Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 - Marine Charter Land Use & Parking Regulations - PA 2006-194COUNCI AGENDA CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NO CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT i 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 citv.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 commensal 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 ANN 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 Califomia 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 Public Notice: Notice of this hearing was published in advance of this hearing consistent wit h item appeared upon the agenda for this and on the City website. Prepared by: - e�� Patrick J. Alford Senior Planner Attachments: the Daily Pilot the Municipal meeting, which Submitted by: Parking Regulations November 14, 2006 Page 3 a minimum of 10 days in Code. Additionally, the was posted at City Hall 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 -006] 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 E 9; 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 eqress, and the safe loading and unloading of passengers and supplies. The Harbor Resources Manager may also refer the application to the Harbor Commission, p'^^^•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 device(s) 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 aG regaTed by GhapteF 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 applieable number of parking spaces required by fego? eA4e ^!c 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. Ghar#eF, 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, EXHIBIT A CA 2006-006 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. EXHIBIT 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. 2. With the approval of an off -site parking arrangement Pursuant to Section 20.66.080: Off -site Parking. 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. 1. 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 Ell 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 ^` A. Application. An application to allow required off - street parking on a Parcel filed in a manner consistent with the requirements contained 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 5 JA 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. Planning Department. F. Marine Activities. Provided the findings in Section 206666080 (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 R 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 RM EXHIBIT A CA 2006 -006 7 0 _a WIN W- znrTrwM2 ._ EXHIBIT A CA 2006 -006 7 0 ATTACHMENT B October 19, 2006 Planning Commission Staff Report 1'� 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 11. (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 cant' 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 I� 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: 1. 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 Toerge Excused: Henn M ATTACHMENT D October 19, 2006 Planning Commission minutes al Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 Page 2 of 27 modified. ommissioner Ha nested 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 sepal endment that is a reorganization of Title 17 and is being reviewed by the Har nmission. 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. issioner 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 MAPS and that is not proposed to changed as part of this amendment. issioner 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 \PLN\Shared \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 1 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 applies 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. MAPs 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 Auld 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 open missioner Hawkins asked if the Planning Department's review would ma the parking was not over subscribed to a particular parcel. Temple answered yes. missioner Hawkins questioned if it is currently a use permit issue for ng. Alford answered yes. 5ioner Hawkins continued, so the Harbor Resources Division .d 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. 7 � 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 file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006\1 01 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 chc 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 t1 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. >sioner Eaton stated even though these are annual permits, he felt thi be noticing to the adjacent property owners because of the potential 3 the character of the off -site parking'Iots. ssioner Hawkins agreed with Commissioner Eaton and asked if these permits. r. Alford said it varies but cannot exceed 12.months. He didn't have a eakdown 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 etaE2006\l0192006.htm 11/03/2006 Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 • The MAPS will specify where and how the parking will be provided. If th 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 5tly removing antiquated language. It is essentially the same document that tl 3 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 blic comment was opened. blic 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 R year does place some burden on the applicant due to time constraints As far a aff, it is just another process that may increase the fees. One alternative th, ay be considered is to determine if there is a consensus of the Commission th, ould like to see the City Council take that point on directly. As we transmit thi nendment to the City Council, we can show them what changes that would mea 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 woulc to have the event take place, the neighbors would then know what is going or i 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 alone 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 anc ssioner Peotter agreed with Commissioner McDaniel. He asked Staff in office building were they're using this parking, is it usually limited to s 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 the -s of operation of parking, based on public testimony or other considerations is part of purpose of the review. If there is a limit on the use of the parking 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 ;ion 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 c Page 7 of 27 V1 file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006 \10192006.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. missioner Peotter asked for a vote on the second motion and if it de 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 oarkina 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 i 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 grit 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 �b file : //F:1UserslPLNlSharedlGvarinlPC min eta112006110192006.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 regula ns 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 ouses" would be defined as any dwelli unit where more than one roo ' is H rented under more than one written or o rental agreement. If it meets 0 definition, then it is defined as a Boardi House, whichAs currently under t e Group Residential heading and it is. r permitted in our residential zones. roup Residential is currently limited our Government, Educational, and INktitutional Facilities (GEIF) District a only when associated with an educatiohpi 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 'ng why the limit was on and not two. He received a reply stating that City A may had insisted that one. He pointed out that he had read an article in then wspaper addressing filar ordinance in the City of Orange and their limit was o. He would like i)w why we choose one rather than two. Harp, Assistant City Attorney, wanted to clarify that City ttorney F ison was very insistent upon this and he had not had the opport ity to dis reasoning behind this, but pointed out that Mr. Alford had discus ed this Alford said they had discussed 3 or more, but with that many there co be antial a situation of 3 separate housing keeping units operating under h uld be a single - family dwelling. The intent is to keep this as tight as possibi 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 peol 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\ 10 1 92006.htm Page 9 of 27 ITEM NO. 4 PA2006 -198 Recommended for Approval a� 11/03/2006 Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number A-6214, September 29, 1961, and A -24831 June 11, 1963. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH - COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following dates: December 2, 2006 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December 5, 2006 at Costa Mesa, California. Signature . mav, 01001mNQ N0.2006 -24 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN Afv1ENDMENT TO TITLE 17 AND 20 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING LAND USE REG- ULATIONS AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR MA- RINE CHARTERS [CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2006- 0061 Subject ordinance was in- troduced on the 14th day of November. 2006, and was adopted on the 28th day of November, 2006. AYES. COUNCIL MEMBERS: SELICH, ROSANSKY. RID - GEWAY, DAIGLE, NICHOLS, MAYOR WEBB NOES, COUNCIL MEM BERS:NONE ABSENT COUNCIL MEM BERS: CURRY ABSTAIN COUNCIL MEM. BER.NONE MAYOW Don Webb CITY CLERK: LaVonne M. Harkless The entire teat o available for review in the City Clerk's office of the City of Newport Beach. Published Newport Beach/ Costa Mesa Daily Pilot December 2, 2006 Sa616