HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS3 - Grade and Structure Height• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Study Session Agenda Item No. 3
April 27, 2004
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Planning Department
Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director
(949) 644 - 3228, Wtemple @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Grade and Structure Height
INTRODUCTION
Implementation of the height limit for construction has become increasingly difficult. The
primary difficulty in implementation of the height limit is in the determination of what
grade should be for the purpose of measuring height when a site is developed or
otherwise altered, which is the case in most areas. Additionally, the Planning
Department made an administrative interpretation in 1986 altering how a sloping roof is
• measured. The application of the interpretation has been expanded over time to a point
that it does not reflect its original intent and it is not supported by the code. These two
factors coupled with a growing desire on the part of property owners to build to the limits
of the code have led to an unworkable system of height measurement.
BRIEF HISTORY OF HEIGHT AND GRADE
In 1936 with the adoption of its first zoning ordinance, the City adopted its first height
limit. Single family homes were limited to 2 stories and 35 feet. Building height was
defined as the vertical distance measured from the average level of the highest and
lowest point of that portion of the lot covered by the building to the ceiling of the
uppermost story. In 1950, the definition changed with the upper limit being raised to be
the "topmost point of the roof." In 1965, the term grade first appears with it being an
average elevation of the corners of the exterior of the building.
In 1972, the City adopted standards very similar to today's regulations. The existing
height limitation zones were adopted and height limits all over town were reduced
dramatically. The City first used the term "natural" within the definition of the term grade.
Ordinance No. 1454 states: "For the purpose of measuring height, the grade shall be
natural grade unless the Planning Commission approves a grading plan or map, or a
grading permit has been issued on or before the effective date of this ordinance, under
which circumstances grade shall be finished grade as shown on the plan or map so
• approved..." This definition of grade above was used until 1992 when it was
Grade and Structure Height
April 27, 2004
Page 2
determined that the definition was unclear and unworkable since the term "natural" was •
not defined.
In 1992, the City Council defined natural grade to be the "unaltered natural vertical
location of the ground surface." They also re- drafted the definition of grade and
broadened the use of finished grade. Previous standards prohibited the use of artificial
surfaces (finished grades) and only allowed their use with the approval of the Planning
Commission. The change in 1992 permitted the use of any finished grade when
retaining walls or filled surfaces were used for the purpose of measuring height prior to
October 12, 1972. The standards adopted in 1992 are identical to today's regulations
although they have been reorganized and re- codified since.
GRADE — THE BASELINE FOR MEASURING HEIGHT
The grade is the baseline for implementing a height limit. Presently, the unaltered
vertical location of the ground surface is used unless another grade or elevation is
identified by the code. Determining what the natural grade for a site is difficult when the
site is altered. The code identifies 4 basic alternatives to the natural grade.
a) Finished grades used for height measurement created by new subdivisions.
b) Grades created prior to 1972 without a grading plan or building permit.
c) Grades in areas prone to flooding.
d) Grades set by the Planning Commission through Site Plan Review approval. •
The second item is where the Planning staff spends many hours in an attempt to
identify the natural profile of the site, which often has not been seen for many years. As
a result, staff must attempt to identify the natural profile using limited information, and
occasionally, old air photographs. Finished grades are used when retaining walls and
filled surfaces are present and excavated surfaces such as basements or wine cellars
are not used. This last provision has been more broadly applied through the years such
that no excavated grades are used to measure height today. Most often the existing
grade is actually used if the excavation of the site occurs as part of the construction.
The basic policy penalizes a builder by reducing the available vertical distance between
the grade and height limit should they wish to build up the site with earth. Conversely, a
builder is not penalized should they wish to excavate and lower the grade. The grade for
the purpose of measuring height would be higher than finished grade and the resulting
building meets the height limit, but is actually taller than the numeric value of the height
limit. In plain English, the residence may actually 26 feet high while it complies with the
24 -foot height limit.
The Planning Commission reviewed the question of grade on February 5, 2004. The
staff report for that meeting is attached as Exhibit No. 5. The Commission directed staff
to present the issue to the Council to request policy direction. The Commission did
indicate that reform to the present system should be evaluated with community input.
•
Grade and Structure Height
April 27, 2004
Page 3
• HEIGHT — HOW IS THE HEIGHT LIMIT ADMINISTERED?
The height of a structure is the vertical distance between the highest point of the
structure and the grade directly below. A sloped roof is measured from its midpoint to
the grade directly below as measured from the ridge to where the wall plate intersects
the roof plane. In this case, the peak of the roof may not extend more than 5 feet above
the permitted height limit. The code is clear on this definition; however, in approximately
1986, the Planning Director made an interpretation of the code for a specific project
where the roof was extended beyond the wall plate intersection to the setback line or
another obstruction. This had the immediate effect of lengthening the roof plane
artificially and thereby lowering the midpoint. The illustration below shows the artificial
roof plane extension concept.
•
Grade
The argument in favor of this "interpretation' was that the mass of the building was less
because and the peak did not exceed 5 -foot allowance above the height limit. Armed
with this new interpretation, planning staff began applying it more broadly where today,
it is a commonly applied un- codified rule. The unintended consequence of this un-
codified rule is that a third level of a residence is more easily achieved. Additionally, on
sloping lots, the actual measurement of the height of an individual roof plan can take
place outside of the building wall at a different grade elevation. Staff acknowledges that
the present use of the imaginary roof extension is not supported by the Zoning Code;
• however discontinuing its use will have negative consequences to pending projects.
Grade and Structure Height
April 27, 2004
Page 4
IS THE SYSTEM BROKEN?
The short answer is yes, in staffs opinion. The present system of measuring natural
grade to the midpoint of a sloping roof is problematic at best. There is no real question
when a flat roof is proposed even though there is no definition of what a flat roof is. The
true problem rests with sloping roofs, sloping lots or any lot thought to be excavated.
