HomeMy WebLinkAbout17 - Group Residential Facilities - PA 2006-198CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 17
November 14, 2006
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Planning Department
Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner
(949) 644 -3235
Palford(aa)city. newport- beach. ca. us
SUBJECT: Code Amendment 2006 -005
Group Residential Facilities (PA 2006 -198)
ISSUE:
Should Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code be
amended to revise regulations relating to Group Residential Facilities?
RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct public hearing; introduce Ordinance No. 2006- approving Code
Amendment No. 2006 -005 and pass to second reading on November 28, 2006.
DISCUSSION:
Background:
The City Council initiated the proposed amendment on September 26, 2006.
Analysis:
The proposed amendment is intended to address an ongoing code enforcement
problem where rooms in single - family dwelling units are being rented as individual
units, thus operating as a boarding house or as multi - family dwelling units in single -
family zones. This practice is impacting the character of these neighborhoods and
the availability of off - street parking.
The proposed amendment would revise the Group Residential' land use
classification by adding a new subgroup for boarding and rooming houses.
' Group Residential facilities are shared living quarters that lack separate kitchen and bathroom facilities for each room or
unit or any other shared living quarters occupied by two or more persons not living together as a "single housekeeping
unit.' This classification does not include group homes, sober living environments, and recovery facilities, which are
classed as Residential Care facilities and are covered by State and federal anti- discrimination housing laws.
Group Residential Facilities
November 14, 2006
Page 2
"Boarding or Rooming Houses" would be defined as any dwelling unit where more
than one room is rented under more than one written or oral rental agreement.
Therefore, if a dwelling, or any part thereof, is being rented under more than one
rental agreement, it would be classified as a Boarding House or a Rooming House,
neither of which are permitted in residential districts. Thus, violations can more
easily be identified by reviewing the rental agreement(s). The use can then be
abated, if necessary.
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the proposed amendment on
October 19, 2006. The discussion focused on the issue of subleases. Under the
proposed amendment, any sublease of a dwelling unit or any part of a dwelling unit
would meet the definition of a boarding house. Thus, a renter could not rent a room
or sublease the dwelling unit, which the Planning Commission considered unfair.
The Commission voted unanimously (6 -0) to recommend approval of the proposed
code amendment provided the number of rental agreements is increased from one
(1) to two (2). For purposes of defining a boarding house limitation of two leases
would be appropriate.
The City Attorney's recommendation was based upon the intent to also address
problems with illegal dwelling units. Defining a single housekeeping unit as limited
by one lease agreement will serve as additional criteria to define a dwelling unit.
The Planning Commission recommendation will not provide the added tool for code
enforcement to determine when a property has rented out one or more rooms as an
illegal unit. This is because the zoning code defines a family along the legally
recognized concept that cities may not regulate residential use to persons who are
related, but may require that persons live together as a single housekeeping unit.
Over the years the City code enforcement has responded to complaints of illegal
dwelling units in single family homes, duplexes or triplexes. Property owners, or
renters will divide part of a house into separate units which are rented separately.
However, code enforcement is told that all the individuals live together and share
common facilities. Recently in Corona del Mar, Code Enforcement discovered a
legal duplex that was converted into 5 separate dwelling units. If the City Attorney's
recommendation is adopted then there should have only been two leases, one for
each of the two dwelling units, instead of five. If the Planning Commission
recommendation is adopted, then for purposes of defining a dwelling unit, asking
for evidence of a single lease for each dwelling unit will not be effective information
as four leases would have been acceptable. Two leases per unit make proof of an
illegal unit more difficult if all parties asserted that they were living together as a
single housekeeping unit. At least some Planning Commissioners were concerned
that with the proposed limitation a renter would no be able to sublet a room. This is
accurate and the City Council may agree that this limitation is not acceptable.
