Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 - Rogers Lot Merger - PA2016-158 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VPLANNING DIVISION low 100 Civic Center Drive, P.O. Box 1768, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 cq�iFOw�avP 949-644-3200 Fax: 949-644-3229 www.newportbeachca.gov CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STAFF REPORT October 27, 2016 Agenda Item No. 2 SUBJECT: Rogers Lot Merger (PA2016-158) 320 and 322 Buena Vista Boulevard • Lot Merger No. LM2016-009 APPLICANT: Stephen Rogers OWNER: Stephen Rogers PLANNER: David Lee, Planning Technician (949) 644-3225, dlee@newportbeachca.gov ZONING DISTRICT/GENERAL PLAN • Zone: R-1 (Single-Unit Residential) • General Plan: RS-D (Single-Unit Residential Detached) PROJECT SUMMARY A lot merger application and request to waive the parcel map requirement for two properties, under common ownership, located within Balboa Peninsula. The merger would combine two legal lots into a single parcel and allow for an addition across the existing interior property line. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt Draft Zoning Administrator Resolution No._ approving Lot Merger No. LM2016-009 (Attachment No. ZA 1). DISCUSSION • The two abutting lots are located at 320 and 322 Buena Vista Boulevard and are each developed with single-unit residences. The lot at 320 Buena Vista Boulevard is legally described as Lot 158 of Subdivision Block A, East Newport and the lot at 1 Rogers Lot Merger Zoning Administrator, October 27, 2016 Page 2 322 Buena Vista Boulevard is legally described as Lot 157 of Subdivision Block A, East Newport. • The purpose of the lot merger is to legally merge the two parcels into one parcel to allow for a future single-unit residence built over the existing interior property line. • All construction will be required to comply with the Zoning Code standards, including parking and setback requirements. • Section 20.18.030 of the Zoning Code establishes minimum lot area and width requirements. The proposed merger would combine two substandard lots into a 4,650-square-foot parcel that is closer in conformance to the minimum 5,000- square foot interior lot area standard of the Zoning Code. Also, the proposed merger would create one approximately 66-foot-wide parcel, exceeding the minimum 50-foot interior lot width standard of the Zoning Code. • Properties along Buena Vista Boulevard consist of lots of varying shapes and sizes. Although the proposed lot merger will create a larger lot, it will not create an excessively large lot in comparison to many of the existing lots in the area. There are many existing lots in the surrounding development that are similar to the proposed lot area, including 304 Buena Vista Boulevard (4,289 square feet), 328 Buena Vista Boulevard (4,202 square feet), and 350 Buena Vista Boulevard (3,935 square feet). • The proposed lot width is approximately 66 feet, which will not create an excessively wide lot in comparison to other existing lots in the area. There are existing lots in the surrounding development similar to the proposed lot width, including 304 Buena Vista Boulevard (approximately 57 feet), 328 Buena Vista Boulevard (approximately 60 feet), and 350 Buena Vista Boulevard (approximately 87 feet). • As demonstrated in the attached draft resolution, the proposed merger meets the requirements of Title 19 (Subdivisions). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is categorically exempt under Section 15315, of the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines - Class 15 (Minor Land Divisions). Class 15 exemption includes the division of property in urbanized areas zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use into four (4) or fewer parcels when the division is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to the proposed parcel to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous TmpIt:10-02-15 Rogers Lot Merger Zoning Administrator, October 27, 2016 Page 3 two (2) years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent. This exemption includes a minor lot merger not resulting in the creation of any new parcel that complies with the conditions specified above. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this application was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of- way and waterways), including the applicant, and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled hearing, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. APPEAL PERIOD: An appeal or call for review may be filed with the Director of Community Development within 10 days following the date of action. For additional information on filing an appeal, contact the Planning Division at (949) 644-3200. Prepared by: David S. Lee, Planning Technician- JM/dl Attachments: ZA 1 Draft Resolution ZA 2 Vicinity Map ZA 3 Project Plans TmpIt:10-02-15 Attachment No. ZA 1 Draft Resolution 4 RESOLUTION NO. ZA2016-### A RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING LOT MERGER NO. LM2016-009 AND A WAIVER OF THE PARCEL MAP REQUIREMENT FOR A LOT MERGER LOCATED AT 320 AND 322 BUENA VISTA BOULEVARD (PA2016-158) THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Stephen Rogers, with respect to property located at 320 and 322 Buena Vista Boulevard. The lot at 320 Buena Vista Boulevard is legally described as Lot 158 of Subdivision Block A, East Newport. The lot at 322 Buena Vista Boulevard is legally described as Lot 157 of Subdivision Block A, East Newport. 