HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA2022-118_20220527_Exhibit C_City Staff Report for PA2016-158_Dated October 27, 2016
Exhibit C
City Staff Report for PA2016-158
Dated October 27, 2016
PA2022-118
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
1Exhibit C
PA2022-118
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 Exhibit C
PA2022-118
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 Exhibit C
PA2022-118
Attachment No. ZA 1
Draft Resolution
4Exhibit C
PA2022-118
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.
5Exhibit C
PA2022-118
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 Exhibit C
PA2022-118
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 Exhibit C
PA2022-118
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
gExhibit C
PA2022-118
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
9Exhibit C
PA2022-118
Attachment No. ZA 2
Vicinity Map
10Exhibit C
PA2022-118
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
1Exhibit C
PA2022-118
Attachment No. ZA 3
Project Plans
12Exhibit C
PA2022-118
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 DivisionWpplications\LA&LM\info.docx
Upd le 7/18/ 13Exhibit C
PA2022-118
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 LOi 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\SharedWdminlPlanninADivision\Applications\LA&LM\Info.docx
UpStof 7/18/13Exhibit C
PA2022-118
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 i9J
Jt
U n
2 61
1+. lu JSiPi/a1VTSf}N17•E.la PZ>P U14
Lp
Jd
rzooPr"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/13Exhibit C
PA2022-118
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.
Exhibit C
PA2022-118
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."
Exhibit C
PA2022-118