HomeMy WebLinkAbout20191121_PC_Staff Report_Hearing
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
November 21, 2019
Agenda Item No. 4
SUBJECT: Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Code Amendment No. CA2019-006
Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-004
SITE LOCATION: Citywide
APPLICANT: City of Newport Beach
PLANNER: Jaime Murillo, Principal Planner
949-644-3209 or jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov
PROJECT SUMMARY
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments on October 17, 2019,
and voted to continue the item to allow staff additional time to revise certain aspects of
the amendments. Staff has incorporated changes to address concerns raised at the
hearing, including clarifying the applicability of the program, prohibiting short-term rentals,
and reducing the amount of expansion permitted.
The proposed amendments to the Local Coastal Program (Coastal Land Use Plan and
Implementation Plan), Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Title 20 (Planning and
Zoning), and NBMC Title 15 (Building and Construction) will provide a voluntary option for
homeowners seeking to remodel, but preserve traditional beach cottages. Typically,
cottages do not provide all the code-required parking and additions are limited to 10 percent
of the existing floor area. The amendments would allow larger additions (up to 50 percent
of the existing floor area or 500 square feet, whichever is greater) without providing the
minimum code-required parking when the project would result in the preservation of the
cottage character and building envelope that is representative of traditional development
patterns in the City. Eligible projects would also receive relief from a building code
valuation threshold requiring building code compliance as new construction.
RECOMMENDATION
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;
1
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE2
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Planning Commission, November 21, 2019
Page 2
3) Adopt Resolution No. PC2019-033 (Attachment No. PC 1) recommending the City
Council approve Code Amendment No. CA2019-006; and
4) Adopt Resolution No. PC2019-034 (Attachment No. PC 2) recommending the City
Council authorize staff to submit Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-
004 to the California Coastal Commission.
BACKGROUND
On October 17, 2019, staff presented the proposed amendments to the Planning
Commission for review and recommendation. The following comments were raised by
Commissioners:
x One-size-fits-all approach to preservation may not be appropriate given that
differences that exist in various areas of the City;
x Additional community outreach may be warranted to individual communities;
x The 50-percent expansion allowance may be too high; and
x Deed restriction requirement may be dissuade effectiveness of amendments.
Four comment letters were also submitted expressing concern with the proposed
amendments (Attachment No. 3). The primary concerns raised include:
x Areas where cottages are more prevalent are already impacted by a lack of on-
street parking and allowing larger additions for cottages will exacerbate an area’s
parking deficiency;
x Consider a cap or floor area limit for cottages;
x Should only apply to single-family residences;
x Prohibit short-term rental use; and
x Prohibit second level decks.
Four verbal comments were made at the hearing by members of the public. One comment
was in support and shared the overwhelming public support that was expressed at the
previous community meeting. Two comments were made in opposition reiterating the
written comments submitted. Lastly, one comments raised technical corrections to the
language and noticing process.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission voted 5-2 to continue the item to allow
staff additional time to draft language applicable to specific areas, reconsider applicability
to duplexes and triplexes, and reduce the allowable percentage of addition.
The October 17, 2019, Planning Commission staff report is included as Attachment No.
PC4, and includes project background, results of August 19, 2019, community meeting,
and project details. Draft minutes from the hearing are included as Attachment No. PC5.
3
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Planning Commission, November 21, 2019
Page 3
The October 17, 2019, Planning Commission staff report is included as Attachment No.
PC 4, and includes project background, results of the August 19, 2019, community
meeting, and project details. Draft minutes from the hearing are included as Attachment
No. PC 5.
DISCUSSION
Proposed Revisions
Applicability – Three Units or Less
The original draft code language allowed any residential development project to take
advantage of the cottage preservation amendments, regardless of unit count. For
example, a single-unit dwelling or 10-unit apartment building development could equally
take advantage of the amendments, provided the project fits within the building envelope
requirements.
Comments received at the previous Planning Commission hearing requested that the
proposed amendments should only apply to single-unit dwellings; however, the intent of
these code amendments was to incentivize the preservation of cottages that are
representative of the historic areas of the City, such as Corona del Mar, Balboa Island,
and the Balboa Peninsula. A majority of the lots in these areas allow two-unit
development and include two-unit cottages. In Corona del Mar, the 300 block of
Marguerite Avenue is zoned for multi-unit residential and several of the lots are currently
developed with three-unit cottages (see Figure 1 below). Restricting applicability of these
amendments to only single-unit dwellings would have the effect of excluding a majority of
the cottages in Corona del Mar and Balboa Island from taking advantage of this new
incentive.
Figure 1. Three-Unit Cottage Example on Marguerite Avenue
4
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Planning Commission, November 21, 2019
Page 4
Furthermore, it is not uncommon for a property owner to live in the front unit of a duplex
and rent out the smaller, rear unit for income. Allowing a property owner of a duplex to
remodel and expand their front unit would provide a realistic alternative to redeveloping
the entire property. Therefore, staff is recommending that the cottage preservation
incentives apply to residential developments consisting of three (3) units or less. By
restricting the applicability to single-unit dwellings only, staff believes the ordinance would
be ineffective and not achieve the desired goal and intent.
Short-Term Lodging Prohibition
If a cottage is currently used for short-term lodging, the added floor area could increase
occupancy and could exacerbate existing potential conflicts including increased demand
for on-street parking and removal of rental units from the housing stock. Therefore, staff
has revised the code language to include a prohibition of the use of the property for short-
term rentals. This prohibition will be included in the required deed restriction.
Maximum Addition
Although the original intent was to create a significant incentive to the preservation of
these cottages by allowing a maximum addition of 50 percent of the existing floor area
(with no upper limit), in certain situations this may allow for large additions beyond the
original intent. Multiple ideas were shared at the previous Planning Commission hearing
to resolve this concern, including: 1) reducing the percentage of allowable addition from
50 to 25 percent; 2) allowing a 50-percent addition but no more than 750 square feet
maximum; and 3) limiting the total floor area of the development to 75 percent of the
maximum allowed on the site.
After further research and consideration, staff believes retaining the 50 percent addition
allowance, but adding a maximum cap of 500 square feet is appropriate. This would allow
for small, single-unit cottages a reasonable size addition (e.g., 1000 sf dwelling x 50%=
500 sf addition). However, to prevent larger cottages, such as a two-unit cottage on
Balboa Island from benefiting from a larger addition and potentially impacting the area,
the 500-square-foot cap retains the original intent of allowing smaller, reasonable sized
additions (e.g., 2,325 sf, 2-unit cottage x 50% = 1162.5 sf addition; 500 sf cap results in
a 22% addition).
Additional Response to Comments
One-Size-Fits-All Approach – Case Study
A concern was made that cottages are slightly different in each area of the City and that
this one-size-fits-all approach to preservation may not be appropriate. However, the intent
of the amendments is to provide an alternative to redeveloping cottage properties by
providing a voluntary option or incentive for preservation. To ensure that this program is
successful and can apply to a wide variety of projects and circumstances, it is important
5
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Planning Commission, November 21, 2019
Page 5
to maintain the limitations as general as possible. The more restrictions that are imposed
for project eligibility reduces the attractiveness of this program and may drive a property
owner to redevelop their property, eliminating the traditional cottage
To evaluate how this program would affect cottages in different areas, staff prepared a
case study exhibit (Attachment No. PC 6) for eight randomly selected cottage properties,
two on the Balboa Peninsula, two on Balboa Island, two in Corona del Mar, and two in
Newport Heights. The case study illustrates differences that exist on these properties and
typical configuration depending on location. For example, in Newport Heights, cottages
are located on larger lots, consist of larger single-unit dwellings and provide two-car
garages that are nonconforming due to size. In Corona del Mar and Balboa Island,
cottages typically consist of duplexes located on smaller lots and are nonconforming due
to number of spaces provided. The exhibit illustrates that the 50 percent addition
allowance is appropriate for smaller cottages, but for larger cottages or multi-unit
cottages, the allowance would allow for an addition deemed too large. However, with the
proposed 500-square-foot cap applied, an appropriate limit on additions to larger cottages
results.
What is common in most cases is the existing building envelope consisting of single-story
structures, with the exception of second-story elements located on the rear half of the
lots. Therefore, staff believes the most important feature to retain is this character-defining
feature of historic cottages in the community. As illustrated in Figure 2, allowing a second
floor addition at the front half of the lot along the street completely removes the cottage
character and results in a more dominant street presence. The additional proposed
prohibitions on short-term lodging and 500-square-foot addition limitation will further
ensure that these projects remain compatible with the various communities within which
they are located.
Figure 2 – Street Presence and Cottage Character
6
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Planning Commission, November 21, 2019
Page 6
Parking Concerns
Not all cottages are nonconforming due to the number of parking spaces, but may be
nonconforming due to the size of parking spaces. Most single-unit dwelling cottages
provide two parking spaces, but due to changes in Zoning Code requirements for
minimum interior clear garage dimensions for lots wider than 40 feet (17’6” wide x 19’
deep [old standard] vs. 20’ wide x 20’ deep [current standard]), are now considered
nonconforming due to parking and are limited to the 10 percent addition limitation.
Allowing for increased expansions should not have an impact on the availability of on-
street parking spaces in these cases.
Most multi-unit cottages appear to provide at least one space per unit, whereas two
spaces per unit would be required under current standards. In these cases, the proposed
amendments would allow an expansion to developments that are nonconforming due to
number of spaces. Whether or not they would exacerbate the lack of on-street parking in
neighborhoods is not clear. Many times proposed expansions are related to expanding
the size of existing rooms, such as kitchens, living rooms, and bedrooms to modernize
them and enhance their livability, which do not necessarily increase parking demand.
Another factor to consider is that many new developments that maximize the building
envelope may contain a ratio of more bedrooms to parking than what an expanded
cottage would provide.
Staff believes applying the overall 500-square-foot cap limitation will ensure that
nonconforming cottages are not excessively enlarged, thereby reducing potential impacts
related to increased parking demands resulting from these projects.
7
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Planning Commission, November 21, 2019
Page 7
Deed Restriction
It is important to emphasize that this is a voluntary program that affords property owners
increased opportunity to remodel and expand their cottage properties in exchange for
preserving the cottage building envelope and overall form of the development of the
property. To ensure this building envelope is retained and the property owner doesn’t
subsequently add additional floor area that violates the prescribed building envelope, a
deed restriction would be required. However, the deed restriction would not require that
the cottage be preserved indefinitely. Should a property owner desire to redevelop the
property in future, the deed restriction would allow redevelopment of the property in
compliance with development standards in effect at the time, including providing code-
required parking.
Prohibition of 2nd Floor Decks
A comment raised suggested that second floor decks should also be prohibited..
