HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft Minutes_02-20-2020
1 of 7
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 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 Ellmore
III. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Chair Peter Koetting, Vice Chair Erik Weigand, Secretary Lee Lowrey, Commissioner Curtis
Ellmore, Commissioner Sarah Klaustermeier, Commissioner Mark Rosene
ABSENT: Commissioner Lauren Kleiman (excused)
Staff Present: Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda
Summerhill, Principal Planner Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner Benjamin Zdeba, Assistant Planner Joselyn Perez,
Planning Consultant David Blumenthal, Administrative Support Specialist Clarivel Rodriguez, Administrative
Support Technician Amanda Lee
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported the item regarding residential design standards
should have been removed from the calendar at the January meeting. A community meeting about potential code
amendments related to residential design standards will be held on March 9, 2020, at 6:00 p.m. in the Civic Center
Community Room.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES
None
VI. CONSENT ITEMS
ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF JANUARY 23, 2020
Recommended Action: Approve and file
Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Klaustermeier to approve the minutes
of the January 23, 2020 meeting as presented.
AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Lowrey, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Rosene
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT: Kleiman
VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ITEM NO. 2 AMENDMENT TO SETBACK MAP NO. S-1A (PA2019-216)
Site Location: 6501 and 6503 Seashore Drive
Summary:
Amendments to Title 20 (Zoning Code) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) revising
Setback Map No. S-1A to adjust the required setbacks for property located at 6501 and 6503 Seashore
Drive. In conjunction with the amendments, the request includes revocation of Variance No. VA0012 and
Modification Permit No. MD2343, which previously authorized setback encroachments on the site for the
existing dwelling.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 20, 2020
2 of 7
Recommended Action:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Find this project 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, because it
has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment;
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-002 recommending the City Council approve Code Amendment
No. CA2019-008;
4. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-003 recommending the City Council authorize staff to submit Local
Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-007 to the California Coastal Commission; and
5. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-004 recommending the City Council revoke Variance No. VA0012
and Modification No. MD2343.
Planning Consultant David Blumenthal reported the intent of the amendment is to make the property consistent
with surrounding properties. The duplex, built in 1951, is located at the corner of Walnut Street and Seashore
Drive. The property is zoned R-2. Under the 1950 Zoning Code, the City in 1951 granted a variance to deviate
from the westerly side setback conditioned upon the applicant providing a 10-foot setback along the alley. In 1978,
a modification to allow an encroachment of a second-story addition to the property was approved. The modification
allowed the second story a zero setback from Seashore Drive and a 5-foot setback from the alley. In 2010, the
Districting Map was replaced with Setback Map S-1A. The applicant proposes to amend Setback Map S-1A in
Titles 20 and 21 such that the property's setbacks match other properties in the area.
In response to Chair Koetting's inquiries, Planning Consultant Blumenthal explained that the applicant intends to
sell the property. The change will provide slightly more buildable area on the property; however, the City has not
been notified of any type of proposed addition or remodel of the existing duplex. Deputy Community Development
Director Campbell indicated the Modifications Committee was composed of staff members from the Planning
Department, Public Works Department, and Building Division who reviewed modification permits.
Commissioners Rosene, Klaustermeier, Ellmore, and Lowrey disclosed no ex parte communications. Chair
Koetting disclosed a site visit. Vice Chair Weigand disclosed a meeting with the applicant's consultant to discuss
the merits of the project.
Chair Koetting opened the public hearing.
Devin Lucas, applicant's representative and legal counsel, advised that the Feldman family purchased the property
in 1974. With Mr. and Mrs. Feldman's deaths, the trust calls for the sale of the property. In preparing the property
for sale, the variance was discovered. The applicant requests the variance be rescinded.
In response to Commissioners' queries, Mr. Lucas indicated the wall within the alley setback would have to be
removed in any proposal to redevelop the property. Access to the ocean is located via a public sidewalk adjacent
to the property.
Chair Koetting closed the public hearing.
In answer to Chair Koetting's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell related that the
Coastal Commission may handle the proposed amendment as a de minimis amendment, a minor amendment, or
a major amendment.
Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Rosene to adopt Resolution No.
