HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-01-31_GP-LCP IC Agenda Meeting PacketA G E N D A
General Plan/LCP Implementation Committee
January 31, 2007
3:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers
Review and approval of Committee Meeting Schedule for 2007 (3:30 — 3:35)
(Attachment No. 1)
II. Review and approval of revised schedule for Implementation Tasks (3:35 — 3:45)
(Distribution next week)
A. Fair Share Fee
B. Airport Infrastructure Study and Fee
C. Banning Ranch Pre -Annexation Agreement
D. Database refinements
III. Review of draft Thresholds for Development Agreements (3:45 — 4:00)
(Attachment No. 2)
IV. Review of draft Ordinance to implement single- and two-family design policies,
and recommendations to City Council (4:00 — 4:30)
A. Schedule for adoption (Attachment No. 3)
B. Review of draft ordinance and recommendations to Planning Commission
and/or City Council (Distribution next week)
V. Review and approval of Zoning Code RFP (4:30 — 4:50)
(Attachment No. 4)
VI. Public comments on non -agenda items (4:50 — 5:00)
O� 6
V
sew
C'4GIFOR��r
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN/LCP IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
2007 MEETING DATES
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, MEETS EVERY OTHER WEDNESDAY
3:00 PM - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
January 31
February 14
February 28
March 14
March 28
April 11
April 25
May 9
May 23
June 6
June 20
July 18
August 1
August 15
August 29
September 12
September 26
October 10
October 24
November 7
November 21
December 5
December 19
CADocuments and Settings\GOlson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK66\GP Imp Committee 2007 mtg
dates.doc
DRAFT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THRESHOLDS
Development Agreements shall be required in conjunction with City approval of
the following projects:
1. Projects for which a Development Agreement is required by General Plan
policy.
2. Projects that introduce a use not previously allowed under the 1988
General Plan.
3. Projects in the Airport Area (Statistical Area L-4) that add floor area above
existing development and that require discretionary approval.
4. Projects that add a substantial number of residential units [50 or more?]
or non-residential floor area [40,000 sq. ft. or more?] beyond what was
previously allowed in the 1988 General Plan [or above existing
development?]. [Comparing to 1988 GP may be okay for the short
term, but would cause confusion over the long term as people forget
how the 1988 GP works.]
5. Projects for which a fiscal impact analysis is required, which shows a
negative fiscal impact on the City. [Fiscal impact study requirement is
in City Council Policy K-9, Economic Development, and needs to be
revised for clarity.]
6. Projects that require a significant
their operation, when the project is
the improvement and additional c
identified.
public infrastructure improvement for
not responsible for 100% of the cost of
r temporary funding sources must be
The City Council may waive the requirement for a Development Agreement if it
finds that the project provides benefits to the City [community?] that outweigh
City costs for additional public infrastructure and City services required for the
project.
SCHEDULE FOR ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT
SINGLE- AND TWO-FAMILY DESIGN POLICIES
Option 1*
Planning Commission Review (optional) February 22
City Council 15t reading February 27
City Council adoption March 13
Effective Date April 12
Option 2
N/A
February 13
February 27
March 29
* Requires amendment of Interim Resolution to extend exemption for single- and two-
family development to comply with General Plan Policies.
Both options assume uncodified ordinance, without need to initiate Title 20 (Zoning
Code) amendment.
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
ZONING CODE RE -WRITE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CALIFORNIA
SUBMITTALS DUE BY:
March 16, 2007
TO BE SENT TO:
Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
(949)644-3219
gramirez@city.newport-beach.ca.us
The City of Newport Beach requests statements of qualifications and proposals
from professional planning firms to serve as a consultant to the City on a
comprehensive re -write of the Zoning Code as a result of adoption of a
comprehensive General Plan update in November 2006.
BACKGROUND
Newport Beach is a community of 81,000 year-round residents and over 30,000
additional summertime residents. Newport Beach covers 25.4 square miles,
including 2.5 square miles of bay and harbor waters. The City has over 30 miles
of bay and ocean waterfront. Newport Beach is predominantly residential, but
also has over 1,223 acres of commercial and office developments, including
Newport Center, Fashion Island, Newport Place, and Koll Center Newport.