However, roof decks are common amenities and it is not uncommon for older cottages to
provide a second level deck above the first floor living area. Figure 3 illustrates an
example of a traditional cottage located in Balboa Island with a second level deck. The
deck does not detract from the cottage character or impose on the street elevation. Staff
believes allowing second level decks remains appropriate provided they comply with the
proposed cottage building envelope of one-story in the front half of the lot at a maximum
height of 16 feet and two stories in the rear half of lot at a maximum height of 24 feet. The
draft amendments would prohibit third floors and third floor decks
Figure 3- Examples of Traditional Cottage with 2nd Level Deck
Deck
8
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Planning Commission, November 21, 2019
Page 8
Community Outreach
As detailed in the October 17, 2019, Planning Commission staff report, Community
Development Department staff hosted a community meeting on August 19, 2019. Notice
of the meeting was distributed to affected homeowners associations, distributed as a
News Splash (email notification) to interested members of the community whom have
requested notice of important planning and land use activities in the City, and distributed
to a list of known designers and architects that work in Newport Beach. The meeting was
well attended by 64 members of the public, including design professionals. The intent of
the meeting was to share proposed changes to residential design standards intended to
minimize bulk and mass associated with current development trends. Included were
proposed changes to incentivize the preservation of small cottages by allowing increased
additions and alterations to provide an option to full redevelopment of property. The
proposed changes related to cottage preservation were overwhelmingly supported by
meeting attendees.
Furthermore, on September 10, 2019, staff held a study session with the City Council to
share the results of the August Community Meeting and proposed code amendments
addressing residential design standards and efforts to reduce bulk and mass of new
residential developments. At the conclusion of the study session, City Council directed
staff to continue refining amendments related to third floor mass and open space, but
directed staff to proceed with the cottage preservation amendments as proposed.
Environmental Review
The action proposed herein is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) in accordance with Section 21065 of CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15060 (c)(2), 15060 (c)(3), and 15378. The proposed action is also exempt from
the CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that
CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on
the environment. Lastly, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15265(a)(1), local
governments are exempt from the requirements of CEQA in connection with the adoption
of a Local Coastal Program. The Amendment itself does not authorize any development
and therefore would not directly result in physical change to the environment.
Public Notice
Pursuant to Section 13515 of the California Code of Regulations, a review draft of the
LCP Amendment was made available and a Notice of Availability was distributed on
October 4, 2019, to all persons and agencies on the Notice of Availability mailing list.
Although not required, the notice has also been posted online.
In addition, notice of these amendments was published in the Daily Pilot as an eighth-
page advertisement, consistent with the provisions of the NBMC. The item also appeared
on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website.
9
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Planning Commission, November 21, 2019
Page 9
Lastly, notice of this amendment was emailed to interested parties that attended the
community meeting.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
Jim Campbell, Deputy Director
ATTACHMENTS
PC 1 Draft Resolution- Title 15 and Title 20 Code Amendments
PC 2 Draft Resolution- Local Coastal Program Amendments (including Title 21)
PC 3 Correspondence Received
PC 4 October 17, 2019, Planning Commission Staff Report
PC 5 October 17, 2019, Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
PC 6 Case Study Comparison
10
Attachment No. PC 1
Draft Resolution- Title 15 and Title 20
Code Amendments
11
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE12
RESOLUTION NO. PC2019-033
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL ADOPTION OF CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2019-006
TO AMEND TITLE 15 (BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION) AND
TITLE 20 (PLANNING AND ZONING) OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO COTTAGE
PRESERVATION (PA2019-181)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An amendment to Title 15 (Building and Construction) and Title 20 (Planning and
Zoning) (“Code Amendment”) of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code (“NBMC”)
is necessary to incentivize the preservation of cottages.
2. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 17, 2019, in the Council
Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time,
place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the California
Government Code Section 54950 et seq. (“Ralph M. Brown Act”) and Chapter 20.62 of
the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the
Planning Commission at this public hearing.
3. At the conclusion of the October 17, 2019, hearing, the Planning Commission voted to
continue the item to allow staff additional time to revise certain aspects of the
amendments. Requested changes included clarifying the applicability, prohibiting short-
term rentals, and reducing the amount of expansion permitted.
4. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on November 21, 2019, in the
Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice
of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Ralph
M. Brown Act and Chapter 20.62 of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was
presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
The action proposed herein is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act
(“CEQA”) in accordance with Section 21065 of the California Public Resources Code and
Sections 15060 (c)(2), 15060 (c)(3), and 15378 of the California Code of Regulations Title 14,
Division 6, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”). The proposed action is also exempt pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects
which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The Amendment
itself does not authorize development that would directly result in physical change to the
environment.
13
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-033
Page 2 of 6
SECTION 3. FINDINGS.
1. Currently, Section 102.7 (Remodel or renovation) of Section 15.02.060 of the NBMC
requires a dwelling to be subject to building code regulations as a new structure when the
valuation of the permit for a remodel or renovation exceeds fifty (50) percent of the market
value of the dwelling. As a result of this fifty (50) percent valuation threshold, many small
remodel and residential addition projects require substantial improvements to comply with
building code regulations as new construction. Due to this increased scope of work and
costs, many property owners decide that it is not financially feasible to maintain their existing
residential cottages and decide to demolish these cottages. The current redevelopment
trend is to reconstruct new single- or two-family dwellings that maximize the building
envelope, including three-level development, to realize the maximum return on investment.
2. Authorizing the amendment to Title 15 (Building and Construction) of the NBMC would
incentive the preservation of cottages by removing the valuation threshold requiring building
code compliance as new construction and allowing reasonable size additions to existing
residential developments that preserve their cottage character and building envelope.
3. Authorizing the amendment to Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) of the NBMC would
incentivize the preservation of cottages by increasing the percentage of an allowed addition
to a nonconforming residential structure thereby eliminating a design constraint that has
resulted in property owners choosing to demolish older cottages and redevelop the site with
new, larger, three-level homes that maximize the allowable building envelope.
4. An amendment to Title 21 and the Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) to incentivize the
preservation of cottages (“LCP Amendments”) is also proposed for properties located in the
coastal zone. The Code Amendment shall not become effective for projects located in the
coastal zone until approval of the LCP Amendments by the California Coastal Commission
and adoption, including any modifications suggested by the California Coastal Commission,
by resolution and/or ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Planning Commission finds the proposed code amendments are not a projects subject
to CEQA pursuant to Section 21065 of Public Resources Code and the CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and 15378. The proposed action is also statutorily
exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it has no potential to
have a significant effect on the environment.
2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends approval of
Code Amendment No. CA2019-006 as set forth in Exhibit “A,” which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019.
14
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-033
Page 3 of 6
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
BY:_________________________
Peter Koetting, Chairman
BY:_________________________
Lee Lowrey, Secretary
15
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-033
Page 4 of 6
EXHIBIT “A”
Proposed Code Amendment No. CA2019-006 Related to Cottage Preservation
Section 1: Amend Section 102.7 (Remodel or renovation) of Section15.02.060 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code as follows:
15.02.060 Added to Section 102.7.
Section 102.7 is added to read as follows:
Section 102.7 Remodel or renovation. If the valuation of the permit for the
remodel or renovation of a building is equal to or exceeds 50 percent of the market
value of such building, then the entire building shall comply with the Code
provisions for new construction.
Exceptions:
1. This provision does not apply for permit valuations less than $209,000;
2. This provision does not apply to projects meeting the criteria for cottage
preservation pursuant to Section 20.38.060(A)(3) and not located in a Special
Flood Hazard Area per the latest revision of the Federal Insurance Rate Map.
3. The Chief Building Official is authorized to accept less than the requirements for
new construction if substantial conformance to the requirements is found and the
protection of life and property are maintained.
Section 2: Amend Section 20.38.060 (Nonconforming Parking) of Title 2 (Planning and
Zoning) of the Newport Beach Municipal to read as follows:
20.38.060 Nonconforming Parking.
A. Residential. Where a residential structure or use is nonconforming only because it does
not conform to the off-street parking requirements of this Zoning Code, only the following
alterations may be allowed:
1. Number of Spaces. A residential development having less than the required
number of parking spaces per dwelling unit shall be allowed the following repairs,
alterations, and additions:
16
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-033
Page 5 of 6
a. Repair and maintenance, interior alterations, and structural alterations,
as provided for in Section 20.38.040(A) through (F); and
b. Additions up to a maximum of ten (10) percent of the existing floor area
of the structure within a ten (10) year period as provided in Section
20.38.040(G).
2. Dimensions or Type of Parking Spaces. Residential developments that are
nonconforming because they do not have the required type of covered or
enclosed parking spaces or because amendments to this Zoning Code have
changed the dimensions of required parking spaces subsequent to the original
construction of the structure may be altered or expanded as follows:
a. All improvements and expansions allowed under subsection (A)(1) of
this section;
b. Additions larger than those allowed under subsection (A)(1) of this
section may be allowed subject to the approval of a modification permit in
compliance with Section 20.52.050 (Modification Permits).
3. Exception for Cottage Preservation. Notwithstanding the provisions of
subsections (A)(1)(b) and (A)(2)(b) of this section, additions of up to fifty (50)
percent of the existing floor area of the structure, but no more than 500 square
feet, are permitted for projects that remodel and expand a smaller residential
dwelling, dupex, or triplex that is representative of the traditional development
patterns in the City, result in the preservation of the cottage character, and
comply with the following criteria:
a. The floor area of any addition, together with the floor area of the existing
structure, shall not exceed the allowed maximum floor area for the zoning
district;
b. The addition shall comply with all applicable development standards
and use regulations of this Zoning Code;
17
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-033
Page 6 of 6
c. The square footage of residential parking area additions identified below
shall be excluded from the allowed expansion under subsection (A)(3), but
shall be included as gross floor area;
Required
Parking
Maximum Excluded
Area
One-car garage 200 square feet,
maximum
Two-car garage 400 square feet,
maximum
Three-car
garage
600 square feet,
maximum
d. The height of the resulting structure shall not exceed the following,
regardless of roof pitch:
i. Front half of lot: one story and 16 feet; and
ii. Rear half of lot: two stories and 24 feet.
e. The residential structure shall not include third floor deck;
f. Dwellings within the residential development shall not be rented for
periods of less than thirty (30) days; and
g. Deed Restriction and Recordation Required. Prior to the issuance of a
building permit for a cottage preservation project, the property owner shall
record a deed restriction with the County Recorder’s Office, the form and
content of which is satisfactory to the City Attorney, agreeing to maintain the
property consistent with the limitations specified above for cottage
preservation and the restrictions on short-term lodging. The deed restriction
document shall notify future owners of the restriction. This deed restriction
shall remain in effect so long as the cottage preservation project exists on
the property.
