HomeMy WebLinkAbout02_Zone_Code_Update_PA2009-034CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
June 15 2010
Agenda Item 1
and
June 17. 2010
Agenda Item2
SUBJECT: Zoning. Code Update — (PA2009 -034)
Y Code Amendment No. 2009 -001
PLANNERS: James Campbell, Principal Planner
(949) 644 -3210, icampbell(a)newportbeachca.gov
Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner
(949) 644 -3219, gramirezanewportbeachca.gov
Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner
(949) 644 -3221, mwhelananewportbeach.ca.gov
PROJECT SUMMARY
The zoning code update is a comprehensive re -write of the current code. Zoning
Districts in the updated zoning code reflect changes in land use designations that were
a result of the adoption of the 2006 General Plan. New use classifications have been
added, definitions have been completely revamped, development standards have been
fine - tuned, and administrative procedures have been simplified.
The Newport Beach General Plan, approved by voters in 2006, reflects the community's
vision for Newport Beach and provides policies for realizing this vision. The zoning code
is an important tool for implementing many policies included in the General Plan,
especially those related to land use and development. By law, the zoning code must be
consistent with the policies of the General Plan that it implements. Those policies not
implemented by the zoning code are implemented in a variety of ways such as other
municipal code sections, City Council polices or through direct application of the policy
itself.
RECOMMENDATION —June 15 2010
1) Conduct a public hearing beginning with a review of Part 4 and then Part 3, time
permitting, and
2) Continue to June 17, 2010.
RECOMMENDATION — June 17 2010
1) Conduct a public hearing beginning with a review of and Parts 1, 3, 4.5 and 6,
and;
Zoning Code Update
June 15 and 17, 2010
Page 2
2) Continue to June 24, 2010.
Attachments
PC1: Residential Regulations Comparison Tables
PC Attachment 1 consist of two tables that compare the current zoning code standards
to the draft code standards for residential development. The first table is applicable to
R -1 and R -2 lots on Balboa Peninsula and the second table applies to R- 1 and R -2 lots
in Corona del Mar (flower streets). Staff will discuss the proposed standards in greater
detail at the June 15th public hearing.
PC 2: Public Comments Received
Included as PC Attachment 2 are written comments received from the public regarding
the zoning code update.
PC3: Summary of Change
The Summary of Change provides an overview of the notable revisions and additions
contained in the draft zoning code to assist the Planning Commission and all other
interested parties with their review of the draft code.
Environmental Review
Staff and the consultants are currently preparing an initial study. When complete, a copy
will be forwarded to the Commission for review and comment.
Public Notice
Government Code Section 65091 provides that, when the number of property owners to
whom notice would be required to be mailed is greater than 1,000 (which is the case
with a comprehensive Zoning Code update), notice may be provided by placing a one -
eighth page advertisement in the local newspaper. Notice of the Planning Commission
meetings appeared in the Daily Pilot on May 22 "d and June 5th. Notice was also
provided on the City's website.
Prepared by:
James Campbell, Principal Planne
Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner
Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner
Zoning Code Update
June 15 and 17, 2010
Page 3
Submitted by:
David Lepo, Pla n' Director
ATTACHMENTS
PC 1 Residential Regulations Comparison Tables
PC 2 Public Comments Received
PC 3 Summary of Change
PC 4 Draft Zoning Code (Previously Distributed)
Available at Planning Department website:
http: / /newportbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?page =1528
Attachment No. PC 1
Residential Regulations —
Comparison Tables
( �w - v mmr--q
X C O G
.O N C O 'L 06 K C U)
N O N p�j U) 7 6 N G)
3 (D (D CD
(D 0-3 .-. IZ W O
w� -i 0 O Doti
II O w N O (Op N X 0
CO (D� (D CO
W (D A w
o -O N X N
.0 (n (wi) o O w
FQg O. II O
O O (D O
°O OC co
(D N O N
w s N (D
°So 0 m
Q.0 °7 3
O w < < D j
° (� • 0 0 m
-n
S C C w
o< 3 a 3 u o
O N C O ° O
X (° (D II 11 W
N (D O_ N W 00
�- or
E)7 O (D N O (A X W
0 =5 = CD aD A
in C Q C ID U1
+O V) 6ti, is Wv
W
or- -(/) (7 O C) .)
m FD" (D o
N CL K
00 (D (D
3 (Dv II
-. (D = W
d (O O' W
O 0)
O r O
O = (D (/)
1 0
W O v »
W O E
p) 71 (n
N (wn
o O
O O0
° w
CD
_ w
w
O
v =
m
(D
-1
N
(D
O
CD
C
<
o
c
m
2
�.
3
""'
(n
K
a)
N
a -1
0�
T` o.
-n
°o
�
r -1
3?
:i Q
(n
g
�
D g
CD X
v 3
C
3
O
z
co
H.
w
O
N
N
�
3
to
p
.Oi.
fn
61
a
Q'
-6 C7
-n Cn
Z
Z
p= Z
co N
Z
p C
< O.
d O
'O
O
O!
.O
C X
O
O, O
o • • • •
X70 =
N
N
w ? (D
�
O
• • w
QDON
O0Z�rZ70
.
O N (n
p°) (D
UC7
3
=
Q.
(D
A rZ7
(D
C (O
(D C.
=
1l
O.
(p p d
C- N
CDN
CDR
3°(a$
m
S.m
m
wa
FQ
0
°g�A3
7o
Qo°
u
vo
N
N
A w
C
Na
it
CD
O C
C
sn
3 A
d
N
(DD
3
((D
w
-«
CD
Z
m
CD
m
? _.
o
=
S
°
3 (D
3
V,
7
K X
_j
C
Q
(D
Q
7
N
A
=^
o G
C
0
(D
(°
m
3
3
n
CD
w m
a
m
O
CD 3
Q
m
w Q
= a
w
CD
° o
(D
o �
w
Q
O- N
-n Cn
A
m M
r r
O w Z
Z
Z
w0
.v. O
"6,
Ol
w CD n
(D D
O
O
c
r2
•• • e e
(D
C.
(n
< C
v w
O
5
O
0 =
O (Q
CO
w
(D
C C
oa a
(D _
I
=r
A-n
=-p
N O Z �7
A
Q(D
O"((DD Q
w
3�-w
6 N �
=
(o
3
(O
(D O 0
(D
Q
(° WO
-�
C'
(D
(D
(fD O'
N 3 to O
3 CD
= '
S
N "°O
3 �'
7.7 C O_
N=
w 3 w
w N
w,,
(D o-
v 3 "� (Np
2.