PC2020-002 recommending the City Council approve Code Amendment No. CA2019-008; adopt Resolution
No. PC2020-003 recommending the City Council authorize staff to submit Local Coastal Program Amendment
No. LC2019-007 to the California Coastal Commission; and adopt Resolution No. PC2020-004 recommending
the City Council revoke Variance No. VA0012 and Modification No. MD2343.
AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Lowrey, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Rosene
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT: Kleiman
Planning Commission Minutes
February 20, 2020
3 of 7
ITEM NO. 3 BONAKDAR INSTITUTE (PA2019-171)
Site Location: 20321 Irvine Avenue, Unit F3
Summary:
A conditional use permit to operate a 3,314-square-foot medical office that provides nonsurgical aesthetic
treatments focusing on facial and body contouring.
Recommended Action:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section
15301 under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential to have
a significant effect on the environment;
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-005 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2019-045; and
4. Direct the Community Development Director to prepare a Determination that medical office uses
and similar uses are consistent with the purpose and intent of the SP-7/PA district and are,
therefore, allowable.
Assistant Planner Joselyn Perez reported the project is located on Irvine Avenue, across the street from the
Newport Beach Golf Course, and is abutted by residential uses. The site is zoned Santa Ana Heights Specific
Plan - Professional and Administrative Office (SP-7/PA). The zoning district permits no uses by right; rather, the
Zoning Code contains a list of allowable uses that are subject to the approval of a minor use permit. Professional
and administrative office is a part of the list, but medical office is not; however any use which the Planning
Commission finds consistent with the purpose and intent of this district is permitted subject to the Planning
Commission's approval of a use permit. The Planning Commission approved similar applications in 2017 and
2019. The applicant proposes to operate a 3,314-square-foot medical office between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5
p.m. Monday through Friday with two employees and adequate parking. The office complex is required to provide
301 parking spaces, which it provides. The main floor accommodates a reception area and four treatment rooms,
and the upper level accommodates administrative space only. The project is conditioned to permit only
administrative space on the upper level because there is no accessible elevator. Staff believes the use is
consistent with the Zoning Code and compatible with surrounding uses; the site is adequate for the use; and
approving the use will not be detrimental to the area. A Determination by the Community Development Director
will allow the Zoning Administrator to hear future applications for medical office uses.
In reply to Chair Koetting's inquiries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that during site
visits, staff did not observe any issues with parking. Staff provided notice of the application to property owners in
the area. With Planning Commission approval, the Director's Determination would find that a medical office is
consistent with the purpose and intent of the district. A hearing before the Zoning Administrator rather than the
Planning Commission saves the applicant time and money. Should future changes in uses cause a shortfall in
parking, the issue would be presented to the Planning Commission for review.
In answer to Vice Chair Weigand's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated a
definition of uses will be included in the Determination, which will be provided to Commissioners. Staff is currently
planning to define uses as small-scale facilities such as a chiropractic office, outpatient surgery center, and
cosmetic treatment facility. Vice Chair Weigand preferred the Planning Commission review applications for
facilities that involve large numbers of patients that might disrupt surrounding businesses. Assistant City Attorney
Yolanda Summerhill added that staff will ensure the definition is consistent with state and federal law and
addresses his concerns.
Secretary Lowrey disclosed a conversation with the applicant. Vice Chair Weigand, Chair Koetting, and
Commissioners Ellmore, Klaustermeier, and Rosene disclosed no ex parte communications.
Chair Koetting opened the public hearing.
Phil Greer, applicant's attorney, explained that a medical facility with a large number of patients is not feasible in
the office complex because of Code restrictions. The proposal is a low-key medical facility that provides outpatient
services.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 20, 2020
4 of 7
In reply to Chair Koetting's query, Mr. Greer advised that the number of patients per day will be five to seven.
Jim Mosher noted the Planning Commission can call for review an application heard by the Zoning Administrator.
Perhaps the Planning Commission should determine whether a zoning district within the Santa Ana Heights
Specific Plan allows medical uses. A future owner of the facility could operate it at a much higher volume of
patients because the use permit runs with the land.
Chair Koetting closed the public hearing.