Group Residential Facilities
November 14, 2006
Page 3
However, on the other hand many landlords already do not to allow rented property
to be sublet and require that all persons living in the property are on the lease. In
this sense the added limitation of one lease per dwelling unit gives property owners
who lease their property more information about who is living in the property and
will insure that renters do not rent out part of the property to another as a separate
dwelling unit. For these reasons, staff continues to recommend that the original
ordinance recommended by the City Attorney's Office be adopted.
Environmental Review:
The proposed action is not defined as a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and
procedure- making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in
the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines).
Public Notice:
Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot a minimum of 10 days in
advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the
item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall
and on the City website.
Prepared by:
Patrick J. Alford
Senior Planner
Attachments:
Submitted by:
D- id Lepo
Planning Director
A. Draft ordinance.
B. October 19, 2006 Planning Commission Staff Report.
C. Planning Commission Resolution.
D. Draft October 19, 2006 Planning Commission minutes.
ATTACHMENT A
Draft Ordinance
ORDINANCE 2006-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AN AMENDMENT
TO TITLE 20 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES
[CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2006 -005]
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2006, the City Council initiated amendments to
Title 20 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code to revise land use regulations for
Group Residential Facilities; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on October 19, 2006 in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of
time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal
Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the
Planning Commission at this meeting; and
;WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has an ongoing code ;;enforcement
problem vyfiere rooms in dwelling units in single - family zoning. districts are_ = rented as
individual dwelling units; and
WHEREAS, the rental of single - family dwelling units on a room by room basis to
persons not living together as a single housekeeping unit constitutes a land use indicative
of multi - family residential or boarding /rooming houses; and
WHEREAS, single - family, zoning districts are not designed for situations in which
significant numbers of adults live in the same dwelling unit, which results in impacts to the
infrastructure, the availability of on- street parking, and noise; and
WHEREAS, boarding and rooming houses are not permitted uses in residential
zoning districts, but enforcement is difficult because the types of improvements that
constitute a separate or independent living facility are difficult to observe off -site and can
easily be concealed or removed prior to inspection; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Code needs to be amended to classify any dwelling unit
that is being leased separately to more than two persons as a boarding or rooming house;
and
WHEREAS, the adoption of these new land use regulations is necessary in order
to protect the character of the City of Newport Beach's single - family residential
neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is not defined as a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure
making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment
(Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines).
2 of 2
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code shall be amended as
provided in Exhibit A.
SECTION 2: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage
of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of
the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its
adoption.
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Newport Beach held on November 14, 2006,. and., adopted on the 28th day of
lovember, 2006, by the following vote, to wit:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS
(V
EXHIBIT A
20.03.030
Single Housekeeping Unit: "Single Housekeeping Unit" means the functional
equivalent of a traditional family, whose members are an interactive group of
persons jointly occupying a single dwelling unit, under no more than one written
or oral rental agreement, including the joint use of common areas and sharing
household activities and responsibilities such as meals, chores, and expenses.
For purposes of the R -A and R -1 districts, a Single Housekeeping Unit's
members shall also be a non - transient group.
20.05.030 (B)
Group Residential. "Group Residential" means shared living quarters, occupied
by more than one person, which lack separate kitchen and bathroom facilities for
each room or unit, as well as shared living" quarters occupied by two or more
persons not living together as a Single Housekeeping; Unit. This classification
in boarding houses, rooming houses, dormitories, fraternities, sororities,
and private residential clubs, but excludes residential hotels (see Single -Room
Occupancy (SRO) Residential Hotels, Section 20.05.050(EE)(4)).
1. Boarding or Roominq Houses. A residence or dwellinq unit, or part
thereof, wherein two or more rooms are rented under two or more
separate written or oral rental agreements, leases or subleases or
combination thereof, whether or not the owner, agent or rental
manager resides within the residence.
EXHIBIT A
CA 2006 -005
I
ATTACHMENT B
October 19, 2006 Planning Commission Staff Report
q
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 4
October 19, 2006
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Planning Department
Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner
(949) 644 -3235
palford(a)city. newport- beach. ca. us
SUBJECT: Code Amendment 2006 -005
Group Residential Facilities (PA 2006 -198)
ISSUE:
Should Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code be amended to
revise regulations relating to Group Residential Facilities?
