Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft Minutes_01-23-2020 1 of 6 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, JANUARY 23, 2020 REGULAR MEETING – 6:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Commissioner Klaustermeier III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Peter Koetting, Vice Chair Erik Weigand, Secretary Lee Lowrey, Commissioner Curtis Ellmore, Commissioner Sarah Klaustermeier, Commissioner Lauren Kleiman, Commissioner Mark Rosene ABSENT: None Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, Principal Planner Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Chelsea Crager, City Planning Consultant David Blumenthal, Administrative Specialist Clarivel Rodriguez, Administrative Support Technician Amanda Lee IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS None V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell requested Agenda Item Number 4 be continued to February 20, 2020. VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 21, 2019 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Chair Koetting to approve the minutes of the November 21, 2019, meeting with Mr. Mosher's proposed revisions. AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Lowrey, Klaustermeier, Kleiman, Rosene NOES: None ABSTAIN: Ellmore ABSENT: None ITEM NO. 2 MINUTES OF DECEMBER 5, 2019 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Chair Koetting to approve the minutes of the December 5, 2019, meeting with Mr. Mosher's proposed revisions AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Lowrey, Ellmore, Kleiman, Rosene NOES: None ABSTAIN: Klaustermeier ABSENT: None Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2020 2 of 6 VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 3 24 HARBOR ISLAND PROPERTY LINE WALL VARIANCE (PA2019-059) Site Location: 24 Harbor Island Summary: A coastal development permit and variance to construct a 120-foot long, 6-foot-tall block wall located along the southeasterly side property line where wall height is limited to 42 inches because the 11.5-foot side setback area is regulated as a front setback. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and, 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-001 approving Coastal Development Permit No. CD2019-021 and Variance No. VA2019-004. Associate Planner Chelsea Crager reported the applicant requests an increase in the height of the property line wall. The wall was previously approved at a height of 42 inches. The application requires a variance and a coastal development permit. The wall is located in the side setback, but it is regulated as a front setback because the setback area the wall is located within is identified on a setback map that is part of the Zoning Code. The project site is located on a private island, and a house on the property site is under construction. The subject property is the result of a lot merger. An easement for a private walkway or roadway cuts across the island along the east side of the subject property, but there are no plans to develop the walkway or roadway. Three other properties affected by the same easement have been granted modification permits or variances allowing structures to encroach into the required setback that corresponds to the easement area. Staff believes the findings for a variance can be made and has drafted relevant conditions of approval. Staff recommends approval of the application. Staff has received two letters in support of the project, one of which conditions its support upon the addition of a condition of approval. Commissioner Rosene and Vice Chair Weigand disclosed telephone conversations with the applicant's representative. Commissioner Kleiman disclosed email correspondence with the applicant's consultant. Commissioners Klaustermeier and Lowrey disclosed no communications. Chair Koetting disclosed a tour of the site with the general contractor. Commissioner Ellmore disclosed a conversation with the applicant's consultant and a tour of the site with the general contractor. Chair Koetting opened the public hearing. Shawna Schaffner, CAA Planning, advised that she has reviewed and agrees to the staff report, findings of fact, and conditions of approval. The applicant requests a variance to increase the height of an approved wall located within a side setback. Three sides of the property are regulated as front yards, and a 6-foot wall is not allowed in a front yard. The Harbor Island Community Association (HICA) approved the housing project in 2015 after the applicant relocated a 50-foot segment of the wall pursuant to HICA's request. The Coastal Commission issued a coastal development permit (CDP) for the housing project in 2017, and the City issued a building permit shortly thereafter. The wall's location has remained the same for each application. HICA's 2014 letter indicates the easement is largely obsolete. HICA's 2020 letter appears to rescind its 2015 approval unless the property owners adjacent to the easement agree not to park in the area next to the house. The property owner does not agree to HICA's proposed condition of approval. In response to Commissioners' questions, Ms. Schaffner indicated based on the approved wall configuration and a height of 3 1/2 feet, the area in dispute could accommodate vehicle parking. The easement was not recorded and is shown on the Tract Map only. Approximately 26 feet from the street, the low wall transitions with a pilaster to a 6-foot wall. Double gates into the side yard are located 50 feet from the street. The gates are also 6 feet tall. If parking in the area where the wall turns away from the street is not restricted, HICA will withdraw its approval of the project. Ms. Schaffner related that she was retained in 2016 to assist the applicant with obtaining the CDP and was not a party to any discussions about the design of the house. After the City obtained the authority to grant Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2020 3 of 6 variances in the Coastal Zone, the property owner requested she pursue a variance to increase the height of the wall. If the segment of 6-foot-tall wall does not affect views or coastal access, a variance should be granted given the prevailing development on the island. She could not speak to parking restrictions along the street, but there are no red curbs on the street. Given the limited amount of parking, additional parking would benefit residents. Parking restrictions are not a matter for the City because the property is located on a private island. The parking area is located on the applicant's property rather than the street. Ms. Schaffner believed HICA has stated it wants the easement for vehicular access. A photo of Lot 7 shows a vehicle parked adjacent to the home in the 30-foot- wide roadway easement. