Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.0 - Valley Mixed Use - PA2013-185CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT January 23, 2014 Meeting Agenda Item 5 SUBJECT: Vallely Mixed Use - PA2013 -185 508 South Bay Front • Site Development Review No. SD2013 -004 • Conditional Use Permit No. UP2013 -018 • Variance No. VA2013 -009 APPLICANT: John Morgan PLANNER: Fern Nueno, Associate Planner ( 949) 644 -3227, fnueno @newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY The applicant requests approval of a Site Development Review to allow the construction of a three -story, mixed -use structure. The project would consist of 765 square feet of commercial use, one commercial parking space, and a 459 - square -foot residential garage on the first floor, and a 1,942- square -foot residence above. The requests also includes a Conditional Use Permit for a reduction of the off - street parking requirement for the commercial use, and a Variance to deviate from the minimum nonresidential floor area requirement and maximum residential floor area limit. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. _ approving Site Development Review No. SD2013 -004, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2013 -018, and Variance No. VA2013 -009 (Attachment No. PC 1). Vallely Mixed Use (PA2013 -185) January 23, 2014 Page 2 VICINITY MAP GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE Mixed Use Water Related , V M jSubject Property (MU-W2) (MU-W2) N. t r q� A NORTHWEST Mixed Use Water Related Mixed -Use Water Related Mixed use GENERAL PLAN MU -W2 ZONING NORTHEAST Two -Unit Residential (RT) Two -Unit Residential, Single and two -unit o. k, Balboa Island R -BI dwellin s f r a Two -Unit Residential (RT) O, qy' LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE Mixed Use Water Related Mixed -Use Water Related ON -SITE (MU-W2) (MU-W2) Single -unit dwelling NORTHWEST Mixed Use Water Related Mixed -Use Water Related Mixed use MU -W2 (MU-W2) NORTHEAST Two -Unit Residential (RT) Two -Unit Residential, Single and two -unit Balboa Island R -BI dwellin s SOUTHEAST Two -Unit Residential (RT) Two -Unit Residential, Single and two -unit Balboa Island R -BI dwellings Vallely Mixed Use (PA2013 -185) January 23, 2014 Page 3 Project Setting The subject property is located on the south side of Balboa Island between Agate Avenue and Opal Avenue near the Balboa Ferry. Balboa Island is primarily developed with single- and two -unit residential dwellings with some commercial and mixed -use near Marine Avenue and Agate Avenue. The subject property is approximately 2,590 square feet in area and is developed with a two -story, single - family house. At the front of the property is a pedestrian walkway and to the rear is an alley that provides vehicular access. The subject property contains a commercial pier that the property owner uses for a boat and dock rental business. To the northwest of the subject property is a mixed -use development and to the southeast is a duplex. Project Description The applicant proposes to demolish the existing two -story residence and construct a three -story, mixed -use structure. The structure is proposed to have a commercial office on the first floor with a residence above. The applicant intends to use the commercial space as an office for the existing boat and dock rental office and live in the residence upstairs. The proposal also includes one commercial parking space that would meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, and a two -car, tandem residential garage. A floor area summary is provided in Table 1. A detailed project description submitted by the applicant is provided as Attachment No. PC 3. Table 1 — Floor Area Summary Use Floor Area SF Commercial 764 Residential 1,942 Residential Garage 459 Total 3,165 The project is required by Building Code and Zoning Code to have a minimum first floor elevation of 9 feet (NAVD88) due to the potential of flooding. The existing walkway and alley at either side of the property will be 3 -foot lower than the first floor elevation; therefore, ramps and stairs from the front and rear property lines to the building entrances will be required. The project has been designed with portions of the second and third floors set back from the property and setback lines, over 600 square feet of decks, and other building modulation and articulation. The proposed structure is a Cape Cod design with stone veneer, horizontal siding, stucco, slate roof, and glass deck guardrails, as shown on the visual simulation (Attachment No. PC 4) and the materials board that will be provided at the meeting (photograph provided as Attachment No. PC Vallely Mixed Use (PA2013 -185) January 23, 2014 Page 4 5). The proposed hardscape includes flagstone paving and concrete and the proposed landscaping is drought - tolerant, noninvasive plant species. DISCUSSION Analysis General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, and Zoning Code The subject property is designated as Mixed -Use Water Related (MU -W2) within the Zoning Code and Land Use Element of the General Plan. These designations apply to waterfront properties in which marine - related uses may be intermixed with general commercial, visitor - serving commercial and residential dwelling units on the upper floors. The Coastal Land Use Plan designates the property as Mixed Use Water Related (MU -W), which is intended to provide for commercial development on or near the bay in a manner that will encourage the continuation of coastal- dependent and coastal - related uses and visitor - serving uses, as well as allow for the development of mixed -use structures with residential uses above the ground floor. An office is the anticipated use on the first floor with residential above, which is consistent with these designations. Other commercial uses may be permitted in accordance with the MU -W2 Zoning District. Site Development Review Pursuant to Zoning Code Chapter 20.48.130 (Mixed -Use Projects), a Site Development Review is required for a mixed -use project. The primary intent of the review standards and criteria is to balance the needs of nonresidential uses for access, visibility, parking, loading, safety, and economic development with the needs of residential uses for privacy, security, and relative quiet. The commercial use has pedestrian access from both South Bay Front and the alley and provides adequate separation from the residential use above. The anticipated office use should not have any negative impacts for noise or security for the residential use with the design and construction methods proposed. Development Standards The development standards for the proposed project are regulated by Section 20.22.030 (Mixed -Use Zoning Districts General Development Standards) and Section 20.48.130 (Mixed -Use Projects) of the Zoning Code. Height The height limit for structures within the MU -W2 Zoning District is 26 feet for a flat roof and 31 feet for a pitched roof. The proposed project is designed with sloped roofs at the 31 -foot height limit and deck guard rails under the 26 -foot flat roof height limit. Vallely Mixed Use (PA2013 -185) January 23, 2014 Page 5 Setbacks A zero setback is required at the front property line along South Bay Front and the side property line abutting the mixed -use property to the northwest. A 5 -foot setback is required adjacent to the residentially zoned property to the southeast. A 10 -foot setback is required from the rear property line at the alley. The proposed project meets all setback requirements and provides additional setbacks for portions of the structure as depicted on the project plans. Floor Area For a mixed -use project within the MU -W2 Zoning District, the maximum floor area is determined by a ratio of floor area to land area (FAR). The commercial portion is required to be between 0.35 and 0.50 FAR and the residential portion is limited to a maximum 0.75 FAR. The standards and proposed floor area are summarized in Table 2. The applicant requests a Variance to deviate from the FAR limitations, which is discussed in further detail later in this report. Table 2 — Floor Area Open Space Common open space and private open space are required for the residential portion of the project. Common open space required is 75 square feet per dwelling unit and private open space is 5 percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit. The total open space requirement is 195 square feet and two decks are provided totaling over 600 square feet in area. Parking The applicant proposes to construct a 459 - square -foot, two -car, tandem garage for the residential use. The garage abuts the northwest property line and is setback 10 feet from the rear alley property line. The 10 -foot setback and the 15 -foot alley width provide adequate room for vehicles to access the garage. Adjacent to the garage, the Minimum Maximum Proposed Commercial 0.35 FAR 0.50 FAR 0.30 FAR 906.5 sf 1,295 sf 765 sf Residential NA 0.75 FAR 0.93 FAR 1,942.5 sf 2,401 sf Total __ 1.25 FAR 1.23 FAR 3,237.5 sf 3,166 sf Open Space Common open space and private open space are required for the residential portion of the project. Common open space required is 75 square feet per dwelling unit and private open space is 5 percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling unit. The total open space requirement is 195 square feet and two decks are provided totaling over 600 square feet in area. Parking The applicant proposes to construct a 459 - square -foot, two -car, tandem garage for the residential use. The garage abuts the northwest property line and is setback 10 feet from the rear alley property line. The 10 -foot setback and the 15 -foot alley width provide adequate room for vehicles to access the garage. Adjacent to the garage, the Vallely Mixed Use (PA2013 -185) January 23, 2014 Page 6 applicant proposes one commercial parking space that would meet the Building Code required ADA requirements for minimum parking stall and loading area dimensions. The proposed mixed -use structure is required to provide a two -car garage for the residential use and three parking spaces for the commercial use. The applicant requests a reduction in the commercial parking requirement, which requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit as discussed later in the report. Pursuant to Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Review), the Planning Commission must make the following findings in order to approve a Site Development Review: 1. Allowed within the subject zoning district; 2. In compliance with all of the applicable criteria [below]: i. Compliance with this section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure; ii. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design; iii. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; iv. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces; v. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and vi. The protection of significant views from public right(s) -of -way and compliance with Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection).; and 3. Not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endangers, jeopardizes, or otherwise constitutes a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. Staff believes sufficient facts exist to support the Site Development Review request for the mixed -use project, as demonstrated in the draft Resolution (Attachment No. PC 1). The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Code. The proposed project is well designed for a mixed -use structure on a lot this size. The height, bulk, and scale of the proposed project are compatible with the mixed -use and residential uses in the area. The proposed building provides more than the required upper floor setbacks with decks and other building modulation. A 6 -foot high block wall provides a buffer between the proposed project and the existing residential development to the southeast of the project site. Appropriate site access is Vallely Mixed Use (PA2013 -185) January 23, 2014 Page 7 provided with the 15 -foot wide alley and 10 -foot rear setback. The Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the parking configuration. The subject property is not located at or near a public view point or corridor as identified in the General Plan Figure NR3 (Coastal Views). The proposed project would result in the demolition of the nonconforming residential use and structure on -site. The new construction would comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes. The proposed project includes one Americans with Disabilities Act compliant commercial parking space and would meet the residential parking requirements. Conditional Use Permit for a Reduction of Off - Street Parking Pursuant to Chapter 20.40 (Off- Street Parking), office uses require one parking space for every 250 square feet of net floor area. The applicant proposes to construct commercial office with 604 square feet of net floor area, which would require three parking spaces. The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to allow a reduction in the required number of off - street parking spaces pursuant to Section 20.40.110 (Adjustments to Off - Street Parking Requirements). Pursuant to this section, the required off - street parking may be reduced with approval of a Conditional Use Permit if the applicant has provided sufficient data to indicate that other parking is available. A parking management plan is required in order to mitigate impacts associated with a reduction in the number of required parking spaces. The draft parking management plan (Attachment No. PC 6) addresses on -site parking and alternative transportation. Customers who live or are vacationing on Balboa Island will most likely walk or bicycle to the subject property. Customers from the Balboa Peninsula will likely arrive via the Balboa Ferry. According to the 2008 Walker Parking Study, Balboa Island does not suffer from a parking shortage during a majority of the time; however, summer weekends there are significant parking shortages. The study found that parking occupancy was between 66 and 99 percent as shown in Table 3. Table 3 — Parking Occupancy Day and Thursday Thursday Thursday Saturday Saturday Saturday Time 10 AM 1 PM 7 PM 10 AM 1 PM 7 PM Occupied 66 69 87 95 99 98 Spaces ( %) Walker Parking Consultants concluded that the largest share of the parking demand is generated by Balboa Island residents. The complete Walker Parking Study, which was prepared under contract with the City, is available online at: http: / /www.newportbeachca.gov/ Modules /ShowDocument.aspx ?documentid =978 Vallely Mixed Use (PA2013 -185) January 23, 2014 Page 8 Use Permit Findings Pursuant to Section 20.52.020 (Conditional Use Permits and Minor Use Permits), the Planning Commission must make the following findings in order to approve a Conditional Use Permit: 1. The use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; 2. The use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Municipal Code; 3. