The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007-06-06_GP-LCP IC Agenda Meeting PacketAGENDA General Plan/LCP Implementation Committee June 6, 2007 3:30 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Approve Action Minutes from May 23, 2007 Meeting Attachment 1 3:30-3:35 2. Zoning Code Rewrite Residential neighborhood character: Design standards or guidelines without a formal review process Identify a preferred methodology and provide direction to staff. Attachment 2 3:35-4:15 3. Zoning Code Rewrite - Residential setbacks to remain on District Maps vs. a more general regulation Direct staff to retain current setbacks or change to a general approach. Attachment 3 4:15-5:15 4. Items for Future Agenda 5:15- 5:20 5. Public Comments on non -agenda items 5:20-5:30 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN/LCP IMPLEMENTAION COMMITTEE DRAFT ACTION MINUTES May 23, 2007 Action Minutes of the General Plan/LCP Implementation Committee held at the City Council Chambers, City of Newport Beach, on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 Members Present: X Ed Selich, Mayor Pro Tem, Chairman X Steve Rosansky, Mayor X Leslie Daigle, Council Member X Barry Eaton, Planning Commissioner X Robert Hawkins, Planning Commissioner X Michael Toer e, Planning Commissioner Advisory Group Members Present: X Mark Cross X Larry Frapwell William Guidero X Ian Harrison X Brion Jeannette X Don Krotee X Todd Schooler Kevin Weeda X Dennis Wood Staff Representatives: X Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager X David Lepo, Planning Director Robin Clauson, City Attorney X James Campbell, Senior Planner X GreggRamirez, Senior Planner Committee Actions Agenda Item No. 4 Motion: Committee directed staff to provide examples of grade determination using real world conditions for methods nos. 2 and 3 at an upcoming meeting. Vote: 5 Ayes, 1 Absent Technical Paper #3 Design Guidelines and Design Standards A. BACKGROUND At their meeting of December 12, 2006, the City Council directed staff to prepare development regulations (design guidelines) to implement the single and two unit residential design polices in the General Plan. The current residential design guidelines became effective April 1, 2007 and are considered temporary. They were adopted as an uncodified ordinance rather than being included in Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) as the City Council agreed with staff's recommendation that the design guidelines warranted closer analysis during the Zoning Code rewrite process. The current design guidelines cover only those General Plan policies related to residential development that staff recommended be implemented at that time. Staff believed that several policies that apply to single and two unit development would require further analysis during the Zoning Code rewrite. Two reasons for not covering all of the policies were; 1) a direct relationship with commercial development and the need for more detailed study, and 2) the lack of good "one size fits all" design criteria. Review of applicable projects under the current design guidelines occurs during the plan check process. Planning staff reviews proposed projects against the design guidelines and may require changes to plans if they do not meet the design criteria established in the guidelines. Under the current process, applicants have the right to appeal staff's decision to the Planning Commission. Subsequent to the City Council's adoption of the design guidelines comments were made that perhaps the design guidelines should be codified into the Zoning Code as design "standards", which would not require subjective staff review as with design "guidelines". This occurred because concern was expressed that the "guidelines" were too subjective, required discretionary review, and may not always be consistently applied or interpreted by all staff members responsible for the design review process. B. DISCUSSION There are three basic approaches available to the City for the implementation of the General Plan's policies related to building design and community character. 1. Design guidelines (current process) 2. Specific design standards (prescriptive standards) 3. Specific design standards with alternative implementation criteria A brief description of each approach is provided below. Examples of each approach are provided at the back of the report. 1 Technical Paper#3 1. Design Guidelines Design Guidelines and Design Standards Design "guidelines" are usually written as general statements of what particular design aspect or character is to be achieved and generally how to achieve it, hence it is a guideline. In order to provide flexibility, design guidelines use words such as "should", "encouraged", "discouraged", or "appropriate" and "inappropriate" instead of "shall" or "required" since not every guideline may be appropriate for each project design. For example, "Long, unarticulated exterior walls are discouraged. Wall offsets, varied textures, wall openings and recesses, and design accents on building walls should be used to enhance the building's architecture." In this example there are no "prescriptive" standards from which to measure compliance. If in the subjective opinion of the staff person reviewing the project the subject design appears to meet the "intent" of the guideline (discourage flat walls), the project may be approved. If the design does not appear to meet the intent of