HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0_Draft Minutes_09-17-2020
1 of 8
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2020
REGULAR MEETING – 6:30 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Commissioner Ellmore
III. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Chair Erik Weigand, Vice Chair Lee Lowrey, Secretary Lauren Kleiman, Commissioner Curtis
Ellmore, Commissioner Sarah Klaustermeier, Commissioner Peter Koetting, Commissioner Mark
Rosene
ABSENT: None
Staff Present: Community Development Director Seimone Jurjis, Deputy Community Development Director Jim
Campbell, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine, Principal
Planner Jaime Murillo, Administrative Support Specialist Clarivel Rodriguez, Administrative
Technician Amanda Lee
IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Jim Mosher expressed concern about staff's letter to the Coastal Commission in the appeal of the application for
a parking structure at 215 Riverside. He felt the letter could give the impression that staff is a partisan advocate
rather than a neutral evaluator of applications.
V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES
Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell noted Item 2 has been removed from the calendar;
however, it appears on the agenda because staff partially noticed it. Staff will issue a new notice when the item
returns to the agenda.
VI. CONSENT ITEMS
ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF JULY 23, 2020
Recommended Action: Approve and file
Chair Weigand noted Mr. Mosher's written comments and suggested revisions.
Motion made by Commissioner Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Ellmore to approve the minutes of
the July 23, 2020, meeting with Mr. Mosher’s suggested revisions.
AYES: Weigand, Lowrey, Kleiman, Koetting, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, and Rosene
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ITEM NO. 2 BROCKHAUS RESIDENCE ADDITION (PA2020-116)
Site Location: 1521 Sylvia Lane
Summary:
A request for a variance to allow portions of a 1,538-square-foot addition to an existing single-story 1,742-
square-foot residence and two-car garage to encroach up to 1.2 feet into the required 6-foot side setbacks
on each side of the property. The residence is nonconforming as it is built with 4.8-and 4.9-foot side
setbacks and the proposed addition will remain inline with the existing structure.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 17, 2020
2 of 8
Recommended Action:
No action as this item has been removed from calendar. Future consideration of this project will require
new notice.
Chair Weigand announced the item removed from the calendar due to a noticing issue.
ITEM NO. 3 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. This item was continued from the May 7, 2020, Planning Commission
hearing. Specifically, the proposed amendments would reduce bulk and mass associated with future
residential development as follows:
Revisions to Third Floor Standards
• Third-floor stepbacks would apply to covered deck areas (currently applies only to enclosed floor
area).
• Third-floor side stepbacks would apply to lots 30 feet wide or greater (currently applies to lots wider
than 30 feet).
• Maximum covered third-floor area (enclosed or unenclosed) limited to 50 percent of buildable area.
Uncovered deck area would remain unrestricted.
• Third-floor stepback standards (front and rear) would apply to 25-foot wide or less lots zoned R-2
(currently exempt).
• Third-floor stepback standards (front, rear, and sides) would apply to single- and two-unit dwellings
in Multiple Residential (RM) zone (currently exempt).
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 the R-BI Zone
Third floor and open volume standards applicable to R-1 and R-2 zones would now apply to single
and two-unit dwellings in Two-Unit Residential, Balboa Island (R-BI) zone.
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. PC2020-031 recommending the City Council approve Amendment No.
