HomeMy WebLinkAbout17 - Day Care Regulations - PA 2006-211CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 17
December 12, 2006
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Planning Department
Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner
(949) 644 -3235
pa IfordO -city. newoort- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Code Amendment 2006 -007
Day Care Regulations (PA 2006 -211).
ISSUE:
Should Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code be amended
to revise the land use regulations to distinguish day care centers for children and
those for adults and establish spacing, concentration, parking, and operational
standards for Large Family Child Care Homes?
RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct public hearing; introduce Ordinance No. 2006- approving Code
Amendment No. 2006 -007 and pass to second reading on January 9, 2007.
Background
Large Family Child Care Homes and Small Family Child Care Homes are day care
facilities located in residences where an occupant of the residence provides care
and supervision of no more than fourteen (14) children. The California Child Day
Care Facilities Act preempts local land use regulations, but allows cities and counties
to adopt reasonable standards, restrictions, and requirements for Large Family Child
Care Homes relating to spacing, concentration, parking, and operational standards.
The City Council initiated the proposed amendment on September 26, 2006.
Analysis:
The proposed amendment revises Title 20 (Zoning Code) land use regulations to
distinguish day care centers for children and those for adults, as provided for under
Day Care Regulations
December 12, 2006
Page 2
State law. This involves adding two new child care subgroups under the "Day Care,
Limited" land use classification: Large Family Child Care Homes for nine (9) to
fourteen (14) children and Small Family Child Care Homes for eight (8) or fewer
children. Small Family Child Care Homes must be permitted by right. However, the
City can require a nondiscretionary use permit for Large Family Child Care Homes.
No other Day Care, Limited facilities (i.e., adult day care) would be permitted in
residential districts because the land use tables will only list Large Family Child Care
Homes and Small Family Child Care Homes as permitted uses.
It is also proposed that Large Family Child Care Homes and Small Family Child Care
Homes must be the principal residences of the care providers, be licensed by the
State, and comply with applicable building and fire codes and any standards adopted
by the State. In addition, it is proposed that Large Family Child Care Homes obtain a
use permit issued by the Planning Director and comply with the following restrictions:
Spacing /Concentration. A Large Family Child Care Home must be located -at,
least five.hundred (500) feet from any existing day care center.
■
Drop-off/Pick-up. A minimum of two (2) off -street parking spaces must be
provided as a drop -off and pick -up area in addition to those parking spaces
required for the dwelling unit. A driveway may be used, provided it is
approved by the Traffic Engineer based on traffic and pedestrian safety
considerations.
■ Noise. A large family child care home may only operate a maximum of
fourteen (14) hours for each day between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:00
p.m. and may only conduct outdoor activities between the hours of 7:00 a.m.
and 7:00 p.m.
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission held public hearings for the proposed amendment on
October 19, 2006 and November 16, 2006. Discussion at the Planning
Commission hearings focused on off -street parking requirements. After reviewing
representative standards from other communities and data from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE), the Planning Commission decided that two (2) off -
street parking spaces in addition to those required for the residence would be
sufficient.
Lighting Controls
The Planning Commission directed staff to report to the City Council on possible
lighting controls for Large Family Child Care Homes. 'This was in response to
comments by a resident who lives next to a Large Family Child Care Home in a
Day Care Regulations
December 12, 2006
Page 3
Two - Family Residential (R -2) District. The resident stated that he was being.
impacted by floodlights used to illuminate outdoor play areas.
The State preemption limits the City to adopting "reasonable standards, restrictions,
and requirements concerning spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking, and
noise control." Therefore, any other restrictions would also have to apply to all
residences. Currently, the City has only one residential lighting control regulation.
Section 20.60.050 requires a use permit for external lighting for swimming pools,
tennis courts or other uses of a similar nature within residential districts or closer
than 200 feet to the boundary of a residential district. This section specifically
states that this requirement is not to be applied to lighting fixtures that are normally
incidental to the use of a residential structure.
Staff inspected the site of the Large Family Child Care Home that was the subject
of the comment. The front yard is used as a play area. However, the only lighting
-fixture ;observed was a porch light that was partially obscured, by shrubbery.. Staff
does not believe that the lighting of the play area is subject to Sectiom20 :60:050,
since the lighting fixture is one that is typically used on residential, structures:
However, should this or another child care home within or adjacent to a residential
area use other, more intensive, types of lighting fixtures to illuminate a play area, a
use permit would be required pursuant to Section 20.60.050.
Many communities require outdoor lighting fixtures, including those in residential
areas, to be shielded or directed to minimize the impact of glare and reflections on
adjacent properties. Should the City Council desire to establish such standards, staff
believes that it should be addressed in a separate amendment, possibly as part of a
comprehensive zoning code update.
