Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/18/1994l CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PLACE: City Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P.M. DATE: MINUTES AUgList 18, 1994 ROLL CALL INDEX 'resent Lbsent * Commissioner Di Sano was excused. ess EX- OFFICIO OFFICERS PRESENT: James Hewicker, Planning Director Robin Clauson, Assistant City Attorney w s a Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager Patrick Alford, Senior Planner Rich Edmonston, City Traffic Engineer Joanne Mac Quarrie, Secretary e s s . Minutes of August 4. 1994 Minutes c 8/4/94 lotion * Motion was made and voted on to approve the August 4, 1994, lyes * * * * * Planning Commission Minutes. MOTION CARRIED. absent s s : Public Comments: Public Comments No one appeared before the Planning Commission to speak on non - agenda items. s a s Posting of the Agenda: Posting of the James Hewicker, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Agenda Commission Agenda was posted on Friday, August 12, 1994, in front of City Hall. sss CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Et CALL INDEX Variance i Item. ".No. , V1199 Request to permit alterations and additions to an existing single Approved amily dwelling which will exceed the allowable gross floor area of 5 times the buildable area of the site and will not provide the equired open space, on property located in the R -2 District. The xisting structure maintains the following nonconforming setbacks: 3 foot front yard setback adjacent to Third Avenue where a 20 oot setback is required; a 3 foot rear yard setback where a 10 foot etback is required; and a 3 foot side yard setback adjacent to an ley, where a 4 foot setback is required. The proposed alterations nclude a second floor addition which includes two bedrooms, a athroom and a laundry area and related stairway. The proposal o includes modifications to the Zoning Code so as to maintain e existing setback encroachments on the proposed second floor 'th the exception of a new second floor balcony to encroach to • e front property line and a second floor bay window that ncroaches to within 2 feet of the front property line. A proposed st floor entry also encroaches to within 2 feet of the front roperty line. CATION: A portion of Lot 22, Block 538, Corona del Mar, located at 3211 Third Avenue, on the southwesterly side of Third Avenue, between Larkspur Avenue and Marguerite Avenue, in Corona del Mar. ONE: R-2 PLICANT: Perry Rezvan, Huntington Beach WNER: Tim Krauth, Corona del Mar n response to a question from Commissioner Ridgeway, Planning hector James Hewicker stated that deeper setbacks are required n the subject property due to its orientation to Third Avenue and he adjacent alley. These deeper setbacks result in no buildable ea, therefore, the necessity for a variance request. In answer to • -2- COMMISSIONERS \A&I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES RO CALL INDEX a query from Commissioner Adams, Director Hewicker explained staffs concerns regarding the potential of a second unit are the direct access to the upstairs from the Third Avenue entry; the fact that one of the upstairs bedrooms is shown to have a laundry with a sink, washer and dryer, and has the potential of being converted to a cooking area; and the downstairs doorway leading into the livingroom, kitchen and bath area could be sealed off to create two living units. Staff was recommending the removal of the doorway and wall separating the stairway to the second floor from the ground floor living area and that the stairway connecting the two levels be open. Discussion ensued between the Commissioners and staff regarding the most effective method of preventing illegal second units. The public hearing was opened at this time, and Mr. Perry . Rezvan, project architect, appeared before the Planning Commis- sion and stated his agreement with the Findings and Conditions of Approval with the exception of No. S. Mr. Rezvan stated that Condition No. 5's requirement that a 5 foot sidewalk be construct- ed would virtually eliminate the front yard landscaping. He further stated his belief that there were no other properties on Third Avenue with sidewalk. Responding to Chairman Glover, Rich Edmonton, City Traffic Engineer, stated that typically there was an absence of sidewalk on the numbered streets in Corona del Mar, and there was an effort to get sidewalk installed on at least one side of the street so that pedestrians are not forced to walk in the street. In answer to Chairman Glover, Mr. Rezman addressed Condition No. 6, requiring the removal of the doorway and wall separating the stairway to the second floor. He stated that removal of the wall would result in the elimination of any usable wall space above the couch area in the livingroom. In response to a question from Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Rezvan stated that the second door in the livingroom was to allow . -3- COMMISSIONERS ��9�0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES R CALL INDEX access to the air conditioning equipment planned for. the second floor, whereby Commissioner Pomeroy commented that if that were the reason, the door should be on the second floor. Mr. Tim Krauth, owner, appeared before the Planning Commis- sion and stated that his reasoning for the door and closed stairway leading to the second floor was to provide security for the downstairs living area. Mr. Krauth commented that there was some sidewalk on the opposite side of the street from his property and asked if that fact effected the requirement of Condition No. 5. ere being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public