2. The applicant proposes a lot merger and requests to waive the parcel map requirement for two properties under common ownership. 3. The subject properties are located within the Single-Unit Residential (R-1) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Single-Unit Residential Detached (RS-D). 4. The subject properties are located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is Single-Unit Residential Detached (RSD-B). 5. A public hearing was held on October 27, 2016, in the Corona del Mar Conference Room (Bay E-1st Floor) 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 Zoning Administrator at this meeting. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1 . The project is categorically exempt under Section 15315, of the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines - Class 15 (Minor Land Divisions). Class 15 exemption includes the division of property in urbanized areas zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use into four (4) or fewer parcels when the division is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to the proposed parcel to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous two (2) years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent. This exemption includes a minor lot merger not resulting in the creation of any new parcel that complies with the conditions specified above. 5 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2016-042 Page 2 of 5 SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. In accordance with Section 19.68.030 and 19.08.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A. Approval of the merger will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of this title. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The lot merger to combine two existing legal lots by removing the interior lot line between the lots will not result in the creation of additional parcels. 2. The project is in an area with an average slope of less than 20 percent. 3. The lot merger is consistent with the purpose and intent of Title 19 (Subdivisions). 4. The future development on the proposed parcel will be subject to the Zoning Code development standards, which are intended to promote orderly development, protect neighborhood character, and preserve public health, safety, and general welfare of the City. Finding: B. The lots to be merged are under common fee ownership at the time of the merger. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The two lots to be merged are under common fee ownership. Finding: C. The lots as merged will be consistent or will be more closely compatible with the applicable zoning regulations and will be consistent with other regulations relating to the subject property including, but not limited to, the General Plan and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The merged lots will retain the Single-Unit Residential (R-1) zoning designation, consistent with the surrounding area. The R-1 Zoning District is intended to provide 03-03-2015 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2016-042 Page 3 of 5 for areas appropriate for a detached single-family residential dwelling unit located on a single lot. 2. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the subject site as Single-Unit Residential Detached (RS-D), which applies to a range of single-family residential dwelling units. The Coastal Land Use Plan designates this site as Single-Unit Residential Detached (RSD-C), which provides for density ranges from 10.0-19.9 dwelling units per acre. The land use will remain the same and the merger is consistent with the land use designations of the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. 3. The subject property is not located within a Specific Plan area. 4. Section 20.18.030 of the Zoning Code establishes minimum lot area and width requirements. The proposed merger would combine two substandard lots into a 4,650-square-foot parcel that is closer in conformance to the minimum 5,000-square foot interior lot area standard of the Zoning Code. Also, the proposed merger would create one approximately 66-foot-wide parcel, exceeding the minimum 50-foot interior lot width standard of the Zoning Code. Finding: D. Neither the lots as merged nor adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. No adjoining parcels will be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger. Legal access is provided from Buena Vista Boulevard and the alley located in the rear, and will remain unchanged. Finding: E. The lots as merged will be consistent with the surrounding pattern of development and will not create an excessively large lot that is not compatible with the surrounding development. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Properties along Buena Vista Boulevard consist of lots of varying shapes and sizes. Although the proposed lot merger will create a larger lot, it will not create an excessively large lot in comparison to many of the existing lots in the area. There are many existing lots in the surrounding development that are similar to the proposed lot area, including 304 Buena Vista Boulevard (4,289 square feet), 328 Buena Vista Boulevard (4,202 square feet), and 350 Buena Vista Boulevard (3,935 square feet). 