HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019Oct17_PC_CorrespondenceOctober 15, 2019
To: Planning Commissioners, City Council, City Planning Department
Ref. Planning Commission Public Hearing October 17, 2019
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Code Amendment No. CA2019-006
Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-004
Subject: Comments to Staff Report and Proposed Amendments
Planning Commissioners, et al,
Regarding the proposed Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181), hereafter called
the “Amendments”, the Staff Report seems insufficient as it does not address the consequences of
implementing the proposed Amendments in detail. Street parking in the areas in question (Balboa Island,
Corona Del Mar, Balboa Peninsula, etc) is already severely impacted as result of grandfathered on-site
parking inadequacy and already granted local business parking waivers. To better understand the parking
impact to the local communities the evaluation should provide a comprehensive list of all the properties that
could qualify as a Cottage Preservation project under the proposed Amendments including the off-street
parking availability for each and all the properties and the cumulative parking impact for the specific areas.
Additionally, in reaching out to the Public, it should be done separately for each local community. If, for
example, the Balboa Island residents strongly support the Amendments but the Balboa Peninsula
residents do not then the Amendments should be approved just for Balboa Island and not for the
other local communities.
I have several concerns regarding the proposed Amendments as follows:
1.Cottage Definition and Establishing a Related Maximum Square Footage
From Oxford, a Cottage is a “small simple house”. So what is considered small by Newport Beach
coastal community standards?
In Corona Del Mar, for the last two decades, many lots have been developed into two-unit dwellings
(condos). Most of them have a 3 BRs, 2-1/2 BAs “Front Unit” of about 1,800~1,900 sq ft (plus a 200 sq
ft single car garage and a carport) and a 2 BRs, 2-1/2 BAs “Back Unit” of about 1,150~1,250 sq ft (plus
a 200 sq ft single car garage and a carport).
In the Balboa Peninsula, many 25’ wide lots have been developed into two-unit dwelling, which can be
around 1,650 sq ft (plus a 200 sq ft single car garage and a carport) each and typically have 3 BRs, 2-
1/2 BAs. And they are, per coastal Newport Beach standards, very nice in size and very livable.
Page 5 of the Staff Report states that, “for example, a one-story dwelling on a typical Corona Del Mar lot
(30’x118’) may measure approximately 2,200 square feet in area”. That means said dwelling would be
allowed to add 1,100 sq ft in area on a second floor (50% of the existing dwelling area) resulting in a
final 3,300 sq ft dwelling after the Cottage Preservation project is completed. Such a dwelling size, by
“beach cottage” standards is not small… in fact it is huge! (please refer to pr evious paragraphs above).
Why should we allow this property owner to increase their property size to 3,300 sq ft and not have them
provide the off-street parking requirement for two vehicles?
Planning Commission - October 17, 2019
Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
An existing 2,200 sq ft dwelling is already larger than many typical dwellings in Corona Del Mar or the
Balboa Peninsula so it is “livable” already. For said reason, I respectfully recommend the proposed
Amendments to be applied only to existing dwellings of smaller square footage. For example,
existing dwellings with a maximum size of 1,500 sq ft in area. That would allow the dwellings area
to be increased to a total of 2,250 sq ft, which is more than livable. The additional 750 sq ft area is more
than enough to accommodate a master bedroom with a master bathroom, a hallway and stairs to reach
a second floor.
As an option, for existing dwellings larger than 1,500 sq ft in area instead of using a 50% maximum
development limit, a specific maximum square footage limit of, for example, 2,250 sq ft could be used.
In this case, an existing 1,700 sq ft dwelling could only build an addition of up to 550 sq ft (or 32.35% of
the existing dwelling area). An existing 1,900 sq ft dwelling could only build an addition of up to 350 sq
ft (or 18.42% of the existing dwelling area). And so on. Existing dwellings larger than ~2,045 sq ft
would then be allowed to build up to 10% of the existing dwelling area under the current codes without
qualifying for the Cottage Preservation Amendments.
2. Amendments Scope of Application – Single Unit versus Two Unit Dwellings per Lot
During the September 10, 2019 City Council Study Session, it was stated by a Council Member that the
proposed Amendments are meant to help, for example, a young small family afford a property in the
area (as their primary residence) and for them to be able to increase the dwelling size to make it livable.