Designers routinely ask staff to identify the baseline grade especially when there is even
a modest slope gradient or there is a retaining wall indicating excavation. The lack of
certainty of the baseline grade makes it very time consuming and frustrating for both
designers and staff to identify one. If a designer wants a grade higher than the existing
grade based upon the identification of a historical natural profile of the site, the resulting
design of the building can be enhanced dramatically because the grade from which the
height is measured is significantly higher than the existing grade. This circumstance
leads to buildings that, while compliant, are taller than the stated height limitation zone.
This leads to questions and complaints from surrounding residents when the building
appears taller than expected. In one example, hundreds of hours of staff time and
months of delay have been expended to examine old air photos, surveys and
geotechnical studies in an attempt to identify a grade that has not been seen for 60 -80
years in order to design a 4 story residence. The present system also requires the
retention of grading plans and surveys so the imaginary grade used for the purpose of
measuring height can be documented for a future expansion or alteration.
The natural grade will fluctuate on some sites
and on occasion it falls in two different
directions. With the height limit following this
three dimensional contour, designing a
residence to the limits of the code, which is
the trend these days, is very difficult. Plan
checking the project becomes a labor
intensive task even for an experienced
planner and it is conducive to errors by the
less experienced. The plan checking
dilemma is further complicated with the
application of the imaginary roof plane
extension. It has lead to very complicated,
multi- faceted roof designs (see photo)
creating construction and administrative
burdens. Today, planning staff spends 2 -3
hours on height alone per plan check. The
present system has created an environment
for mistakes to be made more readily.
Additionally, it is possible to mislead staff with sloppy, inaccurate, incomplete, or false
survey information or building plans. Any of these situations can lead to or enable
E
•
•
Grade and Structure Height
April 27, 2004
Page 5
• undesirable outcomes, such those projects that lead to the adoption of the Special
Circumstance Variance process.
A SOLUTION IS NEEDED
The current system is too complex since it is based upon the term natural grade and the
roof slope average has been misapplied. Obviously the misapplication of the roof slope
extension can be easily be addressed through the discontinuance of its application, but
staff believes a more fundamental reform of the system is warranted. Staff believes that
system can be simplified while achieving most design goals of builders and property
owners and maintaining protections from over construction that have been expressed
by the community. The following goals can be achieved with a simplified system:
a) Reduce design time
b) Reduce plan check time
c) Easier administer of the code over the longterm
d) Reduce the environment for mistakes and abuse
A PROPOSED SOLUTION - DRAFT CODE AMENDMENT
An amendment to Chapter 20.65 (Height Limits) is necessary in order to correct the
deficiencies identified above. The revisions should begin with Section 20.65.030, which
is inaccurately titled "Height of Structure." As demonstrated earlier, the method of
• measurement prescribed by this section does not reflect the true height of a structure.
Rather, it sets a height limit measured from the natural grade which, in most cases, no
longer exists. It should be replaced with a procedure that measures height from an
elevation that is based on the existing grade, which reflects the surface of the ground as
it exists prior to disturbance in preparation for a project rather than the unaltered natural
surface of the ground. Elevations should also be referenced to a fixed reference point
that can be verified in the field in order to insure compliance with the height limits
established by Section 20.65.040 (Height Limitation Zones). Finally, the procedure
should be simple to plan check.
The proposed code amendment (see Exhibit No. 4) revises Section 20.65.030 so that
height is measured from a horizontal plane based on the average elevation of existing
grade at ail corners of the buildable area of the lot (see Exhibit No. 1). In situations
where retaining walls or planters result in an existing grade that is not clearly
representative of the topography, the Planning Director will select an elevation that
minimizes, to the extent reasonably possible, adverse impacts on adjacent properties
and encourages some degree of consistency with the maximum building height limits of
adjacent properties. The existing grade will be referenced (a vertical datum) to the
elevation of the curb at the midpoint of the front lot line. This approach is not expected
to significantly alter the height limit on level lots (see Exhibit No. 2). However, it will
severely limit the practice of using the elevation differential between the natural grade
and the finished grade to construct structures taller than might otherwise be expected
• by the City's height limits.
Grade and Structure Height
April 27, 2004
Page 6
Using the average elevation of existing grade of the buildable area of the lot would be •
too restrictive on lots containing slopes. Therefore, on the portion of a lot with a slope of
more than 10 percent, the height limit will be an inclined plane (daylight plane)
beginning at the height limit on the top of the slope and extending to the height limit at
the toe of the slope (see Exhibit No. 3). No portion of a structure will be permitted to
intercept this daylight plane. This approach will allow development on slopes to develop
to the City's height limits.
The proposed revision would also delete the provision that established the method of
measuring the height of a sloped roof. The ridge of a sloped roof will no longer be
permitted to extend more than 5 feet above the height limit. All parts of the structure
would have to be constructed within the height limits, with the limited exceptions for
chimneys, vents, cupolas, and similar features provided for in Section 20.65.070
(Exceptions to Height Limits). Removing this provision would more stringently
implement the City's height limits and simplify the plan check process. However, it
could also result in fewer designs with sloped roofs, which the current provision was
clearly intended to encourage. However, some adjustment to the actual height limit
could minimize this potential effect.
Finally, the proposed revision would delete the procedures for establishing grade in
cases where the natural grade or finished grade is deemed inappropriate or unworkable
for the purpose of measuring height. If the proposed code amendment is adopted, •
height would be measured from the average elevation of existing grade of the buildable
area of the lot; therefore, this procedure would no longer be necessary.
ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE RESOLVED
Staff is recommending the initiation of a code amendment with the intent of changing
the way in which grade and height is determined. A resolution of intent to amend the
Zoning Code appears on the regular agenda this evening. An initial draft of the
proposed changes has been identified and will require further study and input from the
community. Should this be the wishes of the Council, the initiation of the amendment is
this evening is suggested.
Two unresolved issues remain, setting aside the specific language of the amendment;
1. How should plans in the pipeline be addressed?
2. How should the City phase out the imaginary roof extension?
E
Grade and Structure Height
April 27, 2004
Page 7
• THE NEXT STEP
Staff would like feedback on the following work plan:
1) Initiate a dialog with design professionals on the proposed changes to the how
height and grade is measured.
2) Phase out the imaginary roof extension within 60 days of initiation of the code
amendment.
3) Upon initiation of a code amendment, target adoption of the new standards in
August of 2004 or sooner.
Prepared by:
bmitted By:
atricia L. Temple, PI nning Director
EXHIBITS
0—' —4
Patrick Alford Sen' Planner
1. Height Measurement — Proposed Method
2. Height Measurement — Existing and Proposed
3. Height Measurement — Sloped Lots
4. Proposed revisions to Chapter 20.65
5. Planning Staff Report dated February 5, 2004
6. Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes from February 5, 2004
•
a
0
u
u�
PM 1
t
CZA Q
N N
.n,
O
u
u
w
.x
w •
0
I
•
O
Q
O O
a_
CO
CU
5W CU
L 0)
CO
.x
2w
- x 0
Q)
Q)
r
rnQ) 5 1
I
1
11
11
11
I
11
11
d
st
I
I
r
- x 0
Q)
r
rnQ) 5 1
11
11
11
I
11
11
d
st
I
I
r
i1
11
II
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
11
II
I
-
0
O
N
= 7
N
i.'.
N N m
�
O m y
N -O
a'>
C 0
o O
y
a Q)
0
0 0 -
rn N
m �
Q) m
a�
m m m
Q)
-0
0
Q)
t
co
U-
N
X
W
I
N
c
m
n.
L
_m
T
m
0 I
/
/
/
W
E
CD
CD to
cu 4-1
5N O
G
C}�
Vl
•� o
2 (n
O
N
N
W
O O �
Q) 2v
w m'5
m rna
N :+ O
(6 A Ln
fl. N N
O 0
(6
C N U
O M
N_ (`6 3
O O N cu
Z N N N
6Q
�oo
(q
o o�
(q
M
ne
,n
X
W
J
C
N
1
1
N
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 F�
O
N
N
W
O O �
Q) 2v
w m'5
m rna
N :+ O
(6 A Ln
fl. N N
O 0
(6
C N U
O M
N_ (`6 3
O O N cu
Z N N N
6Q
�oo
(q
o o�
(q
M
ne
,n
X
W
J
C
N
•
•
E
Page 20.65 -1
Height Limits
CHAPTER 20.65
HEIGHT LIMITS
Sections:
20.65.010
Purpose
20.65.020
Effect of Chapter
20.65.030
Measurement of Height
20.65.040
Height Limitation Zones
20.65.050
Planned Community Districts
20.65.060
Procedure to Exceed Height Limits
20.65.070
Exceptions to Height Limits
20.65.080
Airport Height Limits
20.65.010 Purpose
A. This chapter establishes regulations on the height of buildings throughout the
City in order to ensure that the unique character and scale of Newport Beach
is preserved.
B. This chapter creates 5 height limitation zones which govern building height
but allow design flexibility with City review.
C. These regulations shall be reviewed and revised as necessary.
20.65.020 Effect of Chapter
All sections of this code shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter.
20.65.030 Measurement of Height
A. Height Limits. For purposes of determining compliance with the height limits
established by Section 20.65.040, height shall be measured from a
horizontal plane established by determining the average elevation of existing
grade at all corners of the buildable area of the lot. In situations where the
elevation of existing grade at buildable area of the lot is not clearly
representative of the topography (i.e., due to the presence of structures such
as retaining walls or planters) the Planning Director shall select an elevation
that minimizes, to the extent reasonably possible, adverse impacts on
adjacent properties and encourages some degree of consistency in the
maximum building height limits of adjacent properties .
DRAFT
EXHIBIT 4 t
Page 20.65 -2
Height Limits
B. Exceptions. •
1. Sloped Lots. On the portion of a lot that has a gradient in excess of
10 percent (i.e., 10 feet of vertical distance for each 100 feet of
horizontal distance) and a minimum elevation differential of 5 feet,
structures shall not intercept a daylight plane inclined inward from the
height limit measured from top of the slope to the height limit
measured from the toe of the slope.
2. Flood Hazard Areas. In flood hazard areas, the height shall be
measured from the finished floor of any portion of the principal
building where habitable space is required to be elevated to the
elevation established by the Flood Insurance Rate Maps recognized
by the Building Department as part of flood safety requirements and
maps adopted by City Council. Notwithstanding the building
elevations established by the Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the
minimum required first floor finished floor elevation for the interior
living areas of all new structures shall be at least 9 feet North
American Vertical Datum (NAVD 88) consistent with the Public Works
Department standard for bulkhead elevation.
3. Ocean Boulevard. Structures on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard
in Corona del Mar, which were in existence or under construction on •
the effective date of this chapter (October 11, 1972) may be changed
provided such change does not result in a roof height above top of
curb and provided further that the roof height does not exceed the
height limit established by the 24/28 Height Limitation Zone. For
purposes of this chapter, the top of curb height limitation shall be
established by a horizontal plane created by the extension of the top
of curb line across each site located on the bluff side of Ocean
Boulevard. Where a question arises as to the interpretation of this
code, the Planning Director shall review and render a decision. New
structures may be constructed on vacant sites subject to the same
criteria.