N N=
C N
N CCDD,
O' N (D CL
w
o N
N O
3�
(D
W
N 3
'
m (D m
m<
6 a
N
A W (D
_
(.+ w to
W w
N (D
w
�Dm
.o
c
N
X
(wp N i
0 N
s)
m
N
_
(D
�
O
�
3 7
CD
m
(D (?D
(D 'tip,
(D O"
O'
o C
a<
Q
N (°
w
0
CL
CL
="O
U o
w o
w
a s
o C
o 3
(D
w
N
O O
3
�, (�
(D
s
(D
A
A '
N
w
Q
w w
u -,
(D 7"
o (D
(D 0
O' (D
-6 -.
oD
<
m w
sa
<
o w
w
w ^
O
~2
_ N
O
0
(D
w ?
zwv
N 0
Q
N
Q
0
-7Q
N
N
((D
Q
0
O (D
v N
� O
3
tn
cn
m
Q
0-
U)
O
3
w
O
' *m T m Cori
-0 ��a 0 x c D�
a
m ID 0 s CD
CD Q3 ^« Q n0 WQ
w 3 O 0 O. CD x
W OG_O O Q (D
,J CD-O O O NCb�
(D r_
�0 CD x 0
N C N .3., CD et
_O 7 N O W y
"^.D -Z70 11 O
ti C
D O (D N O
N 0
CD
N O N (n 0
�
CD 0
0 0 T 0
?. O Q 0 N I� O
IV 6 N ff IV ID
A 0 N
X tQ II CD II N Z7 3
N CD, Q w00 CQ W N W a
�nCQA r m
m .IO CA
0 = O a M
3 0 = 0
V> K 1p
r-
+ o (n? * a
A c w o 0 o W
m o m W
NQ a) 00
00 N CD U!
o O N 07 4
11 A?
3 ((DD 3 W
Q
O CD
o °c = A
O CD (/)
v
N
in E,
0 0
o O
O N
N CD
� v
N O
(OD (D
O
O
C
3
m
x
SD.
(D
s
0
N
c
N
0-1
C
p
0
(n
a
r- --I
CL
O�
Q
(D
Dg
m%
-n
00
to
u
N
N
o
C7
N
n
3
Q
D)
Q
?1 co
Z
Z
�D (p Z
W '
Z
A
0 6
25
N p
e e o o e a
O
O
(gyp
(O O
C c (Op
C (n
d x
O
C7
e e lD
�D
CD
oocn
a-�
3a
N
No
O Z� x x
Fq
(D N
N O Q p; 00
C
N N (D
N C.
O
N> N
R a
�� 3.-om
m
3v
mo
00
S�.
A.... 2,0
Ll
M —
N N
3
CD
w
O
x. �
II (D
O C
n
,0...
C
N (D
C DOj
N
_
2.
ED
^`
N
1'
-n
N
O
(D
m
0 3
x
N
c
O.
3
(D
x
rn
O
3
N
s
N
to
a (D
o
d
C7
c
o
c 3
a
O
Q
Q
(D
O
N
CD
(D
a
m
o
0
(D
(D CD
a
Q
0
,P O
Ti Ct)
L (T
S M
N (D
r r
O O
Q= Z
C O
Z
O
Z
O
0—
e e• -2.
0
N 5 0
CC CC
� (D
S
S
N O••
,Z�7
O cra
(D
0(a
m
C C
E5:0'm
ED
I
m
d
N S
N
— (D
to
(D (^
(D
(D
O O_ O
(p 0
n a
N ,y.. y
.D
O W
0
(D 6 0
3 D a
(D
(D
(D 3 N ^`Q
pt
O-6C
N
CD 0O
N
Q. 'A�-.
C O.
3 a N
N (D
N) CD N
N O
d N
N ('D
y
O a (D
Q
(0
a o
CT
(D
(D (D
(D 6 p
''
�. O
N Q
3 0
N
0 N
N (O
�, N O
M
y d
O
X
N
Nc
O
Z
N
M0
to
e
N
v
m
mma
CD m
» e
0
w
CD
am
m
O
j
ON
O' O
(n6
O=
3
(D
f.
(D (Q
N B Q
o !_
O- <
(Q
'O" .5.
OT. O
O� Q
to O
C
CD
c
O
O
O
C
CD
N
N
-1.,
.�,. N
N D
n S
-O
(D
N o
✓T N
p N
.T -s
N Q
O<
3<
Q
p 0
Q
D
D N
?
N
O O
D
Q
N
N
T
((D
N
N
(D
O
(D
a
N
:E
O
��
I
TQ
N
N
J Q
CD
y N
.7 Q
D (D
N
y O
�-0
-n 3
C0 %W
C �
D
C
Q
O
3
N
(n
O
Attachment No. PC 2
Public Comments Received
Ramirez, Gregg
From:
Tom [tom.geyer @me.comj
Sent:
Wednesday, April 07, 2010 10:33 PM
To;
Info @Comra.org; Gardner, Nancy
Cc:
Ramirez, Gregg; Whelan, Melinda
Subject:
Zone Code Revisions for Corona del Mar
Good evening,
We are Corona del Mar residents and are writing to advise you that we
strongly support maintaining the 1.5 FAR limitation for Corona del
Mar. The charm and appeal that we paid so dearly for would be lost if
the zoning code changes that are being contemplated are enacted.
Thank you for your service to Corona del Mar and Newport Beach.
Thomas and Kellie Geyer
Avocado Avenue
Corona del Mar
1
Ramirez, Gregg
From:
echilds @cityofwhittier.org
Sent:
Thursday, April 08, 2010 8:40 AM
To:
Ramirez, Gregg
Subject:
CDM zoning change
I am responding to an article in the Corona Del Mar resident's association newsletter re the possible zoning code change
in my neighborhood. I do not mind a new buyer tearing down a small house and replacing a new one on the same lot,
(because that is what we bought seven months ago) but I do not like the idea of some giant house being built next to my
small existing lot. So, please, do not change the current 1.5 FAR limitation, whatever that means.
Thank you
Ed and Debbie Childs
600 Avocado Ave.
CDM
Ramirez, Gregg
From: Julie Coyne (cjuliejunk @me.comj
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 1:56 PM
To: Ramirez, Gregg
Subject: zoning
Hello Mr. Ramirez,
I just received your email in a community news letter for CDM. I am
interested in the proposed new zoning codes that I heard about,
increasing the FAR limitation. I am for increasing it, I live and
own in the village on a flower street and I think it is a great idea
to increase the FAR limitation from 1.5 to 2.0. These are
expensive properties and the taxes reflect it. I think us tax paying
citizens should be able to build just like the rest of Newport Beach,
I understand hight limitations, and set backs of course, but the FAR
should be increased to 2.0.
All of my neighbors that I have spoken with agree.
