Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-51 - Upholding the Decision of the Planning Commission and Finding Modified Plans to be in Substantial Conformance with the Design Approved by Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007-001 (County Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 17194), Modification Permit No. MD20RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -51 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND FINDING MODIFIED PLANS TO BE IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIGN APPROVED BY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. NT2007 -001 (COUNTY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. TTM 17194), MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. MD2007 -044, USE PERMIT NO. UP2007 -011 AND COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. CR2007 -001 FOR THE ECHO PROJECT LOCATED AT 5515 RIVER AVENUE BEACH (FORMERLY SEASHORE VILLAGE) (PA2014 -005) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. On June 10, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2008 -53 approving the Seashore Village project, a 24 residential condominium development located on a 1.49 -acre site at 5515 River Avenue, and legally described as Lot 105 of Tract No. 3812; and 2. The site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex that would be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. Project approvals included the following: a. A tentative tract map to create a 24 -unit condominium subdivision; b. A modification permit to allow encroachments into the required front and side yard setback areas and a reduction in the required distance between detached buildings; c. A use permit to allow the 6 duplex structures to exceed the City's base height limit; and d. A coastal residential development permit (CRDP) to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 et seq. (Mello Act), which regulates the conversion and /or demolition of low and moderate income (affordable) dwelling units in the coastal zone. 3. The applicant seeks to change the approved Seashore Village project to: 1) reconfigure the site plan and landscape plan; 2) eliminate the duplex product type; and 3) change the floor plans and architecture to a contemporary design. The applicant requests the determination that the proposed modifications consist of minor changes and are within substantial conformance with the 2008 approval; and City Council Resolution No. 2014 -51 Page 2 of 10 4. The subject property was previously located within the MFR (Multi - Family Residential) Zoning District. The current Zoning Code designates the site RM (Multi -Unit Residential). The General Plan Land Use Element category RM (Multiple -Unit Residential). 5. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is RM -D (Multiple Unit Residential). 6. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on April 3, 2014, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this hearing; and 7. The Planning Commission unanimously voted to adopt Resolution No. 1941 finding that the modified plans are in substantial conformance with the project approved. 8. On April 17, 2014, Mrs. Lennie DeCaro, an adjacent property owner, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. 9. A public hearing was held by the City Council on June 10, 2014, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this hearing; and SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH No. No. 2008021075) (Adopted MND) was prepared for the project in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document was made available for public review and comment during a 30 -day review period beginning on February 20, 2008, and ending on March 20, 2008, and subsequently approved by the City Council on June 10, 2008. 2. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(b), 15164(b), if changes occur to a project or its circumstances, or if new information becomes available after the negative declaration was adopted, an addendum to a negative declaration may be prepared when the City is not required to prepare a subsequent negative declaration or environmental impact report to review the changes or new information. 3. Upon receipt of the application for a substantial conformance determination, the City of Newport Beach prepared' an Addendum to the Adopted MND for the project, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. 4. After thoroughly considering the Adopted MND, and the public testimony and written submissions, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the City Council finds the following facts, findings, and reasons to support adopting the Addendum: City Council Resolution No. 2014 -51 Paoe 3 of 1C a. The modified project is consistent with and implements the General Plan. b. The Adopted MND reviews the existing conditions of the City and project vicinity; analyzes potential environmental impacts from implementation of the development; and identifies mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts from implementation of the development. C. The modified project does not increase development density or associated impacts beyond the levels considered in the Adopted MND. d. Since the adoption of the MND in 2008, no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MND was adopted for the project. e. Since the adoption of the MND in 2008, no substantial changes to the environmental setting of the project site have occurred. f. Since the adoption of the MND in 2008, no new information of substantial importance has become available that was not known and that could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at that time of adoption. Thus, no new information indicates that: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Adopted MND; (B) Significant effects from the project will be substantially more severe than identified in the Adopted MND; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the Adopted MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the City declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative. g. Since no substantial changes to the circumstances or environmental setting have occurred, and since no new information relating to significant effects, mitigation measures, or alternatives has become available, the project does not require additional environmental review, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. h. Based on these findings, the Adopted MND and Addendum, the City Council has determined that no subsequent MND or environmental impact