Newport Beach is also located within the departure path of John Wayne Airport.
The City of Newport Beach incorporated in 1906 and became a charter city in
1954. The City operates under a Council -Manager form of government with a
City Manager and a seven -member City Council from which the mayor is
selected.
First adopted in 1950, the current Zoning Code has been amended numerous
times, including significant formatting updates in 1976 and 1996. Past
amendments were largely limited to format improvements, streamlining efforts,
updates to comply with State law changes, and "fixes" to address particular
issues. The Zoning Code has never been comprehensively updated or re-
written, even to reflect new styles of residential development in large -lot
subdivisions (as opposed to earlier development on small coastal lots). As a
result, regulations have evolved over time into a combination of very complicated
standards with a high number of exceptions and special provisions for unusual
situations. In addition, newer developments are regulated by Planned
Community development plans, for which there is no standard format. There are
also six Specific Plans, which do not meet State requirements and serve more as
zoning overlays. The age and complexity of the Zoning Code causes confusion
for property owners, design professionals and City staff, makes plan checking
for zoning compliance a detailed and lengthy process, and does not provide
adequate flexibility for well-designed projects. The recently approved General
Plan introduces new land use categories and regulatory concepts, including
policies on quality design and architecture, which the existing Zoning Code is not
equipped to implement.
Newport Beach is also in the process of certification of a Local Coastal Program.
The Land Use Plan (CLUP) was certified on December 13, 2005, and the City
has a draft of the Implementation Plan. The CLUP must be amended for
consistency with the new General Plan, and the Implementation Plan must be
VA
completed in a manner that is consistent with the new Zoning Code. City staff is
performing the LCP work, and the consultant is expected to coordinate the
Zoning Code re -write with the LCP Implementation Plan.
Included with this RFP are CD's of the City's General Plan, Zoning Code and
CLUP.
DEFINITION OF TASK
Zoning Code
The recently adopted General Plan introduces several new commercial land use
designations and no fewer than six new mixed-use designations tailored for
specific geographic areas. The project includes writing new zoning provisions for
these land use designations. The City also wishes to re-evaluate, and rewrite as
necessary, all existing zoning districts and their use and development
regulations, as well as all residential and commercial development regulations.
The following is a list of issues the City has identified to be addressed in the
Zoning Code re -write. The consultant is expected to review the existing Zoning
Code and consult with City staff to make recommendations on changes or
additions to this list.
1. New districts, including additional residential density categories, additional
commercial categories, mixed-use districts and possible overlay zones to
implement new General Plan)
2. Inclusionary housing requirements
3. Flexible zoning provisions to encourage development of desirable
businesses
4. Incentives/restrictions for waterfront uses
5. Incentives for marine businesses in West Newport Mesa
6. Prohibition of on -shore facilities for off -shore oil and gas production
7. Stronger waterfront access requirements
8. Public view protection
9. Revision of definitions
10. Revision of Use Classifications/Tables
11. Modification Permit Chapter
12.Accessory structure regulations
13. Eating and drinking establishment regulations
14. Chapter 20.86 (Low and Moderate Income Housing in the Coastal Zone)
15. Convert Specific Plans to conventional zoning or overlay zones
16. Transfer of Development Rights
17. Lot consolidation incentives (West Newport, Old Newport Boulevard,
Mariners' Mile)
18. Height and grade regulations
19. Residential setbacks to remain on District Maps vs. a more general
regulation
3
20. Alternatives to FAR for regulating size and bulk of houses
21. Minimum standards for residential outdoor living area/open space
22. Residential neighborhood character: design standards o guidelines,
without a avoid formal review process
23. Commercial interfaces with non-residential uses and buffering
requirements
24. Commercial parking standards and in -lieu fee
25. Residential parking requirements based on size of homes
26. Establish lighting standards
27. Non -conforming provisions
28. Review all Specific Plans and convert to conventional zoning, overlays or
specific plans as defined in State law
29. Standards for commercial parking on residential lots in Corona del Mar
30. New provisions for rebuilding non -conforming floor area in Corona del Mar
Consider whether Zoning Code should be separated from the Municipal Code for
formatting purposes to allow the use of more graphics, exhibits and diagrams
Planned Community Development Plans
Changes to Planned Community (PC) development plans are also needed to
implement the new General Plan. Some of these will be accomplished by private
property owners who wish to take advantage of new General Plan provisions as
soon as possible. The City will need to revise many others, and has not decided
whether this work should be done by City staff or consultants. The City also
wishes to receive proposals from consultants for this work, separate from the
Zoning Code re -write. A list of required and recommended changes to PCs is
attached.