I just wanted to let you know my views, and the views of my local
friends that I have discussed it with.
thank you
Julie Coyne
Ramirez, Gregg
From:
Elizabeth. N.Arovas @kp.org
Sent:
Tuesday, June 08, 2010 1:34 PM
To:
Ramirez, Gregg
Subject:
New Zoning Regulations
Dear Mr. Ramirez,
I am writing about the new zoning laws for Newport Beach. I am a resident of 506 Dahlia Avenue and I am very
concerned about the new zoning laws and their effect on Corona Del Mar. Right now with the 1.5 zoning law the lots are
packed, noise from neighbors is noted in the streets and houses and parking is difficult. I would ask that an exception be
made for Corona del Mar. We have the same housing issues and small lots as Balboa and an exception was made for
them. Without an exception the changes in teh zoning law will severely impact the lifestyle of people living in the village of
Corona Del Mar. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Arovas
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing its
contents. if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments
without reading, forwarding or saving them. Thank you.
Ramirez, Gregg
From:
Marilyn [mdb @becktrustee.com]
Sent:
Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:56 AM
To:
Ramirez, Gregg
Subject:
CdM FAR Proposed Changes
I am unfortunately unable to attend the meeting tonight but I want to
express my concern about the proposed changes to the FAR calculation
for Corona Del Mar. I am very concerned about the direction this
proposal will take future development in CdM. We are a community of
beach residences and I would venture to say that nearly everyone
living here would like to keep the community development from going
in the direction of enormous McMansions. This is NOT the type of
development those of us who live here would like to see for our beach
community. As I see it, the problem with allowing a higher ratio in
the floor area calculation is that you will increase the size and
scale of new homes. People are already building to the max allowed,
this will just continue to increase this direction. As we have seen
with the Aerie project, developers want to maximize each square inch
and the City seems not turn a blind eye to concerns of the local
residents. Variances to setback requirements are approved despite
major opposition. Please don't allow this new proposal to go
forward. Please protect our community! I'm sorry I won't be there
tonight to hear your reasons for wanting this. But I just want to
register my complete opposition to this proposal.
Thank you.
Marilyn Beck
303 Carnation Avene
1
Ramirez, Gregg
From: Whelan, Melinda
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 5:47 PM
To: Campbell, James; Ramirez, Gregg
Subject: FW: I am against the proposed Zoning Code Changes
From: paul.glowienke @nmfn.com [ mailto:paul.glowienke @nmfn.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 3:56 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Garciamay, Ruby; Kiff, Dave; Whelan, Melinda; strataland @earthlink.net; Olson, Gaylene
Subject: I am against the proposed Zoning Code Changes
Dear Council members and all parties involved in Zoning Code proposed changes,
My wife and I live in Corona del Mar village on upper Hazel Drive. We have enjoyed our life here for
the past 11 years. I am unable to attend tonight's Zoning Code Outreach meeting but need to express
my outspoken opposition to the proposed zoning changes that will eliminate the square footage limits
on homes built in Old Corona del Mar. I find it impossible to believe that by eliminating the square
footage limits, we will have smaller houses.
I have sat through a presentation at the Corona del Mar Residents' association and had a very hard
time understanding how this proposed change will benefit the look and feel of my community. It
seemed obvious that the change will make it easier for builders and architects to put more house
"inside the envelope" for future clients. Based upon a study prepared by city staff, under the proposed
new code, homes in Old CdM can be built larger than allowed today by roughly 12% without a
basement, over 70% larger with a full floor basement and unlimited square footage with a multi -level
basement. How is that in line with retaining the quiet, quaint nature of the village?
Further, how is it that Balboa Island will maintain the 1.5 FAR limit in their community and the new
code will treat my neighborhood differently?
The design consultants that I have spoken with say that the new code will allow for greater variation
in design and result in greater open space on the parcel. I do not understand this; it seems like a
paradox. How can you accomplish these things at the same time:
1.Keep the height limits
2. encourage much greater square footage by eliminating limits
3. have houses that look smaller.
I am asking for case studies and conceptual home designs under both sets of codes to try to envision
how larger homes can create more open space. Nothing has been presented to explain or reveal
such claims. In fact, during our meeting at CdMRA, I came up with a shoebox versus a wedding cake
metaphor and the planning director said" That's a really good way to represent it." Funny that a
resident had to come up with a way to describe the proposal, rather than a professional planner.
I am currently suffering through the building of a 5700 square foot house adjacent to my property.
This build, as approved under the current code, encroaches into each side yard setback by 3 — 6 feet,
the rear yard setback by 5 -8 feet and presents itself with a footprint that gobbles up over 80% of the
lot space. The walls of this three story home will be within 10 linear feet of my exterior walls. The
property I reference is 430 Poppy. How would it be possible to allow a larger than this on the same
size lot house into the village?
Please do not approve the zoning code changes; please maintain the 1.5 AFR requirement and stop
the continued overbuilding in the village.
Thank you for allowing me to present electronically rather than in person. I again regret that I am
unable to attend.
Best Regards,
Paul M. Glowienke, MBA
Financial Advisor
1500 Quail Street Suite 600
Newport Beach, CA 92660
949.863.5803 voice
949.863.5940 fax
949.466.5800 mobile
www.oaulglowienke.com
CA LICENSE # OD80981
Oh by the way... if you know anyone who is interested in reviewing their financial security plan, would
you do two things? First, tell them about me. Second, hit reply to this email and tell me about them.
My practice grows only through your referrals.
Northwestern Mutual Financial Network (NMFN) is the marketing name for the sales and distribution arm of The
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, Milwaukee, WI (NM) and its subsidiaries and affiliates. Paul Glowienke is
an Insurance Agent of NM (life insurance, annuities and disability income insurance) and Northwestern Long Term Care
Insurance Company, Milwaukee, WI, a subsidiary of NM. Registered Representative and Investment Adviser
Representative of Northwestern Mutual Investment Services, LLC, 1500 Quail Street #600, Newport Beach, CA 92660,
949.863.5800, a wholly -owned company of NM, broker - dealer, registered investment adviser and member FINRA and
SIPC. NM is not a broker - dealer or registered investment adviser. There may be instances when this agent represents
insurance companies in addition to NM or its affiliates.
Ramirez, Gregg
From:
Whelan, Melinda
Sent:
Thursday, June 10, 2010 5:47 PM
To:
Ramirez, Gregg; Campbell, James
Subject:
FW: A visual of my opposition
Attachments:
poppy build from corner of 2nd and poppy.jpg
From: paul.glowienke @nmfn.com [ mailto:paul.glowienke @nmfn.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 4:22 PM
To: Garciamay, Ruby; Kiff, Dave; Whelan, Melinda; strataland @earthlink.net; Olson, Gaylene; City Council
Subject: A visual of my opposition
Hello all,
This is a JPEG of the house approved on 430 Poppy. Isn't it big enough?
