Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200507_PC_Minutes1 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, MAY 7, 2020 REGULAR MEETING – 6:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m., with most members attending by video conference. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – was led by Community Development Director Jurjis III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Peter Koetting, Vice Chair Erik Weigand (remotely), Secretary Lee Lowrey (remotely), Commissioner Curtis Ellmore (remotely), Commissioner Sarah Klaustermeier (remotely), Commissioner Lauren Kleiman (remotely) ABSENT: Commissioner Mark Rosene Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell (remotely), Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine (remotely), Principal Planner Jaime Murillo (remotely), Administrative Support Specialist Clarivel Rodriguez, Administrative Support Technician Amanda Lee IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Mosher expressed his belief that the virtual format of the meeting is not appropriate for the public to address the Commission. Controversial topics should be delayed until in-person meetings can be scheduled. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2020 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Klaustermeier to approve the minutes of the April 23, 2020, meeting with the revisions suggested by Mr. Mosher. AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Lowrey, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Kleiman NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Rosene VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS CODE AND LCP AMENDMENTS (PA2019-070) Site Location: Citywide Summary: 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 Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2020 2 of 10 • 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 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. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 21065 of CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and 15378. The proposed action is also exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-013 recommending the City Council approve Amendment No. CA2019-004; and of the proposed amendments to the City Council; and 4. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-014 recommending the City Council authorize staff to submit Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-006 to the California Coastal Commission. Principal Planner Jaime Murillo reported the proposed amendments resulted from complaints to the City Council regarding the bulk and mass of residential developments over the past ten years. In May 2019, the City Council directed staff to propose ways to reduce third-floor massing and the height and bulk of single-unit dwellings and duplexes including those constructed in Multiple Unit Residential (RM) Zoning Districts and to incentivize the preservation of beach cottages. Amendments to the Municipal Code in 2010 retained height limits of 24 feet for a flat roof and 29 feet for a sloped roof, deleted the requirement to measure to the midpoint of a sloped roof, required a 3:12 roof pitch, and required a third story to step back 15 feet from the front and rear setbacks. The 15-foot step- back requirement applies to enclosed floor area only and does not apply to Balboa Island properties, RM Zones, and 25-foot wide or less R-2 lots. The definition of floor area excludes unfinished attics and is silent regarding the openness of patios. Principal Planner Murillo indicated the intent of the proposed amendments is to address the unintended consequences of the 2010 comprehensive update to the Zoning Code and to provide more consistency in the application of residential design standards. The proposed amendments are not intended to overhaul design standards, change allowed heights, prohibit covered roof decks, or change allowed floor area potential. Public outreach included an August 19, 2019, community meeting, a September 10, 2019, Council Study Session, adoption of the Cottage Preservation Ordinance on February 11, 2020, various staff meetings with community members and designers, and a March 9, 2020, community meeting. First and second floors are required to comply with front and rear setbacks, but the third floor is required to step back 15 feet from both the front and rear setback lines. The enclosed area of the third floor is limited to either 15% or 20% of the buildable area depending on lot width. Covered unenclosed third-floor area is not restricted by the 15-foot step-back; therefore, the third floor can cover the entire buildable area. The proposed amendments maintain the existing third-floor limits for enclosed floor area, apply the 15-foot step-back to any covered unenclosed area, and limit third-floor covered area to 50% of buildable area (including the 20% enclosed area). Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2020 3 of 10 Currently, third floor side step-backs apply to enclosed floor area only and to lots greater than 30 feet in width. The majority of lots in the City, especially in Corona del Mar, Balboa Island and the Peninsula, are 30 feet wide; therefore, the side step-back requirement is not applied. The proposed amendments would apply the side step- back to floor area and covered decks and to lots at least 30 feet in width. Prior to 2010, a patio was not considered as floor area if two sides were open. Current Code provisions are silent as to this point. In current practice, one side must be completely open or two sides must be substantially open for a patio not to be defined as gross floor area. The proposed amendment requires two sides to be open except for minimal structural supports and guardrails with a minimum 40% open design or made of transparent materials. The current Zoning Code does not regulate unfinished attics as floor area regardless of the ceiling height. The proposed amendment would regulate an attic as any interior portion of a structure that is accessible and that measures more than 6 feet from finished floor to ceiling. The desired outcome is reduced attic heights, which will minimize the mass and bulk associated with attics. The proposed amendments would apply the design standards to Balboa Island and one- and two-unit structures in RM Zones. In addition, the proposed amendments would apply front and rear step-backs to R-2 lots measuring 25 feet or less in width; however, the lots would remain exempt from the third-floor area, side step-back, and the open volume requirements. Principal Planner Murillo further stated that Senate Bill (SB) 330 expedites