In response to Vice Chair Weigand's inquiry, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated the
Director's Determination would apply to the subject office complex only, which is designated Professional and
Administrative Office (PA) within the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan. The Business Park designation (BP) within
the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan is already appropriate for medical office uses.
Chair Koetting remarked that parking requirements for medical office uses are too low, and staff should review the
standards.
Motion made by Commissioner Klaustermeier and seconded by Secretary Lowrey to adopt Resolution No.
PC2020-005 approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2019-045; and direct the Community Development
Director to prepare a Determination that medical office uses and similar uses are consistent with the purpose
and intent of the SP-7/PA district and are, therefore, allowable.
AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Lowrey, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Rosene
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT: Kleiman
ITEM NO. 4 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ORDINANCE (PA2019-248)
Site Location: Citywide
Summary:
Amendments to Title 20 (Zoning Code) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan)
updating regulations pertaining to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
(JADU) to conform with revisions to Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 that went into
effect on January 1, 2020.
Recommended Action:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Find this project statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15282(h) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that the adoption of an ordinance regarding
second units to implement the provisions of Sections 65852.1 and 65852.2 of the Government Code
are exempt from the requirements of CEQA;
3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-006 recommending the City Council approve Zoning Code
Amendment No. CA2019-009 modifying regulations pertaining to accessory dwelling units; and
4. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-007 recommending the City Council authorize staff to submit Local
Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-008 to the California Coastal Commission.
Planning Consultant Blumenthal reported as of January 1, 2020, the City's existing accessory dwelling unit
(ADU) Ordinances were voided by new state laws; therefore, the State's minimum default standards apply until
the City adopts an ordinance compliant with state laws. In explaining the difference between ADUs and junior
accessory dwelling units (JADU), he noted ADUs are allowed in all residential and mixed-use zones. The
maximum size for an ADU is 850 square feet for a one-bedroom unit and 1,000 square feet for a two-bedroom
unit. Existing space within a residence can be converted to an ADU or an ADU can be new construction. The
State has waived all owner occupancy requirements until January 1, 2025. An ADU may be rented separately
from the main dwelling, but it cannot be sold separately from the main dwelling. An ADU is considered a
separate unit for application of the Building Code. JADUs are single-family units with a maximum size of 500
Planning Commission Minutes
February 20, 2020
5 of 7
square feet. Only existing space may be converted to a JADU. The property owner must live in either the
main dwelling or the JADU. A JADU cannot be sold separately from the main dwelling. A JADU may share a
bathroom with the main dwelling. A JADU is not considered a separate unit for application of the Building
Code. In single-family residential zones, a property may contain an ADU and a JADU. In multifamily residential
zones, up to 25 percent of the existing unit count may be ADUs. The requirement for a minimum lot size has
been eliminated. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has informed
staff that no maximum size applies to the conversion of existing space to an ADU or JADU. The height of an
attached ADU defaults to the base zone requirements, but the height of a detached ADU is capped at 16 feet.
Setbacks for an ADU default to the base zone except 4-foot side and rear setbacks are required if the ADU is
detached.
Planning Consultant Blumenthal continued that no replacement parking is required for the conversion of a
garage to an ADU or JADU except in the Coastal Zone. Coastal Commission staff has expressed concern
that garage conversions will remove necessary parking for coastal access. New state laws indicate that the
Coastal Act continues to apply to ADUs and JADUs. One parking space per ADU is required, but the
requirement is waived if the property is located within one-half mile walking distance of a transit stop; within
one block of a designated carshare pickup/drop-off location; within an architecturally and historically significant
historic district; within a permit parking area where on-street parking permits are not offered to ADU occupants;
or if existing space entirely within the primary dwelling or an existing accessory structure is converted to an
ADU. Public comment noted Table 2.9 of Section 20.22.200 was not included in draft changes. Staff will
revise the resolutions to correct scrivener's errors and include changes to Table 2.9.
In response to Chair Koetting's questions, Planning Consultant Blumenthal advised that staff hopes to present
the item to the Council in March. The State has not imposed deadlines for revision of ADU Ordinances. An
ADU is not allowed in a strictly commercial zone. A standalone ADU cannot be constructed on a vacant lot.