18
Attachment No. PC 2
Draft Resolution- Local Coastal Program
Amendments (including Title 21)
19
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE20
RESOLUTION NO. PC2019-034
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL AUTHORIZE SUBMITTAL OF LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. LC2019-004 TO THE CALIFORNIA
COASTAL COMMISSION TO AMEND TITLE 21 (LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLAN) OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE AND THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM COASTAL
LAND USE PLAN RELATED TO COTTAGE PRESERVATION
(PA2019-181)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. Section 30500 of the California Public Resources Code requires each county and city
to prepare a local coastal program (“LCP”) for that portion of the coastal zone within its
jurisdiction.
2. In 2005 the City of Newport Beach (“City”) adopted the City of Newport Beach Local
Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan (“Local Coastal Program”) as amended from
time to time including most recently on January 22, 2019, via Resolution No. 2019-8.
3. The California Coastal Commission effectively certified the City’s Local Coastal Program
Implementation Plan on January 13, 2017, and the City added Title 21 (Local Coastal
Program Implementation Plan) (“Title 21”) to the Newport Beach Municipal Code
(“NBMC”) whereby the City assumed coastal development permit-issuing authority as
of January 30, 2017.
4. An amendment to Title 21 and the Local Coastal Program is necessary to incentivize
the preservation of cottages (“LCP Amendments”).
5. Pursuant to Section 13515 of the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 5.5,
Chapter 8, drafts of the LCP Amendments were made available and a Notice of Availability
was distributed on October 4, 2019 at least six (6) weeks prior to the anticipated final
action date.
6. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 17, 2019, in the Council
Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time,
place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Ralph M.
Brown Act and Chapter 21.62 of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was
presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing.
7. At the conclusion of the October 17, 2019, hearing, the Planning Commission voted to
continue the item to allow staff additional time to revise certain aspects of the
21
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-034
Page 2 of 6
amendments. Requested changes included clarifying the applicability, prohibiting short-
term rentals, and reducing the amount of expansion permitted.
8. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on November 21, 2019, in the
Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice
of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Ralph
M. Brown Act and Chapter 20.62 of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was
presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
The action proposed herein is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act
(“CEQA”) in accordance with Section 21065 of the California Public Resources Code and
Sections 15060 (c)(2), 15060 (c)(3), and 15378 of the California Code of Regulations Title 14,
Division 6, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”). The proposed action is also exempt pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects
which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Lastly, pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15265(a)(1), local governments are statutorily exempt from the
requirements of CEQA in connection with the adoption of a local coastal program. The LCP
Amendment itself does not authorize development that would directly result in physical change
to the environment.
SECTION 3. FINDINGS.
1. Authorizing the amendment to Title 21 (Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan) of the
NBMC and the City’s Local Coastal Program would incentivize the preservation of cottages
by increasing the percentage of an allowed addition to a nonconforming residential
structure, thereby eliminating a design constraint that has resulted in property owners
choosing to demolish older cottages and redevelop properties with new, larger, three (3)-
level homes that maximize the allowable building envelope.
2. The LCP Amendments shall not become effective until approval by the California Coastal
Commission and adoption, including any modifications suggested by the California Coastal
Commission, by resolution and/or ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach.
3. The Local Coastal Program and Title 21, including the proposed LCP Amendments, will be
carried out fully in conformity with the California Coastal Act.
4. The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the
operative part of this resolution.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
22
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-034
Page 3 of 6
1. The Planning Commission finds the LCP Amendments are not a project subject to CEQA
pursuant to Section 21065 of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060 (c)(2), 15060
(c)(3), and 15378. The proposed action is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15061(b)(3) because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the
environment. Finally, the adoption of local coastal programs are statutorily exempt
according to Section 15265(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines.
2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends submittal of
Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-004 related to cottage preservation,
amending Section 21.38.060 (Nonconforming Parking) of Title 21 (Local Coastal Program
Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and amending the City of
Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan as set forth in Exhibit “A,”
which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, to the California Coastal
Commission.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
BY:_________________________
Peter Koetting, Chairman
BY:_________________________
Lee Lowrey, Secretary
23
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-034
Page 4 of 6
EXHIBIT “A”
Proposed Amendment to the City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program
Related to Cottage Preservation (LC2019-004)
Section 1: Amending Policy 2.9.3-8 of Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development) of the
Coastal Land Use Plan as follows, with all other provisions of the Coastal Land Use Plan
remaining unchanged:
2.9.3-8 Continue to require properties with nonconforming parking to provide code-
required off-street parking when new uses, alterations, or additions result in increased
parking demand. However, additions of up to fifty (50) percent of the existing floor area of
a residential development may be allowed without requiring the code-required parking when
the project would result in the preservation of the cottage character of the development and
a building envelope representative of traditional cottage development patterns in the City.
Section 2: Amend Section 21.38.060 (Nonconforming Parking) of Title 21 (Local Coastal
Program Implementation Plan) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to read as follows:
21.38.060 Nonconforming Parking.
A. Residential. Where a residential structure or use is nonconforming only because it does
not conform to the off-street parking requirements of this Implementation Plan, the following
provisions shall apply:
1. Number of Spaces. A residential development having less than the required
number of parking spaces per dwelling unit shall be allowed the following repairs,
alterations, and additions:
a. Repair and maintenance, interior alterations, and structural alterations,
as provided for in Section 21.38.040(A) through (F);
b. Additions up to a maximum of ten (10) percent of the existing floor area
of the structure as provided in Section 21.38.040(G);
c. Any repair, maintenance, or additions shall not result in loss of existing
parking spaces; and
d. Required parking shall be provided where feasible.
2. Dimensions or Type of Parking Spaces. Residential developments that are
nonconforming because they do not have the required type of covered or
enclosed parking spaces or because amendments to this Implementation Plan
24
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-034
Page 5 of 6
have changed the dimensions of required parking spaces subsequent to the
original construction of the structure may be altered or expanded as follows:
a. All improvements and expansions allowed under subsection (A)(1) of
this section;
b. Additions larger than those allowed under subsection (A)(1) of this
section may be allowed subject to the approval of a coastal development
permit.
3. Alley Access. Where applicable, residential development involving repairs,
alterations, and additions to residential development having less than the
required number of parking spaces per dwelling unit shall provide alley access to
parking area if it would result in additional public street parking.
4. Exception for Cottage Preservation. Notwithstanding the provisions of
subsections (A)(1)(b) and (A)(2)(b) of this section, additions of up to fifty (50)
percent of the existing floor area of the structure are permitted for projects that
remodel and expand a smaller residential dwelling, duplex, or triplex that is
representative of the traditional development patterns in the City, result in the
preservation of the cottage character, and comply with the following criteria:
a. The floor area of any addition, together with the floor area of the existing
structure, shall not exceed the allowed maximum floor area for the coastal
zoning district;
b. The addition shall comply with all applicable development standards
and use regulations of this Implementation Plan;
c. The square footage of residential parking area additions identified below
shall be excluded from the allowed expansion under subsection (A)(4), but
shall be included as gross floor area;
25
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2019-034
Page 6 of 6
Required
Parking
Maximum Excluded
Area
One-car garage 200 square feet,
maximum
Two-car garage 400 square feet,
maximum
Three-car
garage
600 square feet,
maximum
d. The height of the resulting structure shall not exceed the following,
regardless of roof pitch:
i. Front half of lot: one story and 16 feet; and
ii. Rear half of lot: two stories and 24 feet.
e. The residential structure shall not include third floor deck;
f. Dwellings within the residential development shall not be rented for
periods of less than thirty (30) days; and
g. The addition complies with the limitations of Section 21.38.040(G)(1).
26
Attachment No. PC 3
Correspondence Received
27
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE28
October 15, 2019
To: Planning Commissioners, City Council, City Planning Department
Ref. Planning Commission Public Hearing October 17, 2019
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Code Amendment No. CA2019-006
Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-004
Subject: Comments to Staff Report and Proposed Amendments
Planning Commissioners, et al,
Regarding the proposed Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181), hereafter called
the “Amendments”, the Staff Report seems insufficient as it does not address the consequences of
implementing the proposed Amendments in detail. Street parking in the areas in question (Balboa Island,
Corona Del Mar, Balboa Peninsula, etc) is already severely impacted as result of grandfathered on-site
parking inadequacy and already granted local business parking waivers. To better understand the parking
impact to the local communities the evaluation should provide a comprehensive list of all the properties that
could qualify as a Cottage Preservation project under the proposed Amendments including the off-street
parking availability for each and all the properties and the cumulative parking impact for the specific areas.
Additionally, in reaching out to the Public, it should be done separately for each local community. If, for
example, the Balboa Island residents strongly support the Amendments but the Balboa Peninsula
residents do not then the Amendments should be approved just for Balboa Island and not for the
other local communities.
I have several concerns regarding the proposed Amendments as follows:
1. Cottage Definition and Establishing a Related Maximum Square Footage
From Oxford, a Cottage is a “small simple house”. So what is considered small by Newport Beach
coastal community standards?
In Corona Del Mar, for the last two decades, many lots have been developed into two-unit dwellings
(condos). Most of them have a 3 BRs, 2-1/2 BAs “Front Unit”of about 1,800~1,900 sq ft (plus a 200 sq
ft single car garage and a carport) and a 2 BRs, 2-1/2 BAs “Back Unit”of about 1,150~1,250 sq ft (plus
a 200 sq ft single car garage and a carport).
In the Balboa Peninsula, many 25’ wide lots have been developed into two-unit dwelling, which can be
around 1,650 sq ft (plus a 200 sq ft single car garage and a carport) each and typically have 3 BRs, 2-
1/2 BAs. And they are, per coastal Newport Beach standards, very nice in size and very livable.
Page 5 of the Staff Report states that, “for example, a one-story dwelling on a typical Corona Del Mar lot
(30’x118’) may measure approximately 2,200 square feet in area”. That means said dwelling would be
allowed to add 1,100 sq ft in area on a second floor (50% of the existing dwelling area) resulting in a
final 3,300 sq ft dwelling after the Cottage Preservation project is completed. Such a dwelling size, by
“beach cottage” standards is not small… in fact it is huge! (please refer to previous paragraphs above).
Why should we allow this property owner to increase their property size to 3,300 sq ft and not have them
provide the off-street parking requirement for two vehicles?
Planning Commission - October 17, 2019
Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
29
An existing 2,200 sq ft dwelling is already larger than many typical dwellings in Corona Del Mar or the
Balboa Peninsula so it is “livable” already. For said reason, I respectfully recommend the proposed
Amendments to be applied only to existing dwellings of smaller square footage. For example,
existing dwellings with a maximum size of 1,500 sq ft in area. That would allow the dwellings area
to be increased to a total of 2,250 sq ft, which is more than livable. The additional 750 sq ft area is more
than enough to accommodate a master bedroom with a master bathroom, a hallway and stairs to reach
a second floor.
As an option, for existing dwellings larger than 1,500 sq ft in area instead of using a 50% maximum
development limit, a specific maximum square footage limit of, for example, 2,250 sq ft could be used.