<<poppy build from corner of 2nd and poppy.jpg>>
Vote against the zoning changes. I can't imagine this hose 12 — 70% bigger.
Best Regards,
Paul M. Glowienke, MBA
Financial Advisor
1500 Quail Street Suite 600
Newport Beach, CA 92660
949.863.5803 voice
949.863.5940 fax
949.466.5800 mobile
www.paulglowienke.com
CA LICENSE # OD80981
Oh by the way ... if you know anyone who is interested in reviewing their financial security plan, would
you do two things? First, tell them about me. Second, hit reply to this email and tell me about them.
My practice grows only through your referrals.
1
To: Planning Commission
Newport Beach
From: Robert A. Pastore
4727 Surrey Drive
Corona del Mar
Bobnastore l(ftmai l.com
Ref: Submission to new zoning ordinance workgroup
Subj: Views
Background:
I am a 40 year resident of CdM and have served the Cameo Community Association as a Board member, officer
and Architectural Committee member. I continue to serve as our newsletter editor.
Throughout my 40 years here in Cameo, the view issue due to foliage is a continuous problem which the
Architectural Committee and Board deals with effectively. We are one of the nearly 150 Common Interest
development (CID) groups in Newport Beach.
However, we have no authority cross -CID. When Pelican Point was developed, we met with the Irvine Company
and thought that we had in place protections for our views in Cameo. While the City allowed the Zoning in that
development to be a certain height, because of foliage growth — which is not regulated, many Cameo Highlands
views were impacted severely.
City trees situated at Shorecliffs also impact views from Cameo.
City Council Policy:
The City Council has in place a policy, G -3 Preservation of Views (and attached), which proclaims their
understanding that Newport Beach is a view community and that attention should be drawn to maintaining views.
But Council Policy is only partially binding and certainly not complete.
Submission:
That the Planning Commission add to their Zoning Ordinance workshop, a method to control the heights of foliage
with any planned new construction /development by imposing building permit restrictions.
Each CID in Newport Beach has its own Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &Rs) which control tree /shrub
heights. This could be an embarkation point for any studies.
The City also employs an Urban Forester who is eminently qualified to assist in this area.
Views are a magnificent asset to Newport Beach property values and must not be devalued by foliage - blocking
impediments.
Attachment No. PC 3
Summary of Change
Newport Beach Planning Department
May 2010
The following summary
is not
an exhaustive
list of proposed
changes to the Zoning
Code.
The summary
should not be
viewed as a complete discussion or analysis of the changes
identified. The summary is intended to be a guide to assist the
public in reviewing the draft update of the Zoning Code.
The entire draft Zoning Code can be accessed from the City's
Website at:
http: / /newportbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?page =1528
For further information, contact:
James Campbell, Principal Planner
(949) 644 -3210, iampbell@newportbeachca.gov
Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner
(949) 644 -3219, gramirez @newportbeachca.gov
Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner
(949) 644 -3221, mwhelan @newportbeach.ca.gov
Part 1 — Zoning Code Applicability (page 1 -1)
Part 1 of the draft code replaces Chapter 20.01 of the current Code. This Part includes
the purpose of the zoning code, provisions for interpretations and an explanation of the
zoning map. There are two notable differences between the current code and the draft
code. First, section 20.10.040A of the draft code explicitly states that provisions of the
code do not apply to projects implemented by the City. Although the current code does
not contain such language, state law allows cities to exempt their projects. The second
difference is the zoning map. The current codes uses a set of over seventy 8.5 x 11
Districting Maps to depict the zoning districts, density, intensity and setbacks. The draft
code utilizes a wall map to depict zoning districts, density and intensity and set of thirty -
one 11 x 17 setback maps (see Part 8 for the setback maps).
Part 1 Summary 1
Part 2 — Zoning Districts, Allowable Land Uses and Zoning
District Standards
Part 2 establishes all zoning districts, their allowed uses and district standards to
implement the uses of land established by the General Plan. The districts are identified
on the Zoning Map and the various zones correspond to the General Plan Land Use
Plan maps and land use categories. The density of residential use and intensity of non-
residential use allowed within the various zones is no greater than allowed by the Land
Use Element of the General Plan. Part 2 is the heart of the Zoning Code and each of
the other Parts of the code are directly related.
Each zone has a list of allowed uses and those uses are defined in Part 7 (Definitions).
Uses are either allowed by right or are subject to discretionary review such as a Limited
Term Permit (LTP), Minor Use Permit (MUP) or Conditional Use Permit (CUP). If a
particular use is not listed in the tables, it is not allowed unless the Planning Director
finds (i.e. interprets) that an unlisted use is similar to a listed use. These discretionary
permits processes are defined in detail within Part 5 (Planning Permit Procedures), but
for now, the LTP simply allow uses for a limited amount of time and the review authority
is the Zoning Administrator. The MUP is a reflection of the current process where the
Planning Director may issue certain Use Permits. The Zoning Administrator is the
review authority for MUPs. A CUP is no different than the current Use Permit process
where the Planning Commission is the review authority.
Allowed Uses
The specific entries within the various allowed use tables were developed by staff and
the City's consultant with specific input and oversight from the General Plan
Implementation Committee. Entries are based upon current zoning regulations, the
purpose of each zone and its corresponding land use category of the Land Use Element
of the General Plan, related policies of General Plan, and the locations of the various
zones and their unique relationships with their surroundings. Other factors influenced
the entries within the allowed use tables including a desire to simplify the process
wherever possible, to maintain consistency with any applicable State laws, and to avoid
creating nonconforming uses where possible. The allowed use tables also contain
references to specific use regulations that are located within Part 4 (Standards for
Specific Land Uses) as a way to highlight for the reader additional regulations for that
listed use. The most noteworthy changes relate to the sale of alcohol and eating and
drinking establishments, which are discussed below in Part 4.
Development Standards
Each of the zones has base development standards that are listed in several tables.
Those standards include minimum lot dimensions, density or intensity limits, minimum
setbacks, lot coverage limits, floor area limits, structure height, open space, fencing,
landscaping, lighting, parking and signs among others. In many cases, specific
dimensions, areas, percentages or ratios appear but in other cases, there is a reference
to a separate Chapter or Section where the standards can be found when those
standards are too complex to appear within the development standard tables.
Part 2 Summary 1
As with the allowed use tables, the development standards tables were developed by
staff and the City's consultant with specific input and oversight from the General Plan
Implementation Committee. Most of the standards are based upon current zoning
regulations so as to avoid creating nonconformities. Where new standards were
necessary for new zones, entries were based upon existing standards for similar uses
within existing zoning classifications.
