HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 - Day Care Regulations0
•
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
COUNCIL GENDA
NO.01-09 --cQg7
Agenda Item No. 17
December 12, 2006
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Planning Department
Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner
(949) 644 -3235
palford(cDcity. newport- beach. ca. us
SUBJECT: Code Amendment 2006 -007
. Day Care Regulations (PA 2006 -211).
ISSUE:
Should Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. be amended ..
to revise the land use regulations to distinguish day care centers for children and
those for adults and establish spacing, concentration, parking, and operational
standards for Large Family Child Care Homes?
Conduct public hearing; introduce Ordinance No. 2006- approving Code
Amendment No. 2006 -007 and pass to second reading on January.9, 2007.
DISCUSSION:
Backaround:
Large Family Child Care Homes and Small Family Child Care Homes are day care
facilities located in residences where an occupant of the residence provides care
and supervision of no more than fourteen (14) children. The California Child .Day
Care Facilities Act preempts local. land use regulations, but allows cities and counties
to adopt reasonable standards, restrictions, and requirements for Large Family Child
Care Homes relating to spacing, concentration, parking, and operational standards.
The City Council initiated the proposed amendment on September 26, 2006.
Analysis:
The proposed amendment revises Title 20 (Zoning Code) land use regulations to
distinguish day care centers for children and those for adults, as provided for under
Day Care Regulations
December 12, 2006
Page 2
I' 1
U
State law. This involves adding two new child care subgroups under the "Day Care,
Limited" land use classification: Large Family Child Care Homes for nine (9) to
fourteen (14) children and Small Family Child Care Homes for eight (8) or fewer
children. Small Family Child Care Homes must be permitted by right. However, the
City can require a nondiscretionary use permit for Large Family Child Care Homes.
No other Day Care, Limited facilities (i.e., adult day care) would be permitted in
residential districts because the land use tables will only list Large Family Child Care
Homes and Small Family Child Care Homes as permitted uses.
It is also proposed that Large Family Child Care Homes and Small Family Child Care
Homes must be the principal residences of the care providers, be licensed by the
State, and comply with applicable building and fire codes and any standards adopted
by the State. In addition, it is proposed that Large Family Child Care Homes obtain a
use permit issued by the Planning Director and comply with the following restrictions:
■ .. SDacino /Concentration. A Large Family Child Care Home must be.located.at,;; .
least five;hundred (500) feet from• any existing day care center.
Droa- off /Pick -up. A minimum of two (2) off- street parking spaces must.be
provided as a drop -off and pick -up area in addition to those parking spaces
required for the dwelling unit. A driveway may be used, provided it is •
approved by the Traffic Engineer based on traffic and pedestrian safety
considerations.
Noise. A large family child care home may only operate a maximum of
fourteen (14) hours for each day between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:00
p.m. and may only conduct outdoor activities between the hours of 7:00 a.m.
and 7:00 p.m.
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission held public hearings for the proposed amendment on
October 19, 2006 and November 16, 2006. Discussion at the Planning
Commission hearings focused on off - street parking requirements. After reviewing
representative standards from other communities and data from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE), the Planning Commission decided that two (2) off -
street parking spaces in addition to those required for the residence would be
sufficient.
Lighting Controls
The Planning Commission directed staff to report to the City Council on possible
lighting controls for Large Family Child Care Homes. This was in response to
comments by a resident who lives next to a Large Family Child Care Home in a
Day Care Regulations
December 12, 2006
Page 3
• Two - Family Residential (R -2) District. The resident stated that he was being.
impacted by floodlights used to illuminate outdoor play areas.
The State preemption limits the City to adopting "reasonable standards, restrictions,
and requirements concerning spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking, and
noise control." Therefore, any other restrictions would also have to apply to all
residences. Currently, the City has only one residential lighting control regulation:.
Section 20.60.050 requires a use permit for external lighting for swimming pools,
tennis courts or other uses of a similar nature within residential districts or closer
than 200 feet to the boundary of a residential district. This section specifically:
states that this requirement is not to be applied to lighting fixtures that are normally
incidental to the use of a residential structure.
Staff inspected the site of the Large Family Child Care Home that was the subject
of the comment. The front yard is used as a play area. However, the only, lighting
...,. xture;obseryed was a porch light that was partially obscured.by shrubbery.. Staff .
does not believe:that the lighting of the play area is subject to Sectiorr`20:6USO,. .
since the lighting fixture is one that is typically used on residential. structures::
However, should this or another child care home within or adjacent to a residential
area use other, more intensive, types of lighting fixtures to illuminate a play area, a
use permit would be required pursuant to Section 20.60.050.
• Many communities require outdoor lighting fixtures, including those in residential
areas, to be shielded or directed to minimize the impact of glare and reflections on
adjacent properties. Should the City Council desire to establish such standards, staff
believes that it should be addressed in a separate amendment, possibly as part of a
comprehensive zoning code update.
Environmental Review
The proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure - making'
activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment
(Section 15378 (b) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines).
