HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-08-27 GPLCP_Agenda PacketCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN/LCP
fi
t�
�-
IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
AGENDA
Newport Coast Meeting Room (Bay 2E, Room 2017)
Thursday, August 27, 2015 - 4:30 PM
Committee Members:
Edward Selich, Mayor (Chair)
Diane Dixon, Mayor Pro Tem
Tony Petros, Council Member
Bradley Hillgren, Planning Commissioner
Kory Kramer, Planning Commission Chair
Peter Koetting, Planning Commission Secretary
Michael Toerge, At -Large Member
Staff Members:
Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director
Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director
Patrick Alford, Planning Program Manager
Michael Torres, Assistant City Attorney
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of March 26, 2015 Meeting Minutes
Recommended Action: Approve March 26, 2015 minutes (attached)
IV. CURRENT BUSINESS
a. Coastal Commission Update
Summary: An update on recent discussions with Coastal Commission staff.
Recommended Action: Receive information; review "LCP Implementation Plan Key Issues" (attached);
provide direction to staff, as necessary.
b. Revised Draft LCP Implementation Plan
Summary: A review of the revised Draft Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan.
Recommended Action: Review "Summary of Revisions to Draft Implementation Plan" (attached) and
Revised Draft Implementation Plan (http://www.newportbeachca.gov/PLN/August2015Re view. asp);
provide direction to staff, as necessary.
V. COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH MEMBER WOULD LIKE PLACED ON A FUTURE
AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT (NON -DISCUSSION ITEM)
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
VII. NEXT MEETING
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
THIS COMMITTEE IS SUBJECT TO THE RALPH M. BROWN ACT. AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE BROWN ACT REQUIRES THAT THE
COMMITTEE'S AGENDA BE POSTED AT LEAST SEVENTY-TWO (72) HOURS IN ADVANCE OF EACH REGULAR MEETING AND THAT THE
PUBLIC BE ALLOWED TO COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AND ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA BUT ARE1WITHIN
THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE COMMITTEE. THE COMMITTEE MAY LIMIT PUBLIC COMMENTS TO A REASONABLE AMOUNT
OF TIME, GENERALLY THREE (3) MINUTES PER PERSON.
IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO COMPLY WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) IN ALL
RESPECTS. IF, AS AN ATTENDEE OR A PARTICIPANT AT THIS MEETING, YOU WILL NEED SPECIAL ASSISTANCE BEYOND WHAT IS
NORMALLY PROVIDED, THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH WILL ATTEMPT TO ACCOMMODATE YOU IN EVERY REASONABLE MANNER.
PLEASE CONTACT LEILANI BROWN, CITY CLERK, AT LEAST 72 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING TO INFORM US OF YOUR PARTICULAR
NEEDS AND TO DETERMINE IF ACCOMMODATION IS FEASIBLE (949)-644-3005 OR CITYCLERK@NEWPORTBEACHCA.GOV).
V µ NEWPORT BEACH
ITEM TITLE: Approval of March 26, 2015 Meeting Minutes
ITEM SUMMARY: Recommended Action: Approve March 26, 2015 minutes (attached)
RECOMMENDED
ACTION:
CEQA Compliance:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
2015-03-26 GP/LCPIC Meeting Minutes
S
City of Newport Beach
General Plan/LCP Implementation Committee Minutes
Date: March 26, 2015
Location: Newport Beach Civic Center — 100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Coast Meeting Room (Bay 2E, Room 2017)
Members Edward Selich, Mayor (Chair); Diane Dixon, Mayor Pro Tem;
Present: Tony Petros, Council Member; Bradley Hillgren, Planning
Commissioner; and Kory Kramer, Planning Commission Vice
Chair.
Members Absent: Jay Myers, Planning Commission Secretary and Michael Toerge,
At -Large Member.
Staff: Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director; Brenda
Wisneski, Deputy Community Development Director; Michael
Torres, Assistant City Attorney; James Campbell, Principal
Planner; and Patrick Alford, Planning Program Manager
Public: James Mosher, Kathleen Crum, and Bill Kenney, Harbor
Commissioner
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 4:36 pm.