PROJECT PROCESS AND COMPLETION GOAL
The City Council has established a General Plan/Local Coastal Plan
Implementation Committee to oversee the Zoning Code rewrite and other
projects to implement the new General Plan. The Committee is composed of
three City Council members and three Planning Commission members. The
Committee will be actively involved in reviewing the Zoning Code as it is being
developed. They intend to use an iterative drafting process, in which the
consultant presents sections of the draft code for review as they are completed,
and receives Committee input and suggested revisions. The City is pursuing an
aggressive schedule, shown below, with the goal of City Council adoption of a
new Zoning Code in January 2008.
12
1 Committee approval and circulation of Request for
Proposals
2 Proposals due
3 Committee selection of consultant(s), fee
negotiation, and City Council approval of PSA
4 Iterative drafting and staff/Committee review
5 City Council approval (1st reading)
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
January 31, 2007
March 2, 2007
April 10, 2007
October 26, 2007
January 2008
The following information is required to enable the City to evaluate consultants'
qualifications and proposals:
1. Describe the experience of the consultant/firm in drafting or updating
zoning codes. If experience with similar projects is available, provide the
dates the projects were accomplished and the names and telephone
numbers of project contacts. Explain the direct role of the consultant/firm
if it was not the prime consultant, and describe the role of the
consultant/firm Project Manager in these projects.
2. If a team approach for this project typically will be used, identify each
subconsultant's relevant experience, the names of subconsultant contacts
and their telephone numbers. If a team approach will be used, discuss the
history of interaction between various members of the team.
3. Identify the consultant(s)' familiarity with Newport Beach, including any
previous assignments in the City and assignments with other communities
with similar characteristics or issues.
4. Provide a current reference list of a minimum of three clients, which
includes names and telephone numbers of individuals who have a history
of working with the consultant. Please identify the project for which the
services were provided. If experience with similar consulting projects is
available, provide a reference list of these clients and contact their
information.
5. Summarize your understanding of the scope and purpose of the project
including a brief overview of the methodology you would employ to
accomplish the task. Include in your proposal how the iterative drafting
and review of the document would be accomplished.
6. Identify the project manager and staff personal. List the names, specific
6
qualifications and level of effort of each person, including sub -consultants,
who would be assigned to the project. For each person, identify the
specific tasks he or she would be undertaking. Designate the person who
would have overall responsibility for the project and the person who would
be primarily responsible for contact with the City. Include the resumes of
key individuals who will be assigned to the project, including individuals
from any subconsultant who will be involved in the project.
7. Provide a proposed schedule for the completion of the project, including a
time line with target dates for completion of each task. If the proposed time
line does not meet the City's project completion goal, please explain why
the goal cannot be met..
8. Provide a total budget by task. The budget should include costs for the
time of the prime contractor's staff, sub -contractors, and costs for
reimbursable expenses such as reproduction, materials, travel, etc. The
budget should be on a "not to exceed" basis.
9. Optional: Provide a separate timeline and budget for revision of Planned
Community Development Plans.
DEADLINE
The required submittals are due by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, March 2, 2007. Please
submit qualification information to:
Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
(949)644-3219
gramirez@city.newport-beach.ca.us
Please submit ten (10) copies of your qualifications and proposals. Facsimile
and electronic submissions will not be accepted. All questions, exceptions and
requests for clarification should be included in the cover letter accompanying the
submittal.