The most noteworthy change is the elimination of the floor area limit for single and two -
unit dwellings (with the exception of Balboa Island). The floor area limit has been
replaced by a set of residential development standards (section 20.48.180) that are
discussed in Part 3. It is important to note that single family residences and duplexes
within existing Planned Communities and those regulated by lot coverage standards
would not be affected. These changes will be discussed below in Part 3 (site Planning
and Development Standards). Another change to note is the method of measuring the
height of buildings. The height limits are not changing, but the practice of measuring the
height of a sloping roof at its midpoint is being eliminated for a far simpler method. This
will be highlighted below in Part 3. Another change to note is the elimination of the
current (and ineffectual) open space provision. It is replaced with new residential
development standards that create building modulation to improve designs and provide
noticeable and useful open space. This change will be highlighted below in Part 3. The
last change to note is an increased alley setback for all new residential buildings when
the alley is narrow (10 feet) and the lot on the other side of the alley has its side yard
abutting the alley. This increased setback will improve vehicle circulation in the alleys in
these specific cases.
Changes to Zones
The boundaries and use of existing residentially -zoned properties remain unchanged,
although the names of the various residential zones have been altered. For example,
the R -1.5 zone for Balboa Island becomes R -BI, the R -1 -13 becomes the R -1 -6000 and
the MFR zone becomes the RM zone.
Existing commercial zones (RSC, RMC and APF) have been diversified. The existing
retail zones (RSC and some RMC areas) are now the CC (Commercial Corridor), CG
Commercial General), CN (Commercial Neighborhood), CM (Commercial Recreational
and Marine) and the CV (Commercial Visitor - Serving). The existing office zone (APF)
becomes the OA (Office — Airport), OG (Office — General), OM (Office — Medical) and
the OR (Office — Regional).
The existing industrial zones (M -1, M -1 -A and IBP) were condensed into the IG
(Industrial Zoning District) due to the contraction of industrially designated land.
The existing institutional zone (GEIF) was split into two new zones, the PF (Public
Facilities) and PI (Private Institutional) to differentiate between public and private
institutions.
All boundaries and uses in all existing Planned Community Districts remain unchanged.
Part 2 Summary 2
The existing open space zones (OS -A and OS -P) were altered to create the PR (Parks
and Recreation) for active areas and the OS (Open Space) zone primarily for resource
protection.
The updated General Plan establishes a variety of mixed -use land use designations that
were applied to areas where mixed -use development is allowed by existing regulations
as well as new areas such as Mariner's Mile and several properties along Dover Drive.
The MU -V (Mixed -Use Vertical) zone is applied to areas where residential units are
presently allowed above a commercial use and this zone is designed to replicate
existing standards. The MU -MM (Mixed -Use Mariner's Mile), MU -DW (Mixed -Use
Dover/Westcliff) and the MU -CV /151h St (Mixed -Use Cannery Village and 15th Street)
zones are new and were designed for the specific provisions and limited residential
uses allowed by the General Plan for these areas. The MU -W1 and MU -W2 (Mixed -Use
Water) are to address mixed -use development for locations on Newport Bay and on
Marine Avenue.
Specific Plans
Five existing specific plan districts (Newport Shores, Mariner's Mile, Cannery
Village /McFadden Square, Central Balboa, and Old Newport Boulevard) are eliminated
and replaced with the various zones identified above based on the General Plan. The
Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan is the only adopted specific plan that will remain
unchanged, although it will be re- adopted by ordinance separately.
Overlay Zoning Districts
The number and type of "overlay" districts will be reduced as a result of the expanded
zoning districts. The "B" overlay has been eliminated with it provisions being
incorporated within the new residential zones. The "R" or Residential overlay, and the
"MM" or Mariner's Mile overlay are both eliminated with their provisions being replaced
by the mixed -use zones. The "IS" or Interim Study overlay is being eliminated
altogether. The "SPR" or Site Plan Review overlay, and the "PRY or Planned
Residential Development overlay have been replaced by updated permit processes
contained within Part 5 of the new Zoning Code. The existing "MHP" or Mobile Home
Park overlay, and the "PM" or Parking Management overlay remain.
One new overlay district has been added, the Bluff overlay. The purpose of this
proposed overlay district is to implement specific policies of the Natural Resources
Element of the General Plan that require limiting development to the predominant line of
existing development to preserve visual quality, protect public views and to ensure
safety. The proposed overlay is reflected on the Zoning Map with detailed maps found
in Part 8. A Canyon overlay district to implement similar policy objectives for Buck Gully
and Morning Canyon has not been included at this time as it requires additional
analysis. In the interim, staff will continue to implement the Natural Resources Element
Policy NR 23.6 that requires new development to be within the predominant line of
existing development.
Part 2 Summary 3
Part 3 - Site Planning and Development Standards
The following outlines notable changes within Part 3 of the Draft Zoning Code
Section 20.30.020 - Bufferina and Screenina (oaae 3 -51
The current code (Section 20.60.020) provides for the screening of mechanical
equipment from view. This section has been revised to add standards to address the
interfaces between residential and nonresidential uses and buffering requirements to
reduce impacts between incompatible land uses. Also, it adds screening requirements
for outdoor storage and display and solid waste storage areas.
Section 20.30.040 - Fences. Hedges. Walls and Retaining Walls (paae 3 -7)
The current code (Section 20.60.030) provides limits on the height of fences, hedges
and walls. This section has been revised to limit the height of retaining walls and to
require that they be terraced to help minimize alteration of slopes. Also, it increases the
maximum height for fences, hedges and retaining walls within front setback areas from
36 to 42 inches consistent with the minimum height of guardrails pursuant to the
Building Code. Provisions were also included to allow protective fencing for pools and
spas, which must be a minimum height of 5 feet, when required Building Code.
Section 20.30.050 - Grade Establishment (page 3 -10)
Section 20.65.030 of the current code requires the use of the "natural grade" as the
baseline grade to measure the height of buildings and structures. The height is
measures from height from "the grade below" which equates to height being measured
from an uneven, undulating surface (e.g. a potato chip). Subsection 20.65.030.13
addresses sites that have been altered where the finished grade of filled areas is used
and the finished grade of excavated surfaces is not used. These existing provisions are
challenging to implement when designers are designing buildings to take advantage of
every inch below height limits and owners are seeking ever taller structures. The
revised provisions simplify the way grade is established for the purpose of measuring
building height. In cases where the slope is 5% or less, a simple average of the existing
grade will be used. In cases where the average grade is greater than 5 %, a sloping
grade plane will be used and Figure 3 -4 on page 3 -14 shows the grade plane concept.
These new techniques will save time for staff, owners and builders.