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 (b) (2) 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_
�7
Patrick J. Alford
Senior Planner
Attachments:
Day Care Regulations
December 12, 2006
Page 4
Submitted by:
c
David L o
Planning Director
A. Draft ordinance.
B. Draft Planning Commission resolution.
C. November 16, 2006 Planning Commission staff report.
D. Draft November 16, 2006 Planning Commission minutes.
E. October 19, 2006 Planning Commission staff report.
F. October 19, 2006 Planning Commission minutes.
Attachment A
Draft Ordinance
3
ORDINANCE 2007-
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 DAY
CARE FACILITIES [CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2006-
007]
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 day care centers; and
WHEREAS, current land use regulations for day care centers do not
distinguish between facilities for children and those for adults; and
WHEREAS, the California Child Day Care Facilities Act allows cities to
adopt reasonable standards, restrictions, and requirements for family day care
homes concerning spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking, and noise
control; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of such regulations is necessary in order to
protect the character of the City's residential neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on the
proposed amendment on October 19, 2006 and November 16, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend
approval of this code amendment to the City Council; 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).
io
Page 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 December 12, 2006, and adopted on the gth
day of January, 2007, by the following vote, to wit:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS
MAYOR
M
EXHIBIT A
20.05.030 Residential Use Classifications
A. Day Care. Limited. "Day Care, Limited" means non - residential,
non - medical care and supervision of *L�h�,. -'T fourteen or fewer
persons on a less than twenty -four hour basis. This classification
includes, but is not limited to, nursery schools, preschools, and day
care centers for children (large and small family day care homes)
and adults.
1. Large Family Child Care Homes. Day care facilities located
2. Small Family Child Care Homes. Dav care facilities located
the home count as children served by the day care facility.
Section 20.05.040 Public and Semipublic Land Use Classifications
F. Day Care, General. Provision of non - medical care for th*499A
fifteen or more persons on a less than 24 -hour basis. This
classification includes nursery schools, preschools, and day care
centers for children or adults.
Sections 20.10.020, 20.41.050, 20.43.060 (B), 20.44.035, 20.44.040, 20.45.030
(B)
Revise land use regulation schedules for the Residential - Agricultural (R -A);
Single - Family Residential (R -1), Restricted Two Family Residential (R -1.5), Two
Family Residential (R -2), and Multi - Family Residential (MFR), Newport Shore
Speck Plan (SP -4), Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan (SP-6 R-
1, R -2, and MFR), Santa Ana Heights Speck Plan (SP -7 REQ and RSF), and
the Central Balboa Specific Plan (SP -8 R -2 and MFR) Districts to:
1. Add Large Family Child Care Homes and Small Family Child Care Homes.
EXHIBITA
CA 2006 -007
3
2. Permit Large Family Child Care Homes with a use permit approved by the
Planning Director.
3. Permit Small Family Child Care Homes by right.
4. Indicate that no other Day Care, Limited uses are permitted.
5. Add a cross reference to new Section 20.60.130 (Day Care Facilities for
Children).
20.60.130 Day Care Facilities For Children
Socia[Services.
residential in character. and be incidental and secondary to the use of the
Property as a residence.
D. Additional Standards. Each familv child care home shall comply with
of Regulations. Title 22, Division 2).
E. Use Permit Required for Large Familv Child Care Homes. In addition to
Large Family Child Care Home or other day care facility.
required for the dwelling unit. A driveway may be used to provide
EXHIBIT A
CA 2006 -007
i
these spaces, provided it is approved by the Traffic Engineer based
on traffic and pedestrian safety considerations.
maximum of 14 hours for each day between the hours of 6:00 a.m.
Section 20.66.030
Revise the Off- Street Parking and Loading schedule as follows:
Off Street, Parking and Loading Spaces Required
UseCless fication Off-street Parking `Spaces ,c; <<: ^O"treeb
Loading Spaces
RESIDENTIAL
GROUP RESIDENTIAL
DAY CARE. LIMITED
-LARGE FAMILY CHILD CARE HOMES
1 covered per 2 guest rooms.
2 per site for droD-off and
pick -up numoses fin addition
to the spaces required for the
dwelling unk).
EXHIBIT A
CA 2006-007
16
Attachment B
Draft Planning Commission Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. *
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THE
ADOPTION OF CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2006 -007 (PA
2006 -211)
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
day care centers; and
WHEREAS, public hearings were held on October 19, 2006 and November 16,
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 presenfed o and '
considered `by the Planning Commission at this meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows:
Current land use regulations for day care centers do not distinguish between
facilities for children and those for adults.
2. The California Child Day Care Facilities Act allows cities to adopt reasonable
standards, restrictions, and requirements for family day care homes concerning
spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking, and noise control. .
3. The adoption of such regulations is necessary in order to protect the character
of the City's residential neighborhoods.
4. 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 -007 to Title 20 of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code as provided in Exhibit A.
■
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Resolution No: _
Paae 2 of 2
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2006.
AYES:
NOES:
BY:
. Jeffrey Cole, Chairman
BY:
Robert Hawkins, Secretary
ti
Attachment C
November 16, 2006 Planning Commission Staff Report
r�F
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 6
November 16, 2006
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Planning Department
Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner s
(949) 644 -3235 FILE COPY
palford@city.newport-beach.ca.us
SUBJECT Code Amendment 2006 -007
Day Care Regulations (PA 2006 -211)
ISSUE:
Should Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code be amended to
revise the land use regulations to distinguish day care centers for children and those for
adults and establish spacing, concentration, and operational standards?
