HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 - Marine Charter Land Use & Parking Regulations - PA 2006-194CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 16
November 14, 2006
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Planning Department
Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner
(949) 644 -3235
palford aC)city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Code Amendment 2006 -006
Marine Charter Land Use and Parking Regulations (PA 2006-
194)
ISSUE:
Should Title 17 (Harbor Regulations) and Title 20 (Zoning Code) of`the Newport
Beach Municipal Code be amended to revise land use regulations and parking
requirements for marine charters?
RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct public hearing; introduce Ordinance No. 2006- approving Code
Amendment No. 2006 -006 and pass to second reading on November 28, 2006.
DISCUSSION:
Background:
The City Council initiated the proposed amendment on September 26, 2006.
Analysis:
The amendment is proposed to fulfill the intent of regulating marine charters
through the commercial harbor activities permits (also known as a marine activities
permit or "MAP "). The amendment would revise the land use regulation schedules
to allow marine charters by right in commercial zoning districts upon the issuance of
a MAP from Harbor Resources. Currently, a use permit issued by the Planning
Commission is required for marine charters in all commercial districts, with the
exception of those in Mariner's Mile and Cannery Village /McFadden Square where
these uses are already permitted by right. The proposed amendment would give
the Planning Director the authority to approve temporary off -site parking for uses
Marine Charter Land Use and Parking Regulations
November 14, 2006
Page 2
requiring MAPs. Currently, only the 'Planning Commission can approve off -site
parking.
With these revisions, the Harbor Resources Manager can approve a MAP if it is
demonstrated that the parking for the crew and passengers is adequate using the
number of parking spaces required by the Zoning Code. This is similar to the
procedure used for special events permits. Parking can be provided off -site with
the approval of the Planning Director, whose decision can be appealed to the
Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the proposed amendment on
October 19, 2006. The discussion focused on the proposed changes to the off -
site parking procedures. The Commission recognized the merits of. linking the
approval of off -site parking to the duration of the MAP, since use permits run with
the land and MAPs are valid only for a period of twelve (12) months or less.
However, the Commission believed that the adjacent property owners should be
notified if a parcel is being considered for off -site parking. The Commission voted
unanimously (6 -0) to recommend approval of the proposed code amendment and
further recommending that the City Council consider including a requirement for the
notification of adjacent property owners of proposed off -site parking arrangements.
The Commission specified that notification should only be to the adjacent
property owners. However, staff believes that public notice requirements should
be the same throughout the Zoning Code. Therefore, staff is recommending that
the notice should be to all property owners within a 300 -foot radius. This notice
requirement would apply to all off -site parking applications. The public notice
requirement has been added to the proposed revisions contained in Exhibit A of
the draft ordinance (Exhibit A).
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).
Currently, public notice is not required for off -site parking applications. However, most off -site
parking applications are filed in conjunction with applications that require public notice (e.g., a use
permit for a restaurant).
Marine Charter Land Use and Parking Regulations
November 14, 2006
Page 3
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.
Prepared by:
- e��
Patrick J. Alford
Senior Planner
Attachments:
Submitted by:
David Lepo
Planning Director
A. Draft ordinance.
B. October 19, 2006 Planning Commission Staff Report.
C. Planning Commission Resolution.
D. October 19, 2006 Planning Commission minutes.
ATTACHMENT A
Draft Ordinance
IT
ORDINANCE 2006-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 17 AND 20 OF THE
NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
LAND USE REGULATIONS AND PARKING
REQUIREMENTS FOR MARINE CHARTERS
[CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2006 -0061
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2006, the City Council initiated
amendments to Title 17 and Title 20 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal
Code to revise land use regulations and parking requirements for marine
charters; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on October ,19, 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 presented to, and
considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting; and
WHEREAS, on February 14, 2006, the City Council adopted new permit
procedures for regulating commercial activities on Newport Harbor, in part, to
consolidate charter regulations to establish a single regulatory authority within the
City for commercial operations on Newport Harbor, and
WHEREAS, current land use and parking regulations relating to marine
uses are contrary to the goal of establishing a single regulatory authority for Harbor
commercial activities; 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).
