Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-09-2021 - Planning CommissionNEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2021 REGULAR MEETING – 6:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER – The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Vice Chair Kleiman III. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Lee Lowrey, Vice Chair Lauren Kleiman, Secretary Curtis Ellmore, Commissioner Peter Koetting, Commissioner Mark Rosene, Commissioner Erik Weigand (arrived at 6:32 p.m.) ABSENT: Commissioner Sarah Klaustermeier Staff Present: Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine, Principal Planner Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner David Lee, Assistant Planner Patrick Achis, Administrative Assistant Clarivel Rodriguez, Department Assistant Amanda Lee IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS JT Parr wanted to raise awareness of trees being cut down in the Amazon rainforest and urged the Council to do the same. Chad Kroeger suggested planting avocado trees as an easy way to benefit the environment. Chair Lowrey acknowledged Commissioner Koetting's birthday. V. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES None VI. CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF AUGUST 19, 2021 Recommended Action: Approve and file Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Vice Chair Kleiman to approve the minutes of the August 19, 2021, meeting with Mr. Mosher's proposed edits. AYES: Ellmore, Kleiman, Koetting, Lowrey, Rosene, and Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Klaustermeier VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 HOAG DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 10-YEAR EXTENSION (PA2021-184) Site Location: 1 Hoag Drive Summary: The City and Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (“Hoag”) entered into a Development Agreement (“Agreement”) in 1994 to ensure the orderly development of the hospital over time. Hoag requests a fifth amendment to extend the Term of the Agreement an additional 10 years to September 15, 2040, in exchange for certain community public benefits. The Agreement grants Hoag the vested right to develop the hospital campus consistent with an extensive set of regulations and mitigation measures, all of which would remain unchanged by this proposed fifth amendment. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes September 9, 2021 2 of 11 Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Find all significant environmental concerns for the proposed project have been addressed in a previously certified Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Supplemental EIR, and that the City of Newport Beach intends to use said document for the above noted project, and further that there are no additional reasonable alternative or mitigation measures that should be considered in conjunction with said project; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2021-026 approving recommending City Council adoption of Development Agreement No. DA2021-001 amending Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 5 to extend the Term of the Agreement by an additional ten (10) years Secretary Ellmore recused himself from the item due to a conflict of interest. Assistant Planner Patrick Achis reported the original 1994 Development Agreement (DA) granted vested rights to develop the hospital campus consistent with extensive regulations and mitigation measures. The DA was amended in 2008 to allow flexibility in locating Hoag-related uses and in 2019 and 2020 to extend the term. The current amendment proposes to extend the DA term from September 15, 2030, to September 15, 2040, so that Hoag Hospital has time to respond to the dynamic nature of healthcare and advances in technology. In exchange, Hoag proposes to provide $3 million over these ten years to the City to provide support and resources for those experiencing homelessness in the City. The proposed $3 million payment is in addition to the $3 million payment contained in the 2019 amendment. The proposed amendment also requires Hoag to submit a conceptual plan to the City Council in 2030 to ensure Hoag proceeds with executing its development rights. No other provisions of the DA are affected by the current proposal. All Commissioners disclosed no ex parte communications. Chair Lowrey opened the public hearing. Sanford Smith, Hoag Hospital Vice President of Real Estate and Facilities, noted that Hoag Hospital has partnered with the City of Newport Beach since 1952 and responded to community needs with clinical programs. The DA allows Hoag to respond nimbly to the ever-changing needs of healthcare. In response to Commissioner Koetting's questions, Mr. Smith advised that there are currently no plans for employee housing. The challenge with employee housing is building a sufficient number of units to benefit all employees equitably. Chair Lowrey closed the public hearing. Motion made by Commissioner Koetting and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to recommend the City Council approve the proposed extension of the Development Agreement. AYES: Kleiman, Koetting, Lowrey, Rosene, and Weigand NOES: None RECUSED: Ellmore ABSENT: Klaustermeier ITEM NO. 3 BSP BRISTOL, LLC MEDICAL OFFICES (PA2020-052) Site Location: 1400 and 1420 North Bristol Street Summary: A condominium conversion in conjunction with a tentative parcel map to convert two existing two-story office buildings to medical office condominiums, creating between 22 to 30 ownership units. The applicant is also requesting a modification permit for the use of car lifts and a conditional use permit for the reduction of 21 on-site parking spaces to accommodate the conversion to medical office. Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes September 9, 2021 3 of 11 2. This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 under Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and 3. Adopt Resolution No. PC2021-027 approving Condominium Conversion No. CC2020-002, Tentative Parcel Map No. NP2020-003, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2020-185, Modification Permit No. MD2021-002, and Traffic Study No. TS2021-001. Associate Planner David Lee reported the Planning Commission reviewed the project on June 3, 2021. A conditional use permit (CUP) is required for a parking reduction. The applicant's request to provide condominiums requires a condominium conversion and a Tentative Parcel Map. A traffic study is required because the project exceeds the threshold of 300 average daily trips. The applicant has modified the project to include parking lifts, which requires a modification permit. Associate Planner Lee went on to indicate the project site is located on the corner of North Bristol Street and Spruce Street. The General Plan designates the site as general commercial office, and the site is zoned PC-11 (Newport Place), specifically Industrial Site 3A. The site contains approximately 103,000 square feet, and existing offices contain 37,515 square feet. Office uses are located on the block and across the street. The site was developed in 1978 with compact parking spaces and narrow drive aisles, which do not comply with current Code requirements. The applicant proposes to widen drive aisles to comply with requirements, replace compact parking spaces with angle parking, add an appropriate number of Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) spaces, and install 17 parking lifts to provide additional parking spaces. Associate Planner Lee further indicated the Planning Commission has discretion to require additional screening of the upper level of the lifts. Condition of Approval 12 requires screening that satisfies the Community Development Director's requirements. A vegetation wall will screen the rear of the lifts. With parking lifts, parking complies with the parking requirement for the current professional office use pursuant to the Zoning Code. However, conversion to medical office use results in a deficiency of 21 parking spaces. The applicant requests a CUP to waive 21 parking spaces. The applicant's parking study concludes that the appropriate parking requirement is 3.87 spaces per 1,000 square feet of medical office. In 2019, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) promulgated a requirement of 3.9 spaces per 1,000 square feet of medical and dental offices. The applicant’s parking study found parking demand for 145 spaces during key times, which is 87 percent of the 167 existing parking spaces. The applicant proposes a phased approach by halting improvements and submitting a parking study once 70 percent of existing space has been converted to medical offices to verify the parking assumptions to see if the parking study remains applicable. If the data and parking study remain applicable to the site, the applicant may proceed with conversion of the remaining 30 percent of space. Staff is comfortable with the proposal because onsite parking will be sufficient and the parking lot will be functional for medical offices occupying 70 percent of the total space. The traffic study analyzed 13 intersections and concluded that they will continue to operate at satisfactory levels of service and that no improvements are necessary. In reply to Commissioner Koetting's inquiries, Associate Planner Lee advised that the Utility Department reviewed the requested waiver of individual water and sewer connections and they support the waiver. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) will control the division of costs among units. Previous projects proposing to convert space to condominiums for commercial uses have included a waiver of individual connections. Deputy Community Development Director Jim Campbell explained that staff will monitor conversion of space through the plan check process. The proposed phased approach is not typical but should not be difficult to monitor. The project at 441 Old Newport Boulevard (a similar medical office conversion) did not have such a requirement and did not include a condominium conversion. In answer to Chair Lowrey's query, Associate Planner Lee indicated a utility bill is typically sent to the property owner or property manager who divides the cost among tenants. Chair Lowery requested Commissioner reports of ex parte communications. Commissioner Rosene disclosed conversations with the applicant and an adjacent landowner. Vice Chair Kleiman disclosed a conversation with the applicant's consultant and correspondence with staff. Commissioner Koetting disclosed a conversation with the applicant's consultant, a visit to 441 Old Newport, and a conversation with a tenant of 441 Old Newport. Secretary Ellmore disclosed no ex parte communications. Chair Lowrey disclosed a conversation with the applicant's consultant. Commissioner Weigand disclosed conversations with the applicant's consultant and the owner of 1401 Quail. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes September 9, 2021 4 of 11 Chair Lowrey opened the public hearing. Matt Haugen, applicant representative, related that the subject site is a prime location for medical offices. The existing buildings have not been improved since their construction. He shared images of the existing buildings and renderings of the refurbished buildings. In June, the project proposed 150 parking spaces, which resulted in a deficiency of 38 spaces, and Commissioners encouraged the applicant to increase parking. Offsite parking is not an option as other properties do not have excess parking. The cost of a parking structure is prohibitive. After talking with the owner of 441 Old Newport and the parking lift manufacturer, the applicant evaluated and proposed parking lifts for the project. The parking lifts are located away from public rights-of-way with the valet station located at the rear of the lifts. The lifts will be utilized by medical professionals and their staff only. Landscape enhancements include 23 new trees around the perimeter of the site, 10 new trees at entrances, and 11 new trees in parking islands. The condominiums will be targeted to medical professionals who work by appointment. Outpatient surgery facilities have shown interest in ground-floor space. Because the parking requirement for such facilities is four spaces per 1,000 square feet, they are viable options for ownership. In answer to Vice Chair Kleiman's questions, Mr. Haugen explained that in considering the purchase of the site, the applicant made various underwriting assumptions based on different scenarios because approval of a specific scenario is not guaranteed. The lifts will cost between $400,000 to $500,000. The cost of a valet service will be a component of the association's operating expenses. In reply to Commissioner Koetting's questions, Mr. Haugen indicated that total office space is around 26,000 square feet. The average size of an office space will be 2,000 to 4,000 square feet. Not just any medical use will be targeted for ownership. There will probably be a total number of 45 to 50 employees for the site. The applicant is concerned about density of use, and the association will evaluate potential owners and approve space plans. Employees will leave their vehicles with the valet who will park the cars in the lifts. When the lower parking space is empty, the lift platform will be on the ground level. The valet will back a vehicle onto the platform, exit the vehicle, and raise the platform and the vehicle to the upper level. When a car on the upper level is needed, the valet will move the vehicle in the lower space to another location, lower the lift, and drive the car to its owner. If there is concern about a parking deficiency when 70 percent of conversions are complete, another 21 lifts can be installed. In response to Commissioner Weigand's inquiries, Mr. Haugen stated that with the phased approach, the remaining 30 percent may be general office uses. The 1400 Building provides about 70 percent of the total square footage, and space in the 1400 Building could be converted and sold first. Projects with a mixture of medical office and general office uses are not uncommon. If the City limits the project to 70 percent medical office uses, additional lifts will not be necessary. Medical offices could occupy 70 percent of the space in 12 to 15 months, at which time the six-month period pertaining to the parking study would begin. Vegetation can be installed to form a barrier to adjacent parking lots. Prior to closing the valet station, a valet will remove vehicles from the lifts and return keys to the appropriate offices. Employees arriving prior to the valet station opening will park in the drop-off area, and the valet will use license plate numbers to identify the owners and obtain keys to the vehicles in order to move vehicles to the lifts. One person will likely be employed as the valet, but a second person could be employed when needed. The lift load for the second level is 6,000 pounds, which means larger vehicles will be parked on the lower level. The valet should have time to monitor the parking lot for parking deficiencies and vehicles parking in adjacent lots. Offsite parking, even if only a few spaces, can be considered. In 2019, the existing 154-space parking lot was 96 percent occupied with both buildings fully leased. In answer to Commissioner Rosene's queries, Mr. Haugen related that additional parking lifts could provide the required 188 parking spaces. The parking study found that the proposed lifts should result in a parking surplus. At the 70 percent point, the parking study will provide actual data to determine if additional lifts are necessary. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell added that staff does not wish to require the applicant to invest in additional lifts if they are not warranted. Commissioner Koetting assumed that current tenants will remain until their spaces are sold. Therefore, the buildings could be 100 percent occupied prior to conversion of 70 percent of the space. A parking deficiency of 22 spaces is a lot. He expressed skepticism regarding the lift concept and felt the site would be overdeveloped and under-parked for medical uses. Youssef Ibrahim, 1420 Bristol Street, expressed concern that construction will disrupt his business. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes September 9, 2021 5 of 11 Jim Light, 1401 Quail Street, expressed concern that visitors to the project site will utilize the parking lot for his building and preferred the project provide required parking. Marketing material for the sale of the property indicated 42,000 square feet in office space. Because the parking requirement is based on square footage, the correct square footage for the buildings should be calculated. In answer to Chair Lowrey's question, Mr. Haugen indicated work will begin on the facade first. Work will not be performed on occupied interior spaces. Construction could begin as soon as a few months following approval. Disruptions for existing tenants will be minimized as much as possible. In reply to Secretary Ellmore's inquiries, Philip Greer, applicant consultant, explained that the parking deficiency will be two spaces with a mix of 70 percent medical office and 30 percent general office uses. Associate Planner Lee clarified that without any parking lifts, the deficiency is two spaces. Mr. Haugen preferred to utilize the second