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached resolution recommending approval of Code Amendment No. 2006-
005 to the City Council.
DISCUSSION:
Background:
The City Council initiated the proposed amendment on September 26, 2006.
Introduction:
The City has an ongoing code enforcement problem in neighborhoods zoned for single -
family dwelling units. Rooms in single - family dwelling units are being rented as individual
units, thus operating as multi - family dwelling units in single - family zones. This practice is
impacting the character of these neighborhoods and the availability of off - street parking.
Multi family dwelling units are not permitted in single - family residential zones. However,
enforcement is difficult because the types of improvements that constitute a separate or
independent living facility are difficult to observe off -site and can easily be concealed or
removed prior to inspection. Therefore, it is difficult to prove that the occupants are living
separately or independently from one another and not as a "single housekeeping unit" (i.e.,
the functional equivalent of a traditional family).
0
Group Residential Facilities
October 19, 2006
Page 2
Analysis
Group Residential facilities are shared living quarters that lack separate kitchen and
bathroom facilities for each room or unit or any other shared living quarters occupied by
two or more persons not living together as a "single housekeeping unit." This land use
classification includes boarding houses, dormitories, fraternities, sororities, and private
residential clubs.' The intent of the proposed amendment is to classify any dwelling unit
that is being leased separately to more than one person as a Group Residential facility.
Group Residential facilities are only permitted in the Government, Educational, and
Institutional Facilities (GEIF) District and only when associated with an educational or
medical institution. Since this use is not permitted in residential districts, violations can
more easily be identified by reviewing the rental agreement(s). The use can then be
abated, if necessary.
The proposed amendment would revise this land use classification by adding a new
subgroup for boarding and rooming houses. "Boarding or Rooming Houses" would be
defined as any dwelling unit where more than one room is rented under..more than one
written or oral rental agreement. Therefore, if a dwelling, or any part thereof, is being
rented under more than one rental agreement, it would be classified as a Boarding House
or a Rooming House, neither of which are permitted in residential districts.
It is also proposed that corresponding language be added to the definition of the term
"single house keeping unit" to provide further clarity and internal consistency.
It should be noted that under the proposed amendment, any sublease of a dwelling unit or
any part of a dwelling unit would meet the definition of a boarding house. Thus, a renter
could not rent a room or sublease the dwelling unit.
Environmental Review:
The proposed action is not defined as a project under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and procedure- making activities
not associated with a project or a physical change in the environment (Section 15378 of
the CEQA Guidelines).
Public Notice:
Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot a minimum of 10 days in advance
of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. This. included an eighth page
advertisement. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which
was posted at City Hall and on the City website.
' This classification does not include group homes, sober living environments, and recovery facilities,
which are classified as Residential Care facilities and are covered by State and federal anti - discrimination
housing laws.
10
Prepared by:
Patrick J. Alford
Senior Planner
Attachments:
1. Draft resolution.
Group Residential Facilities
October 19, 2006
Page 3
Submitted by:
Patricia L. Temple
Planning Director
11
ATTACHMENT C
Planning Commission Resolution
fa
RESOLUTION NO. 1700
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THE
ADOPTION OF CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2006 -005 (PA
2006 -198)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS,
RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2006, the City Council initiated amendments to
Title 20 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code to revise land use regulations for
Group Residential Facilities; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on October 19, 2006 in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of
time, place and purpose of the meeting, was given in accordance with the Municipal
Code. Evidence, both written and oral,..was presented to, and considered by, the
Planning Commission at this meeting; and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
1. The City of Newport Beach has an ongoing code enforcement problem
where rooms in dwelling units in single - family zoning districts are rented as
individual dwelling units.
2. The rental of single - family dwelling units on a room by room basis to persons
not living together as a single housekeeping unit constitutes a land use
indicative of multi- family residential or boarding /rooming houses.
