HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 - Height Overlay District Zoning Code Amendment in West Newport MesaCTY OF
F
NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Staff Report
May 12, 2015
Agenda Item No. 16
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director — (949) 644 -3226,
kbrandt @newportbeachca.gov
PREPARED BY: Fern Nueno, Associate Planner
PHONE: (949) 644 -3227
TITLE: Height Overlay District Zoning Code Amendment in West Newport Mesa (PA2015-
047)
ABSTRACT:
A Zoning Code Amendment to allow increased residential building height in the Multiple Residential (RM)
Zoning District within Statistical Area A2 in West Newport Mesa in conjunction with the provision of
enhanced project design and amenities.
RECOMMENDATION:
a) Conduct a public hearing;
b) Find the project to be categorically exempt pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations
(Section 15305, Article 19 of Chapter 3, Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act) under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). Class 5 consists of minor alterations
in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent, which do not result in any
changes in land use or density. The Zoning Code Amendment creates a Height Overlay District to provide
a mechanism to request additional residential building height, which provides for minor changes in land use
limitations. The average slope of the properties involved is less than 20 percent and the project does not
change the allowed land uses or density for any property within the Height Overlay District;
c) Introduce Ordinance No. 2015 -12, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach,
California, Approving Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2015 -004 Creating a Height Overlay District to
Allow Increased Residential Building Height for Properties Located in the Multiple Residential Zoning
District in Statistical Area A2 in West Newport Mesa (PA2015 -047) (Staff Report Attachment No. CC 1),
and pass to second reading on May 26, 2015; and
d) Either accept the Planning Commission recommendation to prepare a Master Plan for streetscape
improvements for the West Newport Mesa area consistent with General Plan Policies LU 6.6.3 and LU
6.6.4 and direct staff to return with a budget for the Master Plan for Council consideration or alternatively
direct staff not to pursue a Master Plan at this time.
16 -1
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
There is no fiscal impact related to the Code Amendment.
DISCUSSION:
Project Setting
The proposed Code Amendment would be applicable to properties located in the Multiple Residential (RM)
Zoning District within Statistical Area A2 in the West Newport Mesa area (Map provided as Exhibit A to the
draft Ordinance — Attachment No. CC 1). The area is developed with primarily multiple -unit residential,
industrial, and medical office uses, ranging in height from one -story to three - stories.
Proiect Description
The height limit for the RM Zoning District is 28 feet for a flat roof and 33 feet for a sloped roof. Building
heights may be increased up to 32 feet for a flat roof or 37 feet for a sloped roof with the approval of a Site
Development Review or Planned Development Permit, subject to certain findings, including providing
increased setbacks and additional landscaped open space. The Code Amendment would create a Height
Overlay District that would provide a mechanism to request heights above the 32 flat/37 sloped roof height
limit for properties that meet certain criteria.
Background
At the January 27, 2015 City Council meeting, the Council initiated a Code Amendment to increase allowed
building height for properties located west of Superior Avenue in the RM Zoning District within the West
Newport Mesa Area. The Council stated that review of the increased height should be subject to a
discretionary application that would include findings that the proposed project provides increased building
setbacks from streets and property lines and increased on -site recreational amenities for the residents.
At the March 19, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed the proposed code
changes and provided direction to staff on the proposed amendment. The meeting minutes are provided
as Attachment No. CC 2.
On April 9, 2015, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 1977 (Attachment No. CC 3) recommending City
Council approval of the Code Amendment. After review of public comments received regarding the need
for a Specific Plan and applicable General Plan policies, the Commission also recommended that the
Council consider preparation of a Master Plan for streetscape improvements in the West Newport Mesa
area. The draft meeting minutes are provided as Attachment No. CC 4.
Code Amendment
The parameters for the Code Amendment are within the draft Ordinance (Attachment No. CC 1) and
include the following:
• The Height Overlay District includes properties located in the Multiple Residential (RM) Zoning District
within Statistical Area A2.
• Approval requires discretionary review by the Planning Commission through either a Site Development
Review or Planned Development Permit.
• Eligible properties must have a minimum lot size of one acre.
.The maximum height limit is 40 feet for a flat roof and 45 feet for a sloped roof and three stories
maximum.
• Additional required findings include:
16 -2
o The proposed project provides increased building setbacks from the streets and property lines;
o The proposed project provides project enhancements and on -site recreational amenities for the
residents above code requirements; and
o The proposed project provides quality architecture and quality materials.
• Quality of architecture will be reviewed for compliance with the following criteria:
o Enhanced treatment of building elevations facing public streets with respect to architectural treatment
to achieve the highest level of design and neighborhood quality (high - quality doors, windows, moldings,
metalwork, finishes, stoops, porches, etc.).
o Building materials and colors should be selected that will complement the proposed design and other
buildings in the surrounding areas.
o Building materials should be high - quality, durable, authentic to the architectural style, and applied in a
quality fashion.
o If stucco is used it should have a smooth finish. Sand and lace stucco finishes should be avoided.
o Lighting should be selected to provide ambiance, safety, and security, without unnecessary spillover
or glare.
o Building owners and tenants should keep the building elevations clean and in good repair.
For projects that include a subdivision, enhanced project design requirements shall include:
Overall lot setbacks
he RM setback requirements are applicable to the
overall development lot.
Minimum front setback for
25 feet from front property line abutting a public
primary structure
street.
The first 15 feet of the 25 -foot setback shall include
Street enhancements
trees, shrubs, and ground cover. Fences, walls, or
hedges are permitted beyond 15 foot front setback.
Minimum side landscape
5 feet from property line abutting public streets to
setback from street
include trees, shrubs, and ground cover, but no
fences, walls, or hedges.
Minimum 8 -foot sidewalks, meandering sidewalk
Public sidewalks
preferred for lots greater than 300' wide (easement
may be required for public access).