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached resolution recommending approval of Code Amendment No. 2006-
007 to the City Council.
DISCUSSION:
Background:
Large Family -Child Care Homes are day care facilities located in residences where an
occupant of the residence provides care and supervision of no more than fourteen (14)
children. The California Child Day Care Facilities Act preempts local land use regulations,
but allows cities and counties to adopt reasonable standards, restrictions, and
requirements for Large Family Child Care Homes, including. those concerning parking.
The proposed code amendment include a requirement that a drop - off /pick -up area must
be identified and approved by the City's Traffic Engineer. This was the only parking
standard proposed.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed code amendment on
October 19, 2006. The Commission continued the hearing and directed staff to return with
an off - street parking requirement.
16
Day Care Regulations
.November 16, 2006
Page 2
Ana is:
A review of other communities that have adopted standards for Large Family Child Care
Homes require a drop -off /pick -up area or off - street parking spaces based on the number
bf children and /or employees, or both. Some communities place additional restrictions on
drop - off /pick -up areas that require vehicles to back out onto arterial streets or streets with
speed limits of 30 or 35 miles per hour or higher. Representative standards from a
num ies.:are provided in Attachment A.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Parking Generation contains
information on parking demand rates for various land uses. The ITE database includes an
analysis of 17 suburban and 21 urban day care locations, 75 percent of which were
located in Tennessee. This data is taken from large commercial day care facilities and not
the smaller, residentially -based Family Child Care Homes. These facilities averaged 85
children, 17 employees, and 4,200 square feet of gross floor area. Nevertheless, this data
can provide a benchmark to determine the appropriate off - street parking requirement.
The ITE analysis indicates, an average peak petiod parking demand from 0.09 to 0.51
vehicles per child with an average of_ 0.24 vehicles per child. Vehicles per employee
ranged from 0.53 to 2.50 with an average of 135 vehicles per employee. Vehicles per
square foot ranged from 1.18 to 8.67 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area with an
average of 3.16 vehicles per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Counts were taken
between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m, and between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m.
Basing the parking requirement on the number of children or employees would be
problematic since it would be difficult to verify and the numbers may vary over time.
Therefore, establishing a set minimum number of off -street parking spaces per site is
recommended.
After reviewing the requirements from other communities and the ITE analysis, staff
believes that two (2) off -street parking spaces should be sufficient to accommodate the
parking demand for a facility with fourteen (14) children or less. This requirement would
be in addition to the two (2) off -street parking spaces required for the dwelling unit. A
driveway may be used for this purpose, provided the City s Traffic Engineer has approved
it as safe for dropping off and picking up children.
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).
NO
Day Care Regulations
November 16, 2006
Page 3
Public Notice:
Notice of the October 19, 2006 hearing was published In the DaYY FWot 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.
Prepared by:
atrick J. A ord
Senior Planner
Attachments:
Submitted by:
David Lepo
Planning DIKector
A. Representative parking standards for Large Family Child Care Homes.
B. Draft resolution.
C. October 19, 2006 Planning Commission staff report.
I�
Representative Parking Standards for Large Family Child Care Homes
Community
Standard
The ay council may admit general standards that may be applied to large family day care home
Costa Mesa
applications on a case-by-case basis. The final review authority may use these standards to impose
conditions upon the approval to achieve the purposes set forth in section 1331 and to maintain
neighborhood stability and cohesiveness.
Dana Point
7 staly2 employees, plus t stall/5 children, based on facility capacity.
I space for each staff member, plus, t space for each 5 children, or t space for each 10 children where a
Laguna Beach
circular driveway or its equivalent, designed for the continuous flow of passenger vehicles for the purpose
of loading and unloading children and capable of simultaneousy, accommodating at least 2 such
vehicles, is provided on the site.
San Clemente
A passenger loading plan shall be approved by the decision- making body having authority over the
permit for the large family day care home.
A minimum of two off - street parking spaces shall be provided in addition to those required by Section
17.36.040 (Number of Parking Spaces Required) for the single-famiy dwelling. The driveway may be
used to provide Neese spaces, 9 the driveway Is of sufficient length to accommodate the parking of two
vehicles without either blocking any sidewalk or other pedestrian access.
Colati
..
A ham located on a site with no on-street parking eivrediately in front of the site stall provide two'
offskeet parking spaces for drop-oft in addition to the spaces required by Subsection C.2.a
A home located on a street with a speed limit of 30 miles per how or greater shall provide two off-street
parking spaces for drop-offs in addition to the spaces required by Subsection C.2a, that are designed to
prevent vehicles from backing onto the street (e.g., circular driveway).
3 spaces minimum, may include spaces provided to fulfill residential parting requirements and onsUeet
parking so long as it a" the site.