C. Vertical Datum. Existing grade and horizontal plane shall be referenced to a
vertical datum (100) set at a point created by the intersection of the curb and
aline perpendicular to and intersecting the midpoint of the front lot line. If no
curb exists, the elevation of the centerline of the street at a point created by
the intersection of the centerline of the street and a line perpendicular to and
intersecting the midpoint of the front property line shall be used. On flag lots
and lots not located on a street, the elevation at the midpoint of the front
property line shall be used.
•
DRAFT
EXHfSIT 4
Page 20.65 -3
Height Limits
20.65.040 Height Limitation Zones
• In addition to the development standards established in the various districts, there shall be
5 height limitation zones within the City. The designations, locations, and boundaries of
these height limitation zones shall be as shown on the "Height Limitation Zones" map,
incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference. In each height limitation
zone the maximum permitted height shall be measured in accordance with the definitions
contained in this chapter.
A. 24/28 Foot Height Limitation Zone. In the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation Zone
the height limit for any structure shall be 24 feet; provided, however, that a
structure may exceed 24 feet up to a maximum of 28 feet through the
adoption of a planned community district, or through the adoption of a
specific plan, or through the approval of a use permit. This height limitation
zone shall apply to all R -1, R -1.5, R -2, and OS Districts.
B. 28/32 Foot Height Limitation Zone. In the 28/32 Foot Height Limitation Zone
the maximum height limit shall be 28 feet; provided, however, that structures
may exceed 28 feet up to a maximum of 32 feet in an adopted planned
community district, or through the adoption of a specific plan, or through the
approval of a use permit. This height limitation zone shall apply to all MFR
Districts.
• C. 26/35 Foot Height Limitation Zone. In the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation Zone
the height limit shall be 26 feet; provided, however, that a structure may
exceed 26 feet up to a maximum of 35 feet through the adoption of a
planned community district, or through the adoption of a specific plan, or
through the approval of a use permit. This height limitation zone shall apply
to all zoning districts, other than R -1, R -1.5, R -2, MFR and OS Districts,
within the area known as the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone established by
Ordinance 92 -3 and shown on the Height Limitation Zones map.
F
D. 32/50 Foot Height Limitation Zone. In the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation Zone
the height limit for any structure shall be 32 feet; provided, however, that a
structure may exceed 32 feet up to a maximum of 50 feet through the
adoption of a planned community district, or through the adoption of a
specific plan, or through the approval of a use permit. This height limitation
zone shall apply to all zoning districts other than R -1, R -1.5, R -2, MFR and
OS Districts which have boundaries not falling within the area above
described as the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone, or within the High -Rise
Height Limitation Zone.
E. Huh Rise Height Limitation Zone. In the High Rise Height Limitation Zone
the height limit for any structure shall not exceed 375 feet.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT 4 I
Page 20.65 -4
Height Limits
20.65.050 Planned Community Districts
In each planned community district established subsequent to the adoption this chapter, •
the height limits shall be established as part of the planned community development plan;
provided, however, that in no event shall the development exceed the height limits
permitted in the height limitation zones as set forth under Section 20.65.040 and as
designated below:
24128 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION ZONE.
Upper Newport Bay Planned Community as established by Ordinance
No. 1537 adopted December 17, 1973 (Amendment No. 409).
20.65.060 Procedure to Exceed Height Limits
A. Findings. The Planning Commission or City Council in approving any
planned community district, any speck plan, or in granting any use permit
for structures in excess of the basic height limit in any district shall find that
each of the following four points have been complied with:
1. The increased building height would result in more public visual open
space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone.
Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the •
lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and
open areas.
2. The increased building height would result in a more desirable
architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing
visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in
any zone.
3. The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt
scale relationships being created between the structure and existing
developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the
total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical
dimensions.
4. The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been
achieved without the use permit.
B. Existinq Structures. The use permit application fee shall be waived for any
single family home in the R -1 District that is replacing a structure that was in
existence on the effective date of this chapter (October 11, 1972).
CJ
DRAFT
EXHIBIT ��
Page 20.65 -5
Height Limits
20.65.070 Exceptions to Height Limits
• A. Architectural Features and Solar Equipment. Architectural features such as,
but not limited to, cupolas, weathervanes, open protective railings for
stairways, and other decorative roof -top features of an open nature, and
solar equipment, but excluding parapet walls, may be permitted in excess of
permitted height limits subject to the approval of a modification permit.
B. Mechanical Equipment and Stairwells. Elevator shafts, enclosed stairwells
and screened mechanical equipment, totaling no more than 25 square feet,
shall be permitted to up to 5 feet in excess of the height limits.
C. Chimneys and Vents. Chimneys and vents shall be permitted in excess of
height limits to the minimum extent required by the Uniform Building Code
plus an additional 12 inches for the provision of spark arrestor apparatus or
architectural features of a decorative screening nature. Any such structures
or features exceeding the Uniform Building Code requirements shall be
subject to the following criteria:
1. That the overall dimensions of the chimney shall be limited to a
maximum width of 2 feet by a maximum length of 4 feet for any
portion of the structure which exceeds the Uniform Building Code
requirements.
is 2. That the allowance for the additional 12 inches shall be solely for the
incorporation of a spark arrestor as required by the manufacturer or
for the incorporation of an architectural screening or treatment.
All chimneys and vents exceeding the minimum height required by the
Uniform Building Code, with the exception of an additional 12 inches for
spark arrestor apparatus or architectural features of a decorative screening
nature, shall be subject to the approval of a modification permit.
D. Skylights and Roof Windows. The terms skylights and roof windows shall be
interchangeable and shall be permitted in excess of the average height
permitted in the Height Limitation Zones only as indicated in the following.