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Title 17 and 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
h
2of2
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 November 14, 2006, and adopted on the 28th
day of November, 2006, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS
RUTC610
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
0
EXHIBIT A
Section 17.10.050
17.10.050 Issuance of Permit.
Upon receipt of a complete application for commercial harbor activities
permit, the Harbor Resources Manager shall investigate the information
contained in the application. The Harbor Resources Manager -" shall refer the
application to the Planning Department, to verify that all of the applicable Zoning
Code regulations or conditions have been addressed or complied with and Public
Works to insure safe vehicular ingress and egress, and the safe loading and
unloading of passengers and supplies. The Harbor Resources Manager may
also refer the application to the Harbor Commission, RlaRFi•ng DepaFtrne., and
other appropriate City departments, or to the Orange County Sheriffs Harbor
Patrol for investigation, report or recommendation. The Harbor Resources
Manager may inspect, or cause to be inspected, the vessel(s), marine sanitation
devices) of the vessel(s), boarding facilities, parking and all upland support
facilities listed in the application. The Harbor Resources. Manager shall notify
applicant of his decision in writing within ninety (90) days from the date on which
a completed application is received.
Except as provided in this section, the Harbor Resources Manager may
issue the commercial activities permit upon a determination that approval of the
application will not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of those who
use, enjoy, or own property near Newport Harbor.
The Harbor Resources Manager shall approve the application unless:
A. The proposed commercial activity is likely to create noise which would
adversely affect use or enjoyment of the waters of Newport Harbor by members
of the public, or interfere with the rights of those who own property near the
waters of Newport Harbor to the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of that property;
B. The proposed commercial activity is likely to contribute to the problem
of pollution and litter on and in the waters of Newport Harbor;
C. The vessel or craft to be used by the applicant does not satisfy the
applicable standards of the United States Coast Guard, or City, County, State or
Federal requirements of law;
D. The proposed commercial activity is likely, when viewed in conjunction
with other anticipated charters and marine operations, to create a hazard to safe
navigation, or otherwise interfere with the rights of others to use the waters of
Newport Harbor;
EXHIBIT A
CA 2006-006
1
E. The proposed commercial activity does not provide facilities to ensure
adequate parking as requTed by Ghapter 20.699 of this 99d safe vehicular
ingress and egress, and the safe loading and unloading of passengers and
supplies for the period subject to permit. For the purpose of this section, parking
shall not be considered adequate d- unless the applicable number of parking
spaces required by fegw? eA4eAt of Chapter 20.66 of this code are satisfied
provided for the duration of the permit and will be available during the days and
hours of operation specified by the permit and that any off -site parking
arrangements have been approved by the Planning Commission or the Planning
Director;
F. The commercial activity would violate City, County, State or Federal
requirements of law;
G. The applicant has misrepresented material facts in the application;
H. The proposed commercial activity does not provide uplands support,
docking or boarding facilities sufficient to safely accommodate the size of
vessel(s) or number of passengers indicated on the application;
I. The proposed commercial activity includes an upland use that requires a
use permit or other approval under the City Zoning Code, and such permit has
not been obtained;
J. The applicant has a permit which is currently revoked or has been
revoked or suspended, or a notice of revocation or suspension no longer subject
to appeal has been issued within the past ninety (90) days. (Ord. 2006 -3 § 2
(part), 2006)
Section 20.05.050
Q. Marine Sales and Services.
Boat Shader, Rentals and Sales. GhaAeF,
Establishments engaged in the rental, or sale of boats
or ships, including storage and incidental mainte-
nance. This classification includes establishments
engaged in the sale or rental of personal watercraft,
such as canoes, kayaks, and wet -skis, but does not
include Entertainment and Excursion Services.
EXHIBIT A
CA 2000-006
2 U
D
2. Boat Storage. storage of operative or inoperative
boats or ships.
3. Boat Yards. construction and repair of boats or ships,
including the sale, installation, and servicing of related
equipment and parts.
4. Entertainment and Excursion Services.
Establishments providing vessels engaged in the
carrying of passengers for hire for the purposes of
entertainment or excursions, including fishing, whale
watching, diving, educational activities, harbor and
coastal tours, dining /drinking, business or social
special events and entertainment.
5. Marine Service Stations. Establishments engaged in
the retail sale of gasoline, diesel, and alternative
fuels, lubricants, parts, and accessories for boats or
ships.
6. Marine Retail Sales. Establishments providing
supplies and equipment for shipping or related
services, or pleasure boating.
Sections 20.15.020, 20.20.020, 20.41.070, 20.42.040 (B), 20.43.040 (B),
20.45.030 (B), 20.46.030 (B)
Revise land use regulation schedules to change `Boat Charter, Rental, and
Sales" to 'Boat Rental and Sales." Add Entertainment and Excursion Services
with the following land use regulation:
Code).
