HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-04-21_GP-LCP IC Agenda Meeting PacketAGENDA
General Plan/LCP Implementation Committee
April 21, 2010
3:30 p.m.
Central Library, Friends Room
1. Approve Action Minutes from March 31, 2010
Attachment No. 1
2. Draft Zoning Code Review and Processing
Attachment No. 2
3. Fair Share Fee Update
Attachment No. 3
4. Future Meeting Dates — Schedule Dates
5. Items for Future Agenda
6. Public Comments on non -agenda items
7. Adjourn
Attachments:
1. Draft Action Minutes from March 31, 2010
2. Draft Zoning Code —Memo to Committee
3. Fair Share Fee Update Materials
3:30-3:35pm
3:35-4:00pm
4:00-5:00pm
5:00-5:10pm
5:10-5:20pm
5:20-5:30pm
'The Draft Zoning Code (Third Public Draft) was previously distributed and is
available on-line at: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=1478 or
contact the Planning Department at 949-644-3200.
Attachment No. 1
Draft Action Minutes from March 31, 2010
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN/LCP IMPLEMENTATION
COMMITTEE
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Action Minutes of the General Plan/LCP Implementation Committee held at the Fire
Conference Room, City of Newport Beach, on Wednesday, March 31, 2009
Members Present:
X
Ed Selich, Mayor, Chairman
X
Leslie Daigle, Council Member
X
Don Webb, Council Member
X
Barry Eaton, Planning Commissioner
X
Robert Hawkins, Planning Commissioner
E
Michael Toer e, Planning Commissioner
Advisory Group Members Present:
X
Mark Cross
E
Larry Frapwell
X
William Guidero
X
Ian Harrison
X
Brion Jeannette
X
Don Krotee
X
Todd Schooler
Kevin Weeda
Dennis Wood
Staff Rearesentatives:
X
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
E
David Le o, Planning Director
X
Leonie Mulvihill, City Attorney
X
James Campbell, Principal Planner
X
GreggRamirez, Senior Planner
X
Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner
E = Excused Absence
Committee Actions
1. Agenda Item No. 1 —Approval of minutes for March 17, 2010.
Action: The following revision to the draft minutes was proposed by Committee
Member Hawkins: Committee Member Hawkins objected to exempting City
projects from the provisions of the Zoning Code. Committee approved revised
draft minutes.
Vote: Consensus
2. Agenda Item No. 2 — Draft Zoning Code Review and Processing
Action: The Committee reviewed Committee Member Eaton's comments and
provided the following action and suggestions:
• Pg. 5-9 and pg.5-11 Section 20.52.020 B. and 20.52.030 B. —
staff and OCA will tighten up language
■ Pg. 5-28 Section 20.52.070 3.b. — revise sentence "If the
applicant does not file the request for reasonable
accommodation concurrently with the application for other
discretionary permits, then any request for reasonable
accommodation shall not be heard until after the decision of
the appropriate review authority for the other discretionary
permits is final and effective."
• Pg. 5-56 Section 20.58.080 A.- revise language to say: "A
specific plan may adopted only if found consistent with the
General Plan""
• Pg. 6-5 20.60.060 A.- strike "Planning" before "Director" to
remain consistent throughout
• Pg. 6-12 Section 20.64.030 C.3.a. — in last sentence strike "de
novo' and insert "new"
• Pg. 6-22 Section 20.68.060 — strike entire section
• Pg. 7-24 — re -look at definition of "Floor Area, Gross"
■ Pg. 7-46 — strike definitions for "Sensitive Habitat Area" and
"Sensitive Species"
■ Pg. 7-48 — verify the definition of "Story" is consistent with
Building Code
• Map B-6 — for 3207 — 3309 Ocean Boulevard add an exception
for C Zone to accommodate a covered pathway from garage to
house
Action: The Committee requested that staff look into the following items and
report back:
■ Bring back a summary of changes in response to Tom
Matthew's letter and Carol McDermott's e-mail including
lighting provisions.