CA2019-004 and the proposed amendments to the City Council; and
4. Adopt Resolution No. PC2020-032 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 Planning Commission considered this item on May 7, 2020, and
continued it to allow staff time to determine if the amendments comply with Senate Bill SB 330, the Housing Crisis
Act. Staff has received a determination from the State and modified the proposed amendments. The Council
initiated these amendments in May 2019 in response to community concerns. In addition, the Council initiated an
amendment related to the preservation of beach cottages, which the Commission reviewed, and the Council
approved. Currently, the Coastal Commission is reviewing the amendment.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 17, 2020
3 of 8
Principal Planner Murillo indicated that prior to the 2010 Zoning Code update, the height limit for R-1 and R-2
properties was 24 feet for flat roofs and 29 feet for sloping roofs. A Code provision for sloping roofs stated the
midpoint of a sloping roof plane could not exceed 24 feet. The standard of review for sloping roofs was complex
and time consuming. The provision resulted in a third floor being squeezed into the center of a property and
difficulty in designing a compliant third-floor covered deck. One of the major goals of the Zoning Code update was
to streamline the development review process and remove complexities from the Code. The update maintained
the 24- and 29-foot height limits and required a sloped roof to have a minimum 3:12 pitch. The Code update also
required the enclosed area of a third floor to be stepped back an additional 15 feet from the front and rear setbacks
to try to control the bulk of the third-floor area. Additionally, the update imposed a maximum third-floor area limit,
which ranges from 15 to 20 percent depending on the lot width. The standards apply to enclosed spaces only, not
covered decks. Many projects are now proposing large covered third-floor decks that are not pulled back from the
building edges. The revised definition of floor area excludes unfinished attics from third-floor area stepbacks and
floor area calculations. The definition is silent regarding the extent to which a covered deck should be open. The
standards do not apply to Balboa Island as a whole, development in Multiple Residential (RM) Zoning Districts, or
lots zoned R-2 and measuring 25 feet wide or less.
Principal Planner Murillo summarized outreach efforts starting with a community meeting held in August 2019. In
September 2019, the Council held a study session and provided further direction to staff. A second community
meeting was held in March 2020. Following the May Planning Commission meeting, staff consulted with the
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and received a letter of determination of
compliance with SB330. The City Attorney's Office has also reviewed the proposed amendments for compliance
with SB330. Outreach to community members and designers has resulted in further refinements of the proposed
amendments. The proposed amendments are not a comprehensive revision of design standards but are focused
on correcting the unintended consequences of the 2010 Zoning Code update. The proposed amendments do not
change any previously allowed heights; do not prohibit covered decks; and do not change the allowed floor area
that a property owner could have achieved prior to the amendment. The proposed amendments will apply
stepbacks and an additional 50-percent coverage limit to enclosed floor area and to covered third-floor deck area;
apply the 2-foot stepback to lots 30 feet wide or greater and to covered third-floor decks; revise the definition of
gross floor area to require covered decks to be open on two sides except for minimal structural supports, require
open or glass guardrails, and delete the word "finished;" apply standards to Balboa Island; apply the front and rear
stepbacks to R-2 lots measuring 25 feet wide and less; and apply front, side, and rear stepbacks to R-M lots. Staff
recommends any discretionary application that has been submitted and deemed complete or submitted for plan
check prior to the effective date of the ordinance be allowed to continue under the existing rules.
In response to Commissioner Koetting’s inquiry, Principal Planner Murillo advised that the new design standards
will apply to Newport Heights. Previous public comment suggested Newport Heights should be exempt from the
new design standards.
Commissioners Rosene, Kleiman, Klaustermeier, Koetting, and Ellmore disclosed no ex parte communications.
Vice Chair Lowrey and Chair Weigand disclosed communications with community members and receipt of emails.
Chair Weigand opened the public hearing.
Jim Mosher supported staff's solution to third-floor massing issues and expressed concern regarding the
consistency of the proposed stepback and floor area amendments with SB 330 and the inconsistency of "wider
than 30 feet" and "30 feet wide or greater."
Bob McCaffrey indicated that he did not believe community outreach has been sufficient. He indicated his belief
the proposed amendments infringe on his property rights.
Nancy Scarbrough supported the recommendation.
Charles Klobe supported the amendments.
Mark Becker believed the amendments are a positive step toward reducing mass, but the ultimate solution would
be a uniform building envelope.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 17, 2020
4 of 8
Catherine Martin Wolcott, representing the Martin Family Trust, could accept the proposed amendments if there
are no further reductions to third-floor enclosed areas, permitted maximum floor area ratio, or the size of covered,
unenclosed decks located in the R-M Zoning Districts.
Randy Black strongly supported the proposed amendments. These amendments are necessary to maintain
property values.