parking study to determine if additional parking lifts are needed. City parking data has found that less parking is needed than the Code requires. In response to Commissioner Koetting's queries, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported the Zoning Code standards are one space for every 200 gross square feet of medical office use and one space for every 225 gross square feet of office use. The standard for office decreases to one space for every 250 square feet with approval of a modification permit. At least six months after 70 percent of the space is occupied by medical office uses, a parking study will be conducted to determine the actual parking demand. If demand emulates the data, there should be excess spaces in the parking lot, and the remaining 30 percent of space may be converted to medical office use. Mr. Haugen indicated that the project includes parking lifts. In answer to Chair Lowrey's query, City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine advised that the applicant's current parking study is valid. In reply to Commissioner Koetting's inquiry, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell related that staff is preparing an update to parking standards. Parking standards are a predictor of demand, and the standard for medical office use often requires more parking than is needed. In response to Commissioner Weigand's questions, City Traffic Engineer Brine stated that the ITE parking generation manual indicates peak hours are 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. The parking study is consistent with those hours. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that staff will not issue any tenant improvements (TIs) for medical use once the initial build out reaches 70 percent. If parking is a problem at that point, the owners will have to notify tenants that further conversion to medical will not be allowed. Condition of Approval 10 could be revised to state "a parking study shall be submitted no earlier than six months after certificates of occupancy have been obtained for medical office uses for 70 percent of the building." Review by the Community Development Director is appropriate. The Community Development Director can also provide the Planning Commission with a report of findings from the parking study rather than the Planning Commission holding a formal hearing to review the study. Mr. Greer added that CC&Rs will require a unit sold as an office space to obtain a CUP to convert to a medical office. Vice Chair Kleiman remarked that the project does not appear to be economically viable. The Planning Commission continues to try to figure out how to make the project viable. After the June hearing, she anticipated that the applicant would modify the use or provide offsite parking. There are a number of practical issues with parking lifts. She preferred the applicant eliminate the phased approach and propose either one use for 100 percent of the space or a 70/30 split between two uses. A combination of outpatient surgical facilities and offsite parking is more of a solution to the parking problem than lifts. Mr. Greer reported the applicant has considered many options. Because of the physical layout of the space, the phased approach is the best option. The phased approach allows the Planning Commission or staff to avoid over-parking the project. Commissioner Koetting concurred with Vice Chair Kleiman's comments. The site does not provide the required 188 parking spaces with lifts. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell agreed that 100 percent medical office use will result in a parking deficit even with lifts. Commissioner Koetting preferred the applicant reduce the percentage of medical use so that a parking waiver is not needed. Otherwise, every project will seek a parking waiver. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes September 9, 2021 6 of 11 Chair Lowrey closed the public hearing. Chair Lowrey noted the increasing demand for medical office space and understood Commissioner Koetting's concern about waiving parking standards. Condition of Approval 10 provides assurance that compliance with parking standards will be monitored. Commissioner Weigand agreed that Condition of Approval 10 provides some protection. The lift is a gamble for the applicant. A condition of approval for a landscape border is needed. Condition of Approval 16 needs to provide the valet with authority or require a security service to require use of the lifts, monitor parking demand, and prevent visitors to the site from utilizing adjacent parking lots. Commissioner Koetting noted that the conditions of approval do not prohibit urgent care services. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised that Condition of Approval 11 addresses urgent care services. Commissioner Rosene reiterated the validity of the parking study and the phased approach. Lifts create operational concerns, and staff will have to monitor the situation. He expressed concern about compliance with parking requirements but noted that the traffic study indicates the requirement may be reduced. Secretary Ellmore concurred with Commissioner Rosene's comments. Condition of Approval 10 could require authorization by the Planning Commission rather than the Community Development Director. In reply to Commissioner Weigand's questions, Assistant City Attorney Yolanda Summerhill reported the Planning Commission may limit conversion to 70 percent of total space if it can make the appropriate findings and if the applicant agrees. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell added that additional lifts may be a solution if parking demand exceeds available parking. Commissioner Weigand suggested the Planning Commission discuss installation of additional lifts if the applicant uses the parking study to disagree with the Community Development Director's determination to cap conversion at 70 percent. Vice Chair Kleiman reiterated her concerns about the project's economic viability and use of the lifts. The Commission may not be setting the project up for success. Chair Lowrey reiterated that the Planning Commission may approve the additional 30 percent conversion with additional conditions of approval or deny additional conversion. Vice Chair Kleiman noted that the parking lift will remain if the Commission denies additional conversion. Commissioner Weigand clarified that if the lifts are not being utilized, the site is overparked. Chair Lowrey reopened the public hearing. Mr. Greer agreed to additional conditions of approval discussed by the Commission. Landscape barriers and additional valet staff are acceptable. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell proposed Condition of Approval 16 indicate valet shall be "adequately" staffed and preferred not to dictate a specific number of valet staff. The applicant and the property manager will likely adjust staffing in real time. Staff can evaluate valet staffing as part of the parking study. Commissioner Weigand proposed adding a condition indicating security will enforce staff's use of the lifts and ensure visitors to the site do not park in adjacent parking lots. Chair Lowrey agreed with not stating a specific number of valet staff. In response to Vice Chair Kleiman's query, Mr. Greer concurred with not installing a lift for the initial build out because 70 percent occupancy will result in a deficit of two parking spaces. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes September 9, 2021 7 of 11 In answer to Commissioner Weigand's question, Mr. Greer indicated that 65 percent conversion will eliminate the two-car deficit. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell advised Commissioners to deny the modification permit if they do not want lifts. If the Commission denies the CUP for a parking waiver, the applicant would be free to convert the building to the point at which parking complies with requirements. However, approval of the traffic study would still be needed. The Planning Commission should be able to make the findings to approve 70 percent conversion without lifts and with a waiver of two parking spaces based on parking demand information for 100 percent conversion. In reply to Commissioner Koetting's query, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell related that the parking lot, once it is modified to comply with Code requirements, will provide 150 parking spaces. Chair Lowrey recessed the meeting at 8:40 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:47 p.m. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported that existing parking does not comply with the parking requirement for general office, and a parking waiver will be required for any conversion. Staff recommends modifying Condition of Approval 10 as discussed or limiting conversion to 70 percent of total space. Staff believes there are sufficient facts to support the project as proposed. If the Commission limits conversion to 70 percent and the applicant later determines that 70 percent conversion does not result in parking problems, the applicant can apply for an amendment to the permit in order to convert the remainder of the building. Staff does not recommend approval of 100 percent of the building without parking lifts based on the existing parking information. Staff continues to support the phased approach. If the Planning Commission objects to the lifts, limiting medical to 70 percent would be prudent. The parking demand analysis supports the project with 150 surface parking spaces and 70 percent medical. Mr. Greer indicated a limit of 70 percent medical is acceptable. The applicant prefers a limit of 70 percent medical without lifts. Jim Light supported reducing the percentage of medical and installing lifts. Staff needs time to provide accurate numbers, and the parties need time to consider the numbers. Chair Lowrey closed the public hearing. Chair Lowrey believed the percentage of medical needs to be less than 70 percent for the project to provide the required parking. Commissioner Weigand inquired about the Commission's support for reducing medical to 60 percent in order to approve the project during the current meeting. City Traffic Engineer Brine advised that without lifts parking for 50 percent medical would not comply with Code requirements. Secretary Ellmore stated a continuance will allow the applicant to modify the project in response to the Commission's concerns. Motion made by Commissioner Koetting and seconded by Secretary Ellmore to continue the item to the October 7, 2021, meeting. AYES: Ellmore, Kleiman, Koetting, Rosene NOES: Lowrey, Weigand ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Klaustermeier Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes September 9, 2021 8 of 11 VIII. STUDY SESSION: ITEM NO. 4 CODE UPDATE RELATED TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (PA2021-113) Site Location: Citywide Summary: Staff will provide the Planning Commission an overview of the existing Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations and explain how ADUs can be used as strategy to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocations. Per City Council’s direction to promote the permitting of ADUs, staff is asking for the Planning Commission’s input on potential amendments to facilitate and encourage new ADU development within the City. Recommended Action: Receive presentation and provide staff direction regarding proposed amendments. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported the City has been working to implement ADU regulations consistent with State law. A strategy within the Housing Element Update is to utilize ADUs to produce a significant amount of housing. The Council supports incentives and other means to increase the production of ADUs. The Planning Commission may wish to form an ad hoc committee to review the regulations in depth. Principal Planner Jaime Murillo advised that the key difference between a junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) and an ADU is that a JADU is viewed as an extension of the main residence. A JADU is limited in size to 500 square feet, can share a bathroom with the main residence, and can have internal access. The property owner must reside in either the primary unit or the JADU. The maximum size of an ADU is 850 square feet for one bedroom and 1,000 square feet for two bedrooms. Existing living space converted to an ADU is not limited in size. An ADU may be a conversion of existing space, an attached structure, or a detached structure. There is no parking requirement for a JADU. The City may require one parking space for an ADU, but the requirement may be waived if the ADU is located within a half mile walking distance of a bus or transit stop or if the ADU is a conversion. ADUs in multifamily developments, which are defined as two or more units, are allowed in existing developments only. Only existing non-living space in a multifamily development may be converted to ADUs, and the number of permitted ADUs can equal 25 percent of the existing number of units. New ADUs in a multifamily development are limited to two detached ADUs. Prior to 2019, the City did not allow second units within single-family developments. In 2019 and 2020, State laws mandated approval of ADUs and limited cities' ability to regulate them. Staff was directed to modify City regulations to comply with State law but to be as restrictive as possible. The community has been slow to adopt ADUs, and the current trend of production is approximately 25 ADUs per year. The Mariners/Dover Shores neighborhood has provided the most ADUs with 32 due to an apartment complex converting non-living space to create 30 ADUs. The most popular type of ADU is conversion. To comply with the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), the City is focusing on rezoning underutilized land for higher-density infill development. ADUs are an alternative to rezoning land to comply with RHNA, and the City Council has set an aggressive target to plan for 1,000 ADUs in the next eight-year planning cycle. Council Policy K-4 is intended to reduce barriers to the development of housing, and a major component of the policy is to promote ADU development. The Council directed staff and the Planning Commission to amend the Municipal Code to reduce barriers and provide more permissive regulations, to prepare an amnesty program for unpermitted ADUs, to increase public outreach, and to develop pre-approved plans for ADUs. Topics for the Planning Commission's consideration pertain to expanding opportunities for ADU construction in multi-unit developments, providing additional floor area as an incentive, and reducing parking requirements. Developers have expressed interest in constructing ADU additions to existing multi-unit developments and allowing conversion of existing living space to an ADU would benefit an amnesty program. Staff has noted interest in constructing ADUs as part of new multi-unit developments, but the question is whether ADUs should be allowed in new developments with a limited or unlimited number of units. A provision of the Housing Crisis Act, SB 330, prevents the loss of density as part of any new housing development project. Downzoning has created several nonconforming uses, and property owners are caught between SB 330 requirements and local zoning regulations. One solution to the conflict is to allow an ADU as part of a duplex. Currently, a subterranean basement is not included in floor area calculations, but a daylighting basement is included in floor area calculations. Perhaps, a limited exterior access to a subterranean basement that Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes September 9, 2021 9 of 11 houses an ADU should be allowed. State law currently prohibits the City from applying a floor area limit, a coverage limit, or an open space requirement that prevents construction of an 800-square-foot ADU with a maximum height of 16 feet. Staff interprets the law for an existing development that is completely built out as requiring the City to allow construction of an 800-square-foot ADU with a maximum height of 16 feet on a site. However, staff interprets the law for new construction as the ADU's square footage must be included in the overall floor area allowance. The public has questioned the fairness of the two interpretations. Staff is concerned that excluding an ADU's square footage will increase the bulk and mass of new developments. An attached ADU's size is limited to 50 percent of the main unit's size. Removing this size limit will simplify regulations and eliminate a barrier to ADU production. Another possible incentive for ADU production is to allow larger ADUs in areas with larger lot sizes. The City could maintain the base ADU size limits of 850 square feet and 1,000 square feet and allow an increase equal to 20 percent of the lot size up to a maximum of 2,000 square feet. The City has to permit conversion of a garage or carport to an ADU and cannot require replacement parking except in the Coastal Zone when replacement parking is needed to minimize impacts to public access. The current ADU ordinance requires replacement parking in the Coastal Zone, but the Coastal Commission has not yet opined on the requirement. The City may wish to eliminate the requirement. Currently, a detached ADU is limited to a height of 16 feet. A potential incentive is to