Public Notice :
Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot a minimum of. 10 days in
advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item
appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on
the City website.
U
Prepared by.
Patrick J. Atford
Senior Planner
Day Care Regulations
December 12, 2006
Page 4
Submitted by:
David o• /
Planning Director
Attachments:
A '
Draft ordinance.
B.
Draft Planning Commission resolution.
C.
November 16, 2006 Planning Commission staff report
D.
Draft November 16, 2006 Planning Commission minutes.
E:
October 19, 2006 Planning Commission staff report.
F.
October 19, 2006 Planning Commission minutes.
•
•
�i
0
0
0
Attachment A
Draft Ordinance
ORDINANCE 2007 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE •
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 20 OF THE NEWPORT
BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO DAY
CARE FACILITIES [CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2006-
007]
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2006, the City Council initiated
amendments to Title 20 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code to revise
land use regulations for day care centers; and
WHEREAS, current land use regulations for day care centers do not
distinguish between facilities for children and those for adults; and
WHEREAS, the California Child Day ,Care'Facilities Act allows cities to
adopt reasonable standards, restrictions, and requirements for family day care
homes concerning spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking, and noise •
control; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of such regulations is necessary in order to
protect the character of the C!Vs residential neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on the
proposed amendment on October 19, 2006 and November 16, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend
approval of this code amendment to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is not defined as a project under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and
procedure making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in
the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). •
_ (o
Page 2 of 2
• THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall be
amended as provided in Exhibit A.
SECTION.2: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the
passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official
newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after
the date of its adoption.
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of :
the City of Newport Beach held on December 12, 2006, and adopted on the 9th
day of January, 2007, by the following vote, to wit:
• AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS
I A760
ATTEST:
• CITY CLERK
I
EXHIBIT A
20.05.030 Residential Use Classifications •
A. Dav Care. Limited. "Day Care, Limited" means non - residential,
non - medical care and supervision of- '••�,. '42T fourteen or fewer
persons on a less than twenty-four hour basis. This classification
includes, but is not limited to, nursery schools, preschools, and day
care centers for children (large and small family day care homes)
and adults.
1. Larcie Family Child Care Homes. Dav care facilities located
Section 20.05.040 Public and Semipublic Land Use Classifications
F. Dav Care, General. Provision of non - medical care for thitteea
fifteen or more persons on a less than 24 -hour basis. This
classification includes nursery schools, preschools, and day care
centers for children or adults.
Sections 20.10.020, 20.41.050, 20.43.060 (B), 20.44.035, 20.44.040, 20.45.030
(B)
Revise land use regulation schedules for the Residential- Agricultural (R -A);
Single - Family Residential (R -1), Restricted Two Family Residential (R -1.5), Two
Family Residential (R -2), and Multi- Family Residential (MFR), Newport Shore
Specific Plan (SP -4), Cannery Village/McFadden Square Speck Plan (SP-6 R -.
1, R -2, and MFR), Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan (SP -7 REQ and RSF), and'
the Central Balboa Specific Plan (SP -8 R -2 and MFR) Districts to:
•
1. Add Large Family Child Care Homes and Small Family Child Care Homes. •
EXHIBITA
CA 2006-007
01
• 2. Permit Large Family Child Care Homes with a use permit approved by the
Planning Director.
•
•
3. Permit Small Family Child Care Homes by right.
4. Indicate that no other Day Care, Limited uses are.permitted.
5. Add a cross reference to new Section 20.60.130 (Day Care Facilities for
Children).
20.60.130 Day Care Facilities For Children
A. Applicability. Day care facilities for children. including Large Family Child
B. Licensind. California Department of Social Services licensing is required
for all day care facilities for children.
D. Additional Standards. Each family child care home shall comply with
of Regulations. Title 22- Division 2).
E. Use Permit Required for Large Familv Child Care Homes. In addition to
required for the dwelling unit. A driveway may be used to provide
EXHIBrrA
CA 2006-007
these spaces, provided it is approved by the Traffic Engineer based
on traffic and pedestrian safety considerations.
3. Noise. In order to protect adiacent residential dwellings from noise
hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
Section 20.66.030
Revise the Off -Street Parking and Loading schedule as follows:
OffStreetParking and Loading Spaces Required
Uso0assification Off-Street Parking Spac0w. . -y 50"treeb
Loading Spaces
RESIDENTIAL
GROUP RESIDENTIAL
DAY CARE, LIMITED
-LARGE FAMILY CHILD CARE HOMES
1 covered per 2 guest rooms.
2 per site for drop-off and .
pick -un Durooses fin addition
to the spaces required for the
dweilino unit).