Section 20.30.060 - Height Limits and Exceptions (page 3 -13)
Chapter 20.65 of the current code establishes height limits for zoning districts and it
identifies several limited exceptions e.g. roof peaks, vents, chimneys, flag poles, etc.).
Height limits are not changing. The draft section eliminates the practice of measuring
the height of buildings at the mid -point of sloping roofs. Flat roofs, including parapet
walls or guardrails, and the peak of sloping roofs (slopes 3:12 or greater) will not be any
higher than presently allowed based upon a property's zoning designation (e.g. R -1,
CG, PC, etc.).
Part 3 Summary 1
Section 20.30.070 - Outdoor Liahtina (pace 3 -19
The current code regulates outdoor lighting for sports courts in residential districts,
requires "adequate" lighting in certain circumstances and has few protections from
excessive lighting. This section provides subjective outdoor lighting standards without
specifying minimum or maximum levels. The draft provisions provide a more complete
set of tools than the City presently has to avoid or reduce negative impacts of light and
glare.
Section 20.30.080 - Noise (page 3 -20)
The Zoning Code does not contain any noise standards as the City regulates noise by
Title 10 (Offenses and Nuisances), specifically Chapter 10.26 (Community Noise
Control) and Chapter 10.28 (Loud and Unreasonable Noise). The draft section adds
provisions for the review of proposed projects to avoid or mitigate impacts, establishes
thresholds of significance pursuant to the Noise Element and promotes compatibility
between land uses. The proposed section is consistent with and augments the
standards within Chapters 10.26.
Section 20.30.100 - Public View Protection (page 3 -21)
The current code does not contain any specific regulations protecting public views.
Public views are currently protected through the implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act only for discretionary projects. This section adds public view
protection regulations to preserve visual resources and public views from identified
public view points and corridors in accordance with General Plan polices under GP Goal
NR 20.
Section 20.30.110 - Setback Exceptions Reaulations and Exceptions (paqe 3 -22
The current code (Sections 20.60.020 & 20.60.030) contains an extensive list of allowed
encroachments within required setback areas (e.g. fences, eves, architectural features,
accessory structures, mechanical equipment, etc.). These current standards have been
revised to provide clearer rules for the placement of accessory mechanical equipment,
minor accessory structures, and to allow a broader range of minor structures that are
commonly requested that are subordinate to primary residential and commercial uses to
encroach into front yard setbacks. Examples are decorative caps for compliant walls,
built -in barbeques and minor encroachments into all setbacks by subterranean walls
and structural supports. Side yard encroachments have been revised to require a 36-
inch wide clear path of travel on one side of new buildings for emergency personnel and
a standard for clear access through front and side yards primary entrances to dwellings.
Section 20.30.120 - Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials Storage (page 3 -30)
The current code (Section 20.60.090) provides for the inclusion of recycling areas within
certain development projects. This section was updated to require solid waste and
recyclable material storage areas in compliance with State law for both residential and
Part 3 Summary 2
commercial uses. The standards will ensure that adequate space is provided and trash
storage areas are adequately screened.
Section 20.30.130 - Traffic Visibility Area (page 3 -33)
The current code (Section 20.60.030) limits the height of fences, walls, uncovered
accessory structures, and hedges to 36 inches in areas that could block a driver's
visibility at driveways and corners. This section has been revised to provide additional
safety visibility standards consistent with Public Works Traffic standards.
Chapter 20.32 - Density Bonus (page 3 -37)
The current code does not implement State bonus density law. This section adds
density bonus regulations consistent with State law to promote the City's goal to add
affordable housing units to the housing stock.
Chapter 20.34 - Conversion or Demolition of Affordable Housing (page 3 -49)
The current code (Chapter 20.86) implements the Mello Act (Government Code
§65590) and it only applies to property within the Coastal Zone. This section has been
revised, maintaining its consistency with State law, and adds standards to determine if
providing affordable replacement units is feasible.
Chapter 20.36 - Landscaping Standards (page 3 -55)
The current code does not provide landscape standards. This section adds landscape
standards to enhance the appearance of development projects, reduce heat and glare,
control soil erosion, conserve water, screen potentially incompatible land uses, preserve
the integrity of neighborhoods, improve air quality, and improve pedestrian and
vehicular traffic and safety.
Chapter 20.38.40 - Nonconforming Uses and Structures (page 3 -61)
The current code (Chapter 20.62) regulates the alteration, expansion and elimination of
nonconformities. The most notable change relates to additions to nonconforming
residential structures (Section 20.38.040). Currently, additions of up to 25% of the floor
area of residential structures are allowed by right provided they have the minimum
number of parking spaces and if the addition complies with other standards. Additions
above 25% and up to 50% require the approval of a modification permit. Additions
above 50% and up to 75% require the approval of use permit by the Planning Director.
The draft code would only allow conforming additions of up to 50% over a 10 -year
period by right provided that the minimum number of parking spaces are provided.
Additions would be limited to 10% when the minimum number of parking spaces is not
provided. The proposed code would eliminate a time consuming review process.
Part 3 Summary 3
Chapter 20.40 - Off - Street Parking (page 3 -75)
The current code (Chapter 20.66) provides comprehensive standards for parking and
when parking can be reduced or waived. For the first time, the draft code provides
information on the dimensions of non - residential parking spaces in consistent with the
current specifications administered by the Public Works Department. A new section
(section 20.40.130) allows for an in -lieu fee authorized by the Planning Commission or
City Council for parking reductions if an in -lieu fee amount is established by the City
Council. Most required parking ratios were left unchanged; however, parking for single
and two -unit dwellings not within existing Planned Communities will be changed as
follows:
Use
Current standard
Proposed standard
Single-Unit Dwellings
2 spaces 1 space covered
2 garage spaces
Single -Unit Dwellings (over
2 spaces (1 space covered)
3 garage spaces
4,000 sf and on lots wider
than 30 feet
Two -Unit Dwellings
2 spaces per unit (1 space per
2 spaces per unit (1 garage
unit covered )
space and 1 covered, per unit
Chapter 20.46 - Transfer of Development Rights (page 3 -147)
The current code (Section 20.63.080) provides for the transfer of development intensity
between sites that are no more than 1000 feet apart, subject to traffic analysis and
findings. Traffic analysis remains necessary and the draft provisions clarify that the
transfer of development intensity from one property to another must be within the same
statistical area. A transfer form one statistical area to another would require a general
plan amendment. The review authority has also been changed from the Planning
Commission to the City Council.