II. ROLL CALL
Chair Selich invited those present to introduce themselves. Commissioner Myers and Mr.
Toerge were absent.
Harbor Commissioner Kenney informed the Committee that he would serve as a liaison with the
Harbor Commission.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the February 26, 2015 meeting were approved with the modifications suggested
by Mr. Mosher (Motion Petros, Second Dixon, 5-0).
IV. CURRENT BUSINESS
IVa.. Update on Community Outreach Program
Mr. Alford updated the Committee on the commercial property owners meeting and the
Bayshores Community Association meeting. He said that Harbor Commission and Planning
Commission study sessions and the Corona del Mar Town Meeting were next. In response to a
question from Chair Selich, he stated that there were few comments on the Draft
Implementation Plan (IP) document and most were concerned about the procedure and
schedule.
4
General Plan/LCP Implementation Committee
March 26, 2015, Minutes
Page 2
In response to a question from Chair Selich, Mr. Kenney stated that the Harbor Commission had
not reviewed the IP yet.
IVb. Coastal Commission Update
Mr. Alford and Ms. Brandt briefed the Committee on their first monthly meeting they had that
afternoon with California Coastal Commission (CCC) staff, which covered public access
provisions. They reported that the meeting was productive and that they had received
substantive comments.
Mr. Alford distributed an updated schedule for the certification of the Draft IP.
Council Member Petros asked the Committee to keep in mind the CCC staff who attends these
meetings and cautioned staff about maintaining consistency.
In response to a question from Chair Selich, Mr. Alford stated that CCC staff gave no indication
that they would not ask for a one -year -time extension to review the Draft IP. He added that CCC
staff routinely requests and receives one -year -time extensions; however, that does not
necessarily mean that they will take the entire year.
In response to a question from Chair Selich, Ms. Brandt confirmed that staff has statement of
qualifications from three firms that could provide advocacy services on behalf of the City.
Chair Selich invited public comments. In response to a question from Mr. Mosher, Mr. Alford
explained that the topics to be discussed at each meeting with CCC staff were suggested by the
City.
IVc. Draft Lower Cost Overnight Visitor Accommodation Program
Mr. Campbell summarized the Draft Lower Cost Overnight Visitor Accommodation Program and
invited comments.
Chair Selich spoke of the recent CCC workshop on this subject and the lack of a consistent
methodology. A discussion ensued about incorporating other types of accommodations, such as
short-term rentals, into the program.
In response to a question from Council Member Petros, Mayor Selich stated that short-term
rentals could be used to demonstrate that the City is adequately serving the lower-cost market,
making a project -by -project impact analysis unnecessary. Mr. Petros then presented his
comments to staff.
Mr. Kenney suggested identifying free anchorages as an alternative lower-cost visitor -serving
accommodation.
Chair Selich invited comments from the public. In response to a question from Mr. Mosher, Mr.
Alford and Mr. Campbell stated that the program expands upon provisions that are contained in
the Draft IP.
5
General Plan/LCP Implementation Committee
March 26, 2015, Minutes
Page 3
The Committee directed staff to proceed with a market study related to the existing provision of
lower-cost accommodations in the City in comparison to other coastal communities as a
strategy for this program (Motion Petros/Second Hillgren, 5-0).
Chair Selich questioned the basis in the Coastal Act for requiring lower-cost accommodations
and how the CCC established the nexus between a project and the impact. Mr. Torres replied
that the City would have to show the nexus if the program, which includes a development
impact fee, goes before the City Council. A discussion ensued on how other development
impact fees are determined.
IVd. LCP Rapid Response Team
Mr. Alford stated that staff would like the Committee to designate one to three members who
would provide feedback to staff on how to respond to CCC staff comments on the Draft IP. He
added that this would help keep LCP certification on schedule by allowing staff to respond to
CCC staff as quickly as possible.
Chair Selich invited public comments. In response to comments from Mr. Mosher, Mr. Torres
said that this would be an ad hoc advisory subcommittee and would not be subject to the Brown
Act.
The Committee designated Chair Selich and Commissioner Kramer (Motion Petros, Second
Kramer, 5-0).
V. COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OR MATTERS WHICH MEMBER WOULD LIKE
PLACED ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION OR REPORT
None.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
7VI1. NEXT MEETING
Thursday, April 30, 2015, at 4:30 p.m.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
Edward Selich, Chair
The agenda for the General Plan/LCP Implementation Committee meeting was posted on March 19,
2015, at 2:55 p.m. in the Chambers binder and on the digital display board located inside the vestibule of
the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive and on the City's website on March 19, 2015, at 3:09
p.m.
0
ITEM TITLE:
ITEM SUMMARY
RECOMMENDED
ACTION:
U,Iar_[43:1IT, 14zI&I
Description
Draft IP Key Issues
NEWPORT BEACH
Coastal Commission Update
Summary: An update on recent discussions with Coastal Commission staff.
Recommended Action: Receive information; review 1CP Implementation Plan
Key Issues" (attached); provide direction to staff, as necessary.
CEQA Compliance:
7
LCP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Key Issues
ISSUE 1
PERMIT AND APPEAL JURISDICTION MAPS
The Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Maps establish the boundaries of the Coastal
BACKGROUND:
Zone, appeals areas, exclusion areas, deferred certification areas, and other coastal -
related areas within the Coastal Zone in the City.
CCC POSITION:
Coastal Commission staff maintains that their Mapping Unit is responsible for the
preparation of these maps.
BACKGROUND:
The City provided the Mapping Unit with all the GIS data used to produce the Permit
and Appeal Jurisdiction Map in February 2015. As of this time (Aug. 2015), the City
CITY RESPONSE:
has not received any substantive response. City staff stated that the maps are needed
by July 31 in order to continue on the agreed schedule. However, the mapping unit
responses to repeated City inquiries continue to be nebulous and inconsistent.
RELEVANT IP
21.12.020 and 21.14.045
SECTIONS:
The language in the table notes is not sufficient. They question how the City will
ISSUE 2
PRIORITY LAND USES
The Coastal Act and the City's Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) require that visitor -
serving commercial recreational and coastal -dependent land uses have priority over
other land uses.
These policies are primarily implemented through the CM (Commercial Recreational
and Marine) Coastal Zoning District and the CV (Commercial Visitor -Serving) Coastal
BACKGROUND:
Zoning District. The CM District is intended to provide for areas on or near the
waterfront that will encourage the continuation of coastal -dependent and coastal -
related uses. The CV District is intended to provide for areas appropriate for
accommodations, goods, and services intended to serve visitors.
The Draft Implementation Plan (IP) land use tables contain notes stating these uses
will have priority over other uses.
The language in the table notes is not sufficient. They question how the City will
CCC POSITION:
respond to projects in these districts that do not provide priority uses. They want to
further narrow the range of allowed land uses (e.g., not allowing offices and other non-
priority uses).
All coastal development permits (CDPs) will be reviewed for consistency with the
purpose and intent of the zoning district. CDPs for physical development will be
CITY RESPONSE:
reviewed to ensure that the design can accommodate the uses intended for the zoning
district. CDPs for land uses will be reviewed on a case by case basis to determine if
the proposed use is consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning district.
RELEVANT IP
Table 21.20-1 (Note 4), Table 21.20-2 (Note 6), Table 21.22-2 (Note 5), Table 21.20-1,
SECTIONS:
Table 21.20-1, Table 21.22-1, and Table 21.22-2
LCP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Key Issues
ISSUE 3
BLUFF OVERLAY
The Coastal Act requires development to minimize the alteration of natural landforms,
BACKGROUND:
and the City's CLUP recognizes coastal bluffs as significant scenic and environmental
BACKGROUND:
resources that are to be protected.
The City's Bluff (B) Overlay was adopted to implement the landform protection policies
of the General Plan and not those of the CLUP, which are generally more specific.
Coastal Commission staff comments have generally focused on the B Overlay's three
CCC POSITION:
development zones for principal structures, accessory structures, and minor accessory
structures.