report is required or appropriate under CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164. City Council Resolution No. 2014 -51 Paqe 4 of 10 The Addendum therefore satisfies CEQA's environmental review requirements for the project as proposed by the applicant. i. The Addendum, which the City prepared to evaluate whether the modified project would cause any new or potentially more severe significant adverse effects on the environment, specifically analyzed, in addition to several other potential impacts, potential impacts related to aesthetics and climate change. j. Based on the facts and analysis contained in the Addendum, the City Council finds that the modified project will not have, when compared to the Adopted MND, any new or more severe adverse environmental impacts, including, without limitation, no new or more severe significant adverse impacts related to aesthetics or climate change. k. The modified project will not result in any new or more severe significant impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, when viewed in connection with planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity. i. These factual findings are based on the Adopted MND, Addendum, and all documents referred in or attached to it, the submissions of the applicant, the records and files of the City's Community Development Department related to the project, and any other documents referred to or relied upon by the City Council during its consideration of the project on June 10, 2014. M. The City Council has considered the Adopted MND and the Addendum, and has concluded that the Addendum reflects the independent judgment of the City. n. The City Council finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. The applicant has proposed revisions to the approved plans for the project. Pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 1, the project design changes shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans. Pursuant to Section 20.54.070 (Changes to an Approved Project), the Community Development Director may authorize minor changes to an approved site plan, architecture, or the nature of the approved use, without a public hearing, and waive the requirement for a new permit application. In this case, the Community Development Director referred the determination as to whether the proposed changes are minor to the Planning Commission for review and final action. The City Council held a public hearing to review an City Council Resolution No. 2014 -51 Paae 5 of 1 C appeal of the Planning Commissions' decision and finds that the proposed 24 -unit condominium development remains in substantial conformance with the approved plans of Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007 -001 (County Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 17194), Modification Permit No. MD2007 -044, Use Permit No. UP2007 -011 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2007 -001 because the changes: Finding: A. Are consistent with all applicable provisions of this Zoning Code Facts in Support of Finding: A -1. The project was originally approved under the previous Zoning Code and located within the MFR (Multi - Family Residential) Zoning District. The current Zoning Code designates the site RM (Multi -Unit Residential). The proposed 24 -unit detached condominium development continues to be consistent with the permitted land uses identified in the previous MFR and current RM Zoning Districts and with the approved number of units pursuant to Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007 -001. The project also remains below the maximum 54 -unit development limit and the 1.75 floor area limit (FAL) applicable to the site. The approved project maintained a 1.23 FAL (50,706 square feet) and the revised project maintains a 1.24 FAL (50,916 square feet). A -2. The previous Zoning Code limited heights of flat roofs, deck rails, and midpoint of sloping roofs to a maximum of 28 feet and a ridge height for sloping roofs to a maximum of 33 feet. The approved project required a use permit to allow the midpoint of the 6 duplex units to exceed the maximum 28 -foot midpoint height limit; however, midpoint limitations have been eliminated from the current Zoning Code and replaced with a minimum 3:12 pitch requirement for sloping roofs. The current Zoning Code limits heights of flat roofs and deck rails to 28 feet and sloping roofs with a minimum 3:12 pitch to a 33 feet. The revised project plans comply with allowed building heights of the current Zoning Code; therefore, Use Permit No. UP2007 -011 is no longer applicable. A -3. The previous Zoning Code required a front setback of 20 feet adjacent to River Avenue, a front setback of 20 feet adjacent to Seashore Drive, and side setbacks of 25 feet adjacent to the east and west property lines. The previous Zoning Code also required a minimum building separation of 10 feet between structures. Modification Permit No. MD2007 -044 authorized a reduction of the minimum building separation to 6 feet between structures and reduced setbacks as follows: front setbacks of 10 feet on River Avenue and Seashore Drive, a side setback of 10 feet to the west property line and a side setback of 4 feet to the east property line. The current Zoning Code no longer requires a minimum building separation between units and now requires a front setback of 5 feet adjacent to Seashore Drive, a rear setback of 10 feet adjacent to River Avenue, and side setbacks of 15 feet. Despite the changes in Zoning Code setback and separation standards, the revised project plans continue to comply with the setbacks and building separations as approved under Modification Permit No. MD2007 -044. City Council Resolution No. 2014 -51 Paqe 6 of 10 A -4. Pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the previous Zoning Code and Chapter 20.34 of the current Zoning Code, the demolition of three or more units within the coastal zone shall be reviewed to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 (commonly known as the 1982 Mello Act) and to replace, if feasible, the demolition of any units occupied by low- or moderate - income tenants. In this case, Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2007 -001 authorized the demolition of the 54 -unit apartment building conditioned upon the replacement of six dwelling units affordable to low- and /or moderate - income tenants within three years of demolition. The applicant remains committed to implementing CR2007 -001 and providing the replacement units. A -5. With the exception