Baring was closed at this time. In reply to a query from Commissioner Ridgeway regarding the onnection between this project and the requirement for the tallation of sidewalk, Mr. Edmonton explained in regards to ublic improvement(s), it is current City Council policy that the 'tial public improvement is the responsibility of the adjacent roperty owner(s). Mr. Edmonton stated the proposed project ndicated substantial construction and increase in the size of the esidene e. iscussion ensued between the Commissioners regarding the 'piecemealing" of sidewalk whereby Chairman Glover indicated it as not good planning. Commissioner Pomeroy indicated he greed with the Chairman and would recommend eliminating ndition No. 5. He further stated he would support allowing the tairway wall to be of a minimal height that would provide for the lacement of furniture. lotion * otion was made and voted on to approve Variance No. 1199 eyes * * * * * * ubject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit 'W', deleting absent * ondition No. 5. MOTION CARRIED. -4- COMMISSIONERS 0 ��,od �s o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 18, 1994 2 CALL INDEX Fin in 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the land and building referred to in this application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and /or uses in the same District, inasmuch as the subject property is smaller than the typical lot in Corona del Mar, and is subject to greater than normal setback requirements which restrict the amount of buildable area of the site and precludes any development. 2. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant, inasmuch as the proposed project is generally comparable to the size, bulk and height to other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood and strict application of setback requirements results in a lot with no buildable area, which would preclude any development. 3. That the granting of the variance will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detri- mental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood. 4. That the granting of the modifications to the Zoning Code to maintain the existing setback encroachments on the proposed second floor, a new second floor balcony to encroach to the front property line, a second floor bay window to encroach to within 2 feet of the front property line and a first floor entry to encroach to within 2 feet of the front property line will not be materially detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the subject property and will not under the circumstances of the . -5- 9. 0:4 O� SAO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 18 1994 R CALL INDEX particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property improvements in the neighborhood, and further that such modifications are consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 5. That the design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 6. That public improvements may he required of a developer per Section 20.82.050 of the Municipal Code. Conditions: 1. That the development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plans, floor plans and elevations, . except as noted below. 2. That the gross structural area of the subject project shall not exceed 1,447± square feet (the square footage as shown on the plans shall be reduced so as to not exceed a floor area to land ratio of 0.946). 3. That two independently accessible parking spaces shall be provided on -site for the parking of vehicles only, and shall be available to serve the residential unit at all times. 4. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 5. That the doorway and wall separating the stairway to the second floor from the ground floor living area shall be eliminated and that the stairway shall be open to the ground floor living area, that only one dwelling unit shall be permitted on the subject property and any second dwelling unit occupancy shall be prohibited. -6- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Ammgt 18. 1994 WCALL INDEX 6. That this variance shall expire unless exercised within 24 months of the date of approval as specified in Section 20.82.090A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. A. General Plan Amendment No. 87 -1(B) (Continued Public Item No.2 Hearing) GPA87 -1(S Request to amend the Noise Element of the General Plan so as (Res.1365 to conduct a comprehensive update of technical and policy information necessary to reflect the changes in community noise environment and noise - related issues which have occurred since its A802 (Res.1366 original adoption. Approved AND B. Amendment No. 807 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to amend Sections 20.01.070 (C), 20.01.070 (F), 20.10.035, 20.10.045, and 20.70.060 of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to revise current noise control regulations to be consistent with those contained in the proposed Community Noise and Vibration Control Ordinance. The proposed amend- ment also requests to amend the Municipal Code so as to add Chapter 10.26: Community Noise and Vibration Control and to revise Sections of Chapters 6.04, 10.28, and 1032 to maintain consistency in community noise control regulations. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Mr. Patrick Alford, Senior Planner, presented a brief review of the proposed new Noise Element and the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code and the Municipal Code to revise existing noise control regulations to be consistent with the policies of the new Noise Element or which will be replaced by the proposed Commu- nity Noise and Vibration Control Ordinance. The Noise Element . -7- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 18, 1994 R CALL INDEX identifies noise sources and sensitive noise areas within the city and provides solutions to existing and future noise problems through goals, policies, and implementation programs whose purpose is to reduce the number of people exposed to excessive noise and to minimize the future effect of noise in the community. Mr. Alford stated in several instances, the draft of the proposed new Noise Element provides more than one policy approach to be considered by the Planning Commission for inclusion into the final text recommendation. A policy of the new Noise Element calls for adoption of a comprehensive noise ordinance to control noise from non- trans- portation sources. If adopted, this ordinance will be added to the Municipal Code as Chapter 10.26: Community Noise and Vibration Control. All noise sources would be subject to the proposed ordinance unless specifically exempted. Mr. Alford stated that one such exemption was proposed for air conditioning . equipment because of its associated special problems in terms of noise level regulations. However, prior to issuance of a building permit, the ordinance would require that an air conditioner demonstrate operation not to exceed a sound level of 55 dBA. If the air conditioner fails to meet this requirement, the noise level could be raised to 65 dBA provided the applicant secures the written consent of all affected neighbors. Air conditioners legally installed prior to the effective date of the noise ordinance will be permitted to operate at a 65 dBA noise limit until January 1, 2000. Mr. Alford referenced related amendments to the Municipal Code which would need to be revised in order to be consistent with the policies and programs contained in the new Noise Element and proposed Community Noise and Vibration Control Ordinance. Leaf blowers will be subject to the noise control regulations proposed in the new ordinance. If the option prohibiting gas - powered blowers in residential areas is adopted, language to that effect would be added to the applicable section. Responding to queries from Commissioner Ridgeway, Mr. Alford stated that the current noise ordinance policy requires air condi- tioners located within 10 feet of a side property line perform at or . 8- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 18 1994 RO CALL IIVDEX be attenuated so as not to exceed 55 dBA at the property line. Planning Director Hewicker indicated the current policy has been in effect for several years and does not provide for regulating equipment performance after the equipment's original installation. He stated that the Building Department has initiated a permit procedure based upon certification from the manufacturer as to the maximum sound level of the equipment when operating. Ms. Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager, reviewed for the Commission, staff s rationale in developing the regulations regarding air conditioning equipment. She stated that approxi- mately 18 months ago, staff attempted a specific revision to the Zoning Code as it related to air conditioning equipment. Staff concerns included the level of enforcement of the existing 55 dBA requirement and the limitations that standard placed on installa- tions, particularly in the older sections of the City where virtually the only location available to comply with the noise standard would be a roof top installation. One of the goals of the Commis- . sion during the ensuing discussions was not to impose upon the applicant the burden of hiring an acoustical engineer, but to develop measurement standards which could be understood by applicants, contractors and City staff. Ms. Temple continued that although the previous proposal was not enacted upon by the City Council, staff has attempted to incorporate the goals and objec- tives expressed by the Commission at that time into developing the proposed regulations regarding air conditioners. Discussion ensued between the Commissioners and staff regarding the issues related to the existing noise level requirement of 55 dBA and the proposed noise limit exemption which would allow air conditioning equipment legally installed prior to the new ordinance to operate with a noise limit of 65 dBA until January 1, 2000. Mr. Vincent Mestre, 280 Newport Center Drive, Noise Consultant for the City's Noise Element and Community and Vibration Control Noise Ordinance, appeared before the Planning Commis- sion. In response to questions by Commissioner Adams regarding the application of noise mitigation measures, Mr. Mestre explained • 9- A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 18 1994 R CALL INDEX the effect of one Policy 4.1.1 option, which addresses increases in traffic noise levels of 3 dB or greater, with current environmental review processes. Mr. Mestre stated that Policy 4.1.1 works in conjunction with Policies 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 and establishes residential interior and exterior noise standards which are current City practice but -are not part of the City's general plan. Advance Planning Manager Patricia Temple stated it was critical to understand how the City applies noise conditions through the environmental review process versus the import of having a firm policy within the general plan on which to base the application of the types of mitigation measures and conditions of approval being proposed, and in the defensibility of the mitigation process if challenged. Responding to a querie by Commissioner Adams regarding the volume of traffic which might cause an increase of 3 dB, Mr. Mestre