Jodi Bole, Balboa Island Preservation Association Chair, hoped the Planning Commission supports the staff
recommendation.
Charles Caldwell supported the amendments and suggested the City focus on “mansionization.”
Brion Jeannette expressed concern regarding the amendments complying with SB 330 and believed the
amendments should only apply to the parcels on Balboa Island and Peninsula Point.
Chair Weigand closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair Lowrey expressed concern with the changes applying uniformly across the City. The amendments
should be specific to certain areas. Applying the amendments uniformly takes away from the unique character
of each area. The amendments would limit certain property rights.
Motion made by Vice Chair Lowrey and seconded by Commissioner Ellmore to table the item.
Commissioner Ellmore agreed somewhat with Vice Chair Lowrey's comments regarding the blanket nature of
the amendments. The amendments are appropriate for the coastal zone but reduce the advantages of property
owners in other locations. The Planning Commission should consider bifurcating the amendments into
different zones.
In response to Commissioner Klaustermeier's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell
advised that parsing the amendments by geography would be cumbersome and would not be staff’s
recommendation. Staff would have to create different standards for separate geographic areas, which would
make the Code more complicated and increase the likelihood of errors. Staff can do if the Planning Commission
and Council desire it. Staff is looking for a more uniform approach because the issue appears to be applicable
throughout the R-1 and R-2 districts.
Commissioner Klaustermeier believed the proposed amendments address much of the massing that is starting
to degrade the character of some of the neighborhoods. The amendments may not need to apply to all
geographical areas, but generally she supported staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Rosene understood Vice Chair Lowrey's and Commissioner Ellmore’s concerns but felt the
proposed amendments are the right thing for the community.
Substitute Motion made by Commissioner Rosene to approve the staff recommendation.
In reply to Vice Chair Lowrey's query, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill advised that there has not
been a motion to cut off debate. If Commissioner Rosene's motion receives a second, the Planning
Commission can consider it.
Secretary Kleiman seconded the substitute motion.
In answer to Commissioner Koetting's query, Vice Chair Lowrey indicated he would apply the amendments to
Balboa Island, Corona del Mar, and the Peninsula, basically the coastal zone. In West Newport and along
Superior and Coast Highway, there are a lot of differences in architectural type and lot sizes. Commissioner
Koetting noted the coastal zone is a massive area and includes almost all of the R-2 and R-1 districts. If the
motion passes, the amendments would have to be restructured for every one of the defined neighborhood
communities. Vice Chair Lowrey related that the areas would have to be determined. The proposed
amendments would affect a property owner's rights to build and potentially to sell his home in the future. These
changes are not minor.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 17, 2020
5 of 8
In response to Commissioner Koetting's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell
indicated staff can insert an effective date into the ordinance. The portions of the proposed amendments affect
the coastal zone, and the Coastal Commission will have to review them, which could require a year or more.
Staff can tailor an effective date but is recommending applications in the pipeline continue under the current
standards.
Chair Weigand stated that staff has toned down the proposed amendment such that they are more palatable
and he called for the vote on the substitute motion.
Vote on the Substitute Motion
AYES: Weigand, Kleiman, Klaustermeier, Koetting, Rosene
NOES: Lowrey, Ellmore
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Vice Chair Lowrey remarked that a motion to table is not debatable or subject to a substitute motion according to
Robert’s Rules of Order.
In reply to Chair Weigand's inquiries, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill clarified that the Planning Commission is
recommending an action to the Council; therefore, the Planning Commission's decision is not a final decision. A
motion to reconsider must be made in the same meeting as the decision and made by a Commissioner who voted
with the majority.
Commissioner Koetting wished to recommend to the Council the inclusion of a sunset provision similar to that
pertaining to signage because Vice Chair Lowrey and Commissioner Ellmore made good points.
In reply to Chair Weigand's question, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill advised that a motion to reconsider would
be needed to include a sunset provision in the recommendation to Council. Alternatively, the staff report for the
Council could highlight the Planning Commission's comments.
Chair Weigand reported the Planning Commission discussed a sunset clause but leaves the inclusion of a sunset
clause to the discretion of the City Council.