3. Single- family zoning districts are not designed for situations in which
significant numbers of adults live in the same dwelling unit, which results in
impacts to the infrastructure, the availability of on- street parking, and noise.
4. Boarding and rooming houses are not permitted uses in residential zoning
districts, but enforcement is difficult because the types of improvements that
constitute a separate or independent living facility are difficult to observe off -
site and can easily be concealed or removed prior to inspection.
5. The Zoning Code needs to be amended to classify any dwelling unit that is
being leased separately to more than two persons as a boarding or rooming
house.
15
2 of 2
6. The adoption of these new land use regulations is necessary in order to
protect the character of the City of Newport Beach's single - family residential
neighborhoods.
7. The proposed action is not defined as a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and
procedure making activities not associated with a project or a physical
change in the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the aforementioned
findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City
of Newport Beach adopt Code Amendment No. 2006 -005 to Title 20 of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code as provided in Exhibit A.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 19th DAY OF October 2006.
E
E
AYES: Cole, Hawkins, Peotter, Eaton. McDaniel and Toerae
Excused: Henn
A
ATTACHMENT D
October 19, 2006 Planning Commission minutes
0
10/19/2006
Eaton, Peotter, Haw m el Toerge
None
Henn
Page 9 of 27
ITEM NO.4
PA2006 -198
1BJECT: Code Amendment 2006 -005
Group Residential Facilities Recommended
could Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code be amended for Approval
revise regulations relating to Group Residential Facilities?
Alford, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the staff report noting:
This amendment is intended to address the ongoing code enforceme
problem with single - family houses being operated as boarding house or
some cases as multi - family residential.
This amendment deals with the addition of a new land use classificati
under the heading of Group Residential, which covers boarding and roomi
houses. "Boarding or Rooming Houses" would be defined as any dwelli
unit where more than one room is rented under more than one written or c
rental agreement. If it meets this definition, then it is defined as a Boardi
House, which is currently under the. Group Residential heading and it is i
permitted in our residential zones. Group Residential is currently limited
our Government, Educational, and Institutional Facilities (GEIF) District a
only when associated with an educational or medical institution.
Corresponding amendment to the definition of "single house keeping unit"
make sure the land use classification definition and the definition of "sin(
house keeping unit' are consistent.
mmissioner Eaton said he had sent an email questioning why the limit was or
and not two. He received a reply stating that City Attorney had insisted that
one. He pointed out that he had read an article in the newspaper addressing
War ordinance in the City of Orange and their limit was two. He would like
)w why we choose one rather than two.
. Harp, Assistant City Attorney, wanted to clarify that City Attorney R
auson was very insistent upon this and he had not had the opportunity to disc
r reasoning behind this, but pointed out that Mr. Alford had discussed this.
Alford said they had discussed 3 or more, but with that many there could be
mtial a situation of 3 separate housing keeping units operating under wh
uld be a single - family dwelling. The intent is to keep this as tight as possible a
are limiting the single - family zones to a residence that is operated as a sing
sing keeping unit.
issioner Eaton asked if we are talking about the limit on the number of
with the constraints of a single housing unit:
Alford said the issue is not the number of people living as a single housi
ping unit under one single rental agreement. The problem arises when peol
renting out rooms to individuals that are not sharing responsibilities of what c
nition of a single housing keeping unit is. The effects to the neighborhood
n in the parking, noise, etc.
l4
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006\ 10 1 92006.htm 11/03/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006
sioner Eaton said then a lessee of a home couldn't sublet a
i to another tenant even though they where operating as a single
unit.
Alford answered yes, they met the definition of 2 or more. The only c
Id be for them to amend the current rental agreement so both parties
er the same lease.
ian Cole asked what would be the difference, in the City's perspective, if
owner wanted to rent out a room and or a sub - lesser wanted to rent out
The impact to the community would be the same as far as parking, nois
Alford answered the impact would be the same, but the scenario met
iition of 2 or more and would prohibit that type of arrangement in
iential zones.
rman Cole wanted to know the genesis of this amendment. He knew it
Council initiated, but did code enforcement have any input into this.