Common open space
100 square feet per unit dedicated to recreational
amenities (does not include pathways).
Recreation building, seating areas, barbecue /grill,
ire pit/fireplace, swimming pool /spa, bicycle
Recreational amenities
racks /storage, activity area (such as playing
ield /lawn, sport court, horseshoe pit, playground,
etc.), or similar amenities.
Additional guest parking
here limited off-site on-
Guest parking above the code requirement that is
street parking is available
distributed throughout site.
Master Plan
Based on public comments, the Commission discussed the merits of preparing a Specific Plan for the West
Newport Mesa area; however, after reviewing the applicable General Plan policies, discussing the benefits
16 -3
and disadvantages, and because direction was not provided by Council to pursue adoption of a Specific
Plan, the Commission did not include this in their recommendation. General Plan Policies LU 6.6.3 and LU
6.6.4 (below) include a recommendation for the creation of a master plan for public right -of -way
improvements. The Commission noted that there was no foreseeable advantage to developing a Specific
Plan for the area. The Commission also commented that the most feasible mechanism to create a cohesive
neighborhood appearance would be for the City to create a master plan for public improvements in the
area.
LU 6.6.3 — Cohesive and Integrated Medical Campus Development
Work with property owners and encourage the development of a master plan for streetscape, pedestrian,
signage, and other improvements that contribute to a definable district. Land use boundaries delineated on
the Land Use Diagram may be modified by a specific plan to achieve cohesive districts that integrate a
variety of land uses.
LU 6.6.4 — Livable Residential Neighborhood
Work with property owners and encourage the preparation of a master plan for the residential
neighborhood defining park and streetscape improvements that provide amenity for local residents and
enhance the area's identity.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Commission recommends that the City Council find the project to be categorically exempt pursuant to
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (Section 15305, Article 19 of Chapter 3, Guidelines for
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act) under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use
Limitations). Class 5 consists of minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of
less than 20 percent, which do not result in any changes in land use or density. The Zoning Code
Amendment creates a Height Overlay District to provide a mechanism to request additional residential
building height, which provides for minor changes in land use limitations. The average slope of the
properties involved is less than 20 percent and the project does not change the allowed land uses or
density for any property within the Height Overlay District.
NOTICING:
Notice of this amendment was published in the Daily Pilot as an eighth page advertisement at least 10 days
before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item
appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Attachment CC 1 - Draft Ordinance
Attachment CC 2 - Planning Commission Minutes 3.19.15
Attachment CC 3 - Planning Commission Resolution
Attachment CC 4 - Planning Commission Minutes 4.9.15
16 -4
ATTACHMENT CC 1
ORDINANCE NO. 2015-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONING
CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2015 -004 CREATING A
HEIGHT OVERLAY DISTRICT TO ALLOW INCREASED
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING HEIGHT FOR PROPERTIES
LOCATED IN THE MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING
DISTRICT IN STATISTICAL AREA A2 IN WEST NEWPORT
MESA (PA2015 -047)
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2015, Council Member Tony Petros requested the City
Council consider initiation of a Zoning Code Amendment to allow increased residential
building height in the Multiple Residential (RM) Zoning District in Statistical Area A2 in
West Newport Mesa;
WHEREAS, the City Council initiated a Zoning Code Amendment on January 27,
2015, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A
notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the
Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and
considered by, the City Council at this meeting;
WHEREAS, the Zoning Code Amendment establishes a Height Overlay District
( "Overlay ") to allow increased residential building height in conjunction with the provision
of enhanced project design and amenities;
WHEREAS, the subject properties are located in the RM Zoning District and the
General Plan Land Use Element categories are RM;
WHEREAS, lot 1 of Tract 8381 is located within the Coastal Zone and the Coastal
Land Use Plan designation is Multiple Unit Residential (RM -C). The remaining properties
within the Overlay are not located within the Coastal Zone;
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2015, the Planning Commission reviewed the Zoning
Code Amendment as a New Business discussion item in the Council Chambers located at
100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the
meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence,
both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at
this meeting;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on April 9,
2015, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A
notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the
Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and
considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. The Planning
Commission recommended approval of the Zoning Code Amendment;
16 -5
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council on May 12, 2015, in the
Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time,
place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Newport
Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and
considered by, the City Council at this public hearing. The City Council introduced and
passed to second reading the ordinance to approve the Zoning Code Amendment; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council on May 26, 2015, in the
Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time,
place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Newport
Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and
considered by, the City Council at this public hearing. The City Council conducted a
second reading of the ordinance to approve the Zoning Code Amendment.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach ordains as
follows:
Section 1: The Zoning Map adopted by reference in Section 20.14.010 of Title
20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to define
the properties located within the Height Overlay District as shown on the map provided
in Exhibit "A," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2: Section 20.28.010 of Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Subsection "D" to read as follows:
D. Height (H) Overlay District. The H Overlay District is intended to
establish standards for review of increased building height in conjunction
with the provision of enhanced project design features and amenities.
Section 3: Chapter 20.28 of Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Section 20.28.060 to read as follows:
20.28.060 Height Overlay District
A. Applicability. The Height Overlay District includes properties
located in the Multiple Residential (RM) Zoning District within
Statistical Area A2.
B. Discretionary Review. A request for an increase in building
height under the provisions of the Height (H) Overlay District requires
discretionary review through either a site development review or
planned development permit.
C. Eligibility. Properties eligible for the Height (H) Overlay District
must have a minimum lot size of one (1) acre.
Page 12
16 -6
D. Maximum Height. The maximum height limit is forty (40) feet for
a flat roof and forty-five (45) feet for a sloped roof. The
development shall be three (3) stories maximum.