03-03-2015 Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2016-042 Page 4 of 5 2. The proposed lot width is approximately 66 feet, which will not create an excessively wide lot in comparison to other existing lots in the area. There are existing lots in the surrounding development similar to the proposed lot width, including 304 Buena Vista Boulevard (approximately 57 feet), 328 Buena Vista Boulevard (approximately 60 feet), and 350 Buena Vista Boulevard (approximately 87 feet). 3. The resulting lot configuration will not change the existing pattern of development since the orientation and access to the parcel would remain from the alley in the rear of the lot. Finding: F. The proposed division of land complies with requirements as to area, improvement and design, flood water drainage control, appropriate improved public roads and property access, sanitary disposal facilities, water supply availability, environmental protection, and other applicable requirements of this title, the Zoning Code, the General Plan, and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Approval of the proposed lot merger would remove the existing interior lot line, and allow the property to be used as a single site. The proposed lot would comply with all design standards and improvements required for new subdivisions by Title 19, General Plan, and Coastal Land Use Plan. 2. The subject property is not subject to a Specific Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Zoning Administrator of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Lot Merger No. LM2016-009, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 2. This action shall become final and effective 10 days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the Director of Community Development in accordance with the provisions of Title 19 (Subdivisions) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 27th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016. Patrick J. Alford, Zoning Administrator 03-03-2015 g Zoning Administrator Resolution No. ZA2016-042 Page 5 of 5 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The map shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for Final Map Review and Approval. All applicable fees shall be paid. 2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits for construction to cross the existing interior lot line between the two (2) parcels proposed to be merged, recordation of the lot merger documents with the County Recorder shall be required. 4. Prior to the recordation of the lot merger, a minimum of one existing dwelling unit shall be demolished or modified so that the merged lot will not contain more than one dwelling unit. 5. Lot Merger No. LM2016-009 shall expire unless exercised within twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.54.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 6. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the Rogers Lot Merger including, but not limited to, Lot Merger No. LM2016-009 (PA2016-158). This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition 03-03-2015 9 Attachment No. ZA 2 Vicinity Map 10 VICINITY MAP Project Site �' `6 s. AU �t 31$ ,F 10 Ik ` s Lot Merger No. LM2016-009 PA2016-158 320 and 322 Buena Vista Boulevard �1 Attachment No. ZA 3 Project Plans 12 PA2016-158 EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO, LA _ ..- • OR LOT MERGER NO. LM (LEGAL DESCRIPTION) OWNER EXISTING PARCEL PROPOSED PARCELS AP NUMBER REFERENCE NUMBERS Rogers Family Trust (Lot157) 048-031 -18 1 Rogers Family Trust (Lot158) 048-031 -16 1 That real property in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange; State of California being Lots Lots 157 & 158 of the Subdivision of Block A East Newportper-.:Jmap recorded in Book 4, Page 51 , records of said Orange County, California. _. 1.ANC1 S�� DOUGLAS 0.9�.(, Douglas Fost r PLS 4599 zi FDS7ER 0 No.4589 IPS OPCAL,�OQ - 11cn6.lci\data\Users\CDD1SheredlAdmin\Planning Division Wpplications\LA&LM\info.docx Upd�le�7/18/13 PA2016-158 EXHIBIT "B" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LA - F _. . OR LOT MERGER NO. LM (MAP) OWNER AP # OWNER Parcel #C)WNER Rogers Family Trust (Lot157) 048-031 -18 1 R.og,�-ers Family Trust (Lot158) 048-031 -16 1 a LO i i5 � J , N40 zms 6(."rw 7o -9a, yiLj yl� L PARCEL. i 0 - N Area = 4, 734 Sq.Pt, � LL, � � U1 II N Wo { Uj MAP Oiz i HE 5u P�Dj ViStoly OF P,Loc l4 /� E As-T NF- W PURI, RF--CO"i= yi W� w 'rS d,r tik f LAND FOS?ER O y} No.4599 x� u CPCAO''�� `I�ovCitag ..� t �. PL5 \\cnb.lcl\dataWsera\CDD\SharedWdminlPlanninA Division\Applications\LA&LM\Info.docx UpStof 7/18/13 PA2016-158 EXHIBIT "C" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO, LA ' OR LOT MERCER NO, LM - (SITE PLAN) OWNER AP # OWNER Parcel #OWNER Rogers Family Trust Lot 157) 048-031 -18 1 Rogers Family Trust (Lot 158) 048-031 -16 1 H. r ul ze�' 0411W '740 Ed al a d .; _.p (L O-s 157 � 5` a:ep�."�P1.1 5PliCF - �.!��d:7'EL� f�U"I�i'( 10th 1`` X72PUEh1�n 'VI $TF1 BLVD i9 J Jt U n 2 61 )- -) '1+. lu � . ' JSiPi/a1VTSf}N17•E.la PZ>P U14 }' Lp Jd ` � r zoo Pr"ACEI_ � I � !Z div Ex15'TJNG F-bbTPIZINT SZOSuENAVIS7A 12> t-VT). 