20.66.020 Basic Requirements for Off - Street Parking and Loading
A. When Required. At the time of initial occupancy of a site,
construction of a structure or alteration or enlargement of a site or
structure.
EXHIBrr A
CA 2006 -M
3
0
B. On -site Parking Required. Permanent parking shall be located on
the same parcel as the uses served, except for the following:
1. Townhouses and multi - family uses, where the parking is
located on another parcel within the same development site
and within 200 feet of the units thev are intended to serve.
C. Permanent Availability Required. Each parking and loading space
shall be permanently available, marked, and maintained for parking
loading space in conjunction with a seasonal or intermittent use for
a period of not more than 30 days.
D. Nonconforming. Parking or Loading. Land uses and structures
which are non - conforming due solely to the lack of off - street
parking or loading facilities required by this chapter, shall be subject
to the provisions of Section 20.62.060: Nonconforming Parking.
E. Calculation of Spaces Required.
Fractional parking space requirements shall be rounded up
to the next whole space.
2. Fractional loading berth requirements shall be rounded down
to the next whole space, and no berth shall be required for a
fraction less than one.
3. Where bench seating or pews are provided, 18 linear inches
of seating shall be considered to constitute a seat.
4. References to spaces per square foot are to be calculated
on the basis of gross floor area unless otherwise specked.
5. References to spaces per employee are to be calculated on
the basis of peak employment.
6. "Net Public Area" shall be defined as the total area of Eating
and Drinking Establishment or Cabarets and Nightclubs,
excluding kitchens, restrooms, offices pertaining to the use
only, and storage areas.
EXHIBIT A
CA 2006 -006
H
16
7. References to spaces per occupant are to be calculated on
the basis of maximum occupancy approved by the City of
Newport Beach Fire Department.
F. Spaces Required for Multiple Uses. If more than one use is located
on a site, the number of off- street parking spaces and loading
berths to be provided shall be equal to the sum of the requirements
prescribed for each use.
1 20.66.080 9f#- €tfeGWff -site Parking OR a Separate I ^`
in Chapter 20.90: Zoning Administration.
B. Authority. The Planning Commission shall have authority to
approve off -site parking agreements.
C. Required Notice.
1. Mailed or Delivered Notice. At least 10 days prior to the
decision on the application, notice shall be mailed to the
applicant and all owners of property within 300 feet of the
boundaries of the site, as shown on the last equalized
assessment roll or, alternatively, from such other records as
contain more recent addresses. It shall be the responsibility
of the applicant to obtain and provide to the City the names
and addresses of owners as required by this section.
2. Contents of Notice. The notice of the proposed application
shall contain:
a. A description of the location of the project site and the
Purpose of the application;
b. A statement of the purpose of the decision:
C. A reference to application materials on file for detailed
information:
EXHIBIT A
CA 2006-006
`A
d. A statement rights of appeal.
D. Required Findings.
1. Such lot is so located as to be useful in connection with the
proposed use or uses on the site or sites.
2. Parking on such lot will not create undue traffic hazards in
the surrounding area.
3. Parking is permanently available, marked, and maintained
for the use it is intended to serve.
E. Recordation. Upon approval by the Planning Commission, a
permanent covenant shall be recorded with the County Recorder.
The agreement shall be approved by the Planning Director and as
to form by the City Attorney and a copy shall be filed with the
Planning Department.
F. Marine Activities. Provided the findings in Section 20.66.080 (6)
are made, the Planning Director shall have authority to approve
of the permit or a period not more than one year, whichever is less.
required pursuant to Section 20.60.080 (C).
G. Loss of Off -site Parking.
which the spaces are required, and of any termination or
default of the aqreement between the parties.
2. Effect of Termination of Agreement. Upon notification that
the agreement for the required off -site parking has
terminated, the Planning Director shall establish a
reasonable time in which one of the following shall occur:
EXHIBIT A
CA 2006 -006
0
n
a. Substitute parking is provided that is acceptable to the
Director; or
b. The size or capacity of the use is reduced in
Proportion to the parking spaces lost.