E. Required Findings. The review authority may approve a planned
development permit or site development review to allow a project in
compliance with this Section only after finding all of the following in
addition to the findings required for the discretionary permit
application and the findings required by Subsection
20.30.060(C)(3):
1. The proposed project provides increased building setbacks from
public streets and property lines above code requirements;
2. The proposed project provides project enhancements and on-
site recreational amenities for the residents above code
requirements; and
3. The proposed project provides quality architecture and quality
materials.
F. The following standards should be considered for compliance
with Finding E(3) above:
1. Enhanced treatment of building elevations facing public streets
with respect to architectural treatment to achieve a high level of
design and neighborhood quality (e.g., high - quality doors,
windows, moldings, metalwork, finishes, stoops, porches, etc.).
2. Building materials and colors should be selected that will
complement the proposed design and existing buildings in the
surrounding area.
3. Building materials should be high - quality, durable, authentic to
the architectural style, and applied in a quality fashion.
4. If stucco is used it should have a smooth finish. Sand and lace
stucco finishes should be avoided.
5. Lighting should be selected to provide ambiance, safety, and
security, without unnecessary spillover or glare.
6. Building owners and tenants should keep the building exteriors
and facades clean and in good repair.
Page 13
16 -7
G. Subdivisions. Projects that include a subdivision shall adhere to
the following criteria in order to ensure the provision of enhanced
project design features:
1. Overall Lot Setbacks. The Multiple Residential (RM) Zoning
District setback requirements are applicable to the overall
development lot.
2. Primary Structure Front Setback. The minimum setback for
primary structures is twenty -five (25) feet from any front property
line abutting a public street.
3. Street Enhancements. A landscaped area is required within the
first fifteen (15) feet of the front setback, and shall include trees,
shrubs, and ground cover. Fences, walls, or hedges are allowed
beyond the fifteen (15) -foot front landscape setback.
4. Side Landscape Setback. A minimum five (5) -foot landscape
setback is required from any side property line abutting a public
street, and shall include trees, shrubs, and ground cover.
Fences, walls, or hedges are allowed beyond the five (5) -foot
setback.
5. Public Sidewalks. Sidewalks are required to be a minimum
width of eight (8) feet. A meandering sidewalk design is
preferred for lots greater than three hundred (300) feet in width
and must be designed to be compatible with abutting properties.
6. Common Open Space. A minimum of one hundred (100) square
feet of common open space per unit is required, not including
pathways, and must be dedicated to recreational amenities.
7. Recreational Amenities. Recreational amenities are required
and may include a recreation building, seating areas,
barbecue /grill, fire pit/fireplace, swimming pool /spa, bicycle
racks /storage, activity area (such as playing field /lawn, sport
court, horseshoe pit, playground, etc.), or similar amenities.
8. Additional Guest Parking. Where limited off -site, on- street
parking is available, guest parking is required above the code
requirement and must be distributed throughout the site.
0 II
i[.�i
Section 4: Subsection 20.30.060(C)(2)(b) of Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
b. RM and RMD Zoning Districts Height Limit Area. In this height
limit area the base height limit for structures with flat roofs is
twenty -eight (28) feet (including guardrails and parapet walls) and
the base height limit for structures with sloped roofs is thirty -three
(33) feet. The height of a structure may be increased up to a
maximum of thirty -two (32) feet with a flat roof or thirty -seven (37)
feet with a sloped roof through the approval of a discretionary
application as provided above. This height limit applies in all RM
and RMD Zoning Districts as shown on the Zoning Map. For
properties located within the Height (H) Overlay District, the height
of a structure may be increased to a maximum of forty (40) feet with
a flat roof or forty -five (45) feet with a sloped roof pursuant to
Section 20.28.060.
Section 5: Zoning Code Amendments are legislative acts. Neither the City's
Municipal Code nor State Planning Law set forth any required findings for either
approval or denial of such amendments, unless they are determined not to be required
for the public necessity and convenience and the general welfare.
General Plan Policy LU 6.6.2 promotes the development of a mix of residential
types and building scales within the densities permitted by the RM Zoning District land
use designation in West Newport Mesa.
The Zoning Code Amendment allows for the development of a product type that
is three - stories with a roof deck that is being developed in other cities in Orange County
and cannot currently be developed under the City Municipal Code requirements.
The Zoning Code Amendment allows for greater flexibility in project design and
would result in additional open space while maintaining the allowed gross floor area.
Compared with the current height limit with a more constrained building envelope, the
proposed amendment provides an opportunity for increased building articulation and
modulation.
The Zoning Code Amendment would lead to street enhancements should
properties be redeveloped pursuant to the overlay requirements for additional setbacks
and quality architecture.
Section 6: The recitals provided in this ordinance are true and correct and are
incorporated into the substantive portion of this ordinance.
Section 7: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not
affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The
Page 15
16 -9
City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each section,
subsection, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses and phrases be declared unconstitutional.
Section 8: The City Council finds the project to be categorically exempt
pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (Section 15305, Article 19 of
Chapter 3, Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act)
under Class 5 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). Class 5 consists of minor
alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20 percent,
which do not result in any changes in land use or density. The Zoning Code
Amendment creates a Height Overlay District to provide a mechanism to request
additional residential building height, which provides for minor changes in land use
limitations. The average slope of the properties involved is less than 20 percent and the
project does not change the allowed land uses or density for any property within the
Height Overlay District.
Section 9: Except as expressly modified in this ordinance, all other Sections,
Subsections, terms, clauses and phrases set forth in the Newport Beach Municipal
Code shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and effect.
Section 10: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage
of this ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the ordinance, or a summary thereof, to be
published pursuant to City Charter Section 414.