Part 3 Summary 4
Part 4 — Standards for Specific Purposes
Part 4 (Standards for Specific Land Uses) replaces Part V (Special Land Use
Regulations) of the existing Zoning Code. Currently Part V provides development
standards and in some cases operational standards for 10 different uses: Automobile
Service Stations, Oil Wells, Eating and Drinking Establishments, Residential
Condominium Projects, Time Share Developments, Accessory Dwelling Units, Low and
Moderate Income Housing within the Coastal Zone, Massage Establishments, Adult -
Oriented Businesses, and Alcoholic Beverage Outlets. With the reorganization of the
code, some of the existing Chapters remain although they have been updated and
renamed. The provisions regarding low and moderate income housing within the coastal
zone were relocated to Part 3. The Chapter on oil wells was deleted as it was
duplicative of provisions within the City Charter. Several additional Sections have been
added that have roots within other Parts of the current code.
Section 20.48.030 - Alcohol Sales (paae 4-4
Currently, the sale of alcohol requires a Use Permit and is subject to Chapter 20.89
(Alcoholic Beverage Outlets). The proposed code provides operational controls for all
alcohol sales similar to the provisions within the current code (Chapter 20.89), but
discretionary permits were moved to the allowed uses tables within Part 2 (Zoning
Districts, Allowable Land Uses, and Zoning District Standards). The principal difference
is that accessory alcohol sales at off -sale establishments where no more than 30% of
the floor area is devoted to alcohol sales in most commercial zones would be allowed
by right subject. Alcohol sales at off -sale establishments as a principal use would be
subject to the Zoning Administrator's review of a Minor Use Permit (MUP). Additionally,
alcohol sales at restaurants that are not open past 11:OOPM would be subject to the
Zoning Administrator's review rather than the Planning Commission.
Section 20.48.040 - Animal Keeping (page 4 -8)
Currently, the Municipal Code provides regulations for animal keeping within Title 7
(Animals). Title 7 does not establish any specific limits on the number of animals one
can keep at their home. The Zoning Code provides standards for animal keeping only
for the R -A district (Section 20.10.020.G) due to its agricultural character. This new
section establishes limits on the keeping of pets for all residential zones and
incorporates existing limits and procedures for the keeping of domesticated livestock
within the existing R -A zone.
Section 20.48.040 - Animal Sales and Service (page 4 -10)
The current code does not provide comprehensive regulations and this section will
provide standards for various animal sales and services establishments to protect
adjacent residential uses from undesired secondary effects.
Part 4 Summary 1
Section 20.48.070 - Dav Care Facilities (Adult and Child) (Daae 4 -12
The current code (Section 20.60.130) provides regulations only for child day care
facilities. This section has been expanded to address adult day care and revised to be
consistent with current state law. Many of the current provisions are being maintained to
protect adjacent residential uses.
Section 20.48.080 - Drive - Through and Drive -Up Facilities (page 4 -13)
The current code (Section 20.60.075) has been revised to provide enhanced standards
to mitigate traffic, litter, and unsightliness.
Section 20.48.090 - Eating and Drinking Establishments (page 4 -14)
The current code (Chapter 20.82) has been revised to create a regulatory system based
on the type of establishment, its hours of operation, its operational characteristics and
its proximity to residential districts. History show us that restaurants can become
nuisances when they are close to residences, serve alcohol and have late hours. The
Planning Commission will retain the review authority for CUPS for any bar or nightclub
and restaurants that have late hours of operation (i.e. past 11:OOPM). The Zoning
Administrator would have the review authority for MUPs for establishments that close at
or before 11:00PM or when the establishment is in close proximity to residential zones
(i.e. within 500 feet). Some establishments would be permitted by right when they are
not located within 500 feet of a residential district, do not keep late hours and if they
don't serve alcohol. Revised operational standards and review criteria were also added
to ensure that direct and secondary effects are adequately addressed, especially when
late operating hours are requested. Standards for outdoor dining have been included
without a separate permit and potential issues associated with outdoor dining can be
reviewed on a project -by- project basis with either the MUP or CUP where applicable.
Section 20.48.100 - Emergency Shelters (page 4 -18)
Currently, the Zoning Code does not contain provisions for emergency shelters and
recent State law mandates that cities permit them. Emergency shelters in this context
are shelters for the homeless and not disaster shelters. This section contains design
and operational standards for emergency shelters in compliance with State law and they
would be an allowed use in the AO and PI districts only.
Section 20.48.130 - Mixed -Use Projects (page 4 -211
The current code (Section 20.60.115) allows for extended hours of operation for
businesses that are located within any zone where mixed -use development is allowed.
Development standards for mixed -use projects are distributed within several existing
specific plans and the "R" overlay. The new code consolidates these provisions and
provides a balance between nonresidential uses and residential uses. All mixed -use
projects also require review and approval of a Site Development Review (Section
20.52.080 page 5 -33)
Part 4 Summary 2
Section 20.48.140 - Outdoor Storaae Disglav and Activities (oaae 4 -23
The current code (Section 20.60.105) requires a Use Permit within the jurisdiction of the
Planning Director for all outdoor storage and display. The proposed code eliminates the
permit requirement in lieu of specific standards for the location and screening of outdoor
storage and provides operational control for outdoor display of merchandise.
Section 20.48.180 - Residential Development Standards (page 4 -28)
The provisions within this section are new and work in concert with the standards within
the development standards tables within Part 2. The new standards within this section
require building modulation /articulation on the first or second floors, third story step -
backs and third story floor area limits. These standards are only applicable to single
family dwellings and duplexes within the R -1 and R -2 zoning districts. These limits are
also not being proposed to apply to R -1 lots that are currently subject to lot coverage
limits as sufficient open space is provided by existing lot coverage limits that would not
change. Additionally, these new standards are not being proposed to apply to narrow
lots (25 feet wide or less) that are zoned R -2 as applying these standards to these
narrow lots would significantly affect their property rights. These new standards provide
protection against excessive building bulk such that using a floor area limit is not
necessary. Eliminating the floor area limit would have the effect of allowing people to
build basements with full- height ceilings where typically they have to be less than 7 feet.
Section 20.48.160 - Recvclina Facilities (page 4 -26)
The current code does not provide regulations for recycling facilities and the proposed
draft establishes standards for the siting and operation of small and large commercial
facilities.
Section 20.48.220 - Time Share Facilities (page 4 -40)
Current provisions are within Chapter 20.84 and the standards were updated to address
operational plans. The requirement for all time share developments to obtain
Development Agreements remains unchanged.
Part 4 Summary 3
Part 5 — Plannina Permit Procedures
Part 5 includes the requirements related to planning permit application filing, processing
and review procedures. The sections discussed below represent those that have been
notably revised when compared to the current code.