At least two off-greet parking spaces shall be provided oiclusivey for dropping off and picking up
children. The driveway may be used to provide the off - street parting required by Section 13.36.040, if the
Looms
parking will not obstruct any required drop off and pick up areas nor block any sidewalks or other public
access. Aftemative parking and drop -of arrangements may be approved by the director based on traffic
and pedestrian safety considerations.
A home located on a sheet with a speed knit of thirty -five miles per tour or greater shall provide a drop-
off/pick-up area designed to prevent vehicles from backing onto the street (e g. circular driveway).
I space per employee, in addition to required residential spaces.
Offsbeet parking shall be as determined through use permit approval, but shall be a minimum of one
space per employee on the largest shill
Novato
A safe area for picking up and dropping off children shall be provided. This activity shall only be allowed
In a drveway, in an approved parking area, or in an area with direct access to the facility.
The use shall not negatively impact on-street parking in the neighborhood.
All dwellings used for large family day pre facilities shall provide at least three (3) automobile parking
Sonoma
spaces. These may include spaces already provided to fulfill residential parking requirements and on-
skeet parking so long as it abuts the site.
ATTACHMENT A
19
Attachment D
November 16, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes
t9
Planning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006
Potion was mAtle-b ommissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissione
cDaniel to continue this ite mber 7, 2006.
yes: Eaton, Peotter, Haw i cDaniel, Toerge and Henn
oes: None
bstaln: None
UBJECT: Code Amendment 2006 -007 (PA2006 -211) ITEM No. 6
Day Care Regulations PA2006 -211
could Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code be amendedKecommenae
revise the land use regulations to distinguish day care centers for children anj approval
)se for adults and establish spacing, concentration, and operational standards?
person Cole noted that this item would be heard first as a member of
has requested.
ssioner Henn noted he would abstain from discussion and vote on
as he had not participated in the initial meeting on this subject.
k Alford, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the staff report noting th
ing:
This item had been heard at the public hearing on October 19th.
This is a set of regulations dealing with large family child care homes and
intended to allow the City to avail itself of the land use controls permitt
under State Law.
Staff was directed to return with this item with an off - street parking stand
which in our report deals with the standards in the Institute
Transportation Engineers publication Parking Generation
representative standards for parking from other communities.
The staff report includes a recommendation that the off street park
standard be set as two off - street parking spaces and a drop -off and pick
area approved by the City's Traffic Engineer and that a driveway could
used for this purpose. This is in addition to any required off - street park
for the actual dwelling unit on the property.
comment was opened.
Garrett, local resident, noted:
He lives next to a day care center.
Concerned with lighting with flood lights in a residential area.
Concerned also with the noise and traffic issues related to this use as well.
He asked that something be added to the current Municipal Code
regards to lighting in a residential neighborhood.
At Commission inquiry, he added:
Pick -up and drop -off occur at a red- painted curb in front and
file : //F:1Users\PLNlSharedlGvarin\PC min eta11200611 1 1 62006.htm
Page 16 of 18
as
12/01/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 1 1/16/2006
are cars waiting in line.
We have 3 -foot setbacks.
At times he has to use ear protection in order to rest during the day
it is so loud with the children playing outside in the front yard.
The front yard is fenced.
comment was closed.
4r. Alford noted that there are no current standards for residential lighting and it
lore of a common standard regarding shielding direction away for commerc
reas. State preemptions limit us to controls dealing with issues of concentrati
nd spacing, traffic, parking and noise. Effects of light impacts may not fall with
lose categories. Our noise control standard would limit the overall operation
4 hours between the hours of 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. and outdoor activities betwe
ie hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., so this might provide some relief from the lighti"
le suggested that this issue be addressed in a general standard for resident
rea dealing with light and glare.
Temple added that perhaps the designation for outdoor lighting of swin
s and tennis courts might be- applicable. She noted that the State piew
restrict this application and staff will, therefore, work with the City Altoi
a and present findings at the Council meeting, if the Commission wishes.
Alford added that the proposed standards have added language that the
Is be essentially residential in character. The care provider residen
dard states that this use is clearly residential in use and character ai
lental and secondary to the use of the property as a residence. The Zonii
iinistrator, in reviewing these future use permits, can use this as a way
rolling lighting and some other types of activities that might deviate from
iential character of the area.
Commission request, Ms. Temple read Section 20.60.050 entitled
Peotter asked about the employee parking.
Alford noted the survey was taken on a number of day care facilities
erent settings and are not the small ones in residential neighborhoods and ti
y are the larger commercial facilities as the number of children indicates, v
average of 85. He noted there are no set staffing requirements and can open
h a single care provider. It would be problematic to try and enforce a stand;
t could change over time by addingiremoving employees, adding /removing I
nber of children.
continued on review processes.