First of all, for those of us – residents – who did not inherited a property in Newport Beach, we could not
afford to buy our first home in the coastal communities of Newport Beach 30 years ago so the difficulty
for young families to be able to afford a property in said areas of our city is not something new.
I can see the scenario described by the Council Member as possible, but the Amendments do not
address other possible scenarios. The Amendments are silent about the Cottage Conversion projects to
be applied to single-unit dwellings versus two-unit dwellings.
For two-unit dwellings the required off-street parking is for four vehicles total so with the proposed
Amendments implementation two-unit dwellings will be allowed to increase their dwelling size by 50%
without proper parking spaces. Why? In this case we are not talking about a family remodeling their
primary residence; once you have two units you certainly have a rental business at the property.
For the same example provided in Page 5 of the Staff Report, a one-story dwelling of 2,200 sq ft would
be allowed to increase size by 1,100 sq ft (50% of the existing dwelling area). Such area increase is a
lot more than what is needed to add a “master bedroom”. An unscrupulous property owner looking to
maximize their rental income could easily add four (4) bedrooms (i.e. 14’x12’, at ~170 sq ft each), a 70
sq ft bathroom plus a hallway and stairs to the second floor – with no extra off-street parking for the
additional tenants the dwelling would accommodate. For a two-unit dwelling we very much know one of
the units is going to be a rental unit. This is another reason to curtail the size of the qualifying existing
dwellings as addressed on Section 1 of this letter.
Due to the above described scenarios, I respectfully recommend the proposed Amendments to be
applied only to existing single-unit dwellings (to be kept as single-unit after the remodel) and
NOT to two-unit dwellings.
3. Amendments Deed Restriction – No Short Term Lodging Permit
Referring back to the “unscrupulous property owner” described in Section 2 of this letter, who could add
4 BRs and 1 BA to an existing dwelling without adding the normally required off-street parking spaces,
Planning Commission - October 17, 2019
Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
the street parking impact could be worse if the dwelling has a Short Term Lodging Permit (STLP). Once
the extra bedrooms are added to a “vacation rental” then the local community will have extra people (i.e.
in this case at least 8 additional people) coming and going causing additional parking issues, etc.
Page 6 of the Staff Report states a Revocable Deed Restriction is to be recorded as a legal measure for
the current property owner, and future owners, to agree to “maintain the property consistent with the
limitations specified for cottage preservation”.
An additional restriction that I consider extremely important, and I respectfully recommend herein, is for
the Revocable Deed Restriction to include the current property owner, and future owners,
agreement to not operate the property as a vacation rental. No STLP should be issued for a
property that is redeveloped as part of the proposed Amendments. If the existing dwelling has a
current STLP then as part of the Cottage Preservation qualification process said STLP should be
revoked.
4. Further Clarification of “Front half of lot: one story and 16 feet”
Page 4 of the Staff Report shows “Front half of lot limited to one story and a maximum height of 16 feet”
as one of the building envelope limits for cottage preservation eligibility.
My interpretation of such statement is that, in the front half of the lot, since it is labeled as one story then
a second floor deck will not be allowed. It would be best if the Amendments clearly stated/added, after
“The residential structure shall not include third floor deck”, the following wording “and shall not include a
second floor deck in the front half of lot”. Such statement would leave no room for interpretation.
Additionally, I have seen properties with a steep roof pitch that – from the outside - appear to be a single
level. However, when you walk inside the dwelling it has an extensive loft inside creating significant
additional living space (on a second floor). These are dwellings with a 16 foot roof ridge/line. This
scenario is even more plausible when the roof line has dormers. Consequently, how is this potential
scenario addressed as part of the proposed Amendments?
I truly hope the concerns raised in this letter are seriously considered for incorporation into the final draft of
the proposed Amendments prior to their approval. If you have any questions about this letter please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Carmen Rawson
Resident Balboa Peninsula
949-278-2447 Cell
carmen_rawson@att.net
Planning Commission - October 17, 2019
Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
From: Jurjis, Seimone
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2019 8:25 AM
To: Murillo, Jaime
Subject: FW: Comments to City's Proposed Code Amendments - Cottage
Preservation
For the file
SEIMONE JURJIS, P.E., C.B.O.