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity; 4. The site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities, and 5. Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. Pursuant to Section 20.40.110.6.1 (Reduced Parking Demand), the required off - street parking may be reduced with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit in compliance with the following conditions: 1. The applicant has provided sufficient data, including a parking study if required by the Director, to indicate that parking demand will be less than the required number of spaces or that other parking is available (e.g., City parking lot located nearby, on- street parking available, greater than normal walk in trade, mixed -use development); and 2. A parking management plan shall be prepared in compliance with subsection (C) of this section (Parking Management Plan) [Section 20.40.110.0 - Parking Management Plan]. Staff believes sufficient facts exist to support the Conditional Use Permit request for the reduction in required off - street parking, as demonstrated in the draft Resolution (Attachment No. PC 1). The anticipated office and residential uses are consistent the Zoning Code, General Plan, and other relevant policies, and other uses would be permitted in accordance with these policies. The proposed design and use are compatible with existing development and allowed uses in the vicinity, including commercial, residential, and mixed -use. The floor area Variance is being reviewed Vallely Mixed Use (PA2013 -185) January 23, 2014 Page 9 concurrently and would allow the development of a smaller commercial use and larger residential use, while maintaining the maximum 1.25 floor area ratio. The size of the use reduces parking demand, does not allow for an excessively large structure, and is compatible with the mixed -use and residential uses allowed in the vicinity. The Walker Parking Study for Balboa Island provided sufficient data to determine the parking demand in the vicinity. The draft Parking Management Plan, included as part of the proposed project, addresses on -site parking and alternative transportation. Floor Area Variance The applicant requests to construct the commercial portion of the structure below the minimum 0.35 FAR (approximately 906 square feet required; 765 proposed). It is difficult to design the first floor of a project containing 906 square feet of commercial floor area due to the size of the lot, required setbacks, grade differential, entrance to the residential use, residential garage, ADA compliant commercial parking, trash enclosure, walkways, and open space. The reduced commercial floor area results in a lower parking demand. The applicant also requests to exceed the 0.75 FAR (approximately 1,942 square feet) by 459 square feet for the residential portion of the mixed -use structure. The residential portion includes a living room, kitchen, dining room, two bedrooms, and two bathrooms. The development is required to provide a two -car garage for residential use. The minimum size required is 350 square feet and the applicant proposes to provide above the minimum (459 square feet) to allow more room for maneuverability within the garage. The remaining floor area for the residential use without a Variance would be 1,483 square feet. The typical residential lot on Balboa Island is 2,550 square feet in area with a maximum residential floor area of 2,520 (1.5 times the buildable area of the lot). If the commercial floor area is reduced and the residential floor area is increased, then the overall size of the building would comply with the maximum 1.25 FAR for the site. Staff believes that the project would be compatible with the mixed -use and residential uses in the area and the structure would not be excessively large as to be detrimental to the neighborhood. The additional residential floor area does not increase the height of the proposed structure. The proposed 641- square -foot third floor contains the master suite, including bedroom, sitting area, closet, and bathroom, and the mass is generally located away from the property lines. Variance Findings Pursuant to Section 20.52.090 (Variances) of the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission must make the following findings in order to approve a variance: 1. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical Vallely Mixed Use (PA2013 -185) January 23, 2014 Page 10 features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification; 2. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification; 3. Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant; 4. Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district; 5. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood; and 6. Granting of the variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this section, this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan. Staff believes sufficient facts exist to support the Variance request for floor area, as demonstrated in the draft Resolution (Attachment No. PC 1). The size of the site and code requirements make it difficult to develop the minimum commercial floor area. Nearby mixed -use lots in the area are wider, providing sufficient area for both the mixed -use structures and parking along the alley. The proposed residential use is designed as a two - bedroom and two - bathroom residence, does not exceed the height limit, and includes a two -car garage; and therefore, should not be detrimental to the community. Alternative Development The following developments are allowed on -site pursuant to the MU -W2 Zoning District regulations: a) Mixed -use with residential above the first floor; and b) commercial only. Due to the size and width of the lot, limited development options exist. Table 3 summarizes alternative development options and discretionary approvals that would be required. Vallely Mixed Use (PA2013 -185) January 23, 2014 Page 11 Table 3 — Alternative Development Options Development Project Details Discretionary required 906 -1,295 sf of commercial floor area and Mixed -use 1,942.5 sf of residential floor area, with 1 CUP for commercial commercial and 2 residential parking parking reduction spaces 250 sf of commercial floor area and Mixed -use 1,942.5 sf of residential floor area, with 1 Variance for commercial commercial and 2 residential parking floor area spaces Commercial 1,295 square feet of floor area with 2 CUP for commercial parking spaces parking reduction Commercial 500 square feet of floor area with 2 None parking spaces Summary The applicant proposes to demolish the nonconforming, single -unit residence and construct a 3,165- square -foot mixed -use structure with a two -car residential garage and one commercial parking space. The applicant intends to use the commercial space as an office for the existing boat and dock rental business and live in the residence upstairs. A Site Development Review is required for the mixed -use structure, and the applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit to reduce the commercial parking requirement by two spaces, and a Variance to construct less than the minimum commercial floor area and more than the maximum residential floor area limit. Alternatives The Planning Commission has the option to approve a modified project based on the required findings for approval. The Planning Commission also has the option to deny the request if any of the required findings cannot be made (a draft Resolution for denial is provided as Attachment No. PC 2). Environmental Review The project is categorically exempt under Section 15303, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), which exempts the construction of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures, including single -unit residences and offices up to 2,500 square feet in an urbanized area. Vallely Mixed Use (PA2013 -185) January 23, 2014 Page 12 Public Notice Notice of this review 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 meeting, 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. Prepared by: Submitted by: 1,111,41t� I r�,�W - F&6 N eno, Associate Planner *na P i, r ICP, Deputy Director ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution — Approve PC 2 Draft Resolution — Deny PC 3 Applicant's Project Description PC 4 Visual Simulation PC 5 Photograph of Materials Board PC 6 Parking Management Plan PC 7 Project Plans Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution — Approve RESOLUTION NO. #### A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. SD2013 -004, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. UP2013 -018, AND VARIANCE NO. VA2013 -009 FOR A MIXED - USE STRUCTURE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 508 SOUTH BAY FRONT (PA2013 -185) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. An application was filed by John Morgan, Architect, on behalf of the property owner, John Vallely, with respect to property located at 508 South Bay Font, and legally described as Lot 5, Block 9, Resubdivision of Section One of Balboa Island, requesting approval of a Site Development Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance. 2. The applicant requests approval of a Site Development Review to allow the construction of a three - story, mixed -use structure. The project would consist of 765 square feet of commercial use, one commercial parking space, and a 459 - square -foot residential garage on the first floor, and a 1,942- square -foot residence above. The requests also includes a Conditional Use Permit for a reduction of the off - street parking requirement for the commercial use, and a Variance to deviate from the minimum nonresidential floor area requirement and maximum residential floor area limit. 3. The subject property is located within the Mixed -Use Water Related (MU -W2) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Mixed Use Water Related (MU -W2). 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is Mixed Use Water Related (MU -W). 5. A public hearing was held on January 23, 2014, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 3 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paqe 2 of 14 2. Class 3 exempts the construction of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures, including single -unit residences and offices up to 2,500 square feet in an urbanized area. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. Site Development Review In accordance with Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Review) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A. Allowed within the subject zoning district. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed project is located within the Mixed -Use Water Related (MU -W2) Zoning District. The proposed mixed -use structure with commercial and parking on the first floor and residential above is an allowed use within this district with the approval of a Site Development Review. Finding: B. In compliance with all of the applicable criteria [below]: a. Compliance with this Section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure; b. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent development; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design; c. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; d. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces; e. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and f. The protection of significant views from public right(s) -of -way and compliance with Section 20.30. 100 (Public View Protections). Facts in Support of Findinq: 1. The subject property is designated as Mixed -Use Water Related (MU -W2) within the Zoning Code and Land Use Element of the General Plan. These designations apply to waterfront properties in which marine - related uses may be intermixed with general commercial, visitor - serving commercial and residential dwelling units on the upper 08 -09 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paqe 3 of 14 floors. The Coastal Land Use Plan designates the property as Mixed Use Water Related (MU -W), which is intended to provide for commercial development on or near the bay in a manner that will encourage the continuation of coastal- dependent and coastal - related uses and visitor - serving uses, as well as allow for the development of mixed -use structures with residential uses above the ground floor. An office is the anticipated use on the first floor with residential above, which is consistent with these designations. Other commercial uses may be permitted in accordance with the MU- W2 Zoning District. The subject property is not located within a specific plan area. 2. The applicant concurrently applied for a Conditional Use Permit for a reduction in the off - street commercial parking requirement and a Variance to deviate from the minimum commercial floor area ratio and maximum residential floor area ratio, pursuant to Zoning Code Chapter 20.52 (Permit Review Procedures). 3. The proposed project is well designed for a mixed -use structure on a lot this size. The project has been designed with a commercial use and parking on the first floor and a residential use on the second and third floors. One residential dwelling unit is proposed with two decks to provide open space for the occupants. The second and third floors are setback from the property lines to provide adequate light and air for the residential use. 4. The height, bulk, and scale of the proposed project are compatible with the mixed -use and residential uses in the area. The proposed building provides more than the required setbacks with decks and other building modulation. 5. A 6 -foot high block wall provides a buffer between the proposed project and the existing residential development to the southeast of the project site. 6. The project contains one building and both uses are integrated as a single development through the use of similar architectural style and design elements for the entire building. The proposed structure is a Cape Code design with stone veneer, horizontal siding, stucco, slate roof, and glass deck guardrails. 7. Appropriate vehicular and pedestrian access is provided with the 15 -foot wide alley and 10 -foot rear setback. Pedestrian access is also provided at the front of the property along South Bay Front. The Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the parking configuration. 