EXHIBIT A
CA 2006 -006
7
0
Ylillilk RM
EXHIBIT A
CA 2006 -006
7
0
_a
WIN
on
._
EXHIBIT A
CA 2006 -006
7
0
ATTACHMENT B
October 19, 2006 Planning Commission Staff Report
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 3
October 19, 2006
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Planning Department
Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner
(949) 644 -3235
palfordecity. newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Code Amendment 2006 -006
Marine Charter Land Use and Parking Regulations (PA 2006 -194)
ISSUE:
Should Title 17 (Harbor Regulations) and Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport °Beach
Municipal Code be amended to revise land use regulations and parking requirements
for marine charters?
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached resolution recommending approval of Code Amendment No. 2006-
006 to the City Council.
DISCUSSION:
Background:
The City Council initiated the proposed amendment on September 26, 2006.
Introduction:
Marine charters is the common term for vessels that carry passengers for entertainment or
excursions such as fishing, whale watching, harbor tours, dining, and entertainment. On
February 14, 2006, the City Council adopted new permit procedures for regulating
commercial activities on Newport Harbor, including marine charters. This was .done, in
part, to consolidate charter regulations to a single ordinance (Chapter 17.10) and establish
a single regulatory authority within the City (the Harbor Resources Manager) for
commercial operations on Newport Harbor. However, Section 17.10.050 states that a
commercial harbor activities permit cannot be issued if the "proposed commercial activity
does not provide facilities to ensure adequate parking as required by Chapter 20.66."
Chapter 20.66 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) requires that off - street parking be
0
Marine Charter Land Use and Parking Regulations
October 19, 2006
Page 2
provided on -site and only the Planning Commission can waive or modify these
requirements.
Marine charters require a use permit issued by the Planning Commission in most
commercial districts. Also, many marine charters provide parking on an ad hoc basis and
often off -site. Off -site parking also requires Planning Commission approval. These
requirements are contrary to the goal of establishing a single regulatory authority for
commercial activities in the harbor.
Analysis:
In order to fulfill the intent of regulating marine charters through the commercial harbor
activities permits (also known as a marine activities permit or "MAP "), the following
changes are proposed:
■ Revising Section 20.66.080 to give the Planning Director the authority to approve
temporary off -site parking for uses requiring MAPs. The approval would be for the
duration of the MAP, which cannot exceed twelve (12) months.
Revising Section 17.10.050 to require the Harbor Resource Manager to submit
MAP applications to the Planning Department and the Public Works Department to
verify that all of the applicable Zoning regulations are complied with and that
traffic conditions are safe.
■ Revising the land use regulation schedules to allow marine charters by right in
commercial zoning districts upon the issuance of a MAP from Harbor Resources.
■ Revising Section 20.05.050 (Q) to make marine charters a separate land use
classification, "Entertainment and Excursion Services."
■ Revising Section 20.66.020 to explicitly require that off - street parking be provided .
on -site, unless an off -site parking arrangement is approved, and that off - street
parking be kept permanently available for the use it is intended to serve. Currently,
these requirements are only implied by the Zoning Code.
With these revisions, the Harbor Resources Manager can approve a MAP if it is
demonstrated that the parking for the crew and passengers is adequate using the number
of parking spaces required by Chapter 20.66. This is similar to the procedure used for
special events permits. Parking can be provided off -site with the approval of the Planning
Director, whose decision can be appealed to the Planning Commission. The Harbor
Resources Director's action on MAP applications can be appealed to the Harbor
Commission.
) (P
Marine Charter Land Use and Parking Regulations
October 19, 2006
Page 3
Marine charters would be permitted by right in commercial zoning districts with a marine
activities permit issued by the Harbor Resources Manager. Currently, a use permit
issued by the Planning Commission is required for marine charters in all commercial
districts, with the exception of those in Mariner's Mile and Cannery Village/McFadden
Square where these uses are already permitted by right. This will allow the City more
control over marine charters since use permits run with the land and MAPs are valid only
for a period of twelve (12) months or less.
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 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: Submitted by:
Patrick J. Alford
Senior Planner
Attachments:
1. Draft resolution.
Patricia L. Temple
Planning Director
11
. ATTACHMENT C
Planning Commission Resolution
1�
RESOLUTION NO. 1701
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH .RECOMMENDING THE
ADOPTION OF CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2006 -006 (PA
2006 -194)
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 17 and Title 20 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code to revise land use
regulations and parking requirements for marine charters; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on October 19, 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 presented to, and considered by, the
Planning Commission at this meeting; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission finds as follows:
On February 14, 2006, the City Council adopted new permit procedures for
regulating commercial activities on Newport Harbor, in part, to consolidate
charter regulations to establish a single regulatory authority within the City for
commercial operations on. Newport Harbor.