;on Cole noted we could recommend approval of this item to the
and request that staff add additional language regarding lig
Commissioner Hawkins noted that perhaps another standard relating to reside
lighting needs to be inserted in the Code. The staff report needs to include
consideration.
file: //F: \Users \PLMShared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006\1 1162006.htm
Page 17 of 18
al
12/01/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 11/16/2006
sistant City Attorney Harp noted his agreement that there may be general
andards in the code that need to be altered and that general regulations that
pply
D��
otton made by Commissioner Hawkins and seconded by Commissioner
cDaniel to recommend approval to the City Council by adopting the resolution
nd staff is directed to do further research regarding residential lighting for these
nd all residential facilities.
yes:
Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Toerge
oes:
None
bstain:
Henn
ITIONAL BUSINESS:
ADDITIONAL
BUSINESS
3. Council Follow -up - Ms. Temple noted the City Council considered an
ap oved the Marine Charter Land Use Parking Regulations; the Grou
Resi tial Facilities Code Amendment; continued the Big Canyon Count
Club G eral Plan Amendment until January 9th at the request of the
applicant there was concern over the pending EIR litigation and the
appeal for Ou ady Queen of Angels expansion was denied.
Report from Plan ' g Commission's representative to the Economic
Development Comm' - no report.
C. Report from the Planning Co mission's representative to the Local Coasta
Committee - no meeting.
d. Matters which a Planning Commissi er would like Staff to report on at
subsequent meeting - Commissione . Peotter would like to see the
meetings organized better and suggeste that there be an annual Zone
Code clean -up. Discussion ensued and thi 'tern will be brought back i
January.
e. Matters which a Planning Commissioner may wish place on a future
agenda for action and staff report - none.
f. Project status - none.
g. Requests for excused absences - Commissioner Henn has been at ad t
the City Council, therefore, this is his last meeting he will be atten ' g.
Following a brief discussion, it was decided to start the next meeting
5:00 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT: 11:15 p.m.
DJOUR ENT
ROBERT HAWKINS, SECRETARY
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
file: //F: \Users \PLMShared \Gvarin\PC min etal\2006 \11162006.htm
Page 18 of 18
T
,2a
12/01/2006
Attachment E
October 19, 2006 Planning Commission Staff Report
,�3
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ®FILE COPY
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 5
October 19, 2006
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Planning Department
Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner
(949) 644 -3235
pa Ifo rdO city. n ewport-bea ch. ca. us
SUBJECT: Code Amendment 2006 -007
Day Care Regulations (PA 2006 -211)
ISSUE:
Should Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code be amended to
revise the land use regulations to distinguish day care centers for children and those for
adults and establish spacing, concentration, and operational standards?
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached resolution recommending approval of Code Amendment No. 2006-
007 to the City Council.
DISCUSSION:
Background:
The City Council initiated the proposed amendment on September 26, 2006.
Introduction:
The proposed amendment 'is intended to address the concern of potential over
concentration of day care centers in residential neighborhoods. Day care facilities
supervising twelve (12) or fewer persons (Day Care, Limited) are permitted by right in-
residential, commercial, and institutional zoning districts, while day care facilities
supervising thirteen (13) or more persons (Day Care, General) require a use permit. The
concern is that large day care centers could be established on abutting single - family
residential lots or within dwelling units on a two - family or multifamily residential lot. Thus, a
residential neighborhood would be impacted by what is effectively a large day care facility,
but without the regulatory controls of a use permit.
Day Care Regulations
October 19, 2006
Page 2
The City's regulation of day care centers reflects the California Child Day Care Facilities
Act. This State law prohibits cities and counties from prohibiting 'family day care homes"
for children on lots zoned for single - family dwellings. This preemption establishes two
types of family day care facilities: "small family day care homes for eight (8) children or
less and "large family day care homes" for seven (7) to fourteen (14) children'.
Furthermore, cities and counties are required to either permit large family day care homes
by right in residential zones or grant nondiscretionary permits for large family day care
homes in single - family zones. Reasonable standards, restrictions, and requirements
concerning spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking, and noise control are
permitted.
The Zoning Code does not incorporate all of the distinctions provided for under the State
law. Both small and large day care facilities for children are included in the Day Care,
Limited land use classification, which includes facilities for children or adults.. Furthermore,
the Zoning Code contains no regulations regarding spacing and concentration, traffic
control, parking, and noise control.
Analysis:
The proposed amendment revises the land use regulations to distinguish day care centers
for children and those for adults, as provided for under State law. This involves adding two
new subgroups under the Day Care, Limited land use classification: Large Family Child
Care Homes for nine (9) to fourteen (14) children and Small Family Child Care Homes for
eight (8) or fewer children.
Small family child care homes must be permitted by right. However, State law allows the
City the option of requiring a use permit for large family child care homes. The use permit
must be nondisc retionary, meaning that is must be approved if the large family child care
home complies with all local regulations. Therefore, it is proposed that large family child
care homes require a use permit issued by the Planning Director.
The proposed amendment adds a new section to the Zoning Code (Section 20.60.130)
that requires all family child care homes (small and large) to be the principal residence of
the care provider, to be licensed by the State, and comply with applicable building and fire
codes and any standards adopted by the State. These are all State requirements, but
referencing them in the Zoning Code allows for local enforcement.