0
SELECTION PROCESS
The General Plan/LCP Implementation Committee and City staff will review the
submittals. Consultants that meet the City's requirements will be invited to an
interview with the Committee during the week of March 19 or 26, 2007. The City
of Newport Beach reserves the right to reject all responses and terminate or
reopen the selection process at any time.
Thank you for your interest in this project, we look forward to reviewing your
proposal.
7
Newport Beach Coastal/Bay Water Quality
Citizens Advisory Committee
Goals, Roles, Priorities 2007 (draft)
1 - Runoff and Pollution Reduction
• Smart controllers (ET, wick system, etc) - implement in City parks and medians,
plus consider new construction requirement through ordinances (HB 8.6/NR 3.6
- Imp 14.3, 14.16; HB 8.14/NR 3.14 - Imp 17.1; NR 1.1 - Imp 2.1, 7.1, 17.1);
• Tiered water rates - embark upon and complete study in 2007 (NR 1.3 - Imp
17.1);
• Review and consider Water Conservation Ordinance for landscaping citywide
(NR 1.1/Imp 2.1, 7.1, 17.1);
• Promote pervious surfaces citywide (HB 8.20/NR 3.20 - imp 6.1);
• Establish a demonstration garden (with permeable pavement, CA -friendly
landscaping) at old or new City Hall (HB 8.20/NR 3.20 - Imp 6.1);
• Put more screens on catch basins citywide (HB 8.15/NR 3.15 - Imp 7.1); and
• Partner with Miocean and others regarding trash removal, trash messages (HB
8.2/NR 3.2- Imp 6.1, 8.1, 17.1, 18.1, 19.1).
2 - Education
Make 2007 "the Year of the Back Bay Science Center' (opens summer 2007) -
partnering with Surfrider, Miocean, UCI, OC HCA, community colleges, DF&G,
NBN&F, City's Marine Life Refuge Program on education and research programs
(HB 8.18/NR 3.18 - Imp 29.1; HB 8.21/NR 16.6 - Imp 2.1, 23.1; NR 10.11); and
Miocean trash partnership + on -water enforcement and education (HB 8.2/NR
3.2 - Imp 6.1, 8.1 , 17.1, 18.1, 19.1).
3 - Review of Research
Assist City in implementation of research and studies that support TMDL
activities and that follow the adopted TMDL plans (HB 7.6/NR 3.22 - Imp 8.1,
17.1); and
Encourage the partners at the BBSC to get more involved in TMDL-supportive
research (HB 7.5/NR 16.6 - Imp 2.1, 23.1)
4 - Grant Review and Comment
Serve as an advisory body to the City Council on existing grant -funded projects
such as:
o Buck Gully (NR 10.8);
o Newport Coast Watersheds & ASBS Project; and
o Harbor Area Management Plan (HAMP) (NR 11.1);
Serve as "yea/nay' group for new grant proposals before taking them to City
Council, hashing out long-term costs of both applying for the grant and for not
applying for it.
HARBOR AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN (HB 10.3, NR 11.1)
SCHEDULE:
About 18 months. So I would put down September 2008 as an implementation deadline.
STAKEHOLDER GROUP:
Public, Council members (via new Bay Issues Committee), Harbor Commissioners (2-3),
DF&G, US F&WS, Corps, Coastal Commission, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS).
REVIEW BY:
Harbor Commission then to City Council.
DESCRIPTION OF WORK (AND LINKAGE TO GENERAL PLAN)
Scope of Work
Major Tasks
1 -- Determine eelgrass capacity. The City in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers completed an Eelgrass Restoration Project. During that process it was noted
that eelgrass fluctuations throughout the harbor and upper bay resulted in a number of
positive and negative unintended consequences. Navigation and boat mooring dredging
are impacted by a proliferation of eelgrass. Permits for this kind of dredging became
uncertain. It is the intent of the HAMP to recommend a minimum threshold capacity of
eelgrass necessary for fish habitat. It is also expected that an eelgrass mitigation
program be developed as part of this RAMP. Work also includes coordination with
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service to determine the threshold for eelgrass fish
habitat (NR 11.3, NR 11.4, NR 11.5).
