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