2. Current land use and parking regulations relating to marine uses are contrary to
the goal of establishing a single regulatory authority for Harbor commercial
activities.
3. The City Council should consider including a requirement for the notification of
adjacent property owners of proposed off -site parking arrangements.
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 -006 to Title 17 and Title 20 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code as provided in Exhibit A.
I01
2 of 2
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 19th DAY OF October 2006.
AYES: Cole, Hawkins, Peotter, Eaton, McDaniel and Toerqe
Excused: Henn
M
E- URT4 Faffil D
October 19, 2006 Planning Commission minutes
al
Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006
Page 2 of 27
modified.
ommissioner Ha uested item be placed at the end of th
�thaths
Benda on November 16, 20ub will be recusing himself from voting on
his item.
Ayes:
Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, I Toerge
Noes:
None
Excused:
Henn
Abstain:
None
HEARING ITEMS
ITEM NO.3
SUBJECT: Code Amendment 2006 -006
PA2006 -194
Marine Charter Land Use and Parking Regulations
Recommended
for Approval
hould Title 17 (Harbor Regulations) and Title 20 (Zoning Code for the Newport
Beach Municipal Code be amended to revise land use regulations and parking
requirements for marine charters.
Patrick Alford, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the staff report noting:
• The purpose of this amendment is to establish a single regulatory authority
for marine charters.
• The amendment would give the Planning Director authority to approve
temporary parking for land uses requiring Marine Activity Permits (MAPS).
• Would require the Harbor Resource Manger to submit MAP applications to
the Planning Department and the Public Works Department for review.
• Would establish a new land use classification called Entertainment and
Excursion Services, which would be the marine charter activities.
• Would allow the entertainment and excursion service uses to be permitted,
by right, in all of our base commercial districts including the corresponding
commercial districts in the Specific Plan districts.
• Revises the off -site parking section in Title 20 to reflect these changes.
Chairman Cole asked for questions from the Commissioners.
Commissioner Toerge asked the following:
• If the Harbor Commission reviewed this action.
• If we will view Title 17 before it goes to City Council.
Mr. Alford answered as follows:
• The Harbor Commission would be reviewing changes to Title 17 and didn't
think they had done so yet.
• This has been presented to the Commissioners for informational purposes
and they could make a recommendation but was not required by the code.
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \10192006.htm 11/03/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006
Toerge clarified his question as the whole Title 17 and not just
Alford answered he believed Commissioner Toerge was referring to a separ
mdment that is a reorganization of Title 17 and is being reviewed by the Har
omission. It is not required to go to the Planning Commission, but will
ctly to. the City Council once the Harbor Commission makes tl
imissioner Toerge asked what the Harbor Commission's schedule was to
or if they had already heard it.
Alford said they had heard it and had completed their review, but there
outstanding issue dealing with signs and they may pass that issue onto
Council.
ssioner Toerge questioned who he should address if he had concerns;
Commission or the City Council.
r. Alford said ultimately it would be the City Council.
McDaniel questioned the following in the staff report:
. If the Planning Director makes a decision, it could be appealed to
Planning Commission.
. If the Harbor Resources Manager makes a action, it's appealed to
Harbor Commission.
ssioner McDaniel felt the Planning Commission should have the ability
those actions.
Alford pointed out these were two separate issues:
. The Harbor Resources Manager is dealing with the actual Marine Activiti
Permit and that can be appealed to the Harbor Commission and could
turn be appealed to the City Council.
. The other issue is dealing with a very small aspect of the review, that is
Planning Director's approval of off -site parking. Any action by the Plann
Director can be appealed to the Planning Commission. The Plann
Commission does not currently review MAN and that is not proposed to
changed as part of this amendment.
missioner Hawkins had the following concerns and questions:
. Because of the off -site parking requirements and the Planning Din
approves them, he wasn't sure that this division still wouldn't go to the
Council.
. Would these approvals be directed to the Planning Director by referral
the Harbor Resources Manager?
. Does it go to the Planning Department regardless if there is a
waiver?
Page 3 of 27
93
file: //F: \Users \PLN1Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \10192006.htm 11/03/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006
Concerned that the adjacent property owners would not have notification
any proposed off -site parking and they may have some concerns over I
use of the off -site parcel.
Alford answered:
. Currently it is optional, but part of this amendment would require the Ha
Resources Manager to submit the request to the Planning Director and
Public Works Department to review for consistency with all applic�
applications.