In this case, an existing 1,700 sq ft dwelling could only build an addition of up to 550 sq ft (or 32.35% of
the existing dwelling area). An existing 1,900 sq ft dwelling could only build an addition of up to 350 sq
ft (or 18.42% of the existing dwelling area). And so on. Existing dwellings larger than ~2,045 sq ft
would then be allowed to build up to 10% of the existing dwelling area under the current codes without
qualifying for the Cottage Preservation Amendments.
2.Amendments Scope of Application – Single Unit versus Two Unit Dwellings per Lot
During the September 10, 2019 City Council Study Session, it was stated by a Council Member that the
proposed Amendments are meant to help, for example, a young small family afford a property in the
area (as their primary residence) and for them to be able to increase the dwelling size to make it livable.
First of all, for those of us – residents – who did not inherited a property in Newport Beach, we could not
afford to buy our first home in the coastal communities of Newport Beach 30 years ago so the difficulty
for young families to be able to afford a property in said areas of our city is not something new.
I can see the scenario described by the Council Member as possible, but the Amendments do not
address other possible scenarios. The Amendments are silent about the Cottage Conversion projects to
be applied to single-unit dwellings versus two-unit dwellings.
For two-unit dwellings the required off-street parking is for four vehicles total so with the proposed
Amendments implementation two-unit dwellings will be allowed to increase their dwelling size by 50%
without proper parking spaces. Why? In this case we are not talking about a family remodeling their
primary residence; once you have two units you certainly have a rental business at the property.
For the same example provided in Page 5 of the Staff Report, a one-story dwelling of 2,200 sq ft would
be allowed to increase size by 1,100 sq ft (50% of the existing dwelling area). Such area increase is a
lot more than what is needed to add a “master bedroom”. An unscrupulous property owner looking to
maximize their rental income could easily add four (4) bedrooms (i.e. 14’x12’, at ~170 sq ft each), a 70
sq ft bathroom plus a hallway and stairs to the second floor – with no extra off-street parking for the
additional tenants the dwelling would accommodate. For a two-unit dwelling we very much know one of
the units is going to be a rental unit. This is another reason to curtail the size of the qualifying existing
dwellings as addressed on Section 1 of this letter.
Due to the above described scenarios, I respectfully recommend the proposed Amendments to be
applied only to existing single-unit dwellings (to be kept as single-unit after the remodel) and
NOT to two-unit dwellings.
3.Amendments Deed Restriction –No Short Term Lodging Permit
Referring back to the “unscrupulous property owner” described in Section 2 of this letter, who could add
4 BRs and 1 BA to an existing dwelling without adding the normally required off-street parking spaces,
Planning Commission - October 17, 2019
Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
30
the street parking impact could be worse if the dwelling has a Short Term Lodging Permit (STLP). Once
the extra bedrooms are added to a “vacation rental” then the local community will have extra people (i.e.
in this case at least 8 additional people) coming and going causing additional parking issues, etc.
Page 6 of the Staff Report states a Revocable Deed Restriction is to be recorded as a legal measure for
the current property owner, and future owners, to agree to “maintain the property consistent with the
limitations specified for cottage preservation”.
An additional restriction that I consider extremely important, and I respectfully recommend herein, is for
the Revocable Deed Restriction to include the current property owner, and future owners,
agreement to not operate the property as a vacation rental. No STLP should be issued for a
property that is redeveloped as part of the proposed Amendments. If the existing dwelling has a
current STLP then as part of the Cottage Preservation qualification process said STLP should be
revoked.
4. Further Clarification of “Front half of lot: one story and 16 feet”
Page 4 of the Staff Report shows “Front half of lot limited to one story and a maximum height of 16 feet”
as one of the building envelope limits for cottage preservation eligibility.
My interpretation of such statement is that, in the front half of the lot, since it is labeled as one story then
a second floor deck will not be allowed. It would be best if the Amendments clearly stated/added, after
“The residential structure shall not include third floor deck”, the following wording “and shall not include a
second floor deck in the front half of lot”. Such statement would leave no room for interpretation.
Additionally, I have seen properties with a steep roof pitch that – from the outside - appear to be a single
level. However, when you walk inside the dwelling it has an extensive loft inside creating significant
additional living space (on a second floor). These are dwellings with a 16 foot roof ridge/line. This
scenario is even more plausible when the roof line has dormers. Consequently, how is this potential
scenario addressed as part of the proposed Amendments?
I truly hope the concerns raised in this letter are seriously considered for incorporation into the final draft of
the proposed Amendments prior to their approval. If you have any questions about this letter please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Carmen Rawson
Resident Balboa Peninsula
949-278-2447 Cell
carmen_rawson@att.net
Planning Commission - October 17, 2019
Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
31
From:Murillo, Jaime
To:Lee, Amanda; Rodriguez, Clarivel
Subject:FW: Planning Commission Public Hearing October 17, 2019 - Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments
(PA2019-181)
Date:Wednesday, October 16, 2019 1:50:35 PM
From: dan.j.burt@gmail.com <dan.j.burt@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 12:15 PM
To: 'Carmen Rawson' <carmen_rawson@att.net>; Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>;
Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <llowrey@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Murillo, Jaime
<JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov>; Campbell, Jim <JCampbell@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis,
Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; 'Fred Levine' <fredric.mark.levine@gmail.com>; 'Denys
Oberman' <dho@obermanassociates.com>; 'Maureen Cotton' <mcotton@integrated8a.com>;
cbatley@burrwhite.com; 'Joan Burt' <quinnburt@aol.com>; 'Dr. Peter G. Anderson'
<peteermd@roadrunner.com>
Subject: RE: Planning Commission Public Hearing October 17, 2019 - Cottage Preservation Code and
LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Dear Planning Commissioners,
As a resident of the Balboa Peninsula, 1713 W Balboa Blvd., I fully support Carmen
Rawson’s letter’s recommendations on the proposed Amendments. I am particularly concerned that
expanding the property to a two family unit or short (or long) term rental is a real risk and must be
prevented. Make sure the cottage remains a single family home. Also the 1500 sq ft limit on
“cottage” makes much more sense.
Parking on the peninsula, as you well know, is a real problem and allowing expansion
without adding parking doesn’t help. Please be very careful with your “cottage” exemption.
With kind regards
Dan Burt
From: Carmen Rawson <carmen_rawson@att.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 10:47 PM
To: Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Lee
<llowrey@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Dept - City Council <citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov>; Jaime Murillo
<jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov>; Jim Campbell <jcampbell@newportbeachca.gov>; Seimone Jurjis
<sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>; Fred Levine <fredric.mark.levine@gmail.com>; Denys Oberman
<dho@obermanassociates.com>; Maureen Cotton <mcotton@integrated8a.com>;
cbatley@burrwhite.com; Dan Burt <dan.j.burt@gmail.com>; Joan Burt <quinnburt@aol.com>; Dr.
Peter G. Anderson <peteermd@roadrunner.com>
Subject: Planning Commission Public Hearing October 17, 2019 - Cottage Preservation Code and LCP
Amendments (PA2019-181)
Planning Commissioners,
Planning Commission - October 17, 2019
Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
32
As a resident of Newport Beach (Balboa Peninsula) I have concerns regarding the proposed subject
Amendments. Attached please find a letter detailing my concerns about approving Cottage Preservation
projects for already large dwellings (per coastal Newport Beach standards), for two-unit dwellings, and for
dwellings with Short Term Lodging Permits.
Please take into consideration my concerns when reviewing the proposed Amendments and hopefully
some of the raised issues can be addressed prior to the final draft of the Amendments is approved.
Sincerely,
Carmen Rawson
Planning Commission - October 17, 2019
Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
33
From:Murillo, Jaime
To:Rodriguez, Clarivel;Lee, Amanda
Subject:Fw: Comments re proposed Cottage Preservation plan and Amendments to LCP
Date:Wednesday, October 16, 2019 7:05:13 PM
From: Denys Oberman <dho@obermanassociates.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 4:18:07 PM
To: Murillo, Jaime; Campbell, Jim
Cc: Denys Oberman; Fred Levine
Subject: Comments re proposed Cottage Preservation plan and Amendments to LCP
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL, AND ENTER
INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD---
Members of the Planning Commission ,
We are writing to comment on the staff proposal regarding Cottage preservation and the LCP
Amendment being presented and heard by the Commission. I am on the Board of the Central
Penninsula Community Association, and am also an oceanfront homeowner.
We appreciate the City’s deserve to “preserve” more modest Cottage type structures. However, the
proposed Amendment , if adopted in current form, actually works counterproductive to the stated
intent.
The proposal provides for a Cottage to be expanded to 3000 sq ft. , a full 3-4 bedroom residence. It
also provides parking exception for a two unit development. This scale of development creates
significant intensification---there can be no legitimate justification to except this type of
development and intensity of use from requirement to provide Parking On-site. Units of this size will
include 3 or more bedrooms, or, in the case of two units, 6 or more bedrooms.
The City is already capacity-stressed in the multiple neighborhoods with narrow , small lots and
already- limited Parking. This is not confined to the Balboa Penninsula—it is also the case in Corona
del Mar flower street area, Balboa Island, and other Non-subdivision developed residential areas of
the City.
As a City, we are approaching the point of interfering with Life Safety vehicle and resident
ingress/egress in many of these areas.
Furthermore, to encourage the development of Housing stock without Parking is to ultimately
decrease both the value of these properties, and the character of our residential neighborhoods.
The Parking problem is further compounded by the City’s push to increase Visitor traffic, and the
demand for visitor type accomodations which include STL. ( note- we are in favor of encouraging the
City’s Visitor-based revenue stream, but not at the expense of our residents or the communities
which give this City its brand and long-term traction.)
Planning Commission - October 17, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
34
We are in agreement with the comments of other Penninsual residents. However, we do not agree
that mitigation should only be directed to the Balboa Penninsula neighborhoods.
Respectfully, let’s call a spade a spade.
Please do not use the “Cottage preservation” concept or intent for the purposes of enabling yet
another way around Parking as an integral and essential part of our residential land use
development and project approval.
Our General Plan carefully crafted and called out the tenets when it said that, Each Development
Project should park itself.
This is already a challenge.
Please do not excacerbate an already- existing challenge.
Do not allow any residential development project increases living area footprint that does not
provide a reasonable on-site Parking plan.
The City will have to accommodate its residents somehow if it moves forward with this proposal.
This has been a challenge on the plate for many years, and the City has not provided a meaningful
solution.
We request that this Proposal not be accepted in its current form or substance, and that the City not
take any further action in the name of “Cottages” and “LCP Amendment” until it is adequately
thought through.
Thank you,
Denys Oberman and
Fred Levine- Oceanfront resident and Board Member of Central Penninsula Community Association.
Cc: Associations and Residents of the above referenced communities.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
NOTE- Please disregard the Confidentiality Notice and preprinted corporate signature below.