Public Comment on this item:
• Carol McDermott stated that she will have a good example of a
photometric study that she can share with the Committee as
Fletcher Jones is currently producing one.
■ Tom Matthews stated there were two mistakes in his letter and
that he had left the details to staff on a voice mail message.
3. Agenda Item No. 3 — Future meeting dates
The next meeting will be scheduled for April 14 or April 21. Staff will announce date
within the next week.
Vote: Consensus
4. Agenda Item No. 4 — Items for future agenda
The meetings will continue with the summary of changes in response to Tom
Matthew's letter and Carol McDermott's e-mail comments.
5. Agenda Item No. 5 — Public Comments on non -agenda items
None.
Agenda Item No. 6 — Adjourn - Meeting adjourned at 4:53 p.m.
Attachment No. 2
Draft Zoning Code - Memo
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
P. 0. BOX 1768
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
92658-8915
Memorandum
To: GP/LCP Committee
From: Planning Department
Date: April 14, 2010
Re: Draft Zoning Code — Revisions for Planning Commission Draft
Staff Revision
Staff recommends that sub -section 20.48.170 C.5 be deleted.
5. Except as otherwise provided herein, there shall be no more than 2 residents in
each bedroom, plus 1 additional resident. The Hearing Officer has the discretion
to approve additional occupancy upon request by the owner and based upon
evidence that additional occupancy is warranted and appropriate for the site. In
exercising this discretion, the Hearing Officer shall consider the characteristics of
the structure; whether there will be an impact on traffic and parking; and whether
the public health, safety, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the
facility or adjacent to the facility will be impacted.
Written Comment Revisions
Staff received written comments and questions from Carol McDermott and CAA
Planning in regard to the 3`d public draft. After meeting with Ms. McDermott, staff will
make a change to the MU -W1 zoning district to stipulate that residential uses are only
permitted above the ground floor, to be consistent with the CLUP.
Following are staffs responses to comments submitted by CAA Planning. The numbers
corresponded with the handwritten numbers on CAA's letter dated March 29, 2010
(attached). In summary, staff agrees that revisions are warranted for comment nos. 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14 and 15.
1. Retaining walls. Staff will add retaining wall height to the list items that are eligible for
relief through review and approval of a modification permit.
2. Lighting standards. Staff recommends the following regulations for outdoor lighting:
1
Submerged Areas
November 18, 2009
20.30.010—Outdoor Lighting [New]
This Section establishes outdoor lighting standards in order to reduce the impacts of
glare, light trespass, over lighting, sky glow, and poorly shielded or inappropriately
directed lighting fixtures, and promote safety and encourage energy conservation.
A. General outdoor lighting standards.
1. All outdoor lighting fixtures shall be designed, shielded, aimed, located, and
maintained to shield adjacent properties and to not produce glare onto adjacent
properties or roadways. Parking lot light fixtures and light fixtures on buildings
shall be full cut-off fixtures.
2. Flashing, revolving, or intermittent exterior lighting visible from any property line
or street shall be prohibited, except if approved as an accessory feature on a
temporary basis in conjunction with a Special Event Permit.
3. A photometric study may be required as part on an application for a Zoning
Clearance if it is determined that there is potential for a negative impact to
surrounding land uses or sensitive habitat areas.
4. If in the opinion of the Director, existing illumination creates an unacceptable
negative impact on surrounding land uses or sensitive habitat areas the Director
may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the
site is excessively illuminated.
B. Parking lot light standards. Light standards within parking lots shall be the minimum
height required to effectively illuminate the parking area and eliminate spillover of light
and glare onto adjoining properties and roadways. To accomplish this, a greater number
of shorter light standards may be required as opposed to a lesser number of taller
standards.
