HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-03-31_GP-LCP IC Agenda Meeting PacketAGENDA
General Plan/LCP Implementation Committee
March 31, 2010
3:30 p.m.
Fire Department Conference Room
1. Approve Action Minutes from March 17, 2010
Attachment No. 1
2. Draft Zoning Code Review and Processing
Attachment No. 2
3. Future Meeting Dates — Schedule Dates
4. Items for Future Agenda
5. Public Comments on non -agenda items
6. Adjourn
Attachments:
3:30-3:35pm
3:35-5:10pm
5:10-5:20pm
5:20-5:25pm
5:25-5:30pm
1. Draft Action Minutes from March 17, 2010
2. The Draft Zoning Code (Third Public Draft) was previously distributed and is
available on-line at: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=1478 or
contact the Planning Department at 949-644-3200.
I_UMMIMI ILlrm
i.IMMITAo i ARMM��•FriaOEVANIIIII
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN/LCP IMPLEMENTATION
COMMITTEE
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Action Minutes of the General Plan/LCP Implementation Committee held at the City Council
Chambers, City of Newport Beach, on Wednesday, March 17, 2009
Members Present:
X
Ed Selich, Mayor, Chairman
X
Leslie Daigle, Council Member
X
Don Webb, Council Member
X
Barry Eaton, Planning Commissioner
X
Robert Hawkins, Planning Commissioner
X
Michael Toer e, Planning Commissioner
Advisory Group Members Present:
Staff Representatives:
X
Mark Cross
E
Larry Frapwell
X
William Guidero
X
Ian Harrison
X
Brion Jeannette
X
Don Krotee
X
Todd Schooler
Kevin Weeda
Dennis Wood
Staff Representatives:
X
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
E
David Lepo, Planning Director
X
Leonie Mulvihill, City Attorney
X
James Campbell, Principal Planner
X
GreggRamirez, Senior Planner
X
Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner
E = Excused Absence
Committee Actions
1. Agenda Item No. 1 — Approval of minutes for December 16, 2009.
Action: Committee approved draft minutes.
Vote: Consensus
2. Agenda Item No. 2 — Draft Zoning Code Review and Processing
Action: The Committee reviewed Committee Member Eaton's comments and
provided the following action and suggestions:
• Pg. 1-4 Section 20.10.040 C. — at the end of the first sentence
strike "in the absence of and insert "except"
• Pg. 1-5 Section 20.10.050 B.I. — reinsert "all"
• In all residential development standards tables, remove
reference to Section 20.48.180 (Open Space) out of the
Additional Requirements column and use a footnote as a
reference instead.
• Pg. 2-19 Section 20.20.010 C. — strike "limited"
• Pg. 2-24 Table 2-5 — in the Commercial Corridor (CC) zoning
district, allow Maintenance and Repair Services as a permitted
use
• Pg. 2-30 footnote (3) — re -write to clarify and change
throughout
• Pg. 2-31 Section 20.22.010 E. — possibly reconstruct second
to last sentence
• Add a definition for "Parking Facilities"
• Add Research and Development as a permitted use in the all
mixed use zoning districts
• Pg. 3-9 Section 20.30.040 A.2. — revise the second sentence
to say: " A minimum horizontal separation equal to the height
of the tallest retaining wall shall be provided, except that the
required separation shall not be greater than 6 feet. Also,
provide a procedure for discretionary relief (ZA) from this
regulation
• Pg. 3-9 Section 20.30.040 C.- strike "fence" and insert
"guardrail" after 42 -inch
Action: The Committee requested that staff look into the following items and
report back:
• Revise the open space definition or the use of the term "open
space" to be clear as to what we are requiring — staff will
provide clarification and maybe change the name to "building
modulation"
■ Pg. 2-62 D.6.Ocean Blvd./Breakers Drive — review with
Advisory Member Brion Jeannette and propose revised section
and revised related map at the next meeting
• Pg. 3-21 Section 20.30.070 — look into revising some of the
language to make it clear that the intent is not to create
nonconformities especially for the auto dealerships and the
requirements for certain types of lighting and bring back
examples of the foot-candle measurements that are being
proposed
• Pg. 3-19 DA. Chimneys and vents — staff will verify with the
Building Department that these provisions are accurate
Public Comment on this item:
• Carol McDermott stated that she will provide minor
suggestions, in writing, to staff. She indicated that there is no
definition of "parking facilities". Staff will add a definition. She
also noted the addition of development standards for the PI
Zoning District and would like to meet with staff to discuss.