=0E
16 -10
This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Newport Beach held on the 12th day of May, 2015, and adopted on the 26th day of
May, 2015, by the following vote, to -wit:
AYES, COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES, COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS
MAYO
ATTEST:
EDWARD D. SELICH
LEILANI I. BROWN, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORN E
AARON C. HA , ITY ATTORNEY
Page 17
16 -11
I
i
i
Legend
— - City Boundary
Statistical Area A2
M RM Zoning District
EXHIBIT "A"
16TH ST W
- - - -,
City of Costa Mesa
Height Overlay District
Properties in the RM Zoning District in
° Statistical Area A2
Code Amendment No. CA2015 -004 (PA2015 -047)
Mw
my
o�
0 500 1,000
Feet
E)
NLW
Page 18 16-12
ATTACHMENT CC 2
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
3/19/15
K.11 to Vice Chair Kramer's inquiry, Assistant City Attorney Torres reported that according to t
Muni ' al Code, matters such as this are to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, with a recommen n to
City Cou ' . In this instance, the project is not changing, but the timing of the payments will The law
indicates tha is first reviewed by the Planning Commission and then by Council. Hen this is more
appropriate for Co it review; however, it is included in the Development Agreement so_Psbefore the Planning
Commission. If there i lack of a recommendation or a "no" vote, the matter dies and does not go before
Council.
Commissioner Hillgren stated the in is to pass this on to Council f ' s consideration.
Motion made by Commissioner Hillgren an econded b ommissioner Koetting and carried to recommend
this item to City Council with a recommendation t Council consider additional incentives to the City for the
requested change in the liming of payments.
AYES: Hillgren, K05wr1g, and Myers
NOES: Kramer Tucker
RECUSED: L r
ABSENT: rown
Chair Tucke ated there are some matters where City Council does not care wha a Planning Commission
thinks. added that Council will figure out whether they want to ask for more incentives, ot.
ioner Lawler returned to the Chambers and took his place on the dais.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
ITEM NO. 4 HEIGHT OVERLAY DISTRICT ZONING CODE AMENDMENT FOR WEST NEWPORT
MESA (PA2015 -047)
West Newport Mesa
Discussion of a Zoning Code Amendment to allow increased residential building height in the Multiple
Residential (RM) Zoning District within Statistical Area A2. in West Newport Mesa.in conjunction with the
provision of enhanced project design and amenities.
Associate Planner Nueno provided a PowerPoint presentation addressing the proposed amendment, vicinity
map, initiation of the amendment by City Council, land uses in the vicinity, General Plan policies implemented
through the Zoning Code, height limits for properties in the district, building height stipulations, and details of the
proposed guidelines for the district. She presented an example of a nearby project that could be developed
through the height overlay. Associate Planner Nueno noted the need for Planning Commission feedback and
stated that depending on the discussion and direction provided, staff will schedule a noticed public hearing for
the next Planning Commission meeting and that, if approved by the Commission, the matter will be forwarded to
City Council for review. She added that correspondence was received and forwarded to the Commission
regarding the development of a specific plan for the area. However, Council has only directed the establishment
of an overlay district, at this time.
In answer to Commissioner Hillgren's questions, Associate Planner Nueno stated that forty feet would be the
maximum height for sloped roofs and flat roofs and would accommodate a three -story design with a roof deck
and guardrail. She added that the proposed height overlay would be for additional height over what is already
allowed under discretionary approval in order to allow for a three -story design with a roof deck to take advantage
of views in the area. In order to provide enhanced amenities, enough area is necessary, and the Planned
Development Permit requires a one acre minimum. Smaller lots have the potential to be merged in order to take
advantage of the overlay district. If the site is less than an acre, it may not be large enough to provide any
benefit to the City or neighborhood for having the additional height. She addressed existing and proposed
setback requirements as well as landscaping, creation of a "village" and street improvements, and noted that the
guidelines will help with development of a cohesive, public realm.
Page 6 of 9
16 -13
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
3/19/15
In reply to Chair Tuckers inquiry, Associate Planner Nueno stated that evaluation would be done on a case -by-
case basis in terms of those wanting to take advantage of the overlay.
Chair Tucker commented on specific plans and Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski noted that,
in this kind of setting, specific plans have been used less and less as this is a built environment with multiple
property owners. In such cases, master programs and design guidelines are more commonly used.
Discussion followed regarding parks, getting cooperation from property owners, and creating and offering
incentives for public benefits.
Chair Tucker opened public comments
Alan Beek, SPON Secretary, referenced a letter submitted to the Commission and commended staff for focusing
on the subject area. He added that staff is making a good start in the right direction and suggested holding
community meetings regarding the issue, and stated that SPON is concerned that the entire area should be
treated comprehensively rather than piecemeal.
Jim Mosher spoke of the need for clarity in terms of what Council expects the Planning Commission to achieve.
He discussed the process of the initiation and how it was brought about at the request of Council Member Petros
with little direction to the Planning Commission. He commented on promises made that have not been realized
regarding implementation of specific plans.
David Szecsei spoke regarding the bottom portion of the subject zone as being included within the coastal zone
and asked if consideration has been given to a possible need for approval from the Coastal Commission.
Additionally, he wondered why the same differential cannot be made regarding the heights of sloped roofs at 40
feet versus 35 feet for flat roofs, and required guest parking is not as clearly defined as the common open space
requirement and suggested stating a specific percentage above the code requirement. He wondered whether
the impact of additional traffic has been considered and mentioned the possible need for a traffic study. He
suggested the need for more discussion with all stakeholders.
Coralee Newman, Principal of Government Solutions, 1881 Dover Drive, resident of Newport Beach, and
representative for the property owner that initiated the discussion, commented positively on the proposed
overlay. In terms of traffic and the General Plan of 2006, the_ public voted on the General Plan and stated that
they saw this area as high- density residential. However, there is no intent to increase density and that the
request is that the area be considered to be improved with a new type of product that currently is not allowed.
There is no new traffic being generated by the proposal. She added that this is asking the Planning Commission
for the ability to do some creative planning and that the product is very popular with the younger demographics.