the guideline, the application may be rejected and the applicant would have the ability to either redesign the project or appeal staff's decision to the Planning Commission. The use of design guidelines does not guarantee quality design, but their use can provide staff with the basic tools necessary to help prevent bad or inappropriate design. Pros: Design guidelines offer flexibility in how they are applied to individual projects. Because of this, they allow the project reviewer to use discretion in determining whether or not a project meets the intent of a particular guideline or in some cases the overall intent of all the guidelines generally. Cons: Since design guidelines do not usually provide measurable criteria, project reviewers must rely on their best judgment to determine if a guideline is being met. For example, how much wall offset or recess is appropriate or needed to meet the intent of the guideline? The answer may depend on the architectural style of the building. Because of their built-in flexibility, design guidelines may not always be applied consistently by all staff members responsible for project review. 2. Design Standards Design "standards" are prescriptive rules that must be followed in order to obtain approval of a project. Design standards are like any other development standards that are applied to a project, such as building height, setbacks, or parking requirements. For example, if a design standard states that, "a minimum wall offset shall be 3 feet", then the standard is met if the offset is 3 feet or more. Standards generally provide no flexibility in their application to a project - the project either meets the "minimum" standard or it does not. If it does not meet the standard the applicant may either redesign the project to meet the standard(s), or apply for a variance. However, it is doubtful that the findings necessary for the approval of a variance could be made since the "hardship" grounds for a variance would be extremely difficult to prove in a design related matter. May 30, 2007 Page 2 of 7 Technical Paper#3 Design Guidelines and Design Standards Pros: Design standards offer consistency of application in that discretion and judgment on the part of project reviewers are eliminated. Standards also offer certainty for the project designer because the standards are clearly expressed in quantifiable requirements. Cons: Design standards offer no flexibility in the way a designer may choose to approach a particular design issue, for example, the avoidance of long flat walls. In this case the standard for wall articulation may require that, "a minimum 3 foot wall offset be provided for every 20 feet of linear wall area". This type of ,.prescribed" standard may not be appropriate or necessary for every project, so additional means to allow deviations or exceptions to the standards may need to be developed in order to avoid requests for variances each time a standard cannot or should not be met. Also, there could be a temptation to set the standards low in order to avoid the need for variances, which would then allow lower quality architecture than actually desired. 3. Design Standards with Alternative Methods Design standards that provide several alternative ways in which the standards may be met offer more flexibility than the single design standard approach described above. In this example a specific design "standard" is stated and then several alternative means for achieving that standard are provided. The project designer is free to select which alternatives best fit the need of the project. The alternative means that are provided for achieving the specific design standard may be stated as prescribed and quantifiable standards (e.g., provide a 3 foot wall offset) or as more subjective statements (guidelines), which may require discretion on the part of the reviewer (e.g., provide recessed windows and doors, or step back upper stories of the building). Pros: Design standards with alternative methods of implementation offers increased flexibility for how a designer may choose to approach a particular design issue. By providing alternative ways in which to meet the design standard, the designer is able to select the design alternative(s) that best fit the particular project. Cons: Since not all alternative means for achieving a design standard may be stated as quantifiable standards, some discretion and judgment would be required on the part of the project reviewer. As with the design "guidelines" this could lead to inconsistencies in the way the standards are applied. C. EXAMPLES The following examples are borrowed from several jurisdictions to illustrate the various ways in which design guidelines and design standards may be approached. They are provided as illustrative examples of the three different approaches discussed in this paper and are not intended to be recommendations for use in the City. May 30, 2007 Page 3 of 7 Technical Paper #3 Design Guidelines and Design Standards 1. EXAMPLES OF DESIGN GUIDELINES A variety of elements such as front porches and balconies should be considered, to create interesting spaces and transitional out- door areas. Balconies could occur at upper level corners to lend transparency to the mass, as well as help 'turn the corner'. 1. 