They question whether the minimum bluff edge setbacks for bluff subject to marine
CCC POSITION:
erosion are being maintained. They are also concerned about some of the minor
accessory structures that are permitted (e.g., walls, fences, and irrigation systems).
They also do not want these development areas to be perceived as guaranteed; that
CITY RESPONSE:
development will be further restricted by safety, habitat protection, drainage/water
quality factors and as geologic conditions change over time.
While there may be some variation on individual properties, the B Overlay overall
implements the bluff protection policies of the CLUP. The Draft IP was also revised to
CITY RESPONSE:
include cross references to other regulations on coastal/geologic hazards,
SECTIONS:
landscaping, swimming pools, natural landform projection, protective structures, and
scenic and visual quality protection.
RELEVANT IP
21.28.040
SECTIONS:
ISSUE 4
CANYON OVERLAY
The new Canyon (C) Overlay would apply to properties along Buck Gully and Morning
BACKGROUND:
Canyon. The C Overlay based on General Plan Natural Resources Policy NR 23.6. It
would codify the "stringline setback" procedure that has been in practice since 2007.
Earlier Coastal Commission staff comments suggested that they would like to
establish a "canyon edge" setback and that existing development on canyon faces
should be pulled back over time. However, recent Coastal Commission staff
CCC POSITION:
comments have been on the appropriateness of the stringline method to limit
development on the bluff face. They also have questioned a provision that would allow
modification or replacement of existing development that extends beyond the stringline
setback with like structures in the same development footprint.
CLUP Policy 4.4.3-18 calls for using the stringline to restrict development from
extending beyond the PLOED. The provision for existing development recognizes that
CITY RESPONSE:
these structures exist and will continue to be repaired and maintained. Allowing
modification and replacement presents the opportunity to at least implement some
LCP standards (i.e., habitat buffers, appropriate landscaping and irrigation, water
quality BMPs, etc.).
RELEVANT IP
21.28.050
SECTIONS:
9
LCP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Key Issues
ISSUE 5
SEA LEVEL RISE
In the ten years since the CLUP was certified, sea level rise has emerged has
BACKGROUND:
emerged as a significant Coastal Commission issue. While the CLUP does have
BACKGROUND:
several policies that address sea level rise, it does not address the issue to the extent
CCC POSITION:
suggested by the Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise Guidance document, which
was adopted on August 12, 2015.
Coastal Commission staff will review the Draft IP for consistency with Sea Level Rise
CCC POSITION:
Guidance. The Draft IP should incorporate as much of Sea Level Rise Guidance as is
possible.
The Draft IP requires that sea -level rise as a factor in coastal hazard reports, in slope
CITY RESPONSE:
stability analyses and erosion rate estimate reports, and in public access design. In
addition, a Sea Level Rise Appendix was added that outlines what the City has done
to date and an action plan for addressing sea level rise in the future.
CITY RESPONSE:
and capacity of public parking. There must also be substantial evidence in the record
It would be unfair and inappropriate to require the City to stop the LCP certification
process at this late stage in order to conduct the significant and extensive data
RELEVANT IP
collection, technical analyses, risk assessment, and policy reassessments necessary
SECTIONS:
to address sea level rise.
RELEVANT IP
21.30.015.C, 21.30A.050.A, and Appendix A (New).
SECTIONS:
ISSUE 6
PREFERENTIAL PARKING DISTRICTS
The City has only existing preferential parking zone (Newport Island established in
BACKGROUND:
1981) in the Coastal Zone. CLUP Policy 3.1.6 -2 requires a CDP to establish a new, or
modify an existing, preferential parking zone.
CCC POSITION:
Coastal Commission staff wants the Draft IP to require a LCP amendment in order to
establish a new preferential parking district.
Requiring a LCP amendment for a new or modified preferential parking zone is not
consistent with CLUP Policy 3.1.6-2.
The section of preferential parking was revised to include a finding that the
establishment of the preferential parking zone will not have a direct impact to coastal
CITY RESPONSE:
access. In order to make this finding, the Draft IP now requires that there be
substantial evidence in the record that the public's rights of access to, and along the
shoreline and coastal blufftops are not directly impacted, including impacts to the use
and capacity of public parking. There must also be substantial evidence in the record
that that consideration was given to the availability of, and opportunities for, alternative
modes of transportation.
