Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-17-2020 - Planning Commission1 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 RM 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 RM 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 it 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. 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. Planning Commission Minutes September 17 , 2020 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 located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, and on the City's website on Fr~e fl.!c embe, , 2020, at 12:50 p.m. Lauren Kleiman , Secretary 8 of 8