Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0_Initiate Limited Code Amendments_PA2018-075o�,EWP°Rr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT a = April 5, 2018 Agenda Item No. 4 SUBJECT: Initiate Limited Code Amendments (PA2018-075) SITE LOCATION: Citywide INITIATED BY: City of Newport Beach PLANNER: Jim Campbell, Deputy Community Development Director 949-644-3210, Icampbell(a)newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY Initiation of amendments to the Zoning Code (Newport Beach Municipal Code [NBMC] Title 20) and corresponding provisions of the Local Coastal Program (NBMC Title 21). RECOMMENDATION 1) Take public comment; 2) Determine this action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3; and 3) Initiate an amendment to NBMC Title 20 and corresponding sections of the Local Coastal Program. DISCUSSION The Planning Commission may initiate a Zoning Code amendment pursuant to Section 20.66.020 of the Municipal Code. Once initiated, the amendment will be prepared with subsequent public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. This agenda item is not a public hearing. The City comprehensively updated the Zoning Code in 2010. It was known the regulations were imperfect and would need to be changed when errors or unintended consequences were discovered. In working with the regulations over the years, staff has found several areas that need review and modification. Staff intends to review and amend the following sections to fix or clarify the language. 1 9 Limited Code Amendments (PA2018-075) Planning Commission, April 5, 2018 Page 2 1. Section 20.28.010 Purposes of Overlay Zoning Districts —Overlay zoning districts are a common tool to modify a base zoning district for a specific area. The existing language requires the more restrictive standard of the base zone or overlay to apply when overlays often specify a new standard that might be less restrictive. 2. Section 20.30.110 Setback Regulations and Exceptions — Subsection C of this section allows the Community Development Director to establish alternative setbacks for certain lots without a Modification Permit or Variance to maintain neighborhood compatibility. Recent analysis of the subsection suggests the language should be improved further. As a result, a change is necessary for the subsection to be applied as intended. 3. Section 20.62.020 Notice of Public Hearing — This section provides notice requirements for project applications requiring a public hearing. The three required methods of notice distribution (e.g. mailed, on-site posting, newspaper) generally follows provisions of the Government Code applicable to general law cities. The challenge exists when on-site posting of notices are required for large geographic areas. Staff suggests a comprehensive review to ensure compliant and adequate public notice with an eye to practical realities. 4. Section 20.66.030 Processing, Notice, and Hearing — This section provides procedural requirements for processing of Zoning Code amendments. The language is ambiguous as it relates to how notice is provided. Again, staff suggests a comprehensive review to ensure compliant and adequate public notice. 5. Section 20.80.040 Setback Maps — The Zoning Code has a series of maps that provide minimum setbacks for various, but not all, blocks throughout the City. The practice began in 1943 as a way to recognize existing and varying conditions that did not match the citywide front yard setback standard; one size did not fit all. Today 33 setback maps are the descendants of the original 1943 maps and several of them contain errors and omissions that should be corrected. Not all maps will need correcting, but all of them could use a legend and typical notes to make them more clear. The list above is the limit of the proposed amendment; however, each of these sections has a corresponding section within the Local Coastal Program that will be amended to make them consistent. Additionally, as staff examines these sections within the context of their individual purposes, additional changes to related sections may be necessary. The recommended course of action includes authorization to bring forth those related changes. Staff anticipates returning to the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing as soon as possible. 3 Limited Code Amendments (PA2018-075) Planning Commission, April 5, 2018 Page 3 Environmental Review The Planning Commission's initiation of a zoning amendment is exempt from the CEQA pursuant to Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. No final action on any amendments will occur at this meeting and the initiation of the amendment does not have any legally binding effect upon future consideration of the amendments themselves. The City will conduct an environmental review prior to the consideration and potential approval of the amendments. Public Notice The Municipal Code does not require notice for the initiation of amendments. Notice of this item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Should the Planning Commission initiate the amendment, public notice will be provided for subsequent public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council as required by the Municipal Code. Prepared by: Submitted by: Jim Campbell Seimone Jurjis, P CB Deputy Community Development Director Community Development Director 21 Planning Commission - April 5, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Initiation of Code Amendments Ramirez, Brittany From: Nicole Reynolds <nfreynolds@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2018 8:03 AM To: Susan Skinner Cc: Jurjis, Seimone; Campbell, Jim; Planning Commissioners; Jean Watt; Jim Mosher; Nancy Skinner; Dennis Baker; Bill Cool; Peggy Palmer; Andy Lingle; Nancy Alston; Karen Tringali; Joy Brenner; Tim