. It goes to the Planning Department regardless; if there is proposed off
parking as part of the application, the Planning Director would have
authority to approve that off -site parking.
. Currently it requires a use permit, to be noticed, and a public hearing be
before the Planning Commission.
. There is no notification proposed for the off -site approval nor is there one
the MAP, so it is a legitimate concern. The major difference, unlike
current approval of a use permit for off -site parking, is it will not run with
land. MAN are for a limited period and cannot exceed one year. Th
would be a greater opportunity to solve any potential conflicts that the off
parking may create.
Temple added that for these types of activities, these sites are almost
a single use. Typically these operations are for 1 to 2 times a week , i
y 1 to 2 times a month, for 2 to 3 hours a day. These are not constant ac
any one parcel. The process is intended to recognize these types of
king arrangements are the historic way parking has been provided for
�s. The improvement to the process is to have the Planning Department
parking site proposed be use, review our records and make sure there
ers competing for the use of that same shared parking arrangement. It a
iuld end up being a better circumstance where we can verify that an apprc
ount of parking is actually available at the time it is needed for these oper<
missioner Hawkins asked if the Planning Department's review would me
the parking was not over subscribed to a particular parcel.
Temple answered yes.
Hawkins questioned if it is currently a use permit issue for
ng.
Alford answered yes.
5ioner Hawkins continued, so the Harbor Resources Division
td concern about the need for a use permit at that point because they
something they think is legitimate and beneficial to the community and
Department or the Planning Commission may have other thoughts.
Alford answered yes. He added that it was also the nature of the MAP. T
' is not meant for a long duration. It is somewhat flexible with it's time limits.
permit runs with the land.
Eaton had some questions and concerns:
Page 4 of 27
fi le: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006\ 10 1 92006.htm 11/03/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006
Is there any history on how many charter operations there are now,
many have off -site parking and how frequently do the operate?
Concerned that many of the charter operations, particularly du
Christmas, operate at night; therefore, the .parking lot used for off•
parking is presumably used by an office that does not operate at night
then converts the parking from day parking to night parking for the cha
boat patrons. This changes the character of the lot and do we have
history on this issue.
;. Temple said she didn't have an actual accounting on these numbers, but tF
s been happening for many years in and around the harbor. These parkii
angements have been happening with very little checking and zero knowledl
the Planning Department or consultation with us. We know it to be happenii
d historically is how these people have found parking. If they can't find parkii
their patrons, they have perhaps gone outside of Newport Beach and chart
sed them in and this is seen often along Mariners Mile. This just provides
portunity for actual review of the availability of the parking, which has
ppened in the past.
missioner Eaton asked since there are no records, do we have any sense
much charter business is at night verses day or weekends.
Temple answered as follows:
Day time charter operations focused principally during the summer and
weekends; in the summer may be harbor tour excursions; on the weekei
large numbers of weddings.
Evening operations tend to operate like other entertainment venues in
around the harbor especially during the holidays, but the tend to be foc
at the late week and weekends.
ssioner Eaton stated even though these are annual permits, he felt th
be noticing to the adjacent property owners because of the potential
3 the character of the off -site parking lots.
ssioner Hawkins agreed with Commissioner Eaton and asked if these
permits.
Alford said it varies but cannot exceed 12.months. He didn't have a
skdown on how many are less than 12 months.
Temple said the first 6 applications were for 6 months.
Hawkins asked:
What is the availability for the Planning Commission, Harbor Commissio
Harbor Resources Manager or Planning Director to review a permit after
has been issued and there is a problem with parking.
. Is busing people from another parking area part of the permit.
Temple answered as follows:
Page 5 of 27
a5
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006\10192006.htm 11/03/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006
. The MAN will specify where and how the parking will be provided. If tt
cease to provide that parking if something changes, they will not be meeti
the conditions of the permit and it can be cancelled or they would have
apply for a new one with a revised arrangement.
. If we discover what we determined to be okay and is not adequate rea
hasn't been thought through 100% and can be discussed before going
Council.
. One of the real beauties of this process is because it is not a land use perr
and it's more like a license, we don't have to issue the permit again if there
an issue that we don't have an effective way to deal with in the short term
the duration can be a much shorter term. Revoking a use permit is a ve
lengthy process and very seldom comes to a successful conclusion.