The proposed zone change is not forcing. anyone to build that product, but merely allowing development of the
same. She noted that the benefit includes the ability to do some beautification with greater setbacks, more open
space, and more parking than what currently exists. She added that the subject property is within Council
Member Petros's district and that is why he brought it forward to Council.
Chair Tucker closed public comments.
In reply to Chair Tucker's question, Associate Planner Nueno reported that the size and unit count would remain
the same or may decrease because of the additional setbacks and amenities required and confirmed that the
floor area would be more vertical. Chair Tucker expressed concern about reducing the floor area, but noted that
this is just another option available for new development.
Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski added that it can be demonstrated that an 18 dwelling units
per acre development can be achieved with the stated setbacks and on -site amenities and that the overlay offers
flexibility.
Discussion followed regarding the density, parking, landscaping, providing views, setbacks, amenities, and open
space.
Chair Tucker commented on specifying the quality of the architecture and materials.
Page 7 of 9
16 -14
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
3/19/15
Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski noted that language can be added to the code specifying
criteria to ensure quality of the architecture and materials.
Chair Tucker stated he would like that explicitly addressed.
Associate Planner Nueno reported that depending on the feedback at this meeting, staff can have the matter
scheduled for a public hearing on April 9th.
Commissioner Hillgren commented on the density and the possibility of increasing the number of units or floor
area ratio.
Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that staff does not anticipate offering a density
bonus and that more units would only be allowed subject to the density -bonus law (affordable housing).
Discussion followed regarding the possibility of a bonus density with the contribution of some community benefit.
It was noted that doing so would require a General Plan Amendment.
Vice Chair Kramer commented positively on the proposed overlay and stated his support. He stated he would
like additional discussion regarding the possibility of adding five feet relative to a sloped versus flat roof for
increased architectural breadth in the area.
Commissioner Koetting commented on the need to consider signage and crosswalk amenities to identify the
"village" for increased cohesiveness as part of a specific plan.
Chair Tucker commented on the Planning Commission's free reign as this is an area under the Commission's
jurisdiction, and commented positively on the proposed overlay. He directed staff to move forward with the
ordinance, schedule the matter for a public hearing, and that this direction does not imply that the Planning
Commission will recommend approval as presented at the next hearing. Chair Tucker confirmed that there was
no opposition to the direction provided by the Commission to staff.
STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None
ITEM NO. 6\ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Deputy Community elopment Director Wisneski reported that on March 1 , Council conducted a study
session related to alcohol- ing establishments on the Peninsula. They r ested the business community to
come together promoting a be ractices approach and sharing kno ge to address issues that have been
raised. Additionally they requeste t any pending applications t would have been addressed through the
Zoning Administrator, be presented to th anning Commissi . She added that currently, there is one pending
application for alcohol to be served at Lido Theate ich will be presented to the Planning Commission
within the next few months.
Regarding Sessions, the deadline for appSpl<as today andlwappeals were filed.
Council approved condominium rpgoations for Balboa Island and at i ext meeting the Council will consider an
initiation for a minor code cle p that will be presented to the Planning C ission, for review.
Deputy Communit evelopment Director Wisneski addressed the Planning Co 'ssion schedule for future
meetings and s for discussion. She offered options for meeting times for a study ssion on April 9th to
discuss th CP.
Commission concurred to meet at the regular time, 6:30 p.m.
Page 8 of 9
16 -15
ATTACHMENT CC 3
RESOLUTION NO. 1977
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2015 -004
FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A HEIGHT OVERLAY DISTRICT TO
ALLOW INCREASED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING HEIGHT FOR
PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL
ZONING DISTRICT IN STATISTICAL AREA A2 IN WEST
NEWPORT MESA (PA2015 -047)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. The City of Newport Beach initiated a Code Amendment with respect to property located
within the Multiple Residential (RM) Zoning District in Statistical Area A2 in West Newport
Mesa.
2. The Code Amendment establishes a Height Overlay District ( "Overlay ") to allow
increased residential building height in conjunction with the provision of enhanced
project design and amenities.
3. The subject properties are located in the RM Zoning District and the General Plan Land
. Use Element categories are RM.: ..
4. Lot 1 of Tract 8381 is located within the Coastal Zone and the Coastal Land Use Plan
designation is Multiple Unit Residential (RM -C). The remaining properties within the
Overlay are not located within the Coastal Zone.
5. On January 13, 2015, Council Member Tony Petros requested the City Council consider
initiation of a Zoning Code Amendment to allow increased residential building height in
the RM Zoning District in West Newport Mesa, west of Superior Avenue.
6. The City Council initiated a Code Amendment on January 27, 2015, in the Council
Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place
and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach
Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by,
the City Council at this meeting.
7. On March 19, 2015, the Planning Commission reviewed the Code Amendment as a New
Business discussion item in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive,
Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in
accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral,
was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting.
16 -16
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1977
Paqe 2 of 6
8. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on April 9, 2015, in the Council
Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place
and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach
Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by,
the Planning Commission at this public hearing.
9. The Planning Commission expressed a desire to create a cohesive neighborhood
through the Overlay; however, it was determined that is difficult to achieve the desired
results in a built environment with multiple property owners. General Plan Policies LU
6.6.3 and 6.6.4 promote the establishment of a master plan for streetscape
improvements in West Newport Mesa. The Planning Commission considered that the
most feasible mechanism to contribute towards a cohesive neighborhood appearance
would be for the City to develop a master plan for public improvements in the area.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
This project has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations (Section 15305, Article 19 of Chapter 3, Guidelines for
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act) under Class 5 (Minor Alterations
in Land Use Limitations). Class 5 consists of minor alterations in land use limitations in areas
with an average slope of less than 20 percent, which do not result in any changes in land use
or density. The Zoning Code Amendment creates a Height Overlay District to provide a
mechanism to request additional residential building height, which provides for minor
changes in land use limitations. The average slope of the properties involved is less than 20
percent and the project does not change the allowed land uses or density for any property_
within the Height Overlay Disfrct.