She also explained that she did not want the lighting standards
to create unnecessary nonconformities especially for the auto
dealerships.
• Tom Matthews expressed concern with the new requirement
for residential to provide both parking spaces within a garage.
Regarding Section 20.30.130 Figure 3-7 for the Traffic Safety
Visibility Area, he questioned whether new buildings would
lose square footage because of this requirement. Regarding
outdoor lighting, he agreed that the types of lighting required
should be further discussed and that a photometric study
should always be required before large projects are approved.
Also, he stated that relief needed to be added for retaining
walls within areas that do not have sufficient horizontal area
such as Mariners Mile where the 8 -foot maximum height may
not be the right number. He will provide more detail in writing
to staff.
• George Schroder expressed concern with the new additional
requirements for rear yards abutting an alley such as the ones
found on pg. 2-13. He thinks the change will reduce maximum
building area for certain sites and we should compensate in
some other way, possibly on the third floor allowance. Staff will
look into this.
• Jim Mosher wants the Committee to consider protecting
private views, pg. 3-25 Section 20.30.100, as he feels they are
an important part of the City.
3. Agenda Item No. 3 — Future meeting dates
The next meeting is scheduled for March 31.
Vote: Consensus
4. Agenda Item No. 4 — Items for future agenda
The meetings will continue with review of Part 4 of the third draft. Staff will also
report back on the aforementioned items.
5. Agenda Item No. 5 — Public Comments on non -agenda items
None.
Agenda Item No. 6 — Adjourn - Meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
Public Draft No. 3 of the Zoning Code can be accessed on-line at:
http://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=1478
Attachment No. 2
Draft Zoning Code — Public Draft No. 3
(Previously Distributed)
FOLLOWING
MATERIALS
RECEIVED AT
MEETING
GP/LCP Committee
March 31, 2010
Agenda Item No. 2
Questions from Barry Eaton Third Draft Zoning Code Parts 5-7. Staff responses
in bold.
Part 5 - Planning Permit Procedures:
274) In Table 5-1 (on page 5-4), the decision for Reasonable Accommodations
does not have footnote (4) attached thereto, as do CUPS in the Residential
zones. Yet, Section 25.52.070.D.1.b. (on page 5-29) appears to clearly state that
appeals of Reasonable Accommodations are not De Novo. Doesn't this mean
that footnote (4) should be applied to Reasonable Accommodations in Table 5-1?
Yes.
275) Section 20.52.020.B. (on page 5-9) refers to itself. Wasn't this reference
intended to list Section 20.52.030 (on page 5-11, et seq.)?
Yes.
276) Sections 20.52.030.E.1. and 20.52.030.F.1. (on page 5-13) have both had
the reference to the Hearing Officer deleted. Why? (Section 20.52.030.F.2. still
has that reference included, for example.)
Use permits in residential districts were proposed to go to the Hearing
Officer; however, Utilities Major in residential districts are proposed to go
the Planning Commission, not the HO. Therefore the language was
changed to be more generic. Section 20.52.030.F.2.can be changed to
"Review Authority".
277) Section 20.52.030.G.2.c. (on page 5-14) (referring to obtaining other
pertinent certificates) has been deleted from this draft. Why? Was this requested
or suggested by Special Counsel?
Recommended for deletion by OCA in consultation with RWG.
278) Section 20.52.030.H.4. (on page 5-15) has had added to it reference to Bed
and Breakfast uses, when determining overconcentration of uses. Is this now an
issue for the City? If not, why has it been added?
B&B's are similar to other non-residential uses conditionally permitted in
residential districts, therefore application of the same requirements is
necessary.
279) Section 20.52.030.1. (on page 5-16) refers to the Hearing Officer specifically
GP/LCP Committee
March 31, 2010
Agenda Item No. 2
being able to impose conditions on approval of CUPs that he may grant. Yet
there is no such specific provision regarding the approval of Reasonable
Accommodations (which should be approximately on page 5-31 or 5-32). In fact,
Section 20.52.070.G. (on page 5-32) states that a request for changes in
conditions of approval of Reasonable Accommodations shall be treated as a new
application. How can changes be requested, if the Hearing Officer doesn't have
the specifically referenced power to impose such conditions of approval?
Authority to apply conditions of approval is in Part 6. It should be deleted
elsewhere.