However, in no case shall any portion of any such skylight or roof window
structure exceed the maximum ridge height allowed for any roof in the Height
Limitation Zone in which the structure is located. Any such skylight or roof
window which is openable shall not be permitted under this section, except
those which slide open within the same plane as the frame of the structure,
or open to the interior of the building only. Any such structure or feature shall
be limited as follows:
1. When mounting on a flat roof structure, the maximum height
• measured at the highest point of the proposed skylight or roof
window, in a plane parallel to the plane of the roof structure, shall not
exceed an elevation of 6 inches above the average roof height as
DRAFT
EXHIBIT4
Page 20.65 -6
Height Limits
provided by the Height Limitation Zone, or inches above the finished
surface of a conforming roof structure, whichever is less. •
2. When mounting on a sloping roof structure, the maximum height
measured at the highest point of the proposed skylight or roof
window, in a plane parallel to the plane of the roof structure, shall not
exceed an elevation of 6 inches above the finished surface of the
conforming roof structure.
That in the areas of the City where a Height Limitation Zone is
superseded by more restrictive height limitations or by a discretionary
approval of the Planning Commission or the City Council, this section
shall not be applied.
E. Flag Poles. Flag poles shall be permitted in the 24/28 and the 28/32 Foot
Height Limitation Zones not to exceed a height of 35 feet. Flag poles shall
be permitted in the 26/35 and the 32/50 Foot Height Limitation Zones not to
exceed a height of 50 feet. All other flag poles in excess of the height limits
noted above may be permitted subject to the approval of the Planning
Commission.
F. Boat Cranes. Boat cranes used in conjunction with an approved marine -
oriented use may be permitted to exceed the basic height limit applicable to
the district in which it is located, up to a maximum operating height of 70 feet, •
subject to the approval of the Planning Commission.
G. Churches. Church structures used for church purposes shall be exempt from
the restrictions of this chapter, except that any such structure exceeding 35
feet in height shall require a use permit.
20.65.080 Airport Height Limits
Any project which requires a notice of construction or alteration by the Federal Aviation
Administration Regulations Part 77 shall require FAA compliance, and the applicant shall
submit a copy of the FAA application to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and
provide the City with FAA and ALUC responses. If the ALUC requests review of the
project, then the project shall be submitted to the commission by the City. Commission
determination shall be referred to the City within 60 calendar days from the date of referral
of the application to the ALUC, and shall be considered before the City takes any action on
the project. If the Commission fails to refer the determination within that period, the
proposed project shall be deemed consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan
(AELUP).
•
DRAFT
EXHIBIT 4
1
• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 3
February 5, 2004
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner COPY FILE (949) 644 -3210, icampbell(g-city,newport- beach.ca.us.
SUBJECT: Grade and Structure Height
Introduction
Commissioner Eaton requested a report from staff on the definition of grade and
how the height of buildings and structures is measured.
Discussion
The Municipal Code establishes how the height of structure is determined.
• Specifically, Section 20.65.030.A states:
Weight of Structure. The height of a structure shall be the vertical distance between
the highest point of the structure and the grade directly below. In determining the
height of a sloped roof, the measurement shall be the vertical distance between the
grade and the midpoint of the roof plane, as measured from the ridge of the roof to
where the wall plate intersects the roof plane, provided that no part of the roof shall
extend more than 5 feet above the permitted height in the height limitation zone:"
Grade is defined as the unaltered vertical location of the ground surface unless it
is altered or some other grade is identified. Section 20.65.030.6 states:
"Grade. For the purpose of measuring height, the grade shall be the unaltered
natural vertical location of the ground surface unless one of the following applies:
1. At the time of subdivision, the City has approved a grading plan or map,
under which circumstances grade shall be finished grade as shown on the
plan or map so approved. For sites that were developed without or prior to
the requirement for a grading plan or map, the Planning Department shall
exercise its best efforts to determine the location of grade for the purpose of
measuring height. In so doing, the Planning Department shall use existing
on -site elevations and contours, as well as the elevations and contours of
adjoining and nearby properties to determine the natural profile of the site. In
cases where retaining walls have been constructed or filled surfaces have
• been used for the purpose of measuring height prior to October 12, 1972, the
11
buildings are also required to elevate the lowest inhabited finished floor
and the height limit is measured from the 6.27 feet above MSL. As with .
the residential garages, parking areas and parking garages do not have to
elevate above 6.27 feet above MSL and the height limit is measured from
the natural grade as opposed to the elevated portion of the building.
Issues
The primary difficulty in implementation of the height limit is in the determination
of what grade should be for the purpose of measuring height when a site is
developed or otherwise altered. Applicants are increasingly requesting a grade
determination based upon their belief that the existing elevations and contours of
the site and its surroundings were excavated and do not represent the "natural"
profile of the site. Estimating the historic grade is difficult when limited or no
information of past grades exists. Most of these requests relate to sites that were
developed prior to October 1972, and it is a rare event to have a grading plan
that shows the natural profile of the site and proposed grades at the time of
development. In looking at many sloping properties today, retaining walls are
evidence of excavation and applicants want to use the prior natural grade to gain
additional height for their proposals to increase property values.
History
The history of the evolution of the definition of grade and building height tells an •
interesting tale. Prior to 1950, there was no definition of grade within the Zoning
Code and the height of a building was "the vertical distance measured from the
average level of the highest and lowest point of that portion of the site to be
covered by the building to the ceiling of the uppermost story." In 1950, the
definition was changed such that the upper measurement was taken from the
"topmost point of the roof." In 1965, a definition of grade was adopted and the
average level of the portion of the lot covered by the building was again used,
however projecting balconies were included in the building coverage. Artificial
grade was specifically excluded from use unless it was authorized by the
Planning Commission. The record from 1965 does not explain why this change
was made, but staff theorizes that it was may have been response using the
grades of excavated surfaces when property owners desired to build up.