RELEVANT IP
21.40.145
SECTIONS:
10
LCP IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Key Issues
ISSUE 7
BEACH CURFEWS
The City has restricted public use of the beaches since 1947.
BACKGROUND:
The Coastal Commission's 1994 guidance document recognizes curfews adopted
prior to February 1, 1973 as grandfathered and allows for the adoption of new
regulations pursuant to the guidance document.
BACKGROUND:
Coastal Commission staff wants language on current beach closure regulations (i.e.,
curfews) incorporated in the Draft IP along with a requirement that any changes to
existing regulations would require a CDP.
CCC POSITION:
certified. Coastal Commission staff has indicated that they will support reaffirming the
NOTE: A CDP modifying beach curfew would certainly be appealable to the Coastal
Commission or have to be approved by the Coastal Commission, if they retain original
CCC POSITION:
permit jurisdiction on the beaches.
CITY RESPONSE:
The current beach closure regulations are grandfathered and, therefore, not subject to
Coastal Commission review.
RELEVANT IP
21.48.055.E (New)
SECTIONS:
21.52.045
ISSUE 8
CONTINUATION OF THE CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ORDER
The Coastal Act allows the Coastal Commission to create categorical exclusion
orders, which exempt types of projects that do not have the potential to create a
significant adverse effect on coastal resources or on public access. The City was
granted a categorical exclusion order (Cat Ex) in 1977 that excludes single -unit and
BACKGROUND:
two -unit projects from CDP requirements, with the exception of the first row of lots on
the shoreline.
Pursuant to the Coastal Act, the Cat Ex will automatically terminate after the LCP is
certified. Coastal Commission staff has indicated that they will support reaffirming the
categorical exclusion order that would be considered after certification of the LCP.
It is uncertain if all areas covered by the current categorical exclusion will continue to
CCC POSITION:
be exempted under a new categorical exclusion order. For example, Coastal
Commission staff has stated that continuation of the Cat Ex for Buck Gully and
Morning Canyon would be "problematic."
CITY RESPONSE:
No changes to the Cat Ex are proposed.
RELEVANT IP
21.52.045
SECTIONS:
11
V µ NEWPORT BEACH
ITEM TITLE: Revised Draft LCP Implementation Plan
ITEM SUMMARY: Summary: A review of the revised Draft Local Coastal Program
Implementation Plan.
RECOMMENDED Recommended Action: Review "Summary of Revisions to Draft
ACTION: Implementation Plan" (attached) and Revised Draft Implementation Plan
(http://www. newportbeachca.gov/PLN/August2015Re view. asp); provide
direction to staff, as necessary.
CEQA Compliance:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Summary of Revisions to Draft Implementation Plan
12
SUMMARY OF REVISIONS TO DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Chapter 21.10 — Purpose and Applicability of the Implementation Plan
No revisions
Chapter 21.12 — Interpretation of Implementation Plan Provisions
Minor revisions, corrections, and clarifications
Chapter 21.14 — Coastal Maps
Table 21.14-1
Added newly adopted Height (H) Overlay District
21.14.045
Added identification of the CCC permit jurisdiction area to the contents of the Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction
Map
Various
Minor revisions, corrections, and clarifications
Chapter 21.16 — Development and Land Use Approval Requirements
21.16.020
Added language requiring that reasonable accommodations be consistent with the LCP and Coastal Act to
the extent feasible and no feasible alternatives exist.