. They have to tell us exactly how the patrons will be getting to the venue.
they are busing them in, they will need to show us how they will safely pa
load and unload these people because there have been problems alo
Coast Highway. We hope this process will give us a little more ability
handle and control those problems.
iissioner Toerge stated he is also in agreement that the property ov
noticed. He asked Mr. Alford if the Title 17 document will come to the
iittee again for comments.
Alford answered said the changes to Title 17 are moving along separately frc
LCP certification process. There has been a subcommittee at the Harb
nmission that have been reviewing the document and making minor change
Ay removing antiquated language. It is essentially the same document that ti
Certification Committee had been reviewing and is now moving along as
arate amendment
Toerge asked Mr. Afford is he is handling that process.
Alford answered he is assisting and it has been in the hands of
Toerge said he will get with Mr. Alford after the meeting to make
comment was opened.
comment was closed.
airman Cole asked Commissioner Eaton what radius he proposed for
property owners.
imissioner Eaton answered just the adjacent property owners rather than
or 500 foot radius.
Cole asked Ms. Temple if that was practical and could be done.
Temple answered it lengthens the process by approximately 2'/2 weeks,
ides preparing the notices, and mailing them 10 days in advance.
Page 6 of 27
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \10192006.htm 11/03/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006
rman Cole asked if that would be problematic.
s. Temple answered the longer you add to the process of a permit that is only
year does place some burden on the applicant due to time constraints As far
aff, it is just another process that may increase the fees. One alternative tl
ay be considered is to determine if there is a consensus of the Commission tl
ould like to see the City Council take that point on directly. As we transmit t
nendment to the City Council, we can show them what changes that would me
r the process of analyzing it with Harbor Resources.
mmissioner McDaniel said he was a little concerned with the noticing, bu
;ause of the short duration of these permits he feels the best notification woudc
to have the event take place, the neighbors would then know what is going or
J be able to bring any complaints to us before another permit is issued. If it
nes to us first, we noticed it and approve it, it may be something that goes along
h the land and be there for a long time and certainly could be objectionable.
noticing is for something that is permanent and is to bureaucratic an(
ssioner Peotter agreed with Commissioner McDaniel. He asked Staff in
office building were they're using this parking, is it usually limited to
z of hours they are allowed to use the parking lot.
Temple said currently there is no process. They would tells us what hours th
Id be having their charters and the MAP would have those hours as
mmissioner Peotter asked typically most office operations are from 8 to
restrictions in most office zoning to run 2417 if the wanted to.
Temple said if a project came forward and the Commission decided to limit
-s of operation of parking, based on public testimony or other consideratic
is part of purpose of the review. If there is a limit on the use of the park
couldn't point to it and use it for their off -site parking.
mmissioner Toerge thinks the suggestion made by Ms. Temple earlier to r
a Council initiated proposed amendment and we send it to them but I
rff look at the ramifications and present alternatives of a noticing program
them make the decision.
issioner Hawkins asked what led to this amendment.
Alford said the MAP section was adopted recently and the Harbor Resoc
lion is starting to process those applications and is now faced with
Hawkins agreed with Commissioner Toerge in the proposal, bu
that there is a notice provision for the Planning Director':
of the off -site parking and let the City Council do what the will with it.
some discussion Chairman Cole asked for a split motion or combined
2 Motions were made by Commissioner Peotter-
First Motion - Recommend to the City Council approval of
recommended changes per Staffs recommendation by adopting I
Page 7 of 27
V1
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006\ 10 1 92006.htm 11/03/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006
Amendment No. 2006 -006.
• Second Motion - Recommend adjacent land owners be notified prior to
hearing, similar to CEQA.
nmissioner Eaton pointed out that these two motions conflict, since the
ion recommends approval per Staffs recommendations which doesn't inc
second motion.
ssioner Peotter asked for a vote on the second motion and if it
it in the first motion.
Cole asked if there was a consensus on the notice provision.
(Commissioner Hawkins wanted a clarification if the notice was for the
barking issue.
was a consensus on the notice provision for off -site parking.
Temple wanted a little more clarification by asking:
• Would we present the notice saying "with the analysis as an alternative 1
consideration ".
• Or say, "The Planning Commission has recommended that you enact
notice requirement".
an Cole said he thought the initial recommendation would be with
Staff came up with something problematic.
Peotter wanted to be on record that he opposed
and that is why he wanted the separate voting.
Cole asked Commissioner Peotter what is his recommendation.
simplified by Commissioner Peotter to move Staffs recommendation.
Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge to recommend S
dation with the suggestion to study and offer to the City Council
for noticing the adjacent property owners to the parking.