C. Outdoor lighting standards for buildings, statues, other man-made objects, and
landscapes, Spotlighting or floodlighting used to illuminate buildings, statues, signs, or
any other objects mounted on a pole, pedestal, or platform, or used to accentuate
landscaping shall consist of full cut-off or directionally shielded lighting fixtures that are
aimed and controlled so that the directed light shall be substantially confined to the
object intended to be illuminated to minimize glare, sky glow, and light trespass. The
beam width shall not be wider than that needed to light the feature with minimum
spillover. The lighting shall not shine directly into the window of a residence or directly
into a roadway. Light fixtures attached to a building shall be directed downward.
D. Outdoor recreationlentertainment areas. Sports courts and similar facilities used for
outdoor recreation or entertainment located within a residential zoning district or closer
than 200 feet to the boundary of a residential zoning district, shall not be lighted unless a
Minor Site Development Review has been approved in compliance with Section
20.52.080 (Site Development Review).
3. Parking (residential). Staff supports not requiring garages for all multi -family projects.
`a
Submerged Areas
November 18, 2009
4. Parking space dimensions. Note l3 from Standard Plan 805-L-13 will be added. Staff
will ensure drive aisle and parking aisle dimensions are consistent with Public Works
requirements.
5. TDM rideshare loading. Text will be changed as recommended.
6. Traffic safay visibility. Where applicable, maximum floor area is determined by
buildable area (lot area minus standard setbacks); not traffic safety visibility setbacks.
Landscaping. The height limit for plant material in a visibility triangle is 24". The 36"
requirement is to screen vehicles in a parking lot.
8. Effective date of permits. Section 20.54.030 will be revised to indicate that the 15 day
time period only applies to discretionary permits.
9. Review Authoritv. Hearing Officer will be added. Director of Public Works and City
Traffic Engineer will not be added because they do not have review authority for
discretionary applications.
10. Chanter 20.60. Not necessary, the Director of Public Works and City Traffic Engineer
review standards not discretionary applications.
11. High rise height limit. Revision to Exhibit t-1-1 will be made.
12. Screening of mechanical equipment. The Committee deleted a proposed exception. See
strikeout at lop of page 3-6. No change recommended.
13. Screening of outdoor storage. CAA recommendations will be incorporated.
14. Signs. Tables will be fixed to eliminate duplicates.
15. Sign height. Table will be changed to match requirement on page 3-120; maximum
height 8 feet, average maximum height 6 feet.
16. Sign ratio. Leave current ratio as is. If relief from this standard is necessary, applicant
may request Comprehensive Sign Program or Innovative Sign Program to allow
deviation.
3
CAA PLANNING
March 29, 2010
Mr. Gree- Ramirez, Senior Planner
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Subject: City of Newport Beach -3rd Draft Zoning Code Update Review Comments
Dear Mr. Ramirez:
This letter is a follow-up to my comments to the GP/LCP Implementation Committee at the conclusion of the March
17'h meetine to review the 3rd draft of the City's 'Zoning Code. As you know, we have been monitoring the
Committee's on-going review of the staff and consultant efforts to update the Zoning Code. Over the last year. you
have met withus separately to answer questions regarding the update process and changes proposed. As a result,
your input has helped reduce the number of questions that we otherwise would have brought to the Committee. We
appreciate all the hard work that has gone into this process. Below we have identified several issues that we feel are
significant and we now wish to bring to the Committee's attention:
• Retaining Walls - page 3-9 - We believe that providing clarification that a retaining wall may exceed 8
feet when an integral pan of a principal structure is appropriate. However, there may be instances where a
retaining wall needs to be in excess of 8 feel to achieve a superior design or to accommodate site
constraints. As an example, could the retaining wall on the Mariner's Mile portion of West Coast Highway
be built under this new standard? For reference, we have included photographs showing examples of
existing walls throughout the City that we believe could not be constructed under the proposed required
.maximum height of 8'.