housing development applications, increases tenant protections, attempts to prevent the loss of housing, suspends downzoning, and suspends changes in development standards that result in less intense use. Any new development standard cannot reduce density or reduce the intensity of development. Staff is confident the proposed amendments will not result in a change in achievable height, setbacks, floor area, or density and will incentivize more density in RM Zones. The proposed third-floor step-backs are not setbacks as defined in the Zoning Code. The proposed open volume requirement does not impact the potential floor area of a dwelling. If the proposed amendments are adopted, staff proposes discretionary applications deemed completed and projects submitted for plan check prior to the effective date of the ordinance not be subject to the proposed amendments. In response to Secretary Lowrey's questions, Principal Planner Murillo advised that several projects have been submitted and, if the proposed amendments are adopted, would not be subject to the new standards. The original intent of the RM Zone was to provide flexibility in development. R-2 lots are already constrained by their small size. The intent was not to change the standards for Balboa Island in 2010. In reply to Commissioner Klaustermeier's inquiries, Principal Planner Murillo indicated enforcement of unpermitted enclosed areas relies on complaints and tips from the public, discovery by building inspectors, and the residential building report process for homes in escrow. In answer to Chair Koetting's query, Principal Planner Murillo explained that the enforcement process includes notice of the unpermitted enclosure to the property owner and requirement to comply. If the property owner does not comply with a deadline to return the enclosed area to an open area, the property owner is issued a citation and further enforcement can be taken. At Vice Chair Weigand's request, Principal Planner Murillo reiterated public outreach including a newsplash and emails sent to parties who have requested notice. Based on public comments during outreach and comments provided by the development community, staff developed the proposed amendments. In response to Commissioner Kleiman's questions, Principal Planner Murillo stated staff believes the proposed amendments comply with SB 330 and implement the intent of 2010 Zoning Code update changes while preserving existing property rights. The Code includes a number of subjective design standards that are difficult to enforce because of their subjectivity. SB 330 requires any new design standards to be objective. Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill referred to the legislative intent of SB 330. The proposed amendments will not compromise the housing supply as public comments have suggested. Principal Planner Murillo explained that residential design standards related to third-story massing and open volume are contained in the Zoning Code, not the Local Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2020 4 of 10 Coastal Program (LCP). Proposed amendments defining gross floor area and clarifying the application of open space for RM properties will affect the LCP. Chair Koetting opened the public hearing. Mark Becker, 410 Belvue Lane, supported the proposed amendments. Third-story massing has been a problem, and most people would eliminate third floors. Third floors reduce air circulation, increase shading on properties and increase the use of heating and cooling devices, which is contrary to efforts to reduce global warming. Properties have been devalued as a result of third-story guidelines, and proposed amendments will not affect the value because they do not address square footage. Jim Mosher supported restrictions on massing and felt the proposed amendments could be stricter. The virtual format is not appropriate for public hearings and controversial topics. He expressed concerns about the legality of the proposed amendments under SB 330 and staff's consideration of accessory dwelling units in the calculation of gross floor area. The proposed amendments inconsistently apply standards to lots measuring 30 feet in width. Christopher Budnik, Newport Heights, encouraged the Commission to look at the problem and to consider a targeted approach. He suggested the Commission exempt Newport Heights from all proposed amendments and requested staff send formal notice to all Newport Heights property owners if the proposed amendments apply to Newport Heights. Lee Pearl, a resident from Balboa Island, indicated residents support the staff recommendation and the realtors' notices appear to misstate the issues. Jim Moloney, Balboa Island, remarked that three-story homes create shadows, block views, and devalue surrounding properties. The purpose of SB 330 is to create housing, but three-story homes displace residents. Joni Martin, 1824 West Ocean Front, explained that the original intent of not applying the standards to RM Zones was to allow a mixture of single-family and multifamily dwellings. The virtual format is not a good format for hearings. The March 2020 community meeting was not well attended because the coronavirus outbreak was just beginning. She spoke with a staff person in SB 330's sponsor's office, and he indicated the proposed amendments could violate SB 330. Mike Mack, Corona del Mar, requested the percentage of undeveloped properties in zoning areas that would be affected by the proposed amendments. Principal Planner Murillo indicated that he did not have that information at hand. Properties in Corona del Mar are subject to existing standards for enclosed third-floor area and would be subject to new proposed standards for covered decks. John Davies, a resident from Balboa Island, supported the proposed amendments and stated third-floor massing is too much. Nancy Scarbrough supported the proposed amendments and closing the loopholes created by the 2010 amendments. Andrew Goetz, Corona del Mar, was in favor of the proposed amendments, but suggested the Commission continue the item for more deliberation. Don Abrams, from Balboa Island, opposed the proposed amendments. The title of third-floor massing is inflammatory and pejorative. The proposed amendments do not favor homeowners. Balboa Island is less dense and homes are less massive than in other areas of the City. Allowing third-floor roof decks on Balboa Island would balance the floor area allowed in other areas of the City. Wallace Rodecker, 328 Poppy, liked the virtual format. Step-backs for third floors may dramatically restrict the feasibility of development on a small lot. Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2020 5 of 10 Randy Black, Bay Front, supported the proposed amendments because they would maintain property values and the charm and character of neighborhoods. All City planning, zoning and development regulations could be said to restrict the rights of property owners. Art Pease, Corona del Mar, opposed the proposed amendments. RM Zones are unique and special zoning and were created with the specific intent of increasing density. The proposed amendments should not apply to RM Zones. Charles Klobe agreed with comments about the awkwardness of the forum and supported the staff recommendation with no changes. David Waite, the Martin Family Trust attorney, advised that the proposed amendments directly conflict with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, result in spot zoning, and are not fair to property owners planning to redevelop properties to their full potential. The proposed amendments will result in less buildable area and less habitable space on third floors. Jim Kasuba opposed the proposed amendments because they could adversely affect small lots. Jodi Bole, Balboa Island Preservation Association, commented that the current regulations allow construction of massive homes, which has changed the history, ambience, and character of Balboa Island. She encouraged the Commission to adopt the proposed amendments. Erin Walsh Moloney, Balboa Island, supported the proposed amendments, which would restore the requirements of 2010. Ryan Gunderson related that the proposed amendments could be detrimental to property values and limit future construction. Shirley Golnick, a resident at 106 Pearl, supported the proposed amendments as she is opposed to McMansions. Seeing no further speakers, Chair Koetting closed the public hearing. In reply to Commissioner Ellmore's questions, Principal Planner Murillo advised that, in drafting the proposed amendments, staff focused on smaller lots to ensure the proposed standards would not reduce the ability to construct floor area to which a property owner is entitled. He did not view the proposed standards as constraints on larger lots. Three-story homes are rare in Newport Heights because lot sizes are larger than elsewhere in the City. In answer to Chair Koetting's queries, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill believed the proposed amendments comply with SB 330. Staff is not changing the setbacks but requiring articulation of the third floor. Principal Planner Murillo related that any plans currently under review would be subject to existing standards. In answer to Commissioner Ellmore's inquiry, Community Development Director Jurjis indicated staff seeks a recommendation to the City Council, but the Planning Commission may continue the item. Vice Chair Weigand proposed continuing the item so that a community discussion could be held with an ad hoc committee composed of a Council Member, a Commissioner, representatives from the Balboa Island Improvement Association (BIIA) or the Corona del Mar Residents' Association (CdMRA), realtors, and architects. Commissioner Ellmore preferred to make a recommendation because the March 9, 2020, community meeting was well attended and interactive and staff has vetted the proposed amendments thoroughly. Commissioner Kleiman did not believe additional community engagement is needed but suggested staff submit the proposed amendments to the State for review prior to the Commission making a recommendation to the Council. As she interpreted SB 330, the proposed amendments could be in conflict with SB 330. Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2020 6 of 10 Secretary Lowrey agreed with continuing the item and forming an ad hoc committee. He had some concern about property rights and the potential for litigation. Commissioner Klaustermeier expressed some concern that the State would not accept the proposed amendments because of SB 330 provisions. Staff did a good job of addressing loopholes. She wanted to move forward with a recommendation given the amount of public outreach staff conducted. Chair Koetting expressed concern about the proposed amendments complying with SB 330 and agreed with continuing the item. In reply to Chair Koetting's inquiry, Community Development Director Jurjis advised that staff sent questions to the legislative counsel approximately a month prior but has not received a response. He did not know if staff would receive any direction from either legislative counsel or the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Vice Chair Weigand felt staff probably would not receive a response from the State legislative counsel’s office. Motion made by Chair Koetting and seconded by Secretary Lowrey to continue the item to a future date with staff to attempt to obtain feedback from the State and to consider comments from Commissioners. Commissioner Kleiman noted SB 330 imposes a penalty for violation. Her main concern is the ability to enact an amendment that may conflict with State law. In answer to Commissioner Klaustermeier's query, Community Development Director Jurjis understood the item would return to the Planning Commission in 30-45 days. AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Lowrey, Kleiman NOES: Ellmore, Klaustermeier ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Rosene The Planning Commission recessed for a short break. ITEM NO. 3 EXTENSION OF AN AMORTIZATION PERIOD FOR NONCONFORMING SIGNS (PA2019- 184) Site Location: Citywide Summary: Amendments to Section 20.42.140(A) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Section 21.30.065(E) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) to extend an amortization period for nonconforming signs. NBMC currently requires nonconforming signs to be removed by October 27, 2020. These amendments would extend the deadline for the removal to October 27, 2025. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find this project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15305 under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3; 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-015 recommending the City Council approve Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2019-007 to amend Section 20.42.140(A) (Nonconforming Signs) of Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code; and 4. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-016 recommending the City Council approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-005 and authorize staff to submit the amendment to the California Coastal Commission to amend Section 21.30.065(E) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.