HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeashore Village Residential DevelopmentCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
March 20, 2008 Meeting
Agenda Item No. 6
SUBJECT: Seashore Village Residential Development (PA2007 -100)
5515 River Avenue
• Mitigated Negative Declaration
• Tentative Tract Map No. 2007 -001
• Modification Permit No. 2007 -044
• Use Permit No. 2007 -011
• Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007 -001
APPLICANT: Seashore Village, LLC
PLANNER: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner
(949) 644 -3209, jmurillo @city.newport- beach.ca.us
PROJECT SUMMARY
The applicant proposes to develop and construct 12 detached, single -unit residential
structures and 6 detached, two -unit (duplex) residential structures (24 units total) on a
1.49 -acre site located at 5515 River Avenue. The site is currently developed with a 54-
unit apartment complex that would be demolished to accommodate the proposed
development.
Entitlement of the project as proposed requires Planning Commission review and
approval of the following applications:
• A tentative tract map to create a 24 -unit condominium subdivision.
• A modification permit to allow encroachments into the required Multi - Family
Residential (MFR) front and side yard setback areas and a reduction in the
required distance between detached buildings.
• A use permit to allow each of the 6 duplex structures to exceed the City's base
height limit.
• A coastal residential development permit (CRDP) to ensure compliance with
Government Code Section 65590 (Mello Act), which regulates the demolition of
low and moderate income (affordable) dwelling units in the coastal zone.
RECOMMENDATION
Hold a public hearing and adopt the attached resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative
Declaration (Sch. No. 2008021075) and approving Tentative Tract Map No. 2007 -001,
Modification Permit No. 2007 -044, Use Permit No. 2007 -011 and Coastal Residential
Development Permit No. 2007 -001, subject to findings and conditions of approval.
Project Site
hL
NORTH Single -Unit Residential
Detached
Single -Unit Residential
SOUTH Detached & Two -Unit
9A /
Residential & Two -
Family Residential
oA$T r^re.wrr _•
Single - Family Residences
Single - Family & Two - Family
Residences
Seashore Village
March 20, 2008
Page 3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site Description
The 1.49 -acre site is relatively flat and trapezoidal in shape. A three -story, 54,739
square -foot, 54 -unit apartment building (Las Brisas Apartments) currently occupies the
site. Carports exist on the first level of the apartment building and 4 carport canopies
exist at the perimeter of the site. A swimming pool, private common area, and planters
also exist on -site. The site is currently accessed via two driveways on River Avenue.
Access from and to Seashore Drive is blocked by a wooden fence.
Project Description
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 54 -unit apartment complex and
construct 12 detached, single -unit residential structures and 6 detached, two -unit
(duplex) residential structures, for a total of 24 units (Exhibit 2, Project Plans). The 12
single -unit structures would front onto Seashore Drive and onto West Newport Park.
The 6 duplex structures front onto River Avenue. The proposed architecture consists of
two styles, "Craftsman" and "Plantation ". Three floor plans are proposed: Plan A (3,248
sq. ft.), Plan B (2,797 sq. ft.), and Plan C (Unit A- 1,836 sq. ft.; Unit B- 1,770 sq. ft.).
Each unit would be three - stories in height, with overall roof heights ranging in height
from 31 feet to 31 feet -6 inches.
Access to the project site would be provided via two driveways on River Avenue and
one driveway from Neptune Avenue. The western driveway on River Avenue would
exclusively serve one single -unit structure, and all other vehicular access would be
provided through a driveway connecting Neptune Avenue to River Avenue. A total of 63
parking spaces are proposed: 24 dedicated residential spaces in garages and carports;
and, 15 open guest spaces.
ANALYSIS
The General Plan
Land Use Element
The Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth objectives, policies and limitations
for development in the City and designates the general distribution and location of land
uses and residential and commercial densities. The Land Use Element designates the
project site as Multiple -Unit Residential (RM) with a maximum development limit of 51
dwelling units. The RM designation is intended to provide primarily for multi- family
residential development containing attached or detached dwelling units. The proposed
subdivision is consistent with this designation. The following Land Use Element policies
and programs were considered relative to the proposed development:
WJ
Seashore Village
March 20, 2008
Page 4
LU 5.1.9 Character and Quality of Multi- Family Residential
Require that multi- family dwellings be designed to convey a high quality architectural character in
accordance with the following:
Building Elevations
• Treatment of the elevations of buildings facing public streets and pedestrian ways as the principal
fagades with respect to architectural treatment to achieve the highest level of urban design and
neighborhood quality.
• Architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation of mass to convey the character of
separate living units or clusters of living units, avoiding the appearance of a singular building
volume.
• Provide street- and path- facing elevations with high - quality doors, windows, moldings, metalwork,
and finishes.
Roof De
• Modulate roof profiles to reduce the apparent scale of large structures and to provide visual
interest and variety.