State law provides a grace period for the permitting of previously unpermitted conversions. After the grace
period, Code Enforcement can take action against unpermitted ADUs. Unpermitted ADUs cannot be counted
as housing units until they have been permitted. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell added
that staff wishes to act expeditiously. The concern is the parking requirement in the Coastal Zone.
In reply to Vice Chair Weigand's queries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated staff
has not explored incentives for ADU/JADU applicants to provide off-street parking, but they can do that.
Planning Consultant Blumenthal related that the City does not have any carshare pickup/drop-off locations or
historic districts. In parking permit areas on Newport Island, around Corona del Mar High School, and near
Newport Harbor High School, parking for ADUs will be waived if parking permits are not provided to ADU
occupants.
In answer to Commissioner Ellmore's inquiry, Planning Consultant Blumenthal reported homeowners’
associations (HOA) for single-family zones cannot prohibit ADUs, but can provide reasonable regulations such
as architectural standards.
In response to Commissioner Rosene's questions, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell was
not aware of any potential deficiencies in water and sewer infrastructure that could be affected by an increase
in the number of ADUs. If needed, infrastructure will have to be modified in the future. Principal Planner Jaime
Murillo explained that ADUs count toward the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
requirements; however, HCD will release a memorandum that explains how ADUs will count towards the site
inventory requirements of a Housing Element. The City has requested Senator Moorlach and Assembly
Member Petrie-Norris amend state law to provide objective standards for the utilization of ADUs and is awaiting
replies from them.
In reply to Chair Koetting's queries, Principal Planner Murillo advised that an ADU application is subject to plan
check by multiple City departments. Following issuance of a building permit, ADU construction is subject to
inspections. State law imposes time limits for cities to issue standard permits.
Chair Koetting opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 20, 2020
6 of 7
David Tanner understood the amendment pertains to the implementation component of the Local Coastal
Program (LCP). The practical effect of the amendment to the LCP will allow more than a doubling of the
population within the Coastal Zone, which will have significant adverse environmental effects. He
recommended the Planning Commission defer the item to the City Council so that the City Council can address
the many issues.
Jim Mosher remarked that the City Council and the public would appreciate knowing the difference between
the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council and the default minimum standards imposed
by state law. The findings can state the City does not accept the authority of the state to impose standards on
behalf of the City. He questioned whether staff considered areas where ADUs would impact water and sewer
infrastructure.
Chair Koetting closed the public hearing.
In reply to Chair Koetting's questions, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill advised that the City Council directed
staff to prepare revisions. The State continues to encroach on the City's rights, which the City will have to
accept and evaluate. A recent decision in San Jose found that Charter Cities are subject to state law
requirements. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell related that HCD will review the standards
adopted by the Council. Staff believes the amendments are consistent with state laws. The proposal to prohibit
conversions in the Coastal Zone could be viewed differently by HCD and the Coastal Commission. Which
state department will prevail is unknown. Staff is processing ADU applications under the state standards,
which are more permissive than the proposed standards.
In response to Vice Chair Weigand's inquiries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated
staff proposed a prohibition on conversions in the Coastal Zone because of impacts to coastal access. A study
of infrastructure deficiencies would have to include assumptions about numbers of ADUs and population
growth. An assumed doubling of the population within the Coastal Zone is high based on the number of ADU
applications actually submitted. Sixteen applications for ADU permits have been submitted, and 11 of those
are under construction. The General Plan includes infrastructure capacity for many thousands of unbuilt
housing units. Staff can discuss a legal challenge to the requirements with the City Council. The Planning
Commission can recommend the Council direct staff to evaluate different aspects of the amendments prior to
the Council adopting an ordinance. Planning Consultant Blumenthal added that staff reviewed new ordinances
in Irvine, Huntington Beach, and Westminster. The proposed amendments are the most conservative in his
experience working with other coastal cities.
Commissioner Rosene commented that he has attended seminars about the effects of the state laws. Staff
has prepared good amendments to protect the City.
Commissioner Klaustermeier remarked that the need for standards less permissive than the State's minimum
standards supports the argument to recommend the proposed amendments to the City Council.