Stoaks Subject: Re: "Fixing" 20.30.110C Thanks. You read my mind. I didn't know how to articulate my concern with this. Nicole Reynolds Sent from my Wad On May 30, 2018, at 10:22 PM, Susan Skinner <seskinner(ct�,me.com> wrote: Dear Planning Commissioners and staff: I can see from the April 5 staff report that there is an upcoming discussion about noticing and about code section 20.30.110C (thank you). Unfortunately, there is no detail in the staff report regarding what is planned with regard to any change to 20.30.110C, but just a generic comment. This makes it quite difficult to know if it is time to call out the troops to give input on this issue or to smile happily and sip my margarita. Regarding noticing: may I suggest that there be a way to see what is coming up for review more than just a few days prior? The only reason that I found out about 358 Dahlia at all was that there was a notice in the Daily Pilot, but no info was present on the website. I had to reach out to the planning staff to get details. Transparency is the word of the day. Regarding 20.30.100C: May 1 suggest that this just simply be deleted or perhaps articulate that it cannot be used to increase buildable area? It is creating a lot more problems than it solves. Prior to the zoning update of 2010, there were only two ways to increase buildable area: a modification permit or a variance. As the Municipal Code was working its way through the process, 20.30.110C was added but with vague language (see bottom of the Email for actual language) that I certainly interpret to mean the Planning Director could rotate setbacks, but not alter setbacks. Supporting my contention is the fact that the Municipal Code also initially contained language in code section 20.52.050 mandating that the only ways to increase buildable area were a modification permit or a variance (although this language drops out by the time the council approved it). Note the language of 20.30.110C, indicating that "reorientation of setback areas is not applicable in the Bluff Overlay District." Add to this the fact that the modification permit and a variance have specified findings that must be met to grant these two options. There are no findings required to grant an alternative setback determination. These pieces mean to me that there was never an intention to allow alternative setback determinations to increase buildable area. It would make perfect sense to have no findings required to just rotate setbacks, but Planning Commission - April 5, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Initiation of Code Amendments our city has used this piece of code to allow major changes in buildable area at the discretion of the Planning Director. We are lucky to have a straight up guy as our Planning Director, but can you envision any scenario where a Planning Director might use that discretion to his or her benefit? I can. More than that, this is a fairness issue. If there are required findings for modifications permits and variances, why in the world would there be no findings for a third pathway? That makes no sense at all. May I respectfully suggest that there is a huge gap of trust in our city. One way to regain trust is to plug this hole. The key to a good relationship is matching expectations. If you expect to be able to grant increases in buildable area and I don't think that is fair, trust is degraded. The best options that I see are either to drop 20.30.1 l OC altogether or to articulate that the alternative setback determination may be only used to rotate setbacks and not increase buildable area. If there is a disparity in lot size vs buildable area, there should be findings sufficient to meet the requirement of a variance. If there is not, perhaps such a change shouldn't be granted in the fust place. Please consider removing the discretionary approval power of the Planning Director and requiring all increases to buildable area (over and above a modification permit) be determined through the use of a variance and adjudicated through the Planning Commission. Thank you, Susan Skinner C. Alternative Setback Area Location. In cases where the orientation of an existing lot and the application of the setback area are not consistent with the character or general orientation of other lots in the vicinity, the Director may redefine the location of the front, side, and rear setback areas to be consistent with surrounding properties. The reorientation of setback areas is not applicable to the Bluff Overlay District. Planning Commission - April 5, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Initiation of Code Amendments Ramirez, Brittany From: Susan Skinner <seskinner@me.com> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2018 10:22 PM To: Jurjis, Seimone; Campbell, Jim; Planning Commissioners Cc: Jean Watt; Jim Mosher; Nicole Reynolds; Nancy Skinner; Dennis Baker; Bill Cool; Peggy Palmer; Andy Lingle; Nancy Alston; Karen Tringali; Joy Brenner; Tim Stoaks Subject: "Fixing" 20.30.110C Dear Planning Commissioners and staff: I can see from the April 5 staff report that there is an upcoming discussion about noticing and about code section 20.30.110C (thank you). Unfortunately, there is no detail in the staff report regarding what is planned with regard to any change to 20.30.110C, but just a generic comment. This makes it quite difficult to know if it is time to call out the troops to give input on this issue or to smile happily and sip my margarita. Regarding noticing: may I suggest that there be a way to see what is coming up for review more than just a few days prior? The only reason that I found out about 358 Dahlia at all was that there was a notice in the Daily Pilot, but no info was present on the website. I had to reach out to the planning staff to get details. Transparency is the word of the