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. a. Building Volume: There are several architectural approaches used to minimize the appearance of build- ing volume. • To reduce building volume, understated entries and low pitched roofs are strongly encouraged to help give a sense of human scale to homes. • Second floor balconies and small decks accented with landscaping can reduce the visual impact of two-story structures_ • To reduce appearance of " boxiness", use of single story roofs and porches on front elevations is encouraged_ • Expansive, two-story, floor to ceiling entries are strongly discour- aged_ First and second floor plate heights should be consistent with those established on other homes in the neighborhood. May 30, 2007 Page 4 of 7 Technical Paper #3 Design Guidelines and Design Standards 2. EXAMPLES OF DESIGN STANDARDS Front -facing garages door shall be recessed at least 3 feet be- hind the front elevation of the house whenever possible. Re- cessing front -facing garage doors behind the residential front door is encouraged. Note: Use of the words "Whenever possible" in the example above provides a degree of flexibility in what otherwise appears to be a standard requirement. This technique may help avoid the necessity for a variance if the standard cannot, or should not, be met for a valid reason. 2.7. SIDE WALL ARTICULATION A side wall o a bold"ng that is more than 15 feet high and is are average distance of 15 feet or less from an interior lot fine may not extend in an unbroken plane for more than 32 feet along a side lot line. To break the plane, a perpendicular wall articulation of not less than four feet,, for a distance along the side property line of not Cess than 10 feet, is required. See Figures 18 through 20. A. Third Stories. When a third story is provided, any livable space shall be placed within the middle one- half of the third story area. Total square footage of the third story, including decks and livable space shall not exceed 750 square feet. May 30, 2007 Page 5 of 7 614. W.11 F, ..db 32' ,. 32Me._ Lngw vn,t� Sue Wni �' ,4n..Mnrrn II A� s 13' -tf A. Third Stories. When a third story is provided, any livable space shall be placed within the middle one- half of the third story area. Total square footage of the third story, including decks and livable space shall not exceed 750 square feet. May 30, 2007 Page 5 of 7 Technical Paper#3 Design Guidelines and Design Standards 3. EXAMPLES OF DESIGN STANDARDS WITH ALTERNATIVE METHODS C. DeAgo Standards Redew 1. . ul redden::a] desvkapment h&U achim-e at a miniioi11E req:uedm=be7 of points in Fipies 3-12, 3-13 and 3.14. 2. Details of the Land Design Standards are inrtuded in Subsec::cm D. details of the Sheet and Sidewalk Svmdards ate included m Sub,.e.mon E. and details of rhe Archicectvral Standwds are in Subsection F. D. AxcmTECTca:aL REQt mEue.NTs Droll YiUa a Residential Dtistrirtsl PACE BmE SI.�Y A6 DEsmas7.E PORTS Element 4� Ette oc Facade N.aceral 10C`a bnd w home None >:q i= q Cm=ey eadoiwe reamed Bna trip.xi machin e%unw 7 45 Rauf Piwh 3:13 ar greater with mx Acecmaal _lade Dormers_ m cm*d=im Lip and =Erb's _.. 0517 iLS1es 45 Raaf Lfavmis As hiLl shin -les, m wood sbiagm. Pa4u Architertnrat emde mwla p shrine as mpflmp acres .ez io n'atch 46 S7rds with sam lata plan and same =:ars 4LTpedsaare vdea.`streer, ? lam dappedsame s:dea€sweet _l ;deet e":z•,aaon 2 :ati sk ppei apaoiisz side of street and 3 lots dapped opposite icie of street ad Wm idetmcal door plana side try Ed& sdeutral ticea plays vee bs s de ViUan Midendd Som enm• coaxer 20 -f>ccrnun to pumL S' u dmm a Porch tonne part of kca prh deileo i width b. 46 if minim mi _Dmcb, S' orinis'aea moth, 4a a Re 34-esidrhdal Mailos Yamed at]Ti sn -Lou aelAopeern j 1xztzm Rs. "•m z mE gampz I- x_D_ mr sannom5_ 2, a pmrJ ystreet eLeivim _.. e¢ent ofzle5•a1ioc Total Number of Arrhitecmn l Palms Available Totsl %maber of Arrbitertural Points Re aired aA Note: The example above is based on a point system wherein the project designer is provided flexibility in the way the design standards are met. In this example, in order to be approved, a project would need to achieve a total of 40 points out of a possible 70 points. C. Details. All residential buildings shall be enhanced with at least two of the following details/elements into or near their primary fagade: (1) Decorative porch design, including decorative wood balustrades similar to those found throughout historical buildings in the core residential neighborhood. (2) Decorative molding /framing details around all ground floor windows and doors. (3) Decorative rooflines that borrow design elements from nearby historical residential structures. This could include sloping rooflines with multiple dormers, brackets, and/or rooflets. May 30, 2007 Page 6 of 7 Technical Paper#3 Design Guidelines and Design Standards (4) Decorative building materials, including decorative masonry, shingle, brick, tile, stone, or other materials with decorative or textural qualities approved by the planning director. (5) Landscaped trellises or other decorative elements that incorporate landscaping near the building entry. c. Standard: Exterior elevations shall be articulated and detailed to provide visual interest and scale by use of at least three of the following design parameters: Parameters: 1) Offset building planes a minimum of two feet. 2) Provide recessed entries and windows. 3) Include projecting or recessed balconies. 4) Provide substantial roof overhangs with detailed rafter ends. 5) Design front porches a minimum of five feet deep. 6) Provide dormer windows. 