It is suggested that in instances where a retaining will is proposed in excess of 8', the applicant process a
modification permit to be reviewed by the Director of Public Works. In so doing, the applicant must
demonstrate that a wall height in excess of 8' achieves a superior overall site design and addresses aesthetic
considerations.
• Lighting Standards - page 3-22, Section 20.30.070 B.4 - The proposed new lighting standards could
require site lighting of between 25 foot candles and 20 :foot candles. We respectfully point out that I foot
candle is the equivalent illumination of twilight. At that level of illumination an individual casts his or her
own shadow. We believe that 2.5 foot candles may be excessive in a given situation and 20 foot candles
(equivalent to an office lobby) for high security areas may create challenges to confine the illumination to
the site. This can also create security issues where a person standing just outside the lit area may not be
visible. We believe that each major project should have the flexibility/choice to prepare a photometric
study to demonstrate compliance with the City's goal of providing safety without destroying the ambiance
that can be created by appropriate lighting. However, should the City not agree to a requirement to prepare
a photometric study, we offer the following specific comments:
o Section A.I — Does the requirement that parking lot fixtures and light fixtures on buildings be cut
off fixtures limit the use of decorative fixtures on buildines?
o Section A.2— Please clarify whether the City must approve the use of metal halide or LED.
o Section B.I.b — We discussed these standards with a reeistered professional electrical engineer and
he raised a question as to whether the values recommended are consistent with the Illuminating
Engineering Society of North America. (IESNA). According to the consultant: "The 25 to I
maximum to minimum is an unusual uniformity metric. We typically see a 20 to I maximum to
85 Argonaut, Suite 220 - Aliso Viejo, California 92656 • (949) 581-2888 • Fax (949) 581-3599
Nlr. Gregg Ramirez
March 29, 2010
Page 2 of 4
minimum or n 5 to I average to minimum restriction. The proposed value is approximately 2 times
more uniform tin what we typically provide— as well as what the IESi lA recommends. This Will
add construction costs"
o Section B.I.e. — The lighting engineer has commented that 20 footcandles average would be
approximately 5.0 footcandles minimum resulting in even more restrictive uniformity
requirements.
o Section B.4. —"A photometric plan certified by a licensed lighting engineer.. " Suggest time term
read `registered professional electrical engineer."
o Section D — Outdoor lighting standards for buildings, statues, other man-made objects and
landscapes - The registered professional electrical engineer feels that interpreting the actual code
values as applied in this section would be very difficult. Would the City require a photometric plan
to document consistency with the intent of this Section?
• Parking - page 3.30, Section 20.40.040. Table 3-10 — There is a substantial change to residential parking in
the proposed Zoning Code for multi -family residences which now requires that two spaces for each unit be
in a garage. In our experience, most people do not use their garages for vehicle parking, but rather for
personal storage. As a result, there may actually be more vehicles on the street and in guest parking spaces
tinder this requirement. We are aware of other jurisdictions requiring a higher parking ratio for multifamily
developments with garages for the stated reason that people do not use their garages for the intended use.
We believe this issue should be carefully considered before requiring parking in garages for all multi-
family developments.
• Parking Space Dimensions —page 3-86 —Table 3-13, Standard Vehicle Space Requirements, portrays the
dimensional requirements for parking spaces, including a note requiring additional width when the parking
space abuts an obstruction. This requirement is clearly based on note 12 from the City's current Standard
Plan 805 -L -B. However, the requirements do not currently reflect note 13 from the same Standard Plan.
Therefore, it is recommended that note I from Table 3-13 be modified to reflect the minor exception
allowed by note 13 for the front corners of the spaces.
1) When the length of a parking space abuts a column, or similar obstruction (with the exception that they
will be allowed within a 1.5 square foot area at the front corners), the required width of the space shall
be increased to 9 feet.
In addition, we would like your consideration for changing Table 3-13 so that the 90 degree angle
requirements read as follows:
Angle
Stall Width Stall Depth
Stall Length
Aisle Width
One-Wav
Aisle Width
Two-Wav
90
1 8 ft. G. in. 1 18 R.