In 1972, the City first used the term "natural" within the definition of the term
grade. Ordinance No. 1454 states: "For the purpose of measuring height, the
grade shall be natural grade unless the Planning Commission approves a
grading plan or map, or a grading permit has been issued on or before the
effective date of this ordinance, under which circumstances grade shall be
finished grade as shown on the plan or map so approved..." This standard
permits the use of finished grade only for prior approvals issued by the Planning
Commission; otherwise, natural grade (which was not specifically defined) is
used. The changes in 1972 also included the Planning Commission's ability to •
6
prohibition of using excavated surfaces and the use of filled surfaces including
• foundations and retaining walls has been consistently and broadly applied for
many years.
•
Natural grade can be a difficult concept when viewed from the outside. A
property is judged by its physical attributes and owners and neighbors formulate
expectations about a property based upon what they see. Designing a building or
structure to a grade that has not been seen for 20, 40 or 80 years, although
potentially beneficial to a property owner, will contradict the expectations
neighbors and the community.
Staff also believes that unequal application of the height limit is possible since
determining the natural profile of a site is subjective when unclear or limited
historical data is available. Finally, the administration of a system using historical
and oftentimes uncertain grades can be abused with faulty or inaccurate
information. As time goes on, the system relies more heavily upon the retention
of all surveys and grading plans so someone can use that information for a future
design.
Finally, recent occurrences -have revealed an exploitable weakness in using
"existing" or "natural" grade for the purpose of measuring height. During the
process of new construction, over excavation of the land to build a foundation
essentially removes the grade used to measure height. Once this is done, staff is
wholly reliant on the survey and plan information in the construction documents
to insure a project's compliance with height limits. This has lead staff to conclude
that a system using a more permanent benchmark may be preferable.
Staff would like the Commission's support to examine different methods of
measuring and administering building and structure height. Staff would not like to
see a relaxation of height standards, unless the Community wanted it and the
Council directed it, but we would like to pursue a system that is easier to
understand and administer while meeting community expectations.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
__ 01"�X
mes Camp ell, Sen6r Planner
Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director
0
Planning Commission Minutes 02/05/2004
Noes:
McDaniel
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
SUBJECT: Grade and Structure height (PA2003 -174)
Discussion of the definition of grade and how building height is measured.
Ms. Temple noted that recently when the Commission had seen an interest
or need to make substantive revisions to the Code, we have found that it is
far better to bring the issue to the City Council with the question as to
whether both staff and the Planning Commission should spend some time
on it. This is how we dealt with the questions on changes to the
Modification Permit findings. Staff has some administrative problems with
some of the verbiage and concepts in the Code that were introduced in
1972 in terms of height measurement. In these days, with the pressure to
optimize height and floor areas, we are starting to see pressure on how we
administer the Code on a consistent basis. Staff would like to have a
system that is straight forward and easier to administer as a lot of staff time
is expended to explain how measurements are done and what the words
mean. If we could find an acceptable firm bench mark that is not disturbed
by construction and makes sense for at least the flat areas in town then the
answer is the answer, and there is no equivocation. We would end up
having a bifurcated height measurement provisions because we do need
special provisions for slope and cliff areas. One thing the Commission could
do would be to agree with staff that the item is worthy of discussion and ask
staff to carry a report to perhaps a City Council Study session and ask for
their direction of staff and Commission involvement.
Commissioner Eaton noted that the staff report does a good job of
illustrating what the problems are and recommends that this item be
brought forward to the City Council. He then asked about verbiage
regarding using a basement for height limits.
Ms. Temple answered the reason for that language is because they didn't
want to have to measure height from a basement. Therefore, it said that if
you have excavated for a basement, you go back to what would have been
the original grade.
A brief discussion followed on-
* defining the problem,
. involving research both internal and outside sources for model
codes,
. staff time,
existing status,
Page 3 of 6
ITEM NO. 3
PA20
Discussion
littp: / /www.city.newport- beach .ca.us /PlnAgendas /mnO2O5.htm 04/20/2004
11
C J
•
Planning Commission Minutes 02/05/2004
• use of grade benchmarks,
• . use and means of permanent benchmarks,
• increasingly burdensome problem particular to sloping
properties,
• use of artificial surfaces,
• alteration of natural grade,
• limiting amount of soil exportfimport,
• flexibility within the standards,
• Code interpretation,
• clarification issues,
• terminology definitions,
Commission Kiser noted his support of this item being presented to
the City Council for their direction.
• Commissioner Tucker, referencing an application of setting a grade
recently, noted that it was unusual way to do business to try to figure
out what natural grade was for something that had been altered so
many years ago. The way it seems to work, if you do some alteration
on a lot that an earlier alteration occurred prior to 1972, you are
operating under one standard. If your lot next door has had no
alteration and now you are ready to remodel, you will have a different
standard. That is exactly what we grappled with when we tried to
make a decision looking back into the past. I am supportive of the
Council looking at this issue and deciding whether they think it is
worth our while or not. He noted that he believes the big issue is
determining natural grade for post 1972 non - subdivision properties
where there has not been alterations occurring prior to 1972.
Motion was made by Commissioner Tucker to recommend that the
City Council have a study session to consider if changes in the
manner in which permissible height is determined under the Code is
warranted.
Public comment was opened.
Public comment was closed.
• Commissioner Selich noted that the problem seems to be that people
http://www.city.newport-beach.ca.us/PinAgendas/mnO2O5.htm
Page 4 of 6
04/20/2004 ,
Planning Commission Minutes 02/05/2004
are trying to push how much floor area they can get in these
structures and are trying to get the third story or partial third story.