7) Stepping back the second story. 8) Use of different building materials with varying textures and colors. May 30, 2007 Page 7 of 7 FO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: General Plan/LCP Implementation Committee FROM: Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner DATE: May 29, 2007 RE: Zoning Code Re -Write — Issue No. 8 Residential setbacks to remain on Districting Maps vs. a more general regulation Setbacks — The Bio Question Does the City want to eliminate the varying setbacks as they currently exist? Elimination would, in theory, create equity among lots with similar dimensions and lot area. If yes, the next question is whether a practical system can be crafted to achieve standardization and remove the detailed setback information from the maps and include them instead in the standard code regulations or possibly newly designed setback maps. Whatever route is decided upon, staff recommends replacing the outdated and difficult to update Districting Maps and creating a new zoning map(s). Districting Maps — The Official Zoning Maps Located in the back of the zoning code are the official zoning maps for the City. The Districting Maps (Maps) divide the City into 70 segments. The Maps contain zone identification and City boundary lines expected to be found on zoning maps, but they also contain a myriad of other types of information. Of the information provided by the Maps, they are most often used to identify what zoning district a property is in and in many areas what the applicable front and rear setbacks are when setbacks differ from the zoning district standard. Front yard setbacks, especially in older areas, often differ from block to block and even differ from lot to lot in some areas. Additionally, the Maps often call out front and rear setbacks on properties that are located on the water, or on bluffs or canyons. The Maps also call out multi -family residential density and in some cases commercial FAR. In most cases, staff must refer to the zoning code regulations, Land Use Element and possibly a Planned Community document to obtain non-residential FAR's and square footage limits. Following is a listing of information found on the Maps and a Map number where this example can be seen. The referenced Districting Maps are attached. June 1, 2005 1 Information Found on Districting Maps Lot by lot front setbacks Map No. 53 Block by block setbacks Map No. 14 Multiple setbacks on a single property Map No 33 3, 13, Setback Call -Outs detailed Map No. 11 Annexation Information Map No. 33 Subdivision Information: Map Number Lot/Parcel Numbers Map No. 36 Lot Dimensions Map No. 3 Uncodifed Notes Map No 7,13 Bulkhead and Pierhead Lines Map No. 13 Lot Area Map No. 22A Dwelling Unit Limits Map No. 8, 50 Non -Residential FAR Map No. 3 Streets and other Rights -of Way Map No. 1 Street and alley width Map No. 1 Bodies of water Map No. 1 Code Amendments Revisions Map No. 1 Setbacks — What are they used for? Setbacks are the traditional tool used to create a development pattern and attempt to ensure adequate light and air is provided for each lot. In Newport Beach, the setbacks shown on the Districting Maps are thought to have been developed through the identification of a predominate line of development for entire blocks in areas like Corona Del Mar and Balboa Peninsula, or to create a varied development pattern on a lot by lot basis in areas such as Irvine Terrace and the "the Yacht Streets". As was the case with the square footage and entitlement limits included in the 1988 Land Use Element, the setbacks shown on the Districting Maps, in some cases, are a reflection of what was on the ground at the time and possibly not intended to be used as a long term planning tool. Setbacks are also used to determine the maximum floor area limit for the R-1, R1.5, R-2 and MFR zoning districts. In these districts, the maximum floor area limit is determined by multiplying the buildable area of the lot (lot size minus setbacks) by a factor of 1.5, 1.75 or 2.0. Since the front yard setback varies from block to block in several areas, lots that are the exact same size can have different maximum floor areas. In the R -1-B zones, variable setbacks exist but those zones use lot coverage to regulate building size. June 1, 2005 2 Setbacks and Lot coverage If a lot coverage regulation is ultimately used instead of the of maximum floor area limit, as suggested at previous meetings, the setbacks will revert to the more traditional role of regulating building location rather than size. Ideally lots of like size would all have the same permitted lot coverage. Floor area would then be limited uniformly to how much can be achieved within the lot coverage maximums (which could vary for first, second and third floors), height limit and any other development regulations, but not by buildable area. Staff believes that an equitable lot coverage system can be created regardless of whether the setback system is changed or not. Case Study — Balboa Island Balboa Island provides an excellent example of front setbacks that differ from block to block. Although some variations exist, the majority of Balboa Island lots are 30 feet wide x 85 feet deep (2550 square feet). Front setbacks, however, differ from block to block. A 10 -foot front yard setback is the most common, but as can be seen on Districting Map No. 14 (attached), inland front setbacks range from 10 feet to 5 feet and bayfront setbacks range