Planning Commission - October 17, 2019
Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
35
From: Jurjis, Seimone
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2019 8:25 AM
To: Murillo, Jaime
Subject: FW: Comments to City's Proposed Code Amendments - Cottage
Preservation
For the file
SEIMONE JURJIS, P.E., C.B.O.
Community Development Department
Community Development Director
sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov
949-644-3282
From: Ken & Carmen Rawson [mailto:ckrawson@att.net]
Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2019 11:11 AM
To: Avery, Brad <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>; Brenner, Joy <JBrenner@newportbeachca.gov>; Dixon,
Diane <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov>; Duffield, Duffy <dduffield@newportbeachca.gov>; Harp, Aaron
<aharp@newportbeachca.gov>; Herdman, Jeff <jherdman@newportbeachca.gov>; Leung, Grace
<gleung@newportbeachca.gov>; Muldoon, Kevin <kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov>; Oborny, Shirley
<soborny@newportbeachca.gov>; O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>; Rieff, Kim
<KRieff@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Carmen Rawson <carmen_rawson@att.net>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Comments to City's Proposed Code Amendments - Cottage Preservation
Mayor and City Council Members,
I am against allowing the addition of a second level to existing one level Cottages without requiring them also to
meet the building code for two car parking per unit.
I would like to hear from someone on the City Council why this modification to our existing building code is being
considered.
I have done some quick calculations relative to the required money needed to add the second level and all the other
code updates the existing building may need.
For example: Assuming a lot sized 25’ x 90’ (with 3’ side setbacks, 15’ front setback, 5’ alley setback) ,,, this
would yield a buildable single level house of 1,330 sq ft. Assuming 50% of 1,330 sq ft could be added as a second
level would yield an addition of 665 sq ft. with a resulting home of 1,995 sq ft. This is a larger home than most
duplexes or condos I know of on the Peninsula!
This addition will require bringing all the following up to current code:
Foundations – The new 2nd floor loads may require completely new foundations for that portion.
Additional plumbing
36
Electrical Panels/Wiring
Seismic loading of the framed structure
Fire sprinklers for the whole house
Etc, Etc.
At $300/sq ft, to build the second floor would cost a minimum of ~$200,000 and the existing building may require
at least ~$100,000 in code upgrades. If the Cottage owner can cover these type of costs to upgrade the building why
not stick with our current building code requirements and have a carport included so they have an existing single car
garage and a new carport?
With the cost of most single family cottages (that make sense to modify /upgrade) costing at least $1.5 million the
idea of investing another ~$300,000 in a cottage that would still have only one parking space makes its resale
marketability very questionable.
In these areas near the beach our number one problem is PARKING. Please don’t add to it by allowing a 50%
increase to the existing homes without the appropriate additional off street parking.
Sincerely,
Ken Rawson - Resident of Balboa Peninsula
37
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE38
Attachment No. PC 4
October 17, 2019, Planning Commission
Staff Report
39
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE40
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
October 17, 2019
Agenda Item No. 4
SUBJECT:Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Code Amendment No. CA2019-006
Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-004
SITE LOCATION: Citywide
APPLICANT:City of Newport Beach
PLANNER: Jaime Murillo, Principal Planner
949-644-3209 or jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov
PROJECT SUMMARY
The City is proposing amendments to the Local Coastal Program (Coastal Land Use Plan
and Implementation Plan), Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Title 20 (Planning and
Zoning), and Title 15 (Building and Construction) to provide an option to preserve traditional
beach cottages. Typically, cottages do not provide all the code-required parking and
additions are limited to 10 percent of the existing floor area. The amendments would allow
larger additions of up to 50 percent of the existing floor area without providing the
minimum code-required parking when the project would result in the preservation of the
cottage character and building envelope that is representative of traditional development
patterns in the City. Eligible projects would also receive relief from a building code
valuation threshold requiring building code compliance as new construction.
RECOMMENDATION
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;
3) Adopt Resolution No. PC2019-033 (Attachment No. PC 1) recommending the City
Council approve Code Amendment No. CA2019-006; and
4) Adopt Resolution No. PC2019-034 (Attachment No. PC 2) recommending the City
Council authorize staff to submit Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-
004 to the California Coastal Commission.
1 41
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE2 42
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Planning Commission, October 17, 2019
Page 2
INTRODUCTION
Study Session
As a result of growing community concerns related to the loss of small residential cottages
and the bulk and mass associated with new single- and two-unit dwelling developments
in the City, the City Council held a study session on April 23, 2019. At the conclusion of
the study session, the City Council directed staff to return with a resolution to initiate code
amendments to address these concerns, including incentivizing the preservation of
cottages. Study session minutes are included as Attachment No. PC 3.
1937 Cottage 2014 Redevelopment
Example of Cottage Redevelopment
3 43
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Planning Commission, October 17, 2019
Page 3
Initiation of Code Amendment
City Council Policy K-1 (General Plan and Local Coastal Program) provides that a City-
sponsored amendment to the certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) shall be initiated by
the City Council. Additionally, NBMC Section 20.66.020 allows amendments to the Zoning
Code to be initiated by the City Council. The subject amendment was initiated by the City
Council on May 14, 2019 (Attachment No. PC 4), as one of two proposed amendments
under City Council Resolution No. 2019-43 (PA2019-070).
Community Meeting
On August 19, 2019, Community Development Department staff hosted a community
meeting attended by 64 interested members of the public, including design professionals.
The intent of the meeting was to share proposed changes to residential design standards
intended to minimize bulk and mass associated with current development trends.
Included were proposed changes to incentivize the preservation of small cottages by
allowing increased additions and alterations to provide an option to full redevelopment of
property.
The proposed changes related to cottage preservation were overwhelmingly supported
by meeting attendees. General comments in support included:
x Design professionals explained that it is more difficult to remodel and preserve a
cottage than to demolish and reconstruct a new home due to the current restrictive
code requirements that are in place. The proposed changes would create a
feasible option for preservation by removing these code-related constraints;
x Attendees appreciated the fact that the changes were incentive-based instead of
a firm restriction on property owner’s rights; and
x The incentive allows a reasonably sized addition for nonconforming structures that
do not provide adequate parking, which is appropriate if it discourages property
owners from tearing down older cottages structures.
DISCUSSION
What constitutes a cottage for the purpose of this ordinance?
There is no definition that accurately describes what constitutes a cottage. However, as
used by the community, the term cottage refers to the smaller residential dwellings or
structures that are representative of the traditional development patterns in the City,
particularly in old Corona del Mar, Balboa Island, and the Balboa Peninsula. These
structures are typically one-story, with the exception of a small second story above
parking in the rear of a lot. Many cottages vary in architectural style and year of
4 44
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Planning Commission, October 17, 2019
Page 4
construction. Therefore, for the purpose of this amendment, the cottage preservation
incentive will be granted for those projects that agree to maintain a building envelope
representative of traditional cottages.
The building envelope for cottage preservation eligibility would be limited as follows:
x Front half of lot limited to one story and a maximum height of 16 feet;
x Rear half of lot limited to two stories and a maximum height of 24 feet; and
x Third floors or third floor decks would be prohibited.
Why are we losing cottages?
The primary reason for the loss of cottages is due to the fact that many of these properties
were historically used as beach homes or second homes, but are now predominantly
used as principal residences. As such, property owners are seeking to maximum the size
of their homes to increase the livability and include modern features. Additionally, as
property values in the City have significantly increased, property owners are now seeking
to construct the maximum allowable floor area and height to ensure they are receiving
the highest and best return on their investment.
However, there are property owners who would like to preserve their older cottages, but
have run into complications when seeking to remodel to add an extra bedroom or
bathroom. There are two existing code restrictions that lead property owners to demolish
the old cottage in favor of developing a new, larger home.
1. Nonconforming Parking Limitations (Title 20 and 21)
Due to changes in zoning requirements over time that have increased the minimum
parking requirements, most cottages are nonconforming because they no longer
5 45
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Planning Commission, October 17, 2019
Page 5
provide the minimum number of spaces on-site. For example, minimum parking
requirements for a single-family dwelling increased from zero spaces, to one
space, to two spaces per unit.
NBMC Sections 20.38.060 (Nonconforming Parking) of the Zoning Code (Title 20)
and 21.38.060 (Nonconforming Parking) of the Local Coastal Program
Implementation Plan (Title 21) both limit the allowable area of additions for
residential dwellings that are nonconforming due to parking to a maximum of 10
percent of the existing floor area of the structure. This 10 percent limitation is
typically not sufficient to accommodate the addition of a new master bedroom or
justify the cost of a remodel. For example, a one-story dwelling on a typical Corona
del Mar lot (30’ x’118’) may measure approximately 2,200 square feet in area. The
10 percent limitation would only allow an addition of 220 square feet. Smaller
cottages with lower existing floor areas would result in even smaller additions.
Additions larger than 10 percent require code-compliant parking (a two-car garage)
to be created dramatically changing the scope of work. Typically, modifying a small
cottage to create a two-car garage cannot be done without significantly altering the
cottage thus defeating the owner’s hope to preserve the small home.
2. Building Code Limitations (Title 15)
Currently, Section 102.7 (Remodel or renovation) of Section 15.02.060 of the
NBMC requires a dwelling to be subject to building code regulations as a new
structure when the valuation of the permit for a remodel or renovation exceeds 50
percent of the market value of the dwelling. As a result of this 50 percent valuation
threshold, many small remodeling and addition projects require substantial
improvements beyond the original scope of work in order to comply with building
code regulations as if the house is new construction. Due to this increased scope
of work and costs, many property owners decide that it is not financially feasible to
maintain their existing residential cottages and decide to demolish and rebuild.
What are the proposed changes/incentives?
In order to loosen constraints discussed above, staff is proposing the following
amendments in exchange for a property owner’s commitment to maintain the required
cottage building envelope as previously described. A redline strikeout version of the
proposed amendments are included as Attachment No. PC 5 for reference.
1. Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and Title 21 (Local Coastal Program
Implementation Plan) Changes:
a. Increase addition limits from ten (10) to fifty (50) percent - Cottages are typically
smaller structures that are built significantly below the allowable floor area
limitations of a site. Therefore, staff is recommending to increase the allowable
area of additions for residential dwellings that are nonconforming due to parking
6 46
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Planning Commission, October 17, 2019
Page 6
to a maximum of fifty (50) percent of the existing floor area of the structure. This
new standard would allow for a reasonably sized addition as a realistic
alternative to demolishing and redeveloping their properties.
b. Require recordation of a revocable deed restriction - In order for a property
owner to take advantage of this incentive, they will be required to record a deed
restriction with the County Recorder’s Office agreeing to maintain the property
consistent with the limitations specified for cottage preservation (i.e., one-story
and 16 feet high within front half of lot and two-story, 24 feet high within rear
half of lot). The deed restriction will apply to future owners and remain in effect
so long as the modified cottage project exists. The deed restriction would not
be permanent and could be removed if the property owner wanted to expand
the cottage or redevelop the property in compliance with applicable code
requirements. However, in these cases, code-required parking would be
included.