Consideration should be given for a two story height limit in the non
cliff areas where there is cascading down the hill.
Ayes:
Eaton, Cole, Toerge, McDaniel, Selich, Kiser and
Noes:
Tucker
Absent:
None
Abstain:
None
None
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS:
a. City Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple reported that the Council
adopted on second reading the changes to the Zoning Code
regarding landmark buildings; ordinance was passed to second
reading on the pre - zoning of Annexation of Area 8 and the
Emerson Street Tract; adopted on second reading the areas of
annexation; letter to City of Irvine regarding transfer and
conversion of commercial entitlement to residential just below
the 405 Freeway.
b. Oral report from Planning Commission's representative to the
Economic Development Committee - none.
c. Report from Planning Commission's representatives to the
General Plan Update Committee - none.
d. Report from Planning Commission's representative to the Local
Coastal Plan Update Committee - Committee reviewed final
changes to Chapter 4, and directed staff to prepare a final draft
and commence the public hearing process with the Planning
Commission. This item is scheduled for March 4th.
e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner would like staff to
report on at a subsequent meeting - none.
f. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish to place on a
future agenda for action and staff report - none.
g. Status Reports on Planning Commission requests - Ms. Temple
noted that this list will be prioritized per staff research
allowance.
h. Project status - Marina Park EIR is scheduled for mid April
publication; St Mark's and St. Andrew's is scheduled for mid
March publication. Copies will be sent to the Commissioners as
http: / /www.city.newport- beach .ca.us /PlnAgendas /mn02o5.htm
Page 5 of 6
ADDITIONAL
BUSINESS
11
•
11
04/20/2004 P�
fl�
L-�
April 22, 2004
CRAIG S. HAMPTON
I N C O R P O R A T E D
DESIGNING QUALITY CUSTOM HOMES SINCE 1979
City of Newport Beach
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
RE: City Council Meeting of April 27, 2004
Study Session Agenda Item No. 3
Agenda Item No. 22
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
0 3 ENDA�
ar7_C+-
I have been designing custom homes throughout the City of Newport Beach for 25
years. I have very recently become aware of the Code Amendment Initiation — Height
Regulations. I found out about this completely by chance as there was no public
notification.
The intent of this letter is to inform the City Council of the complex process involved in
designing a custom home. As you may or may not be aware there is a lot of time and
expense that goes into designing a custom home and preparing plans to be submitted to
the City of Newport Beach Building, Planning and Public Works Departments for the plan
check process. The homeowner must hire a designer /architect, a civil engineer /land
surveyor, a soils engineer, energy engineer, and a structural engineer. Many months of
work go into the design and preparation of the final construction plan documents before
they are submitted to the city.
The first step in the design process is prudent research by homeowners and design
professionals of the existing building envelope requirements and existing building and
planning codes. There is a certain level of trust by homeowners and professionals that
the codes and requirements of the city will not be changed without their knowledge.
After reading the Staff Report prepared by the Planning Department, it is of concern to
me that the existing building height code and its existing interpretation may be changed
without the knowledge of homeowners and the professionals they have hired. To change
the building code in the middle of this process would create an undue hardship for the
many homeowners that have begun the design of their home months ago. These
homeowners and the professionals they have hired have based their design on the
building and planning code parameters as they existed at the time they started their
project.
1 of 2
11845 SW THELEN LANE POKfL,AND, OREGON 97219
949.632.2585 503.246.2807 FAX: 503.293.4331
E -MAIL: craig@eshcustomhomeplans.com
www.cshcustoinhomeplans.com
It is also of concern that there is not a clear direction as to what if any changes will be
made to the code or how and when the changes would be implemented. There seem to
be many unanswered questions.
➢ What is the "pipeline "?
➢ How can the existing code be phased out if there is not a new one to replace it?
➢ What will the new standards be and when exactly will they be implemented?
➢ Until the new standards are established, how do homeowners and design
professionals know how to proceed in the design of their current and future projects?
➢ How will homeowners and design professionals be notified of the changes?
I would very much like to be kept informed regarding the proposed changes to the grade
and structure height codes. My initial suggestion would be that the existing height
interpretation (i.e., broken roof) that has been in effect since 1986 should remain in
effect until the new standard is completed and adopted. This would allow a definite
ending of the existing code and beginning of the new code with no gray area in between.
Also important is the notification of homeowners and design professionals of the
proposed changes. Without notification of a definite ending of the existing code and
beginning of the new code homeowners and design professionals would not find out
there has been a change until the completed plans are submitted to the city for plan
check. At that point the homeowner would have spent thousands of dollars and months
of time would have been wasted.
Thank you for your time and attention to this very important matter.
Sincer ly,
C672 on
President
2of2
O
N
N
Q
553
9'al)' og
.O
U)
ai
L
V
�
O
i
V
O
N
N
Q
553
9'al)' og
t/1
i
.0
!c
Y�
f�
.E
J
t
.T
i
fwd`
W
W
m
E
N
O
L
Q
E
0
cn
m
O
ca
E
Q
E
N
L
cn
E
C-
.T
T
UI 0 0
O
.E
E
0
0
cn
E
cn
O
L
O
m
0
Q
O
O
cn
L
0
a�
L
Q
a
m
0
co
co
c�
co
C
CU
N
L
cu
CD
-0) cn
cU X
= W
RF
c�
^L,
W
W
L
cu /V�J
W
TT
iJ L
_C A
man
m
C)
N
FN
rn
_ c
y �
x O
67 �.