EXHIBITA
CA 2006.007
•
L_J
•
16
n
U
0
Attachment B
Draft Planning Commission Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.. •
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THE
ADOPTION OF CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2006 -007 (PA
2006 -211)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS,
RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2006, the City Council initiated amendments to
Title 20 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code to revise land use regulations for
day care centers; and
WHEREAS, public hearings were held on October 19, 2006 and November .16,
2006 in the City Hall Council Chambers; 3300 Newport Boulevard, 'Newport Beach,
California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance
with the Municipal ;Code., Evidence, both written and oral, was presenfed'tu;if " .*
considered`by, i Planning Commission at this meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
Current land use regulations for day care centers do not distinguish between •
facilities for children and those for adults.
2. The California Child Day Care Facilities Act allows cities to adopt reasonable
standards; restrictions, and requirements for family day care homes concerning
spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking, and noise control. .:
3. The adoption of such regulations is necessary in order to protect the character
of the City's residential neighborhoods.
4. The proposed action is not defined as a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and
procedure making activities not associated with a project or a physical change
in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the aforementioned.
findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City
of Newport Beach adopt Code Amendment No. 2006 -007 to Title 20 of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code as provided in Exhibit A.
•
la
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No;
Page 2 of 2
• PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2006.
AYES:
BY: .
, Jeffrey Cole, Chairman
BY:
Robert Hawkins, Secretary
KI
11
0
•
Attachment C •
November 16, 2006 Planning Commission Staff Report
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
• PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 6
November 16, 2006
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Planning Department
Patrick J. Afford, Senior Planner ®�� p ®��.
(949) 644 -3235 V
palford@city.pewport-beach.ca.us
SUBJECT:.. Code Amendment 2006 -007
Day Care Regulations (PA 2006 -211)
ISSUE:
Should Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code be amended to. .
revise the land use regulations to distinguish day care centers for children and those for
adu @s and establish spacing, concentration, and operational standards?
• RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached resolution recommending approval of Code Amendment N o.2066-
007 to the City Council.
DISCUSSION:
Background:
Large Family.Child Care Homes are day care facilities located in residences where an
occupant of the residence provides care and supervision of no more than fourteen (14)
children. The California Child Day Care Facilities Act preempts local land use regulations,
but allows cities and counties to adopt reasonable standards, restrictions, and
requirements for Large Family Child Care Homes, including those concerning parking.
The proposed code amendment include a requirement that a drop - off/pick -up area must
be identified and approved by the City's Traffic Engineer. This was the only parking
standard proposed.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed code amendment on
October 19, 2006. The Commission continued the hearing and directed staff to return with
an off - street parking requirement.
•
N
Day Care Regulations
.November 16, 2006
Page 2
Analysis:
A review. of other communities that have adopted standards for Large Family Child Care
Homes require a drop -off /pick -up area or off-street parking spaces based on the number
bf children and /or employees, or both. Some communities place additional restrictions on
drop- off/pick -up areas that require vehicles to back out onto arterial streets or streets with
speed limits of 30 or 35 miles per hour or higher. Representative standards from a
num res are provided in Attachment A.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Parfdng Generation contains
information on parking demand rates for various land uses. The ITE database includes an
analysis of 17 suburban and 21 urban day care locations, 75 percent of which were
located in Tennessee. This data is taken from large commercial day care facilities and not
the smaller, residentially -based Family Child Care Homes. These facilities averaged 85
children, 17 employees, and 4,200 square feet of gross floor area. Nevertheless, this data
can provide a benchmark to determine the appropriate off - street parking requirement.
The ITE analysis indicates, an average peak period parking demand from 0.09 to 0.59
vehicles per child with an average of 0.24 vehicles per child. Vehicles per employee
ranged from 0.53 to 2.50 with an average of 1.35 vehicles per employee. Vehicles per
square foot ranged from 1.18 to 8.67 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area with an
average of 3.16 vehicles per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Counts were taken
between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m.
Basing the parking requirement on the number of children or employees
problematic since it would be difficult to verify and the numbers may vary
Therefore, establishing a set minimum number of off -street parking spaces
recommended.
would be
over .time.
per site is
After reviewing the requirements from other communities and the ITE analysis,. staff
believes that two (2) off - street parking spaces should be sufficient to accommodate the
Parking demand for a facility with fourteen (14) children or less. This requirement would
be in addition to the two (2) off - street parking spaces required for the dwelling unit A
driveway maybe used for this purpose, provided the City's Traffic Engineer has approved
it as safe for dropping off and picking up children.
Environmental Review:
The proposed action is not. defined as a project under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure- making activities
not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of
the CEQA Guidelines).
is
is
•
Ito
U
•
•
Day Care Regulations
November 16, 2006
Page 3
Public Notice:
Notice of the October 19, 2006 hearing was published in the Daily Pilot a minimum of 10
days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. This included an
eighth page advertisement: Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this
meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website.
Prepared by:.
atrick J. Atrord
Senior Planner .
Attachments
Submitted by:
David Lepo
Planning DlKector
A. Representative parking standards for Large Family Child Care Homes.
B:. Draft resolution:
C. October 19, 2006 Planning Commission staff report.
F)
Representative Parking Standards for Large Family Child Care Homes
ceramurrny
standard
The city council may adopt general standards that may be applied to large family day care horse
Costa mesa
applications on a case4)y -case bas's. The farad review authority may use these standards to "Pose
conditions upon the approval to achieve the purposes set forth in section 13-31 and to - maintain
neighborhood stability and cohesiveness.