stated that it would take doubling the traffic volume if traffic volume were the only variable applicable. Mr. Mestre said . that arterial road improvements that might generate a 3 dB increase would be connecting through a road that previously did not connect through or the expansion of a roadway by the addition of a traffic lane. Addressing the public awareness program regarding reporting vehicles that do not meet State Motor Vehicle Code noise standards and proposed in option policy 4.1.4, Mr. Mestre stated it could merely be establishing a central point of contact for the public within the City or informing the public through newsletters or press releases. Planning Director Hewicker commented that a voice mail system was currently being activated throughout City departments. An ultimate goal was to include a community directory whereby citizens could call in for prerecorded information, and it might he that the awareness program could be a component of the directory information. Mr. Hewicker stated the public could be informed through the water billing process as well as through the services of community cable television. Discussion followed between the Commissioners and staff regarding proposed Policy option 4.1.6, establishing a program to secure funding for noise barriers. Commissioner Ridgeway commented that Assembly Bill 1600 provides a time frame in -10- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 18.1994 R CALL INDEX which to collect and use funds for a designated project and also for their return to developers if they are not used within the time frame and for the specified project. Commissioner Adams voiced his concerns regarding his perception that the proposed policies relative to air conditioners would force citizens to remove equipment, operating in compliance today, by the year 2000, unless written consent of adjacent neighbors is obtained or by attenuation. Discussion ensued between the Commissioners and staff and Mr. Mestre, City Consultant. Mr. Mestre explained the method of computation being employed by the Building Department for new permits was developed by the American Refrigeration Institute. It is a computation based on the sound rating (SR) of the equipment. The result of the computa- tion after providing the SR number and other pertinent informa- tion on the permit application form is the compliance speed. Mr. Mestre indicated completing the form was not complicated, can be completed by a contractor and did not require the services of an . engineer. In responding to concerns expressed by Commissioner Pomeroy, Mr. Mestre stated that the operation of heat pumps would be included in the policy regulating air conditioners. Continuing, Mr. Mestre stated it was very difficult to attain the 55 dBA compliance rate on the very narrow lots with 3 and 5 foot setbacks common on Balboa Island and Lido Isle. The proposed policy does provide an exemption provision, until the year 2000, whereas the present policy does not. Commissioner Gifford questioned the rationale of establishing the same daytime and nighttime hours for allowable exterior noise levels for the proposed three noise zones. Mr. Mestre replied that the times specified were common residential standards for noise sensitive time periods, but were typical, not mandatory. Commissioner Edwards stated that proposed policy 10.10.045.c does allow reasonable time for the phasing out of equipment, either by attrition or replacement, that cannot meet the standard to be effective January 1, 2000. -11- COMMISSIONERS 9pOf W%60V\NAmobi CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Aueust 18. 1994 RO CALL INDEX The difficulty of air conditioners, installed on narrow properties, specifically those properties on Balboa Island, to meet the operating standards, was discussed among the Commissioners and staff and Mr. Mestre. Possible alternative equipment installations including roof mounts were discussed. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:20 and reconvened at 9:30 p.m. The public hearing was opened in connection with this item. Mr. Dan Raven, 3130 Corte Hermosa, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Raven stated he lived adjacent to Bonita Creek Park, and his primary concern was noise associated with the park's recreational activities which are often scheduled from the early morning hours until 10:00 p.m. Mr. Raven referenced several sections of the Noise Ordinance in explaining how disruptive and annoying is the intermittent and shrill whistle blowing noise heard during the scheduled football league events. In replying to Mr. Raven's query regarding Section 5, as to which applicable "Noise Zone" and "Allowable Exterior Noise Level" would apply to his concern, Mr. Alford quoted from Section 7 (a) Exemptions, which includes activities conducted on public parks that are conducted under the sanction of a school or for which a license or permit has been duly issued pursuant to any provision of the Municipal Code. Mr. Raven suggested there be a different time frame for weekday and weekend hours for Allowable Exterior Noise Levels. Mr. Dennis Harwood, 2729 Harbor View Drive, Board Member and Officer of Big Canyon Golf Course, appeared before the Planning Commission to address, in particular, Section 10.28.045 "Real Property Maintenance -Noise Regulations" of the proposed Noise Ordinance. Mr. Harwood stated that the permitted hours for maintenance equipment operation, as stated in the referenced section, 7:00.am. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Sunday, would "put golf courses out of business." He stated that the golf course greens must be cut and prepared one hour before play can commence. Mr. Harwood referred to a 1982 study completed for the City Council, when he said many golf courses in the area were surveyed. He said the equipment used by . -12- 0 \moo CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 18, 1994 R CALL INDEX Big Canyon at that time was found to have an exterior rating of 71 dBA and an interior rating of between 43 and 46. Big Canyon begins its greens maintenance at 6:30 a.m. weekdays and 6:00 a.m. weekends. He stated that the proposed Noise Ordinance did not appear to provide any permit procedure nor specify decibel standards for property maintenance equipment. For clarification, Mr. Alford stated the referenced section does not prohibit property maintenance, only if the manner employed produces noise which disturbs a person of normal sensitivity. He commented that while the present Noise Ordinance addresses construction activity noise, it does not address real property maintenance equipment noise. Assistant City Attorney Robin Clauson stated that the proposed noise control policies and programs are being presented in their entirety for the Commission's information and review. The issues being discussed regarding property maintenance equipment are addressed in proposed Section 10.28.45, an addition to Chapter 10.28 of the Municipal Code. As amendments to the Municipal Code, other than to Title 20, are not within the purview of the Planning Commission but of the City Council, the fine - tuning will be done at the Council level. Ms. Clauson stated however, that all comments heard tonight would be part of the public hearing record, and as such, transmitted to the City Council. Mr. Dickson Shafer, 232 Evening Canyon Road, appeared before the Planning Commission. He informed the Commission of the various ways in which the tranquility of his home life was dis- turbed, two years ago, when his adjacent neighbor installed two heat pumps within a few feet of his house. He explained how after several months he requested an inspection of the equipment by a City inspector and was told at that time the equipment was not operating in violation. He then hired an acoustical engineer firm to test the noise level and was told the equipment was operating at almost double the allowable 55 dBA at the property line. Mr. Shafer questioned the City's existing policy and enforce- ment and urged eliminating the proposed provision in the new Noise Ordinance of permitting air conditioners legally installed . -13- COMMISSIONERS �p CITY OP NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Arnmict 1R 1994 R CALL I I I INDEX prior to the effective date of the ordinance to operate at 65 dBA until January 1, 2000. Mrs. Tina Simpkin, 5 Sea Island Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated her home was adjacent to the Big Canyon Golf Course, close to both the 4th hole and the mainte- nance yard of the golf course. Mrs. Simplon stated she and her husband had lived at their present location for six years, and although noise from the maintenance crews and equipment at 5:15 a.m. had disturbed them in the past, she explained how their problems had escalated this past year, and that she and her husband had specifically requested through their Sea Island Homeowners Association that the operating hours for operation of property maintenance equipment producing loud noises commence at a more reasonable morning hour. In discussion with the Commissioners as to what else she might do in support of her request, Commissioner Ridgeway suggested to Mrs. Simplon she contact and discuss her concerns with Mr. Dennis Harwood, officer of the Big Canyon Country Club and Golf Course, and who had addressed the Commission earlier. Commissioner Gifford suggested Mrs. Simpkin formulate and make her recommendation to the City Council as to what she felt would be the most effective manner of regulation. Mr. Bernard Pegg, 2633 Bamboo Street, appeared before the Planning Commission, to voice his support, in general, of the proposed Community Noise and Vibration Control Ordinance and the suggested modifications to the Municipal Code. He stated he would prefer shortening the proposed permitted hours for property maintenance equipment, and that the roles of police versus code enforcement personnel be better defined. Mr. Richard Goehring, 1601 Highland Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission to oppose the prohibition of gas- powered blowers. He suggested that some form of noise measurement regulation be applied and /or reduce the permitted hours of operation, but not to prohibit their use entirely. -14- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES AuEu Rt 1R_ 1994 -o R CALL INDEX Ms. Georgine Baugbt, 306 Columbia, appeared before the Planning Commission and directed her comments to the public disturbance caused by intermittent car alarm noise. Ms. Baught detailed for the Commission an incident that occurred when a car alarm began sounding, periodically, the car owner was out of town, and when the police answered her complaint, the alarm had temporarily stopped only to start up again after the police left. She stated her opinion that some of the various noise disturbances are caused by short -term rental tenants that might be unaware of City regulations. At the request of Commissioner Gifford, Assistant City Attorney Clauson stated car alarms of street parked vehicles are regulated under the State Vehicle Code. Ms. Clauson said she would research what authority would regulate car alarms of cars parked off the street. Commissioner Ridgeway, member of the West Newport Advisory Committee, stated that several ordinances have been adopted by the City Council which address some of the . complaints outlined by Ms. Baught, and he suggested she join the Advisory Committee. Ms. Dolores Otting, 17 Hillsborough, addressed the Planning Commission, and stated her concern regarding the source of financing for the personnel needed for the enforcement of the Noise Ordinance after it is adopted. Referencing the discussion regarding limiting the permitted hours of .property maintenance equipment, she asked how that proposed limitation might affect the sales tax revenue from the Citys golf courses. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Discussion ensued among the Commissioners and staff. Advance Planning Manager Temple stated that a 'Policy Option Summary' was provided in the staff report, for straw voting those policies proposed in the Noise Element for which there is one or more options. The Commission decided to straw vote individually each proposed policy having an option before making and voting a formal motion. • -15- COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 18, 1994 R CALL INDFX In clarifying for Commissioner Gifford what the effect of a noise level increase of 3 dB CNEL would be, Mr. Vincent Mestre stated as far as roadway noise, it would be barely perceptible. The straw vote commenced. Policy LLl ((Loose One at None) Copt * * * Require noise mitigation measures in the design of X .eject * * * arterial road improvements tdop t * * Limit application of this requitement to project that will X leject * * * * result in noise level increases of 3 dB CNEL or greater Polic94AA Wop t * * * Establish a public awareness program to inform citizens X * * * of their ability to report vehicles that do not meet State iej ect Motor Vehicle Code noise standards 0 Pa1icy4AA kdop t * * * Establish a program to secure funding for the construe- X Re' ect * * Lion of noise barriers along major arterials by requiring a fee for new projects which generate new traffic. Policy 411 (moose AIL Some, or None) Adopt * * * Allow the Planning Commission to relax exterior noise X Reject * Le vel standards for the residential portion of mixed use projects. Adopt * * * I * Establish a threshold under which remodeling projects X would be required to comply with interior noise stan- dards. Adopt * * * * Allow the Planning Commission to relax the exterior X Rej ect * noise standard for infill residential projects adjacent to major arterials. -16- COMMISSIONERS _ ���11.1 �o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES AuEust 18. 1994 R CALL INDEX A Re�ea Pofiey 4.22 .dopt * * * * Require an accusticel analysis prior to the issuance of X .ej ect * * building permits for all noise sensitive land uses within the 60 CNEL noise contour Policy 4.22 (moose One or fame) dopt * * * * * Require multi -family projects to demonstrate that the X .ej ect * interiors adequately insulated from adjacent units prior to the nuance of building permits. .dopt * * * Require multi -family projects to demonstrate that the X Le j eC t * * interior is adequately insulated from adjacent units prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy. Ply 42-3 .dopt * * * Prohibit the use of gasoline powered leaf blowers in X ,ej ect * * * residential areas or within two hundred (2011) feet of a residential area. - rPoGiy 43.1 .dopt * * * * * Adopt proposed Community Noise and Vibration Control X :ej ec t * Ordinanoc. Policy 4.11.1 ,dopt * * * * * * Retains Police Department authority for controlling noise X from residential party noise, barking dogs, construction, remodeling, and demolition; adds property maintenance. Aotey 432 Aopt * * * i * * Requires all building permits issued to be in compliance X with the Community Noise and Vibration Control Ordi- ounce. For" 43.21 ,d op t * is * Exempts air conditioners from noise level standards; X * * * requires new air-conditioners to demonstrate that they tej ec t will no exceed an A- weighted Sound Pressure Ixvel of 55 diLk -17- Ad Ad Re Ad Re COMMISSIONERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 18 1994 R CALL INDEX A" Mad Pdrry43211 opt x * >ti Allows newaireonditioning equipment noise limits to be X raised to 65 dBA provided written consent of all affected neighbors is obtained. Pdily 433 opt * * * is * Requires all building permits issued to be in compliance X j ect i with the Community Noise and Vibration Control Ordi. i Pof" 43R .opt * * * Establishes computational method to determine if air X !jest i i conditioners eomplywith noise limits. In discussion regarding legally installed air conditioning equipment as addressed in proposed Section 20.10.045(c), Commissioner Pomeroy stated he wished to exempt permitted conforming air conditioners, legally installed prior to the effective date of the current standard (Ord. 1876, §2, April 22, 1981), from operating at 55 dBA, but not to exceed 65 dBA, until January 1, 2000. In reply to Commissioner Pomeroy's request for a definition of "affected neighbor" as stated in proposed Section 20.10.045(b), Mr. Alford stated, "affected in the areas that exceed noise limits established in the Noise Ordinance." Commissioner Pomeroy stated he felt there should be a provision to provide for air conditioners if a health issue is involved, especially in those areas of the City where compliance would be difficult if not impossible. Discussion followed between the Commissioners and staff egarding securing the written consent of "affective neighbors" and he issues thereof including tenant neighbors, changing neighbors, d tenant neighbor approval versus property owner approval. Commissioner Pomeroy requested changing "affected neighbors" to "affected property owners." At the request of the Planning