from 10 feet to zero. There are also some side yard setbacks called out that supersede the typical 3 or 4 foot requirement identified in the zoning code. Below is a comparison of two 30 x 85 Balboa Island lots using a 5 foot and 10 foot front yard setback. A 65% lot coverage figure is also provided as a comparison to the buildable area figure. As is indicated below, 65% lot coverage is very close to the type of coverage being constructed today, as most new home designs take advantage of using the entire buildable area. As mentioned above, variable lot coverage, by floor, could be used along with other development regulations to limit building square footage so, the 65% lot coverage figure provided should be viewed as a possible staring point. Setbacks Lot Size Buildable Area Floor Area Limit* 65% Lot Coverage Front: 10 30x85 = 2550 24x70 =1,680 1,680 x 1.5 + 1,657 square Sides: 3 Square feet square feet 200 = 2,720 feet Rear: 5 Front: 5 30x85 = 2550 24x75 = 1,800 1,800 x 1.5 + 1,657 square Sides: 3 Square feet Square feet 200 = 2,900 feet Rear: 5 *1.5 x the buildable area plus 200 square feet if an enclosed two -car garage is provided June 1, 2005 3 Options Below are three options identified by staff to address the varying setback issue. The one constant with each is that the existing Districting Maps be replaced. Option No. 1 — Retain Varying Setbacks and Simplify Zoning Maps) Limit information on the Maps to zoning, setbacks, and density or intensity. This could be done in one of two ways: (a) a revised version of the Districting Maps covering the entire City, in color and 11" x 17" in size, which would reduce the overall number of maps. The maps would include zoning designation, setbacks, multi -unit residential density and non-residential FAR or floor area limits; or (b) one 36" x 48" citywide zoning map with 11" x 17" setback and residential density maps as an appendix to the code (The 11" x 17" setback maps would only be created for those areas of the City where setbacks and multi -unit density need to be called out). The General Plan and Planned Community documents would continue to be used to determine FAR and floor area limits. Option No. 2 — Eliminate Varying Setback Regulations Eliminate setbacks from the zoning map and create a 36" x 42" zoning map. Setbacks other than those identified as the standard for a particular zone would be identified on the map through the use of a suffix (e.g. R -1-A). For example, all properties in Old Corona Del Mar could be assigned the R -1-A designation, which would be a single-family district with minimum 20 -foot front yard setbacks. Or the suffix could represent lot size; for example, Corona del Mar could be R-1- 3500. Setbacks could then appear on a table in the code alongside other development regulations and the variation eliminated. If a standard setback approach was used, each area of the City would need to be analyzed and the determination of an appropriate setback made. Here are two possible methodologies: 1. Use either the most limiting or the most forgiving setback. If the more limiting setback is used many non -conforming conditions would likely be created. Although new non -conforming regulations could be crafted to provide extra relief for affected properties, this would introduce a new review process. If the most generous setback was used (i.e. shortest) the development would eventually reflect the change as additions and new construction take advantage of the new regulation. 2. Use the predominate line of development or stringline. In areas that currently have varied setbacks (lot to lot or block to block), a predominate June 1, 2005 4 line of development could be determined by staff prior to the design of projects. Staff would use air -photos, surveys and field verification to make the determinations. This method would eventually change the development pattern as the predominate line would move out with each new development. It also would result in uncertainty for property owners, and introduce a new step in the development process. There are, of course, many lots that may not fit nicely into this system. Among those are lots where currently both the front and rear setbacks are called out on the Maps such as in Cameo Shores (see Map No. 31). If standardization is the goal, staff would need additional time to explore ways to address these situations. Conclusion Staff recommends that Districting Maps as they exist be retired. They have become a confusing tapestry of information that does not need to be in the zoning code. Ideally, staff would prefer that more uniform setbacks be established and shown on a table in the code. However, with such a long development history with varying setbacks, and the difficulties and non - conformities that could be created with a uniform setback system, we do not think this is a change worth making. Instead, staff suggests that the Districting Maps and setback requirements be simplified as much as possible while retaining varying setbacks in older neighborhoods. It should be noted that staff makes this recommendation with the assumption that the new code will either eliminate FAR as a means of regulating the size of houses, or apply an FAR to the entire lot, not just the buildable area. Staff requests that the Committee provide direction on how setbacks should be established in the new code. June 1, 2005 5 SEE O/STRILTINC APAP W. 22 m>c .p4s r '< Ur a° \D�JsO r ? ...-..,........ A� C, @ jCY � v c ti ORD. NO. 92-27 DELETE 3FR.YD. SETBACKS ON SONORA ST. AND NORDINA. ST. AND EST. O' FR. YD.SETBACK ON SEASHORE DRIVE. IA -769 T-8-821 ORD.ND.90.F6 —15DYm6 A -011F --TIO 11114—ST °ISTUCf T01HC OPEN svncE AcnvE DISTRICTING I RA AGRICULTURAL -RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT RI SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT R2 DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT &b RESTRICTED MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Rq MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT O COMBINING OR "B' DISTRICT REV. JULY 27. 2N4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH C NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT MI MANUFACTURING DISTRICT UTHORITY LIMITED COMMERCIAL -MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT MPA CONTROLLED MANUFACTURING DISTRICT 7 LIGHT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT COMBINING OR °H" DISTRICT GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICTZO COMBINING OR "Z"DISTRICT INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT O SHIN °'1311 UNCLASSIFIED DISTRICT ORo.N0.1319 U C. 1@1 (5'p 05-A M N N \ \ n \ 1 SCALE P• 200' LIFORNIA B -9 -'II O a \.GEE ADOPTED BY..... CRD. NO. 635 DEC. 26, IVOO Rpe.' RSC 2 'hFH a 06 y 6. Q`2 A CHANNEL P2 c `\\ D• GI 9 Z Q(tio ,,, 00.2 P2 Pry D P2 •'\C� Z vr, ry A ry c �L� N° ac �� O'� N' Pry �°2 - n• .s p Q Ory Py9 ` 0.2 P 10P Az 0. 0. R� Pry A F 00,• ry o• ¢ ,U Py'41A P2 Nry P�' y 'av om D QR' P2 0 O .@ O'o • 0.2 � Z COgf�" � w•t i RSG J y/Gywgy G AOE �l l SEPANATtt7N 6 D 1 v1- �, NEWPORT SAY P 2 yi• �� d�P 2.9" rod 2 P�`O. Ole •Zy, P ° 7 e y 990 � P.2 s e 3ry 2 R1P�1 p �� P2 R"Z 2 a m 2 O� \o 2 m,° 2 � v o, RZ• (+ \p \o'p C� ' �. eo Prvina✓-ADrnae,rr 2 O i\ ,Q;q' •� 4 � P.., [6,.�r6 K/96 rMns ¢� /.ar.-clear ,v zb rD• �9G. � °p 4f FH. A4. S / K011u4ne � . . v Y>e' 2 99 D ..✓0. /SP RK466Gna � .. 'fa4e' 4 o'✓,s6w. i s Fr.:/n.ai.ir x;va.✓ ypjAl vx,, He M. x,, _ wAaA ao, ,Spry y9a ,6 .0 5E 2 ae ...aw°'iai arizs Cm a'"A..`se2"ari�i mc•<o.v 2 Q' ry\0 � M11Y3➢3 R-1✓0..61-N /31"• g) A. 9 .•°q, P" .uses+, 5mgy ca,a[.uWo uVe[Ms[fieo mac-tNCaa 9anp y2 9'q, ("U' y oec'ugpsm oa woFmv-rr-mcuA�.us aF rya y�: Q,6 V�>t]999 S,mA,n.e+�xa2,L3cvWUxKd[9.Af®suPIrWp r/wmeAt�( Nrl.A A SEE MAP ND, XafAW W 500AgEl 6. MdY 28,1966 I nNo wi}Tfl �' (I flTIE9 TD DISTRICTING MAP OW. N0.3042 -N33515 RNETAVE-PGP((NANN915E16A[F[iNt6(O ORO q1-43 RE;ONE SpEGI Fl(. P40 PERTIES R5<E3G. ID-1.qv NEWPORT BEACH ROM14Ri0 AR(<A MYOJIIGRIR2Wl CALIFORNIA DAD. 43-3 �PR BEtBKKaFIM1o�qH�{BrrNE •�•�� 111115 Y1 SLK 32, CANALEJEMON R_A AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL R—D MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL $-A6-93 R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL C-1 LIGHT COMMERCIAL -RD. Ne, 14_19 514 Lors l-6 AND GdeaX 434„ L rt51-T. G/WAL 6ECM1eN, FRvw96'Te po ygy.gy R-2 DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL SCALE OF FEET MFR MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL —H COMBINING DISTRICT M-1 U MANUFACTURING ORD. NO. 035 eo4 aoD fiD9 eco QI UNCLASSIFIED DEC. 1611350 MAP NO.O Front Yard De +h Ln Fee# Shown Th.s: 10- SEE MAP N0. 23 YC✓/s/ou C W✓Yr nb/irF Jetbcks VILY.urLW!Bl AMfPI/694VJ>f0 fapf /.tl �9{/Y/kLKtl eN/� FiLSJ/PeU64w/N6 GIY{M.'.N/fUlS /M� .rAM^A'INL(LVl>OW/J!R f5 SNLWVS �\ UYE; wWM/W .tl!!6//�JDKRPaYR>Y � N $�/JE 6.v.YNGy /.r NFy4Y �\ eT-uNE. EIfFGI ✓E S -b-60 \ .\ �� / v Q• to s O ` J' \ `O DISTRICTING MAP NEWPORT BEACH - CALIFORNIA R -A AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL R'A MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Fc—I COMMERCIAL LIGHT R-2 DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL SCALE OF FEET3 RESTD. MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIGENML. M—I MANUFACTURING OIID. NO. 635 EEA— -H COMBINING DISTRICTSUNCLASSIFIED MAP N0. R Pao ro0 sao 600 �'c 1�5o 7 ---- Front Yard De +h in P¢R+ Shown Th US: -I O Sf e MAP NO, .9 SF'e MAP 44;1. ¢ ` sr. 3 = r SP-6 SP -6 Ova ST. t 'q SP-6 q $P -6 i l :y V ' - SP - 6 1 5 P- 6 •� a r•4 ` lr ��u• r�D=DP'y ,L ai y` � tib, m i SP-6 S 8P-6 4'ya PC al yr*\ b P" 5 O' yYbLy'� s m E 29 T T v' \A� Pti yl D'� Z v Q: $ •i N K P6 I c 1 y iT b 0 .9' { DlQ• CJi p:Ll V 'O spa. / 4 '(n O b Z 3D Oy ye, 4� Y� e as I IP .e' p a z6 V. o \ uN U an \�)ef \.\ rl PF 14 "• f "ii IF\W/ ^ d09/f M. A.lhT.tuNiilG)o. J! \.y S 'FA>; aw.Na.9T QOFePi¢`iiuuaiiixnavEB11.11 'a ��" \ NE WP OR T BAY AtZbR. Circ bAYBD rWOKnly yt#[Ptv .r8 �.t v&TnuE µY2 It EE1 26N D NM Sli ONJ IJn6 FfWl:c PrbiEQ'rC 6.S10P N21CP-$r d.4P G2i4EEC T6T 16 i.r 519. MPIID.Iba) BpV14[>0.Y 11k ORD. N0. &3$BAweL u`Y M6X.�YML IMBN'nBNNDF�T iBYN^Di. S4lfilip1NrPlOEN ! � 6 DEC 26,1050 REV. Novenber 2, 2005 FUM/i'ss-M OPp. B6 f FUM .-1.42GZ Y Ga4 YRi4)E/N[15U9Ex )DYAPE .M-1, ll,(Q-$TO SP•6 Rev.I29,2005 F H+t iA . IDBS nnr ee•ia RfiaYca/P4rtWOffnl�e! no,aA.Be BEufa.sus -sEF_ MAO No. 9 yfF MgdfYFSNfI 6FlN6fGNAtor .fan jp 4VlLY FYfFFUI gy, DISTRICTING MAP ORD, 2000-2a Balboa Sign p lvy All signs in commercial disfri Pn ` ° ° Balboa Peninsula shall be subject to the regulations contained the D.v.,�y.Jy as Lops xwioui rxoesmics orixcex.mt vrel, - 11 - 14 - 00 rxWrs.w nKF/.Mw.N>SAc� qxn vhYr _ in the Sabam Sign O20 2rvIaRT '.qF^I R9 To Rt NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA ooB. ai-ss aceouc PBITEaTe P.mc.srisal D! Us0 ORD. 2005-q Ade i a+lew Eh t Z0.67 pertaining,m regulation of signs .IFA UP. lMW G•L 9 PG ra . a NNO F8tA8- ((_A R—A P d basis. This Ordinance removes thealboa Si IWeri Nan .1. 