Secretary Kleiman clarified that the Planning Commission as a whole did not support including a sunset clause.
An effective date has to be set, and it will not please everyone.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
ITEM NO. 4. CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE
Site Location: Citywide
Summary:
The City is presently evaluating and updating its General Plan with a focus on the Housing, Land Use,
and Circulation Elements in addition to environmental justice policies. The agenda item is a discussion of
the Planning Commission’s role with the Circulation Element update.
Recommended Action:
1. Review and provide input to staff;
2. Determine this activity is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3
because this action will not result in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and
3. Consider the appointment, at this meeting or a future meeting, of a Planning Commissioner to
work with Outreach Subcommittee of the Housing Element Update Advisory Committee.
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported the City Council initiated a comprehensive update
of the General Plan in early 2019 and established a General Plan Update Steering Committee. Subsequently, the
Planning Commission Minutes
September 17, 2020
6 of 8
City received its draft Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation of 4,832 units, which caused the
City Council to narrow the scope of the General Plan Update to the Housing Element, the Land Use Element, the
Circulation Element, and to include environmental justice policies. The deadline to submit a Housing Element
Update is October 2021.
Deputy Director Campbell noted the Housing Element Update Advisory Committee (HEUAC) is reviewing potential
housing sites and guiding the outreach effort. The Planning Commission is being provided the opportunity to
review the Circulation Element because the HEUAC was constituted to examine and evaluate potential housing
sites. The Planning Commission will hold several study sessions, provide opportunities for public comment, and
guide Circulation Element policies and goals. Phase I of the Outreach Plan will begin in November with a welcome
webinar. In early December, staff will hold a community meeting to review the major aspects of the Circulation
Element. Later in December, staff will continue public outreach with a presentation of traffic management and
public transit. Newporttogether.com will host online presentations, recordings of public meetings, information,
activities, surveys, and public comment and feedback. Public outreach will continue with next steps, changes in
State law, and transportation programs. In January, the Planning Commission will hold a study session. Phase II
will begin in February with a detailed community presentation and a Planning Commission study session regarding
draft policies and goals. Plans for Phase III include study sessions in late March 2021 to review the final draft
goals and policies and in April or May 2021 to present the final draft policies and goals. Concurrent with the
Circulation Element process, the HEUAC will lead the Housing Element Update process. In the fall of 2021, the
Planning Commission will review the final draft and make a recommendation to the City Council. Notices to the
community will be provided through email blasts, website updates, social media posts, Council Member and
Commissioner announcements, NBTV, mailers, and media ads.
In response to Chair Weigand's inquiry, Deputy Director Campbell advised that the Planning Commission may
identify a Commissioner who will participate in the HEUAC outreach subcommittee to facilitate the flow of
information.
Chair Weigand indicated a Commissioner may be identified in the current or the next meeting. A Commissioner's
participation in the HEUAC outreach subcommittee is not required, but it would enhance communications and
transparency.
In reply to Vice Chair Lowrey's inquiries, Deputy Director Campbell noted almost every city in Southern California
is updating its Housing Element, and each city is developing its own process. The General Plan law requires a
city to prepare an Environmental Justice Element or include environmental justice policies throughout the various
elements when a city updates two or more elements. Environmental justice means addressing disadvantaged
communities, which is a defined term in certain geographies. The disadvantaged community in Newport Beach is
an industrial property near Costa Mesa. Disadvantaged communities are areas subject to pollution and other
environmental factors, which impact that community. The term environmental justice has a broader application
meaning in the coastal zone due to the Coastal Act. The City needs to provide fair and equitable treatment of all
populations in its land use regulations.
Jim Mosher hoped all the activities listed on the website occurred. Information shown on the website has not been
updated. The City Council authorized the HEUAC to update the Circulation Element, and neither the Council nor
the HEUAC has delegated that authority to the Planning Commission. Independent review seems to have been
lost from the update process. Apparently, the Commission is being asked to comprehensively update the
Circulation Element. He did not understand how the Circulation Element could be updated without having it tie into
a comprehensive update of the remainder of the General Plan.