8. The proposed project includes a landscaped area within planters at the front of the property along South Bay Front. The planters will include drought - tolerant, noninvasive plant species. 9. The subject property is not located at or near a public view point or corridor as identified in the General Plan Figure NR3 (Coastal Views); and therefore, is in compliance with Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protections). 08 -09 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Pace 4 of 14 Finding: C. The proposed development is not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed project would result in the demolition of the nonconforming residential use and structure on -site. 2. The proposed project includes one (1) Americans with Disabilities Act compliant commercial parking space and would meet the residential parking requirements. 3. Any potential noise impacts for the abutting residential property would be minimized due to the 6 -foot block wall and setbacks provided. 4. The new construction would comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes. The project would comply with all City ordinances and conditions of approval. 5. The mechanical equipment would be fully enclosed within an equipment screen and would not be visible from the adjacent properties or public rights -of -way. Conditional Use Permit In accordance with Section 20.52.020 (Conditional Use Permits and Minor Use Permits) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: D. The use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The subject property is designated as Mixed -Use Water Related (MU -W2) within the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which applies to waterfront properties in which marine - related uses may be intermixed with general commercial, visitor - serving commercial and residential dwelling units on the upper floors. An office is the anticipated use on the first floor with residential above, which is consistent with this designation. Other commercial uses may be permitted in accordance with the MU -W2 designation. 2. The subject property is not located within a specific plan area. 08 -09 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paqe 5 of 14 Finding: E. The use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Municipal Code. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The subject property is located within the Mixed -Use Water Related (MU -W2) Zoning District, which applies to waterfront properties in which marine - related uses may be intermixed with general commercial, visitor - serving commercial and residential dwelling units on the upper floors. An office is the anticipated use on the first floor with residential above, which is consistent with these designations. Other commercial uses may be permitted in accordance with the MU -W2 Zoning District. 2. The Conditional Use Permit approval is consistent with Chapter 20.40 (Off- Street Parking) of the Zoning Code regarding the waiver of two (2) parking spaces in conjunction with the Parking Management Plan because the proposed project includes provides one (1) Americans with Disabilities Act compliant commercial parking space and would meet the residential parking requirements. According to the 2008 Walker Parking Study, Balboa Island does not suffer from a parking shortage during a majority of the time and the largest share of the parking demand is generated by Balboa Island residents. 3. In finding that the proposed use complies with Section 20.40.110 (Adjustments to Off - Street Parking Requirements), the following criteria has been considered: i. The applicant has provided sufficient data, including a parking study if required by the Director, to indicate that parking demand will be less than the required number of spaces or that other parking is available (e.g., City parking lot located nearby, on- street parking available, greater than normal walk in trade, mixed - use development). The 2008 Walker Parking Study for Balboa Island provides sufficient data to analyze parking demand in the vicinity. According to the 2008 Walker Parking Study, Balboa Island does not suffer from a parking shortage during a majority of the time. The weekday occupancy surveyed was 66 percent at 10:00 a.m., 69 percent at 1:00 p.m., and 87 percent at 7:00 p.m. Customers who live or are vacationing on Balboa Island will most likely walk or bicycle to the subject property. Customers from the Balboa Peninsula will likely arrive via the Balboa Ferry. ii. A parking management plan shall be prepared in compliance with subsection (C) of this section (Parking Management Plan) [Section 20.40.110.0 — Parking Management Plan]. A parking management plan has been prepared in order to mitigate impacts associated with a reduction in the number of required parking spaces. The plan 08 -09 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paqe 6 of 14 addresses on -site parking and alternative transportation for employees and customers. 4. The application includes the concurrent review of a Variance to authorize commercial development below the minimum floor area ratio and residential development above the maximum floor area ratio. Finding: F. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Mixed -use, commercial, and residential uses are allowed in the vicinity. The design with the commercial use on the first floor adjacent to South Bay Front and the residential use above is compatible with the allowed nearby uses. The commercial use is in line with the commercial uses to the northwest along South Bay Front. The building and both uses are integrated as a single development through the use of similar architectural style and design elements for the entire building, which is compatible with the mixed -use and residential properties allowed in the vicinity. The proposed structure is a Cape Code design with stone veneer, horizontal siding, stucco, slate roof, and glass deck guardrails. 2. The commercial use is anticipated to be an office use, but other commercial uses may be permitted in accordance with the MU -W2 Zoning District. The single -unit residence would be similar to the other residential uses allowed in the vicinity and the project includes the code - required two -car garage. 3. The floor area Variance is being approved concurrently and allows the development of a smaller commercial use and larger residential use, while maintaining the maximum 1.25 floor area ratio. The size of the use reduces parking demand, does not allow for an excessively large structure, and is compatible with the mixed -use and residential uses allowed in the vicinity. Finding: G. The site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities. Facts in Support of Findinq: 1. The 2,590- square -foot lot is almost rectangular in shape and is located within a densely populated island with a bridge and a ferry system for access. 08 -09 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paqe 7 of 14 2. The site has a pedestrian walkway along South Bay Front at the front of the property and a 15 -foot wide alley at the rear of the property. At least a 10 -foot rear setback is provided from the rear alley property line. 3. Adequate public and emergency vehicle access, public services, and utilities are provided at the existing site from public streets and alleys. Findinq: H. Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed project would result in the demolition of the nonconforming residential use and structure on -site. 2. The proposed project includes one (1) Americans with Disabilities Act compliant commercial parking space and would meet the residential parking requirements. 3. Any potential noise impacts for the abutting residential property would be minimized due to the 6 -foot block wall and setbacks provided. 4. The new construction would comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes. The project would comply with all City ordinances and conditions of approval. 5. The mechanical equipment would be fully enclosed within an equipment screen and would not be visible from the adjacent properties or public rights -of -way. Variance In accordance with Section 20.52.090 (Variances) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: I. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Due to the size of the lot, required setbacks, and grade differential, it is difficult to design the first floor of a project containing 906 square feet of commercial floor area, 08 -09 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paqe 8 of 14 an entrance to the residential use, a residential garage, ADA compliant commercial parking, trash enclosure, walkways, and open space. 2. The 2,590 lot area and 30 -foot lot width are smaller than nearby mixed -use lots. Finding: J. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Strict application of the Zoning Code required floor area ratios allows between 906.5 and 1,295 gross square feet of commercial floor area and a maximum of 1,942.5 square feet of residential floor area. The proposed commercial use includes an office, storage area, restroom, and laundry/service room. The proposed residential portion includes a living room, kitchen, dining room, two bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a two - car garage. Several properties in the vicinity are larger lots and can develop the properties with the required floor area ratios and parking. Other properties in the area are nonconforming due to parking or floor area. Finding: K. Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. A mixed -use development on the subject property is not possible without approval of a reduction in the parking requirement or a floor area variance. Unless some discretionary approval is granted, the property owner can only maintain the nonconforming residential use or construct a stand -alone commercial structure that would be substantially smaller than what is allowed to be developed onsite. Finding: L. Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Granting of the variance would not constitute a special privilege because other mixed - use properties in the vicinity are larger and wider, allowing for enough site area to construct the commercial floor area and parking on the first floor. 2. The total floor area ratio allowed for the site would not be exceeded. 08 -09 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paqe 9 of 14 Finding: M. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed project would result in the demolition of the nonconforming residential use and structure on -site. 2. Any potential noise impacts for the abutting residential property would be minimized due to the 6 -foot block wall and setbacks provided. 3. The new construction would comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes. The project would comply with all City ordinances and conditions of approval. 4. The total floor area ratio allowed for the site would not be exceeded. Finding: N. Granting of the variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this section, this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Granting the Variance for floor area would not conflict with intent and purpose of the Zoning Code or General Plan. The intent of floor area ratio is to ensure each property can be developed with a reasonable sized structure in relationship to the lot size; however, in this case, utilizing the minimum floor area ratio is difficult due to the size and width of the lot, grade differential, parking requirements, open space, walkways, and trash enclosure requirements. Allowing less commercial and more residential floor area would allow for the construction of a reasonable sized mixed -use structure that remains consistent with other developments in the vicinity. 2. The proposed project meets all other required code requirements, including setbacks, height, and open space. 3. The subject property is not located within a specific plan district. 08 -09 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paqe 10 of 14 SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Site Development Review No. SD2013 -004, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2013 -018, and Variance No. VA2013 -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 14 days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2014. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: M Bradley Hillgren, Chai Kory Kramer, Secretary 08 -09 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paqe 11 of 14 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval, except as modified by applicable conditions of approval. 2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 3. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Use Permit. 4. This Site Development Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance may be modified or revoked by the Planning Commission should they determine that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained so as to constitute a public nuisance. 5. Any change in operational characteristics, expansion in area, or other modification to the approved plans, shall require an amendment to this Site Development Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance or the processing of a Site Development Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance. 6. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Building Division and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City - adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Division. 8. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit "A" shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans prior to issuance of the building permits. 9. Prior to issuance of building permits, approval from the California Coastal Commission shall be required. 10. The landscaping shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept 08 -09 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paqe 12 of 14 operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. Any exceptions to the landscape requirements shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. 11. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent. 12. This development is subject to the approved Parking Management Plan, which can be modified by the Planning Director or Planning Commission. 13. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in the trash enclosure (three walls and a self - latching gate) or otherwise screened from view of neighboring properties, except when placed for pick -up by refuse collection agencies. The trash enclosure shall have a decorative solid roof for aesthetic and screening purposes. 