Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 - PC Appeal for 2240 University Drive - Amended RecommendationTO: FROM: PREPARED BY: PHONE: TITLE: ABSTRACT: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City Council Staff Report March 25, 2014 Agenda Item No. 12. HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL Brenda Wisneski, AICP, Deputy Community Development Director 949 - 644 -3297, bisneski@newportbeachca.gov Jason Van Patten, Planning Technician (949) 644 -3234 Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to Approve Conditional Use Permit No. UP2013 -023 for 2240 University Drive (PA2013 -206) An appeal of the Planning Commission's January 23, 2014, decision to approve Conditional Use Permit No UP2013 -023 authorizing a religious assembly use and establishing a parking management plan allowing for joint use of the common parking lot during evenings and weekends. RECOMMENDATION: jAmended Recommendation a) Conduct a de novo public hearing; b) If approved, find that this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines. If denied, find that the action is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines; and c) Adopt Resolution No. 2014 -27, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach Upholding the Decision of the Planning Commission and Approving Conditional Use Permit No. UP2013 -023 for a Religious Assembly Use and a Joint use of Parking Located at 2240 University Drive (PA2013 -206) (Staff Report Attachment No. CC 1). FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: There is no fiscal impact related to this item. DISCUSSION: 260 Project Setting The subject property is located at the end of University Drive and is bordered to the south by Upper Newport Bay Regional Park. The site is comprised of five individual parcels which are developed with four multi -story office buildings (67,951 gross sq. ft. total) and a common area parking lot consisting of 255 parking spaces. The subject parcel occupies 19,262 square feet (0.44 acres) of a 178,395 square -foot project site (4.09 acres). Other surrounding land uses include single - family residential to the north and east and a YMCA facility to the west. Project Description The applicant proposes to use the second floor (8,958 net sq. ft.) of an existing two -story office building (16,932 net sq. ft.) for a religious assembly use. No increase in floor area is proposed, and the existing 7,974 net square feet of general office uses on the first floor remain. The interior renovations consist of a multipurpose room, social hall, and administrative offices, with remaining floor area designated for a children's room, kitchen, library, and storage. The multipurpose room will be used for support groups, workshops, and education classes with the social hall used for lectures, community gatherings, and religious services (periods of worship). The anticipated religious facility operation and expected occupancy are as follows: Peak Period Operation Occupancy Daytime, Monday - Friday (9:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m.) General office use 5 employees weekly su port group 15 -25 people Weekly mommy and me group 10 -15 people Evenings, Monday - Friday (5:30 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.) Twice weekly adult education classes 15 -40 people Weekly religious service 40 -60 people Lectures 207 people Workshops 20 -40 people Community shabbat 80 people Weekends Weekly religious service 40 -60 people Religious Bar / Bat Mitzvah instruction 150 -200 people During the daytime weekday peak period, activities may occur simultaneously resulting in up to 45 people on site at one time. During the evening and weekend peak period, up to a maximum of 207 people may be expected at one time. Therefore, the applicant requests to establish a parking management plan to allow joint use of the parking lot during evenings and weekends to address the increase in parking demand. Please refer to the Planning Commission staff report from January 23, 2014, for a detailed discussion and analysis of the proposed project and requested approval (Attachment No. CC 5). The full staff report is available at htti):// www .newl)ortbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?page =1325. Background Planning Commission Hearing and Decision On January 23, 2014, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and reviewed the applicant's request. Eight members of the public spoke in support of the project and one member spoke in opposition. Those in support generally stated that the religious assembly use 261 would benefit the community. The member in opposition, an attorney representing Mobilitie, LLC, the property owner of 2220 University Drive, expressed concerns related to the appropriateness of the religious assembly use in the Zoning District based on issues related to parking and traffic, consistency with conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC &R's), environmental review, and findings required for approval of a conditional use permit. After considering the testimony received and extensive discussion regarding the project, the Planning Commission determined there were sufficient facts to support the required findings and voted unanimously to approve the Conditional Use Permit application (Refer to Attachment Nos. CC 6 and CC 7 for the adopted resolution and meeting minutes from the January 23, 2014, Planning Commission meeting). Appeal of Planning Commission Decision On February 6, 2014, Mobilitie, LLC, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. The appellant cited the concerns it raised at the Planning Commission meeting on January 23, 2014. The appellant's appeal application and accompanying letter are included as Attachment Nos. CC 3 and CC 4. DISCUSSION: we The appellant requests that the City Council reconsider and reverse the Planning Commission's action to approve the project. Chapter 20.64 of the Municipal Code establishes the procedures for the appeal