day. Regarding 20.30.1000: May I suggest that this just simply be deleted or perhaps articulate that it cannot be used to increase buildable area? It is creating a lot more problems than it solves. Prior to the zoning update of 2010, there were only two ways to increase buildable area: a modification permit or a variance. As the Municipal Code was working its way through the process, 20.30.110C was added but with vague language (see bottom of the Email for actual language) that I certainly interpret to mean the Planning Director could rotate setbacks, but not alter setbacks. Supporting my contention is the fact that the Municipal Code also initially contained language in code section 20.52.050 mandating that the only ways to increase buildable area were a modification permit or a variance (although this language drops out by the time the council approved it). Note the language of 20.30.110C, indicating that "reorientation of setback areas is not applicable in the Bluff Overlay District." Add to this the fact that the modification permit and a variance have specified findings that must be met to grant these two options. There are no findings required to grant an alternative setback determination. These pieces mean to me that there was never an intention to allow alternative setback determinations to increase buildable area. It would make perfect sense to have no findings required to just rotate setbacks, but our city has used this piece of code to allow major changes in buildable area at the discretion of the Planning Director. We are lucky to have a straight up guy as our Planning Director, but can you envision any scenario where a Planning Director might use that discretion to his or her benefit? I can. More than that, this is a fairness issue. If there are required findings for modifications permits and variances, why in the world would there be no findings for a third pathway? That makes no sense at all. May I respectfully suggest that there is a huge gap of trust in our city. One way to regain trust is to plug this hole. The key to a good relationship is matching expectations. If you expect to be able to grant increases in buildable area and I don't think that is fair, trust is degraded. Planning Commission - April 5, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Initiation of Code Amendments The best options that I see are either to drop 20.30.1 l OC altogether or to articulate that the alternative setback determination may be only used to rotate setbacks and not increase buildable area. If there is a disparity in lot size vs buildable area, there should be findings sufficient to meet the requirement of a variance. If there is not, perhaps such a change shouldn't be granted in the fast place. Please consider removing the discretionary approval power of the Planning Director and requiring all increases to buildable area (over and above a modification permit) be determined through the use of a variance and adjudicated through the Planning Commission. Thank you, Susan Skinner C. Alternative Setback Area Location. In cases where the orientation of an existing lot and the application of the setback area are not consistent with the character or general orientation of other lots in the vicinity, the Director may redefine the location of the front, side, and rear setback areas to be consistent with surrounding properties. The reorientation of setback areas is not applicable to the Bluff Overlay District. Planning Commission - April 5, 2018 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Initiation of Code Amendments April 5, 2018, Planning Commission Item 4 Comments These comments on a Newport Beach Planning Commission agenda item are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(o),vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 4. INITIATION OF CODE AMENDMENTS (PA2018-075) Newport Beach has many poorly drafted laws, adopted with little review. As a result, the Planning Commission may wish to consider a slightly wider scope than that recommended by staff. Regarding the sections cited by staff as in need of some kind of revision: Section 20.28.010 Purposes of Overlay Zoning Districts a. The section noted by staff is within Chapter 20.28 of the NBMC. One of the more confusing aspects of Chapter 20.28 is that it defines four kinds of overlays (MHP, PM, B, H), but only three of them (MHP, PM, B) are listed in the chapter title. This is presumably because 20.28.060 was adopted, by Ordinance 2015-12, with the title "Height Overlay District," and the company that codifies the ordinance apparently did not feel empowered to override the Council and make the title "Height (H) Overlay District." Although I personally do not think the "H" overlay was a good idea, it would seem a simple fix to add "H" to the list of allowable overlay types. b. Staff makes an interesting observation in noticing the sentence in Section 20.28.010 that says "In situations where an inconsistency occurs between the development standards of the underlying zoning district and the standards in this chapter the most restrictive standard shall prevail." c. As staff implies, that directive appears to have been ignored in cases where the overlay specifically relaxes a development standard, such as the H overlay (which, when applied, would have no effect at all if the more restrictive underlying standard continued to apply). It might be noted that the identical language is (at present, somewhat redundantly) repeated in Sec. 20.28.040.A, where the Bluff Overlay does, indeed, seem intended to impose more stringent restrictions. However, 20.28.040.B then confusingly says "Land uses allowed in the B Overlay District are all those uses allowed in the underlying zoning district," when in fact that appears to be true only in "Development Area A." The whole point of the B Overlay seems to be that all the other Development Areas within the overlay have a more restricted list of allowable uses. e. If staff is concerned about the City ignoring the phrase in Section 20.28.010, one might hope they would want to clean up the code in the other sections. 