14. The applicant shall ensure that the trash dumpsters and /or receptacles are maintained to control odors. This may include the provision of either fully self- contained dumpsters or periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Division. Cleaning and maintenance of trash dumpsters shall be done in compliance with the provisions of Title 14, including all future amendments (including Water Quality related requirements). 15. Deliveries and refuse collection for the facility shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., daily, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development, and may require an amendment to this Site Development Review Permit. 16. All improvements shall be constructed as required my Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 17. The existing broken and /or otherwise damaged concrete alley adjacent to the subject property shall be reconstructed. 18. The existing broken and /or otherwise damaged concrete boardwalk adjacent to the subject property shall be reconstructed. 19. All above ground improvements shall maintain a minimum 5 -foot clearance from the rear property line. 20. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant parking stall shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the rear property line. 21. All existing private, nonstandard improvements within the public right -of -way and /or extensions of private, nonstandard improvements into the public right -of -way fronting the development site shall be removed. 08 -09 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paqe 13 of 14 22. The residential and commercial units shall be served by its individual water meter and sewer lateral and cleanout. Each water meter and sewer cleanout shall be installed with traffic -grade box and cover and be located within the public right -of -way. Commercial domestic water and fire services shall be protected by City approved above - ground reduced pressure backflow device and double check detector assembly, respectively. 23. An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right -of -way. 24. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement. See City Standard 110 -L and Municipal Code Section 20.30.130. 25. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right -of -way could be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 26. All on -site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements. 27. All unused water services to be abandoned shall be capped at the main (corporation stop) and all unused sewer laterals to be abandoned shall be capped at property line. 28. A fire hydrant shall be located within 400 feet of all portions of the structure. 29. An N.F.P.A 13 fire sprinkler system shall be provided for the mixed -use structure. 30. A fire sprinkler monitoring system will be required for the fire sprinklers. 31. A 2A 10BC type fire extinguisher is required for the commercial portion of the mixed -use structure. 32. Trash container location shall comply with Newport Beach Guideline A.16.1. 33. Project applicants shall prepare a written disclosure statement prior to sale, lease, or rental of a residential unit in a mixed -use project or located within a mixed -use zoning district. The disclosure statement shall indicate that the occupants will be living in an urban type of environment and that the noise, odor, and outdoor activity levels may be higher than a typical suburban residential area. The disclosure statement shall include a written description of the potential impacts to residents of both the existing environment and potential impacts based upon the allowed uses in the zoning district. Each and every buyer, lessee, or renter shall sign the statement acknowledging that they have received, read, and understand the disclosure statement. The project applicant shall covenant to include within all deeds, leases or contracts conveying any interest in a residential unit in a mixed -use project or located within a mixed -use zoning district (1) the disclosure and notification requirement stated herein; (2) an acknowledgment by all grantees or lessees that the property is located within an urban type of environment and that the noise, odor, and outdoor activity levels may be higher 08 -09 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Paqe 14 of 14 than a typical suburban residential area; and (3) acknowledgment that the covenant is binding for the benefit and in favor of the City of Newport Beach. 34. As a condition of project approval for a residential unit in a mixed -use project or in a mixed -use zoning district, applicants shall record a deed notification with the County Recorder's Office, the form and content of which shall be satisfactory to the City Attorney. The deed notification document shall state that the residential unit is located in a mixed -use project or in a mixed -use zoning district and that an owner may be subject to impacts, including inconvenience and discomfort, from lawful activities occurring in the project or zoning district (e.g., noise, lighting, odors, high pedestrian activity levels, etc.). 35. This approval shall expire and become void unless exercised within 24 months from the actual date of review authority approval, except where an extension of time is approved in compliance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 36. 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 Vallely Mixed Use including, but not limited to, the Site Development Review No. SD2013 -004, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2013 -018, and Variance No. VA2013 -009. 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. 08 -09 -2013 Attachment No. PC 2 Draft Resolution — Deny RESOLUTION NO. #### A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. SD2013 -004, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. UP2013 -018, AND VARIANCE NO. VA2013 -009 FOR A MIXED - USE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 508 SOUTH BAY FRONT (PA2013 -185) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by John Morgan, Architect, on behalf of the property owner, John Vallely, with respect to property located at 508 South Bay Font, and legally described as Lot 5, Block 9, Resubdivision of Section One of Balboa Island, requesting approval of a Site Development Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance. 2. The applicant requests approval of a Site Development Review to allow the construction of a three - story, mixed -use structure. The project would consist of 765 square feet of commercial use, one commercial parking space, and a 459 - square -foot residential garage on the first floor, and a 1,942- square -foot residence above. The requests also includes a Conditional Use Permit for a reduction of the off - street parking requirement for the commercial use, and a Variance to deviate from the minimum nonresidential floor area requirement and maximum residential floor area limit. 3. The subject property is located within the Mixed -Use Water Related (MU -W2) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Mixed Use Water Related (MU -W2). 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is Mixed Use Water Related (MU -W). 5. A public hearing was held on January 23, 2014, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Pape 2 of 3 SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. Site Development Review The Planning Commission may approve a Conditional Use Permit only after making each of the required findings set forth in Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Review). In this case, the Planning Commission was unable to make the required findings based upon the following: 1. The Site Development application for the mixed -use project is not consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code and the findings required by Section 20.52.020 are not supported in this case. The proposed project may prove detrimental to the community. 2. The design, bulk, and scale of the proposed project are not compatible with adjacent developments. Conditional Use Permit The Planning Commission may approve a Conditional Use NPermit only after making each of the required findings set forth in Section 20.52.020 (Conditional Use Permits and Minor Use Permits). In this case, the Planning Commission was unable to make the required findings based upon the following: 3. The Conditional Use Permit application for the reduction in the required off- street parking is not consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code and the findings required by Section 20.52.020 are not supported in this case. The proposed project rove detrimental to the community. 4. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the use are not compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity. The proposed project with only one (1) parking space is not compatible with the existing marine commercial, mixed -use, and residential uses in the area. Variance The Planning Commission may approve a Conditional Use Permit only after making each of the required findings set forth in 20.52.090 (Variances). In this case, the Planning Commission was unable to make the required findings based upon the following: 1. The Variance application for the floor area is not consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the Municipal Code and the findings required by Section 20.52.090 are not supported in this case. The proposed project may prove detrimental to the community. 2. The size of this property does not preclude the construction of a reasonable size mixed -use building. The proposed project can be redesigned to comply with the 08 -09 -2013 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Pape 3 of 3 required development standards and approval of the Variance is not necessary to preserve this substantial property right. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies Site Development Review No. SD2013 -004, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2013 -018, and Variance No. VA2013 -009. 2. This action shall become final and effective 14 days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2014. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN ABSENT: BY: L--"V Bradley Hillgren, Chai Kory Kramer, 08 -09 -2013 Attachment No. PC 3 Applicant's Project Description John T. Morman Jr ARCHITECT 18682 Beachmont Avenue, North Tustin, Ca 92705 ph(714)730 -2723 fax(714)730 -2724 December 23, 2013 City of Newport Beach Community Development Department Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive, P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Vallely Residence 508 S. Bay Front Balboa Island, CA Dear Planning Department, My client, Mr. John Vallely owns the above property. At this time we wish to submit this project for a site development review as required for a mixed use project, a conditional use permit for less parking than the code requirement and a variance to provide less than 35% of the FAR for office space while increasing the residential FAR. Zoniniz Requirements The current zoning for this property is MU -W2 which requires a marine oriented commercial space on the fast floor level and residential space above. Required Setbacks Proposed Setbacks Front on the bay front is 0' -0" ..... ............................... 0' -0" Rear at the alley is 10' -0" ........... ............................... 10' -0" West side adjacent to commercial district is 0'- 0 ................ 0' -0" East side adjacent to a residential district is 5'- 0 ................. 5' -0" Established grade elevation is 9.0 msl Height Limits are 31 foot maximum above established grade elevation, and 26 foot above established grade elevation to any roof pitches sloping less than 3:12. Site area is 2,589.69 square feet Minimum office space requirement is 35% of the FAR or 906.39 square feet. Maximum office space allowed is 50% of the FAR or 1,294.84 square feet. Maximum residential footage is 75% of the FAR or 1,942.26 square feet As designed, the residence is 1,942.26 square feet plus the two car tandem garage of 458.75 square feet = 2,400.60 square feet or 92% of the FAR. Page 1 of 8 Proposal: Transfer some allowed commercial space FAR square footage to the residential FAR coverage. Proposed increase from 75% maximum to 92% maximum residential FAR square footage. Current garage as designed is ........................... 458.75 square feet Total FAR for the site is 125% of the FAR or 3,237.11 square feet. Landscaped area of planters is ......................... + 95 square feet Planters and property line walls ................... + 100 square feet Hardscaped area is ........ ............................... + 1,047.48 square feet Concrete Area ............. ............................... + 857.48 square feet Flagstone Paving ........... ............................... +190 square feet Trash Control The code requires 16 square feet each for trash cans and for recyclables. In the current design we have a 32 square foot trash room provided concealed behind a door located near the rear of the building. Square Footage Calculations As designed the project has the following square footages at this time. Level Office Residential Total I"Floor 764.26 s.f. + 124.20 s.f. = 888.46 s.f. 2nd Floor 0.00 s.f. + 1,175.93 s.f. = 1,175.93 s.f. 3rd Floor 0.00 s.f. + 641.72 s.f. = 641.72 s.f. Totals ..................... 764.26 s.f. + 1,941.85 s.f. = 2,706.11 s.f. Residential Garage 458.75 s.f. Total Structural .......................... ............................... 3,164.86 s.f. 2nd Floor Decks ........................... ............................... 168.00 s.f. 3`d Floor Decks 464.29 s.f. Total Decks ................................ ............................... 