Deputy Director Campbell agreed that the Council resolution placed the Circulation Element Update under the
HEUAC's purview. Because the HEUAC was constituted with mainly housing experts and its task is very large,
the Chairman felt it would be appropriate for another body to address the Circulation Element. Staff felt it was
important for an oversight body to guide the policy development of the Circulation Element. Because the Planning
Commission’s role pertains to land use and the General Plan, the Planning Commission is the logical body to
oversee the Circulation Element. Creating a separate body to do this is not an option due to the schedule. The
Planning Commission will provide the independent review Mr. Mosher mentioned. Staff anticipates an entire
overhaul of the Circulation Element and an evaluation of policies and goals to determine whether they continue to
be appropriate for the community.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 17, 2020
7 of 8
Chair Weigand noted Phase I of the Outreach Plan includes four public meetings. A Commissioner's attendance
at and report to the Commission about those meetings would provide credibility and transparency for the
Commission's study sessions.
Charles Klobe concurred with Mr. Mosher regarding the Planning Commission's oversight of the Circulation
Element update. Members of the Council have no knowledge that the Planning Commission has been assigned
this task. He urged the Commission to allow interactive discussions during the study sessions. The Bicycle Master
Plan needs to be updated before it is considered for inclusion in the Circulation Element.
Debbie Stevens, HEUAC, related that the HEUAC is reviewing available housing sites and developing community
outreach. The Housing, Land Use, and Circulation Elements are closely related, but the Housing Element Update
will drive the update process.
In response to Commissioner Koetting's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised
that staff is drafting an appeal of the RHNA allocation, but he is not aware of any pending litigation. On October
13th, the Council's agenda includes an item to authorize staff to file the appeal.
Chair Weigand requested a volunteer to participate in the HEUAC meetings, to which no one responded.
IX. 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 Director Campbell reported the Council will consider the Newport Airport Village project on September 22nd.
The Planning Commission's October 8 meeting will likely be canceled, and the October 22nd agenda contains
several items. Matthew Schneider has been hired as Principal Planner.
Commissioner Koetting requested in the future, staff provide updates regarding applications that generated a great
deal of discussion at the Planning Commission.
In reply to Chair Weigand's queries, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine advised that staff has completed a
neighborhood traffic plan for Dover Shores. City Council policy requires the submission of a petition signed by 70
percent of residents on streets where traffic calming measures are proposed before staff can consider any type of
traffic calming measures. He is aware of several efforts to gather the required number of signatures on petitions
and is awaiting the submission of petitions.
Commissioner Koetting thanked City Traffic Engineer Brine for installing the "no right turn" signs at Ford and
MacArthur.
ITEM NO. 7 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES
None
X. ADJOURNMENT – 8:26 p.m.
The agenda for the September 17, 2020, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday,
September 11, 2020, at 12:42 p.m. in the Chambers binder, at 12:15 p.m. on the digital display board
Planning Commission Minutes
September 17, 2020
8 of 8
located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, and on the City’s
website on Friday, September 11, 2020, at 12:50 p.m.
_______________________________
Erik Weigand, Chairman
_______________________________
Lauren Kleiman, Secretary
October 22, 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 SEPTEMBER 17, 2020
The passages in italics are from the draft minutes. Corrections are suggested in strikeout
underline format.
Page 3: paragraph 2, sentence 2 from end: “…; and apply front, side, and rear stepbacks to R-
M RM lots.” [remove hyphen]
Page 4: paragraph 1: “…, or the size of covered, unenclosed decks located in the R-M RM
Zoning Districts.”
Page 4: paragraph 10, sentence 3: “Staff can do it if the Planning Commission and Council
desire it.”
Page 5: paragraph 1, sentence 2: “The portions Portions of the proposed amendments affect
the coastal zone, and the Coastal Commission will have to review them, which could require a
year or more.”
Planning Commission - October 22, 2020
Item No. 1a Additional Materials Received
Minutes of September 17, 2020