The proposed residential development has been designed to be compatible with the
development pattern and character of the surrounding neighborhood, which generally
consists of two- and three -story, single -unit and two -unit dwellings. Each unit will feature
either a "Craftsman" or "Plantation" architectural style. Architectural details and
enhancements (i.e. batt and board wood siding, louvered window shutters, decorative
trim, and stone veneer) will be provided on all building elevations. The 2nd floor facades
are setback from the 151 floor on the rear elevations and cantilevered over the 1sc floor
on the front elevations, providing articulation and modulation to the building mass. The
3`d floor of each building is setback from the front and rear elevations, towards the
interior portion of each building envelope, to reduce the visual mass of the structures as
viewed from the streets.
Parkin
• Design covered and enclosed parking areas to be integral with the architecture of the residential
units' architecture.
Each unit has a direct access 2 -car garage or a 1 -car garage and tandem carport
space, integrated into the design of each building.
Open Space and Amenity
• incorporate usable and functional private open space for each unit.
• Incorporate common open space that creates a pleasant living environment with opportunities for
recreation.
LU 6.2.9 Private Open Spaces and Recreational Facilities
Require the open space and recreational facilities that are integrated into and owned by private
residential development are permanently preserved as part of the development approval process and
are prohibited from converting to residential or other types of land uses.
Seashore Village
March 20, 2008
Page 5
A majority of the units have been designed with small (approx. 300 sq. ft.) front patio
areas, which are comparable in size to the outdoor living areas of the surrounding
residential development within the neighborhood. Six units (Unit B of Plan C) do not
provide front patio areas. All units are provided useable and functional 2nd level and 3`d
level deck spaces (ranging between 48 — 154 sq. ft.). Although the project will provide
more landscaping and lawn areas than currently exist on -site, no common recreational
amenities are provided. It should be noted, however, that the West Newport Park, an
active recreational park, is located immediately west of the project site and the beach is
located approximately 120 feet south of the site; both the park and the beach will
provide additional recreational opportunities. A proposed condition of project approval
prohibits any floor area additions to the approved building envelopes, which will
preserve open patio and deck areas proposed for each unit and the common
landscaped and open space areas.
LU 6.2.10 Gated Communities
Discourage the creation of new private entry gates in existing residential neighborhoods that currently
do not have a gate located at the entrance of the community.
A condition of approval has also been included that will prohibit the use of private gates.
Housing Element
The Housing Element of the General Plan sets forth goals and policies to facilitate the
attainment of the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocations and to foster the
availability of affordable housing to all income levels to the greatest extent feasible. The
following General Plan Housing Element policies and programs were considered
relative to the proposed development:
H 1.1 Support all reasonable efforts to preserve, maintain, and improve availability and quality
of existing housing and residential neighborhoods, and ensure full utilization of existing City housing
resources for as long into the future as physically and economically feasible.
H 2.1 Encourage preservation of existing and provision of new housing affordable to very low,
low- and moderate income households.
The demolition of the older, non - conforming, 54 -unit apartment complex and
development of 24 condominiums, will result in a total reduction of 30 dwelling units. As
discussed in the Population and Housing section of the Initial Study prepared for the
project, there are approximately 43,851 housing units in the City, of which
approximately 5,462 units are vacant. The rental vacancy rate is estimated at 7.7
percent with approximately 3,337 rental units vacant (American Community Survey
2006). Therefore, the reduction and change in housing type is not considered
significant, as there are sufficient existing rental units available to absorb the displaced
rental units.
Housing Program 1.1.3 implements Housing Policy H 1.1 and requires the replacement
of housing demolished within the Coastal Zone when housing is, or has been, occupied
Seashore Village
March 20, 2008
Page 6
by low- income or moderate - income households. As discussed in more detail in the
Coastal Residential Development Permit section of this report, a total of 6 rental units
have been identified to have been occupied by low- income and moderate - income
households, which the applicant will be required to replace at an off -site location with
restrictions to maintain their affordability for a minimum of 30 years.
Local Coastal Program
The Coastal Land Use Plan of (CLUP) the Local Coastal Program sets forth goals,
objectives, and policies that govern the use of land and water in the coastal zone within
the City and addresses land use and development, public access and recreation, and
coastal resource protection in accordance with the California Coastal Act. The project
site is designated for High Density Residential (RH -A 20.1 - 30 DU /AC). The proposed
subdivision is consistent with this designation as the proposed project density is 16.1
d.u. /acre. The following CLUP policies were considered relative to the proposed
development:
Location of New Development
2.2.1 -1 Continue to allow redevelopment and in{ll development within and adjacent to the existing
developed areas in the coastal zone subject to the density and intensity limits and resource
protection policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan.
2.2.1 -2 Require new development be located in areas with adequate public services or in areas that
are capable of having public services extended or expanded without significant adverse
effects on coastal resources.
The subject property is located within an existing developed area of the coastal zone and
the proposed project density of 16.1 units per acre is below the maximum density limit of
30 units per acre established for the RH -A designation of the CLUP. Public services and
infrastructure are currently available and serve the proposed development (8" sewer and
water lines are located in both the Seashore Drive and River Avenue rights -of -way), and
all applicable improvements required by Section 19.28 (Subdivision Improvements) of the
Subdivision Code are required to be constructed by the applicant. Such improvements
include sidewalk construction, street tree plantings, sewer and water connections, utility
undergrounding, and a fire hydrant.
