HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019Nov21_PC_CorrespondeceNovember 21, 2019, Planning Commission Item 4 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. 4. COTTAGE PRESERVATION CODE AND LCP AMENDMENTS
(PA2019-181)
The following changes are suggested:
Page 1: The “Project Summary” says “The amendments would allow larger additions (up to 50
percent of the existing floor area or 500 square feet, whichever is greater) …” I believe it meant
“less”. Less trivially, it is unclear if the 500 sf limit is to be understood as a cumulative
lifetime cap on the entitlement or the amount that can be added at one time. That is, does a
previous 500 sf addition preclude any future one even if the structure would stay within the
“cottage” form described in the code? (for comparison, the “normal” rule in NBMC Sec.
20.38.040.G governing additions to non-conforming structures is “limited to a maximum of fifty (50)
percent of the gross floor area of the existing structure within any ten (10) year period”)
Page 16, under “Exceptions”: “1. This provision does not apply for permit valuations less than
$209,000 $220,700;”
[On November 19, the City Council conducted the second reading and adopted Ordinance No.
2019-17, which revised the number as shown. The present recommendation would revert the
valuation exemption to the prior number. I doubt that is intended as part of this. If so, it is not
mentioned in the staff report.]
Page 17, under “3”: “Exception for Cottage Preservation. Notwithstanding the provisions of
subsections (A)(1)(b) and (A)(2)(b) of this section, additions of up to fifty (50) percent of the existing
floor area of the structure, but no more than 500 square feet, are permitted for projects that
remodel and expand a smaller residential dwelling, dupex duplex, or triplex that is
representative of the traditional development patterns in the City, result in the preservation
of the cottage character, and comply with the following criteria:”
[The purpose of the ordinance seems to be to allow a ministerial approval of certain cottage
improvement projects which might currently require a discretionary action, such as a variance.
As such, I believe the approval has to be based on objective criteria, specifically the building
form specified in subpart “d.” Deciding what is “smaller” or “representative” or in “character”
sound highly subjective. The relevance of the same words in the similarly proposed modification
to the LCP Implementation Plan is different, since in that case these subjective criteria may be
important factors in deciding if a Coastal Development Permit is merited.]
Page 18, top of page: “c. The square footage of residential parking area additions identified below
shall be excluded from the allowed expansion under subsection (A)(3), but shall be included as
gross floor area;”
[“Gross floor area” is not referred to anywhere else in the proposed ordinance, so without further
explanation I am unable to attach any significance to the words indicated. They do not seem to
affect the calculation of what is allowed.]
November 21, 2019, PC agenda Item 4 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2
Page 18, middle of page: “e. The residential structure shall not include a third floor deck;”
Page 21, Section 1.2: The suggestion that Newport Beach did not have a Coastal Land Use Plan
prior to 2005 is a bit misleading. Although the City adopted an extensively revised Coastal Land
Use Plan in 2005 (see Resolution No. 2005-64), as that explains, it has had a certified CLUP since
1982 (see Resolution No. 82-25).
Page 21, Section 1.5: Regarding compliance with 14 CCR § 13515, the Notice of Availability and
proposed text distributed on October 4, 2019, is not what the Commission is currently considering.
I don’t believe a copy of the most recently proposed cottage preservation LCP amendment was
made available for public review at the public libraries (the only version they have appears to be
from prior to October 17 hearing), nor, to the best of my knowledge, has a new Notice of
Availability announcing the revised text been posted on the City website (not a legal requirement
until January 1).
Page 24, proposed Policy 2.9.3-8: Not only does this not inform the Coastal Commission of the
500 square foot limitation, but it is not a clear policy statement since neither “the cottage character
of the development” nor the “building envelope representative of traditional cottage development
patterns in the City” are defined or even described in the Land Use Plan. It seems to me the
intent of the policy cannot be understood without adding something to the CLUP narrative.
Page 25, middle of page: “3. Alley Access. Where applicable, residential development involving
repairs, alterations, and additions to residential development having less than the required number
of parking spaces per dwelling unit shall provide alley access to the parking area if it would result
in additional public street parking.”
[?? – I continue to be uncertain what word or words are missing from this passage in the
existing code.]
Page 25, bottom of page: “c. The square footage of residential parking area additions identified
below shall be excluded from the allowed expansion under subsection (A)(4), but shall be
included as gross floor area;”
[see comment on page 15, above]
Page 26, middle of page: “e. The residential structure shall not include a third floor deck;”
From: Carmen Rawson <carmen_rawson@att.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 10:41 AM
To: Murillo, Jaime
Cc: Peter; Weigand, Erik; Lowrey, Lee; Dept - City Council; Campbell, Jim;
Jurjis, Seimone
Subject: Planning Commission Public Hearing November 21, 2019 - Cottage
Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Good morning Jaime,
I realize that this message is being sent to you at the very last minute but better now than never. There
are two issues I would like to bring up regarding the subject:
1. Additions to a dwelling to comply with property set backs
I have noticed some "cottage" dwellings in the city are built into the corresponding lot setbacks (legal non -
conforming units). If an existing dwelling is non-conforming because it is built protruding into a setback I
believe a remodeling/addition, under a cottage preservation project, should not be allowed to be located
protruding into any of the lot setback areas.
2. Existing garages being used as living space to revert back to being used as a garage
I have noticed some existing "cottage" dwellings that have an existing garage, but a closer look of the
garage door indicates the door has been permanently sealed meaning the garage area has be en
unofficially converted to "living space". As part of a cottage preservation project I believe an existing
garage that is being used as living space shall be reverted back to be used as a garage.
Please take these two comments into consideration as part of the subject code amendments.
Regards,
Carmen Rawson
Balboa Peninsula Resident