As stated earlier, State law allows the City to adopt reasonable standards, restrictions, and
requirements for large family child care homes concerning spacing and concentration,
traffic control, parking, and noise control. Therefore, the proposed amendment adds a
new section to the Zoning Code (Section 20.60.130), which includes the following
' The Zoning Code does currently not reflect the change in State law that increased the size of small
family day care homes from 6 to 8 children and large family day care homes from 12 to 14.
a5
Day Care Regulations
October 19, 2006
Page 3
standards:
■ Spacing /Concentration. A large family child care home must be located at least five
hundred (500) feet from an existing day care center.
Drop -off /Pick -up. A drop - off /pick -up area must be identified and approved by the
City's Traffic Engineer.
Noise. A large family child care home may only operate a maximum of fourteen
(14) hours for each day between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. and may
only conduct outdoor activities between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
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.
Prepared by:
Patrick J. Alford
Senior Planner
Attachments:
1. Draft resolution.
Submitted by:
Patricia L. T m e
Planning Director
.i 6
Attachment F
October 19, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes
ot�
Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 Page 11 of 27
Ir. George Schroeder, landlord and real estate broker, wanted to state that �
a basically in agreement with Staff's recommendations. He pointed out tt
de lease agreement he has drawn up has a clause that the lessee can not SL
ase. II one would need to do is call up his landlord and add a person's name
ie existi agreement for the time period that person may be staying. When t
Jded pens leaves, they would revert back to the original lease. He also ask
this code a ndment would apply to Balboa Island.
Alford answere'djt is City -wide.
Harp wanted to kn if the intent was not to allow anyone to sub -lease
v owners to rent a roo to one person?
Alford said it wasn't so mu the intent, but the consequence of this apprm
it can be a problem to a lasso nd not to the owner.
tlic comment was closed.
nmissioner Toerge again stated he Id not support this amendment
iissioner Hawkins agreed with Commissioner Toerge and asked if this will bI
to the City Council. ..
Alford said it would go to the Council, unless it wbk turned down by 1
inning Commission it would not automatically go to Coun 'I but would have
appealed.
Harp recommended to move this on to the City Council and the ity Attorr
wson could address any concerns the Planning Commission may h e with 1
Hawkins believes this is a numbers problem.
Motion was made by Commissioner Hawkins to recommend adoption of Code
Amendment 2006 -005 to the City Council with the modifications to strike 1 and
insert 2 under section 20.03.030 and under section 20.05.030 (B) strike 2 and
insert 3 and make the changes throughout.
yes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel and Toerge
oes: None
cased: Henn : �1
ITEM NO. S
SUBJECT: Code Amendment 2006 -007 PA2006 -211
Day Care Regulations
Continued to
Should Title 20 (Zoning Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code be amended November 16,
to revise the land use regulations to distinguish day care centers for children and 2006
hose for adults and establish spacing, concentration, and operational standards?
Patrick Alford, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the staff report noting:
• This amendment was initiated to address the concern over the potentia
concentration of day care centers in the residential neighborhoods.
• There is a State preemption on local land use controls that allow smaller da a�
file: //F:1UserslPLNlShared\GvarinlPC min eta112006110192006.htm 12/01/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 Page 12 of 27
care center in residential districts by right, but also allow certain options to
the City which include limiting them to day care center for children and to
require a none discretionary permit for that use.
• The proposed amendment would allow the City to avail itself of the option
that are presented under the State preemption and would change our land
use classifications to break up our Day Care Limited land use classification
with 2 new subgroups: the Large Family Child Care Homes for nine (9) to
fourteen (14) children and the Small Family Child Care Homes for eight (8)
or fewer children.
• We would revise the land use schedules for the residential districts.
• We are proposing a set of standards for day care facilities for children whit
would be added to Chapter 20.60. There are provisions for licensing, criteria
for child care provider's residence, standards dealing with separation
requirements set at 500 feet, requirement for drop - off /pick -up area to be
identified and approve by the Traffic Engineer, and a noise provision that
would limit operation to a maximum of fourteen (14) hours for each day
between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. and outdoor activities between
the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
ommissione'r Eaton had a question on the map that shows existing family child :'
rs homes and how many of them were the Large Family Child Care Homes.
Mr. Alford said the breakdown was not available from the sources the information
s compiled from.
ommissioner Eaton had sent an email earlier asking why we had not utilized the
ption, which the State gives, of requiring off - street parking for the larger facilities
f 9 to 14 children. He said Mr. Alford had responded to his email, that would be
roblematic in the areas where the primary access was an alley and they may no
oe able to provide off - street parking. Commissioner Eaton wondered if we wan
he larger child care facilities in areas as dense as Balboa Island or Corona del
War where you only have Voot side yards and alley access and were these
appropriate places to have that many children in one facility.
Mr. Alford pointed out that the following:
• These are largely single - family zones and we would have to open them u
under the State preemption.
• We could require a non - discretionary permit, but we could not exclude thern
entirely.
• Most communities in Califomia have dealt with the parking issue by
adopting standards requiring a drop - off /pick -up area only and some have
more detail on the type of streets this is allowed.
• We have adopted a similar standard that would be a problem in areas where
the driveways are not fronting the street and the off - street parking is
accessed from an alley.