Residential Development
2.7 -1. Continue to maintain appropriate setbacks and density, floor area, and height limits for
residential development to protect the character of established neighborhoods and to
protect coastal access and coastal resources.
As discussed in more detail within the Zoning Compliance section of this .report, the
proposed development has been designed to comply with all applicable Multi - Family
Residential (MFR) development regulations of the City's Zoning Code, including density,
floor area, open space, and parking, to insure design compatibility with the surrounding
goo
Seashore Village
March 20, 2008
Page 7
neighborhood. Although deviations from the required setbacks and the base height limit
are proposed, these deviations will not result in a site plan that is inconsistent with the
character and development pattern of the surrounding residential neighborhood. The
proposed project will not impact coastal resources nor the ability of the public to reach, use
or view the shoreline of coastal waters or inland coastal recreation areas and trails.
Parking
2.9.3 -2. Continue to require all development shall provide adequate off - street parking to serve the
approved use in order to minimize impacts to public on- street and off - street parking
available for coastal access.
2.9.3 -5 Continue to require off - street parking in new development to have adequate dimensions,
clearances, and access to insure their use.
The parking requirement for multiple - family residential development is two spaces per
unit, including one covered, plus 0.5 spaces per unit for guest parking for developments
of four or more units. The proposed project includes 48 spaces for the residents and 12
spaces for guest parking. The 63 spaces (3 extra guest spaces) proposed exceed the
minimum parking requirements of the Zoning Code. The project is conditioned to meet
all City requirements regarding parking design standards, including minimum widths,
depths, grades, and aisle - turning radii.
Private (Gated Communities
3.1.5 -1 Prohibit new development that incorporate gates, guardhouses, barriers or other
structures designed to regulate or restrict access where they would inhibit public access
to and along the shoreline and to beaches, coastal parks, trails, or coastal bluffs.
3.1.5 -2 Prohibit new private streets, or the conversion of public streets to private streets, where
such a conversion would inhibit public access to and along the shoreline and to beaches,
coastal parks, trails, or coastal bluffs.
The applicant has agreed to eliminate gated access that was originally proposed for the
project. As a result, the proposed private driveway will provide unrestricted vehicular
access through the project from River Avenue and Neptune Avenue. This design will not
inhibit public access to the beach.
Scenic and Visual Resources
Policies 4.4.1 -1 through 4.4.2 -3 of the Coastal Land Use Plan pertain to the design of
structures to protect public coastal views and preserve or enhance the visual qualities of
the coastal zone. The project site is not located near the vicinity of a designated public
view point or coastal view road requiring view protection and will not impact any public
views.
0
Seashore Village
March 20, 2008
Page 8
Zoning Compliance
The subject property is located within the Multi - Family Residential (MFR) Zoning District.
The proposed detached, single -unit and two -unit residential structures are a permitted
use within this zoning designation. With the exception of the increased setback
encroachments, reduction in the minimum distance between buildings, and building
height increase, all of the following development regulations of the MFR zoning
regulations have been met:
Per Section 20.10.30(M), 200 square feet of floor area per required parking devoted to enclosed parking
shall not be included in the calculation of gross floor area.
Modification Request
The requested encroachments into the required 20 -foot front yard setbacks and 25 -foot
side yard setbacks, and deviation from the minimum 10 -foot building separation
requirement, require a modification permit, which may be approved if the findings
contained within Section 20.93.030 of the Municipal Code can be made as follows:
)ib
Lot Size 5000 s . ft.
1.49 acres 64,904 s . ft.
Min. Lot Size Per Unit
1200 s . ft.
2704 s . ft.
Maximum Floor Area Limit
1.75 72,133 s . ft.
1.23 50,706 s . ft.
Setbacks
Front Setbacks
Seashore Avenue
20'
1ff
River Avenue
20'
Side Setbacks
West
25'
10' -1Z
East
25'
Maximum Height
28' Midpoint/Flat Roof
33' Ridge
Plan A (SFR)
25' -6" Midpoint (31' Ridge)
Plan B (SFR)
26' -8" Midpoint (31'4" Ridge)
Plan C (Duplex)
2$`f4 *_ kI . f tt 31•-_x,
Minimum Distance
10'
6'
Between Buildings
Minimum Open Space
247,313 cu. Ft.
675,415 cu. ft.
Parkin
Resident 2 per unit
48 spaces
1 48 spaces
Guest 0.5 per unit
12 spaces
15 spaces
Total
60 spaces
63 spaces
Per Section 20.10.30(M), 200 square feet of floor area per required parking devoted to enclosed parking
shall not be included in the calculation of gross floor area.
Modification Request
The requested encroachments into the required 20 -foot front yard setbacks and 25 -foot
side yard setbacks, and deviation from the minimum 10 -foot building separation
requirement, require a modification permit, which may be approved if the findings
contained within Section 20.93.030 of the Municipal Code can be made as follows:
)ib
Seashore Village
March 20, 2008
Page 9
The granting of the application is necessary due to practical difficulties
associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code
results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of
the Zoning Code.
While the MFR District permits the proposed single -unit and two -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.