process. Pursuant to Section 20.64.030 (Filing and Processing of Appeals), a review of an appeal from a decision by the Planning Commission shall be de novo, meaning the review is starting over. The review authority for the appeal, in this case the City Council, is not bound by the decision that has been appealed or limited to the issues raised on appeal. Analysis The appellant's application (Attachment No. CC 3) cites the following five reasons for the appeal: 1) this is the wrong zone for this use; 2) the parking and traffic issues have not been properly considered; 3) the proposed use will violate the use restrictions in the CC &R's; 4) the proposed use is not exempt from environmental review due to the significant traffic and parking impacts; and 5) the findings required for a conditional use permit have not been satisfied. In addition, to the reasons cited, the appeal application states that a comment letter dated January 23, 2014, and presented to the Planning Commission should be considered for the appeal (Attachment No. CC 4). The letter cites two additional reasons for opposition: 1) the wrong party submitted the application; and 2) the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) does not give the project applicant an advantage over non - religious users. The following discussion summarizes the appellant's reasons for the appeal and provides responses for City Council consideration. 1. This is the wrong zone for the use. General Comment: The appellant believes a religious institution is not appropriate in this particular Office General (OG) Zoning District. 262 Response: Table 2 -4 of Zoning Code Section 20.20.020 (Commercial Zoning Districts Land Uses and Permit Requirements) indicates religious assembly uses are conditionally permitted within the OG Zoning District. Pursuant to Chapter 20.20, the OG Zoning District is intended to provide for areas appropriate for administrative, professional, and medical offices with limited accessory retail and service uses. In this case, the proposed assembly use will provide a support service to the community, through, but not limited to, group activities, lectures, and religious services, consistent with this designation. In addition, this particular project site is located adjacent to an allowed public facility (YMCA) use, maintains access to the site from University Drive which is generally not a highly congested roadway due to the limited number of properties fronting the street, and is in a location such that it is unlikely that attendees of the assembly use will impact residential neighborhoods which are located behind the subject property to the east. For these reasons, a religious assembly use is reasonably appropriate in the Zoning District and at can be accommodated for at this particular location. 2. The parking and traffic issues have not been properly considered. General Comment: The appellant alleges that religious services are not offered strictly on Friday nights and Saturday, but occur three times per day. The appellant further states that most Chabads have schools, including preschools which involve children and additional traffic. The appellant also states that the Planning Commission staff report does not consider the vacancy of the 2220 and 2260 University Drive buildings, which when occupied, will leave inadequate parking for the proposed assembly use, and other users of the site. Response: The project description provided by the applicant and included as Attachment No. PC 3 in the Planning Commission Staff Report, specifies that religious services (periods of worship) are conducted on Friday night and Saturday morning, with other activities (eg. office use, guest lectures, support groups, etc.) held at other times and other days of the week. Periods of worship will not be held more frequently, and there is no school, preschool, or related outdoor uses included in the application. A detailed response to parking and traffic concerns is discussed below: Parking Office Use - The City's parking requirements are determined by type of use pursuant to Table 3 -10 of Zoning Code Section 20.40.040 (Off- Street Parking Spaces Required), and are not based on level of occupancy. Office uses within the complex are required to provide 1 parking space for every 250 square feet of net floor area which equates to 256 parking spaces (64,026 net sq. ft. / 250). The required number of parking spaces may be administratively reduced by the Community Development Director when parking spaces are lost due to ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements associated with tenant improvements. The office complex has undergone tenant improvements requiring the conversion of parking spaces to loading zones resulting in a minimal loss of parking for ADA purposes. Therefore, the Community Development Director has determined that the existing 255 space parking lot meets the ratio required for the office uses located on this site. Daytime, Weekday Assembly Use - The Planning Commission considered the change in use of the subject second floor tenant space from an office use to an assembly use. As an office use, the tenant space requires 36 parking spaces (8,958 net sq. ft. / 250). As an assembly use the tenant space requires 15 parking spaces during the daytime (prior to 5:30 p.m.), Monday through Friday, based on the anticipated maximum number of people visiting the site at one time (45 persons), and a parking requirement of 1 space for every 3 seats as specified in the 263 Zoning Code. Although the Zoning Code also allows the parking requirement for an assembly use to be based on floor area used for assembly purposes (1 space for every 35 sq. ft.), parking demand based on number of seats is appropriate in this case because it closely corresponds with the anticipated number of seating necessary for visitors of the site. In addition, the applicant seeks the ability to use both the multipurpose room (1,100 sq. ft.) and social hall (2,016 sq. ft.) for