In answer to Commissioner Ellmore's query, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell explained
that the General Plan Update Steering Committee has been sunsetted. Staff recommended the Council focus
on housing, the Land Use Element, the Circulation Element, and environmental justice policies because of the
deadline to complete the Housing Element. The Housing Action Plan supports pushing back on state
requirements while working to comply with requirements.
Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Rosene to adopt Resolution No.
PC2020-006 recommending the City Council review Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2019-009 modifying
regulations pertaining to accessory dwelling units; and adopt Resolution No. PC2020-007 recommending the
City Council authorize staff to submit Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-008 to the California
Coastal Commission.
Assistant City Attorney Summerhill indicated the resolution can be revised to recommend the City Council review
the amendment. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell added that a recommendation to review the
amendment is within the Planning Commission's purview.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 20, 2020
7 of 7
AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Rosene
NOES: Lowrey
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT: Kleiman
VIII. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS
ITEM NO. 5 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
None
ITEM NO. 6 REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR MATTERS
WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE
AGENDA.
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported the Council adopted the Cottage Preservation
Ordinance and the Lido Isle hedge height amendment. The Council discussed and directed staff to prepare greater
protections for short-term rentals. The Planning Commission's March 5 agenda includes a conditional use permit
for expansion of Newport Animal Hospital and the annual General Plan progress report.
In reply to Secretary Lowrey's inquiry, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated the City
Council will appoint members to the new Housing Element Committee on February 25.
In response to Chair Koetting's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell related that staff
and the Council are discussing amending the Planning Commission's responsibilities to include review of large-
scale traffic issues. Staff has not drafted a policy for Council review and adoption.
ITEM NO. 7 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES
None
IX. ADJOURNMENT – 8:02 p.m.
The agenda for the February 20, 2020, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, February
14, 2020, at 11:30 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, February 14,
2020, at 12:05 p.m.
_______________________________
Peter Koetting, Chairman
_______________________________
Lee Lowrey, Secretary
March 5, 2020, Planning Commission Item 1 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. 1. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 2020
Comment
In the discussion of Item 4 (a proposed Accessory Dwelling Units ordinance), Commissioners
raised questions as to whether they had to make a recommendation for approval or denial, or
could simply pass the proposal on to the City Council for its review.
The last paragraph on page 6 of the draft minutes correctly records:
“Assistant City Attorney Summerhill indicated the resolution can be revised to recommend the
City Council review the amendment. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell added
that a recommendation to review the amendment is within the Planning Commission's purview.”
In this connection, the Commissioners may wish to review NBMC Chapter 20.66 (“Amendments”),
which sets forth the procedure for amending the Zoning Code. In particular, Section 20.66.040
(“Commission Recommendation”) gives the Commission three options: “The Commission shall
recommend approval, approval with modifications, or denial of the amendment to the Council.”
The action taken on Item 4 on March 5 (passing the staff proposal on to the Council, with minor
modifications but without a recommendation for approval or denial) does not appear to be among
those options.
It is not completely obvious what happens to a proposal lacking a PC recommendation, but if
failure to choose one of the three enumerated options is deemed “failure to take action,” then
“Failure of the Commission to take action on the proposed amendment shall be deemed to be
denial of the proposed amendment by the Commission” and “If the proposed amendment is denied
by the Commission, no further action shall be taken, unless appealed to the Council in compliance
with Chapter 20.64 (Appeals).”
In other words, failure of the Commission to recommend approval or denial, as is the case here,
would normally prevent the Council from giving the proposal further review unless someone paid
the appeal fee or a Council member called it up for review (the two procedures provided in the
referenced Chapter 20.64).
Suggested correction
That said, I believe what the Commission passed on for Council’s review was intended to include
some modifications described by staff, and that should be reflected in the minutes.
Page 6: “Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Rosene to adopt
Resolution No. PC2020-006 recommending the City Council review Zoning Code Amendment No.
CA2019-009 modifying regulations pertaining to accessory dwelling units; and adopt Resolution
No. PC2020-007 recommending the City Council authorize staff to submit Local Coastal Program
Amendment No. LC2019-008 to the California Coastal; both with the corrections described by
staff.”
Planning Commission - March 5, 2020
Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received
Draft Minutes of February 20, 2020