Community Development Department
Community Development Director
sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov
949-644-3282
From: Ken & Carmen Rawson [mailto:ckrawson@att.net]
Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2019 11:11 AM
To: Avery, Brad <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>; Brenner, Joy <JBrenner@newportbeachca.gov>; Dixon,
Diane <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov>; Duffield, Duffy <dduffield@newportbeachca.gov>; Harp, Aaron
<aharp@newportbeachca.gov>; Herdman, Jeff <jherdman@newportbeachca.gov>; Leung, Grace
<gleung@newportbeachca.gov>; Muldoon, Kevin <kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov>; Oborny, Shirley
<soborny@newportbeachca.gov>; O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>; Rieff, Kim
<KRieff@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Carmen Rawson <carmen_rawson@att.net>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Comments to City's Proposed Code Amendments - Cottage Preservation
Mayor and City Council Members,
I am against allowing the addition of a second level to existing one level Cottages without requiring them also to
meet the building code for two car parking per unit.
I would like to hear from someone on the City Council why this modification to our existing building code is being
considered.
I have done some quick calculations relative to the required money needed to add the second level and all the other
code updates the existing building may need.
For example: Assuming a lot sized 25’ x 90’ (with 3’ side setbacks, 15’ front setback, 5’ alley setback) ,,, this
would yield a buildable single level house of 1,330 sq ft. Assuming 50% of 1,330 sq ft could be added as a second
level would yield an addition of 665 sq ft. with a resulting home of 1,995 sq ft. This is a larger home than most
duplexes or condos I know of on the Peninsula!
This addition will require bringing all the following up to current code:
Foundations – The new 2nd floor loads may require completely new foundations for that portion.
Additional plumbing
Electrical Panels/Wiring
Seismic loading of the framed structure
Fire sprinklers for the whole house
Etc, Etc.
At $300/sq ft, to build the second floor would cost a minimum of ~$200,000 and the existing building may require
at least ~$100,000 in code upgrades. If the Cottage owner can cover these type of costs to upgrade the building why
not stick with our current building code requirements and have a carport included so they have an existing single car
garage and a new carport?
With the cost of most single family cottages (that make sense to modify /upgrade) costing at least $1.5 million the
idea of investing another ~$300,000 in a cottage that would still have only one parking space makes its resale
marketability very questionable.
In these areas near the beach our number one problem is PARKING. Please don’t add to it by allowing a 50%
increase to the existing homes without the appropriate additional off street parking.
Sincerely,
Ken Rawson - Resident of Balboa Peninsula
From:Murillo, Jaime
To:Lee, Amanda; Rodriguez, Clarivel
Subject:FW: Planning Commission Public Hearing October 17, 2019 - Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments
(PA2019-181)
Date:Wednesday, October 16, 2019 1:50:35 PM
From: dan.j.burt@gmail.com <dan.j.burt@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 12:15 PM
To: 'Carmen Rawson' <carmen_rawson@att.net>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>;
Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <llowrey@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Murillo, Jaime
<JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov>; Campbell, Jim <JCampbell@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis,
Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; 'Fred Levine' <fredric.mark.levine@gmail.com>; 'Denys
Oberman' <dho@obermanassociates.com>; 'Maureen Cotton' <mcotton@integrated8a.com>;
cbatley@burrwhite.com; 'Joan Burt' <quinnburt@aol.com>; 'Dr. Peter G. Anderson'
<peteermd@roadrunner.com>
Subject: RE: Planning Commission Public Hearing October 17, 2019 - Cottage Preservation Code and
LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Dear Planning Commissioners,
As a resident of the Balboa Peninsula, 1713 W Balboa Blvd., I fully support Carmen
Rawson’s letter’s recommendations on the proposed Amendments. I am particularly concerned that
expanding the property to a two family unit or short (or long) term rental is a real risk and must be
prevented. Make sure the cottage remains a single family home. Also the 1500 sq ft limit on
“cottage” makes much more sense.
Parking on the peninsula, as you well know, is a real problem and allowing expansion
without adding parking doesn’t help. Please be very careful with your “cottage” exemption.
With kind regards
Dan Burt
From: Carmen Rawson <carmen_rawson@att.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 10:47 PM
To: Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Lee
<llowrey@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Dept - City Council <citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Jaime Murillo
<jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov>; Jim Campbell <jcampbell@newportbeachca.gov>; Seimone Jurjis
<sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; Fred Levine <fredric.mark.levine@gmail.com>; Denys Oberman
<dho@obermanassociates.com>; Maureen Cotton <mcotton@integrated8a.com>;
cbatley@burrwhite.com; Dan Burt <dan.j.burt@gmail.com>; Joan Burt <quinnburt@aol.com>; Dr.