The applicant has proposed 24 single -unit and two -unit residences designed to appear as
if they were situated on individual 30- foot -wide lots and setbacks comparable to
surrounding R -1 and R -2 lots. Staff believes that utilizing the R -1 and R -2 development
standards as a guide for determining acceptable setbacks and building separation is
appropriate in this case. Given that the MFR District permits proposed detached
development, but doesn't provide corresponding development standards, strict application
of the Code would result in a physical hardship that is inconsistent with the intent of the
Code.
2. The requested modification will be compatible with the existing development in
the neighborhood.
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. Those
reductions in the setbacks and building separation to accommodate the smaller detached,
residential units arguably results in a site plan that is more compatible and consistent with
the historic development pattern of the area rather than a single, larger apartment -
complex. The following facts support compatibility of the proposed project with the existing
neighborhood:
R -1, R -2, and MFR lots only require 3 to 4 -foot side yard setbacks. The proposed 6-
foot separation between buildings within the project is consistent with the required
3 -foot side yard setbacks of many of the 30 -foot wide lots in the surrounding
neighborhood, which results in a total distance of 6 feet between buildings.
The proposed project is designed to appear as if each unit is situated on a 30 -foot-
wide lot, the setbacks provided to the east property line are consistent and
compatible with the required 3 -foot side yard setbacks of the surrounding 30 -foot
and 40- foot -wide lots in the neighborhood. The single -unit building fronting
Seashore Drive that is proposed to encroach 21 feet into the required side yard
setback adjacent to the east property line will maintain a 4 -foot setback. The duplex
Seashore Village
March 20, 2008
Page 10
unit fronting River Avenue that encroaches 17.5 feet into the required side yard
setback adjacent to east property line will maintain a 7.5 -foot setback.
• The 6 single -unit structures adjacent to West Newport Park are proposed to
encroach 15 feet into the required side yard setback, maintaining a 10 -foot setback
to the property line. Due to the orientation of these units, this setback area is
equivalent to their front yards and is consistent with the majority of the front yard
setbacks in the immediate vicinity of this project that range between 0 and 10 feet
(Exhibit 3, Districting Map).
• The 6 units fronting Seashore Drive are proposed to encroach 10 feet into the
required 20 -foot setback, maintaining a 10 -foot setback to the property line. The
proposed 10 -foot setback exceeds the required 0 to 5 -foot front yard setbacks that
are required on a majority of the properties fronting Seashore Avenue in the
immediate vicinity of this project.
• The 6 duplex structures and 1 single -unit structure adjacent to River Avenue are
proposed to encroach between 5 and 10 feet into the required 20 -foot setback,
maintaining a minimum 10 to 15 -foot setback to the property line. These proposed
setbacks are consistent with, or exceed, the required 5 to 10 -foot front yard
setbacks that are required on a majority of the other existing properties fronting
River Avenue in the immediate vicinity of this project.
3. The granting of such an application will not adversely affect the health or safety
of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be
detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the
neighborhood.
As presented in discussion above for Finding No. 2, the project has been designed to
include setbacks comparable to the setback requirements of the surrounding R -1 and R -2
lots. Similar setback and distancing requirements are common throughout the City and
have not proven detrimental.
Although staff believes the proposed setbacks of the project are compatible with the
development pattern in the immediate vicinity of this project, it should be noted that
buildings on neighboring R -1 and R -2 lots are limited to a maximum height of 24 feet (24
feet midpoint/29 feet ridge). The proposed project however, is located within the MFR
District, and benefits from an increased height limit of 28 feet (28 feet midpoint/33 feet
ridge). Based on the rationale that the proposed detached, single -unit and two -unit
structures have been designed to conform to the setback requirements of the surrounding
R -1 and R -2 lots in the neighborhood and, therefore, warrant deviation from the MFR
setback regulations, staff recommends the following condition of project approval:
lc�
Seashore Village
March 20, 2008
Page 11
Condition No. 7 The two structures that encroach into the side yard setback area
immediately adjacent to the east property line shall be modified in
height to conform to the 24 -foot base height limit.
This modification will result in an approximate 2 -foot reduction in ridge height and will
ensure complete compatibility with the development standards of the neighboring R -2
units. With this condition, staff believes sufficient facts exist to support the required
findings to approve the requested setback encroachments and reduced building
separations.
Use Permit for Increased Height
The site is located in the 28/32 -foot height limitation zone that permits buildings and
structures to exceed the 28 -foot height limit up to a maximum of 32 -feet through the
approval of a use permit. Ridges of pitched roofs are permitted to exceed the height
limit by 5 additional feet.
The proposed project exceeds the 28 -foot base height limit. The proposed roof midpoints
of the 6 duplex buildings are at 28 feet 10 inches, as measured from the finished pad
elevation. The ridges of the buildings are comforming with a height of approximately 31
feet 4 inches measured from the finished pad elevation.
Section 20.65.055 of the Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to make
certain mandatory findings in order to approve a use permit to exceed the base height
limit. These findings and the facts in support of these findings are discussed below:
1. The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and
views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention
shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot the percentage of ground
cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas.