flexibility in operation, but does not intend on using all 3,116 square feet of floor area. The intent is to conduct small, infrequent group meetings, and operate similar to an administrative office. Therefore, because parking demand during this period will be less than the existing office use (15 as compared to 36), sufficient parking is provided. Evening and Weekend Assembly Use - Based on the divergent hours of operation of the existing uses on site, the applicant proposes assembly activities during the evening (after 5:30 p.m.) and weekend periods (up to a maximum of 207 persons), which will generate a parking demand of 69 spaces (207 seats / 1 per 3 seats), an increase of 33 spaces as compared to the previous office use. During this peak parking period, unrestricted use of the 255 space parking lot will be available because office uses sharing the site will generally be closed. Office uses traditionally have peak parking demand during the daytime (8 a.m. to 5 p.m.), Monday through Friday, which is different than the peak parking demand for the proposed assembly use. Should office complex workers on -site require use of the parking lot during evenings or weekends, as suggested in the letter provided by Mobilitie, LLC, dated January 23, 2014, up to 165 spaces (255 total — 90 conditioned for assembly use) will remain available for unrestricted use. To conservatively provide for the anticipated operation during evenings and weekends, the approval is conditioned requiring that a minimum of 90 spaces (3,116 sq. ft. assembly area / 35) be maintained on -site for the proposed assembly use. Further, the CC &R's recorded on the 2220, 2240, 2260, and 2280 University Drive properties specify that every owner has a nonexclusive use of the parking facility which ensures access to parking for all users at all times. Section 12.1 of the CC &R's also provides that in the event of over use by any one owner, the Bay Corporate Plaza Association ( "Association ") has the right to establish reasonable rules and regulations pertaining to the use of the community facilities, including, without limitations, rules and regulations governing the quantity and location of parking for Members and their employees and the quantity and location of parking for customers of the Members. Said provisions are in place to prevent excessive use of the parking lot. Traffic In reviewing the application for the Conditional Use Permit, staff referenced the ITE Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition, 2012) and reviewed trip generation rates as a result of the change in use. Staff concluded that average daily trips generated on weekdays by the proposed assembly use would be less than the previous general office use. Weekend activities would generate increased trips. A trip generation comparison prepared by City staff is included as Attachment No. CC 8. The City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) contained in Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code provides additional direction to staff when evaluating traffic impacts. An objective of the TPO is to provide a uniform method of analyzing and evaluating the traffic impacts of projects that generate a substantial number of average daily trips and /or trips during the morning or evening peak hour period. The TPO specifies that projects generating no more than 300 average daily trips are exempt from provisions of the Ordinance, and do not require further traffic analysis or a traffic study. In general, projects that are exempt from the TPO are regarded as not having a significant traffic impact. In this case, there are no unusual circumstances to suggest otherwise. Given that the application contemplates weekend assembly uses, it should be noted that the 264 intent of the TPO is to assess potential traffic impacts associated with an increase in average daily trips, not one specific day of the week. The City does not study weekends and does not collect or maintain traffic counts on streets or intersections during the weekends. The TPO specifically states that traffic volumes to be used in the analysis shall be based on counts taken on weekdays. In this case, City staff has determined the proposed assembly use generates 84 average daily trips on weekdays, less than the 101 average daily weekday trips generated by the previous office use. As discussed, the project is exempt from the TPO and not anticipated to result in traffic impacts. In addition to the analysis provided by City staff, the applicant has provided a parking and traffic study prepared by RK Engineering Group (Attachment No. CC 9). The study finds that parking provided onsite would be sufficient to accommodate the peak parking demand of the proposed assembly use, and based upon a review of trip generation, the assembly use will not be excessive from a traffic standpoint in comparison to the site's previous general office use. 3. The proposed use will violate the use restrictions in the CC &R's. General Comment: The appellant believes the proposed assembly use will violate the CC &R's recorded July 12, 1983, which are between all building owners of the Association. Specifically, the appellant implies that the assembly use is in violation because the Board of Directors of the Association has not adopted a rule allowing for the excessive use of the parking lot by the assembly use. Response: The applicant included a letter from the Association as attachment No. PC 5 in the Planning Commission staff report which states that a majority of Association members do not feel that the occasional evening and weekend use of the parking lot by the proposed religious facility is likely to create an overuse or cause the need for a specific allocation of parking. Section 12.1 of the CC &R's further entitles every member to the nonexclusive use and enjoyment of the community facilities which includes the parking lot. However, the City of Newport Beach does not regulate agreements between private parties