632.29 s.f. Site Development Review Information Family History It is important to note that this property has been in Mr. Vallely's family for 78 years. Mr. Vallely also grew up in this home. His family has operated this marina and boat dock for many years providing the community with both boat rentals and or dock space rentals. Mr. Vallely has and wishes to continue to operate the marina in front of this property as well as another marina located across the harbor from this location as he has done for the past 38 years. Page 2 of 8 Site Description Located directly to the west of the subject site at 504 S. Bay Front is a mixed use building that was constructed about 20 years ago on a 60 foot wide lot. Located directly to the east of subject site at 510 S. Bay Front is a duplex. It is important to note that this site was also once zoned commercial even though there was a single family residence on it but in the nineties, it was rezoned to R2. Existing House Description If you review the provided topographic survey, you will see that the existing two story residence has some existing non - conformities with regards to today's NEW setback requirements. The first encroachments are on the east and north side of the existing home. Many years ago, the side setbacks for a "commercially" zoned property were zero at each side. The property at 510 S. bay front was also zoned commercial. The current topographic survey shows that the existing residence is located just 2.7 feet away from the east side property line and the garage is basically located right on the east property line. Today's zoning code requires a 5' -0" side setback on this east side of the property. The existing garage is located right up to the rear property line at the alley where today a 10' -0" rear setback is required. At the west side of the property, the existing garage encroaches into the rear 10' -0" setback area but not into the side setback of 0' -0 ". The front of the existing home has a zero setback but again, only the east side of the existing home is located within the 5' -0" required setback at the east property line. We have included a drawing on sheet A -7 that shows the existing house footprint relative to the new project footprint. New Project Description By reviewing the project plans, you will see that beginning at the first floor level we have designed into the proposed structure some commercial office space at the first floor level with separate entry points for both the office space and the single family residence. There is a private elevator from the residence to the office space below. There will be a two car tandem parking garage for the residential unit and a van accessible parking space and loading aisle meeting ADA code requirements at the alley side of the property. Located above the first floor at the second and third floor levels will be the single family residence, two stories in design but located at the second and third floor levels. The exterior style for the new structure will be that of a Cap Cod design with the use of a mixture of cedar shingles, horizontal siding, some stucco and a china slate roof material. Glass guard rails are proposed to maintain views. Hardscaped surfaces on the ground will be a blend of flagstone paving and concrete. The planting areas will have drought tolerant non - invasive plant species incorporated into the designs. Page 3 of 8 Site Difficulties While at first glance this property would appear to be a typical Balboa Island property in shape and dimension, due to the mixed use MU -W2 zoning requirements, some code requirements cannot be met with regards to minimum number of on site parking for the office space and the minimum 35% office space FAR for the site. Due to the lot size of the property, by the time we locate the van accessible parking space, a tandem residential parking garage at the rear on the alley, commercial trash area and ADA access ramps to the main office entry, there is no ability to have additional commercial office parking. When only one commercial office space can be provided, as required by building code it must be what is called ADA van accessible. This means there must be a van parking space of 18 feet deep by 9 feet wide provided adjacent to a loading area of 18 feet deep by 8 foot wide. These are minimum dimensions. All of the available property width is used up. Driving over a van accessible parking space is prohibited. Also please note that the minimum NEW first floor elevation required on Balboa Island for any structure is 9.0 msl. With the existing boardwalk access at 6.0 msl and the alley surface elevation at about 6.14 msl, the requirements for ADA ramp access use up a greater amount of the ground level areas, thus less interior office square footage can be designed. Approval Criteria This project use is consistent with the General Plan and applicable specific plan in as much as we wish to replace the existing non - conforming single family residence with a new mixed use project to comply with current zoning codes. We believe that this project complies with the General Plan, and Zoning Code as much as possible with the exception that due to the small lot size, the current 4 on site commercial office parking space requirement cannot be met. We understand that CUP will address this issue more specifically. We also cannot meet the 35% minimum FAR for the minimum office space requirement. This again, is due to the small lot size and parking requirements. This project has been efficiently designed to be harmonious to other adjacent developments as you can see that on the west side of the property adjacent to the commercial mixed used project at 504 S. Bay front. While we have a zero setback requirement at this westerly property line, we have designed only the I" floor office space and residential garage to be built to the property line. We have designed the residential floors above to step back from the property line an additional 3' -1" to create relief between our project walls and the adjacent structure next door. On the east side of the property, we have a 5 foot side setback per zoning code requirements where the original residence is located just 2.7 feet away and we have designed the new structure to observe this 5' -0" setback at all three floor levels. This provides our project with a nice entry walk up to the office space and residential entry points and greatly increases the horizontal distance between the existing duplex next door by 2.3 feet or about 27 ". Page 4 of 8 Even though our bay front setback is zero, with the exception of a small column supporting the corner of the new structure, the bulk of new structure is located about 24" further back from the bay front than the existing corner of the existing home. With regards to bulk, scale and aesthetic treatment of the new structure, please note that even though the bay front setback is zero, we have designed the project to be sensitive to the adjacent property owners as possible with large open deck areas that are located well behind the zero setback lines and step back at the 2nd and 3`d floor levels. While a small portion of the new 151 floor office space is designed closer to the bay than the previous home, we have reduced the building mass on the side closest to the east neighbor. The Cape Cod style is of the proposed structure is also compatible with many of the existing bay front properties on the island. Pedestrian access is currently available from the public 12 foot wide side way on the bay front. Nothing in the project design will cause this to change. Pedestrian access will also be available from the alley if necessary due to the ADA ramp provided. Vehicular access to the site can only come in from the alley located at the north of the property. Access is provided from either Agate Avenue or Opal Avenue. Agate Avenue being a two way street and Opal Avenue being a one way street with a northerly one way flow direction. The existing 15 foot alley at the rear of the project side that runs between Agate and Opal Avenues provides access to the site. It would be more typical for a vehicle coming to the site to drive south on Agate Avenue, turn left in the alley and turn right onto the property. This is the easiest path of vehicular travel to the site. With a 10' -0" rear setback requirement, access to the tandem residential garage is easily made with the 15 foot alley right of way width plus the 10 foot setback requirement equaling a 25 foot wide dimension for garage access. With a 10' -0" rear setback requirement, access to the single ADA van accessible parking space that is 18 feet deep by 17 feet wide is easily made with the 15 foot alley right of way width plus the 10 foot setback requirement equaling a 25 foot wide radius. At this time, we have passed this proposed parking arrangement past the Traffic Engineering Department and they have approved our concept. As for landscaping we plan on using drought tolerant plant non - invasive plant species in the two small planters located at the front of the property. We will agree to maintain the growing planting heights to any height limit the city requests. There are no public views being affected by this proposed project. While there is a public bench located at the south end of Opal Avenue for the public to enjoy the bay views, the construction of this project will not alter any public views of the bay in the westerly direction. Approval of this project will not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the city, or endanger, jeopardize or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood of this proposed use in as much the entire project being of a Cape Cod style will blend in to the surrounding neighborhood like many other bay front projects, the operations of the office space by the owner will generate few daily visitors and the residential portion of the project will be no different than any other home located on the bay front. Page 5 of 8 Conditional Use Permit Information This project use is consistent with the General Plan and applicable specific plan in as much as we wish to replace the existing non - conforming single family residence with a new mixed use project to comply with current zoning codes. The use is consistent with the General Plan and applicable specific plan with the exception of the following issues... A. Only one commercial office parking space can be provided where four would normally be required for our 764 square feet of office space. When only one commercial office space can be provided, as required by building code it must be what is called ADA van accessible. This means there must be a van parking space area of 18 feet deep by 9 feet wide provided adjacent to a loading area of 18 feet deep by 8 foot wide. These are minimum dimensions. Please see project plans. Due to the narrow width of the property, by the time we locate the van accessible parking space and tandem residential parking garage at the rear on the alley, there is no ability to have additional commercial office parking. All of the available property width is used up. Driving over a van accessible parking space is prohibited. Please see project plans. B. This project will have less than the 35% minimum office space provided. This is due to a few factors. The first factor is the parking requirements for both the residential tandem 2 car garage and ADA parking space described above and another is when walking to the first floor office entry, there must be equal access from either the parking space in the rear at the alley and from the existing public side walk at the bay front. Additionally, while this site has a allowed zero bay front setback, we are not designed out to the setback line to make the building more esthetically pleasing and to save some views of the bay for the adjacent neighbors. Also please note that the minimum NEW first floor elevation required on Balboa Island for any structure is 9.0 msl. With the existing boardwalk access at 6.0 msl and the alley surface elevation at about 6.14 msl, the requirements for ADA ramp access use up a greater amount of the ground level areas, thus less interior office square footage can be designed. The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity as there is a commercial mixed used property located directly to the west and a residential duplex located directly to the east. Daily office visitor traffic will be minimal and this project will blend in right in between the developments at each side. We believe that this project site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics for the proposed use as designed. Page 6 of 9 Operation of the use at this location would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the city, or endanger, jeopardize or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood of this proposed use in as much the entire project being of a Cape Cod style will blend in to the surrounding neighborhood like many other bay front projects, the operations of the office space by the owner will generate few daily visitors and the residential portion of the project will be no different than any other home located on the bay front. Variance Request Information We are requesting a variance for this project for two reasons. First, because the project does not have the 35% minimum office space requirement of 906.39 square feet. At this time, we are proposing 764.26 square feet of footage = 30% of site coverage. Second, we are proposing an increase to the allowable residential FAR percentage from 75% of the FAR to 92 %. Site Difficulties While at fast glance this property would appear to be a typical Balboa Island property in shape and dimension, due to the mixed use MU -W2 zoning requirements, some code requirements cannot be met with regards to minimum number of on site parking for the office space and the minimum 35% office space FAR for the site. Due to the lot size of the property, by the time we locate the van accessible parking space, tandem residential parking garage at the rear on the alley, commercial trash area and ADA access ramps to the main office entry, there is no ability to have additional office space let or commercial office parking. When only one commercial office space can be provided, as required by building code it must be what is called ADA van accessible. This means there must be a van parking space of 18 feet deep by 9 feet wide provided adjacent to a loading area of 18 feet deep by 8 foot wide. These are minimum dimensions. All of the available property width is used up. Driving over a van accessible parking space is prohibited. Also please note that the minimum NEW first floor elevation required on Balboa Island for any structure is 9.0 msl. With the existing boardwalk access at 6.0 msl and the alley surface elevation at about 6.14 rust, the requirements for ADA ramp access use up a greater amount of the ground level areas, thus less interior office square footage can be designed. Because the site area is relatively small, it is difficult at best to have more office space which of course would require more parking. The single residential dwelling at the upper levels requires a two car garage. It is difficult at best to meet all zoning code requirements for office space, office parking, residential garage, ADA accessible parking areas, and access ramps to the building entrance on a site this size. Page 7 of 8 Approval Criteria The special or unique circumstances and conditions that apply to this property that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification is that this properties almost 30' -0" wide width is much smaller is compared to other properties to the west than enjoy 60 foot wide property widths. It is this additional property width that would normally allow for additional office space and or parking spaces to be designed in to the project as was done at 504 S. Bay Front. While strict compliance with the zoning code requirements is not possible due to the lot size, not granting the variance would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification as the other mixed used projects on wider lots have been able to get closer to their maximum allowed FAR for their sites and we cannot. Granting of this variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of Mr. Vallely as the maximum square footage allowed for the property at 125% of the FAR is 3,237.86 square feet. The zoning code will allow a maximum FAR of 50% or 1,294.84 square feet for commercial space. We are proposing a transfer of some commercial square footage to become residential footage. The current office space of 764.26 square feet plus the proposed residential garage of 458.75 square feet = 1,223.01 square feet, still less than the maximum 1,294.84 square feet allowed. The site maximum FAR of 1.25 is 3,237.11 square feet. If this proposed transfer of commercial space coverage into residential footage is permitted, the maximum structural square footage would be 3,164.86 square feet, still less than the maximum 3,237.11 square feet allowed by 72.25 square feet. Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and same zoning district in as much as we have designed into the project as much office space as possible while at the same time being sensitive to the adjacent neighbors building outlines. It is a delicate balance. If we had more office space, then more parking is technically required but there is no room. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood as the new office space will not generate many daily visitors and the exterior Cape Cod styled project will blend right in with other nearby bay front properties. Granting of this variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this section, this zoning code, the general plan, or any applicable specific plan, as with the exception of the neighbor located to the east at 510 S. Bay Front, the rest of this block is currently zoned MU -W2 and we wish to maintain that current zoning. I will be happy to answer any questions regarding this project. Please contact my office if I can be of any assistance. Thank You, John T. Morgan Jr. ARCHITECT Vallely.023 Page 8 of 8 Attachment No. PC 4 Visual Simulation r- 508 S. Bay Front Attachment No. PC 5 Photograph of Materials Board VALLELT 7 E,S nENCE Soo s -5AT FIZoN -- 5LIAR door MI.+rLl �y "AMefklCAN 6L.A -r:'— aI F,ND Ol Ym ws FE44K5 aad AA4LAGOIAN AfCENT k 24�, WfNDoW AokJ ay ?�VttfZ SIJ�ING aud - SN�►JGI.� GoIOF- "FLArE�AU' fay BEft(� dA v tKoNE VENEER ' OL PPfiADO 57ONE' ' �u55�i GO�oF k r Attachment No. PC 6 Parking Management Plan Parking Management Plan (PA2013 -185) 508 South Bay Front January 23, 2014 The following Parking Management Plan is provided in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. UP2013 -018, pursuant to Section 20.40.110 (Adjustments to Off - Street Parking Requirements) of the Zoning Code. The Parking Management Plan will employ the following management mechanisms to mitigate impacts associated with reducing the required off - street parking by two (2) parking spaces as required by Chapter 20.40 of the Zoning Code: • A minimum of one (1) off - street parking space shall be provided for the commercial use; • The two -car residential garage shall be open and available for parking at all times; and Employees and customers shall be encouraged to use alternative transportation modes, including carpooling, bicycling, Balboa Ferry, and public transit. Attachment No. PC 7 Project Plans (h EXIY I EXISTING 3 STORY MIXED USE BUILDING �s 9DF BDCKJ P R-' - pE .. PERY I.tW. �I _I t L n __ a WST Sj a•+.+°"zamv._ anormxeL+we RAn :ERw�.L 3 zEFCSETS.�RSvREd � Ib� I n:ssw PRraEarv:ee ' } PIw i °a�woL YY ' I-. ao-�r,H L >. 10 Rla '1 Y / 1 t� I 0 OIJ FORT I 4 � I 19pA6PCC Rtl'"` �EA�'�� 3➢.6' Ij�]q ]Y �QA dvB �'I Lt ILAdN"'ARFA I I/ I J �' � Illlllfff ffl mB' a Q pcA� 19 v4 � SIG �, I � In 2 .aFG1G'J5.5 n q� -CGRK 9Y �LEVAL i ' p4 1 -\`` R� O Fd�s To +z e ^�g_L ssa ses� m 7 s;3 S� (b MWM Ti' NElV Y4Y tt E 3 EEO R` NCW lW:. 659 �E eG35 E N nsW WV.G ' iy9 y. wxi"" # E —ECa.c Rc.:c7i� �E— Nc—> xy r wcrw < —� >HCru WLI.L (� J cl n �. 69y ♦wWO9✓ t✓ mry b�. I (U' EXISTING 2 STORY DUPLEX —� 1 ENNTER t y I Nom'- ::A220W m9 4yl 1 m9 1 I VICINITY MAP Eva cFFeE RESpEMw.. ACh90113 ......... T66.:� . Ia.L]5 SCOPE OF WORK 3TRLLR ]np FLCpa.___. O i.T,sa3 Rp ROCR o xv� O cenoLSHTHS SwsTw3 TUO Vrcaral.�v� rnALS ra]s . jsuYSS FM4Y PE &pFNLE tO RECONSYWCYA NAVTnYEE SY00.Y I5NFOlISEGGFFlLF- J.NG�EFAYIT OFSLENGE WrtHAN AYYArE9 ]CASG4YSe^?. e s.F ]n0 ICOR LELKS... ..._ THIS PROJECT IS 3 PPF LORPOOF CFLK FIRE SPRINKLERED - KS FOGT ------- LW, OWNER EvEFi YVCEX YWU VALLEY ht ATOM 6CB S. BAY FROM NEWPoaTBE9cµ G.9YC61 AC3?D FLCORpLPNa.d R%OF GIAN LFi 5. PA¢CE��•V F pE �N Kd.TA � ........._° .o 61oesE ......_ -c�'A, sT SOS sl...... _ v o E s' O AT WEST SOE RF..R ....... . ... .lo-o rn_C W C U C F 6 .WYB3RpF Ol'OYALwNEWE EORGg6 .�5.3 � � L� mllu±G iREgdaEryV w�i saEPRFA 1519.9&9'x2655.]58969 s.F. o � � � Z na+u- o=F.cE SFACSRECUREnEM s sSr LF Th6 FAR ..................._.._.. 9�s9 SF. rAW `NMOFFCE SPPGEKIGWEp IS uj r.AVYWI RF OEN F0.'JTAGE ALILWEO 5'15%OFTHEEPA_.._... ........ t9a7iG 5F Z W cOT EM9%YY:n FA2 FOR 5fE!51]3ty � O Q. Eva cFFeE RESpEMw.. rprµ ......... T66.:� . Ia.L]5 B6E.669F. 3TRLLR ]np FLCpa.___. O i.T,sa3 Rp ROCR o xv� m=s3 s.F. 6arrzsF. rnALS ra]s . jsuYSS . zTC9n5F. E arnx A— - ------- e s.F ]n0 ICOR LELKS... ..._ ce OOSF 3 PPF LORPOOF CFLK �M 29sF - KS FOGT ------- F EvEFi YVCEX ht ATOM '1 19T Vntl ]Vq RLO2 ?L4J5 AC3?D FLCORpLPNa.d R%OF GIAN ELEVAiILNS AE ST -N 9FlGC2cgL'AaE FIXiVG3 6 3b FI0O25'r`LLnRE FLOYN A�> sRrp.PN VAh. E%6TNG R6JpEI�G6 T -1 ., eHC36avEY w 0 i CC Z QZ i n UI A-.,, oRnx a[cxm on J]B t10. [N[[T A -1 m 0 0 M N W O M O N IL a 0 0 M O N � G 4 Q [n LL @ m T � e' @ M m � Ory n c a 7 759.17 5.F. AID S.F. COLUMN +3.90 S.F. COLUMN 764.26 5.F. OFFIOE � sw FF I ml /' �♦ I� ♦r 3 �aT I i wl �' I, BroRP,E SB., T 4 8 smFG oGRCe SR�s m ,m% 458.75 5.F, Nmge�' I m I °` $ ,ftl]85.G. O�R]e.iMSk - �`♦ K I I PL eLEV.PM19 WLNW5 �'" ssR♦n -E 'r 5nmwon 11 m th' LLI ( `w atts 94G G5 — ILssLI Wi sMLE 0 `� r GPTJ 32 r7 Ti3YRLB %9.tiM'U. -I I 3C pLLGV JIJ4AFG I Ii r ti¢�.L�F]R"' � 930 L:. N �BeaCe le %ry 'Llry s :. mP sra�ziv`rarw srN:s ^ � � G b.0 4e 3B'3" S -G'/( a OVERPN♦RMN..1]a]p 9F. (� �' fi m -- cR3GERry u� eEas �- r..Bn' 15T FLOOR PLAN a�G°a1. Luemracu R�S�mEI.rE 1,269.28 S.F. -23.48 S.F. ELEVATOR -70.27 S.F. STAIR 1,175.93 S.F. 2ND FLOOR NG�nSOZS� vN� °d W rn� L m d <s�Z Q '�za U W Qo LL � � 9 J�$ i m z Ci 0 0 z ry 9 F N EMS ow xe A-2 3RD FLOOR PLAN ROOF PLAN 718.75 S.F. HABITABLE - 23.48 S.F. ELEVATOR -70.10 S.F. STAIR +6.31 DECK WALL + 1.14 DECK WALL + 8.02 FIREPLACE + 1.08 SUPPORT AT DECK 641.72 S.F. 3RD FLOOR Of PLAN N�iES ILLbC�sMTFRN.ONeWPNY ?Y +EVALL BEAC1.4S5'A PRE RCIED R:O? YAtERWLBY'PMEWG4VEW'E'L ^ ^LO2'O E3AK iFOWI'AND NSiN1FD VER Yr\W FAGTL ?EE RLOYYf E�DA1bN3. ]. YN%YVYI:LG= YAtEWN.WEY iPER S:i'NREf'GT =�OPCI�NEE, 3. ALliWfLOC20ECe YA'ERN.5Ha.L BEA6AS ='A'E.AS WCV9Cf RIEXO?ANE fWSH 3YA'JLTLDAi PSJDJCiE 'A %TJEDG\.ERDE:K3MFATITY ?E2YW WFA:111 RE5 Gll'ERWGEONTi'c R%OFDPLIN` 9R Ii Y1 ?�A' �'T�fWiIW YUN IMEEE ND *ED 9 GWN_YIMTERM Nti0255HnLL 3EC0%FER GVERAU WfENE1�NE EINLL FGT E%CEE9 ttYGM X ]b' N1 DE % eB' I�NG fOR EYN GIR W EY GeP TERftiN >tOR 5. RLOFPRGNES iOV MSPROJEn ARE3:13 Ai3RD'LWRACRnG ROO?SNA @Yt AT �SND fL�R51D %NGW'OFE. MLEEC FdfEDaTiE¢NAEEO.V THE 9D'JF P.AV M1'LW FTO PNFORPLYF:O WNI PA4A6 EHN._OEGDP ?ER IW GA'.VAN2 =D moNisaac\rc. TC VEIS35FPLLCELIXATEDPERiNERLbFRA \` \VM BEW_' -�V i'.YNI'&M i0 i. �'M4WLAt ECG JJ:f_N. niozrvi ARRCw =off Cm� U 1-Ns r W U Z QQ Ul 11= r N a 0 A n LL CY Z n Q 9 11. K m o�uE EDaD ^o ,LE. A-3 YPIGL TW of FGUF SNN.YMW' WE — rmcALSLGaNG FGOFYWTER^L —. 11,, 5. 3'PLGWEGFGR R'JGF ttnTEW4 BELGW RYJF NEGHI LM UNS RCGFI TEXR LG �GRB SECTIONAL — +AR ^=E NORTH ELEVATION PLL SLGRM1G ROG. NA E?ALSWLLBEAC/JVL.RE kGOFYATEkwL AwUEO RrwiwFxnRE¢s RFi�.w NENDAik;.vs ww¢Aw smETG BE SELECTED 6Y n1E O W NER sEE RJGF PAN EO.¢ EPEtiY.ATDM1. FiADSGEGti PRFAE SN1LRFLEIVEAV 'E_ASS ?E ,I R nEYIBFJnNE' Foe�me wiAASLOFEC =•ia' rwrnwlvns ,IF wN noN\L V. -roRrvroN Esx smas BV : =w.YwAR': vsTEns'. VENEER OTE STNS ONE VENEER SN4.l9E A'nGRtW'sUN3Ei LEGGESTONE PWUEGFER P_k GBL MLVN55151- VYNN'TNE WEIpif156 ?51 11%§ WW INW o W' s s PL OJJR W1 F ESSWV.S¢EGEMCA 6'WpE SiiPOF'BT' 31 FGOT tt9knU:'I 0.'JGFNEIGNi ____ IWIr P6iVE 900M5L ELEV_ 9RO F.5. iEYa, GLP55 SYP.G4 O>EGPBL SkT_GNSS FYATE RN I�- nnevm nm nnnm RAY.P III T °_. "6u— ez ez I - __.. -..,v ELEVATION C N�VEER GOWER RLL:'P/ER B4T NM1VOGW 6YWI�W ........ -> IN B'�GELONCRETE 6'W�CONCRE!£ Y NRY W!i \VN.L� �nAaG.Vm.'JNT WALL ELNAl10.V POOG YATEWAL BAY�,N�W BnvGly� ravoF weu aT I�fiTWpCfiRM iEryP. GL4E5 rra iGPPL4i' REh2 o 'f— uRJGFX'!Y L G£�FSA7�R l� KaRE.NEJii�lm PEUgRCS G " j RJM1i VOVERtt —�I �U.VEp�Y ME WEST ELEVATION iLASN NG GTES AL `c. FAIVGOa\NNGVW'A'JR GECK `TG Nh+iSPi\,AB_EHALL BE £+ALL Z ATE25 GFGR <LEb IG NG NOiE SALpNEG OW LNC LGWERAW S'JS-REG dJM1 NJOUEP RO R'M /EK ttENERaN_cVER NL WCGD B45ED5Y_ATHW PER ZGNlPL 5PNG 5NALL eEA3n WIDE WEICCW\MJFi S ®AG np c+ALV/WZEG&cNly AL1L\YE4 LB 4 G.6 FV G¢L. IZ/D3G9 GBC ]A06 ! G\T- X'ttvEK BARWE¢GVC EIAYEROF v'TVPE'XGW. �4 ?O. N15NCLO SIUL_REL9VEASNGGirlaAi iEN'IIREN4IN R�LL NVO �LASRING OTES mGR C=�K =- _.uu BE R>oasseo m?NERS. A WO FNSN 11.11 1111E1 iq`.a oGoEREOCO�rc;i o-us n+.ti�s�ns.B WEEP ECREEDFORSiLew Ai iiEFGUNOnmN UVES+ALL /JJ GNVANZEORONISALLGVEO. BEAMN:I MC -,.III ARii OR]INCr;>' GLES NOiE AI III A3GVEPnVELAeFAS L,RL zo36,2� L51T'fLS EVY31.5EAN >NG EN.T GE.VAR 4A W!E WIMAT Y'E�'GSU2' T TG WEATNERp? PJEOGVFR 'iTVEK'BPRWEROVE¢ONEIAYROF �'NFE'X GiP. WARDGVER+/y'Y4V FWFt EXTE ?VJ.¢GRAGEPLVN/c'TJ B?LxPG PVYrsAFOVERW�voSPARNJ3 -iO WESi Ga E45 NESANO ILCA'IFD \NTW SFEEi GG hESGEFR9FERl 'UNESA¢E RC'LIVREG SG BE s NOi� TNfi SrRFEi J.NBERS SVALI.BE SIZF.O MG BM�LE =i06EPFA7EDAM1O5Fiv1-0C"2IGRiO YVSTALIATGN. EIGWL6T0 CANLMiFLGTC-pWn: 4wAla FrsER55TVELGNBiRULRJN SEE CLATEGGNT.iE PE9bEW:PERN.B.tt45ELTON iCLEIVEAOry..VFEOftYBN LriLDxTO B_5 ?LECTW JV hIEGVNER ELiVRAL i'ETPIL" V:21✓J SEE'NORM ELEVnipN T-0S SnEEi. v�d l TLm ~� Q ZS LLl U z oaNLL� N p J N Z O W m 759.17 S.F. +1.19 S.F. COLUMN aEN:_ +3.90 5.F. GOLUMNiesre 1ST FLOOR PLAN 764.26 S.F. OFFICE R=G:nREo ?YVERI N�GNPORS 2ND FLOOR PLAN 1,269.08 S.F. -23.48 S.F. ELEVATOR -70.27 S.F. STAIR 1,175.93 S.F. 2N1) FLOOR R?39HCE uw^oF Mgr6k W. ory sLar.w k�s sNx� ae n c.�ss'n' FcE wPEO RxF - recrnokroe6n.KSeaw.wc �ruEOa6a .wu�Ee°L. -.auE� eECOn- si�imAmre. 1 :1NNNn FNFYAPERAL �A4K�iPYCR3GWkEFOOi _1G ?GVN�i. RoEGeM RGFFNYR kWFOE =<MTr Stw.LL 3EAGLASE'A' 3 ftAa.O MEOG RGGFNEnBRME E. N5N8Y'PJLVG54T R.NAVTS'M ?JFD WER OEGKE WM'J: F6RY1M5)PgT4'¢ES REEpYN6NJAS10Fi. SLG3PLLOEGKA¢F{5 Ar e' iERFP3f YVUMVn VNLE55 NGPEGGPHEk"nSEON rHE RGfF ?WN 6Ek:. ] >05 e {yy pOGF' O FpGF G? ?GGr ?O WAIIGVISMA'GSVALLBE GGWER N06N.VAMZEG woN�sa.LrnsEo �E.ws sN+u EErocnrF�w_RPNE VCOFa:nNwmN enllly Y'•`wnLn rG e_ Yrsr��scREEV nFSn 0 Nc2. � C � V U F N H < € g7-O�z 1 w u z w� N W � m J w O LL 1� Q Ul K IL Z N F N SCPLE OPP <m onPE uo6 no. A-5 RFSUxoa fGPER^ 4 �esvnvs Peso =N � 3RD FLOOR PLAN 718.75 S.F. HABITABLE -23.48 S.F. ELEVATOR -70.10 S.F. STAIR + 6.31 DECK WALL + 1.14 DECK WALL +8.02 FIREPLACE + 1.08 SUPPORT AT DEGK 641.72 S.F. 3RD FLOOR NoRm nrzRCw win �0 w Q oQFQI - U = E U uFryl2 } -� S � L NZS W U Z W � o N'LL J w O O IL w j N K O g LL K m sePtE oxgNN .A'.B (�^ N0. �f../ In ICON � _mob F�oN� aN,ER FAN � EXISTING 3 STORY MIXED USE BUILDING EpSiNG RE6GEYE �vaKMwou>IM —, —� — GVRI�Z EXISTING TWO STORY SFD and yea GARAGE TO BE p � DEMOLISHED MGMG'.0 �C0.V � WN. EXISTING 2 STORY DUPLEX �:. - -•- -sue •t• a . \'OF"N AWxcW I GYS w� Ld Q yl 1 e \ y 1 r a•N n Q b�l O 6 F U H N H z I. W u o li d N J Q Ol z 5 0 w u a Ln z N �1 3 z 3 w t N onnwx WEd(E➢ MlE ENEEI A -7 v� vL mj GLW2R WPLL FV.GSTONE I RVrNER WPLL F �O Ogelu�vuliame' Ren i + ?LN35YONE aN,ER FAN � EXISTING 3 STORY MIXED USE BUILDING EpSiNG RE6GEYE �vaKMwou>IM —, —� — GVRI�Z EXISTING TWO STORY SFD and yea GARAGE TO BE p � DEMOLISHED MGMG'.0 �C0.V � WN. EXISTING 2 STORY DUPLEX �:. - -•- -sue •t• a . \'OF"N AWxcW I GYS w� Ld Q yl 1 e \ y 1 r a•N n Q b�l O 6 F U H N H z I. W u o li d N J Q Ol z 5 0 w u a Ln z N �1 3 z 3 w t N onnwx WEd(E➢ MlE ENEEI A -7 1 — 0 x 4 A. m 1 � \ ry� 0^`� Q / G 2.0 SEA WAtt 0 0 U fz Z 0 0 0 V z 0 4.4 L V OOR-4 2 / 0 O U cy) c O� 01 8.oc- 3.g U 0 O U 0 MULTI LEVEL COMM. o i / CONC. " 1 -- GONG. a CONC. �. CONC. 18,28) a CONC. LINE OF 6' N35 058'00 "E 86.35' DECK 2 STORY (10.98TW) RESIDENCE Oryl GONG. N35 058'00 "E 86_35' n 2 STORY RESIDENCE BENCH MARK: COUNTY OF ORANGE BENCH MARK NB3 15 -70 ELEVATION = 7.99 NAVD 88 DATUM CONC. GONG I ---L GONG. 0 ri N GONG. GONG, GONG. GONG. GONG. r N \� J CONC. GONG. GONG. GONG. 7.5 7 LEGEND O N h� h9 cy)� 0 W z M J • SEW. CO. WM ltzc WALL 7.5 7 LEGEND DESCRIPTION (123.45) MEAS. ELEVATIONS O REC. BRG. & DIST. # BRICK �^ WALL BUILDING LOT LINE WM WATERMETER F.F. F INISH FLOOR G.F. ARAGE FLOOR GONG, CONCRETE F.S. IINiSHSJRFACE M.H. 0AWHOLE A.C, ASPHALT T.G, TOP -GRATE I x NORTH 0' 8' 16' SCALE: I"= 4' -0" NOTE: RECORD EASEMENTS ARE NOT PLOTTED IF ANY. SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER SHALL PERMANENTLY MONUMENT PROPERTY CORNERS OR OFFSETS BEFORE STARTING GRADING. QOl F� oAli U 1-ryF N W U. Z: W LL v w a� r�o 0 w m } ut U_ 2 a n .- DAM V. T -1 January 23, 2014 Via email (fnueno@ne)vportbeachca.gov) Bradley R. Hilgren, Chair Members of the Planning Commission c/o Fern Nueno, Associate Planner Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Correspondence Item No. 5a Vallely Mixed Use PA2013 -185 Re: Comments on the Vallely Mixed Use - PA2013 -185 508 South Bag Front Site Development Review No. SD2013 -004 Conditional Use Permit No. UP2013 -018 Variance No. VA2013 -009 Dear Mr. Hilgren and the Members of the Planning Commission, I am the owner and resident of 510 South Bay Front, the property adjacent to the proposed Vallely project. I respectfully request that you deny his application for Site Development Approval, Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance. I have reviewed the Planning Commission Staff Report and have the following concerns: 1) The applicant is seeking variances that his property cannot accommodate; requirements are four parking spaces, 907 sq. ft. of commercial office space, and a maximum of 1,943 sq. ft. of residential space. If this site is constructed as proposed, with all the requested variances, the immediate neighborhood will bear the negative impacts it will impose. 