I. Alford said there were a number of discussions with the City Attorney c
d Code Enforcement on how.to address the problem of illegal dwelling units
forcement. Reviewing the rental agreements would give us the evidence nee
take the appropriate Code Enforcement action.
mmissioner Toerge said he couldn't support this amendment as written. Felt
s unfair and almost discriminatory. He gave a scenario of living in a rente
ise and not being able to have a friend stay with him for a few months becaue
would be in violation of this code.
Hawkins agreed with Commissioner Toerge and had the followi
. Was 2 too few; no parking related issues, etc.
. 5 or 6 may become a Boarding House, which would be problematic.
Where do we set the bar?
. 3 or fewer may be better.
. How would you inspect verbal agreements for enforcement purposes?
nissioner McDaniel spoke of a duplex that was rented out, but throughout
various people lived there and was sure they didn't sign a new re
ment with each move -in. How would we enforce that scenario?
Alford answered if they were all operating under a single .rental agreeme
e is an implied shared responsibility for maintaining a single house keepi
. The problem is people renting out multiply rooms in a house to a number
pie and the owner doesn't live there. If you set the limit at 2 or more you m
e 3 rooms or dwelling units operating within a single - family house.
comment was opened.
Page 10 of 27
�1
file: //F: \Users \PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal \2006\10192006.htm 11/03/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006
r. George Schroeder, landlord and real estate broker, wanted to state that i
as basically in agreement with Staffs recommendations. He pointed out tl
iery lease agreement he has drawn up has a clause that the lessee can not st
ase. All one would need to do is call up his landlord and add a person's name
e existing agreement for the time period that person may be staying. When t
ided person leaves, they would revert back to the original lease. He also ask
this code amendment would apply to Balboa Island.
Alford answered it is City -wide.
Harp wanted to know if the intent was not to allow anyone to sub -lease
ry owners to rent a room to one person?
Alford said it wasn't so much the intent, but the consequence of this
it can be a problem to a lessor and not to the owner.
comment was closed.
Toerge again stated he could not support this amendment
mmissioner Hawkins agreed with Commissioner Toerge and asked if this will
ng to the City Council.
Alford said it would go to the Council, unless it was turned down by t
inning Commission it would not automatically go to Council but would have
appealed.
Harp recommended to move this on to the City Council and then City Attor
ison could address any concerns the Planning Commission may have with
Hawkins believes this is a numbers problem.
n was made by Commissioner Hawkins to recommend adoption of (
dment 2006 -005 to the City Council with the modifications to strike 1
2 under section 20.03.030 and under section 20.05.030 (B) strike 2
3 and make the chances throughout.
None
Henn
ECT: Code Amendment 2006 -007
Day Care Regulations
ould Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code be amende
revise the land use regulations to distinguish day care centers for children ar
rse for adults and establish spacing, concentration, and operational standards?
Alford, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the staff report noting:
. This amendment was initiated to address the concern over the
concentration of day care centers in the residential neighborhoods.
. There is a State preemption on local land use controls that allow smaller
Page 11 of 27
ITEM NO.5
PA2006 -211
Continued to
November 16,
2006
{�/
fil e: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006\ 10 192006.htm 11/03/2006
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Code Amendment No. 2006 -005 Group Residential Regulations
Code Amendment No. 2006 -006 Marine Charter Regulations
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach
Will hold a public hearing regarding the following proposed Code Amendments:
CA 2006 -005 (Group Residential Regulations). An amendment to Section
20.05.030 (Residential Use Classifications) of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code to add a new use classification for Boarding Houses (PA
2006 -198).
CA 2006 -006 (Marine Charter Regulations). Amendments to Title 17
(Harbor Regulations) and Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code to revise land use regulations to permit marine charters by
right in commercial zones and revise procedures relating to the provision
of off - street parking (PA 2006 -194).