• We opted for the recommendation that a drop -off /pick -up area be identifi
and approved by the Traffic Engineer. ay
file: //F:IUsers\PLMSharedlGvarinlPC min eta112006110192006.htm 12/01/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 Page 13 of 27
Commissioner Eaton asked where would the drop - off /pick -up sites be for such
yeas.
Mr. Alford said most likely it would be in the street in front of the residence.
ommissioner Eaton asked if that would require the cooperation of the City i
esignating a public street zone.
Or. Alford answered it wouldn't be solely designated for that purpose, but a place
hat showed where children could be safely dropped -off and picked -up.
ommissioner Eaton pointed out the possibility of double parking in a narrow
treat when picking -up children in the late afternoon at a time when the area get
asked up quickly.
Mr. Alford suggested hearing from Public Works on this issue since they will be
viewing it.
mmissioner Eaton feels it would be a problem having 9 to 14 children in
dwelling unit with a 3 -foot setbacks in a high density area.
Mr. Edmonston, Transportation /Development Services Manager, noted the
following:
• Agreed that the intent was to create a safe area for children to be picked -up.
• The implementation required would be a marking on a curb with a possible
time4imit basis, etc.
• What happens in you have 9 to 14 children and 2 or 3 cars show up a once;
you would have the same problem even if you mark a spot in an area that
was easy to get in and out of, because it would more than likely be marked
for one car.
ommissioner Eaton said that adds to his feelings that perhaps these large
alities not be encouraged in these densely populated areas.
ommissioner Hawkins was also concerned with the larger facilities and the off
reet parking. Perhaps a parking requirement is needed to regulate areas where
hese larger facilities are not suited.
ommissioner Peotter asked what the staff requirements are for the large day car
cilities.
Mr. Alford answered it varies depending on the number and ages of the children.
e State law regulates this.
ft
ommissioner Peotter posed this question because the off -street parking could be
eared towards the number of staff and not just for a drop - off /pick -up area.
Mr. Alford said most require 2 spaces that can be provided in the driveway. Some
mmunities have required that cars cannot back out into the street if the speed
imit is in excess of 35 MPH. One community has required a space for each car
rovider in addition to the drop - off /pick -up.
file ) /F:1UserslPLNl3haredlGvarinlPC min eta112006110192006.htm 12/01/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006 Page 14 of 27
ommissioner Peotter asked if the State requires a certain amount of space for the
arge day care facilities; exterior and interior space. That would tend to limit the
ites that are practical for these facilities.
r. Alford said there are certain limits and is part of the licensing. We are limited
o:
• Concentration issues.
• Traffic control.
• Parking
• Noise
• Fin; Codes
. Building Codes
Beyond that we are not permitted to additional regulations.
Commissioner Peotter asked if the 500 -foot setback is used by most other cities.
Mr. Alford said yes most have been a.300 or 500 foot separation.
ommissioner Peotter asked if two neighbors had day care facilities and mad
arrangement to share play areas, that would not be permitted under the proposal.
r. Alford said that was correct. With the intent under State law and what we are
Tying to do, is to make sure they're safe for the smaller facilities. If they go into
arger facility they will be forced to go through the normal use permit process.
mother concern is this happening in a two- family area, the R -1.5, District, R-2
3istrict, or Multi - Family District, where you might have multiple dwelling units on
Ingle property and have the large facilities with 28 or higher children on one lot.
ich is one of the major reasons behind this amendment.
ommissioner Peotter asked what the use permit fee will be for the large
cilities.
Ws. Temple said we would charge are normal fee for processing the permit, which
s based on the amount of time we spend handling it.
ommissioner Peotter asked if it would be less than a Zoning Administrator fee.
s. Temple said the Planning Director use permits are delegated to the Zoning
dministrator. They are approved by him, the fees are modified based on the
ifferent processing and noticing requirements and this has proved to be very
fficient by using one person.
r. Harp suggested the option of tying the parking requirement to the number stafl
t the facility.
r. Alford felt they could draft something if given the direction on the intent to
rovide some type of parking for staff and give some consideration that staff is th
esident of the dwelling unit and could use their normal off- street parkin 31
file: //F:1Users\PLN\Shared\Gvarin\PC min eta112006110192006.htm 12/01/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006
for that purpose.
comment was opened.
Anjah Shaidaie asked the following:
. Does the processing fee goes directly to the salary of the people working
processing the permit?
. Are there a fines for any parking violations of these facilities or not having
permit to run the facility and where do these fines go?
Temple answered:
. The processing fee is both the cost of the Staff who process and handle
permit and the postage costs and cost for notification in the newspaper.
All the existing Large Family Day Care facilities, should this regulation
adopted, would be considered legal and non - conforming and they cc
continue their operations. If a new facility applied to the State, we we
have notified the State of our regulations and they would contact us bef
. issuing a license to make sure all of the local regulations where
compliance.
comment was dosed.
nissioner Eaton said he would like to see a continuance in order to get
information from Staff on the following:
What are the State requirements that may have a de -facto effect in terms
allowing the larger facilities in the more intensely developed areas; are the
State requirement for play areas? By looking at the map, we do have
existing facilities in these intense areas; 2 in the R -2 Zone and 1 in the R -1
Zone.