such as these. The issuance of a permit or approval does not relieve the applicant of the legal requirement to observe CC &R's which are recorded against the property. Furthermore, Condition of Approval Number 11 provides that the Community Development Director shall be notified immediately in writing and an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit may be required if the CC &R's are amended, if additional restrictions are placed upon the subject assembly use, or if action is taken precluding the use and /or availability of a minimum of 90 parking spaces during the evening and weekend peak period. The Parking Management Plan (Exhibit B of Attachment No. CC 1) also requires that the Community Development Director be made immediately aware should off - street parking no longer be available for the subject assembly use. Any change in the availability of parking shall require an amendment to the Parking Management Plan and Conditional Use Permit to address parking demand. The intent of these provisions is to preclude parking conflicts. 4. The proposed use is not exempt from environmental review due to the significant traffic and parking impacts. General Comment: The appellant believes the proposed assembly use is not exempt from environmental review and asserts that traffic and parking impacts have not been properly analyzed and are incomplete and misleading. Response: The proposed project was determined to be categorically exempt under Section 265 15301, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Examples include but are not limited to interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances. The key consideration for the Class 1 exemption is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use. A detailed analysis regarding consistency with the Class 1 exemption is contained in the Environmental Review section of this staff report. 5. The findings required for a CUP have not been satisfied. General Comment: The appellant asserts that the required findings for approval have not been satisfied. The following statements were provided by the appellant: . The use is not consistent with the General Plan in that the use is a religious institution and the General Plan calls for commercial office use. • A religious institution or "assembly" use is generally not allowed in a commercial office zone unless a conditional use permit is issued. There is no reasonable basis for the issuance of a conditional use permit in this case. • The anticipated use by Chabad is not compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity, namely commercial office space. • A commercial office park is unsuitable for a religious institution, which will have childcare facilities, "Mommy and Me" classes, pre - school and regular school, without any yard or open space for children to play other than in the parking lot. Further the use by Chabad will result in parking and traffic congestion on the site. • The proposed use will be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the commercial center and might create a hazard to children who are attending functions at Chabad. Further, there will be increased traffic congestion and unavailability of parking spaces for not only Chabad, but also for the other commercial residents of the Bay Corporate Plaza Association. Response: As provided in Resolution No. 1930 (Attachment No. CC 6), the Planning Commission determined that each required finding for approval can be made. In addition, the following response is provided: Table LU1 of the General Plan specifies that the General Plan Land Use designation CO -G (General Commercial Office) is intended to provide for administrative, professional, and medical offices with limited accessory, retail, and service uses. In this case, the principal use of the facility is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation because the religious facility will provide a support service to the community. Pursuant to Table 2 -4 of Zoning Code Section 20.20.020 an assembly use is only permitted in the OG Zoning District with the approval of a conditional use permit. The assembly use was determined to be compatible with allowed uses in the vicinity on the basis that the proposed assembly use intends to function similar to existing office uses during daytime hours, Monday through Friday, will have peak parking demand during evenings and weekends, distinct from office uses sharing the site, will provide a support service to the community, and does not propose outdoor activities that might negatively impact surrounding uses. 266 The appellant provides no basis for the assertion that the proposed assembly use will have childcare facilities or school activities. The applicant's project description specifies that "mommy and me" classes are weekly, 90- minute group meetings, consisting of 10 to 15 participants, where mothers remain with their children for story, music, and craft time. In addition, educational and /or day care facilities that may be classified as an E occupancy are not permitted in the subject second floor tenant space due to California Building Code (CBC) restrictions. To ensure schooling and day care are not included in the religious assembly operation, a condition of approval has been included prohibiting said uses. The claim that the proposed use will be detrimental to the growth of the commercial center and will create a hazard for children attending functions is unfounded because the intent of the proposed assembly use is to operate similar to an administrative office with small, infrequent meetings during the daytime when surrounding offices are operating, and to hold larger group meetings during evenings and weekends, when office uses are generally closed. Groups involving children are limited in attendance, and represent a component of the operation. There will be no schooling, day care, or outdoor activities associated with said activities which might otherwise constitute a hazard for visitors attending activities. 