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell expressed confidence that the Planning Commission can act on the CDP application and approve a variance. Associate Planner Crager advised that she did not notice any red curbs during her site visit. Jim Mosher questioned the City's ability to modify a permit approved by the Coastal Commission when the public has been told that the Coastal Commission would have to approve any changes to a CDP it issued many years ago for a hotel project. HICA seems to have some mysterious right to redraw the Tract Map. The private property lines extend to the center of the island, which would also be the center of the 30-foot road in the center of the island. He was unsure whether Ms. Schaffner would claim that the property owners have the right to construct a 3 1/2-foot wall in the center of the main roadway. Amending the setback maps would be more straightforward and permanent than requesting a variance. Staff and the applicant's logic in making the variance findings begins with the premise that everyone is entitled to a 6-foot wall located on a property line. A HICA representative from Total Property Management, stated there is disagreement about an understanding that was reached during an onsite meeting. However; she was not present at the meeting. The height of the wall is not HICA's concern. HICA's concern is emergency vehicle access if vehicles are parked in the easement. Chair Koetting remarked that access for emergency vehicles has been viable since 1926. He indicated he was a Commissioner when the Planning Commission approved projects for parcels 7 and 8, and emergency vehicle access was not mentioned for those projects. The area in question is at least 30 feet deep, and only 8 feet would be needed for a turnaround. Vice Chair Weigand advised that the Planning Commission cannot change the conditions of approval for parcel 26 as the HICA letter requests. Commissioner Klaustermeier believed HICA would want off-street parking so that parked vehicles did not obstruct access. The HICA representative indicated recent events have raised the access issue for HICA. Large vehicles have difficulty turning around to exit the island. The easement could be a turnaround for large vehicles, but vehicles parked in the easement would remove that ability. Commissioner Rosene recommended HICA revise the map to reflect existing conditions. In reply to Commissioner Kleiman's inquiry, Associate Planner Crager reported all City departments, including Fire, reviewed the plans and approved the location of the wall at a height of 42 inches. Commissioner Kleiman stated HICA has a community safety concern, but the Planning Commission's purview is the height of the wall. HICA will need to find a different approach to address its concern. Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis clarified that the Fire Department did not review the project for response times specifically. Congestion on Harbor Island is no different than congestion on Balboa Island, the Peninsula, or Corona del Mar. The Fire Department did not provide comments other than it had no issue with a variance for the wall. HICA may wish to discuss response times with the Fire Marshal or Fire Chief. In answer to Commissioner Kleiman's query, Ms. Schaffner reported the housing project includes a three-car garage and a golf cart garage. The garage is set back from the street such that guests could parallel park onsite in front of the garage. The area in question could also accommodate off-street parking. Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2020 4 of 6 Chair Koetting closed the public hearing. Motion made by Commissioner Lowrey and seconded by Commissioner Rosene to approve the staff recommendation. AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Lowrey, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Kleiman, Rosene NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None ITEM NO. 4 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 would reduce bulk and mass associated with future residential development as follows: Revisions to Third Floor Standards • Third floor step backs would apply to covered deck areas (currently applies only to enclosed floor area). • Third floor side step backs would apply to lots 30 feet wide or greater (currently applies to lots wider than 30 feet). • Third floor standards would apply to Balboa Island (currently exempt). • Maximum covered third floor area (enclosed or unenclosed) limited to 50 percent of buildable area. Uncovered deck area would remain unrestricted. 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). • 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 RM Zone Existing third floor and open space standards applicable to R-1 and R-2 zones would now apply to single- and two-unit dwellings in RM zones. Recommended Action: This item has been removed from the calendar to allow additional legal review of the proposed amendments to ensure compliance with recent changes in State law. Chair Koetting announced the item is continued to February 20, 2020. VIII. DISCUSSION ITEMS ITEM NO. 5 AB 881 (ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS) AND SB 330 (HOUSING CRISIS ACT OF 2019) City Planning Consultant David Blumenthal reported in 2019 the California Legislature declared a statewide housing crisis, which will remain in effect until 2025, and adopted 18 new laws that impact housing. Senate Bill (SB) 13, Assembly Bill (AB) 68, and AB 881 impact the regulation of accessory dwelling units (ADU). SB 330 applies to development projects comprised of solely residential units; mixed-use projects with two-thirds Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2020 5 of 6 of the square footage designated for residential uses; supportive and transitional housing; and emergency housing. SB 330 became effective January 1, 2020 and sunsets January 1, 2025. The provisions of SB 330 include a new preliminary application; a maximum of five public hearings for housing developments; a reduction in the time for processing applications; a requirement for objective standards; limitations on the denial of housing projects; a prohibition of new growth control measures and moratoria; a prohibition of reductions of General Plan and zoning densities/intensities with a base date of January 