21.16.040
Separated special events from short-term uses and structures (see new Section 21.48.105 and Section
21.16.050
21.16.050
Various
Minor revisions, corrections, and clarifications
Chapter 21.18 — Residential Coastal Zoning Districts (R -A, R-1, R -BI, R-2, and RM)
Table 21.18-4
Added language requiring that density bonuses be consistent, to the maximum extent feasible, and in a
manner most protective of coastal resources, with all otherwise applicable LCP policies and development
standards
Various
Minor revisions, corrections, and clarifications
Chapter 21.20 — Commercial Coastal Zoning Districts (CC, CG, CM, CN, CV, OG)
Various
Minor revisions, corrections, and clarifications
Chapter 21.22 — Mixed -Use Coastal Zoning Districts (MU -V, MU -MM, MU-CV/15th St, MU -W1, MU -W2)
Table 21.22-3
Added language requiring that density bonuses be consistent, to the maximum extent feasible, and in a
manner most protective of coastal resources, with all otherwise applicable LCP policies and development
standards
Table 21.22-4
Various
Minor revisions, corrections, and clarifications
Summary of Draft IP Revisions
Page i
is
SUMMARY OF REVISIONS TO DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Chapter 21.26 — Special Purpose Coastal Zoning Districts (OS, PC, PF, Pl, PR, and TS)
21.26.065
Revised land use and development limits for the Lido Peninsula PC per the property owner's request
Added Back Bay Landing PC per property owner's request
Chapter 21.28 —Overlay Coastal Zoning Districts (MHP, PM, B, and C)
21.30.010
Newly adopted Height (H) Overlay added
21.30.060 (NEW)
21.30.040 (Bluff
Added development standards for swimming pools per CLUP policy
Overlay)
Added cross-references to other applicable development regulations
Added provisions for the adjustment of the stringline setback
Added language allowing approved, yet undeveloped, buildings and structures to be used in the stringline
setback
21.30.050 (Canyon
Overlay)
Added language clarifying that alterations or additions to nonconforming buildings need to be consistent with
the nonconforming limits of Section 21.38.040.H (Nonconformity with Coastal Resource Protection
Regulations
Added language clarifying that stringline setback shall will be used only to establish the development area on
the canyon face and not used to determine the maximum floor area limit for the lot
Added development standards for swimming pools per CLUP policy
Added cross-references to other applicable development regulations
Various
Minor revisions, corrections, and clarifications
Chapter 21.30 — Property Development Standards
21.30.015
Added a requirement for an erosion control plan for development located within 100 feet of a bluff or canyon
edge per CLUP policies
21.30.030
Added language clarifying that permanent irrigation systems are permitted on bluff and canyon development,
provided it is designed to minimize erosion per CLUP policies
21.30.085
Revised water efficient landscaping regulations to reflect the new state model ordinance
21.30.105
Added requirement for monitoring grading and/or excavation of development sites by qualified
representatives of cultural organizations
21.30.110
Updates per recent Zoning Code clean-up
Various
Minor revisions, corrections, and clarifications
Summary of Draft IP Revisions
Page ii
14
SUMMARY OF REVISIONS TO DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Chapter 21.30A — Public Access and Recreation
21.30A.050
Added language requiring that lateral accessway align with existing lateral accessways and required lateral
access segments per the CLUP in Lido Marina Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, and Mariners'
Mile
Added language requiring the protection of existing public parking
21.30A.070 (NEW)
Added standards and procedures for CCC review of public access documents
21.30A.100 (NEW)
Added regulations for Oceanfront Boardwalk encroachments per revised Oceanfront Encroachment Policy
(replaces old Appendix A)
Various
Minor revisions, corrections, and clarifications
Chapter 21.30B — Habitat Protection
21.30B.030
Added additional regulations for outdoor lighting adjacent to ESHAs
Chapter 21.30C — Harbor and Bay Regulations
Minor revisions, corrections, and clarifications
Chapter 21.34 —Conversion or Demolition of Affordable Housing
No revisions
Chapter 21.38 — Nonconforming Uses and Structures
Minor revisions, corrections, and clarifications
Chapter 21.40 — Off -Street Parking
Table 21.40-1
Updates per recent Zoning Code clean-up
21.40.145
Added language requiring a finding that the establishment of a preferential parking zone will not have a direct
impact to coastal access based substantial evidence and alternative modes of transportation were
considered.