1. a Fan uxlta. DGr. o, mal AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL �_ 7 MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL a lops a c9^ 6—I SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL C—ice LIGHT COMMERCIAL (ORD. 2000-22) from this Obt,101, Mop. 9-22-2005 M-2 DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL SLUE R-3 RES12D. MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL M—I MANUFACTURING zan OF600 doo � EMM COMBINING DISTRICTS �� UNCLASSIFIED MAP NO. 8 �_�� Frorit Yard D¢ n In Fat} Sho—n Thv.= v \ / SEE MAP NO. 23 0 \� �oG y P(z Noie: LAfsA B,44EFG/f•'+d/ J7 3 � � 20 .S, are Pi✓afe Ways. s\ 9gB0 \ �a hT O'h, - dSLANO D. \\\Y"9� \\\5\F / �'T`� \l� ijl N 1 N y\ eo: NyN uie\ y •\ l ;nO� e. \,J\(\ N-e'eN Nf -N N�o?_NC,R♦ .:\ .:Q 3R2 W ... n O ---- L'4i j NY 9Llp/ luD�'.sP a o�<f6 d 4 AbTMOR/! LecNY/ON /LEV/S/ON \ t��// ORO Ab.>Y9 YAgCY N42,T2 t N /Ea/ Jflc RJ. - Annaa'ad / � l � ql� RO NO. Tod KM1fITs- Rarona/!/Om 'U'!}IR/LbMTf \ "`CCC \ \' Y4ACY .� APO. NO. BST TRgCY /]E3 -N[ NJ /��RFl NfRMf R$ TO R/ N / W Q• N OQP. Np. /016 B.I7R4<T 6 9• .fEC/. /. L013 M%IUYf a/ JD v MZ CR918J /�. '�P J•/L/ .0 Q,\• e W / / \\ ORR NA� l6g) REZONE ALL O.Z. (IYG Ry ! CdJ YJ R-/.5 II /o l V \/ rq-'j - s.TY / �4. ti h qn. Ne. nvA n, or�ra�z �� SQ\ Q AxB.xB, son sere<cxe Ax nu ims ixBB B Bx �o'uixsP s.axB I , V1 po y �� Cc: eacr xa vzn Y wm mora, a raor Bx Txe sorO J \ P es. YSGgN I 06 v f00T fE4fl•1�+, �+, x0 pS, B -2 -NI. B, 1 1 O!/ /6E a /// Q 6 d' ORD. IB92 ISSTAO'rEm-E�tOT FROIAT AR SeTAB, T>. FOOT FR 6-2 YARD '�. / \\ spa• PO Q- A SETeAeKS, 5-2)-00 (� YARIMKL NA MWe%'•03✓CaV,9j Ateotel / \\• O`.P �G (R X63 BCgCWf3dY B'.eNR3 dWN/N65 W0 \\O /o Co✓E.R3 Ib WLG�4A'NW/RV/.✓G/NINEt of / \\" e UNE. GCA£S PMA,5\�� FMITPROy^-'CTY ?/Eo cWLr9V H/EYrEelr oNOr / \ `\' \- VG C All MARE TNrW ANEH,OLF 7AL fi@+M'3O2 W/PE. UA2/dNCENR AR"hnVEO AN 3'19-55J ESTo6L/f/50 /OF/ YARD $fT CKS ON LOTS /-$ TFACY OR0 91"' REZONE 3pec/<IC rd Oo.zws.w thecl Changing the designation of 129 Agate Avenue \ oti from RSC-Rto anddasignatiiy the front 4 � \ yard seibock To be asix (6)feet 4 \ a \� M ,QEV. June 30, 2004 seE MAP No. /o 156 O DISTRICTING MAP NEWPORT BEACH - CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL R'A MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL 0-1 LIGHT COMMERCIAL EAGRICULTURAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL SCALE OF FEET RESTO. MULTIPLE' FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MANUFACTURING ORD. NO, 635 �M-1 COMBINING DISTRICTS 1U UNCLASSIFIED OEC. RG. 1950 MOP N0.(41 rd De f h In Feet Shown ThUg;- SEE MAP A/O. /5 SBE MAP NO LNf p G xS U ROS .10.= � R a J� 'N ¢ a i �� o p Lf\ a ¢N,' Y a W �-S, W, W .W 4i� 4i¢ N- 9- c 7^ Ea N P rvQa mem oQo oea Am]m a]o m]m ] t• �' C TCT p ,o 9 p y y BA BOA A o Q yN _ N N N o: Z N N N S• R N U! l �\\ \\O 3a m r > a P N ID _ JI N N 1() III III ID N N, AAA W II.. AVE. \� 0 PP p y.� o a N n N Z N Y f Q N n IA v' N� N C N N> N 4 N N N w N 6 R �x Z'� x N• y ON SOUTH BAY FRONT' vsnucr eaoTi.+e„ / IDP U5\ \ NETI 1-P0RT BAY \\ \ Qa eT �ufv� eL9c5[ z^Lon 9 �l[-za ��-o- to-mcaes \ o.Rox 9c.z w.p v xp FROY -lo- To -e- x-v-ez xa[ ft ze rrze F. r Ra ' R9 aQ0. M0. IP6T R[iex2 Pt= n.i. �(FLCFFT R1 ,41J Tp q-1.5 �\ \ ORL. Xp pi-ip Pf34K lOT9xi0P], PLX. O. H.T. 1, 911. 19, FROY HTIRRN 9 F99T FR.Tp. [[T[Itx.(Ifp{) \ ORD 91-45 RE}gxE 3PEU FK PRPp¢¢ns5 -Fe ft5c ETc. \ \ ORD N0.91'49 ftE2M10NE 8I91 SECT -14, B.S. FRaM C3'H Tp. &EIF IF (A (A -'/SO) 11-9-9A SEE MAP NO. // QEV 31 -iiL SEE MAP R/O. /2 DISTRICTING MAP NEWPORT BEACH — CALIFORNIA R—A AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL R_Q MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL R-1 C-1 LIGHT COMMERCIAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R—E DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL C—Q GENERAL COMMERCIAL SCALE OF FEET R-3 RESTY). MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL M—I MANUFACTURING ORD. NO -abs FrontYardGD.,i_h TPRISF..+ 5hown ThuS:-Ia- UNCLASSIFIED C6'zE. 1960 MOP No. 14 APF 'APF R P94 APf L.. 2 APF I � /Q4 m J P� /P P - c .DAG J/OSP/TdC b ...\ i CAMP"' GP wpb °y0`^ c IST, A��H �V. G, NaSe NQp AS, �0 g C�� J est DISTRICTING -MAP CITY -OF- NEWPORT— BEACH - ]ASI DRAL-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT C -X NEIGHBORHOOD CdIYERCIAL 013TRICT Y-1 MANUFACTURING DISTRICT SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT C -O LIMITED COMMERCIAL -MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT MAPA "TROLLED MAMWACTITINO DISTINCT AVM. DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT C-1 LIGHT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT NO COYSMING OR •H• 013TRICT IESTRCTC. MILTIPLE RESIDENTIAL C•P GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT r = -, COUSIN,.. OR •Z"DISTRICT A MULTIPLE R[S10[XTUL DISTRICT ] �] INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT CDMBINMS OR •X• DISTRICT VO UNCLASSIFIED DISTRICT MOY FORNIA'DDOND. M"� BY.. 0. .�%'-45 II91 REieSV(f ii�C P¢OPE¢T1e.5 0N5 AF, s. T. T3 •ice i>•�61LRRXR tK/ i-�G-n IFA'M e 9R1>l mmESTV ORANGE COUNTY 11GU0.AEY _,- — ... ,fi rv� fiyl]'Rt�� C, iSfi�JSy.�n RIB e0.�-'3y°� laa DFD a GO na a. 