2) Reducing the parking requirement to just one ADA compliant parking space will further stress the highest volume parking streets on Balboa Island — Agate, Topaz and Opal. Additionally, it is not clear that many of the customers for his commercial dock and boat rental enterprise will require the use of an ADA compliant parking space. 3) This proposal and the entire mixed -use enterprise assume that the applicant will receive the commercial pier permit that he is required to obtain. The applicant's permit transfer request was denied in July 2013 and as a result the pier is currently out of compliance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The issue is that the current configuration of his commercial pier, on which the majority of his new dock and boat rental business will be based, encroaches across the entirety of my 30 -foot waterfront. Additionally, currently the NBMC would require five off - street parking spaces for his pier configuration should he given a permit. This neighborhood is not equipped to absorb the additional vehicular overload. 4) The applicant's property has been operated solely as a residential use, and now he wants to incorporate a commercial use that the property cannot accommodate. By granting approval, the City would be giving him a precedent- setting privilege that other residents of Balboa Island will surely apply for and expect as well. 5) The applicant's variance request includes an additional 458 sq. ft. of residential space. Again, this is another privilege that the applicant would be enjoying that is not given to other Balboa Island residents. This is a classic "cart before the horse" situation. The Planning Commission should not consider these variances prior to the applicant obtaining a valid pier permit upon which his entire project depends. Thank you for your consideration and your public service to the City. I urge you to reject this proposed project as it adversely affects the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Kind regards, Susan Riddle 510 South Bay Front Balboa Island, CA 92662 949.887.2517 LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT C. HAWKINS January 23, 2014 Via email (fnuenognewportbeachca.gov) Bradley R. Hilgren, Chair Members of the Planning Commission c/o Fern Nueno, Associate Planner Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive, Area "C" Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: Comments on Planning Commission Agenda Item No. 5: the Vallely Mixed Use - PA2013 -185 508 South Bay Front Site Development Review No. SD2013 -004 Conditional Use Permit No. UP2013 -018 Variance No. VA2013 -009 Greetings: Correspondence Item No. 5b Vallely Mixed Use PA2013 -185 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the captioned matter. This firm represents Friends of Balboa Island, a community action group dedicated to ensuring compliance with state and local laws including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq. in connection with developments on Balboa Island in Newport Beach. Because this Project threatens the quaint village atmosphere of Balboa Island, seeks to introduce new commercial uses in a residential area, and will exacerbate already terrible parking problems on the Island, the Friends of Balboa Island oppose the Project for the additional reasons set forth below. I. The Current Permitted Uses The Staff Report correctly depicts Balboa Island as: "Balboa Island is primarily developed with single- and two -unit residential dwellings with some commercial and mixed -use near Marine Avenue and Agate Avenue" Page 2. However, the Project proposes to expand the limited commercial uses in this dense residential area which will adversely affect the residences. However, the Staff Report incorrectly states: 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650.5550 Fax: (949) 650.1181 Bradley R. Hilgren, Chair Members of the Planning Commission . 2 , January 23, 2014 "The subject property contains a commercial pier that the property owner uses for a boat and dock rental business." Id. The property owner, Mr. Vallely and his family trust, do not have title or permits for the docks. See Exhibit A which is the May 10, 2013 letter from Mr. Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager, which denies Mr. Vallely's application to transfer the docks to his family trust. After the City attempted to resolve this dispute by a Code amendment which would allow the infra- family tranfer that Mr. Vallely sought, Mr. Vallely instead brought an action against the City in Vallely v. City of Newport Beach, OCSC Case No. 30 -2013- 00677168- CU- PT -CJC. In this action, the applicant and property owner, Mr. Vallely has challenged the City's denial of his application to transfer the permit for the docks from his parent's trust to his trust. Since the property is held in Mr. Vallely's Trust and the docks are held in his parent's trust, the ownership of the docks and the property is split. The property owner, Mr. Vallely, has no permitted rights to the dock. Mr. Vallely has refused to comply with the City's requirements to apply for a new permit for the dock. Hence, any commercial business associated with the dock lies with his parent's trust, not with the property owner, Mr. Vallely. The Property is currently used as a single family residential use and is surrounded by dense residential uses and limited commercial. Parking on the entire Balboa Island is at a premium and in this location near the Balboa Ferry is even higher. Residents and non - residents park along Agate,Topaz and Opal, and other streets to use the Ferry and other commercial uses in the area. Il. The Project The Property Owner seeks to use this land use application to support his claim for a dock transfer. The Planning Commission cannot allow this ruse to occur. The Subject Property is only 2,590 square feet. The Applicant proposes to overbuild the Property and to introduce a new commercial use which will be adverse to the community. The Applicant seeks to build 764 square feet of office use for the alleged boat rental business on the first floor as well as 1,945 square feet of residential use with a 459 square foot garage. The total is 3,165 square feet of development on a small lot. To do this, the Applicant requires three sorts of approvals: 1. Because of the introduction of commercial uses and the mixed use character, the Project requires Site Development Review. For the reasons below, the findings for such approval cannot be made. 2. Because the Applicant proposes to provide only one (1) Americans with Disabilities Act, of 1990 ( "ADA ") parking stall where the Newport Beach Municipal Code ( "NBMC ") section 20.40 requires at least 4 spaces, the Project requires a conditional use permit. Again, for the reasons below, the findings for such a permit cannot be made. 3. Because the Applicant seeks smaller commercial square footage and larger residential square footage than allowed by the NBMC section 22.22.030 Table 2 -11, 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650.5550 Fax: (949) 650.1181 Bradley R. Hilgren, Chair Members of the Planning Commission .3. January 23, 2014 the Project requires variance for the reduced commercial square footage and increased residential square footage. As before, for the reasons below, the findings for each of these cannot be made. III. The Findings Cannot be Made for Site Development Review. This Project seeks to introduce a new commercial use in a dense residential area and waive required parking requirements. The Planning Commission cannot make the findings for approval required by NBMC section 20.52.080 (Site Review). As the Staff Report notes, Section 20.52.080 requires that, for approval of the Site Development Review, the Commission must find that the Project is: 111. Allowed within the subject zoning district; 2. In compliance with all of the applicable criteria [below]: Compliance with this section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure; ii. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design; iii. The compatibility in terns of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; iv. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety ofpedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces; V. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and vi. The protection of significant views from public right(s) -of -way and compliance with Section 20.30. 100 (Public View Protection).; and 3. Not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endangers, j eopardizes, or otherwise constitutes a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development." 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650.5550 Fax: (949) 650.1181 Bradley R. Hilgren, Chair Members of the Planning Commission - 4 - January 23, 2014 Staff Report, page 6 (Emphasis supplied). If the Project simply required Site Development Review approval, then the Planning Commission may be able to make these findings. However, the Applicant seeks essentially a parking waiver in a dense residential area and less commercial area and more residential area than allowed by the Code. Because of the request for a variance for floor area ratio deviations, the Planning Commission cannot find that the Project is compatible "in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas." NBMC section 22.22.030 requires larger commercial square footage and smaller residential square footage. The commercial square footage is really an attempt to legitimize the Applicant's failure to have the appropriate permitting for the alleged dock rental business. The Applicant has no permit for the docks. As argued below, the Planning Commission cannot make the findings necessary for the requested variance of a smaller commercial use and a larger residential use. Because of this parking waiver or conditional use permit to waive the required additional three parking spaces, the Planning Commission cannot make finding 2)iv) above. The Project does not have adequate, efficient, and safe pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces. It has inadequate parking and requires a separate approval for such a parking waiver or conditional use permit. Also, as argued below, the Planning Commission cannot make the findings necessary for this parking waiver /conditional use permit. Further, because of the variance and the parking waiver /conditional use permit, the Planning Commission cannot make the "health, safety, and welfare" finding: the size of the Project conflicts with the other residential structures on Balboa Island; the parking waiver /conditional use permit will exacerbate an already terrible parking problem in the area. IV. The Planning Commission Cannot Make the Findings for a Parking- Waiver/Conditional Use Permit. NBMC section 20.40 regarding Off - Street Parking requires that the commercial use of 604 square feet which itself requires a variance needs at least four (4) commercial parking spaces. The Property does not have the room for four (4) commercial spaces and the required two (2) residential spaces. So, the Applicant seeks a parking waiver or a conditional use permit under NBMC section 20.40.110. However, the Applicant and the Property do not qualify for a parking waiver. He proposes to provide only one space which will be an ADA compliant space. That means, of course, that with the requested waiver, parking in the area will be exacerbated: only those qualified to park in the ADA space can park in the space provided. How many of his marine customers will gain access to the marine uses including boats and other crafts in a wheel chair or with other physical challenges? The Staff Report notes: "Customers who live or are vacationing on Balboa Island will most likely walk or bicycle to the subject property. Customers from the Balboa Peninsula will likely arrive via the Balboa Ferry." 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650.5550 Fax: (949) 650.1181 Bradley R. Hilgren, Chair Members of the Planning Commission . 5 , January 23, 2014 Staff Report, page 7. This is rank speculation. Where in the Application is there any sufficient data to support these erroneous conclusions. As noted below, the parking study cited by Staff and apparently presented by the Applicant identifies the source of parking demand on Balboa Island: residents, customers of the commercial uses in the area, and those who are going to the Peninsula for fishing excursions or travel to Catalina Island. That study makes little or no reference to walkers, bicyclists, or ferry goers. Section 20.40.110 is entitled "Adjustments to Off - Street Parking Requirements." This Section recognizes several adjustments to off - street parking requirements including compliance with the ADA, reduction due to a conditional use permit under NBMC section 20.52.020, joint use parking, a parking management plan, a parking management district, or the payment of in- lieu fees. As indicated above, the Applicant seeks, but does not qualify for, a conditional use permit under NBMC section 20.40.110(b) entitled "Reduced Parking Demand" and section 20.52.020 entitled "Conditional Use Permits and Minor Use Permits." Section 20.40.110(b)(1) provides: "Required off - street parking may be reduced with the approval of a conditional use permit in compliance with the following conditions: a. The applicant has provided sufficient data, including a parking study if required by the Director, to indicate that parking demand will be less than the required number of spaces or that other parking is available (e.g., City parking lot located nearby, on- street parking available, greater than normal walk in trade, mixed -use development); and b. A parking management plan shall be prepared in compliance with subsection (C) of this section (Parking Management Plan)." The Staff Report maintains that the Applicant has provided the Director with a parking study by Walker Parking Consultants dated 2008. This is the City's own study but it is not a parking study contemplated by Section 20.40.110(b)(1). This study is dated, does not support the Applicant, and riddled by assumptions which differ from the purposes of a true parking demand study. This is not data. First, times have changed in Newport Beach since 2008. Our moribund economy is now vital again. The City itself recognizes these changes and has commenced an update to the Land Use Element of the General Plan which was updated in 2006. Second, the Staff Report incorrectly states that this Study finds that Balboa Island residents consume most of the parking. The Study states: "Parking demand on Balboa Island is generated by residents, businesses in neighborhood commercial areas, and day visitors using Balboa Island to park for fishing or Catalina Island excursions. The parking demand generated by these groups creates a distinct shortage of parking during peak periods." 