Dana Point
1 stall/2 employees, plus 1 stsM children, based on tactity capacity.
1 space for each staff member, plus, t space for each 5 children, or 1 space for each 10 children where a
Laguna Beach
ckorar driveway or its equivalent, designed fo the contlnuos flow of passenger vehicles for the purpose
of loading and unloading children and capable of simultaneously accommodating at least 2 such
vehicles, is provided on the site.
San Clemente
A passenger loading plan shag be approved by the decision - snaking body having authority over the,
pemdt for the large family day care home.
A minimum of two off-street parking spaces shall be provided in addition to those required by Section
17.36.040 (Number of Padding Spaces Required) for the single -family dwelling. The driveway may be
used to provide these spaces, if the driveway is of sufficient lergth to accommodate the parking of two
vehicles without either blocking any sidewalk or other pedestrian access.
coati
A home located on a site with no orn-strdet par'king'immediatdiy in-front of the site shall provide two
of beet parking spaces for drop -offs in addition to the.spaces required by Subsection C.2a.
A home located on a street with a speed limit of 30 miles per hour or greater shag provide twu off -street
parking spaces for drop -oils in addition to the spaces required by subsection C.2a, that are designed-to'
Prevent vehicles from backing onto the street (e.g., circular driveway).
3 spaces minimum; may indcnde spaces provided to fuN residential parking requirements and on-street
parking so long as it abuts the sire.
At least two off -street parking spaces shall be provided eudushiely for dropping off and piddrg up
children. The &Weway may be used to provide the ol&sbad parking required by Section 13.36.040, Tithe.
Loomis
parking wit not obstruct any required drop -off and pick up areas nor block any sidewalks or other public
access. Altematinre parking and drop-off arrangements may be approved by the director based on traffic
and pedestrian safety considerations.
A home located on a sleet with a speed limit of thirty-five miles per hour or greater shag provide a drop-
off/pick-up area designed to prevent vehicles from backing onto the street (a g. circular driveway).
1 space per employee, in addition to required residential spaces.
Off-street parking shall be as dedem i ned through use perm approval, but shard be a minimum of one.
Novato
space per employee on the largest shill,
A safe area for picking up and dropping off children shag be provided. This activity shall only be alowed
In a driveway, in an approved parking area, or in an area with direct access to the facaiy.
The use shall not negatively impact oft parking in the neighborhood.
AN dwellings used fo large family day care facilities shall provide at least three (3) automobile parking
Sonoma
spaces. These may include spaces already provided to NISI residential parking requirements and on-
shed parking so long as it abuts the site.
ATTACHMENT A
•
•
•
f�
0
0
0
Attachment D
November 16, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes
Planning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006 Page 16 of 18
was m ommissioner Hawkins and seconded by
talon, reouer, nawKi nncuaniei, oerge ana Henn •
None
None
•y•
Code Amendment 2006-007 (PA2006 -211) ITEM No. 6
Day Care Regulations PA2006 -211
Should Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code be amendedpecommende
to revise the land use regulations to distinguish day care centers for children anq approval
those for adults and establish spacing, concentration, and operational standards?
Chairperson Cole noted that this item would be heard first as a member of
public has requested.
Commissioner Henn noted he would abstain from discussion and vote on this
matter as he had not participated in the initial meeting on this subject.
Patrick. Alford, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the staff report noting the
following:
This Rem had been heard at the public hearing on October 19thr
This is a set of regulations dealing with large family child care homes and is
intended to allow the City to avail itself of the land use controls permitted
under State Law.
•
Staff was directed to return with this Rem with an off -street parking standard,
which in our report deals with the standards in the institute o
Transportation Engineers publication Parking Generation an
representative standards for parking from other communities.
The staff report includes a recommendation that the off street parking
standard be set as two off - street parking spaces and a drop-off and pick-up
area approved by the City's Traffic Engineer and that a driveway could be
used for this purpose. This is in addition to any required off - street parking
for the actual dwelling unit on the property.
'ublic comment was opened.
Ice Garrett, local resident, noted:
He lives next to a day care center.
Concerned with lighting with flood lights in a residential area.
Concerned also with the noise and traffic issues related to this use as well.
He asked that something be added to the current Municipal Code wit
regards to lighting in a residential neighborhood.
•
A Commission inquiry, he added:
Pick -up and drop -off occur at a red - painted curb in front and sometim
ab
le: //F:1Users\PLNISharedlGvarinlPC min eta112006111162006.htm
nnnF
Planning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006
are cars waiting in line.
We have 3 -foot setbacks.
1t times he has to use ear protection in order to rest during the day
it is so loud with the children playing outside in the front yard.
The front yard is fenced.
comment was dosed.