. Would like Staff to give more information on how other cities are hand
this and what type of parking requirement they have come up with so
might see it.
bon made by Commissioner Peotter to approve with Staffs recommends
an addition, under E4, requiring on -site parking based on State staff
jirements, which will be reviewed by the City Engineer.
nmissioner Hawkins said he wasn't sure he could support the motion.
ited clarification if it is on -site parking for the employees. He also had cons
the drop -off issues, with respect to the large facilities, and would like to
ommodations for drop -off of the children and parking associated with the c
stant City Attorney Harp said this item is not as critical as other items
can be brought back at a later date.
Cole asked if there was a timing urgency from the City on this item.
Temple answered no and due to the nature of these questions it would
file: //F: \Users\PLN\Shared \Gvarin \PC min etal\2006 \10192006.htin
Page 15 of 27
as
12/01/2006
Planning Commission Minutes 10/19/2006
to continue this item.
Motion was made by Commissioner Eaton to continue this item
16. 2006.
None
Henn
ITEM N
JECT: Holiday Inn Express ( PA2006 -182 ) PA246 A8
2
2300 West Coast Highway
Continued to
app ' nt requests the approval of a 19. room expansion of a 64 room existing November 2,
tel. Th o -story addition is fully compliant with applicable standards and will 2006
located a he rear of the existing two -story motel building.
fine Marrelli, sistant Planner, gave an overview of the staff report noting:
• This is an existr motel.
• The proposal is to a 19 guestrooms to the existing 64 rooms,.for a total o
83.
There will be on -site parkin as required by the Zoning Code.
• Staff feels they have met or caftveet all the findings for the Use Permit, a
for the compliance with the M 'ner's. Mile Design Framework which
required by the Mariners Mile Spec Plan.
ice White, from Government Solutions a\onbehalf or Holiday Inn Expre
e a PowerPoint presentation noting the foShowed an aerial view of the project s out other business's a
offices in the area.
• History of Site - approved in 1987 as a 53 -room mot remodel approved
March 2002 which included the elimination of a restau nt, to add 11 gu(
rooms and remodel the exterior to enclose the balconies.
• Current Use - 64 -rooms with a .5 FAR; the General Plan a
Mile Specific Plan designate the site as Retail Service Cc
SP5); Coastal Land Use Plan as General Commercial (GC).
Page 16 of 27
• Now Requesting - Amend existing Conditional Use Permit to alto an
additional 19 guest rooms (12 on the ground floor and 7 on the sec Nd
floor); building height would be consistent with the existing structure -21
7 inches.
• Proposed Use - 83 room motel, 83 parking spaces and .7 FAR.
• The new addition is in the rear of the properly.
• Showed views of a single room and a suite.
• Low Season - January through April and October through December; High 33
file: //F:1UserslPLN\SharedlGvarinlPC min eta112006110192006.htm 12101/2006
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Code Amendment No. 2006 -007 Day Care 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 Amendment:
CA 2006 -007 (Day Care Regulations) An amendment to 'rite 20 (Zoning
Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to revise the land use
regulations to distinguish day care centers for children and those for adults
and establish spacing, concentration, and operational standards (PA
2006 -211).
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
December 12. 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.
LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk
City of Newport Beach
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Code Amendment No. 2006 -007 Day Care 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 Amendment:
• CA 2006 -007 (Day Care Regulations) An amendment to Title 20 (Zoning
Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to revise the land use
regulations to distinguish day care centers for children and those for adults
and establish spacing, concentration, and operational standards (PA
2006 -211).
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
December 12. 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.
LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk
City of Newport Beach
11 /3UJ� �
-�5 0/0
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:
December 2, 2006
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on December 5, 2006 at
Costa
aM/
Mesa, California.
)01T `'uan n&'E'X�
Signature
-417
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Code Amendment
No. 2006 -007
Day Care Regulations
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 u s e d C o d e
Amendment:
■ CA 2006 -007
(Day Care Regulations)
An amendment to Title
20 (Zoning Code) of the
Newport each Munici.
Pandal Code to revise the
use regulations to
distinguish day care
centers for children and
those for adults and
establish spacing. con-
centration. and oper-
ational standards (PA
2006.211).
The proposed action is
not defined as a project
under the California En-
vironmental Quality Act
(CEQA) because it in-
volves general policy
a oroiect or a
NOTICE IS HEREBY
FURTHER GIVEN that
said public hearing will
he held on December
12, 2006, at the hour
of 7:00 P.M. 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 chal-
lenge this project in
court, you may be
limited to raising only
those Issues you or
someone else raised at
the public hearing de.
scribed in this notice or
in written corre.
spondence delivered to
the City at, or prior to,
the public hearing. For
information cell (949)
644.3200,
LaVonne M. Harkless.
City Clerk
City of Newport Beach
Published Newport
Beach /Costa Mesa Daily
Pilot December 2. 2006
S8618