Section - 20.52.020 Conditional Use Permits and Minor Use Permits
(page 5 -9
Use Permits (UP), current code Chapter 20.91, have been renamed Conditional Use
Permits (CUP). The review authority remains the Planning Commission and the review
process is essentially unchanged. Use Permit/Planning Director, also found.in Chapter
20.91 of the current code, was eliminated and a minor use permit (MUP) process was
added. The MUP process has a required public hearing where the existing PD /UP does
not require a public hearing. The review authority for MUP's is the Zoning Administrator.
The findings for CUP's and MUP's in the draft code remain essentially the same except
for the addition of the following finding:
4. The site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size,
operating characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle
(e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities;
Section 20.52.040 - Limited Term Permits (paae 5 -16
This section replaces section 20.60.015 Temporary Structure and Uses of the current
code. The section has been significantly revised to provide a clear process, findings for
approval and standard conditions of approval for temporary structure and uses. The
revised standards specify those temporary uses permitted by right (e.g. Christmas tree
lots, work trailers associated with a valid building permit) and those that require ZA
approval without a public hearing (90 days or less) and those that require a public
hearing (90 days or more). When a use or structure is not allowed by right, the review
authority has been changed from the Planning Director to the Zoning Administrator.
Section 20.52.050 - Modification Permits (page 5 -21)
The draft code revises Chapter 20.93 (Modification Permits) of the current code by
limiting some modification requests (e.g. fence height, setback encroachments) to a
maximum 10% deviation from the standard. The existing provisions do not have a cap.
The review authority for modification permits remain with the Zoning Administrator. Any
request for a greater modification than 10% for the identified standards would require a
request and approval of a variance.
Section 20.52.060 - Planned Development Permits (paae 5 -24)
The Planned Development Permit chapter is a new process that is intended to provide a
method whereby land may be developed or redeveloped as a unified site resulting in
better design than what would be possible by using the standard regulations. This
process and associated findings were drafted provide flexibility for infill development or
Part 5 Summary 1
re- developed on unusually shaped lots or lots that are otherwise constrained. This new
process would allow for the review of a single permit and single set findings rather than
a request for multiple modification permits or variances or using the Planned
Community designation for developments that don't warrant use of the PC process due
to their limited size.
Section 20.52.070 - Reasonable Accommodations (paae 5 -26
In Chapter 20.98 of the current code, it is unclear as to which body has review authority
when another discretionary permit is applied for concurrently with a request for
reasonable accommodation. Therefore, the provisions have been revised to clarify
review authority when a reasonable accommodation application is filed concurrently
with another discretionary application. The revised regulations indicate that the request
for reasonable accommodation shall be heard with any associated discretionary permit
when they are applied for concurrently.
Section 20.52.080 - Site Development Reviews (paste 5 -31)
This section significantly revises the Chapter 20.92 (Site Plan Review) of the current
code by expanding the applicability and providing more guidance for review. The new
provisions provide a process for the comprehensive review of some development
projects not otherwise subject to discretionary review to ensure compliance with the
zoning code, general plan polices and site design criteria. Review authority rests with
the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, as specified by Table 5 -2 on page 5-
34.
Section 20.52.100 - Zonina Clearances (paae 5 -37
The draft code adds a Zoning Clearance process that provides a procedure to verify
that proposed developments, uses or projects comply with the list of uses and
development standards for the applicable zoning district. All zoning clearances are
ministerial. Examples of zoning clearances are Planning Department approval of a
building permit or sign -off on a business license.
Chapter 20.58 - Specific Plan Procedures (page 5 -51)
This chapter revises the Specific Plan procedures found in Chapter 20.40 of the current
code to provide a process for preparing, processing, reviewing, adopting, and amending
specific plans in compliance with Government Code Section 65450 et seq.
Part 5 Summary 2
Part 6 of the zoning code describes the authority and responsibility for code
administration. Also included are the procedural requirements for public hearings,
appeals, code amendments and code enforcement. These regulations are located in
Part 6 of the current code. The notable change in the draft Part 6 is that the public
hearing requirements for discretionary permits have been consolidated into one chapter
whereas the current code describes the hearing process in each individual discretionary
permit chapter. Otherwise, the review authority, hearing processes, appeal procedure
and code enforcement regulations remain essentially unchanged.
Part 7 — Definitions (page 7 -1)
Part 7 includes all definitions of terms that are technical or specialized, or that may not
reflect common usage. Included are the definitions of the land uses found in land use
tables located in Part 2. The current code separates the definitions (Chapter 20.03) from
the land uses classifications (Chapter 20.05). The combining of all terms in one location
will help reduce instances where a term or land use description is overlooked because
the wrong list was consulted. Land use definitions are identified by the term, "(Land
Use)" following the entry. For example "Hedge" is a definition and "Hospital' is a land
use definition:
Hedge. A group of shrubs or trees planted in a line or in groups forming a
compact, dense, barrier that protects, shields, separates, or demarcates an area
from view. For purposes of this definition, a shrub is a perennial woody plant
smaller than a tree, having multiple permanent stems branching from or near the
base and lacking a single trunk; a bush. See "Fence."
Hospital (Land Use). An establishment that provides medical, surgical,
psychiatric, or emergency medical services to sick or injured persons, on an
inpatient or outpatient basis. Includes facilities for training, research, and
administrative services for patients and employees. May include accessory
pharmacy uses and food service uses. Does not include walk -in clinics
( "Emergency Health Facilities ").
Parts 6, 7 & 8 Summary 1
Part 8 includes all the maps referenced though out the code except the Zoning Map,
which is adopted by reference and described in Part 1.
Area Maps
The area maps depict geographic boundaries for areas in the city that are subject to
unique standards. For example, the section below identifies standards applicable to
specific geographic areas. These maps replace the meets and bounds descriptions for
these standard found in the current code.
3l7fI �3R- ,1Ei►LTileT.1
The bluff Overlay maps depict the geographies and development areas included in the
Bluff (B) Overlay District (Section20.28.040).
Height Limit Areas
The height limit areas map depict the location of the Shoreline Height Limit Area and
High Rise Height Area (see section 20.30.060). The Shoreline Height Limit Area is the
same as the current code. The High Rise Height Limit Area has been lowered from 375
feet to 300 feet and several areas within adopted Planned Communities that have
established lower height limits, such as the North Ford PC, are no longer included.
Setback Maps
The set of 31 setback maps replaces the current set of 77 Districting Maps. The
Districting Maps are both official zoning map and the setbacks maps. The Districting
Maps date back to 1943 and include hundreds of code amendments and are a
combination of hand -drawn and digital cartography. The setbacks on the districting
maps have been transferred to the set of 31 setback maps. The zoning map (wall map),
referenced in Part 1 is the official zoning map.
Parts 6, 7 & 8 Summary 2
Attachment No. PC 4
Draft Zoning Code — May
2010
Previously Distributed