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650.5550 Fax: (949) 650.1181 Bradley R. Hilgren, Chair Members of the Planning Commission .6, January 23, 2014 Walker Parking Consultants (2008) Study, page I (Emphasis supplied). Indeed, the Property is in an area stressed by all three: residents take street parking; the commercial uses consume parking; and the proximity to the Balboa Ferry means that visitors park for fishing or Catalina Island excursions. Further, the parking in this area is also stressed by two public facilities: the Carroll Beek Center and the Opal Pier which is one of a handful of public piers on Balboa Island. Further, the Walker Parking Consultants (2008) Study was not itself a study of parking in the area. The Study states its purpose: "The purpose of this report is to provide recommendations that will result in an efficient use of the existing parking supply on Balboa Island. Parking planning is complex as it affects issues as varied as the health of neighborhood businesses and parking availability for residents. Our goal is to determine how to utilize the parking system as effectively as possible so as to maintain reasonable parking access for residents to park while providing as many people as possible with the appropriate access to Balboa Island. It is also important to note that during the busiest days or seasons, demand for parking at the nearby beach areas and waterways is arguably nearly unlimited, particularly when such parking is free." Walker Parking Consultants (2008) Study, page 3 (Emphasis supplied). The Study is very critical of the free on- street parking that is prevalent on Balboa Island. Of course, the on- street parking is free on most of Balboa Island, because that parking is largely used by residents. Indeed, this is not sufficient data for a reduced parking load for new commercial uses. Indeed, the Study supports requiring parking as mandated by the NBMC due to "... residents, businesses in neighborhood commercial areas, and day visitors using Balboa Island to park for fishing or Catalina Island excursions." Hence, the Planning Commission cannot allow reduced parking for a conditional use permit. V. The Applicant actually seeks twin variances: (1) A reduction of the minimum square footage for commercial uses from the NBMC required 906 square feet to the proposed 764 square feet; and (2) An increase of the maximum square footage for residential uses from the NBMC maximum of 1,483 square feet to the proposed 1,942 square feet. The Applicant proposes to allow such variations from the NBMC pursuant to NBMC section 20.52.090 entitled "Variances." The Planning Commission cannot make the findings for such a variance. Section 20.52.090(F) sets out the findings necessary for a variance. It provides: 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650.5550 Fax: (949) 650.1181 Bradley R. Hilgren, Chair Members of the Planning Commission -7, January 23, 2014 "The review authority may approve or conditionally approve a variance only after first making all of the following findings: 1. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification; 2. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification; 3. Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant; 4. Granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district; 5. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood; and 6. Granting of the variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this section, this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan." Most of these findings cannot be made. First, there is nothing unique about the Subject Property: it is similar to most residential lots on Balboa Island. What is unique is the Applicant's proposed uses: the Applicant seeks to stick a square peg in a round whole. This won't work. Second, strict compliance to the NBMC would not deprive the Applicant of any privileges enjoyed by others. Rather, the variance and other requests would grant the Applicant special privileges including a parking waiver, reduced commercial square footage, and increased residential square footage not enjoyed by anyone else on Balboa Island. Also, this would serve to legitimize the Applicant's claim in his lawsuit against the City that the City must grant his application for transfer of the docks currently held by his parents' trust. Third, the variance is not necessary to the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights: the current use enjoys those rights. A modified, NBMC compliant Project would enjoy those rights. Fourth, as indicated above, the variance and parking waiver /conditional use permit would constitute a special privilege and would undercut the City's claim that the Applicant must submit a new application for the unpermitted piers. Finally, as argued above, the variance and the parking waiver /conditional use permit would be detrimental the health, safety and welfare of Balboa Island residents. In sum, the Planning Commission cannot make all of the findings required for a variance. 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite 120 Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650.5550 Fax: (949) 650.1181 Bradley R. Hilgren, Chair Members of the Planning Commission - 8 - January 23,'_014 enjoy those rights. Fourth, as indicated above, the variance and parking waiver /conditional use permit would constitute a special privilege and would undercut the City's claim that the Applicant must submit a new application for the unpermitted piers. Finally, as argued above, the variance and the parking waiver /conditional use permit would be detrimental the health, safety and welfare of Balboa Island residents. In sum, the Planning Commission cannot make all of the findings required for a variance. VL Conclusion Respectfully, the Planning Commission must reject this application. The Applicant claims to have rights to piers that the City has contested. The Planning Commission cannot make the findings necessary for the Site Development Review, the Parking Waiver /Conditional Use Permit, and the Variances. We look forward to this rejection. Thank you, again, for the opportunity to comment on the captioned Project. Please provide us with notice of any responses to these comments and with notices of any and all hearings on the captioned project. Of course, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Robert C. RCH/kw ROBERT cc: Leilani Brown, City Clerk (Via email [LBrown @newportbeachea.gov] Only) 14 Corporate Plaza, Suite LO Newport Beach, California 92660 (949) 650.5550 Fax: (949) 650 -1181 Exhibit "A" RAW,\4N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Public Works Department Harbor Resources Division May 10, 2013 Delivered via Regular First Class Matt Harry S. Carmack, Esq. Attorney at Law 474 East 17° Street, Suite 201 Costa Mesa, CA 92827 s , - L. .:. r :! Dear Mr. Carmack: The City of Newport Beach ('City') received your client's Harbor Permit Transfer Application dated April 24, 2013 ('Application'), in which your client requested the annually renewable pier permit for 508 S. Bay Front be transferred from The Vallely Trust to The John Stephen Vehety Trust' The Application was submitted pursuant to the transfer regulations in Newport Beach Municipal Code ('NBMC') Section 17.60.030(C). This section relates to non-commercial residential piers. As you are aware, your client's pier is a commercial pier that encroaches in front of a neighboring residential property. Your clients pier permit is regulated by NBMC Section 17.35.020(F), which provides, in part: 'In areas where existing piers and floats encroach in front of abutting upland property owned by others, a new permit approved by the Harbor Commission shall be required upon: ... (3) Any change of existing ownership of the abutting upland property owned by the permittee or upon death of the permittee.' Therefore, instead of a transfer application your client should submit a new pier permit application pursuant to NBMC Section 17.80.020. The City is denying your Application without prejudice so that you may apply for a new pier permit. Pursuant to NBMC 17.60.020, you may apply for a new Pier Permit For your convenience, enclosed with this denial letter is an application for a new pier permit. Alternatively, pursuant to NBMC Section 17.60.080, you may appeal this denial of your Application within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this letter. For your convenience, enclosed is the Request for Harbor Resources Administrative Hearing Form. Thank you for con ng the City of Newport Beach. Chris Miller Harbor Resources Manager cc: Michael Torres, Assistant City Attorney Enclosures ' We understand the abuning upland commercial property is also being transferred from The Vallely Trust to the John Stephen Vallely Trust, 829 Harbor Islond Drive. Newport Beach, CA 92660 www.newportbeochco.gov (949) 644 -3034 Correspondence Item No. 5c Va11e1y Mixed Use PA2013 -185 Earl McDaniel 27 Southampton Court Newport Beach, California 92660 949 - 675 -8714 emcdaniel27@myway.com January 22, 2014 Bradley R. Hilgren, Chair Members of the Planning Commission c/o Fern Nueno, Associate Planner Department of Community Development City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Dr., Area "C" Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: The Vallely Mixed Use - PA2013 -185 508 South Bay Front Site Development Review No. SD2013 -004 Conditional Use Permit No. UP2013 -018 Variance No. VA2013 -009 Dear Mr. Hilgren and Members of the Planning Commission, The Friends of Balboa Island have asked me to comment on the captioned Project. As you know, I was proud to live on Balboa Island for over fourteen (14) years. I was deeply involved in the community and served on the Board of the Little Balboa Island Association for eight years. I still participate in the parade as one of the Keystone Kops. Also, as you know, I was proud to serve on the Planning Commission for eleven (11) years. My experience qualifies me to provide an opinion on the captioned Project. I have reviewed the Staff Report and cannot understand how Staff believes that findings can be made for Site Development Approval, the Conditional Use Permit, and a Variance. The Site Development Review requires a finding that the Project will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the community. On Balboa Island, parking is scarce. This location near the Balboa Ferry is the worst on the Island. Any attempt to waive parking will significantly and adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the entire Balboa Island and this neighborhood in particular. In addition, the Project will allow commercial uses to encroach further into this residential area. This may be allowed. But further encroachment of commercial is not good and will adversely affect the quality of life on Balboa Island. Further, the Conditional Use Permit to waive the required four (4) parking spaces and to provide only one ADA compliant space is a disaster. The ADA space provided which has a very limited user base will push other customer parking into an already bad area. Parking is at a premium at this location. The people using the Ferry will park on Topaz, Opal and Agate. Those using the Carroll Beek Center also park in this vicinity. I attend many events at the Center and do not see people on bicycles. I do see golf carts and cars; all of these need parking. Further, the Opal Pier is one of a handful of public piers on Balboa Island. Those visitors park in the area where the Project will require its customers to park. Because of all of this parking demand, the findings for such a CUP simply cannot be made. Finally, the size of the building and the requested variances will adversely affect all of Balboa Island and injure its historic classic, small town charm. The Planning Commission should reject this plan outright. I well remember numerous projects on Balboa Island and other areas of the City where we did just that. The City is better for it. I urge you to reject this Project. Sincerely yours, Earl McDaniel ZI, R. NI M y0 . %2013-185 X08 South 3ay Front. > D t � n Lc-q OaN P EWPO n " S ��q<,FOaN�I WrEn i 1111I: • Site Development Review Conditional Use Permit Variance FA- Commercial 764 Residential 15942 Residential Garage 459 Total 31165 5L.ATP- F-OOr MrtrL 3y ' MEfzIGAN 6L.AT6' BLEND OLyMfV5 FFAf w+d A? ALACOIAN ASCEI 2&i R, WINDOW µJ Wep MH 66WMI'W+4ITr-' 51 DING ad SHiNGI.>; col.ofz ''PI.AreAU' ey Be�}F y%NE VENEEF, 'ELVoPfW4 5TiNE' RU55eT 60Le(- 3 3PvPInnment Stand IV Commercial 0.35 FAR 0.50 FAR 0.30 FAR 906.5 sf 1,295 sf 765 sf Residential NA 0.75 FAR 0.93 FAR 1,942.5 sf 2,401 sf Total 1.25 FAR 1.23 FAR 3,237.5 sf 3,166 sf Residential 2 car in a garage Commercial 1/250 net floor area 3spaces Total 5 spaces 2 car in a garage 1 space 3spaces Alternative Develonment Ontic Development P• Deta • 906 -1,295 sf of commercial floor area and 1,942.5 sf of residential Mixed -use floor area • 1 commercial and 2 residential parking spaces • 250 sf of commercial floor area and 1,942.5 sf of residential floor Mixed -use area • 1 commercial and 2 residential parking spaces Commercial 1,295 square feet of floor area with 2 parking spaces Commercial 500 square feet of floor area with 2 parking spaces rr� Discretionary 6, Required CUP for commercial parking reduction Variance for commercial floor area CUP for commercial parking reduction None m e n d e ri n q J c94 F00.H�I 508 S. Bay Front P. ,.S "W P06 �� �. e Alk 0 Conduct a public hearing; and Adopt draft Resolution approving Site Development Review No. SD2013 -004, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2013- 018, and Variance No. VA2013 -009. 9 1 For more information contact: Fern Nueno (949) 644 -3227 fnueno @newportbeachca.gov www.newportbeachca.gov 11 is FaMll ilwffl5f PF--- l rvva as wr�iesrrww 12 �f el �. Ne 3.r. M pµ!ifLLTi F b - -� cn vuramc d NYTY tl] Y aaknrur:c aaa: -v OF 13 arrrr• F- SEE lunl l I KKWM aZYATVN - V Wr ELEVATION ' 14