The proposed action is not defined as a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and
procedure - making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in
the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines).
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on
November 14. 2006, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the
Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at
which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard
thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public
hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200.
64LP" rn •
LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk
City of Newport Beach
. _
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Code Amendment No. 2006 -005 Group Residential Regulations
Code Amendment No. 2006 -006 Marine Charter Regulations
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach
will hold a public hearing regarding the following proposed Code Amendments:
■ CA 2006 -005 (Group Residential Regulations). An amendment to Section
20.05.030 (Residential Use Classifications) of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code to add a new use classification for Boarding Houses (PA
2006 -198).
■ CA 2006 -006 (Marine Charter Regulations). Amendments to Title 17
(Harbor Regulations) and Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code to revise land use regulations to permit marine charters by
right in commercial zones and revise procedures relating to the provision
of off - street parking (PA 2006 -194).
The proposed action is not defined as a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves general policy and
procedure- making activities not associated with a project or a physical change in
the environment (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines).
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on
November 14. 2006, at the hour of 7:00 P.m. in the Council Chambers of the
Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at
which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard
thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public
hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200.
6W'6 L m.
LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk
City of Newport Beach
Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by
Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number A -6214,
September 29, 1961, and A -24831 June 11, 1963.
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
I am a Citizen of the United States and a
resident of the County aforesaid; I am
over the age of eighteen years, and not a
party to or interested in the below entitled
matter. I am a principal clerk of the
NEWPORT BEACH - COSTA MESA
DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general
circulation, printed and published in the
City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange,
State of California, and that attached
Notice is a true and complete copy as
was printed and published on the
following dates:
November 4, 2006
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on November 6, 2006 at
Costa Mesa, California.
n,
�Jr� -�GYL ✓/ctG��LAL.a -� .
Signature
RECEIVED
2!D6 h10V 13 AM II: 06
HOW Of PUBLIC HEARING
I Code Amendment No.
2006 -005 Group
Residential
Regulations
Code Amendment No.
2006 -006 Marine
Charter BegulaHons
NOTICE IS HEREBY
GIVEN that the City
Council of the City of
Newport Beach will hold
a public hearing regard-
ing the following pro -
p a s e it C o d e
Amendments:
CA 2006 -005
(Gro up Residential Reg-
ulations). An
amendment to Section
20.05.030 (Residential
Use Classifications) of
the Newport Beach Mu-
nicipal Code to add a
new use classification
for Boarding Houses (PA
2006 -198).
■ CA 2006.006 (Ma-
rine Charter Reg-
ulations). Amendments
to Title 17 (Harbor Reg-
ulations) and Title 20
(Zoning Code) of the
Newport Beach Munici.
pal Code to revise land
use regulations to per.
mit marine charters by
right in commercial
zones and revise proce-
dures relating to the
provision of off -street
parking (PA 2006.194).
The proposed action is
not defined as a project
under the California En-
vironmental Quality Act
(CEQA) because it in-
volves general policy
and procedure- making
activities not associated
with a project or a
physical change 'in the
environment (Section
15378 of the CEQA
Guidelines),
NOTICE IS HEREBY
FURTHER GIVEN that
said public hearing will
be held on November
14, 2006, at the hour
of 7-10 p.wt. in the
Council Chambers of the
Newport Beach City
Hall. 3300 Newport Bou
levard. Newport Beach,
California, at which time
and place any and all
persons interested may
appear and be heard
thereon. If you challenge
this project in court,
You may be limited to
raising only those issues
you or someone else
raised at the public
hearing described In this
notice or in written cor-
respondence delivered
to the City at, or prior
to. the public hearing.
For information call
(949) 644 -3200.
/s /LaVonne M. Harkless,
City Clark
City of Newport Beach
Published Newport
Beach /Costa Mesa Daily
Pilot Nov. 4, 2006 Sa6O6
�6