The 6 duplex units that are proposed to exceed the 28 -foot base height limit have been
designed with low- pitched gable roof lines, resulting in a maximum midpoint elevation of
28 feet 10 inches (10 inches over the maximum limit) and a maximum ridge elevation of
31 feet 4 inches (1 foot 8 inches under the maximum ridge limit). As illustrated in Exhibit
4 (Height Limit Overlay), a- conforming roof plan can easily be accomplished by
designing a taller structure with longer roof spans, thereby lowering the midpoint below
the 28 -foot limit. This quirk in the City's method of measuring roof midpoints results in
conforming roof midpoints but increases the overall height of the building to the
maximum 33 -foot ridge limit. Therefore, the 10 -inch height increase to the midpoint
allowance actually results in a 1 -foot 8 inch overall height reduction of the proposed
buildings, resulting in increased public visual open space and views than could
otherwise be afforded with a conforming roof plan.
1'�
Seashore Village
March 20, 2008
Page 12
The Planning Commission should also consider that a single, large multiple -unit building
that conforms to the minimum setbacks and maximum height could be constructed,
which would likely result in a more visually massive and bulky structure. Such a project
could result in a 63 percent total maximum lot coverage (Lot Coverage is defined as the
percentage of a site covered by roofs, soffits, or overhangs and by decks more than 30
inches in height). The proposed project, with 18 smaller detached single -unit and two -
unit structures results in a substantially smaller 36 percent lot coverage. This reduction
in lot coverage not only increases the public visual open space and view opportunities
through the site, but also allows for increased landscaping of the site, which is proposed
at 28 percent of the lot (the existing development of the site provides only 14.4 percent
landscaping).
2. The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural
treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of
the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone.
The low- pitched gable roof lines result in building heights that are generally more
compatible with the heights and architectural styles of the development in the
surrounding neighborhood. As previously discussed, a conforming roof plan can be
designed that results in increased overall building heights and visual massing as viewed
from the street elevation. A conforming roof design also results in less desirable
architectural treatment of the side elevations, with more drastic roof lines that are less
visually appealing.
3. The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale
relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or
public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure
including both horizontal and vertical dimensions.
The proposed street facing elevations will be scaled down by concentrating the highest
portions of the building mass away from the street frontages. Through this design, the
front and rear masses of the buildings are minimized and allow more light and ventilation
to the immediate neighbors. Furthermore, with the exception of the existing R -2
properties to the east, the project site is separated from other uses by River Avenue,
Seashore Drive, and the West Newport Park. This separation, in conjunction with the
design of the buildings to limit they bulk and mass of the third floor to the center of the
lots, eliminates any undesirable or abrupt scale relationships between the project and
existing developments.
Staffs recommended condition requiring the reduction in heights of structures adjacent
to the existing R -2 properties to conform with a 24 -foot base height limit should result in
a project that is compatible in scale to the adjacent R -2 properties and will help ease the
transition of the project's increased heights to the existing neighborhood.
Seashore Village
March 20, 2008
Page 13
4. The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved
without the use permit.
As previously mentioned, the proposed floor area ratio for the project is 1.23 FAR,
which is below the maximum of 1.75 FAR; therefore the project does not achieve any
additional floor area due to the additional height. The additional allowance in height only
affects roof lines and results in an architecturally superior product than would be
achieved through a roof design that conforms to the height limit.
General Use Permit Findings
In addition to the required findings for the increased height request, the Zoning Code
requires the Planning Commission to make certain findings for use permits. These
findings and facts in support of findings are listed and discussed below.
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code
and the purposes of the district in which the site is located.
As previously mentioned, the Multi - Family Residential (MFR) Zoning District is intended
to provide for medium -to -high density residential development, including single - family,
two- family, and multi - family residential structures. The proposed detached single -unit
and two -unit residential structures are permitted uses within this zoning designation.
2. That the proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under
which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan
and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons
residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not
be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general
welfare of the city.
As noted in the previous sections, the project is consistent with the General Plan. The
proposed use permit request for increased height should not prove detrimental as the
project includes a significant increase in public and visual open space and the small
increase to the average height of the roofs actually allows for a more significant
reduction in overall height of the buildings (1 -foot 8- inches below the 33 -foot maximum
ridge height limitation).
3. That the proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code, including any
specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be
located.
The Municipal Code does not provide any specific conditions for this type of use; however,
the project has been reviewed and conditioned to ensure that conflicts with surrounding
land uses are minimized to the greatest extent possible or eliminated.
15
Seashore Village
March 20, 2008
Page 14
Subdivision — Tentative Tract Map
The applicant is requesting the approval of a tentative tract map, for condominium
purposes, to create 24 airspace condominium units. Pursuant to Section 19.12.070 of the
City Subdivision Code (Title 19), the following standard findings must be made to approve
the tentative tract map. If the Planning Commission determines that one or more of the
findings listed in relation to either map cannot be made, the tentative parcel map or tract
map must be denied.
1. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are
consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with
applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code.
As noted in the previous sections, the project is consistent with the General Plan. The
Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed tentative maps and believes that
they are consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Title 19) and applicable
requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. Conditions of approval have been included to
ensure compliance with Title 19.
2. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development.
The existing site is entirely developed and does not support any environmental resources.
The site is relatively flat and based on the geologic investigation performed for the site, no
signs of unstable or expansive soils are evident, nor is the site subject to erosion. It should
be noted that the geologic investigation did reveal that the underlying soil of the site has a
significant liquefaction potential if subject to heavy vibration; however, mitigation measures
have been incorporated, as recommended by the site - specific geotechnical investigation,
that will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
The site is currently developed with multiple - family dwelling units at a density greater
than that proposed. As previously discussed in the report, the proposed project is below
the applicable maximum floor area limit and maximum residential density for the site. Due
to these factors, the site is suitable for the type and density of development proposed.
3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the
decision - making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an
environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made
pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that
specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
l�
Seashore Village
March 20, 2008
Page 15
A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and concludes that no significant
environmental impacts will result with proposed development of the site in accordance
with the proposed subdivision map.
4. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
The project consists of 24 residential units as permitted by the Zoning Code and the
General Plan. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the planned
subdivision pattern will generate any serious public health problems. All mitigation
measures will be implemented as outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration to ensure
the protection of the public health.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of
property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision- making
body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for
use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to
ones previously acquired by the public. This finding sha# apply only to
easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to
determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or
use of property within a subdivision.
Although the access road through the project will remain private, a 24- foot -wide
easement through the site will be retained by the City to ensure access rights for public
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. No other public
easements for access through or use of the property have been retained for use by the
public at large. Public utility easements for utility connections that serve the project site
are present and will be modified, if necessary, to serve the proposed project.
6. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision
Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California
Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a
subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or
the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial
agricultural use of the land.
The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract; therefore, this finding does not
apply.
11
Seashore Village
March 20, 2008
Page 16
7. That, in the case of a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the
California Business and Professions Code: (a) there is an adopted specific plan
for the area to be included within the land project; and (b) the decision- making
body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for
the area.
The subject property is not located within the boundaries of a specific plan.
8. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have
been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the
Subdivision Map Act.
Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code requires new construction to meet minimum
heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The
Newport Beach Building Department enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan
check and field inspection processes.
9. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map
Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's
share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the
region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal
and environmental resources.
As previously noted in the Housing Element discussion, the demolition of the 54 -unit
apartment complex and development of 24 condominiums will result in a total reduction
of 30 dwelling units; however, given the rental vacancy rate of 7.7 percent in the City,
sufficient existing rental units available to absorb the displaced rental units. Also, as
discussed in more detail in the Coastal Residential Development Permit section of this
report, 6 of the 54 existing apartment units proposed for demolition are occupied by
persons of lower or moderate income. To compensate for this loss of affordable
housing, the applicant will be required to replace the units at an off -site location within
the City for a minimum period of 30 years. Public services are available to serve the
proposed development of the site and the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for
the project indicates that the project's potential environmental impacts are expected to
be less than significant.
10. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing
sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by
the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Waste discharge into the existing sewer system will be consistent with residential use of
the property which does not violate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
requirements. As of writing this report, the RWQCB has not provided any comments
related to the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration during the 30 -day review period.
6
Seashore Village
March 20, 2008
Page 17
11. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the
subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where
applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the
Coastal Act.
Although the proposed subdivision is located entirely within the coastal zone, the project
site is not located adjacent to the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean and is not presently
developed with coastal - related uses, coastal- dependent uses or water - oriented
recreational uses. As noted previously, staff believes that the proposed project is
consistent with the City's CLUP and the Coastal Act.
Coastal Residential Development Permit
Chapter 20.86 of the Zoning Code (Low and Moderate Income Housing within the
Coastal Zone) requires the processing of a coastal residential development permit
(CRDP) to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 (commonly known
as the 1982 Mellow Act). The Mellow Act prohibits the City from approving the
demolition or conversion of existing housing units occupied by low- or moderate - income
households located within the Coastal Zone, unless provisions are made for their
replacement. If feasible, all or any portion of the replacement units must be located on
the site of the demolished structure or elsewhere in the Coastal Zone. If location on -site
or within the Coastal Zone is not feasible, the units must be located within three miles of
the Coastal Zone's inland boundary.
Based on an income survey performed in June of 2007 by the Las Brisas property
manager, Allen Properties, it was determined that a total of 6 units in the existing
apartment complex are occupied by low- and moderate - income households. The
income distribution is as follows:
• Two very-low- income households; and
• Four moderate - income households
Feasibility Analysis
The Mello Act states that replacement affordable units must be provided if "feasible ".
The Mello Act defines feasibility as "capable of .being accomplished in a successful
manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic,
environmental, social and technical factors ". The City utilized a pro forma provided by
the applicant to analyze the project and determine if it was financially feasible for the
applicant to fulfill all, or any portion, of the replacement requirements of the Mello Act.