Current Limitation Proposed Allowance
2. Title 15 Change - Remove new construction code requirements for eligible cottage
preservation projects - In the event that the construction valuation exceeds fifty
(50) percent of the value of the structure, only the components of the structure that
are affected by the renovation/addition will have to comply with new building code
requirements. For example, in the case of a new bedroom addition over the
garage, the addition and portions of the existing garage that are affected by the
addition, will have to comply current building code requirements; however, the
existing one-story component of the house that would remain would no longer have
to be fully retrofitted to comply with building code standards as a new home
constructed today.
Unfortunately, if a property is located within a special flood hazard area as mapped
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a separate valuation
threshold will continue to apply as required by FEMA. The FEMA threshold is more
restrictive and may trigger a need to substantially improve the existing structure to
7 47
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Planning Commission, October 17, 2019
Page 7
avoid the identified flood hazard. Improvements would typically include raising the
finish floor of the structure, which typically leads property owners to demolish the
structure and construct a new home.
Typical Cottage
Example Cottage Preservation Project
8 48
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Planning Commission, October 17, 2019
Page 8
Why is Coastal Commission review required?
Properties located in the Coastal Zone (Attachment No. PC 6) of the City are regulated
by the Local Coastal Program (LCP), which is comprised of the Coastal Land Use Plan
(CLUP), a policy document, and the Implementation Plan (IP or Title 21), a regulatory
document.
On January 13, 2017, the California Coastal Commission (“Coastal Commission”)
effectively certified the City’s LCP and the City assumed coastal development permit-
issuing authority on January 30, 2017. Any amendments to the LCP must be reviewed
and approved by the City Council, with a recommendation from the Planning Commission,
prior to submitting the amendment request to the Coastal Commission. The Coastal
Commission is the final decision-making authority on amendments to the certified LCP.
In addition to the proposed changes to Title 21 as described above, staff is recommending
that Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 2.9.3-8 be amended to include a policy to support the
proposed Title 21 cottage preservation amendment described above. A change to the
policy is important to avoid a determination that the proposed Title 21 code amendment
may be inconsistent with the current language of Policy 2.9.3-8. Additionally, regulations
in Title 21 require policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan.
2.9.3-8 Continue to require properties with nonconforming parking to provide code-
required off-street parking when new uses, alterations, or additions result in increased
parking demand. However, additions of up to fifty (50) percent of the existing floor
area of a residential development may be allowed without requiring the code-required
parking when the project would result in the preservation of the cottage character of
the development and a building envelope representative of traditional cottage
development patterns in the City.
Environmental Review
The action proposed herein is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) in accordance with Section 21065 of CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15060 (c)(2), 15060 (c)(3), and 15378. The proposed action is also exempt from
the CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that
CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on
the environment. Lastly, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15265(a)(1), local
governments are exempt from the requirements of CEQA in connection with the adoption
of a Local Coastal Program. The Amendment itself does not authorize any development
and therefore would not directly result in physical change to the environment.
9 49
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Planning Commission, October 17, 2019
Page 9
Public Notice
Pursuant to Section 13515 of the California Code of Regulations, a review draft of the
LCP Amendment was made available and a Notice of Availability was distributed on
October 4, 2019, to all persons and agencies on the Notice of Availability mailing list.
In addition, notice of these amendments was published in the Daily Pilot as an eighth-
page advertisement, consistent with the provisions of the NBMC. The item also appeared
on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website.
Lastly, notice of this amendment was emailed to interested parties that attended the
community meeting.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
Jim Campbell, Deputy Director
ATTACHMENTS
PC 1 Draft Resolution- Title 15 and Title 20 Code Amendments
PC 2 Draft Resolution- Local Coastal Program Amendments (including Title 21)
PC 3 April 23, 2019, City Council Study Session Minutes
PC 4 City Council Resolution No. 2019-43
PC 5 Redline Strikeout Version of Amendments
PC 6 Coastal Zone Map
10 50
Attachment No. PC 1
Draft Resolution- Title 15 and Title 20
Code Amendments
11 51
Attachment No. PC 2
Draft Resolution-Local Coastal Program
Amendments (including Title 21)
19 52
Attachment No. PC 3
April 23, 2019, City Council Study Session
Minutes
27 53
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE28 54
29 55
30 56
31 57
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE32 58
Attachment No. PC 4
City Council Resolution No. 2019 -43
33 59
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE34 60
35 61
36 62
37 63
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE38 64
Attachment No. PC 5
Redline Strikeout Version of Amendments
39 65
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE40 66
Cottage Preservation (PA2019-181)
Proposed Zoning Code Amendments
20.38.060 Nonconforming Parking.
A. Residential. Where a residential structure or use is nonconforming only because it does not conform to the
off-street parking requirements of this Zoning Code, only the following alterations may be allowed:
1. Number of Spaces. A residential development having less than the required number of
parking spaces per dwelling unit shall be allowed the following repairs, alterations, and
additions:
a. Repair and maintenance, interior alterations, and structural alterations, as provided for
in Section 20.38.040(A) through (F); and
b. Additions up to a maximum of ten (10) percent of the existing floor area of the
structure within a ten (10) year period as provided in Section 20.38.040(G).
2. Dimensions or Type of Parking Spaces. Residential developments that are nonconforming
because they do not have the required type of covered or enclosed parking spaces or because
amendments to this Zoning Code have changed the dimensions of required parking spaces
subsequent to the original construction of the structure may be altered or expanded as follows:
a. All improvements and expansions allowed under subsection (A)(1) of this section;
b. Additions larger than those allowed under subsection (A)(1) of this section may be
allowed subject to the approval of a modification permit in compliance with Section
20.52.050 (Modification Permits).
3. Exception for Cottage Preservation. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (A)(1)
and (A)(2) of this section, additions of up to fifty (50) percent of the existing floor area of the
structure are permitted for projects that remodel and expand a smaller residential dwelling or
structure representative of the traditional development patterns in the City, result in the
preservation of the cottage character, and comply with the following criteria:
a. The floor area of any addition, together with the floor area of the existing structure,
shall not exceed the allowed maximum floor area for the zoning district;
41 67
b. The addition shall comply with all applicable development standards and use
regulations of this Zoning Code;
c. The square footage of residential parking area additions identified below shall be
excluded from the allowed expansion under subsection (A)(3), but shall be included as
gross floor area;
Required Parking Maximum Excluded Area
One-car garage 200 square feet, maximum
Two-car garage 400 square feet, maximum
Three-car garage 600 square feet, maximum
d. The height of the resulting structure shall not exceed the following, regardless of roof
pitch:
i. Front half of lot: one story and 16 feet; and
ii. Rear half of lot: two stories and 24 feet.
e. The residential structure shall not include third floor deck; and
f. Deed Restriction and Recordation Required. Prior to the issuance of a building permit
for a cottage preservation project, the property owner shall record a deed restriction with
the County Recorder’s Office, the form and content of which is satisfactory to the City
Attorney, agreeing to maintain the property consistent with the limitations specified above
for cottage preservation. The deed restriction document shall notify future owners of the
restriction. This deed restriction shall remain in effect so long as the cottage preservation
project exists on the property.
42 68
Proposed Building Code Amendment
15.02.060 Added to Section 102.7.
Section 102.7 is added to read as follows:
Section 102.7 Remodel or renovation. If the valuation of the permit for the remodel or renovation of a
building is equal to or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of such building, then the entire building
shall comply with the Code provisions for new construction.
Exceptions:
1. This provision does not apply for permit valuations less than $209,000;
2. The Chief Building Official is authorized to accept less than the requirements for new construction if
substantial conformance to the requirements is found and the protection of life and property are
maintained.
3. This provision does not apply to projects meeting the criteria for cottage preservation pursuant to
Section 20.38.060(A)(3) and not located in a Special Flood Hazard Area per the latest revision of the
Federal Insurance Rate Map.
43 69
Proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment
21.38.060 Nonconforming Parking.
A. Residential. Where a residential structure or use is nonconforming only because it does not conform to the
off-street parking requirements of this Implementation Plan, the following provisions shall apply:
1. Number of Spaces. A residential development having less than the required number of
parking spaces per dwelling unit shall be allowed the following repairs, alterations, and
additions:
a. Repair and maintenance, interior alterations, and structural alterations, as provided for
in Section 21.38.040(A) through (F);
b. Additions up to a maximum of ten (10) percent of the existing floor area of the
structure as provided in Section 21.38.040(G);
c. Any repair, maintenance, or additions shall not result in loss of existing parking
spaces; and
d. Required parking shall be provided where feasible.
2. Dimensions or Type of Parking Spaces. Residential developments that are nonconforming
because they do not have the required type of covered or enclosed parking spaces or because
amendments to this Implementation Plan have changed the dimensions of required parking
spaces subsequent to the original construction of the structure may be altered or expanded as
follows:
a. All improvements and expansions allowed under subsection (A)(1) of this section;
b. Additions larger than those allowed under subsection (A)(1) of this section may be
allowed subject to the approval of a coastal development permit.
3. Alley Access. Where applicable, residential development involving repairs, alterations, and
additions to residential development having less than the required number of parking spaces
per dwelling unit shall provide alley access to parking area if it would result in additional public
street parking.
44 70
4. Exception for Cottage Preservation. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (A)(1)
and (A)(2) of this section, additions of up to fifty (50) percent of the existing floor area of the
structure are permitted for projects that remodel and expand a smaller residential dwelling or
structure representative of the traditional development patterns in the City, result in the
preservation of the cottage character, and comply with the following criteria:
a. The floor area of any addition, together with the floor area of the existing structure,
shall not exceed the allowed maximum floor area for the coastal zoning district;
b. The addition shall comply with all applicable development standards and use
regulations of this Implementation Plan;
c. The square footage of residential parking area additions identified below shall be
excluded from the allowed expansion under subsection (A)(4), but shall be included as
gross floor area;
Required Parking Maximum Excluded Area
One-car garage 200 square feet, maximum
Two-car garage 400 square feet, maximum
Three-car garage 600 square feet, maximum
d. The height of the resulting structure shall not exceed the following, regardless of roof
pitch:
i. Front half of lot: one story and 16 feet; and
ii. Rear half of lot: two stories and 24 feet.
e. The residential structure shall not include third floor deck; and
f. The addition complies with the limitations of Section 21.38.040(G)(1).