Part 6 - Zoning Code Administration:
280) Section 20.60.060.C. (on page 6-6) has had deleted the Planning Director's
ability to impose conditions on Planning Director approvals. Why? (There is
such authority for the Hearing Officer and Zoning Administrator.)
The Planning Director does not have discretionary permit authority.
281) Section 20.68.030.6.1. (on page 6-20) now limits post approval inspections
to only non residential structures. Why? Is there not a possible need for such
inspections in the case of residential structures - especially for "bootleg units", or
other conversions after final inspections?
It's a question of private property rights and the difference between, for
example, a private residence and a business open to the public.
Part 7 - Definitions:
282) Accessory Alcohol Sales (on page 7-7) has had a new limit inserted, of 30%
of the floor area. How was this particular number derived?
The new 30% limit needs to be moved to Alcohol Sales, Off -Sale,
Accessory Only. It was added to On -Sale in error. The 30% threshold is a
common industry standard.
283) Mean Sea Level has been added (on page 7-33), but there is no definition.
What should be in place here?
It should not have been added. Mean Sea Level is not used in the draft
code.
284) Why has the reference under Restaurants (on page 7-43) been deleted?
Isn't this a useful reference for layman readers of this code, who might not think
to look for "Eating and Drinking Establishments"?
GP/LCP Committee
March 31, 2010
Agenda Item No. 2
OK, we'll keep it.
285) I'm not sure that I understand why the definition of Story (on page 7-48) has
been modified so extensively in this draft. Can you please elaborate on this?
Committee directed staff to review building code and use building code
definition if possible. Staff thinks this definition works.
Part 8 - Maps:
286) Map A-5 doesn't include the easterly portion of Mariner's Mile in Mariner's
Mile. Why not?
The map is in reference to the location of mixed-use areas and there are no
mixed-use areas in the eastern portion.
287) Has Map B-6 (showing the buildable areas of the lots south of Ocean Blvd.)
now been changed as to areas designated as Development Area B and
Development Area C?
This was intended to be Area C. Staff is re-evaluating recommendation.
288) Map H-1 (the high rise area Map) shows the high rise limit as 375 feet.
Hasn't this been changed in the text to 300 feet? And wasn't Newport North (the
area between Jamboree and MacArthur, north of Bison) supposed to have been
deleted from this high rise zone?
Yes. Staff will be sure the changes are made.
CAA PLANNING
March 29, 2010
Mr. Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Subject: City of Newport Beach — 3rd Draft Zoning Code Update Review Comments
Dear Mr. Ramirez:
This letter is a follow-up to my comments to the GP/LCP Implementation Committee at the conclusion of the March
17t' meeting to review the 3rd draft of the City's Zoning Code. As you know, we have been monitoring the
Committee's on-going review of the staff and consultant efforts to update the Zoning Code. Over the last year, you
have met with us separately to answer questions regarding the update process and changes proposed. As a result,
your input has helped reduce the number of questions that we otherwise would have brought to the Committee. We
appreciate all the hard work that has gone into this process. Below we have identified several issues that we feel are
significant and we now wish to bring to the Committee's attention:
Retaining Walls - page 3-9 - We believe that providing clarification that a retaining wall may exceed 8
feet when an integral part of a principal structure is appropriate. However, there may be instances where a
retaining wall needs to be in excess of 8 feet to achieve a superior design or to accommodate site
constraints. As an example, could the retaining wall on the Mariner's Mile portion of West Coast Highway
be built under this new standard? For reference, we have included photographs showing examples of
existing walls throughout the City that we believe could not be constructed under the proposed required
maximum height of 8'.
It is suggested that in instances where a retaining wall is proposed in excess of 8', the applicant process a
modification permit to be reviewed by the Director of Public Works. In so doing, the applicant must
demonstrate that a wall height in excess of 8' achieves a superior overall site design and addresses aesthetic
considerations.
Lighting Standards - page 3-22, Section 20.30.070 B.4 - The proposed new lighting standards could
require site lighting of between 2.5 foot candles and 20 foot candles. We respectfully point out that 1 foot
candle is the equivalent illumination of twilight. At that level of illumination an individual casts his or her
own shadow. We believe thaf2.5 foot candles may be excessive in a given situation and 20 foot candles
(equivalent to an office lobby) for high security areas may create challenges to confine the illumination to
the site. This can also create security issues where a person standing just outside the lit area may not be
visible. We believe that each major project should have the flexibility/choice to prepare a photometric
study to demonstrate compliance with the City's goal of providing safety without destroying the ambiance
that can be created by appropriate lighting. However, should the City not agree to a requirement to prepare
a photometric study, we offer the following specific comments:
Section A.1 — Does the requirement that parking lot fixtures and light fixtures on buildings be cut
off fixtures limit the use of decorative fixtures on buildings?