Ir. Alford noted that there are no current standards for residential lighting and it
iore of a common standard regarding shielding direction away for commerc
reas. State preemptions limit us to controls dealing with issues of concentrati
nd spacing, traffic, parking and noise. Effects of light impacts may not fall witt
lose categories. Our noise control standard would limit the overall operation
4 hours between the hours of 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. and outdoor activities betwe
is hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., so this might provide some relief from the Iightinl
Is suggested that this issue be addressed in a general standard for resident
rea dealing with light and glare.
ample added that perhaps the designation for outdoor lighting of swin
and tennis courts might be.applicable. She noted that the State preen
estrict this application and staff will, therefore, work with the City Attoi
and present findings at the Council meeting, if the Commission wishes.
Mr. Alford added that the proposed standards have added language that the
thirgbe essentially residential in character. The care provider resider
staXW states that this use is clearly residential in use and character ai
incidental and secondary to the use of the property as a residence.. The Zonii
Administrator, in reviewing these future use permits, can use this as a way
controlling lighting and some other types of activities that might deviate from
residential character. of the area.
kt Commission request, Ms. Temple read Section 20.60.050 entitled
Lighting.
commissioner Peotter asked about the employee parking.
VIr. Alford noted the survey was taken on a number of day care facilities
iifferent settings and are not the small ones in residential neighborhoods and d
'.hey are the larger commercial facilities as the number of children indicates, K
in average of 85. He noted there are no set staffing requirements and can open
vith a single care provider. It would be problematic to try and enforce a stand.
hat could change over time by adding /removing employees, adding /removing I
camber of children.
)iscussion continued on review processes.
;hairperson Cole noted we could recommend approval of this item to the
:oundl and request that staff add additional language regarding ligt
est�ns.
:ommissioner Hawkins noted that perhaps another standard relating to reside
ghting needs to be inserted in the Code. The staff report needs to include
onsideration.
ileJ /F:\Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006\ 111 62006.htm
Page 17 of 18
A
12/01/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006
sistant City Attorney Harp noted his agreement that there may be general
ndards in the code that need to be altered and that general regulations that
pply
D�
otion made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commission
cDaniel to recommend approval to the City Council by adopting the resolution
nd staff is directed to do further research regarding residential lighting for these
nd all residential facilities.
yes:
Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Toerge
oes:
None
stain:
Henn
DITIONAL BUSINESS:
ADDITIONAL
BUSINESS
Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted the City Council considered an
ap oved the Marine Charter.Land Use Parking Regulations; the Grou
Res! tial Facilities Code Amendment; continued the Big Canyon Coun
Club G eral Plan Amendment until January 9th at the request of the
applicant there was concern over the pending EIR litigation and the
appeal for Ou dy Queen of Angels expansion was denied.
Report from Plan • g Commission's representative to the Economic
Development Commi - no report.
Report from the Planning Co ission's reoresentetive to the Local Coastal
Committee - no meeting.
d. Matters which a Planning Commissi r would like Staff to report on at
subsequent meeting - Commissions . Peotter would like to see the
meetings organized better and suggests that there be an annual Zone
Code dean -up. Discussion ensued and thi • em will be brought back i
January.
e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish place on a future
agenda for action and staff report - none.
f. Project status - none.
g. Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Henn has been a ad t c
the City Council, therefore, this is his last meeting he will be a ' g.
Following a brief discussion, it was decided to start the next meeting
5:00 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT: 11:15 p.m.
JADJOUR ENT
ROBERT HAWKINS, SECRETARY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
ile ://F:IUsers\PLN\Share&Gvarin\PC min etal\2006111162006.htm
Page 18'of 18 ' '
'T
•
r1
LJ
40
2a
12 of nom
0
0
Attachment E
October 19, 2006 Planning Commission Staff Report
a�
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH E3 FILI 90"
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 5
October 19, 2006
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Planning Department
Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner
(949) 644 -3235
PalfordCa?city. newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Code Amendment 2006 -007
Day Care Regulations (PA 2006 -211)
ISSUE:
Should Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code be amended to
revise the land use regulations to distinguish day care centers for children and those for
adults and establish spacing, concentration, and operational standards?
RECOMMENDATION: •
Adopt the attached resolution recommending approval of Code Amendment No. 2006-
007 to the City Council.
DISCUSSION:
Ba ftround:
The City Council initiated the proposed amendment on September 26, 2006.
Introduction:
The proposed amendment is intended to address the concern of potential over
concentration of day care centers in residential neighborhoods. Day care facilities
supervising twelve (12) or fewer persons (Day Care, Limited) are permitted by right in
residential, commercial, and institutional zoning districts, while day care facilities
supervising thirteen (13) or more persons (Day Care, General) require a use permit. The
concern is that large day care centers could be established on abutting single - family
residential lots or within dwelling units on a two-family or multifamily residential lot. Thus, a
residential neighborhood would be impacted by what is effectively a large day care facility,
but without the regulatory controls of a use permit.