SECTION 3. FINDINGS.
1. Zoning Code Amendments are legislative acts. Neither the City Municipal Code nor
State Planning Law set forth any required findings for either approval or denial of such
amendments, unless they are determined not to be required for the public necessity
and convenience and the general welfare.
2. General Plan Policy LU 6.6.2 promotes the development of a mix of residential types
and building scales within the densities permitted by the RM Zoning District land use
designation in West Newport Mesa.
3. The proposed amendment allows for the development of a product type that is three -
stories with a roof deck that is being developed in other cities in Orange County and
cannot currently be developed under the City Municipal Code requirements.
4. The proposed amendment allows for greater flexibility in project design and would
result in additional open space while maintaining the allowed gross floor area.
Compared with the current height limit with a more constrained building envelope, the
proposed amendment provides an opportunity for increased building articulation and
modulation.
03.03 -2015
16 -17
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1977
Paqe 3 of 6
5. The proposed amendment would lead to street enhancements should properties be
redeveloped pursuant to the overlay requirements for additional setbacks and quality
architecture.
6. General Plan Policies LU 6.6.3 and 6.6.4 call for a cohesive and integrated medical
campus and livable residential neighborhood and encourage the development of a
master plan for streetscape, park, and other public improvements. A unified
streetscape design would enhance the appearance of West Newport Mesa and
provide a cohesive neighborhood identity.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends City
Council approval of Code Amendment No. 2015 -004, which is applicable to properties
shown in Exhibit A and subject to Height Overlay District requirements set forth in Exhibit
B, which are attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
2. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council consider the development of
a master plan for streetscape and public improvements to contribute toward a
cohesive appearance and a sense of place for West Newport Mesa.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 9T" DAY OF APRIL, 2015.
AYES:
Brown, Hillgren, Koetting, Kramer, Myers and Tucker
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Lawler
BY:
�855`� UC�(0S, �5345ri12h1
BY• _
a ye , Secretary
03 -03 -2015
16 -18
I
I
I
I
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1977
EXHIBIT "A " Page 4 of 6
- - --
16TH ST W
Legend
— - City Boundary
Statistical Area A2
193 RM Zoning District
RM > 1 acre
M
- - -- � City of Costa Mesa
1 Height Overlay District
s = Properties in the RM Zoning District in
Statistical Area A2
Code Amendment No. CA2015 -004 (PA2015 -047)
,O
�V
�e
a 500 1,000
Feet
_ye
N._.
16 -19
Sections:
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1977
Page 5 of 6
EXHIBIT "B"
Chapter 20.28
OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS (MHP, PM, B)
20.28.010
Purposes of Overlay Zoning Districts.
20.28.020
Mobile Home Park (MHP) Overlay Zoning District.
20.28.030
Parking Management (PM) Overlay District.
20.28.040
Bluff (B) Overlay District.
20.28.050
Reserved.
20.28.060
Height (H) Overlay District
Add Subsection 20.28.010(D):
D. Height (H) Overlay District. The H Overlay District is intended to establish standards for
review of increased building height in conjunction with the provision of enhanced project
design features and amenities.
Add Section 20.28.060:
20.28.060 Height Overlay District
A. Applicability. The Height Overlay District includes properties located in the Multiple
Residential (RM) Zoning District within Statistical Area A2.
B. Discretionary Review. A request for an increase in building height under the provisions of
the Height (H) Overlay District requires discretionary review through either a site development
review or planned development permit.
C. Eligibility. Properties eligible for the Height (H) Overlay District must have a minimum lot
size of one (1) acre.
D. Maximum Height. The maximum height limit is forty (40) feet for a flat roof and forty -five
(45) feet for a sloped roof. The development shall be three (3) stories maximum.
E. Required Findings. The review authority may approve a planned development permit or
site development review to allow a project in compliance with this Section only after finding all
of the following in addition to the findings required for the discretionary permit application and
the findings required by Subsection 20.30.060(C)(3):
1. The proposed project provides increased building setbacks from public streets and
property lines above code requirements;
2. The proposed project provides project enhancements and on -site recreational
amenities for the residents above code requirements; and
3. The proposed project provides quality architecture and quality materials.
F. The following standards should be considered for compliance with Finding E(3) above:
1. Enhanced treatment of building elevations facing public streets with respect to
architectural treatment to achieve a high level of design and neighborhood quality
(e.g., high - quality doors, windows, moldings, metalwork, finishes, stoops, porches,
etc.).
2. Building materials and colors should be selected that will complement the proposed
design and existing buildings in the surrounding area.
3. Building materials should be high - quality, durable, authentic to the architectural style,
and applied in a quality fashion.
03 -03 -2015
16 -20
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1977
Paae 6 of 6
4. If stucco is used it should have a smooth finish. Sand and lace stucco finishes should
be avoided.
5. Lighting should be selected to provide ambiance, safety, and security, without
unnecessary spillover or glare.
6. Building owners and tenants should keep the building exteriors and facades clean and
in good repair.
G. Subdivisions. Projects that include a subdivision shall adhere to the following criteria in
order to ensure the provision of enhanced project design features:
1. Overall Lot Setbacks. The Multiple Residential (RM) Zoning District setback
requirements are applicable to the overall development lot.
2. Primary Structure Front Setback. The minimum setback for primary structures is
twenty -five (25) feet from any front property line abutting a public street.
3. Street Enhancements. A landscaped area is required within the first fifteen (15) feet of
the front setback, and shall include trees, shrubs, and ground cover. Fences, walls, or
hedges are allowed beyond the fifteen (15) foot front landscape setback.
4. Side Landscape Setback. A minimum five (5) foot landscape setback is required from
any side property line abutting a public street, and shall include trees, shrubs, and
ground cover. Fences, walls, or hedges are allowed beyond the five (5) foot setback.