6. The wrong party submitted the application. General Comment: The appellant implies the property owner, Stein Holdings, LLC, should be the applicant. Response: Planning Division applications required for discretionary approvals are required to be signed by the property owner authorizing involvement with the application; however, property owners are not required to serve as the applicant. The planning application filed for the Conditional Use Permit was signed by David Stein of Stein Holdings, LLC, the owner of record. 7. A religious institution is generally subject to the same requirements for a land use permit as any other applicant, the religious land use and institutionalized persons act of 2000 (RLUIPA) does not give Chabad and edge over non - religious users. General Comment: The appellant implies that the proposed use was given an advantage and not subject to the same requirements as another applicant. Response: The City agrees that, among other things, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, codified as 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., is a United States federal law establishing that no land use regulation may unreasonably limit religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction. However, the City disagrees with the suggestion that the application was not subject to the same requirements as any other applicant. In fact, the applicant was required to adhere to the same submittal requirements and review as any other applicant for a conditional use permit. The applicant was not given an advantage or subject to different standards than would otherwise be required of another applicant. Alternatives If the City Council finds the facts do not support the findings required to grant approval of the Conditional Use Permit application, the City Council should adopt the draft resolution to deny the project (Attachment No. CC 2), reversing the January 23, 2014, decision of the Planning Commission to approve the Conditional Use Permit. 267 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Should the City Council act to deny the request, the project would be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15270 states projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. Should the City Council act to approve the Conditional Use Permit, staff recommends the City Council find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1 - Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. Class 1 exempts projects involving no or negligible expansion of an existing use including but not limited to interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances, in situations where there is no reasonable possibility that there will be significant impacts on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The proposed project involves interior improvements to convert a previous office use to an assembly use and involves no expansion in floor area. The proposed project requires less parking during the daytime, Monday through Friday, than the office use previously occupying the subject tenant space. During evenings and weekends when parking demand rises, unrestricted access to the 255 space parking lot will be available because office uses on site have divergent hours of operation and will generally be closed. In addition, up to 165 spaces will remain available for office complex workers who may use the site during evenings and weekends. The proposed assembly use will have no significant impact on the environment, including but not limited to, traffic impacts. The City of Newport Beach's TPO provides a uniform method of analyzing and evaluating the traffic impacts of projects. Projects generating no more than 300 average daily trips are exempt from the Ordinance and considered to have no significant impact due to the anticipated changes in traffic circulation. The proposed assembly use generates 84 average daily trips on weekdays, which is less than the 101 average daily weekday trips generated by the previous office use, and results in a net reduction of 17 average daily weekday trips. Therefore, the project is exempt from the TPO and no significant impact to traffic is anticipated. The analysis provided by RK Engineering Group supplements this determination finding that the peak hours of operation of the proposed assembly use are not in conflict with other existing general office tenants, the assembly use will not create a parking deficiency on the site, that the development will generate fewer trips than the previous general office use during weekday peak hours, and that the trips generated by the assembly use should not negatively affect traffic during weekday peak hours. Furthermore, there are no unusual circumstances to suggest that there will be significant effects on the environment. The proposed assembly use does not include school uses, and the parking lot is available for the assembly operation. To the extent that the parking lot is unavailable, the project as conditioned requires the applicant to modify its use based on the available parking. On the basis that there is no expansion in floor area, adequate parking is available, there is no significant impact to traffic, and because there are no unusual circumstances or significant impacts on the environment, the project qualifies for the Class 1 exemption. NOTICING: 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 appellant, 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. ATTACHMENTS: Description CC 1 Draft Resolution to Approve CC 2 Draft Resolution to Deny CC 3 Application to Appeal the Planning Commission Decision CC 4 Appellant's Comment Letter dated January 23, 2014 CC 5 Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 23, 2014 CC 6 Adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 1930 CC 7 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from January 23, 2014 CC 8 Trip Generation Comparison CC 9 Parking /Traffic Study Prepared by RK Engineering Group 269