•
')4
Day Care Regulations
October 19, 2006
Page 2
•
The CiiVs regulation of day care centers reflects the California Child Day Care Facilities
Act. This State law prohibits cities and counties from prohibiting 'family day care homes"
for children on lots zoned for single - family dwellings. This preemption establishes two
types of family day care facilities: 'small family day care hones for eight (8) children or
less and "large family day care homes" for seven (7) to fourteen (14) children.
Furthermore, cities and counties are required to either permit large family day care homes
by right in residential zones or grant nondiscretionary permits for large family day care
homes in single - family zones. Reasonable standards, restrictions, and requirements
concerning spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking, and noise control are
permitted.
The Zoning Code does not incorporate all of the distinctions provided for under the State
law. Both small and large day care facilities for children are included in the Day Care,
Limited land use classification, which includes facilities for children or adults.. Furthermore,
the Zoning Code contains no regulations regarding spacing and concentration, traffic
control, parking, and noise control.
Analysis:
The proposed amendment revises the land use regulations to distinguish day care centers
•for children and those for adults, as provided for under State law. This involves adding two
new subgroups under the Day Care, Limited land use classification: Large Family Child
Care Homes for nine (9) to fourteen (14) children and Small Family Child Care Homes for
eight (8) or fewer children.
Small family child care homes must be permitted by right. However, State law allows the
City the option of requiring a use permit for large family child care hones. The use permit
must be nondiscretionary, meaning that is must be approved .if the large family child care
hone complies with all local regulations. Therefore, it is proposed that large family child
can: homes require a use pen-nit issued by the Planning Director.
The proposed amendment adds a new section to the Zoning Code (Section 20.60.130)
that requires all family child care hones (small and large) to be the principal residence of
the care provider, to be licensed by the State, and comply with applicable building and fire
codes and any standards adopted by the State. These are all State requirements, but
referencing them in the Zoning Code allows for local enforcement.
As stated earlier, State law allows the City to adopt reasonable standards, restrictions, and
requirements for large family child care hones concerning spacing and concentration,
traffic control, parking, and noise control. Therefore, the proposed amendment adds a
new section to the Zoning Code (Section 20.60.130), which includes the following
•r The Zoning Code does currently not reflect the change in State law that increased the size of small
family day care homes from 6 to 8 children and large fatuity day care homes from 12 to 14.
,75
Day Care Regulations
October 19, 2006
Page 3
standards:
■
Spacing/Concentration. A large family child care home must be located at least five
hundred (500) feet from an existing day care center.
Drop- off/Pick -up. A drop- off/pick -up area must be identified and approved by the
City's Traffic Engineer.
Noise. A large family child care home may only operate a maximum of fourteen
(14) hours for each day between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. and may
only conduct outdoor activities between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
Environmental Review:
The proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure- making activities
not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of
the CEQA Guidelines).
Public Notice:
Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Not a minimum of 10 days in advance
of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. This included an eighth page
advertisement. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which
was posted at City Hall and on the City website.
Prepared by:
Patrick J. Alford
Senior Planner
Attachments:
1. Draft resolution.
Submitted by:
Pall-41 114 ,
Patricia L. T m . e
1
Planning Director
E
•
•
IG
r1
U
11
Attachment F
October 19, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes
Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 Page 11 of 27
Ir. George Schroeder, landlord and real estate broker, wanted to state that we
a basically in agreement with Staffs recommendations. He pointed out that
ve lease agreement he has drawn up has a clause that the lessee can not sub-
ease. II one would need to do is call up his landlord and add a person's name t
is exists agreement for the time period that person may be staying. When the
•
ided pe leaves, they would revert back to the original lease. He also asked
this code a ndment would apply to Balboa Island.
Ir. Alford answers it is City-wide.
Ir. Harp wanted to kn if the intent was not to allow anyone to sub -lease and
Ilow owners to rent a roo to one person?
Ir. Afford said it wasn't so muc the intent, but the consequence of this approach,
iat it can be a problem to a lesso nd not to the owner.
ublic comment was dosed.
ommissioner Toerge again stated he Id not support this amendment as
ritten.
ommissioner Hawkins agreed with Commissioner oerge and asked if this will be
ping to the City Council.' . .
Ir. Alford said it would go to the Council, unless it w turned down by the
lanning Commission it would not automatically go to Coun '1 but would have to
e appealed.
•
Ir. Harp recommended to move this on to the City Council and the sty Attorney
lauson could address any concerns the Planning Commission may h e with the
oundl.
ommissioner Hawkins believes this is a numbers problem.
lotion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to recommend adoption of Cod
mendment 2006 -005 to the City Council with the modifications to strike 1 an
sert 2 under section 20.03.030 and under section 20.05.030 (B) strike 2 and
sert 3 and make the changes throughout.
None
Henn
ITEM NO.6
SUBJECT. Code Amendment 2006 -007 PA2006 -211
Day Care Regulations
Continued to
hould Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code be amended November 16,
o revise the land use regulations to distinguish day care centers for children and 2006
hose for adults and establish spacing, concentration, and operational standards?
atridc Alford, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the staff report noting:
• This amendment was initiated to address the concern over the potentia
concentration of day care centers in the residential neighborhoods.