1 18 1
26 ft.
24 ft.
An 18' stall depth provides assurance that ADA requirements can be met and the 24' aisle width provides
flexibility for design, particularly in instances where these standards are applied to parking structures.
• 'rDM Rideshare Loading Requirements — page 3-149, Section E — It is recommended that the
requirement to establish the extent of the loading area be treated in a similar manner to the other site
development requirements (22.44.050). Therefore, it is recommended that the following modification be
incorporated:
Mr. Gregg Ramirez
March 29, 2010
Page 3 of 4
Rideshare vehicle loading area. A rideshare vehicle loading area shall be designated at a location approved
by the City Traffic Engineer. The area shall accommodate a minimum of 2 passenger vehicles feF-1110-fir=st
thereof. Ad
employees.
O Traffic Safety Visibility - page 3-36 — Question: if a principal permitted use exists within the area
proscribed by the proposed setbacks on figure 3-7 and if redevelopment is proposed in the future, does the
floor area of the principal permitted use decrease because the prior area is no longer buildable?
O Landscaping - page 3-88 — the requirement that plant material within a tmffic sight area of a driveway
shall not exceed 36 inches should be reconciled with the height requirement on page 3-38 which specifies a
height limit of 30 inches.
® • Effective Date of Permits — page 5-41 —Section 20.54.030 states that any permit shall become effective on
the 15's day following the date of actual application approval. There needs to be a distinction made here
that this section does not include ministerial permits in order to be consistent with Section 20.10.040 on
page 1-4. B. Issuanceofpemtits.
O Review Authority - page 7-44 — Question: should "Hearing Officer". "Director of Public Works" and
"City Traffic Engineer" be added to the list of City entities in this definition?
Chapter 20.60 — page 6-3 — Administrative Responsibility — Suggest adding Director of Public Works and
City Traffic Engineer duties and functions to this section. �—
'l High Rise Height Limit—page8-1—Pan 8—Exhibit 1-1-1 does not reflect the 300' limit.
' .L • Screening for Roof & Ground Mounted Mechanical Equipment - page 3-5 and 3-6 — Question: If the
G
subject roof and/or ground mounted mechanical equipment is not visible from any public rights of way, or
other public property, why is screening required?
3 Screening of Outdoor Storage — page 3-7 - Section 20.30.020 D — We suggest adding the following text
since screening standards are not listed in Section 20.48.140, contrary to the reference: "Screening of
outdoor storage areas shall be accomplished with fences, walls, solid, evergreen hedges or other methods
approved by the Department. Chain link fencing with or without slats is not allowed."
' y Signs - Table 3-15 — Page 3-114 appears to be the same as page 3-112, although the regulations are slightly
different but not high -lighted as new. Page 3-115 appears to be the same as page 3-113.
1 5 • Sign Height — page 3-120 - Section 20.42.080 — We suggest the 6' maximum average height requirement
for monument signs in Item C should be deleted to be consistent with Table 3-16 on page 3-1 12 and to be
consistent with the treatment of the regulations for a pylon sign, which has no average height limit.
f • Sign Ratio — page 3-121 - Section 20.42.080 — We suggest the 1.5 to 1.0 maximum ratio for monument
` t0 signs be deleted to allow long, short signs.
Attached for your reference is a list of typographic errors we noted during. our review.
Mr. Gregg Ramirez
March 29. 2010
Page 4 of 5
We appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments and issues on 3'a Draft of the Zoning Code update and will
look forward to your response. Thank you.
Sincerely;
CAA PLANNING, INC.
Thomas B. Mathews
Attachments: Wall Photographs
Typographic Error List
cc: Dan Miller
Dan Dickinson
Mike Erickson
Sharon wood
James Campbell
Shawna Schaffner
Attachment No. 3
Fair Share Fee Materials
Download Staff Report
Download Appendix A
Download Appendix B