2. Section 20.30.110 Setback Regulations and Exceptions a. I see Susan Skinner has submitted comments, which I generally agree with, including that staff does not explain what kind of "improvement' they think is in order. Planning Commission - April 5, 2018 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Initiation of Code Amendments Since a modification permit is required to reduce a setback area by 0 to 10% (per Sec. 20.52.050.6.2), and a variance for greater reductions, it seems improbable Section 20.30.110.0 was ever intended to give staff (through "the Director') authority to change setback areas by arbitrary amounts, as has been the City's recent practice, or to allow "reorientations" that would result in an increase in buildable area. c. My suspicion is that Section 20.30.110.0 about "reorientations" was a garbled attempt to expand on the Director's authority in the prior Zoning Code to choose which of two equal length frontages should be the "Front" of a corner lot (and which, by default, a "Side") — and operation which, whichever frontage was chosen, would not affect buildable area. d. That authority existed in the definition of "Lot or Property Line, Front" in Sec. 20.03-9 of Ord. 97-9), and it oddly persists in the definition of "Lot line ... 1. Front Lot Line" in the Definitions of Chapter 20.70 of the present Zoning Code. e. The kind of broader "reorientation" authority that was intended clearly needs better definition — especially since it might put the Director -allowed construction in conflict with the Council -adopted setback maps (Item 5 on staffs clean-up list). 3. Section 20.62.020 Notice of Public Hearing a. Since staff promises parallel revisions to Title 20 and Title 21, it might be noted that the mailing requirements in the two titles are not identical, and it might be good to bring Sec. 20.62.020 up to the same standard as Sec. 21.62.020. b. It might also be noted that the noticing language appears to date from a pre-internet age. It would seem wise to add clear expectations for posting of hearing notices on the City website. c. As to the posting problem for hearings affecting large areas (including those on the present citywide amendments), that is indeed a problem, but it is unclear how staff's "comprehensive review" will be conducted. Will the public be involved? d. However the review is conducted, since the existing code already gives the Director discretion as to the number and placement of signs, this problem would seem mostly an administrative one, and not so obviously one rising to the level of a Zoning Code amendment. The real question is whether the solution, by code or by administrative fiat, will result in meaningful and effective noticing. Regarding noticing in general, it might be noted that Gov. Code Sec. 65091(f) has special requirements for drive-through facilities, applicable to charter cities, that do not appear to be reflected in our municipal code. 4. Section 20.66.030 Processing, Notice, and Hearing a. There is no comparable section to this in Title 21. b. I don't see any ambiguity in how notice is given: it simply refers to Chapter 20.62 (see previous clean-up item). Does staff feel Chapter 20.62 should not apply to City - initiated hearings? Planning Commission - April 5, 2018 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Initiation of Code Amendments 5. Section 20.80.040 Setback Maps a. It seems strange to me that the setback maps (introduced in both Title 20 and Title 21 without any clear explanation) appear to control only residentially -zoned lots (and even then, not mixed use). b. Are there any non-residential or mixed use lots in Newport Beach with setbacks deviating from the citywide standards? c. Should a non-standard setback for a lot be allowed to be adopted by variance? Or should that always require enactment of an amendment to the setback maps so the City has a single clear reference to the setbacks applicable to a given property? While it is good staff sees a need to clean up the Zoning Code, it seems clear there are problems beyond those cited in the present report. As a somewhat random example, in reviewing the last meeting's item on "craft breweries' I came across the definition (in Chapter 20.70) of "Alcohol sales, off -sale, accessory only (land use)." The third criterion that must be met to qualify for this land use designation is "3. The sale of alcoholic beverages is accessory to the retail sale of food products and the display area for alcoholic beverages does not exceed thirty (30) percent of the net floor area of the use. Illustrative examples include convenience markets, drug stores, grocery stores, and supermarkets, but do not include convenience markets." Obviously, convenience markets couldn't both qualify and not qualify — but it's not at all clear what the example of a non- qualifying use was meant to be. As a non-random example, it is widely recognized that the equally ambiguous language about Planned Communities at the end of Section 20.30.060.C.1 needs to be cleaned up. Clearly if the adoption of a Planned Community is a way to access the rules allowing discretionary height increases, then Planned Communities couldn't be exempt from those very rules, as some say the last sentence reads (the last sentence does make sense as a grandfathering clause for Planned Community with conflicting height regulations adopted prior to the adoption of the current limits, as was clearly the intent in all prior Zoning Codes). Where are the code amendment initiations for these?