• There is a State preemption on local land use controls that allow smaller da a�
ile : //F:1Users\PLNlSham&Gvarin\PC min eta112006110192006.htm
'Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006
care center in residential districts by right, but also allow certain options
the City which include limiting them to day care center for children and
require a none discretionary permit for that use.
The proposed amendment would allow the City to avail itself of the optic
that are presented under the State preemption and would change our Is
use classifications to break up our Day Care Limited land use classificat
with 2 new subgroups: the Large Family Child Care Homes for nine (g)
fourteen (14) children and the Small. Family Child Care Homes for eight
or fewer children.
. We would revise the land use schedules for the residential districts.
We are proposing a set of standards for day care facilities for children wl
would be added to Chapter 20.60. There are provisions for licensing, crit
for child care provider's residence, standards dealing with separa
requirements set at 500 feet, requirement for drop-off /pick -up area to
identified and approve by the Traffic Engineer, and a noise provision
would limit operation to a maximum of fourteen (14) hours for each
between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. and outdoor activities betty
the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
in issioner Eaton had. a question on the map that shows existing family
homes and how many of them were the Large Family Child Care Homes.
Alford said the breakdown was not available from the sources the
compiled from.
Rhmissioner Eaton had sent an email earlier asking why we had not utilized
tion, which the State gives, of requiring off - street parking for the larger facili
8 to 14 children. He said Mr. Alford had responded to his email, that would
>blematic in the areas where the primary access was an alley and they may
able to provide off - street parking. Commissioner Eaton wondered if we w
larger child care facilities in areas as dense as Balboa Island or Corona
rr where you only have 3 -foot side yards and alley access and were thi
propriate places to have that many children in one facility.
Alford pointed out that the following:
. These are largely single - family zones and we would have to open them
under the State preemption.
. We could require a non - discretionary permit, but we could not exclude
entirely.
Most communities in California have dealt with the parking issue
adopting standards requiring a drop - off /pick -up area only and some h
more detail on the type of streets this is allowed.
. We have adopted a similar standard that would be a problem In areas wh
•the driveways are not fronting the street and the off - street parking
accessed from an alley.
. We opted for the recommendation that a drop-off /pick -up area be
and approved by the Traffic Engineer.
. le: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared\Gvarin \PC min etal\2006 \10192006.htm
Page 12 of 27
al
12(01/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006
Eaton asked where would the drop-off /pick -up sites be for
Alford said most likely it would be in the street in front of the residence.
ier Eaton asked if that would require the cooperation of the City
a public street zone.
Alford answered it wouldn't be solely designated for that purpose, but a
showed where children could be safely dropped -off and picked -up.
iissioner Eaton pointed out the possibility of double parking in a n:
when picking -up children in the late afternoon at a time when the area
i up quickly.
Alford suggested hearing from Public Works on this issue since they will
:wind it.
>ioner Eaton feels it would be a problem having 9 to 14 children
unit with a 3 -foot setbacks in a high density area.
Edmonston, Transportation/Development Services Manager, noted
Agreed that the intent was to create a safe area for children to be
. The implementation required would be a marking on a curb with a
time -limit basis, etc.
. What happens in you have 9 to 14 children and 2 or 3 cars show up a c
you would have the same problem even if you mark a spot in an area
was easy to get in and out of, because it would more than likely be ma
for one car.
sioner Eaton said that adds to his feelings that perhaps these
not be encouraged in these densely populated areas.
iissioner Hawkins was also concerned with the larger facilities and the
parking. Perhaps a parking requirement is needed to regulate areas wl
larger facilities are not suited.
Peotter asked what the staff requirements are for the large day
Alford answered it varies depending on the number and ages of the children.
State law regulates this.
ssioner Peotter posed this question because the off -street parking could
towards the number of staff and not just for a drop - off /pick -up area.
Alford said most require 2 spaces that can be provided in the driveway.
imunities have required that cars cannot back out into the street If the s
i is in excess of 35 MPH. One community has required a space for each
Mar in addition to the drop -off /pick -up.
ileJ /F:1Users\PLN\Shared\Gvarin\PC min eta1\2006\10192006.htm
Page 13 ot27
•
U
30
12/01 /2006
Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 Page 14 of 27
rnissioner Peotter asked. if the State requires a certain amount of space for
day care facilities; exterior and interior space. That would tend to limit
that are practical for these facilities.
'Alford said there are certain limits and is part of the licensing. We are limit
• Concentration issues.
• Traffic control.
• Parking
• Noise
• Fire Codes
. Building Codes
fond that we are not permitted to additional regulations.
nmissioner Peotter asked if the 50.0 -foot setback is used by most other cities.
Alford said yes most have been a.300 or 500 foot separation.
nmissioner Peotter asked if two neighbors had day care facilities and madel
kpgement to share play areas, that would not be permitted under the proposal.