2 -- LNB and UNB Dredging requirements. Lower Bay navigation is negatively
impacted by sediment deposition resulting in shoals that impair the use of the harbor. In
the Upper Bay sediment inbay basins require periodic dredging to maintain their
sediment trapping capacity. Residential and commercial docks and slips require
periodic dredging. The HAMP should make specific recommendations for methods,
frequencies and costs for dredging the public areas. Consideration should also be given
to developing priority dredging areas and recommending a range of reliable funding
sources. (HB 7. 1, NR 4.2)
3 -- Evaluate Upper Bay sediment control. Provide an assessment and make
recommendations for the management of sediment inflows and sediment disposal
frequencies for the Upper Bay sediment basins. The current Upper Newport Bay
Ecosystem Restoration Project, if fully funded, is expected to be completed within two
years. Once completed the responsibility for all sediment issues become the
responsibility of the watershed cities (and County, DF&G, TIC). The HAMP would
identify additional sediment controls that could be implemented and that which minimize
the cost to the locals for maintaining the inbay sediment basins. Work should include
coordination with the Newport Bay Management Committee (HB 13.1, 13.2, NR 4.1).
4 -- Recommendations to address contaminated sediment. There are a number of
contaminated sediment issues that exist in Lower and Upper Bay.
Contaminated sediment issues represent a distinct negative impact for harbor dredging
and public use. The Regional Water Quality Control Board has listed a number of
contaminants in specific areas of the Lower Bay that need to be addressed. The
consultant should utilize recent work done to study the Rhine Channel's contaminated
sediment. Recommendations are needed for sediment disposal methods and locations,
and future sediment testing protocols (NR 4.1).
5 -- Integrate with other planning efforts. Currently Fish and Game has completed (or
is about to complete) a Management Plan for the UNB Ecological Reserve (UNBER).
The Management Plan was very modestly funded. The RFP HAMP seeks to expand
upon aspects of the new DF&G Management Plan and may include additional biological
assessment, habitat restoration and public usage (NR 11.2, NR 16.1-16.4).
6 -- Regional General Permits. Every five years the city receives a Regional General
Permit that has been approved by state and federal resource and regulatory agencies.
The permit allows the city under the permit terms to allow small residential and public
area dredging projects to proceed more expediently. However, the process the city must
follow in order to obtain this permit consumes nearly 2-1/2 years of staff time. The
consultant will provide input and recommendations for streamlining the permit renewal
process and make sound recommendations for a longer-term permit period (HB 13.3,
NR 14.3).
7 -- In -Bay Beach Replenishment Projects. Evaluate, recommend and prioritize
beach replenishment needs within Lower Newport Bay. The process should include the
recognition of beneficial re -use, and beach sustainability. The priority project list will be
used for the State's AB 64 Beach Replenishment Program (HB 13.5, S 3.3).
8 -- Harbor Channel and Pierhead Lines. The federally approved configuration of
Newport Harbor Channel and Pierhead lines have not been adjusted or modified since
their inception decades ago. Consultant will evaluate these lines with regards to the
current harbor usages and make recommendations for changes and modifications. The
work should include the recent Harbor Commission work efforts in addressing this issue
as to mooring area placement (HB 13.2, NR 13.2).
Other Tasks:
9 -- Review existing hydrodynamic modeling. Over the years a number of water
modeling efforts have taken place that show flows into and around the Bay. A review of
these modeling efforts is required as a part of this work. The purpose is to identify the
most compatible and efficient models that can address water quality issues, as well as
predicting sediment depositions throughout Upper and Lower Newport Bay. Work could
also include recommendations for modeling enhancements or the development of a new
model (NR 4.3).