5. Public Sidewalks. Sidewalks are required to be a minimum width of eight (8) feet. A
meandering sidewalk design is preferred for lots greater than three hundred (300) feet
in width and must be designed to be compatible with abutting properties.
6. Common Open Space. A minimum of one hundred (100) square feet of common open
space per unit is required, not including pathways, and must be dedicated to
recreational amenities.
_ -_7 Recreational Amenities. Recreational amenities are required and may include a
recreation building, seating areas, barbecue /grill, fire pit/fireplace, swimming pool /spa,
bicycle racks /storage, activity area (such as playing field /lawn, sport court, horseshoe
pit, playground, etc.), or similar amenities.
8. Additional Guest Parking. Where limited off -site, on- street parking is available, guest
parking is required above the code requirement and must be distributed throughout the
site.
Modify Subsection 20.30.060(C)(2)(b) to read as follows:
b. RM and RMD Zoning Districts Height Limit Area. In this height limit area the
base height limit for structures with flat roofs is twenty -eight (28) feet (including
guardrails and parapet walls) and the base height limit for structures with sloped
roofs is thirty -three (33) feet. The height of a structure may be increased up to a
maximum of thirty -two (32) feet with a flat roof or thirty -seven (37) feet with a sloped
roof through the approval of a discretionary application as provided above. This
height limit applies in all RM and RMD Zoning Districts as shown on the Zoning
Map. For properties located within the Height (H) Overlay District, the height of a
structure may be increased to a maximum of forty (40) feet with a flat roof or forty -
five (45) feet with a sloped roof pursuant to Section 20.28.060.
03 -03 -2015
16 -21
ATTACHMENT CC 4
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4/9/15
VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ITEM NO. 2 HEIGHT OVERLAY DISTRICT ZONING CODE AMENDMENT (PA2015 -047)
Properties zoned Multiple Residential in Statistical Area A2 in West Newport Mesa
Associate Planner Fern Nueno provided a PowerPoint presentation with details of the proposed Zoning Code
Amendment. She addressed prior consideration of the matter by the Planning Commission, clarification of
the parameters of the overlay, changes as directed by the Planning Commission, different flat and sloped
roof height limits to allow for more architectural variation, the addition of guidelines to ensure quality
architecture and materials, and discussion regarding the possibility of a Master Plan for public improvements
and streetscapes. She reported receipt of two correspondence letters from the public regarding this matter.
Associate Planner Nueno presented an example of a possible product type and a rendering of a proposed
project at the Ebb Tide Mobile Home Park currently being reviewed by the City that could be developed
under the provisions of the Overlay. She presented recommendations noting that the Planning Commission
could make changes to the Overlay District regulations or include other recommendations before forwarding
the matter to City Council. She noted that if approved by the Planning Commission, the Code Amendment
would be forwarded to City Council for review and action on May 12, 2015.
In response to Commissioner Koetting's inquiry, Associate Planner Nueno reported that staff included an
additional finding indicating standards against which quality architectural material would be reviewed in the
discretionary process. She added that future applications requesting the additional height per the Overlay
provisions would be reviewed and action would be taken by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Hillgren stated he recalled a conversation about creating a sense of place and identity and
stated he is not able to determine the difference between this matter and a specific plan. Associate Planner
Nueno explained that there are two issues to review at this time. The first is the height overlay amendment
which would be project and property specific and subject to providing additional public benefits. The second
is the recommendation to create a Master Streetscape Plan to ensure a cohesive neighborhood with a
coordinated street design. It would be an effective way for the City to ensure there is a sense of place.
Commissioner Koetting commented on common open space and Associate Planner Nueno reported that it is
- intended -to- be dedicated -to- common -- recreational amenities -in- addition to-- landscaped -pathways, private- - -
streets, and setbacks between buildings. She listed examples of possible recreational amenities.
In response to Commissioner Brown's inquiry, Associate Planner Nueno confirmed that approval of the
overlay amendment does not preclude development of a specific plan in the future.
Chair Tucker opened the Public Hearing.
Jim Mosher expressed confusion noting that he does not see the code amendment language. He
questioned the rationale in terms of why the City wants the height overlay, referenced a prior case, and
opined that the overlay is contrary to the spirit of the General Plan, approved by the voters in 2006.
Allan Beek, SPON, spoke in support of the correspondence submitted by SPON and expressed concern that
the City is dealing with a single property and is piecemealing the development of a large area that will
change in the future. He stated that it should be developed in a planned way and expressed concern that it
will become a high density area. He added that the proposed project should have some of its own service
amenities and properties that are identifiable as homes, not as tenements. He noted that the General Plan
specifically mentions the property as a place where a specific area plan should be used. He urged the
Planning Commission to take a much broader view point and not piecemeal the matter.
June Maier, Ebb Tide Mobile Home Park Homeowners Association, stated doubt that views would be
created with the increased height and expressed concern with increased densities. She urged the Planning
Commission to consider the big picture.
Mary Jo Baretich, representing residents of the West Newport Mesa area, expressed concerns that this
matter has not been adequately studied, that many issues have not been reviewed and that the community
Page 2 of 6
16 -22
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
4/9/15
and business owners should be allowed to participate in a study group to review the proposal and how it
affects their quality of life. She added that consideration needs to be given to preserving existing affordable
housing in the area as well as future traffic impacts and input from the Coastal Commission. She requested
that the Planning Commission postpone its decision to allow sufficient time to conduct a full study of the
potential impacts, to allow preparation of a new specific area plan for Statistical Area A2, and to prevent the
rushing of the complex proposed on the Ebb Tide Mobile Home Park property.