45 71
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE46 72
Attachment No. PC 6
Coastal Zone Map
47 73
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE48 74
TSBanning RanchDeferred Certification AreaNewport Coast Segment(Not A Part)RM-CRM-CRM-CRM-C&LW\RI1HZSRUW%HDFK&DOLIRUQLDI&RDVWDO=RQH 0LOHV/HJHQG/RFDO&RDVWDO3ODQ%RXQGDU\&LW\%RXQGDU\&RDVWDO=RQH$UHD&RDVWDOB=RQHB)HDWXUHGB$UHDVP[G1RYHPEHU4975
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE76
Attachment No. PC 5
October 17, 2019, Draft Planning
Commission Meeting Minutes
77
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE78
Planning Commission Minutes
October 17, 2019
9 of 12
ITEM NO. 4 COTTAGE PRESERVATION CODE AND LCP AMENDMENTS (PA2019-181)
Site Location: Citywide
Summary:
The City is proposing amendments to the Local Coastal Program (Coastal Land Use Plan and
Implementation Plan), Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Title 20 (Planning and Zoning), and Title
15 (Building and Construction) to provide an option to preserve traditional beach cottages. Typically,
cottages do not provide all the code-required parking and additions are limited to 10 percent of the existing
floor area. The amendments would allow larger additions of up to 50 percent of the existing floor area
without providing the minimum code-required parking when the project would result in the preservation of
the cottage character and building envelope that is representative of traditional development patterns in
the City. Eligible projects would also receive relief from a building code valuation threshold requiring
building code compliance as new construction.
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;
3.Adopt Resolution No. PC2019-033 recommending the City Council approve Code Amendment
No. CA2019-006; and
4.Adopt Resolution No. PC2019-034 recommending the City Council authorize staff to submit Local
Coastal Program Amendment No. LC2019-004 to the California Coastal Commission.
Principal Planner Jaime Murillo reported in May 2019, the City Council directed staff to prepare Code
amendments in response to community concerns about the loss of cottages and developments replacing
cottages. The Code amendments pertain to reducing third floor massing; reducing the height and bulk of
single- and two-family development projects within the Multiple Unit Residential (RM) Zoning District; and
incentives to preserve cottages.
Principal Planner Murillo further reported that staff conducted a community meeting on August 19, 2019, to
share proposed amendments. Public comments at the meeting indicated demolishing and building a new
home is easier than remodeling a cottage because of existing Code requirements. The community preferred
incentives rather than restrictions of property rights to achieve cottage preservation. The community seemed
to support allowing increased floor area for nonconforming structures if it resulted in preservation of cottages.
Principal Planner Murillo went on to state that the draft amendment defines cottages as existing smaller
residential structures that tend to be one or two units and that are representative of traditional development
patterns common in Corona del Mar, the Balboa Peninsula, and Balboa Island. Cottages are typically one
story but may have a second story at the rear of the structure. The use of cottages has changed from a second
home to a primary residence. Cottages typically are nonconforming because they have zero or one parking
space, when two parking spaces are currently required. The Zoning Code limits an addition to an existing
nonconforming structure due to parking requirements to 10 percent of existing floor area, which precludes
many remodel projects. The Building Code requires a homeowner to bring the entire structure into compliance
with the current Building Code if the cost of a project is more than 50 percent of the replacement value of the
structure excluding the land value. Often, demolishing and building a new structure is less expensive than
remodeling.
Principal Planner Murillo indicated that staff proposes incentives to increase the 10-percent limit to 50 percent
for existing nonconforming structures and to exempt cottages from the 50-percent replacement value
threshold. The exemption would not apply to structures located in special flood hazard areas. In exchange
for the incentives, the front half of the lot would be restricted to a one-story structure no more than 16 feet in
height, and the back half of the lot would be restricted to a two-story structure no more than 24 feet in height.
Third floors and third-floor decks would not be allowed. A deed restriction would be required for current and
subsequent property owners to maintain the cottage; however, if the property owner decided to redevelop the
79
Planning Commission Minutes
October 17, 2019
10 of 12
property in the future consistent with the Zoning Code standards in effect at that time, they would be permitted
to demolish the cottage and redevelop the property.
Principal Planner Murillo indicates that staff has received comments expressing concerns about allowing
expansions for nonconforming structures when the availability of on-street parking is already limited. The
remodel project will have to fit within the form -based building envelope proposed, which will constrain the
property owner from over-building a site. A great deal of flexibility is needed to achieve preservation of
cottages; however, the 50-percent allowance could be reduced. Alternatively, the 50-percent allowance could
be maintained, but an addition could be capped at 750 square feet. The total floor area could also be limited
to no more than 75 percent of the maximum allowed. As proposed, the amendment could apply to a 10-unit
building. Therefore, staff recommends the amendment apply only to single-family duplexes, duplexes, or
triplexes. In addition, staff recommends the amendment prohibit short-term rentals through the required deed
restriction. Second-floor decks are common amenities throughout Corona del Mar and Balboa Island and
should be allowed. Next steps include City Council review of proposed amendments, submission of proposed
amendments to the California Coastal Commission for review and approval, and City Council adoption.
Vice Chair Weigand expressed concern that cottages in each area of the City are slightly different such that a
one-size-fits-all approach to preservation may not be appropriate. He suggested continuing the item so that
additional outreach can be conducted with stakeholders and the community.
Commissioner Kleiman could not envision a scenario where a property owner would deed restrict his property
such that the resale value would be limited. She did not support the amendment as drafted. Presenting the
amendment to the Coastal Commission would be a waste of time.
In response to Chair Koetting's inquiry, Principal Planner Murillo advised that the architectural style of existing
cottages varies. The form is more important than the style of the cottage. The property owner could employ
a Mid-Century Modern style as long as the structure complies with the required form and height limit.
Principal Planner Murillo explained that compliance with the preservation ordinance would be voluntary. If the
property owner wants to redevelop the property compliant with the Code, staff would remove the deed
restriction. The deed restriction is intended to prevent a property owner from utilizing the incentives and
subsequently proposing a second-story addition at the front of the structure. The deed restriction would run
for the duration of the structure. Condominiums are prohibited on Balboa Island. The current Code requires
compliance with parking requirements in order to convert existing units to condominiums. Cottages typically
do not conform to parking requirements.
Chair Koetting opened the public hearing.
Charles Klobe believed there is a market for preserved cottages. The community has made no negative
comments about the proposed amendment at community meetings.
Carmen Rawson expressed concern that the amendments would allow a property owner to add two or three
bedrooms to a rental cottage such that there would be multiple tenants and no parking. She wanted the
amendments to apply to single-family units only.
Ken Rawson related that the primary concern is parking. The proposed amendment will only increase parking
congestion. The 50-percent threshold is too much. Parking requirements should be maintained for all but
single-family homes.
Jim Mosher expressed confusion about the calculation of the limit on floor area. The third exception in the
Building Code amendment should be the second exception. He questioned the waiver of Subsections (A)(1)
and (A)(2) in the Local Coastal Program amendment. The City is not complying with Section 13515 of the
California Code of Regulations as stated in Section 1.5 of the Statement of Facts.
Chair Koetting closed the public hearing.
80
Planning Commission Minutes
October 17, 2019
11 of 12
In answer to Commissioner Kleiman's question, Principal Planner Murillo indicated approximately half of the
target areas on Balboa Island and portions of the Peninsula are located in special flood hazard areas.
Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Ellmore to continue the item to a later
date.
Chair Koetting felt the 50-percent limit is too high.
Amended Motion made by Vice Chair Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Ellmore to continue the item
so that staff can draft language applicable to specific areas and reconsider waiving parking requirements for
duplexes and triplexes.
Vice Chair Weigand recommended staff hold community meetings in each area.
Community Development Director Jurjis clarified that staff held a community meeting and presented the issue
as a study session before the City Council. The Council directed staff to carve out requirements for cottages
and to proceed.
AYES: Koetting, Weigand, Ellmore, Klaustermeier, Rosene
NOES: Lowrey, Kleiman
RECUSED:
ABSENT:
VIII.DISCUSSION ITEMS
ITEM NO. 5 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA)
Summary:
Staff will provide a presentation providing an update regarding the Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA) process. The presentation will include the regional determination made by the State Department
of Housing and Community Development and current draft allocation methodology recommended by the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).
Chair Koetting announced the item is continued due to the late hour.
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 the community fair on October 26 will launch the General Plan
Update. The new website for the General Plan Update is now available at newporttogether.com.
Deputy Community Development Director Campbell noted one item, review of the Newport Auto Center, is
scheduled for the November 7 meeting. He suggested scheduling the item to November 21 and canceling the
November 7 meeting. The RHNA presentation and the cottage preservation amendments, if ready, can be
scheduled for November 21.
Community Development Director Jurjis indicated the November 7 meeting will be canceled.
Chair Koetting requested a future agenda item to discuss deadlines for submission of documents.
81
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE82
Attachment No. PC 6
Case Study Comparison
83
INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE84
306 Alvarado Place (yr. 1912)xSingle-Family xHome-1033 SF (3 bedroom 2 bath)xNonconforming parking: 2 required/0 providedx1033 sf x 50% = 516.5 sfx500 sf limit = 48% additionBalboa Peninsula85
410 Belvue Lane (yr. 1951)xSingle-Family (1430 sf total)xHome-990 SF (2 bedroom 1 bath)xGarage- 400 SF (2-car)xNonconforming parking: size of spacesx1430 sf x 50% = 715 sfx500 sf limit = 35% additionBalboa Peninsula86
606 Marguerite Ave (yr. unknown)xDuplex (2018 sf total)xUnit 1- (2 bedroom 1 bath) 874 sf xUnit 2-(1 bedroom 1 bath) 608 sfxGarage-536 sf (2-car) xNonconforming parking: 4 required/2 providedx2018 sf x 50% = 1009 sfx500 sf limit = 25% additionCorona del Mar87
425 Orchid Ave (yr. 1948)xDuplex (2165 sf total)xUnit 1- 1125sf (2 bedroom 1 bath)xUnit 2-627 sf (1 bedroom 1 bath) xGarage- 413 sf (2-car)xNonconforming parking: 4 required/2 providedx2165 sf x 50% = 1082.5 sfx500 sf limit = 23% additionCorona del Mar88
600 Balboa Ave (yr. 1939)xDuplex (1756 sf total)xUnit 1- 934sf (2 bedroom 1 bath)xUnit 2- 411 sf (1 bedroom 1 bath) xGarage- 411 sf (2-car) xNonconforming parking: 4 required/2 providedx1756 sf x 50% = 878 sfx500 sf limit = 28% addition2ndunit aboveBalboa Island89
314 Sapphire Ave (yr. 1941)xDuplex (2325 sf total)xUnit 1- 1163sf (2 bedroom 2 bath) xUnit 2- 676 sf (2 bedroom 1 bath) xGarage- 486 sf (2-car)xNonconforming parking: 4 required/2 providedx2325 sf x 50% = 1162.5 sfx500 sf limit = 22% additionBalboa Island90
539 Tustin Avenue (yr. 1946)xSingle-Family (1586 sf total)xHome- 1191 sf (3 bedroom 2 bath)xGarage- 395 sfxNonconforming parking: size of spacesx1586 sf x 50% = 793 sfx500 sf limit = 32% additionNewport Heights91
504 Fullerton Avenue (yr. 1946)xSingle-Family (2612 sf total)xHome- 1421 sf (2 bedroom 2 bath)xStudio- 368 sfxGarage- 393 sf (2-car)xNonconforming parking: size of spacesx2612 sf x 50% = 1306 sfx500 sf limit = 19% additionNewport Heights92
From:Lee, Amanda
To:Rodriguez, Clarivel
Subject:FW: Planning Commission Public Hearing November 21, 2019 - Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments
(PA2019-181)
Date:Thursday, November 21, 2019 11:52:40 AM
From: Carmen Rawson <carmen_rawson@att.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 10:41 AM
To: Murillo, Jaime <JMurillo@newportbeachca.gov>
Cc: Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey,
Lee <llowrey@newportbeachca.gov>; Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov>;
Campbell, Jim <JCampbell@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis, Seimone <sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Planning Commission Public Hearing November 21, 2019 - Cottage Preservation Code and
LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Good morning Jaime,
I realize that this message is being sent to you at the very last minute but better now than never. There
are two issues I would like to bring up regarding the subject:
1.Additions to a dwelling to comply with property set backs
I have noticed some "cottage" dwellings in the city are built into the corresponding lot setbacks (legal non-
conforming units). If an existing dwelling is non-conforming because it is built protruding into a setback I
believe a remodeling/addition, under a cottage preservation project, should not be allowed to be located
protruding into any of the lot setback areas.