of the increased setback encroachments, reduction in the minimum distance between buildings, and building height increase, all of the previous MFR zoning regulations were met by the previous project design. The proposed project plans also continue to comply with all other applicable previous MFR and the current RM zoning standards. Finding: B. Do not involve a feature of the project that was a basis for or subject of findings or exemptions in a negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report for the project. Facts in Support of Finding: B -1. The Adopted MND was prepared and analyzed all potential environmental impacts associated with the approved project. The changes in the project plans do not involve features that were the basis for findings or exemption in the adopted MND in that the density and intensity of the project has not changed. Although changes in the architectural design, product type, and site plan are proposed, these changes are considered minor and when taken into account, the conclusions of the environmental analysis in the Adopted MND do not change. B -2. An Addendum to the Adopted MND has been prepared to evaluate the net effect of the proposed project changes and any changes to the existing conditions that have occurred since the Adopted MND was adopted. The Addendum also reviews any new information of substantial importance that was not known and could have been known with exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Adopted MND was adopted. Furthermore, it examines whether, as a result of any changes or any new information, a subsequent environmental review may be required. The Addendum concludes that the impacts from the modified project would be similar to those analyzed under the Adopted MND and that no changes or new significant information would change the significance conclusions of the Adopted MND or result in additional mitigation measures. City Council Resolution No. 2014 -51 Paae 7 of IC Finding: C. Do not involve a feature of the project that was specifically addressed or was the subject of a condition(s) of approval for the project or that was a specific consideration by the applicable review authority in the project approval. Facts in Support of Finding: C -1. The modified plan demonstrates the ability to comply with all required conditions of approval, and said conditions will continue to be required through project implementation. C -2. The approved project consisted of a Tentative Tract Map to establish 24 condominium units. The changes to the site plan do not affect the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007 -001 and the related facts in support of the findings. The site remains physically suitable for the type and density proposed. An easement through the 26- foot -wide internal roadway will be retained by the City to ensure public access rights for emergency and security ingress /egress, public utility purposes, and weekly trash pick -up. A 6 -foot sidewalk easement currently exists along the Seashore Drive frontage and the applicant will be required to construct full -width sidewalks. An additional 4- foot -wide ADA accessible walkway connecting River Avenue and Seashore Drive, consistent with Condition No. 46, would also be provided. Public utility easements for utility connections that serve the project site are present and will be modified, as necessary, to serve the proposed project. C -3. Since the project was approved as airspace condominiums, Condition No. 6 was added to address potential expansion or modification requests from future individual property owners. The Condition specifically states that the floor plans and building envelopes for each unit are approved as precise plans and future area additions to the building envelopes shall be prohibited, the patio and deck areas shall not be permitted to be enclosed, and the landscape and open space areas through the site shall be preserved. Although the site plan has changed, the Condition remains relevant and necessary in order to preserve the density, massing, open space, and landscape characteristics of the constructed project from future modifications. C -4. Condition No. 46 required a minimum 4 -foot -wide publicly accessible walkway connecting River Avenue to Seashore Drive. The revised project now includes two publically accessible walkways bisecting the project site and providing a connection between the two streets: 1) the project "paseos" with enhanced landscaping bisect the site near the center of the site; and 2) an ADA accessible 4- foot -wide path connects the street along the western parcel boundary adjacent to the park. C -5. Condition No. 7 required the two structures (north and south of the project driveway) that encroach into the side setback area immediately adjacent to the east property line to be modified to incorporate design features to minimize building height impacts on the adjacent properties. The modified plans implement the intent of this Condition by separating the bulk and mass of the previous duplex units on the north side of project City Council Resolution No. 2014 -51 Page 8 of 10 roadway into two individual structures, creating more light and open space and increasing the compatibility with existing adjacent duplexes to the east. For the structure south of the project roadway, the side setback has been increased from 4 feet to 6 feet to provide additional light and open space to the adjacent structure. C -6. While the MFR and RM Zoning Districts permit the proposed single -unit residences, the development setback and building separation standards were intended to apply to larger, multiple -unit buildings, such as the 3 -story, 54 -unit apartment building that exists on -site today. The legislative intent of required setbacks is to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling unit. Given that a larger, single structure building would result in more visual and physical massing, a larger setback would be preferred for that development type. In this case, the proposed project has been designed to appear as if each unit is situated on a 30- foot -wide lot with setbacks comparable to the surrounding R -1 and R -2 lots. These reductions in the setbacks to accommodate the smaller detached, residential units result in a site plan that is more compatible and consistent with the historic development pattern of the area than a single, larger apartment- complex. C -7. The approved project was designed to appear as if each unit is situated on a 30 -foot- wide lot with setbacks comparable