For the purpose of the feasibility analysis, the pro forma estimates development costs
and revenues for the project based on the following:
kl�
Seashore Village
March 20, 2008
Page 18
1. Site Acquisition Cost ($25,500,000)
2. Total Development Costs ($28,434,500)
3. Total Sales Revenue ($58,950,000)
4. Developer Profit (8.5 percent of Sales revenue = $5,015,500)
The applicant has agreed to commit $1.35 million to subsidizes the rents and/or
purchase price of off -site replacement housing. After committing $1.35 million towards
replacement housing, the applicant's profit is expected to decrease to approximately 6.2
percent. Specific candidate properties for the replacement units have not yet been
identified as of this writing.
The City retained the real estate development consulting firm, The Natelson Dale
Group, Inc (TNDG) for the purposes of evaluating the reasonableness of the applicant's
financial projections. After reviewing the applicant's pro forma dated November 2007
and an appraisal letter prepared by CB Richard Ellis, Inc (CBRE) dated January 5,
2008, TNDG has concluded that the applicant could afford to subsidize replacement
housing in the amount of at least $1.8 million to $2.0 million and still meet the project
feasibility criteria established in the applicant's original pro forma (8.5 percent developer
profit). The TNDG Memorandum is attached as Exhibit 5. The basis of this conclusion is
that the CBRE appraisal (prepared subsequent to the applicant's November 2007 pro
forma) indicates a total revenue potential for the project of $60.9 million, or $1.95 million
more than sales revenue indicated on the applicant's pro forma.
Based on the revised revenue expectation, the applicant's development costs and
revenues for the project would be revised as follows:
1. Site Acquisition Cost ($25,500,000)
2. Total Development Costs ($28,434,500)
3. Total Sales Revenue ($60,900,000)
4. Developer Profit Before Replacement Housing Fee (11.4 % or $6,965,500)
5. Replacement Housing Costs ($1,950,000 million)
6. Net Developer Profit (8.5 percent of Sales revenue = $5,015,500)
On -Site Replacement
Replacement of the 6 affordable units on -site is infeasible, given the land costs and
proposed product types; however, based on the applicant's sales revenue projection, it
appears that it would be feasible to retain one of the duplex units on -site as a moderate -
income "for -sale' unit. The 3- bedroom unit could be sold at a maximum price of
$283,200 to a moderate income household, resulting in a loss (subsidy) of $1,250,800.
Staff does not recommend this option.
I
Seashore Village
March 20, 2008
Page 19
Off -Site Replacement
The most practical way to replace the units would be through the acquisition of an
existing, off -site apartment project and /or condominium and subsidizing the rents and /or
purchase price of the units to lower or moderate - income households. To determine
whether the applicant's $1.35 million commitment was sufficient to subsidize 6 off -site
replacement units, staff relied on the analysis contained within the Draft Technical
Memorandum dated October 11, 2007 (Exhibit 6), prepared by Economic and Planning
Systems (EPS), for the calculation of the City's affordable housing in -lieu fee. Based on
the information contained within the memorandum, the net cost to subsidize 6
replacement units is estimated at $962,134. It should be noted that these calculations
were intended to generally illustrate the subsidy amount that is required for the City to
create new affordable units; however, actual subsidy costs could vary depending on the
number of units that are created and whether they or new or converted units.
Very Low Rental
Moderate Income
For -Sale
'For comparison purposes, the types of affordable unit proposed to be demolished (i.e. income level and bedroom count) were used
to calculate subsidy costs.
2For subsidy calculations, the value of the affordable unit (as calculated through sale values or capitalized rental operating income
streams) is compared to the costs to develop the unit, including "direct costs (labor and materials), "indirect" costs (design, permits,
financing, etc.) and land acquisition costs.
Site Acquisition Costs
The CBRE appraisal estimates the "as is" value of the property as an apartment
complex to be $15.95 million and the potential land value (if entitled per the applicant's
request) to be $25.5 million. Staff believes the site acquisition costs (entitled land value)
included in the applicant's pro forma is overvalued as it does not include the cost to
replace the 6 units in accordance with the Mello Act ; therefore, it does not represent
entitled land value. Although the applicant has committed $1.35 million towards the
replacement of the 6 units, staff believes this informatioif is pertinent when considering
the feasibility of this project.
CRDP Summary
Based on the above discussion, the applicant's commitment of $1.35 million is sufficient
to subsidize the replacement of the 6 affordable housing units and still provide a
developer profit that is acceptable to the applicant (ranging between 6.2 — 9.2 percent
depending on total sales revenue). The Mello Act does not specify whether the
replacement units must be like- for -like in terms of affordability and bedroom count;
Seashore Village
March 20, 2008
Page 20
however, given the City's adequate supply of moderate income rental units in the City,
staff recommends that any very-low and low income units proposed be maintained as
rental units and any moderate income units proposed be sold as "for- sale" units. Staff
has included a condition ensuring an appropriate mix of affordable units is provided that
efficiently utilizes the applicant's $1.35 million commitment.
Traffic Phasing Ordinance
Based on trip generation rates calculated using the Institute of Traffic Engineers' (ITE)
Trip Generation Manual (7th edition, 2003), occupancy of the proposed 24 single -unit
and two -unit residences is anticipated to result in a net reduction of 178 average daily
trips (ADT) in comparison to the number of trips estimated to be generated by the
existing 54 -unit apartment complex (178 ADT — 363 ADT = -178 ADT). Per Section
15.40.030.0.1 of the Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance), the project is exempt
from having to prepare a traffic study as it generates fewer than 300 daily trips.