10 -- Water Quality Best Management Practices. The city has aggressively
approached best management practices to reduce pollutants for entering Upper and
Lower Bay from urban runoff. An evaluation of these efforts will be part of this work. In
addition, a number of boating best management practices (especially boat cleaning, boat
maintenance, and bottom paint) need to be evaluated and specific recommendations are
required for future boating -related best management practices (HB 8.1, 8.2, 8.6, 8.10)
11 -- Prioritize Project Funding. Develop a priority list of capital improvement projects
for the Upper and Lower Bay. Evaluate these projects to determine how they will qualify
for state bond funding and the time lines thereof. Evaluate the priority list for its eligibility
for federal funding programs such as, the COE's Civil Works Programs, EPA Grants and
NOAA Programs (HB 12.2).
12 -- Outreach. Consultant will attend public workshops, technical advisory meetings,
watershed management committee meetings and prepare exhibits to support those
endeavors. It is not anticipated that there will be more than two meetings per category.
Traffic Impact Fee Update — Tentative Schedule
1 Request for Proposals initiated February 9, 2007
2 Proposals due March 9, 2007
3 Consultant Selection, fee negotiation, and City March 27, 2007
Council approval of PSA
4 Draft traffic impact project list /IP Committee review May 2007
5 City Council review and approval August 28, 2007
Key Steps
1) Identify traffic impact projects and compile draft list.
2) IP Committee review and approval of the project list.
3) Consultant develops concept and cost estimate for each project.
4) Project costs are totaled and fee calculated based upon updated General Plan
Potential Schedule Constraints
1) Complexity and number of potential traffic impact projects identified.
2) Current workloads of qualified consultants.
January 31, 2007
SINGLE AND TWO -UNIT RESIDENTIAL POLICY REVIEW
TM r°i!5 are those that staff believes are not relevant to the custom or
"spec" homes or that should not be developed separately from the
comprehensive code re -write. Comments for each are in italics. Keep in mind,
tract maps (subdivision with 4 or more lots/units) and multi family developments
are required by the adopting General Plan Resolution and the adopting Interim
Procedures Resolution to adhere to all General Plan goals and polices.
Residential Neighborhoods
Goal
LU 5.1
Residential neighborhoods that are well-planned and designed, contribute to die livability
and quality= of life of residents, respect the natural enNitonmental setting, and sustain the
qualities of place that differentiate Newport Beach as a special place in the Southern
California region.
Policies
All Neighborhoods
The combination of the existing regulations and those proposed to
implement LU5.1.5 will achieve this in the interim.
Must be analyzed in conjunction with commercial regulations during
the code re -write.
January 31, 2007
Will be encouraged for any new residential developments or major
reconstruction of existing neighborhoods. Will be formally
addressed in code re -write.
On-going through existing code enforcement functions.
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED AND DUPLEX NEIGHBORHOODS
LU 5.1.5 Character and Quality of Single -Family Residential Dwellings
Requite that residential units be designed to sustain the high level of
architectural design quality that characterizes Newport Beach's
neighborhoods in consideration of the following principles:
P. Articulation and modulation of building masses and elevations to
avoid the appearance of "box -like" buildings
Compatibility with neighborhood development in density, scale, and
street facing elevations
o. Architectural treatment of all elevations visible from public places
t. Entries and windows on street facing elevations to visually "open"
the house to the neighborhood
�O� n,�atton�l�o�¢esat�„�ble��linUghe�i�Utiew�:(lrsy�;�2�1j
Single and two unit re -development typically limited in building
orientation by existing subdivision patterns.
LU 5.1.6 Character and Quality of Residential Properties
Require that residential front setbacks and other areas visible from the
public street be attractively landscaped, trash containers enclosed, and
driveway and parking paving minimized. (Imp 2.1)
LU 5.1.7 Renovation and Replacement of Existing Residential Units
Require that residential units that are renovated and rebuilt in existing
single-family neighborhoods adhere to the principles for new
developments, as specified by Policy 5.1.5 above. Consider the
appropriateness of establishing single-family residential design
guidelines and/or standards and review procedures for neighborhoods
January 31, 2007
impacted by significant changes in building scale and character. (Imp
2.1, 8.2)
This should be analyzed during the comprehensive code
update. This is a major change in policy.