Cole asked if there was further discussion on the substitute motion.
Substitute Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to make
Brit to notice the adjacent property owners in connection with the Planr
consideration of the off -site parking.
was then voted on.
Peotter, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge
Henn
cond Substitute Motion failed. Chairperson Cole asked Commissioner
re -state the first substitute motion.
Motion was then voted on.
Page 8 of 27
file : //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal \2006 \10192006.htm 11/03/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006
Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge
None
Henn
Code Amendment 2006 -005
Group Residential Facilities
could Title A(Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code be
revise regulaNns relating to Group Residential Facilities?
Alford, Seni6( Planner, gave an overview of the staff report noting:
. This amendment 's intended to address the ongoing code enforcem(
problem with singl family houses being operated as boarding house or
some cases as multi- mils residential.
This amendment deals ith the addition of a new land use classificati
under the heading of Grou Residential, which covers boarding and roomi
houses. "Boarding or Roo g Houses" would be defined as any dwelli
unit where more than one roo ' is rented under more than one written or o
rental agreement. If it meets thX definition, then it is defined as a Boardi
House, which.is currently undert a Group Residential heading and it is .r
permitted in our residential zones. NGroup Residential is currently limited
our Government, Educational, and lelktitutional Facilities (GEIF) District a
only when associated with an educatiohpl or medical institution.
. Corresponding amendment to the definitio of "single house keeping unit'
make sure the land use classification defrnr 'on and the definition of "sine
house keeping unit" are consistent.
mmissioner Eaton said he had sent an email questio ing why the limit was on
and not two. He received a reply stating that City A rney had insisted that
one. He pointed out that he had read an article in the n wspaper addressing
i lar ordinance in the City of Orange and their limit was o. He would like,
)w why we choose one rather than two.
Harp, Assistant City Attorney, wanted to clarify that City ttorney Rob,
uson was very insistent upon this and he had not had the opport ity to discus
reasoning behind this, but pointed out that Mr. Alford had discus ed this wit
Alford said they had discussed 3 or more, but with that many there co be
?ntial a situation of 3 separate housing keeping units operating under hr
uld be a single - family dwelling. The intent is to keep this as tight as possibl s
are limiting the single - family zones to a residence that is operated as a sin
sing keeping unit.
issioner Eaton asked if we are talking about the limit on the number of
with the constraints of a single housing unit.
Alford said the issue is not the number.of people living as a single housi
ping unit under one single rental agreement. The problem arises when peot
renting out rooms to individuals that are not sharing responsibilities of what c
nition of a single housing keeping unit is. The effects to the neighborhood
n in the parking, noise, etc.
file: //F: \UsersTLN\Shared\Gvarin\PC min etal \2006\10192006.htm
Page 9 of 27
PA2006 -198
Recommended
for Approval
a�
11/03/2006
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Code Amendment No. 2006 -005 Group Residential Regulations
Code Amendment No. 2006 -006 Marine Charter Regulations
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach
will hold a public hearing regarding the following proposed Code Amendments:
CA 2006 -005 (Group Residential Regulations). An amendment to Section
20.05.030 (Residential Use Classifications) of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code to add a new use classification for Boarding Houses (PA
2006 -198).
CA 2006 -006 (Marine Charter Regulations). Amendments to Title 17
(Harbor Regulations) and Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code to revise land use regulations to permit marine charters by
right in commercial zones and revise procedures relating to the provision
of off - street parking (PA 2006 -194).
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).
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on
November 14. 2006, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the
Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at
which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard
thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public
hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200.
LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk
City of Newport Beach
. A mo ,,� P, IDlqk jo�
1,3 C-
M KA&T
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Code Amendment No. 2006 -005 Group Residential Regulations
Code Amendment No. 2006 -006 Marine Charter Regulations
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach
will hold a public hearing regarding the following proposed Code Amendments:
■ CA 2006 -005 (Group Residential Regulations). An amendment to Section
20.05.030 (Residential Use Classifications) of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code to add a new use classification for Boarding Houses (PA
2006 -198).
■ CA 2006 -006 (Marine Charter Regulations). Amendments to Title 17
(Harbor Regulations) and Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code to revise land use regulations to permit marine charters by
right in commercial zones and revise procedures relating to the provision
of off - street parking (PA 2006 -194).
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).
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on
November 14. 2006, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the
Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at
which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard
thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public
hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200.
��� Yr1• i�� %��
LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk
City of Newport Beach