David Szecsei, homeowner within the proposed overlay zone, reported that the Seascape property is within
the Coastal Zone as well as the overlay area. He stated there are specific height recommendations
contained within the law and that these have not been dealt with. He indicated that more time should be
given to study this matter and reported receiving a message from Charles Posner, Supervisor and Coastal
Planner of the Coastal Commission who stated that if there is any change proposed in the City that affects
the Local Coastal Program, it would need to go before the Coastal Commission to be certified in the Coastal
Zone. He commented on the General Plan with respect to preserving existing affordable housing in the City.
He commented on the proposed amendment noting it is not written in the typical language used in the Code
and expressed concerns regarding potential traffic impacts and vague language regarding parking.
Jeff Wolfe, Ebb Tide Mobile Home Park resident, commented on residents having to relocate and reported
that the money they are being offered to move does not cover relocation expenses. He noted the need to
preserve affordable housing in the area and addressed parking impacts as a result of the proposed overlay
zone. He urged the Planning Commission to take its time and analyze the matter, carefully.
Chair Tucker noted that the hearing at this time has to do with building height and does not have anything to
do with the development of a project. There will be a separate hearing for the development of the project
and that City Council is the only jurisdiction to decide on the adequacy of relocation proposals.
Timothy Richey, Ebb Tide Mobile Home Park Homeowners Association, urged the Planning Commission to
take another, longer look at the height overlay.
Sunti Kumjim, representing the applicant on a proposed project in the West Newport Mesa area, provided a
PowerPoint. presentation in support of -the .height.overlay to allow three -story homes with rooftop decks. He
stated that the amendment does not decrease parking requirements, and does not increase density or floor
area ratios. He added that overlay criteria would significantly increase the required street enhancements,
common open space requirements, and the amendment is not out of context for the area. He stated that it
provides benefits to future residents and the City.
In response to inquiries from Commissioner Hillgren, Mr. Kumjim addressed setbacks with and without the
overlay requirements, accommodating rooftop decks, street enhancements and landscaping.
Associate Planner Nueno explained that the street setback area includes walls and landscaping.
David Chi, Seacliffe Mobile Home Park, co- owner, spoke in support of the proposed increased height and did
not believe that traffic would be impacted.
Chair Tucker closed the Public Hearing.
Chair Tucker explained the issues at hand including the height increase and whether a specific plan should
be recommended to Council. He noted that the Overlay addresses height and would have no effect on traffic
or parking. In response to his inquiry, Associate Planner Nueno referenced Exhibit B of the resolution noting
that they address the changes that would be made in the Code. Chair Tucker confirmed that what has been
set forth in the resolution is what will be included in the Code Amendment that will be presented to Council.
Assistant City Attorney Michael Torres reported that, prior to the meeting, staff developed a red -lined
amendment of the Code language based on what has been reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff
distributed copies to the Commissioners and public.
Page 3 of 6
16 -23
NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
4/9/15
Chair Tucker addressed the allegation that this is a piecemeal project, and he reiterated that the project
before the Commission only has to do with height with no other changes. He reported that Coastal staff has
not communicated with the City or Planning Commission regarding this matter.
Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that a corner of the overlay is located in the
Coastal Zone, but because the City does not have a certified Local Coastal Program, the overlay is not
subject to the Coastal Commission's review.
Chair Tucker commented on the issue of a specific plan and stated that it does not work in the context in
which the subject property is set based on its built out conditions and segmented ownership. He added that
he does not see where a specific plan would be practical.
Chair Tucker presented suggested text changes to the proposed resolution clarifying Statement of Fact No.
9,Finding No. 5, and Decision No. 2.
Motion made by Chair Tucker and seconded by Commissioner Brown, to adopt Resolution No. 1977 as
amended recommending City Council approval of Code Amendment No. CA2015 -004.
Discussion followed regarding the desire for an overall streetscape Master Plan, undergrounding utilities as
part of the Master Plan, project- specific requirements for additional guest parking, and the maximum height
allowed for enclosed stairwells and similar structures.
Chair Tucker suggested changes to the code amendment text included as the revised Exhibit B to the
resolution to require quality materials and that the building materials be applied in a quality fashion.
AYES:
Brown, Hillgren, Koetting, Kramer, Myers and Tucker
NOES:
None
ABSTENTIONS:
None
ABSENT:
Lawler
M N0.3 COASTAL LAND.. USE PLAN.-AND CITY COUNCIL- POLICY. L -12 -- AM:7tree7tc ME
OCEANFRONT ENCROACHMENT PROGRAM (PA2013 -057)
APN 048 - 310 -01 consisting of unimproved right -of -way extending west of
Channel Road
Deputy Community velopment Director Wisneski provided a PowerPoint sentation addressing
background, subject area, lox en'
conditions, code violations and existing a oachment program for the
West Newport area and the p osed program for the East Newport are ncroachment permit fees and
the use of these fees for improveMwnts of public access was also agoedssed. It was further explained that
the proposed amendment was inten to address existing priv improvements within the City's 15 -foot
right -of -way. While these improvements ve been in plac or several decades, the California Coastal
Commission issued Notices of Violation to fi n prop owners on the basis that the development is
located on a public beach. City staff has coordin with a representative of the residents and Coastal
Commission staff in an effort to develop a co ehe a solution to the situation. Development of the
Encroachment program is one piece to the ution. Othe tions, such as addressing the improvements
beyond the 15 feet, will be presented to City Council for cons ration.
In response to Commission oetting's inquiry, Deputy Communit evelopment Director Wisneski
commented on possible enarios and options depending on the willin ess of property owners to
participate. The encro ment is voluntary.
Chair Tucker ' quired regarding the restoration plan for the removal of improvements b and the 15 -foot
right -of- and use of the money collected from fees. Deputy Community Development Dir6istZr Wisneski
repo that it is the City's desire to use encroachment fees with one option being to imple nt the
pegloration plan. The City will need to negotiate with the Coastal Commission regarding that matter.
Page 4 of 6
16 -24