Policies
LU 5.6
Neighborhoods, districts, and corridors containing a diversity of uses and buildings that ate
mutually compatible and enhance the quality* of the City's environment.
5 6 y C61n&t afe D velopm n
This policy will be analyzed during the code re -write especially
in regard to commercial and residential interfaces.
LU 5.6.2 Form and Environment
Require that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use
of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design
character and quality of their location such as abrupt changes in scale,
building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that
raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of
adjoining properties and open spaces, or adversely modify wind
patterns. (Imp 2.1)
January 31, 2007
Appropriateness to single and two unit developments will be
analyzed during code re -write. Existing regulations limit the
use of external lighting for tennis courts, swimming pools, etc.
LU 5.6.4 Conformance with the Natural Environmental Setting
Require that sites be planned and buildings designed in consideration
of the propetty's topography, landforms, drainage patterns natural
vegetation, and relationship to the Bay and coastline, maintaining the
environmental character that distinguishes Newport Beach. (Imp 2.1,
8.1)
Not applicable to residential.
R 4 $, S d 7tds fob Buck GuU ariti 11 orntrig hh -
Comprehensive plan to be done in conjunction with code
update. Proposed Criteria No.7 should address this policy in
the interim
January 31, 2007
Draft Single and Two Unit Residential Regulations
Proposed to be implemented as an uncodified ordinance.
A. Purpose. To implement applicable design policies in the General Plan
Land Use Element the comprehensive re -write of Newport Beach
Municipal code Title 20, Zoning is complete.
B. Applicability. These regulations apply to all single and two unit
developments of four (4) or fewer parcels or dwellings, and additions
thereto. Review of projects under this ordinance is ministerial and shall
occur concurrently with the review of plans for building permit issuance.
C. Criteria. The following criteria shall be used in determining a project's
consistency with the intent and purpose of this section and with the
General Plan.
1. Long unarticulated exterior walls are discouraged on all structures.
Massing offsets, varied textures, openings, recesses, and design
accents on building walls should be used to enhance the
architecture. Front facades shall include windows.
2. Portions of upper floors should be set back in order to scale down
facades that face the street, common open space, and adjacent
residential structures. Upper story setbacks are recommended
either as full length "stepbacks" or partial indentations for upper
story balconies, decks, and/or aesthetic setbacks.
3. Architectural treatment of all elevations visible from public places,
including alleys, is encouraged. Treatments may include window
treatments, cornices, siding, eaves, and other architectural
features.
4. Where the neighborhood pattern is for the primary entrance to face
the street, the primary entry and windows should be the dominant
elements of the front facade. Primary entrances should face the
street with a clear, connecting path to the public sidewalk or street.
Alternatively, entry elements may be visible from the street without
the door necessarily facing the street.
5. The main dwelling entrance should be clearly articulated through
the use of architectural detailing.
6. Impervious surfaces in front yards should not exceed 50% of the
front yard area with the remaining area landscaped. The use of
January 31, 2007
hardscape for walkways, porches and outdoor living areas is
permitted. Where a neighborhood pattern of front yards being
completely developed with hardscaped outdoor living areas exists,
the 50% minimum shall not apply. Under no circumstances shall
hardscaped areas, other than driveways, be used for parking of
vehicles.
Site planning should follow the basic principle of designing
development to fit the features of the site rather that altering the site
to fit the design of the development. Whenever possible, natural
features such as cliffs, canyons, bluffs, significant rock
outcroppings, natural vegetation should avoided or the extent of
alternation minimized whenever possible. Adequate buffers should
be provided to protect significant or rare biological resources.
8. Trash constrainer storage shall be out of view from public places,
and may not be located in required parking areas.
9. Driveways visible from public right-of-way shall be no larger than
required to access size of garage as follows:
One Car Garage: 10 Feet
Two Car Garage: 20 Feet
Three Car Garage: 25 Feet