1, 2018; and a prohibition of downzoning. Under SB 330, a property owner must maintain the number of existing housing units on a site. The three new laws pertaining to ADUs became effective January 1, 2020. Local ADU ordinances in their entirety are invalid if any provision does not comply with the new state laws, and ADU regulations default to the minimal standards provided in state regulations. Staff is preparing amendments to bring the City's ADU ordinance into compliance with state laws. ADUs are allowed in all residential and mixed-use zones. A one- bedroom ADU may contain a maximum of 800 square feet, and a two-bedroom ADU may contain a maximum of 1,000 square feet. A property owner may convert existing space to an ADU or build a new ADU. Cities may not require owner occupancy of the main dwelling or the ADU through January 1, 2025. Cities may prohibit the sale of ADUs and main dwellings separately. Junior accessory dwelling units (JADU) are allowed in single- family zones only. JADUs may contain a maximum of 500 square feet. Property owners may convert only existing space to JADUs. Cities may require owner-occupancy of either the main dwelling or the JADU. JADUs may have an internal connection to the main dwelling and may share a bathroom with the main dwelling. JADUs must have kitchens. City Planning Consultant Blumenthal summarized the differences between the City's existing ADU regulations and the new state regulations. The requirement of one parking space per ADU is waived if the ADU is located within a half-mile walking distance of a transit stop; located within one block of a designated carshare pickup/drop-off location; located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district; a conversion of existing space; or located in a permit parking area but permits are not offered to ADU occupants. Applicants will be required to submit a map depicting a half-mile walking distance to a transit stop in order to request a waiver of the parking requirement. SB 13 allows a property owner to request a five-year delay in enforcement of Building Code violations against an ADU. A city must approve the request unless the Fire Marshal determines a correction is necessary to protect health and safety. This provision sunsets on January 1, 2035. In answer to Commissioners' inquiries, staff advised that a lot merger cannot reduce the number of existing housing units. The maximum of five public hearings includes California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) hearings. Public hearings are not required for an application that is permitted by right. A homeowners association (HOA) may not prohibit ADUs and is only allowed to apply reasonable restrictions. Coastal Act requirements remain in effect for housing projects; however, staff hopes future requirements, if any, are less restrictive. ADUs may count towards a jurisdiction's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements; however, the criteria to count ADUs are subjective and the State Department of Housing and Community Development is in the process of creating guidance in this regard. The City has requested assistance from local senators and assembly members to amend state law such that the criteria are objective. A building permit is required to convert a garage to an ADU, and no additional parking is required. It is staff’s belief that the City's Greenlight provisions will continue to apply. Vice Chair Weigand suggested staff provide a worksheet of these changes to all residents. Jim Mosher inquired whether any Charter Cities have challenged the housing mandates and, if so, the status of the challenges. Parking requirements for the ADU and main dwelling seem to have been eliminated for a project converting a garage to an ADU. He inquired whether an appeal is considered a public hearing such that an appeal could not be filed if a project is approved or denied during the fifth public hearing. Art Pease remarked that Item 4 on the agenda appears to conflict with new state mandates and proposed the City revisit the 1980s change of C-3 zoning to MFR zoning because it resulted in an unfair taking. Planning Commission Minutes January 23, 2020 6 of 6 Secretary Lowrey indicated Huntington Beach recently lost its challenge based on a Charter City argument. He was unaware whether Huntington Beach has filed an appeal with the California Supreme Court. Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill commented that the Legislature and case law continue to erode home rule authority of Charter Cities. Staff will analyze and evaluate the declaration of a housing crisis and the Charter City argument. One trial court has issued a decision that home rule authority reigned supreme over the Housing Accountability Act; however, other decisions do not seem as favorable. IX. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 6 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION None ITEM NO. 7 REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR MATTERS WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA. Community Development Director Jurjis reported staff will prepare a housing worksheet and guidelines for the community. The City Council has scheduled its annual planning session for January 25. The Community Development Department is implementing an action plan related to housing. The City has sent a letter opposing SB 50 to state legislators. The City Council is planning to disband the General Plan Update Steering Committee and form a Housing Element Advisory Committee. On January 28, staff will present the proposed Beach Cottage Preservation Ordinance to the Council, and the Council will vote on a resolution regarding RHNA allocations. The February 6 Planning Commission meeting has been canceled. The February 20, 2020, Planning Commission agenda includes ADU amendments and third-story massing and RM zone amendments. In answer to Chair Koetting's question, Community Development Director Jurjis did not believe the Khoshbin's Landing sale would affect the Newport Village project. ITEM NO. 8 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES None X. ADJOURNMENT – 8:00 p.m. The agenda for the January 23, 2020, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, January 17, 2020, at 10:30 a.m. in the Chambers binder, on the digital display board located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, and on the City’s website on Friday, January 17, 2020, at 11:02 a.m. _______________________________ Peter Koetting, Chairman _______________________________ Lee Lowrey, Secretary