'n01` Hwy, —� - EP51 --- ------------- SEE MAP 31 6 4 •' ISS. qe. 9UPPEY DPINl ' 31, LI«ele-_eye=:li_I �j 1O j -TPIVE um . �'I • ' i]e-5]•]fi+OA�]6 ]0-31«3l EAST — COAST xwv. i R 1-B ORANGE COUNTY TO l�OUNq BEgCM —� DISTRICTING MAP NEWPORT BEACH --CALIFORNIA W[.aT REVISIDN] _ LOUTION WTE R -p AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL R -C MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL o. xo.n IbSrxuvTp x • nI EFfRom� upeN nest a hMrel Dw s. fl -I SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL G -I LIGHT COMMERCIAL R-2 DUME% RESIDENTIAL C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL P-3 RESTRICTED MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL M -I MANUFACTURING .4 UNCLASSIFIED ORD M0. �yS pV� +••� ]-//- (..�_ MAP ND. -T- I 7e. 3,976 PC \ t r77 �\ l zrv4rc as t 8'/'�/ � � .gyp•\ 1 � W;Y � r i• OPP�.`V •y •� f vl - t .Lr QP n <e U6 Wo'umi'x \ t • L:1 -6F U. •�$ ply M ... LnY .� `I SAUTlAGo "L• mb D\ 7Fl- LEFWA� K'1.01'urR. 3801LANE 4j [ i R-l_B TR 3975 X cc a,� S 5 � 'v!/x'R:✓gAo �y R4'B p eG u»�^. Q#B'Z 6 \ usmnu.L TROLT DS - a � �t83 't 44H3 � e, u• 1 Sn6 n5 I N K46 o TP _5740 owe: d R 1 .- 2 ut•" P-R'q J / prTr � :T<Acr 3 5efto �• ,Sfr2?. GO 'j <Qo / rrcac.: •.:.:a5 / LP _, _ �o' •D c1 rY3l 6. Ra+nv� u inY2nXiu� O PUU.. MP..1 ppX1XU I\XOUNBNT IDI NIQ. YII R uvuEYga,avr rXv[e[3 faon V, PSOA0.Xel To P[. i rvn3 >DDPTED STY.... ORD. no. 36 w HOLIDAY � RogD 84 — TT. 3766 IV V V in.aa n x p0 DISTRICTING -NAP---MANeP- CITY -OF ---NEWPORT- BEACH ---CALIFORNIA R•A AGRICULTURAL-REDIDEATILL DISTRICT C•M NEIGHBORHOOD CGYYERCYL DISTRICT Y•1 YANWACTURINO DISTRICT REVISIONS 4ITHID LOCATIONS C [ xaninun I - R'1 SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT C O LIMITED CDYYFACW.• MULTIPLE REEIDEIRILL DISTRICT MTA CONTRDLLS, YNIURCTURIXD DISTRICT OR•Y DUPLEX pFAID[MYL DISTRICT LI O LIGHT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT O COMBINING 011 'N' DISTRICT rmi unii ox pOUintAtt x[ DRwR[ rEuuiv I." ..- R'S OESTRIDTCD MULTIPLE flE91DEGENERALL C'Y GENERAL COYYERLILL DISTRICT COMBINING O COININO OR Z* DISTRICT 1i�.YliMBi 9YXilli�'[fl. MFST xG B,DYI. RA MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT lO� INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT O f�DY-U-iOY P -G. COMBINING OR •B• DISTRICT T �J UNCLASSIFIED DISTRICT O >DDPTED STY.... ORD. no. 36 .B/G coni IL IP R� I y. 26 sa P' C 'V ,, /✓EtvaoEr H/us Vow 4 S 6 1 B 9 PpN� DA RA RB Pa vB D3 n do ds da df QUE E6 x 41 dl A 35 30 90 'pP4B RB 9 tt ]6 P -C P -C � 5em�c / 2 Regi Why MFR -8 MPR -G (50 OU) (42 GLI) P -C FbR. J PARCEL ARCEL II I 2 SAN JDA4Ui,V P -C NP,YR. A°° R.P59 el C RG pL RGx RL PnR.I P -C PC 1oa 2 P- / C � RSC MFR PC y Rsc a (zosol PC az79 PL ac I Qe DRIVE 'm- 5 N/COLAS jl � 'RIB 'rt /^E!.6 p 4�� -sa..zo. ��G�'✓ A' PC Q a 4PY $ c2wy °33 3d J o I 'A1 9 e Q -2z% ...r.: 4') 'DL'T -za. •f9 '30. .q - . `< P 'RIB *V. 02-24-2005 1 a e A "zd. r 6. •c. aq E -<o. � . /. � SAN PC /6 /] /B —�� II m - • R I rs.-rs..19. .1s. 1/ 1 -m..xD. 8N. 9, RP. as v. 12•b -BS MAP NO. 32 DISTRICTING -MAP -CITY -OF --NEWPORT- BEACH CI ASA AAUAAWAR.'IKA FITIAL HIMOT RCVIRIOXR (E) RFVIBIDR9 (2) AUTHORITY LORATHO RATE AUTHORITY ID[ATIDNR DATE .AUTHORITY o 0 DATE AJTHQ.1TY Ri SR'"sIE NYIL1 HUOCT 1,AD Pe]wi Srmm lM1e 0 R-1995 ORD. M].ICAR I.... °P AUDI DEMERI. I-10-YA OR0. XO.IRK w •9 P^P�iiex .r vI�OA 10-N R2 WiLG R610EN11AL BIAFti AW -H and Oprn Spaee )o PC emrtx5Y4RTDOA9T XW.-H aen. xo.Iees mniox or xncea ro.xn Han Ie�un a nea (Bled 5COj CXOYM}Iq.fIR1. IR°M O -O -M. �,�y •e g.il:aP O'OM'ULC'WR AND -U-T° tl'Rll%£PF94p11AL P -D, Oka 90-24 REZONE 9VECIFCa i[e or flfl�pF$PD MAMEf0.u.ILY PFEI4S.MilAL MD. 10.1{59 BUILRIXD XCMNi DRDINAN2IAM' YII-T3 'PROPERTIES TD 110.1919 EMYENT XO, R=q, LFR 6-29-90 OK. HTIf4 �CWBRRpBR%T uoiy IAwuwu OftD91-45 R20NE 6KIFlc pere°nm I.ORa �•4e3 wrm(maMmemGY1 Al. - PER I"A, 31G, CANYON GEIF &ETF Y.Th:rPnryD FORNIA rrcavnr+rrr wt9D .}49 ovv.>n rd.(p w-oewan wr...9� apa.e+ <W A K 2. is •l] P -C ADOPTED BY.... ORD. 10.1120 34-65 IIZ9 5.24.65 501 Copy GPILCP Implementation Committee Agenda Item No. 2 June 6, 2007 GENERAL PLAN SINGLE AND TWO -UNIT RESIDENTIAL POLICIES Residential Neighborhoods LU 5.1 Residential neighborhoods that are well-planned and designed, contribute to the livability and quality of life of residents, respect the natural environmental setting, and sustain the qualities of place that differentiate Newport Beach as a special place in the Southern California region. Policies All Neighborhoods LU 5.1.2 Compatible Interfaces Require that the height of development in nonresidential and higher density residential areas transition as it nears lower density residential areas to minirtuze conflicts at the interface between the different types of development. (Imp 2.1) LU 5.1.3 Neighborhood Identification Encourage and support the identification of distinct residential neighborhoods. (Imp 1.1, 1.3) LU 5.1.4 Neighborhood Maintenance Promote the maintenance of existing residential units through code enforcement and promotion of County and local rehabilitation programs, and public education. This may include providing information, guidance, and assistance where feasible. (Imp 23.3, 25.1, 26.1, 29.1) GP/LCP Implementation Committee Agenda Item No. 2 June 6, 2007 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED AND DUPLEX NEIGHBORHOODS Mkl5_ ^ �Pariuug�Adequae}? GP/LCP Implementation Committee Agenda Item No. 2 June 6. 2007 Goal 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. Policies LU 5.6.3 Ambient Lighting Requite that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their location. (mp 2. /)