Alford said that was correct. With the intent under State law and what we an
ig to do, is to make sure they're safe for the smaller facilities. If they go into
er facility they will be forced to go through the normal use permit process.
ther concern is this happening in a two - family area, the R -1.5. District, R
rict, or Multi- Family District, where you might have multiple dwelling units on :
ale property and have the large facilities with 28 or higher children on one lot.
ch is one of the major reasons behind this amendment.
Peotter asked what the use permit fee will be for the
a. Temple said we would charge are normal fee for processing the permit,
based on the amount of time we spend handling it.
Peotter asked if it would be less than a Zoning Administrator fee.
Temple said the Planning Director use permits are delegated to the Zoi
iinistrator. They are approved by him, the fees are modified based on
rent processing and noticing requirements and this has proved to be
lent by using one person.
Harp suggested the option of tying the parking requirement to the number
kk facility.
r. Alford felt they could draft something if given the direction on the intent t
Provide some type of parking for staff and give some consideration that staff is th
resident of the dwelling unit and could use their normal off - street parking 3i
ile: //F:\Users\PLN\Shared\Gvarin\PC min etal\2006\ 10 1 92006.htm 12/bl/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006
for that purpose.
comment was opened.
Anjah Shaidaie asked the following:
. Does the processing fee goes directly to the salary of the people working
processing the permit?
. Are there a fines for any parking violations of these facilities or not having
permit to run the facility and where do these fines go?
Temple answered:
. The processing fee is both the cost of the Staff who process and handle
permit and the postage costs and cost for notification in the newspaper.
. All the existing Large Family Day Care facilities, should this regulation
adopted, would be considered legal and non - conforming and they cc
continue their operations. If a new facility applied to the State, we we
have notified the State of our regulations and they would contact us bei
issuing a license to make sure all of the local. regulations where
compliance.
comment was closed.
nissioner Eaton said he would like to see a continuance in order to get
information from Staff on the following:
. What are the State requirements that may have a de -facto effect in terms
allowing the larger facilities in the more intensely developed areas; are the
State requirement for play areas? By looking at the map, we do have
existing facilities in these intense areas; 2 in the R -2 Zone and 1 in the R
Zone.
Would like Staff to give more information on how other cities are hand
this and what type of parking requirement they have come up with so
might see it.
m made by Commissioner Peotter to approve with Staffs recommi
an addition, under E4, requiring on -site parking based on State
rements, which will be reviewed by the City Engineer.
nmissioner Hawkins said he wasn't sure he could support the motion.
ited clarification if it is on -site parking for the employees. He also had conc
the drop-off issues, with respect to the large facilities, and would like to
ommodations for drop -off of the children and parking associated with the c
stant City Attorney Harp said this item is not as critical as other items
can be brought back at a later date.
Cole asked if there was a timing urgency from the City on this item.
Temple answered no and due to the nature of these questions it would
ile : //F: \Users\PLN\.Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \10192006.htm
Page 15 of 27
•
0
•
as
12%01/2006
,Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006
to continue this Rem.
Motion was made by Commissioner Eaton to continue this Item
6.2006.
Eaton, Hawkins, Cole,
None
Henn
Holiday Inn Express (PA2006 -182)
2300 West Coast Highway
Toerge and Peotter
appXant requests the approval of a 19 room expansion of a 64 room exis
tel. Th o-story addition is fully compliant with applicable standards and
located atihe rear of the existing two -story motel building.
Marrelli, Assistant Planner, gave an overview of the staff report noting:
a This is an existing motel.
. The proposal is to abd 19 guestrooms to the existing 64 roomsJor a total
83. \
There will be on -site parkas required by the Zoning Code.
. Staff feels they have met or ca eat all the . findings for the Use Permit, a
for the compliance with the M 'ner's: Mile Design Framework which
required by the Mariner's Mile Spa Plan.
ice White, from Government Solutions an on behalf or Holiday Inn Expre
e a PowerPoint presentation noting the foil g:
e Showed an aerial View of the project site, poi 'ng out other business's a
offices in the area.
. History of Site - approved in 1987 as a 53 -room motk. remodel approved
March 2002 which included the elimination of a restau.N (nt, to add 11 gut
rooms and remodel the exterior to enclose the balconies. nt
. Current Use - 64 -rooms with a .5 FAR; the General Plan a
Mile Specific Plan designate the site as Retail Service Cc
SP5); Coastal Land Use Plan as General Commercial (GC).
. Now Requesting - Amend existing Conditional Use Permit to allod
additional 19 guest rooms (12 on the ground floor and 7 on the se
floor); building height would be consistent with the existing structure -21
7 inches.
a Proposed Use - 83 room motel, 83 parking spaces and .7 FAR.
The new addition is in the rear of the property.
a Showed views of a single room and a suite.
a Low Season -January through April and October through December,
ile : //F:1UsersTLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal�2006\10192006.htm
PA2006-182
Continued to
November 2,
2006
Page 16 of 27
33
12101 t200F