allow a maximum height of 29 feet for a detached ADU if it is built over a garage and the entire development is fully Code compliant. Staff recommends allowing ADU additions and conversions of living space in multi-unit developments, allowing ADUs in new multi-unit developments, allowing no more than one ADU in duplex and triplex developments only, allowing exterior basement access but limiting it to the minimum size necessary, eliminating the 50 percent size limit for attached ADUs, modifying the requirement for replacement parking in the Coastal Zone to requiring replacement parking in impacted areas of the Coastal Zone used for public access, and allowing increased height for a detached ADU built above a garage if the main unit is not parking compliant. Staff does not recommend allowing an 800-square-foot bonus for new developments or allowing larger units in areas with larger lot sizes. In reply to Commissioner Koetting's question, Principal Planner Murillo explained that State law does not state constrained development but prohibits the City from applying a floor area limit or a coverage limit if it precludes development of an 800-square-foot ADU. Staff interprets the law as the property has to be constrained to take advantage of the exception. Commissioner Rosene commented that an ad hoc committee may be able to consult with architects to identify benefits and unintended consequences of potential Code revisions and recommended the Planning Commission form an ad hoc committee. Commissioner Weigand expressed concerns about applying the proposed Code revisions to the many unique villages in Newport Beach, the late hour of the discussion, and the lack of public attendance for the discussion. Nancy Scarbrough supported the formation of an ad hoc committee to study the many aspects of ADU regulations. The issues are complex, but incentivizing ADUs is possible. The public needs to be aware of potential regulation changes. Jim Mosher hoped an ad hoc committee would advertise and invite the public to some if not all of its meetings. The Power Point slide of ADU production does not make sense. Charles Klobe also supported formation of an ad hoc committee and its encouraging public participation and accepting expert input. Staff's recommendations need to be studied. Chair Lowrey agreed with forming an ad hoc committee. In answer to Chair Lowrey's queries, Assistant City Attorney Summerhill advised that the Chair may appoint ad hoc committee members during the current or a subsequent meeting. Staff can develop a comprehensive process for committee meetings and provide an informational item to the Planning Commission at a subsequent meeting. The committee may invite community members and professionals to provide input. Commissioner Weigand proposed the Planning Commission recommend the Council form a committee composed of Planning Commissioners, industry experts, and members of the public or direct the Planning Commission to form a committee. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes September 9, 2021 10 of 11 Assistant City Attorney Summerhill noted that the Council could decide to form a more comprehensive committee, but the Council directed the Planning Commission and staff to draft recommendations. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell related that staff supports formation of an ad hoc committee composed of Commissioners. The ad hoc committee may decide to invite professionals to meetings and to notice public meetings. If the Council appoints a body, it could be subject to the Brown Act and require more time to provide recommendations. An ad hoc committee of the Planning Commission would have sufficient time to review issues and provide recommendations toward the latter part of the year. Staff's interest is to begin work on incentives fairly quickly. Commissioner Weigand encouraged staff to discuss the Council forming a body with the Mayor or the Council. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell agreed to do so. Chair Lowrey preferred to proceed with a Planning Commission ad hoc committee. The Council can review the Planning Commission's recommendations and refer items for further discussion. In answer to Commissioner Koetting's question, Deputy Community Development Director Campbell indicated the State will review revisions to the ADU ordinance. Staff may also seek the State's feedback regarding revisions prior to Council adoption of them and share the feedback with the ad hoc committee. IX. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 5 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION None ITEM NO. 6 REPORT BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR REQUEST FOR MATTERS WHICH A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell reported the Council will hold a study session regarding the inclusionary housing ordinance and a public hearing regarding the possible extension of the emergency temporary use permits for outdoor dining on September 14. Staff will cancel the Planning Commission's September 23, 2021, meeting. ITEM NO. 7 REQUESTS FOR EXCUSED ABSENCES None X. ADJOURNMENT – 9:51 p.m. Motion made by Commissioner Weigand and seconded by Commissioner Koetting to adjourn the meeting to October 7, 2021. AYES: Ellmore, Kleiman, Koetting, Lowrey, Rosene, and Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Klaustermeier Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes September 9, 2021 The agenda for the September 9, 2021, Planning Commission meeting was posted on Friday, September 03, 2021, at 11 :40 a.m. in the Chambers binder, on the digital display board located inside the vestibule of the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, and on the City's website on Friday, September 03, 2021, at 11:30 a.m. Curtis Ellmore, Secretary 11 of 11