Peter G. Anderson <peteermd@roadrunner.com>
Subject: Planning Commission Public Hearing October 17, 2019 - Cottage Preservation Code and LCP
Amendments (PA2019-181)
Planning Commissioners,
Planning Commission - October 17, 2019
Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
As a resident of Newport Beach (Balboa Peninsula) I have concerns regarding the proposed subject
Amendments. Attached please find a letter detailing my concerns about approving Cottage Preservation
projects for already large dwellings (per coastal Newport Beach standards), for two-unit dwellings, and for
dwellings with Short Term Lodging Permits.
Please take into consideration my concerns when reviewing the proposed Amendments and hopefully
some of the raised issues can be addressed prior to the final draft of the Amendments is approved.
Sincerely,
Carmen Rawson
Planning Commission - October 17, 2019
Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
From:Murillo, Jaime
To:Rodriguez, Clarivel; Lee, Amanda
Subject:Fw: Comments re proposed Cottage Preservation plan and Amendments to LCP
Date:Wednesday, October 16, 2019 7:05:13 PM
From: Denys Oberman <dho@obermanassociates.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 4:18:07 PM
To: Murillo, Jaime; Campbell, Jim
Cc: Denys Oberman; Fred Levine
Subject: Comments re proposed Cottage Preservation plan and Amendments to LCP
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL, AND ENTER
INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD---
Members of the Planning Commission ,
We are writing to comment on the staff proposal regarding Cottage preservation and the LCP
Amendment being presented and heard by the Commission. I am on the Board of the Central
Penninsula Community Association, and am also an oceanfront homeowner.
We appreciate the City’s deserve to “preserve” more modest Cottage type structures. However, the
proposed Amendment , if adopted in current form, actually works counterproductive to the stated
intent.
The proposal provides for a Cottage to be expanded to 3000 sq ft. , a full 3-4 bedroom residence. It
also provides parking exception for a two unit development. This scale of development creates
significant intensification---there can be no legitimate justification to except this type of
development and intensity of use from requirement to provide Parking On-site. Units of this size will
include 3 or more bedrooms, or, in the case of two units, 6 or more bedrooms.
The City is already capacity-stressed in the multiple neighborhoods with narrow , small lots and
already- limited Parking. This is not confined to the Balboa Penninsula—it is also the case in Corona
del Mar flower street area, Balboa Island, and other Non-subdivision developed residential areas of
the City.
As a City, we are approaching the point of interfering with Life Safety vehicle and resident
ingress/egress in many of these areas.
Furthermore, to encourage the development of Housing stock without Parking is to ultimately
decrease both the value of these properties, and the character of our residential neighborhoods.
The Parking problem is further compounded by the City’s push to increase Visitor traffic, and the
demand for visitor type accomodations which include STL. ( note- we are in favor of encouraging the
City’s Visitor-based revenue stream, but not at the expense of our residents or the communities
which give this City its brand and long-term traction.)
Planning Commission - October 17, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
We are in agreement with the comments of other Penninsual residents. However, we do not agree
that mitigation should only be directed to the Balboa Penninsula neighborhoods.
Respectfully, let’s call a spade a spade.
Please do not use the “Cottage preservation” concept or intent for the purposes of enabling yet
another way around Parking as an integral and essential part of our residential land use
development and project approval.
Our General Plan carefully crafted and called out the tenets when it said that, Each Development
Project should park itself.
This is already a challenge.
Please do not excacerbate an already- existing challenge.
Do not allow any residential development project increases living area footprint that does not
provide a reasonable on-site Parking plan.
The City will have to accommodate its residents somehow if it moves forward with this proposal.
This has been a challenge on the plate for many years, and the City has not provided a meaningful
solution.
We request that this Proposal not be accepted in its current form or substance, and that the City not
take any further action in the name of “Cottages” and “LCP Amendment” until it is adequately
thought through.
Thank you,
Denys Oberman and
Fred Levine- Oceanfront resident and Board Member of Central Penninsula Community Association.
Cc: Associations and Residents of the above referenced communities.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
NOTE- Please disregard the Confidentiality Notice and preprinted corporate signature below.
Planning Commission - October 17, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)