Section A.2 — Please clarify whether the City must approve the use of metal halide or LED.
Section B. Lb— We discussed these standards with a registered professional electrical engineer and
he raised a question as to whether the values recommended are consistent with the Illuminating
Engineering Society of North America. (IESNA). According to the consultant: "The 2.5 to 1
maximum to minimum is an unusual uniformity metric. We typically see a 20 to 1 maximum to
85 Argonaut, Suite 220 • Aliso Viejo, California 92656 • (949) 581-2888 • Fax (949) 581-3599
Mr. Gregg Ramirez
March 29, 2010
Page 3 of 4
Rideshare vehicle loading area. A rideshare vehicle loading area shall be designated at a location approved
by the City Traffic Engineer. The area shall accommodate a minimum of 2 passenger vehicles a _ the -fi'rst`
25,000 squafe feet ef develepment, phis 1 fef eaeh 50,000 squffe feet of addifienal development eF fraefien
thereet: Additional area may be required by City Traffic Engineer based on the total number of anticipated
employees.
• Traffic Safety Visibility - page 3-36 — Question: if a principal permitted use exists within the area
proscribed by the proposed setbacks on figure 3-7 and if redevelopment is proposed in the future, does the
floor area of the principal permitted use decrease because the prior area is no longer buildable?
• Landscaping - page 3-88 — the requirement that plant material within a traffic sight area of a driveway
shall not exceed 36 inches should be reconciled with the height requirement on page 3-38 which specifies a
height limit of 30 inches.
• Effective Date of Permits — page 5-41— Section 20.54.030 states that any permit shall become effective on
the 15" day following the date of actual application approval. There needs to be a distinction made here
that this section does not include ministerial permits in order to be consistent with Section 20.10.040 on
page 1-4. B. Issuance of permits.
• Review Authority - page 7-44 — Question: should "Hearing Officer", "Director of Public Works" and
"City Traffic Engineer" be added to the list of City entities in this definition?
• Chapter 20.60 — page 6-3 — Administrative Responsibility — Suggest adding Director of Public Works and
City Traffic Engineer duties and functions to this section.
• .High Rise Height Limit — page 8-1 — Part 8 — Exhibit H-1 does not reflect the 300' limit.
• Screening for Roof & Ground Mounted Mechanical Equipment - page 3-5 and 3-6 — Question: If the
subject roof and/or ground mounted mechanical equipment is not visible from any public rights of way, or
other public property, why is screening required?
• Screening of Outdoor Storage — page 3-7 - Section 20.30.020 B — We suggest adding the following text
since screening standards are not listed in Section 20.48.140, contrary to the reference: "Screening of
outdoor storage areas shall be accomplished with fences, walls, solid, evergreen hedges or other methods
approved bythe Department. Chain link fencing with or without slats is not allowed."
• Signs - Table 3-15 — Page 3-114 appears to be the same as page 3-112, although the regulations are slightly
"different but not high -lighted as new. Page 3-115 appears to be the same as page 3-113.
• Sign Height — page 3-120 - Section 20.42.080 — We suggest the 6' maximum average height requirement
for monument signs in Item C should be deleted to be consistent with Table 3-16 on page 3-112 and to be
consistent with the treatment of the regulations for a pylon sign, which has no average height limit.
• Sign Ratio — page 3-121 - Section 20.42.080 — We suggest the 1.5 to 1.0 maximum ratio for monument
signs be deleted to allow long, short signs.
Attached for your reference is a list of typographic errors we noted during our review.
Is
42
e
V
Is
e
�d
l
t
iILL�/
if
1
�
r
Development Areas Delineated By: ME Development Are:A
`�erva'V . from iii
B-6 Ocean Boulevard / Breakers Drive Specified DistanceBeloFrantPropertyline:: DevelopmentAreaa
' •• Specified Distance Below Top of Curb Development Area C
Specified Contour
�Y C � t f. 1
LI -
r
MAY 00,
4�00
i
F,L 46 .o
L y IMD
r
�
r
�
MAY 00,
4�00
i
F,L 46 .o
L y IMD