constructed in the RM coastal zoning district will still be subject to the third floor and open volume regulations contained in the zoning code (Section 20.48.180). Community Outreach On August 19, 2019, the Community Development Department staff hosted a community meeting to share proposed changes to residential design standards. Notice of the meeting was distributed to affected homeowners’ associations, distributed as a Newsplash to interested members of community who have requested notice of important planning and land use activities in the City, and distributed to a list of known designers and architects that work in Newport Beach. The meeting was well attended by 64 members of the public, including design professionals. Included in the discussion were proposed changes to expand third floor step back requirements to covered third floor decks, fix the definition of gross floor area to included finished and unfinished attics measuring more than 6 feet in height, and reducing the height limit of single-unit and two-unit developments constructed in the RM zoning district. The proposed changes related to third floor covered decks were overwhelmingly supported by meeting attendees. The proposal to reduce height limits in the RM zone proved controversial with property owners of RM lots adamantly opposed. General comments in support and recommendations included: •Covered patios and decks are not adequately open on sides, resulting in many property owners illegally enclosing these spaces through the addition of windows. These spaces should be required to be more open and increased code enforcement and penalties needed to discourage illegal enclosures. 1515 Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070) Planning Commission, May 7, 2020 Page 15 •Three story development is negatively impacting the character and charm of historic communities. Third levels should be prohibited or further regulated to minimize bulk and mass. •Third floor limitations should apply to Balboa Island. •Related to covered decks and patios, the determination of open is subjective; more objective standards should be developed. General comments in opposition of modifying RM standards included: •Reducing heights limits for single-unit and two-unit developments in the RM zone would result in unequal application of standards on same blocks. •Single-unit and two-unit development in RM zone is currently desirable due to increased height limits afforded to RM lots (four additional feet). Changing the height limit would result in a financial penalty to property owners by removing this benefit. Furthermore, changing the height limit now will have little impact in some RM blocks as the have already been redeveloped. •Consider applying third floor restrictions, but maintain existing height limits in RM zones. On September 10, 2019, a study session was held with the City Council to share the results of the August 2019 community meeting and proposed code amendments (Attachment No. PC10- Minutes). At the conclusion of the study session, the City Council directed staff to continue working on the amendments, refine the opening requirements for covered decks, and to consider the impacts of SB 330. On March 9, 2020, Community Development Department staff hosted a second community meeting attended by 25 interested members of the public, including design and real estate professionals. The intent of the meeting was to share refinements to the residential design standards and receive further community feedback. Approximately half the attendees voiced their concerns with the amendment citing loss of property values, creation of nonconformities, and government overreach. The other half voiced support for the proposed amendments indicating that they seem to strike a reasonable balance between property values and community issues concerning bulk. In addition to the two community meetings and study sessions associated with these amendments, staff has met or consulted with multiple community members and design professionals familiar with the City’s zoning regulations. Some of these meetings were formal and others informal over-the-counter discussions. These include, Eric Aust (Eric Aust Architect), Mark Becker (Mark Becker Inc.), Chris Brandon (Brandon Architects, Inc.), William Guidero (Guidero Design), Ian Harrison (Ian Harrison Architect), Brion 1616 Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070) Planning Commission, May 7, 2020 Page 16 Jeannette (Brian Jeannette Architecture), Rod Jeheber (R.A. Jeheber Residential Design, Inc.), (Edward Selich, former Mayor and member of Zoning Code Update/LCP Update Committee), Bradford Smith (Bradford C Smith Architect), Mark Teale (Teale Architecture), and Ron Yeo (Ron Yeo Architect). While there were diverse opinions and thoughts, there was near universal agreement that refinement of the development standards should occur. Impact of SB 330 to proposed developments standards On October 10, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 330 – also known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 – aimed to stimulate homebuilding amid the housing shortage in California. The law took effect January 1, 2020, and while it tries to reduce the time it takes to approve housing developments, it also mandated new restrictions further eroding local control of housing. The new law imposes several new restrictions on local agencies, including: 1) suspending the ability to downzone properties, adopt new development standards or change land-use in residential and mixed-use areas if the change results in less-intensive uses; 2) allows developers to request approval of housing developments that exceed density and design controls of the underlying zoning, if the existing zoning is in conflict with the General Plan or a Specific Plan; 3) expedites the permitting process for all housing development and limits the list of application materials that cities can review; and 4) includes increased tenant protections for housing development projects that involve redevelopment of existing residential units, including no net loss in units. As it relates to the subject code and LCP amendments, the concern is SB 330’s restriction on the adoption of zoning amendments that would result in the reduction of allowed density or intensity of land uses than what is allowed under the regulations in effect on January 1, 2018. The law defines “less intensive use” to include, but is not limited to, reductions to height, density, or floor area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size requirements, new or increased setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, or maximum lot coverage limitations, or anything that would lessen the intensity of housing. The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed the draft code revisions and determined that they do not violate SB 330 in that they would not result in the reduction of allowable density (number of units) on a lot, nor result in any changes in overall height limits, allowable floor area, lot coverage, or setbacks that would lessen the allowable intensity of housing site. Each lot will maintain the same allowed height limits, building setbacks, and floor area limits as previously entitled, and the application of third floor and open volume regulations wouldn’t preclude the ability for a homeowner to achieve the same development intensity. For example, a single-unit dwelling constructed in the RM zoning district will retain the ability to develop up to the increased 28-foot flat roof/33-foot sloped roof height limit with no changes in total allowed floor area; however, the difference is that the third floors will now be required to be articulated and covered patios designed to be more transparent. Should a property owner choose to develop a more dense multi-unit development of three units or more on a 1717 Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070) Planning Commission, May 7, 2020 Page 17 RM lot, the project would continue to be exempt from these revised regulations and third floor standards. Environmental Review The action proposed herein is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Section 21065 of CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060 (c)(2), 15060 (c)(3), and 15378. The proposed action is also exempt from the CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Lastly, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15265(a)(1), local governments are exempt from the requirements of CEQA in connection with the adoption of a Local Coastal Program. The Amendment itself does not authorize development that would directly result in physical change to the environment. Public Notice Pursuant to Section 13515 of the California Code of Regulations, a review draft of the LCP Amendment was made available and a Notice of Availability was distributed on April 23, 2020, to all persons and agencies on the Notice of Availability mailing list. In addition, notice of these amendments was published in the Daily Pilot as an eighth - page advertisement, consistent with the provisions of the NBMC. The item also appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Lastly, notice of this amendment was emailed to interested parties that attended the community meeting. Prepared by: Submitted by: ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution - Title 20 Zoning Code Amendments PC 2 Draft Resolution- Title 21 LCP Amendment PC 3 April 23, 2019, City Council Study Session Minutes PC 4 City Council Resolution No. 2019-43 PC 5 City Council Resolution No. 2019-45 PC 6 Redline Strikeout Version of Amendments 1818 Residential Design Standards Amendment (PA2019-070) Planning Commission, May 7, 2020 Page 18 PC 7 Map of Multi-Unit Residential (RM) Lots PC 8 Map of Two-Unit (R2) Residential Lots 25 Feet Wide or Less PC 9 Coastal Zone Map PC 10 September 10, 2019, City Council Minutes PC 11 Planning Commission Correspondence 1919 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE2020 Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution - Title 20 Zoning Code Amendments 2121 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE2222 RESOLUTION NO. PC2020-013 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2019-004 TO AMEND TITLE 20 (PLANNING AND ZONING) OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS (PA2019-070) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1.As a result of growing community concerns related to the loss of small residential cottages and the bulk and mass associated with new single- and two-unit dwelling developments in the City, the City Council held a study session on April 23, 2019. 2.An amendment to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) (“Code Amendment”) of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code (“NBMC”) is necessary to minimize bulk and mass associated with recent development trends. 3.On May 14, 2019, the City Council initiated portions of subject amendment under Resolution No. 2019-43 authorizing staff to investigate code revisions to reduce third floor mass and overall building bulk associated with single-unit and two-unit developments. 4.On May 28, 2019, the City Council initiated the remaining portion of the subject amendment under Resolution No. 2019-45 authorizing staff to initiate code revisions to restrict single- unit and two-unit dwellings developed on lots zoned for Multiple Residential (RM) to the development standards applicable to the standards of the Two -Unit Residential (R-2) Zoning District. 5.On August 19, 2019, Community Development Department staff hosted a community meeting attended by 64 interested members of the public, including design professionals. The intent of the meeting was to share proposed changes to residential design standards and receive community feedback. 6.On September 10, 2019, the City Council held a study session to receive a staff update regarding the status of the amendment proposals, summary of the comments received at the August 19, 2019, community meeting, and to provide staff further direction. 7.On March 9, 2020, Community Development Department staff hosted a second community meeting attended by 25 interested members of the public, including design professionals. The intent of the meeting was to share current refinements to the residential design standards and receive further community feedback. 8.A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on May 7, 2020, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, 2323 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-013 Page 2 of 8 place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the California Government Code Section 54950 et seq. (“Ralph M. Brown Act”) and Chapter 20.62 of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. The action proposed herein is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) in accordance with Section 21065 of the California Public Resources Code and Sections 15060 (c)(2), 15060 (c)(3), and 15378 of the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”). The proposed action is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The Amendment itself does not authorize development that would directly result in physical change to the environment. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. 1.With the adoption of the revisions to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) in 2010 (“2010 Zoning Code Update”), changes to development standards were intended to streamline the review process and simplify the development standards applicable to residential development, while maintaining allowable building envelopes and preserving the character of existing communities. However, changes to height measurement standards and definition of gross floor area have inadvertently resulted in proliferation of covered third level decks. 2.The 2010 Zoning Code attempted to regulate third floor mass and bulk through the use of NBMC Section 20.48.180 (Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria), which includes third floor area limits, third floor step backs for enclosed floor area, and open volume area standards to increase building modulation. However, the third floor limits do not apply to unenclosed covered deck areas or unfinished attics, resulting in building designs with third levels (enclosed and unenclosed) that visually appear larger and bulkier than the code intended. 3.As currently defined, gross floor area excludes unfinished attics with a ceiling height of 6 feet or greater and is not clear with respect to the threshold of what constitutes an enclosed deck or patio. As a result, the bulk and scale of new residential developments appear larger than what the applicable floor area limits intend. In some cases, attics are illegally finished without permits and partially enclosed decks and patios are illegally fully enclosed with windows resulting in structures exceeding allowable floor area limits. Revisions to the definition are necessary to appropriately regulate large attics and partially enclosed covered patios and decks. The proposed changes will also help to discourage unpermitted conversions of these spaces by increasing the visibility and difficulty of modifying these spaces for use as living area. 4.Revisions to the NBMC Section 20.48.180 are necessary to implement the design principles identified in General Plan Land Use Policies LU 5.1.5 (Character and Quality of Single- Family Residential Dwellings) and LU 5.1.9 (Character and Quality of Multi-Family 2424 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-013 Page 3 of 8 Residential). Applying additional step backs to covered third floor decks and requiring additional openings will help articulate the building masses and avoid the appearance of “box-like” buildings. The changes will also improve the architectural treatment visible from public places and improve compatibility of new development with the density, scale, and street elevations of existing communities. Lastly, the changes will help modulate roof profiles to reduce the apparent scale of large structures and to provide visual interest and variety. 5.NBMC Section 20.48.180 (Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria) currently only applies to R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts, but excludes residential dwellings constructed in the RM and R-BI Zoning Districts. As a result, third floor and open volume area standards are not being applied in the Balboa Island residential community or to single-unit and two-unit dwellings constructed on RM lots citywide. Application of these standards, including proposed revisions, to these communities and zoning districts is essential to preserve community character and uniformly regulate bulk and scale. Lots zoned R-2 that are 25 feet wide or less are also exempt. Application of the front and rear third floor step back requirements to these narrow lots will provide improve building scale as viewed from streets and alleys. 6.The amendments would impose new objective standards that regulate bulk and articulation of new single-unit and two-unit dwellings and are in compliance with recent changes in state law (Senate Bill 330, Skinner. Housing Crisis Act of 2019). The amendments would not result in the reduction of allowable density on a lot. Furthermore, no changes in overall height limits, allowable floor area, lot coverage, or setbacks are proposed that would lessen the allowable intensity of housing site. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1.The Planning Commission finds the proposed code amendments are not a projects subject to CEQA pursuant to Section 21065 of Public Resources Code and the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and 15378. The proposed action is also statutorily exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. 2.The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends approval of Code Amendment No. CA2019-004 as set forth in Exhibit “A,” which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 7TH DAY OF MAY, 2020. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 2525 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-013 Page 4 of 8 ABSENT: BY:_________________________ Peter Koetting, Chairman BY:_________________________ Lee Lowrey, Secretary 2626 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-013 Page 5 of 8 EXHIBIT “A” Proposed Code Amendment No. CA2019-004 Related to Residential Design Standards Section 1: Amend Table 2-3 of Section 20.18.020 (Residential Zoning Districts Land Uses and Permit Regulations) of Chapter 20.18 (Residential Zoning Districts (R-A, R-1, R-BI, R-2, RM, RMD)) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, revising the “Open Space” row and adding a “Residential Development Standards” row as follows: TABLE 2-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TWO-UNIT AND MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS Development Feature RM RMD RM-6,000 Additional Requirements Open Space Minimum required open space (applicable to 3 or more units). Common: 75 square feet/unit N/A Common: 75 square feet/unit Single-unit and two-unit dwellings developed on a single site shall comply with Open Volume Area standards of Section 20.48.180 (Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria). Minimum dimension shall be 15 feet. Private: 5% of the gross floor area for each unit. Minimum dimension shall be 15 feet. Private: 5% of the gross floor area for each unit. Minimum dimension shall be 6 feet. Minimum dimension shall be 6 feet. The minimum dimension is for length and width. Residential Development Standards See Section 20.48.180. Section 2: Amend Subsection A of Section 20.48.180 (Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria) of Chapter 20.48 (Standards for Specific Land Uses) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, as follows: 2727 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-013 Page 6 of 8 20.48.180 Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria. A.Development Standards. 1.Applicability. The development standards in this subsection shall apply to all R-1 Zoning Districts, R-BI Zoning District, all R-2 Zoning Districts, and to all RM Zoning Districts Citywide, except as provided in subsection (A)(2) of this section. 2.Exceptions. This section does not apply or shall be limited in its application to: a.R-1-6,000, R-1-7,200, R-1-10,000, RMD, and RM-6000 Zoning Districts; b.Planned community zoning districts; or c.Residential developments consisting of three or more units in the RM Zoning District. d.Limited Application. For lots twenty-five (25) feet wide or less in the R-2 Zoning District, application of this section shall be limited to subsection (A)(3)(c). 3.Third Floor Limitations. a.Allowed Floor Area. The maximum gross floor area that may be located on a third floor shall not be greater than either of the following: i.Fifteen (15) percent of the total buildable area for lots wider than thirty (30) feet; or ii.Twenty (20) percent of the total buildable area for lots thirty (30) feet wide or less. On sloping lots, if the slope of the grade on which the structure is located is greater than five percent, subject to Section 20.30.050(B)(3), the Director shall determine which story is the third story for the purpose of implementing this requirement. For example, on a thirty (30) foot wide lot, if the total buildable area of the lot is two thousand five hundred fifty (2,550) square feet, then the maximum square footage that may be located on the third floor is five hundred ten (510) square feet (two thousand five hundred fifty (2,550) sq. ft. x twenty percent (20%) = five hundred ten (510) sq. ft.). b.Allowed Roof Area. The maximum roof area, enclosed and unenclosed, that may be located on a third floor shall not be greater than fifty (50) percent of the total buildable area. 2828 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-013 Page 7 of 8 c.Location of Third Floor Structure. Enclosed floor area and covered deck area located on the third floor shall be set back a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the front and rear setback lines and for lots thirty (30) feet in width or greater a minimum of two feet from each side setback line, including bay windows. Section 3: Amend the definition of “Floor Area, Gross” of Section 20.70.020 (Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases) of Chapter 20.70 (Definitions) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, as follows: Floor Area, Gross. 1.Single-Unit and Two-Unit Dwellings. a.For single-unit and two-unit dwellings, the following areas shall be included in calculations of gross floor area: i.The area within and including the surrounding exterior walls; ii.Covered decks, balconies or patios above the first floor; iii.Any interior portion of a structure that is accessible and that measures more than six feet from finished floor to ceiling; and iv.Covered parking spaces which are open only on one side. b.The following areas shall be excluded: i.Stairwells and elevator shafts above the first level; and ii. Covered decks, balconies or patios open on at least two sides, with the exception of required safety railings and minimal structural supports. Railings shall be constructed of either transparent material (except for supports) or opaque material (e.g., decorative grillwork, wrought iron, latticework, or similar open materials) so that at least forty (40) percent of the railing is open. 2.Multi-Unit Residential (3+ dwellings), Mixed-Use, and Nonresidential Structures. a.For multi-unit residential, mixed-use, and nonresidential structures, the following areas shall be included in calculations of gross floor area: i.The area within surrounding exterior walls; and 2929 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-013 Page 8 of 8 ii.Any interior portion of a structure that is accessible and that measures more than four feet from finished floor to ceiling. b.The following areas shall be excluded: i.Stairwells and elevator shafts above the first level; ii.Outdoor dining areas associated with an eating and drinking establishment, and iii.Parking structures associated with an allowed use within the same development. 3030 Attachment No. PC 2 Draft Resolution- Title 21 LCP Amendment 3131 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE3232 RESOLUTION NO. PC2020-014 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZE SUBMITTAL OF LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. LC2019-006 TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION TO AMEND TITLE 21 (LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN) OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS (PA2019-070) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1.Section 30500 of the California Public Resources Code requires each county and city to prepare a local coastal program (“LCP”) for that portion of the coastal zone within its jurisdiction. 2.In 2005, the City of Newport Beach (“City”) adopted the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan (“Local Coastal Program”) as amended from time to time including most recently on February 12, 2019, via Resolution No. 2019-16. 3.The California Coastal Commission effectively certified the City’s Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan on January 13, 2017, and the City added Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) (“Title 21”) to the Newport Beach Municipal Code (“NBMC”) whereby the City assumed coastal development permit-issuing authority as of January 30, 2017. 4.The City is considering revisions to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) development standards to minimize the bulk and mass associated with recent residential developments, including limiting the area of third level covered decks and redefining gross floor area. An amendment to Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) (“LCP Amendment”) is necessary to ensure consistency with changes in Code Amendment No. CA2019-004 affecting Title 20 (Planning and Zoning). 5.Pursuant to Section 13515 (Public Participation and Agency Coordination Procedures ) of the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 5.5, Chapter 8, Subchapter 2, Article 5 (“Public Participation”), drafts of LC2019-006 were made available and a Notice of Availability was distributed on April 23, 2020, at least six (6) weeks prior to the City Council public hearing. 6.A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on May 7, 2010, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the California Government Code Section 54950 et seq. (“Ralph M. Brown Act”) Chapter 21.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC and Section 13515 of the California Code of Regulations. 3333 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-014 Page 2 of 5 Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. The LCP Amendment is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) in accordance with Section 21065 of the California Public Resources Code and Sections 15060 (c)(2), 15060 (c)(3), and 15378 of the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”). The LCP Amendment is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Lastly, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15265(a)(1), local governments are statutorily exempt from the requirements of CEQA in connection with the adoption of a local coastal program. The LCP Amendment itself does not authorize development that would directly result in physical change to the environment. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. 1. With the adoption of the revisions to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) in 2010 (“2010 Zoning Code Update”), changes to development standards were intended to streamline the review process and simplify the development standards applicable to residential development, while maintaining allowable building envelopes and preserving the character of existing communities. Many of these development standards were incorporated into Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan). 2. One change that occurred was related to the definition of gross floor area. As currently defined, gross floor area excludes unfinished attics with a ceiling height of six feet or greater and is not clear with respect to the threshold of what constitutes an enclosed deck or patio. As a result, the bulk and scale of new residential developments appear larger than what the applicable floor area limits intend. In some cases, attics are illegally finished without permits and partially enclosed decks and patios a re illegally fully enclosed with windows resulting in structures exceeding allowable floor area limits. Revisions to the definition are necessary to avoid a “box-like” appearance and to appropriately regulate large attics and partially enclosed covered patios and decks. The LCP Amendment will also help discourage unpermitted conversions of these spaces by increasing the visibility and difficulty of modifying these spaces for use as living area. 3. A minor clarification is needed to the Open Space row of Table 21.18-4 (Development Standards for Multi-Unit Residential Coastal Zoning Districts) clarifying that common and private open space requirements only apply to multi -unit residential developments of three units or more. 4. The LCP Amendments shall not become effective until approval by the California Coastal Commission and adoption, including any modifications suggested by the California Coastal Commission, by resolution and/or ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach. 5. The Local Coastal Program and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan), 3434 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-014 Page 3 of 5 including the proposed LCP Amendments, will be carried out fully in conformity with the California Coastal Act. 6. The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are inco rporated into the operative part of this resolution. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission finds the LCP Amendments are not a project subject to CEQA pursuant to Section 21065 of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060 (c)(2), 15060 (c)(3), and 15378. The proposed action is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. Finally, the adoption of local coastal programs are statutorily exempt according to Section 15265(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends submittal of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-006 amending Table 21.18-4 of Section 21.18.030 (Residential Coastal Zoning Districts General Development Standards) and Section 21.70.020 (Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as set forth in Exhibit “A,” which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, to the California Coastal Commission. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 7TH DAY OF MAY, 2020. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY:_________________________ Peter Koetting, Chairman BY:_________________________ Lee Lowrey, Secretary 3535 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-014 Page 4 of 5 EXHIBIT “A” Proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-006 Related to Residential Design Standards (LC2019-006) Section 1: Amend the Open Space row of Table 21.18-4 of Section 21.18.030 (Development Standards for Multi-Unit Residential Coastal Zoning Districts) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to read as follows: Open Space Minimum required open space (applicable to 3 or more unit development). Common: 75 square feet/unit Minimum dimension shall be 15 feet. Private: 5% of the gross floor area for each unit. Minimum dimension shall be 6 feet. The minimum dimension is for length and width. Section 2: Amend the definition of “Floor Area, Gross” of Section 21.70.20 (Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, as follows: Floor Area, Gross. 1.Single-Unit and Two-Unit Dwellings. a.For single-unit and two-unit dwellings, the following areas shall be included in calculations of gross floor area: i.The area within and including the surrounding exterior walls; ii.Covered decks, balconies or patios above the first floor; iii.Any interior portion of a structure that is accessible and that measures more than six feet from finished floor to ceiling; and 3636 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2020-014 Page 5 of 5 iv.Covered parking spaces which are open only on one side. b.The following areas shall be excluded: i.Stairwells and elevator shafts above the first level; and ii. Covered decks, balconies or patios open on at least two sides, with the exception of required safety railings and minimal structural supports. Railings shall be constructed of either transparent material (except for supports) or opaque material (e.g., decorative grillwork, wrought iron, latticework, or similar open materials) so that at least forty (40) percent of the railing is open. 2.Multi-Unit Residential (3+ dwellings), Mixed-Use, and Nonresidential Structures. a.For multi-unit residential, mixed-use, and nonresidential structures, the following areas shall be included in calculations of gross floor area: i.The surrounding exterior walls; and ii.Any interior portion of a structure that is accessible and that measures more than four feet from finished floor to ceiling. b.The following areas shall be excluded: i.Stairwells and elevator shafts above the first level; ii.Outdoor dining areas associated with an eating and drinking establishment; and iii.Parking structures associated with an allowed use within the same development. 