Commission, Assistant City Attorney Clauson announced the results of the straw vote. After i -18- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 18 1994 R CALL INDEX discussion regarding Commissioner Pomeroy stating that due to a misunderstanding, he wished to change his vote on Policy 4.1.1, Ms. Clauson advised him to include the change in the formal motion. Senior Planner Patrick Alford drew the Commission's attention to Policy 4.12. which called for choosing one option or none, and the straw vote just completed resulted in the adoption of both options. Discussion followed and Commissioner Pomeroy changed his vote resulting in Policy 4.2.2 Option 2(a) being adopted (Require multi family projects to demonstrate that the interior is adequately insulated from adjacent units prior to the issuance of building permits.) Commissioner Pomeroy suggested a change in Policy 4.2.3 regarding prohibiting the use of gasoline powered leaf blowers to instead prohibit their use between the hours of 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. In the following discussion, Mr. Alford explained that current policy regarding gasoline powered leaf blower; limits their use to between the hour; of 6:00 pmL and 8:00 am. He stated . that there were two proposals before the Commission regarding leaf blowers: 1) a prohibition on gas powered blowers which the Commission rejected with a tie straw vote; and 2) Section 10.28.045 Real Property Maintenance - Noise Regulations which would include all other issues related to noise from leaf blowers. He continued that if it were the intent of the Commission to make leaf blowers a separate issue, their operation would not be included in the regulations imposed by Section 10.28.045. Commissioner Pomeroy affirmed he would wish to include in his formal motion to allow leaf blowers as permitted today, but to prohibit their operation between 5:00 pmL and 9:00 am.; to change his vote on Policy 4.1.1 (Require noise mitigation measures in the design of arterial road improvements) to adopt; and to change his vote on Policy 4.2.2 (Require mull family projects to demonstrate that the interior is adequately insulated from adjacent units prior to the issuance of building permits.) to adopt. Commissioners Edwards, Gifford and Ridgeway stated they would support Commissioner Pomeroy's recommendation regarding leaf blowers. Commissioner Adams questioned the proposed hours for prohibiting the operation of leaf blowers, 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m., . -19- 0 0 drs 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 18 1994 s) RO CALL INDEX when gasoline powered lawn mowers and other property mainte- nance equipment can operate beginning at 7:00 am. lotion * Motion was voted to approve General Plan Amendment No. 87- kyes * * * * * * 1(B) (Resolution No. 1365) and Amendment No. 807 (Resolution Lbsent * No. 1366) subject to the results of the straw vote; and changing Section 20.10.045(c) to read, Air conditioners legally installed prior to the Ordinance No. 1876 §2, 1981, shall be permitted to operate with a noise limit of 65 dBA until January 1, 2000; and to include prohibiting the operation of leaf blowers between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 am.; and to reflect the change of vote on Policy 4.1.1 and Policy 4.22 by Commissioner Pomeroy as specified. MOTION CARRIED. lotion * Motion was made and voted on to consider Agenda Item No. 3, s * * * * Item No. 4, and Item No. 5 after 11:00 p.m. per the policy that was * * set forth in the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure. t * MOTION CARRIED. lotion * Motion was made and voted on to open the public hearing on ryes * * * * * * Item No. 3, Amendment No. 808, and to set Item No. 4, Amend - lbsent * ment No. 785 (Discussion) for public hearing on September 22, 1994, and to set Item No. 5, Amendment No. 809 (Discussion) for public hearing on September 8, 1994. MOTION CARRIED. sss Amendment No. 808 (Public Hearinel Item No.' Request to consider amending Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code so as to add regulations related to the collection A808 and loading of recyclable materials in new development projects. (Res. 136 Approved INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach . -20- s) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES August 18_ 1994 RO CALL INDEX The public hearing was opened at this time and Mr. David Niederhaus, General Services Director, addressed the Planning Commission. He explained to the Commission each local agency in California is required under Assembly Bill 1327 to adopt an ordinance by September 1, 1994, to ensure that adequate areas are available for collecting and loading recyclable materials in new development projects. The City has the options of developing and adopting its own ordinance; adopt the California Integrated Waste Management Board's model ordinance, with or without modifica- tion; or to take no action to adopt an ordinance which would result in the model ordinance taking effect September 1, 1994. The model ordinance would require developers of all new development in the City to provide storage space for recyclables, being items removed from the solid waste stream to be source separated into separate containers. Mr. Niederhaus stated that three years ago the City embarked on . a program whereby all refuse is collected and transported to a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) where recyclable materials are then separated from refuse that is to be landfilled. He said since a MRF -type program does not require source- separation, staffs. proposed ordinance includes an exemption for