to the surrounding R -1 and R -2 lots. The approved 6 -foot separation between buildings is consistent with the required 3 -foot side setbacks of the surrounding 30 -foot and 40- foot -wide lots in the neighborhood, which results in a total distance of 6 feet between buildings. Although the modified project reconfigures the layout of units within the site, the overall concept remains similar with all units providing a minimum 6 -foot separation. As viewed from the Seashore Drive frontage, the units will remain fronting the street as in the approved plan and similar to the development pattern of the adjacent R -1 and R -2 lots along the street. The street elevations of these units will be enhanced with front door identity now facing the street versus the side yard as in the approved plan. As viewed from River Avenue, the unit layout has been modified to eliminate the duplex structures and create clusters of individual single -unit detached structures. The units fronting River Avenue now either front the street with the front or side elevations, consistent with the lots directly across River Avenue to the north. Therefore, the modified plan is compatible and consistent with the development pattern of the immediate area. C -8. Consistent with Condition No. 16, the modified plan now includes trash container storage for individual units outside of their required garages and that would be screened from view. C -9. Access to the project site would continue to be provided via a driveway on River Avenue and one driveway from Neptune Avenue. A total of 62 parking spaces are proposed: 48 dedicated residential spaces in garages and 14 open guest spaces, exceeding the 60 space minimum required by both the previous and current Zoning Codes. Although the approved plan included one additional on -site guest parking space, the plan also included an additional western driveway on River Avenue to exclusively serve one single -unit structure that resulted in the reduction of on- street parking. The modified site plan eliminates the need for the additional driveway and results in the creation of additional on- street parking on the street in exchange. In City Council Resolution No. 2014 -51 Paae 9 of 10 addition, the revised project plans provide enhanced resident parking in that all 24 resident parking spaces are now located with garages, as opposed to 12 garages and 12 carports as originally approved. Overall, the modified plans enhance site access and continue to exceed Code - required parking standards. C -10. The modified project slightly reduces the total building footprint from coverage of 35.9 percent to 34.6 and reduces pavement area from 35.4 percent to 27.3 percent. Conversely, the modified project significantly increases landscape area from 28.2 percent to 37.1 percent and incorporates design features such as turf block, pervious paving, and water conserving plants. Finding: D. Do not result in an expansion or change in operational characteristics of the use. Facts in Support of Finding: D -1. The approved project consisted of the subdivision of 24 airspace condominium units; therefore, the elimination of the duplex product type and changes to the site plan do not affect the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007 -001. D -2. The modified project design maintains the same minimum setbacks as previously approved under Modification Permit No. MD2007 -044 and minimum building separation of six feet between units. D -3. The proposed 24 -unit detached condominium development continues to be consistent with the permitted land uses identified in the previous MFR and current RM Zoning Districts and with the approved number of units pursuant to Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007 -001. The project also remains below the maximum 54 -unit development limit and the 1.75 floor area limit (FAL) applicable to the site. The approved project maintained a 1.23 FAL (50,706 square feet) and the revised project maintains a 1.24 FAL (50,916 square feet), a negligible difference of 210 square feet. D -4. Although the modified plans include ridge elevations of up to 32 feet 11 inches, an increase of 1 -foot 5- inches above the structure heights of the approved plans, the difference in height is nominal and remains below the maximum 33 -foot height limit for sloping roofs with a minimum 3:12 pitch. The midpoints of the modified roof plans also exceed the midpoint heights of the approved plans, with a difference of up to 3 feet 11 inches; however, it should be noted the midpoints of the approved plans are artificially lower due to the ability to project the imaginary roof lines over a longer distance based on the architectural design of the structures. The actual midpoint heights (without the use of imaginary projections) of the structures in the approved plans would result in midpoint heights closer to those of the modified plans. Ultimately, the modified project plans comply with allowed building heights of the current Zoning Code; therefore, Use Permit No. UP2007 -011 is no longer applicable. City Council Resolution No. 2014 -51 Facie 10 of 10 SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission and finds that the modified plans for the Echo Beach (formerly Seashore Village) project are in substantial conformance with the project approved by Tentative Tract Map No. NT2007 -001 (County Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 17194), Modification Permit No. MD2007 -044, Use Permit No. UP2007 -011 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. CR2007 -001 and that the environmental analysis of the modified plans is included in the Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH2008021075) and the Addendum consistent with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. 3. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a precedent for future approvals or decisions. 4. This resolution was approved, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the 10th day of June, 2014. ATTEST- ; 4- Leilani I. Brown City Clerk q Rush N. Hill, II Mayor STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2014 -51 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 10th day of June, 2014, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: Ayes: Council Member Gardner, Council Member Petros, Council Member Curry, Council Member Henn, Council Member Daigle, Mayor Pro Tern Selich, Mayor Hill Nays: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 11`" day of June, 2014. City Clerk Newport Beach, California (Seal)