3737 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE3838 Attachment No. PC 3 April 23, 2019, City Council Study Session Minutes 3939 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE4040 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session and Regular Meeting April 23, 2019 I. ROLL CALL - 4:00 p.m. Present: Council Member Brad Avery, Council Member Joy Brenner, Council Member Duffy Duffield, Council Member Jeff Herdman, Council Member Kevin Muldoon, Mayor Pro Tem Will O'Neill, Mayor Diane Dixon II. CURRENT BUSINESS SS1. Clarification of Items on the Consent Calendar Mayor Dixon announced she will be requesting that the minutes (Item 1) be continued to the May 14, 2019 City Council meeting. In response to Council Member Muldoon's questions, Public Works Director Webb indicated the contract for Item 7 would need to be modified if organics were to be used and there would be no pesticide usage related to Item 8. Prior to responding to Council Member Brenner's question regarding Item 5, Council Member Muldoon recused himself due to property interest conflicts. City Manager Leung and Public Works Director Webb noted Item 5 is for playground equipment replacement and only new equipment requests need to be discussed at a Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission meeting. SS2. Poppy Month Proclamation Carolyn Whitlinger and Debbie Schubert, American Legion Auxiliary, provided the background on Poppy Month and received the proclamation from Mayor Dixon. Council Member Brenner expressed the importance of Poppy Month. SS3. CASA of Orange County Day Proclamation Stefanie Gillett provided Court Appointed Special Advocate's (CASA's) background, gave pinwheels to each of the Council Members, discussed Foster Care Awareness Month and the CASA Pinwheel Project (CASAoc.org/events), and received the proclamation from Mayor Dixon. SS4. Recognition of Ford W. Fairon Chief Lewis, on behalf of the Police and Fire Departments, commended Ford Fairon for his bravery and heroic actions on January 21, 2019. Ford Fairon thanked the Police and Fire Departments for being our everyday heroes, and received the proclamation from Mayor Dixon. SS5. Potential Changes to Residential Development Standard to Preserve Cottages and Address 3rd Story Massing Community Development Director Jurjis and Principal Planner Ramirez utilized a PowerPoint presentation to display the location map and discuss reasons the City is losing beach cottages, cottage sizes, the number of cottages in the City, standards for Council to study, and the amendment process. Discussion ensued relative to increasing buildable square footage for cottage owners if they maintain a single story, finding incentives to keep the cottages, conducting extensive outreach before any code amendment occurs, streamlining the process, considering amending parking requirements for cottages, and discussed how many cottages have been replaced with larger homes. Volume 64 - Page 84 4141 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting April 23, 2019 Ron Yeo provided a handout, indicated he inventoried the current cottages in Corona del Mar, believed parking is the biggest issue, and expressed hope the City could assist with keeping the cottages in the City. Jerry Jansen, past President of the Balboa Island Improvement Association, expressed support for retaining cottages and allowing them to rebuild in the same or similar footprint without requiring parking. Tanya, cottage owner, indicated she would like to expand a little but cannot due to the parking restrictions. Nancy Arrache expressed concern with setbacks and amending parking standards in high density areas. Mark Becker expressed support for preserving Balboa Island's uniqueness. David Tanner believed parking exceptions should be made to preserve the cottages. Gary Cruz requested and received clarification that redevelopment does not have to be done by the original cottage owner and there is no restriction to the number of people living in a home. Andrew Goetz believed an owner should be able to fix other parts of the home without triggering a complete teardown. Karen Tringali expressed support for the cottage community. Denys Oberman believed parking problems are created by the larger buildings and that this issue should be considered with the City's total housing stock. Regarding residential height and massing, Senior Planner Ramirez utilized a PowerPoint presentation to display a map of high density neighborhoods and discuss the goals of the 2010 code amendments, R-1 and R-2 height and bulk standards, third story covered decks, issues in the RM Zoning District, changes for Council to consider, and the amendment process. Discussion ensued relative to how staircases and vaulted ceilings are counted toward the total square footage, setbacks, third story decks, height and floor area standards in RM Zoning Districts, and design articulation. Ron Yeo discussed third stories and suggested counting covered deck areas as square footage. Mark Becker believed the large envelopes are destroying the intimacy in neighborhoods and provided his recommendations. Vicky Swanson indicated she cannot enjoy her home because the houses next to her are too large and she loses light. Andrew Goetz expressed concern with the wall heights relative to the roof and suggested minimizing the wall area around cabanas or minimizing the amount of ridge area that sits on the lot. Denys Oberman took issue with the 2010 code changes and highlighted confusing terminology. David Tanner requested that any change to the code not make areas worse, questioned how height limits will account for sea level rise, and believed single family homes are being rented as duplexes. Volume 64 - Page 85 4242 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting April 23, 2019 Linda Watkins questioned how a large home was built in a gated community and requested the City tighten the zoning codes. Jim Mosher noted that the code contains a section about ministerial design criteria that applies to all areas of the City and asked how they are being applied. Karen Tringali indicated the City may adjust the code to preserve the nature and qualities of certain neighborhoods. Council indicated that potential considerations moving forward include counting two-story vaulted ceilings, all levels of staircases and anything with a roof as square footage; maintaining the setback that was allowed between multiple lots; ensuring property rights are maintained; revisiting how third story decks are handled with preference of having all sides open; and expediting the simpler issues. With Mayor Pro Tem O'Neill dissenting, the majority of Council requested the City Attorney look into implementing a moratorium on RM Zoning District conversions to single-family homes, believing a standard height limit should be set for all single-family homes. SS6. On -Street Parking Impacts Due to Construction Activities Community Development Director Jurjis and Deputy Community Development Director Ghosn utilized a PowerPoint presentation to provide the background and discuss the public outreach meetings, feedback received, and staff suggestions. Discussion ensued relative to implementing rules only in areas that are most impacted by this issue, not allowing Saturday construction, the importance of code enforcement, determining if all parts of the City would want to utilize the signage, and looking at short term lodging impacts separately. Council Member Herdman expressed his gratitude to staff for the attempt, but felt it best not to move forward with this effort. Nancy Orazi expressed concerns with the number of short term lodging on the Peninsula and Balboa Island, and noted that parking issues are also due to other sources, not just contractors. Jeff Stolrow discussed parking impacts and safety concerns due to construction on Lido Isle. Gary Cruz expressed concerns regarding parking impacts and disturbances due to construction on Newport Island, and requested notification about meetings regarding this issue. Vicky Swanson believed the City should require construction management plans. David Tanner believed short term lodging adds to the parking issues and the City should identify how the code is being gamed. Mayor Dixon indicated short term lodging issues will be coming before Council at a later date. Council unanimously concurred to bring back an item to add a parking enforcement person through AmeriPark for seasonal parking enforcement; Mayor Dixon and Council Members Duffield, Herdman and Brenner concurred that no construction should occur on Saturdays; and all Council Members, except for Council Member Avery, concurred that the restrictions should only apply in high density areas. SS7. City Emergency Council Update The item was continued to a future meeting. Volume 64 - Page 86 4343 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE4444 Attachment No. PC 4 City Council Resolution No. 2019-43 4545 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE4646 RESOLUTION NO. 2019-43 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, INITIATING AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 20 ENTITLED "PLANNING AND ZONING" AND TITLE 21 ENTITLED "LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN" OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO MASSING OF THREE STORY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SMALL BEACH COTTAGES (PA2019-070) WHEREAS, Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Section 20.66.020 provides that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach ("City Council") may initiate an amendment to NBMC Title 20 with or without a recommendation from the Planning Commission; WHEREAS, City Council Policy K-1 entitled "General Plan and Local Coastal Program" requires amendments to the City of Newport Beach certified Local Coastal Program codified in NBMC Title 21 to be initiated by the City Council; WHEREAS, the City Council desires to modify regulations related to third story residential building massing and provide flexibility in certain development standards that may allow more improvements to smaller beach cottages; and WHEREAS, in order to implement the aforementioned modifications, amendments to Title 15, Title 20 and Title 21 are required. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows: Section 1: The City Council hereby initiates amendments to NBMC Title 20 Planning and Zoning" and Title 21 "Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan" to modify regulations relating to nonconforming structures, nonconforming parking, off- street parking spaces required, residential development standards and design criteria and associated definitions of specialized terms and phrases. Modifications to Title 15 may be implemented as authorized by the NBMC. 4747 Resolution No. 2019-43 Page 2of2 Section 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 3: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the substantive portion of this resolution. Section 4: The City Council finds the adoption of this resolution is categorically exempt pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). Section 15262 exempts projects involving feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the agency, board, or commission has not approved or adopted. Section 5: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting this resolution. ADOPTED this 14T" day of May, 2019. Diane B. Dixon Mayor ATTEST: i Leilani I. Brown City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AarorA,C. Harp City Ayorney 4848 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2019-43 was duly introduced before and adopted by the City. Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 14th day of May, 2019; and the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Member Brad Avery, Council Member Joy Brenner, Council Member Duffy Duffield, Council Member Jeff Herdman, Council Member Kevin Muldoon, Mayor Pro Tem Will O'Neill, Mayor Diane Dixon NAYS: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 151h day of May, 2019. 4N Leilani I. Brown , City Clerk Newport Beach, California 4949 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE5050 Attachment No. PC 5 City Council Resolution No. 2019-45 5151 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE5252 RESOLUTION NO. 2019-45 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, INITIATING AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 20 ENTITLED "PLANNING AND ZONING" AND TITLE 21 ENTITLED "LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN" OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SINGLE AND TWO - UNIT DWELLINGS IN MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL (RM), MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL DETACHED (RMD) AND MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL COASTAL (RM) ZONING DISTRICTS (PA2019-070) WHEREAS, Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Section 20.66.020 provides that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach ("City Council") may initiate an amendment to NBMC Title 20 "Planning and Zoning" with or without a recommendation from the Planning Commission; WHEREAS, City Council Policy K-1 entitled "General Plan and Local Coastal Program" requires amendments to the City of Newport Beach certified Local Coastal Program codified in NBMC Title 21 "Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan" to be initiated by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend NBMC Title 20 and Title 21 to modify regulations related to single and two -unit development standards in Multiple Residential Zoning (RM), Multiple Residential Detached (RMD) and Multiple Residential Coastal (RM) Zoning Districts to potentially require those developments to comply with the Single -Unit (R-1) and Two -Unit (R-2) Residential Zoning District development standards related to height, third floor setbacks and third floor square footage limitations. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows: Section 1: The City Council hereby initiates amendments to, Title 20 "Planning and Zoning" and Title 21 "Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan" to modify regulations relating to the development of single and two -unit development in the Multiple Residential (RM), Multiple Residential Detached (RMD) and Multiple Residential Coastal (RM) Zoning Districts. 5353 Resolution No. 2019-45 Page 2 of 2 Section 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 3: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the substantive portion of this resolution. Section 4: The City Council finds the adoption of this resolution is categorically exempt pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, of California Code of Regulations, Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). Section 15262 exempts projects involving feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the agency, board, or commission has not approved or adopted. Section 5: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting this resolution. ADOPTED this 28TH day of May, 2019. Dian B. Dixon Mayor ATTEST: Al Brownowmink, Leilani 1. City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Aaron Harp City Attorney 5454 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2019-45 was duly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 281h day of May, 2019; and the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Member Brad Avery, Council Member Joy Brenner, Council Member Duffy Duffield, Council Member Jeff Herdman, Council Member Kevin Muldoon, Mayor Pro Tem Will O'Neill, Mayor Diane Dixon NAYS: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 29th day of May, 2019. 4u- ov. Leilani I. Brown City Clerk Newport Beach, California 5555 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE5656 Attachment No. PC 6 Redline Strikeout Version of Amendments 5757 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE5858 Proposed Amendments to Residential Design Standards (PA2019-070) April 29, 2020 Version -Response to Community Meeting Revisions illustrated as red underline and deletions as strikeouts Proposed Zoning Code (Title 20) Amendments: 20.18.020 Residential Zoning Districts Land Uses and Permit Requirements. TABLE 2-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TWO-UNIT AND MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (Continued) Development Feature RM RMD RM-6,000 Additional Requirements Lot Dimensions Minimum dimensions required for each newly created lot. Lot Area (1) (2) (3) Corner lot 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. Interior lot 5,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. Lot Width Corner lot 60 ft. 60 ft. 60 ft. Interior lot 50 ft. 50 ft. 60 ft. Lot Depth N/A N/A 80 ft. Site Area per Dwelling Unit Minimum required site area per dwelling unit based on net area of the lot unless the maximum number of units is shown on the Zoning Map. 1,200 sq. ft. (7) 1,000 sq. ft. 1,500 sq. ft. Site Coverage Maximum percentage of the total lot area that may be covered by structures. 5959 TABLE 2-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TWO-UNIT AND MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (Continued) Development Feature RM RMD RM-6,000 Additional Requirements N/A N/A 60% Floor Area Limit (gross floor area) 1.75 (4) N/A N/A Setbacks The distances below are minimum setbacks required for primary structures. See Section 20.30.110 (Setback Regulations and Exceptions) for setback measurement, allowed projections into setbacks, and exceptions. The following setbacks shall apply, unless different requirements are identified on the setback maps in which case the setback maps shall control. (See Part 8 of this title.) Side and rear setback areas shown on the setback maps shall be considered front setback areas for the purpose of regulating accessory structures. Also refer to Section 20.48.180 (Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria). Front: 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Side (interior, each): Lots 40 ft. wide or less 3 ft. N/A 6 ft. Lots 40'1" wide to 49'11" wide 4 ft. 5 ft. 6 ft. Lots 50 ft. wide and greater 8% of the average lot width (5) N/A 6 ft. Side (street side): 5 ft. 6060 TABLE 2-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TWO-UNIT AND MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (Continued) Development Feature RM RMD RM-6,000 Additional Requirements Lots 40 ft. wide or less 3 ft. N/A Lots 40'1" wide to 49'11" wide 4 ft. N/A Lots 50 ft. wide and greater 8% of the average lot width (5) 6 ft. Rear: 10 ft. 25 ft. 6 ft. Lots abutting a 10 ft. alley or less that are directly across the alley from the side yard of a lot abutting the alley shall provide a setback for the first floor of at least 10 ft. from the alley. Abutting Alley 10 ft. wide or less N/A N/A N/A 15 ft. wide or less 5 ft. N/A 15'1" to 19'11" 3'9" N/A 20 ft. wide or more 0 N/A Waterfront 10 ft. N/A Bluff edge setback As provided in Section 20.28.040 (Bluff (B) Overlay District). Bulkhead setback Structures shall be set back a minimum of 10 ft. from the bulkhead in each zoning district. Height (6) Maximum height of structures without discretionary approval. See Section 20.30.060(C) (Increase in Height Limit) for possible increase in height limit. Flat roof 28 ft. 28 ft. 28 ft. 6161 TABLE 2-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TWO-UNIT AND MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (Continued) Development Feature RM RMD RM-6,000 Additional Requirements Sloped roof; minimum 3/12 pitch 33 ft. 33 ft. 33 ft. See Section 20.30.060(C) (Increase in Height Limit) Open Space Minimum required open space (applicable to 3 or more units). Common: 75 square feet/unit N/A Common: 75 square feet/unit Single-unit and two-unit dwellings developed on a single site shall comply with Open Volume Area standards of Section 20.48.180 (Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria). See Section 20.48.180 (Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria) for R-2 open space standards. Minimum dimension shall be 15 feet. Private: 5% of the gross floor area for each unit. Minimum dimension shall be 15 feet. Private: 5% of the gross floor area for each unit. Minimum dimension shall be 6 feet. Minimum dimension shall be 6 feet. The minimum dimension is for length and width. Bluffs See Section 20.28.040 (Bluff (B) Overlay District). Fencing See Section 20.30.040 (Fences, Hedges, Walls, and Retaining Walls). Landscaping See Chapter 20.36 (Landscaping Standards). Lighting See Section 20.30.070 (Outdoor Lighting). Parking See Chapter 20.40 (Off-Street Parking). Satellite Antennas See Section 20.48.190 (Satellite Antennas and Amateur Radio Facilities). Signs See Chapter 20.42 (Sign Standards). 6262 TABLE 2-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TWO-UNIT AND MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (Continued) Development Feature RM RMD RM-6,000 Additional Requirements Residential Development Standards See Section 20.48.180. Notes: (1) All development and the subdivision of land shall comply with the requirements of Title 19 (Subdivisions). (2) Lots may be subdivided so that the resulting lot area and dimensions for each new lot are less than that identified in this table in compliance with the provisions of Title 19 (Subdivisions). The minimum lot size shall not be less than the original underlying lots on the same block face and in the same zoning district. Lot width and length may vary according to the width and depth of the original underlying lots. New subdivisions that would result in additional dwelling units beyond what the original underlying lots would allow are not permitted unless authorized by an amendment of the General Plan (GPA). (3) On a site of less than five thousand (5,000) square feet that existed prior to March 10, 1976, a two- family dwelling may be constructed; provided, that there shall be not less than one thousand (1,000) square feet of land area for each dwelling unit. (4) The total gross floor area contained in all buildings and s tructures on a development site shall not exceed 1.75 times the buildable area of the site or 1.5 times the buildable area of the site in Corona del Mar; provided, that up to two hundred (200) square feet of floor area per required parking space devoted to enclosed parking shall not be included in calculations of total gross floor area. 6363 (5) Interior and street side setback areas are not required to be wider than fifteen (15) feet; however, the side setback area on the street side of a corner lot, where the abutting lot has a reversed frontage, shall not be less than the front setback area required on the abutting reversed frontage . (6) On the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard, the maximum height shall not exceed the elevation of the top of the curb abutting the lot. (7) Portions of legal lots that have a slope greater than two-to-one (2:1) or that are submerged lands or tidelands shall be excluded from the land area of the lot for the purpose of determining the allowable number of units. (8) The floor area of a subterranean basement is not included in the calculation of total gross floor area. (9) The maximum gross floor area for a residential structure is determined by multiplying either 1.5 or 2.0 times the buildable area of the lot. 20.48.180 Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria. A. Development Standards. 1. Applicability. The development standards in this subsection shall apply to all R-1 Zoning Districts, R-BI Zoning District, and to all R-2 Zoning Districts, and to all RM Zoning Districts Citywide, except as provided in subsection (A)(2) of this section. 2. Exceptions. This section does not apply or shall be limited in its application to: a. R-BI, R-1-6,000, R-1-7,200, and R-1-10,000, RMD, and RM-6000 Zoning Districts; b. Lots twenty-five (25) feet wide or less in the R-2 Zoning District; cb. Planned community zoning districts; or c. Residential developments consisting of three or more units in the RM Zoning District. d. Limited Application. For lots twenty-five (25) feet wide or less in the R-2 Zoning District, application of this section shall be limited to subsection (A)(3)(c). 6464 3. Third Floor Limitations. a. Allowed Floor Area. The maximum gross floor area of habitable space that may be located on a third floor or above twenty-four (24) feet in height shall not be greater than either of the following: i. Fifteen (15) percent of the total buildable area for lots wider than thirty (30) feet; or ii. Twenty (20) percent of the total buildable area for lots thirty (30) feet wide or less. On sloping lots, if the slope of the grade on which the structure is located is greater than five percent, subject to Section 20.30.050(B)(3), the Director shall determine which story is the third story for the purpose of implementing this requirement. For example, on a thirty (30) foot wide lot, if the total buildable area of the lot is two thousand five hundred fifty (2,550) square feet, then the maximum square footage of habitable space that may be located on the third floor, or above twenty-four (24) feet in height is five hundred ten (510) square feet (two thousand five hundred fifty (2,550) sq. ft. x twenty percent (20%) = five hundred ten (510) sq. ft.). b. Allowed Roof Area. The maximum roof area, enclosed and unenclosed, that may be located on a third floor shall not be greater than fifty (50) percent of the total buildable area. bc. Location of Third Floor Structure. Enclosed square footage floor area and covered deck area, and enclosed or partially enclosed outdoor living areas, located on the third floor shall be set back a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the front and rear setback lines and for lots greater than thirty (30) feet in width or greater a minimum of two feet from each side setback line, including bay windows. 4. Open Volume Area Required. a. Calculation. Open volume area shall be provided in addition to the required setback areas and shall be a minimum area equal to fifteen (15) percent of the buildable area of the lot. 6565 b. Location. The open volume area may be provided anywhere on the lot within the buildable area and below twenty-four (24) feet from grade. The open air space volume may be provided on any level or combination of levels and may extend across the entire structure or any portion thereof. c. Minimum Dimensions. The open volume area shall meet the following standards: i. Have a minimum dimension of at least five feet in depth from the wall plane on which it is located and a minimum clear vertical dimension of at least seven and one - half feet; and ii. Be open to the outdoors on at least one side. 20.70.020 Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases. Floor Area, Gross. 1. Single-Unit and Two-Unit Dwellings. a. For single-unit and two-unit dwellings, the following areas shall be included in calculations of gross floor area: i. The area within and including the surrounding exterior walls; and ii. Covered decks, balconies or patios above the first floor; iii. Any interior finished portion of a structure that is accessible and that measures more than six feet from finished floor to ceiling; and iv. Covered parking spaces which are open only on one side. b. The following areas shall be excluded: i. Stairwells and elevator shafts above the first level; and iii. Covered decks, balconies or patios open on at least two sides, with the exception of required safety railings and minimal structural supports. Railings shall be constructed of either transparent material (except for supports) or opaque material (e.g., decorative 6666 grillwork, wrought iron, latticework, or similar open materials) so that at least forty (40) percent of the railing is open. 2. Multi-Unit Residential (3+ dwellings), Mixed-Use, and Nonresidential Structures. a. For multi-unit residential, mixed-use, and nonresidential structures, the following areas shall be included in calculations of gross floor area: i. The area within and including the surrounding exterior walls; and ii. Any interior finished portion of a structure that is accessible and that measures more than four feet from finished floor to ceiling. b. The following areas shall be excluded: i. Stairwells and elevator shafts above the first level; ii. Outdoor dining areas associated with an eating and drinking establishment, and iii. Parking structures associated with an allowed use within the same development. 6767 Proposed Local Coastal Program (Title 21) Amendments: 21.18.030 Residential Coastal Zoning Districts General Development Standards TABLE 21.18-4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL COASTAL ZONING DISTRICTS Development Feature RM RM-6,000 Additional Requirements Lot Dimensions Minimum dimensions required for each newly created lot. Lot Area (1)(2): Corner lot 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. Interior lot 5,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. Lot Width: Corner lot 60 ft. 60 ft. Interior lot 50 ft. 60 ft. Lot Depth N/A 80 ft. Site Area per Dwelling Unit (7) Minimum required site area per dwelling unit based on net area of the lot unless the maximum number of units is shown on the Coastal Zoning Map. 1,200 sq. ft. (6) 1,500 sq. ft. Site Coverage Maximum percentage of the total lot area that may be covered by structures. N/A 60% Floor Area Limit (gross floor area) 1.75 (3) N/A Setbacks The distances below are minimum setbacks required for primary structures. See Section 21.30.110 (Setback Regulations and Exceptions) for setback measurement, allowed projections into setbacks, and exceptions. The following setbacks shall apply, unless different requirements are identified on the setback maps in which case the setback maps shall control. (See Part 8 of this Implementation Plan.) Side and rear setback areas shown 6868 TABLE 21.18-4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL COASTAL ZONING DISTRICTS Development Feature RM RM-6,000 Additional Requirements on the setback maps shall be considered front setback areas for the purpose of regulating accessory structures. Front 20 ft. 20 ft. Side (interior, each): Lots 40 ft. wide or less 3 ft. 6 ft. Lots 40'1" wide to 49'11" wide 4 ft. 6 ft. Lots 50 ft. wide and greater 8% of the average lot width (4) 6 ft. Side (street side): Lots 40 ft. wide or less 3 ft. N/A Lots 40'1" wide to 49'11" wide 4 ft. N/A Lots 50 ft. wide and greater 8% of the average lot width (4) 6 ft. Rear 10 ft. 6 ft. Lots abutting a 10 ft. alley or less that are directly across the alley from the side yard of a lot abutting the alley Abutting Alley: 10 ft. wide or less N/A N/A 15 ft. wide or less 5 ft. N/A 6969 TABLE 21.18-4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL COASTAL ZONING DISTRICTS Development Feature RM RM-6,000 Additional Requirements 15'1" to 19'11" 3'9" N/A shall provide a setback for the first floor of at least 10 ft. from the alley. 20 ft. wide or more 0 N/A Waterfront 10 ft. N/A Bluff edge setback As provided in Section 21.28.040 (Bluff (B) Overlay District). Canyon face setback As provided in Section 21.28.050 (Canyon (C) Overlay District). Bulkhead setback Structures shall be set back a minimum of 10 ft. from the bulkhead in each zoning district. Waterfront lots Setbacks on waterfront lots may be increased to avoid coastal hazards through the approval of a coastal development permit. See Sections 21.30.015(D) (Waterfront Development) and 21.30.015(E) (Development in Shoreline Hazardous Areas). Height (5) Maximum height of structures without discretionary approval. See Section 21.30.060(C) (Increase in Height Limit) for possible increase in height limit. Flat roof 28 ft. 28 ft. See Section 21.30.060(C) (Increase in Height Limit). Sloped roof; minimum 3/12 pitch 33 ft. 33 ft. Open Space Minimum required open space (applicable to 3 or more unit development). Common: 75 square feet/unit Minimum dimension shall be 15 feet. Private: 5% of the gross floor area for each unit. Minimum dimension shall be 6 feet. The minimum dimension is for length and width. 7070 TABLE 21.18-4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL COASTAL ZONING DISTRICTS Development Feature RM RM-6,000 Additional Requirements Bluffs See Section 21.28.040 (Bluff (B) Overlay District). Canyons See Section 21.28.050 (Canyon (C) Overlay District). Fencing See Section 21.30.040 (Fences, Hedges, Walls, and Retaining Walls). Landscaping See Sections 21.30.075 (Landscaping) and 21.30.085 (Water Efficient Landscaping). Lighting See Section 21.30.070 (Outdoor Lighting). Parking See Chapter 21.40 (Off-Street Parking). Signs See Section 21.30.065 (Signs). Notes: (1) All development and the subdivision of land shall comply with the requirements of Section 21.30.025 (Coastal Zone Subdivisions). (2) On a site of less than five thousand (5,000) square feet that existed prior to March 10, 1976, a two- family dwelling may be constructed; provided, that there shall be not less than one thousand (1,000) square feet of land area for each dwelling unit. (3) The total gross floor area contained in all buildings and structures on a development site shall not exceed 1.75 times the buildable area of the site or 1.5 times the buildable area of the site in Corona del Mar; provided, that up to two hundred (200) square feet of floor area per required parking space devoted to enclosed parking shall not be included in calculations of total gross floor area. (4) Interior and street side setback areas are not required to be wider than fifteen (15) feet; however, the side setback area on the street side of a corner lot, where the abutting lot has a reversed frontage, shall not be less than the front setback area required on the abutting reversed frontage. 7171 (5) On the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard, the maximum height shall not exceed the elevation of the top of the curb abutting the lot. (6) Portions of legal lots that have a slope greater than two-to-one (2:1) or that are submerged lands or tidelands shall be excluded from the land area of the lot for the purpose of determining the allowable number of units. (7) Density bonuses may be granted for the development of housing that is affordable to lower-, low-, and moderate-income households and senior citizens in compliance with Government Code Sections 65915 through 65917. Any housing development approved pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 shall be consistent, to the maximum extent feasible, and in a manner most protective of coastal resources, with all otherwise applicable Local Coastal Program policies and development standards. (Ord. 2019-1 § 2, 2019; Ord. 2016-19 § 9 (Exh. A)(part), 2016) 21.70.020 Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases. Floor Area, Gross. 1. Single-Unit and Two-Unit Dwellings. a. For single-unit and two-unit dwellings, the following areas shall be included in calculations of gross floor area: i. The area within and including the surrounding exterior walls; and ii. Covered decks, balconies or patios above the first floor; iii. Any interior finished portion of a structure that is accessible and that measures more than six feet from finished floor to ceiling; and iv. Covered parking spaces which are open only on one side. b. The following areas shall be excluded: i. Stairwells and elevator shafts above the first level; and 7272 ii. Covered decks, balconies or patios open on at least two sides, with the exception of required safety railings and minimal structural supports. Railings shall be constructed of either transparent material (except for supports) or opaque material (e.g., decorative grillwork, wrought iron, latticework, or similar open materials) so that at least forty (40) percent of the railing is open. 2. Multi-Unit Residential (3+ dwellings), Mixed-Use, and Nonresidential Structures. a. For multi-unit residential, mixed-use, and nonresidential structures, the following areas shall be included in calculations of gross floor area: i. The surrounding exterior walls; and ii. Any interior finished portion of a structure that is accessible and that measures more than four feet from finished floor to ceiling. b. The following areas shall be excluded: i. Stairwells and elevator shafts above the first level; ii. Outdoor dining areas associated with an eating and drinking establishment; and iii. Parking structures associated with an allowed use within the same development. 