5
d-+
Q�
Q�
co
c�
C
-0) fA
cU X
= W
t
4
4
t
i
1
{
1
1
f
1
1
I
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
a
73
2
CD
m
Ell
u
m
ro
m
s
a�
n
w
E
LM
/O
lip
L
i
ca
Z
r
L-
0
Cn
Q)
CB
L
Cv
D
■
cn
Cv
L
U
L
Cn
cn
L
O
L
CB
L
O
O
U
X
w
■
U_
U
U
Co
Q
cn
m
2t
■
L
O
L
L
O
Cv
O
U
■
i
0
A
i
0
cc
f+
L
4)
cc
0
AM
cn
a�
cn
O
CB
�
•cn
•cn
N
O
• -
L
L
Q)
O
•U)
Q)
cn
A
�
v
Q
0
E
O
_W
0
L
•Cn
U
E
�
�
O
_O
Cn
cn
a�
cn
O
•
•
O
f�
O
U)
CB
L
U)
.Q)
U)
Q)
U)
■
�O
Q
N
X
_N
CB
L
Q)
O
Q)
U
N
L
Q)
O
W
■
.Q)
C-
Q)
-4�
.U)
O
U
U)
C-
U)
U)
�
Q)
LL
■
Neoo
U
N
C-
U
Q
0
Q
E
m
■
cn
-4-
O
N
Q
O
cn
O
Q
..Q
U
■
\:
I
j
/
�|
\
E
`|
\ � ca
�|
ƒ 7 /
•i
,i
,i
i
,!
,!
1
!
�
,
�
�
�
!,
i.
|`
i|
i
i,
i,
i.
i,
i,
c
E
cL
)
¢
Q
2
r_
a
E
U)
-0
/ \j
j)}
Co
�
MX
0 /
'w
'R
{ (D /
-r
W
/ >zI
= G # G
\:
I
j
/
c
a)
L
cu
CU
W
O
Q
�a) 0-
!�-
N
C
.E COL 0
cL ro
N
zzi m
1
I
N
O
-0.a
roMm
CD j_
Os =
mm
C
N 0 := O
X
d N N
_ , `
O O
C N U
O m
N O
_ m t0 @
E
F
m
ro
W
c�
ro
m
r
n
�CC
G
W
cn
S O
CL
T� ^0
CL
y
N
V
O_
I I
M
w
C
cu U
@ a
p m
0 f6
tn
V
cn
C)
(D
c
o
:;-T f6
N a
N
m (D LO
r N
O
O
O
m
N
L `
N "
0 m
L
>
S m
m m m
IT
w
cri
N
w
+1
w�
its
O
0
0
(}L
9
U
co
N
O
0
E
m
a
m
U
CD
J
in
O
O
j�
V
CD
E
m
L
V!
co
N O
� J
0)0-
C)
b
v
N
N
C @
O N a
t!7 O
C N N
@ X �
0
_ a) o
O of
N � O
cmoa@i
Smic@`
O
v
N
oy
y.�
w
y
m
�c5
y
i
1
1
1
!
t
i
t
@
1
C
{
d
e
t
�
/
>,
I
�
t
/
/
/
/
/
/
f
e
!
t
{
1
{
f
i
1
1
1
1
{
{
1
1
i
t
t
1
1
1
I
_
!
CO
'V
N
b
v
N
N
C @
O N a
t!7 O
C N N
@ X �
0
_ a) o
O of
N � O
cmoa@i
Smic@`
O
v
N
oy
y.�
w
y
m
�c5
y
f�
w�
W
E
w�
W
E
a`
W
L
wy
W
V
N
CB
L
cn
. X
O
O
L
E
0
cn
N
L
cn
C�
G
0
-4�
C-
C-
0
O
U
L
LL
0
cn
O
Q
_O
L
0
cn
O
.j
^0
I..L
0
U
a)
c-
0
Q
O
L
.m
W
0
O
kAW
�I
G�
m .�
1.
m .�
n 3v
.14
LY
54
LL�
m .�
aawapow'r
1!ldsa,l e nual iedde neluassaid
p,nb al!nu!luoss!p ap uobdnos
al la asudms ap luawala,l al!np
-ollun rood s91e31119n sl1o11D25 ua
1!el!e11 ll,nb slew 'allainlInD aouau
-ewied ap sues un almpeil ap u4e
allauuo!luanuoD zasse saDa!d jed
uo!1!13edai awn e ladde 1!es!e; !nb
'sool;lopy,p ueldwneg ap idao
-uoo ne ja4oelm as load inalneq
algnop sawnlon ap la sasioJsaJlua
xnea/AIw ap aapi,j 'aDUe6ala,p
luelne Dane aal!eJl lwawaJeJ Ise
alga is awaw 'salabuy sol e aunw
-woo inq,pinolne Ise - snol!d ins
afield ap uos!ew aun,p alloo - pi
alinpoilw ai6olodAl el afield ap
ainpoq ua uejjal un,p saluejluoo
sal led aa6!xa'uo!1daDxa awn
alsai aw!jdxa luawai!elD issne
lueinlonils awaisAs un e sinooai
al 'luepuadaD 'luawan(loadso. lag
u!eouawe aws!wapow ne uopnq
-uluoo alueliodwi snld el awwoo
ajapisuos Ise lalold as anb uosiel
allao mod Ise,:) 'asseiial -sliol sap
la uolaq ua xnealeld sap uagnos
ap uopDuo; es luawanelD iawud
-xa lnod alpeaj es alnol suep !oi
asodwi s - uolaq ua sanbpod bus
ap alias awn - afnlonRs el 'alelnl
- aal!4ole easuad es ap aluenblew
adela awn la peolj s6u!N saide
Jalpu4DS ap aJnnm alueliodwi
snid apuoDas el lsa uosnew allay
gDeag 1jodm@N'anuand ueaoo ZbZL
9Z-ZZ6L
llanoJ NI dil!gd io; asnoH 431008
I
MI
wl I A
Jon