2.Existing garages being used as living space to revert back to being used as a garage
I have noticed some existing "cottage" dwellings that have an existing garage, but a closer look of the
garage door indicates the door has been permanently sealed meaning the garage area has been
unofficially converted to "living space". As part of a cottage preservation project I believe an existing
garage that is being used as living space shall be reverted back to be used as a garage.
Please take these two comments into consideration as part of the subject code amendments.
Regards,
Carmen Rawson
Balboa Peninsula Resident
Planning Commission - November 21, 2019
Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
November 21, 2019, Planning Commission Item 4 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. 4. COTTAGE PRESERVATION CODE AND LCP AMENDMENTS
(PA2019-181)
The following changes are suggested:
Page 1: The “Project Summary” says “The amendments would allow larger additions (up to 50
percent of the existing floor area or 500 square feet, whichever is greater) …” I believe it meant
“less”. Less trivially, it is unclear if the 500 sf limit is to be understood as a cumulative
lifetime cap on the entitlement or the amount that can be added at one time. That is, does a
previous 500 sf addition preclude any future one even if the structure would stay within the
“cottage” form described in the code? (for comparison, the “normal” rule in NBMC Sec.
20.38.040.G governing additions to non-conforming structures is “limited to a maximum of fifty (50)
percent of the gross floor area of the existing structure within any ten (10) year period”)
Page 16, under “Exceptions”: “1. This provision does not apply for permit valuations less than
$209,000 $220,700;”
[On November 19, the City Council conducted the second reading and adopted Ordinance No.
2019-17, which revised the number as shown. The present recommendation would revert the
valuation exemption to the prior number. I doubt that is intended as part of this. If so, it is not
mentioned in the staff report.]
Page 17, under “3”: “Exception for Cottage Preservation. Notwithstanding the provisions of
subsections (A)(1)(b) and (A)(2)(b) of this section, additions of up to fifty (50) percent of the existing
floor area of the structure, but no more than 500 square feet, are permitted for projects that
remodel and expand a smaller residential dwelling, dupex duplex, or triplex that is
representative of the traditional development patterns in the City, result in the preservation
of the cottage character, and comply with the following criteria:”
[The purpose of the ordinance seems to be to allow a ministerial approval of certain cottage
improvement projects which might currently require a discretionary action, such as a variance.
As such, I believe the approval has to be based on objective criteria, specifically the building
form specified in subpart “d.” Deciding what is “smaller” or “representative” or in “character”
sound highly subjective. The relevance of the same words in the similarly proposed modification
to the LCP Implementation Plan is different, since in that case these subjective criteria may be
important factors in deciding if a Coastal Development Permit is merited.]
Page 18, top of page: “c. The square footage of residential parking area additions identified below
shall be excluded from the allowed expansion under subsection (A)(3), but shall be included as
gross floor area;”
[“Gross floor area” is not referred to anywhere else in the proposed ordinance, so without further
explanation I am unable to attach any significance to the words indicated. They do not seem to
affect the calculation of what is allowed.]
Planning Commission - November 21, 2019
Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
November 21, 2019, PC agenda Item 4 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2
Page 18, middle of page: “e. The residential structure shall not include a third floor deck;”
Page 21, Section 1.2: The suggestion that Newport Beach did not have a Coastal Land Use Plan
prior to 2005 is a bit misleading. Although the City adopted an extensively revised Coastal Land
Use Plan in 2005 (see Resolution No. 2005-64), as that explains, it has had a certified CLUP since
1982 (see Resolution No. 82-25).
Page 21, Section 1.5: Regarding compliance with 14 CCR § 13515, the Notice of Availability and
proposed text distributed on October 4, 2019, is not what the Commission is currently considering.
I don’t believe a copy of the most recently proposed cottage preservation LCP amendment was
made available for public review at the public libraries (the only version they have appears to be
from prior to October 17 hearing), nor, to the best of my knowledge, has a new Notice of
Availability announcing the revised text been posted on the City website (not a legal requirement
until January 1).
Page 24, proposed Policy 2.9.3-8: Not only does this not inform the Coastal Commission of the
500 square foot limitation, but it is not a clear policy statement since neither “the cottage character
of the development” nor the “building envelope representative of traditional cottage development
patterns in the City” are defined or even described in the Land Use Plan. It seems to me the
intent of the policy cannot be understood without adding something to the CLUP narrative.
Page 25, middle of page: “3. Alley Access. Where applicable, residential development involving
repairs, alterations, and additions to residential development having less than the required number
of parking spaces per dwelling unit shall provide alley access to the parking area if it would result
in additional public street parking.”
[?? – I continue to be uncertain what word or words are missing from this passage in the
existing code.]
Page 25, bottom of page: “c. The square footage of residential parking area additions identified
below shall be excluded from the allowed expansion under subsection (A)(4), but shall be
included as gross floor area;”
[see comment on page 15, above]
Page 26, middle of page: “e. The residential structure shall not include a third floor deck;”
Planning Commission - November 21, 2019
Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received After Deadline
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Cottage Preservation
Proposed Code Amendments
Planning
Commission
November 21, 2019
Planning Commission - November 21, 2019
Item No. 4b Additional Materials Presented At Meeting - Staff
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Loss of
Cottages
Problem
Community Development Department -Planning Division 2Cottage Redevelopment
Planning Commission - November 21, 2019
Item No. 4b Additional Materials Presented At Meeting - Staff
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Loss of
Cottages
Problem
Community Development Department -Planning Division 3
Planning Commission - November 21, 2019
Item No. 4b Additional Materials Presented At Meeting - Staff
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 4
Smaller residential structures, one or two-unit developments
Representative of traditional development patterns
Typically one story, except for small second story above parking in rear
Planning Commission - November 21, 2019
Item No. 4b Additional Materials Presented At Meeting - Staff
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 5
City restrictions encouraging demolition of cottages
Nonconforming Parking
Additions to existing homes limited to 10%
Building Code limitations
Planning Commission - November 21, 2019
Item No. 4b Additional Materials Presented At Meeting - Staff
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Side View
1st Floor
Proposed Incentives
Increase allowed additions for nonconforming structures due to parking from
10% to 50%
Exempt from Building Code valuation thresholds that trigger full Building Code
compliance (*not applicable in special floor hazard area)
10%
25
Planning Commission - November 21, 2019
Item No. 4b Additional Materials Presented At Meeting - Staff
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Side View
1st Floor
2nd Floor
50%
16’ max
Rear half of lot
24’ max
25
What qualifies for cottage preservation?
•16’ max single-story
•24’ max 2nd story
•2nd story limited to rear half
•No third floor
•No third floor decks
•Deed restriction
Form Based
Qualifications
Planning Commission - November 21, 2019
Item No. 4b Additional Materials Presented At Meeting - Staff
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 8
Before
Planning Commission - November 21, 2019
Item No. 4b Additional Materials Presented At Meeting - Staff
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 9
After
Planning Commission - November 21, 2019
Item No. 4b Additional Materials Presented At Meeting - Staff
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 10
Planning Commission - November 21, 2019
Item No. 4b Additional Materials Presented At Meeting - Staff
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Planning
Commission
Continuance
October 17, 2019
Community Development Department -Planning Division 11
Planning Commission - November 21, 2019
Item No. 4b Additional Materials Presented At Meeting - Staff
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Applicability
No restriction on unit
count
Revision: Applies to developments of 3
units or less
Community Development Department -Planning Division 12
Cottage Triplexes on
Marguerite Ave
Planning Commission - November 21, 2019
Item No. 4b Additional Materials Presented At Meeting - Staff
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Maximum
Addition
50% addition is
excessive in some cases
Revision: 50% addition, up to 500 sf max
Community Development Department -Planning Division 13
Rationale
1.Flexibility needed to allow for a realistic alternative
2.Maximum cap limits large additions
3.Must still fit form-based building envelope
Example
1.Small SFR cottage (900 sf x 50%= 450 sf) = 450 sf
2.Larger duplex cottage (2,325 sf x 50% = 1162.5 sf); limited to 500sf (22%)
Planning Commission - November 21, 2019
Item No. 4b Additional Materials Presented At Meeting - Staff
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Short-Term
Rental
May be used to
expand short-
term rental use
Community Development Department -Planning Division 14
Revision: Precludes use of cottage for short-term
rentals through deed restriction
Planning Commission - November 21, 2019
Item No. 4b Additional Materials Presented At Meeting - Staff
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Recommended
Action
Adopt Resolution No. PC2019-033 (Code
Amendment)
Adopt Resolution No. PC2019-034 (LCP
Amendment)
Community Development Department -Planning Division 15
Planning Commission - November 21, 2019
Item No. 4b Additional Materials Presented At Meeting - Staff
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Next Steps
City Council review
Submit LCP Amendment to
California Coastal Commission (CCC)
City Council adoption after CCC
approval
Community Development Department -Planning Division 16
Planning Commission - November 21, 2019
Item No. 4b Additional Materials Presented At Meeting - Staff
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)
Jaime Murillo, AICP
Principal Planner
949-644-3209
jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov
Community Development Department -Planning Division 17
Planning Commission - November 21, 2019
Item No. 4b Additional Materials Presented At Meeting - Staff
Cottage Preservation Code and LCP Amendments (PA2019-181)