7373 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE7474 Attachment No. PC 7 Map of Multi-Unit Residential (RM) Lots 7575 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE7676 7777 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE7878 Attachment No. PC 8 Map of Two-Unit (R2) Residential Lots 25 Feet Wide or Less 7979 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE8080 S A N T A A N AR I V E R J E TT Y N EWP O R T PI ER L I D OPEN I N S U L A LID OISLE BAYIS L AN D H AR BO RIS L AN D L I N D AIS L E N EWP O R TSH O R ES C O L L I N SIS L A N D BAL B OAPI ER F A S H I O N TH E W E D G E WE S T J ET TYEA S T J E TT Y BI G C OR O N A L I TT L EC OR O N A NEW P ORTDUNE S N O R THS T A R B E A C H BALBOA ISLAND I S L A N D Buc k G ully Bi g Ca n y o n H AR BO R EN T R A N C E C H A N N E L B A L B O A ISLAN D C H A N NELL I D O C H A N N E L N E W P O R TWE S T L I D O C H A N N E L TU R N IN G B A S I N P A C I F I C O C E A N HO S P I T AL RDORANGE ST15TH ST W WESTAVEBLVD FIF T H A V E B A L B O A 38TH STRIVERSIDE AV E 28TH STEAST23RD ST15TH ST8TH STB L V D BALB O A BLVD32ND STAVENEWPORTDRVIA L I D O M A R I N E R S DR HIGHWAYPROSPECT STHIGHWAYDOVERDRGALAXYDRCLI F F 16 T H ST 17 T H ST 19 T H ST IRVINESANTACO A S T RDVISTAORO EASTBLUFFBISON FORD R D BLVDCARNATIONAVECENTERDRMACARTHURSA N B ARBARADREASTNEWPORTWESTJAMBOREESANTAMAIN STAGATE AVEBAY SID E DRAVOCAD OAVEGOLDENROD AVEWEST CO A S TSUPERIOR AVEMARGUERITEB L V DMARIGOLDOCEANMARINE AVEPARK AVEPLACENTIA AVEWE S T C L I F F DR POLARISDRS A N PACIFIC V IEW51ST STPA2019_070 - Lot_Width_25_ft_or_Less.mxd City of Newport BeachGIS DivisionMarch 29, 2020 0 0.40.2 MilesI Text Legend R-2 Lots 25 ft or Less (584 - 15%) R-2 Lots greater than 25 feet (3,207 - 85%) Total Lots: 3,791 8181 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE8282 Attachment No. PC 9 Coastal Zone Map 8383 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE8484 TS Banning RanchDeferred Certification Area Newport Coast Segment(Not A Part) RM-C RM-C RM-CRM-C City of Newport Beach, California I Coastal Zone 0 0.45 0.90.225 Miles Legend Local Coastal Plan Boundary City Boundary Coastal Zone Area Coastal_Zone_Featured_Areas.mxd November/2008 8585 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE8686 Attachment No. PC 10 September 10, 2019, City Council Minutes 8787 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE8888 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Minutes Study Session and Regular Meeting September 10, 2019 I. . ROLL CALL - 4:00 p.m. Present: Mayor Diane Dixon, Mayor Pro Tem Will O'Neill, Council Member Brad Avery, Council Member Joy Brenner, Council Member Duffy Duffield, Council Member Jeff Herdman (arrived at 4:03 p.m.), Council Member Kevin Muldoon II. CURRENT BUSINESS SS1. Clarification of Items on the Consent Calendar - None In response to Mayor Dixon's question, City Manager Leung explained the purpose of on-call agreements and contracts, reported staff reviewed the process, and believed it has been updated to improve accountability and reduce future amendments. SS2. Proclamation Designating International Literacy Day Mayor Dixon read the proclamation and presented it to Newport/Mesa ProLiteracy Literacy Coordinator Cherall Weiss and Advisory Board Chair Eve Marie Kuntzman, who provided handouts, invited everyone to attend the International Literacy Day Celebration on September 12, 2019, and relayed positive outcomes as a result of the program. SS3. Check Presentation from the Friends of the Library Amy Hunt, President of the Newport Beach Friends of the Library, and Wendy Frankel, Book Store Manager, presented a check for $185,000 to the City, explained how the funds are generated, and indicated the Friends have donated $3.5 million over the past 14 years. SS4. Community Outreach by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Diane Gonzalez, Community Outreach Specialist, explained what the FBI does for the community, provided literature, assured they want to build partnerships and community awareness, and indicated the FBI has an office in Orange County. SS5. Code Amendment Update Related to Residential Design Standards (PA2019-070) Community Development Director Jurjis and Principal Planner Murillo utilized a PowerPoint presentation to discuss the current regulations and suggestions for third floors and attics, issues associated with the regulations, highlight difficulties associated with beach cottages and proposed incentives and changes, review issues and possible options associated with single -unit and two -unit dwellings in Multi -Residential (RM) zones, and review community input on the three issues. In response to Council questions, City Attorney Harp clarified SB 330 and its possible implications to the City as it relates to buildable square footage, and staff reviewed how the current regulation for decks have been altered to become livable space after inspections, instead of remaining outdoor space, provided background to the 2010 Zoning Code changes, confirmed converting RM property to a single-family dwelling has always been in the Zoning Code, explained current issues with the conversion, and discussed how current parking regulations affect beach cottages. Council Member Brenner emphasized the need to be very specific when dealing with decks. Mayor Dixon believed decks should not be permitted to have walls. Volume 64 - Page 178 8989 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting September 10, 2019 Council Member Avery expressed concern about implementing restrictions in RM zones at this point, indicated requiring step backs might assist with the issue, believed massing is happening due to land values, emphasized surrounding neighbors to these properties need to be able to receive air and light, and noted he is in favor of modifications but keeping the height limit. Council Member Brenner discussed the initial intent and style of buildings in RM zones and emphasized the City has changed the regulations in the past and can do it again since it is the City's job to protect the community. Council Member Duffield explained how permanent residency versus summer residency has changed the makeup of homes over the decades. Allan Beek noted a past Council did not adopt Corona del Mar's development standards, stated concerns with mansionization was brought up during the 2006 General Plan meetings and surveys, believed the City needs to review how it deals with non -conforming uses and suggested they only be allowed for a specific amount of time so the City will not have these issues in the future. Charles Klobe expressed support for all three proposed changes, suggested having local architects advise staff on how to tighten loopholes, and agreed with Jim Mosher's written response to the RM component. Ron Yeo suggested going back to the average 24 -foot roof height to solve the third floor massing issue, took issue that the decks are not compatible with the community, and believed decks should be counted toward the square footage and remain open. Tom Houston believed the charm of the older parts of the City is changing due to the abuses within building law, and discussed massing and building height issues on Balboa Island. Lee Pearl noted beach cottages on Balboa Island that have been passed down to family members are being torn down because they had no option to keep them and cannot meet current building standards to improve them; and thanked the City for addressing the massing issue. Denys Oberman believed decks should remain open with no permanent roof or side pieces, offered to provide Council with the background of the 2010 General Plan, and suggested following the American Planning Association's (APA) principles for heights, setbacks and design standards. Jim Mosher believed SB 330 states the City would not be able to impose design standards after January 2020 unless they are objective, but does not completely restrict the City's authority, discussed sheer walls and how step backs are measured, expressed concern with building single- family homes in the RM zone due to the upcoming requirements to increase the housing count, and believed the City might need to provide incentives to create multi -family dwellings, possibly by making standards looser for multi -family units and stricter for single-family units. Ken Rawson believed the ambiance from the 2000 Zoning Code was better, decks should not have roofs, more code enforcement is needed, expressed concerns with beach cottage parking issues, questioned if the City can restrict beach cottages from turning into short-term lodging, and discussed multi -unit height limits versus single-family height limits. Hoiyin Ip asked if the City could implement sustainability features to create more green buildings, discussed Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers, and highlighted San Clemente's letter to the Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) and how they handled public outreach. Nancy Skinner believed the solution for decks is to not allow any type of enclosure Volume 64 - Page 179 9090 City of Newport Beach Study Session and Regular Meeting September 10, 2019 Larry Tucker disagreed with counting roofed decks as square footage, requested a better definition of "deck" in the Zoning Code, and emphasized the need for code enforcement. Art Pease took issue with how the City changed the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in Corona del Mar, believed property owners have entitlements under the existing Zoning Code, and requested the RM zoning issue be revisited or removed from consideration. Linda Watkins took issue with over -development and increased traffic, suggested Council conduct several study sessions to determine how the 2006 General Plan turned into the current General Plan and Zoning Code. Michael Mack expressed his opposition to changing anything in the RM zone and believed changes would be a taking of property when property owners have entitlements. Joni Martin indicated she does not have a problem with the changes that are occurring in the RM zone around the 1800 block of Ocean Front, noted there is a financial value that comes with RM development standards, believed changing the RM regulations prohibits property owners from building a property that is consistent with the community, noted the small number of properties in RM zones, and indicated 9 of 15 RM property owners she spoke with expressed opposition to changing the regulations and she will be reaching out to as many of the RM property owners as possible. Catherine Martin Wolcott, representing the Martin Family Trust, expressed opposition to any amendments in the RM zone, as they could significantly affect their property values and property rights, believed amendments would not change massing issues since the problem is with third floor decks, pointed out that it is difficult to pick out a single-family house or a multi- family house in this zone, noted all parcels should be treated equally, expressed support for the beach cottage proposal, and indicated deck shading is helpful for health and safety. Carmen Rawson took issue with Zoning Code definitions associated with decks since they are subject to interpretation, believed livable spaces on decks should be prohibited, expressed concern for parking spaces and square footage associated with beach cottages, and expressed support for amending the RM zone. Mark Teale, architect, believed massing should be mitigated in the City and covered decks should comply with setback regulations. He suggested keeping the area open on 50% of the perimeter of roof decks. Referencing SB 330, Mayor Pro Tem O'Neill believed the City could deal with beach cottage preservation and roof deck issues; however, might be restricted relative to RM zone and buildable square footage issues since SB 330 will look at changes made since January 1, 2018. Following Council discussion and input, Mayor Dixon summarized that all Council members supported cottage preservation, a majority supported the application of third floor step backs for covered decks, and requested staff bring back options to reduce mass and increase articulation of single-family and multi -unit structures in the RM zone. Mayor Pro Tem O'Neill indicated he is supportive of third floor step backs for covered decks, but not supportive of the roof deck prohibition. He stated that, if this approach was pursued, he suggested sending postcards about this to Balboa Island and Corona del Mar residents. Council Members Brenner and Herdman agreed that this needs more community input III. PUBLIC COMMENTS Volume 64 - Page 180 9191 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE9292 Attachment No. PC 11 Planning Commission Correspondence 9393 INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE9494 24 April, 2020 City of Newport Planning Commission Re:PA 2019-070- 3rd story amendments To whom it may concern, I am relieved to see the City take the first step in attempting to mitigate the negative effects of the current third story guidelines. I have worked as a design professional on many projects over the last 40 years in Newport Beach. I also have owned a home in town for the last 30 years. At the urging of many of my neighbors and clients that reside on Peninsula Point, I have been actively attending the community workshops that the Planning department was sponsoring to evaluate the current massing problems we are experiencing. The proliferation of the third story mass has adversely affected the character and value of many properties including my own. It has taken away natural wind patterns thus necessitating the need for more Air conditioning in the Summer. It has blocked much needed sunlight which has increased the need for more heat in the Winter. And, most importantly, it has virtually eliminated the character that brought most residents to our neighborhoods in the first place. Furthermore, I have personally been hired to design mitigation additions to bring back privacy lost from neighbors’ third story structures looming over a given property. This domino effect is clearly counter productive towards maintaining an overall scale in our neighborhoods. As a designer, I am all too familiar with the nuanced wording of the third story guidelines. The third story rule was intended to reduce some of the mass by requiring it to be 15’ from the front and rear setbacks. However, the error was that it did not specify covered patios. Clearly, this was an oversight because the advent of these roofs over patios did nothing to reduce mass and help to maintain neighbors' natural light and wind patterns. Moreover, many of these approved covered roofs were then closed in and illegally converted into living space. This is why I have argued about the absurdity of the third story guidelines for years. The real issue isn’t actually square footage, it is massing. My argument from day one was to create a massing envelope for each property thus ensuring that each neighbor can retain some meaningful amount of sunlight and air circulation. During the workshops and behind closed doors I argued and lobbied for this effectively hoping for a maximum perimeter height of 22’ with all four sides increasing at a 45 degree angle until the maximum height of 29’ was reached. No square footage limitation within that envelope. Simple! Easy to administer and a huge boost to preserving light, wind, and character. Sadly that is not what is being proposed. Regardless, what the Planning Staff is proposing is a compromise solution based on many public meetings based on lots of input. The proposal to eliminate covered patios within the first 15’ of the rear and front setbacks along with counting all covered areas as square footage will provide meaningful relief to our 9595 neighborhoods. We are not proposing a reduction in allowable square footage on a lot. That hasn’t changed. Therefore we haven’t reduced the value of such properties. Rather, we are inching towards preserving the value of the existing properties. Myself along with many of my neighbors strongly urge you to approve this amendment as an initial step towards preserving our neighborhoods.. Sincerely Mark Becker Mark Becker Incorporated 410 Belvue Lane, Newport Beach, CA 92661 mbecker@markbecker.com 510-589-5547 9696 April 28, 2020 To: Planning Commission – City of Newport Beach Re: PA2019-070 As an architect and owner of Teale Architecture we have designed over 20 houses in Newport Beach per year, I support the Residential Design Standards and LCP Amendments developed by the City Planning Staff The mass and bulk of homes in some residential zones impact neighbors and the proposed revisions will mitigate these impacts while not presenting an undue hardship to those who have not yet developed their properties. Staff has met with me and other architects to get a clear understanding of the architectural concerns and implications. Staff has taken into consideration the input that I have given. My areas of concern were related to covered roof deck restrictions and deck restrictions. Should Planning Commission decide to count covered roof decks as part of the build able area limit it would effectively eliminate them. The covered roof deck restrictions proposed still allow covered roof decks to occur which are a valuable outdoor space for the owners. The proposal by staff is reasonable and the additional setbacks, size limitations and the opening requirements will reduce the impact on the neighbors. I am also concerned about requiring decks (2 nd floor) to be open on 2 sides because they will be difficult to incorporate in the design since they can only be located in the very front or the very back of the building. I support the proposal as presented by staff. Thank you for your time and consideration. Regards, Mark Teale, Architect. C-22162 2900 Bristol St. Building A, Suite 203 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: 949.975.0123 www.tealearchitecture.com 9797 From: Jurjis, Seimone Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 8:54 AM To: Murillo, Jaime; Campbell, Jim Subject: FW: Local Coastal Program Amendment From: Donabrams <don@abramscoastal.com> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 10:40 AM To: Ian Harrison <ian@ianharrisonarchitect.com>; Dixon, Diane <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov>; Avery, Brad <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>; Duffield, Duffy <dduffield@newportbeachca.gov>; Muldoon, Kevin <kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov>; Herdman, Jeff <jherdman@newportbeachca.gov>; clerk; Brenner, Joy <JBrenner@newportbeachca.gov>; O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <llowrey@newportbeachca.gov>; Ellmore, Curtis <CEllmore@newportbeachca.gov>; Klaustermeier, Sarah <sklaustermeier@newportbeachca.gov>; Rosene, Mark <mrosene@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; brionj@bja-inc.com; Chris Brandon <chris@brandonarchitects.com>; Bill Guidero <guiderodesign@gmail.com> Subject: Local Coastal Program Amendment [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council and City Planning Commission Members and City Staff: I would like to second what Ian Harrison said below and go one step further: This Amendment is wholly unnecessary. The third floor roof decks that have been designed and built in recent years are an enhancement to the community. As usual, there are a few people in the City who don’t care for them, but that is not a reason to overhaul the code. With all the problems facing our City at this moment, I believe this is one of the last topics that should be considered. Thank you, Don DONALD L. ABRAMS Broker BRE#01234323 C 714.325.9055 O 949.675.4822 On Apr 27, 2020, at 9:59 AM, Ian Harrison <ian@ianharrisonarchitect.com> wrote: City of Newport Beach, 9898 I would like to strongly suggest the upcoming hearing for the Local Coastal Program Amendment be postponed until the city is open for business again. I am getting the feeling from many people in the community that this amendment is being railroaded through while there is no face-to-face communication with the city to get a true representation of the people of Newport Beach. The fact that the Council meeting is already scheduled prior to the Planning Commission meeting hearing seems very suspect and a forgone conclusion that there is no alternate views of this amendment. There is no life threatening or safety reason that this amendment needs to be pushed through now and not wait for a full and open review where those who want can openly express their views. Thank you for your consideration, Ian Ian Harrison, Architect 949-887-4534 9999 From: Kathy Brown <thebrown5@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 12:28 PM To: Murillo, Jaime Subject: Third Story guidelines [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My name is Kathy Brown and I am a resident of the Balboa Peninsula Point. My address is 1706 Miramar, Newport Beach CA. I am emailing you to show my support of Mark Becker and his views in regards to the 3rd Story Guidelines. I copied his letter below. Please contact me if any additional information is necessary. Thank you, Kathy Brown 714 345-6033 thebrown5@aol.com City of Newport Planning Commission Re:PA 2019-070- 3rd story amendments To whom it may concern, I am relieved to see the City take the first step in attempting to mitigate the negative effects of the current third story guidelines. I have worked as a design professional on many projects over the last 40 years in Newport Beach. I also have owned a home in town for the last 30 years. At the urging of many of my neighbors and clients that reside on Peninsula Point, I have been actively attending the community workshops that the Planning department was sponsoring to evaluate the current massing problems we are experiencing. The proliferation of the third story mass has adversely affected the character and value of many properties including my own. It has taken away natural wind patterns thus necessitating the need for more Air conditioning in the Summer. It has blocked much needed sunlight which has increased the need for more heat in the Winter. And, most importantly, it has virtually eliminated the character that brought most residents to our neighborhoods in the first place. Furthermore, I have 100100 personally been hired to design mitigation additions to bring back privacy lost from neighbors’ third story structures looming over a given property. This domino effect is clearly counter productive towards maintaining an overall scale in our neighborhoods. As a designer, I am all too familiar with the nuanced wording of the third story guidelines. The third story rule was intended to reduce some of the mass by requiring it to be 15’ from the front and rear setbacks. However, the error was that it did not specify covered patios. Clearly, this was an oversight because the advent of these roofs over patios did nothing to reduce mass and help to maintain neighbors' natural light and wind patterns. Moreover, many of these approved covered roofs were then closed in and illegally converted into living space. This is why I have argued about the absurdity of the third story guidelines for years. The real issue isn’t actually square footage, it is massing. My argument from day one was to create a massing envelope for each property thus ensuring that each neighbor can retain some meaningful amount of sunlight and air circulation. During the workshops and behind closed doors I argued and lobbied for this effectively hoping for a maximum perimeter height of 22’ with all four sides increasing at a 45 degree angle until the maximum height of 29’ was reached. No square footage limitation within that envelope. Simple! Easy to administer and a huge boost to preserving light, wind, and character. Sadly that is not what is being proposed. Regardless, what the Planning Staff is proposing is a compromise solution based on many public meetings based on lots of input. The proposal to eliminate covered patios within the first 15’ of the rear and front setbacks along with counting all covered areas as square footage will provide meaningful relief to our neighborhoods. We are not proposing a reduction in allowable square footage on a lot. That hasn’t changed. Therefore we haven’t reduced the value of such properties. Rather, we are inching towards preserving the value of the existing properties. Myself along with many of my neighbors strongly urge you to approve this amendment as an initial step towards preserving our neighborhoods.. Sincerely 101101 Mark Becker Mark Becker Incorporated 410 Belvue Lane, Newport Beach, CA 92661 mbecker@markbecker.com 510-589-554 102102 Timothy C. Collins 412 Belvue Ln. Newport Beach, CA 92661 Mr. Jaime Murillo Principal Planner Community Development Department City of Newport Beach jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov Re: Amendments to Residential Design Standards-Reduce 3rd Story Massing Dear Jaime, Please covey to the Planning Commissioners my support for the amendments being proposed for action on May 7, 2020. Reduction of 3rd story bulk and mass is long overdue and needed to reverse negative impacts upon small lot residential units on the Balboa Peninsula. Our home has experienced a loss of the prevailing westerly breeze and sunlight on to our patio as the result of over massing in new homes surrounding ours. We specifically support the following minimum features in the proposed code and LCP amendments: 1) No covered third story patios within 15 feet of both the front and rear setbacks 2) Any covered patio counted in floor area square footage. We look forward to the final meeting agenda and staff report and will reserve right to further comment. Very truly yours. Timothy C. Collins 103103 From: Catherine Wolcott <catherinewolcott@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 2:57 PM To: Murillo, Jaime; Jurjis, Seimone; Jacobs, Carol; Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Brown, Leilani; Summerhill, Yolanda; Campbell, Jim Cc: Waite, David P.; Carol Martin; Bill Martin; Joni Martin; Cindy Martin Subject: Re: Notice of Public Hearing- Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good afternoon, Thank you for providing notice that the proposed development standards amendments that our family has been objecting to for nearly a year is scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on May 7. I appreciate that staff members are making their best efforts to continue operations in a challenging environment, but I have concerns about holding a public hearing on an issue of this level of importance and controversy in an electronic public hearing format. If there is one thing yesterday’s City Council special meeting demonstrated, it is that the WebEx platform is at best only a partial substitute for public comment and input in a public hearing. While we are still able to submit written comment to the Planning Commission and staff, neither written comment nor an unreliable electronic public comment period is the functional equivalent of being able to speak in the Council Chambers. If our outside legal counsel, other family members, or I do not have the opportunity to convey our point of view to the Planning Commissioners and other members of the public in a face-to-face setting, one important aspect of our due process rights is curtailed. We already made the medically necessary (and it turned out, prudent) decision not to attend the March 9 community outreach meeting on this matter because of the documented community spread of COVID- 19. To now have the development standards matter rushed through the Planning Commission when State Executive Order N-33-20 is still in effect, our state is still in Phase One of Governor Newsom’s reopening roadmap, and at a time when City Hall is still closed and therefore presumably has not been actively issuing building permits for some time, does not provide sufficient public benefit to balance out the reduction of due process. When the harm the City is considering is an imminent public health threat and the right the City proposes to curtail to address that harm is only a few days or weeks of public beach access, holding an electronic hearing is justified and the technical difficulties experienced at electronic meetings are not as problematic. When, as here, the matter has been under consideration for over a year and the City proposes to address this clearly non-urgent matter by permanently curtailing vested property rights -- and furthermore, curtailing them in a manner that is directly in conflict with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 -- the topic is too important to limit public live comment to an echoing WebEx platform. 104 Thank you for your consideration, as well as your service in a difficult time. Best regards, Catherine Martin Wolcott From: "Murillo, Jaime" <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov> Date: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 at 8:55 AM To: "<Undisclosed recipients:;>" Subject: Notice of Public Hearing- Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments Thank you for your interest in potential code amendments related to Residential Design Standards. These amendments are intended to reduce bulk and mass associated with future single-unit and two-unit developments. Project details and draft code revisions are currently available for review online at: www.newportbeachca.gov/residentialdesignstandards The Planning Commission is scheduled to review the proposed amendments at their next meeting date on May 7, 2020 (see attached public hearing notice). The Agenda, staff report and corresponding documents will be posted to the City’s website at www.newportbeachca.gov/planningcommission, by end of business day on Friday, May 1, 2020. If you have any questions please let me know. Thanks, Jaime JAIME MURILLO, AICP Community Development Department Principal Planner jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov 949-644-3209 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 100 Civic Center Drive, First Floor Bay C, Newport Beach, California 92660 | newportbeachca.gov 105    City of Newport Beach Planning Commission April 29, 2020 RE: City of Newport Beach zoning code regarding third story guidelines for residences Having lived and practiced architecture in Newport Beach for many years, I always enjoyed the wonderful “beach town” vibe, small-scale residential development and eclectic beach cottage architectural style. The apparent “loophole” regarding a third story, wherein a covered balcony can encroach into the 15-foot front and rear setbacks required for a third story, certainly destroys the zoning code’s goal of controlling the visual impact and reducing the massing of buildings. In addition, it decreases adjoining neighbors’ access to natural light and ventilation. I strongly support the proposed amendment to eliminate third story covered patios within the first 15 feet of the front and rear setbacks. Respectfully submitted, Jay Brian Evarts, architect Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received After Printing Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From: Mark Becker <mbecker@markbecker.com> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 5:26 AM To: Murillo, Jaime Subject: Fwd: City of Newport Beach: third story meeting [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Jaime This letter is from a neighbor Mb Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Susan Gessford <susangessford@yahoo.com> Date: April 29, 2020 at 11:34:30 AM PDT To: Mark becker <mbecker@markbecker.com> Subject: Re: City of Newport Beach: third story meeting Mark, I tried sending my message to city but was rejected. Then tried sending to you but don’t think it went. Will try again and if you can get it please send it for me. Thanx I live in a cottage on Belvue on Balboa Peninsula Point. The older homes are being torn down and replaced by three story apartment like homes. Even worse their three car garages go all the way to the alley. If trucks are parked, one can’t drive through. Two story homes are fine, but when three story homes block sunlight to home next door, it goes too far! Hopefully there will be a compromise solution . Thank you Susan Gessford 409 Belvue Lane Balboa Peninsula Point Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item No. 2a Additional Materials Received After Printing Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Ron Yeo To:Planning Commissioners Subject:RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS CODE AND LCP AMENDMENTS (PA2019-070) Date:Friday, May 01, 2020 8:40:00 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I urge you to vote in favor of this much needed code revision. These changes will solve many of the problems created by the last zoning revisions for roof heights. Planing Staff has done an outstanding job on out reaching out to the public as well as creating practicable and reasonable solutions to the problems of height, bulk and third stories. Most important... it brings the zoning code closer to the General Plan policies of “maintaining the character of the neighborhood. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2b Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From: Steve Christiano <steve@christianohomes.com> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 3:18 PM To: Murillo, Jaime Subject: PA-2019-070 3rd story amendments [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To whom at may concern, I am in favor of this amendment to restrict the buildable area and or massing on the 3rd floor. Its getting out of hand down on the peninsula and CDM village. Regards, Steve Christiano General Contractor CHRISTIANOHOMES http:/www.houzz.com/pro/hchristiano/Christiano-homes-inc CHRISTIANOHOMES.COM 949-294-5387 Cell 949-596-4618 Office Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2b Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:jinkens@roadrunner.com To:Planning Commissioners Subject:over building Date:Sunday, May 3, 2020 7:28:57 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To whom it may concern. The over building needs to end. It is not fair to those of us whom have lived here for many years and tried to do things legally, for example corner of Balboa and Onyx, Corner of North Bay Front alley and Onyx, and last but not least the huge building in Corona Del Mar overlooking China Cove. Robert C. Jinkens, PhD, CPA http://www.jinkens.info/ (949) 675-2047 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2b Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From: Brion Jeannette <BrionJ@bja-inc.com> Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 3:53 PM To: O'Neill, William; Murillo, Jaime Cc: 'Ian Harrison'; Dixon, Diane; Avery, Brad; Duffield, Duffy; Muldoon, Kevin; Herdman, Jeff; Brenner, Joy; Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Rosene, Mark; Jurjis, Seimone; Brion Jeannette; 'Chris Brandon'; 'Bill Guidero' Subject: FW: Local Coastal Program Amendment [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mr. Mayor and council members, I agree with other members of the community and professionals. The zoning code has adequately defined the building envelope and the extent of the roof decks. Any revisions to the smallest lots in the city would ostensibly down zone specific legal parcels. Thank you, I would be please to answer any questions you may have. Brion Brion Jeannette Architecture Custom Architecture │ Energy Efficient Design 470 Old Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 T: 949.645.5854 ext. 212 F: 949.645.5983 brionj@bja-inc.com www.customarchitecture.com Follow us on Houzz and see what we’re up to CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in this e-Mail message, including any accompanying documents or attachments, is from Brion Jeannette Architecture and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. Due to the vulnerabilities associated with electronic communications this message and any attachments should be checked for destructive content prior to executing. BJA is not responsible for loss or damage arising from the use of this e-mail or attachments. From: Donabrams [mailto:don@abramscoastal.com] Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 10:40 AM To: Ian Harrison <ian@ianharrisonarchitect.com>; ddixon@newportbeachca.gov; bavery@newportbeachca.gov; dduffield@newportbeachca.gov; kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov; jherdman@newportbeachca.gov; clerk; joy@newportbeachca.gov; woneill@newportbeachca.gov; pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov; eweigand@newportbeachca.gov; llowrey@newportbeachca.gov; cellmore@newportbeachca.gov; sklaustermeier@newportbeachca.gov; mrosene@newportbeachca.gov; Seimone Jurjis <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; brionj@bja-inc.com; Chris Brandon <chris@brandonarchitects.com>; Bill Guidero <guiderodesign@gmail.com> Subject: Local Coastal Program Amendment Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2b Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Dear City Council and City Planning Commission Members and City Staff: I would like to second what Ian Harrison said below and go one step further: This Amendment is wholly unnecessary. The third floor roof decks that have been designed and built in recent years are an enhancement to the community. As usual, there are a few people in the City who don’t care for them, but that is not a reason to overhaul the code. With all the problems facing our City at this moment, I believe this is one of the last topics that should be considered. Thank you, Don DONALD L. ABRAMS Broker BRE#01234323 C 714.325.9055 O 949.675.4822 On Apr 27, 2020, at 9:59 AM, Ian Harrison <ian@ianharrisonarchitect.com> wrote: City of Newport Beach, I would like to strongly suggest the upcoming hearing for the Local Coastal Program Amendment be postponed until the city is open for business again. I am getting the feeling from many people in the community that this amendment is being railroaded through while there is no face-to-face communication with the city to get a true representation of the people of Newport Beach. The fact that the Council meeting is already scheduled prior to the Planning Commission meeting hearing seems very suspect and a forgone conclusion that there is no alternate views of this amendment. There is no life threatening or safety reason that this amendment needs to be pushed through now and not wait for a full and open review where those who want can openly express their views. Thank you for your consideration, Ian Ian Harrison, Architect 949-887-4534 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2b Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2b Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2b Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2b Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2b Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2b Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2b Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2b Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2b Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2b Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2b Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Joni Nichols To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Proposals being discussed Date:Monday, May 4, 2020 2:06:37 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Commissioners I have had the opportunity to read and review the following amendments posted on the Planning Commissions agenda. I have also had the opportunity to attend BI meetings and observe the changes in construction since I purchased my island home in 1994. I reviewed these recommendations and considered their effect on my neighbor's when I completely remodeled my home in 2012 and 2014. I ask that you  Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-013 recommending the City Councilapprove Amendment No. CA2019-004; and of the proposed amendments to the City Council; and  Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-014 recommending the City Council authorize staff tosubmit Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-006 to the California CoastalCommittee. Let's retain the integrity of the island's character without sacrificing the desired andalmighty footage!! In support of the proposals,Joni Nichols. 213 Diamond Ave  Amendments to Title 20 (Zoning Code) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) revising development standards applicable to single- and two-unit residential development. Specifically, the proposed amendments are designed to reduce bulk and mass associated with future residential development as follows: Revisions to Third Floor Development Standards · Application of existing third floor front and rear step back requirements to covered deck areas and to narrower lots 25-foot wide or less lots that are zoned R-2 (the narrower lots are currently exempt). · Application of existing third floor side step back requirements to lots 30 feet wide or greater. · Establish a new maximum coverage standard for third floor structures (enclosed or Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2b Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) unenclosed) by limiting them to 50 percent of buildable area of a lot. Uncovered deck area would remain unrestricted. Clarification of the Definition of Gross Floor Area · Currently finished attics with a ceiling height of 6 feet or higher meet the definition and the amendment would change the definition to include unfinished attics. · Covered patios, decks, and balconies above the first floor would be defined as floor area unless completely open on at least two sides, rather than one side. · Carports only open on one side would be defined as floor area. Changes Applicable to Single-Unit and Two-Unit Dwellings in the R-BI and RM Zones Existing third floor and open volume standards applicable to residences and duplexes in the R -1 (Single-unit Residential) and R-2 (Two-unit Residential) zones would apply to future single- and two-unit dwellings in Two-Unit Residential, Balboa Island (R-BI) and Multiple Residential (RM) zones. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2b Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Rhone, Dick To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Setback for three story houses Date:Monday, May 4, 2020 2:09:22 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Honorable Commissioners I live on Balboa Island and fully support the need for set back on three story houses. New houses without setbacks in the third level add bulk to homes and detract from eye appeal for the beach community. This is an area of unique family living without the need for large bulky buildings. The walled out 3rd story also make it easier to close in the third level following occupancy. Dick Rhone 214 Diamond Ave Balboa Island Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2b Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Daniel Abbott To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Massing Date:Monday, May 4, 2020 2:56:03 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commissioners: My name is Dan Abbott and I reside at 804 South Bay Front on Balboa Island in an historically preserved John Lautner house. I am writing to support the proposal to create a setback to third story construction/additions and to make it more difficult to enclose a third story structure. I am also a Board of Director on the Balboa Island Improvement Association and take a very strong interest in my community. A major reason I moved to the Island four years ago was to live in a community which has so much charm and originality. New home additions/remodels which include enclosed third stories which go all the way to the front of the structure ruin the overall character of this beautiful feeling of charm and of historic cottages. Many of my friends come to the Island specifically to enjoy this feeling, contributing to the overall economic good of Newport Beach. The Historic Cottage Incentive Program was recently approved by the City Council, indicating that our City leaders also support limiting the creation of outsized and dominating structures which are totally out of character to the Island's charm and historic nature. I find spurious the claim by the realtors that these proposed limitations will negatively impact the sales values of new/remodeled homes if they are not allowed to build all the way out on the third story. I believe that just the opposite will happen- that the incongrous appearance of such large houses will ruin the current ambience of charm and proportionality of the houses on the Island and will result in decreasing values over time. Respectfully submitted, Dan Abbott, MD 949 633-5715 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2b Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Arthur Lombardi To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Third Story Massing Date:Monday, May 4, 2020 3:03:16 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am writing to support the creation of third floor setbacks for future home construction. I have been in the home building industry for over 50 years. During the last 14 years of my active career, I supervised the design and construction of over 7,000 homes in numerous subdivisions throughout the counties east of San Francisco Bay. I have also built custom homes in Manhattan Beach and on Balboa Island where I have lived for more than 20 years. Creating a third floor setback will not be a detriment to future development. Some of the more recent new construction with no setback on the third floor are totally out of character with the majority of homes on Balboa. Frankly, these homes are architecturally inferior, i.e. just plain ugly. Thank you for your consideration. Art Lombardi 310 Collins Ave. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2b Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:JEFF BUTCHER To:Planning Commissioners Subject:5/7/2020 planning commission meeting public hearing Item 2 Date:Monday, May 4, 2020 4:33:04 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. RE: Proposed Residential Design Standards Changes. Dear Planning Commissioners: I have been a long term owner of an original 1950’s home on Balboa Island. I grew up on the island and have watched it grow over the years. We have had and continue to have a few new homes built on our block seemingly all the time. I’m even amazed at the size of some of the new homes. Even with that said, I am appalled by the eroding of our property rights that has continued to occur, including today’s proposed changes. The amount of restrictions already burdening homeowners and developers is bad enough, but some of the things on this addenda item don’t even make sense... Such as counting an unfinished attic in floor area. And then to incorporate all these proposed changes into one set of changes? I’m not sure if you are aware but the state of CA also passed restrictions on rent control and the ability of home owners to replace a rented duplex with an newly built SFR, all under the guise of needing more housing units. We have experienced a moratorium on short term rental’s robbing owners of much needed income. And now we can’t even walk around our island in one direction for fear someone stops and blocks the path. What I am getting at is that the proposed changes are a continuation of the city’s take, take, take policy and does not give anything back in return. I hope you make the right decision and lessen the blow. If you don’t you’ll be approving exterior paint colors in a few years. Thank you for your time. Jeff Butcher 217 Garnet, Newport Beach 92662 (949)422-1108 Jeff.Butcher@sbcglobal.net  BIIA Activities Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2b Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)  A MESSAGE FROM THE BALBOA ISLAND IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION: Dear Residents: This Thursday, May 7th 6:30 p.m. the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing related to modifications to new home three story massing (the practice of allowing the third story of the home to be at the edge of the structure making it look out of proportion to other homes).  The proposal create a setback to the third story and also makes it more difficult to enclose a third story structure (intended to be an outdoor area) often done after the final approval by the City. The proposal was community initiated in the neighborhoods of Corona Del Mar, Balboa Island and the Peninsula. Island leadership have been involved in this initiative and have attended all of the pre- meetings, community meetings/workshops.  This has also been presented at multiple Island General Meetings at the Fire Station. If approved by the Planning Commission, the next step will be deliberation by the City Council.  The BIIA has supported the two parts of the initiative including the Historic Cottage Incentive Program recently approved by the City Council. The staff report is located at City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Site ("quick link" on the right "agenda packet" Agenda item #2, may need to cut and paste the link below in your browser. https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/community- development/planning-division/planning-commission There has been limited opposition to the changes with the exception of a few in the real estate business and builders. Their position has been that that these changes are not needed and will impact sales value of new homes. The changes will not reduce any total square footage of the structure from the current allowance. There are pictures in the staff report and there is a new house on the 100 block of Pearl Avenue that is a good example of a very large third story and how it relates to Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2b Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) cottage next door. This was never the intent of the City when they made the changes to the code in 2010 and this proposal is considered by the staff as a fix. Please help on Thursday if you support or oppose the proposal, the Planning Commission is the toughest hurtle for this project. What you can do to help is review the staff report, call in during the meeting or write comments and email to the Commission by Wednesday related to the staff recommendations. It took about three years to bring this proposal forward to the City, about a year and a half to design the changes, public meetings and outreach and this is the end of the process. Please make sure your neighbors are aware of this meeting too in case they are not a part of the Constant Contact group. Thank you for your help. Lee Pearl BIIA Local Government Liaison.  smartpearl1@hotmail.com From the Newport Beach Web Site: 1. You can submit your questions and comments in writing for Planning Commission consideration by sending them to the Planning Commissioners at planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov. To give the Planning Commission adequate time to review your questions and comments, please submit your written comments by Wednesday, May 6, 2020, at 5:00 p.m.   2. In addition, members of the public can participate in this meeting telephonically. Specifically, the meeting will be viewable on NBTV and live streamed on the City's website. If you are watching the meeting on NBTV or via the live stream, during the meeting, phone numbers for the public to call and to comment on specific agenda items will be posted on the screen. When you call, you will be placed on hold until it is your turn to speak. Please note that only twenty (20) people can remain on hold at a time. If you call in to speak on an item and the line is busy, please call back after a few moments. The City will ensure that it allows enough time per item for everyone to call in to comment. Please know that it is important for the City to allow public participation at this meeting. If you are unable to participate in the meeting via the process set forth above, please contact the Community Development Department at (949-644-3200 or CDD@newportbeachca.gov) and we will attempt to accommodate you.   My email is smartpearl1@hotmail.com for your comments and Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2b Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) suggestions. Thanks Lee Pearl The Mission of the BIIA is "To promote a sense of community while enhancing our Island's beauty, safety, livability while preserving our unique culture." BIIA website: www.balboaislandnb.org/ Your voluntary membership of the BIIA supports our efforts!   Please use the form below to continue your membership for 2020.  You can also mail a check to BIIA P.O. Box 64 Balboa Island CA 92662       - Online Membership Payments - Larry Kallestad is the new Membership chair for the BIIA. His contact information is below. Membership Levels: Basic: $50 Bronze: $100 Silver: $250 Gold: $500 Diamond: $1000 Join at the Gold or Silver level and you will receive a printed Balboa Island banner or flag. At the Diamond level, it is appliqued. Payment Instructions: - After clicking on your preferred donation amount above, you will be re- directed to the payment page. - It is very important to fill out all of the fields completely so we get your address to send out letters & decals. - After submitting the required information a receipt will automatically be emailed to you. - Any questions can be directed to me; Larry Kallestad balislelarry31@gmail.com - THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT! - Sincerely, Larry Kallestad Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2b Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) BIIA Membership Chairman balislelarry31@gmail.com Balboa Island Improvement Association Balboa Island, CA 92662 Balboa Island Improvement Association, P.O. Box 64, Balboa Island, CA 92662 Forward email | About our service provider Sent by smartpearl1@hotmail.com in collaboration with Constant Contact Try email marketing for free today! Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2b Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:JEFF BUTCHER To:Planning Commissioners Subject:5/7/2020 planning commission meeting public hearing Item 2 Date:Monday, May 4, 2020 4:33:04 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. RE: Proposed Residential Design Standards Changes. Dear Planning Commissioners: I have been a long term owner of an original 1950’s home on Balboa Island. I grew up on the island and have watched it grow over the years. We have had and continue to have a few new homes built on our block seemingly all the time. I’m even amazed at the size of some of the new homes. Even with that said, I am appalled by the eroding of our property rights that has continued to occur, including today’s proposed changes. The amount of restrictions already burdening homeowners and developers is bad enough, but some of the things on this addenda item don’t even make sense... Such as counting an unfinished attic in floor area. And then to incorporate all these proposed changes into one set of changes? I’m not sure if you are aware but the state of CA also passed restrictions on rent control and the ability of home owners to replace a rented duplex with an newly built SFR, all under the guise of needing more housing units. We have experienced a moratorium on short term rental’s robbing owners of much needed income. And now we can’t even walk around our island in one direction for fear someone stops and blocks the path. What I am getting at is that the proposed changes are a continuation of the city’s take, take, take policy and does not give anything back in return. I hope you make the right decision and lessen the blow. If you don’t you’ll be approving exterior paint colors in a few years. Thank you for your time. Jeff Butcher 217 Garnet, Newport Beach 92662 (949)422-1108 Jeff.Butcher@sbcglobal.net  BIIA Activities Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)  A MESSAGE FROM THE BALBOA ISLAND IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION: Dear Residents: This Thursday, May 7th 6:30 p.m. the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing related to modifications to new home three story massing (the practice of allowing the third story of the home to be at the edge of the structure making it look out of proportion to other homes).  The proposal create a setback to the third story and also makes it more difficult to enclose a third story structure (intended to be an outdoor area) often done after the final approval by the City. The proposal was community initiated in the neighborhoods of Corona Del Mar, Balboa Island and the Peninsula. Island leadership have been involved in this initiative and have attended all of the pre- meetings, community meetings/workshops.  This has also been presented at multiple Island General Meetings at the Fire Station. If approved by the Planning Commission, the next step will be deliberation by the City Council.  The BIIA has supported the two parts of the initiative including the Historic Cottage Incentive Program recently approved by the City Council. The staff report is located at City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Site ("quick link" on the right "agenda packet" Agenda item #2, may need to cut and paste the link below in your browser. https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/community- development/planning-division/planning-commission There has been limited opposition to the changes with the exception of a few in the real estate business and builders. Their position has been that that these changes are not needed and will impact sales value of new homes. The changes will not reduce any total square footage of the structure from the current allowance. There are pictures in the staff report and there is a new house on the 100 block of Pearl Avenue that is a good example of a very large third story and how it relates to Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) cottage next door. This was never the intent of the City when they made the changes to the code in 2010 and this proposal is considered by the staff as a fix. Please help on Thursday if you support or oppose the proposal, the Planning Commission is the toughest hurtle for this project. What you can do to help is review the staff report, call in during the meeting or write comments and email to the Commission by Wednesday related to the staff recommendations. It took about three years to bring this proposal forward to the City, about a year and a half to design the changes, public meetings and outreach and this is the end of the process. Please make sure your neighbors are aware of this meeting too in case they are not a part of the Constant Contact group. Thank you for your help. Lee Pearl BIIA Local Government Liaison.  smartpearl1@hotmail.com From the Newport Beach Web Site: 1. You can submit your questions and comments in writing for Planning Commission consideration by sending them to the Planning Commissioners at planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov. To give the Planning Commission adequate time to review your questions and comments, please submit your written comments by Wednesday, May 6, 2020, at 5:00 p.m.   2. In addition, members of the public can participate in this meeting telephonically. Specifically, the meeting will be viewable on NBTV and live streamed on the City's website. If you are watching the meeting on NBTV or via the live stream, during the meeting, phone numbers for the public to call and to comment on specific agenda items will be posted on the screen. When you call, you will be placed on hold until it is your turn to speak. Please note that only twenty (20) people can remain on hold at a time. If you call in to speak on an item and the line is busy, please call back after a few moments. The City will ensure that it allows enough time per item for everyone to call in to comment. Please know that it is important for the City to allow public participation at this meeting. If you are unable to participate in the meeting via the process set forth above, please contact the Community Development Department at (949-644-3200 or CDD@newportbeachca.gov) and we will attempt to accommodate you.   My email is smartpearl1@hotmail.com for your comments and Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) suggestions. Thanks Lee Pearl The Mission of the BIIA is "To promote a sense of community while enhancing our Island's beauty, safety, livability while preserving our unique culture." BIIA website: www.balboaislandnb.org/ Your voluntary membership of the BIIA supports our efforts!   Please use the form below to continue your membership for 2020.  You can also mail a check to BIIA P.O. Box 64 Balboa Island CA 92662       - Online Membership Payments - Larry Kallestad is the new Membership chair for the BIIA. His contact information is below. Membership Levels: Basic: $50 Bronze: $100 Silver: $250 Gold: $500 Diamond: $1000 Join at the Gold or Silver level and you will receive a printed Balboa Island banner or flag. At the Diamond level, it is appliqued. Payment Instructions: - After clicking on your preferred donation amount above, you will be re- directed to the payment page. - It is very important to fill out all of the fields completely so we get your address to send out letters & decals. - After submitting the required information a receipt will automatically be emailed to you. - Any questions can be directed to me; Larry Kallestad balislelarry31@gmail.com - THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT! - Sincerely, Larry Kallestad Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) BIIA Membership Chairman balislelarry31@gmail.com Balboa Island Improvement Association Balboa Island, CA 92662 Balboa Island Improvement Association, P.O. Box 64, Balboa Island, CA 92662 Forward email | About our service provider Sent by smartpearl1@hotmail.com in collaboration with Constant Contact Try email marketing for free today! Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Donabrams To:JEFF BUTCHER Cc:Planning Commissioners Subject:Re: 5/7/2020 planning commission meeting public hearing Item 2 Date:Monday, May 4, 2020 6:43:36 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Well said Jeff! DONALD L. ABRAMS Broker BRE#0‌1‌2‌3‌4‌3‌2‌3 C 714.325.9055  O 949.675.4822 On May 4, 2020, at 5:23 PM, JEFF BUTCHER <jeff.butcher@sbcglobal.net> wrote:  RE: Proposed Residential Design Standards Changes. Dear Planning Commissioners: I have been a long term owner of an original 1950’s home on Balboa Island. I grew up on the island and have watched it grow over the years. We have had and continue to have a few new homes built on our block seemingly all the time. I’m even amazed at the size of some of the new homes. Even with that said, I am appalled by the eroding of our property rights that has continued to occur, including today’s proposed changes. The amount of restrictions already burdening homeowners and developers is bad enough, but some of the things on this addenda item don’t even make sense... Such as counting an unfinished attic in floor area. And then to incorporate all these proposed changes into one set of changes? I’m not sure if you are aware but the state of CA also passed restrictions on rent control and the ability of home owners to replace a rented duplex with an newly built SFR, all under the guise of needing more housing units. We have experienced a moratorium on short term rental’s robbing owners of much needed income. And now we can’t even walk around our island in one direction for fear someone stops and blocks the path. What I am getting at is that the proposed changes are a continuation of the city’s take, take, take policy and does not give anything back in return. I hope you make the right decision and lessen the blow. If you don’t you’ll be approving exterior paint colors in a few years. Thank you for your time. Jeff Butcher 217 Garnet, Newport Beach 92662 (949)422-1108 Jeff.Butcher@sbcglobal.net Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) BIIA Activities  A MESSAGE FROM THE BALBOA ISLAND IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION: Dear Residents: This Thursday, May 7th 6:30 p.m. the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing related to modifications to new home three story massing (the practice of allowing the third story of the home to be at the edge of the structure making it look out of proportion to other homes).  The proposal create a setback to the third story and also makes it more difficult to enclose a third story structure (intended to be an outdoor area) often done after the final approval by the City. The proposal was community initiated in the neighborhoods of Corona Del Mar, Balboa Island and the Peninsula. Island leadership have been involved in this initiative and have attended all of the pre- meetings, community meetings/workshops.  This has also been presented at multiple Island General Meetings at the Fire Station. If approved by the Planning Commission, the next step will be deliberation by the City Council.  The BIIA has supported the two parts of the initiative including the Historic Cottage Incentive Program recently approved by the City Council. The staff report is located at City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Site ("quick link" on the right "agenda packet" Agenda item #2, may need to cut and paste the link below in your browser. https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/community- development/planning-division/planning-commission There has been limited opposition to the changes with the exception of a few in the real estate business and builders. Their position has been Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) that that these changes are not needed and will impact sales value of new homes. The changes will not reduce any total square footage of the structure from the current allowance. There are pictures in the staff report and there is a new house on the 100 block of Pearl Avenue that is a good example of a very large third story and how it relates to cottage next door. This was never the intent of the City when they made the changes to the code in 2010 and this proposal is considered by the staff as a fix. Please help on Thursday if you support or oppose the proposal, the Planning Commission is the toughest hurtle for this project. What you can do to help is review the staff report, call in during the meeting or write comments and email to the Commission by Wednesday related to the staff recommendations. It took about three years to bring this proposal forward to the City, about a year and a half to design the changes, public meetings and outreach and this is the end of the process. Please make sure your neighbors are aware of this meeting too in case they are not a part of the Constant Contact group. Thank you for your help. Lee Pearl BIIA Local Government Liaison.  smartpearl1@hotmail.com From the Newport Beach Web Site: 1. You can submit your questions and comments in writing for Planning Commission consideration by sending them to the Planning Commissioners at planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov. To give the Planning Commission adequate time to review your questions and comments, please submit your written comments by Wednesday, May 6, 2020, at 5:00 p.m.   2. In addition, members of the public can participate in this meeting telephonically. Specifically, the meeting will be viewable on NBTV and live streamed on the City's website. If you are watching the meeting on NBTV or via the live stream, during the meeting, phone numbers for the public to call and to comment on specific agenda items will be posted on the screen. When you call, you will be placed on hold until it is your turn to speak. Please note that only twenty (20) people can remain on hold at a time. If you call in to speak on an item and the line is busy, please call back after a few moments. The City will ensure that it allows enough time per item for everyone to call in to comment. Please know that it is important for the City to allow public participation at this meeting. If you are unable to participate in the meeting via the process set forth above, please contact the Community Development Department at (949-644-3200 or CDD@newportbeachca.gov) and we will attempt to accommodate you.   Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) My email is smartpearl1@hotmail.com for your comments and suggestions. Thanks Lee Pearl The Mission of the BIIA is "To promote a sense of community while enhancing our Island's beauty, safety, livability while preserving our unique culture." BIIA website: www.balboaislandnb.org/ Your voluntary membership of the BIIA supports our efforts!   Please use the form below to continue your membership for 2020.  You can also mail a check to BIIA P.O. Box 64 Balboa Island CA 92662       - Online Membership Payments - Larry Kallestad is the new Membership chair for the BIIA. His contact information is below. Membership Levels: Basic: $50 Bronze: $100 Silver: $250 Gold: $500 Diamond: $1000 Join at the Gold or Silver level and you will receive a printed Balboa Island banner or flag. At the Diamond level, it is appliqued. Payment Instructions: - After clicking on your preferred donation amount above, you will be re- directed to the payment page. - It is very important to fill out all of the fields completely so we get your address to send out letters & decals. - After submitting the required information a receipt will automatically be emailed to you. - Any questions can be directed to me; Larry Kallestad balislelarry31@gmail.com - THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT! - Sincerely, Larry Kallestad BIIA Membership Chairman Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) balislelarry31@gmail.com Balboa Island Improvement Association Balboa Island, CA 92662 Balboa Island Improvement Association, P.O. Box 64, Balboa Island, CA 92662 Forward email | About our service provider Sent by smartpearl1@hotmail.com in collaboration with Constant Contact Try email marketing for free today! Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Lee To:Planning Commissioners Subject:May 7 agenda item: 3rd floor massing on Balboa Island Date:Monday, May 4, 2020 8:19:17 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.   Dear Newport Beach Planning Commissioners:   I am pleased to support the proposal to amend the code to reduce 3rd Floor massing that is included in the Planning Commission’s May 7 agenda.   We have worried about a future neighbor building a massed 3 story house, without articulation on the side walls and with limited openings on deck areas.  It would greatly decrease the enjoyment of our property which is a classic Balboa Island cottage.   There are certainly competing interests trying to define how big is too big. I think the proposal by staff is intended to strike a reasonable balance.   However, there is one loophole that needs attention. The provision to allow a third floor 6 foot ceiling attic in addition to the 50% for living area and enclosed deck is ripe for manipulation. It is my request that staff refine the definition of an attic so that it doesn’t just lead to more 3rd floor massing.   Respectfully,   Lee & Audrey Fellinge 309 Grand Canal   Sent from Mail for Windows 10   Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Ryan Gunderson To:Planning Commissioners; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee; Weigand, Erik; cellemore@newportbeachca.gov; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark Subject:Thursday Planning Session Date:Monday, May 4, 2020 10:18:30 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commissioners: I am writing you this letter in regards to the agenda for Thursday night's session and in particular, regarding the proposed changes to third floors in the city. My family has lived on the Island for over 11 years, my wife and I lived on the Island, I work on the Island, served on the Board of the BIIA for over six years, and my business partner and I sell roughly half of the homes on the Island. My wife and I have personally owned and restored a vintage cottage, lived in another one when we first got married, and my parents have built two homes on the Island. I love vintage cottages and will support any measure that would help preserve or restore them, but in my view these proposed changes to the building codes for the third floors are not warranted, will negatively impact property values (and not just on new homes), and with everything going on right now between the pandemic, the new legislation regarding duplexes, rent control measures, etc the city needs to stop adding to the obstacles for progress to our property owners. Things in our market, to our owners are changing quickly. What if you owned an old duplex on the Peninsula or Island just six months ago, that you owned for many years, but it is now almost beyond repair. It's so old you can't justify restoring it because the infrastructure just isn't there and you decide to sell it. A potential buyer would have many options and likely would have purchased it quickly, and for a strong number. Now....? The market is changing, most buyers do NOT want to build a duplex because of the parking requirements, and now they may be restricted on what they can do on a third floor. Does those limitations sound appealing for most potential buyers? I have been blessed to be around many great leaders. One of the most common attributes of the ones I have been around is their ability to ask people who have an expertise in a particular field for advice on getting solutions. They ask questions. As I mentioned earlier, my partner (who also happens to own two 1940s cottages in the city) and I sell the majority of homes on the Island and we both do not think this is a good idea. My guess would be if you spoke with some of the top agents in CDM and the Peninsula they would likely agree. I have multiple friends (who you may be receiving letters from) who are some of, if not the top architects in our city and I don't believe they agree with this either. They don't just design homes here and there. They design a large amount of the beautiful homes that have made the real estate in the city some of the most desirable Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) around. If we are having discussions about property values, building codes, etc, why would you not listen to the best experts you have at your disposal who live and work in the city? We are on the front lines helping residents sell these homes, helping buyers move into them, and have a common goal with you and the city: keep values as high as possible for our residents! The simple fact is the majority of the buyers buying here or those buying to build a custom home want these new roof decks. If they didn't then this whole topic wouldn't be an issue. Clearly, by the amount of people buying and building them, there is a desire to keep the codes the way they are. Also, as an aside, I am confused as to why this is becoming an issue now. There have been large, three story homes next to cottages for many years. I understand the new homes today are even more creative in how the architects design them but please see below a photo of a home on Agate as an example, built in the 90's, next to a cottage. The home had vaulted ceilings in the front of the house where the pitch of the roof is roughly the same height as the new homes people say are towering over other properties now. We are already observing potential buyers pass on properties because of the new duplex Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) legislation and I have personally already had a client pass on a cottage because he is concerned about these proposed changes to roof decks. Who does this hurt most? Ironically, in my view, the cottage owners. As an example, my team and I just sold three homes by a developer who built the same floorplan on the Island. The homes were very nice, but they didn't have overly elaborate roof decks. They sold for $3,590,000, $3,600,000, and $3,650,000 respectively. Conversely, I sold two homes last year, both in better locations, but for $4,250,000 and $4,265,000 respectively that did have the roof decks in question and have another one in escrow at strong price now with a great third floor. Another home on the Island sold last year for almost $3,900,000 with a great roof deck, in a considerably inferior location to the others that sold for much less. There are, of course other variables, i.e floorlan, quality etc, but the problem becomes, if there are more limitations to what you can do to a new home, then someone purchasing an older cottage can't justify paying more for it if the home will be worth less on the back end because of these restrictions. My team and I love the charm of the cottages in our communities, and we will work to continue to preserve them where we can, but I don't believe this is the time or economic environment to make it less appealing to make a purchase or build a new property. I understand you may be under some pressure from residents who don't like these taller buildings next to cottages, and that is fair. I understand where they are coming from, but the fact is we continue to see a clear difference in values between the homes who design the current roof decks and those that don't. As one potential compromise, if the Commission and Council were wanting to come up with a solution in between the current codes and the proposed changes, I would suggest continuing to allow building third floors all the way to the side set back with the large covered loggias, but require the covered loggias be set back from the front of the property somewhat. I think the main opposition I am hearing from people is when someone builds the third floor all the way to the front of the property, which can be an impediment to natural light and makes the new home feel more boxy. I hope you will consider not recommending these proposed changes. Thank you. Sincerely, Ryan Gunderson Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) RYAN GUNDERSON REALTOR® BRE#0‌1‌8‌6‌9‌7‌9‌5 C 949.873.3841  O 949.675.4822  www.ryanmgunderson.com Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:David Rose To:Planning Commissioners; Koetting, Peter; Lowrey, Lee; Weigand, Erik; cellemore@newportbeachca.gov; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark Subject:RE: Thursday Planning Session Date:Tuesday, May 5, 2020 4:30:28 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To: Planning Commissioners: I am a previous home owner in CDM (1999) and now on Balboa Island since 2016. I boughtmy BI home from Ryan and have had several other dealings with him finding him mostknowledgeable and in tune with the area. What he says in the email below is 100% my feelingas well. There is plenty of charm in Newport Beach including CDM & BI that doesn’t requirechanging the present ordinances under consideration. As a 20 year resident, I ask you toplease leave them as is. Thank you for your consideration. Regards,David Rose318 Amethyst Ave,Balboa Island From: Ryan Gunderson <ryan@abramscoastal.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 8:18 AM To: planningcommissioners@newportbeachca.gov; pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov; llowrey@newportbeachca.gov; eweigand@newportbeachca.gov; cellemore@newportbeachca.gov; sklaustermeier@newportbeachca.gov; lkleiman@newportbeachca.gov; mrosene@newportbeachca.gov Subject: Thursday Planning Session Dear Planning Commissioners: I am writing you this letter in regards to the agenda for Thursday night's session and in particular, regarding the proposed changes to third floors in the city. My family has lived on the Island for over 11 years, my wife and I lived on the Island, I work on the Island, served on the Board of the BIIA for over six years, and my business partner and I sell roughly half of the homes on the Island. My wife and I have personally owned and restored a vintage cottage, lived in another one when we first got married, and my parents have built two homes on the Island. I love vintage cottages and will support any measure that would help preserve or restore them, but in my view these proposed changes to the building codes for the third floors are not warranted, will negatively impact property values (and not just on new homes), and with everything going on right now between the pandemic, the new legislation regarding duplexes, rent control measures, etc the city needs to stop adding to the obstacles for progress to our property owners. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Things in our market, to our owners are changing quickly. What if you owned an old duplex on the Peninsula or Island just six months ago, that you owned for many years, but it is now almost beyond repair. It's so old you can't justify restoring it because the infrastructure just isn't there and you decide to sell it. A potential buyer would have many options and likely would have purchased it quickly, and for a strong number. Now....? The market is changing, most buyers do NOT want to build a duplex because of the parking requirements, and now they may be restricted on what they can do on a third floor. Does those limitations sound appealing for most potential buyers? I have been blessed to be around many great leaders. One of the most common attributes of the ones I have been around is their ability to ask people who have an expertise in a particular field for advice on getting solutions. They ask questions. As I mentioned earlier, my partner (who also happens to own two 1940s cottages in the city) and I sell the majority of homes on the Island and we both do not think this is a good idea. My guess would be if you spoke with some of the top agents in CDM and the Peninsula they would likely agree. I have multiple friends (who you may be receiving letters from) who are some of, if not the top architects in our city and I don't believe they agree with this either. They don't just design homes here and there. They design a large amount of the beautiful homes that have made the real estate in the city some of the most desirable around. If we are having discussions about property values, building codes, etc, why would you not listen to the best experts you have at your disposal who live and work in the city? We are on the front lines helping residents sell these homes, helping buyers move into them, and have a common goal with you and the city: keep values as high as possible for our residents! The simple fact is the majority of the buyers buying here or those buying to build a custom home want these new roof decks. If they didn't then this whole topic wouldn't be an issue. Clearly, by the amount of people buying and building them, there is a desire to keep the codes the way they are. Also, as an aside, I am confused as to why this is becoming an issue now. There have been large, three story homes next to cottages for many years. I understand the new homes today are even more creative in how the architects design them but please see below a photo of a home on Agate as an example, built in the 90's, next to a cottage. The home had vaulted ceilings in the front of the house where the pitch of the roof is roughly the same height as the new homes people say are towering over other properties now. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) We are already observing potential buyers pass on properties because of the new duplex legislation and I have personally already had a client pass on a cottage because he is concerned about these proposed changes to roof decks. Who does this hurt most? Ironically, in my view, the cottage owners. As an example, my team and I just sold three homes by a developer who built the same floorplan on the Island. The homes were very nice, but they didn't have overly elaborate roof decks. They sold for $3,590,000, $3,600,000, and $3,650,000 respectively. Conversely, I sold two homes last year, both in better locations, but for $4,250,000 and $4,265,000 respectively that did have the roof decks in question and have another one in escrow at strong price now with a great third floor. Another home on the Island sold last year for almost $3,900,000 with a great roof deck, in a considerably inferior location to the others that sold for much less. There are, of course other variables, i.e floorlan, quality etc, but the problem becomes, if there are more limitations to what you can do to a new home, then someone purchasing an older cottage can't justify paying more for it if the home will be worth less on the back end because of these restrictions. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) My team and I love the charm of the cottages in our communities, and we will work to continue to preserve them where we can, but I don't believe this is the time or economic environment to make it less appealing to make a purchase or build a new property. I understand you may be under some pressure from residents who don't like these taller buildings next to cottages, and that is fair. I understand where they are coming from, but the fact is we continue to see a clear difference in values between the homes who design the current roof decks and those that don't. As one potential compromise, if the Commission and Council were wanting to come up with a solution in between the current codes and the proposed changes, I would suggest continuing to allow building third floors all the way to the side set back with the large covered loggias, but require the covered loggias be set back from the front of the property somewhat. I think the main opposition I am hearing from people is when someone builds the third floor all the way to the front of the property, which can be an impediment to natural light and makes the new home feel more boxy. I hope you will consider not recommending these proposed changes. Thank you. Sincerely, Ryan Gunderson Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Abrams Coastal Properties RYAN GUNDERSON REALTOR® BRE#0‌1‌8‌6‌9‌7‌9‌5 C 949.873.3841 O 949.675.4822 www.ryanmgunderson.com Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Tina Wayt To:Planning Commissioners Subject:RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS CODE AND LCP AMENDMENTS (PA2019-070) Date:Tuesday, May 5, 2020 9:08:56 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. We are writing to ask you to consider voting FOR the RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS CODE AND LCP AMENDMENTS (PA2019-070) We have been homeowners on Balboa Island for 32 years and have watched as our “quaint” Island transformed into a jumble of wall to wall McMansions, each dwelling being built higher than the next to maximize what little water view they can claim. Please consider putting a stop to this outrageous practice and give us a chance to save our quaint "one of a kind" Island. Thank you, Bill & Tina Wayt Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Don Larsen To:Planning Commissioners Subject:3 rd story on Balboa Island Date:Tuesday, May 5, 2020 12:23:47 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I live Balboa Island. Any new construction with 3 floors, should have the 3 rd floor pushed back from the side of the house. It should not be visible from the street. The ones you have been permitting are destroying the looks of the Islands 1 and 2 story houses. Donald Larsen 318 Onyx Ave. B.I. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) 1 Rodriguez, Clarivel Subject:FW: FW: Local Coastal Program Amendment From:Christopher Brandon <chris@brandonarchitects.com> Sent:Monday, May 4, 2020 9:53 AM To:Brion Jeannette <BrionJ@bja-inc.com> Cc:O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>; Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov>; Ian Harrison <ian@ianharrisonarchitect.com>; Dixon, Diane <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov>; Avery, Brad <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>; Duffield, Duffy <dduffield@newportbeachca.gov>; Muldoon, Kevin <kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov>; Herdman, Jeff <jherdman@newportbeachca.gov>; Brenner, Joy <JBrenner@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <llowrey@newportbeachca.gov>; Ellmore, Curtis <CEllmore@newportbeachca.gov>; Klaustermeier, Sarah <sklaustermeier@newportbeachca.gov>; Rosene, Mark <mrosene@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; Bill Guidero <guiderodesign@gmail.com> Subject:Re: FW: Local Coastal Program Amendment [EXTERNAL EMAIL]DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council and City Planning Commission Members and City Staff, I would also like to voice my concerns about the proposed changes.While I agree with some of the changes I am strongly opposed to others.The importance of the matter demands a robust dialogue with the community and design professionals which I don't believe can happen with the current circumstances.This is not a building safety issue and poses no immediate risk so I would strongly suggest the matter be postponed until regular processes can be conducted.I appreciate staff's diligence and hard work on the matter and I'm happy to make myself available for continued discussion. Thank you. Best Regards, Christopher Brandon, AIA President BRANDON ARCHITECTS 714.754.4040 151 Kalmus Dr. G-1, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 www.BrandonArchitects.com Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) 2 On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 3:58 PM Brion Jeannette <BrionJ@bja-inc.com> wrote: Mr. Mayor and council members, I agree with other members of the community and professionals. The zoning code has adequately defined the building envelope and the extent of the roof decks.Any revisions to the smallest lots in the city would ostensibly down zone specific legal parcels. Thank you,I would be please to answer any questions you may have. Brion Brion Jeannette Architecture Custom Architecture │Energy Efficient Design 470 Old Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 T: 949.645.5854 ext. 212 F: 949.645.5983 brionj@bja-inc.com www.customarchitecture.com Follow us on Houzz and see what we’re up to CONFIDENTIALITY:The information contained in this e-Mail message, including any accompanying documents or attachments, is from Brion Jeannette Architecture and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and is privileged and confidential.If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited.Due to the vulnerabilities associated with electronic communications this message and any attachments should be checked for destructive content prior to executing.BJA is not responsible for loss or damage arising from the use of this e-mail or attachments. From:Donabrams [mailto:don@abramscoastal.com] Sent:Monday, April 27, 2020 10:40 AM To:Ian Harrison <ian@ianharrisonarchitect.com>;ddixon@newportbeachca.gov;bavery@newportbeachca.gov; dduffield@newportbeachca.gov;kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov;jherdman@newportbeachca.gov; clerk; joy@newportbeachca.gov;woneill@newportbeachca.gov;pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov; eweigand@newportbeachca.gov;llowrey@newportbeachca.gov;cellmore@newportbeachca.gov; sklaustermeier@newportbeachca.gov;mrosene@newportbeachca.gov; Seimone Jurjis <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; brionj@bja-inc.com; Chris Brandon <chris@brandonarchitects.com>; Bill Guidero <guiderodesign@gmail.com> Subject:Local Coastal Program Amendment Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) 3 Dear City Council and City Planning Commission Members and City Staff: I would like to second what Ian Harrison said below and go one step further:This Amendment is wholly unnecessary.The third floor roof decks that have been designed and built in recent years are an enhancement to the community.As usual, there are a few people in the City who don’t care for them, but that is not a reason to overhaul the code. With all the problems facing our City at this moment, I believe this is one of the last to pics that should be considered. Thank you, Don DONALD L. ABRAMS Broker BRE#01234323 C 714.325.9055 O 949.675.4822 On Apr 27, 2020, at 9:59 AM, Ian Harrison <ian@ianharrisonarchitect.com> wrote: City of Newport Beach, I would like to strongly suggest the upcoming hearing for the Local Coastal Program Amendment be postponed until the city is open for business again.I am getting the feeling from many people in the community that this amendment is being railroaded through while there is no face-to-face communication with the city to get a true representation of the people of Newport Beach. The fact that the Council meeting is already scheduled prior to the Planning Commissio n meeting hearing seems very suspect and a forgone conclusion that there is no alternate views of this amendment. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) 4 There is no life threatening or safety reason that this amendment needs to be pushed through now and not wait for a full and open review where those who want can openly express their views. Thank you for your consideration, Ian Ian Harrison, Architect 949-887-4534 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) 1 Rodriguez, Clarivel Subject:FW: Local Coastal Program Amendment From:Ian Harrison <ian@ianharrisonarchitect.com> Sent:Monday, April 27, 2020 10:00 AM To:Dixon, Diane <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov>; Avery, Brad <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>; Duffield, Duffy <dduffield@newportbeachca.gov>; Muldoon, Kevin <kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov>; Herdman, Jeff <jherdman@newportbeachca.gov>; Brenner, Joy <JBrenner@newportbeachca.gov>; O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <llowrey@newportbeachca.gov>; Ellmore, Curtis <CEllmore@newportbeachca.gov>; Klaustermeier, Sarah <sklaustermeier@newportbeachca.gov>; Rosene, Mark <mrosene@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov> Cc:'Donald Abrams' <don@abramscoastal.com>; 'brionj@bja-inc.com' <brionj@bja-inc.com>; 'Chris Brandon' <chris@brandonarchitects.com>; 'Bill Guidero' <guiderodesign@gmail.com> Subject:Local Coastal Program Amendment [EXTERNAL EMAIL]DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. City of Newport Beach, I would like to strongly suggest the upcoming hearing for the Local Coastal Program Amendment be postponed until the city is open for business again.I am getting the feeling from many people in the community that this amendment is being railroaded through while there is no face -to-face communication with the city to get a true representation of the people of Newport Beach. The fact that the Council meeting is already scheduled prior to the Planning Commission meet ing hearing seems very suspect and a forgone conclusion that there is no alternate views of this amendment. There is no life threatening or safety reason that this amendment needs to be pushed through now and not wait for a full and open review where those who want can openly express their views. Thank you for your consideration, Ian Ian Harrison, Architect 949-887-4534 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) 1 Rodriguez, Clarivel Subject:FW: Local Coastal Program Amendment From:Donabrams <don@abramscoastal.com> Sent:Monday, April 27, 2020 10:40 AM To:Ian Harrison <ian@ianharrisonarchitect.com>; Dixon, Diane <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov>; Avery, Brad <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>; Duffield, Duffy <dduffield@newportbeachca.gov>; Muldoon, Kevin <kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov>; Herdman, Jeff <jherdman@newportbeachca.gov>; clerk; Brenner, Joy <JBrenner@newportbeachca.gov>; O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand,Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <llowrey@newportbeachca.gov>; Ellmore, Curtis <CEllmore@newportbeachca.gov>; Klaustermeier, Sarah <sklaustermeier@newportbeachca.gov>; Rosene, Mark <mrosene@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>;brionj@bja-inc.com; Chris Brandon <chris@brandonarchitects.com>; Bill Guidero <guiderodesign@gmail.com> Subject:Local Coastal Program Amendment [EXTERNAL EMAIL]DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council and City Planning Commission Members and City Staff: I would like to second what Ian Harrison said below and go one step further:This Amendment is wholly unnecessary.The third floor roof decks that have been designed and built in recent years are an enhancement to the community.As usual, there are a few people in the City who don’t care for them, but that is not a reason to overhaul the code. With all the problems facing our City at this moment, I believe this is one of the last topics that should be considered. Thank you, Don DONALD L. ABRAMS Broker BRE#01234323 C 714.325.9055 O 949.675.4822 On Apr 27, 2020, at 9:59 AM, Ian Harrison <ian@ianharrisonarchitect.com> wrote: City of Newport Beach, I would like to strongly suggest the upcoming hearing for the Local Coastal Program Amendment be postponed until the city is open for business again.I am getting the feeling from many people in the community that this amendment is being railroaded through while Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) 2 there is no face-to-face communication with the city to get a true representation of the pe ople of Newport Beach. The fact that the Council meeting is already scheduled prior to the Planning Commission meeting hearing seems very suspect and a forgone conclusion that there is no alternate views of this amendment. There is no life threatening or safety reason that this amendment needs to be pushed through now and not wait for a full and open review where those who want can openly express their views. Thank you for your consideration, Ian Ian Harrison, Architect 949-887-4534 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:John Merchant To:Planning Commissioners; Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Kleiman, Lauren; Rosene, Mark; Campbell, Jim; Dixon, Diane; Avery, Brad; Duffield, Duffy; Muldoon, Kevin; Herdman, Jeff; Brenner, Joy; O"Neill, William; Dept - City Council Cc:ERIN WALSH; lowercase Moloney; Jim Moloney; coastalenforcement@coastal.ca.gov; ocpcustomercare@ocpw.ocgov.com Subject:The proposed modifications to new home three story massing; https://www.newportbeachca.gov/PLN/planning_commission/current_agenda.pdf Date:Tuesday, May 5, 2020 3:20:22 PM Attachments:image.png image.png [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Commissioners, In response to the upcoming May 7, 2020, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA: RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS CODE AND LCP AMENDMENTS (PA2019- 070):Revisions to Third Floor Development Standards I'd like to provide you with the input from an "outsider", someone (it's me in case you had picked up on that already) who had been fortunate enough to have discovered Balboa Island many years ago.A very real, and impossible to hide, detriment to the Island, has been spreading at an alarming pace.It takes away some of the charm and appeal as a place to rent a quaint cottage (at considerable cost, as you are certainly aware!) when you watch as we do,in a time-lapsed view between our stays on the island, to see this slow developing tsunami of McMansions overrunning and overshadowing the surrounding original cottages and two story homes. I'm a big believer in being able to build as massive of a house as one is allowed to through zoning. With that said, there are many places where that happens, and probably even more places where it is allowed. *****Balboa Island, and its neighboring peninsula just AREN'T and should NOT become, anymore than what has already been approved, one of those places***** Common sense and steep tradition should be enough guidance for the commission; not builders, lobbyists, nor the desire to fill the city/county coffers with financial windfall from approving zone laws to allow for these three story "sky-high-scrapers" that are already displaying their expansive shadows and blocking views that previously existed for the last one hundred years! Look no farther than the cottages at Crystal Cove for a blueprint on preservation at its finest. Perhaps if you've had the pleasure of spending a night down there, you will appreciate what it is you are considering? Can you imagine how different it would be at Crystal Cove if instead of rebuilding all of those cottages as close as humanly possible to their original luster, that they just bulldozed them down, and replaced them with three story cookie cutter eyesores, blocking the neighboring buildings from the sun, wind and their views? Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) If the thought of that is appalling to you, and makes you sad to just to picture it in your mind for one second, then you have your answer to this growing "three-stories" emergency that is devastating Balboa and the peninsula. You have a tremendous decision to wrestle with, and you alone control the future of the these ever-rare, charming, small communities. If you open the floodgates to these three stories proposals, then you're going to go in history (and her-story) as a named co conspirator for eternity, actively promoting the demise of a way of life to generations of families that have cherished this small towns. I'd be rather surprised if that is one the reasons why you joined the commission? What do you want your legacy to be? Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Sincerely, A very concerned observer! -- John Edward Merchant 2941 Via Pacheco Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274 C: 424-209-5926 H: 310-541-2951 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:CDD To:Murillo, Jaime Cc:Rodriguez, Clarivel Subject:FW: Planning Commission Meeting Date:Tuesday, May 5, 2020 3:24:50 PM -----Original Message----- From: Shari Bjorkqvist <sharikayb@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2020 12:36 PM To: CDD <CDD@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Planning Commission Meeting [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commission, I am a Resident of Balboa Island. I am writing this email in regards to the public hearing on Thursday related to modifications to new hone three story massing . I urge you to vote in favor of the initiated proposal . Sincerely, Shari Bjorkqvist Balboa Island Sent from my iPhone Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From: bill guidero <guiderodesign@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 10:44 AM To: Christopher Brandon Cc: Brion Jeannette; O'Neill, William; Murillo, Jaime; Ian Harrison; Dixon, Diane; Avery, Brad; Duffield, Duffy; Muldoon, Kevin; Herdman, Jeff; Brenner, Joy; Koetting, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Ellmore, Curtis; Klaustermeier, Sarah; Rosene, Mark; Jurjis, Seimone Subject: Re: FW: Local Coastal Program Amendment [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good morning everyone, Jaime Murillo has been in contact with me on the possible changes in the third level covered patios and condition space over the last few months. I do like the reduction in of the mass in some of the projects that have been built in the last few years. But I'm in agreement with Brion Jeannette on the smaller depth build able lot area especially on the peninsula lots, the 15' front and rear setbacks are extreme. Possibly on Build able lot depth of 50' or less can have 10' front and rear setbacks? Thank you any questions I'm also available. Bill Guidero *425 30th Street * suite #23 * Newport Beach * CA * 92663 * guiderodesign@gmail.com * (949) *675*2626 On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 9:53 AM Christopher Brandon <chris@brandonarchitects.com> wrote: Dear City Council and City Planning Commission Members and City Staff, I would also like to voice my concerns about the proposed changes. While I agree with some of the changes I am strongly opposed to others. The importance of the matter demands a robust dialogue with the community and design professionals which I don't believe can happen with the current circumstances. This is not a building safety issue and poses no immediate risk so I would strongly suggest the matter be postponed until regular processes can be conducted. I appreciate staff's diligence and hard work on the matter and I'm happy to make myself available for continued discussion. Thank you. Best Regards, Christopher Brandon, AIA President Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) BRANDON ARCHITECTS 714.754.4040 151 Kalmus Dr. G-1, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 www.BrandonArchitects.com On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 3:58 PM Brion Jeannette <BrionJ@bja-inc.com> wrote: Mr. Mayor and council members, I agree with other members of the community and professionals. The zoning code has adequately defined the building envelope and the extent of the roof decks. Any revisions to the smallest lots in the city would ostensibly down zone specific legal parcels. Thank you, I would be please to answer any questions you may have. Brion Brion Jeannette Architecture Custom Architecture │ Energy Efficient Design 470 Old Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 T: 949.645.5854 ext. 212 F: 949.645.5983 brionj@bja-inc.com www.customarchitecture.com Follow us on Houzz and see what we’re up to CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in this e-Mail message, including any accompanying documents or attachments, is from Brion Jeannette Architecture and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. Due to the vulnerabilities associated with electronic communications this message and any attachments should be checked for destructive content prior to executing. BJA is not responsible for loss or damage arising from the use of this e-mail or attachments. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From: Donabrams [mailto:don@abramscoastal.com] Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 10:40 AM To: Ian Harrison <ian@ianharrisonarchitect.com>; ddixon@newportbeachca.gov; bavery@newportbeachca.gov; dduffield@newportbeachca.gov; kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov; jherdman@newportbeachca.gov; clerk; joy@newportbeachca.gov; woneill@newportbeachca.gov; pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov; eweigand@newportbeachca.gov; llowrey@newportbeachca.gov; cellmore@newportbeachca.gov; sklaustermeier@newportbeachca.gov; mrosene@newportbeachca.gov; Seimone Jurjis <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; brionj@bja-inc.com; Chris Brandon <chris@brandonarchitects.com>; Bill Guidero <guiderodesign@gmail.com> Subject: Local Coastal Program Amendment Dear City Council and City Planning Commission Members and City Staff: I would like to second what Ian Harrison said below and go one step further: This Amendment is wholly unnecessary. The third floor roof decks that have been designed and built in recent years are an enhancement to the community. As usual, there are a few people in the City who don’t care for them, but that is not a reason to overhaul the code. With all the problems facing our City at this moment, I believe this is one of the last topics that should be considered. Thank you, Don DONALD L. ABRAMS Broker BRE#01234323 C 714.325.9055 O 949.675.4822 On Apr 27, 2020, at 9:59 AM, Ian Harrison <ian@ianharrisonarchitect.com> wrote: Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) City of Newport Beach, I would like to strongly suggest the upcoming hearing for the Local Coastal Program Amendment be postponed until the city is open for business again. I am getting the feeling from many people in the community that this amendment is being railroaded through while there is no face-to-face communication with the city to get a true representat ion of the people of Newport Beach. The fact that the Council meeting is already scheduled prior to the Planning Commission meeting hearing seems very suspect and a forgone conclusion that there is no alternate views of this amendment. There is no life threatening or safety reason that this amendment needs to be pushed through now and not wait for a full and open review where those who want can openly express their views. Thank you for your consideration, Ian Ian Harrison, Architect 949-887-4534 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2c Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Max Gardner To:Planning Commissioners Subject:5/7/2020 Commission meeting, item 2 Date:Monday, May 4, 2020 5:56:41 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. As a resident of Balboa Island, and a recently retired real estate developer, I am very much in support of the recommendations of staff regarding item 2 on your agenda for this week. It is very clear that the staff has been thoughtful in regards to the community, and yet very considerate of the needs of developers and contractors. My wife and I have watched with some significant level of concern as third floors have expanded on the island, and I believe strongly that these modifications will help preserve the character of Balboa Island. Thank you for your careful consideration of this item. Max Gardner 201 Emerald Avenue Sent from Max's iPad Please excuse typos Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, California 90067-3284 P: 310.284.2200 F: 310.284.2100 David P. Waite 310.284.2218 dwaite@coxcastle.com 084639\11373496v6 www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco May 5, 2020 VIA EMAIL City of Newport Beach Planning Commission 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Item 2 – Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070): Martin Family Trust Opposition to Proposed Changes to Development Standards Dear Chair Koetting and Members of the Planning Commission: We write on behalf of the Martin Family Trust, owner of the property located at 1824 West Ocean Front (“Property”), to urge you to reconsider the proposed amendments to the Residential Design Standards (“Proposed Amendments”). While the Martin Family is sensitive to protecting and enhancing the aesthetics of districts such as the RM zoning district, the Proposed Amendments raise serious legal questions and would create more harm than good. The Proposed Amendments not only run afoul of recently enacted state law, they present a poor land use policy. First, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 explicitly forbids the very changes that the Proposed Amendments would make. Second, the Proposed Amendments would result in spotty, inconsistent development in breach of well-established planning principles and laws against spot zoning. Finally, the Proposed Amendments would have an unfair and detrimental impact on the value of the Property and other underdeveloped properties in affected zoning districts compared to properties that have already been redeveloped. In light of these considerations, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission reject the Proposed Amendments. A. The Property and the block The Property is a single-family home situated on three separate lots that directly front the adjacent beach and the Pacific Ocean. Carol and Bill Martin have lived at the Property for the last 55+ years, and it has been in their family since 1937. The Property is located in the RM zoning district, which is intended to “provide for areas appropriate for multi-unit residential developments containing attached or detached dwelling units.” Newport Beach Municipal Code §20.18.010(E). File No. 084639 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) 084639\11373496v6 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission May 5, 2020 Page 2 The 1800 block of West Ocean Front, on which the Property is located, has seen a wave of development in recent years. Property owners have availed themselves of the development opportunities available to RM zoning district properties by redeveloping their lots to their full potential. At least 10 of the 14 lots on the 1800 block of West Ocean Front have either fully developed their properties or have expressed an intention to do so. As an example, we have included as Exhibit A photographs of development occurring directly next to the Property. This type of development is representative of the recent building trend that has occurred on the 1800 block of West Ocean Front. The Martin family has always intended to similarly redevelop the Property. Given the fact that the Property is located on three separate lots that face the beach and the ocean, and the opportunities for development in the RM zoning district, the Martin Family has been keenly aware of the potential value of its Property and has planned accordingly for several years. Other property owners on the block have similarly planned for redevelopment pursuant to current RM zoning district regulations. B. Proposed Amendments to the Residential Design Standards The City has drafted the Proposed Amendments in response to concerns about perceived residential massing in several of the City’s zoning districts. In an attempt to address such concerns, the Proposed Amendments would apply the City’s proposed Residential Development Standards to those districts.1,2 In doing so, the Proposed Amendments would impose several new restrictions on certain residential development in subject districts, including front, back, and side setbacks for third floors, maximum gross floor area for third floors, and open volume area requirements. In addition to subjecting additional zoning districts to the new development Standards, the Proposed Amendments also intensify those Residential Development Standards, further restricting development.3 Instead of narrowly tailored design standards specific to the needs of the RM and R-BI zoning districts, the Proposed Amendments simply import the R1 and R2 zoning district 1 In addition to subjecting properties in the RM and R-BI zoning districts to the Residential Development Standards, the Proposed Amendments would also apply the third-floor setback requirements of the Residential Development Standards to lots twenty-five feet wide or less in the R-2 zoning district. 2 The Residential Development Standards would not apply to the development of three-unit properties in the RM zoning district. Although as many as three units are permitted to be developed on RM zoning district lots, building three units is frequently infeasible due to parking requirements and other site-specific limitations. In many instances, the best and highest use of a property in the RM zoning district is as a one- or two-unit property. 3 For example, the Proposed Amendments would amend the Residential Development Standards to impose additional two foot side setback requirements on the third floor of one- and two-unit properties that are 30 feet in width or greater, whereas current standards only apply to properties that are greater than 30 feet. This is a new development restriction that would newly limit buildable area on the third floor for properties already subject to the current Residential Development Standards. The Proposed Amendments also expand the definition of “gross floor area,” which could serve to reduce habitable space by including in its definition items such as covered decks, balconies or patios above the first floor and covered parking spaces. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) 084639\11373496v6 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission May 5, 2020 Page 3 development standards and apply them to other districts, without regard for each district’s individual circumstances. This broad, one-size-fits-all approach disregards the impact that such standards could have on development in these zoning districts and is unworkable on many levels. C. The Proposed Amendments are prohibited by the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. In 2019, California passed Senate Bill 330 (the Housing Crisis Act of 2019) (“HCA”). This bill was passed to help address California’s severe housing shortage by making it easier to build housing. Among other things, the intent of the HCA is to “suspend certain restrictions on the development of new housing” until January 1, 2025. (Senate Bill 330, Section 2(c)(1).) Specifically, the HCA prohibits any affected city4 from enacting any “development policy, standard, or condition” that would result in a less intensive housing use than was permitted on January 1, 2018 in any given zone. Govt. Code §66300(b)(1). The HCA does not only limit restrictions that would reduce or otherwise hamper the number of housing units that could be built. In fact, the prohibition defines “less intensive use” broadly, including “reductions to height, density, or floor area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size requirements, or new or increased setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, or maximum lot coverage limitations, or anything that would lessen the intensity of housing.” Id. (emphasis added). The Martin family appreciates that staff is not proposing to reduce height limitations in the RM zoning district, and it is imperative that the current height restrictions and standards remain unchanged. Even without a height limit change, however, the Proposed Amendments do exactly what the HCA prohibits: introduce new development restrictions and standards that will lessen the intensity of housing and habitable floor area in a residential zone. The Proposed Amendments do this in at least two ways. First, the Proposed Amendments intensify the restrictions set forth in the Residential Development Standards, including expanded setback restrictions for 30 feet wide lots in subject zoning districts. Second, the Proposed Amendments will subject properties in the RM and R-BI zoning districts to the existing Residential Development Standards, which require, among other things, new front, back, and side setbacks on the third floor, limits on allowable floor area on the third floor (20% of total buildable area for lots 30 feet wide or less) and open volume area requirements. These types of development restrictions are explicitly referenced as prohibitions in the text of the HCA. Practically, these changes could result in less buildable area, which could translate directly to fewer bedrooms and significant reductions in other habitable spaces—particularly on 4“Affected city” means a city, including a charter city, that the Department of Housing and Community Development determines…is in an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau.” (Govt. Code § 66300.) The Department of Housing and Community Development has identified Newport Beach as affected city subject to the HCA. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community- development/accountability-enforcement/statutory-determinations.shtml Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) 084639\11373496v6 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission May 5, 2020 Page 4 the third floor. By definition, this would lessen the intensity of housing in subject zoning districts. It is for this exact reason that introducing these types of development restrictions is explicitly prohibited by the HCA. In its Staff Report, staff concludes that the Proposed Amendments would not violate the HCA because the Proposed Amendments would not “preclude the ability of a homeowner to achieve the same development intensity.” Newport Beach Planning Commission Staff Report (May 7, 2020), p. 17. Staff does not explain why this would be the case for properties that will be subject to the more restrictive Residential Development Standards. Instead, the City suggests, without further explanation, that the “difference [with the Proposed Amendments] is that the third floors will now be required to be articulated and covered patios designed to be more transparent.” Id. This is simply not true. The newly applied third floor setbacks will impact development intensity when combined with the other development restrictions. Simply put, property owners will be required to build less habitable and occupiable space within the otherwise permissible building envelope than they otherwise would be able to if the Proposed Amendments are approved, in violation of the HCA.5 The HCA was passed amidst an acute statewide housing crisis caused at least in part by decades of underbuilding across the state, including in Newport Beach.6 In the most recent draft of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation, Newport Beach is expected to build approximately 4,800 housing units from 2021 – 2029.7 Even putting aside the rules of the HCA (of which the Proposed Amendments are clearly in violation), the City cannot afford to impose new development restrictions that risk stifling and disincentivizing housing development in the City. D.The Proposed Amendments would create the effect of spot zoning, which is prohibited by state law and widely acknowledged as bad policy. A majority of the properties on the 1800 block of West Ocean Front have been redeveloped pursuant to the current RM zoning district development standards. Those existing buildings would not be subject to the Proposed Amendment. Only the Property and other similarly underdeveloped properties on the block (which comprise a distinct minority) will be directly impacted by the Proposed Amendments when property owners attempt to redevelop 5 The Staff Report also suggests that the Proposed Amendments result in no “changes in total allowed floor area.” Staff Report, p. 17. While this may be true for the allowable total floor area, the HCA reach is more expansive. It prohibits new development restrictions and standards commonly implemented which have the practical effect of reducing development potential (including new setbacks) regardless of whether the “allowable” floor area is reduced or not. 6 According to the City’s own Annual Progress Report, the City approved only 123 housing units in 2018. 7 See Southern California Association of Governments Regional Council Meeting No. 616 Agenda http://www.scag.ca.gov/committees/CommitteeDocLibrary/RC_fullagn_110719.pdf. See also “Potential housing mandates take coastal cities by surprise.” Accessed at https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/story/2019-11-16/potential-housing-mandates-take-coastal-cities-by- surprise on January 9, 2020. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) 084639\11373496v6 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission May 5, 2020 Page 5 those lots. As such, the block will be developed in an inconsistent manner, and the Proposed Amendments will have the effect of spot zoning the Property and properties like it. Spot zoning occurs when one parcel “is restricted and given less rights than the surrounding property.” Wilkins v. City of San Bernardino (1946) 29 Cal. 2d. 332, 340. Well- established law restricts spot zoning. Specifically, a zoning ordinance cannot “unfairly discriminate against a particular parcel of land.” Reynolds v. Barrett (1938) 12 Cal. 2d. 244, 251. Spot zoning can form the basis of an equal protection violation in favor of property owners whose properties have been downzoned. See Ross v. City of Yorba Linda (1991) 1 Cal. App. 4th 954 (holding that an equal protection violation occurred when the city council denied rezoning that would have allowed property owners to develop their land at a higher density equivalent to surrounding parcels.) Further, the basic principles of consistent zoning and development practices within a given zone are well-established. As explained by the California Court of Appeal (Fourth District), although “cities and counties may create rules and they may create zones; the rules should be the same for each parcel within a zone…” Neighbors in Support of Appropriate Land Use v. County of Tuolumne (2007) 157 Cal. App. 4th 997, 1008. The court further explains that in a zoning scheme, each property owner “forgoes the rights to use its land as it wishes in return for the assurance that the use of the neighboring property will be similarly restricted…” Id at 1009 (citing Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal. 3d. 506, 517-518). The opposite is true here. If the Proposed Amendments are adopted, then redevelopment of the Property will be subject to different development standards than completed redevelopment of properties that line the 1800 block of West Ocean Front. Moreover, a significant portion of the redeveloped properties on the block will immediately become nonconforming, which will create a burden on property owners and the City alike. This result runs counter to laws restricting spot zoning and best practice planning principles. E. The Proposed Amendments would unfairly diminish the value of underdeveloped properties in subject zoning districts. The Proposed Amendments would unfairly and disproportionately impact property owners in subject zoning districts that have not yet redeveloped their properties. These amendments would limit the flexibility and overall development potential of the Property and similarly underdeveloped properties in subject zoning districts, which would undoubtedly impact the value of the properties. As previously discussed, numerous property owners on the Property’s block have taken full advantage of the development potential currently available in the RM zoning district. However, several properties on the block (including the Property) remain underdeveloped. If the Proposed Amendments are passed, these property owners will not be able to realize the full potential of their property simply because their redevelopments came too late. The decision to now impose new restrictions on properties that have not yet taken full advantage of the zone in which their properties are located is arbitrary and unfair. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) 084639\11373496v6 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission May 5, 2020 Page 6 The Proposed Amendments raise significant property and due process rights concerns for owners of underdeveloped land in affected zoning districts. As discussed, the Proposed Amendments would severely limit the amount of development that property owners can build on their third floors. In the case of the Property, this could mean at least several hundred square feet less of buildable area with maximum ocean views than the Property’s owners have for years been expecting. The economic impact of the limitations is not insignificant. The Proposed Amendments directly threaten property owners’ investment-backed expectations for their properties. F. The City could adopt less restrictive alternatives to the Proposed Amendments that would achieve the desired result. We believe there are less harmful (and legally valid) design measures that would achieve the desired results intended by the Proposed Amendments. In fact, these design criteria already exist as applied to other zoning districts. For example, Newport Beach Municipal Code section 20.48.180(B)(2) indicates that “long, unarticulated exterior walls are discouraged on all structures.” Instead, it suggests reducing visual massing by “variation in the wall plane, building modulation, openings, recesses, vertical elements, varied textures, and design accents.” These design standards could be expanded upon and would achieve aesthetic improvement without improperly reducing the intensity of use or otherwise devaluing properties in subject zoning districts. The City has not sufficiently demonstrated why the Proposed Amendments are needed to achieve the desired improvements. Furthermore, if the Proposed Amendments are adopted and structures in impacted zoning districts are required to move more of their enclosed buildable area away from the third floor and onto the first and second floors, this can create an even less attractive result: two solid enclosed floors of living area facing the public right of way, with very little open space to provide design articulation and visual interest, topped with private open space and a smaller enclosed structure perched like the top layer of a wedding cake on the third floor. It is not at all clear that the Proposed Amendments will have any appreciable effect on the perceived problem of residential massing or will otherwise improve the aesthetics of the impacted zoning districts any more than less injurious alternatives. The Proposed Amendments are problematic for a number of reasons: they run afoul of new state housing law, they violate longstanding law and principles of consistent zoning and development standards, and they deprive the Martin family and other similarly situated property owners of their ability to obtain their expected return on the investments they have made in their properties. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission reject the Proposed Amendments. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) 084639\11373496v6 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission May 5, 2020 Page 7 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, David P. Waite DPW Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) 084639\11373496v6 Exhibit A Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) 084639\11373496v6 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) 1 Rodriguez, Clarivel Subject:FW: Proposed RM Zoning District development standard changes From:Catherine Wolcott <catherinewolcott@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 5, 2020 4:56 PM To:Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <llowrey@newportbeachca.gov>; Ellmore, Curtis <CEllmore@newportbeachca.gov>; Klaustermeier, Sarah <sklaustermeier@newportbeachca.gov>; Kleiman, Lauren <lkleiman@newportbeachca.gov>; Rosene, Mark <mrosene@newportbeachca.gov> Cc:Jacobs, Carol <cjacobs@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; Campbell, Jim <JCampbell@newportbeachca.gov>; Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov>; Waite, David P. <DWaite@coxcastle.com>; Bierman, Adam Z. <ABierman@coxcastle.com>; Carol Martin <candwmartin@sbcglobal.net>; Bill Martin <bmartinworks@sbcglobal.net>; Joni Martin <joniwords@aol.com>; Cindy Martin <cynthiamartin6@hotmail.com> Subject:Proposed RM Zoning District development standard changes [EXTERNAL EMAIL]DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is saf e. To the Chairman and members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission; I am writing as one of the representatives and successor beneficiaries of the Martin Family Trust, owner of the property located at 1824 West Ocean Front.The Martin Family Trust objects to some of the proposed changes to the Zoning Code which will be presented to the Planning Commission on May 7, 2020, and will submit its objections in writing due to the unreliable nature of the telephonic public comment process implemented during public meetings during the COVID-19 emergency.In addition to the objections set forth below, I adopt and incorporate by reference any additional objections to the proposed amendments set forth by David Waite of the law firm Cox Castle Nicholson, who serve s as the Martin Family Trust’s outside counsel in this matter. As a former deputy city attorney for the City of Newport Beach, I have worked with and have a high degree of respect for the intellect and integrity of the Community Development staff members involved in formulating the proposed changes to the Zoning Code development standards.Our family appreciates that staff has recognized that reducing the height limit in RM zones would blatantly conflict with state law, as acknowledged in the staff report.However, I believe many of the changes staff has been asked to make conflict with state law and good zoning practice. One of our primary objections is the new third-floor setback requirement on buildings in the RM zoning districts when fewer than three units are built on an RM-zoned property.As you may know, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (adopted by the State of California in September 2019) provides, in part: [A]n affected county or an affected city shall not enact a development policy, standard,or condition that would have any of the following effects: Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) 2 A.Changing . . . zoning of a parcel or parcels of property to a less intensive use or reducing the intensity of land use within an existing … zoning district below what was allowed under the land use designation and zoning ordinances of the affected county or affected city, as applicable, in in effect on January 1, 2018 … For purposes of this subparagraph, “less intensive use” includes, but is not limited to reductions to height, density, or floor a rea ratio, new or increased open space or lot size requirements, or new or increased setback requirements . . . The language of the Housing Crisis Act could not be clearer. If height limits are reduced, FAR reduced, or third floor setback requirements on structures in the RM zones that do not currently exist in the NBMC are now imposed, this violates the Housing Crisis Act. It is the Martin Family Trust’s continued position that the City cannot apply development standards from a different residential zone in the RM zoning district.However, even if the City could properly import R-1 and R- 2 development standards into an RM zoning district for one-and two-unit structures, thus imposing front and rear third floor setbacks, staff’s suggestion to impose the third floor two-foot side setback requirement on RM lots that are 30 feet or wider would result in imposing a brand new setback requirement on lots such as ours that are 30 feet wide. Even if our family’s property was located in an R-1 or R-2 zoning district, this would be a violation of the Housing Crisis Act.As the NBMC is currently written, the development standards for R-1 and R-2 zones exempt single-and two-unit structures from the third floor two-foot side setback requirements unless they are greater than 30 feet in width.(See NBMC Section 20.48.180(A)(3)(b).)Any reduction of the threshold width for exemption from the third-floor side setback creates a new setback requirement for 30 -foot wide lots.That fact that the new setback is proposed for the third floor is not dispositive; the Housing Crisis Act makes no such distinctions. Furthermore, the staff report’s attempt to characterize the new third -floor setbacks as “step backs” appears to be an attempt to avoid highlighting this cle ar conflict with state law; NBMC Section 20.48.180(A)(3)(b) (Location of Third Floor Structure) states that, in R-1 and R-2 zoning districts, enclosed square footage located on the third floor shall be “set back a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the fron t and rear setback lines, and for lots greater than thirty (30) feet in width a minimum of two feet from each side setback line…”(emphasis added) Rather than adopting the proposed changes, we suggest that imposing some of the design standards currently suggested in NBMC Section 20.48.180(B)(2) could break up portions of long, unarticulated exterior walls where they can be seen by the public without creating a new setback.Variations in a wall plane and partial indentations could create an aesthetic imp rovement and provide light corridors without violating the Housing Crisis Act. We also object to covered but unenclosed third-floor decks being counted as part of the buildable area of the third floor, which is already greatly reduced under this proposal.Anyone who has fought skin cancer knows that additional shade in outdoor living spaces is advisable, but staff has informed us that under this proposal the only additional shade they will allow on the uncovered third -floor deck area is an umbrella.An umbrella is insufficient protection, and anyone who has lived near our beach know s that the afternoon wind will make the umbrella’s limited shade even more unreliable.We understand the current covered deck provisions have been abused in the past by homeowners who later enclose the covered decks, but believe that requiring the sides of the covered deck be left open without counting the unenclosed shaded area against the third floor buildable area is a more reasonable and medically sound solution in all zoning districts. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) 3 Thank you for your consideration, Catherine Martin Wolcott Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Lee Pearl To:Planning Commissioners; Dept - City Council Cc:Terry Janssen; Ken Yonkers; Tom Houston; Jack Callahan Subject:Comments from Lee Pearl Item 2 Planning Commission Agenda Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 9:09:38 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. May 6, 2020 Planning Commission: I am writing this email wearing two hats. As a resident of Balboa Island with no plans to eversell or rebuild my home and as the Balboa Island Improvement Association (BIIA) LocalGovernment Liaison. Thank you for your review of the changes and for including the Balboa Island ConstantContact in your agenda packet. I have done my job to insure as many residents of BalboaIsland as possible are aware of this initiative. The Constant Contact was distributed to 1,200emails/ Island residents. I promoted City workshops with residents and personally attendedmost of the meetings. The General Meetings last year held at the Balboa Island fire stationincluded updates too. Four past President’s of the BIIA (included in the cc to this email) support these changes alongwith the Board of Directors of the BIIA. The President of the Little Balboa Island PropertyOwners Association was also included as a courtesy. I have corresponded with the twoindividuals on Balboa Island voicing opposition to the changes with written correspondenceand in the recent Constant Contact to residents encouraged those that support and oppose thechanges. I hope the Planning Commission recognizes the importance of fixing the 2010 code revisionsthat are having a negative impacts on our communities and moving this initiative to the CityCouncil to allow our elected officials to deliberate on this issue with their constituents. I notsure how many of you were on the Commission in 2010 but the attached home on Pearl is anexample of the homes currently under constriction on the Island next to a single story withsecond story on the rear original cottage, an interesting constrast. The third photo is the homeon the other side, a modern two story home built pre 2010 code change. I plan to testify at the Public Hearing but voice my support of the staff recommendations. The staff has done a great job of community outreach and integrating feedback into the final staff report. Lee Pearl the316 Onyx Avenue Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Jon Remy To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Balboa Island Massing Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 9:22:27 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Newport Beach Planning Commission, My name is Jon Remy, I've lived at 212 Collins Avenue on Balboa Island since 1975and have noticed in the past 10 years, the once pleasant, unassuming and quainthomes of Balboa Island being turning into multiple-level sheer-walled mansions risingup like monoliths into the sky blocking the sun and air flow. My grandfather, Earl Johnson built the house with his own hands in 1926, the woodcoming from his Johnson Lumber Yard in Alta Dena, and driven down in his Model TTruck down every weekend until the house was completed a year later. He was onethat came down on the Red Car for holiday from Pasadena and was met by the slewof land sales booths at the end of the line in front of the Balboa Pavilion, and hesigned on the dotted line for a parcel on the developing Balboa Island. He bought alot in the center of the island because without the seawall, it was eroding quickly. Hefigured in a few decades he would have a bay front view. I currently have a new build next to me (photos attached), which is maximizing it'sallowable height with sheer walls, using the entire 30'x 90' footprint, a massivestructure. I'm sure I will never have light come through my windows again from theNorth. Not sure if it's a home or a Mausoleum! I understand I can't do anything aboutit...it falls into the current allowable parameters set by the City of Newport Beach. Ican't afford to build up, so this is my existence the rest of my life I'm afraid. On the200 block of Collins Avenue, there are no less than 5 new mansion builds in differentstages, so construction has been going on for several years, making living life herehard to bear. The street looks like a Ford Truck dealership, and the only benefit I canfind is I can barely hear the jets over the hammers and Skil saws. HELP!! We must put in place some restrictions on designing and building these monstrosities,with some setbacks to allow airflow, or the charm will be lost forever....it will be justanother reflection..."Remember When Balboa Island was so cute and historic?" I'm asking to please restrict the sheer-walled massing that has run rampant on the island and require setbacks and reasonable architecture considerations, also encourage incentives to the owners of the remaining cottages to keep them Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) intact, so in the future, people can see what the island was at one time, not just described in a photo on the Balboa Island Museum wall. It's not too late if we act now, the charm and historic community feeling is whatBalboa Island was built on, can stay intact. PLANNING COMMISSION, PLEASE KEEP THE CHARM OF BALBOA ISLAND, LIMIT THE MASSING! YOU CAN SAVE THE ISLAND! THANK YOU!! Jon Remy 714-504-9437 jtremy@yahoo.com Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Derek Johansson To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Proposed Residential Design Standards Amendments Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 11:10:59 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am writing to voice my support for the proposed design standards amendments. I believe the reduction in 3rd floor massing is important to prevent unsightly over-building of tall structures out of character with our neighborhoods. I also support the changes to gross floor area calculations in order to better reflect the true built square footage of the structures. Thank you, John Derek Johansson 2337 La Linda Pl Newport Beach, CA Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Andy Lingle To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Setbacks for 3 story Homes Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 11:28:42 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commissioners, I support the proposed resolution codifying third floor setbacks for three story homes. This change will help to preserve the character and charm of our neighborhoods. Without these requirements neighboring homes will lose the light, air, and livability that they are entitled to. Thank you, Andrea Lingle 2024 Diana Lane, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Robb Ezzell To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Loopholes???? You think??? Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 11:54:32 AM Attachments:image.png [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. My name is Robb Ezzell, I have lived @419 Heliotrope Ave., CdM since 1963. I attache a Pix of the current /unoccupied (and overgrown w/ weeds) neighboring house @ 417 Heliotrope (corner of First Ave. & Heliotrope Ave, CdM) Just ponder the 2 pictures for a moment and tell me what has happened to our “Vilage” since the Developers got ahold of it? There once was a Height restriction that prohibited building above a certain height above grade (I believe it was 32” but could be mistaken. But since the LOOPHOLE you acknowledge, the Developers have been taking the height above that old leveel and able to add a 3rd story. I don’t remember a vote either by the electorate / residents OR the City Council to allow for this I’d like to know what happened and put a stop to this UNBELIEVABLE abuse by these out-of-town Developers of what was once a well regulated and consciences Master Plan for building in our City. The 2 Townhomes proposed for the regulation size lot @ 417 Heliotrope looks more like a Hotel that anything else. Put a stop to this!!!!! Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Carol Lee To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Proposed Building Code Changes Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 12:55:05 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. These changes would be devastating to homes in CdM, the islands, Balboa Peninsula and West Newport by lessening the square footage and enjoyment substantially of homes that have carports and decks. Please vote this down. Sincerely, Carol Lee, Principal Agent Compass Newport Beach 949.395.3994 DRE: 01402855 Please excuse typos, sent w/ my Android. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Chuck Iverson To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Proposal for 3rd story setbacks Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 1:28:42 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I agree with the proposal that creates a setback to the third story and also makes it more difficult to enclose a third story structure (intended to be an outdoor area) often done after the final approval by the City.  Thank youChuck IversonHome: 1430 Irvine Ave, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Chuck Iverson Broker Associate Lic # 01241096 Coldwell Banker Commercial 840 Newport Center Dr Suite 100 Newport Beach, Ca 92660 949-422-6657 www.newportbeachfrontproperty.com Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Troya Montgomery To:Planning Commissioners Cc:Newport Beach AOR Subject:OPPOSITION for May 7th Public Hearing Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 1:34:24 PM Attachments:image001.png Importance:High [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Attention Newport Beach Planning Commission: Please accept this email as my personal & professional OPPOSITION to proposed changes to Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments—Title 20 & Title 21—you are set to hear tomorrow night. Proposed changes would erode property rights & values throughout Newport Beach and, as such, should NOT be approved or adopted. Thank You for Your Attention! TM Troya Montgomery C:  949.412.3048 E:  troya@troyamontgomery.comDRE#01180946 signature_1448168298 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Jim Luce To:Planning Commissioners Cc:smartpearl1@hotmail.com Subject:Comment on Agenda Item #2 for Planning Commission Meeting Thursday, May 7th at 6:30pm Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 2:06:13 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Planning Commission Members… We live on Balboa Island and have for almost six years now. We love it here and are looking to move to a new home/lot so we can build a home that fully suits our growing family and lifestyle. Critical to our home selection and design is having the current design standards to remain in place. As it is, there is a huge challenge to have enough living and entertaining space as well as bedroom and bathroom space on these very compact lots. This is particularly true on the first and third floors, which are key design features for virtually everyone who has built a home in the past several years! We absolutely want the full flexibility to maximize the building on our lot, balancing look and functionality, to make some sense of the exorbitant prices of buying homes/lots on the island! We should be able to build UP however we feel is best for our use. The cottage homes do bring nice character to the island though it is clear from those of us who have bought here over the past many years, that the preference, for most, is to bring a more up to date look AND to “get the most use of the square footage” to keep some semblance of reasonability on the price/cost per square foot. And, candidly, these revisions, if put in place, will NOT significantly impact the neighbors or the look of the island. Does it really matter what is done on the third floor? No one will notice from the street, nor will the neighbors, if the third floor is enclosed, open or half and half. And actually, if the third floor were to be fully enclosed, it would be even quieter! The set backs just create additional design challenges yet, more importantly, take away the logical use of precious square footage, on each floor, that is needed for a home with a good size family. That said, we strongly urge you to vote down the Revisions to Third Floor Development Standards, vote down the Clarification of the Definition of Gross Floor Area and vote down the Change Applicable to Single-Unit and Two-Unit Dwellings in the R-BI and RM Zones!! They just create unnecessary restrictions to those of us who what to build a home that will maximize our family lifestyle on Balboa Island. Jim and Gale Luce 108 Garnet Avenue Jim Luce 949-432-1389 jimluce34@gmail.com Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Stephanie Peterson To:Planning Commissioners Subject:"Residential Design Standards" Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 2:17:02 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To whom it may concern, I am against the new proposal for the changes to the third story structures and setbacks in CDM. This will have a negative affect on our clients' future homes, and future plans for homes. This will also reduce SF allowed, making homes in CDM even smaller !! Thank you, --  Stephanie PetersonReal Estate Professional 949.400.1717 425 30th StreetNewport Beach Ca. 92663 stephpetersonagent.com   DRE No. 01984954 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Bill To:Planning Commissioners Subject:NO THIRD STORY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 2:31:32 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please do not allow our community to "grow" up like Miami Beach and other beachcommunities that have lost their beach atmosphere to high rise development. Bill Patton William R. Patton 301 North Star Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 Cell: 714-321-0000 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Mark Todd To:Planning Commissioners; Kimberly Foreman Subject:Rooftop decks Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 2:39:17 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. With social distancing becoming the new standard having roof-top decks are essentialamenities for homes. Not only do they reduce density at the beaches, becausepeople can simply go to their roof instead, but they also increase property values. Rooftop decks are some of the most desired features in homes today. Thesefeatures drive up home values and thus our property taxes which then allows ourlocal schools and pension funds to be better funded. Keep the rooftops as habitablespaces for our children, teachers, and first responders sakes. Best regards, Mark ToddBroker AssociateCalBRE#: 011680211600 Newport Center Drive, Suite 250, Newport Beach, CA 92660m: 949.514.0000 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) 1 Rodriguez, Clarivel Subject:FW: Planning Commission Meeting From:Ian Harrison <ian@ianharrisonarchitect.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 2:48 PM To:Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov>; Campbell, Jim <JCampbell@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov> Cc:O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>; Herdman, Jeff <jherdman@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <llowrey@newportbeachca.gov>; Ellmore, Curtis <CEllmore@newportbeachca.gov>; Klaustermeier, Sarah <sklaustermeier@newportbeachca.gov>; Rosene, Mark <mrosene@newportbeachca.gov> Subject:Planning Commission Meeting [EXTERNAL EMAIL]DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello Jaime, I would like to express my thoughts on the upcoming Planning Commission meeting regarding the proposed zone changes.Balboa Island has become such a desirable destination because of the direction of the new architecture.People are willing to invest a lot to be part of what Balboa Island has to offer, which increases every homeowners property values, even the ones that haven’t upgraded their tiny h omes.I think it is short sighted to start tinkering with the existing zoning code because of a few homeowners don’t like what is happening.Residence who are happy with what they have don’t show up to meetings. I have seen in other parts of this city and other communities outside the city that when future buyer are not willing to invest in that area, no one will make improvements and the area degrades.We should be celebrating the fact that Balboa Island has such a great mixture of old and new, which benefits everyone. It is my opinion the biggest impact to the heights of the new homes is the FEMA requirements to raise the slab heights not what is happening on the third level of the homes.If the prognosticators are correct about sea- level rise, everyone will eventually need to raise their homes, even the small little bungalows. Additionally, I would take exception to the City Attorney’s interpretation that the adoption of proposed changes would not result in less intensive use as mandated by SB 330 .There are some small lots on Balboa Island, especially Small Balboa Island, where applying the fifteen foot setback from the front and rear would severely restrict or eliminate any enclose space on the third level.This is definitely a less intensive use! Also, in reading the actual wording of the proposed zoning changes, I think it would be prudent to provide a definition of some of the terms used.Will you be using the Building Code definition for “ceiling height” and “accessible” or will it be just left up to each plan-checker’s interpretation, which I’ve seen can vary throughout the years on other items? Hopefully, common sense will prevail and not change things that are not broken. Best regards, Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) 2 Ian Ian J.N. Harrison, Architect 220 Newport Center Drive, Suite 11-342 Newport Beach, California 92660 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Ron Mazzano To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Modification of building standards Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 2:54:51 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am opposed to any change in the building standards as it is related to third floors of structures. Ronald Mazzano Realtor Emeritus Member of the Newport Association of Realtors. Sent from my iPhone Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) May 7, 2020, Planning Commission Item 2 Comments These comments on a Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda item are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher@yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 2. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS CODE AND LCP AMENDMENTS (PA2019-070) 1. On handwritten page 5, the description of the change in height measurement of the staff report is incomplete. While it is true that the pre-2010 codes (back to Ordinance No. 1454 in 1972) had the additional requirement that the mid-point of a sloping roof stay below 24 feet, they also, as now, required the peak of the roof stay below 29 feet. Depending on how the mid-point requirement was applied, it could have prohibited some designs that could be approved post-2010, but this is not obvious, especially if staff allowed the measurement to the midpoint to be lowered to 24 feet by drawing imaginary extensions of the actual roof as illustrated.1 2. Also not obvious is the logic at the bottom of handwritten page 13 (and top of 14) of why SB 330 has forced staff to eliminate Council’s direction to apply the R-1/R-2 height limits to single- and dual-family development in RM zones. If it is OK to apply the other residential standards (as staff says it is even though they include increased step backs which seem to me a new and increased setback requirement) it would seem the height standard could be applied as well. That is, the existing height limit is not being reduced in the sense the owner has the option to build to it if they build for three families or more. a. Mixed into this same question may be a need to clarify what constitutes “multi-unit development” still eligible for the current, relaxed standards. Does a structure that in an R-1 district would be regarded as a SFR + ADU + ADU count as “multi-unit development” if the same structure is built in an RM district? b. The same uncertainty clouds the applicability of the differing open space/volume requirements. 3. Regarding the proposed Resolution No. PC2020-013: a. Page 23, paragraph “3.”: “On May 14, 2019, the City Council initiated portions of the subject amendment under Resolution No. 2019-43 …” b. Page 25, paragraph “5.”: “NBMC Section 20.48.180 (Residential Development Standards and Design Criteria) currently only applies to R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts, but excludes residential dwellings constructed in the RM and R-BI Zoning Districts.” or “NBMC Section 20.48.180 (Residential Development Standards and 1 Ordinance No. 97-9 called for the midpoint to be determined by extending the roof plane from the peak to the wall plate, then finding the midpoint of that. The purpose of this seems to have to prevent artificially lowering the midpoint location (and thereby allowing the rest to be taller) by extending the actual roof beyond the wall. But in the example shown in the staff report, it is not obvious which wall was intended by the pre-2010 code: the first floor wall (as illustrated by staff) or the third floor wall (which seems more likely to me). If the latter standard were used, to be consistent with the 24 foot limit, the pre- 2010 third floor would have to be shorter than illustrated. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) May 7, 2020, PC agenda Item 2 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 Design Criteria) currently only applies to R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts, but and excludes residential dwellings constructed in the RM and R-BI Zoning Districts.” c. Page 25, paragraph “5.”, last sentence: “Application of the front and rear third floor step back requirements to these narrow lots will provide improve improved building scale as viewed from streets and alleys.” d. Page 25: Should this resolution include a finding similar to that on page 13 of the Item 3 staff report that LCP amendments regarding some of these issues are pending and the Title 20 recommendations regarding the same matters would not be effective in the Coastal Zone unless the corresponding LCP amendments are approved? e. Page 28, Item 3.a: It seems like the “For example, on a thirty (30) foot wide lot, …” paragraph should go before the one beginning “On sloping lots…” rather than after it, since the “For example” paragraph expands on sub-items “i” and “ii” not the “On sloping lots…” comment. f. Page 29, Item c: The proposed modification to item “c” at the top of this page has created an inconsistency with the (unmodified) item “3.a” on the previous page regarding the handing of lots that are exactly 30 feet in width (of which the staff report says there are quite a few). Because of the subtle difference in wording, in “3.a” a 30-foot lot falls in the less restrictive category (allowing the most third floor area), while in “c” it falls in the more restrictive one (requiring side step backs not required of narrower lots). Is there a reason for this? Or should the dividing line be consistent? That is, if a 30-foot lot is subject to the side step back requirements of wider lots, should they not also be subject the same, more stringent floor area limit as those same lots (15% of buildable)? g. Page 29, Section 3: As previously mentioned, considering that ADU’s and JADU’s may now be present, do the current definitions of Single-Unit, Two-Unit and Multi- Unit Dwellings work as intended in determining whether definition 1 or definition 2 applies? Intentionally or not, I believe the current definitions can move an R-1 property into the Multi-Unit category for computation of floor area. 4. Regarding the proposed Resolution No. PC2020-014: a. Page 33, paragraph “2.”: The City’s CLUP goes back far further than 2005, which was simply a comprehensive revision of already-existing CLUP. b. Page 36, Section 1: As illustrated better on page 70, there seems to be a problem with the formatting. It looks like the “Minimum required open space” comment should appear below a horizontal line extending across all columns and separating the open space standards from the height standards (compare pages 27 and 62). Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Terry Janssen To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Cottage Propossal Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 3:49:53 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Planning Commission: I am the President of the Balboa Island Improvement Association. Our Board of Directors and Officers support the Cottage proposal before you. It is our belief that by passing this proposal in the long term we’ll enhance the beauty of the Island. We urge you to support this proposal. Respectfully Terry Janssen President Balboa Island Improvement Association Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)   STACY McCULLOUGH, REALTOR(r) 949.887.1199 | CalDRE#- 01250385 Berkshire Hathaway HS-California Properties 1400 Newport Center Dr., Ste. 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Discover your home’s value. I can give you 3 estimates today.https://propertyvalue.bhhscalifornia.com/stacymccullough                 Wire Fraud Disclosure: communicating through email is not secure or confidential. Berkshire HathawayHomeServices California Properties (BHHSCP) will never request that you send funds or nonpublicpersonal information, such as credit card or debit card numbers or bank account and/or routing numbers,by email. If you receive an email message concerning any transaction involving BHHSCP and the emailrequests that you send funds or provide nonpublic personal information, do not respond to the email andimmediately contact Fraud@bhhscal.com From:Stacy McCullough To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Residential Design Standards - Newport Beach Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 4:05:36 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. As we know, the Planning Commission has been discussing changes to the Residential DesignStandards Code which includes changes to the third floor decks.  This has the potential to reduce lot values throughout Newport Beach. The City proposed area limitation would eliminate the covered cabanas on the roof deck. I'm alarmed that any City's Planning Commission, much less the Newport Beach City's Planning Commission, would take advantage of a crisis - COVID-19 - in order to make self- serving decisions which can and will affect the value of any person's or family's most important asset - THEIR HOME. This subject deserves to be addressed at a later date in order for the current Covid-19 situation to calm down, more people and businesses return to the new normal, and people don't need to worry about the value of their most important asset being reduced too quickly to an idea that didn't even exist when their homes were built per the rules, standards, and then current permit processes. No one respects a person, or a system, who provides one set of rules and promises and then rips them away for who's best interest?Hmm. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:outlook_0BFBA5C09FE76CC5@outlook.com To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Residential Massing Standards - May 7, 2020 Agenda Item No. 2 - (PA2019-070) Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 4:17:14 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Chair Koetting and Members of the Planning Commission, I have read the Staff report, attachments, and correspondence submitted to date. I am in full support of Mr. Ian Harrison’s April 27, 2020 comment, (Attachment 1, “Planning Commission Correspondence”, handwritten page 98) that the Zoom/WebEx video approach to public hearings is gravely compromised. He questions why this item can’t wait until an in-person public meeting can be held. He’s asking why this is so important right now. I also wonder about that. To further support my concern, I wholeheartedly agree with Catherine Martin Wollcott’s, April 28, 2020 comment (also, Attachment 1, “Planning Commission Correspondence”, handwritten page 104) where she states: “If there is one thing yesterday’s City Council special meeting demonstrated, it is that the WebEx platform is at best only a partial substitute for public comment and input in a public hearing. While we are still able to submit written comment to the Planning Commission and staff, neither written comment nor an unreliable electronic public comment period is the functional equivalent of being able to speak in the Council Chambers”. I watched the April 28, CC meeting on cable TV and it was definitely unacceptable and compromised the whole notion of “public participation”. Additionally, having read handwritten Page 14 of the Staff Report, “Proposed Applicability Change- Two-Unit Residential (R-2) lots 25 wide or Less”, I became curious as to who the “City’s Design Community” members were as follows: “As a result of input received from the community meeting and in consultation with members of the City’s design community,. . . .”. The sentence goes on to say that “. . . . it has become apparent that new residential development on these lots could benefit from application of the additional 15-foot front and rear third floor step back requirements.”. Handwritten Page 16, “Community Outreach”, identifies those who make up the City’s community design. I believe that some of those “Community Design” members mentioned do not support the proposed amendments given the correspondence they’ve submitted. I realize that the City must continue to do its “business” but I’ve lost count of the number of LCP Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) amendments staff has put forth since the LCP was certified by the California Coastal Commission in January 2017. Staff refers them as “clean-up”. Anything having to do with sustaining the character of Newport Beach deserves more than a video conferenced meeting. Thank you for considering my comments. Sincerely, Dorothy Kraus Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Gordon Henry To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Residential Design Standards and LCP Amendments Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 4:30:39 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commission – I just wish to express concern over the contemplated changes to the building codes affecting new development in the Flower Streets and elsewhere around our great city. I am a 60-year-long resident of NB/CDM. I am also a 40-year-long local realtor. I am not wild about the increased population, congestion and other results of our growth over the years but do feel that with few exceptions, new development projects particularly in the Flower Streets, Balboa Island, Lido Island and Peninsula Point are well-done. The cost of land and the resulting finished-product prices have placed a demand on builders to keep building a better product. In the case of the 3rd level decks, roof top decks once rarely used, have now become the favorite and most useable space in the house. While these areas are generally open (but increasingly covered areas), I understand your contemplated changes are intended to reduce “density” by including these spaces into new living area calculations such that one will need to choose between allowable interior space and what had historically been exterior area. (That may be poorly expressed but hopefully you understand my point/concern.) As a property owner and a realtor, it’s my opinion these changes will have a negative impact on property values. The economics of real estate have been very good to our community for generations. I fear the effort to over-regulate development standards that currently and successfully allow attractive and functional product and within a viable economic model would be counterproductive. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Gordon F. Henry 405 Feliz, NB (949)500-1236 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Joe Welke To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Residential design standards Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 4:38:29 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Houses on oceanfront have an incline higher then houses behind them on the same block thus gaining height but with the same limitations and blocks views for all other houses on block. Houses on oceanfront should not be allowed to a closed in structure on the 3rd floor Because it takes the views from all the other houses behind on block. Height Measurements should vary per house because the street needs a decline for flow of rain water and houses are lower. Sent from my iPad Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Randy Black To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Residential Design Standards Amendments Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 4:41:54 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Chairman Koetting, Vice Chairman Weigand, and Commissioners Lowrey, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Kleiman and Rosene: My family has owned property in Newport Beach since 1926. As a Newport Beach native and homeowner, and as a real estate broker and investor for over thirty years, I strongly support the proposed amendments to the Residential Design Standards regarding third story massing and definition of gross floor area. Maintaining Property Values: The proposed amendments are necessary to maintain property values in the City. The existing charm and character of Balboa Island, Corona del Mar, the Peninsula and the other affected neighborhoods, along with the unparalleled natural environment, support their very high property values. Unfortunately, too many of the newest properties detract from this charm and character by building to the outer limits of the existing design standards and creating unsightly three story boxes that overwhelm their neighborhoods. (Please see the attached photos.) In my experience, a deterioration of property values inevitably follows unregulated, out of control construction and property use. We need to preserve the unique qualities of these neighborhoods that make them a desirable place to live and ultimately preserve and enhance property values in our community. Protecting Property Rights: All City planning, zoning and development regulations could be said to restrict the right of a property owner to do exactly as he or she pleases, regardless of the effect on the neighborhood. However, the purpose of such regulations is to, among other things, protect the property rights of adjoining landowners to enjoy their properties by preserving the existing character of an area, and to provide for further development to take place in a manner consistent with existing neighborhood uses. Clever architects have used loopholes in the existing standards to build unsightly three story boxes (similar to the unfortunate “tall skinnies” of Huntington Beach) which overwhelm the adjoining properties and trample upon their neighbors’ light, views and right to use their properties. These amendments are necessary to protect the property rights of these neighbors. The proposed amendments do not reduce buildable area and are essentially technical corrections to conform the residential design standards to their original intent. These amendments will help maintain property values and property rights in the affected areas. I urge you to adopt them. Thank you for your kind attention. Respectfully, Randy Black Edgewater Avenue Newport Beach Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Mary Ann Hemphill To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Proposed amendments to standards for 3rd story bulk and mass Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 4:49:29 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission, I very strongly support the the amendments to mitigate the effects of third-story mass. These bulky designs are, in my opinion, unattractive and detrimental to their neighborhoods. These designs deprive neighboring homes of sunlight and block the refreshing sea breezes. They lessen the charms of neighborhoods such as the islands and Corona del Mar. Thank you very much for considering my opinion. Sincerely, Mary Ann Hemphill 230 Agate Avenue Balboa Island Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:John Scudder To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Pease don’t allow ...... Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 4:55:43 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commissioners: Just a few words. If more three story enclosed homes are allowed on Balboa Island, in due time, we islanders will just be encased in birthday-cake sized houses. Our only view will be looking skyward...... not to mention losing the wonderful charm of this place. Respectfully, John Scudder Resident since 1950 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Kirsten Schmieder To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Residential Design Standards Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 4:58:28 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commission, As longtime residents/owners of a property on 29th Street, we are deeply opposed to the proposal of maximizing additional space on third stories here on the Peninsula. As it is we see more and more box-like structures being built here. These properties not only take away natural light from neighboring properties but they also impair the peek-a-boo beach views that the old setbacks provided. When did the City of Newport Beach move from the property design rules that had the imaginary line running from the roof peak on the 3rd level to the deck rails and down each level from there? These old building codes allowed neighboring property owners to not feel boxed in. Oceanfront properties could be an exception since those plots are not angled in the same way. Please set some limits on how future properties are remodeled and built on the 100 & 200 blocks. Thank you! Sincerely, Kirsten Schmieder & Scott Roth Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Susan Dvorak To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Massing Code Revisions Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 5:02:27 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commission Members: In keeping with the spirit of the recently approved Historic Cottage Incentive Program, I urge the Planning Commission to fix the 2010 code revisions that have unintentionally altered the character of some of our loveliest neighborhoods. I support restricting third story massing and requiring setbacks. I further urge the Commission to move this initiative to the City Council for deliberation with resident input. Third story massing was never the City’s intent when changes were made to the 2010 zoning code, and loopholes in the code have been exploited at an alarming rate by builders and developers to justify erecting structures that are out of scale with the surrounding neighborhoods. In addition, they infringe on adjoining neighbors’ access to natural light and ventilation. These massive buildings do nothing to enhance the beauty of neighborhoods such as Balboa Island, Corona del Mar or the Peninsula; indeed, they overwhelm and overshadow the streets and homes in these areas. I hope the commission recognizes the fact that many visitors come to Newport Beach each year because of the unique charm of these neighborhoods which doesn’t exist anywhere else in Southern California. Please take action to maintain the character of some of our most charming Newport Beach neighborhoods. Sincerely, Sue Dvorak Newport Beach Resident Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Jim Moloney To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Planning Commission Meeting (May 7, 2020) -- Third-Story Deck (Massing) regulations / public comment Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 5:09:32 PM Attachments:House Comparisons - 2.pptx [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Commissioners: I write to you today as a long-time (20+ year) resident of Newport Beach. My wifeand I own several properties in Newport Beach. All would be characterized as beachcottages (less than 1,000 square foot) built between 1923 and 1942. The cottages we own and have preserved over the past two decades represent thehistory and charm of Newport Beach, including Balboa Island and the BalboaPeninsula. Everything this area stands for and what attracts visitors and tourists toNewport Beach. I understand there are many residents who are outraged at the heights to which themassive three-story homes have become over the last few years. I believe this buildto the sky behavior is the result of the recent relaxation of the City Building Codesgoverning roof-top decks. It started a few years back with the City giving an inch, and some very aggressivedevelopers taking a mile, driving their new home construction projects (on small lotsof (30' x 80') to super great heights, reaching into the sky to catch a glimpse of thesea, only to find a neighbor building a similarly tall home next door, and furthercasting dark shadows onto the much smaller one and two-story homes in theimmediately surrounding area. It is imperative that the rules regarding roof-top decks and structures be limited inscope and set back as the City Staff has proposed in order to maintain in the quaintstyle and character of the area, AND to maintain property values. A handful of real estate agents and property developers are pushing the narrative thatthese roof top decks help improve property values. While that may be true for thehandful of three-story McMansions that have been built in the last few years, suchover-sized homes actually hurt the value of the surrounding homes. So at best, theyare destroying value to the surrounding homes. I have attached a PPT (powerpoint) presentation including photos of some of themore egregious examples of new homes in Newport (Balboa Island and BalboaPeninsula) that have been built in the last few years. Some are currently underconstruction. As you will see from the attached photos, the homes in these pictures are completely Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) out of character for the area, they are way too massive and over-bearing. Not tomention, they are very upsetting to long-time residents and visitors (vacationers)alike. My wife (Erin) and I implore you not to maintain the existing (lax) rules, but rather toproceed with the reasonable restrictions and guidelines proposed by City Staff (whohave done excellent work on this topic) and brought you very reasonable and well-considered moderations in restraint from the massive building towers that havesprouted up in our neighborhoods, over-shadowing everyone else in the vicinity. Allow us to maintain what limited sunlight (and sunsets) we currently have. Don't fuelthe massive builder boom. We need restraint before it is too late! Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully Jim & Erin Moloney 314 Diamond Ave.Newport Beach, CA 92662 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Moloney, James To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Planning Commission Meeting (May 7, 2019) Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 5:14:17 PM Attachments:House Comparisons - 2.pptx [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Attachment for Jim & Erin Moloney’s public comment on City Staff proposals re: third-story roof-top deck set back restrictions and limitations on square footage.     This message may contain confidential and privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this message. Please see our website at https://www.gibsondunn.com/ for information regarding the firm and/or our privacy policy. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) House 1 –Good 205 Opal Avenue Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) House 2 -Good Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) House 3 -Good Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) House 4 –Good But Approaching Massive (108 Pearl) Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) House 5 –Good But Approaching Massive Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) House 6 –Still Good But Starting Toward Massive Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) House 7 –Not So Good / Bordering on Massive Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) House 7 –Not So Good / Bordering on Massive (continued) Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) House 8 –Bad –Completely Oversized Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) House 9 -Bad Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) House 10 –Bad –Way Too Massive 206 Onyx Ave. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2d Additional Materials Received Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Shirley Golnick To:Planning Commissioners Cc:jodipatrich@gmail.com; Larry Subject:108 Pearl New Construction Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 5:23:25 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To the Newport Beach Planning Commission, We are the neighbors at 106 Pearl, included in the picture. We have owned this house since 1993, and used it as a second home and rental. We respect and appreciate the integrity the cottages on the Island. We are now in our later years and have been working with an architect in order to modify our house and stay within the guidelines for a remodel snd allowable square feet, and keeping a tradition look to the house. We will add a partial 2nd story for a master bedroom. We will be keep the R2 apartment, and add an additional parking space next to our large 2 car garage. The owners of 108, who we have befriended, did not indicate there was going to be a roof over the WHOLE 3rd floor. We have not been there during construction due to other commitments and travel restrictions. We were shocked to learn of how the code has been violated. We feel part of the roof should be removed before they are allowed their final inspection for occupancy. It does violate the intention of the new 2010 code which was voted in because of the type of construction that we see on Bayfront adjacent to Pearl Ave. I’m having problems with my computer and am unable to include the picture that Jodi Patrich had included in an email yesterday to us. Thank you for your time and consideration. Larry and Shirley Golnick 106 Pearl Ave. Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2e Additional Materials Received After Deadline Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Ted To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Residential design standards amendments Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 6:35:09 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear planning commission, Please adopt changes to third story massing on Balboa Island. Thank-you Ed Black Sent from my iPad Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2e Additional Materials Received After Deadline Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Jennifer Norminton To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Residential Design Standards Date:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 7:07:14 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To Whom It May Concern: I oppose the "Residential Design Standards", related to modifications to new home three- story massing (the practice of allowing the third story of the home to be at the edge of the structure making it look out of proportion to other homes). Thank you, -- Jennifer NormintonRealtor DRE#: 01362925 www.compass.com 1600 Newport Center Drive, Ste. 205Newport Beach, CA 92660m: 949.922.3813 Don't miss another In The Neighborhood Newsletter sign-up today!jn@compass.com Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2e Additional Materials Received After Deadline Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:robert kupper To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Third floor standards Date:Thursday, May 7, 2020 5:29:29 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am a resident on Balboa island and have been impacted by the new construction of a three story house on the 100 block of Pearl Avenue. My question in light of the existing criteria as well as the proposed criteria for the third floor construction is: How is the city planning to enforce the open area criteria after the construction has been completed and final city sign off? At the construction of the 100 block of Pearl Avenue it is obvious that the third floor “open space” only has a few window to be installed to completely enclose. Will there be any enforced consequences to enclosure after completion? Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2e Additional Materials Received After Deadline Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:bob small To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Planning Commission Questions Date:Thursday, May 7, 2020 7:45:03 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I wanted to comment and to question the proposed changes. It seems that these restrictions and changes are arbitrary and are unfair. First off these are basic property rights that are being taken away. Why would a 25 ft wide lot be treated any different than a 40 wide lot. Especially if it is a duplex. It seems that it should be just the opposite. If you have more square footage, then use the space accordingly. And finally, the randomness of short term lodging permits is also inconsistent. It makes no sense that if you happen to own a beach front house, you should be able to rent it out to vacationers regardless of how long ago you happened to apply for a permit. Vacationers renting homes bring great business to Newport in the form of sales tax revenue. Which is greatly needed, all things considered. And they bring fewer cars. Yearly renters and month to month tend to fill up bedrooms with young adults that each have a car. So a typical duplex will have up to 8 cars associated with a lot, and they are there every night. A vacationing family will usually have 1 or 2 cars. And come fall and spring these properties are mostly vacant. I closing, it is good to try to limit how high a building can be, but it should be applied the same way to all properties. Bob Small 949-335-2084 BRE00714743 - CA Brokerage 9532093-PB00 - Park City Brokerage Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2e Additional Materials Received After Deadline Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Lyndon Taylor. To:Planning Commissioners Cc:citycouncil@newportbeach.gov Subject:Balboa Island Architecture Date:Thursday, May 7, 2020 9:37:42 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. As a former resident of Balboa Island from several decades past and a frequent visitor, I am appalled at the recent state of affairs regarding the City of Newport Beach and their approval of construction of houses on Balboa Island that are monstrosities and totally inappropriate to the Island’s environment! They represent a complete lack of taste, a lack of understanding of architectural compatibility, and a disregard for the history of this unique area of Southern California. I strongly condemn the individuals who desire construction of these homes to replace vintage cottages in this special historical and quaint location, the builders with merely monetary motives who would be a party to such an abomination, and most of all the City of Newport Beach, the planning commission, the Mayor, and the City Council who have no feeling for the history or traditions of this special place and are surrendering the spirit of place of Balboa Island to likely personal and civic monetary gains. This is clearly a situation personal greed dominates! Dr. Lyndon Taylor Sent from my iPad Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2e Additional Materials Received After Deadline Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:David Bole To:Planning Commissioners Subject:RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS CODE AND LCP AMENDMENTS (PA2019-070) Date:Thursday, May 7, 2020 11:11:40 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To Whom It May Concern, I'm in support of the staff recommendation for RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS CODE AND LCP AMENDMENTS (PA2019-070). The amendment is necessary to realize the intent of the existing code and has the broad support of residents, city-wide. The reasons for not supporting this amendment are transparent in the ultimate goal by some to overdevelop our single-family homes, inconsistent with existing code, for personal or financial gain. David David Bole 300 Amythyst Mobile: +1 (512) 217-5454 Voice Mail: +1 (512) 348-8999 Email: davidbole2@gmail.com Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2e Additional Materials Received After Deadline Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Jodi Patrich To:Planning Commissioners Cc:Dept - City Council Subject:Pass the Modifications of 3rd Story Massing! Date:Thursday, May 7, 2020 11:17:18 AM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. PASS  The Proposed Modifications On  New Home Three Story Massing CLOSE THE LOOP HOLE !! Dear Planning Commission, As a third generation Southern Californian, Balboa Island home owner, and business owner in Newport Beach, I urge you to STOP allowing the construction of third story "roof top" massing. The majority of Balboa Island residents (95%) value the character of Balboa Island and many long-term residents never wanted the promotion of third story roof tops in the first place. Now we find ourselves being surrounded by massive buildings with enclosed roof tops. How did the planning commission let this happen in the first place? Where was the oversight and why can't we enforce the code? Those opposing this modification are manly brokers and their associated outside investors/builders. I suppose they are appealing to the City not to support this modification so that the City will make more money in taxes. What next, citing these spaces are a COVID-19 essential space?? These tactics are a transparent ploy by a few who make money off undermining our community and have selflessly sold our Cottages to developers before they even hit the market -- all for their own monetary gain, which never seems to be enough! If the City keeps allowing this to happen, it will be clear that the City values tax dollars over caring for our community's quality of life. In addition, your decision will have major repercussions by incentivizing the further destruction of our historic Cottage communities and cherished lifestyle. Warm Regards, Jodi P. Bole, BIPA Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2e Additional Materials Received After Deadline Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Lynn Lorenz To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Planning Commission May 7th Meeting- Planning Commission Zoning Amendments Date:Thursday, May 7, 2020 12:33:13 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Attention: Planning Commission Newport Beach I am writing to express my support of the approval of the proposed amendments. These current loopholes were not in existence before 2010 when they were created by mistake. We want to see them eliminated because they are destroying the charm of our village- style neighborhoods, taking away their views and most importantly, their light. Please eliminate these loopholes. Respectfully yours, Lynn Lorenz 434 Redlands Avenue Newport Beach, Ca 92663 Sent from my iPad Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2e Additional Materials Received After Deadline Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Veronica To:Planning Commissioners Subject:Balboa Island 3rd Story Massing Date:Thursday, May 7, 2020 12:37:58 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please support the proposed modification of the third story massing to create a setback. This preserves access to sunlight for our small lots, as well as being aesthetically more pleasing. Thank you, Veronica Lorman Design 117 Apolena Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92662 949-675-8090 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2e Additional Materials Received After Deadline Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Alyson To:Planning Commissioners Subject:3rd story massing on BI Date:Thursday, May 7, 2020 12:42:46 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commission, I am a concerned resident of Balboa Island. I’m writing to voice my displeasure regarding the 3rd story massing on new construction on BI. There is a way to build the 3rd story so it does not block your neighbors view buy having it as a set back and only a two wall allowable. There are enough examples of this currently to see that it works. These massive 3rd stories are not in the spirit of what makes the Island, The Island. And don’t kid yourself that these builders and homeowners are not then closing it in and adding bathrooms after all inspections are completed. I know for a fact this has been done. BI is made up of Neighbors looking out for one another. This new amassing of huge homes is not in keeping with the spirit of the Island. We ourselves built a new home 6 years ago. We could have built the third story out, but we would have blocked our Neighbor who had just built the year prior. We designed it as such to still accomplish a nice space w/out sacrificing their view. Please consider. It’s not shears about money. Quality of life and concern for others matters. Sincerely, Alyson Rowden 949-231-0229 Sent from my iPhone Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2e Additional Materials Received After Deadline Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Murillo, Jaime To:Lee, Amanda; Rodriguez, Clarivel Subject:FW: 5/7/2020 Agenda - Residential Design Standards Amendments Date:Thursday, May 7, 2020 1:35:53 PM From: Chris Budnik <clbudnik2003@yahoo.com>  Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 1:12 PM To: Rosene, Mark <mrosene@newportbeachca.gov>; Kleiman, Lauren <lkleiman@newportbeachca.gov>; Klaustermeier, Sarah <sklaustermeier@newportbeachca.gov>; Ellmore, Curtis <CEllmore@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <llowrey@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: 5/7/2020 Agenda - Residential Design Standards Amendments [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commissioners, After further review and discussion with city staff, I can see a need for 3rd floor stepback changes for small lots in dense areas like Balboa Island and the Pennisula. However, these amendments are proposed city wide and target any lots wider than30 feet. Shouldn't we be targeting lots 30 feet wide and smaller, or target based onsmall lot size versus just lot width? Additionally, amendments concerning gross living area calculations will place newrestrictions on how all city properties can be developed, including Newport Heights. Ibelieve the existing standards are just fine for Newport Heights so please make nochanges that restrict how I can develop my property in Newport Heights. I encourage you to target the amendments for dense areas but please confirm thoseowners see benefit before proceeding. Please exclude Newport Heights from theamendments in some way, either by designating Newport Heights as exempt or bylimiting the amendments to lots smaller than those found in Newport Heights. Sincerely, Christopher L Budnik Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2e Additional Materials Received After Deadline Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:Charles Klobe To:Planning Commissioners Subject:PA2019-070 Item 2 5/7/20 Date:Thursday, May 7, 2020 3:40:31 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good day, I support the implementation of the zoning code amendments as written but with Jim Mosher's corrections. Please do not dismantle this well thought out body of work. Jaime Murillo, Jim Campbell and Siemone Jurgis have done a great job in getting this to you. Please support it. Please do not dismantle it here today. Thank you for your service, Charles Klobe Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2e Additional Materials Received After Deadline Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) From:TOMLU BAKER To:Planning Commissioners; City Clerk"s Office Cc:TOMLU BAKER Subject:Residential Design Standards Amendments Date:Thursday, May 7, 2020 4:04:46 PM [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Planning Commissioners, Please approve the Residential Design Standards Amendments which will eliminate some of the Zoning loopholes created a decade ago. The staff has done an excellent job in developing these recommended changes. These Amendments will restrict the size of future projects such that the resultant developments will be more compatible and congruent with the neighborhood. Sincerely, Tom Baker Newport Beach Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2e Additional Materials Received After Deadline Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Residential Design Standards Proposed Code Amendments Planning Commission May 7, 2020 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Where We Started In May 2019, City Council initiated Code amendments and directed staff to: 1.Reduce third floor massing; 2.Reduce height and bulk of single-unit dwellings and duplexes in Multiple Unit Residential (RM) Zoning Districts; and 3.Incentivize the preservation of beach cottages. 2 of 29 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) 2010 Code Changes PRE-2010 ZONING CODE CURRENT ZONING CODE PROBLEM 24’ flat roof or rails 29’ sloped (midpoint @ 24’) 24’ flat roof or rails 29’ sloped (min 3:12 pitch) Only applicable to enclosed floor area Covered decks and attics excluded Floor Area Definition: •Unfinished attics excluded •Silent on required openings Certain Areas Exempt: •Balboa Island •RM Zones •25’ wide R-2 lots 29’ Sloped 1st Floor 2nd Floor 3rd Floor 29’ Sloped 1st Floor 2nd Floor 3rd Floor 24’ Midpoint x 3:12 roof pitch 15’15’ Bulk controls : •3rd floor step backs •Maximum 3rd floor area 3 of 29 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Problems Easy to enclose Bulky 3rd Floor Decks No 3rd Floor Relief Not Always Applicable 4 of 29 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Intent of Code Amendment Eliminate unintended consequences from 2010 ZC Update Provide more consistency in application of residential design standards 5 of 29 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Not Intent of Code Amendment Comprehensive overhaul of design standards Not changing allowed heights Not prohibiting covered roof decks Not changing allowed floor area potential 6 of 29 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) What Has Happened 08/19/19 •1st Community Meeting •Support for changes except from RM Owners 09/10/19 •City Council Study Session •Mixed comments; regulate covered deck openings •SB 330 –Housing Crisis Act concerns 02/11/20 •Cottage Preservation Ordinance Adopted various •Consultation with community members and designers •Code refinements 03/09/20 •2nd Community Meeting •Mixed support; competing interests •Front and rear step-backs to R2 lots (25’ wide or less) 7 of 29 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Proposed Code Amendments A.Revisions to 3rd Floor Standards B.Clarification of Gross Floor Area C.Applicability to Balboa Island, RM, and R-2 (25’ wide) Zones 8 of 29 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) 1st Floor (up to 100% of buildable) 2nd Floor (up to 100% of buildable) Range of Covered Area 3rd Floor (up to 20%) Possible 3rd Floor Location Possible 3rd Floor Location P L P L 3rd Floor (up to 20%) Side View Overhead View Current Code 15’ 15’ 15’ 15’ FSB FSB RS B RSB Third Floor Limits •15-ft stepbacks •Floor area limit (15-20% of buildable area) •No limits on non-floor area •No limits on covers 9 of 29 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Covered decks not subject to 3rd floor limits Problem-Overpowering 3rd floor massingCurrent Code 10 of 29 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) 1st Floor (up to 100% of buildable) 2nd Floor (up to 100% of buildable)P L P L 50% Covered 3rd Floor (up to 20%) 3rd Floor (up to 20%) Side View Overhead View Proposed Change 15’ 15’ 15’ 15’ FSB FSB RS B RSB Open Open Third Floor Limits •15-ft stepbacks •Floor area limit •Covered 3rd floor deck areas subject to stepbacks •50% max coverage 11 of 29 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Comparison CURRENT CODE •Only applies to enclosed floor area •Floor area limited to 15-20% PROPOSED CODE Will apply to floor area and covered deck area with a 50% maximum coverage allowance Side Elevation Side Elevation 3rd Floor Limits 12 of 29 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Covered decks subject to 3rd floor limits Desired Outcome-Restrained 3rd floor massingProposed Change 13 of 29 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) 3rd Floor Side Stepbacks Additional 2’ from side setbacks CURRENT CODE -Only applies to enclosed floor area -Only applies to lots wider than 30’ PROPOSED CODE -Will apply to enclosed floor area and covered decks -Will apply to lots 30’ wide or greater •Majority of lots 30’ •Results in 3 levels of non-articulated walls •Results in more designs with 3rd floor articulation 1st Floor 2nd Floor 3rd Floor Front Elevation 1st Floor 2nd Floor 3rd Floor Front Elevation Side Elevation Side Elevation 2’ Stepback 14 of 29 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) 3rd Floor Side Stepbacks Problem–Minimal articulation of 3rd floor massing Current Code 15 of 29 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) 3rd Floor Side Stepbacks Desired Outcome-Increased articulation of 3rd floor massingProposed Change 16 of 29 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Proposed Code Amendments A.Revisions to 3rd Floor Standards B.Clarification of Gross Floor Area C.Applicability to Balboa Island, RM, and R-2 (25’ wide) Zones 17 of 29 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Comparison Openings Required for Covered Decks PRE-2010 CODE CURRENT CODE PROBLEM Two Sides Open Silent, but implemented: •One side completely open •Two sides substantially open Bulky Designs Easy to Enclose Moves required openings from front and rear of structure to sides where less visible 18 of 29 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Openings Required for Covered Decks Problem-Larger appearance and bulk; unpermitted enclosures Easy to enclose Bulky designs Easy to enclose Limited openings Current Code 19 of 29 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Openings Required for Covered Decks Desired Outcome-Reduced bulk; increased transparency Two sides open, except: •Minimal structural supports •Open guardrails (40%) or glass •Ground level Glass Guardrails Required open space moved to front Open Guardrails Open above Proposed Change 20 of 29 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Current Code Attics Side View Overhead View 3rd Floor Deck3rdFloor Area Unfinished Attic 15’ Gross Floor Area •Attics over 6 feet in height do not count as floor area is unfinished. •Only floor area is subject to 3rd floor step backs 21 of 29 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Proposed Change Attics 3rd Floor Deck 3rd Floor AreaUnfinished Attic +6’ Height Reduced Attic Heights and Bulk Gross Floor Area Any interior finished portion of a structure that is accessible and that measures more than six feet from finished floor to ceiling. 22 of 29 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Proposed Code Amendments A.Revisions to 3rd Floor Standards B.Clarification of Gross Floor Area C.Applicability to Balboa Island, RM, and R-2 (25’ wide) Zones 23 of 29 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) 3rd Floor and Open Space Limits CURRENT CODE –Not applicable to: •Balboa Island (R-BI) Zone •Multiple Residential (RM) Zone •Two-Unit Residential (R-2) Zone lots that are 25 feet wide or less No 3rd Floor Limits No 3rd Floor Stepbacks 24 of 29 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Additional Applicability Proposed third floor and open volume standards will also apply to: Balboa Island 1 or 2 unit structures in Multiple- Unit Residential (RM) Zone No changes in height Not applicable to 3+ units Front and Rear step-backs will apply to 25-foot wide or less R-2 lots Exempt from 3rd floor area, side step backs, and open volume 25 of 29 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) SB330 Housing Crisis Act Stimulate homebuilding to address housing shortage Expedites housing development applications Increased tenant protections and no net loss housing Suspends downzoning Suspends changes in development standards that result in less intense use 26 of 29 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) SB330 Housing Crisis Act Development standard can’t: Reduce density –number of potential units Reduce intensity of development -height, floor area, setbacks, lot coverage, or anything that lessens the dwelling unit potential of development. Amendment Compliance: No changes in achievable height, setbacks, floor area, density Incentivizes more density in RM zone by exempting 3+ units 3rd floor step-backs are not setbacks (design standard) Open Volume encourages modulation, does not impact floor area potential 27 of 29 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Recommendations •Public hearings •Planning Commission –recommendations to City Council •City Council •Recommendations for projects under review: •Discretionary applications deemed complete (e.g., CDPs) and projects submitted for plan check prior to effective date of ordinance allowed to be reviewed under existing regulations. 28 of 29 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070) Jaime Murillo, AICP Principal Planner 949-644-3209 jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov Questions? 29 of 29 Planning Commission - May 7, 2020 Item 2f Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Residential Design Standards Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-070)