any areas of the City served by the collection of commingled solid waste and recyclable materials for transportation to a mixed waste processing facility or material recovery facility. Mr. Niederhaus indicated by using central processing, there is not a need for developers to set storage space aside. Mr. Niederhaus stated there were provisions in the proposed ordinance that would become effective it at some future time, the City modified its MRF program requiring source separation, development projects would then need to comply with the revised code amendments. In discussion with one of the solid waste haulers interested in source separation, Mr. Niederhaus said he was recommending one change which would eliminate the words solid waste and from the General Services Director's staff report to the Planning Commission, first paragraph entitled Recommendation, second line; the second paragraph, Background and Discussion, third line; and from the first paragraph of the d- raft resolution which reads: "...for regulating the collection and i -21- COMMISSIONERS °�f��ko\& ' o CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES Aueust 18. 1994 RO CALL H INDEX loading of solid waste and recyclable materials for new develop- ment projects." Ms. Madeline Arakelian, owner and operator of South Coast Refuse and Integrated Recycling Systems, appeared before the Planning Commission. She stated that the full intent of the State legislation is to require that all cities implement, through the building permit procedure, in new development projects, a specific area by which source separated recyclables can be collected. Ms. Arakelian stated that the words solid waste should not to be included in the ordinance, only recyclables materials. Commissioner Pomeroy commented that the City of Newport Beach is 95% builtout and he didn't feel that imposing the State ordinance on the remaining 5% would accomplish the intent of the legislation. Ms. Dolores Otting, 17 Hillsborough, appeared before the Planning Commission and indicated her concern that if the City does not adopt its own ordinance by September 1, 1994, the State ordinance would take effect. She stated that according to AB 1327, a development project included marina and she questioned it being omitted from the City's proposed ordinance. Ms. Otting commented that although the majority of the City is builtout, there will be future redevelopment areas to consider. In response to queries from Chairman Glover, Mr. David Nieder- haus, General Services Director, stated the expected timeline for adoption and effective date of the City s proposed ordinance to be in mid- October or before the permit process required by new development could be completed. Planning Director Hewicker commented there were no new proposed developments that would be affected within the timeframe mentioned by Mr. Niederhaus. Commissioner Adams questioned why delay implementing the measures at this time if it were inevitable the City would eventual- ly be required to source separate recyclables, and if the space requirement to do so is minimal. In reply, Commissioner Ridgeway stated that although he had lobbied against AB1327, he 22 COMMISSIONERS ���'F'nG��o+P �9�LL. !�i•r�7 Ate+ NL�lZ7Ulli?T Ri. A/"`i� MINUTES ryf -r r. I . A A A . m AV. WV A .A% A August 18, 1994 R CALL INDEX had helped to create the amendment, and there were numerous commercial entities that were opposed to source separation because of the additional design characteristics that had to be included beyond those of a normal trash enclosure. Mr. Nieder- haus commented on the failure of a source separation pilot program conducted at the Oakwood Apartments three years ago. He stated that Orange County currently has four and soon will have five of the best and most advanced materials recovery facilities in the state. He continued that the Citys waste stream is processed by CRT and, at 31% recycled, has exceeded its January 1, 1995 processing requirement. Including the work of the haulers, the entire residential, commercial and industrial waste stream for the City is running at approximately 27 %. Mr. Niederhaus commented the central processing of waste is well advanced in Orange County and opined it isn't logical to set aside valuable space to provide for source separation. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public . hearing was closed at this time. Lotion * Motion was made and voted on to approve Amendment No. 808 ,yes * * * * * * (Resolution No. 1368) as modified to delete solid waste and in the sbsent * first paragraph. MOTION CARRIED. r r r Amendment No. 785 (Discussion) Item No.4 Request to set for public hearing, an amendment to Title 20 of the A785 Newport Beach Municipal Code, so as to allow balconies within required front yard setbacks on residential lots along East Ocean set for Ph 9/22/94 Front and West Ocean Front on the Balboa Peninsula and in West Newport. lotion * Motion was made and voted on to set Amendment No. 785 for ryes * * * * * * public hearing on September 22, 1994. MOTION CARRIED. lbsent 0 -23- COMMISSIONERS � �F CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MINUTES ft CALL INDEX s s s Amendment No. 809 (Discussion) Item No.5 Request to consider initiating an amendment to Title 19 and 20 of A809 the Newport Beach Municipal Code, amending the condominium conversions provisions for residential condominiums. set for ph 9/8/94 otion * Motion was made and voted on to set Amendment No. 809 for yes * * * * * * public hearing on September 8, 1994. MOTION CARRIED. bsent � I sss ADJOURNMENT: 11:50 P.M. Adjourn sss • TOD RIDGEWAY, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION _24_