Environmental Review
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared by The Planning Center for
the proposed project in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MND is attached as Exhibit No. 7. The MND
identifies five (5) issue areas with 6 mitigation measures. Those issues are: Air Quality,
Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Noise.
The MND was circulated for public review between February 20 and March 20, 2008.
As of the date of staff report preparation, staff has only received two standard MND
comment letters from the Gas Company and the Native American Heritage Commission
(Exhibit 8). Staff will prepare responses to any subsequent comment letters, if received,
and present them to the Planning Commission at the March 20th hearing.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within
300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this
hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. The environmental assessment process
has also been noticed in a similar manner and all mandatory notices per the California
Environmental Quality Act have been given. Finally, the item appeared upon the agenda
for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Additionally, the
item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on
the city website.
In addition to the City's public noticing requirements, the applicant has been proactive in
meeting with surrounding neighborhood and has provided a summary of their
community outreach efforts, which is attached as Exhibit 9
Seashore Village
March 20, 2008
Page 21
SUMMARY
Although the proposed project includes a number of deviations from the MFR District
development standards, staff believes that findings necessary for project approval can
be made. It is staff's conclusion that the 24 -unit condominium project, as conditioned,
would not prove detrimental to the area and will result in a development that is more
compatible and consistent with the historic development of the adjacent R -1 and R -2
properties in the immediate vicinity of the site.
ALTERNATIVES
Should the Planning Commission conclude that the project as proposed would not be
compatible with the surrounding uses and /or that the project would not be appropriate
for the MFR District, the project should be denied, or modified to address issues of
design or density. If a redesigned project is advisable, staff recommends a continuance
to allow the applicant time to revise their plans accordingly should this course of action
be sought.
Given the deviations from the MFR development standards necessary to accommodate
the single -unit and two -unit product type proposed for the site, staff considered the
appropriateness of alternative zoning designations; however, for the following various
reasons, the MFR designation proved to be most appropriate:
1. An R -1 /R -2 is most suitable for the proposed product type; however, the benefits
of the MFR guest parking, open space and increased landscaping would be lost
and potentially replaced with two additional units (Exhibit 10, Zone Change
Study).
2. The Planned Residential Development (PRD) Overlay allows for project - specific
development plan and flexibility with development standards; however, given the
large parking requirement that cannot be waived, this option was not considered
feasible.
3. The Planned Community District is intended to provide for the classification and
development of parcels of land as coordinated, comprehensive projects so as to
take advantage of the superior environment which cari4esult from large -scale
community planning; however, the proposed project does not achieve these
objectives and does not meet the minimum land area requirements of 10 acres.
Seashore Village
March 20, 2008
Page 22
The following table provides a comparison of the various zoning district alternatives:
Prepared by:
-* aime Murillo, Associate Planner
EXHIBITS
1. Resolution
2. Project Plans
3. Districting Map
4. Height Limit Overlay
5. TNDG Memorandum
6. EPS Memorandum; In -Lieu Fee Study
7. Mitigated Negative Declaration
8. MND Comment Letters
9. Applicant's Community Outreach Summary
10. Zone Change Study
Submitted by:
David Lepo, Pla eg Director
F:IUsersIPLMShared1PA51PAs - 20071PA2007- 1001Staff Reports and ResolutionslPA2007 -100 PC Staff Report 3.20.08.doc
r
Discretionary
Modification
General Plan
Code Amendment
Code Amendment
Approvals
Permit
Amendment
Use Permit
Development Plan
Use Permit
Code Amendment
Subdivision
deviations from
minimum lot size
(5000 sq. ft.
minimum
Units
24 proposed
Potentially 26 lots
Unknown;
Per Dev. Plan
due to loss of guest
significant
parking requirement
reduction
anticipated due to
increased parking
requirements
Parking
2 per unit, plus .5
2 per unit, no guest
2 per unit, plus 2
Per Dev. Plan
guest per unit
parking
guest per unit
60 spaces)
24 spaces)
96 spaces total
Minimum
1200 sq. ft. per
1000 sq. ft. per unit
1200 sq. ft. per unit
10 acres
Land Area
unit
Height
28' midpoint/flat
24' midpoint/flat
Up to
Up to
33' ridge
29' ridge
32' midpoint/flat
32' midpoint/flat
37' ride
1 37' ridge
Prepared by:
-* aime Murillo, Associate Planner
EXHIBITS
1. Resolution
2. Project Plans
3. Districting Map
4. Height Limit Overlay
5. TNDG Memorandum
6. EPS Memorandum; In -Lieu Fee Study
7. Mitigated Negative Declaration
8. MND Comment Letters
9. Applicant's Community Outreach Summary
10. Zone Change Study
Submitted by:
David Lepo, Pla eg Director
F:IUsersIPLMShared1PA51PAs - 20071PA2007- 1001Staff Reports and ResolutionslPA2007 -100 PC Staff Report 3.20.08.doc