Added language requiring periodic review of CDPs establishing preferential parking zones
Increased the number of preferential parking permits per household
Minor revisions, corrections, and clarifications
Chapter 21.44 — Transportation and Circulation
No revisions
Summary of Draft IP Revisions
Page iii
15
SUMMARY OF REVISIONS TO DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Chapter 21.48 — Standards for Specific Land Uses
21.48.025
Revised standards for visitor accommodations
24.48.055
Added language on beach closure regulations (curfews)
21.48.095
Revised section on special events to reflect exception from coastal development permit requirements
21.48.105 (NEW)
Added Zoning Code standards and procedures for limited duration uses and structures
Minor revisions, corrections, and clarifications
Chapter 21.49 — Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (NEW)
Added Zoning Code standards for wireless telecommunication facilities
Chapter 21.50 — Permit Application Filing and Processing
21.50.025 (NEW)
Added section on projects bisected by jurisdictional boundaries (moved from Chapter 21.52)
Minor revisions, corrections, and clarifications
Chapter 21.52 — Coastal Development Review Procedures
Subsection on projects bisected by jurisdictional boundaries deleted (moved from Chapter 21.50)
21.52.015
Added language addressing coastal development permits on public trust lands
21.52.035
Added language authoring the Community Development Director waive coastal development permits for
certain projects when it is determined that impacts on coastal resources or coastal access are insignificant
per PRC Section 13252 (e))
Various
Minor revisions, corrections, and clarifications
Chapter 21.54 — Permit Implementation, Time Limits, and Extensions
Various
Minor revisions, corrections, and clarifications
Chapter 21.62 — Public Hearings
21.62.020
These sections were revised to no longer distinguish between public noticing requirements for appealable
and non -appealable hearings to be consistent with current City practices; residents within 100 feet will also
be notified.
21.62.035
(DELETED)
Various
Minor revisions, corrections, and clarifications
Summary of Draft IP Revisions
Page iv
20
SUMMARY OF REVISIONS TO DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Chapter 21.64 — Appeals and Calls for Review
This chapter was revised to reflect a recently code amendment relating to appeals and calls for review
21.64.030
Revised to eliminate the filing fee for appeals of coastal development permits; otherwise, an appellant can
bypass the City's appeal process and appeal directly to the Coastal Commission.
Various
Minor revisions, corrections, and clarifications
Chapter 21.66 — Amendments
Various
Minor revisions, corrections, and clarifications
Chapter 21.68 — Enforcement (NEM
A modified version of Zoning Code procedures
Chapter 21.70 — Definitions
"Aggrieved Person" definition revised to be consistent with the Coastal Act
"Protective Structure" definition added for internal consistency
21.70.020
"Qualified Archaeologist" and "Qualified Paleontologist" definitions added
"Campground" definition added
Minor revisions, corrections, and clarifications
Chapter 21.90 — Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan
No revisions
Appendix A — Sea Level Rise (NEM
Outlines what the City has done to address sea level rise to date and an action plan for addressing sea level rise in the future.
Summary of Draft IP Revisions
Page v
2�
Item No IV: Additional Materials Received
General Plan/LCP Implementation Committee Meeting - August 27, 2015
Alford, Patrick
Subject: FW: Draft LCP Implementation Plan
From: Erickson, Myron (Mike) E
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 1:42 PM
To: PAlford@newportbeachca.com
Subject: Draft LCP Implementation Plan
Patrick:
Per our earlier call, this e-mail is submitted to request that the information from Section 20.46 of the Zoning Code
regarding the Transfer of Development Rights be included in the Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan.
City presentations regarding the LCP Implementation Plan have indicated that the intent of the subject Plan is to
Incorporate the policies of the existing City Zoning Code and that there would be no significant changes from the
City's code. The subject Section has been an important part of the Zoning Code that has been utilized numerous
times and it is important that it be incorporated within the Implementation Plan so that such Transfers, which are
allowed under both the General Plan and the Zoning Code, can continue to occur under the City's control without
then having to also be considered in a separate action by the Coastal Commission. The policy language in the Zoning
Code
provides that there not be increases in intensity and/or trip generation through the process, which seems to address
the key concerns that might otherwise arise through this process and, therefore, would seem to appropriately address
the key concerns that typically arise during consideration of proposed Projects.
Please contact me with any questions regarding this request
Mike Erickson
Michael Baker International