1 U �F id h GSr i DOUQI�u U \1M1 tri { I..tl"'� ) �✓ N6 }%j.;. .0 .A OR Cat,', 15oci�s sus o. Fos M �I.s. 0 11cnb.IclldatalUserslGDDl5hafedWdminlPlanning_DivisionlAppllcatlonalLABLMVnfo.dccz - llpdet�t7l1a/13 Zoning Administrator-October 27,2016 Item No.2a:Additional Materials Received Rogers Lot Merger(PA2016-158) October 27, 2016, Zoning Administrator Agenda Comments Comments submitted on April 12, 2016, by: Jim Mosher( iimmosher(a�vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item No. 2 Rodgers Lot Merger No. LM2016-009 (PA2016-158) 1. Although Section 1.4 of the proposed resolution states that "The subject properties are located within the coastal zone," neither the staff report nor the proposed conditions of approval inform the applicant, the Administrator or the public about the Coastal Act issues involved. a. To the best of my knowledge, the properties involved are not in the Categorical Exclusion Area. As a result, the eventual construction activity will require a Coastal Development Permit. b. However, I believe the lot merger itself requires a Coastal Development Permit because "development" under the Coastal Act includes a "change in the density or intensity of use of land," and as explained in the California Supreme Court's 2012 decision in Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (55 Cal.4th 783 at 795) "Public Resources Code section 30106, by using the word "change,"signals that a project that would decrease intensity of use, such as by limiting public access to the coastline or reducing the number of lots available for residential purposes, is also a development' (emphasis added). c. In view of the above, it seems to me the conditions of approval should make clear the merger cannot be completed until a CDP, or waiver from that requirement, has been obtained. 2. Section 2.1 of the proposed resolution makes what seems to me to be a questionable CEQA finding. a. I am aware that public agencies struggle to find a CEQA categorical exemption applying to lot mergers, because, intentionally or not, none quite fit. b. In the present case, a claim is made that Class 15 "includes a minor lot merger not resulting in the creation of any new parcel that complies with the conditions specified above." i. I am unable to find anything in the text of the Class 15 exemption to support that contention. ii. Indeed, the contention is quite counter-intuitive since the section is titled "Minor Land Divisions" (emphasis added), and a merger would seem the opposite of a division. c. It might be noted that in the unpublished case of Lookout Point Alliance v. City Of Newport Beach (G048729), the Fourth District Court of Appeals accepted a Class 5 CEQA exemption for a similar residential lot merger, although their reasoning is a bit difficult to follow. Zoning Administrator-October 27,2016 Item No.2a:Additional Materials Received Rogers Lot Merger(PA2016-158) Oct. 27, 2016, Zoning Administrator agenda Item 2 comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 2 3. With regard to Required Finding 3.C, I find it hard to understand how the concept of lot mergers in general can be found consistent with the General Plan without a corresponding amendment to it, since the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan includes as a presumably integral part of it detailed subdivision maps showing the two lots in question. a. As presently written, the General Plan has a policy (LU 4.2) prohibiting the creation of new residential lots without an amendment. While it exempts the re-subdivision of lots that were legally merged prior to the adoption of the General Plan, it is unclear to me that it has a policy allowing new mergers without amendment. b. Even if the need for a General Plan amendment is not a problem, Fact in Support of Finding 3.C.2 cites an acceptable range of density, but does not indicate where the density resulting from this merger falls in that range, or (if the density range applies only to average density in the general area, as the City held in Lookout Point Alliance, above) how it affects that. That is, will the density be in conformance? If not, will it be closer to conformance? c. The staff report similarly lacks an analysis of how the decrease by one of the City's available housing stock impacts the Housing Element, either globally or in this local area —or any other housing requirements the City may face. 4. Required Finding F on handwritten page 8 is confusingly not part of the merger approval, but is needed to waive the parcel map requirement per NBMC Section 19.08.030. This is not clearly delineated in the resolution, nor does the action at the end of handwritten page 8 make clear that the request for the waiver is being granted. However, it is described as a separate matter and a separate request both on the agenda and in the Project Summary. Is the parcel map requirement being waived? 5. Finally, it seems a very minor point, but I notice Condition of Approval 6 in Exhibit "A" is inconsistent as to whether the word "City" should be preceded by the article "the" or not. As written, it appears the language may have been lifted from a contract in which the word "City" was a defined term. Since there appears to be no such definition in the present resolution, I would suggest that at the first occurrence in Condition 6 say "the City of Newport Beach" and after that consistently say "the City."